|
Why Fir3start3r and other Bush Apologists Should Do Research On Their Subjects (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
| I gotta say--this whole 72 retroactive window indicates that somebody really let protocol slip through the cracks. What are the stats? It's not like he would've likely been denied on the requests. There should've been a system in place that automated the process if they were pursuing so many wiretaps, just to make sure all of the bases were covered. I guess they thought that 1)nobody would come back and make issue of it, or 2)Someone is a dunderhead, or 3)both. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
I see no issue with the Wire tap issue as I understand it:
The US government can listen in to any conversation between a US destination and an international destination that is a known terrorist.
I consider this a purely military matter:
If we were in world war II would we expect the government to stop listening to a german communication into the United States with their spies just because they were speaking to the USA?
Similarly are we against listening to two terrorists communicating between themselves in Afgahnistan, Iraq, or if one were in Columbia and one were in Iran? Or if an Amerian in Europe calls a pakistan terrorist cell?
Why must this suddenly stop when an American calls Al Qaeda HQ from within the USA? Or Al Q HQ decides to issue orders to its american operatives and dials them in?
I don't think the Bush administration is doing anything new, nor anything illegal, as long as one guy on the line is foriegn and a known enemy. |
|
|
| Dale Gribble |
| quote: | Yoepus,
I see no issue with the Wire tap issue as I understand it: |
---copied from another forum---
Bush keeps saying he is tapping ONLY people connected to terror groups So do you trust him? He has lied at every chance and only when the truth comes out does he change his tune- "torture ring a bell?" or how about the WMD that Iraq was about to use on the USA? or how about “[Iraq] has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda.”
HINTING that Iraq was invovled in 9/11.....
yep a really trustworthy guy.
---copied from poster `sig---
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution"
GW Bush April 2004 |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dale Gribble
---copied from another forum---
Bush keeps saying he is tapping ONLY people connected to terror groups So do you trust him? He has lied at every chance and only when the truth comes out does he change his tune- "torture ring a bell?" or how about the WMD that Iraq was about to use on the USA? or how about “[Iraq] has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda.”
HINTING that Iraq was invovled in 9/11.....
yep a really trustworthy guy.
---copied from poster `sig---
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution"
GW Bush April 2004 |
So you are telling me we should all of a sudden stop listening to Osama Bin Laden when he makes an outgoing call from his cave and into the USA?:conf: |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
So you are telling me we should all of a sudden stop listening to Osama Bin Laden when he makes an outgoing call from his cave and into the USA?:conf: |
No, we're saying that Bush can get a warrant to listen in on the communications which is as easy as pie to get, and can be gotten retroactively. Either that or he can push legislation through congress to get the authority to eavesdrop without a warrant. What he SHOULDN'T do is break the law simply because he doesn't care about doing things legitimately. I know it's unfortunate, but in the US we have to abide by silly things like 'democracy' and 'laws'. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
No, we're saying that Bush can get a warrant to listen in on the communications which is as easy as pie to get, and can be gotten retroactively. Either that or he can push legislation through congress to get the authority to eavesdrop without a warrant. What he SHOULDN'T do is break the law simply because he doesn't care about doing things legitimately. I know it's unfortunate, but in the US we have to abide by silly things like 'democracy' and 'laws'. |
So silly!:toothless ;) |
|
|
| Dale Gribble |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
So you are telling me we should all of a sudden stop listening to Osama Bin Laden when he makes an outgoing call from his cave and into the USA?:conf: |
Ever hear about the story of the "Boy who cried wolf"
I gave a small sample of [bush`s] crying wolf before, it seems
that after the fact we[usa/world] findout he was lying -sometimes knowing full well he was spreading lies....
It seems you still trust him at his word- take off the blinders.
Did you even read MisterOpus1 at the start of this thread?
and [bush] in his own words:
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution "
-------------------
Spy Agency Data After Sept. 11 Led F.B.I. to Dead Ends
>
A steady stream of personal information sent by the N.S.A.
to the F.B.I. often led to innocent Americans, officials
say.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17spy.html?th&emc=th
-------------------
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/17/aclu.nsa/index.html
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 covers domestic wiretaps, requiring the government to go to a FISA court to seek a warrant within 72 hours of establishing such a wiretap.
"The prohibition against government eavesdropping on American citizens is well-established and crystal clear," said ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson, lead counsel in the group's lawsuit.
"President Bush's claim that he is not bound by the law is simply astounding. Our democratic system depends on the rule of law, and not even the president can issue illegal orders that violate constitutional principles."
----------------------------
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9546933
FBI admits to wiretapping wrong numbers |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
No, we're saying that Bush can get a warrant to listen in on the communications which is as easy as pie to get, and can be gotten retroactively. |
Pard'my ignorance but I don't think Bush can get a retroactive warrant to listen to their communications...
Warrants can only be gotten with some evidence/more than suspicion that someone is engaged in illegal activity.
And as far as I know it is not against the law to speak to a terrorist...
If Osama calls the USA we don't know if he is ordering a pizza (perfectly legal and according to you untabable) or communicating an order to nuke NYC (illegal and perfectly tabable) hence the neceassity to listen. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dale Gribble
Did you even read MisterOpus1 at the start of this thread?
|
Because you are a highly unrecongized non-respected n00b of the PDD let me say this to you: Shooo!:p
P.S.
I make better conspiracy theories than you. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Pard'my ignorance but I don't think Bush can get a retroactive warrant to listen to their communications...
|
Sigh ... Yopeus you could have done at least 1 minute of research before attempting to refute a claim. All you had to do was type 'FISA retroactive' in google. Is that so much to ask for? I mean really, you're only reinforcing the stereotype fo the thread title.
| quote: |
The FISA act was enacted in 1978 after President Richard Nixon's misuse of intelligence agencies to spy on Americans deemed enemies of his administration. The law clearly states that such wiretaps can be done only with a warrant obtained from the court. In emergencies, a tap can be placed and then a warrant sought within 72 hours - or 15 days in time of war.
http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_3342732
|
| quote: |
Warrants can only be gotten with some evidence/more than suspicion that someone is engaged in illegal activity.
