Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Bush okayed domestic spying without warrants

Bush Administration NSA Domestic Spying Post-9/11

  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#21 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 17 December 2005 - 04:09 PM

Godeskian, on Dec 17 2005, 01:06 PM, said:

Can I ask?

Isn't it illegal to spy on US citizens without a court order?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Supposed to be.  If I understand correctly, there is scope for the occasional executive order, to allow spying to commence ASAP, but it must be followed ASAP by whatever legal procedure usually goes first.  

Nonny

Edited by Nonny, 17 December 2005 - 04:13 PM.

Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#22 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 17 December 2005 - 04:12 PM

Okay, so how does that tally with

http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/4538286.stm

Quote

President George W Bush has admitted he authorised secret monitoring of communications within the United States in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks.

Quote

Mr Bush harshly criticised the leak that had made the programme public a day before his speech.

"Revealing classified information is illegal. It alerts our enemies," he said.

But isn't spying on your own citizens without a court order also illegal?

what's more.

Quote

It came as the New York Times reported that Mr Bush had allowed security agents to eavesdrop on people inside the US without court approval after 9/11.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said he had done nothing illegal.

So is Condi right or wrong?

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#23 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 17 December 2005 - 04:17 PM

Sorry, Gode, I hit Add Reply before I finished, had to edit.  :blush:  I suspect Condi is more concerned with butt covering than she is with truth, justice, the American Way.  :suspect:  

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#24 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 17 December 2005 - 04:22 PM

Condi is

a. toeing the party  line; because

b. if Bush gets caught doing something majorly illegal and gets impeached, she's toast, too; and/or

c. possibly operating out of the Nixon theory:  that whatever the President of the United States does is de facto legal.  (Of course, this  makes the President an absolute monarch/dictator--but the Constitution's just a quaint idea, right?)
Posted Image

#25 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 17 December 2005 - 04:28 PM

Godeskian, on Dec 17 2005, 01:12 PM, said:

Quote

Mr Bush harshly criticised the leak that had made the programme public a day before his speech.

"Revealing classified information is illegal. It alerts our enemies," he said
Of what?  That our president has no respect for our laws?  :unsure:  :blink:  

Nonny

yet again, edited to fix quote tags

Edited by Nonny, 17 December 2005 - 04:30 PM.

Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#26 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 17 December 2005 - 04:30 PM

Classified information like the identity of a CIA agent, hmmm?
Posted Image

#27 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 17 December 2005 - 04:33 PM

waterpanther, on Dec 17 2005, 01:30 PM, said:

Classified information like the identity of a CIA agent, hmmm?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The irony has, no doubt, escaped them.  :oh:  

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#28 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 17 December 2005 - 04:45 PM

Godeskian, on Dec 17 2005, 04:06 PM, said:

Can I ask?

Isn't it illegal to spy on US citizens without a court order?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Private detectives do it all the time in divorce cases, but I don't know if it's legal for the government to do it.  :unsure:
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido

#29 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 17 December 2005 - 04:58 PM

The thing that's so infuriating about this is that if the President or American law enforcement agencies feel like they need to wiretap people, there's already a perfectly workable system set up for them to obtain warrants in secret to do so.

But Bush just baldly asserted today that he doesn't have to do that-- that it's one of his "inherent powers" as President to spy on American citizens without a warrant or court order.  This blatant disregard and contempt for the law is more at home in a monarchy or a military dicatorship than a constitutional republic.  I didn't think it was still possible for me to be shocked by these people-- I was wrong.
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#30 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 17 December 2005 - 05:24 PM

tennyson, on Dec 17 2005, 03:19 PM, said:

The true fact is that the terrorist of 911 would not have been found out through domestic spying.


No, that is not a fact in any way shape or form but an opinion. Considering how long the September 11th highjackers operated in the US and who they were relying on for contacts domestic surviellance would probably have helped find them and it would have definitely been of use but that has little bearing on the movement of the mandate from terrorists organizations and affilaites to antiwar groups and the like.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


But Tennyson-If I'm remembering correctly they knew all these things even before the 9/11 attacks.  But they did it through the proper channels that one should take.

Problem was no one knew how to add.
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#31 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 17 December 2005 - 05:25 PM

Quote

The irony has, no doubt, escaped them.

I always wonder why people who don't listen to themselves expect the rest of us to pay attention to them.

Edited by waterpanther, 17 December 2005 - 05:26 PM.

Posted Image

#32 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 17 December 2005 - 05:28 PM

Quote

Problem was no one knew how to add
.

Problem was also that they were already focused on Iraq and were/are not about to do anything that would shake up relations among the US/Saudi/Carlyle Group. There's too much Bush/neocon money tied up in that alliance.
Posted Image

#33 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 17 December 2005 - 06:39 PM

I'll tell you were (and I don't believe in it) the domestic spying would have come in handy-and that was the Oklahoma bombing.

But among allllllll the American Citizenry would they still have caught that.

Or would they have been more concerned with other groups?

But of course when the Oklahoma bombing took place there was a Dem in office and he had the moxie to know better then to do something like this.

