|
Why Fir3start3r and other Bush Apologists Should Do Research On Their Subjects (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| 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:
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:
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.
not relevant
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:
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.
|
C'mon Yoepus what's the point of all of this? The NSA is not restricted in its foreign intelligence gathering operations so why are you posting all this crap? The NSA is only restricted with what it can do domestically and that's the key contention that's being debating.
| quote: |
Now the other option:
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))....
|
Now why are you making first-hand knowledge claims of issues you know nothing about? Precisely what the hell do you know about the amount of paperwork involved in a FISA warrant application? Are you directly involved with the FISA courts such that you can illustrate how some 5 FISA warrant rejections out of 19,000 illustrates the over-cumbersome court process of this law??? Or are you just pulling this out of your ass? If it's so difficult to obtain a FISA warrant than WHY IS THE SUCCESS RATE 99.97%?
| quote: |
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"
|
Well besides you never fully establishing why the law is so stupid we shall continue.
| quote: |
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.
|
Really Yoepus, you're about a decade behind in this debate. It's not even a matter of contention anymore whether Bush violated FISA statutes. Bush himself authorized completely warrantless wiretapping in a presidential order dating back to 2002! So no 72 hours, no 15 days, NO NOTHING. And every statement issued by the whitehouse has been to reaffirm his "authority" to do so not DENY it. Please get ahold of the latest talking points memo
| quote: |
Bush authorized warrantless phone, email tracking of US residents
Sara R. Parsowith at 8:25 AM ET
[JURIST] A 2002 Presidential order issued in the aftermath of 9/11 authorized the US National Security Agency (NSA) [official website] to secretly monitor the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of possibly thousands of US residents without warrants over the past three years, according to officials quoted in an extensive New York Times report Friday.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/papercha...tless-phone.php
|
Using your OWN words about the violation of the 15 day statute we can conclude that Bush BROKE THE LAW.
| quote: |
Oh and as for:
Someone clearly misread the law;) |
What??? Who? You? The article clearly reaffirms the 72-hour/15 day statement that you just referenced in your previous paragraph. Are you on drugs or something???
Besides all of this, once again you choose to ignore the argument that Bush should change the law rather than break the law in accordance with democracy and a respect for the rule of law. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Are you on drugs or something??? |
What do you need? |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
What do you need? |
Haha. Good one Opus. :) |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Haha. Good one Opus. :) |
I need to go to bed. Why am I still up?
This is just silly........ |
|
|
| weymouth |
| Can anyone show me where it talks about right of privacy in the Constitution? |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
C'mon Yoepus what's the point of all of this? The NSA is not restricted in its foreign intelligence gathering operations so why are you posting all this crap? The NSA is only restricted with what it can do domestically and that's the key contention that's being debating. |
The point was to dig into the source to find what the law exactly say. And contrary to your remakrs above, the NSA is restricted in what it can do domestically AND abroad. If you would have cared to look at the links I posted, you would have known this.
| quote: |
Now why are you making first-hand knowledge claims of issues you know nothing about? Precisely what the hell do you know about the amount of paperwork involved in a FISA warrant application? Are you directly involved with the FISA courts such that you can illustrate how some 5 FISA warrant rejections out of 19,000 illustrates the over-cumbersome court process of this law??? Or are you just pulling this out of your ass? If it's so difficult to obtain a FISA warrant than WHY IS THE SUCCESS RATE 99.97%? |
No I am not pulling this out of my ass, Occrider, apparently in this regard I am more informed then you, I have read all of Subchaper 1 of Chapter 36, have you?
I don't think so... if you would have you would know that to get a warrant you must:
| quote: |
§ 1805. Issuance of order
Release date: 2005-03-17
(a) Necessary findings
Upon an application made pursuant to section 1804 of this title, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested or as modified approving the electronic surveillance if he finds that—
(1) the President has authorized the Attorney General to approve applications for electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence information;
(2) the application has been made by a Federal officer and approved by the Attorney General;
(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;
(4) the proposed minimization procedures meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1804 (h) of this title; and
(5) the application which has been filed contains all statements and certifications required by section 1804 of this title and, if the target is a United States person, the certification or certifications are not clearly erroneous on the basis of the statement made under section 1804 (a)(7)(E) of this title and any other information furnished under section 1804 (d) of this title.
(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.
