Bush Justified in Wiretapping

[Nightwish]

anyone know which US citizens were wire tapped?

Depends on whether that NYT article is true. If it is, then just about every American who has made or answered an international call has been monitored (though not necessarily "tapped").

 

[Nightwish]

The whole rhetorical challenge of "name one regular citizen who has been wire-tapped" is silly at best. Since we're talking about warrantless wire taps, then nobody would likely know if they'd been tapped or not. Bush isn't putting out a list of names, and if you got tapped, you wouldn't know it.

 

[manu1959]

The whole rhetorical challenge of "name one regular citizen who has been wire-tapped" is silly at best. Since we're talking about warrantless wire taps, then nobody would likely know if they'd been tapped or not. Bush isn't putting out a list of names, and if you got tapped, you wouldn't know it.

wasn't rehtorical i was curious ...... if there is no list and no one knew it ..... then did it actually happen?

 

[Gunny]

it would be so constraining to seek the approval of a judge (and therefore have a written trail that documents who was wiretapped and why).

Because the phone call would be over by the time they got the warrant?

Has everyone forgotten J. Edgar Hoover? Don't any parallels with places such as East Germany come to mind? Wasn't there a little novel about "Big Brother" that suggested we might not want to trust Him?

How many times are you going to ask the Hoover question? Your parallel to Hoover and Bush is dishonest. Hoover purposefully engaged in domestic spying. Bush is eavesdropping on terrorist/terrorist organizations. BIG difference.

I can't get over it. Republicans, who are supposed to want to protect the little people from big government intrusion, just delighted with the idea of a president being able to read their email, just because he says he wants to.

Where you have your idealism crossed is that you lefties put individual liberties before the best interest of the Nation, while conservatives have put National security to the fore.

Why should anyone care if the NSA is listening to people talking to terrorists/terrorist organizations? What I can't get get over is the nonsensical, extremist crap you lefties have attempted to turn THAT into.
If in some extreme situation he wiretapped someone in order to prevent 9/11/2007, I think everyone would forgive him. But to be able to wiretap at will--especially when we just saw the military man who defended the wiretaps as international-only being embarrassed when it was immediately revealed that they were domestic too--seems completely unnecessary to me.

Why not at least require he keep a list of who was wiretapped and have it reviewed by a private bipartisan Congressional committee after the fact? Why give him more power than is really needed? In the current setup, it's like handing him the keys to the Democratic Party's secrets, and there's no reason Democrats should trust a word he says, given what a divider, rather than a uniter, this President has been.

Mariner.

Doesn't really matter now, does it? Since you self-sanctimonious libs have made such a big issue of this and laid the whole thing out in the open for anyone contemplating terrorism against the US to see, I'm sure they'll find another means of communication and the US gov't's job will be just that much harder.

 

[Nightwish]

wasn't rehtorical i was curious ......

I referred to it that way because it was the leading line in an article that has been twice posted. It was rhetorical in that instance, because the jist of the article was not to gather information from a query, but rather to tell people, "If you can't say that you've been tapped, then shut up and quit complaining."

if there is no list and no one knew it ..... then did it actually happen?

Bush admitted it happened.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Bush admitted it happened.

To a regular citizen who wasn't suspected of being associated with terrorists? Is that really what bush admitted to? or are you lying again?

 

[manu1959]

I referred to it that way because it was the leading line in an article that has been twice posted. It was rhetorical in that instance, because the jist of the article was not to gather information from a query, but rather to tell people, "If you can't say that you've been tapped, then shut up and quit complaining."


Bush admitted it happened.

i understand your point now.

bush admitted that what happened?

 

[Nightwish]

i understand your point now.

bush admitted that what happened?

That he had been wire-tapping domestic phone lines of American citizens. He has tried to cover it by claiming that they've only been monitoring the calls of Americans who are known or suspected to have terrorism ties, but as I've said before, if the NYT article is true, then Bush's claims aren't.

 

[manu1959]

That he had been wire-tapping domestic phone lines of American citizens. He has tried to cover it by claiming that they've only been monitoring the calls of Americans who are known or suspected to have terrorism ties, but as I've said before, if the NYT article is true, then Bush's claims aren't.

interesting.......pretty much everyone involved said they were tracking traffic associated with potential terrorisim.....in doing this did they stop anyone from doing anything bad?.....any soccermom's get arrested?

