Bush Orders Domestic Spying. - Page 13

**Julie** · 08-26-2006, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Sorry Top, if living in a big city has taught me anything it's that the gov't will utterly abuse any power you give it.

Totally agree with that.

Bluesman:

Is it your contention that a terrorist can plan, and execute an attack in the US within 72 hours?

Bluesman · 08-26-2006, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julie

Totally agree with that.

Bluesman:

Is it your contention that a terrorist can plan, and execute an attack in the US within 72 hours?

No, but as an intelligence professional for the past twenty years, I can define the term 'perishable' better than anybody else on this board.

Sometimes your target is so fleeting, and the window of opportunity is open and shut so quickly, there simply is not time to seek a warrant.

Is it your contention that an intercept operation can be set up with a FISA board sitting at the operator's shoulder 24/7, so that when the once-every-five-years' opportunity occurs, the legal department (also sitting idle for years at a time) in the same room (in each and every intercept activity around the world) may instantly draft a request for a warrant (complete with justification and legal grounding) when the golden nugget is identified, in order to NOT miss what all the know-it-all critics of intelliegence operations just KNOW we shouldn't have missed?

That's what we're talking about: when aQ calls somebody in the 'States, it is going to be brief, it's going to be important, and it's going to give us ONE SHOT at identifying the guy that is HERE, amongst US. But you want to seek a warrant that will take 72 hours (and that's BEST CASE)?

You and people like you are trying to lose this war for us. Maybe not on purpose (although some of your fellow-travellers are completely on the other side), but what difference does it make if it's through treachery or ignorance?

None. If we lose, 72 hours one way or the other isn't going to make any difference, either.

Anon · 08-26-2006, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julie

Totally agree with that.

Bluesman:

Is it your contention that a terrorist can plan, and execute an attack in the US within 72 hours?

Of course he could.

How long does it take to decide to walk into a mall in Las Vegas or where-ever and blow yourself up with a couple hand grenades.

In the middle of a toy store...

That would take about oh....10 seconds of planning to pull off.

-------------

But so can any other killer do that...and i aint about to let the gov't spy on me to stop that either.

Ray · 08-26-2006, 13:02 PM

It is true that terrorist attacks (small ones) do not require much of planning or even organsation.

However, you have to be mad, or a fanatic or a pathological killer and you must a person who has more faith in God than yourself!

**Shek** · 01-18-2007, 09:56 AM

Power Line: Terrorist Surveillance Program, RIP

Terrorist Surveillance Program, RIP

Attorney General Gonzales announced today, via a letter to Senators Leahy and Specter, that the Terrorist Surveillance Program has been put under the jurisdiction of the FISA court and therefore will not be reauthorized by President Bush. Gonzales says that the administration has not compromised the program's effectiveness:

[O]n January 10, 2007, a Judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court issued orders authorizing the Government to target for collection international communications into or out of the United States where there is probable cause to believe that one of the communicants is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization. As a result of these orders, any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Gonzales assured the Senators--not that they care, necessarily, but we do--that security will not be compromised because the court authorization "had to ensure that the Intelligence Community would have the speed and agility necessary to protect the Nation from al Qaeda--the very speed and agility that was offered by the Terrorist Surveillance Program." He adds that "These orders are innovative, they are complex, and it took considerable time and work for the Government to develop the approach that was proposed to the Court...."

So what has changed? It's hard to say. These "orders" presumably authorize the NSA to initiate surveillance under emergency circumstances without going through the cumbersome FISA warrant process. Frankly, I haven't had time for extensive research, but it isn't obvious what provision of FISA authorizes such blanket "orders."

In any event, the administration seems to have found a solution that allows the Terrorist Surveillance Program to continue in all but name, while defusing the criticisms of the program--which were, in my opinion, almost entirely unjustified.

Ray · 01-18-2007, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Sometimes your target is so fleeting, and the window of opportunity is open and shut so quickly, there simply is not time to seek a warrant.

