I can't believe noone else has started a thread about this yet.

The New York Times today ran a story reporting that Bush signed a secret executive order after 9/11 authorizing the NSA (National Security Agency - U.S.) to spy on American citizens. It authorized the NSA to monitor phone calls and e-mails made by American citizens to international destinations.

In addition, the report that I saw on CNN said that the New York Times held the story for over a year at the behest of the administration. They knew about this over a year ago. Elections?

In case you are wondering, this executive order drafted and signed by president bush is illegal.

He should be tried by a court of law, and if found guilty, imprisoned.

Tonight on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, when questioned about it, bush said that he couldn't comment about on-going investigations.

Imo, who the fuck cares about on-going investigations when your on-going investigations are illegal.

Hasn't the NSA been spying on American citizens for years?

They say they haven't been. Just foreigners. They have never been authorized to spy on us, without court approval. That's the funny thing about bush's executive order, apparently. It apparently authorized them to do the spying on American citizens without any type of oversight or authorization by the courts.

Hasn't the NSA been spying on American citizens for years?
the military has sattilite technology that would make cottontop blush. to be short, the military can tell what color fork you use on your next cookout. paul wolfowitz himself said quote "it's pretty nice to read a license plate from orbit"

the military has sattilite technology that would make cottontop blush. to be short, the military can tell what color fork you use on your next cookout.

Not without court approval. Legally. Whether they do it anyway is what this thread is about, at its heart.

the patriot act? when it comes to the military. . . have any idea what the military hase been doing without a court order? the military never heard of a court order. the drug experiments of the 50's? sleep experiments of the 60's? in the drug experiment mentioned innocent people died and the military knew they were going to. the military needs a court order about like you need a permit to breath

So what is your point?

Not without court approval. Legally. Whether they do it anyway is what this thread is about, at its heart.
to answer the above. the military didn't have a court order for either of those.

Was anyone caught and tried in a court of law for the incidents you mentioned? Was it against the law to experiment on these people? Were they volunteers?

the drug experiment? the way i understand it the military ran a series of double blind tests on military volunteers, the volunteers were not informed that some of the drugs that were tested was deadly in the doses administered. as far as being tried, yep you guessed the volenteers were volenteers.

I think we are on the same page here, leopold. I know the kind of shit our military is capable of. I also know the kind of shit our government in general is capable of.

My point is that I am sick of it. I want accountability. I want heads to roll. I'm sick of americans who pretend like nothing is happening. Or americans who don't care that it is happening because they are so wrapped up in and slave to the "american dream."

Not without court approval. Legally.
this might be off-topic but the military can spray chemicals into the air by aircraft and not tell anybody anything as long as it's for research purposes

at least the fbi had the good sense to give up on project carnivore.

Sure they can. Anyone can do anything they want at anytime, it's just that only some of us (the weak) are held accountable for those actions and villified as evil. The powerful (for the most part) can just say they are sorry and then expect us to forgive them. They get away with it. They are, again, for the most part, above the law.

at least the fbi had the good sense to give up on project carnivore.

You trying to recruit me for something? :)

I think we are on the same page here, leopold. I know the kind of shit our military is capable of. I also know the kind of shit our government in general is capable of.

My point is that I am sick of it. I want accountability. I want heads to roll. I'm sick of americans who pretend like nothing is happening. Or americans who don't care that it is happening because they are so wrapped up in and slave to the "american dream."
i really don't think you have too much to worry about,our system is built in such a way that it wouldn't be long untill something is exsposed. the real problem is dealing with it when it is. enter the black man

You trying to recruit me for something? :)
i don't understand.

i really don't think you have too much to worry about,our system is built in such a way that it wouldn't be long untill something is exsposed. the real problem is dealing with it when it is. enter the black man

Enter the black man? Care to elaborate?

i don't understand.Good. My cynicism at work. Don't worry about it.

Enter the black man? Care to elaborate?

the way i see it the black man is in a perfect position to keep the goernment inline. and i think you know what i mean.
even though there is evidence that a black man can't pass a sat test (in general) i never believed this racial inferiority b.s. a sat test is not measuring the black mans strenghs. the black man knows what i mean i guess

Bush is illegally spying on american citizens. Doesn't that piss you off?

Bush is illegally spying on american citizens. Doesn't that piss you off?
president bush can't watch all of us. funny you have not mentioned r.f.i.d.

Bush is illegally spying on american citizens. Doesn't that piss you off?

What's illegal about it? I've seen these news reports, but strangely, no one is actually saying what the law is ....only that it's "not very nice". What are the laws about spying and/or collecting info on citizens? Why is it against the law? Cops do it all the time, too. What's the big deal?

Baron Max

Government surveillance in any form of US Citizens within the USA legally requires a warrant. No cop can tap your phone, bug your home or office, tail you, or generally behave like the Soviet KGB agent without a judge's review, without an interagency paper trail, and without accountability.

This judicial review was put into law specifically to preclude abuses of power that are historically proven to obliterate the very freedoms and privacy our system of government is professed to guarantee. I am gratified that Congress is finally awakening to an administration that has put unconstitutional Executive Branch abuses of power right over the top. This long-overdue debate will be healthy for the USA, damning to the Busheviks, and will result in the repealing of abominations like the Patriot Act. These things give me much hope for a genuine spirit of democracy (as opposed to popular abdication to authority) to flourish again in the USA.

What's the big problem with being watched? I'm trying to imagine whether or not I'd care. If you're not doing anything wrong...

Lacking personal privacy, some of the worst of human nature has been shown to take over. If you study the history of totalitarian regimes and police states, and learn how societies devolve whenever everyone is suspicious of one another, you'll understand. You could also read a fictional description of a surveillance society in Orwell's 1984 (http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/).

It's not so much what you personally might do that would cause the societal disease under arbitrary government scrutiny- it's the pervasive fear and suspicion that would surround you.

Government surveillance in any form of US Citizens within the USA legally requires a warrant.

I agree on the phone-tap ...but show me the law that says no one can "tail" a citizen, check out what he does, etc. I've also discovered that they can, at will, review email without a warrant. So please show me the specific law about this ...I've not seen anything in legal terms, only in sensationalism and fear-tactic bullshit.

If people aren't doing anything illegal, why should they give a shit? I've never fully understood that concept. On the positive side, such surveillance could help the police catch dangerous bad guys ...which is far more dangerous to the average citizen than being "spied" on!

Baron Max

this should NOT be a surprise by now.

if ANYONE is surprised by this i will personaly come to your house and smack some sense into you.

but seriously,most people have known this for YEARS.

he hired ex KGB operitives to spy on US!!!!its not like this is some huge secret.

Lacking personal privacy, some of the worst of human nature has been shown to take over.

Hmm, and having an abundance of personal privacy has been shown repeatedly to allow the bad guys to go free and do much greater harm to the society and it's members. Courts regularly allow criminals to go free because of some idiotic privacy law ...the man IS a criminal, but the cops have to set him free!!

If you study the history of totalitarian regimes and police states, ...

So we should fear what "might" happen? If so, then we're gonna' be an terribly fearful nation of whimps, ain't we?

Baron Max

Lacking personal privacy, some of the worst of human nature has been shown to take over. If you study the history of totalitarian regimes and police states, and learn how societies devolve whenever everyone is suspicious of one another, you'll understand. You could also read a fictional description of a surveillance society in Orwell's 1984 (http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/).

It's not so much what you personally might do that would cause the societal disease under arbitrary government scrutiny- it's the pervasive fear and suspicion that would surround you.

Yes, I'm quite well aquanted with 1984. And I can certainly see where you are coming from. As Baron Max is saying, a little survelience is probably a pretty good thing. All police forces do it to some extent, and we all agree that they should be there to catch the baddies, right?

I think your problem with it is that when you start introducing measures like this, the danger is that it spirals out of control and we end up living in a 1984 world. I would normally agree with you. After the London bombings there were all sorts of measures out here (Aus) regarding police powers/CCTV etc. that I was vehemently against: I actually couldn't stop thinking about 1984.

I suppose I was playing Devil's Advocate above, but it's a fair view: at what point do we decide that the police are watching us too much? If you agree that they need to watch us a little, which obviously they do to be able to do there job, how do you set a limit on how far those powers should stretch?

It is ironic: The same Americans so assured of the trustworthiness of our government in interjecting itself into our personal lives seem also prone to railing and scoffing at foreign governments who have similarly revoked personal freedoms and privacy.

