So, is this a lie?

[dukeuch]

Hearings on the secret wiretapping, which Bush assures us are legal, start this morning. Thought is might be interesting to see what he told us about the importance of wiretaps in the past, and under what circumstances they could be legally used. There's lots of text directly from his mouth. Here's a little nugget from a speech in Buffalo, NY April 20, 2004. Got it right off of the Whitehouse website, so I guess you can assume that he actually said this stuff (admittedly, however, this is a source which cannot always be trusted). Hope the link works, but if it doesn't just search for Bush, Buffalo, APril 20, 2004.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. 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. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.

The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies.

Thirdly, to give you an example of what we're talking about, there's something called delayed notification warrants. Those are very important. I see some people, first responders nodding their heads about what they mean. These are a common tool used to catch mobsters. In other words, it allows people to collect data before everybody is aware of what's going on. It requires a court order. It requires protection under the law. We couldn't use these against terrorists, but we could use against gangs.

So, was he telling lies to help garner support for the Patriot Act, knowing full well that he had for years approved such wiretapping without warrants, or is it not a lie because he was not under oath in front of Congress?

[Spence]

It certainly appears to be a falsehood.

[Ibleedburgundy]

One way or another it's a bold-faced lie. What else is new? He'll get away with it because much like every other lie this administration has told, the public did not find out until it was too late. I don't know if Bush is lying or if he is being lied to by his staff. Either way, this administration has zero credibility and we are going to pay the price by not having the amount of leverage with Iran that we would have had under a competent administration.

dukeuch, did you see this clip on meet the press? Russert showed it to Arlen Spector.

[BurgundyNGold]

I think that if the administration didn't know that what they were doing was illegal, they at least knew that it was taking some serious liberties on this issue (no pun intended). They're playing the international call origin loophole, which it remains to be seen if this is a loophole. That's the thing about any new legislation -- usually it's rife with loopholes until they can be closed over time.

I'm not sure what to make of all of this yet. The one thing I do know is that I don't trust these guys as far as I can throw a baby grand.

[dukeuch]

If I am reading Bush's words correctly, whether we are talking about international calls or not is a moot point in regards to whether he lied; he does not make a distinction, he simply says wiretaps "require a court order", period. If when he spoke those words back then he was (unknown to his audience) speaking of international calls only, he was still lying, and I believe that their view on this type of wiretapping is not even limited to international calls any more; if you speak to someone within the United States, who had previously spoken to someone outside of the United States that they think is a "person of interest", Bush thinks it's ok to listen in to that domestic call without a warrant. You think that he does not think that it would be legal to listen in to Padilla's (an American citizen) domestic calls without a warrant?

Heck, the whole underpinning of their arguement is that as Commander in Chief, but can use whatever "force" necessary, as defined by themselves, to combat terrorism. If so, there are NO LIMITS to what he can do, right? Including torture, lying, misappropriation of funds, and viewing kiddie porn on the internet, right?

[dukeuch]

Oh, by the way, the last I heard, the White House is refusing to produce memos penned by Ashcroft which basically said this wiretapping was illegal.

[BurgundyNGold]

If I am reading Bush's words correctly, whether we are talking about international calls or not is a moot point in regards to whether he lied; he does not make a distinction, he simply says wiretaps "require a court order", period. If when he spoke those words back then he was (unknown to his audience) speaking of international calls only, he was still lying, and I believe that their view on this type of wiretapping is not even limited to international calls any more; if you speak to someone within the United States, who had previously spoken to someone outside of the United States that they think is a "person of interest", Bush thinks it's ok to listen in to that domestic call without a warrant. You think that he does not think that it would be legal to listen in to Padilla's (an American citizen) domestic calls without a warrant?
We'll see. This statement was in April 2004. It's a blanket statement that might very well come back to bit him in the arse. I don't agree with it but I'm just saying that the administration is out skating on the thin ice of the international origin of the calls as their loophole.