(c) Specifications and directions of orders
An order approving an electronic surveillance under this section shall—
(1) specify—
(A) the identity, if known, or a description of the target of the electronic surveillance;
(B) the nature and location of each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance will be directed, if known;
(C) the type of information sought to be acquired and the type of communications or activities to be subjected to the surveillance;
(D) the means by which the electronic surveillance will be effected and whether physical entry will be used to effect the surveillance;
(E) the period of time during which the electronic surveillance is approved; and
(F) whenever more than one electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device is to be used under the order, the authorized coverage of the devices involved and what minimization procedures shall apply to information subject to acquisition by each device; and
(2) direct—
(A) that the minimization procedures be followed;
(B) that, upon the request of the applicant, a specified communication or other common carrier, landlord, custodian, or other specified person, or in circumstances where the Court finds that the actions of the target of the application may have the effect of thwarting the identification of a specified person, such other persons, furnish the applicant forthwith all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish the electronic surveillance in such a manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier, landlord, custodian, or other person is providing that target of electronic surveillance;
(C) that such carrier, landlord, custodian, or other person maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence any records concerning the surveillance or the aid furnished that such person wishes to retain; and
(D) that the applicant compensate, at the prevailing rate, such carrier, landlord, custodian, or other person for furnishing such aid.
(d) Exclusion of certain information respecting foreign power targets
Whenever the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title, and each of the facilities or places at which the surveillance is directed is owned, leased, or exclusively used by that foreign power, the order need not contain the information required by subparagraphs (C), (D), and (F) of subsection (c)(1) of this section, but shall generally describe the information sought, the communications or activities to be subjected to the surveillance, and the type of electronic surveillance involved, including whether physical entry is required.
(e) Duration of order; extensions; review of circumstances under which information was acquired, retained or disseminated
(1) An order issued under this section may approve an electronic surveillance for the period necessary to achieve its purpose, or for ninety days, whichever is less, except that
(A) an order under this section shall approve an electronic surveillance targeted against a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title, for the period specified in the application or for one year, whichever is less, and
(B) an order under this chapter for a surveillance targeted against an agent of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (b)(1)(A) of this title may be for the period specified in the application or for 120 days, whichever is less.
(2) Extensions of an order issued under this subchapter may be granted on the same basis as an original order upon an application for an extension and new findings made in the same manner as required for an original order, except that
(A) an extension of an order under this chapter for a surveillance targeted against a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(5) or (6) of this title, or against a foreign power as defined in section 1801 (a)(4) of this title that is not a United States person, may be for a period not to exceed one year if the judge finds probable cause to believe that no communication of any individual United States person will be acquired during the period, and
(B) an extension of an order under this chapter for a surveillance targeted against an agent of a foreign power as defined in section 1801 (b)(1)(A) of this title may be for a period not to exceed 1 year.
(3) At or before the end of the period of time for which electronic surveillance is approved by an order or an extension, the judge may assess compliance with the minimization procedures by reviewing the circumstances under which information concerning United States persons was acquired, retained, or disseminated.
(f) Emergency orders
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, when the Attorney General reasonably determines that—
(1) an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained; and
(2) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists;
he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance. If the Attorney General authorizes such emergency employment of electronic surveillance, he shall require that the minimization procedures required by this subchapter for the issuance of a judicial order be followed. In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest. In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance, no information obtained or evidence derived from such surveillance shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof, and no information concerning any United States person acquired from such surveillance shall subsequently be used or disclosed in any other manner by Federal officers or employees without the consent of such person, except with the approval of the Attorney General if the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person. A denial of the application made under this subsection may be reviewed as provided in section 1803 of this title.
