Guess Who Wants The NSA Spying To Continue

[Mariner]

wrote:

"Like we have been saying, they only used it on TERRORISTS."

But how do you know? For decades the FBI spied on whoever J. Edgar Hoover and the administration in power wanted to spy on. Someone could have said back then, "Like we have been saying, they only used it on GIN-RUNNERS." That was the original justification, and it then went completely haywire.

If Richard Nixon used unauthorized wiretapping for political purposes, I have every right to think George W. Bush would do the same. Same political party. Same penchant for secrecy. And many staff such as Dick Cheney from the same era. I'm not willing to give that much trust to an elected official.

I find it ironic that I'm here as a liberal arguing for less government power than a group of conservatives!

Get a warrant. After the fact. If this can't be done fast enough, and it's a ticking bomb, by all means go for it and tell us about it later. It's called "checks and balances" and it helps make our gov't more fair. Without that, there is nothing stopping Rove and Cheney from listening in on Howard Dean's phone calls--with no record of it anywhere.

The reports on what the wiretapping has accomplished so far indicate that hundreds of ordinary people have been tapped, that we've had repeated lying about the scope of the surveillance ("it's only international calls," they said first, then admitted they'd lied), and not one person has been arrested as a result of it. In a New York Times piece I posted here a few weeks ago, several FBI officials said they considered the whole thing a monumental distraction and waste of time, because of the huge number of dead end leads and lack of real ones.

Mariner.

 

[dilloduck]

wrote:

"Like we have been saying, they only used it on TERRORISTS."

But how do you know? For decades the FBI spied on whoever J. Edgar Hoover and the administration in power wanted to spy on. Someone could have said back then, "Like we have been saying, they only used it on GIN-RUNNERS." That was the original justification, and it then went completely haywire.

If Richard Nixon used unauthorized wiretapping for political purposes, I have every right to think George W. Bush would do the same. Same political party. Same penchant for secrecy. And many staff such as Dick Cheney from the same era. I'm not willing to give that much trust to an elected official.

I find it ironic that I'm here as a liberal arguing for less government power than a group of conservatives!

Get a warrant. After the fact. If this can't be done fast enough, and it's a ticking bomb, by all means go for it and tell us about it later. It's called "checks and balances" and it helps make our gov't more fair. Without that, there is nothing stopping Rove and Cheney from listening in on Howard Dean's phone calls--with no record of it anywhere.

The reports on what the wiretapping has accomplished so far indicate that hundreds of ordinary people have been tapped, that we've had repeated lying about the scope of the surveillance ("it's only international calls," they said first, then admitted they'd lied), and not one person has been arrested as a result of it. In a New York Times piece I posted here a few weeks ago, several FBI officials said they considered the whole thing a monumental distraction and waste of time, because of the huge number of dead end leads and lack of real ones.

Mariner.

Spying will never stop. The purpose of a legal wiretap is to be able to use the information gathered in a court of law to get a conviction. Other wire tapping ( as politival parties spying on ech other ) remains illegal although I'm relatively certai nthat both parties use it to get an advantage over the other party. If they are caught at that, they would be prosecuted.

 

[Gunny]

wrote:

"Like we have been saying, they only used it on TERRORISTS."

But how do you know? For decades the FBI spied on whoever J. Edgar Hoover and the administration in power wanted to spy on. Someone could have said back then, "Like we have been saying, they only used it on GIN-RUNNERS." That was the original justification, and it then went completely haywire.

If Richard Nixon used unauthorized wiretapping for political purposes, I have every right to think George W. Bush would do the same. Same political party. Same penchant for secrecy. And many staff such as Dick Cheney from the same era. I'm not willing to give that much trust to an elected official.

I find it ironic that I'm here as a liberal arguing for less government power than a group of conservatives!

Get a warrant. After the fact. If this can't be done fast enough, and it's a ticking bomb, by all means go for it and tell us about it later. It's called "checks and balances" and it helps make our gov't more fair. Without that, there is nothing stopping Rove and Cheney from listening in on Howard Dean's phone calls--with no record of it anywhere.

