Monitoring telephone calls into the US by suspected terrorists

[Helix]

Hmmm...well even though that's irrelevant to the actual debate: No. Not because I am so stubborn but because he violated the trust the American people gave to him by electing him, twice. I don't think that can be rationalized with intelligence especially because there is an ethical and as effective way of gaining said intelligence

[Jim]

Hmmm...well even though that's irrelevant to the actual debate: No. Not because I am so stubborn but because he violated the trust the American people gave to him by electing him, twice. I don't think that can be rationalized with intelligence especially because there is an ethical and as effective way of gaining said intelligence

 

Well that's my question, what if there really was a need here. Truthfully, neither of us know what motivated this program. This was not something lightly done - there were legal opinions obtained, twelve reports to congress and it was put on a 45 day review ticker (I think that's right, anwyay).

 

I have a hard time believing this would have been done just for grins. The problem for Bush may be that to explain the need for this would require him to explain how they are going about monitoring terrorist's emails/telephone calls.

 

What if, for example, they are using a US hotmail account to forward email. They put it in a long chain of email accounts, 20 of them, some of them that look like they are from US citizens and others that don't. What if they buy US cell phones and then use them abroad?

 

Might terrorists send out a flood of emails and bury the one important email in that barrage?

 

I'm sure I can't come close to imagining all of the ways that a terrorist might make it extremely difficult and burdensome to go to court everytime an email hits what appears to be the email account of a US citizen.

 

If there's is no need to do any of this, then this is an uninteresting discussion - of course Bush shouldn't have launched this program for no reason.

 

OTOH, if there was a need, and if you really view this as a war, I'm not sure why my hypothetical is off base. So, you would say that FDR did break the law and should go to jail under my hypothetical?

[Helix]

Well that's my question' date=' what if there really was a need here. Truthfully, neither of us know what motivated this program. This was not something lightly done - there were legal opinions obtained, twelve reports to congress and it was put on a 45 day review ticker (I think that's right, anwyay).

 

I have a hard time believing this would have been done just for grins. The problem for Bush may be that to explain the need for this would require him to explain how they are going about monitoring terrorist's emails/telephone calls.

 

What if, for example, they are using a US hotmail account to forward email. They put it in a long chain of email accounts, 20 of them, some of them that look like they are from US citizens and others that don't. What if they buy US cell phones and then use them abroad?

 

Might terrorists send out a flood of emails and bury the one important email in that barrage?

 

I'm sure I can't come close to imagining all of the ways that a terrorist might make it extremely difficult and burdensome to go to court everytime an email hits what appears to be the email account of a US citizen.

 

If there's is no need to do any of this, then this is an uninteresting discussion - of course Bush shouldn't have launched this program for no reason.

 

OTOH, if there was a need, and if you really view this as a war, I'm not sure why my hypothetical is off base. So, you would say that FDR did break the law and should go to jail under my hypothetical?[/quote']

 

 

My entire point is that we have an agency that, under its charter, is allowed to spy domestically and can do all the wonderful, patriotic things you described: the FBI. My point is that Bush should have used the FBI and a secret court rather than the NSA and an Exec. Order.

 

And again, no because FDR lied during wartime with "national security" at heart. History has proven that this is so; there have been a slew of documents relating what he did and why he did it. We have no such documents for Bush, because it is too soon after the fact, so you cannot say they are the same because we do not know for sure.

[Jim]

My entire point is that we have an agency that' date=' under its charter, is allowed to spy domestically and can do all the wonderful, [i']patriotic[/i] things you described: the FBI. My point is that Bush should have used the FBI and a secret court rather than the NSA and an Exec. Order.

 

And again, no because FDR lied during wartime with "national security" at heart. History has proven that this is so; there have been a slew of documents relating what he did and why he did it. We have no such documents for Bush, because it is too soon after the fact, so you cannot say they are the same because we do not know for sure.

 

 

Ahhh... The solid feel of common ground. We agree that if a President lies in a war with "'national security' at heart." We also agree that it is far too early to know whether what he did furthered national security.

[bascule]

I am not going to get into an argument with anyone who uses the "gitmo is a gulag" strawman as support for an argument that we should capitulate to terrorists.

 

"Gitmo is a gulag"? Uhhh...

 

One American death is equivalent to the suffering of all the innocent people falsely imprisoned in Gitmo et al.?