(g) Testing of electronic equipment; discovering unauthorized electronic surveillance; training of intelligence personnel
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, officers, employees, or agents of the United States are authorized in the normal course of their official duties to conduct electronic surveillance not targeted against the communications of any particular person or persons, under procedures approved by the Attorney General, solely to—
(1) test the capability of electronic equipment, if—
(A) it is not reasonable to obtain the consent of the persons incidentally subjected to the surveillance;
(B) the test is limited in extent and duration to that necessary to determine the capability of the equipment;
(C) the contents of any communication acquired are retained and used only for the purpose of determining the capability of the equipment, are disclosed only to test personnel, and are destroyed before or immediately upon completion of the test; and:
(D) Provided, That the test may exceed ninety days only with the prior approval of the Attorney General;
(2) determine the existence and capability of electronic surveillance equipment being used by persons not authorized to conduct electronic surveillance, if—
(A) it is not reasonable to obtain the consent of persons incidentally subjected to the surveillance;
(B) such electronic surveillance is limited in extent and duration to that necessary to determine the existence and capability of such equipment; and
(C) any information acquired by such surveillance is used only to enforce chapter 119 of title 18, or section 605 of title 47, or to protect information from unauthorized surveillance; or
(3) train intelligence personnel in the use of electronic surveillance equipment, if—
(A) it is not reasonable to—
(i) obtain the consent of the persons incidentally subjected to the surveillance;
(ii) train persons in the course of surveillances otherwise authorized by this subchapter; or
(iii) train persons in the use of such equipment without engaging in electronic surveillance;
(B) such electronic surveillance is limited in extent and duration to that necessary to train the personnel in the use of the equipment; and
(C) no contents of any communication acquired are retained or disseminated for any purpose, but are destroyed as soon as reasonably possible.
(h) Retention of certifications, applications and orders
Certifications made by the Attorney General pursuant to section 1802 (a) of this title and applications made and orders granted under this subchapter shall be retained for a period of at least ten years from the date of the certification or application.
(i) Bar to legal action
No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of a wire or electronic communication service, landlord, custodian, or other person (including any officer, employee, agent, or other specified person thereof) that furnishes any information, facilities, or technical assistance in accordance with a court order or request for emergency assistance under this chapter for electronic surveillance or physical search. |
Then you also have limitations on how you can use the data:
| quote: |
§ 1806. Use of information
Release date: 2005-03-17
(a) Compliance with minimization procedures; privileged communications; lawful purposes
Information acquired from an electronic surveillance conducted pursuant to this subchapter concerning any United States person may be used and disclosed by Federal officers and employees without the consent of the United States person only in accordance with the minimization procedures required by this subchapter. No otherwise privileged communication obtained in accordance with, or in violation of, the provisions of this subchapter shall lose its privileged character. No information acquired from an electronic surveillance pursuant to this subchapter may be used or disclosed by Federal officers or employees except for lawful purposes.
(b) Statement for disclosure
No information acquired pursuant to this subchapter shall be disclosed for law enforcement purposes unless such disclosure is accompanied by a statement that such information, or any information derived therefrom, may only be used in a criminal proceeding with the advance authorization of the Attorney General.
(c) Notification by United States
Whenever the Government intends to enter into evidence or otherwise use or disclose in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the United States, against an aggrieved person, any information obtained or derived from an electronic surveillance of that aggrieved person pursuant to the authority of this subchapter, the Government shall, prior to the trial, hearing, or other proceeding or at a reasonable time prior to an effort to so disclose or so use that information or submit it in evidence, notify the aggrieved person and the court or other authority in which the information is to be disclosed or used that the Government intends to so disclose or so use such information.
(d) Notification by States or political subdivisions
Whenever any State or political subdivision thereof intends to enter into evidence or otherwise use or disclose in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of a State or a political subdivision thereof, against an aggrieved person any information obtained or derived from an electronic surveillance of that aggrieved person pursuant to the authority of this subchapter, the State or political subdivision thereof shall notify the aggrieved person, the court or other authority in which the information is to be disclosed or used, and the Attorney General that the State or political subdivision thereof intends to so disclose or so use such information.
(e) Motion to suppress
Any person against whom evidence obtained or derived from an electronic surveillance to which he is an aggrieved person is to be, or has been, introduced or otherwise used or disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, may move to suppress the evidence obtained or derived from such electronic surveillance on the grounds that—
(1) the information was unlawfully acquired; or
(2) the surveillance was not made in conformity with an order of authorization or _approval.
Such a motion shall be made before the trial, hearing, or other proceeding unless there was no opportunity to make such a motion or the person was not aware of the grounds of the motion.