The reports on what the wiretapping has accomplished so far indicate that hundreds of ordinary people have been tapped, that we've had repeated lying about the scope of the surveillance ("it's only international calls," they said first, then admitted they'd lied), and not one person has been arrested as a result of it. In a New York Times piece I posted here a few weeks ago, several FBI officials said they considered the whole thing a monumental distraction and waste of time, because of the huge number of dead end leads and lack of real ones.

Mariner.

Ah ...where to begin .....

The FBI is of course going to call it a waste of time. A competitor agency is doing it. If the FBI was doing it, it'd be teh greatest thing since sliced cheese to them.

No one has admitted lying about who was being tapped. The taps ARE on international calls. What you are dishonestly trying to say is that they did not bother to say that one end of the call may or may not be on US soil. If it is and they're talking to terrorists, they can broadcast it on loudspeaker for all I care. Evil loves the dark and you libs want to make damned sure it gets plenty of it.

Getting a warrant after-the-fact amounts to a paper-drill. So THAT is what you libs have made all this fuss about? Good job.

Oh, and nobody but libs considers the NYT a credible source of news.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Getting a warrant after-the-fact amounts to a paper-drill. So THAT is what you libs have made all this fuss about? Good job.

I don't care if some bueraucrat has to fill in some paperwork, they still have to get a warrent. Its not like a warrent is such a terrible thing. I've never come across a group of people who seem to hate warrents so much. If they are so bad why don't we just get rid of them, just like the Chinese.

 

[manu1959]

I don't care if some bueraucrat has to fill in some paperwork, they still have to get a warrent. Its not like a warrent is such a terrible thing. I've never come across a group of people who seem to hate warrents so much. If they are so bad why don't we just get rid of them, just like the Chinese.

warrents dont exist.....if we get rid of the chinese who will do my laundry?

 

[Mr.Conley]

warrents dont exist.....if we get rid of the chinese who will do my laundry?

A. They exist in the Constitution, right here:
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

B. Getting rid of the Chinese has nothing to do with the post

C. I believe the stereotype is the Koreans, why don't you try them?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I don't care if some bueraucrat has to fill in some paperwork, they still have to get a warrent. Its not like a warrent is such a terrible thing. I've never come across a group of people who seem to hate warrents so much. If they are so bad why don't we just get rid of them, just like the Chinese.

When time is of the essence any extra hurdle is too much. It's funny you libs are so freedom oriented when it comes to protecting alquaeda phone calls.

 

[trobinett]

USMB seems devoid of libertarian Republicans, who would be as scared of Big Brother as Al Qaeda. What happened to getting gov't out of our lives? To small gov't that does as little as possible?

I belive it was the Gunny who "rubbed" up against the reason, that gov`t has grown so large, while the Republicans have been at the helm. All the in fighting between the parties.

The administration is trying to win a war, and at every turn the Dem`s are trying their hardest to undermine that effort. I for one, am getting really disgusted with the Dem`s tactic`s, and frankly think it boarders on traitorous.

As this war drags on, and more people lose their lives, they citizens of this great country should be pointing their collective finger at the naysayers, and disruptor's. Most of which can be found populating the Democratic party.

The elite media, which is controlled by the left, should also be holding their heads in shame.

 

[Mr.Conley]

When time is of the essence any extra hurdle is too much. It's funny you libs are so freedom oriented when it comes to protecting alquaeda phone calls.

Dear rightwing,
I believe you have incorrectly read my post and taken it completely out of context. If you will please observe the post mine responds to:

Getting a warrant after-the-fact amounts to a paper-drill. So THAT is what you libs have made all this fuss about? Good job.

As you will notice, the issue GunnyL is addressing is whether the NSA should have to get a warrent after the deed is done. My response concerns solely this issue. Now that this fact is established, let us consider. Will getting a warrent after the NSA has eavesdropped on a conversation take so long that they will be unable to act on it? Given that the action has already occured, the answer is a most definite no.

I am sorry you misunderstood the topic of my post and I hope this one helps to clarify the issue for you. I would also like to request that, in future posts, you stop presupposing my political views for me.