Heck, the whole underpinning of their arguement is that as Commander in Chief, but can use whatever "force" necessary, as defined by themselves, to combat terrorism. If so, there are NO LIMITS to what he can do, right? Including torture, lying, misappropriation of funds, and viewing kiddie porn on the internet, right?
Actually, it would seem that internet porn is the one thing that the administration will not tolerate. :)

[Axegrinder]

The Dems want A.G Gonzales under oath and the GOP does not.
Why?

[Spence]

I don't think Ashcroft produced any memos declaring wiretapping to be illegal. Not personally anyway. My understanding is that Ashcroft's deputies did this. At the time, Ashcroft was in the hospital with a serious illness and Cheney's office was after him constantly to "rein in" his deputies at Justice who thought the wiretapping was illegal or probably illegal. Instead of doing as he was told by Cheney, Ashcroft supported his deputies. So let me be the first to admit I was wrong: Apparently, it IS possible to be more radical than John Ashcroft. Special congratulations go out to Dick Cheney for figuring out how to do it.

By the way, this won't happen again. Most of Ashcroft's deputies left government with him, as it was made clear their presence would not be welcome during the second Bush term.

[RedskinsDave]

By the way, this won't happen again. Most of Ashcroft's deputies left government with him, as it was made clear their presence would not be welcome during the second Bush term.

That would explain why my former next door neighbor sold his place shortly after Ashcroft's exit. Nice guy but a little too cornfed momma's boy.

[Ibleedburgundy]

The Dems want A.G Gonzales under oath and the GOP does not.
Why?

Same reason the GOP didn't want to put their oil buddies under oath.

[Spence]

Here is why this story matters, I think:

The Pentagon has its own domestic spying program. Even its leaders say the outfit may have gone too far.
-- Newsweek (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965509/site/newsweek/) , January 30, 2006

A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.

A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a “threat” and one of more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” across the country over a recent 10-month period.
-- NBC News (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/), December 14, 2005

Gen. Michael Hayden, the Bush admin's man at the Office of National Intelligence was twice asked if the government is spying on peaceful domestic opponents of the Bush administration. Both times Hayden refused to answer the question.
-- National Press Club (http://www.dni.gov/release_letter_012306.html) remarks, January 23, 2006

There's more, but that's a start.

[BurgundyNGold]

Here is why this story matters, I think:

The Pentagon has its own domestic spying program. Even its leaders say the outfit may have gone too far.
-- Newsweek (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965509/site/newsweek/) , January 30, 2006

A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.

A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a “threat” and one of more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” across the country over a recent 10-month period.
-- NBC News (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/), December 14, 2005

Gen. Michael Hayden, the Bush admin's man at the Office of National Intelligence was twice asked if the government is spying on peaceful domestic opponents of the Bush administration. Both times Hayden refused to answer the question.
-- National Press Club (http://www.dni.gov/release_letter_012306.html) remarks, January 23, 2006

There's more, but that's a start.
That Newsweek article was posted in a thread by the recently plucked Paintedbird. As I read that article, the only thing that it definitively confirmed was while CIFA was authorized to conduct the surveillance that it did, the "intelligence" gathered as a result has a shelf life. Apparently, CIFA kept the data longer then they were supposed to, which is against policy. Is that illegal? Maybe, but I don't know that is anywhere near on par with illegal wiretapping. The DoD contact being interviewed for the story called it an oversight and that it had been corrected. To me, the story seemed like Newsweek was trying to fan the flames of the scandal that wasn't.

I think most folks have a problem with the fact that American citizens who happened to be activists were under surveillance by the Pentagon. I can understand that, but I would also say that this is nothing new. The FBI, the Secret Service (Treasury in general, really) and more recently the ATF have been spying on Americans for years. We don't seem to mind when it's David Koresh, but if it's PETA it's a different story. IMO, any of this activity is beyond the scope of government. However, I wouldn't mind too much if whackjobs like the folks over at PETA were kept under surveillance. After all, they're the ones with the history of supporting activists who employ so called eco-terrorist methods.

[Axegrinder]

Same reason the GOP didn't want to put their oil buddies under oath.
That's correct.