(f) In camera and ex parte review by district court
Whenever a court or other authority is notified pursuant to subsection (c) or (d) of this section, or whenever a motion is made pursuant to subsection (e) of this section, or whenever any motion or request is made by an aggrieved person pursuant to any other statute or rule of the United States or any State before any court or other authority of the United States or any State to discover or obtain applications or orders or other materials relating to electronic surveillance or to discover, obtain, or suppress evidence or information obtained or derived from electronic surveillance under this chapter, the United States district court or, where the motion is made before another authority, the United States district court in the same district as the authority, shall, notwithstanding any other law, if the Attorney General files an affidavit under oath that disclosure or an adversary hearing would harm the national security of the United States, review in camera and ex parte the application, order, and such other materials relating to the surveillance as may be necessary to determine whether the surveillance of the aggrieved person was lawfully authorized and conducted. In making this determination, the court may disclose to the aggrieved person, under appropriate security procedures and protective orders, portions of the application, order, or other materials relating to the surveillance only where such disclosure is necessary to make an accurate determination of the legality of the surveillance.
(g) Suppression of evidence; denial of motion
If the United States district court pursuant to subsection (f) of this section determines that the surveillance was not lawfully authorized or conducted, it shall, in accordance with the requirements of law, suppress the evidence which was unlawfully obtained or derived from electronic surveillance of the aggrieved person or otherwise grant the motion of the aggrieved person. If the court determines that the surveillance was lawfully authorized and conducted, it shall deny the motion of the aggrieved person except to the extent that due process requires discovery or disclosure.
(h) Finality of orders
Orders granting motions or requests under subsection (g) of this section, decisions under this section that electronic surveillance was not lawfully authorized or conducted, and orders of the United States district court requiring review or granting disclosure of applications, orders, or other materials relating to a surveillance shall be final orders and binding upon all courts of the United States and the several States except a United States court of appeals and the Supreme Court.
(i) Destruction of unintentionally acquired information
In circumstances involving the unintentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States, such contents shall be destroyed upon recognition, unless the Attorney General determines that the contents indicate a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.
(j) Notification of emergency employment of electronic surveillance; contents; postponement, suspension or elimination
If an emergency employment of electronic surveillance is authorized under section 1805 (e) [1] of this title and a subsequent order approving the surveillance is not obtained, the judge shall cause to be served on any United States person named in the application and on such other United States persons subject to electronic surveillance as the judge may determine in his discretion it is in the interest of justice to serve, notice of—
(1) the fact of the application;
(2) the period of the surveillance; and
(3) the fact that during the period information was or was not obtained.
On an ex parte showing of good cause to the judge the serving of the notice required by this subsection may be postponed or suspended for a period not to exceed ninety days. Thereafter, on a further ex parte showing of good cause, the court shall forego ordering the serving of the notice required under this subsection.
(k) Coordination with law enforcement on national security matters
(1) Federal officers who conduct electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information under this subchapter may consult with Federal law enforcement officers or law enforcement personnel of a State or political subdivision of a State (including the chief executive officer of that State or political subdivision who has the authority to appoint or direct the chief law enforcement officer of that State or political subdivision) to coordinate efforts to investigate or protect against—
(A) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
(B) sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; or
(C) clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an agent of a foreign power.
(2) Coordination authorized under paragraph (1) shall not preclude the certification required by section 1804 (a)(7)(B) of this title or the entry of an order under section 1805 of this title.
|
So yes, I do think it is a bit cumbersome.
| quote: |
Well besides you never fully establishing why the law is so stupid we shall continue. |
I didn't say it was stupid, I said it would have been stupid if it weren't for the war/state of emergency provision later found within.
| quote: |
Really Yoepus, you're about a decade behind in this debate. It's not even a matter of contention anymore whether Bush violated FISA statutes. Bush himself authorized completely warrantless wiretapping in a presidential order dating back to 2002! So no 72 hours, no 15 days, NO NOTHING. And every statement issued by the whitehouse has been to reaffirm his "authority" to do so not DENY it. Please get ahold of the latest talking points memo |
I apologizes for not being "up to date" with all the news about this. But regardless if Bush authorized things back from 2002 or 2003, or yesterday, there is nothing illegal about it as long as either one of three things:
a) No US person is invovled
b) He gets a warrant to listen for more than 15 days
c) He listens for 15 days or less
I think you are confusing 15 days here for a time period he has this power, which is incorrect. During times of war, the president can listen to any foreign on US action he likes for up to 15 days. After 15 days if he'd like to continue listening, he needs a warrant. As long as we are in war it doesn't matter, whether that was in 2002, 2003, or today.
| quote: |
Using your OWN words about the violation of the 15 day statute we can conclude that Bush BROKE THE LAW. |
No we can't. We can only conclude Bush broke the law if he listend to someone who was doing foreign on US action for more than 15 days and didn't get a warrant for it. This might indeed be the case, but as of yet I haven't heard of this specific charge in regards to a specific case.
| quote: |
What??? Who? You? The article clearly reaffirms the 72-hour/15 day statement that you just referenced in your previous paragraph. |
No, not me, the author of your article (and you I believe as well) misinterperted the law.