I totally concur with Bluesman.

Sometimes it means it is a question of liberty or death of a Nation or the community.

For those who are champions of individual liberty and all that I can think of one sop. There should be a provision in law wherein such cases could be regularised by a warrant post arrest!

Ray · 01-18-2007, 14:00 PM

Here goes.

Tonights media report on wiretapping and safeguards!

Quote:

Court to Oversee U.S. Wiretapping in Terror Cases

By ERIC LICHTBLAU and DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: January 18, 2007

WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 — The Bush administration, in a surprise reversal, said on Wednesday that it had agreed to give a secret court jurisdiction over the National Security Agency’s wiretapping program and would end its practice of eavesdropping without warrants on Americans suspected of ties to terrorists.

More at:

NY Times Advertisement

**Shek** · 07-29-2007, 21:41 PM

OpinionJournal - Featured Article

Quote:

Wiretap Debacle
How politics has gutted the terrorist surveillance program.

Friday, July 27, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

The U.S. homeland hasn't been struck by terrorists since September 11, and one reason may be more aggressive intelligence policies. So Americans should be alarmed that one of the best intelligence tools--warrantless wiretapping of al Qaeda suspects--has recently become far less effective and is in danger of being neutered by Congressional Democrats.

President Bush approved this terrorist surveillance not long after 9/11, allowing intelligence officials to track terrorist calls overseas, as well as overseas communications with al Qaeda sympathizers operating in the U.S. The New York Times exposed the program in late 2005, and Democrats and antiwar activists immediately denounced it as an "illegal" attempt to spy on Americans, à la J. Edgar Hoover.

Democratic leaders were briefed on the program from the first and never once tried to shut it down. But once it was exposed, these same Democrats accused Mr. Bush of breaking the law by not getting warrants from the special court created under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978. Mr. Bush has rightly defended the program's legality, but as a gesture of compromise in January he agreed to seek warrants under the FISA process.

This has turned out to be an enormous mistake that has unilaterally disarmed one of our best intelligence weapons in the war on terror. To understand why, keep in mind that we live in a world of fiber optics and packet-switching. A wiretap today doesn't mean the FBI must install a bug on Abdul Terrorist's phone in Peshawar. Information now follows the path of least resistance, wherever that may lead. And because the U.S. has among the world's most efficient networks, hundreds of millions of foreign calls are routed through the U.S.

That's right: If an al Qaeda operative in Quetta calls a fellow jihadi in Peshawar, that call may well travel through a U.S. network. This ought to be a big U.S. advantage in our "asymmetrical" conflict with terrorists. But it also means that, for the purposes of FISA, a foreign call that is routed through U.S. networks becomes a domestic call. So thanks to the obligation to abide by an outdated FISA statute, U.S. intelligence is now struggling even to tap the communications of foreign-based terrorists. If this makes you furious, it gets worse.

Our understanding is that some FISA judges have been open to expediting warrants, as well as granting retroactive approval. But there are 11 judges in the FISA rotation, and some of them have been demanding that intelligence officials get permission in advance for wiretaps. This means missed opportunities and less effective intelligence. And it shows once again why the decisions of unaccountable judges shouldn't be allowed to supplant those of an elected Commander in Chief.

When the program began, certain U.S. telecom companies also cooperated with the National Security Agency. But they were sued once the program was exposed, and so some have ceased cooperating for fear of damaging liability claims. We found all of this hard to believe when we first heard it, but we've since confirmed the details with other high-level sources.

Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell more or less admitted the problem last week, albeit obliquely, when he told the Senate that "we're actually missing a significant portion of what we should be getting." That's understating things. Our sources say the surveillance program is now at most one-third as effective as it once was.

The Bush Administration bears much of the blame for this debacle. White House officials hoped that by agreeing to put the wiretaps under FISA authority, they could lower the political temperature and reach an accommodation with Congress. But no Administration has ever conceded that FISA trumps a President's Constitutional power to place wiretaps in the name of national security. The courts have also explicitly upheld this Presidential power. Mr. Bush was making a needless concession that Democrats have used against him as they refuse to compromise.

