Government and latest about wire taps.

[darth tang]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
I think the debate is not whether they wire tap or not. The law allows wire taps as long as its done legally. The problem is that they did not follow the law. = illegal.
What laws has been broken ? you ask. They have already admitted to this and claim national security issues as always as their reason.
The law is Artical Four of the Bill Of Rights and its amendment in '78 with the establishment of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees government applications for secret surveillance or searches of foreigners and U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism or espionage.
True, But using NSA guidlines and resolutions it is Legal. It was legal under Clinton, Reagan, and Carter for the same reasons. So why is it suddennly illegal now? The Constitution and bill of rights are NOT the only laws on the books. They have not admitted to violating any laws. Not that I have seen or read anyway. The media is claiming they have violated law...big difference.
Unless you have an exerpt where they admit they violated law.....I would like to see it.
Mimzy, you aren't bad yourself

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Mimzy
Clinton is not excused. Not by a long shot. But there are ways to prosecute such action - what he did was illegal. What this administration is doing is legitimizing something that is ilegal and trying to convince us that it's good for us....
Why do the PEOPLE'S rights always have to suffer when the government goofs up?...
So, back to my first question... where was the NY Times Front Page article on clinton "violating" our rights?
As for the government goof ups, what are you referring too? Terrorists attacked us half a dozen times under clinton's watch. He didn't do jack.... That's the "goof" up we're all paying for now... Oh, wait.. he did pass legislation making the CIA's job more difficult, so I guess he did something...
If I call someone, and their phone is tapped, who notifies me??
Mimzy, do some research on the matter. The NSA has a list of domestic terrorist attack plans that were stopped due to this "infringement" on your rights.
Like I said earlier, if you are concerned about your rights being infringed upon don't take any calls from suspected islamic terrorists....
We are at war.... we are at war.... we are at war...

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
The problem is that the ppl. dont know this. We only have the Gov's word. How an anyone know...
The Government's word vs. the NY Times... tough call. I mean, neither has an agenda, right?

 

[dogstar]

They have addmitted that they did not seek the warrants for the wire taps. In over four years.
The NSA does not make the laws, Congress does and the courts are there to check that the laws are being followed. Im not aware of a resolution stating that they would and could do this.
I am also not fully aware of the acts some are claiming that other Presidents have also done this, if someone could point them out.
I am like all of us not fully aware of what has and has not been done, why and who knew ect. and I hope that proper investegations and hearings will be held. It will be hard because there will be issues with claimed classified and top secret listing and a lot of blacked out lines so we may never know anyway. I do beleive in inocent till proven guilty concept. But just because some says their innocent or the beleive what they did was right is no reason not to investigate. On the surface it looks like the laws have been broken. So, should I and Congress and everyone just turn a blind eye to justice. Just shut up and go away. Some will say yes and thats their right. And that goes to the rights of all of us and that the point of the issue, OUR rights. As US citizens.
A Thankyou to Mimzy But I'm just one voice and if its of reason, well ......

 

[jcrim]

I just wanted to chime in with a couple thoughts.
First, it is somewhat of a cop-out that when people criticize Bush, many people defend him by bringing up wrongs of past presidents. How can other presidents' wrongs defend Bush's actions? They don't... this merely deflects the attention from those currently in power.
Second, I have already posed the question of what's so hard about getting a warrant. I got one answer... time. This is not true. Does anyone know how long it takes to get a warrant? 5 - 10 minutes tops. Even for minor criminal activity, judges will sign warrants at all hours of the night. These are done by fax so the process is very quick. The reason our government wants to go around the warrant process is because they cannot justify the taps with objective facts equating to probable cause. Much of the investigation is based solely on racial profiling. It's easy for most citizens to justify this... as long as they are not a part of the profile. Who argues when someone elses rights have been violated?
Finally, some argue that to criticize this administration is somehow not patriotic. Yet those oppose to this practice are arguing for the support of our constitution and government. Certain principles are crucial to the "American Way". One of these being the separation of powers. This separation is intended to prevent corruption on any one part of the government... checks and balances. Why should this or any administration be able to get around the judicial branch to take this type of action? I support the separation of powers because, as Machiavelli taught us, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". Strange that some argue for absolute support of our presidency over the other governmental branches. Sounds like a dictatorship to me... not the American way. Isn't that what we're fighting against?
Just my $.02

 

[darth tang]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
I am also not fully aware of the acts some are claiming that other Presidents have also done this, if someone could point them out.
.