Thank you,
Mr.Conley

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Dear rightwing,
I believe you have incorrectly read my post and taken it completely out of context. If you will please observe the post mine responds to:


As you will notice, the issue GunnyL is addressing is whether the NSA should have to get a warrent after the deed is done. My response concerns solely this issue. Now that this fact is established, let us consider. Will getting a warrent after the NSA has eavesdropped on a conversation take so long that they will be unable to act on it? Given that the action has already occured, the answer is a most definite no.

I am sorry you misunderstood the topic of my post and I hope this one helps to clarify the issue for you. I would also like to request that, in future posts, you stop presupposing my political views for me.

Thank you,
Mr.Conley

Even afterward. They should just get on to the next case instead of farting over process papers. I say we make it that only national security related crimes can be prosecuted with info obtained over the lines. How about them apples?

 

[Mr.Conley]

Even afterward. They should just get on to the next case instead of farting over process papers.

So you want to eliminate the 4th Amendment because it might inconvenence some secondary bureaucrat whose job is to get the warrent anyway?

I say we make it that only national security related crimes can be prosecuted with info obtained over the lines. How about them apples?

I would not like to do that because such a system would be too easily corrupted a la J. Edgar Hoover. It would also prohibit police with actual warrents from doing there non-national security related job.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So you want to eliminate the 4th Amendment because it might inconvenence some secondary bureaucrat whose job is to get the warrent anyway?

It's about taking up ANY time when national security is at stake and one party of the conversation is already a suspected terrorist.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

It's about taking up ANY time when national security is at stake and one party of the conversation is already a suspected terrorist.

You know, I'd rather them just eliminate the damn clause from the Patriot Act--make it completely constitutional. Then, when the government actually comes into a situation where they actually would need to bypass the fourth amendment, they could just do it. It's not like they wouldn't anyway. Why are we kidding ourselves?

 

[Gunny]

I don't care if some bueraucrat has to fill in some paperwork, they still have to get a warrent. Its not like a warrent is such a terrible thing. I've never come across a group of people who seem to hate warrents so much. If they are so bad why don't we just get rid of them, just like the Chinese.

It is not a case of my hating warrants, nor have I seen anyone else make a statement that they hate them.

What I see is the actual point to the exercise getting lost in the minutia. Warrants or no, if terrorists are making calls then we should be listening. I don't care WHO they are calling nor WHERE they are calling.

Lawmakers on BOTH sides say the program is necessary; yet, the ones on the left STILL have to point a finger at Bush just because they have found yet another excuse.

GMAFB already. The precedence is set for the President, regardless or party, to act in what he feels is the best interest of the security of this Nation. A ruling otherwise will be unprecedented, and just another instance where the left ties our hands behind our backs instead of thinking of a way to better security.

Are YOU more important than the entire Nation? Not to me you aren't, so get off your high-horse and apply some common sense.

 

[Mr.Conley]

It is not a case of my hating warrants, nor have I seen anyone else make a statement that they hate them.

What I see is the actual point to the exercise getting lost in the minutia. Warrants or no, if terrorists are making calls then we should be listening. I don't care WHO they are calling nor WHERE they are calling.

Lawmakers on BOTH sides say the program is necessary; yet, the ones on the left STILL have to point a finger at Bush just because they have found yet another excuse.

GMAFB already. The precedence is set for the President, regardless or party, to act in what he feels is the best interest of the security of this Nation. A ruling otherwise will be unprecedented, and just another instance where the left ties our hands behind our backs instead of thinking of a way to better security.

Are YOU more important than the entire Nation? Not to me you aren't, so get off your high-horse and apply some common sense.

Gunny,
If you will review this thread, you will discover that no where in it do I call for the end of the program. What I do say is that, when they are 'listening in' on a conversation with a US citizen, they have to get a warrent. I've even said they can do so after the fact.

Also, from now on when you ask me to defend my position, could you please make sure its my position you are attacking.

 

[Gunny]

Gunny,
If you will review this thread, you will discover that no where in it do I call for the end of the program. What I do say is that, when they are 'listening in' on a conversation with a US citizen, they have to get a warrent. I've even said they can do so after the fact.

Also, from now on when you ask me to defend my position, could you please make sure its my position you are attacking.

Is this supposed to make any kind of sense? I responded DIRECTLY to your comment. First sentence. Please make sure when in your haste to play the pseudo-intellectual you don't overlook the obvious.

