It certainly looks like the Canuks are doing an excellent job of fighting the terrorists in Ontario so they won't have to fight them in British Columbia.

hog

"A winner?" what do you mean? Let me point out that there is no evidence either way that the CSIS acted outside the (Canadian) law, while our President brags that the NSA, by his assumed authority, acts without warrants.

What say you, CY? Should unwarranted surveillance of US Citizens communicating with US Citizens on American soil continue to be monitored without warrants, without oversight, or not? Should US Citizens on American soil be held without charge or counsel? Are we a nation of laws, or men?

"to be monitored" is redundant in my previous post.

as is "without warrants". My apologies for sloppy editing.

Long live the memory of one of our greatest American patriots, Sir Patrick Henry "Give me liberty or give me death".

Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up their freedoms in order to achieve security deserve neither".

I for one simply ain't skeered. The menace during WW II was real and truly threatened our way of life. Yet we didn't need or impliment such intrusive oversight here at home.

Why is everyone so skeered now..?

hog

hogwild,

The menace during WW II was real and truly threatened our way of life. Yet we didn't need or impliment such intrusive oversight here at home.

Wrong. Wiretaps, telegram intercepts and reading mail were all done on a routine basis during WWII. Prior to the US entry into the war the Roosevelt administration gave British intelligence broad latitude in operating in the US even up to the point of letting them abduct legal US resident aliens and take them to interrogation centers in Canada.

The major difference between then and now is that Fascist had no significant presence in the US whereas now we have hundreds if not thousands of potential attackers operating on US soil. Terrorism does present a threat to our way of life because history has shown that liberal states that cannot maintain basic security tend to collapse into authoritarianism. It is safer to nip such threats in the bud than to let them build to the point where people start to panic.

There is no terrorist threat.

hogwild, I hope your post was with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

We can go through chapter and verse about the wonderful things we did to support civil rights back during WW II. If you consider gathering anonymous phone records (not even tapping the contents of the calls mind you) anywhere along the lines of the Japanese Internment Camps then you've obviously slipped a cog or two.

Heaven forbid we should actually try and do something to protect ourselves from people like those rounded up in Canada.

Rob -

Heaven forbid we should actually try and do something to protect ourselves from people like those rounded up in Canada.

Within or outside of the law?

"When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat." - Ronald Reagan

-

Ben Franklin, domestic spy

Reader Jeff T. writes:

The misquotation of Franklin in the argument about "domestic wiretapping" strikes me as particularly amusing in light of Franklin's role as one of the premier intelligence agents during the Revolutionary War. The CIA has a nice summary of the intelligence activities undertaken in that war, and no one is so prominent as Franklin, including in covert activities. More to the point here, Franklin was a member of the original committee, appointed by the Continental Congress, to review and publish intercepted communications from England. Hmm, Benjamin Franklin: Domestic Spy!

Read the whole thing:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004368.htm

Shannon,

"Wiretaps, telegram intercepts and reading mail were all done on a routine basis during WWII."

I'm sure they were, especially if the white resident aliens were from Germany or Italy and placed international communications. We didn't have to worry about the Japanese because we had em all interned (locked up).

"The major difference between then and now is that Fascists had no significant presence in the US whereas now we have hundreds if not thousands of potential attackers operating on US soil."

Sorry to inform you, but the fascists were actual whole nations that declared war on us, and were very capable and nearly did place large armies on our soil. Terrorism is simply a concept, a means for individuals with little power and little national support. Terrorism has been around since the beginning on mankind, and you advocate nipping it in the bud..?

Oh, and let's see, how many islamic terrorists have been caught and convicted in America. Less than a handfull. Your mention of hundreds and thousands of them hiding over here ready to pounce show just how brainwashed, panicked and skeered you really are.

Face the facts. 9/11 (Boo..!) was executed and financed mostly by the Saudies. There's a bunch of them in Gitmo right now. Guess how many Iraqi's are in there.. ONE. Our national priorities have certainly been grossly misplaced.

Yes Rob.. I'm a great fan of satire.

hog

No wonder you're wrong about so much, hog: you simply don't get those all-important details right. A prime example is your butchering of the Franklin quote. You misquoted:

Those who would give up their freedoms in order to achieve security deserve neither".

The correct version of this quote is quite a bit more specific (emphasis added):

"they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I trust you are smart enough to figure out why those qualifiers are important.

Someone who knew a tiny bit about the law (and I'm certain you find him a villian as well spoke of these words in this speech:

Franklin's quotation is often answered with Justice Robert H. Jackson's admonition that the Constitution's Bill of Rights is not a "suicide pact" - that blind and unreasonable insistence on liberty will ultimately threaten the very existence of liberty.

There is an obvious tension between these two sentiments. On the one hand there is a legitimate concern that we not sacrifice those very freedoms that make us American in the name of protecting America. On the other hand, we cannot allow those who would destroy America use our liberties as weapons against us. In order for there to be liberty in America, there must be an America.

Liberties have always been given up temporarily in wartime, to return when the time of danger is passed.

Unlike the Germans who slipped ashore in WWII that FDR had executed, today's enemy has tehintent on bringing in nuclear weapons--city killers.

This is a different game with much higher stakes, and the rules must change accordingly.

