Is this accurate?
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 3, 2006 21:33
VIEWED: 7022
PAGE 5 of 6
Quote:
No. The program Bush authorized is limited to listening to international calls were one party is a known terrorist or terrorist supporter.
Of course with no oversight how do we know that is what is going on. Also, I believe of the hundreds of calls they have listened in on none (that's right none) have resulted in arrests, new informations, or anything substantial.
Quote:
Signals intellegence of the enemy in time of war is a Presidential power, the legality of signals intellegece specifically goes back to FDR during WW2. That the other party is an American citizen coincidental.
Coincidental? The constitution is coincidental? So, my rights are only contingent upon a guess? We had oversight and warrants to protect our right to privacy from search and seizure. Again, you have to remember, by ok'ing this for Bush you are ok'ing it for every president from here on out. Do you will want to put that much trust in someone you haven't even met yet?
Quote:
Essentially it comes down to a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you are calling overseas to talk with a known terrorist, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. If you are innocent and make the call unawares then its not likely they will come breaking down your door. No harm...no foul. If you are conspiring...then you deserve to be caught.
So, basically, let them listen and if I'm innocent I have nothing to worry about... of course, you don't see how easily this power could be abused? Tell you what, you give me your phone number, I'll set up a tap and record all your conversations... how does that sound? You have nothing to hide right, so it shouldn't really matter, right?
Besides, did anyone bother to try and figure out how they know if you are talking to a known terrorist? Wouldn't they have to trace your calls? Then might listen to determine who you were talking too?
Quote:
Citizen to citizen, domestic calls are not monitored. Only in Congress who have not been briefed say otherwise and there is no evidence that such monitoring is going on.
Again, without oversight how do you know this? We have evidence that the CIA were monitoring peace groups, under Hoover the FBI monitored and kept files on law abiding citizens.
Look, I agree that we should be able to listen to calls invovling terrorists, the problem is in how this mechanism works. Without oversight the power can easily be abused. Sorry, but after Hoover, Nixon, McCarthy, etc, I don't blindly trust anyone in government. It isn't the motive we are questioning so much as the actions. Let's get the terrorists, let's just do it legally.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I had posted again later that I had tried add to that post about Clinton's hair-splitting but was blocked for some stupid reason. Naturally, you WOULD fail to mention that. That's pretty typical of you, Finn- you only post half the story.
What, did you think I was going to defend Clinton? heh heh heh!!! -signy
Well, you already did that. I was just checking to see if you could remain consistent.-Finn
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wow, and that from a lawyer. So much for being a nation of laws!
There are nuances to the power structure and they change over time depending upon the political strength of those who hold the offices in question.
So- are we agreed that signing statements are Unconsitutional whether they're writtne by Clinton, Nixon, or GW Bush? And are we agreed that warrantless searches of American citizens are Unconstitutional whether they're ordered by GW Bush or Clinton? And are we agreed that Congress has essential powers of oversight?
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Razza
Are you aware that when one gets a security clearance they sign all kinds of documents, one of which is very explicit in that they WILL watch what you are doing and that you WILL be investigated if they feel you are breaking the confidentiality of your position?
The wiretapping of civilians and the investigative wire tapping of a federal employee with a security clearance are two completely different things.
Furthermore, are you actually intending to imply by this statement that you condone Aldrich Ames behavior?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Wow, and that from a lawyer. So much for being a nation of laws!
There are nuances to the power structure and they change over time depending upon the political strength of those who hold the offices in question.
My comment was made because I have studied American political history (I've got a degree in that too). In our history terms like "Imperial Presidency" and "Imperial Congress" have used to describe the waxing and waning of power between the branches. Lincoln was very powerful, Johnson much less. Quincy Adams was weak, Jackson was strong. Carter was weak, Reagan was strong. When Clinton was in office he battled Congress a number of times and while he often won his battles, the overall balance of power shifted back to the Congress. Bush is making that same fight and seems to be shifting it back, so far at least, though Reagan was stronger by far and no recent President compares to the power wielded by FDR.