"If people aren't doing anything illegal, why should they give a shit? I've never fully understood that concept. "

I have lived where surveillance-states have cast an unmistakeable pall over everyone there. Paranoia and a submissive mentality have persisted even after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Healthy children must outgrow the constant oversight of their parents; so must members of a healthy society. If everyone is officially watched, then an inevitable, historically-domonstrated sick mental progression unfolds to the point where nobody is to be trusted, because anyone can be exposed for real, imagined, or fabricated offenses.

The W. Bush Administration has been taking us in this dark direction, and for his base hea has been like a Pied Piper. But we're waking up from this deception, Americans are examining this issue, Congress is exerting some of its authority, and today I am proud to be an American.

"at what point do we decide that the police are watching us too much? If you agree that they need to watch us a little, which obviously they do to be able to do there job, how do you set a limit on how far those powers should stretch?"

That' all been set down in law. If we believe in democracy then we must stand up and scream when the law is bent or broken by the government: Judicial warrants and accountability. No secret courts, no arbirary surveillance. Watching all watchers with the sole intent of preserving our democracy.

I believe we could go much further and demand that all government secrecy in any form be subjected to periodic judicial review. That is, the government would be forced into greater accountability by bearing the burden of proof that any concealed information must remain so for national security or criminal-investigative reasons. Sometimes in law enforcement and defense operations covert action my be necessary- for short periods only. Then there should follow complete transparency and accountability. I do not believe in long-term state secrets.

I hope that as we awaken to the immensity of our secret American bureaucracies, we will demand that most of these walls come down. In the long term, we should not accept secrets in government because their keeping contradicts democracy.

Eh. Fair points. I agree enirely. It's late and I'm not thinking this stuff through before posting :/

The W. Bush Administration has been taking us in this dark direction, and for his base hea has been like a Pied Piper. But we're waking up from this deception, Americans are examining this issue, Congress is exerting some of its authority, and today I am proud to be an American.
judging from the posts in another thread i disagree. the patriot act has served this country well. wether we like it or not the military has the capabity. the problem is oversight.if there is adequate oversight i do not have a problem with the patriot act. have you heard about the riots in australia? isn't happening here is it. and i believe the patriot act is the reason.

Bullshit. The riots in Sydney are the very same as the ones we periodically experience here in the USA. You are omitting a great number of events to suggest that the very same thing does not occur in our streets even after the Patriot Act.

Disaffected minorities, poverty, hopelessness in the face of affluence will always cause a gradual ramping-up of resentment until erupting into senseless violence at the least provocation. You have raised a completely tangential topic. Even the Patriot Act was not ostensibly marketed, nor do I think it was conceived, to combat or deter the periodic explosions of urban violence that always accompany a despairing urban ethnic underclass.

But the fact that you raise such events as justification for secret government surveillance illustrates the war of ideas that is at play here: One side believes might makes right, and the other that right makes might.

Weed makes peace! :m: :cool:

But the fact that you raise such events as justification for secret government surveillance illustrates the war of ideas that is at play here: One side believes might makes right, and the other that right makes might.
and we must assume that the other guy is not going to play fair.if we keep the power divided and spread out i don't see a problem with gov. spying.trust me when i say i would be the first to know.

That' all been set down in law. If we believe in democracy then we must stand up and scream when the law is bent or broken by the government...

I asked you before, but you didn't respond: What laws have been broken? And if there haven't been any laws broken, then all ye're doing is ranting and being overly paranoid when there is absolutely nothing to be paranoid about!

Sometimes in law enforcement and defense operations covert action my be necessary- for short periods only.

See? Now ye're being reasonable and less paranoid. Thanks! Now all we have to do is establish a reasonable definition of "short period", huh?

Baron Max

the drug experiment? the way i understand it the military ran a series of double blind tests on military volunteers, the volunteers were not informed that some of the drugs that were tested was deadly in the doses administered. as far as being tried, yep you guessed the volenteers were volenteers.
IIRC, they put LSD in the drinking water of a small town out west (i forget which). The citizens there had no idea about the experiment (that was the whole point).

Baron Max: "What laws have been broken?"

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
-4th Amendment, US Constitution

Since the 4th Amendment there has been a twisty legal path by which in various eras (McCarthy for example) our government has strayed far from this spirit and intent, and sometimes has been chastened. Now we have the Patriot act and secret FISA courts. But the pendulum is about to swing back, because the Bush Administration has gone to far even for a slumbering Congress to tolerate. We will see some correction, because enough Americans do value their freedom and privacy to overturn the malignant actions taken by the present Presidential cabinet.

"Now all we have to do is establish a reasonable definition of "short period", huh?"

Until the legally issued warrant expires. In my view full disclosure should be mandatory immediately when the perpetrators of an alleged crime are publicly exposed and prosecuted, or exonerated.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
-4th Amendment, US Constitution

And where, in all that, does it specify that the cops can't watch a person suspected of criminal activity? And where does it specify that email, which is sent out into space, can't be picked up and read? And where does it say that the cops or the government can't compile data on citizens so as to determine that they might be bad guys or planning bad things?

What ye're doing, in your rantings, is trying to tie up the hands of any and all law enforcement agencies to the point of completely helplessness against any and all criminals and terrorists. If we do that, we might just as well disband the police altogether and let the attorneys settle any criminal activity ...and when the person (or terrorist) is convicted, they'll just ask him nicely to report to the prison for his sentence! You'd like that, wouldn't you?

Baron Max

The Constitution was not intended to predict and describe all future technology. It was instead designed to describe the nature of the society we share as Americans. To covertly monitor your activities by remote means has the same effect as a physical invasion of your personal life.

Criminals and terrorists are no great threat to our society, so long as we uphold our principles. There are no shortcuts to justice at the sacrifice of liberty, because such trespasses do more harm to the basic nature of our society than good. I have not advocated the abolishion of covert activity. I want my government to obey the law, and respect our freedoms. Criminals and terrorists do have operational advantages in a free country. So be it: Saddam Hussein had a very good handle on crooks and terrorists, but I don't want our society to resemble the police state he controlled, by selling out our rights to secret committees, or no committee.

hype would you agree that the patriot act would be alright with the proper oversight?

If people aren't doing anything illegal, why should they give a shit? I've never fully understood that concept. On the positive side, such surveillance could help the police catch dangerous bad guys ...which is far more dangerous to the average citizen than being "spied" on!
And I’ve never understood how people can adopt this reasoning. Why would you want the authorities collecting evidence against you or investigating you when you haven’t done anything wrong? Do you think the legal system is infallible? Do you think that no one ever stuffs up fingerprint analysis, or video analysis, or voice analysis etc etc etc? If the authorities collect evidence against you then there is the chance that evidence will be mis-used to wrongly convict you. I absolutely believe that there must be probable cause before any law enforement agency should be able to collect evidence against a person.

I am left wondering just how far Americans are going to sit by and let their civil liberties be eroded by the criminals in the White House. But then again, the majority of Americans re-elected the dumb-ass criminal so you are getting what you deserve.

Baron, I guess that since you have no problem with the current administration, you probably think you have nothing to fear. What I don't understand is how a person can get to your age and have no idea that it is illegal for any government agency to tap your phone, monitor your e-mail, screen your incoming and outgoing physical mail, tap your home, office, etc. without oversight. Remember Nixon? Remember his illegal tapes of conversations in his office? Remember J. Edgar Hoover and his illegal files/surveillance of americans? Just a couple of examples of unchecked power in the executive branch. Of course, these examples probably wouldn't phase you a bit. How did you get to be so old while being so ignorant?

I suggest you watch a movie called The Wave. It's only 44 minutes long and should be able to hold your attention. You will have to buy it. Quite good. Quite relevant. It was shown to me in high school as part of the curriculum. Public School. San Antonio, TX.

http://www.learmedia.ca/product_info.php/products_id/868


This topic (bush illegally spying on american citizens) is not about a little spying here and there to prevent a terrorist attack. It is about what comes next. It is about when the lines between terrorist and non-terrorist become blurred, or ignored. It is about someone abusing their power as elected leader of this nation's citizens for his own purposes. It is about betrayal of a sacred trust.

it all depends on what you mean by evidence. my ssn,pin,drivers liscense no. is information not evidence

it all depends on what you mean by evidence. my ssn,pin,drivers liscense no. is information not evidence
Well, we’re talking about the government spying on its citizens, aren’t we? So we are talking about all sorts of potential evidence: photographs, video, documentation of movements, associations with other people, banking activities, telephone conversations, intercept your mail/email, fingerprints, DNA…. The list goes on and on.

I’m innocent of any crime and have nothing to hide, but I sure as hell don’t want any of this evidence collected against me. Innocent people have been jailed on the basis of only a small subset of the above evidence.