I see bat guano is back spouting the party line with nothing to back him up as usual. Soon he'll start cussing at people because they won't just accept his version of things. LOL. Just a stain on the porch...

bat...just so you know - most people, including congresscritters, have dropped the objections to the NSA programs. Not only that - they approved Hayden to run the CIA. Get a Grip!

bat,

Should unwarranted surveillance of US Citizens communicating with US Citizens on American soil continue to be monitored without warrants, without oversight, or not?

What? Case in point - want to show one article that says this is happening? Just one - not Kos now - a real article.

So there is no doubt in anyone's mind, especially the shallow ones, the folks that defend your freedoms and liberties give up some of those very sme freedoms and liberties. It is voluntarily done so as to preserve your freedom and liberty.

Anyone on the left have a clue of what I write? And you categorically object to the infringement of terrorist's freedoms (within our borders) to unabatedly plot to destroy us? You've got a lot to learn about liberty and freedom. Those who have fought for freedom have a different perspective on its value.

You've also got a lot to learn about our openly proclaimed enemy. 9-11 is in the past; so is Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Would anyone like to see them repeated? Doesn't it make sense to do everything in our power to prevent another such attack?! Well, it does to those who give their lives in defense of your freedoms and liberties.

Thanks for pointing that out CY. I interpet "essential" to mean constitutive or indispensible. In this case, our constitutional and indispensible liberties. Are you suggesting we must dispatch with them for all time, becausing terrorism ain't going away in our lifetimes. Or is terrorism just a little temporary thing..?

I'm sure you remember the cold war that President Reagan effectively ended. Fingers were never very far away from that button that would destroy our ENTIRE country. It went on for many years without us giving up any essential liberties. And there were quite a few suitcase bombs out there as well. The stakes were certainly much higher back then.

Just WHO are we at war with..? It's impossable to to be at war with a concept. Do we give up our essential liberties in the face of a concept that's been around forever and always will be..?

Only if you believe in totalitarianism. Or are so skeered you'll give it all up so big bro can pretend to protect you while he's looking over YOUR shoulder.

When we give up our essential liberties in the face of terrorism guess who wins.. OBL (still at large). After all, he attacked us because he hates our freedoms, right..?

Or, will the war on terror be over when we finally catch him? You know, just a little temporary thing.

hog

"You've also got a lot to learn about our openly proclaimed enemy. 9-11 is in the past; so is Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Would anyone like to see them repeated? Doesn't it make sense to do everything in our power to prevent another such attack?! Well, it does to those who give their lives in defense of your freedoms and liberties."

Old Soldier, I am five year wartime veteran who obviously cares deeply about the defense of our freedoms and liberties. I ain't about to give up any of them without a fight.

Just exactly who is our proclaimed enemy responsible for 9/11..? OBL or Saddam.? We got Saddam, so does that mean the war will be over if and when we finally get OBL..?

The PNAC letter seems to answer that question quite nicely.

hog

hog, do you really believe that tripe you spew?

Enlighten those of us who doubt your claims... please tell us what freedom and liberty you have given up lately? Give us one concrete example of a freedom or liberty that you have given up.

Spec(ula)ter, this is far too easy. You set the bar very low.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70944-0.html

If you have trouble reading the article and following the links, find a grownup to help you.

Good luck!

By the way, I'd like to change my handle here to "Persistent Vegetarian."

Shannon Love -- "Wrong. Wiretaps, telegram intercepts and reading mail were all done on a routine basis during WWII." Only lunatics don't want the government monitoring Al Qaeda communications. The point is that they are monitoring the communications without a warrant.

Rob -- "If you consider gathering anonymous phone records..." Wrong, the records have telephone numbers attached. Mapping phone numbers to names is trivial. And they are tapping contents. "Heaven forbid we should actually try and do something to protect ourselves" of course we should, but the defining characteristic of the US is civil liberties, including the right to privacy. In letting that go we lose our edge.

CY -- first, I meant to thank you for the links in another thread about the recent success in recruiting for our armed services. I was wrong about that. You said, "Liberties have always been given up temporarily in wartime, to return when the time of danger is passed." Bush just compared the WOT to the cold war. There will always be terror... Anyway, I don't see that Lincoln suspending habeas corpus during the Civil War.

Old Soldier -- "please tell us what freedom and liberty you have given up lately?" Privacy was taken from us.

CY -- "This is a different game with much higher stakes, and the rules must change accordingly." Not true. The US has faced direr threats without allowing warrantless domestic spying.

In grade school I learned that my patriotic duty was to protect the constitution. Warrantless domestic spying is clearly contrary to that. I'd rather be killed by a terrorist than feel that I've forced my successors to live in a police state.

If you live in fear of terrorists, you are in fact cowering. There is a word for people that cower.

I say police state because if the executive is allowed to spy without judicial oversight, there is nothing to stop him from using intelligence for political purposes. I don't trust anyone with that power, and that is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind.

You all need to think back on what the US is. It's not meant to be a safe haven, it's meant to be a democracy. I'm particularly confused about this because most of you on this list believe in limited government.

Finally, it should be noted that warrantless wiretap evidence would be thrown out of court, and therefore we can't even try Al Qaeda members in our court system.

I stake my Persistent Vegetarian claim thus.

