*Sigh* Oh, the government.

[Specineff]

I'm not one to start political discussions here (Let's keep it civil, people) but this is just too much. This is one of the reasons I left Mexico (can't trust the government), but this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10488458/

Yeah, I know the government of the USA isn't perfect either, but wasn't this the kind of crap we westerners were happy not be dealing with, like the poor chaps in the commie blocks had to, in the 80's?

[CMoon]

That and flushing the 'freedom of information' act down the toilet pretty much undid a lot of the good that had been done in the last 30 years or so...

[PFG 9000]

The article conveniently omits any details on exactly which conversations were monitored. Of course the average reader will think "OMG, they might be listening in on my conversations!" But that's not necessarily the case. This could indeed be an infringement on American freedoms...but it could just as well be a misdirected media feeding frenzy.

I could write up an article about how police search thousands of people every week without consent and without a warrant. I could then go around interviewing different law enforcement officials, asking them the questions I need to make a convincing article. I could then write up this article and encourage all my pseudo journalistic friends to do the same.

But if I leave out an mention of the details of these cases, and if I neglect to mention the legal guidelines that permit them (destruction of evidence, immediate safety of others, probable cause, Terry stops/pat downs, etc.), I could string along anybody who was predisposed to hate the cops.

[The n00b]

This kind of crap has been going on since the 60's and it still disgusts me.

[Acid King]

Color me unsurprised.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01366.html

[PaCrappa]

The article conveniently omits any details on exactly which conversations were monitored.

I'm not sure what the significance of that sentence is. I'm not supposed to care if the monitored conversations weren't my own?

Pa

[undamned]

The article conveniently omits any details on exactly which conversations were monitored.

I'm not sure what the significance of that sentence is. I'm not supposed to care if the monitored conversations weren't my own?

Only conversations about Domo Kun were listened to. Don't worry.
-ud

[captain ahar]

The article conveniently omits any details on exactly which conversations were monitored.

I'm not sure what the significance of that sentence is. I'm not supposed to care if the monitored conversations weren't my own?

Only conversations about Domo Kun were listened to. Don't worry.
-ud

everyone knows this administration has it out for domo kun. it was part of bushs 2000 platform.

anyway, article is unsurprising, and PFG 9000 makes uncompelling arguments. pa wins.

[PaCrappa]

pa wins.

UNDEFEATED IN 2K5 BABY!!! WINTERNATIONALS HERE I COME!!!

Pa

[PFG 9000]

article is unsurprising, and PFG 9000 makes uncompelling arguments. pa wins.

Pa didn't make an argument. What did he win? If it was a cookie, I want one too. Chocolate chip.

I'm not sure what the significance of that sentence is. I'm not supposed to care if the monitored conversations weren't my own?

I said nothing to imply you shouldn't be concerned for others' rights as much as your own.

My point was that there are instances in which it is legal for certain governmental agencies to monitor telephone conversations without a warrant, yet the article never mentions that. One implication of this article is that anybody in the US could be a victim, but the article doesn't bother to mention what the criteria may have been for each line tap. In other words, there could have been perfectly acceptable - and legal - reasons for these wiretaps. Notice the investigation of the Times is based conveniently on interviews with NSA administrators who will remain anonymous. Sure, it's a reliable source...if it's genuine. But there is no way for anybody to know if these interviews even took place.

And as a naturally biased human being, any Bush critic will read this article without questioning its factual basis because it gives them more ammo in the fight against the Evil Right (TM). Just like they'll agree with fellow Bush critics even when those fellow Bush critics haven't made an argument.

[extrarice]

My point was that there are instances in which it is legal for certain governmental agencies to monitor telephone conversations without a warrant, yet the article never mentions that.

What section of US Law? What Act? As far as I know, this is a violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires the acquisition of a warrant (granted, in a secret court) before the wiretaps can be carried out:

(reprinted from Bruce Schneier's blog)

Section 1809a states:
It is a criminal offense to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute."

FISA does authorize surveillance without a warrant, but not on US citizens (with the possible exception of citizens speaking from property openly owned by a foreign power; e.g., an embassy.):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ ... -000-.html

FISA also says that the Attorney General can authorize emergency surveillance without a warrant when there is no time to obtain one. But it requires that the Attorney General notify the judge of that authorization immediately, and that he (and yes, the law does say 'he') apply for a warrant "as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance.":
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ ... -000-.html

It also says:

"In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest. In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance, no information obtained or evidence derived from such surveillance shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof".

Nothing in the New York Times report suggests that the wiretaps Bush authorized extended only for 72 hours, or that normal warrants were sought in each case within 72 hours after the wiretap began. On the contrary, no one would have needed a special program or presidential order if they had.

According to the Times, "the Bush administration views the operation as necessary so that the agency can move quickly to monitor communications that may disclose threats to the United States." But this is just wrong. As I noted above, the law specifically allows for warrantless surveillance in emergencies, when the government needs to start surveillance before it can get a warrant. It explains exactly what the government needs to do under those circumstances. It therefore provides the flexibility the administration claims it needed.

