To add to what CJ has posted here's a new article that shows why we have the FISA court to review the administration.

NSA Gave Other U.S. Agencies Information From Surveillance



What is really sad is how some can still close their eyes and give the president the thumbs up on things like this when everyday new information comes out. From no oversight to cookies staying on a computer if you had visited the NSA site for several years, even though that is against the law and allows them to track innocent citizens that might have gone to the site for information about what the NSA is. As several have tried to use the strawman rhetoric if Clinton had done all that we are discovery that Bush has done with no oversite how comfortable would you be? That is all we are asking for is oversite by the actual laws that exist and didn't hamper him since they used them sometimes, as well as could get it retroactive 3 days later. Let a few leaders from both parties of congress and committees is not oversite since they were forbidden to talk about it, which means no hearing since anyone not involved in the meetings aren't privy to the information.

A great big "so what?". I'm sorry, but my rights are my rights. It is not for the President to just decide he wants to secretly trample on those rights... for the purposes of incarceration or intelligence gathering. Especially when doing so is completely unnecessary.



And who makes the determination that someone is an enemy of the United States? The President? It's already come to light that this administration uses "intelligence gathering" to watch people who do not agree with the administration's policies. Last I heard, in this country... protesting does not make one an enemy of the United States. Being a peace organization does not necessarily make one a terrorist. Which brings me to your next point:



Absolutely not. As has been illustrated in previous posts, FISA is considered constitutional because it meets the constitutional standards regarding the 4th Amendments. The Bush Administration actually argued this point in the 2002 Court of Review case. But, not surprisingly, while arguing that FISA court orders are constitutional because they meet the "reasonable" standards of the 4th Amendment, the Bush Administration was secretly going beyond the FISA statutes. I've stated all this before, Aquilla, so don't go claiming that the question has been unanswered. FISA is constitutional because FISA court orders, even though they are not warrants (as defined in the criminal code), satisfy the warrant standards of the 4th Amendment -- they are reasonable. Secretly engaging in warrantless searches of US Citizens when it is absolutely unnecessary to do so is unreasonable. And Congress, if you by the authorization argument, authorized the President to use "necessary" force. This act was, clearly, unnecessary. And unreasonable.

The only thing "unreasonable" here is your complete misrepresentation of the FISA review court decision. That had nothing to do with constitutionality of FISA itself, but rather with the Patriot Act modifications to FISA to expand the scope of a FISA warrant. You know that perfectly well, and you know that I know it too. So, instead you fall into the liberal mantra of stamping your feet like Barbie Boxer on the floor of the Senate and believing if you say it enough times, it must be true. The facts are not on your side. More than ample evidence has been presented here that there is an inherent authority bestowed in the President to order warrantless searches for foreign intelligence gathering. This authority has been recognized and acknowledged by the courts time and time again. That you don't like the President, or trust him is neither here nor there. He is the President and he has the same authority that previous Presidents had, and exerted.

We are not talking about foreign intelligence gathering, if that is what you believe this thread is about then frankly you've missed the entire point. This is the NSA operating inside the United States on citizens without any kind of judicial oversight or accountability. The opening article in this thread noted how that was a radical change in how they operated. They are doing this despite a law on the books that makes it incredibly easy to get a warrant, even after the fact.

If this is really your opinion then perhaps you ought to start at square one, go back and read the articles cited in the opening post and then re-read the posts here.

86% Think Bush Should be IMPEACHED

Below is a copy of the latest MSNBC-Newweek poll on Impeaching Bush.

IMAGE

(I strongly suggest copying this poll down, as it may be pulled off the internet by Corporate Media Nazis.)

Here's a direct link to the poll: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904#survey

How many here think Bush should be impeached?

Gee, thanks for the advice CJ. Although, I guess I'm not really sure on why I should bother to read your post starting this thread when you obviously didn't. From that post and the article cited.....



Which part of the difference between "international" and "domestic" do you not understand?

The United States is a country built upon certain freedoms we hold dear, is the potential benefit of this violation worth the cost?

At a church sponsored open house on New Years day, conversation turned to a strange new phenomenon. People reported that their mail was arriving already opened. One woman remarked that nine of the last ten letters she had received from a life long pen pal had arrived not only opened, but had arrived as empty envelopes. "In a phone call interrupted by frequent clicks," she said, "I learned that nine of my last ten letters had also arrived as opened, empty envelopes." As she went on to describe that her pen pal was in Russia, she remarked that they had corresponded freely during the cold war. Others remarked that nothing like this had happened during WWII. One remark was, "Perhaps I should call mother and see if she remembers anything like this from the First World War."

