That explains the Bats in your Belfry

 

Your absolutley right... it is NOT the sole authority.... I beleive the constitution has something to say ............., and I dont recall from civics class where violating the privacy of the citizenry is a constitutionaly granted executive power...

again, I am talking SOLEY about the monitoring of U.S. CITIZENS....
the bred, born american citizen.
FISA is aimed at forigen nationals, and at communications to/from a forigen local. THAT I have no problem with, however, teh monitoring of communications that begin and end inside the U.S. between U.S. citizens is the issue.

 

...but I still can't figure out why I like garlick...


PS. you should hear me say: goood eeevening...

 

For those of you who still think eavesdropping on the telephone conversations of known terrorists is an invasion of your privacy, let me remind you of a few things the Government did during the Clinton administration. They were engaged in practices which were reprehensible, if not illegal.

"First, the president and the National Security Agency ("NSA") develop what was known as the Clipper Project. The Clipper Project was to implant a small chip in every telephone which would enable NSA to monitor calls without a court order.

And then there was the 'Echelon Project,' a computer program developed with the British, which was initiated during the Clinton-Gore administration. That program was designed to pick up key words. So if while joking with one of your friends, and speaking of a recently released Broadway show, you said "I sure think that show will bomb," the program would pick up the word "bomb" and immediately the two people in the conversation would be subjected to electronic eavesdropping. That was to be done immediately, by the way, without a court order.

And then there was the CALEA Project, constructed to give law enforcement broader wiretapping authority. I've searched the files on this and for some reason I don't find any requirement that these law enforcement officials seek a court order before commencing their wiretapping.

And then there was the Megiddo Project, established in anticipation of the turn of the century and the Millennium. It targeted fundamentalist Christians and all but invited citizens to spy on them.

How dare Bill Clinton and Al Gore, or anybody who was a part of the Clinton administration criticize the Bush administration for eavesdropping on the conversations of known terrorists.

 

So now that i have to block the secrete radio waves from gettin in my house, which type of aluminum foil should i line my walls with.
Just look at what the Democrats did last week at the confirmation hearings, shouldn't Ted Kennedy drink more? You might be able to understand him better.

 

Bush was here in KS yesterday, speaking at K-State's Landon Lecture Series.
I beleive he did a good job defending his position on the eavesdropping topic, even though I have major issues with it.
IF, ( thats "if" in big bold letters) he is being honest and ALL eavesdropping has been done ONLY on calls originating OUTSIDE the USA and from known terrorist operatives, then FISA does apply and I will agree he is within the law.
If the media is correct, and there has been eavesdroping on calls ect between US Citizens inside the US, then I still believe the law has been broken.
I think the idea of private hearings is the only way to tell who to beleive....
if you can beleive any of them.......

 

I would think that they would start monitoring the calls coming from OUTSIDE the USA first ... and then, if the conversation was "juicy" enough to warrant it, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they start listening in on the person INSIDE the USA that received the call just to see what progresses from there. I know I would ... but that's just me.

Sleeper cells are a tough cookie to crack .... that would be the only way that I could think of to attempt to find them.

I read where President Bush was fielding questions off the cuff during these recent conferences ... show a lot of confidence if you ask me. (especially with his history of Bush-isms when he "wings it"). I love that about the man ... he is very confident he is doing the right thing. I never got that warm, fuzzy feeling with Clinton.

PISTOL

 

Reading these posts it seems that there is a lot of misunderstanding about what has happened as well as some people either intentionally misleading or not following thru to verify information. First, in response to the user that posted all of "PROJECTS" that the Clinton administration undertook is very incorrect. For example, the project called Echelon was not enacted during the Clinton Administration. It actually dates back to WW2. It was an agreement between the U.S. and Europe regarding the collection and dissemination of Intelligence data. No relevance to Clinton except it was used by him and all presidents prior to him. The Clipper Project was a procedure for standardizing telecommunications so when it was legal to eavesdrop, they could actually do it. Without this, there could be no legal or illegal eavesdropping. I suppose one could argue that if Clinton did not support, thru the NSA and with AT&T, the standardizing of telecommunication data, then Bush could not as easily eavesdrop.??? The Calea Project is better known as the Calea Law. The idea that Clinton was responsible for this and that this is actually a bad thing is very much out of context. It is a law that was proposed in congress, passed and signed into law by Clinton. It is very much nonpartisan. It is a law. The difference from this and the Bush approach is he is not following the law. If someone believes the CALEA Law is unconstitutional, then they can and may someday challenge its constitutionality. Now for the Megiddo PROJECT, as it was called. It was actually a report from the FBI about the likelihood of terrorist activity in the US. Legal and informative in nature. No one has objected to it except fundamentalists for the most part.