They had no need to go around the law. They could easily have obeyed it. They just didn't want to.

One implication of this article is that anybody in the US could be a victim, but the article doesn't bother to mention what the criteria may have been for each line tap. In other words, there could have been perfectly acceptable - and legal - reasons for these wiretaps.

The legitimacy of the target is meaningless if the law was violated. It's a little thing we call "due process", and the Constitution is kinda funny about it.

And as a naturally biased human being, any Bush critic will read this article without questioning its factual basis because it gives them more ammo in the fight against the Evil Right (TM). Just like they'll agree with fellow Bush critics even when those fellow Bush critics haven't made an argument.

The Time's article makes some very serious accusations, and I'm certain that more information will come forward about it. Personally, I could care less which party did this - really, is it OK for the party I like to do something like this, as opposed to the other side of the aisle?* If Bush did this, he's in deep trouble. If Clinton had done this, he'd be in deep trouble too. What we have here, if the article is true (nothing has been proven yet), is the dangerous situation of a man in power who believes himself to be above the law.

I, for one, will be eagerly anticipating more information.

* Disclaimer: I'm an ex-Republican, now Civil Libertarian because of what this administration has done to this country.

[PFG 9000]

My point was that there are instances in which it is legal for certain governmental agencies to monitor telephone conversations without a warrant, yet the article never mentions that.

FISA also says that the Attorney General can authorize emergency surveillance without a warrant when there is no time to obtain one. But it requires that the Attorney General notify the judge of that authorization immediately, and that he (and yes, the law does say 'he') apply for a warrant "as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance."

Thank you for confirming what I posted. Like I said, the article hasn't said in any certain terms that these laws were broken. It says over and over that the government was listening in on conversations. And as we've both pointed out, there are circumstances that make such actions legal.

The legitimacy of the target is meaningless if the law was violated. It's a little thing we call "due process", and the Constitution is kinda funny about it.

Fair enough. So...where was the law violated? I mean, there's allegations and all, but where is the proof?

Also: due process deals by and large with the rights of the accused as they move through the judicial system. There are other applications, but how do they apply here?

Now my own disclaimer: I voted against Bush. You could say I'm not his biggest fan (sarcasm). But I think people love to jump on him for BS reasons, like his supposedly low intelligence level. When people bring up illogical points, I point out the logical flaws. I did the same for Kerry opponents in the last election. These allegations don't hold much water, at least as far as the article in the first post is concerned. It's written in a way to cover up its flaws.

[PaCrappa]

Pa didn't make an argument.

Dang! Can I still be undefeated though? I was liking the way that sounded.

Pa

[dave4shmups]

A professor of Political Science I had, and one who was no conspiratist, told our Conflict In the Middle East class that the CIA was spying on one-quarter of all international phone calls in the United States.

That was in 1999, so expect that number to have doubled, possibly even tripled.

While we are preaching the benefits of freedom democracy to the rest of the world, we have an administration in power which has had secret prisons set up around the world, most likely used torture (or if not, why was Bush so strenuously against an anti-torure bill in Congress?) on prisoners, and has authorized spying on it's own citizens.

And it is debatable how much safer spying has made this country. The biggest threat to our safety is our continued hypocritical policies overseas. Once again, we have an administration that is preaching that freedom in Iraq will spread all over the Middle East, and yet continues to deal with corrupt and oppressive governments in the same area.

And we act so surprised when it's been uncovered that the Iraqi's have secret prisons where torture has been used-what kind of example do they have?

[scrilla4rella]

Does anyone really think that one of the main reasons why bush it one of the most unpopular presidents in recent history (about as un-popular as Nixon during Watergate and as un-popular as Gov. Gray Davis when he was recalled in California) is because of how he speaks? Putting the whole Iraq issue and it's many related fuck-ups asside, he took the largest budget surplus in US history and turned it into the largest budget deficet in US history, just so he could give corparations and the supper wealthy a tax break.

In the begining of his presidency his awkward speech style was seen as endearing by many of his supporters, "I can relate to him" etc.
Yes, his speech style is not a valid reason to criticise his policies, but one that is fun to point out. Anybody who has even zero critical thinking skills and is just taking what the media reports at face value will have numerous valid reasons for hating on bush.
and yes I can't spell...

[sffan]

A professor of Political Science I had, and one who was no conspiratist, told our Conflict In the Middle East class that the CIA was spying on one-quarter of all international phone calls in the United States.

That was in 1999, so expect that number to have doubled, possibly even tripled.

The CIA doesn't have enough employees to listen to all those calls. 1/2 to 3/4 of all U.S. international calls? No way. I'm sure if every CIA employee listened to phone calls all day it wouldn't cover that many. Besides the job would be so boring they'd be falling asleep while listening.