Hear, hear, Cyrus. And let's remind our cowed companions here about the Supremes Court's decision in Youngstown Co. v Sawyer, which determined that the Constitution doesn't give the Administration the power to legislate or act outside the law even in time of war.

What is it about these people that they hate America so?

Cyrus, I gave up "privacy" for 31 years to defend your freedoms and liberty. I defy you to give me one example of your privay being taken away from you. Does anyone have a right to "privacy" that will lead to the destruction of thousands possible millions of our citizens when it is known that just actions are being planned and plotted against us (as a nationof infidels)?

If you extend absolute freedom and liberty to those who would destroy us you do nothing to protect your freedom and liberty.

Now get off the legality of the NSA activity. It has FISA court oversight, congressional Intelligence Committee oversight, has been tested in the SCOTUS and has passed muster. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it despotic nor illegal.

And for the record, we are NOT a democracy - we are a democratic REPUBLIC. There is a big difference - look them up.

CY, you quote Justice Jackson to justify the Executive putting constraints on liberty. Here's more Jackson, from the Youngstown decision:

The Solicitor General seeks the power of seizure in three clauses of the Executive Article, the first reading, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Lest I be thought to exaggerate, I quote the interpretation which his brief puts upon it: "In our view, this clause constitutes a grant of all the executive powers of which the Government is capable." If that be true, it is difficult to see why the forefathers bothered to add several specific items, including some trifling ones.

The example of such unlimited executive power that must have most impressed the forefathers was the prerogative exercised by George III, and the description of its evils in the Declaration of Independence leads me to doubt that they were creating their new Executive in his image. Continental European examples were no more appealing. And, if we seek instruction from our own times, we can match it only from the executive powers in those governments we disparagingly describe as totalitarian. I cannot accept the view that this clause is a grant in bulk of all conceivable executive power, but regard it as an allocation to the presidential office of the generic powers thereafter stated.

He goes on to discuss the scenario we have now, a President who sends troops into battle and assumes "War Powers":

I cannot foresee all that it might entail if the Court should indorse this argument. Nothing in our Constitution is plainer than that declaration of a war is entrusted only to Congress. Of course, a state of war may, in fact, exist without a formal declaration. But no doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation's armed forces to some foreign venture.

(My emphasis). Do not blithely stand by and allow a King to sieze our Republic.

bat,

IF you will remember, I trashed your Younstown theory weeks ago, using Jackson's own words. Get beyond it. Remember what your famous Justice Jackson said at the bottom of his opinion in this case - the single case, and minority concurring opinion, that you put all your hopes in:

We should not use this occasion to circumscribe, much less to contract, the lawful role of the President as Commander in Chief. I should indulge the widest latitude of interpretation to sustain his exclusive function to command the instruments of national force, at least when turned against the outside world for the security of our society. But, when it is turned inward, not because of rebellion but because of a lawful economic struggle between industry and labor, it should have no such indulgence.

You see? Even Justice Jackson says that in matters of war and security the President has powers granted by the constitution. You must remember that what he was referring in his opinion was whether or not Truman had the right to nationalize the steel company. Clearly, he did not. You are desparately attempting to use this case in a completely different context. Won't fly.

Your original statement that I challenged in today's thread was:

Should unwarranted surveillance of US Citizens communicating with US Citizens on American soil continue to be monitored without warrants, without oversight, or not?

I challenged you to find a reputable article that states that what was done was illegal. You came back with a Wired story about a CIVIL lawsuit against AT&T. In the first paragraph of the article:

Former AT&T technician Mark Klein is the key witness in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's class-action lawsuit against the telecommunications company, which alleges that AT&T cooperated in an illegal National Security Agency domestic surveillance program.

Gotta laugh first of all at Wired's wording here. What surveillance program? Gathering call records and not content of phone calls? But they are trying to make it sound worse than it is. Yet - this is not a CRIMINAL trial nor INVESTIGATION. It is simply a civil matter. And you have to laugh even harder when you look at Klein's provided "proof" and all it shows is that there was some additional equipment and procedures. Nothing in any of those documents about where the so-called data ended up. Pure speculation there.

But where is the CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION oh Vegetable Oil? Haven't even seen a call for one from the DOJ, the Congress, or anyone but the moonbat guano left. Get a Grip!

Maybe you can get someone to read to you and explain what was actually said. Way to easy to deconstruct your nonesense.

Old Soldier --

"Cyrus, I gave up 'privacy' for 31 years to defend your freedoms and liberty. I defy you to give me one example of your privay being taken away from you. Does anyone have a right to 'privacy' that will lead to the destruction of thousands possible millions of our citizens when it is known that just actions are being planned and plotted against us (as a nationof infidels)?"

First, I will always have a special place in my heart for combat veterans, spies, and anyone else who places their life in danger for this country, so I thank you for your bravery.

I take no joy in telling you what our Fourth Amendment says:

"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."

What did you fight for, if not our Constitution? And if we lay aside our laws out of fear of terrorists, are we not cowards? Seriously, what did you fight for?

"It has FISA court oversight, congressional Intelligence Committee oversight, has been tested in the SCOTUS and has passed muster. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it despotic nor illegal."