I did this already. But look up information about Clinton and Eschelon. He did the same thing then.
I have no problem if Bush gets impeached and tried over this.....however I want it even across the board and the past Presidents of this as well to be tried....no exceptions.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by jcrim
I just wanted to chime in with a couple thoughts.
First, it is somewhat of a cop-out that when people criticize Bush...
Past references are meant to point out hypocrisy, nothing more.
What law has been broken exactly? Again and again I'll say the same thing.. if you call someone whose line is being tapped does the government have an obligation to tell you?
As for time... the secret court paperwork can take weeks to fill out in order to get the "wire tap in 10 minutes tops..."

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by jcrim
Sounds like a dictatorship to me... not the American way. Isn't that what we're fighting against?
No, we're fighting against Islamic Radicals who killed 3000 people on 9-11, plus hundreds more during the clinton era.

 

[scubadoo]

The actual law as written...
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1802
§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court
Release date: 2005-03-17
(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
(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;
(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
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
(2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General’s certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title.
(3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the court established under section 1803 (a) of this title a copy of his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless—
(A) an application for a court order with respect to the surveillance is made under sections 1801 (h)(4) and 1804 of this title; or
(B) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the surveillance under section 1806 (f) of this title.
(4) With respect to electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection, the Attorney General may direct a specified communication common carrier to—
(A) furnish 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 is providing its customers; and
(B) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence any records concerning the surveillance or the aid furnished which such carrier wishes to retain.
The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, such carrier for furnishing such aid.
(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.

 

[reefraff]

I think people get too paranoid. If the government snoops in on your phone calls without a warrant so what? Lets say they mistake you for Osama been lyin, Islamic terrorist and molestor of sheep. They are going to listen to your converation one way or another. If you ain't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. Even if you are doing something wrong unless you are a spy, terrorist or arms smuggler the evidence cannot be used against you if they didn't get a warrant.

 

[dogstar]

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1805
(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.

 

[whaa...?]

sigh...i hate the patriot act. nobody actually read the thing it was 300+ pages, they just saw the "patriot" in patriot act and bush said it would stop terrorism.

 

[beth]

As far as I'm concerned, if it makes the USA a tad safer, the Government can spy on me all they want to. They'd be bored to death if they do, but by all means, go ahead.

 

[dogstar]

TITLE 50--WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
CHAPTER 36--FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE
SUBCHAPTER I--ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
Sec. 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.

 

[darth tang]

A line item under the rules and regulations of electronic surveilance carried out by NSA or FISA.
6 Pursuant to §2.3 of E.O. 12333, there may be other instances where U.S. person information may be collected, such as with the consent of the person concerned or where the information is needed to protect the safety of any persons or organizations, including those who are targets, victims, or hostages of international terrorist organizations.
Also you do NOT need a warrant to monitor an international call coming into the U.S.
2.5 ATTORNEY GENERAL APPROVAL
The Attorney General hereby is delegated the power to approve the
use for intelligence purposes, within the United States or against
a United States person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant
would be required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes,
provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken unless the
Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable
cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign
power or an agent of a foreign power. Electronic surveillance, as
defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50
U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), shall be conducted in accordance with that
Act, as well as this Order.

 

[darth tang]

Originally Posted by whaa...?
sigh...i hate the patriot act. nobody actually read the thing it was 300+ pages, they just saw the "patriot" in patriot act and bush said it would stop terrorism.
What I quoted was NOT in the patriot act, or I should say from it. It is in previous laws passed, some back as far as the 1950's. They were just added into the patriot act....so please, refrain from blaming the Patriot act.
Speaking of the Patriot act, can someone show me a violation of a citizens rights through this act that has happened? And please don't use the recent wire taps, these were allowable before the Patriot act. And don't give the tired answer "It could happen". Our next President could get in office also and authorize the launch of our Nuclear weapons. But we don't get rid of the Nukes.

 

[jcrim]

I just saw something crazy on the news... the government has lifted the ban on carrying scissors and screwdrivers onto planes. What the hell are they doing?

TSA representative just said that scissors and small tools are not as dangerous as explosives. Did these idiots forget that 9/11 was completed with the use of small tools!

 

[darth tang]

I heard that yesterday as well. I was livid. Scissors under 4 inches are allowable and tools under 7 inches.........How big are box cutters again? Oh yeah, 3 inches in some cases....idiots!!!
Although, I think it was the agency that governs aviations...not the Government (congress or president) itself.

 

[jcrim]

Originally Posted by Darth Tang
Although, I think it was the agency that governs aviations...not the Government (congress or president) itself.
True... I guess I can't blame the president for this. Apparently they're trying to speed up travel time.

 

[darth tang]

Originally Posted by jcrim
True... I guess I can't blame the president for this. Apparently they're trying to speed up travel time.

I wouldn't necessarily go that far. I am not sure who is responsible foir signing off on this action. It may be the president or some congressional committee. May have to look into it a bit more......so I know who to direct my anger towards.