This morning, bush comes out and says that he is going to continue to abuse his power by continuing to illegally spy on americans. Will this crook go down in the history books as ever having done anything right? Jail, I say. And now. JAIL. How did he ever get to be our president?!

Leopold. What about your conversations here? Say, for instance, your dislike of the military-industrial complex? It's possible that someone could eventually say that your views are un-patriotic (though I don't believe so), a potential threat to homeland security, and that you may have tendencies toward terrorism in your future. All you have to do right now is scare the wrong person. Say bush or cheney or rumsfeld or wolfowitz or delay start to get a little paranoid now that their shit is starting to stink. Say they want to fight back a little. Punish those responsible for not thinking exactly like they want them to. Someone like a Joe Wilson, former ambassador, by ruining his wife's CIA career. Well, there is noone to stop them (courts, judges, etc.) from twisting a little, patriotic thing you say here into something that might be construed as evil, or un-patriotic or even, heaven forbid, terrorist-like. They come and abduct you. Hold you for a few years in a secret CIA prison in Bulgaria, interrogate and even torture you, until they find out you are not a terrorist. They don't care what they've done to you. They say, "sorry, we made a mistake" and go on with their lives as though nothing illegal happened. Your LIFE may be ruined, but you will probably never be able to prove it, and even if you can, so what? Your LIFE may still be ruined.

All because a president and his cronies didn't like your point of view. All because we as americans let a president abuse his powers and commit crimes against american citizens while hoping he would do the right thing. If bush thinks he can get away with breaking one law, or two or three, where will it end? When will he say enough is enough? Do you really want to give him that power? Leave it up to him? Let him get away with breaking the law that first time?

Hypewaders, I'm impressed by you. A sensible American. Today, after reading your posts, I'm almost proud to be an American too. :)

jack54, thank you for trying to see it differently.

Baron Max, I wish you would try the same.

Hercules, Hercules!, I totally agree with you too.

hercules
i have faith in our government and how it is built. and i also understand your point of view. maybe we fear the thought more than the actual deed? you also mentioned other political systems, ours is unique and possibly is able to do something like this.

i have faith in our government and how it is built. and i also understand your point of view. maybe we fear the thought more than the actual deed? you also mentioned other political systems, ours is unique and possibly is able to do something like this.

Yes, when the laws are not broken. The laws that hold this nation and our government together, that make it "unique," are being broken by it's own president. He is breaking the law. I don't care what his reasons are. I don't care if he thinks he is doing it for the good of the country. If he does think this, then he can take it to the people. Have one of his senators or congressmen draft legislation and put it to a vote. Give the people their right to say yea or nay. Not take the law into his own hands and do whatever the fuck he pleases.

cottontop
i can't answer your question although i know the answer
lets see if i can explain this
lets just say i agree with everyone, okay?

Don't mind them, Baron. There are a lot of supporters of Crypto-anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism) out there.
Part of me sympathizes... but then I think about what some of the assholes out there would do if they weren't being watched.

I don't see why they couldn't have just gotten the warrant. If what they did was illegal, they should be prosecuted... end of story. If Bush signed an illegal order, whatever's supposed to happen if you do that should happen.

cottontop
i can't answer your question although i know the answer
lets see if i can explain this
lets just say i agree with everyone, okay?

Okay. :)

I don't see why they couldn't have just gotten the warrant.Excellent point. Why couldn't they have gotten the warrant, even from their ultra-secret FISA court? The only even partially credible reason I can see is speed, though I think that is a crock of shit. Still, at some point, bush made a decision to break the law. He should be held accountable. If he isn't, the whole world will probably pay a price, not just americans.

If what they did was illegal, they should be prosecuted... end of story. If Bush signed an illegal order, whatever's supposed to happen if you do that should happen.What do you think should happen? What do you think a just and fair punishment should be for one in his position?

I can't believe noone else has started a thread about this yet.
How is this news? The government has been spying and keeping tabs on it's people since who the fuck knows when.
But, it is illegal. This is just more reason why the government needs to be dissolved and replaced with a better one.

How is this news? Simply because it is proof that what liberals have been saying for years is true, and proof that what conservatives have been saying for years is lies. Another example of how lies catch up to you.

The government has been spying and keeping tabs on it's people since who the fuck knows when.This is a wake-up call to fat, lazy, brain-washed americans. Or not, most likely.

But, it is illegal. This is just more reason why the government needs to be dissolved and replaced with a better one.Yeah, let's go overboard together.

Anyone read Digital Fortress by Dan Brown? What that book says is probably true.. I don't care though. Go Europe! :P

I think what is worse is that the New York Times has had this story for over a year and just sat on it. Maybe not illegal, but condemning of the motives of at least one media source, and I would hazard a guess that they are not the only ones and this is not the first time or the last time something like this has happended. The implications are astounding though, in this instance, and all are condemning for bush.

bush had a patriot in his midst. This patriot leaked what he thought was an abuse of power to someone at the New York Times. The New York Times' editor, ceo, whoever, decided they didn't want to print this. Why do you think they didn't want to print this? My guess is it was leaked just prior to the elections last year and someone at the New York Times wanted bush in office. Why do you think they printed it now? Fear that it was gonna get out and they wouldn't get the scoop? Why didn't this patriot leak this info to more media outlets? Did he get caught after the first time? Or did he leak it to more media outlets? Did more than one media outlet keep it a secret? Or not? These are the questions I want answered.

I think what is worse is that the New York Times has had this story for over a year and just sat on it. Maybe not illegal, but condemning of the motives of at least one media source, and I would hazard a guess that they are not the only ones and this is not the first time or the last time something like this has happended. The implications are astounding though, in this instance, and all are condemning for bush.

bush had a patriot in his midst. This patriot leaked what he thought was an abuse of power to someone at the New York Times. The New York Times' editor, ceo, whoever, decided they didn't want to print this. Why do you think they didn't want to print this? My guess is it was leaked just prior to the elections last year and someone at the New York Times wanted bush in office. Why do you think they printed it now? Fear that it was gonna get out and they wouldn't get the scoop? Why didn't this patriot leak this info to more media outlets? Did he get caught after the first time? Or did he leak it to more media outlets? Did more than one media outlet keep it a secret? Or not? These are the questions I want answered.

What is there to answer? The New York Times works for Israel. Don't you remember that liar Judith Miller worked their? The one that wrote all those manufactured articles supporting the Iraq war? The articles that were retracted or apologized for once the war accomplished it's goals?

Every single answer to every single question is easy if you approach it from the angle of "What would be best for Israel?".

I wonder if Judith Miller has gotten paid yet, for her time in jail and her silence about who leaked Valerie Plames name to the press? Then again, she might have just done it for the "principle" of the matter.

Okay. :)

Excellent point. Why couldn't they have gotten the warrant, even from their ultra-secret FISA court? The only even partially credible reason I can see is speed, though I think that is a crock of shit. Still, at some point, bush made a decision to break the law. He should be held accountable. If he isn't, the whole world will probably pay a price, not just americans.

Well, I'm waiting for the investigation to see the details. I'm not convicting him yet, but if in fact he did so the law is probably pretty clear about what should happen.

What do you think should happen? What do you think a just and fair punishment should be for one in his position?

I dunno for real. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt in that what he did he thought he did for the benefit of our security. I don't know what the laws say, but that's what should happen. *shrug*

As far as my own opinion is concerned about what should happen... I havent' thought about it in depth yet. I'll think about it some.

If people aren't doing anything illegal, why should they give a shit? I've never fully understood that concept.

WHAT?

Uh, the same reason why retaillers can no longer have two-way mirrors in dressing rooms to catch shop-lifters. Sure, we may not be doing anything wrong, but there's still private shit that should be LEFT PRIVATE! I don't want the government hearing my phone calls, watching me have sex, or heck, even walking the dog.

So hey, what's your address? I'm gonna bring some special equipment I own to spy on you. I wanna watch you take a dump on the toilet, have sex with the wife, hear your calls on the phone when you do your taxes, I wanna find out what you're getting your grandchildren for Christmas or whatever private stuff that's meant to be private, that you have no problem with others seeing you do since you're not doing anything criminal, even though you're being treated and spied on as if you were one.

- N

I can't believe noone else has started a thread about this yet.

The New York Times today ran a story reporting that Bush signed a secret executive order after 9/11 authorizing the NSA (National Security Agency - U.S.) to spy on American citizens. It authorized the NSA to monitor phone calls and e-mails made by American citizens to international destinations.

In addition, the report that I saw on CNN said that the New York Times held the story for over a year at the behest of the administration. They knew about this over a year ago. Elections?

In case you are wondering, this executive order drafted and signed by president bush is illegal.