 

[Mariner]

Why should we believe them? Can you give me a single example in history of government without oversight that always acted benevolently? The history in this country is simply overwhelming: without a free press able to get access to information about the behavior of government, government acts badly. The current program will almost certainly be found unconstitutional, especially with the abuses of it that have already come to light, because it makes it impossible for a free press to function. Bush's secrecy thing is already extreme--he is blocking the release of all sorts of papers and the second part of the 9/11 investigation.

No one's answering my question, apparently, because there simply isn't a good answer; there's no reason for us not to keep, at minimum, a list of who has been wiretapped and why, approved by a judge or reviewed by a bipartisan Congressional committee. Otherwise, we'll simply never know what Big Brother did, and we'll enter a very dangerous age in terms of privacy rights: we won't have any. That may make you feel safe. It gives me the creeps.

Mariner.

 

[Nightwish]

interesting.......pretty much everyone involved said they were tracking traffic associated with potential terrorisim ...

That's just the cover story. According to the article I posted earlier (I'm not sure if it was this thread or another one), what they're actually doing is tapping into major communication mainframes (telephone companies, internet providers, etc.) and monitoring everything, not just the stuff they know is terror-related. They're getting in there, listening in on everything to look for patterns which suggest someone might be discussing terrorism. What that means is that if you make a phone call to a penpal in London, someone (either a person or a computer program) is listening to your conversation. If they don't catch the key words they're looking for, they probably won't pay much attention to it, but they're listening to it nonetheless. In those instances, your privacy is tossed right out the door. Now, some people have no problem with that, and more power to them. But some people do.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

That's just the cover story. According to the article I posted earlier (I'm not sure if it was this thread or another one), what they're actually doing is tapping into major communication mainframes (telephone companies, internet providers, etc.) and monitoring everything, not just the stuff they know is terror-related. They're getting in there, listening in on everything to look for patterns which suggest someone might be discussing terrorism. What that means is that if you make a phone call to a penpal in London, someone (either a person or a computer program) is listening to your conversation. If they don't catch the key words they're looking for, they probably won't pay much attention to it, but they're listening to it nonetheless. In those instances, your privacy is tossed right out the door. Now, some people have no problem with that, and more power to them. But some people do.

Just be careful to not speak in terrorist code and you'll be fine.

 

[Mariner]

reports that "an analysis... by the Congressional Research Service, a non partisan arm of Congress, took issue witih several of the administration's main legal arguments, saying that Congress did not appear to have ever intended to give Mr. Bush the authority to conduct wiretaps without a warrant."

A group of law proferssors and former government officials with expertise in this area wrote to Congress on Monday that "the Justice Department's defense of what it concedes was a secret and warrantless electronic surveillance of persons within the United States fails to identify any plausible legal authority for such surveillance. Accordingly, the program appears on its face to violate existing law."

(page A14, today's Times).

Sorry, GunnyL, do these to reports make it clear enough that the President is still a citizen subject to laws like the rest of us? To give him the kind of authority you're willing to makes him a King, or a dictator.

Mariner.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

reports that "an analysis... by the Congressional Research Service, a non partisan arm of Congress, took issue witih several of the administration's main legal arguments, saying that Congress did not appear to have ever intended to give Mr. Bush the authority to conduct wiretaps without a warrant."

A group of law proferssors and former government officials with expertise in this area wrote to Congress on Monday that "the Justice Department's defense of what it concedes was a secret and warrantless electronic surveillance of persons within the United States fails to identify any plausible legal authority for such surveillance. Accordingly, the program appears on its face to violate existing law."

(page A14, today's Times).

Sorry, GunnyL, do these to reports make it clear enough that the President is still a citizen subject to laws like the rest of us? To give him the kind of authority you're willing to makes him a King, or a dictator.

Mariner.

NY times??? You are quite amusing.

That said, all you posted was "some" peoples opinions. Obviously there are others who are just as much experts who disagree.