And as far as I know it is not against the law to speak to a terrorist...
If Osama calls the USA we don't know if he is ordering a pizza (perfectly legal and according to you untabable) or communicating an order to nuke NYC (illegal and perfectly tabable) hence the neceassity to listen. |
Wrong again. The FISA statute makes clear that "the purpose" of FISA-warrant-authorized surveillance would be solely to gather foreign intelligence. And to procure such a warrant, the government had to convince the FISA court there was "probable cause" that the surveillance target was a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.
What's the difference between the FISA warrant and a warrant granted under the fourth amendment? A regular warrant to intercept a communication or a search warrant must be based on "probable cause" to believe that a crime has been or is being committed. If a prosecutor could convince a federal judge that such probable cause existed, a warrant would be issued in a domestic federal criminal case.
In other words, FISA allows the wiretapping of an American citizen talking to Bin Laden whether Bin Laden is ordering a pizza or planning a nuke. Because regardless of his intent, the guy Bin Laden is calling is defacto an agent of a foreign power.
Capiche? Now, if you feel the need to issue a rebuttal ... pretty please with sugar on top, the power of google is at your fingertips.
Edit: And of course I forgot the most important point of all. Regardless of whether the FISA law is bat- crazy or not, and it's not, that doesn't allow the President to BREAK THE LAW. Or are you advocating that we can pick and choose which laws to follow? Or do you think there's some sort of exemption for Republican Presidents? |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Sigh ... Yopeus you could have done at least 1 minute of research before attempting to refute a claim. All you had to do was type 'FISA retroactive' in google. Is that so much to ask for? I mean really, you're only reinforcing the stereotype fo the thread title. |
You want me to be more like Opus do you?! That's crazy talk!
Oh well, I'll try my best here goes... google FISA says:
CHAPTER 36—FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/...1_50_10_36.html
We want to look in SUBCHAPTER I—ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE as we are talking about wire taps:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/...10_36_20_I.html
Now I read over the law a bit, it is confusing at first.
So here goes:
| quote: |
§ 1802.
(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or |
Ok - so now you can only listen to foreign on foreign action. None of that good Foreign on USA stuff, but you can do this for up to a year without a judge.
| quote: |
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; |
not relevant
| quote: |
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and |
Which could technically be ok, afterall, if you are wire tapping a terrorist in Afghanistan why would he communicate with a US citizen in the states? Not very likely.. or shouldn't be... But if he does order pizza you can still listen... and the proof of that is:
| quote: |
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and ... |
Minimization means that if they do happen to listen on some foreign on US action and it has nothing relevant on their case (but say business secrets) that they have percautions in place to make sure that info remains confidential.
Now the other option:
| quote: |
(b) Applications for a court order under this subchapter are authorized if the President has, by written authorization, empowered the Attorney General to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title, and a judge to whom an application is made may, notwithstanding any other law, grant an order, in conformity with section 1805 of this title, approving electronic surveillance of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information, except that the court shall not have jurisdiction to grant any order approving electronic surveillance directed solely as described in paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section unless such surveillance may involve the acquisition of communications of any United States person. |
So if you want to listen on a terrorist communicating with known to always be chatting away with a US relative, you have to go through a judge, do a whole large (and I mean large) stake of paperwork, oh and prove probable cause (that they guy on one end is a terrorist, and that you believe the guy in the USA is an accomplish who is in kahotz (not always that easy))....
| quote: |
§ 1805. Issuance of order
(a) Necessary findings
(3) on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant there is probable cause to believe that—
(A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power: Provided, That no United States person may be considered a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
(B) each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
(b) Determination of probable cause
In determining whether or not probable cause exists for purposes of an order under subsection (a)(3) of this section, a judge may consider past activities of the target, as well as facts and circumstances relating to current or future activities of the target.
|
Now if this were it and the law ended here, Occrider I would concede that yes indeed Bush violate the law, and should have gone through all the nasty paperwork etc, while still arguing that the law is stupid and should be updated (unless they truley believed the terrorists weren't going to phone US), but it doesn't"
| quote: |
§ 1811. Authorization during time of war
Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress. |
Or to put it plainly:
The President may authorize, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for fifteen days.
So there you have it, Bush can LEGALLY gather intelligence (does not specify whether a US person is involved or not) for a period of up to 15 days. If he wants to listen for longer, he has to go to the AG and make sure Osama doesn't phone America, otherwise if Osama is known to phone America, he has to go and get a court order...
Now if we have proof that the Bush admin. did listen to foreign operatives talking to US persons for more than 15 days without a court order, that would be breaking the law, but as so far as I know, I haven't heard this argument yet.
And again, this does not allow Bush or anyone else to listen on American on American action, or American on Foreign action, but only Foreign on American action.
Oh and as for:
| quote: |
quote:
The FISA act was enacted in 1978 after President Richard Nixon's misuse of intelligence agencies to spy on Americans deemed enemies of his administration. The law clearly states that such wiretaps can be done only with a warrant obtained from the court. In emergencies, a tap can be placed and then a warrant sought within 72 hours - or 15 days in time of war.
http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_3342732 |
Someone clearly misread the law;) |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
You want me to be more like Opus do you?! That's crazy talk!
Oh well, I'll try my best here goes... google FISA says: |
By golly I feel so famous!
Sorry, I'm a little too drunk to reply tonight. I'll respond tomorrow....... |
|
|
|
|