Another woman remarked on the strange black van that pulls into her neighborhood for a 10 hour shift on a daily basis, parks, and no one gets out. "I wonder every time I pick up my phone if I'm being tapped?" Someone familiar with her home assured her that if a truck was that close, it could use lasers to measure the vibrations in her windows, and listen to everything she said.

Another person interjected that they had gone to using cell phones so that they couldn't be tapped. I remarked on the e-mail that I got while I was still employed. A decade ago, someone on the board at Dow heard two engineers discussing company business as he was coming into work. On his cell phone? No, he was listening to his car's FM radio when the conversation began overpowering the signal. We got a clear message. Any future company business was to be done on land lines.

I am about ready to close my account on e-bay. I had to change my password a dozen times last month in order to log in. Someone has been tampering with my account, including entering a $1700 bid on a home theater system. (I usually watch television with a crossword puzzle in front of me, and my back turned to the set. I have a tin ear for music.)

I believe that this White House has decided it needs to spy on its citizens, not because we might be plotting the overthrow of the government while munching on raw veggies, but because it can...

I can think of no one in my circle of acquaintances that trusts our government at this time.

No, this level of "safety" is not worth our loss of freedom.

I hate to take this thread further off-topic...but what does this have to do with wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes? Just because you "think" the government is out to get you personally for no other reason than that they can (a govrenment elected by the people who are also ordinary Americans) has no bearing on the validity of the President's use of his constitutional powers. I am not a scholar in constitutional case law, nor do i pretend to be and nor should anyone pass themselves off as so. The truth is that the Supreme Court has NEVER ruled on a case as specific as this...so it really is an open ended issue and will remain so until it is actually ruled upon.

i just think it is a tad pretentious for people to act like this is a charming new development and that the reasonability of such surveillance of international communications is completely out of the realm of reason. Aside from those few people who wear tin-foil hats, The government wanting to know if a terrorist attack that may kill possibly thousands is coming or imminent just, in my opinion, seems reasonable. Others may not feel that way and thats fine. I feel one way and others feel another. But i guess the only opinion that matters is that of the nine unelected human beings who happen to sit on the Supreme Court.

One of the aspects of this debate that has been broached here is the concept of "reasonable". Keeping in mind this concept it might be useful to question the reasonableness of the cited post. We can do this I think with a hypothetical and I'd be more than happy to play the part of "Aquilla - NSA Intelligence Person"... Opps! Blew my cover there! Let's try that again, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.....

"Aquilla - NSA Intelligence Person" That's better.....

Awaking from my sleep early in the morning, I head off to save the world for yet another day. The first thing I do is open up my "snoop file" that logs the most recent e-mails of a 12 year old girl in Michigan. So, she thinks the boy in her english class is cute.... Better make a note of that, he could be a terrorist. Having had my first cigarette of the day I'm now ready for the big challenge of protecting America. I read US mail that's been intercepted between long friends in the US and Russia. Definitely a terrorist possibility there, so I keep the mail, just in case. But!! I'm really a clever person (Intelligence is part of my name doncha know) so in order to disguise the fact that I've read that letter, I go ahead and allow an empty envelope to be delivered!! Dang! Those darn terrorists don't have anything on me!

So, having protected America from the office it's now time to go to the field. So, I jump in my black SUV and go park in front of some house for the next 10 hours (collecting overtime). Then, the day is done, time for my and I can go home and knowing that America is safe once again, thanks to me...

That how it works in liberal land? No wonder you folks can't seem to win an election.

Edited to add....

By the way, that 1700 bid that Bush made on your hacked E-Bay account was a heckuva deal for the home theater system. Not to mention it made America safer. Goodness knows what would have happened if that system had fallen into the hands of terrorists. Just imagine the damage they could have done with it when NASCAR resumes in February and FOX "Cranks it up"!!!

I see, so when the court stated that:



They aren't talking about FISA itself as amended, but about the modifications as amended? But weren't the modifications actually the amendments made to FISA that are referred to in the quote? Yours is a circular reference. You see, Aquilla since we both seem to know so much so perfectly well let me tell you something that I'm sure you know perfectly well: when you amend a statute those amendments become a part of the statute itself. So "FISA as amended" means FISA itself. The rest of the sentence describes the constitutionality of FISA itself. So, you see, the court stated that FISA is constitutional because the surveillances it authorizes are reasonable under the 4th Amendment. Understanding basic sentence construction and patterns of rhetoric argument can be fun.