I find it astonishing that a party,the GOP,who believes that we shouldn't worry about giving up our civil liberties if we haven't done anything wrong,is affraid to put themselves under oath.
It makes it look like they're hiding something.

[BurgundyNGold]

That's correct.

I find it astonishing that a party,the GOP,who believes that we shouldn't worry about giving up our civil liberties if we haven't done anything wrong,is affraid to put themselves under oath.
It makes it look like they're hiding something.
That's the part that sends a Gestapo chill up my spine. The day we start being asked for our "papers" will be the day that democracy dies and will have died by its own hand.

[fent]

That's correct.

I find it astonishing that a party,the GOP,who believes that we shouldn't worry about giving up our civil liberties if we haven't done anything wrong,is affraid to put themselves under oath.
It makes it look like they're hiding something.

putting the attorney general under oath is an exercise in unecessary action. he's already taken an oath of office which calls upon him to act in an ethical, transparent manner. if he's willing to violate that, there's little an oath before committee is going to do. now, i do believe the oil barons should have been, as should everyone that testifies before congress that hasn't already taken an oath of office.

[akhhorus]

putting the attorney general under oath is an exercise in unecessary action. he's already taken an oath of office which calls upon him to act in an ethical, transparent manner. if he's willing to violate that, there's little an oath before committee is going to do. now, i do believe the oil barons should have been, as should everyone that testifies before congress that hasn't already taken an oath of office.

But you don't have to be sworn in to be forced to tell the truth to Congress. If you lie, you're still exposed to perjury charges and lying to fed. officials.

[fent]

But you don't have to be sworn in to be forced to tell the truth to Congress. If you lie, you're still exposed to perjury charges and lying to fed. officials.

exactly...thanks for pointing out what i forgot to add.

[RedskinsDave]

But you don't have to be sworn in to be forced to tell the truth to Congress. If you lie, you're still exposed to perjury charges and lying to fed. officials.

Just gives em something to whine about though.....

[dukeuch]

Same reason the GOP didn't want to put their oil buddies under oath.

Isn't it mazing that it has come to this; that so long as you are not under oath, you cannot be accused and condemned of lying? Basically, the GOPs actions make it clear that if one is NOT under oath, that they basically cannot be considered lying regardless of the truthfulness of their answers.

Simply amazing.

[fent]

Isn't it mazing that it has come to this; that so long as you are not under oath, you cannot be accused and condemned of lying? Basically, the GOPs actions make it clear that if one is NOT under oath, that they basically cannot be considered lying regardless of the truthfulness of their answers.

Simply amazing.

did you read the last few posts?

[dukeuch]

That Newsweek article was posted in a thread by the recently plucked Paintedbird. As I read that article, the only thing that it definitively confirmed was while CIFA was authorized to conduct the surveillance that it did, the "intelligence" gathered as a result has a shelf life. Apparently, CIFA kept the data longer then they were supposed to, which is against policy. Is that illegal? Maybe, but I don't know that is anywhere near on par with illegal wiretapping. The DoD contact being interviewed for the story called it an oversight and that it had been corrected. To me, the story seemed like Newsweek was trying to fan the flames of the scandal that wasn't.

I think most folks have a problem with the fact that American citizens who happened to be activists were under surveillance by the Pentagon. I can understand that, but I would also say that this is nothing new. The FBI, the Secret Service (Treasury in general, really) and more recently the ATF have been spying on Americans for years. We don't seem to mind when it's David Koresh, but if it's PETA it's a different story. IMO, any of this activity is beyond the scope of government. However, I wouldn't mind too much if whackjobs like the folks over at PETA were kept under surveillance. After all, they're the ones with the history of supporting activists who employ so called eco-terrorist methods.

B&G:

I really do not want to get into it with you again, especially because I think we see things a lot (but not exactly) alike anyway. But while everyone has different levels of tolerance for spying, the examples you give above ALL require a level of oversight, such as a warrant, to be legal. By definition, without a warrant, it is (correctly, in my opinion) illegal. you can argue about the why the powers that be target certain organizations, and whether those organizations desrve to be spied upon or not, but at least, until now, everyone agreed that at least a secrt panel should be reviewing the Executive's spying, even if days after the actual event.

