Meanwhile there's a war on - Page 2

Diceman · 01-12-2006, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Can you tell me what law is broken by conducting this type surveillance on people for the purpose of national security (as opposed to doing it for a criminal case)?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the law is FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). It prohibits the US from spying on US citizens without a warrant and allows monitoring of foreign powers and agents of foreign powers. Still, it provides regulations which must be abided when law enforcement engages in this kind of surveillance, and is part of the law of the land. Read the EFF's FISA FAQ here.

Also, it's not like it's hard to get the FISA court to approve a wiretap, provided it falls withing FISAs generous limits. See the FISA application approval numbers here.

There were also FISA judges that resigned in protest of what the Bush Administration had done with its disregard for any semblance of judicial oversight. Read about it here.

An arguement frequently put forward is that there wasn't time to get a warrant, but FISA allows for warrants to be made up to 72 hours retroactively. Still, the application wasn't made.

I also followed some links from the powerline article, and here is how it traces out:
Powerline links to Aina: http://www.aina.org/news/20060106102431.htm
Aina credits Christian Underground: http://www.christian-underground.com...x.php?aid_=856
Christian Underground refers to NewsMax: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...649.shtml?s=et
Finally, the Wikipedia entry on NewsMax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewsMax.com

Draw your own conclusions, but it looks like echo-chamber stuff. Bloggers talking to bloggers, accepting each other's conjecture as truth.

**RandomGuy** · 01-12-2006, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

And our legal rights have been suspended on other occasions without us losing them forever. Just think about some of the things we did during the World Wars. Heck, look at all the things that President Lincoln did during the Civil War.

Those were literal wars. They were conflicts by their very nature that had to reach an ultimate conclusion eventually. It was reasonable to assume that wartime measures taken in those circumstances would also end.

The war on terror is a figurative war, like the war on drugs. I think there is concensus, even in the whitehouse, that the war on terror will not naturally come to a conclusion like a literal war. It is reasonable to say that measures taken under the auspices of the war on terror might be permanent.

**CingularDuality** · 01-12-2006, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diceman

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the law is FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). It prohibits the US from spying on US citizens without a warrant and allows monitoring of foreign powers and agents of foreign powers.

Does FISA restrict actions or grant authority? It does not prevent the US from spying on US citizens without a warrant, BTW.

What are the penalties for violating FISA?

**CingularDuality** · 01-12-2006, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

The war on terror is a figurative war, like the war on drugs.

The hell it is.

AMosely · 01-12-2006, 02:57 PM

Meanwhile there's a war on?

The only "wars" on right now (American) are in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are both very different wars in many respects. I do support the Americans that are serving in those wars, and trust them to do the finest job possible. Our "war" on terrorism may have seemingly been born on 9/11/2001, but violent Islamic unrest has been directed at the U.S. and our interests (namely, Israel) since 1948 - and you better believe that we've been fighting it all along.

However, I do not support or trust our current Presidential administration. I don't support the "war" on terror, ideologically or linguistically, and I am disheartened by the fact that members of our government continue to use such a ubiquitous title as a blanket explanation for policy change.

The 9/11 commission submitted what I thought was an excellent, non-partisan strategy for improving our national security situation with regard to terrorism. The administration largely ignored it : (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne.../11+commission)

I don't care to hear arguments about the success of wiretaps - either legal or illegal. I also don't care to hear about media bias, which is as plentiful as air these days (see writings on the Plame affair - media and politics are intertwined like ying and yang).

Of course wiretaps are a necessary tool in intelligence gathering. It's the way in which they are conducted and the laws that (supposedly) offer citizen protection that are at stake when a President decides to conduct closed-door policy changes. That is what is being debated now. The "war" is not an excuse for supporting a secretive, deceptive presidential administration.

On a side note, any site that posts transcripts of Mr. Bush hitting scripted, softball questions and describes his performance as "unbelievably good" is not only biased but blind!

Diceman · 01-12-2006, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Does FISA restrict actions or grant authority? It does not prevent the US from spying on US citizens without a warrant, BTW.

Since it is claimed that the targets of this surveillance are terrorists, then FISA would apply. FISA regulations would very likely restrict actions, in the general sense. I imagine this to be the case by supposing that, prior to FISA, there was no law regarding the surveillance of foreign powers and their agents. If there's no law, then it can't be illegal, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

What are the penalties for violating FISA?

Unknown, but I don't see how that relates...

**leejo** · 01-12-2006, 03:24 PM

These are fine and interesting debates. I have an article at home that presents the constitutional issues that I'll post when I get there.

As a very practical matter, if the left has its way, why shouldn't Al Quada get someone to buy a bunch of verizon phones in Chicago and mail them around the world? Uh oh that's a USA area code getting called, we can't listen? Or go ahead and listen but be sure to "ask" a judge within 72 hours if it was ok that you went ahead and listened? What if the judge says no?

Neither Congress nor the Judiciary can curb the President's Constitutional authority to conduct national security operations with legislation or rulings any more than the President can tell Congress how to pass laws or judges to make decisions with an Executive Order. Nobody has suggested that these NSA wiretaps were anything but what has been claimed: an intelligence operation aimed at Al Quada and its operatives.

Delta_Swift · 01-12-2006, 03:26 PM

AMosely pretty much summed up my feelings on the matter.

As for the comparison of the War on Terror to the War on Drugs, I think it's valid. If you take down one drug dealer, hell, a cartel, another one will pop up to take its place. The profit is still there. Why shouldn't they? Terrorism is no different. Once we take down Osama Bin Laden, someone else will take his place. From an economic perspective, we are currently attacking the supply in the war on drugs. However, attacking the supply does not change the demand, so someone else is always going to step up to replace those who fall because a profit can still be made. We are doing the same thing with the War on Terror. We are attacking the supply (terrorists & supporters), but doing little about the demand (foreign policy and international relations), thus the war continues and will indefinitely unless we address the demand.

Diceman · 01-12-2006, 03:27 PM

I particularly enjoyed this part:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Powerline

Quote:

Originally Posted by George W. Bush

You hear a lot of talk about troop levels. I'd just like to give you my thinking on troop levels. I know a lot of people want our troops to come home -- I do, too. But I don't want us to come home without achieving the victory. (Applause.) We owe that to the mothers and fathers and husbands and wives who have lost a loved one. That's what I feel. I feel strongly that we cannot let the sacrifice -- (applause) -- we can't let their sacrifice go in vain.

I told you I've got good confidence in these generals and the people who report to them. These are honest, honorable, decent, very capable, smart people, and they'll decide the troop levels. They hear from me: Victory. And I say to them: What do you need to achieve victory?

Regular readers of this site know that we admire, above all others, Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill. President Bush's reference to "victory" as the mandate he gives to his commanders recalls, intentionally, I am sure, Churchill's great speech upon becoming Prime Minister in May 1940--the speech in which he said, "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat." This, though, is the key passage from that speech:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winston Churchill

You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

George W. Bush is Churchill's heir in our century.

emphasis mine

heh heh. That's good comedy.

**leejo** · 01-12-2006, 03:28 PM

I've agreed with that categorization of President Bush for several years now. He reminds me of Churchill in several ways.

**RandomGuy** · 01-12-2006, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

The hell it is.

Is the "war on terror" a traditional war akin to your examples of the civil war or WW2 or is the "war on terror" a federal policy with a funny name akin to the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty"?

Is America in a state of war?
Is the white house acting as if America were in a state of war?

SmokingTarpan · 01-12-2006, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Or go ahead and listen but be sure to "ask" a judge within 72 hours if it was ok that you went ahead and listened? What if the judge says no?

If the judge says no, then you don't get to use that evidence against people, just like every other time a judge says no to something.

Are you saying that it's okay to bypass a judge because he might say no? Why even bother to have a legal system at all, if that's the case?

AMosely · 01-12-2006, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Is the "war on terror" a traditional war akin to your examples of the civil war or WW2 or is the "war on terror" a federal policy with a funny name akin to the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty"?

Is America in a state of war?
Is the white house acting as if America were in a state of war?

The "war" on terror is not a traditional war. I think everyone can agree on that.

Bush would argue that Iraq, Afghanistan, wire-tapping and torture are all battles in the broader war. I take issue with this. They should be treated separately, because to lump them together simply because they serve the same broad purpose is a major policy mistake - and is unfair to the thousands of men and women currently on active duty. It is simply bad management. Our armed forces deserve good leadership - and by that I don't mean a war monger or a peace monger - I mean someone intelligent enough to be able to tell it like it is, admit mistakes, and engage in honest public debate - at the very least explain their actions instead of just lumping it into "the global war on terror."

We will ALWAYS be on guard against terrorism of all kinds, at least for the forseeable future. This is one of the many reasons we have a military. Frankly, we would be better off today if we were on better guard against our own use of terror in the world. To make the claim that this struggle is winnable is ludicrous - to mislead the public and use it as an excuse is unforgivable.

**leejo** · 01-12-2006, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

If the judge says no, then you don't get to use that evidence against people, just like every other time a judge says no to something.

Are you saying that it's okay to bypass a judge because he might say no? Why even bother to have a legal system at all, if that's the case?

No, I'm pointing out that judges don't have oversight in foreign intelligence matters so it doesn't really matter what the judge says. So why ask?

Presidential decisions in national security are final and not subject to review by Congress or the judiciary. Congress can't tell the President what targets to hit, what equipment to use in the strike, etc., and they can't tell the President how to conduct intelligence gathering.

