Republican Sentator Jon Kyl made the suggestion today during the NSA hearings with Atty. Gen. Gonzales that it might be a good idea to expand the President's surveillance program to include communications between terrorists inside the US – meaning purely domestic communications.

Should the NSA program be expanded to include purely domestic communications without judicial or congressional oversight?

Why or why not?

No. I can sum up the "why not" in one Latin phrase: Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? (Who is watching the watchers?)

How much of our privacy are we willing to sacrifice to countless nameless, faceless "authorities" particularly when we do not know what happens to the information gathered even if we're innocent? Just who could hold these people accountable for what they did with it?

From the looks of things, this protracted "war on terror" could go on for generations, and so could this stepped-up surveillance of our own people. So tell me, how much different would that be from living in a communist or fascist state?

I don't have a problem with domestic surveillance. If it saves lives and combats terrorism I'm all for it.

But as Paladin said, who's watching over the people doing the surveillance? If this program continues it needs to to have extensive oversight by congress with very well defined boundaries.

The entire issue is a huge gray area. It could be dangerous to let it continue, but not continuing it could be devastating.

First it's important to note that no muslim 'terrorist' has been caught because of any illegal domestic spying program, and we know it's been going on since at least 2002. So to think this would save any American soldier's life, or any American citizen's life for that matter, is naive. Also, it's been revealed that millions of conversations were recorded and perused, and still no 'terrorist' is caught with their hands in the bomb jar. No, it needn't be expanded unless you think security is worth giving up some liberty. What happened to the old America? The America which looked at torture with disgust. The America where the law was something to be respected. The soup du jour is now:
*Illegal invasion of Iraq. (Unilateral sans the UN).
*Illegal use of WMD (remember those folks? Hussein was going to use them!) white phosphorous weapons.
*Illegal surveillance and wiretaps.
*Illegal killings of Iraqi civilians and harmless wounded Iraqi prisoners.
*Illegal use of a WMD (remember those folks?) napalm jelly gasoline weapons.
*Illegal torture of civilians, psychological torture and physical torture.

"The entire issue is a huge gray area. It could be dangerous to let it continue, but not continuing it could be devastating."<---for some reason this line made me smile. Kind of like walking a highwire.

I will go for the practical reason- It is simply not needed. Not the wiretaps- the lack of oversite is not needed. I remember a poster here pointing out that the NSA, under Clinton did do wiretaps- but was never turned down for one by a judge. There is no delay by having the judge okay it- happens everyday. It is a neccesary oversight in a free and open society.

Theorectically, I'm in favor of this type of spying. But as usual, reality gets in the way. This entire effort is too bogus for words. While the government is fishing for clues, our borders and ports have been left wide open. Bush has ignored everything the 9/11 panel recommended, but decides invading our privacy will help.

Why would terrorists call when they can simply waltz into America and have a face to face chat before executing their nefarious plans?

It should come as no surprise that the only arrest reportedly made has been the guy that wanted to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge - someone having nothing to do with Al Qaida.

You know who is getting listened to? All our troops calling home. All the civilian contractors stationed outside the US calling home. In other words, anybody helping to fight this so-called war on terrorism is getting spied on while "real" terrorists avoid phones and just walk across our borders.

Then, in a true Kodak moment, Bush says with a straight face that had this occurred pre-9/11, the attack could have been prevented. Nevermind they knew Bin Laden planned to attack, using airplanes was a possibility, and we had two of the hijackers under surveillance already and knew them by name. All without illegal wiretapping.

But hey, what's a little lost freedom between friends?

Should the NSA program be expanded to include purely domestic communications without judicial or congressional oversight?

I would be in favor of this type of monitoring as long as there was some oversight into the scope and uses that information was gathered for.

The issue seems to be one of the timeliness of information and action. If thousands or millions of lives could be saved because NSA had more latitude to sift through phone conversations I would be in favor of it.

By 58 percent to 36 percent, Americans think the president should have the power to authorize the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the United States
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181462,00.html


I cannot understand how we could be afraid of “Big Brother” in this country. We are so many light years from it that our security is literally impossible to guarantee. 13,000,000 million illegals in the country (with no clue who and where they are) and hundreds more coming in every week is just one example.

But Ted- doesn't the system that we have already work in regards to wiretaps? I mean- has a wiretap been denied by a judge? Has time been such a factor that we could not capture a terrorist because it took too long to call a judge? Remember- it is done telephonically most of the time- and the judge is on call 24/7.

I have personally seen it take less than 5 minutes to get a search warrant- so what is the point of no oversite?

But CR according to the AG time has and will be a problem. And even worse if you need to “make a case” before you even ask for a tap you could be talking about weeks. As a minimum you would have to wait until a judge was available even with a case “in hand”.

Why strap our intel people in time of war? Certainly with all they have to do no one can fear that the NSA or ANY government intel agency is just listening to phone conversations for the hell of it.

If you watch 24 or E-Ring you see our intel people averting crisis and saving the lives using phone taps and other surveillance – most of which is not done by “getting a judge” first.

Time is only a problem because of the volume they are searching. FISA gives them the ability to obtain a warrant up to three days following the search. This argument simply doesn't hold water.

Are we in a time of war? Last I checked, all military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan ceased in May 2003. One terrorist attack on US soil (or many) does not put us in a persistent state of war. The constitution is fairly clear on what it takes to be considered "at war".

I'm not sure that using the entertainment media as a measure of the practicality of obtaining warrants is a reasonable standard. You don't see Keifer grabbing a warrant because its considered "dead air" on a 40 minute TV show.

Bottom line is that warrantless domestic surveillance is illegal now and would be even more so if the program were expanded as recommended. Paladin Elsbeth's Latin rejoinder rings quite true here.