[dukeuch]

exactly...thanks for pointing out what i forgot to add.

Umm, except that the oil executives, because they were not under oath, were not prosecuted for perjury, were they?

[BurgundyNGold]

B&G:

I really do not want to get into it with you again, especially because I think we see things a lot (but not exactly) alike anyway. But while everyone has different levels of tolerance for spying, the examples you give above ALL require a level of oversight, such as a warrant, to be legal. By definition, without a warrant, it is (correctly, in my opinion) illegal. you can argue about the why the powers that be target certain organizations, and whether those organizations desrve to be spied upon or not, but at least, until now, everyone agreed that at least a secrt panel should be reviewing the Executive's spying, even if days after the actual event.
Wiretapping involves a warrant. Surveillance does not. The police or the federal government can sit on your every move if they want to.

[fent]

Umm, except that the oil executives, because they were not under oath, were not prosecuted for perjury, were they?

to my knowledge, no one has specifically accused them of lying, just a lot of pissing and moaning that they weren't under oath.

[Spence]

That Newsweek article was posted in a thread by the recently plucked Paintedbird.You'll have to forgive me, but I tend to tune those threads out pretty quickly.

[Spence]

Look, nobody in their right mind is opposed to the wiretapping program. What's at issue here is getting a warrant from the FISA court first. The notion that getting a warrant within 72 hours AFTER beginning a wiretap is "burdensome" strikes me as preposterous.

I notice Senator Specter, the Judiciary Committee Chair, said over the weekend that he thinks warrantless wiretapping is probably illegal.

[Axegrinder]

Umm, except that the oil executives, because they were not under oath, were not prosecuted for perjury, were they?
Remember this thread?
http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=30510&highlight=Energy+hearings

[BurgundyNGold]

Look, nobody in their right mind is opposed to the wiretapping program. What's at issue here is getting a warrant from the FISA court first. The notion that getting a warrant within 72 hours AFTER beginning a wiretap is "burdensome" strikes me as preposterous.

I notice Senator Specter, the Judiciary Committee Chair, said over the weekend that he thinks warrantless wiretapping is probably illegal.
I tend to agree with this. It's not like a regular court, it's a court set up specifically for the tapping of international calls, no? Plus, you don't even have to get the warrants beforehand! What a joke. I don't see how the administration couldn't just follow the rules on this one. It's really indefensible.

[dukeuch]

to my knowledge, no one has specifically accused them of lying, just a lot of pissing and moaning that they weren't under oath.

Only becuase the GOP controls the House and Senate. the oil execs repeatedly denied any involvement in Cheney's energy task force in 2001, until White house logs showed that, well, they did. Then they started in with the "well, I didn't attend, the Vice President of our company did", and well, I did meet with Cnehey to discuss global energy issues, but not with the Task Force". They lied, apparently becuase they were not under oath they will not be prosecuted.

[dukeuch]

I tend to agree with this. It's not like a regular court, it's a court set up specifically for the tapping of international calls, no? Plus, you don't even have to get the warrants beforehand! What a joke. I don't see how the administration couldn't just follow the rules on this one. It's really indefensible.


There really is only one logical reason that the Bush administration can object to the very liberal requirements for getting a warrant 9form a secret court, obviously pre-disposed to approve warrants, as evidenced by their five refusals in 16,000 requests); they know that they want to wiretap parties that do not have at least an extremely tenuios connection to terrorists. Until someone offers a more plausible explanation, that's what I believe. I still have not heard, even once, why the Administration thinks that the current FISA requirements would impede their stated mission.

