Bush defends domestic eavesdropping.

[Gringao]

HEY YOU^^^^

Im still lookin fer that apology

Don't hold your breath. On second thought, do.

 

[busybody..]

Its NOT the first time you stole from me!

GRRRrrrrr!

 

[busybody..]

Don't hold your breath. On second thought, do.

it belittles you

especially since my link was just several posts before yours

whatever

 

[busybody..]

WANT TO SEE DEMOCRAT HEADS EXPLODE?:
A president can pull the trigger (John Yoo, December 20, 2005, LA Times)


Neither presidents nor Congress have ever acted under the belief that the Constitution requires a declaration of war before the U.S. can engage in military hostilities abroad. Although this nation has used force abroad more than 100 times, it has declared war only five times: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American and Spanish-American Wars, and World Wars I and II. Without declarations of war or any other congressional authorization, presidents have sent troops to fight Chinese Communists in Korea, to remove Manuel Noriega from power in Panama and to prevent human rights disasters in the Balkans. Other conflicts, such as the Persian Gulf War, received "authorization" from Congress but not declarations of war.

Critics of these wars want to upend this long practice by appeals to an "original understanding" of the Constitution. The Constitution, however, does not set out a clear process for starting war. Congress has the power to "declare war," but this clause allows Congress to establish the nation's legal status under international law. The framers wouldn't have equated "declaring" war with beginning a military conflict — indeed, in the 100 years before the Constitution, the British only once "declared" war at the start of a conflict.

Further, the Constitution specifies no step-by-step process to govern war-making, yet it is specific every other time it imposes shared power on the executive and legislative branches.

Why no strict war-making process? Because the framers understood that war would require the speed, decisiveness and secrecy that only the presidency could bring. "Energy in the executive," Alexander Hamilton argued in the Federalist Papers, "is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks."

And, he continued, "the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand."

Instead of specifying a legalistic process to begin war, the framers wisely created a fluid political process in which legislators would use their funding power to control war.

 

[JazzManJim]

I just don't get the level of outrage here.

On one hand, we have a President, in the middle of waging a war, who authorizes the NSA to...well...do its job. Abdul Dirtbag Terrorist gets or makes a phone call and we peep on the conversation to see if we can get some good info that'll let us stop some more Americans from dying. The list is small. The program is finite. The review process involves lawmakers, judges, and lawyers from several places in government. It dances on the fine edge of the law, but does take care to have a specific aim.

On the other hand we have ECHELON, a program that, I'll bet, most folks had completely forgotten about until it came up again this week. It monitored every single electronic communication in the country, waiting for a keyword to appear so it could report that communication to the authorities. Whether or not your communication merited further action was not based on any suspicion of you beforehand but because of what one of those intercepted e-mails or telephone calls said. A Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton said that searches like the one we're talking about now (warrantless searches) was important not only for prevention, but for "policy-making".

I don't recall the big Congressional huff over the giant information Hoover that was (or is?) ECHELON so I don't get why this program, which clearly falls well short of anything ECHELON did, is drawing such apoplectic reactions. The President has made his position pretty clear and it's obvious that his position is certainly more restricted than the prevention and "policy-making" aims of the last administration.

So why, exactly, is the program we're talking about today so much worse, so much more a danger to our civil liberties, than what we've already seen and apparently lived quite freely with for the past few years?

 

[huskie]

I just don't get the level of outrage here.

On one hand, we have a President, in the middle of waging a war, who authorizes the NSA to...well...do its job. Abdul Dirtbag Terrorist gets or makes a phone call and we peep on the conversation to see if we can get some good info that'll let us stop some more Americans from dying. The list is small. The program is finite. The review process involves lawmakers, judges, and lawyers from several places in government. It dances on the fine edge of the law, but does take care to have a specific aim.

On the other hand we have ECHELON, a program that, I'll bet, most folks had completely forgotten about until it came up again this week. It monitored every single electronic communication in the country, waiting for a keyword to appear so it could report that communication to the authorities. Whether or not your communication merited further action was not based on any suspicion of you beforehand but because of what one of those intercepted e-mails or telephone calls said. A Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton said that searches like the one we're talking about now (warrantless searches) was important not only for prevention, but for "policy-making".