He should be tried by a court of law, and if found guilty, imprisoned.

Tonight on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, when questioned about it, bush said that he couldn't comment about on-going investigations.

Imo, who the fuck cares about on-going investigations when your on-going investigations are illegal.

I can't believe you didn't know about this.

The Patriot Act was passed in 2001. Yes, people were outraged when it was passed, because it gave the government such leverages on violating the Bill of Rights.

What is your point? I'm surprised that someone like you who seems to care so much about your own civil liberties didn't feel compelled enough to see the laws being passed by the very government violating your said civil liberties.

This is the kind of person that gets manipulated by media propaganda.

"My guess is it was leaked just prior to the elections last year and someone at the New York Times wanted bush in office. Why do you think they printed it now? "

I've noticed a lot of bush bashing by the press of late. At least, compared to earlier times in his run. All this shit must be coming out now for a reason-- maybe his handlers are no longer pleased with him? ;)

I suppose I was playing Devil's Advocate above, but it's a fair view: at what point do we decide that the police are watching us too much? If you agree that they need to watch us a little, which obviously they do to be able to do there job, how do you set a limit on how far those powers should stretch?

I agree there should be SOME kinda surveillence, which there ALREADY is. I think how we are.. err, WERE, was just fine. You know, like if you're suspicious, then get a court order and have a judge grant a warrant, rather than being able to do whatever you want to whomever you choose all because you have the power to.

- N

anytimefool, this has nothing to do with the patriot act (which the senate failed to renew yesterday, by the way, thank satan). This is above and beyond what even the law under the patriot act allows. President bush signed an illegal secret order on at least 30 different occasions (as it is now revealed, this morning, by him) to illegally spy (monitor phone calls and e-mails) on americans without a warrant from a judge, court or any other legal body or oversight committee. This is illegal. ILLEGAL. Do I need to spell it out for you? Under the patriot act and the constitution of the united states of america, this is ILLEGAL.

I can't believe you didn't know about this.Fool, knowing and suspecting are two different things. Don't act like you know a damned thing when obviously you don't. This story wasn't out there until yesterday.

"If people aren't doing anything illegal, why should they give a shit? I've never fully understood that concept. "

I have lived where surveillance-states have cast an unmistakeable pall over everyone there. Paranoia and a submissive mentality have persisted even after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Yeah, kinda like when you see a CHP officer on the highway driving behind you and you all of a sudden get all paranoid even though you're driving just fine. People move into another lane to get away from them, heh.

Sure, you have nothing to worry about, but that feeling of always being watched, you have to always to question yourself more than once with whatever you do, even when you already know what you're doing is perfectly normal. There's no reason for all of this.

If everyone is officially watched, then an inevitable, historically-domonstrated sick mental progression unfolds to the point where nobody is to be trusted, because anyone can be exposed for real, imagined, or fabricated offenses.

And yep, so much for being innocent until proven guilty. When everyone expects the other to not be trusted as if they're bad, you're now living in a hell. So much for freedom. Feels like McCarthyism all over. Gotta watch out for all them Communists!

- N

"My guess is it was leaked just prior to the elections last year and someone at the New York Times wanted bush in office. Why do you think they printed it now? "

I've noticed a lot of bush bashing by the press of late. At least, compared to earlier times in his run. All this shit must be coming out now for a reason-- maybe his handlers are no longer pleased with him? ;)

Firstly, all governments spy on their citizens--always have, always will (Sorry about the cynicism :p ) Secondly, if Bush's handlers were really pissed off with him, they'd just let some guy past their guard for a moment who's even more pissed off than they are (there are plenty of them out there) and let him or her knock off Bush.

I agree there should be SOME kinda surveillence, which there ALREADY is. I think how we are.. err, WERE, was just fine. You know, like if you're suspicious, then get a court order and have a judge grant a warrant, rather than being able to do whatever you want to whomever you choose all because you have the power to.

The problem with doing it like that is that there are then many, many people with access to those warrants, etc. And if a newspaper reporter finds out, he puts it in the paper, then all that surveillance work is shot to hell. THAT is why it's "secret" ....because our news media can't keep it's mouth shut even in cases of dire national emergency or threat! ...since they're all assholes!!!

Baron Max

Sure, you have nothing to worry about, but that feeling of always being watched, you have to always to question yourself more than once with whatever you do, even when you already know what you're doing is perfectly normal. There's no reason for all of this.

It's amazing to me the number of people who think that they're actually important enough for ANYONE to give one single shit what they're doing or who the fuck they're talking to on the phone!

If ya' ain't doin' anything wrong, what do you have to worry about? And if you ARE doin' something wrong, then don't ya' think the rest of us would like you to be caught by the cops??

Baron Max

The problem with doing it like that is that there are then many, many people with access to those warrants, etc. And if a newspaper reporter finds out, he puts it in the paper, then all that surveillance work is shot to hell. THAT is why it's "secret" ....because our news media can't keep it's mouth shut even in cases of dire national emergency or threat! ...since they're all assholes!!!

Care to give an example? I've never heard of an operation being outed before it happened. Whenever I've heard a place just got raided, it's been after the fact by the news media.

However, I HAVE seen and heard this happen in regards to the Iraqi War. The amount of news coverage is ridiculous. Some of the things I've heard the White House released or covered by a journalist travelling with a caravan has made me shout at the TV. WHAT ARE YOU IDIOTS DOING SAYING ALL THIS.. letting the enemy knowing what we're doing. Even worse when the White House does it though as if they're using it as bait or something.

- N

Fool, knowing and suspecting are two different things. Don't act like you know a damned thing when obviously you don't. This story wasn't out there until yesterday.

According to the NBC news tonight, it seems that the leaders of congress knew all about this some years ago! ...and didn't make a big deal out of it. But now that it's come to light, it's gonna' be just like their vote to go to war with Iraq .....they'll say that they were coerced or threatened or weren't given enough good intelligence!! ....LOL!!

Baron Max

The New York Times sure kept their mouths shut. For over a year.

NBC News? You're kidding right? They are the most conservative, neo-con spin machine of the three major networks. Of all the "news" channels, they are only behind the fox "news" network in terms of sheer right-wing propaganda. ABC is in the middle, I would say, and CBS is the only one trying to be fair and honest.

Well, Cotton, I don't know why ye're pickin' on NBC ....if you want to see that members of congress did, in fact, know about all this, then check on your own sources soon and you'll see for yourself from the sourcs that you trust. Check it out ...I don't think NBC would say such a thing if they didn't know it to be "pretty damned true", do you?

Baron Max

It's amazing to me the number of people who think that they're actually important enough for ANYONE to give one single shit what they're doing or who the fuck they're talking to on the phone!

Uh, well, considering the government DOES do so, and listens to all phone calls with Eschelon, every citizen of the United States IS important enough for them to give one single shit about, otherwise they wouldn't be fearing us and spying on everyone.

If ya' ain't doin' anything wrong, what do you have to worry about? And if you ARE doin' something wrong, then don't ya' think the rest of us would like you to be caught by the cops??

Hi, Baron, again, please gimme your address. I wanna listen to your phone calls freely, I want to watch you take a shower, a shit on the toilet, fondle the ol' wife, sit down and read bedtime stories to your grandchildren, hear you make important business phone calls, I wanna know what medications you take, and anything else that while it may not be important, it sure as hell is private.

You ARE already guilty, otherwise I wouldn't bother spying on you in the first place. They fear the power that the people and democracy has. They want absolute power and they're doing just that because there's nobody around to question them because most people are fools like yourself that kiss your leader's ass even when they do things wrong. Our leaders would NEVER be corrupt or do bad things, despite it happening in the past. Keep telling yourself these days are different and nothing bad will ever be done. Keep telling yourself that everyone learns from the past and from their mistakes and that history never repeats itself. :rolleyes:

- N

Unfortunately the issuing of an executive order in a declared emergency can suspend the Constitution.

Wow, Neildo, ye're really paranoid, aren't you? ...LOL!!

But then, perhaps you have a good reason, huh? Like do you sell drugs? ...do a lot of drugs? ...into terrorist and/or treasonous activities? Hmmm?

Baron Max

Well, Cotton, I don't know why ye're pickin' on NBC ....if you want to see that members of congress did, in fact, know about all this, then check on your own sources soon and you'll see for yourself from the sourcs that you trust. Check it out ...I don't think NBC would say such a thing if they didn't know it to be "pretty damned true", do you?