 

Please reread and tell me who's strawmanning...

 

If you're going to accuse someone of strawmanning, you best not use a strawman in order to make the point yourself.

 

If you think my point is unsubstantiated, perhaps you should read this:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/13/AR2005111301061.html

 

As the Senate prepared to vote Thursday to abolish the writ of habeas corpus, Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jon Kyl were railing about lawyers like me. Filing lawsuits on behalf of the terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Terrorists! Kyl must have said the word 30 times.

 

As I listened, I wished the senators could meet my client Adel.

 

Adel is innocent. I don't mean he claims to be. I mean the military says so. It held a secret tribunal and ruled that he is not al Qaeda, not Taliban, not a terrorist. The whole thing was a mistake: The Pentagon paid $5,000 to a bounty hunter, and it got taken.

 

The military people reached this conclusion, and they wrote it down on a memo, and then they classified the memo and Adel went from the hearing room back to his prison cell. He is a prisoner today, eight months later. And these facts would still be a secret but for one thing: habeas corpus.

 

Only habeas corpus got Adel a chance to tell a federal judge what had happened. Only habeas corpus revealed that it wasn't just Adel who was innocent -- it was Abu Bakker and Ahmet and Ayoub and Zakerjain and Sadiq -- all Guantanamo "terrorists" whom the military has found innocent.

 

Habeas corpus is older than even our Constitution. It is the right to compel the executive to justify itself when it imprisons people. But the Senate voted to abolish it for Adel, in favor of the same "combatant status review tribunal" that has already exonerated him. That secret tribunal didn't have much impact on his life, but Graham says it is good enough.

 

Adel lives in a small fenced compound 8,000 miles from his home and family. The Defense Department says it is trying to arrange for a country to take him -- some country other than his native communist China, where Muslims like Adel are routinely tortured. It has been saying this for more than two years. But the rest of the world is not rushing to aid the Bush administration, and meanwhile Adel is about to pass his fourth anniversary in a U.S. prison.

 

He has no visitors save his lawyers. He has no news in his native language, Uighur. He cannot speak to his wife, his children, his parents. When I first met him on July 15, in a grim place they call Camp Echo, his leg was chained to the floor. I brought photographs of his children to another visit, but I had to take them away again. They were "contraband," and he was forbidden to receive them from me.

 

In a wiser past, we tried Nazi war criminals in the sunlight. Summing up for the prosecution at Nuremberg, Robert Jackson said that "the future will never have to ask, with misgiving: 'What could the Nazis have said in their favor?' History will know that whatever could be said, they were allowed to say. . . . The extraordinary fairness of these hearings is an attribute of our strength."

 

The world has never doubted the judgment at Nuremberg. But no one will trust the work of these secret tribunals.

 

Mistakes are made: There will always be Adels. That's where courts come in. They are slow, but they are not beholden to the defense secretary, and in the end they get it right. They know the good guys from the bad guys. Take away the courts and everyone's a bad guy.

 

The secretary of defense chained Adel, took him to Cuba, imprisoned him and sends teams of lawyers to fight any effort to get his case heard. Now the Senate has voted to lock down his only hope, the courts, and to throw away the key forever. Before they do this, I have a last request on his behalf. I make it to the 49 senators who voted for this amendment.

 

I'm back in Cuba today, maybe for the last time. Come down and join me. Sen. Graham, Sen. Kyl -- come meet the sleepy-eyed young man with the shy smile and the gentle manner. Afterward, as you look up at the bright stars over Cuba, remembering what you've seen in Camp Echo, see whether the word "terrorist" comes quite so readily to your lips. See whether the urge to abolish judicial review rests easy on your mind, or whether your heart begins to ache, as mine does, for the country I thought I knew.

[Pangloss]

Bascule, I'm going to remind you once again not to throw lengthy articles at people in lieu of expressing your own opinion. It's basically just another way of saying "you're an idiot and you're only saying that because you haven't read what I've read", which is a complete load of horse manure.

 

That's also an opinion piece, and therefore doesn't substantiate squat.

[bascule]

Bascule, I'm going to remind you once again not to throw lengthy articles at people in lieu of expressing your own opinion.

 

My own opinion has been expressed and subsequently strawmanned. Why aren't you harping on that? I'm merely trying to substantiate my opinion with something along the lines of a credible source.

 

It's basically just another way of saying "you're an idiot and you're only saying that because you haven't read what I've read", which is a complete load of horse manure.