I don't recall the big Congressional huff over the giant information Hoover that was (or is?) ECHELON so I don't get why this program, which clearly falls well short of anything ECHELON did, is drawing such apoplectic reactions. The President has made his position pretty clear and it's obvious that his position is certainly more restricted than the prevention and "policy-making" aims of the last administration.

So why, exactly, is the program we're talking about today so much worse, so much more a danger to our civil liberties, than what we've already seen and apparently lived quite freely with for the past few years?

it doesn't matter...

Bush did it so it's wrong.... he could cure cancer tomorrow and they'd still find fault....

 

[Ishmael]

I just don't get the level of outrage here.

On one hand, we have a President, in the middle of waging a war, who authorizes the NSA to...well...do its job. Abdul Dirtbag Terrorist gets or makes a phone call and we peep on the conversation to see if we can get some good info that'll let us stop some more Americans from dying. The list is small. The program is finite. The review process involves lawmakers, judges, and lawyers from several places in government. It dances on the fine edge of the law, but does take care to have a specific aim.

On the other hand we have ECHELON, a program that, I'll bet, most folks had completely forgotten about until it came up again this week. It monitored every single electronic communication in the country, waiting for a keyword to appear so it could report that communication to the authorities. Whether or not your communication merited further action was not based on any suspicion of you beforehand but because of what one of those intercepted e-mails or telephone calls said. A Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton said that searches like the one we're talking about now (warrantless searches) was important not only for prevention, but for "policy-making".

I don't recall the big Congressional huff over the giant information Hoover that was (or is?) ECHELON so I don't get why this program, which clearly falls well short of anything ECHELON did, is drawing such apoplectic reactions. The President has made his position pretty clear and it's obvious that his position is certainly more restricted than the prevention and "policy-making" aims of the last administration.

So why, exactly, is the program we're talking about today so much worse, so much more a danger to our civil liberties, than what we've already seen and apparently lived quite freely with for the past few years?

In a word, the difference is 'Bush'. No other reason is needed.

Ishmael

 

[JazzManJim]

In a word, the difference is 'Bush'. No other reason is needed.

There has to be more than that. I can't simply accept that people would willingly toss national security out the window - put themselves and their families at greater risk - simply because they don't like the President. There has to be anothe reason - something rational.

 

[Ishmael]

There has to be more than that. I can't simply accept that people would willingly toss national security out the window - put themselves and their families at greater risk - simply because they don't like the President. There has to be anothe reason - something rational.

I can. Why is that Jim? Why does there have to be a rational reason? Read the "Communist Manifesto" and then "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich."

Post the 10 points in the Manifesto and then tell me who's pushing for them. Unfortunately it seems the Republicans have gotten on board there as well.

The ways to the halls of power are to create a crisis, real or imaginary. Mobilize the faithful, create massive civil disturbances over nothing, take power. No one wanted Hitler in power. He had no real program. He was a shrewd operator though and created a situation where he was the only alternative. Truly amazing manipulation of events.

It does make sense. But you have to see a truly sinister hand behind it.

Ishmael

 

[zipman]

There has to be more than that. I can't simply accept that people would willingly toss national security out the window - put themselves and their families at greater risk - simply because they don't like the President. There has to be anothe reason - something rational.

Nobody is "throwing National Security out the window" at all. People want more oversight of the government, who they are monitoring and the extent of it. You assume they are monitoring terrorists but the truth is they are monitoring people suspected of being a terrorist.

Bush has lost credibility with the American people. I think requiring government oversight is always a good thing as checks and balances were built into our constitution for a reason, to prevent abuses. You may trust Bush but I and a lot of other Americans don't.

Again I'm not saying they shouldn't monitor people that deserve to be monitored, but I think there should be greater scrutiny of how surveillance is used. It shouldn't just be up to the discretion of the President.

 

[Ishmael]

Nobody is "throwing National Security out the window" at all. People want more oversight of the government, who they are monitoring and the extent of it. You assume they are monitoring terrorists but the truth is they are monitoring people suspected of being a terrorist.

Bush has lost credibility with the American people. I think requiring government oversight is always a good thing as checks and balances were built into our constitution for a reason, to prevent abuses. You may trust Bush but I and a lot of other Americans don't.

Again I'm not saying they shouldn't monitor people that deserve to be monitored, but I think there should be greater scrutiny of how surveillance is used. It shouldn't just be up to the discretion of the President.