Baron Max

I really don't care if they knew about it or not. They did not break the law. They did not do the crime. Let's say they did know about it though. Could be possible. If so, I'm pissed at them too. In fact, though my views tend to be liberal, I don't like many of our lying, cheating, corrupt, power-hungry politicians, republican or democrat. I've said that on more than one occasion. Does'nt matter, anyway, if the news outlets sit on the story for over a year. You can see their motives. Media not doing their jobs in an honest way is just as dangerous as a politician run amok.

What makes you think I am "pickin'" on NBC? I am stating my opinion and letting others know that what they see on NBC and Fox News may be different than what they see on ABC, CBS or CNN. Not "pickin,'" stating an opinion.

Like do you sell drugs? ...do a lot of drugs? ...into terrorist and/or treasonous activities? Hmmm?
I like how you lump pot-smokers and terrorists into the same category. I also like the way you assume that everything illegal is immoral, and that privacy is worthless. Seeing the way you think really helps me understand America's current policies a lot better.

Wow, Neildo, ye're really paranoid, aren't you? ...LOL!!

But then, perhaps you have a good reason, huh? Like do you sell drugs? ...do a lot of drugs? ...into terrorist and/or treasonous activities? Hmmm?

Baron Max

Baron, I'm beginning to think you work for the busheviks, trying to spread lies and disinformation. You getting a paycheck for the shit you say here?

What I find really interesting is the paranoia about this issue from some/most of y'all. I don't understand it??? For example, if "they" knew every single thing about you and everything that you've ever done, would "they" actually have enough information to put you in prison????????

If "they" found out everything about me, "they'd" be hard-pressed to find even an unpaid parking ticket. But surely nothing to put me in jail or in prison, for god's sake!

So why the paranoia and/or the unreasonable fear?? I don't get it?

Baron Max

Read my post in this thread today at 2:13 PM. The part addressed to leopold. Paycheck, baron?

Wow, Neildo, ye're really paranoid, aren't you? ...LOL!!

But then, perhaps you have a good reason, huh? Like do you sell drugs? ...do a lot of drugs? ...into terrorist and/or treasonous activities? Hmmm?

Uh no, none to all of the above. I'm just a realist and know that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Prove me wrong on that. History, even American history, has already proven it numerous times in my favor.

And I apologize if I happen to like privacy and also find it amusing you didn't respond to my questions in regards to your address because it seems you like your privacy as well yet you're arguing for the sake of arguing... as usual.

Again, keep telling yourself that our leaders would NEVER be corrupt or do bad things, despite it happening in the past. Keep telling yourself these days are different and nothing bad will ever be done. Keep telling yourself that everyone learns from the past and from their mistakes and that history never repeats itself. Continue to live in denial.

- N

Don't worry, Neildo, I'm pretty sure he will. Continue to live in denial, that is.

What's illegal about it? I've seen these news reports, but strangely, no one is actually saying what the law is ....only that it's "not very nice". What are the laws about spying and/or collecting info on citizens? Why is it against the law? Cops do it all the time, too. What's the big deal?

What's illegal about it? What's illegal but illegally bypassing congress and the entire judiciary committee. Ok 9/11 was a terrible event but the president can't hide behind those atrocities that were committed. All he had to do was go to a judge and get permission, but like many other things he didn't want the american public to find out. This is punishable by up to 5 years in jail, and yes Baron this is illegal!

I hope he gets every last day of that 5 years, plus 5 more for lying to us about the WMD in Iraq, plus a few more for conspiring to lie to us about the WMD in Iraq, and finally, hung by the neck until dead for the Valerie Plame fiasco.

Even if it's something everyone preceding president has done, at least THEY didn't get caught red-handed. I can't imagine how stupid someone must be to do this without plausible deniability. Un-freakin-beleivable.

Most indubitably. Then he comes out the day after the story breaks and admits it. THEN, says he is gonna continue to do it. And thinks everything is okay now.

Most indubitably. Then he comes out the day after the story breaks and admits it. THEN, says he is gonna continue to do it. And thinks everything is okay now.

Look at that honor! What an honourable President to stand up to the American people and announce how he's taking good care of us. No other President would be so brave as to risk jail time to save the lives of the American people. Too bad GWB can't be elected for a 3rd term!

- N

Unfortunately the issuing of an executive order in a declared emergency can suspend the Constitution.

Candy, this is true, but we have been in a "declared state of emergency" since at least 1933 and, according to some, as far back as 1861. Each president since at least 1933 has renewed this state of emergency for one reason or another so that they can issue executive orders. This continuous state of emergency is a farce and has never gotten the attention it so desperately needs. I'm glad you brought this up. In other words, what this means, is that the Constitution of the good ole US of A has been suspended since at least 1933, and maybe as far back as 1861, depending on who you are listening to.

The president does not really want this to be well known, even if it might save his ass.

What's illegal about it? What's illegal but illegally bypassing congress and the entire judiciary committee. ... This is punishable by up to 5 years in jail, and yes Baron this is illegal!

Okay, if you know the punishment, then you must know which law has been broken .....so please post it so we can all read it. I don't think that there's a law against what they're doing ...even tho' y'all keep saying/implying that there is. Show me!

Baron Max

...Too bad GWB can't be elected for a 3rd term!I agree. I would like him to be in office when the dollar collapses under the "twin deficits" he has made with the stupid policy changes, an oil motivated war, tax rebates for the rich (I got the max), reduced funding of education*, Koyoto opposition (which could help the economy as well as environment), etc. that have cancelled Clinton's surpluses. We have been losing our liberties for years - not all his fault or why he will go down in history as the President who destroyed America.
________________________________________
*Indirectly - the reduction of student loan programs, mainly.

I can't believe noone else has started a thread about this yet.

The New York Times today ran a story reporting that Bush signed a secret executive order after 9/11 authorizing the NSA (National Security Agency - U.S.) to spy on American citizens. It authorized the NSA to monitor phone calls and e-mails made by American citizens to international destinations.

In addition, the report that I saw on CNN said that the New York Times held the story for over a year at the behest of the administration. They knew about this over a year ago. Elections?

In case you are wondering, this executive order drafted and signed by president bush is illegal.

He should be tried by a court of law, and if found guilty, imprisoned.

Tonight on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, when questioned about it, bush said that he couldn't comment about on-going investigations.

Imo, who the fuck cares about on-going investigations when your on-going investigations are illegal.

in my opinion not only domestic, microsoft is a hoax.

regards,

loki

Okay, if you know the punishment, then you must know which law has been broken .....so please post it so we can all read it. I don't think that there's a law against what they're doing ...even tho' y'all keep saying/implying that there is. Show me!

Baron Max

Violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95- 511, 92 Stat. 1783 (codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1811, 1821-1829, 1841-1846, 1861-62).

According to Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, § 1809:

(a) Prohibited activities

A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or
(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.

(b) Defense
It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.

(c) Penalties
An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

(d) Federal jurisdiction
There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed.



If you read the entire act (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html), you will (I hope) agree that the President has clearly violated it. He said he did it thirty times. So what do you think the penalty should be, Baron?

Violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, ....

????? ..."Foreign ..."??? What the hell does that mean? (And no, I didn't read that website ...I'm too busy to fuck with it!)

I think it's pretty clear that they've not violated any laws, because if they had, then the vengeful democrats would be all over it, charging them with those violations and calling for punishments ....just like you are. But they aren't, are they? That's 'cause the law is not as clear as you make it out to be.

Baron Max

your web link asks you to donate if you click no then the info isn't available

????? ..."Foreign ..."??? What the hell does that mean? ...
I think it's pretty clear that they've not violated any laws, because if they had, then the vengeful democrats would be all over it, charging them with those violations and calling for punishments ....just like you are. But they aren't, are they? ...I am impressed by Te jen's ability to respond to your request for the law Bush has violated. It is also quite clear that he has admitted to doing so, but claiming that is OK as other laws (especially the patriot act etc.) give him the right and duty to do so.

I am surprised that you object to a word in the name of the law - you are too intelligent to do that. Many laws are at least known by the name of the congress man (or men) who promoted them. I doubt if the one Bush just claimed as his own (after vigorous opposition) will be called the Bush law. It will be called the MaCain anti-torture law.

????? ..."Foreign ..."??? What the hell does that mean? (And no, I didn't read that website ...I'm too busy to fuck with it!)

I think it's pretty clear that they've not violated any laws, because if they had, then the vengeful democrats would be all over it, charging them with those violations and calling for punishments ....just like you are. But they aren't, are they? That's 'cause the law is not as clear as you make it out to be.

Baron Max



Did I call for punishment? I asked you what you thought the penalty should be. You asked for a posting of the relevant law, I found it and posted it for you, and you can't even be bothered to read it? How can you intelligently comment? You say that the law is not as clear as I make it out to be? How would you know?

