Domestic spying

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by The diplomat
The NSA has conducted domestic spying since the 90's under Clinton.

Well...end of story! After all, Clinton is the Gold Standard for ethical behavior in office.

[Berzerker]

Similarly if DoD monitors the Quakers, so that their protest at the gates of a military base doesnt disrupt the activities at the base, does that prevent their protest from gathering publicity to their critique of govt policies?

If Big Brother is taking names and photos of people protesting, it will inhibit protest. The Founders had plenty of experience dealing with a King intent on spying on them, its clear to me where they'd stand.

[Berzerker]

on 2nd thought, if an organisation was known to protest outside army bases obstructing traffic, shouldn't they be arrested and then spied upon so they dont interfere with something important in the future?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by lightblue

Ok, it's being reported here that the main issue is that the NSA is being used for internal surveillance which is out of the scope of its mandate.

While it's impossible to say exactly what has happened in every instance the leaks seem to indicate that the administration has failed to obey the law that requires special handling (ie a warrant) for monitoring calls where one of the parties is in the U.S. Calls where both parties are overseas require no special handling, while calls which are made entirely in the U.S. are still FBI matters. So this scandal involves a relatively small subset of the NSAs business, and in no way seems related to surveillance of domestic political groups.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Well...end of story! After all, Clinton is the Gold Standard for ethical behavior in office.

You forgotthe first rule of consrvative debate, Clinton, Carter, gay people, and "America-Hating Libruls" are to blame for everything.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Berzerker


If Big Brother is taking names and photos of people protesting, it will inhibit protest. The Founders had plenty of experience dealing with a King intent on spying on them, its clear to me where they'd stand.

So you think that whole "reasonable expectation of privacy" doctrine the courts use in interpreting the 4th amendment is silly?

[Odin]

ALL HAIL EMPROR CHENEY!

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051221010009990003

Cheney Calls for Stronger Presidential Powers
Vice President Says Bush Has Authority to Spy on Americans
By DEB RIECHMANN, AP


WASHINGTON (Dec. 21) - Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday called for "strong and robust" presidential powers, saying executive authority was eroded during the Watergate and Vietnam eras. Some lawmakers objected that President Bush's decision to spy on Americans to foil terrorists showed he was flexing more muscle than the Constitution allows.

The revelations of Bush's four-year-old order approving domestic surveillance without court warrants has spurred a fiery debate over the balance of power between the White House, Congress and the judiciary.

"I believe in a strong, robust executive authority and I think that the world we live in demands it," Cheney said.

"I would argue that the actions that we've taken there are totally appropriate and consistent with the constitutional authority of the president. ... You know, it's not an accident that we haven't been hit in four years," the vice president said, speaking with reporters on Air Force Two en route from Pakistan to Oman.

On Capitol Hill, senators from both parties said the role of Congress cannot be sidelined - even in wartime.

"I think the vice president ought to reread the Constitution," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

Democrats said they were deeply troubled by the surveillance program, and contended the president had no authority to approve it. "He has no legal basis for spying on Americans without court approval," said Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate.

Republicans said Congress must investigate whether Bush was within the law to allow the super-secret National Security Agency to eavesdrop - without warrants - on international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the United States with suspected ties to al-Qaida.

"I believe the Congress - as a coequal branch of government - must immediately and expeditiously review the use of this practice," said Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine.

Snowe joined three other members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, including Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel, in calling for a joint inquiry by the Senate judiciary and intelligence committees.

The administration defends the program, saying Congress gave Bush the authority to use "signals intelligence" - wiretaps, for example - to eavesdrop on international calls between U.S. citizens and foreigners when one of them is a suspected al-Qaida member or supporter.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales cites the Authorization to Use Military Force law, which Congress passed and Bush signed a week after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The administration believes that law lets the government avoid provisions of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The surveillance act was passed after public outcry over abuses during the Nixon administration, which spied on anti-war and civil rights protesters. Under the act, known as FISA, an 11-member court oversees government applications for secret surveillance or searches of foreigners and U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism or espionage.

"I'm not a lawyer, but in my reading, it is pretty conclusive, very conclusive, that FISA prohibits all warrantless electronic surveillance of Americans in America," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., asked: "Why didn't the administration feel that it could go to the FISA court to get the warrant?"

Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, introduced a bill calling on Congress to determine whether there are grounds for impeachment - an event that is extremely unlikely in a Republican-controlled Congress.

Democrats called attention to a Bush statement in April 2004 that they said conflicts with what the president is saying now.