That's too simplistic and equates Bush and Co's crusade i.e. 'war on terror' with wars against Germany and Japan and Korea and a host of others. The "war on terror" is, for all practical purposes, an ideological war, a state of mind. First of all, it's undeclared. And no need for the silly "911 was a declaration of war" because it wasn't. Second, with no front lines or a defined enemy, it can hardly be called a war in the everyday sense of the word.
The idea that the US is at war is a misnomer, one in which Bush already settled years ago when he told us that it was over. The war was over and the mission was accomplished. Surely no one here would have the audacity to say they know the state of the US nation and its military better than the Commander in Chief, is there?
Since it's a fact that there is currently no actual war going on, and that the term "war on terror" is a term related to things generic and all-encompassing and hardly anything specific, it's safe to say the previous poster endorses illegal wiretapping regardless of what the law is. And not only that, the poster also encourages these illegal actions for all time and forevermore, since his parameter for removing illegal wiretapping is when the "war on terror" is won, and we all know that the answer is never ever ever. It's so silly to block your own thinking or shifting and adjusting to suit.

My response would be because the 'intel' people have in the past been proven wrong, dead wrong, and this is over serious life and death circumstances we're talking about. So yes there need to be controls and respect for the written law. Besides, with the US supposedly 'exporting democracy and freedoms' to Iraq, it would be a nice example to respect your own freedoms and democracy.
In closing, let me say to the supporters of this issue, that Gonzales guy, while defending Bush and the illegal wiretap issue, said electronic surveillance has been going on for ages and that President Washington used it, President Lincoln used it, all the way to Roosevelt. Did President george Washington use electronic surveillance on his foes? How?

FISA gives them the ability to obtain a warrant up to three days following the search.

Thank you for providing this before I could find this Doclotus-

So Ted- please answer this question- why do they need this when they have this provision?

Why is Gonzales so afraid of a judge "making sure the Ts are crossed and the i's dotted?

Here is a link that shows just how much the NSA does not need broader surveillance powers within our country:

AT&T (SBC), MCI (Verizon) and Sprint (Nextel) allow feds to eavesdrop on request

Here's an excerpt (Please note my emphasis in red):

It would seem that telecommunications corporations have already given government agencies a lot of latitude as it is.

First, even according to AG, with a case "in hand", FISA judges are available at anytime day or night 24/7. Second, I would like to know where the requirements that cause this slowdown described by AG in the hearings originated because they aren't in the FISA statute. They sound like bureaucratic slowdowns within the DoJ. If that is the case, fix that problem, but that has nothing to do with FISA creating a slow down... it doesn't.



AG misspoke. He meant to say that Washington conducted secret surveillance in this country against the enemy. Which he did. But... A: he wasn't President at the time... B: there was no 4th Amendment at the time because... C: There was no Constitution at the time. The mention of Washington does not help the administration's case.

Regarding Lincoln... yes, Lincoln engaged in domestic surveillance. But he also declared Martial Law... there by suspending civil liberties because there was a Rebellion. It should also be noted that after the fact, the Supreme Court concluded that Lincoln overstepped his authority as Commander in Chief in declaring martial law throughout the nation. We, however, are not in a state of Rebellion or Invasion and nobody has declared martial law so... the mention of Lincoln does not help the administration's case.

The other references, I'll have to look into some more.

What I find disturbing is that nobody on the Committee called him on this. He is inferring that past executives have done what the President has done now. The fact is, that – at least in the case of these two – the inference is false.

Okay... I've taken a look at the actions of the other two Presidents mentioned... Wilson and Roosevelt. AG does not put Bush in good company when referring to these two Presidents either... at least not in terms of their wartime activities and concern for civil liberties. Wilson suggested and Congress passed the Espionage Act which was amended a bit later by the Sedition Act which effectively suspended 1st Amendment rights during wartime and prohibited people from speaking out against the government.

As we all know... by executive order, President Roosevelt also suspended the civil liberties of innocent Americans by authorizing the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. President Roosevelt invoked his authority as Commander in Chief to allow for this.

The actions of these Presidents have either been considered unconstitutional or are considered by legal experts to be unconstitutional. Neither of these actions would be allowed today.

All that this shows is that Presidents tend to believe that during wartime they can do whatever they please in order to protect the United States. This, however, is not the case.

Just because an act goes unquestioned and is unchallenged in the Supreme Court does not make that act right and just. The Espionage Act and the Sedition Act stayed in place for the entire period of World War I. Though unchallenged in the Supreme Court, these Acts were blatantly unconstitutional.

As Bush is so fond of saying, we live in a different world. A world where people are much more aware of their rights. A world where people are much more willing, thanks to the efforts of activists, to stand up for their rights. Just because people lied down and took it before does not mean that we should do it now.

No.

Very simple, because doing so as stated in the question IS A CRIME!!!
Get the warrants so it's all on the up and up.

Yes, I think it should be expanded.

I won't be happy until we have cameras in every room of every house. We also need to make sure sodomy is not taking place or that abortions aren't being performed.

This program doesn't go far enough, IMHO. Bring on Big Brother, allielieuia!! If you ain't got nuttin to fear, why should you care?

Should the NSA program be expanded to include purely domestic communications without judicial or congressional oversight?

Absolutely not. Indeed, the NSA's current "expansion" to include domestic surveillance at all without judicial or congressional oversight is already illegal. Maybe we should try to stop our Chief Executive from committing further criminal acts before we start tinkering with the effective legal process that's already in place.

Why or why not?

It's not necessary. The Executive already can conduct such surveillance domestically through the legal process that was established in 1978. The White House has simply chosen not to proceed lawfully.

It is my firm belief that this surveillance has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. The Bush administration simply wants carte blanche to do whatever it wants whenever it wants - and has been doing so for years now. We are living under an autocracy - and this administration will continue doing whatever it damned well pleases with or without advice, consent, oversight, or accountability. They have already stated that they have no intention of obeying the law in this regard. What makes anyone think that their "self-policing" has or will restrict the surveillance of anyone anywhere any time? The word of George W Bush??

If this were the America of any other decade - given that there has been no declaration of war - George Bush and everyone involved in the illegal activities of the White House (and that goes for enablers like Senator Kyl) would already have been impeached, tried, convicted, and imprisoned. Every day that I wake up and find that President Bush is still walking free, I am increasingly depressed by the tragic loss of American liberty, the destruction of our system of government, and the death of our forefathers' dream.

Yielding to the criminal authoritarianism of the Bush regime must stop. And it must stop now.

(Washington, D.C.): Today's Wall Street Journal features an extraordinarily compelling op.ed. by Debra Burlingame, sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame, the American Airline pilot whose plane was hijacked on September 11, 2001 and flown into the Pentagon. In the years since 9/11, Ms. Burlingame has emerged as one of the Nation's most formidable and articulate advocates of the steps needed to prevent another such attack.