[fent]

Only becuase the GOP controls the House and Senate. the oil execs repeatedly denied any involvement in Cheney's energy task force in 2001, until White house logs showed that, well, they did. Then they started in with the "well, I didn't attend, the Vice President of our company did", and well, I did meet with Cnehey to discuss global energy issues, but not with the Task Force". They lied, apparently becuase they were not under oath they will not be prosecuted.

they can be charged with lying to a federal official if someone has evidence that they've lied. no charges have been brought, by dems or outside groups. considering the usual tenacity of congressional watchdog groups, there would be all kinds of allegations and charges being made if anyone out there had hard evidence that they lied. like i said, just a lot of pissing and moaning that they weren't under oath.

[Spence]

There really is only one logical reason that the Bush administration can object to the very liberal requirements for getting a warrant 9form a secret court, obviously pre-disposed to approve warrants, as evidenced by their five refusals in 16,000 requests); they know that they want to wiretap parties that do not have at least an extremely tenuios connection to terrorists. Until someone offers a more plausible explanation, that's what I believe. I still have not heard, even once, why the Administration thinks that the current FISA requirements would impede their stated mission.Well, I think you're correct, but that's only half of the true explanation, I believe. Bush, and especially Cheney, want to set a precedent for the future. They're believers in executive power and insulating it from the intrusions of the legislative and judicial branches of government. They do not trust the traditional consitutional methods used thus far. They believe the executive ought to have the right to wage war in any way seen fit by the POTUS and the other branches of government should have no right to intrude upon this prerogative.

The thing all Republicans should ask themselves is whether or not they'd be comfortable with President Hillary Clinton wielding this sort of power. I'm a Democrat and I don't want her or anyone else listening in on telephones and opening mail without a warrant. It could be that one or two Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked themselves that very question. It might explain why a few of them actually did their job for once -- asked the White House some important questions rather than simply giving them a blank to do as they please.

[dukeuch]

they can be charged with lying to a federal official if someone has evidence that they've lied. no charges have been brought, by dems or outside groups. considering the usual tenacity of congressional watchdog groups, there would be all kinds of allegations and charges being made if anyone out there had hard evidence that they lied. like i said, just a lot of pissing and moaning that they weren't under oath.

You are simply worng here. When the execs first testified in front of congress, four said their companies did not meet with the task force, and one said he did not know. About one week later, White House documents were cited as saying that each one of the companies HAD met with the task force. Of course, the execs then tried to qualify their earlier lies by saying things like "we met with administration officials to discuss energy policy issues, but we did not meet with the task force". Stuff like that. Democrats then attempted to have the Dept of Justice birng the execs back and question them further for possible criminal charges. Of course, a request like that is not going to be very well received by this particular Justice Department.

"The department responded that it takes allegations of false statements to Congress very seriously, and asked Lautenberg to provide specific information, beyond what is available in printed news reports, on which oil executives may have lied to Congress."

Of course, that would require that the White House release their memos and notes regarding the task force and who they met with, which they refuse to do. I think that Congress could vote to have these guys subpeoned, but oooops, that would require the GOP to be angry too, which they are not.

[Spence]

"This administration reacts to anyone who questions this illegal program by saying that those of us who demand the truth and stand up for our rights and freedoms somehow has a pre-9/11 world view. In fact, the President has a pre-1776 world view. Our government has three branches, not one. And no one, not even the President, is above the law."Senator Russ Feingold [D-WI]

[BurgundyNGold]

Senator Russ Feingold [D-WI]
Great quote.

[CNYSkinFan]

Great quote.

I love Russ Feingold....great man, great senator. Maybe the only uncorruptable senator out there.

[BurgundyNGold]

I love Russ Feingold....great man, great senator. Maybe the only uncorruptable senator out there.
1/100. Thems ain't good numbers.

[Ibleedburgundy]

I love Russ Feingold....great man, great senator. Maybe the only uncorruptable senator out there.

Carl Levin seems uncorruptable to me but I could be wrong.

[fent]

Carl Levin seems uncorruptable to me but I could be wrong.

are you kidding? that guy just seeths corruptability...if you had to pick any one senator to play the dirty political boss, i don't know if you could find a better candidate.

[BurgundyNGold]

are you kidding? that guy just seeths corruptability...if you had to pick any one senator to play the dirty political boss, i don't know if you could find a better candidate.
IBB will not compromise his beliefs. Not for you! Not for anybody!!!