If my opinion and question FOLLWING my direct response to your post is a bit too tough for you, please accept my most humble apology for talking over your head.

 

[trobinett]

I, for one, am having a hard time with this thread.

Listening in on NON TRATORIOUS conversations shouldn`t be of ANY concern to a US citizen.

After what has happened around the world in the last five years, when I hear all these bleed in heart liberals talking about the constitution, and the fourth, or first amendment, I just get sick, cause they haven`t a clue as to how we got those right, and how we KEEP those right`s.

Having served in the Army as a 72B40, for the ASA, from `65 to `68, and being stationed at SHAPE in Belgium. We LISTENED in on ALL conversations, that came in, and out of that area 24/7.

ASA didn`t arrest, or harass ANYONE for ANYTHING, that wasn`t related to NATIONAL SECURITY.

Please explain to me, WHY the uproar over what is going on NOW, when in reality IT`S been going on for decades?

Seems a conscience is a little late in arriving.

 

[Annie]

Gunny,
If you will review this thread, you will discover that no where in it do I call for the end of the program. What I do say is that, when they are 'listening in' on a conversation with a US citizen, they have to get a warrent. I've even said they can do so after the fact.

Also, from now on when you ask me to defend my position, could you please make sure its my position you are attacking.

And I would ONLY agree with you IF they were going to PROSECUTE.

 

[Bullypulpit]

We'd do the same, just different...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/12/AR2006021201174.html?nav=rss_world

Given that most in the Democratic party are, at best, "Republican lite" it comes as no surprise to hear of their support for Dubbyuh's domestic spying program.

As early as Friday, the Republicans on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, decided that loyalty to party and President outweigh the Constitution and federal law. By declining to launch an investigation into the clearly illegal and unconstitutional domestic spying program initiated by President Bush they abdicated their responsibility and duty to oversee the actions of the executive branch.

This is but the latest, and most egregious, of Congressional lapses in oversight. If they are willing to simply rubber-stamp the policies of the executive branch, regardless of their legality or constitutionality, they and the rest of Congress may as well pack their bags and go home...They have rendered themselves irrelevant by their own unconstitutional ceding of congressional authority to an increasingly imperious and ever secretive executive branch. The President can do as he pleases, when he pleases by what amounts to royal fiat. And none will gainsay him.

Why do you think the Founding Fathers insisted on the separation of powers? They knew that when too much power was concentrated in one set of hands, despotism would soon follow. By their actions, the Republican leadership and the rest of the lick-spittles in Congress, are laying the foundation for that despotism. If they continue to abdicate their oversight responsibilites, the Republic will perish with nary a whimper from those whose duty it is to protect it...And the terrorists will have won

 

[dilloduck]

Given that most in the Democratic party are, at best, "Republican lite" it comes as no surprise to hear of their support for Dubbyuh's domestic spying program.

As early as Friday, the Republicans on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, decided that loyalty to party and President outweigh the Constitution and federal law. By declining to launch an investigation into the clearly illegal and unconstitutional domestic spying program initiated by President Bush they abdicated their responsibility and duty to oversee the actions of the executive branch.

This is but the latest, and most egregious, of Congressional lapses in oversight. If they are willing to simply rubber-stamp the policies of the executive branch, regardless of their legality or constitutionality, they and the rest of Congress may as well pack their bags and go home...They have rendered themselves irrelevant by their own unconstitutional ceding of congressional authority to an increasingly imperious and ever secretive executive branch. The President can do as he pleases, when he pleases by what amounts to royal fiat. And none will gainsay him.

Why do you think the Founding Fathers insisted on the separation of powers? They knew that when too much power was concentrated in one set of hands, despotism would soon follow. By their actions, the Republican leadership and the rest of the lick-spittles in Congress, are laying the foundation for that despotism. If they continue to abdicate their oversight responsibilites, the Republic will perish with nary a whimper from those whose duty it is to protect it...And the terrorists will have won

Democrats want everything investigated. Similar to thier frenzy over the "it must be a cover up" attack on Cheny they are now engaged in may be largest fishing expedition in thier history. Refusing to investigate everything the Libs whine about may fall into thier propaganda trap and incur the wrath of left but it certainly doen't mean there is a fish to be caught.