Lastest on Un-Warranted Spy Case

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:40 am

My initial understanding was apparently wrong. I can't justify in my own mind why they couldn't have gotten a warrant if they were going to spy directly on American citizens.

Full article here.

An analytical report by the Congressional Research Service is likely to provide new ammunition to critics who contend that Bush acted outside the law in ordering the National Security Agency to monitor the international e-mail and telephone calls of Americans suspected of belonging to al-Qaeda or supporting the terrorist network.

The 44-page analysis cautioned that a conclusion about the legality of the program "is impossible to determine without an understanding of the specific facts involved and the nature of the president's authorization, which are for the most part classified."

However, it said the "legal justification" for the program, as set out in a Dec. 22 Justice Department memo to lawmakers, did not seem "as well grounded as the tenor of that letter suggests."

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:47 pm

Professor Robert F. Turner is Associate Director for the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia.

http://www.virginia.edu/facultyexperts/ ... php?id=556

On December 28,2005, Professor Turner published an article "FISA vs. the Constitution" which argues the President's authority to conduct such activity, which has been invoked by many prior administrations. One must ponder... where was the outrage in the past, when other administrations engaged in the same activities?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial ... =110007734

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 7:18 am

ChiptBeef wrote: Professor Robert F. Turner is Associate Director for the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia.

http://www.virginia.edu/facultyexperts/ ... php?id=556

On December 28,2005, Professor Turner published an article "FISA vs. the Constitution" which argues the President's authority to conduct such activity, which has been invoked by many prior administrations. One must ponder... where was the outrage in the past, when other administrations engaged in the same activities?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial ... =110007734
Your constant whine is tiresome. The right or wrong of a situation seems to be irrelevant to you. You seem far more concerned that "others got away with it, so what's the big deal?"

Are you a legalist, meaning that if it is not strictly illegal, it must be 'right'?

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 7:25 am

Accountable wrote: Your constant whine is tiresome. The right or wrong of a situation seems to be irrelevant to you.

"Opinions vary." I'm just posting facts, opinions and sources to back it up. Why does that threaten you so? If you are watching TV and don't like the program, you turn the channel. If you don't like what I post, ignore it and go to another thread. It's not rocket science.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 7:28 am

So I'm right.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:56 pm

Sorry. Having an opinion doesn't automatically make that opinion "right." Carry on.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:01 pm

The right or wrong of a situation seems to be irrelevant to you. You seem far more concerned that "others got away with it, so what's the big deal?"

Are you a legalist, meaning that if it is not strictly illegal, it must be 'right'?

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:27 pm

Nice repetition. I know you are, but what am I. I know you are, but what am I. I know you are, but what am I.......:rolleyes:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:05 pm

ChiptBeef wrote: Nice repetition. I know you are, but what am I. I know you are, but what am I. I know you are, but what am I.......:rolleyes:Sorry. Thought you'd missed it since you didn't answer.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 12:30 am

Accountable wrote: Sorry. Thought you'd missed it since you didn't answer.
Answered in Post #4 of this thread. It may not have been the answer some itchin' ears wanted to hear, but......:rolleyes:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:23 am

The Latest:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Two Civil Liberties Groups File Lawsuits Against Domestic Wiretapping

Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service.

Jonathan S. Landay January 17, 2006

WASHINGTON - Two civil liberties groups filed separate lawsuits Tuesday to halt the Bush administration's domestic spying program, charging that the interception of Americans' communications without court warrants is illegal and unconstitutional.

The federal court lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union in Detroit and the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York are the latest and most prominent legal challenges to the spying program, which is run by the super-secret National Security Agency.

The groups argued that President Bush exceeded his power, violated the rights of American citizens and broke eavesdropping laws when he authorized the program after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to track members and supporters of al-Qaida in the United States.

The program "seriously compromised the free speech and privacy rights of the plaintiffs and others," argued the ACLU lawsuit.

Continues...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's my take on the free speech bit:

Nobody stopped, compromised, limited, or did anything else to free speech. No one is halting the emails or telephone calls.

The complaint seems to be that simply because people think that the gov't might be listening, that they will feel limited in what they should say. CRAP!! TRIPE!! Other socially acceptable words to display what I think of that!!

If I don't like the genre of music playing on a jukebox, but I'm afraid that if I try to play something else the big guy that's been dropping quarters in might beat me up, do I have a legal case of assault against him? Heckle NO!! People feel intimidated. So what? Get a flippin' backbone. Say what you will. If you're arrested for communicating with cousin Amir about auntie Shazbat's bunions, then call the ACLU and sue for millions.

We are at war. The enemy is on our land. If monitoring the enemy catches a conversation with a citizen, so be it. If it's innocent - end of story. If not, the citizen is a trator and as such is fair game.

Now, spying directly on citizens without a warrant is another issue.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 12:24 pm

I don't get this. Isn't it enough to tell the senior lawmakers and expect them to pass it on? Does each committee member need to be briefed individually?

Story:

The report by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) said that the Bush administration's decision to limit briefings on the electronic surveillance to eight senior lawmakers "would appear to be inconsistent with the law, which requires that 'congressional intelligence committees be kept fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities.'"

big red · Post by **big red** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:55 pm

big red brother is watching you

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:55 pm

Accountable wrote: I don't get this. Isn't it enough to tell the senior lawmakers and expect them to pass it on? Does each committee member need to be briefed individually?
President Bush can do no right, Democrats can do no wrong. Bring on a strong third party.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:54 am

ChiptBeef wrote: President Bush can do no right, Democrats can do no wrong. Bring on a strong third party.
Wha'? [smilie=8,13,33] Now there's something I never expected from you. Do you have a particular party in mind?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:29 pm

Looks like this one is going to be a split decision.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

US Justice Department Defends Warrantless Wiretapping

AFX News Limited January 20, 2006

WASHINGTON (AFX) - The US Justice Department has turned over a 42-page document to Congress endorsing the legal arguments behind President George W. Bush's contested, warrantless domestic eavesdropping program.

Echoing Bush's reasoning, it argues that the president has legal authority to order surveillance without court order under powers granted him in time of war, such as the ongoing conflict against the Al-Qaeda terror network and its allies.

Continues...

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:38 pm

Accountable wrote: Wha'? [smilie=8,13,33] Now there's something I never expected from you. Do you have a particular party in mind?
I could think of some possible names. The Patriot Party. The Freedom Party. The Change Party. The New Party. The Future Party. The American Party.

P.S. The Party Party.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:42 pm

ChiptBeef wrote: I could think of some possible names. The Patriot Party. The Freedom Party. The Change Party. The New Party. The Future Party. The American Party.

P.S. The Party Party.
What's wrong with the Green Party, Libertarian Party, ... isn't the American Party already established?

Anything but the Independent Party. We've ruined the term & made it wishy-washy. :p

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:56 pm

I'm really torn on this issue. I completely understand the need for intelligence. (My teacher's aide is an ex-NSA operative) Without reams of it, we don't stand a chance and are pretty much sitting ducks.

But I really, really have a problem with domestic spying. I mean, what if I am teaching U.S. History, and I get to the part where I have to teach the kids about the Holocaust and the rise of the Third Reich. I go down to the library, check out a couple of books like "Waffen SS" and "Mein Kampf" and the next thing I know...

Black cars are parking outside my house all night, I have an extra click on the line while I'm on the phone and guys with expensive suits are looking at me from behind newspapers! Worse yet, I'm sitting in a small room, with a light shining in my eyes, trying to explain that "I'm just a history teacher!"

I've seen totalitarianism in other countries, so in the words of the great Nathan Hale:

Will freedom be purchased at the price of chains? Forbid it Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:00 pm

Yeh, I'm completely against wholesale Big Brother stuff like that; but if they're monitoring a terrorist cell, it would be dumb not to check out any direct contacts.

But there is no reason at all I can conceive of that justifies monitoring a citizen without proper paperwork to ensure checks & balances were observed.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:02 pm

Accountable wrote: But there is no reason at all I can conceive of that justifies monitoring a citizen without proper paperwork to ensure checks & balances were observed.

See? Is it really that hard to have a judge somewhere in this process that can say, "show me that you have a reasonable suspicion of this person.":-3

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:04 pm

Jives wrote: See? Is it really that hard to have a judge somewhere in this process that can say, "show me that you have a reasonable suspicion of this person.":-3
I would figure the conversation could take as little as 45 seconds, in the best of circumstances.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 10:09 pm

Accountable wrote: What's wrong with the Green Party, Libertarian Party, ... isn't the American Party already established? Anything but the Independent Party.
I'm not big on being squeezed into a cublicle, but am open to looking into all available options. I thought the "party names" I proposed were all fictious. Hope I didn't plagiarize unknowingly.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:26 am

If I could do away with political parties, I would. I don't see a way to convince a free society not to assemble for common goals, though.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:11 pm

Political parties are a necessary evil in a republic. I just think the ones we have are worn out. We need some new blood, of some sort.

StupidCowboyTricks · Post by **StupidCowboyTricks** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:32 pm

The point is Bush is going to try to do what he wants and he thinks he does not have to answer to anyone.

He could have got "court orders" even while the wire tapping was going on....he didn't because he feels he is above it and when all this power gets shifted to one side and there are no more "checks and balances" it won't be any good for any body when I tell you "I told you so" So keep on spinning CB.....too much spin and too much Chipt Beef&gravy will make you very sick

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 9:29 pm

You're the spinmaster, StupidC.T.

How's that "ignore list" working out for you?

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 9:34 pm

[quote=ChiptBeef]

How's that "ignore list" working out for you?[/quote aren't you tired of flogging that line? everyone else is.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:51 am

StupidCowboyTricks wrote: The point is Bush is going to try to do what he wants and he thinks he does not have to answer to anyone.

He could have got "court orders" even while the wire tapping was going on....he didn't because he feels he is above it and when all this power gets shifted to one side and there are no more "checks and balances" it won't be any good for any body when I tell you "I told you so" So keep on spinning CB.....too much spin and too much Chipt Beef&gravy will make you very sick

Um, as much as I enjoy you two smacking each other on the back of the head, in this particular thread Chip stopped spinning

StupidCowboyTricks · Post by **StupidCowboyTricks** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:58 am

ChiptBeef wrote: You're the spinmaster, StupidC.T.

How's that "ignore list" working out for you?

I never ignored you.....I stuck up for you

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:00 am

StupidCowboyTricks wrote: I never ignored you.....I stuck up for you

It's true, Chip. She did. Even in PMs.

StupidCowboyTricks · Post by **StupidCowboyTricks** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:07 am

Accountable wrote: Um, as much as I enjoy you two smacking each other on the back of the head, in this particular thread Chip stopped spinning

I agree we were more or less talking the same language at the end......but before this thread I eyed older threads popping up and he was making me dizzy.http://images.picsearch.com/is?8151286120018

I was just thinking about too much of a good thing can make you sick.....it was an analogy, in regards to checks and balances.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:23 am

Accountable wrote: Um, as much as I enjoy you two smacking each other on the back of the head, in this particular thread Chip stopped spinning
Thanks for that factual observation. I will take your word that SCT was in a different mode in private. Based on that, I propose a truce. I will let the prior posts slide, if SCT is willing to do the same. It's Sunday. A good day for a clean slate, don't you think?

:-4

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:26 am

Accountable wrote: Looks like this one is going to be a split decision.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

US Justice Department Defends Warrantless Wiretapping

AFX News Limited January 20, 2006

WASHINGTON (AFX) - The US Justice Department has turned over a 42-page document to Congress endorsing the legal arguments behind President George W. Bush's contested, warrantless domestic eavesdropping program.

Echoing Bush's reasoning, it argues that the president has legal authority to order surveillance without court order under powers granted him in time of war, such as the ongoing conflict against the Al-Qaeda terror network and its allies.

Continues...

Clinton's Associate Attorney General, John Schmidt - December 21, 2005

"President Bush's post-Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and emails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents... Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/T ... y_gen.html

TruthSeekerToo · Post by **TruthSeekerToo** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 7:47 am

Now that a Clinton Associate Attorney General and the current Attorney General has upheld the president's actions as justified under law, what's the next step? The Supreme Court? One thing that bothered me is that Senator Arlen Specter allowed Attorney General Gonzales to testify before Congress on 2/6/06 without being sworn in, under oath. I'm not a lwayer, but if he's not under oath, can't he slip out from under what he said to Congress in the future?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 7:51 am

I think he probably should have been sworn in. I also think these hearings shouldn't be held publicly. Why not just Fedex our battle strategy to bin Laden?

The only reason to hold this hearing publicly is political. These politicians are more concerned with political power than military lives. Write your representatives!!

TruthSeekerToo · Post by **TruthSeekerToo** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 7:55 am

I agree with you 100%. If all of this is of such concern, why can't they get in a secure room at the NSA with a judge that can review the documents to see if a violation of law has ocurred. I think what we are seeing is just a political circus.

TruthSeekerToo · Post by **TruthSeekerToo** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:10 am

Regarding domestic surveillance and privacy rights, remember "Filegate?"

http://cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/14/hillary/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/1197.shtml

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/1999/258.shtml

StupidCowboyTricks · Post by **StupidCowboyTricks** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:30 am

ChiptBeef wrote: Professor Robert F. Turner is Associate Director for the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia.

http://www.virginia.edu/facultyexperts/ ... php?id=556

On December 28,2005, Professor Turner published an article "FISA vs. the Constitution" which argues the President's authority to conduct such activity, which has been invoked by many prior administrations. One must ponder... where was the outrage in the past, when other administrations engaged in the same activities?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial ... =110007734
.................................:-3 ..........................................

StupidCowboyTricks · Post by **StupidCowboyTricks** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:30 am

White House Ordered to Release Spy Papers

By KATHERINE SHRADER

http://apnews.myway.com//article/200602 ... P3J00.html

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:56 am

StupidCowboyTricks wrote: .................................:-3 ..........................................
I have no idea what your point of Post 40 is, but thanks for the coverage. I can only assume you were elluding to "Filegate" brought up in Post 39.

The Clinton's were entangled in "Filegate" just months after they took office in 1993. The final report wasn't presented until March 2000. There was no outrage by liberals resulting in their call for the impeachment of Clinton and his co-president during that 7 year period, that I can recall. I never posted that there was no news coverage of the situation. I merely contend Democratic hypocrisy. "Business as usual." "Same thing, different day."

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITIC ... es.report/

StupidCowboyTricks · Post by **StupidCowboyTricks** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:20 am

ChiptBeef wrote: I have no idea what your point of Post 40 is, but thanks for the coverage. I can only assume you were elluding to "Filegate" brought up in Post 39.

The Clinton's were entangled in "Filegate" just months after they took office in 1993. The final report wasn't presented until March 2000. There was no outrage by liberals resulting in their call for the impeachment of Clinton and his co-president during that 7 year period, that I can recall. I never posted that there was no news coverage of the situation. I merely contend Democratic hypocrisy. "Business as usual." "Same thing, different day."

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITIC ... es.report/

No I was responding to your article about George Washington and his time line for being President.....

I never got back to it.............

The latter post was from this mornings news.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:56 pm

StupidCowboyTricks wrote: No I was responding to your article about George Washington and his time line for being Presiden
Could you provide a thread and post number? I don't recall making such a post in this thread. Thanks.