Bush defends domestic eavesdropping.

[busybody..]

Carter is ALIVE today

and making trouble TODAY

so he is a topic TODAY!

 

[cjh]

MLK was a dangerous subversive

Also, YOU cant compare era's

You know what I mean, Doggy!

heh.

damned dangerous. spouted radical ideas like, well, like equal means equal.

what about that federal judge in the fisa court who just resigned in protest of the domestic spying program?

 

[cjh]

what about that federal judge in the fisa court who just resigned in protest of the domestic spying program?

Revelation of the program last week by the New York Times also spurred considerable debate among federal judges, including some who serve on the secret FISA court. For more than a quarter-century, that court had been seen as the only body that could legally authorize secret surveillance of espionage and terrorism suspects, and only when the Justice Department could show probable cause that its targets were foreign governments or their agents.

Robertson indicated privately to colleagues in recent conversations that he was concerned that information gained from warrantless NSA surveillance could have then been used to obtain FISA warrants. FISA court Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who had been briefed on the spying program by the administration, raised the same concern in 2004 and insisted that the Justice Department certify in writing that it was not occurring.

"They just don't know if the product of wiretaps were used for FISA warrants -- to kind of cleanse the information," said one source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the FISA warrants. "What I've heard some of the judges say is they feel they've participated in a Potemkin court."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...0/AR2005122000685.html?nav=rss_print/asection

 

[busybody..]

what about the Nuns

 

[RawHumor]

what about that federal judge in the fisa court who just resigned in protest of the domestic spying program?

I suspect he'll be seeking his own political office in the upcoming year.

 

[cjh]

what about the Nuns

i know some turrible nun jokes. but i don't repeat them. hard as it may be to believe, i dislike profaning others' beliefs.

so why is the fbi spying on those Catholic Worker programs?

 

[Pookie]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20fbi.html

New Documents Show FBI Targeting Environmental and Animal Rights Groups Activities as ‘Domestic Terrorism’ (12/20/2005)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Additional Documents Indicate FBI Scrutiny of Anti-war Gathering
RELATED DOCUMENTS
Learn more about government spying >>

FOIA: Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF)

ACLU Launches Nationwide Effort to Expose Illegal FBI Spying on Political and Religious Groups (12/2/2004)

NEW YORK -- According to new documents released today by the American Civil Liberties Union, the FBI is using counterterrorism resources to monitor and infiltrate domestic political organizations that criticize business interests and government policies, despite a lack of evidence that the groups are engaging in or supporting violent action.

The ACLU said that the documents released today on Greenpeace, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) show the FBI expanding the definition of “domestic terrorism” to include citizens and groups that participate in lawful protests or civil disobedience.

“The FBI should use its resources to investigate credible threats to national security instead of spending time tracking Americans who criticize government policy, or monitoring groups that have not broken the law,” said Ann Beeson, Associate Legal Director of the ACLU. “Labeling law abiding groups and their members ‘domestic terrorists’ is not only irresponsible, it has a chilling effect on the vibrant tradition of political dissent in this country.”

The documents were obtained by the ACLU after the organization filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to discover whether the FBI’s partnerships with local law enforcement in Joint Terrorism Task Forces has resulted in increased surveillance of political and religious activity.

Among the documents released today were more than 100 pages of FBI files on PETA. Multiple documents indicate ongoing surveillance of PETA-related meetings and activities, including a “Vegan Community Project” event at the University of Indiana during which the group distributed vegetarian starter kits to students and faculty, an animal rights conference in Washington, DC that was open to the public, and a planned protest of Cindy Crawford’s decision to become a llama fur spokesperson.

The ACLU said that FBI surveillance of mainstream organizations involved in public education campaigns has allowed the bureau to maintain files with names and other information on law-abiding Americans who support or participate in events organized by the groups. One file released by the FBI in response to a request for ADC’s records included a contact list for students and peace activists who participated in a 2002 conference at Stanford University, which focused on ending U.S. sanctions against Iraq.

“The FBI should be investigating real terrorists, not monitoring controversial ideas,” said Ben Wizner, an ACLU staff attorney. “Americans shouldn’t have to fear that by protesting the treatment of animals or participating in non-violent civil disobedience, they will be branded as 'eco-terrorists' in FBI records.”

The ACLU said that some of the documents suggest infiltration by undercover “sources” at animal rights meetings and conferences. One highly redacted “Domestic Terrorism Operations Unit” document suggests that the FBI is using PETA’s interns for surveillance, while others describe attempts to locate and interview “several former disgruntled PETA employees.” Similarly, one cryptic e-mail kept in a Greenpeace file describes a source who “offers a unique opportunity to gain intelligence on activists who show a clear predisposition to violate the law.”