[fent]

IBB will not compromise his beliefs. Not for you! Not for anybody!!!

oh i'm not saying he's corrupt, just saying that if you look at him you have to wonder...

[BurgundyNGold]

oh i'm not saying he's corrupt, just saying that if you look at him you have to wonder...
Well, good then. Because he wouldn't have compromised his beliefs. Not for you! Not for anyone!!!

[Ibleedburgundy]

What ever the case, I was not able to find any dirt on Levin. He took a whopping $2,000 from Abramoff according to these guys.

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp

[BurgundyNGold]

What ever the case, I was not able to find any dirt on Levin. He took a whopping $2,000 from Abramoff according to these guys.

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp
I don't understand why Abramoff only gave these folks $2K here and $5K there. What exactly will that buy you? A trip to Atlantic City?

[Ibleedburgundy]

What ever the case, I was not able to find any dirt on Levin. He took a whopping $2,000 from Abramoff according to these guys.

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601090004 :)

[Agrawog]

We may gotten past this point already but i have had a question on my brain since the president came out to explain the policy.

One point he made crystal clear was that the NSA surveilled international calls coming in or going out of the US by or for suspected Al Queida suspects. (I won't get into how long we suspect them of being suspects before arresting them).

here's my question: He says he will do everything to protect the country AND he says ONLY international calls are surveilled. So we identify a suspected terrorist in Akron after he receives a call from Dubai. Now this guy makes a call to someone in Oklahoma City. Another terrorist suspect? A cousin? An innocent american? Am I supposed to believe that we will NOT surveille that call? Why not? Because the call was completely domestic? That is what he means by "doing all he can" to protect us?

If I believe one statement I can't really believe the second one, can I? Can anyone shed any light on this apparent discrepancy? Am I not understanding something here?

Please help!!

[Spence]

A House Republican whose subcommittee oversees the National Security Agency broke ranks with the White House on Tuesday and called for a full Congressional inquiry into the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program.

The lawmaker, Representative Heather A. Wilson of New Mexico, chairwoman of the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, said in an interview that she had "serious concerns" about the surveillance program. By withholding information about its operations from many lawmakers, she said, the administration has deepened her apprehension about whom the agency is monitoring and why.

Ms. Wilson, who was a National Security Council aide in the administration of President Bush's father, is the first Republican on either the House's Intelligence Committee or the Senate's to call for a full Congressional investigation into the program, in which the N.S.A. has been eavesdropping without warrants on the international communications of people inside the United States believed to have links with terrorists.

The congresswoman's discomfort with the operation appears to reflect deepening fissures among Republicans over the program's legal basis and political liabilities. Many Republicans have strongly backed President Bush's power to use every tool at his disposal to fight terrorism, but 4 of the 10 Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee voiced concerns about the program at a hearing where Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified on Monday.

A growing number of Republicans have called in recent days for Congress to consider amending federal wiretap law to address the constitutional issues raised by the N.S.A. operation.

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, for one, said he considered some of the administration's legal justifications for the program "dangerous" in their implications, and he told Mr. Gonzales that he wanted to work on new legislation that would help those tracking terrorism "know what they can and can't do."Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08nsa.html?_r=2&ei=5094&en=0823744467ce7968&hp=&ex=1139374800&oref=slogin&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print)

[RedskinsDave]

Heather and Lindsey....chicks hate freedom. ;)

I know Lindsey is not a chick for anyone who cares

[Spence]

Heather and Lindsey....chicks hate freedom. ;)

I know Lindsey is not a chick for anyone who caresCan't have been easy for a dude named Lindsey in South Carolina. Especially one with such delicate features. He probably learned how to take a punch at an early age.

[BurgundyNGold]

We may gotten past this point already but i have had a question on my brain since the president came out to explain the policy.

