WAR: Bush Allowed NSA to Spy on U.S. International Calls

Sorry Centurion but I am not going to get into the Clinton vs Bush debate, after all the last time I check the administration was Mr. Bush the present president not Clinton.

So what is going on now is done under Bush and he is the guilty party now.

BTW the weather is nice and I keep the house very cozy, not as frigid as in your neck of the woods.

So what the jist of this is that the US goverment spies on its own people aswell as those abroad??

The biggest untruth in this whole issue is the presumption that this is something new since 9/11!! Do people really think that despite the technology and ability to monitor communications for over 20 years they havent.....because of the 'consitution'??

Clearest form of disinformation I have ever seen!!

(oooo we had a leak!!!)

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by jsobecky

I still have no idea what you meant. What's with "another special assignment"?

The implication was that you are a covert agent assigned to this board to spread misinformation on behalf of the government.

Who, me? I need the phone number of Plame's lawyer!

Originally posted by jsobecky
Who, me?

I need the phone number of Plame's lawyer!

jsobecky, please speak closer to the cup!

Jsobecky, i love your mug.

Here is my mug to remember me by:

I'm going to have to just say I agree with the "if I'm not talking about illegal or illicit activities in my overseas calls then I have nothing to worry about" mantra.

And another sheep joins the flock.

Sure you can go about your daily life, and all the butterflies will flock around you, and the sun will always shine, and everyone in the world will smile at you. Everything will always be perfect, and you'll never have to fight for what you believe in.

Ok...back to reality. Let's say that all the sheeple...err, people...in America have no problem with this. Well, then, that must make it ok, right? No. Lets take torture for example. Justifying one water-boarding becomes justification for the next, and the next until, before you know it, torture becomes accepted as "the norm".

Now, on to spying on somone without a warrant or probable cause. First off, this is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, once they begin collecting information on you, they can't stop themselves. All that's required is that you come to their attention FOR ANY REASON. After that, they must know all they can about you: your finances, your habits, your thoughts, your friends, your family. Your life must all be observed, examined, categorized, kept and updated. But wait, you're not a terrorist! Well, according to the President, it doesn't matter because, as he says, he has the right to dig into your life without warrant or probable cause.

And...where does it stop? What's going to stop the next President or the President after that for using the laws to his or her liking? Laws are originally made with good intentions, but over the years they are subverted and twisted into what the government at that time thinks they should be defined as.

And, as you can see, these laws have already been subverted.

Guys n Gals...

Please keep the chit chat out of the thread... Stay on topic, please.

Originally posted by elderban

I'm going to have to just say I agree with the "if I'm not talking about illegal or illicit activities in my overseas calls then I have nothing to worry about" mantra.

And another sheep joins the flock.

You got no right in calling me a sheep because I'm here on ATS aren't I? Who are you to suggest I haven't done my own share of critical analysis of the situation concerning the NSA and made my own informed deciscion. Your nothing but a rabble rouser. Lets keep the serious discussion going.

Originally posted by marg6043
I am very sorry Grady to disagree with you, I know that you are a patriot and a good citizen but. . .

The day that our information and the awareness given to the people of this nation is gag and bind that will be the day that our democracy will die.

So be happy American citizens that we still have our freedom of press even if our civil rights are in jeopardy.

Title 50 US Code
Chapter 36 Subchapter 1 Section 1802.... was enacted in 1978 and even Herr peanut, Carter, agreed with it. Still, by publishing anything like this, it indeed DOES give aid and comfprt to the enemy, pre-empts intelligence gathering, and is a treasonous offense.

Originally posted by Valhall
I'm trying to figure out why pointing out that more than one administration has done what they shouldn't do makes any of them right?

Am I missing something? What difference does that make other than to point out we're a bunch of ignorant morons that have looked the other way for far too long?

Ever hear about Echelon? Know what it does and when it was set up?