 

Now honestly Pangloss, take a step back for a second, reread what you just said, and look at what you're doing. You're looking at the argument I'm attempting to make, twisting and reinterpreting it, then presenting it again in your own words. Whenever you're about to frame something in the context of "It's basically just another way of saying" you might as well stop yourself right there. You're a moderator, certainly you're above strawmen? Especially as I'm attempting to defend myself from another one...

 

That's also an opinion piece, and therefore doesn't substantiate squat.

 

That's an ad hominem argument. Just because the story was presented within the context of an opinion piece does not make it any less true, and I at least see no factual errors in the presentation. But if you'd like a better source, how about this:

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ABU BAKKER QASSIM, et al., Petitioners, v. GEORGE W. BUSH, et al.,Respondents.

 

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/opinions/2005/Robertson/2005-CV-497~15:4:20~8-19-2005-a.pdf

 

Specifically:

 

Now that these petitioners are “no longer enemy combatants” (NLECs ), the government has had to articulate a new reason for continuing to hold them. That reason, asserted at the August 1 hearing and again in the government’s post-hearing memorandum, is "the Executive's necessary power to wind up wartime detentions in an orderly fashion." Resp’t Supplemental Mem. at 12. There is no basis for this claimed authority except the Executive's assertion of it.

 

How exactly am I supposed to substantiate my arguments around here without sources?

 

I'll admit that perhaps it's somewhat spammy to provide an entire story rather than the relevant excerpts, but if you really have a problem with the presentation of evidence to substantiate opinion, perhaps you ought to reconsider why you're on science forums, because it really seems like you have a problem with evidence-based argumentation.

[swansont]

It appears that the FBI has been classifying peaceful protestors as "domestic terrorists," meaning that they would be potential wiretap targets. How are we to know otherwise? (one story)

 

At least George Milhous Bush's speachwriters had the sense to have him say he was authorized, rather than "I am not a crook." Other than that, I am having flashbacks.

[[Tycho?]]

The US has laws and courts and limitations on power for a very good reason. Warrents are to prevent those in power from abusing their power. Warrents exist because we assume that those in power are fallible and corruptable. Considering the society we live in with these sort of restrictions on power, I think its rediculous to simply say "oh, well the president had a good reason for doing what he did." Why in the world would you have this sort of blind trust? Nixon showed us that presidents are certainly capable of abusing their power. Why should anyone just give Bush free reign on something as important as our privacy?

[Jim]

'']The US has laws and courts and limitations on power for a very good reason. Warrents are to prevent those in power from abusing their power. Warrents exist because we assume that those in power are fallible and corruptable. Considering the society we live in with these sort of restrictions on power, I think its rediculous to simply say "oh, well the president had a good reason for doing what he did." Why in the world would you have this sort of blind trust? Nixon showed us that presidents are certainly capable of abusing their power. Why should anyone just give Bush free reign on something as important as our privacy?

 

Who are you directing this comment towards?

 

I certainly would not operate and blind trust and I think it is a good thing to have hearings to get to the bottom of the controversy. My only point is that we can't yet assume there was a violation of law. As my initial post indicated, the President does have executive powers and no one is contending that this program expanded beyond monitoring US based persons, not necessarily citizens, who communicate with suspected terrorists.

 

As to why (or if) the 72 hour grace period was burdensome, I would reserve judgment on this point although I presume without evidence that Bush would not act irrationally - bypassing a process which was perfectly workable for no reason.

[Jim]

It appears that the FBI has been classifying peaceful protestors as "domestic terrorists' date='" meaning that they would be potential wiretap targets. How are we to know otherwise? (one story)

 

At least George Milhous Bush's speachwriters had the sense to have him say he was authorized, rather than "I am not a crook." Other than that, I am having flashbacks.

 

 

Umm... The article says their names were put in FBI domestic-terrorism files. not that these people were classified as domestic terrorists.

 

Why puff the facts here? I agree that this is concerning and worthy of investigation; however, we do not know why this was done. It could be that there is at least one individual in the group who does cause the agency concern. It could be that the FBI has other information that causes them to believe there is a possibility of concern about the groups activities.

 

ALthough neither of us are knowledgable about these matters, I suspect that Tim McVeigh has a lot to do with how the FBI approaches potential extremist groups from both the right and the left. After the OKC bombing, I suspect that many more groups with agendas are watched. Part of this process may be sweeping in more information directly relevant to a pending case so that later connections can be made when needed.