At times, the documents show aggressive attempts by the FBI to link PETA, Greenpeace and other mainstream organizations to activists associated with the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) or Earth Liberation Front (ELF), said the ACLU. PETA, in particular, is repeatedly and falsely singled out as a “front” for militant organizations although in at least one document released today the FBI appears to acknowledge that it has no evidence to back up such assertions.

“These documents show the erosion of freedom of association and speech that Americans have taken for granted and which set us apart from oppressive countries,” said Jeff Kerr, General Counsel for PETA. “McCarthyist tactics used against PETA and other groups that speak out against cruelty to animals and exploitive corporate and government practices are un-American, unconstitutional and against the interests of a healthy democracy.”

The documents released by the ACLU also include FBI observances on supposed Communist leanings of the Catholic Workers Group (CWG). In an e-mail to the counterterrorism unit, an unidentified official wrote, “the Catholic Workers advocated peace with a Christian and semi-communistic ideology.” In another document, an agent writes, “Based on the author’s interpretation of comments made by various CWG protestors, CWG also advocates a communist distribution of resources.”

ACLU affiliates in 20 states have filed similar requests on behalf of more than 150 groups and individuals. Earlier this month, the ACLU of Colorado revealed that the FBI had tracked the names, license plate numbers and vehicle registration information of participants at a peaceful protest of the North American Wholesale Lumber Association in Colorado Springs in June 2002.

To view the FBI documents released by the ACLU, go to: www.aclu.org/spyfiles .

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/23124prs20051220.html

 

[busybody..]

i know some turrible nun jokes. but i don't repeat them. hard as it may be to believe, i dislike profaning others' beliefs.

so why is the fbi spying on those Catholic Worker programs?

I have to have the entire picture and context

do you have it?

There HAS to be more to it then that

 

[Pookie]

One of the documents as posted by the ACLU ...

http://www.aclu.org/spyfiles/1854txt.gif

 

[busybody..]

well, there you have it

They are Commies

The FBI only looked at em

I woulda killed em

Commie=Enemy

Whats da problem

 

[Hester]

heh.

damned dangerous. spouted radical ideas like, well, like equal means equal.

what about that federal judge in the fisa court who just resigned in protest of the domestic spying program?

dangerous is right

don't forget that nonviolent protest stuff. wtf is up with that radical notion?

 

[Hester]

One of the documents as posted by the ACLU ...

http://www.aclu.org/spyfiles/1854txt.gif

so now any group that is at all dissident is labeled as terrorist and investigated under different standards? wow, how american

 

[Slowlane]

I haven't read the thread because it's obviously another "Bush lied" type of thing. These are basically the same rules that Carter used, and were upheld in court. The same rules that Clinton used and, were upheld in court. Not to mention similar things done by Lincoln and Roosevelt, among others.

My disappointment would have been to find out Bush WASN'T doing it.

I'm not a lawyer but as I understand it - from reading the law, not listening to the news.
Warrants are required after a certain length of time (12 days comes to mind) IF the tap is to be continued. If the tap is discontinued and the information isn't going to be used no warrant is required. FISA has multiple complex emergency clauses that address electronic surveillance.

I'm not sure if it's been done, but, I think they should be able to do the same thing on total domestic calls if - and only if - they are following up on a terrorist connected call. Just my opinion.

The FBI has routinely spied on domestic persons and organizations that might be considered to be subversive. Even if they aren’t considered subversive NOW they were THEN. Hells Angels, Black Panthers, Martin Luther King, The Bloods and other large gangs, Jane Fonda, and several terrorist style environmentalist groups come to mind.

Most of the people who are whining about this would be whining out the other side of their mouths if there had been another attack. Think about it. If there had been another attack and you found out later that the president thought he could do this and hadn’t, then what would your opinion be today?

 

[busybody..]

so the bottom line is really this


The press, the 9/11 commission, the Senate DemoCreeps chide Bush for NOT DOING ENOUGH, for not FINDING OBL,

Yet when he does something

THEY SCREAM BLOODY MURDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Think back to 9/12/01, did any believe there would NOT be another attack?

NO!

THANK YOU MR. PRESIDENT!

 

[Pookie]

I haven't read the thread because it's obviously another "Bush lied" type of thing. ... The same rules that Clinton used and, were upheld in court. ...

Except that Clinton did get warrants every time through the FISA court, as required by the law. But you rationalize it how you want with your "basically the same rules", no matter how silly it makes you look.

 

[busybody..]

December 20, 2005, 5:35 p.m.
Warrantless Searches of Americans? That’s Shocking!
Except when it happens every day.



