Government Spying...

S

Schizo

Guest
Ken King said:
Under FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) there are provisions for not needing a court order/warrant for up to a year when dealing with foreign governments and terrorists. There are many related requirements including the notification of the House and Senate Intelligence leaders. It can be found at United States Code Title 50, Chapter 36. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html
Click to expand...


Thanks Ken. One of the key is that "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party."

Again, I couldn't care less if the government is spying on foreign agents who are not U.S. citizens operating within the US. However if that suspect agent happens to be a U.S. citizen, we must not be above the laws and the constitution of the United States.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ken King

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Schizo said:
Thanks Ken. One of the key is that "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party."

Again, I couldn't care less if the government is spying on foreign agents who are not U.S. citizens operating within the US. However if that suspect agent happens to be a U.S. citizen, we must not be above the laws and the constitution of the United States.
Click to expand...
Well I would say that depends on what is to be done with intel obtained. If, for instance, a plan to explode a bomb at a Redskin's game was discovered and the information was used solely to thwart that attack and not go after prosecuting those "US persons" involved in the communications it would be an appropriate use. It's all in how the information is used or not used and the act being combatted.

The interception has been going on for years and I think there is even case law that states that if it is a free-space interception it really isn't a wiretap. What is being intercepted is mostly stuff going through satellites or microwave transmitters and doesn't incur into the private places and lives of those expecting privacy as the standard wiretap does. Most definately a gray area, but on this I think the President is well within his primary duty to take the effort to keep us safe from enemies foreign and domestic.
 
T

tikipirate

Guest
tikipirate said:
I believe a bigger reason Bush didn't go to the courts is the possibility that the courts would have turned him down. Then he could no longer skirt laws, going forward would have been an obvious crime. It is better to ask forgiveness than permission.
Click to expand...
Someone disagreed with this. I don't know why. I am most happy with a president that has the political smarts to protect me and my loved ones instead of wasting energy doing battle with Congress and the Supreme Court.

There has to be a point where the gloves come off. 9-11 was that point for Bush and 99% of the US citizenry. I will gladly give up my freedom to privacy of communication (I admit that I tell my mother I love her, and sometimes talk to my girlfriend's dog) to allow the Feds to better target those who traffic in terror.

Well, not the Feds. The folks who can actually do things about terror.
 
Ken King

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Schizo said:
Quoting colleagues of Robertson, the Post said the judge had indicated he was concerned that information gained from the warrantless surveillance under Bush's program subsequently could have been used to obtain warrants under the FISA program.
Click to expand...
:killingme Colleagues (which I would guess in this case would be some of the other judges on the FISA court that didn't resign) say the reason Robertson quit was because the information "could have been used", not that it actually had been used and not what Robertson has said himself, if anything, but what they suspect. This is so typical of a media fishing trip.
 
duzzey1a

duzzey1a

New Member
This whole thing will go away real soon. In order for the president to be liable for any wrongdoing, he has to have a charge filed. Unfortunately, even if the person that was being tapped complained, it would be classified information. Therefore, the court would not know the identity of the tappee. No case.
 
A

alex

Member
itsbob said:
The reason he didn't go to the courts is obvious, more so today then yesterday. It was Covert, it was Secret, you take it to the courts the press would have been all over this WHEN we needed it to be secret the most.

I could have seen the headlines on CNN now.. The president today applied to the courts for permission to secretly tap the phones of Al Queda members here in the us, next up, the reaction from our nearest Muslim Mosque.
Click to expand...
What about the FISA courts? They are secret. With the passage of the Patriot Act it made it even easier for him to do this legally.

I do have a problem with how this happened and the attitude from the President on this. In addition, what about the DIA spying on US Citizens? Isn't that also illegal. How does one justify spying on a group of Quakers in Florida planning a peaceful anti-war protest? Just because one may not agree with their protesting the war doesn't make the spying legal.
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Toxick said:
So I'm reading this article and it says that this liberal activist judge quits in protests to Bush's policies.
Click to expand...
That's horseshit. No judge in the world would quit because they didn't like political policies. He's in trouble of some form, getting ready to be busted, and he's trying to cover his ass, that's all.

What's the big deal about spying on US citizens? If they started rounding these people up and sending them to concentration camps, then I might get excited. But to simply monitor suspects is no big deal. In fact, I'm all for it.
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
alex said:
How does one justify spying on a group of Quakers in Florida planning a peaceful anti-war protest? Just because one may not agree with their protesting the war doesn't make the spying legal.
Click to expand...

Good question. Another might be "how do you know that they are just a bunch of Quakers planning a peaceful anti-war protest?" During the Vietnam War, the Communists infiltrated a lot of innocent-looking groups and helped plan many peaceful anti-war protests... not because they thought the war was wrong but because they were losing it. They used our naivete and freedoms of speech and assembly as weapons against us.

I have no problem with quakers or Sheehan or any other groups who want to protest anything, but I do have a problem when these groups are infiltrated, and their efforts orchestrated, by the folks were at war with. Back during WWII, the big war that we won, people in many of these groups would have been labled seditionists and even outright traitors for doing what groups today are doing. The reason for that was that FDR and his cabinet realized that it's tough to win a military was while you've got folks running about the US fighting the enemy's war for him. I think if you want to help Al Qaeda by protesting, go ahead. But you should accept the fact that you're going to be scrutinized to see if your actions are self directed or influenced by the enemy.
 
itsbob

itsbob

I bowl overhand
vraiblonde said:
That's horseshit. No judge in the world would quit because they didn't like political policies. He's in trouble of some form, getting ready to be busted, and he's trying to cover his ass, that's all.

What's the big deal about spying on US citizens? If they started rounding these people up and sending them to concentration camps, then I might get excited. But to simply monitor suspects is no big deal. In fact, I'm all for it.
Click to expand...
No this is the guy that would have SECRETLY leaked it to the press when we most needed it. ANYthing to try to discredit Bush no matter how many lives it endangers.

THIS is why Bush did it the way he did. Someone like him.
 
Ken King

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Guess who leaked that there was spying going on? Could it be a member of the SECRET FISA court?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top