You're simply wrong. One of the FISA judges quit as a protest to the Administration's disregard for FISA. That's what warrantless means in this situation, as FISA is the group that grants warrants. Incidentally, see http://www.epi c.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa:
"Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Report reveals that the government made 2,072 secret surveillance requests in 2005, a record high and 18 percent more than 2004. None of the requests were denied by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secretive body that issues the warrants."

It is cake to get these warrants. The only excuse not to is that Bush wanted to run a huge dragnet, which of necessity means violating the Fourth Amendment.

"Just because you don't like it doesn't make it despotic nor illegal." No, just because you do like it, or it makes you feel safe, does not make it legal.

These guys had "THREE TIMES" the amount of ammonium nitrate that was used to blow-up the Murrah Federal building in OK City in 1995............................Can you imagine the damage caused by such an explosion?

NSA legal, yes it is. NSA need? Without a doubt...........

Old Soldier, it appears you can't answer any of my questions, but I'll be happy to answer ANOTHER one of yours. From The Bill of Rights:

Amendment IV

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.

Our neo-con government has admitted to seizing my effects, in this case, my phone records. Concrete enough for you..?

And then there's the violation of that pesky little "probable cause" item I take particular objection to.

So again Old Vet, where is the declaration war, just who are we at war with, and when will it be over..? Very simple questions.

By the way, I have always been a conservative, but the neo-cons have hijacked our country and Constitution. Right under your nose.

hog

Persistent Vegetarian -- Excellent work on the Justice Jackson quotation.

hogwild -- right, for years I've watched these small men defecate on our currency, embark on idealistic nation-building, celebrate profligacy with our natural resources, and then have the gall to call me a liberal. Strange times.

Indeed Cyrus... Such small and easily manipulated individuals these wastrels are. It just amazes me how scared and taken in by the Sraussians decent folks have become.

Thank the Lord 71% of voters have seen the light and recognize the wrong direction our leaders have taken our country.

CY, again my hats off to you, and thank you for allowing dissent and civil discussion on your blog.

hog

Batsh** crazy sounds just that, crazy. He can't cite one legal ruling against the NSA wiretaps and since the FISA court went along with it i'd assume they already knew about and approved it. Didn't the SCOTUS already rule on this one in the past. Could that be why the left wing idiots in congress taped their mouths shut.

Any explosive experts on here? I believe from some reloading experience that triple the weight of explosives would actually multiply the explosion far beyond the 1 to 1 ratio. I've also saw the fertlizer/diesel fuel mix used for tearing down mountains in a limestone gravel pit and an overload sends house size rocks several thousand feet. Someone on here must be a real expert, not a graduate (moron) of a failed liberal arts college like batsh**.

Just the purchase of the fertilizer would set off alerts across our intel system, due to protections put in place post-Oklahoma City.

I doubt the US would have even let these terrorists receive the material if no other surveillance was ongoing. Under the circumstances, permitting the delivery should just help the Canadians to gain convictions and put the group away.

Despite a lot of speculation going on in the blogosphere, nothing's been reported on this to indicate the Canadians or our NSA had to resort to extralegal or illegal actions to monitor them and catch them redhanded.

And anyone with a smattering of understanding of statistical probability should understand that the NSA monitoring of billions of data packets doesn't increase the likelihood of catching terrorists at all. Illegal or not, it's unbelievably expensive and ineffective. So why give up liberties for a lark that can't even fly?

Hogwild -

I hate to break it to you, but your phone records are not your property. They are the property of the person, or in this case corporation, who provides you with telephone service as otherwise they have no way to bill you for service provided.

The same is true if a policeman or even your next door neighbor were to stand on the sidewalk and record the identity of everyone who knocked on your door.

What you do and talk about inside the confines of your home are private - unless you (completely hypothetically) have sex with small children in front of an uncurtained window - but the identity of any and all persons entering your home via the public access of the street is a public matter.

Does the fourth amendment cover those conspiring against us in the manner or nature of war? Or does the constitutional duty of the president to protect and defend this nation prevail? Again does one have the "right to privacy" within which they may conspire to kill thousands of our citizens? Those who used to be conservative apparently believe people have that inherent right. I don't.

The oath I took was to defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic; the same as the president, and the same as congressmen/women. The word "domestic" is in there for a reason; care to guess why?

The bottom line is that no one's freedom or liberty or right to be secure in their person has been violate as evidenced by the lack of personal account or even one credible account. The NSA intelligence operation continues without suit because it has been tested and is within the confines of the president's authority under the constitution and prior court ruling.

The enemy being a concept is a hollow argument. Is a "concept" employing IEDs in Iraq killing not just our soldiers, but fellow Muslims as well? Was it a concept that was arrested in Canada conspiring to blow up something/somebody? Was it a concept that flew our own planes into the WTC? The concept is: Islam, Allah, must rule the world. Our enemies are radical Islam's soldiers. They will gladly die during the process of killing some of us (infidels). They are more committed to their "concept" of Islam than you are to the concept of freedom and liberty. You better believe they are real and would kill you in a New York minute if given the chance.

It's fine to disagree with what has and is taking place. If you don't have the nature to actively defend our nation against a declared enemy, that's fine also, just do not hamper those who will.

"So again Old Vet, where is the declaration war, just who are we at war with, and when will it be over..? Very simple questions."

Congress authorized the use military force In the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html).

We are at war with the perpetuators of radical Islam.