If FISA is constitutional because of the reasonable nature of FISA authorizations under the 4th Amendment, wouldn't intentionally, secretly and unnecessarily bypassing those constitutionally reasonable authorizations be considered constitutionally unreasonable?



I know perfectly well that you don't understand the statement above made by the court regarding the constitutionality of FISA -- they said it was constitutional, the Bush Administration in those proceedings argued that FISA was consitutional. Why argue that FISA court orders are constitutional because they are "reasonable" under the 4th Amendment if the Bush Admistration believes the FISA court orders are unconstitutional because they encroach upon inherent Presidential authority and that authority supercedes the 4th Amendment? Why have FISA court orders at all?



Hmmm... I see. Go on... Fascinating...



Ah, I see. And the evidence that this inherent authority to order warrantless searches for foreign intelligence supercedes the 4th Amendment? Where is that evidence, because that's the only relevant evidence. I have acknowledged that the President has inherent authority to order warrantless searches for foreign intelligence gathering. That is absolutely true. What I have stated and what you have yet to disprove is that the 4th Amendment limits that inherent authority. Where is the evidence that the 4th Amendment is not a limit on this inherent authority? Where is the evidence that Congress can't make laws governing and regulating how the Commander in Chief of the Military uses the NSA for foreign intelligence purposes when the Legislative Branch has very explicit power to make rules for the government and regulation of the military (of which the President is the Commander in Chief)?


Lederuvdapac,



This is no justification for the President's unnecessary sidestepping of the 4th Amendment nor his utter disregard for the law.

I just love the way you enjoy ridiculing things that happen in other peoples' lives, Aquilla--such an endearing character trait, especially when the cutesy emoticons are put into play. That brings your point across in the "nicest possible way." Yep, that promotes free exchange of ideas without casting aspersions on those who disagree with you.

I did not attend that church function, but you gotta know that Curmudgeon was not in a "Babtist" home gathering (misspelling intentional)* where the docile, red-state-politically-correct flock would not begin to presume to think that government officials have lately acted as if they own the country and that the conversations and goings-on of our citizens are to be spied upon and listened to but certainly not heeded except in the area of a possible terrorist threat. No, this was one of those intellectual groups of people slightly better informed than the rest of the public, the Unitarians. You know, Soviet Russia didn't like their intellectuals, either.

My God--When did we start adopting policies that were standard operating procedure in formerly communist East Germany? It is one thing to be listening to and aware of "chatter" going on among groups that are avowedly anti-American, but pick on your own citizens?

What Curmudgeon has been writing about is what other church members told him. Now, tell me, in your comfort and freedom from harassment, would you not feel uncomfortable about a government agency that opens your mail and loses its contents consistently? I seem to remember that it is a federal offense to tamper with the mail, don't you? So who's doing anything about it?

How about vehicles with unknown owners parked in or near your driveway for hours with no explanation? These church members who told 'Mudge had gray hair and are in no position, physically or otherwise, to be any danger to anyone and therefore not assertive enough to walk over to a vehicle and ask the driver what the Devil their business is being in a strange neighborhood parked for hours. This information thing should be a two-way street, especially if it's on MY street, because I feel it is my right to protect MYSELF and MY FAMILY from strangers, be they "government agents" or lackeys under their authority!

As far as the entertainment center incident goes, it appears clear to me that our so-called "security" has holes in it bigger than needed to drive black government-issued HumVees through, and that the ho-hum lives of ordinary citizens with foreign pen pals is attracting an inordinate amount of interest. So, it's all right to get screwed for government intelligence because they're more altruistic than common identity thieves? Who's to know that they aren't, in many cases, one and the same?

And Aquilla, so nice of you to mention a 12-year-old girl in your hypothetical scenario when you know the age of our daughter. But while you crank up the ridicule you also prove that whatever goes out on the Internet is no longer private information, but that it can be used for any purpose by the recipient of that information. Not everybody is nice, or scrupulous, not even in our allegedly sterling, morally upright and never-corrupted government.

But if you're a good boy, perhaps your file at FBI or CIA or NSA or the headquarters of any of the 15-odd "security" agencies is a thin one. It might not stay that way, though, if you ask to see it under the Freedom of Information Act.