The Administration wants Congress to modernize FISA in two crucial ways: First, by allowing NSA to track on a real-time basis these foreign calls that may be routed through the U.S., and in some cases allowing warrants to be sought after the fact. Our spooks would still be accountable, but they'd also be able to act quickly to defend the country. Second, the White House is requesting liability protection for telecom companies that cooperate with the wiretap program. Neither of these changes should be at all controversial--and we're confident they'd have overwhelming public support if the issues were understood.

Yet for six months Senate Democrats have resisted these legal changes to make Americans safer. Incredibly, they are fronting for their trial lawyer campaign donors in blocking liability protection. Their counteroffer is to have the federal government supplant the companies as the defendants in any wiretapping lawsuits, as if any such lawsuits were justified. Why are Democrats letting trial lawyers interfere with a vital intelligence operation?

Meanwhile, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy is holding any wiretap legislation hostage to his demand for Administration documents related to the program. This is part of the Democrats' political exercise to claim that Mr. Bush has somehow broken the law by allowing the wiretaps. Backed by grandstanding Republican Arlen Specter, in short, Mr. Leahy is more interested in fighting over how the program began than in allowing it to continue today.

At least a few Democrats realize they may be setting themselves up for trouble if there's another terrorist attack. House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes wrote to Mr. Bush last week saying he was "very concerned" about the program and urging the Administration to "devote all the resources necessary to ensure that we are conducting maximum surveillance of the terrorist target abroad."

Mr. Reyes went on to note that "FISA does not require a warrant for communications between two individuals outside the United States. If clarifications to the law are necessary, we are prepared to deal with this." That'll serve Mr. Reyes well as political cover if the next 9/11 Commission asks who ruined the terrorist surveillance program. But if he's serious about national security, he should send his next letter to Senate Democrats.

Six months is too long for Mr. Bush to cater to Pat Leahy while Americans are put at risk. The President should announce immediately that he is rescinding his concession to put these foreign wiretaps under the FISA court. He should say he is doing so as an urgent matter of national security as Commander in Chief because Congress has refused to respond in good faith by modernizing the law to let the U.S. eavesdrop on terrorists who wish us deadly harm. Then let Democrats explain why they're willing to put partisanship above the safety of America.

Bluesman · 07-29-2007, 21:49 PM

Quote:

...one of the best intelligence tools--warrantless wiretapping of al Qaeda suspects--has recently become far less effective and is in danger of being neutered by Congressional Democrats.

By WHO?!?

Why, I find that proposition to be TOTALLY incredible.

Must be some sort of smear tactic against loyal Americans.

Ouch. Sprained my sarcasm tendon. I gotta start warming up...

Bluesman · 02-16-2008, 21:16 PM

Well. How utterly predictable. Congressional Democrats have allowed FISA supplement to expire, then went on recess.

Today, because the Democrats in Congress are fools and disloyal to their country, the means to collect foreign intelligence is compromised to the extent that the rules by which they must now operate make the possibility that we're going to miss the next attack's warning almost total.

Now, I've been beating on the Democrats' absolute insanity and neglect to national security for MONTHS now, and some of you wanted to argue with me, to tell me that NAH, they were just of a differing opinion as to what's best, how to secure this country in a different way.

Well, that's total crap, and everybody can see that now. It is absolutely obvious that the Democratic Party is unAmerican, it's disloyal, it's insane and it has served our enemies better than it has served the country they supposedly owe their allegience to.

This is what they do, and I've tried to tell you all that for months now. Anybody still feel like arguing?

If you voted Democrat, for ANY Democrat, this is partially YOUR FAULT. This is what happens when they're given ANY responsibility for national security. Be ashamed of yourselves, because the rest of us have reason to blame YOU.

Vote Republican, and save your country.

omon · 02-16-2008, 22:19 PM

i don,t understand why ppl are so conserned, about wiretapping, i personaly couldn,t care less, let feds listen, i don,t plan on blowing anything or anyone up, neither i plan to go on shooting rampage, why should i worry?
if it helps gainig security in the country, i,m all for it,
however, i think those who are planing, will adjust their tactic so nobody will find out, if this domestic spying was done in secret, and nobody would even think it was going on, it would be more effective. now it is all out in the open, ppl know where they are being watched, and listened to.
just my 0.02$

Bluesman · 02-23-2008, 12:08 PM

From PowerLine:

Quote:

Earlier today, Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell and Attorney General Michael Mukasey delivered a letter to Silvestre Reyes, the chairman--unfortunately--of the House Intelligence Committee. Their letter responded to a letter by Reyes on February 14 that disputed the urgency of reforming and modernizing FISA. The McConnell/Mukasey letter is devastating to those who, like Reyes, try to claim that no harm is being done by the Democrats' stonewalling of FISA reform. The letter is lengthy and detailed. Here are a few excerpts:

Quote:

In our letter to Senator Reid on February 5, 2008, we explained that: "the expiration of the authorities in the Protect America Act would plunge critical intelligence programs into a state of uncertainty which could cause us to delay the gathering of, or simply miss, critical foreign intelligence information." That is exactly what has happened since the Protect America Act expired six days ago without enactment of the bipartisan Senate bill. We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act. Because of this uncertainty, some partners have reduced cooperation. In particular, they have delayed or refused compliance with our requests to initiate new surveillances of terrorist and other foreign intelligence targets under existing directives issued pursuant to the Protect America Act.

We have provided Congress with examples in which difficulties with collections under the Executive Order resulted in the Intelligence Community missing crucial information. For instance, one of the September 11th hijackers communicated with a known overseas terrorist facility while he was living in the United States. Because that collection was conducted under Executive Order 12333, the Intelligence Community could not identify the domestic end of the communication prior to September 11, 2001, when it could have stopped that attack. The failure to collect such communications was one of the central criticisms of the Congressional Joint Inquiry that looked into intelligence failures associated with the attacks of September 11. The bipartisan bill passed by the Senate would address such flaws in our capabilities that existed before the enactment of the Protect America Act and that are now resurfacing.

As we have explained in letters, briefings and hearings, FISA's requirements, unlike those of the Protect America Act and the bipartisan Senate bill, impair our ability to collect information on foreign intelligence agents located overseas. Most importantly, FISA was designed to govern foreign intelligence surveillance of persons in the United States and therefore requires a showing of "probable cause" before such surveillance can begin. This standard makes sense in the context of targeting persons in the United States for surveillance, where the Fourth Amendment itself often requires probable cause and where the civil liberties of Americans are most implicated. But it makes no sense to require a showing of probable cause for surveillance of overseas foreign targets who are not entitled to the Fourth Amendment protections guaranteed by our Constitution. Put simply, imposing this requirement in the context of surveillance of foreign targets located overseas results in the loss of potentially vital intelligence by, for example, delaying intelligence collection and thereby losing some intelligence forever.

There's much more.

It should be noted that the McConnell/Mukasey letter also blows away the claims that liberals made a couple of years ago that FISA in its original form was perfectly adequate, and didn't require supplementation by executive order.

McConnell and Mukasey probably won't convince the woefully underqualified and doggedly partisan Reyes, but perhaps the facts they disclose will help to build public pressure on the Democrats to stop sacrificing our security against terrorist attack to the interests of their patrons in the plaintiffs' bar.

08-26-2006, 13:02 PM	#184 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 27,117 Country:	It is true that terrorist attacks (small ones) do not require much of planning or even organsation. However, you have to be mad, or a fanatic or a pathological killer and you must a person who has more faith in God than yourself! __________________ "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination." I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to. HAKUNA MATATA

01-18-2007, 09:56 AM	#185 (permalink)
Shek *Military Professional* Moderator Join Date: 02-23-05 Location: Krblachistan Posts: 7,780 Country:	Power Line: Terrorist Surveillance Program, RIP Terrorist Surveillance Program, RIP Attorney General Gonzales announced today, via a letter to Senators Leahy and Specter, that the Terrorist Surveillance Program has been put under the jurisdiction of the FISA court and therefore will not be reauthorized by President Bush. Gonzales says that the administration has not compromised the program's effectiveness: [O]n January 10, 2007, a Judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court issued orders authorizing the Government to target for collection international communications into or out of the United States where there is probable cause to believe that one of the communicants is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization. As a result of these orders, any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Gonzales assured the Senators--not that they care, necessarily, but we do--that security will not be compromised because the court authorization "had to ensure that the Intelligence Community would have the speed and agility necessary to protect the Nation from al Qaeda--the very speed and agility that was offered by the Terrorist Surveillance Program." He adds that "These orders are innovative, they are complex, and it took considerable time and work for the Government to develop the approach that was proposed to the Court...." So what has changed? It's hard to say. These "orders" presumably authorize the NSA to initiate surveillance under emergency circumstances without going through the cumbersome FISA warrant process. Frankly, I haven't had time for extensive research, but it isn't obvious what provision of FISA authorizes such blanket "orders." In any event, the administration seems to have found a solution that allows the Terrorist Surveillance Program to continue in all but name, while defusing the criticisms of the program--which were, in my opinion, almost entirely unjustified. __________________ "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

02-16-2008, 22:19 PM	#191 (permalink)
omon Field mechanik *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-01-06 Location: bk Posts: 2,032 Country:	i don,t understand why ppl are so conserned, about wiretapping, i personaly couldn,t care less, let feds listen, i don,t plan on blowing anything or anyone up, neither i plan to go on shooting rampage, why should i worry? if it helps gainig security in the country, i,m all for it, however, i think those who are planing, will adjust their tactic so nobody will find out, if this domestic spying was done in secret, and nobody would even think it was going on, it would be more effective. now it is all out in the open, ppl know where they are being watched, and listened to. just my 0.02$ __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Why Bush was frosty in Pakistan?	lemontree	South Asian Defense Topics	54	03-13-2006 05:35 AM
It wasn't abortion or gay marriage	Gio	Political Discussions	23	11-22-2004 01:59 AM
Bush edges ahead in Iowa, going strong in 'blue' states	Gio	Political Discussions	52	10-28-2004 07:53 AM
Bush Sees a Rare Chance to Win Wisconsin	Gio	Political Discussions	0	10-09-2004 01:01 AM

02-16-2008, 21:16 PM	#190 (permalink)
Bluesman WAB Bartender *Defense Professional* *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-24-04 Location: Vacaville, CA. Posts: 7,444 Country:	Well. How utterly predictable. Congressional Democrats have allowed FISA supplement to expire, then went on recess. Today, because the Democrats in Congress are fools and disloyal to their country, the means to collect foreign intelligence is compromised to the extent that the rules by which they must now operate make the possibility that we're going to miss the next attack's warning almost total. Now, I've been beating on the Democrats' absolute insanity and neglect to national security for MONTHS now, and some of you wanted to argue with me, to tell me that NAH, they were just of a differing opinion as to what's best, how to secure this country in a different way. Well, that's total crap, and everybody can see that now. It is absolutely obvious that the Democratic Party is unAmerican, it's disloyal, it's insane and it has served our enemies better than it has served the country they supposedly owe their allegience to. This is what they do, and I've tried to tell you all that for months now. Anybody still feel like arguing? If you voted Democrat, for ANY Democrat, this is partially YOUR FAULT. This is what happens when they're given ANY responsibility for national security. Be ashamed of yourselves, because the rest of us have reason to blame YOU. Vote Republican, and save your country.

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