The war will end when they no longer attack us (our citizens) because of who we are not.

Simple answers, hog.

Remember, evil flourishes when good men do nothing (to oppose it). To that I would add that evil excels when good men do not recognize evil and unwittingly assist it (useful idiots).

I must admit it has been fun watching cyrus and hog and vegetable oil congratulate one another and slap each other on the back for being able to spout party lines at each other.

Cyrus did not even pay attention to what else Jackson said about not circumscribing the powers of the Commander in Chief - especially in times of war and on matters of national security.

Listen - this is real easy so I will go r e a l s l o w for the three of you:

There has not been a call for investigating the legality of either the TSP or the data-mining operation - except from the moonbat guano left. Not one. Congress not only backed away from it, but the voted Michael Hayden, the architect of those programs to run the CIA. It's a done deal. Nobody but you cares any more. Get over it.

And if you are so up in arms about those programs - what did you think about Clinton's escalation of ECHELON in the 90's? Under him, the CONTENT of every fax, email, phone call, virtually every electronic transmission, was monitored via computer for "trigger words". That was a much larger "invasion of privacy" than what we have here. But did you complain? No. Wonder why not? Maybe you were still in diapers then?

As to it being "dirt easy" to get FISA warrants, you had better go back and study. Warrants through that court are handed out on the basis of probable cause. Maybe you have heard of that. The paperwork to establish probable cause is not something that takes a couple of hours to do. What do you think this is - CSI where everything, including 6-week DNA tests is wrapped up in an hour? Between writing the base information and then having it improved up the chain the process takes days. And if you are making that complaint about international calls you are in a whole new ball game. Why is it I wonder that you so fiercly attempt to protect the rights of terrorists? Maybe you are part of Murtha's Code Pink Brigade....

Finally - a judge quite FISA. That is correct. The other judges have indicated they see nothing illegal about the TSP. There has been some indication that Your old pal Rocky was getting leaks from someone on FISA. Gee - Wonder which judge that was? Should be interesting as the indictments start to come down.

"What you do and talk about inside the confines of your home are private"

Adriane: You can't have your cake and eat it too. Phone and medical records are indeed not our property, although we have a reasonable and legal expectation they will remain confidential, with few exceptions. HIPAA comes to mind regarding medical records.

I'm also positive that your idol Rush Limbaugh, who also accepted help from that ogre the ACLU, regarding privacy of his medical records, will disagree with you. I also vigorously supported him on that issue.

hog

What about credit reporting and marketing agencies. They have HUGE data-mined databases on every aspect of your life. And they sell that data to whoever wants it. Do you complain about that? No. Geez...you guys should really wake up and smell the coffee. BTW-don't use your credit cards, debit cards, member cards from grocery stores, discount stores, pharmacies and the like. They track every single purchase you make and correlate that with the coupon companies for what you get in the mail. And don't buy anything online. Same thing. Constant invasion of your privacy. LOL

Specter:

I met your specification for an article, and you evidently think moving the goalposts after the fact means my argument is lacking in some way. You also ask me to remember events I had no part in.

You must have stopped taking your meds. You're hallucinating again. Remember? Or does the treatment turn off the teevees in your head?

Scrapiron:

No, the FISA courts didn't know about the NSA international wiretap program. That's the problem: the Administration circumvented FISA, so the NSA had no warrants for its surveillance activity, in clear contravention of the law, and showing the President to have lied to the American people on April 20, 2004:

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.

President Bush had signed the order which allowed the NSA to wiretap without a court order in 2002.

I believe a President was impeached recently for lying to the American People about a matter which did not affect our constitutional rights.

The reason that there are no legal rulings on the NSA wiretaps is that even the Justice Department's ethics lawyers can't get clearances to find out what's been happening: there is absolutely no meaningful oversight of these Programs.

For the record, the acquisition of phone call information - where, when, and how long - is covered by the definition of Pen Register/Trap and Trace taps, and following Katz v. United States (1967), these require a warrant. This is still true under the (so-called) PATRIOT Act.

Old Soldier:

Does the fourth amendment cover those conspiring against us in the manner or nature of war? Or does the constitutional duty of the president to protect and defend this nation prevail?

Of course the fourth amendment covers them, and so does the fifth. The Bill of Rights covers us all. The law applies to us all. Yes, even the President. Please read the Youngstown opinions.

Second, the President's constitutional duty is not to protect and defend the nation, as Section 1 of Article II makes clear:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--''I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.''

Like you, President Bush tries to move these goalposts. In his Address to the Nation on December 18, 2006, he said:

My most solemn responsibility is to protect our nation [...]

It is not. When Bush tells the Republican Congressional Leadership that the Constitution is "just a g*ddamned piece of paper", it should be clear that he is not executing the Office of President faithfully. Without question, the most dangerous domestic enemy of the Constitution would be a President who believed he could act outside the law, and regarded the Constitution as "just a g*ddamned piece of paper". Given your oath and your long and honorable service, do you have a duty to ensure that this doesn't happen? Do not we all?

Adriane -- "I hate to break it to you, but your phone records are not your property. They are the property of the person, or in this case corporation, who provides you with telephone service as otherwise they have no way to bill you for service provided." The government does not have the right to demand any kind of records about you from any party, without a warrant.

