State of The Union play by play

[Kerad]

You obviously don't realize that in the quotes you provided, Bush was speaking of domestic spying programs and not international programs.

Good try, too bad you can't hack it.

If the phone being tapped is in America (belonging to an American), it becomes "domestic". It doesn't matter if you're listening for calls to/from overseas.

If my phone in Maryland is tapped and they're listening for calls to/from Australia...it's domestic spying. (It may also be international spying...not sure on that.)

I've been responding and providing feedback to quite a few of you...while you guys only have little ol' me to deal with.

I seem to hack it just fine.

 

[Kerad]

I'm in the electronic and communications surveillance industry. And I didn't realize that either.

The reason I didn't know that is because, quite simply, that's not a true statement.


If you want, I could try to talk my bosses, and their bosses, and see what we can do about redefining industry terms and standards to meet your criteria, but honestly, I don't think they're going to go for it.





Back atcha

"The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies."

So...is he referring to tapping cell phones that are connected by wires?

Of course it IS Bush...he may very well think cell phones are connected by wires.

 

[Kerad]

Bush Authorized Domestic Spying

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html

And THAT...my right wing buddies...is REALLY my last post on this subject. It doesn't mean you've "won"...it means I'm bored with this.

(after my edit, that is.... )

 

[Toxick]

And THAT...my right wing buddies...is REALLY my last post on this subject.

Just for the record - I'm not a right-winger.

 

[ylexot]

If the phone being tapped is in America (belonging to an American), it becomes "domestic". It doesn't matter if you're listening for calls to/from overseas.

If my phone in Maryland is tapped and they're listening for calls to/from Australia...it's domestic spying. (It may also be international spying...not sure on that.)

Maybe you're just using the wrong dictionary...

Main Entry: 1in·ter·na·tion·al
Pronunciation: "in-t&r-'nash-n&l, -'na-sh&-n&l
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or affecting two or more nations <international trade>
2 : of, relating to, or constituting a group or association having members in two or more nations <international movement>
3 : active, known, or reaching beyond national boundaries <an international reputation>

 

[Larry Gude]

My apologies and...

Larry, i do hope you understand that was posted with (always forget that smiley).

go check my other posts in the political forum and see if you think i'm a DU refugee

...my bad. I didn't catch it.

 

[Ken King]

Bush Authorized Domestic Spying

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html

And THAT...my right wing buddies...is REALLY my last post on this subject. It doesn't mean you've "won"...it means I'm bored with this.

(after my edit, that is.... )

Certainly he authorized it, no one else could, but he hasn’t lied about it. He hasn’t made it public either as it would tip our hand, but is it illegal as you allege? I say it isn’t for a couple of reasons.

First, in 2001 Congress authorized the President to use any and all means to combat terrorists including the use of military force. It was proven that Al Qaeda cells had operated in this country and the potential for more cells was obvious. We had been attacked and we were now at war. The government’s prime responsibility at this time became to protect and defend the nation and Congress gave him the power to do just that.

Next, the item employed was Echelon (an eavesdropping mechanism) and not wiretaps. Some may say it is only a difference in semantics but the courts have ruled differently based on whether an interception is obtained by simply gathering free-space emissions or via a clandestine breech of an expected secure line or network.

Another aspect of the eavesdropping that you are missing is that there are minimization requirements governing the use of information intercepted. If the persons intercepted are working for a terrorist group then they are not given status of “United States person” and all information obtained is usable no matter where they are located. If they are defined as “United States person” then the government must follow the minimization procedures that require that no contents of any communication to which they are a party to shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court order has been obtained.

Now I ask, where is the problem with this?

 

[2ndAmendment]

... Now I ask, where is the problem with this?

The problem is it doesn't fit the mantra of the KoolAid drinking Dems.

 

[Bustem' Down]

If the phone being tapped is in America (belonging to an American), it becomes "domestic". It doesn't matter if you're listening for calls to/from overseas.

If my phone in Maryland is tapped and they're listening for calls to/from Australia...it's domestic spying. (It may also be international spying...not sure on that.)

I've been responding and providing feedback to quite a few of you...while you guys only have little ol' me to deal with.

I seem to hack it just fine.

Looks like the military would be in trouble too. I mean, if they were picking up RF signals to try and gain intellegence on the enemy and one of those signals just happened to be a call to the US....Hold the phones, who's going to jail!

 

[2ndAmendment]

....Hold the phones, who's going to jail!

I say throw all the Democrats in jail for revealing a classified operation essential to a war effort. They are all guilty until proven innocent just like Bush is guilty of wire tapping.

For those that don't get it.

 

[Ken King]

Here is what the FISA law says about what is or isn’t “electronic surveillance.

50 USC § 1801. Definitions

(f) “Electronic surveillance” means—
(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;
(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511 (2)(i) of title 18;
(3) the intentional 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; or
(4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device in the United States for monitoring to acquire information, other than from a wire or radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.

Based on this information, contained within the law, it doesn’t appear that the interception of communications targeting terrorists outside the US that a person in the US might be party to would fall within the legally defined meaning of “electronic surveillance”.