 

Again, I'm speculating and I agree that the issue deserves scrutiny but why jump to conclusions and puff the facts?

 

For that matter, why make the Nixon analogy? It's not particuarly apt. There's no evidence this was approved by Bush and certainly no evidence that this is anything equivalent to breaking into private property for political purposes.

[sunspot]

One of the ironies of this discussion is that the government gives business the right to violate the rights of its citizens through random drug testing. Such drug testing assumes guilt until proven innocent, which is opposite to the philosophy of innocent until proven guilty. Nobody seems to have a problem with that, yet if noncitizens are given analogous treatment, many are up at arms. A potential terroist can cause more possible harm than a person enjoying their constitutional right for the pursuit of happiness on their own time yet a worse possible offense is given more protection?

 

If one was to extrapolate this further, what would cause more harm to our culture a lying polititian or a pot smoking factory worker who only smoke on their own time. Obviously, the lying polititian. Why don't we have random lie detecter tests for our elected officials? If the lesser of two evils can have their rights revoked why doesn't the greater of the two evils? In my opinion a lying polititian can do as much harm as a terrorist and both should be free game, since random drug testing is a considered an acceptable zero point for social injustice.

[Pangloss]

Sorry for the late reply. With the holidays and family visits and whatnot it's a little harder for me to be online consistently.

 

My own opinion has been expressed and subsequently strawmanned. Why aren't you harping on that? I'm merely trying to substantiate my opinion with something along the lines of a credible source.

 

I understand, but it wasn't a news source, it was an opinion piece. I'm satisfied with your further sourcing above, and your last post above was fine (except for the snide comments directed at me).

 

As for those comments, you know what you're doing wrong, you AGREE that it's wrong, and pawning it off as my problem isn't going to win you favor, it's going to win you warnings and deletions. It's your choice, but if you have anything further to say about it, do so privately.

[entwined]

"Gitmo is a gulag"? Uhhh...

 

 

 

Please reread and tell me who's strawmanning...

 

If you're going to accuse someone of strawmanning' date=' you best not use a strawman in order to make the point yourself.

 

If you think my point is unsubstantiated, perhaps you should read this:[/quote']

 

How is this a strawman? It was you who brought up the subject of gitmo and "all those falsely imprisoned" therin, was it not?

 

If that is not a strawman, then please present evidence of the numbers of people falsely imprisoned there.

[bascule]

As for those comments, you know what you're doing wrong, you AGREE that it's wrong, and pawning it off as my problem isn't going to win you favor, it's going to win you warnings and deletions.

 

Conceeded. In the future I will provide relevant excerpts from articles I link.

 

How is this a strawman?

 

How does an accusation of false imprisonment equate to "Gitmo is a gulag"?

 

It was you who brought up the subject of gitmo and "all those falsely imprisoned" therin, was it not?

 

If that is not a strawman, then please present evidence of the numbers of people falsely imprisoned there.

 

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2005/d20050831sheet.pdf

 

Department of Defense Fact Sheet

Guantanamo Detainees By the Numbers

 

[...]

 

38 = the number of those classified as no longer enemy combatants (NLECs)

 

So, there are 38 people who our own military tribunals have ruled are innocent but are still being held prisoner.

[swansont]

Umm... The article says their names were put in FBI domestic-terrorism files. not that these people were classified as domestic terrorists.

 

I fail to see the distinction. If your name is put in a domestic terrorism file, it seems to me that you have been tagged as a domestic terrorist.

 

For that matter, why make the Nixon analogy? It's not particuarly apt. There's no evidence this was approved by Bush and certainly no evidence that this is anything equivalent to breaking into private property for political purposes.

 

Have you just not been reading or listening to the news? Bush admitted authorizing domestic wiretaps without court approval, as required by law. Just like Nixon - that was one of the charges on the articles of impeachment that were being drawn up when he resigned.

 

"For the generations who came of age after the mid-1970s, it is worth recalling why warrantless domestic surveillance so shocks the political system. It needs to be repeated that the same arguments cited by Bush--inherent presidential power and national security--sustained the wiretapping of Martin Luther King Jr., unleashed illegal CIA domestic spying and generated FBI files on thousands of American dissidents. It needs to be repeated that in 1974, the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon included abuse of presidential power based on warrantless wiretaps and illegal surveillance. It needs to be repeated that a few months later, presidential aides named Cheney and Rumsfeld labored mightily to secure President Ford's veto of the Freedom of Information Act, in an unsuccessful attempt to turn back post-Watergate restrictions on homegrown spying and government secrecy."