Old Soldier -- "Does the fourth amendment cover those conspiring against us in the manner or nature of war?" The Fourth Amendment covers every citizen, all the time. The executive needs probable cause, or a warrant, to invade our privacy.

Old Soldier -- "The oath I took was to defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic". But that's exactly what you're not doing, You are saying that you are scared of terrorists, and therefore we should ignore the Fourth. I don't know how else to explain this to you, so I won't try any more.

Specter -- "There has not been a call for investigating the legality of either the TSP or the data-mining operation - except from the moonbat guano left. Not one." This passes for an argument with you? Suppose Mr. X murders Mr. Y, and no one calls for an investigation; does that make the murder right?

Specter -- "And if you are so up in arms about those programs - what did you think about Clinton's escalation of ECHELON in the 90's? Under him, the CONTENT of every fax, email, phone call, virtually every electronic transmission, was monitored via computer for "trigger words". That was a much larger "invasion of privacy" than what we have here. But did you complain? No. Wonder why not? Maybe you were still in diapers then?" The content is being monitored now. I think it's reasonable to monitor communications in an anonymous way, that true anonymity and safeguards against abuse. In other words, the NSA can listen to any conversation, but needs a warrant to get the information about the people involved. This would protect against the spying being used for political or personal purposes. How do you know what I think about Clinton or what I complained about when? I'm not a Democrat or a liberal. Again, protecting the Constitution is what I feel my duty as a citizen is.

Specter -- "The paperwork to establish probable cause is not something that takes a couple of hours to do. " Wrong, FISA allows warrants to be handed out 72 hours *after* the fact in emergencies.

Specter -- "Don't complain ... about constant invasion of your privacy. LOL" Again, how do you know what any of us think? As a matter of fact I do complain about that. This is getting ridiculous. You seem to be a partisan reactionary.

Scrapiron -- "He can't cite one legal ruling against the NSA wiretaps and since the FISA court went along with it." Wrong, FISA did not go along. FISA is exactly what was circumvented. One of the FISA judges quit as a protest to Bush circumventing the court. I don't mean to be crass, but please try harder to recognize when you don't post in public forums where you don't know what you are talking about.

Before Specter gets in his cardboard box time machine and tells us I'm wrong wrong wrong, there's a typo in my previous post: the President's Address to the Nation I referred to was on December 18, 2005, not 2006.

Cyrus,

Sorry - you are wildly uniformed. Depends on which program you are talking about though. If you are talking TSP - yes. Try reviewing the actual laws of which you speak. Not only AUMF, but also the FISA laws. You might find out something you think you know but you really don't.

Oil,

Your original claim was Criminal Illegal. You showed us a civil case article. Nothing about the program being illegal there - it is a civil law suit against AT&T. Show me the article. You can't. In fact if it is such a big deal I'm sure you can find 3 or 4 from just this week. Put up or shut up bat stain on the eaves. I notice you couldn't refute what Jackson said so you changed your point of attack. I did not shift one iota.

Cyrus,

Do some research into how long it takes to put the paperwork together to get a FISA warrant - and then multiply it by hundreds at a time. Get a grip on reality.

Old Soldier: We have Sunnies blowing up people, and we have Shias executing people with death squads. Sounds like civil war to me. we created it, and now we can't stop it militarily. A political solution is all that's left, and that ain't lookin' so good. All wars involve terrorists, even our own civil war. The Confederates had em and so did the Yankees (No pun intended CY...well maybe just a little).

As for the arrests in Canada, most of those scum were criminals like Mcveigh and were actually arrested and presumably will be given due process which we can all witness. They'll be publicly tried and punished for their crimes. Criminals are arrested every day in America, yet many prefer to call the islamocommies terrorists, and immediatly proceed to dismantle our Constitution under the pretence of protecting the people.I don't see that as their real motive. It's simply a ruse gain more power and influence politically.

"We are at war with the perpetuators of radical Islam."

The perps in the case of 9/11 seem to be the Saudie Wahabies and their followers (Radical Islamists). There are lots of them in Pakistan as well. Using your own defination, why haven't we gone after a single one of them..?

"Remember, evil flourishes when good men do nothing (to oppose it). To that I would add that evil excels when good men do not recognize evil and unwittingly assist it (useful idiots)". Well spoken and very true in this case.

There were no Wahabis, zilch, nada in Iraq under the former secular regime. Saddam and the Sunnies kept them in check (Not to be construed as his defense). Our presence in Iraq has unleashed them to our own detriment while we ignored and assisted the real threat.

"The war will end when they no longer attack us (our citizens) because of who we are not."

Using this logic, and noting our leaders response, you are advocating an an open ended conflict with no end in sight. Every country on earth has criminal elements that would like nothing better then to attack us. Reminds me of the PNAC goal of world hedgimony. Such reasoning is pure, arrogant folly, and we will never have the resources or international support to accomplish it.

"They are more committed to their "concept" of Islam than you are to the concept of freedom and liberty. You better believe they are real and would kill you in a New York minute if given the chance."

Your first sentence is utter nonsense. I voluntarily enlisted during the Indochina conflict because The government convinced me the threat to our way of life was real. The release of the Pentagon Papers changed all that. "Fool me once" was all it took to make me a skeptic today.