Here's an alternative link for anybody who couldn't reach the first one - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/36/subchapters/i/toc.html

anytimefool, this has nothing to do with the patriot act (which the senate failed to renew yesterday, by the way, thank satan). This is above and beyond what even the law under the patriot act allows. President bush signed an illegal secret order on at least 30 different occasions (as it is now revealed, this morning, by him) to illegally spy (monitor phone calls and e-mails) on americans without a warrant from a judge, court or any other legal body or oversight committee. This is illegal. ILLEGAL. Do I need to spell it out for you? Under the patriot act and the constitution of the united states of america, this is ILLEGAL.

Fool, knowing and suspecting are two different things. Don't act like you know a damned thing when obviously you don't. This story wasn't out there until yesterday.

You're just a damn tool. You know what the Patriot Act actually legalized? Come on, tell me, have you actually even read it?

Let's see, it:

1) Criminalizes broadly any act which is intended or appears to intend to influence national policy.

2) Lets the Government find out what you've been reading by leveling the claim of "suspected terrorist."

3) Places gag order on employees of bookstores and libraries when said government "suspects" you of terrorism.

4) Removed requirements that agencies get judicial permission prior to wire tapping.

5) No longer required the government to show probable cause or obtain a warrant for search and seizure, must not notify anyone, and may freely tap your phone line.

6) Can label ANY group that has engaged in any sort of violence--domestic or foreign--as terrorists.

7) Makes it so no judicial permission is required to listen in on prisoner conversations and allows the information to be used in court. They may also listen in and use conversations between prisoners and lawyers.

8) Allows citizens to be labeled "enemy combatants". Enemy combatants are not afforded due process.

9) Suspends habeus corpus.

I've read what it does. I know what is did to my civil liberties. Did you? Because you're just goddamn clueless and you explode every time some media lights up a failing of the government and cry "FREEEEEEEEDOM", but never take it upon yourself to realize what the government has been doing to it, when it was most important.

You are not just a mere fool, you're a tool. You're a sheep -- you're the kind of person that reads other people's renditions on primary sources (read: secondary sources) and never bother to actually read the primary sources for yourself. You're a sheep to other people's opinions, way to go.

In spite of being encouraged by a new and overdue willingness on the part of Congress to exercise their oversight obligations, I am also disgusted by the bigger picture. We have here witnessed a press that kowtows to authority (NYT sitting on this for more than a year on White House orders) and a potentate who blithely declares his "War on Terror" a pursuit surpassing the law and our personal liberties.

This is so much more impeachable than the offenses involving a blowjob. This President is trampling on our most defining American principles of freedom using a smokescreen of fear to stifle debate and evade pulic scrutiny. If we Americans continue to passively sit by and watch then we do not, as Jefferson warned, deserve our vaunted liberties. All the words on all our hallowed documents, and all our professed superiority to less democratic societies mean absolutely nothing if we allow this insidious, incremental anti-democratic concentration of power to continue unchallenged and unpunished.

i agree, fuck progress, who the hell needs it. hell let's just go back to burning witches and owning slaves man let's just go hog wild and throw each other to the lions.

Yes, I'll be interested to see the president's legal team defend this. He seems to think he did nothing illegal, I'd think that's because a bunch of lawyers told him it's true.

If what he did is legal under the patriot act yet illegal via the constitution, I assume the constitution supercedes... however, then who is guilty? Anyone who voted yes?

If we Americans continue to passively sit by and watch then we do not, as Jefferson warned, deserve our vaunted liberties.

Hmm, what exactly are you suggesting that "we Americans" do about it? Violent revolution, perhaps? Or just plain ol' revolution? Or find someone who wears a sheet as a robe (Gandhi) and follow him around the nation until the leaders give up and retreat (cut n' run)?

C'mon, Hype, you're the one who's making such an issue out of this ...what shall we do about it?

Baron Max

(Wes seems to be the only level-headed one here ...it's a legal issue, and the legal eagles should argue it out in court. "We, the people", should sit back and watch our government and our Constitution in action.)

What's interesting to me somewhat contradicts and earlier statement I made regarding stupidity. While I'm pretty much convinced that what's been done in terms of spying is nothing new, this is the first time it's been exposed and admitted. All of the other presidents (on both sides) simply "got away with it", as they maintained plausible deniability. This president however, may be the first one who actually didn't need it, because he had the patriot act to cover his ass. It would be an interesting precident. Scary? Maybe a bit... but ECHELON (http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html) has apparently been around for a long time. So this is only news really to those without tinfoil hats.

OH... and Jefferson didn't have a cellphone or email. These days, ya gotta have your own sattelite to get away with anything... sheeeeeeez.

Hmm, what exactly are you suggesting that "we Americans" do about it?


I'd like you to answer my question.

If you read the entire act (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html), you will (I hope) agree that the President has clearly violated it. He said he did it thirty times. So what do you think the penalty should be, Baron?
if this is what you are talking about then alot of other presidents are guilty as sin.
you also didn't clarify what specificly we are talking about.

"We, the people", should sit back and watch our government and our Constitution in action.)
that is a right on statement. the only problem is this 'ol gal takes too damn long for most peoples tastes, on the order of 10's of years. ever hear "the government grinds slow but she grinds exceedingly fine"?

"We, the people", should sit back and watch our government and our Constitution in action.)Yes, kind of like the Nazis did prior to Hitler seizing power. You are a dense one. You must be on the payroll.

the nazi's were not americans. good point though. our system as it was created was unique and may still be. you can't historicaly compare the us government with any other.

It's not the supposed government that really matters, though. It's the people and what they are willing to be talked into.

i realy don't know how to respond to that. i defend the patriot act, i also defend the government when people say they are being oppressed. how long has the patriot act been in force? 4 years? in all of those four years i have never hesitated to light up a joint. where are all these oppressive f.b.i. men. i have said it once, i'll say it again i would be one of the first to know.

If the Attorney General approves it, the president does not
need a court order for up to one year. Did the Attorney
General sign off on the spying, did he report it to the house
committee and did it take place for longer than a year?

Since I don't know the answers, I cannot say whether any law was broken.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/36/subchapters/i/sections/section_1802.html
... the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that -
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at -
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications
transmitted by means of communications used ...

...if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence...
Note that due to the wide definition of the "war on terror," this law can be applied to US citizens as well as foreign nationals. Without this extended enterpretation, Bush's actions would be categorically illegal.

...how long has the patriot act been in force? 4 years? in all of those four years i have never hesitated to light up a joint. where are all these oppressive f.b.i. men.

Are you an Arab?

If you were of arabian decent, you might speak differently.
Harrasement under the patriot act has so far been limited
to those with dark skin. I live in a racist area, and although
it took place before, now it is official policy.

America has spied on its citizens for years. First anarchists, then commies, then hackers, and now nationalists and other "dissident" groups.

Democracy is a failure.

Are you an Arab?

If you were of arabian decent, you might speak differently.
Harrasement under the patriot act has so far been limited
to those with dark skin. I live in a racist area, and although
it took place before, now it is official policy.
no i am not arab.you say you live in a racist area, is that area predomitaly dark skin? what is the nature and reasons for this harrasement?

America has spied on its citizens for years.
i don't think you could sleep at night if you knew what the government was capable of.

Baron Max:"Hmm, what exactly are you suggesting that "we Americans" do about it?"

A responsible start is to write to your representatives in the House and Senate and express yourself. Letters to your local newspaper editors are also a way to make your views heard. Even casual conversations can set people to thinking. Little ripples can travel far.

Here (http://www.bchw.org/lnt/main/udall.htm) are some tips on writing your representatives from Congressman Morris K. Udall.

Here (http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/) is contact information for your Senators and Reps.

Here (http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/usstate/usatable.htm) is a directory of newspapers.

These are two letters that I have just sent. I am still working on one to Sherwood Boehlert, with more effort/less enthusiasm because he is in the President's pocket and consistently ignores the sentiments of his considerably progressive district. I haven't been in the papers for some time, so I'm also writing a letter to a local newspaper editor on this subject.
Senator Charles Schumer
313 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-0001

Dear Senator Schumer,

Like you, I find the revelation that the government listened in on hundreds of phone conversations without getting a warrant shocking. Bush Administration abuses of power continue to threaten our democracy by compromising our civil liberties.

I am delighted with your stand against the Patriot Reauthorization Bill. Please continue to fight for your constituents’ freedom by demanding that the Executive branch return to the Constitutional judicial and congressional oversight that is exceedingly vital to our democracy and way of life.