In her op.ed. article, the one-time flight attendant, TV news producer and attorney argues forcefully for reenactment of the Patriot Act and the continued use of NSA technical means to monitor and defeat terrorists operating inside the U.S. Noting contributions the past errors of excessively zealous civil libertarians made to the 9/11 attackers' success, she asks "what if they are wrong" again?

The "wall" was a tortuous set of rules promulgated by Justice Department lawyers in 1995 and imagined into law by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. Conceived as an added protection for civil liberties provisions already built into the statute, it was the wall and its real-world ramifications that hardened the failure-to-share culture between agencies, allowing early information about 9/11 hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi to fall through the cracks…..

Despite this history, some members of Congress contend that this process-heavy court is agile enough to rule on quickly needed National Security Agency (NSA) electronic surveillance warrants. This is a dubious claim. Getting a FISA warrant requires a multistep review involving several lawyers at different offices within the Department of Justice. It can take days, weeks, even months if there is a legal dispute between the principals. "Emergency" 72-hour intercepts require sign-offs by NSA lawyers and pre-approval by the attorney general before surveillance can be initiated. Clearly, this is not conducive to what Gen. Michael Hayden, principal deputy director of national intelligence, calls "hot pursuit" of al Qaeda conversations.

The threat we face today is a completely new paradigm of global terrorist networks operating in a high-velocity digital age using the Web and fiber-optic technology. After four-and-a-half years without another terrorist attack, these senators think we're safe enough to cave in to the same civil liberties lobby that supported that deadly FISA wall in the first place. What if they, like those lawyers and judges, are simply wrong?

NBC News aired an "exclusive" story in 2004 that dramatically recounted how al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, the San Diego terrorists who would later hijack American Airlines flight 77 and fly it into the Pentagon, received more than a dozen calls from an al Qaeda "switchboard" inside Yemen where al-Mihdhar's brother-in-law lived. The house received calls from Osama Bin Laden and relayed them to operatives around the world. Senior correspondent Lisa Myers told the shocking story of how, "The NSA had the actual phone number in the United States that the switchboard was calling, but didn't deploy that equipment, fearing it would be accused of domestic spying." Back then, the NBC script didn't describe it as "spying on Americans."
Instead, it was called one of the "missed opportunities that could have saved 3,000 lives."

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/ind...rs&code=06-F_03

If you really believe this you have never dealt with the government or any bureaucracy. The reality is it could take weeks or months. You know – forms to fill out etc. The AG said this the other day and I believe him.

I had to laugh the other night watching 24 where they bagged some terrorists by “tapping” their “internal” conversations. Clearly if this was reality we would have to rename the show. How about 240 or 2,400!

This is a real hoot. Apparently, republicans were singing a different tune when Clinton was using FISA after the Timothy McVeigh bombing to accomplish the same thing.

If the hypocrisy weren't so sickening, it'd be funny.

Yes, and it seems the delays created by the bureaucracy exist within the DoJ... not within FISA. If there is a problem within the DoJ with red tape in order to get the emergency warrants, fix it. Don't blame FISA for a lag within the DoJ. There is nothing in FISA itself that I know of that creates the delay described by AG. It seems to be a problem within his own office.

Yeah, it can really stink and be frustrating to play by the rules and have to suffer at the hands of a bureaucracy like the rest of us peons, right?

My previous post in this thread with the attached link dealt with the fact that the telecommunications mega-conglomerates don't seem to bother with all the terrible red tape Alberto Gonzales is griping and moaning about. They just let them do what they want with little or no questions asked. From the link in that post:


You know what? I don't believe the government. It seems to me that when they want to get something done expeditiously, it gets done. Seems to me they were right on top of what Cindy Sheehan was wearing to the State of the Union address--no documents had to be filled out to haul her sorry butt out and arrest her. No dangerous T-shirts will threaten decent citizens while the intrepid Capitol Police are on duty. But yes, I do realize that we are talking about yet another government entity in this thread, or several entities to be more accurate.

It has already been said that these nameless security people can even get warrants AFTER THE SEARCH/WIRETAP. Doesn't that mean something to posters here? It means that they can rummage around to their hearts' content in someone else's stuff until they find something incriminating--likewise with communications online, faxes, and telephone calls.

They've got all that they need to obliterate any assumed vestige of privacy we still have! If you and your intimate person of choice are in flagrante delicto when they decide you're not home and pick your lock, oh well. (Of course, if it's your husband or wife you're with, remember: you shouldn't be upset if they walk in on you, because you're not doing anything wrong! )

This would seem to be a “no brainer” and something most of the American people not only approve of but many feel is already happening. The evidence says 9/11 could have been prevented if we just “connected the dots” and some dots need to be connected in this country and quickly if we are going to save lives. In 2002 we foiled a plot to blow up the tallest building in LA. We may never know if a phone tap was part of that effort but I would bet it was.

It is really disgusting that this has become a political football with the safety of the American people on the line. Does it really matter which group of lawyers is making the FISA process take weeks? Will it matter if thousands or more die because the people in charge of our safety were waiting for a warrant to tap a phone of a TERRORIST?

I cannot understand anyone who is against this regardless of what Party holds the white house.

Would you care to address the fact that they ALREADY HAVE THE POWER?

You know, there is always going to be a threat of one sort or another to the United States and its people. I would just prefer that the threat be from someone other than our own government, especially when it comes to messing with Constitutional rights.

Look at the response to Hurricane Katrina--would more regulation have made the response of FEMA more effective???? There are hundreds of FEMA mobile homes in Arkansas parked on soft ground and sinking up to their axles in the mud right now, because they couldn't or wouldn't send electricians to the areas in Louisiana and Mississippi that needed electricity reinstalled in order for the mobile homes to be used. And yet FEMA is kicking people out of motel rooms, people who have nowhere to go in their financial situation. This administration is one of the guiltiest when it comes to creating bigger and more expensive government, the leaders being neo-cons notwithstanding. They don't need MORE laws and more money for cumbersome reorganization schemes; they need effective leaders.

Likewise with the PATRIOT Act and the Department of Homeland Security. Congress gave President Bush carte blanche to do what he pleased with our nation's security problems. Nevertheless, I watch the incursions of Mexican troops or drug smugglers dressed as Mexican troops (take your pick) with their military-style vehicles crossing the Rio Grande into Texas on Lou Dobbs Tonight; the border is about as impenetrable as Swiss cheese. This is what Bush should be paying attention to, especially since it isn't only Mexicans crossing the border these days. So why isn't he paying attention if he is so concerned about our nation's security?

Bush would rather play Spy Master and personally authorize wiretaps whenever American citizens "reach out and touch someone" rather than letting the FISA court work. I would assert that there is probably a judge on call 24/7 for the pleasure of the feds, NSA, or whoever wants a warrant.

This administration appears hungry to accrue more and more power to itself without a thought to the effectiveness of the Executive Power Juggernaut it is creating and similarly little thought to the civil liberties of our citizens. And I am just afraid that once more stringent, far-reaching surveillance measures are instituted as law, they will stay on the books and American non-terrorists will be experiencing the effects of a "Big Brother" state even as a protracted war against Muslim extremist guerillas wears on for our grandchildren to fight.

Believe me, I wouldn't like it happening under a Democratic administration with a Democratically-controlled Congress either.

I am, and mostly because, as the question says, "without Judicial or congressional oversight". The one thing you can rely on is that law enforcement will gradually expand the application of any power it has into other areas. It may start out targetting terrorists, but pretty soon its going to be Drug dealers, fraud suspects, the sky's the limit, after all there's no-one watching the watchers.

But even if we imagine for a second that they exercise restraint and only target terrorism, thats a pretty wide net. The nature of these searches is to follow the calls a suspect makes, then follow those calls and build a pattern of contacts. The vast majority of people caught in that net will have nothing to do with terrorism at all. Its like the "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon" game, we're probably all connected to a "person of interest" in some wierd way. And who gets to define who's a terrorist suspect?. It could include political opponents, environmentalists, PETA etc.

They “have the power” only through the FISA process. The President always had the power, historically until Congress passed a law in the Nixon era. I don’t advocate giving any President the “power” at all times, but in war time he needs it. What “threat from our own government” are you talking about?




You just made my point. I am sure the FISA process is as much of a mess as anything the government does and I for one would like not to die, as 3,000 people did on 9/11, while the FISA lawyers are pondering their navels. I really cannot understand your paranoia. If the government is as inefficient as we both know it is how would you ever expect them to be able to listen to even all of the suspected terrorists much less all of us.

One thing we can be sure of is if/when we are hit again the public and the Congress will want to know why we could not stop it and I am sure idiots like Teddy K will not want to hear that we could not stop the plot because we were unable to get the FISA court approval in time to know what was going on. Did you read what I posted above? NSA could have tapped a terrorists phone and stopped 9/11 – but did not because of FISA. How many LIVES and hundreds of BILLIONS did that cost us?




Fine lets have oversight but the reality is that if they even try to widen the “net” they will be unable to handle the information. Even if they come across major criminal activity I doubt that they could deal with it. Let’s remember we have 13,000,000 illegal aliens in this country and some of them are criminals. We have some of the worst crime rates in the world and the “government” and ”police” cannot even come close to dealing with it. So why should the average citizen be worried? Are you afraid they might inadvertently catch some nasty criminals?

Regardless of whether they can listen to all of us or not, they have the power to deny many Americans their civil rights if they choose to, based on sketchy or incomplete information that they aren't even required to provide to the legal representatives of the people whom they wiretap/harass and sometimes detain.
I don't like relinquishing rights guaranteed under the Constitution allegedly to eradicate a real or perceived threat. Our freedoms define who we are; without them we cease to be the "shining city on a hill." Somehow we think that our country cannot fall victim to the same tyranny that befell the Soviet Union, the Peoples' Republic of China, the Eastern bloc countries, etc., but under the right conditions, it can happen ANYWHERE.

Tell me, whatever happened to the administration's all-out effort to get Osama bin Laden? Read my signature quotes if you want to know what the President has had to say about our "arch enemy." He has been anything but consistent.

George W. Bush was going to liberate the Iraqis and eradicate an alleged threat to American security when U.S. forces invaded Iraq. But wait a minute--seems the Iraqis did want to get rid of Saddam Hussein, but 1) they didn't want the Americans to do it and 2) old Saddam wasn't really a threat to the United States after all! Shuckey darn--looks like we got fooled by somebody, or somebody (again) didn't verify the intelligence before acting.

I am saying that this administration wants all the toys--all the bells and whistles--to trace what any terrorist does anywhere, but it bungles even with all of the free passes and benefits of the doubt that Congress has provided. I can scarcely believe that this administration is going to be any more efficient with more constraints and less liberty imposed on the American population. However, whatever we give up now by way of liberty in the pursuit of terrorists may not be restored to us if and when this protracted, undeclared war ever ends.

Further, we have seen malfeasance as applies to the prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, learned of secret CIA prisons in other countries where, I am sure, the tenets of the Geneva Convention are consistently disregarded due to the fact that these facilities do not officially exist, we have American persons of interests who have been held at Guantanamo Bay without benefit of writ of habeas corpus, without the right to an attorney or the right to a speedy trial and where detainees who go on hunger strikes to protest their treatment are strapped down and force-fed via nasogastric tubes and are not allowed up to urinate or defecate; and the President, who should have enough to do but apparently doesn't, decides he has to PERSONALLY authorize wiretaps, thereby bypassing the legitimacy of the FISA court and perhaps violating the Constitutional law that he has sworn to uphold. Of course, this president is alleged to have referred to the Constitution as "just a g-d---ed piece of paper." Perhaps it's true.

Maybe we all should be a little more distrustful of an administration that demands so much and produces so little--Bushie's doin' a heckuva job. And by the looks of this poll at the current moment it is 6 "yes" to 25 "no" regarding granting broader domestic surveillance powers for the NSA. Looks like I'm not alone in my distrust. Yeah, call me paranoid...

If you don't want to die, Ted, like the 3,000 at the WTC, how about contacting your Congressman (don't bother trying to contact the President; he doesn't answer mail from anyone) and suggesting that the Saudis be compelled to root out the terrorists known to be living in their country? (After all, wasn't it Saudi passports that wafted to the street from the fiery inferno that was the toppling World Trade Center?) We wouldn't have to lose any more rights over here in order to do that, but we might actually have to be "less dependent on foreign oil" ala the President's State of the Union address, and we might have to stop driving those gas guzzlers.

And as far as the FISA judges "pondering their navels," at least one was incensed enough (that means concerned, too) at the President overstepping his bounds that he resigned from the FISA court. That doesn't sound like apathy or inattention to me.

WADR you lost me here PE. I have no problem with “oversight” as long as it does not tie up the process so much we get nothing done. You keep talking of “Constitutional rights” . What do you mean? As stated and posted Presidents have always had the right (and used it) in times of war to gather intel. The threat of terrorists trying to kill us in large numbers is as “real” as it gets and IMO Bush is doing exactly what I expect him to do to stop it.

If we need to wait weeks while layers diddle around before we can get a FISA warrant it is TOO long and this is the reality as I have posted. If you do not believe this then do some research and prove me wrong.



And he has done that. The blunder is he kept the Clinton Era CIA director Tennant and he could not nail down the location and movement of the massive WMD I am sure Iraq had. Bush should have fired this idiot and appointed someone who could get a man inside Iraq to locate the WMD before we invaded.




As you know Bush is a lot less friendly to the Saudis than Clinton was. But did you hear Al (idiot) Gore over there sucking up to them and debasing this country? What an idiot he is – disgusting.
And for a little history Clinton era folks had a man who understood AQ and Bin Laden but they drummed him out of the FBI for saying bad things about the Saudis. Here is link to the story.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/

THIS is the kind of stupidity that cost us 3,000 lives and could cost us millions.

It certainly is a shame that we are not in a state of war then. Congress alone has the power to declare war and we have not declared it since WWII. So either we just go ahead and toss out the Constitution or we come up with a new definition of war and put that in the Constitution.

That pretty much defeats any argument that starts with "The President has the power during war to..."

Ok but WADR if this is not an “official” war it is only because we seem to have trouble identifying the enemy (as a country). Should we let this hobble us to the point that we let the terrorists win as they did on 9/11? Do you have any doubt that there is a significant group of people out there that would like to kill all of us after attacking us on our own soil?


So maybe we need a new definition of War for the constitution but while we are mulling that over let’s not repeat the stupid mistakes of the 90s and allow these monsters to kill thousands or millions of Americans.

What bothers me is that too much of the arguments against this here seem to be partisan politics. Would you (or PE) be saying the same things if Al Gore was doing this as President?

Certainly morons like Teddy K have changed their tune with the resident in the White House and please don’t think American are so stupid that they miss this.

This issue alone and the way it is being blown up by the left wing of the Democratic party could cost the Democrats the White House in 08. So by all means let’s keep the issue alive.

We should work within the boundaries of the Constitution and our laws. Currently those laws limit the things you could do domestically and they certainly require things like warrants and due process.

I'm sure there are people out there that want to kill us by the thousands, but there have always been people out there that want to kill us by the thousands. Until recently we haven't used fear as an excuse to compromise our principles.


Yes we probably do and we need to follow the amendment process to amend the Constitution.

Congress should also get to work on implementing the many reforms recommended by the 9/11 commission to reform the way we deal with threats like these. These should be debated nationally so we can decide what compromises are acceptable and what compromises aren't. However, the Bush administration and the GOP aren't really interested in that. Their legislative priorities include dismantling social security, banning gay marriage and giving handouts to their corporate donors like the drug industry, energy industry and banking industry. Oh and to cover all of that other security stuff they prefer going around the legislative branch and the courts and handling it themselves.

And lets not forget about FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security which employ tens of thousands of people and we've spend tens of billions of dollars on since 2001. Katrina proved these agencies are not prepared to deal with a real threat if it happens to strike anywhere but a huge city with their own infrastructure like New York. I don't see Congress or the President very concerned about that.


Well first of all Al Gore wouldn't be doing these things as President and there isn't a very good chance we wouldn't be involved in Iraq right now either, we might be focusing on a real threat.

But yes, if Gore was doing the same things you can bet I'd be criticizing him just the same. I can't speak for PE but given her posts here I'd assume her answer is similar.


If you want to go on thinking that then go ahead, but I think you'll find the opposite is true. You'll also find that polls conducted on the subject support me and not you.

Well, now you've lost me, because I have already amply shown that the telecommunications companies--now read this--HAVEN'T BEEN REQUIRING WARRANTS!!! Okay? So just who the hell is diddling--and did you mean lawyers?

I suggest you prove to me that the diddling is going on. Just what has gone on to prove your assertion that the NSA, CIA, FBI, or WHOEVER has had to wait "too long"? The burden of proof is on you.

Further, statements of "Well, Clinton did this" and "Clinton didn't do that" really don't leave the current occupant of the White House smelling like a rose in comparison. Each President inherits problems from his predecessor; what he does to address those problems proves his statesmanship or lack thereof.

One of our Senators, Carl Levin, has written a letter to my daughter in response to her concerns about electronic surveillance of Americans. I will quote an excerpt:



Incidentally, what does "WADR" mean?


Al Gore wouldn't be doing this as President. And he might have actually read and addressed the PDB memo that said Osama bin Laden was planning an attack on U.S. soil. He might have actually listened to Richard Clarke, the anti-terrorism expert from the State Department, instead of having him demoted and putting off meeting with him like Bush did.

But we'll never know how Gore would have handled it--will we--Karl Rove's poisonous election propaganda notwithstanding.

Remember, Al Gore had the benefit of being present and participating while Clinton dealt with foreign policy issues. (If you think Clinton made a lot of mistakes, then he had a chance to learn from those mistakes. If someone else thinks that Clinton did fine and dandy, then Al Gore had the opportunity to learn from a fine and dandy foreign policy wonk, whatever.) At any rate, Gore knew a hell of a lot more about foreign policy than the governor of Texas.

Further, I would suggest that if anyone in this thread is engaging too much in partisan politics, it would be a poster who insists on bringing up Bill Clinton and Al Gore when the subject at hand is expanded surveillance powers in the Bush administration.

