Government Spying...

[Larry Gude]

The Prez says:

Accused of acting above the law, President Bush forcefully defended a domestic spying program on Monday as an effective tool in disrupting terrorists and insisted it was not an abuse of Americans' civil liberties.

Opponents say:

"Where does he find in the Constitution the authority to tap the wires and the phones of American citizens without any court oversight?" asked Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Bush's interpretation of the Constitution was "incorrect and dangerous."

Bush counters:

Bush said he had asked, "Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely,"

Opponents:

Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle said he was briefed by the White House between 2002 and 2004 but was not told key details about the scope of the program. "Even with some of the more troublesome - and potentially illegal - details omitted, I still raised significant concern about these actions," Daschle said.

Personally, I think it's obvious that in this day an age there are no or very, very few secrets and to think the government would sit there and say "No, we can't tap this guys phone even though it looks like he knows a good bit about how and when America will be attacked again and that it appears to be very soon, we still have to follow precedures and hope it's not too late..." is not only niave but profoundly dangerous and thus, stupid.

That's how we got here in the first place.

Anyone feeling like their rights are being wrongly violated?

 

[Pete]

I feel sorry for the poor agent who listens to my boring phone calls.

 

[sleuth]

I'm kind of waiting to see how this all shakes out.
I can't see Bush being prosecuted and definitely can't see him being convicted.
The law is definitely gray in this area from everything I've been seeing.
Sounds to me like if he hasn't got the authority, then Congress needs to give it to him.

I'm glad he's tapping phones of people with suspected terrorist ties. Better than letting them kill my family. There haven't been any reports of this program being used on anyone except those with terrorist ties, and so long as that remains the case, I don't have a problem with it.

Still, I wonder why Bush didn't go to the courts after the fact. Apparently he has up to 72 hours *after* he begins tapping the lines to get a warrant. That would give him the quickness he needs while still having court oversight.

What really burns me is the New York Times role in all of this.

 

[SAHRAB]

The Prez says:





Opponents say:





Bush counters:




Opponents:





Personally, I think it's obvious that in this day an age there are no or very, very few secrets and to think the government would sit there and say "No, we can't tap this guys phone even though it looks like he knows a good bit about how and when America will be attacked again and that it appears to be very soon, we still have to follow precedures and hope it's not too late..." is not only niave but profoundly dangerous and thus, stupid.

That's how we got here in the first place.

Anyone feeling like their rights are being wrongly violated?

I've been reading the blogs, pundits and talking heads about this, and supposedly the calls that were monitored were International Calls, placed from a known Al Qeda camp in Afghanistan, to a suspected Al Qeda member in the US.
as someone posted (on another blog) stated, when you travel International, your questioned, searched and can even be stripped searched when you enter the country. how is that any different than applying those same principles to an international call? (and arguably a strip search is MUCH MORE intrusive than listening in on a phone call)

 

[itsbob]

The Prez says:





Opponents say:





Bush counters:




Opponents:





Personally, I think it's obvious that in this day an age there are no or very, very few secrets and to think the government would sit there and say "No, we can't tap this guys phone even though it looks like he knows a good bit about how and when America will be attacked again and that it appears to be very soon, we still have to follow precedures and hope it's not too late..." is not only niave but profoundly dangerous and thus, stupid.

That's how we got here in the first place.

Anyone feeling like their rights are being wrongly violated?

No, but I think who ever leaked this needs to go to jail.. Bush said it in his speech this WAS an effective tool, but since the enemy (we ARE at war) now know about this tool, it can no longer be used.

There was some dickhead Dem on TV last night, spouting things like.. Bush is trying to become King, this is just another step in his plan to become King. When the press asked what he would have done if he were president at the time he replied "I don't know, but not this, not break the law".

Well, funny, the President decided to do this within in what a couple of days, maybe a couple of hours? This jackass has had 4 YEARS to think about it, and can't think of anything better to do to protect the country. Easy to throw stones when you don't have to make the decisions.

Here is a President willing to do whatever it takes to protect us, and doing a damn good job of it, and we get these monday morning quarterbacks that can't give any better a solution telling us how wrong he is.

When is the country and it's citizens going to come before petty politics?

 

[itsbob]

I'm kind of waiting to see how this all shakes out.
I can't see Bush being prosecuted and definitely can't see him being convicted.
The law is definitely gray in this area from everything I've been seeing.
Sounds to me like if he hasn't got the authority, then Congress needs to give it to him.

I'm glad he's tapping phones of people with suspected terrorist ties. Better than letting them kill my family. There haven't been any reports of this program being used on anyone except those with terrorist ties, and so long as that remains the case, I don't have a problem with it.

Still, I wonder why Bush didn't go to the courts after the fact. Apparently he has up to 72 hours *after* he begins tapping the lines to get a warrant. That would give him the quickness he needs while still having court oversight.