Please continue to fight for our freedoms by rejecting all extensions of onerous powers in this bill: Demand higher legal standards, demand greater judicial and congressional oversight, and demand the shortest possible "sunset" provisions.

Thank you again for guarding our liberties. I look forward to you representing my concerns in future considerations.

Sincerely,
(name/address deleted for this post)

Senator Hillary Clinton
476 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510 – 0001

Dear Senator Clinton,

Like you, I am troubled by reports that President Bush has been (and continues to) illegally authorize domestic spying on U.S. citizens. Like you, I am also disturbed to learn that the DOD now maintains a database of citizens actively opposed to the war in Iraq.

I applaud your stand in voting down Patriot Act Reauthorization until the proper priorities are set down. I agree with Thomas Jefferson that “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

I urge you exercise the duty of the Senate to vigilantly guard against the imposition of broad, unchecked powers by the Executive Branch. I am loathe for our nation to trade one risk (terrorism) for another (unchecked abuses of Executive power). Therefore it is imperative that the Senate investigate and take action to halt these identified abuses, not only by strenuously reviewing the Patriot Act, but also by investigating and impeaching this President for deceitfully compromising our sacred liberties.

Sincerely,
xx

hypewaders
isn't it just the least bit possible that our "freedoms" can be used against us?

edit
imo you start squeezing someone they will squeal. and you seem to be doing alot of that.

"our "freedoms" can be used against us"

How?

i don't know. that's what i am asking you.
can our freedoms be used against us?

I can imagine scenarios where freedom enhances the ability of criminals to operate. So does air to breathe. That does not justify an attempt to remove either. I am still not following your reasoning.

Wouldn't it be easier if he just did what every other president did and get a warrant? But, oh thats right, 9/11 changed everything!

my reasoning is the f.b.i. is not overstepping their bounds as far as the common man goes and that is what is important, the common man. i get the impression you are politicaly active. the government has every right to know who they are dealing with.

And I get the impression that you are comfortable having your government establish in secret who is "common" and who is not. I am not comfortable with such a system, antithetical to a free society.

how are you being "oppressed" by the patriot act? has anybody you know been "oppressed". i agree debate is good. besides our government has been designed and built to divide power.

if this is what you are talking about then alot of other presidents are guilty as sin.

No doubt.



you also didn't clarify what specificly we are talking about.

Go back to page five. I was responding to Baron Max's demand for the law that Bush has violated. I quoted chapter and verse to him, and so far have had no response after asking his opinion on the matter.

The Patriot Act, by the way, makes no amendment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It strengthens some of its provisions and make it easier for different agencies to cooperate in carrying out approved surveillance and sharing its results.

FISA explicitly restricts surveillance on U.S. citizens. "...no
contents of any communication to which a United States person
is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any
purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court
order under section 1805 of this title is obtained or unless
the Attorney General determines that the information indicates
a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person."

This clearly merits investigation. If the legal framework provides no loophole, then the President must answer for his acts. Does anyone disagree?

...the government has every right to know who they are dealing with...

No, as a matter of fact, they don't. The government is not a person, and therefore has no legal rights at all. But I quibble. Yes, the intelligence services need to know what threats exist. If Osama bin Laden says into his cellphone "hey, call Te Jen and tell him to blow up a nursery school" then I would expect a visit from the FBI shortly thereafter. Intelligence services can even wiretap me if I make inflammatory statements on internet forums, if they present a reasonable case to FISA and get the okay. That's legal, if somewhat distressing.

But the President and his people MAY NOT ORDER SECRET SURVEILLANCE ON ME. That is clearly outside the law unless he is prepared to declare a national emergency and suspend the constitution and all federal law. The only escape clause in the FISA law refers to

"Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the
Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a
court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence
information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days
following a declaration of war by the Congress."

We have no declaration of war.

i am not really sure if i follow you
1. g.w.bush did something illegal or (what did he do)
2. you are a foreigner being harrassed (how)

i am not really sure if i follow you
1. g.w.bush did something illegal or (what did he do)
2. you are a foreigner being harrassed (how)

It is illegal in the United States for governmental agencies to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. citizens, unless they have specific approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court. Bush admitted that he ordered such surveillance to be done in secret (without asking for approval from anybody). That could be a violation of federal law.

I am an American citizen who is pissed off that our president ignores the law. He says he did it for the protection of the American people, but I don't believe him. I think he did it because he thought the FISA court would turn him down in these specific instances. Why else would he risk impeachment?

FISA ...... "...no contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court order under section 1805 of this title is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person."

This clearly merits investigation. If the legal framework provides no loophole, then the President must answer for his acts. Does anyone disagree?

Well, te jen, read it for yourself! "...72 hours UNLESS a court...." And check the part that says, "...or UNLESS the Attorney General determines that...."

Now I ask you ...how can you not read that and understand it??

Baron Max

It is illegal in the United States for governmental agencies to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. citizens, unless they have specific approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court. Bush admitted that he ordered such surveillance to be done in secret (without asking for approval from anybody). That could be a violation of federal law.


due to the provisions of the patriot act this may no longer be true.
what were these people supposedly guilty of?

leopold: The Patriot act did not amend FISA in regards to the requirement for judicial review.

Baron: There is no indication that either exception you point to was operative: We have nothing from any court, nothing from the AG in defense of the President. What we seem to have instead is a President playing monarch.

Please try again.

This is for anyone who thinks the patriot act gives the pres the authority to spy on americans without court approval.

Senator Lindsay Graham (Republican from South Carolina): "I don't know of any legal basis for President Bush's secret spying program."

leopold: The Patriot act did not amend FISA in regards to the requirement for judicial review.


if i am correct any government agent can put you under secret survillence for suspected terrorist activities. were these people suspected terrorists?

Senator Lindsay Graham (Republican from South Carolina): "I don't know of any legal basis for President Bush's secret spying program."
i almost asked if this was sarcasm but nevermind

if i am correct any government agent can put you under secret survillence for suspected terrorist activities. were these people suspected terrorists?

If you had fought in a bar, under the Patriot Act you can potentially be labeled as a "terrorist".

The biggest argument against the Patriot Act is the lack of oversight, since that's the very thing the Patriot Act does away with.

Taken from Slate:
The best check on such encroachments should be a free and objective judiciary. But as we have noted several times in this series, many of the most disturbing Patriot provisions do away with judicial oversight altogether, while others permit judges to act as rubber stamps in ex parte proceedings—that is, hearings where only the government side is represented.

The next best check on such encroachments is public scrutiny, and, as we've suggested, that scrutiny is only beginning to be as demanding and impatient as it ought. But most Americans still do not believe that Patriot has in any way affected them. So it's worth noting that many of these provisions are used frequently—even if details are blacked out. Go back and look at the sections that ask whether you'd know if Patriot has been used against you. In most cases the answer is no.

Most people cannot answer whether the Act has affected them at all, because there is no way to know until you're in a court and the information is being used against you. The Patriot Act allows the government to delay declarations of warrants to any arbitrary time. It can ignore due processes by labeling you as an "enemy combatant".

And Cottontop3000, perhaps you should actually cite primary sources to back your statements instead of just quoting random people? Are you also aware that almost all congressmen did not even read the Patriot Act when they voted for them?

SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.

Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--

`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);

`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and

`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.

So please, you blubbering pile of hearsays, would you please think for yourself for once and go out of your way to find out about the information that you claim to be true that you have no backing of, instead of randomly spewing bullshit and claiming bullshit upon others? Your passive-aggressive style is fucking unnerving.

Most people cannot answer whether the Act has affected them at all, because there is no way to know until you're in a court and the information is being used against you. The Patriot Act allows the government to delay declarations of warrants to any arbitrary time. It can ignore due processes by labeling you as an "enemy combatant".


when in court would the defendant know if the evidence was collected by the patriot act?

"if i am correct any government agent can put you under secret survillence for suspected terrorist activities."

Under our laws the government can indeed surveille terrorists suspects- but only through following the obligatory procedures that have been put in place to protect our civil liberties. I feel like we are talking in circles here.

"were these people suspected terrorists?"

How can we know, if there is no oversight? The point is, if we had successfully legislated to just take the word of a Presidentissimo in this case, then we would have in effect radically changed our form of government. This has not occured, because it means summarily dismantling the separation of powers that distinguishes our system from the structure of any onerous police state you wish to compare. Until we have dismantled our democracy and installed a dictatorship, a President conducting surveillance of Americans within the USA without oversight is acting illegally and in direct contradiction to our form of government.