At this point, it makes no sense. The illegal and immoral "outing" of this classified program has compromised it to the point that it's likely totally useless. Any terrorist with half a brain left has already gone to alternate channels of communication.

This national security breach was 1000X more serious than the so-called "outing" of desk jockey and inside-the-beltway-cocktail-party-agent Valerie Plame.

Yet, the press has spent almost zero time pointing this out and instead adopts the right-baiting approach of a "conservative evesdropper under every bed".

I'd say just drop the program. At this point, it's near useless. It just gives fodder to the ultra left and it won't stop any terrorists.

Thanks to the NY Times and their left wing backers, terrorists are free to plot their next atrocity against us and our allies in the war against terrorism. That's just great.

Lordhelmet, you have made a number of points that I feel I need to address.

As to the program being compromised to the point that "it's likely totally useless," I would say it has become useless ONLY if the NSA or FISA courts were infiltrated by terrorists who could tell their counterparts when, why, and who has been under surveillance and what they were talking about. In the absence of this, I doubt that the program has been compromised that seriously. So some terrorists might watch their "chatter" for a while. But they will be communicating with each other once again, I am sure.

For that reason, I question your quantification of this "national security breach" being "1000X more serious" than the outing of Valerie Plame, whom you characterized in a most dismissive manner (you don't know what she did--how is it that you dismiss it so easily?). The fact that a special prosecutor's ongoing investigation of the Plame outing took so long and yielded so little 1) proves that the administration can keep its mouth shut when it wants to, and 2) demonstrates the high likelihood that the administration didn't care about the possibility of other CIA operatives and contacts (who associated with Plame in the context of her job) being exposed as long as former ambassador Wilson was made to pay for his assertion that the Niger yellowcake document was fraudulent, thereby embarrassing the Bush administration. For an administration that has touted itself for being concerned for the safety and security of its citizens, especially those who work to serve the American people, this comes across as cavalier at best, and hypocritical and malicious at worst. The outing of Valerie Plame was against the law, a fact that the Bush administration would love to see forgotten.

As far as the "conservative eavesdropper under every bed," I think the politics of these eavesdroppers (as if we knew them!) are far less important than the fact that the privacy rights of fellow Americans have essentially flown out the window. The assertion that there is a "terrorist under every bed" is just as specious an argument.

As to the following,
I think this statement just might be a teensy-weensy bit over the top. If the eavesdropping was carried out according to the laws written on our nation's books, it's one thing. But if these practices were carried out in violation of these laws, it's another thing altogether and somebody needed to bring it to the attention of Congress and the American people whom this democracy is said to represent.

PE. I did provide data on this point here - http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...opic=12040&st=0
Clearly showing that the process is NOT fast and can take weeks or months. Please read it this time and comment if you like.

Despite this history, some members of Congress contend that this process-heavy court is agile enough to rule on quickly needed National Security Agency (NSA) electronic surveillance warrants. This is a dubious claim. Getting a FISA warrant requires a multistep review involving several lawyers at different offices within the Department of Justice. It can take days, weeks, even months if there is a legal dispute between the principals. "Emergency" 72-hour intercepts require sign-offs by NSA lawyers and pre-approval by the attorney general before surveillance can be initiated. Clearly, this is not conducive to what Gen. Michael Hayden, principal deputy director of national intelligence, calls "hot pursuit" of al Qaeda conversations.

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/ind...rs&code=06-F_03





By 58 percent to 36 percent, Americans think the president should have the power to authorize the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the United Stateshttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181462,00.html

And I already provided a link on this thread that stated the telecommunications companies provided the wiretaps upon request of the NSA, without something written down on paper. That should at least cancel out your link.

But if it isn't enough, please re-read the quotations I excerpted from Senator Carl Levin's letter, where he said that only a "handful" of requests for warrants had been rejected by the FISA Court. Senator Levin serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee--who better to say that these warrants took too long to be acted on as well?

As far as your reply to Cube Jockey, it seems to me the subject of this thread is granting the NSA extended powers of surveillance/wiretaps within the United States, not between the U.S. and places outside of the U.S.

Should the NSA program be expanded to include purely domestic communications without judicial or congressional oversight?

Emphatically, NO!

Why or why not?

I would argue that evidence should not be collected, because once it is collected, it is the nature of a bureaucracy that it will never be discarded.

I was watching the history channel recently, and (at the time the program was taped) historians had just uncovered documents revealing who had and had not been invited to dinner by Joseph Stalin in the evenings before he died.

From a personal standpoint, Michigan law requires all disciplinary information in an employee's personnel file to be less than two years old. In order to comply, as a maintenance employee, I could only keep maintenance files for the current year and previous year. (On January 1, I would have been required to purge my 2004 maintenance records.) In 1994, I was trying to sign a job, and standing in my way were the "invisible records" passed on by word of mouth. They dated back to an incident in 1968 where someone drove a forklift through a concrete block wall and simply signed my nickname next to the hole with spray paint. When I pointed out once again, that I had been out of the plant on a four day weekend when the incident happened, someone was able to produce the original incident report, and my payroll records from 26 years earlier. Oops! The original incident report even included the name of the individual who drove through the wall. My last supervisor set out to check into a 28 year backlog of such allegations against me. After six months, he called me in and apologized. He had been given an "oral traveling folder" when I went to work for him that had gone back nearly thirty years. He had gone back to every building that I had worked in, and found the records which proved the incidents had happened, and I had not been involved in any of them.

Historians are constantly going back to re-investigate evidence that supposedly did not exist. In another 20 years, we may really learn who shot Kennedy. In another 50 years, we may have the evidence that the World Trade Center buildings really were designed well enough to withstand being hit by airplanes. Collecting the evidence that grandma had a good recipe for yellow cake as well as chocolate chip cookies is going to add a lot of clutter that might push the investigation length to 60 or 70 years.