One point he made crystal clear was that the NSA surveilled international calls coming in or going out of the US by or for suspected Al Queida suspects. (I won't get into how long we suspect them of being suspects before arresting them).

here's my question: He says he will do everything to protect the country AND he says ONLY international calls are surveilled. So we identify a suspected terrorist in Akron after he receives a call from Dubai. Now this guy makes a call to someone in Oklahoma City. Another terrorist suspect? A cousin? An innocent american? Am I supposed to believe that we will NOT surveille that call? Why not? Because the call was completely domestic? That is what he means by "doing all he can" to protect us?

If I believe one statement I can't really believe the second one, can I? Can anyone shed any light on this apparent discrepancy? Am I not understanding something here?

Please help!!
I think that the point where the international call identifies that the US party is dealing with terrorists would probably be enough reason for a warrant to tap all of that person's phone calls.

[dukeuch]

I think that the point where the international call identifies that the US party is dealing with terrorists would probably be enough reason for a warrant to tap all of that person's phone calls.

I think you are right, and therein lies the danger. The Bush administration wants nobody to oversee their opinion concerning at what point one is "dealing with terrorists". How about the guy who talks to the guy who talks to the guy who talks to the guy who talks to the guy who talks to a "potential" terrorist? How about if that guy is a pizza delivery man taking an order? Bush would prefer not needig to get approval for such a wiretap.

[Agrawog]

I think that the point where the international call identifies that the US party is dealing with terrorists would probably be enough reason for a warrant to tap all of that person's phone calls.

Ok, I can buy that but wasn't one of the main reasons for not getting a warrant the speed issue? Didn't we want to be able to surveille and make decisions quickly? So once we identify someone now we are going to slow down?

I am not necessarily against this program but the problem is that our confidence in it is tied inexorably with our confidence in and trust of the Bush administration. I would suggest that for many of us that level is very low so now we question everything. I am just not sure I trust these guys to stay within the law - certainly not when Gonzalez won't even get sworn in when talking to Congress. Jeez - don't these guys have any image reps working for them?

[BurgundyNGold]

Ok, I can buy that but wasn't one of the main reasons for not getting a warrant the speed issue? Didn't we want to be able to surveille and make decisions quickly? So once we identify someone now we are going to slow down?

I am not necessarily against this program but the problem is that our confidence in it is tied inexorably with our confidence in and trust of the Bush administration. I would suggest that for many of us that level is very low so now we question everything. I am just not sure I trust these guys to stay within the law - certainly not when Gonzalez won't even get sworn in when talking to Congress. Jeez - don't these guys have any image reps working for them?
I don't like the idea of 7-11 convenience courts to issue instant gratification warrants anyway. The process is in place for a reason. If we have a tender underbelly that is exposed to the likes of terrorists, I highly doubt that a lack of efficiency in granting wiretapping warrants is where the problem lies.

[Spence]

I don't like the idea of 7-11 convenience courts to issue instant gratification warrants anyway. The process is in place for a reason. If we have a tender underbelly that is exposed to the likes of terrorists, I highly doubt that a lack of efficiency in granting wiretapping warrants is where the problem lies.That's why you hate America and freedom.

[BurgundyNGold]

That's why you hate America and freedom.
Dangerous rhetoric that is, but I know it's not yours. I would say that not preserviing civil liberties would show a disdain for freedom and would truly be hating America.

[Spence]

Dangerous rhetoric that is, but I know it's not yours. I would say that not preserviing civil liberties would show a disdain for freedom and would truly be hating America.Fondness for the ideals our country was founded upon? That's commie-talk! :)

[Axegrinder]

Twice in the past four years, a top Justice Department lawyer warned the presiding judge of a secret surveillance court that information overheard in President Bush's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to obtain wiretap warrants in the court, according to two sources with knowledge of those events.

The revelations infuriated U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly -- who, like her predecessor, Royce C. Lamberth, had expressed serious doubts about whether the warrantless monitoring of phone calls and e-mails ordered by Bush was legal. Both judges had insisted that no information obtained this way be used to gain warrants from their court, according to government sources, and both had been assured by administration officials it would never happen.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/08/AR2006020802511.html