As a lawyer I can tell you that the "nation of laws" has changed dramtically since the founding. If you don't believe me I urge you to fish from horseback in Pennsylvania and marvel at the fact that not one law enforcement agent will try and stop you. On the other hand your effort to purchase a slave in Virginia might meet with a bit of resistance. Or, if you want something more timely. Try and keep your house if the City you live in wants your land for a new highway. Things change.
Our politcial and legal systems are flexible as we grow to understand the nuances of the Constitution and the reality of the modern world.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi MsFillion!
Welcome to the discussion.
I'll answer the most provocative part of your post first since it was meant to goad me a bit.(some good goading always makes for a lively discussion don't you think?) You asked,
Quote:
"Furthermore, are you actually intending to imply by this statement that you condone Aldrich Ames behavior?"
Obviously, I don't in any way condone his actions and my posts never implied such. His actions were treasonous and reprehensible, but no less so than those who would conspire with foreign terrorists who's stated goal is the destruction of our country.
You also focused on wiretapping. I will remind you once more that the Clinton administration did not just tap Mr. Aldrich's phones, they entered his home, searched his belongings, and seized them for purposes of prosecution, all without a warrant of any kind. Again for the record, I think it was justified then just as it is now.
I think JMB9039's concerns about oversight are certainly warranted, but when as he puts it none of the,
Quote:I'm not sure how he can conclude that the program has been overly abusive. He has a point when he says,
"...hundreds of calls they have listened in on none (that's right none) have resulted in arrests..."
Quote:
"..Of course with no oversight how do we know that is what is going on.."
The only problem being that we all know there has been some oversight. Granted perhaps not enough for political opponents of the current administration, but what else is new? There can never be enough oversight of any actions taken by an administration according to their political opponents no matter which party is in power. That's just politics!
-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."
---Napoleon Bonaparte
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Razza
Excellent post. But again, I have to assert - the actions taken against Mr. Ames were actions by a federal government against one of their own employees. Said employee was fully knowledgeable of the lenghts they would go, and in singing the paperwork giving him his position, he consented to such an investigation. It is a completely different situation. The federal govenment does not and should not have a license to invade the privacy of a CIVILIAN individual. Without due cause and a specific court order.
There is a reason the CIA is not supposed to function on US soil. Their activities can violate civil rights laws.
Federal employees, as well as Military members (edit), are aware of the fact that while they are governed under the same laws, they in fact lose some of the rights afforded to the civilian population. Take the military for example, under the UCMJ a member of the military does NOT have a "right to silence" nor is there, I believe, any absolute right to a Miranda warning.
If you have a security clearance, you are aware that you and your family, your fiancial portfolio, your childhood friendships - every facet of your life - will be investigated on an ongoing if not continuous basis.
Sorry! Long winded I know.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
MsFillion,
I recognize that Mr. Ames was a federal employee and his security clearance made him especially susceptible to investigation, but not necessarily illegal investigation. Looking at the Washington Post article I originally posted on the subject from 1994, the ACLU agrees with me,
Quote:
"The Constitution's Fourth Amendment guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" unless the government obtains a warrant based on probable cause of criminal activity. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), that made the search of Ames's house -- and other secret searches by the government -- probably illegal."
Okay, so they said probably, but who am I to doubt the validity of the ACLU's conclusions?
-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."
---Napoleon Bonaparte
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The ACLU will always have a problem with what they perceive is a violation of a citizen's rights. Doesn't mean they are correct in their position. He knew what he was doing.
As I have often said in refernce to my husbands military career - I signed on the dotted line. I was well aware of the sacrifices I would have to make to be his wife. Doesn't mean I like them.
So lets agree to disagree. But you still can't use it as a valid example of your point, because its apples and oranges in this instance. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Something else to consider. There a distinction usually made between wiretapping/ searches for eventual prosecution and wiretapping/searches for intelligence gathering.
The Fourth Amendment doesn't make any such distinctions, but it has been parsed that way. Do you think such a distinction is valid?
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME