SAME OLD, SAME OLD: Wiretapping

[FreeChile]

Are we really getting closer to the McCarthy era or are these all media fits like the domestic spying (wiretapping) program issue where the media throws a fit, congress reacts by expressing outrage, no real investigation is done, and finally some congressional committee slaps the president on the wrist and continues to provide all the tools to carry on? In light of these implications, how do you predict the Dubai drama will resolve itself? Also, what does it really say about the power of the media to affect or influence government policy in these or any times?

G.O.P. Senators Say Accord Is Set on Wiretapping
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and SCOTT SHANE
Published: March 8, 2006
A deal with the White House would impose oversight on domestic spying but avoids the full committee inquiry sought by Democrats.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/08/politics/08nsa.html

Patriot Act Revisions Pass House, Sending Measure to President
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: March 8, 2006
The legislation makes permanent most of the original 2001 law's major provisions, which had been set to expire March 16.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/08/politics/08patriot.html

G.O.P. Leaders Vowing to Block Ports Agreement
By CARL HULSE
Published: March 8, 2006
Defying President Bush, the lawmakers said they would take action to scuttle a Dubai firm's deal before a 45-day review is over.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/08/politics/08ports.html

 

[Pauliesonne]

bottom line = " How can you hope to give freedom to another country, when you cannot appreciate it in your own! "

 

[Mephisto]

bottom line = " How can you hope to give freedom to another country, when you cannot appreciate it in your own! "

That's a conundrum that has yet to be explained by the neo-cons (they're noticably absent from debates like this, aren't they?). I guess we done exported all our Democracy to a country that didn't want it.

 

[Luke T.]

As much as I bitch about the media, I still feel it is a good thing they are able to influence government policy. The media is supposed to be a government watchdog.

The day the media is not able to influence government is a very, very bad day.

I'm burnt out on speaking my opinion about the wiretapping. I'll summarize by saying that FISA allows Bush to do everything he claims to want to be able to do. It even allows for ex post facto warrants. And as Constitution-stretching as that is, it still isn't good enough for Bush, and it worries me.

The "Dubai drama" is sheer idiocy. We have a serious port security problem, and this is NOT the solution. This whole freaking drama actually DIVERTS attention from the REAL problem.

Yes, I am shouting. Goddam right.

 

[Manny]

That's a conundrum that has yet to be explained by the neo-cons (they're noticably absent from debates like this, aren't they?). I guess we done exported all our Democracy to a country that didn't want it.

It's not a conundrum at all if one thinks that the executive should be listening in on people talking to declared enemies with whom we're at war.

 

[Random]

It's not a conundrum at all if one thinks that the executive should be listening in on people talking to declared enemies with whom we're at war.

Ok, I’m gonna try to explain it to you. There are two things that liberals believe that you need to know.

1.) The President should spy on terrorist communications in order to keep Americans safe.

2.) When the President spies on terrorist communications, he should do so in compliance with the law.

Nobody disagrees with #1, except maybe terrorists. I have not heard of or read anything from anybody that makes that argument. Liberals are upset because they believe that Bush is breaking the law with his particular spying program, putting him in conflict with #2.

I hope that you have found this enlightening. We now return you to the thread.

 

[Cylinder]

Ok, I’m gonna try to explain it to you. There are two things that liberals believe that you need to know.

1.) The President should spy on terrorist communications in order to keep Americans safe.

2.) When the President spies on terrorist communications, he should do so in compliance with the law.

Nobody disagrees with #1, except maybe terrorists. I have not heard of or read anything from anybody that makes that argument. Liberals are upset because they believe that Bush is breaking the law with his particular spying program, putting him in conflict with #2.

I hope that you have found this enlightening. We now return you to the thread.

That's all fine-and-good, but the US Constitution very clearly vests the power to conduct warfare. It's not vested in the judiciary.

 

[Random]

I don’t want to get into an argument about the merits of the program (I think I have already made my thoughts on that rather plain). I was only responding to Manny’s implication that people who oppose the President’s program don’t want the President to spy on terrorists. That’s just not what the argument is about, GOP talking points to the contrary.

 

[Cylinder]

I don’t want to get into an argument about the merits of the program (I think I have already made my thoughts on that rather plain). I was only responding to Manny’s implication that people who oppose the President’s program don’t want the President to spy on terrorists. That’s just not what the argument is about, GOP talking points to the contrary.

I can't speak for manny, but what he(?) posted was precise. The executive - not the judiciary - decides how and where SIGINT is collected.

 

[Evolver]

It's not a conundrum at all if one thinks that the executive should be listening in on people talking to declared enemies with whom we're at war.

You make the assumption that the people being spied on are the enemies of the United States, as opposed to the enemies of the Bush Administration. So far Bush has refused to offer any proof of who was targeted.

 

[Luke T.]

You make the assumption that the people being spied on are the enemies of the United States, as opposed to the enemies of the Bush Administration. So far Bush has refused to offer any proof of who was targeted.

You want Bush to tell the world who he is listening in on?

Think about that.

And the administration has informed members of Congress.

 

[Random]

I can't speak for manny, but what he(?) posted was precise. The executive - not the judiciary - decides how and where SIGINT is collected.

Perhaps that’s what Manny meant, but that was not how I read it. Maybe I’ve read too many right-wing screeds against imaginary pro-terrorist liberals. Kinda silly of us to get into an argument about what Manny meant when neither of us is Manny though.

As far as the entire war on terror, executive branch spying argument goes, that’s a whole other can of worms. Are we legally at war? If so, why aren’t captured alQueda members treated as POWs? Are all of the people we spied on known terrorists? Were any innocent people swept up in the net? If so, what happened to the records of those conversations? The authority for these taps was deliberatey left out of the AUMF, so where did it some from? Etc.

 

[Manny]

Perhaps that’s what Manny meant, but that was not how I read it. Maybe I’ve read too many right-wing screeds against imaginary pro-terrorist liberals. Kinda silly of us to get into an argument about what Manny meant when neither of us is Manny though.

Hmm, if only there were a manny around.

I meant it exactly as Cylinder said. I believe that the executive is charged with waging war and that one of the inherent powers contained in that charge is the ability to listen in on conversations our enemies might be having with people in the United States. That neither the judiciary nor the legislature can limit that right (though the legislature may insist on informational oversight).

That's why it's not a conundrum for me.

 

[Cylinder]

Are we legally at war?

Yes.

If so, why aren’t captured alQueda members treated as POWs?

Because they do not meet the Article 4 requirements to assert the protections of that class.

Are all of the people we spied on known terrorists?

According to all reports, everyone targeted were know agents or affiliates of al Qaeda.

Were any innocent people swept up in the net?

Conversations that were not targeted are most likely intercepted for technical reasons.

If so, what happened to the records of those conversations?

Minimization procedures require these records to be destroyed.

The authority for these taps was deliberatey left out of the AUMF, so where did it some from? Etc.

The NSA program was explicitly authorized in the AUMF. All is a big word.

 

[Random]

The NSA program was explicitly authorized in the AUMF. All is a big word.

Not exactly. The three paragraphs that you should look at are near the bottom.

The Bush Administration is now arguing that when Congress authorized the use of force in September 2001 to attack al Qaeda in Afghanistan, it authorized warrantless searches and eavesdropping on American citizens. I voted for that authorization, and I know that Congress did not sign a blank check. The notion that Congress authorized warrantless surveillance in the AUMF is utterly inconsistent with the Attorney General’s admission that Congress was not asked for such authorization because it was assumed that Congress would say no.

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who helped negotiate the use of force resolution with the White House, has confirmed that the subject of warrantless wiretaps of American citizens never came up, that he did not and never would have supported giving authority to the President for such wiretaps, and that he is “confident that the 98 senators who voted in favor of authorization of force against al Qaeda did not believe that they were also voting for warrantless domestic surveillance.”

Senator Daschle also noted that the Bush Administration sought to add language to the resolution that would have explicitly authorized the use of force “in the United States,” but Congress refused to grant the President such sweeping power. Maybe that was this Administration’s covert way to seek the authority to spy on Americans, but Congress did not grant any such authority.

There seems to be a little bit of doubt on all this...

 

[pgwenthold]

To add to what Random has provided, if the administration thought the AUMF authorized warrantless wiretaps, why did the AG-AG go up to the hill to try to stump for support for them? Of course, he never got to the committee that would have to authorize it in FISA, but that was because his buddies laughed him out of their office at the idea of it.

If it was implied in the AUMF, there would have never been any need to ask congress for support.

 

[Manny]

Hey, knock yourselves out until next week explaining to yourselves that the AUMF authorizes the President to kill the enemy but not to listen to their phone calls if they happen to call the US. Really, go for it. Someone presented a seeming conundrum and I explained an easy resolution to it. That's all.

 

[FreeChile]

It keeps getting better

Here is a story related to the wiretapping issue.

FBI Cites More Than 100 Possible Eavesdropping Violations

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 9, 2006; Page A09

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...08/AR2006030802132.html?referrer=emailarticle

The FBI reported more than 100 possible violations to an intelligence oversight board over the past two years, including cases in which agents tapped the wrong telephone, intercepted the wrong e-mails or continued to listen to conversations after a warrant had expired, according to a report issued yesterday.

 

[pgwenthold]

Hey, knock yourselves out until next week explaining to yourselves that the AUMF authorizes the President to kill the enemy but not to listen to their phone calls if they happen to call the US.

Who says they are the enemy? The president? Well, if that's good enough for you...

This is the problem. If it is really the enemy, then the NSA should have no problem going to the FISA court and saying, "Hey, we have a call from a person we thought was a terrorist to someone in the states. Can we get a warrant to monitor it?"
Court response: "What makes you think it is a terrorist?"
NSA: Explains reasoning
Court: OK, go for it.

Of course, the best part is that the NSA doesn't even have to do it in real time. They have 72 hours to go to the court and say, "Hey, we HAD a call from a person we thought was a terrorist..."

The problem here is in the determination of who is a terrorist when they are calling. In the present system, it is administration that gets to make that determination, and doesn't have to even tell anyone. The purpose of warrants is to provide the oversight to make sure that the people they are tapping on the calls to US citizens are actually the enemy, and not just someone the President wants to listen to.

No, I have no problem with the president listening in when the enemy calls the US. However, I do have a problem with the president being the sole authority in determining that it is an enemy calling a US citizen. If it's really the enemy, then there shouldn't be any problems going to the court to show them that there was a reasonable suspicion it was an enemy calling. And they have three days after the fact to do it.

 

[Cylinder]

No, I have no problem with the president listening in when the enemy calls the US. However, I do have a problem with the president being the sole authority in determining that it is an enemy calling a US citizen. If it's really the enemy, then there shouldn't be any problems going to the court to show them that there was a reasonable suspicion it was an enemy calling. And they have three days after the fact to do it.

Does the President have the authority to conduct a physical search of an suspected al Qaeda weapons cache in Afghanistan if the containers in that cache are labeled for shipment to persons within the United States without judicial oversight?