Now from my perspective, Bush has the legal rights to eavesdrop, nothing impedes that. The only requirement is that he tell the the secret court after so many hours, i think it is 72 hours. Of the thousands of notices/applications filed with this court, i read that only 2 or 3 were ever denied continuing eavesdropping. So it seems he is unnecessarily circumventing a requirement that does not prevent legal eavesdropping. The question I ask is why circumvent that if you are eavesdropping. The answer could be there is more to it than meets the eye. I know that I want the checks and balances in place to ensure no one is losing their civil rights. Its no big deal to report it. Nothing prevents the eavesdropping. Its just a reporting requirement that stays secret.

Interestingly, the White House is now demanding Yahoo and Google to turnover millions of search engine submissions to them for review. Well, this is how it starts in my opinion. They have gone from the telephonic eavesdropping to we want internet records and where everyone is going on the internet. Maybe not a big deal. But that is a pretty quick jump from only terrorists to everyone. They dont want any exclussion, they want everyone. Where are millions of people surfing on the internet. Well, Yahoo provided the data, Google is fighting it saying it is private information. I am willing to bet that there are a lot of people here that will start scratching their heads saying "OH NO, I SHOULDNT HAVE WENT TO THAT SITE".??? Maybe. So where does it go from here? What would or could be next? I dont know, but it keeps going nevertheless. There will always be an excuse too. Some logical reason that they need to do this or that. You should look back to the American Revolution and see what Ben Franklin said about this subject. Its a famous quote that is readily available.

Sorry for the long-winded post. Just my thoughts on the subject.

 

This is the reason for all the concern.........the "whats next" issue.

 

Of course this is a reason, among many, for concern. Do you not know that having the "What's Next" concern is what makes us Americans unique from other countries. What do you think caused the American Revolution? No Taxation Without Representation - What's Next. Stamp Act - What's Next. India Tea Company - What's Next. So On and So On. Americans demand their rights from government. Americans protect their rights by requiring accountability. That is what the Secret Court is for when conducting wire taps of U.S. Citizens. I dont see how anyone can think its okay to allow the president to take ANY action he deems necessary in the name of protection. This is how dictators get into power. That's not to say Bush is any sort of dictator. But we Americans have to constantly be dilligent and watchful of our government. We are responsible to keep them honest by demanding accountability. I think we can all agree that our founding fathers knew something about bad government and the dangers of government. This is where the Constitution came from. This is where the Bill Of Rights came from. BEN FRANKLIN SAID THIS:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

This is very well said. Look at history. Look at how Stalin, Lennin, Musoulini (sic), Hitler, etcetera, gained power. It all starts with a little reason and mushrooms from their. Sometimes very quickly, sometimes over decades and even a century. We in America are slowly losing our rights. I think everyone can think of one or two rights they feel they have lost within the last decade.
Respectfully, Steve

 

I'm confused, you seemed to intimate that I was out to lunch to worry about the What's Next Issue, but then you previously made the above statement, which seems to be in line with the What's Next Issue. Did I misunderstand?

 

Very interesting thoughts, I agree.

Also, I've neve seen anyone spell out "Etc."

 

"TAPPING TERRORISTS PHONE LINES, good thing, or bad thing."

Good thing....

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ar...2/12natsec.htm

Posted 7/12/05
By Danielle Knight

In the 10 years since the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing killed 168 people, roughly 60 right-wing terrorist plots have been uncovered in the United States, according to an upcoming report by the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project. The plots, all foiled by law enforcement, reportedly included violent plans by antigovernment militia groups, racist skinhead organizations, and Ku Klux Klan members to use various types of chemical bombs and other weapons.