Fears of terrorism are no excuse. There will always be a terrorist threat. There will always be individuals that someone suspects of terrorism, however one wishes to define that or any criminal intent. But if we allow the White House to deign in secret and without review which Americans to place under covert surveillance, then we have crossed a line. We will have joined with Ba'athists, Soviets, National Socialists, and other systems that have operated by relegating civil rights to a lower priority than the arbitrary needs of the state. With that status, and with the power of fear, one deceitful leader could take this nation on a precipitous and ireversible plunge, just as it has happened elsewhere.

Americans are not magically immune to this potentiality by some miracle of genetics or geography. Given the opportunity, tyrrany can undo all that we Americans have "struggled" for in terms of liberty. History shows how rogue governments can take morally "upright", educated, well-meaning citizens straight to hell in a handbasket. Several of the founders and mentors of the early USA were troubled that a sufficiently apathetic populace could in future facilitate tyranny no matter what the framers put down.

Terrorist attacks are fearsome. But fleeting. Terrorism can not destroy us. But if we in fear let tyranny slip out of the bag, history teaches us that it will not stop until our complete national disgrace and collapse.

how are you being "oppressed" by the patriot act? has anybody you know been "oppressed". i agree debate is good. besides our government has been designed and built to divide power.
you never answered these two questions

i agree there should be oversight.
which do you consider worse
1. a threat from the inside
2. outside
this whole situation revolves around u.s. security, i have a few ideas but who do i communicate them to.

anytimefool, I think te jen's response was adequate for your arguments. Nonetheless, bush broke the law.

leopold, there is plenty that most people don't like about the patriot act, unless you are a die-hard conservative extremist. When the republican majority in the house and senate passed the patriot act, the terrorists around the globe won a battle. If you think it is not a big deal that the president of the u.s. of a. can spy on anyone he or his friends want to spy on, without getting approval from a court, be it a normal court or the FISA court, then I am more worried about this country than I was to begin with.

"how are you being "oppressed" by the patriot act?"

I have claimed no personal oppression. I have expressed revulsion that the potential for it is increased by unconstitutional knee-jerk spy games such as we are discussing here.

"has anybody you know been "oppressed"

Not by this government. By governments with the same trappings- Absolutely.

"which do you consider worse

1. a threat from the inside
2. outside"

These are vague questions, and I'm not sure what you are trying to ask. The only real threats to our freedoms in the contemporary context do come from within our own government and society, as opposed to any agendas of foreign governments or foreign political movements that you care to raise. Maybe if you would refine the questions I can answer better.

i realy don't know how to respond to that. i defend the patriot act, i also defend the government when people say they are being oppressed. how long has the patriot act been in force? 4 years? in all of those four years i have never hesitated to light up a joint. where are all these oppressive f.b.i. men. i have said it once, i'll say it again i would be one of the first to know.

Dude, toke away, for all I care. I think there are people in power who could care less if you smoke pot. In fact, I'm sure there are plenty of them who like the idea. After all, the more mellow you are, the less they have to worry about when they break the law to gain advantage over you.

isn't it possible that the patriot act takes care of the "inside" while the military takes care of the outside?
i see your point of view. maybe the oversight you say is missing is somewhere else in some other part of the government.

Dude, toke away, for all I care. I think there are people in power who could care less if you smoke pot. In fact, I'm sure there are plenty of them who like the idea. After all, the more mellow you are, the less they have to worry about when they break the law to gain advantage over you.
think pot will ever be legalized?
about my political slant, i've never voted

isn't it possible that the patriot act takes care of the "inside" while the military takes care of the outside?Here. This will let you read the whole thing for yourself. But no, the patriot act covers domestic and international. The whole enchilada. In addition, please tell me what you think about the ease of reading you encounter when glancing through it.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162:

i see your point of view. maybe the oversight you say is missing is somewhere else in some other part of the government.The point is, leopold, in this thread, that the oversight was avoided by the president. He went out on his own and did what he wanted to. Secretly. Similarly to what Saddam Hussein did in Iraq before the pres decided to take him out for being the same way.

anytimefool, I think te jen's response was adequate for your arguments. Nonetheless, bush broke the law.

How was it adequate? It never actually addressed it, and that's fine and all because HE NEVER ACTUALLY REPLIED TO ME. Now, instead of dodging the goddamn issue, why don't you provide your own response? All you have to say for yourself is that "Bush broke the law", but that's all you damn well have to say. You have no substance. You're just a masquerade of blanket statements, and if you were not the idiot you were, you'd realize the inherent hypocrisy in calling me the "fool".

So, Cottontop3000fool, maybe you'll actually address my points next time in the reply you give to me, considering I've yet to see you make one valid argument at all in the thread. Most others have filled that quota; why can't you?

i found this in my short scan


`(c) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION- In any judicial review of a determination made under this section, if the determination was based on classified information (as defined in section 1(a) of the Classified Information Procedures Act) such information may be submitted to the reviewing court ex parte and in camera. This subsection does not confer or imply any right to judicial review.'.

what does
the above imply?

think pot will ever be legalized?Not with republicans in power. I've quit though, so I don't really have a vested interest.
about my political slant, i've never votedBy choice or because you're too young or what? I voted for Bush Sr. in 1988 when I was 18 (First time). Then Ross Perot. Then Perot again, I think. Then, in 2000, I hated both gore and bush, so I voted for Nader. Last year, Kerry. Next time, definitely not a republican, though maybe not a democrat either. Man, I wish we had a stronger third party.

why can't you?Because I am a dumb country-bumkin who don't like you and don't feel like you deserve my time or energy. umm-kay?

Who are you by the way? Seems like you have a grudge against me from before I was banned a couple of months ago.

why i don't vote is by choice, (yeah i know i'm a bitch)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162:


thanks for the link, i'm gauranteed to be up all night now.

i found this in my short scan


`(c) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION- In any judicial review of a determination made under this section, if the determination was based on classified information (as defined in section 1(a) of the Classified Information Procedures Act) such information may be submitted to the reviewing court ex parte and in camera. This subsection does not confer or imply any right to judicial review.'.

what does
the above imply?

It just means that there are other sub-fucking-sections of the act that cover the right to judicial review in more damn detail.

Ex parte just means that not all parties have to be present.

"An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the controversy to be present." Wikipedia.

why i don't vote is by choice, (yeah i know i'm a bitch)

You're choice. I wish you would though.

sub-fucking-sections
you been hanging with baron lately

you been hanging with baron lately

Not a chance. :) Just about everything pisses me off though. Especially racism and, I guess, lawyer-speak.

You're choice. I wish you would though.
if i had to vote i wouldn't. why? imo the vote is on its way out. this country is run on popular opinion. the vote just insures fresh brainpower and it goes a long way to beating these conspiricies in the head.

before I was banned a couple of months ago.
what did you do to get banned?

what did you do to get banned?

Cussed everybody out and invited a few idiots to my house for a word. Someone construed that as a threat. Which it could be, I guess, though I don't really see it. Basically, I was being a total ass. :confused:

Well, te jen, read it for yourself! "...72 hours UNLESS a court...." And check the part that says, "...or UNLESS the Attorney General determines that...."

Now I ask you ...how can you not read that and understand it??

Baron Max

I will answer you with as much patience as I can muster.

If you would take time to read the entire law, you will find that it specifically and repeatedly addresses the matter of inadvertantly acquiring intelligence on U.S. citizens in the course of doing electronic surveillance on foreign nationals. It prohibits targeting U.S. citizens within the country for electronic surveillance. The section I cited states categorically that if intelligence information is accidentally and unintentionally picked up regarding U.S. citizens, the AG may use that information for further action IF it points to a specific threat. If the AG does so, he still needs to submit the action for judicial review.

Your response only demonstrates that you are not taking this discussion seriously. You repeatedly demanded to know what the legal basis for certain statements were, and upon being supplied that information you choose to ignore it.

My point, which I will make yet again, is that the President stated clearly that he ordered secret surveillance on U.S. citizens. Not once, but thirty times. In bypassing federal law in this matter, a crime may have been committed.

And I will ask you one last time - what do you propose be done about this, and what do you think the penalty should be if it is found that a crime was committed?

Not once, but thirty times. In bypassing federal law in this matter, a crime may have been committed.

And there we have it, folks ....the operative word is "may"! "May" have been committed! I pointed out several bumps in your posted articles of the law, yet you continue to be so sure of yourself that the President has violated some law ...how can you be so sure? Or are you just being anti-Bush?

Our nation is founded on the law, and we should let the law work it's magic in this case. If, and I stress the word "if", a law has been committed, then the law will hand down a sentence. Our righteous indignation should NOT be a part of any court of law.

And I will ask you one last time - what do you propose be done about this, and what do you think the penalty should be if it is found that a crime was committed?

I don't feel qualified to make any statements in