"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order," Bush said during a speech on the Patriot Act in Buffalo, N.Y. "Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

The White House said the president's comments - two years after approving the domestic surveillance program - applied to the kind of roving wiretaps the Patriot Act allows for law enforcement, not eavesdropping for foreign intelligence.

Bush and his top advisers have suggested senior congressional leaders vetted the program in more than a dozen highly classified briefings. Democrats said they were told of the program, but had concerns.

West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, on Monday released a letter he wrote to Cheney in July 2003 that, given the program's secrecy, he was "unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities."

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., pushed back Tuesday, saying that if Rockefeller had concerns about the program, he could have used the tools he has to wield influence, such as requesting committee or legislative action. "Feigning helplessness is not one of those tools," Roberts said.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who headed the Justice Department's criminal division when the monitoring program was in its infancy, rejected suggestions it is tantamount to a police state. "We'd be remiss if we didn't use all of the legal means available to defend ourselves," he said Tuesday on Fox News.

Cheney told reporters that in his view, presidential authority has been weakened since the 1970s through laws such as the War Powers Act, which Cheney says infringes on presidential authority.

He said the White House has helped protect presidential power by fighting to keep secret the list of people who were a part of his 2001 energy task force. The task force's activities attracted complaints from environmentalists, who said they were shut out of discussions on developing a national energy policy while corporate interests were present.

"That issue was litigated all the way up to the Supreme Court and we won," Cheney said.

Cheney wipes his ass with the Constitution again. un-f*cking-beleivable. Why doesn't he just go up and declare the 4th Reich?

[Odin]

Conservative Scholars Argue Bush’s Wiretapping Is An Impeachable Offense




Conservative scholars Bruce Fein and Norm Ornstein argued yesterday on The Diane Rehm show that, should Bush remain defiant in defending his constitutionally-abusive wire-tapping of Americans (as he has indicated he will), Congress should consider impeaching him.

QUESTION: Is spying on the American people as impeachable an offense as lying about having sex with an intern?

BRUCE FEIN, constitutional scholar and former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration: I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want – I don’t need to consult any other branches – that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that … would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.

NORM ORNSTEIN, AEI scholar: I think if we’re going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed.

Hey Chimpy, even conservatives are hating you now.

[DinoDoc]

/me wonders if he informed on Odin to the right authorities as the spam continues to flow

[Richelieu]

Soooooo... what's happening? Where's the outrage? Where are the impeachement procedures? Where are the Americans? The REAL Americans?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Richelieu
Soooooo... what's happening? Where's the outrage? Where are the impeachement procedures? Where are the Americans? The REAL Americans?

Odin is spamming you with people outraged over it. You wannabe Frogs are annoying. No wonder Canadians want to kick you out.

[Richelieu]

They're not real Americans: i'm talking about you! Where's your outrage?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The diplomat
This story is troubling. But, we need to realize that some form of spying and some form of interrogation of terrorists is necessary. Some form of spying will be necessary because the terrorists who enter the US to do an attack are going to be hidden. And some form of interrogation will be necessary because when we capture a terrorist they are not going to volunteer information willingly.

If you think that our interrogation methods and that our spying methods go too far, what methods do you propose?

There has to be some trade-off between security and freedom. You can't have 100% of both.

FISA warrants can be obtained retroactively. There is already legislation (FISA) that would have legalized this SIGINT activity, so the interesting question is why would the Bush admin disregard that and not go to the "bother" of obtaining FISA warrants?

It's not a security issue, as all judges on FISC have SCI level security clearances, and all information handled by the court is classified - most of it higher than top secret.

So then, what was the real reason for bypassing FISA?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Az
I DON't KNOT WHJAT YOU WANT BUJT CLITNOT DID TI 2!

LOL!

[Ted Striker]

This is troubling and goes against everything this country stands for.

I don't care who used to do it, it's wrong, plain and simple.

Jefferson had slaves so I guess it's okay if we all do too and are hypocrites for criticising the practice. LOL k.

So we have:

1) Torture system
2) Illegal invasion of a sovereign nation
3) Internal spying on peaceful organization

Certainly we don't live under a full fascist system but it is no longer an exaggeration to say we are having very strong fascist tendencies now in this country.

I cannot believe we have come to this point it is absolutley sickening and surreal.

Oh, and recently we have Cheney trying to defend this by saying the President needs more powers and since Watergate those powers have been lessened and we need them to protect this country (the same tired line he repeats about EVERYTHING).

Striker: ZOMG we're out of toilet paper.

Cheney: I used the last roll in order to protect this nation against our enemies who hate freedom and seek to destroy us.

Bottom line is this is indefensible. By anyone.

Cheney needs removed from office. NOW.

No.


YESTERDAY