 

[Adam's Apple]

The whole rhetorical challenge of "name one regular citizen who has been wire-tapped" is silly at best. Since we're talking about warrantless wire taps, then nobody would likely know if they'd been tapped or not. Bush isn't putting out a list of names, and if you got tapped, you wouldn't know it.

Well, since you and that "trustworthy" NYT are trying to scare the hell out of everyone by insinuating that the government is in a frenzy and is wiretapping everyone--not just terrorists, but the DNC!!!! (as if it had any secrets worth listening to) along with ordinary citizens--then you should be able to come up with some proof that this is happening and not just putting out "theories" that you want us to accept blindly on say-so. Believe me, if the NYT had any proof, we would have had it from the get-go! They're doing their darndest to bring down a president they despise...that's the real story. Sorry you've got caught up in their fantasies.

BTW - I have noted how many times you've used "if the NYT article is true" in your posts. I compliment you for recognizing that fact. Indicates that even you can't be sure that what you've read is true.

 

[Adam's Apple]

As for wartime--you make my point, Adam's Apple. Much of what we did during WWII was inappropriate, and we've had to apologize for a lot of it, e.g. interning Japanese-Americans. That's exactly why there should be a bit of check and balance to this system.

News to me. I thought we won fair and square, according to war-time rules. I'm not averse to what President Roosevelt did re the Japanese-Americans and Major McCormick. I was just pointing out those examples as to what actually happens during war time that doesn't enter into the picture during times of peace. I'm sure that you know that "checks and balances" go out the window when a country is fighting a war. Never have heard of a war that was fought wearing white gloves and being sure that Emily Post's rules of etiquette were observed at all times. Do you get my drift?

 

[Avatar4321]

There's a world of difference between biased news, and fabricated news. Every news source is biased. That simply means they are predisposed to one side of the political line, and they are going to concentrate on the facts that glorify that side, while glossing over the facts that don't. Newsmax does plenty of that, too. I have no problem with that. You can present a biased story that is still factually accurate (it just won't contain ALL the facts). But Newsmax (as well as World Net Daily, and Weekly Standard, on occasion) go beyond mere bias into complete fabrication, just making shit up, outright lying.

Funny, you have yet to provide a shred of evidence, even weak evidence that Newsweek has made anything.

On the other hand I could provide you with numerous occasions where the "Mainstream" Media makes things up.

Yet you probably have no problem believing any poll they give.

The fact is there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the President from doing this. As you stated earlier. He is the Commander and Chief. That gives him all executive authority to gather intelligence for the defense of this nation.

 

[Chad2000k]

I have a question, if u havent read this article in the local paper then heres the link its prolly worth looking at bec i think its related to this:

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/jan/11/tamperedmail_case_national_spotlight/?state_regional

well anyways bush may be the commander in chief and all, but he still doesnt have the right to open people's mail, it would be like me mailing a letter to someone in a nursing home and the security staff there opening it and looking through it to make sure its okay...and thats pretty much the same, if u mail someone into the military they dont check it, i dunno this country is really losing it with bush in office, i just hope they get him out as soon as possible and get someone else in, he hasnt shown much, the wars are gettin drastic i dont think we will be pulling out for another two or three months at the most....

 

[GotZoom]

I have a question, if u havent read this article in the local paper then heres the link its prolly worth looking at bec i think its related to this:

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/jan/11/tamperedmail_case_national_spotlight/?state_regional

well anyways bush may be the commander in chief and all, but he still doesnt have the right to open people's mail, it would be like me mailing a letter to someone in a nursing home and the security staff there opening it and looking through it to make sure its okay...and thats pretty much the same, if u mail someone into the military they dont check it, i dunno this country is really losing it with bush in office, i just hope they get him out as soon as possible and get someone else in, he hasnt shown much, the wars are gettin drastic i dont think we will be pulling out for another two or three months at the most....

Couple of days late chad....keep up.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28251

 

[Hobbit]

Ok, for the last time, warrants are not applied to international intelligence, only to law enforcement. None of the information gleaned in these wire taps is admissible in a court of law if it doesn't have an attached warrant. The information is used solely in the prevention of terrorist attacks.