Bull shit Zip. They are monitoring people that are communicating with people who are known to have terrorist connections and people in foriegn lands at that.

Don't try that disengenious spin shit.

Ishmael

 

[The Mutt]

Ah, I just love it. Whenever the question of how a president should act, what a president should do, what a president should be comes up, the Dittoheads always point to what Clinton did, what Clinton said, what Clinton was.
Bill Clinton. The Gold Standard. The Paragon of Presidents. Just ask busybody.

 

[zipman]

Bull shit Zip. They are monitoring people that are communicating with people who are known to have terrorist connections and people in foriegn lands at that.

Don't try that disengenious spin shit.

Ishmael

Fuck you. They are the ones who said "suspected terrorists" not me.

For all the disingenuous bullshit spin you post on these boards you have some nerve saying that to anyone else.

MUZAFFARABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday that President Bush has the authority to order international eavesdropping on suspected terrorists in the United States without informing a court.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/20/cheney.wiretaps/

 

[JazzManJim]

Nobody is "throwing National Security out the window" at all. People want more oversight of the government, who they are monitoring and the extent of it. You assume they are monitoring terrorists but the truth is they are monitoring people suspected of being a terrorist.

Bush has lost credibility with the American people. I think requiring government oversight is always a good thing as checks and balances were built into our constitution for a reason, to prevent abuses. You may trust Bush but I and a lot of other Americans don't.

Again I'm not saying they shouldn't monitor people that deserve to be monitored, but I think there should be greater scrutiny of how surveillance is used. It shouldn't just be up to the discretion of the President.

Bollocks, zip. Leaking this information to the media is exactly throwing national security out the window. If wanting more oversight, beyond the oversight that was already there, was the aim, there are plenty of ways to get that without blowing hte program's cover.

Also, you're misrepresenting "checks and balances". It doesn't mean that oversight can infringe on a Presidents war-time powers. In fact, the same founders who wrote in the "checks and balances" also left great latitude for a President to act without checks and balances in a war. You say that monitoring hostile agents should not be up to the discretion of the President. I disagree strongly. I can think of no one better suited in the government to determine how suspected agents of our enemies should be monitored than the Commander-in-Chief. It's kind of built right into his job. Regardless, the administration did consistently take what they were doing to FISA judges and government lawyers and members of Congress. No one seemed to get all out of sorts about it until this week, or at least not as out of sorts as they are now. If someone like Senator Rockefeller felt so strongly about the program, why didn't he demand closed hearings on it? Why didn't he take any sort of stand? Why didn't Harry Reid? It was certainly within their power to press the issue if they had wanted to. So why didn't they?

But, even if I assumed that you were correct, this program pales in comparison to ECHELON. So why the outrage now? Where have the aggrieved civil libertarians been since ECHELON was revealed. I can't find anything that says it was shut down, or even scaled back in its scale of monitoring.

 

[huskie]

It's gonna be very hard for the Gov. to do.... but this mandate and letting it out to the press and all, WILL severely hurt terrorist operations in the US..... it will slow down (at least) there comunications... funding and what not. So I still consider it a good thing. Should have been put in place a few years ago though....

 

[JazzManJim]

Ah, I just love it. Whenever the question of how a president should act, what a president should do, what a president should be comes up, the Dittoheads always point to what Clinton did, what Clinton said, what Clinton was.
Bill Clinton. The Gold Standard. The Paragon of Presidents. Just ask busybody.

My point is not Clinton specifically but the ECHELON program. There's no question, from the reports, that the NSA monitoring program was of much smaller scale and duration and had a far more restricted aim than the other program. Still, the much larger, much more intrusive, much more broadly-used program seemed to have fallen down the memory hole until this week. I'm curious as to why. I'm curious as to why this program is the one that's the threat to civil liberties and not the bigger one that snooped on all of us all the time.

 

[garbage can]

Let the ass-covering begin!

My thoughts exactly.

 

[JazzManJim]

Fuck you. They are the ones who said "suspected terrorists" not me.

For all the disingenuous bullshit spin you post on these boards you have some nerve saying that to anyone else.



http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/20/cheney.wiretaps/

Actually, zip, CNN said "suspected terrorists" not the Vice President. From the article, the only quote they gave where the VP mentioned the word he said we needed the program to "aggressively go after terrorists."