He believes: The president has up to 15 days after a wire tap to get a warrant during time of war.
I believe/the law says: The president has up to 15 days to listen to a wire tap, after which if he decides to continue to listen he must have a warrant, in times of war.
| quote: |
Besides all of this, once again you choose to ignore the argument that Bush should change the law rather than break the law in accordance with democracy and a respect for the rule of law. |
Honestly I don't see to much problem with the law as written except for the tons of paperwork needed to get a warrant... If Bush broke the law, he should be punished. If he didn't, he shouldnt. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
The point was to dig into the source to find what the law exactly say. And contrary to your remakrs above, the NSA is restricted in what it can do domestically AND abroad. If you would have cared to look at the links I posted, you would have known this.
|
And this is pertinent to the debate in what way?
| quote: |
No I am not pulling this out of my ass, Occrider, apparently in this regard I am more informed then you, I have read all of Subchaper 1 of Chapter 36, have you?
I don't think so... if you would have you would know that to get a warrant you must:
Then you also have limitations on how you can use the data:
So yes, I do think it is a bit cumbersome.
|
Ohhh wow that’s a lot. Just look at some of those complex steps!! Wow, FISA actually makes you test your surveillance equipment?? And you have to be trained to use that equipment???? And all along I thought that to get a warrant all you had to do was to write a note on a napkin and give it to a judge! Of course you and I have been in the business of getting warrants all our lives, so we are EASILY in a position where we can authoritatively tell others, who aren’t in the know, that this is an extremely cumbersome process!!! Oh wait, you know what, I’ve ever never gotten a warrant much less a FISA warrant. But you obviously have because you’re more “informed” and therefore you’re in a position to judge whether getting a FISA warrant is a cumbersome process. It’s kinda like scuba diving! There’s all these rules you have to follow and things you have to remember so those who have never done it understandably say it’s a complicated sport. I would disagree and say it’s the easiest thing in the world, but what do I know?? I’ve only done it a bunch of times, but they’re clearly in a position to know.
| quote: |
I apologizes for not being "up to date" with all the news about this. But regardless if Bush authorized things back from 2002 or 2003, or yesterday, there is nothing illegal about it as long as either one of three things:
a) No US person is invovled
b) He gets a warrant to listen for more than 15 days
c) He listens for 15 days or less
I think you are confusing 15 days here for a time period he has this power, which is incorrect. During times of war, the president can listen to any foreign on US action he likes for up to 15 days. After 15 days if he'd like to continue listening, he needs a warrant. As long as we are in war it doesn't matter, whether that was in 2002, 2003, or today.
No we can't. We can only conclude Bush broke the law if he listend to someone who was doing foreign on US action for more than 15 days and didn't get a warrant for it. This might indeed be the case, but as of yet I haven't heard of this specific charge in regards to a specific case.
No, not me, the author of your article (and you I believe as well) misinterperted the law.
He believes: The president has up to 15 days after a wire tap to get a warrant during time of war.
I believe/the law says: The president has up to 15 days to listen to a wire tap, after which if he decides to continue to listen he must have a warrant, in times of war.
|
What?? Using that logic, Bush can issue a presidential order that authorizes the army to kill every member of congress and to you he wouldn’t have broken the law if the army refused to carry out the order. Regardless of whether the NSA actually carried out an illegal warrantless wiretap or not, Bush gave an order that allowed them to commit a crime. His order broke the law. Furthermore, since there’s no oversight of the NSA nobody would ever know if they DID break the law. But what indications are there?