When not cavalierly talking "impeachment," here's the Left's talking point of the day:

What makes this president think he can invade the privacy of Americans without a warrant?




I don't know. Could it be the powers, long recognized by federal law, to:

Detain American citizens for investigative purposes without a warrant;

Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the person of an American citizen who has been detained, with or without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained;

Conduct a warrantless search of, and seize, items belonging to American citizens that are displayed in plain view and that are obviously criminal or dangerous in nature;

Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's home and belongings if another person, who has apparent authority over the premises, consents;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's car anytime there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or any evidence of a crime;

Conduct a warrantless search of any closed container inside the car of an American citizen if there is probable cause to search the car — regardless of whether there is probable cause to search the container itself;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property apparently abandoned by an American citizen;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property of an American citizen that has lawfully been seized in order to create an inventory and protect police from potential hazards or civil claims;

Conduct a warrantless search — including a strip search — at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search at the border of the baggage and other property of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;

Conduct a warrantless search of random Americans at police checkpoints established for public-safety purposes (such as to detect and discourage drunk driving);

Conduct warrantless monitoring of common areas frequented by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens and their vessels on the high seas;

Conduct warrantless monitoring of any telephone call or conversation of an American citizen as long as one participant in the conversation has consented to the monitoring;

Conduct warrantless searches of junkyards maintained by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of docks maintained by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of bars or nightclubs owned by American citizens to police underage drinking;

Conduct warrantless searches of auto-repair shops operated by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of the books of American gem dealers in order to discourage traffic in stolen goods;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens working in government, emergency services, the transportation industry, and nuclear plants;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school officials;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school students;

Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens who are on bail, probation or parole.

These could conceivably be some of the things that the president is thinking about, though certainly not all. I neglected, after all, to mention the long-established "inherent authority" of the president to "conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information," recognized by federal appeals courts and assumed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review in 2002.

Where does this president get such crazy ideas? Obviously, he should be impeached.

— Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies

 

[busybody..]

Except that Clinton did get warrants every time through the FISA court, as required by the law. But you rationalize it how you want with your "basically the same rules", no matter how silly it makes you look.

who was ClitMan investigating?

Care to answer?

 

[Pookie]

Edit double post

 

[busybody..]

who was ClitMan investigating?

Care to answer?

Hey Pookie

care to answer?

 

[busybody..]

Jay Rockefeller has publicized a letter that he wrote to Vice President Cheney voicing his concerns about the NSA surveillance program. Rockefeller said that he didn't feel that he had the expertise to evaluate it, not being a lawyer. Well, his colleague on the Intelligence Committee, Senator Pat Roberts, a Republican, challenges Rockefeller's version of events.
"In his letter ... Senator Rockefeller asserts that he had lingering concerns about the program designed to protect the American people from another attack, but was prohibited from doing anything about it," Mr. Roberts said in a statement yesterday. "A United States Senator has significant tools with which to wield power and influence over the executive branch. Feigning helplessness is not one of those tools."
In his 2003 letter to Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rockefeller said the program raised "profound oversight issues" and he regretted that high security of the program prevented him from seeking advice on the matter. Mr. Rockefeller also told Mr. Cheney that he had made a handwritten copy of the letter, which he distributed to the press Monday.
If Mr. Rockefeller had these concerns, Mr. Roberts said, he could have raised them with him or other members of Congress who had been briefed on the program.
"I have no recollection of Senator Rockefeller objecting to the program at the many briefings he and I attended together," Mr. Roberts said. "In fact, it is my recollection that on many occasions Senator Rockefeller expressed to the vice president his vocal support for the program," most recently, "two weeks ago."

 

[Pookie]

I haven't read the thread because it's obviously another "Bush lied" type of thing. These are basically the same rules that Carter used, and were upheld in court. ...

As for Carter, his order required that the prohibition of the government from spying on citizens without a warrant be followed.

Maybe you should do some reading, even if it isn't this thread. Just sayin'

 

[Pookie]

... Most of the people who are whining about this would be whining out the other side of their mouths if there had been another attack. Think about it. If there had been another attack and you found out later that the president thought he could do this and hadn’t, then what would your opinion be today?

I think I'm not the one that should be called a freedom hater and communist. You Bush Republicans got me beat by a mile.

 

[busybody..]

POOKIE

Who was carter and ClitMan investigating?

I expect you NOT to answer

How is the weather?

 

[busybody..]

POOKIE

Who was carter and ClitMan investigating?

I expect you NOT to answer

How is the weather?

 

[Slowlane]

Except that Clinton did get warrants every time through the FISA court, as required by the law. But you rationalize it how you want with your "basically the same rules", no matter how silly it makes you look.

Clinton did NOT always get warrants, that’s why it went to court.