There is a legal defense strategy for blocking investigations where one party provides all of the requested documentation, and several semis of unrelated paperwork. The news reported Cheney shot Harry Whittington with buckshot. That gave the opportunity to create a story defining buckshot and bird shot for us non-hunters. In the meantime, I am certain that someone is gathering information on the sale of the shotgun shells the V.P. was using, the characteristics of his shotgun, the general toxicity of lead shot vs. steel shot, etc. At 78, Whittington stands little chance of surviving long enough for a jury trial to see all of the evidence that could be provided in this single incident. Why are we at war with Iraq? My personal feelings and beliefs aside, the ties from Saddam Hussein to 9 - 11 are tenuous at best. It looks though, that if the government can just keep tapping phones, arresting people for looking suspicious, and making allegations that no one else can investigate; perhaps there is a chance that enough evidence can be collected that it will stall out a super computer trying to do a search for relevant information.

PE you apparently don’t get it. Just because the Telecom companies “provided the wiretaps upon request of the NSA” DOES NOT mean they can make the request without going through the required process. Thus when they get all the nice approvals done the telecom people give them the tap.

Here is a perfect example of where the NSA did not tap because it did not have the approval – the COST may have been 9/11.

NBC News aired an "exclusive" story in 2004 that dramatically recounted how al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, the San Diego terrorists who would later hijack American Airlines flight 77 and fly it into the Pentagon, received more than a dozen calls from an al Qaeda "switchboard" inside Yemen where al-Mihdhar's brother-in-law lived. The house received calls from Osama Bin Laden and relayed them to operatives around the world. Senior correspondent Lisa Myers told the shocking story of how, "The NSA had the actual phone number in the United States that the switchboard was calling, but didn't deploy that equipment, fearing it would be accused of domestic spying." Back then, the NBC script didn't describe it as "spying on Americans."
Instead, it was called one of the "missed opportunities that could have saved 3,000 lives."
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/ind...rs&code=06-F_03

I just tried that link and got the following:

Object not found!
The requested URL was not found on this server. The link on the referring page seems to be wrong or outdated. Please inform the author of that page about the error.

If you think this is a server error, please contact the webmaster.

Error 404
www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org
Wed Feb 15 12:48:56 2006
Apache/2.0.49 (Linux/SuSE)

It's interesting that you brought up the flight into the Pentagon--you know, the one where a large commercial aircraft was flown into the part of the Pentagon that was undergoing renovation at the time. There were TWO pieces of aircraft officially found at the crash site, neither of them the thickness or configuration of that of a large, commercial jet. What happened to all the evidence, the black box in particular if nothing else was found?

Oops, sorry, I had my tin foil hat on again! I plead guilty to getting off the subject because my B.S. monitor went off...

Ted, there were a number of real "oopses" that went on before the 9/11 attacks, one of them being that Federal Agent Colleen What's-Her-Name (sorry--it's been too long, I know her last name starts with an "M") passed on information to her superiors about foreign Muslims getting instruction on flying aircraft and being very suspicious about it, only to have the information sat on. Another "oops" was that there were supposedly exercises meant to go on on 9/11 dealing with the event of a possible terrorist attack involving planes, so NORAD stood down while all hell actually broke loose.

My point is that there were several instances where just one change in what took place could've, should've, might've stopped the destruction of the WTC, the crash into the Pentagon (which I think was done by a drone aircraft--anybody remember hearing of ANY civilian casualties involving people who were allegedly on the plane?) on 9/11/2001. But to blame the attack on the Pentagon exclusively on someone within the NSA pausing to wonder if something was legal is disingenuous.

PE I provided you with the info on how and why the FISA process can be very slow and the 9/11 story is only one example. I believe I made my point. I for one, and the majority of Americans agree, would rather we catch the terrorists than wait for lawyers. I believe (and we may never know for sure) that terrorist plots including the planned attack on the building in LA was stopped because we “heard” the planners speaking to each other. That whole program is dead now. Can you imagine a terrorist using a phone again knowing he could be being listened to? The person who outed this program should be shot for Treason.

It is obvious you hate bush and IMO if Bill C had done the same thing we would see a totally different response esp. from the likes of Teddy K and the left wing of the Dem Party.

Oh and if you really believe the Pentagon was hit by a Global Hawk then you are sipping too much of the cool-aid. Certainly you remember that Barbra Olson was on the plane? Here is a link with names of people etc.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77

There are more than a few problems with that "poll". First of all a poll of people that watch FoxNews is not representative of America in general. Secondly, the article in question lists numbers but doesn't show the exact questions asked of people. I read an article about a poll that appeared on Michelle Malkin's site (this may be the same one) that actually didn't include the "without a warrant" part in the question and so the results aren't valid.

If you want to prove your case then find a respectible, non-partisan poll not something from FoxNews. It should also include the questions asked, the sample size and the methodology.

Come on please. Give me a break.. Liberals site polls done by the mass media every day and YES the questions make a difference. I find it amusing that this practice is just fine unless it happens to be FOX where suspected “conservatives” hang out – as if CBS or ABC is not biased.

So in the ABC poll its only 51%. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1490715.
And IMO they biased the questions. 51% is still a majority.

Those are still not the right questions, we are not just "investigating terrorists" we are listening in on the conversations of innocent American citizens too and by doing so we are violating their Constitutional rights. This question below is still a bad question:



I had to read that a few times before I was even certain what it was asking and in a phone interview situation when they call you 10 minutes before dinner I doubt anyone is going to give it that much thought.

Which "constitutional rights" are being violated here?

Be specific.

I say that you're wrong. The government was acting in accordance with the law and in the national interest.

There is no "right to privacy" to plot to commit atrocities against American citizens. If you can locate one in the text of the constitution, please list. it.

But, this point is moot. The illegal and immoral "outing" of this highly sensitive program has compromised our ability to monitor these terrorists. I'm sure they've gone to other communication methods outside of our scope.

Nice job NY Times and the illegal leaker. Perhaps it would be poetic justice if the next terrorist attack impacted both of them in significant ways?

I don’t think it is a bad question at all. It DOES say “possible” terrorists threats and mentions “personal privacy” which I for one would assume means they might tap all of our communications which is not the case. And certainly the second part of the question hits the nail on the head.

How would YOU phrase the question?

Here's one from USA Today Ted, which I'd say is the average man's paper.



Wrong - 50%
Right - 47%
No Opinion - 3%

Based on the ones you've submitted and this one I think a person's answer depends on how you incorporate terrorism into the question, if at all. What that really says in my opinion is that people aren't really informed about this issue because that shouldn't matter.