Don't get me wrong: if evidence surfaces that the NSA wiretapping was being used to target political opponents I'll be calling for impeachment and rolling heads. This issue doesn't strike me as that sort of affair. Furthermore, Congress was briefed. Two of the Three branches were aware of this activity for several years. As we know, Congress has certain powers too: they could have cut off funding for all sorts of pet programs to make the president stop this activiity had they been truly concerned.

Steeler · 01-12-2006, 04:56 PM

Quote:

As a very practical matter, if the left has its way, why shouldn't Al Quada get someone to buy a bunch of verizon phones in Chicago and mail them around the world? Uh oh that's a USA area code getting called, we can't listen?

If you can get Verizon service in Pakistan, you let me know. I can barely get a clear signal in Bergen, NJ.

As I mentioned in my last post, you are arguing the wrong issue. It's not about being serious about terrorism, or being tough on terrorists, or being balls to the walls more manly than those wimpy lefties. It's about making the correct use of the tools we have to both get us the intel we need and ensure that our civil rights are protected.

You small government conservatives out there - do you really trust the government enough to hand them carte blanche to spy on whomever they like without any kind of oversight or public record? Do you trust that no administration will ever use this power against their political rivals? That they will not give or sell datamining information to private enterprises?

We're not talking about protecting the rights of terrorists, we're talking about protecting YOUR right, as a rebellious free-thinking Republican idealist, not to be snooped on by an oppressive corrupt Democratic political machine out to squash you.

01-12-2006, 02:57 PM	#20 (permalink)
AMosely Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Maine Age: 33 Posts: 2,536	Re: Meanwhile there's a war on Meanwhile there's a war on? The only "wars" on right now (American) are in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are both very different wars in many respects. I do support the Americans that are serving in those wars, and trust them to do the finest job possible. Our "war" on terrorism may have seemingly been born on 9/11/2001, but violent Islamic unrest has been directed at the U.S. and our interests (namely, Israel) since 1948 - and you better believe that we've been fighting it all along. However, I do not support or trust our current Presidential administration. I don't support the "war" on terror, ideologically or linguistically, and I am disheartened by the fact that members of our government continue to use such a ubiquitous title as a blanket explanation for policy change. The 9/11 commission submitted what I thought was an excellent, non-partisan strategy for improving our national security situation with regard to terrorism. The administration largely ignored it : (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne.../11+commission) I don't care to hear arguments about the success of wiretaps - either legal or illegal. I also don't care to hear about media bias, which is as plentiful as air these days (see writings on the Plame affair - media and politics are intertwined like ying and yang). Of course wiretaps are a necessary tool in intelligence gathering. It's the way in which they are conducted and the laws that (supposedly) offer citizen protection that are at stake when a President decides to conduct closed-door policy changes. That is what is being debated now. The "war" is not an excuse for supporting a secretive, deceptive presidential administration. On a side note, any site that posts transcripts of Mr. Bush hitting scripted, softball questions and describes his performance as "unbelievably good" is not only biased but blind!

01-12-2006, 03:24 PM	#22 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,524	Re: Meanwhile there's a war on These are fine and interesting debates. I have an article at home that presents the constitutional issues that I'll post when I get there. As a very practical matter, if the left has its way, why shouldn't Al Quada get someone to buy a bunch of verizon phones in Chicago and mail them around the world? Uh oh that's a USA area code getting called, we can't listen? Or go ahead and listen but be sure to "ask" a judge within 72 hours if it was ok that you went ahead and listened? What if the judge says no? Neither Congress nor the Judiciary can curb the President's Constitutional authority to conduct national security operations with legislation or rulings any more than the President can tell Congress how to pass laws or judges to make decisions with an Executive Order. Nobody has suggested that these NSA wiretaps were anything but what has been claimed: an intelligence operation aimed at Al Quada and its operatives.

01-12-2006, 03:26 PM	#23 (permalink)
Delta_Swift Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: North Carolina Age: 22 Posts: 455	Re: Meanwhile there's a war on AMosely pretty much summed up my feelings on the matter. As for the comparison of the War on Terror to the War on Drugs, I think it's valid. If you take down one drug dealer, hell, a cartel, another one will pop up to take its place. The profit is still there. Why shouldn't they? Terrorism is no different. Once we take down Osama Bin Laden, someone else will take his place. From an economic perspective, we are currently attacking the supply in the war on drugs. However, attacking the supply does not change the demand, so someone else is always going to step up to replace those who fall because a profit can still be made. We are doing the same thing with the War on Terror. We are attacking the supply (terrorists & supporters), but doing little about the demand (foreign policy and international relations), thus the war continues and will indefinitely unless we address the demand. __________________ \|TG\|Delta_Swift

01-12-2006, 03:28 PM	#25 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,524	Re: Meanwhile there's a war on I've agreed with that categorization of President Bush for several years now. He reminds me of Churchill in several ways.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links