Answers:
Listens in on the communications of all Americans without warrants. Implemented by Bill Clinton. Where were all of you then? Why no mention of it even now in the context of this discussion?

This is all relevant.

None of this done by any administration makes any of it right. Many are just tired of the 'dog pile on Bush' as if he invented all of this himself. To a bunch of you people, one minute Bush is a stupid fool with a monkey face and the next he's some sort of master inquisitor. So, which is he? Make this topic about 'government spying' instead of 'Bush spying' and you'll get a whole lot more non-partisan participation. The point shouldn't just be about Bush spying on us. It should be about the government spying on us - for awhile now!

Originally posted by marg6043
You are missing the point perhaps because you want to still defend the Bush.

The point is Bush didn't have to go around to do what he did he would have gotten approval by congress that is also Republican majority if the need for spying on American citizens was so great and needed because it was a treat.

He wanted to exercise absolute power and cash on his Capital.

In other worlds he enjoys power as to be arrogant enough to by pass his own majority ruled congress.

If you still don't get the picture then I guess no even in black and white you are going to get it.

He had not need to do what he did, but he did it anyway, What a cowboy!!!!!!

REPLY: You haven't done any research; court orders are only called for pertaining to calls within the continental US, and are not required for outgoing or incomming calls, OF PEOPLE WHO ARE SUSPECT TO HAVE TIES WITH TERRORISM. Bush DIDN'T go around Congress, because those bi-partisan politicians who have oversight on Nat'l security issues, must sign off on this every three months.
Title 50 US Code Cahpter 36, sub-chapter 1 section 1802, titled "Electronic Surveilance Without Court Order" ..... enacted in 1978, and even that dim-bulb, Carter, authorized it's use. It's not strictly a Bush thing.... get over it.

Whether this is legal or not, the fact that they have been doing this and more than likely other constitutionally-questionable domestic activities yet undisclosed (IMO) for the past few years is rightfully troubling but also assures me that if there is indeed another foreign attack on our soil they will absolutely positively be 100% to blame-no excuses. For if they fail again to secure our great nation from foreign threats, now being equipped with these additional near-omniscient tools it would only be from incompetent minds undeservedly entrusted with these exceptional powers, and accountable they will be.

Saying that I'd also like to say that since 9/11 they appear to be doing an exceptional job-Stay frosty!

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Valhall
I'm trying to figure out why pointing out that more than one administration has done what they shouldn't do makes any of them right?

Am I missing something? What difference does that make other than to point out we're a bunch of ignorant morons that have looked the other way for far too long?

Ever hear about Echelon? Know what it does and when it was set up?

Answers:
Listens in on the communications of all Americans without warrants. Implemented by Bill Clinton. Where were all of you then? Why no mention of it even now in the context of this discussion?

This is all relevant.

None of this done by any administration makes any of it right. Many are just tired of the 'dog pile on Bush' as if he invented all of this himself. To a bunch of you people, one minute Bush is a stupid fool with a monkey face and the next he's some sort of master inquisitor. So, which is he? Make this topic about 'government spying' instead of 'Bush spying' and you'll get a whole lot more non-partisan participation. The point shouldn't just be about Bush spying on us. It should be about the government spying on us - for awhile now!

REPLY: .... and don't forget "Carnivore" ... another Clinton setup.... but that's all besides the point; if the intelligence agencies are listening in on ANYONE who might be talking to or with a terrorist cell, or Bin ladin himself, I don't want them to have to hang up 'till they get a court order.

article

Excerpt:
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER

CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

So you all can see that this has been going on for more than 25 years!, not just the last 4 years as many of you seem to be saying.

[edit on 12/21/2005 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Valhall
I'm trying to figure out why pointing out that more than one administration has done what they shouldn't do makes any of them right?

There are far too many partisan attacks on Bush. To read about this incident, or many other incidents, you'd think that he invented spying. And he did it to "control" us and whittle away all of our rights.

If you can get a historical perspective on it, hopefully the partisan attacks will stop. Then we can discuss issues without that bias.