This sham of a "War on Terrorism" is costing the American people far too much, and not just in dollars and lives lost or ruined. Police forces are supposed to "serve and protect," not intimidate and routinely push the envelope when it comes to doing what is legal.

I want to be able to take my yellow cake to a friend's house without some government snoop wanting to count the candles on it first. Sometimes, as a matter of fact, most of the time yellow cake is just something you eat, not the subject of an admittedly bogus document used nevertheless to get us into a war and a nightmarish occupation.

This same government, so concerned about safety and security above all else, had a rat or two expose a CIA agent merely for revenge for her husband exposing the Niger document for the sham that it was. Yeah, trust these guys--they won't even weed the rat from out of their ranks!

So feel free to ridicule if you have all of your ducks in a row and are employed in a good job and live in a gated community where you feel you are impervious to the things that many of us in this country see as an accelerated loss of the liberties we used to enjoy as Americans. But God help you if you do something that sparks "their" interest in you, because it can all change.

As the ancient Romans used to say, "Who is guarding the (Praetorian) Guard?"
Oh, I get it--We are supposed to remain "vigilant", but also trust our Big Brother government without reservation, right? I see a discrepancy here.

*With my apologies to the Baptists who are realizing that the baby is being thrown out with the bath water when it comes to losing our freedoms for some snake oil promise of security for our citizens.

Edit:

The President initiated these sweeping wartime powers without actually having the Congress declare war on Iraq. And when the members of Congress felt they had to allow the President a free hand, they not only granted him extra powers; Bush allowed Rumsfeld & Co. to open their Office of Special Plans because he felt the DIA (in the Pentagon) wasn't efficient enough, and so on and so forth. (A good book to read about this is Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke, who was the State Department anti-terrorist official for the early W. Bush administration.) A 1600-page document called the PATRIOT Act was plopped on the desks of our elected officials who had no time to read the entire document before they were expected to pass it.

Just who happens to have 1600-page document ready just days after a situation such as 9/11/2001? Surely those without tin foil hats can appreciate the convenience of the timing of this. This, and the other behaviors of the President and his administration, appear to be far more convenient than Constitutional.

Again, why would Bush take it upon himself to authorize secret wiretaps on American citizens when there is a FISA court that already authorizes these warrants for intelligence operatives? Bush's grasp seems to have exceeded his Constitutional reach.

Aquilla, I don't know what in the above paragraph led you to believe that I was discussing a love note from a 12 year old. I was sitting in a small room with a half dozen folks that were older than I am. When I said that "One woman remarked that nine of the last ten letters she had received from a life long pen pal had arrived not only opened, but had arrived as empty envelopes." I was referring to someone who had begun her correspondence when Russia was our ally in the Second World War. Their correspondence had gone freely in both directions for over 60 years. It was a shock to her that she suddenly is unable to continue this friendship. She wanted to know if any of the rest of us had been having similar problems.

To some extent, we all felt that we had been under surveillance. And I was at a church function, not a "Liberal Land" Revolutionary Committee meeting. Forty years of attending Unitarian-Universalist functions have led me to realize that I run into wealthy Republicans there on a regular basis.

I wrote to my union a couple months back, because I had not received the group insurance renewal package from my former employer. They contacted the company, which told them it had been mailed. What do I do, I had asked, about Medicare D. The union advised me to ignore it completely and stay with the negotiated plan. An accompanying letter from an insurance company assured me that as I was not competent to make such a decision, I had been enrolled in a plan which would cost me nothing... There was no way to opt out. Returning to my negotiated union health plan is no longer an option.

I hadn't yet had my latest interesting experience. The Detroit Free Press was not delivered to our city yesterday. I perused the front page on line, and found an interesting article. I sent the link to PE because I felt it was ammunition she might want to run with. When she got my PM, she said, "The link you sent is inaccessible." I opened my sent messages, and sure enough, the link to an anti-Bush administration story had been edited out of a note I sent to my wife! Going back to freep.com, and accessing the front page, I was still able to show her the story, but we pass links back and forth all the time. Not being able to send her a link was a new experience. I believe the appropriate commands are still "Highlight. Right click. copy. Right click. Paste."

The question asked if the "benefits" of this broad surveillance by the government are "worth the cost." I fail to see how I am off topic by saying that I don't think a cost-benefit analysis justifies the loss of our freedoms as Americans; particularly as no one is feeling safer or more secure.