Some of the more recent right-wing terror plots listed in the Intelligence Project report include:

May 20, 2005: Two New Jersey men, Craig Orler and Gabriel Garafa, who allegedly belong to neo-**** and skinhead groups, were charged with illegally selling to police informants guns and 60 pounds of urea to use in a bomb.

Oct. 25, 2004: FBI agents in Tennessee arrested Demetrius "Van" Crocker after he allegedly tried to purchase ingredients for deadly sarin nerve gas and C-4 plastic explosives from an undercover agent. Crocker, who was involved with white supremacist groups, was charged with trying to get explosives to destroy a building and faces more than 20 years in prison.

April 10, 2003: The FBI raided the home of William Krar, of Noonday, Texas, and discovered an arsenal of more than 500,000 rounds of ammunition, 65 pipe bombs and remote control briefcase bombs, and almost 2 pounds of sodium cyanide, enough to make a bomb that could kill everyone in a large building. Krar, reportedly associated with white supremacist groups, was sentenced to 11 years in prison for possession of a chemical weapon.

 

Good thing....

OF COURSE IT IS. I dont think anyone is arguing if it is a good thing to tape the Terrorists phone calls, track them, bust them. Everyone wants that. It is how the administration is doing this. Look, here's how it works, the government - White House, can, without a warrant of any kind, track and listen to any phone chatter they want to from anyone. However, after I believe it is 72 hours, they have a legal requirement to either stop tracking and eavesdropping, or to get a court order (warrant) allowing the continued eavesdropping. In something like 17,000 warrants only two or three have ever been denied since 1979. The courts do not have much power to stop the surveillance. Unless there is an egregious abuse by the government, the courts will not stop the surveillance. Their hands are very very much tied. The ONLY purpose of the court is to ensure that the citizens that are being eavesdropped on have some, even just a little, prospect of terrorism or terrorist information. This is why only a few have ever been denied CONTINUING eavesdropping in over 20 years of the practice of this law and accompanying procedures. If the Intel community thinks your neighbor might have some information about terrorism, the NSA, CIA, FBI, whomever, can tap their line and eavesdrop immediately and can do this for, if my memory serves me correctly, 72 hours (3 days). No need for a warrant, no need to tell anyone, nothing. That procedure by itself is a scary thought. Now, instead of doing this, the White House believes they are not required to comply with the 72 hour reporting requirement. They feel they can eavesdrop on anyone and its no ones business what they hear or who they hear it from. They dont want to justify what they are doing. WHY! WHY NOT COMPLY. Its not public information. Its a very secretative process. WHY NOT COMPLY. There is no effect whatsoever on their ability to eavesdrop on terrorists. Unless there is an egregious abuse of this eavesdropping. That might be a reason to not comply. That would be the only reason not to comply. Someone tell me why the government should not comply. What benefit is there by not complying? Nothing is lost by complying. Nothing. But a lot is lost without complying. What if you found out the government was listening to your every move. If you picked up the newspaper and read what you do all day. What your doing and saying. Alot of us like to think we dont have anything to be worried about. But there are a lot of little things that all of us like to know are not heard by others. When we tell our spouses the neighbor is a jerk or when we talk bad about our boss and how lazy he or she might be. It then becomes personal, but people tend to forget about that. The problem is that once it becomes personal, its already too late. You have already lost your rights and now suffer the consequences. You can like the heck out of Bush. But you have to be smart about that. You have to demand that his government meet your very high demands of him. You demand he protect you. You demand he run a tight ship. You demand accountability for all of his actions - whether right or wrong. You push him to his limits knowing then that you can sleep better at night. Its a lot like a soldier or sailor in boot camp. You push and push the recruit knowing that in the end you will get the best possible soldier/sailor. This is why I believe it is important that future presidents serve their country in the military. To ensure that they understand attention to detail and accountability like every soldier/sailor already know.
Oh, and marines.

 

Did you guys know that the STASI, (East German Secret Police) kept warehouses full of jars containing "scent" samples of the East german population, and also kept samples of saliva and other forms of DNA samples? I wonder how they started?