It does not make what Bush did necessarily right or wrong, it just throws that little hanging chad into the trashbarrel where it belongs.

So, when the discourse reaches the "He Lied!" stage, looking back helps sometime to put things in perspective. Then it can be dropped.

Am I missing something? What difference does that make other than to point out we're a bunch of ignorant morons that have looked the other way for far too long?

Ever hear about Echelon? Know what it does and when it was set up?

Why no mention of it even now in the context of this discussion?

This is all relevant.

None of this done by any administration makes any of it right. Many are just tired of the 'dog pile on Bush' as if he invented all of this himself. To a bunch of you people, one minute Bush is a stupid fool with a monkey face and the next he's some sort of master inquisitor. So, which is he? Make this topic about 'government spying' instead of 'Bush spying' and you'll get a whole lot more non-partisan participation. The point shouldn't just be about Bush spying on us. It should be about the government spying on us - for awhile now!

Very good, centurion1211. You should be able to state a case like that without being brandished a "sheeple". What I mean is, it would be great to hear an honest Democrat make the same case you just did.

Power To The Sheeple

Originally posted by jsobecky
Very good, centurion1211.

You should be able to state a case like that without being brandished a "sheeple". What I mean is, it would be great to hear an honest Democrat make the same case you just did.

In my experience, those who use the term “sheeple” to describe their fellow citizens or ATS members tend to suffer from problems with vanity, self-deception and elitist ideation. The use of this and similar expressions is practically a litmus test for delusional thinking.

My opinion is that it is wrong-headed to use such sweeping and derogatory terms to defame people en masse. A far more healthy approach is to give people the benefit of the doubt, and rather than condemn those with whom one may disagree, consider that everyone has their reasons for choosing the paths they choose.

Here on ATS, I have a strong degree of respect for anyone who goes to the trouble to register and spend time studying the extraordinary wealth of knowledge that can be found here. From there, members choose their own roads.

Some take the “low road” and consume themselves with deriding and insulting others. Such members don't tend to stay that way for long: they either grow out of it or get banned. The former is invariably cause for celebration, the latter cause for sorrow.

I like to think I fit into the former category, but God knows, I have my moments.

Then there are those who distinguish themselves by consistently demonstrating the meaning of true excellence in all they do here. I don't need to name names, because we all know who they are. They stand out time after time and show us how ATS can shine by virtue of the examples they set.

It is those members I seek to be more like, and are -- frankly -- the main attraction for me.

For all the wonderful features, bells, whistles and benefits that ATS offers, it is my interest in what these people have to say that keeps me coming back month after month.

I can't think of a better objective for any member to embrace than that of being more like our finest members.

Word Of Honor

Regarding the topic of this thread, I continue to advise skepticism regarding the timing and nature of this scandal. I consider the way this story is being played to be suspicious beyond the pale.

I am very concerned about what this continuing pattern of leaks by intelligence officers signifies, and advise vigilance in monitoring these events. Something about this is very, very wrong.

For those who may mistake my concern about serious breaches of law regarding intelligence activities for apathy about civil liberties, I caution against couching the discussion in terms of finger-pointing and labeling.

I value my civil liberties far more than anyone else can know, and have personally gone to bat to protect them. I remain bound by a solemn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and have no intentions of ever renouncing that oath.

It is with that foremost in mind that I consider all cases of actual or alleged violations of civil liberty, and I take all of them seriously.

However, I also have nothing but scorn for those who deliberately misrepresent the nature of civil liberties for the purposes of deceiving the American people and undermining them.

The Meaning Of “Hypocrisy”

When presented with “scandals” of the kind taking place in this case, the first thing to consider is the source of the scandal.

Who is making these claims? Why? What is the foundation for these allegations? Are they credible?

I cannot countenance or trust anyone who chooses to speak from the shadows. If someone has a legitimate accusation to make, then let that person come forward.

In cases where doing so would compromise their safety or well-being, federal law provides for their protection, and allows for their charges to be heard by duly-constituted authority in a secure setting.

The circumstances surrounding this “scandal” are inherently suspect. I cannot conceive of a legitimate explanation for what has been done, which is why I am so critical of this fiasco.

Certain individuals seem to think it's okay for them to violate the law and jeopardize national security in exchange for advancing their personal agendas -- in order to charge the President with violating the law.

I need more than the words of cowards, traitors and hypocrites to sway my opinion. Let them make their case in court, rather than in the press.

The Meaning Of “Unreasonable”

There seem to be many who misinterpret the Fourth Amendment to bar all searches and seizures, despite its clear wording to the contrary:

From The Bill of Rights

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Emphasis added.

Note the word “unreasonable” in that clause. Only “unreasonable” searches are prohibited.

So what's a “reasonable” search? A search authorized in accordance with applicable law, as provided for by our constitutional government.

Such laws are enacted by Congress, enforced by the President and interpreted by the Supreme Court. It is the responsibility of these three branches of government to determine what constitutes a “reasonable” search, and their determinations carry the force of law in this country.

This authority is not granted to the press, nor to self-appointed pundits, nor to criminals who willfully violate federal law.

So has President acted unlawfully by authorizing electronic surveillance of certain persons inside and outside the United States? I don't know.

That is for Congress and the Supreme Court to decide. That's part pf the job we pay these people to do.

Meanwhile, as citizens we are the final “check and balance” against government abuse. It is the duty of every American citizen to question our government.

However, to do so in disregard of the law itself is contrary to that duty. If we respect the Constitution, then we should respect laws that are made pursuant to it. If we don't like the laws, then we should petition our representatives to change them.

But to claim that the President is violating the law while simultaneously expressing contempt for it accomplishes nothing more than identifying oneself as a hypocrite.

I recommend reasonable and sensible criticism of our government, and avoidance of playing into the hands of those who indulge in the opposite.

To do otherwise is to demote oneself to the status of a political pawn, rather than a free thinker.

Originally posted by Majic
Power To The Sheeple

Originally posted by jsobecky
Very good, centurion1211.

You should be able to state a case like that without being brandished a "sheeple". What I mean is, it would be great to hear an honest Democrat make the same case you just did.

In my experience, those who use the term “sheeple” to describe their fellow citizens or ATS members tend to suffer from problems with vanity, self-deception and elitist ideation. The use of this and similar expressions is practically a litmus test for delusional thinking.

I agree; I just love that word "enlightened".

We've all heard the term "sheeple" dozens of times. If you listen to Fox News, you're a sheeple. If you support a particular domestic policy, you're a sheeple. If you're just an ordinary working stiff with 4 kids who has very little time and energy to discuss politics at the end of the day, you're a sheeple. If you are of a particular faith, you're a sheeple.

Yes it is done because some folks are legends in their own minds. It's also done to intimidate people into dropping out of the debate.

My opinion is that it is wrong-headed to use such sweeping and derogatory terms to defame people en masse.

My opinion is that it is wrong to use personal attacks at any level; one-on-one or broad-brushing. It's wrong, and it should not be tolerated here, except where the sandboxes are set up to fight, no holds barred.

I’m new here but I do understand the idea of what I want for my kids. I know looking at my own life I should not:

Do insider trading because if I get caught I could go to jail (Bill Frist)

Accept gifts from lobbyist because it is against the law and saying “everyone is doing it” should not get you off. (Over half the congress)

Take food out of poor persons mouth to give to already rich people because you want to be seen as a team player in the power circles. (Congress & the Executive)

Misuse money of my employer's for my own activities when they’re earmarked for something else. (Tom and his “friends”)

Start a fight and take over another person land by saying things that are not true and the things that are true I helped him with by knowingly giving him the resources. (G. Bush and Assoc.) Look out Syria or Iran!!