[Specineff]

I still don't like the idea of a country that's supposed to be the land of the free and home of the brave, cowardly trampling over those freedoms under the excuse of protecting the same freedoms. Pull out the hammer and the sickle, komrades. For this will be the next revolution.

Ok. I'm exaggerating. But I still don't like the idea of "guilty unless we really, really really beyond any shadow of doubt, with proof in written, with two copies and seal and initials, in monogrammed paper have evidence to the contrary. Really."

[dave4shmups]

I still don't like the idea of a country that's supposed to be the land of the free and home of the brave, cowardly trampling over those freedoms under the excuse of protecting the same freedoms. Pull out the hammer and the sickle, komrades. For this will be the next revolution.

Ok. I'm exaggerating. But I still don't like the idea of "guilty unless we really, really really beyond any shadow of doubt, with proof in written, with two copies and seal and initials, in monogrammed paper have evidence to the contrary. Really."

I agree Specineff.

@sffan, perhaps it was the NSA, but I know that it was/is one of the two intelligence agencies; this guy wasn't lying to us. Who knows how many employees the CIA has? They, and the NSA, certainly have huge enough budgets to employ more then enough people to do anything they darn well please.

[Tar-Palantir]

The CIA doesn't have enough employees to listen to all those calls. 1/2 to 3/4 of all U.S. international calls? No way. I'

They outsourced it, duh.

[sffan]

The CIA doesn't have enough employees to listen to all those calls. 1/2 to 3/4 of all U.S. international calls? No way. I'

They outsourced it, duh.

So people in India are listening to our calls?

Actually, I know someone who used to work for the NSA. I'm gonna ask him what he thinks of this latest news about domestic spying, but he probably wouldn't tell me anything classified.

[extrarice]

Thank you for confirming what I posted. Like I said, the article hasn't said in any certain terms that these laws were broken. It says over and over that the government was listening in on conversations. And as we've both pointed out, there are circumstances that make such actions legal.

What the article shows is that there is policy and procedure to obtaining these wiretaps, and the NYTimes article accuses the Administration of ignoring this law and proceeding without the required court order.

Fair enough. So...where was the law violated? I mean, there's allegations and all, but where is the proof?

Glad you asked:
Monday's White House press conference where Bush confirms that he did not secure proper authorization but defended the practice and stated the program will continue.

Also: due process deals by and large with the rights of the accused as they move through the judicial system. There are other applications, but how do they apply here?

You're right, I used the wrong term here. The point I was trying to make is that in order to protect the people from the government there are laws and policies we *all* have to follow, President included, before one has power over another.

Now my own disclaimer: I voted against Bush. You could say I'm not his biggest fan (sarcasm). But I think people love to jump on him for BS reasons, like his supposedly low intelligence level. When people bring up illogical points, I point out the logical flaws. I did the same for Kerry opponents in the last election. These allegations don't hold much water, at least as far as the article in the first post is concerned. It's written in a way to cover up its flaws.

Agreed - he has never gotten a fair shot at being President from day 1 - the Florida election screwup, to drug use in his youth, to special treatment in the military, etc. And it is also good to always question "unconfirmed" or "anonymous" reports, like in the NYT. But to be honest, I don't doubt much of anything about Bush anymore. His public statements, his policies, actions of those under him, I just don't doubt much I hear about him anymore.

[captain ahar]

article is unsurprising, and PFG 9000 makes uncompelling arguments. pa wins.

Pa didn't make an argument. What did he win? If it was a cookie, I want one too. Chocolate chip.

sorry dude. it was molasses. it just isn't your week...

[dave4shmups]

Boy, I'm so glad Bush is keeping us all so safe here in the US with his illegal domestic syping program, when our Government allows crap like this to happen:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4683520.stm

Unbelievable. Just makes me feel so warm inside for paying taxes, when a good portion of it goes into this black hole of incompetence.

[PaCrappa]

GOD BLESS GW!!! HE KNOWS BESTEST!!!

Pa

[BulletMagnet]

Well, according to the article, the prison he escaped from was in Yemen...unless I missed it, it doesn't say whether the U.S. had any control over the prison at all. Trust me, I'm not one to regularly jump to Bush's defense (or any politician's, for that matter), but methinks there's a good chance that, at least in this case, the U.S. wasn't the one to screw up this time, at least not "directly."

[PaCrappa]

George W Bush was the warden at the time of their escape. I read it on the internet.

Pa

[PFG 9000]

Boy, I'm so glad Bush is keeping us all so safe here in the US with his illegal domestic syping program, when our Government allows crap like this to happen:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4683520.stm

Unbelievable. Just makes me feel so warm inside for paying taxes, when a good portion of it goes into this black hole of incompetence.

Do you know where Yemen is? Do you understand how completely ignorant your comment is? And can you explain how the US Government has anything to do with a Yemeni jail?

[PaCrappa]

Fool! The US Governement PWNS Yemeni jails!!! I thought you knew.

Pa