 

from The Nation

[bascule]

For that matter, why make the Nixon analogy? It's not particuarly apt.

 

The Nixon analogy is apt because Nixon was charged with authorizing illegal wiretaps as well.

 

There's no evidence this was approved by Bush

 

Bush signed off on it every 45 days, and has admitted to such, but claims it's within his authority. Or to quote him directly:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/

 

"I have re-authorized this program more than 30 times," [President Bush] said. "I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups."

 

Is that better, Pangloss?

[Jim]

The Nixon analogy is apt because Nixon was charged with authorizing illegal wiretaps as well.

 

 

 

Bush signed off on it every 45 days' date=' and has admitted to such, but claims it's within his authority. Or to quote him directly:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/

 

 

 

Is that better, Pangloss? [/quote']

 

Guys, my post was responding to a post about political groups being placed in FBI files, not the NSA issue.

[Jim]

I fail to see the distinction. If your name is put in a domestic terrorism file' date=' it seems to me that you have been tagged as a domestic terrorist.

 

 

 

Have you just not been reading or listening to the news? Bush admitted authorizing domestic wiretaps without court approval, as required by law. Just like Nixon - that was one of the charges on the articles of impeachment that were being drawn up when he resigned.

 

[/quote']

 

There is a world of difference between being in a file on domestic terrorism and having the federal government "classify" you as a terrorist. You can be in a file for a lot of reasons and it means only one thing - that the FBI felt there was some reason to put you in the file, perhaps because you are a potential witness or are tangentially related to some other piece of information they have gleaned from some source. There is no legal consequence to having your name in a file, whereas I suspect your treatment is very different if the FBI actually believes you are a terrorist.

 

The second point you make above confuses two issues - the FBI file issue I was responding to and the NSA wiretap issue. I said there is no evidence Bush had anything to do with the FBI file issue and you've flipped here to the NSA issue. Yes, I have been reading the news. Okay, now let's go to the NSA issue you shifted to when I asked you for evidence Bush authorized the FBI file action.....

 

The comparison of the NSA order to Nixon's action is uninformed. As I quoted above in the first post in this thread, there is a serious issue about the extent of executive power in times of war. Executive power derives from the surpreme law of the land - the United States Constitution - which might trump the FISA law. This is a complex issue and its very telling to me that so many have jumped out in the front here to condemn Bush without the slightest knowledge of how these issues will be resolved.

 

I believe President Bush will be able to make a good faith legal argument for his actions but I hoenstly don't know. I think you'd have to be a scholar of Constitutional law and be privy to the real facts to make a judgment. If you'll look at the portion of the article I quoted, you'll see that Courts often sidestep this kind of clash between executive and legislative branches as being political disputes that do not call for judicial action. That article also indicates that one author's opinion about the impact of Congressional inaction in light of the 12 briefings.

 

Again, I'm glad this issue is being raised as it is a sign of a healthy democracy. OTOH, I just have to shake my head when people jump to conclusions they need to believe.

 

The analogy to Nixon is false, also, because President Bush wasn't acting here in his political self-interest as Nixon's adminstration was in breaking into the Democratic National Committee's office. Bush was acting in his executive capacity for his perception, rightly or wrongly, of the national security interest.

 

Nixon tried to cover up the actions to save his own hide. Bush disclosed the program to congress although obviously he wanted to keep it secret from those it is being used against. To say this is apples and oranges is a wild understatement. It's really apples and orangutans.

[swansont]

The comparison of the NSA order to Nixon's action is uninformed. As I quoted above in the first post in this thread, there is a serious issue about the extent of executive power in times of war. Executive power derives from the surpreme law of the land - the United States Constitution - which might trump the FISA law. This is a complex issue and its very telling to me that so many have jumped out in the front here to condemn Bush without the slightest knowledge of how these issues will be resolved.

 

When, exactly, was there a declaration of war? But that's a moot point since, from what I've read, the FISA act delineates the procedure in wartime anyway. Bush sidestepped those rules.