I think CJ answered this quite well. I think he is right when he mentions that it was probably the way the question was phrased that elicited the desired response. If your buddy G.W. Bush isn't concerned with polls, why should you be? He gets his advice directly from God, remember?
I rather doubt that. If it was carried on in secrecy before (and it was), it can be reinstituted with hardly a blip crossing the radar screen of the media.
The fact that one of the insiders thought it to be illegal/unethical was the whole reason it ever came to light. Interesting--a super snoop with a sense of right and wrong who decided to act on it--he didn't even do it for money! And you want to shoot him...Shame on you.
Yeah, I actually can imagine it. As far as terrorists shutting up goes, if these guys are truly suicidal it won't shut them up for long, right?
No, it is obvious I don't like his politics and I fear the permanent loss of privacy to our nation's citizens. I don't think Bush is bright; he is the son of an American aristocrat and the poster child for a lot of people in the background with agendas to do whatever they please with impunity in America. Does that amount to hating Bush? I'm really not sure--how about you let me decide how I really feel about him? Besides, it's not really pertinent to the discussion.

But to say "...if Bill C had done the same thing..." is really useless. It is in this that I believe you to be more partisan than I am. I am concerned about the freedoms in the Constitution still being there for our children and grandchildren and not having a Big Brother State here without benefit of an intact Constitution to protect them.


I didn't remember Barbra Olson so I looked her up and I did read the CNN report.

I also found this: Where in the world is Barbra Olson? (Updated). I'll include a few quotations here:
Where WERE the pictures of the plane wreckage? And, forgive me if it sounds ugly, where were the bodies of the passengers?

Just thought I'd add a couple of updates to this topic:

First, a Federal court ordered (MSNBC) the Justice Department to respond within 20 days to an EPIC request for information on the domestice surveillance program.


Second, it looks as though the White House is cutting a deal to amend FISA to provide more oversight to Congress:

If this "deal" prevents an investigation of what's been taking place for the last 5 years, you're gonna see a lot of angry people, myself included.

I think Ted and lordhelmet are missing the point.

Everyone wants terrorist's communications to be tapped. I certainly do. But... we do have rights. We, as US citizens, have a 4th Amendment right not to have our phone conversations, our email, our regular mail surveilled without a warrant. That is very specific in the Constitution. There is a question of reasonable. However, the War on Terror is not reasonable. Why? Because there is no perceived end to it. We are supposed to give up this right for an possibly unending war against terrorists? No. That is unreasonable. Why? Because the most important part of any War on Terror is not to be terrified. Not to give in. Not to relinquish, in the face of Terror, the rights that make our country what it is. The moment we give up our rights out of terror, we lose the war.

It should also be noted that if this type of activity is unconstitutional, then the person who leaked it did nothing illegal. Illegal covert activity by the government is not protected under the guise of national security. The fact that there is a constitutional question arising from this issue means in the very least that the legality is questionable. So, I don't think this individual should be charged with anything.

So, this program has been outted. The terrorists will now communicate with their counterparts overseas using what... smoke signals? How will the fact that this program is public make any change in the way terrorists communicate?

As to the President's have always had this power claim...

President Roosevelt engaged in this type of activity after Pearl Harbor. Okay. One could argue that it was reasonable... nobody challenged it. But we mustn't forget that he also, claiming the same inherent authority as Commander in Chief, interred American citizens – a clearly unconstitutional act declared constitutional by the Supreme Court in a case that has yet to be overturned. So, according to this... the President also has the inherent authority as Commander in Chief to remove you from your home and place you in an internment camp if he believes that you are spying for the enemy. Does the President really have that authority?

President Wilson engaged in this type of activity with the approval of Congress. If the Espionage or the Sedition Acts were suggested for Congressional approval today, it wouldn't pass... and if it did... it wouldn't last long. Nobody would sit by and allow the government to pass those clearly unconstitutional laws today.

President Lincoln engaged in this type of activity, but he also declared Martial Law. The manner in which he did so was also determined by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional.

President Washington never engaged in this type of activity while he was President.

So, the previous President's argument does not fly. Just because a previous President does something that is unconstitutional does not make it constitutional now.

The fact that there is the benefit of saving lives does not necessarily mean that it should be done. It would probably save lives if we could tap the phones of those in organized crime or known gang members. Does that mean that we do it? No. Has not doing it cost some lives? Certainly. But there is a price for being a free society. Sometimes that price is high.

As far as 9/11 goes there were infinitely more problems than being unable to tap phones inside this country. Information regarding the attack was already in the hands of law enforcement. It is inter-agency communication that needs to be addressed... not expanded domestic surveillance. Katrina was a perfect example of how communication still fails. So, even if we get this surveillance... if we have incompetent people running agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, it is all for naught. So, before we go trampling over the 4th Amendment, perhaps we should take a look at fixing the biggest problem.

Ted,

If the NSA had a phone number for a place in the US that was being contacted by an Al Qaeda "switchboard", FISA would have been able to deal with that issue. I'd be willing to be that the story is pure propaganda. It makes no sense. When did they have the number? Why didn't they go to FISA to request a warrant to tap that phone?

Again, the slowdowns are coming from within the DoJ not from FISA. Fix the problems that are creating the slowdowns within the agency... don't bypass the law just because that's an easy fix to the bureaucratic problem.

If there needs to be all this approval within the DoJ before an emergency warrant is requested, get rid of that. Submit the request and do the surveillance. There is no law requiring all of this approval within the DoJ. There is a law, however, requiring the warrant request.

Lord Helmet,

This whole we do not have the right to privacy to commit atrocities thing is absurd. You are right in that we don't have that right. But we do have the right to have the government prove that there is evidence that the right to privacy is being abused in order to commit atrocities. The aim of the Bill of Rights is not to protect the guilty, but to protect the innocent. Without proper judicial and congressional oversight, the ability to protect the innocent is severely diminished.

Bush could very well be only spying on the terrorists. That's fine. But removing judicial and congressional oversight opens the door to tyrannical abuse. That is why the checks and balances exist.

The people who died in 9/11 were the victims not only of the acts of the terrorists and of the failures of the government... they were also martyrs to freedom. We should have done all that we could to save them, but... we also should have done it while maintaining the principles upon which this country is founded.

Give me liberty or give me death.