The second sentence shows how paranoid and skeered you really are. So skeered you would give away all our freedoms for the illusion of your own safety.

Spector, you're next.

hog

Specter -- "Sorry - you are wildly uniformed. Depends on which program you are talking about though. If you are talking TSP - yes."

I'm going to let this stand on its own.

Speck -

Your original claim was Criminal Illegal

Like that was so groovy man, are you totally like tripping? Are you spaced out? Like, if you paint something like now man, it'll be like so psychedelic man. And when you come down, you'll have like no idea what it was about and that will be way, so like way, so beyond cool! Amazing, man!

”Old Soldier -- "The oath I took was to defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic". But that's exactly what you're not doing, You are saying that you are scared of terrorists, and therefore we should ignore the Fourth. I don't know how else to explain this to you, so I won't try any more.”
Cyrus, exactly where did I say I was “scared” of terrorists? First off, I’m not scared of anyone. Second, I put a name, an identity to the “terrorists”; they’re radical Islamists. If you don’t recognize the threat they pose to this nation, then you have either lost your ability to reason or are consciously suppressing it.

I’m not advocating for the abandonment of the fourth Amendment; but I certainly do not advocate that our enemy should have the freedom to plot our demise under the protections of our own system. Failing to protect the republic will certainly lead to its demise. Your position is far more dangerous than mine. Should we fail to protect the republic all the freedoms, liberty and privacy guaranteed by the constitution won’t matter, will they?

I’m quite tired of hearing talking points repetitively regurgitated concerning the legality of the NSA programs. One FISA judge quit supposedly in protest (and the leaks stopped, imagine that). If the NSA process was that illegal, why didn’t the whole damned court quit or level charges? I happen to believe FISA is unconstitutional; in that congress attempts to limit the power of the executive branch. It really is time to stop whining about that issue.

You needn’t bother to respond, Cyrus, we obviously have very different perspectives of freedom and liberty and how it should be preserved. We apparently can’t agree that the enemy is not the federal government but rather radical Islamists. Regardless, take comfort knowing there are rough men who are willing to physically fight, bleed and die for freedom.

Old Soldier -- Cyrus, exactly where did I say I was “scared” of terrorists? First off, I’m not scared of anyone. ... If you don’t recognize the threat they pose to this nation, then you have either lost your ability to reason or are consciously suppressing it.

Fair enough, you didn't say scared. Below you say 'dangerous'. So in effect you are saying that we should compromise the Constitution because the enemy is dangerous. Still not good enough.

I’m not advocating for the abandonment of the fourth Amendment; If it quacks like a duck...

but I certainly do not advocate that our enemy should have the freedom to plot our demise under the protections of our own system.

That is a downside of the freedoms we enjoy. Traitors in the United States have an easier time than traitors in, say, China.

Failing to protect the republic will certainly lead to its demise. Your position is far more dangerous than mine. Should we fail to protect the republic all the freedoms, liberty and privacy guaranteed by the constitution won’t matter, will they?

True, but we will have died nobly, not as cowards and traitors to our proud heritage.

If the NSA process was that illegal, why didn’t the whole damned court quit or level charges? This is weak.

I happen to believe FISA is unconstitutional; in that congress attempts to limit the power of the executive branch. It really is time to stop whining about that issue.
The framers of the Constitution devised a system called checks and balances whereby no one of the three branches of government trumps the other. They very intentionally limited the power of the executive.

You needn’t bother to respond, Cyrus. Thanks for being civil and thoughtful despite our disagreement. I'm happy to discuss these issues. I hope we can both learn something from eachother.

We apparently can’t agree that the enemy is not the federal government but rather radical Islamists.

I haven't the slightest doubt that radical Islam is our enemy.

Best,
Cyrus

My Comment: "They are more committed to their "concept" of Islam than you are to the concept of freedom and liberty. You better believe they are real and would kill you in a New York minute if given the chance."

Hog, ”Your first sentence is utter nonsense.” You’ve only served to prove your ignorance concerning our current enemy. A radical Islamist will gladly die in order to kill you. Why, because you are not a Muslim and the radical believes in his “concept”. If you don’t understand and acknowledge that, you are only serving them as a useful idiot.

Hog, ”The second sentence shows how paranoid and skeered you really are. So skeered you would give away all our freedoms for the illusion of your own safety.” You may attempt to transfer your insecurities but it doesn’t change a thing. Label me “skeered” if it comforts you, but only a fool will ignore a declared enemy and allow him free reign of the house. It seems to me that you are the paranoid one, believing that the President of the United States wants to take away all your freedom and liberty. In fact, that borders on dillusional.

Old Soldier -- We apparently can’t agree that the enemy is not the federal government but rather radical Islamists.

One more thing. The main reason I distrust this administration is because they attacked a secular nation as part of a war on radical Islam, in fact the only secular nation in the region.

We should have gotten Bin Laden in Afghanistan at all costs, then IMO turned our attention to Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 9/11 hijackers came from, and where Bin Laden's from, and where his family lives. Saddam was as bad as they come, but he was contained, and he was not a religious zealot, just a run of the mill dictator. Bush Sr. was right. His son is not half the man his father is.

After sacrificing thousands of troops and untold billions of dollars, we are worried that Iraq will turn into a Shia nation allied with Iran.