| quote: |
While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it say the N.S.A. eavesdrops without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time. The list changes as some names are added and others dropped, so the number monitored in this country may have reached into the thousands since the program began, several officials said. Overseas, about 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time, according to those officials.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/p...&pagewanted=all
|
Umm right, they’re cycling through thousands of names every 15 days. So let’s review, bush gives them the authority to break the law, and that’s ok so long as they don’t break the law!?? And of course the only way to find out if they were breaking the law is to ask them if they’re breaking the law :rolleyes:
Oh furthermore, the authorization during war is not 15 days for each wiretap. 50 USC 1811 states that the president may authorize warrantless surveillance during a period of 15 calendar days after Congress declares war … which I might add it never did.
| quote: |
Honestly I don't see to much problem with the law as written except for the tons of paperwork needed to get a warrant... If Bush broke the law, he should be punished. If he didn't, he shouldnt. |
By signing the 2002 presidential order he broke the law. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Wow...I'm happy and sad at the same time...I'm sappy...
A thread just for me...
I'm sad because I've made it quite clear where I stood in the past and yet I find a have to bring it up YET AGAIN! (and in your own post Opus...tsk, tsk...)
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Fair's fair.
Sure I take the stand on a lot of anti-Bush stuff but it's more to argue the point being raised more than actually defending Bush himself; he just happens to be the target du jour here for 90% of the posts; so what's wrong with a little debate?
I would have thought that was the point of being here but I guess you guys would rather hear yourselves talk? :conf:
Heaven forbid anyone question the Left! ;)
But for the record, there are things I don't agree with when it comes to American policy. Yes, I know, be still your heart.
In no particular order:
1. His Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers; I didn't notice any knee-pads when I saw her last...
2. His FEMA nomination of Michael Brown only because later on we find, much like Miers, didn't have the qualifications for such a posting.
(Something I was quite forward with but some may have forgotten because everyone here was of the same opinion at the time).
Cronyism appears to be an elite disease...
3. His stance in the War on Drugs when it comes to the area of responsible recreational marijuana smoking.
>>Source<<
Refer Madness appears to have never ended...
4. Doesn't anyone remember the passing of "Eminent Domain"? :nervous:
I hope to hell that doesn't reach our borders...
I know I've posted regarding this a couple of times.
5. His homosexual marriage stance. I don't condone gay relationships but I see nothing wrong with them wanting to further their relationships either. Two people in love are two people in love and it's not like they're putting a gun to anyone's head...
6. Here's a doozie...“Compromise Bill” Re: Terri Schiavo Signed Into Law...
I'm sure there's more but that's all I can think of atm...
So while it may appear I'm pro-Bush, I'm replying more from the right-side of the border than actually defending or apologising? (HAHAHA; he's not even mine to appligise for!:haha: ) Bush. ;) |
>>Source<<
My views have not changed in any of those points made.
Now as far as quoting, "Anne Coulter", I could less if the thing was written by the ing Pope. I wasn't necessarily agreeing her either. The point of the article and my question, which by the way NO ONE ANWSERED (and instead I get some large bloated diatribe about how 'disinformed' I am) was again;
"If the wiretaps prove to stop even ONE major attack, would it have been worth it?"
I know it's hard Opus, but for one second, throw caution to the wind and try and answer the question...
...and try and keep it under 5,000,000 words huh? ;) |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
...oh yea, I don't disagree with you Opus, if in fact Bush has been doing illegal tappings by going around FISA and FISC then yes, he should be sacked...
(yes I know...be still your beating heart...) :p |
|
|
| Shakka |
paraphrasing: If the ends justify the means, then it is worth it.
I honestly don't know how I feel about this just because you have to be willing to give a LOT of leeway. I'd like for there to at least be a structured system that must be followed, which is why I can't believe proper warrants were not gotten, particularly since there was this whole 72 hour retroactive window. It's a tough position, but I have to be honest and say that somebody ed up when it would seem so simple to make everything kosher after the fact. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
paraphrasing: If the ends justify the means, then it is worth it.
I honestly don't know how I feel about this just because you have to be willing to give a LOT of leeway. I'd like for there to at least be a structured system that must be followed, which is why I can't believe proper warrants were not gotten, particularly since there was this whole 72 hour retroactive window. It's a tough position, but I have to be honest and say that somebody ed up when it would seem so simple to make everything kosher after the fact. |
Therein lies the big problem.
The process has been in place for years and it doesn't make sense that all of a sudden the government starts circumnavigating the same process they themselves implemented and have been following, apparently up until now.
If anyone actually comes up with anything concrete there will definately be hell to pay... |
|
|
|
|