What really burns me is the New York Times role in all of this.

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.

 

[gwa]

It seems to me like people do not want tobe protected. They complain about the measures the President wants to impliment and call them unconstitutional such as phone taps or "eaves dropping", and the security searches. Some places have gone as far as relaxing their searches to a few people. But as soon as something happens again, people will back peddle and say that it will be the Presidents fault. People will have forgotten that he tried to do as much as he can but the other people in government and some of the citezen's, who complain that their rights were infringed upon,
lobbyed to say that what the President wants to do is unjust.

 

[Bustem' Down]

My only question is how hard would it have been to get a warrant? He is the President.

 

[2ndAmendment]

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.

Wow. We agree.

I feel sorry for the poor agent who listens to my boring phone calls.

Can you say computer voice and word recognition? I knew you could.

 

[ylexot]

I seriously doubt that they were spying on anybody that didn't warrant spying. However, it does raise the "slippery slope" argument. The excuse given is expediency. I have a hard time believing that it's faster to get approval from POTUS than it is to get approval from a judge who's sole job is to do these approvals. It actually makes me wonder if Bush is rubber-stamping approvals. If it is truely faster to go to POTUS, then that judicial approval system needs a mojor overhaul and I'm all for that.

Another alternative might be to have the executive approval immediately and then judicial oversight approval after the initial approval. If the agents can't convince the judge that the spying is necessary, then the agents should be reprimanded...kinda like the instant replay system in the NFL.

One of the problems with the whole spying story is that we don't know the whole story because it's classified. We don't know what was done, who did it, or how it was done. That really makes it tough to say if something was illegal or not.

 

[Schizo]

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.

Title 18 of the US Code covers classified hearings.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18a/usc_sec_18a_02000006----000-.html

 

[itsbob]

Wow. We agree.

.

It's Christmas.. the time of Miracles!!

 

[2ndAmendment]

My only question is how hard would it have been to get a warrant? He is the President.

Again, if you want someone, everyone, to know about something file in the Federal courts, our despotic branch of government. Federal judges are above the law. Didn't you know? So are Congressmen, Senators, and their staff that leak classified information. Need to start prosecuting, convicting, and executing some of these people that leak classified. Don't you know if it was you, itsbob, or me, our butts would be in a sling.

 

[sleuth]

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.

But isn't there a "covert" court that handles all of this stuff?

 

[ylexot]

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.

Don't they have a secret court for doing this exact thing?

 

[ylexot]

But isn't there a "covert" court that handles all of this stuff?

*jinx*

 

[2ndAmendment]

But isn't there a "covert" court that handles all of this stuff?

The larger the group of people that know, the shorter the lifetime of a secret. Want to keep a secret? Don't tell anyone. Tell one person and the secret will get out eventually.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Oh well, what's done is done. Now just concentrate on fixing it. Here's a good question though, how long has the opposition known about it and let it go on cause it works, but also use it like an "Ace in the Hole" for when they need new dirt?

 

[itsbob]

Title 18 of the US Code covers classified hearings.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18a/usc_sec_18a_02000006----000-.html

The code doesn't matter.. the more people that know, the better the chance EVERYone will know. How do you know who to trust? Do Judges need Secret Clearances, or ANY clearance at all, to be a judge? how about the Court Clerk? The data Entry Clerk that types up the warrant? The Bailiff?? HOW about if the Judge was a Clinton Appointee, and still thinks he OWES the democrats? AND not to be one sided.. he would have to let more people on his staff know about it too.. lawyers to present it to the courts, clerks on the lawyers staff to write it up, interns getting word of it in the hallway. All of a sudden 250 people that didn't need to know, now know!

The importance of what the president was trying to accomplish, it was imperative that as few people as possible knew about it. I'm amazed the secret lasted this long, so have to hand it his administration for running this successful program in secret fot as long as they did.

Of course the flip side is, if he DIDN'T do it, and we were attacked agian, these same people would be asking or his resignation. He couldn't do anything right anyways, so he did what he thought was the most productive. He was decisive, and did what had to be done.

 

[Schizo]

Warrantless ''National Security'' Electronic Surveillance .--

In Katz v. United States, 151 Justice White sought to preserve for a future case the possibility that in ''national security cases'' electronic surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney General could be permissible without prior judicial approval. The Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to ''bug'' in two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority on a theory of ''inherent'' presidential power and then in the Supreme Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a ''reasonable'' search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required. 152 Whether or not a search was reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause; except in a few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, only those searches conducted pursuant to warrants were reasonable. The Government's duty to preserve the national security did not override the gurarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy. 153 This protection was even more needed in ''national security cases'' than in cases of ''ordinary'' crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the Fourth. 154 Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is required. 155


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/05.html#6