 

 

The comparison of the NSA order to Nixon's action is I believe President Bush will be able to make a good faith legal argument for his actions but I hoenstly don't know. I think you'd have to be a scholar of Constitutional law and be privy to the real facts to make a judgment. If you'll look at the portion of the article I quoted' date=' you'll see that Courts often sidestep this kind of clash between executive and legislative branches as being political disputes that do not call for judicial action. That article also indicates that one author's opinion about the impact of Congressional inaction in light of the 12 briefings.

 

Again, I'm glad this issue is being raised as it is a sign of a healthy democracy. OTOH, I just have to shake my head when people jump to conclusions they need to believe.

 

The analogy to Nixon is false, also, because President Bush wasn't acting here in his political self-interest as Nixon's adminstration was in breaking into the Democratic National Committee's office. Bush was acting in his executive capacity for his perception, rightly or wrongly, of the national security interest.

 

Nixon tried to cover up the actions to save his own hide. Bush disclosed the program to congress although obviously he wanted to keep it secret from those it is being used against. To say this is apples and oranges is a wild understatement. It's really apples and orangutans.[/quote']

 

Those congression leaders to whom he "disclosed" the operation say they were misled as to the details. So, Bush apparently did not disclose his actions. And who is to say he hasn't done anything in political self-interest? I'm not saying he has, but you really can't claim otherwise, either; it's secret. Bush's action were covert - he didn't disclose anything to the public until the story broke in the papers. AFAIK, Nixon was acting within his executive capacity from his perception, in the interest of national security. He was trying to plug leaks - his surveillance was not limited to the Democratic HQ.

[entwined]

How does an accusation of false imprisonment equate to "Gitmo is a gulag"?

 

And how is an accusation of false imprisonment relevant to the topic under discussion? That being the tapping of phone calls comming into the country from suspected terrorists?

 

 

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2005/d20050831sheet.pdf

 

 

 

So' date=' there are 38 people who our own military tribunals have ruled are innocent but are still being held prisoner.[/quote']

 

So what? The document does not say that they are innocent, it says that they are no longer classified as illegal enemy combatants. The fact that 38 detainees have had their classification changed does not prove that they are being held illegally or unfairly.

[Jim]

When' date=' exactly, was there a declaration of war? But that's a moot point since, from what I've read, the FISA act delineates the procedure in wartime anyway. Bush sidestepped those rules.

[/quote']

 

You raise an interesting Constitutional issue which, again, I think would require a lot of in depth legal research. Apparently, a formal declaration is not required as we haven't declared war since 1941 but we sure have fought wars.

 

You go back to the FISA act but "sidestep" my argument that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land which may trump a subordinate law passed by Congress. Imagine that this is WWII and German agents have contacts in the United States. Would a Court order be required in every case before we intercept the phone calls?

 

Those congression leaders to whom he "disclosed" the operation say they were misled as to the details. So' date=' Bush apparently did not disclose his actions. And who is to say he hasn't done anything in political self-interest? I'm not saying he has, but you really can't claim otherwise, either; it's secret. Bush's action were covert - he didn't disclose anything to the public until the story broke in the papers. AFAIK, Nixon was acting within his executive capacity from his perception, in the interest of national security. He was trying to plug leaks - his surveillance was not limited to the Democratic HQ.[/quote']

 

You seem to be implying that all of the congressional leaders briefed are saying they were misled. Not true. Only a couple of democrats as I recall.

 

You accept what you want to hear at face value (i.e. congressional leaders say they were misled therefore "Bush apparently did not disclose his actions.") It's obviously in their interests to claim they were misled or not informed, kind of like they all scurried from their votes authorizing the war once the going got tough. It's shameful that they are so gutless in an area of national security.

 

Sen. Rockefeller knew enough to complain in a letter but didn't take it up a notch. The Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat said Rockefeller had tools to wield influence if he had concerns about the program, e.g. requesting committee or legislative action.

 

The democrats let this slide through and are now trying to run for cover so they can use this issue politically. It's one of the more shamefull episodes in recent history.

 

Of course this was covert.

 

Can you articulate a theory by which Bush did this for political advantage? Breaking into the offices of the opposing party is, on its face, a political act. There is no evidence in the public discussion WHATSOEVER that Bush did this for political gain. Why are you willing to presume that is the case?

[swansont]

You raise an interesting Constitutional issue which' date=' again, I think would require a lot of in depth legal research. Apparently, a formal declaration is not required as we haven't declared war since 1941 but we sure have fought wars.