This is truly an impeachable offense.

I wish the Republicans had balls.

And yes I mean the Republicans.  It's their party that is at stake here along with the rest of the country.
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#34 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 17 December 2005 - 06:55 PM

DWF, on Dec 17 2005, 09:45 PM, said:

Godeskian, on Dec 17 2005, 04:06 PM, said:

Can I ask?

Isn't it illegal to spy on US citizens without a court order?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Private detectives do it all the time in divorce cases, but I don't know if it's legal for the government to do it.  :unsure:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


PIs can follow you and take pictures of you, if they tap your phone you can sue them out of ever working again.  Now, there are PIs who do things that are very illegal (a friend of mine had a paranoid father who hired them to follow her, so I've done a fair amount of digging on what they can and can't do).

Likewise cops are free to take pictures of you in public.  I believe the real debate is what to do with pictures where the photographer is in public property while the subject is on private property (like someone on the street taking pictures of you inside your house).  

Anyway, I hope Bush does get impeached.  He's done plenty to earn it, thsi is just the most recent thing.
We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama

#35 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 17 December 2005 - 07:04 PM

So much for restoring honesty and integrity to the White House. This administration is by far the most corrupt, arrogant and dangerous leadership of my lifetime. They seem to believe that the law applies to everyone BUT them. Sadly, they've been allowed to get away with it so far. Tell's me more than I cared to know about this country that we got daily BJ updates and screaming for "impeachment" from the GOP when it involved Clinton lying about a private matter yet Bush get's away with a laundry list of more serious offenses.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#36 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 17 December 2005 - 07:05 PM

I've been trying to figure out the law on this--and would appreciate any help.

At first glance, it looks like a violation of FISA laws, which require warrants through special intelligence courts. And it looks like a violation of the President's oath to uphold the Constitution, since it seems to dismiss the Fourth Amendment.

But...it looks like the Bush administration can cobble together a defense based on the "war on terror" that Congress authorized Bush to wage. How sound that defense is, I don't know. But that looks like where they're heading.

Anybody know anything about all of this? (If so, you know more than I do.)
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#37 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 17 December 2005 - 07:24 PM

I wish I had all the details myself but I don't have enough background in the legal aspects of this.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#38 Timon

Timon
  • Islander
  • 170 posts

Posted 17 December 2005 - 08:56 PM

Here you go, right from the horse's mouth as recorded on the official White House webpages from his radio address this morning.....

http://www.whitehous...2/20051217.html

Quote

This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the President of the United States.

As president he needs to erode the 4th amendment and secretly spy on us in order to protect our civil liberties. That's the best damn spin I've heard since this administration took office. And that's saying something. If there's anyone out there that still buys this line of b.s. then I know a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in buying.
I wonder how many political opponents or critics were also among those who needed to be spyed on without a warrant. I do believe that particular trick was in Nixon's little bag of goodies.  I'm not the least bit surprised since many in this administration cut their baby teeth working for the Nixon campaign and administration (Karl Rove for one). Nixon illegally used the CIA to spy on and kept dossiers of all his political opponents. Then he sicked the IRS on them as a form of harrassment. In the end, his 'enemies list' had more than 10,000 names on it. Paranoid much or what? However, sounds to me like someone was taking copious notes at the time on how to effectively wipe your backside with the constitution a la the Nixon way.

Edited by Timon, 17 December 2005 - 08:59 PM.


#39 Norville

Norville
  • Islander
  • 4,502 posts

Posted 17 December 2005 - 11:15 PM

Cardie said:

NBC had a report on a secret Pentagon database which identified a Quaker meeting house as a threat to US troops. In that Quakers are pacifists, I wouldn't classify them as pro-military, but a threat?!?

:blink: Gah? ... Quakers are not a *threat*, unless they've been thinking and reading and praying too much and that scares others. :rolleyes: Someone really must explain to me how Quakers would be a threat to troops. :blink:

Could be the oatmeal... could be the parrots (there are birds called Quaker Parrots)...
"The dew has fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning."
- Marvin the Paranoid Android, "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Rules for Surviving an Autocracy
Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
http://www.nybooks.c...s-for-survival/

#40 Chakotay

Chakotay

    For gosh sakes let me out of here!

  • Islander
  • 6,657 posts

Posted 18 December 2005 - 04:35 AM

^^^ They might set a too-pacifist example to trained professional killers, and make them reconsider what they are doing. Can't have idealism tainting a war zone.


Just as a pot-stir - how would folks feel if another atrocity had been committed on US soil, and the intelligence agencies had had suspicions about the perpetrators but were prevented from collecting clear evidence to help stop it because they weren't allowed to phonetap and so on?

Could you, totally honestly, stand by a friend or relative's graveside and say 'I'm not bitter or angry about this death because our freedoms are far more important that anyone's life' ???

Just give it some thought.




I don't think I could.
  No plan survives first contact with the enemy - military axiom.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Bush Administration, NSA, Domestic Spying, Post-9/11

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users