And most importantly talk to my kids about how to be an upstanding person and openly and covertly tear them down by saying there are enemy near and I cannot trust anyone.

There was a 400-page report on the spying of the military, FBI and undisclosed departments of espionage in America on protesting groups. (Most are Peace groups!!)

This is not Russia nor is it china. I should be allowed to feel like I am not being watched when I get I library book go on the Internet or talk on the phone. THe govenment should not be the only people that are allowed to have strong feelings about politics and life. I have no idea how some can feel great about the steps this and former adminstrations are doing that are seeing the light of day.

There were the same type of "citizens" in Germany and when the gas chambers were lit up till this day there were people that did not care enough about their Jewish brothers to save them. The Same in America during the Jim Crow laws they could lynch, rape and burn almost entire cites with out the "citizens" being outraged. The concentration camps of Guantanamo oh I’m sorry Asian Americans during world war two. My question did they have camps for German descended Americans during that time?


My point is this is not democracy and this is certainly not freedom. My ancestors help build this country and I have a right just like the Kennedy’s and the bushes and to feel safe. And taking my rights will not make them any safer. Maybe if they changed up their foreign policy then things might be different.

For reference, I use the term "sheeple" to define people that "follow the herd" and don't bother to question those that are doing things that affect their lives and accept everything as the status quo and believe that "Well, if the government says it's right, then it must be right!". People need to remember that WE are America, and that the government is only people we employ to manage it. (Although, it seems to be the other way around lately)

What is happening now, what happened in the past with Carter or Clinton, is a violation of our rights. Period. Just because we didn't stand up then doesn't mean we cannot stand up now. (That, and I'm pretty sure ATS wasn't around during the Clinton and Carter administrations, for if it had been, I'm sure we'd be arguing the point just as much).

Like Valhall said in "Feeding the White Elephant", this isn't a Democratic or Republican issue, it's an American issue. Political lines have nothing to do with it, it has to do with our very own rights...no matter what class you're in or party you side with.

Note the word “unreasonable” in that clause. Only “unreasonable” searches are prohibited.

Please note the sentence after that:

No Warrants shall be issued, but upon probable cause

It's an unreasonable search, they didn't have probable cause, AND they didn't get a court order. The .000001% of catching a terrorist by listening to millions of PRIVATE conversations, to me, does not fall under "probable cause". And, as the Amendment states, they would STILL need a court order, even if it was an "unreasonable" search, and the only way they can get a court order is with probable cause.

So has President acted unlawfully by authorizing electronic surveillance of certain persons inside and outside the United States? I don't know.

That is for Congress and the Supreme Court to decide. That's part pf the job we pay these people to do.

I understand it is for the courts to decide, but I also know that as Americans it is our responsibility to make sure something like this goes to court. If we don't speak up for ourselves, our country, or our Bill of Rights, then those in power (whomever they may be) will only assume that what they're doing is ok with the American people.

Amendment IV

"... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

REPLY: Please note here that there is nothing mentioned here about a much-touted "right to privacy." One should also be aware that this has been changed since it was written: Amendment 4 calls for specifying a location.... like a dresser or closet; now it is merely a street address. The "thing(s) to be seized has been watered down to mean anything similar or related. Where's all the complaining about that?

So what's a “reasonable” search? A search authorized in accordance with applicable law, as provided for by our constitutional government. So has President acted unlawfully by authorizing electronic surveillance of certain persons inside and outside the United States? I don't know.

REPLY: The law allowing such was established in FISA, circa 1978.

This authority is not granted to the press, nor to self-appointed pundits, nor to criminals who willfully violate federal law.

REPLY: Correct, and those responsible should hang.

What I'd like to see hear, since there is so much whining about who broke Constitutional law (not), are some valid ideas that would allow us to stay on the trail of our enemies and their communication, which would allow us to protect American citizens from harm..... something that Constitutionaly falls under the president and Congress to do.

So.... any ideas as to how our intelligence agencies can better do their job, without supposedly taking away our "rights"?