 

[Ishmael]

Fuck you. They are the ones who said "suspected terrorists" not me.

For all the disingenuous bullshit spin you post on these boards you have some nerve saying that to anyone else.



http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/20/cheney.wiretaps/

LMAO. If you were communicating with terrorists, or those to be know to have terrorist connections, do you think you might become a "person of interest?"

You don't have a fucking clue, do you Zip?

Ishmael

 

[zipman]

Bollocks, zip. Leaking this information to the media is exactly throwing national security out the window. If wanting more oversight, beyond the oversight that was already there, was the aim, there are plenty of ways to get that without blowing hte program's cover.

Also, you're misrepresenting "checks and balances". It doesn't mean that oversight can infringe on a Presidents war-time powers. In fact, the same founders who wrote in the "checks and balances" also left great latitude for a President to act without checks and balances in a war. You say that monitoring hostile agents should not be up to the discretion of the President. I disagree strongly. I can think of no one better suited in the government to determine how suspected agents of our enemies should be monitored than the Commander-in-Chief. It's kind of built right into his job. Regardless, the administration did consistently take what they were doing to FISA judges and government lawyers and members of Congress. No one seemed to get all out of sorts about it until this week, or at least not as out of sorts as they are now. If someone like Senator Rockefeller felt so strongly about the program, why didn't he demand closed hearings on it? Why didn't he take any sort of stand? Why didn't Harry Reid? It was certainly within their power to press the issue if they had wanted to. So why didn't they?

But, even if I assumed that you were correct, this program pales in comparison to ECHELON. So why the outrage now? Where have the aggrieved civil libertarians been since ECHELON was revealed. I can't find anything that says it was shut down, or even scaled back in its scale of monitoring.

I don't think the President should have carte blanche to do whatever he wants because we declared war on afghanistan. Is this contact about the war in Afghanistan or about the war on terror which will most likely never end?

Do you have a link to them taking this information to FISA judges? I haven't seen that reported anywhere.

As for Echelon, perhaps it's because people simply do not trust Bush or this administration.

 

[Ishmael]

Actually, zip, CNN said "suspected terrorists" not the Vice President. From the article, the only quote they gave where the VP mentioned the word he said we needed the program to "aggressively go after terrorists."

Hell Jim, I'll even give Zip his 'selective reading comprehension' faux pas.

Changes very little.

Ishmael

 

[garbage can]

There has to be more than that. I can't simply accept that people would willingly toss national security out the window - put themselves and their families at greater risk - simply because they don't like the President. There has to be anothe reason - something rational.

C'mon JazzMan, when was the last time you saw a rational far leftie? They don't exist.

 

[Ishmael]

I don't think the President should have carte blanche to do whatever he wants because we declared war on afghanistan. Is this contact about the war in Afghanistan or about the war on terror which will most likely never end?

Do you have a link to them taking this information to FISA judges? I haven't seen that reported anywhere.

As for Echelon, perhaps it's because people simply do not trust Bush or this administration.

Well, there ya go again Zip.

The president didn't declare war on anyone. Congress did. Get your facts straight. :avery:

Ishmael

 

[busybody..]

which has greater urgency

Carter

ClitMan

Bush?



CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER

CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

 

[JazzManJim]

I don't think the President should have carte blanche to do whatever he wants because we declared war on afghanistan. Is this contact about the war in Afghanistan or about the war on terror which will most likely never end?

Do you have a link to them taking this information to FISA judges? I haven't seen that reported anywhere.

As for Echelon, perhaps it's because people simply do not trust Bush or this administration.

Comments in reverse order.

So it's a Bush thing? See, I wouldn't have thought it would be but I'm glad you confirmed that for me.

I'm fairly sure I read that in the original NYT article, but I can go back and find it if you can't.

That would be the War on Terror that was declared on us about a decade ago. I understand that you don't want a President to have carte blanche but historical precedent is that he does (cf Lincoln suspending habeus corpus and FDR interning Americans of Japanese descent indefinitely). I would think that you would be happy, given the history of US Presidents during wars, that this one has been as restrained as he has.

But I can suggest that if we were to fight the war more energetically it would be over sooner and your fears would then go away.