"What about credit reporting and marketing agencies."

Specter, I have to LOL at that comparison. We voluntarily apply with and use our financial institutions with the expectation that we keep our end of the bargain. It's perfectly ligit and essential to our economy for those institutions to track and publish the names of those who fail to live up to their contracts. I didn't volunteer my phone records to Big Brother, and he gave me absolutly no due process.

As for the marketing agencies, Don't you just love all that junkmail and spam you get every day. Go on and tell us all what a good thing it is and how much you enjoy it.

"There has not been a call for investigating the legality of either the TSP or the data-mining operation"

Let's see now, All three branches of government are firmly under the control of Repugs. Congress continues to walk in lock step with the Executive branch, who in turn dispatches marching orders to the Judicial. Especially that old anchor baby decendent himself, Alberto. I suspect the legislative branch will begin calling for many investigations after this November.

The Clinton administration program, code-named Echelon, complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was obtained. CIA director George Tenet testified to this before Congress on 4/12/00:

"I’m here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National Security Agency…

There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department."

Meanwhile, the position of the Bush administration is that they can bypass the FISA court and every other court, even when they are monitoring the communications of U.S. persons. It is the difference between following the law and breaking it.

hog

Old Soldier says "You’ve only served to prove your ignorance concerning our current enemy."

Put away the Kool-Aide Old Vet. I was very clear and honest about why I served over thirty years ago. And, the dinks would have cut off my B**ls and stuffed em down my throat if they got the chance.

Gotta go , but I'll be back.

hog

Not to interrupt yall's spitball fight or anything, if I might comment on the original post?

CY, you seem to suggest that the Canadian terrorists were apprehended at least in part because of wide net internet tracking either by the TSP, or by a similar Canadian program; to wit, "I think we have a winner".

Two points: if this were true, and any sort of (let's say controversial) surveillance program had actually produced results, do you think that this Administration would be silently grinning at a few mentions in obscure blogs, or be announcing it at a full-blown Presidential press conference, pointing to this victory in the war on terror?

Point two: This portion of your quote seems to argue against it too "a U.S. court document alleges".

One other thing, CY. I do not consider John Ashcroft a villan any more than Michael Brown, just another of many examples of the Peter Principle writ large who occupy positions of authority in this administration. He is enough of an advocate that I did not take his interpretation of Justice Jackson's remarks without reference to the original documents, any more than I would blindly accept assertions by the Daily Kos or NewsMax.

Justice Jackson made that often quoted comment in a dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. Chicago, a free-speech case. The defendant was convicted for breach of the peace, and the lower court's ruling was overturned by a 5-4 majority. http://supreme.justia.com/us/337/1/case.html

Father Terminiello was a Roman Catholic priest (albeit under suspension by his bishop in Birmingham, Alabama) addressing a group called "Christian Veterans of America", who began their meeting with prayer, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, and the singing of "America". He proceeded to make some harsh remarks about "Zionist Communists", Morgenthau, Eleanor Roosevelt, and other assorted "scum" (would have made a dull day for Rush late in the Clinton administration). Jackson, fresh from a tour as Nuremburg prosecutor, thought he ought to be locked up.

Oil,

I see more rhetoric on your part, but no proof.

Hog,

Where are all the calls from the Dem side to investigate? Don't hide behind Republican control (but you have to wonder why that is if so many people seem to like that arrangement). The Dems were very vocal when the NYT first leaked the national security secrets. Oh I know - they shut up cuz the Republicans said, "We are the majority - we vot you shut up." Right? I don't think so. Could it be that they realized that their claims just might be ... well...misplaced? Whether or not you like it, there isn't going to be an investigation into those programs. Hence - not illegal. Whether or not you like it, Hayden, the architect of the programs was voted by a large majority - including democrats. 78-15. Now why would that happen if the things Hayden put together were illegal? Get a grip!

Specter, I'll concede that one. The dems in congress have no backbone, and very little of my respect. Few are willing to stick their necks out this close to the election. And, like I mentioned, the repubs continue to walk in lock step with Shrub, although a few are beginning to break ranks. Good point.

hog

Honestly Hog - I would like to replace the entire Congress, enact good term limits and start over. Not only are they all corrupt to some extent (or at least enough of them to cast a pall over them all), but they are all constantly in campaign mode. It has to make you wonder how anything real actually gets done.

do you think that this Administration would be silently grinning at a few mentions in obscure blogs, or be announcing it at a full-blown Presidential press conference, pointing to this victory in the war on terror?

Ummm, unless they're total retards, they'd deny it even if true so the net can be cast even wider.

Just because there was arrests doesn't mean the whole deal was rolled up in one go. Now you get to sweat the perps and see if anything else interesting pops out.

do you think that this Administration would be silently grinning at a few mentions in obscure blogs, or be announcing it at a full-blown Presidential press conference, pointing to this victory in the war on terror?

Ummm, unless they're total retards, they'd deny it even if true so the net can be cast even wider.

However tempted I might be to use that as a straight line, I think that those I disagree with in this administration are bright, well intentioned, and wrong. I also think that they would consider the destruction of a Federal building in Frostbite Falls a far less horrifying prospect than the loss of either house of Congress in this fall's elections, and would release any proof without question, and without hesitation, as serving the greater good.

Sounds good to me...