 

You go back to the FISA act but "sidestep" my argument that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land which may trump a subordinate law passed by Congress. Imagine that this is WWII and German agents have contacts in the United States. Would a Court order be required in every case before we intercept the phone calls? [/quote']

 

Unless FISA is unconstitutional, there is nothing in the constitution that trumps it. Conversely, if the constitution trumps a law, that law is unconstitutional. By definition, really.

 

 

 

You seem to be implying that all of the congressional leaders briefed are saying they were misled. Not true. Only a couple of democrats as I recall.

 

Only "a couple" (or even one) out of the "gang of four" that needed to be briefed would be a frighteningly large fraction.

 

 

You accept what you want to hear at face value (i.e. congressional leaders say they were misled therefore "Bush apparently did not disclose his actions.") It's obviously in their interests to claim they were misled or not informed' date=' kind of like they all scurried from their votes authorizing the war once the going got tough. It's shameful that they are so gutless in an area of national security.

 

Sen. Rockefeller knew enough to complain in a letter but didn't take it up a notch. The Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat said Rockefeller had tools to wield influence if he had concerns about the program, e.g. requesting committee or legislative action. [/quote']

 

As a member of the "gang of four" the Senator would be precluded from discussing the situation with most people. AFAIK he can do it now (to some extent) that the cat is out of the bag, and because he's finding out that he was misinformed.

 

The democrats let this slide through and are now trying to run for cover so they can use this issue politically. It's one of the more shamefull episodes in recent history.

 

Of course this was covert.

 

Can you articulate a theory by which Bush did this for political advantage? Breaking into the offices of the opposing party is' date=' on its face, a political act. There is no evidence in the public discussion WHATSOEVER that Bush did this for political gain. Why are you willing to presume that is the case?[/quote']

 

What part of "I'm not saying he has [done anything in political self-interest]" didn't you understand?

 

 

What I'm concerned about is relying on the good graces of those in power not to become corrupted by the power that they have. The administration had decided that someone is an enemy combatant, and all of the sudden that person has no rights and can be held indefinitely. There's no legal recourse to stop them under that system — no way to stop abuse if it occurs, unless there happened to be a large conspiracy in place (and I am not suggesting there is). That's why oversight is necessary.

 

A problem with the current situation is that the administration apprently asked for FISA warrants and were rejected on an unprecedented scale (from what I've read, it was almost unheard-of to be turned down for a warrant before this). Bush decided to go ahead and do it anyway, and not bother the courts.

 

———

 

Lest anyone think that massive spying by the NSA is something new, you should know about Project Shamrock, which involved snooping on all telegraph traffic starting in 1945, and only shut down (~30 years later) when they started to be investigated by Congress. It was these actions that led to FISA, and the restrictions on what the NSA can do.

 

"Bush's eavesdropping program was explicitly anticipated in 1978, and made illegal by FISA. There might not have been fax machines, or e-mail, or the Internet, but the NSA did the exact same thing with telegrams."

[bascule]

And how is an accusation of false imprisonment relevant to the topic under discussion? That being the tapping of phone calls comming into the country from suspected terrorists?

 

So what? The document does not say that they are innocent' date=' it says that they are no longer classified as illegal enemy combatants. The fact that 38 detainees have had their classification changed does not prove that they are being held illegally [i']or [/i]unfairly.

 

Try to keep up...

 

Now that these petitioners are “no longer enemy combatants” (NLECs ), the government has had to articulate a new reason for continuing to hold them. That reason, asserted at the August 1 hearing and again in the government’s post-hearing memorandum, is "the Executive's necessary power to wind up wartime detentions in an orderly fashion." Resp’t Supplemental Mem. at 12. There is no basis for this claimed authority except the Executive's assertion of it.

[entwined]

Try to keep up...

 

Bascule - again - how is this germane to the topic under discussion? That topic, as I understand it, is about the tapping of telephone conversations between suspected terrorists and people inside the US.

 

Your attempted diversion to conditions at gitmo and the legalities of incarcerating suspected terrorists there, seems to be a strawman argument, which I am givin to understand is a no no on this forum.

 

I will, however, point out that it has not been legally established that the chief executive does not have the power to order these people detained under the current circumstances, that being a time of war.

 

Now, if you will, let us get back to the merits of tapping telephone conversations.