Slashdot Mirror
The Future of Tech And NSA Wiretaps
Tyler Too writes "Is there more to last week's story about President Bush authorizing wiretaps without court review? Ars Technica writes about what's going on behind the curtains with the National Security Agency's technology: 'When the truth comes out (if it ever does), this NSA wiretapping story will almost certainly be a story not just about the Constitutional concept of the separation of powers, but about high technology.'"
So what the president ordered wiretaps? I mean, if it can prevent the loss of innocent lives due to terrorism, it can't be all that bad. These people were still allowed to continue their conversations and, as far as i know, they didn't get charged with anything.
The real worry is the laws that get passed that turn everyday citizens into criminals. I'm quite aware of the famous Benjamin Franklin quote that went something like, "Any man willing to give a little liberty in exchange for security, deserves neither, and will lose both." And I would much rather have the government spy on me than to restrict me.
I know I will get lots of flak about this but..
I mean come on everyone. Will this wiretapping really effect you? It sure as hell won't to me! I'm not trying to do anything bad. I live within the law. I'd rather live under the remote chance of being wiretapped if it means that they are able to listen to potential terrorits.
I just don't see how this effects me in a negative way. For nearly all Americans this won't either. Isnt the safety of lots worth the loss of freedom of a small few? Even though the constitution or whatever says everyone deserves it, you gotta be realistic.
Did you RTFA or are you just here to dog Bush? The article mentions a variety of situation where taps might be needed and useful, but could not be used by FISA under the pre-emptetory clauses because it is not narrow enough.
On top of that, it clearly falls into line with the supreme court's standards for intellgence (must be linked to a foreign power) as well as historical executive orders issued by Clinton, Regean and Carter and even then can easily be read into the 9/11 bills.
Implying a moral equivelence to the USSR simply betrays your political bias. Millions upon millions died for the crime of opposing political leaders. You post trolls that would have landed you somewhere in the middle of siberia with no food and a bunk mate named Sergy.
By the way did you RTFA? Do you know what a soft trigger is? Did you know that Clinton, Reagan and Carter all excercised the exact same authority? Did you know that a federal court declared it legal in 2002? If not, why are you posting. If so, why are you posting?
Greenpeace and PETA are no joke. Its true that small numbers from both groups make a bunch of noise, but those who do are absolutely crazy and its not unheard of for them to participate terroristic-like activities. I'm glad to know that our government is keeping tabs on them.
Regards,
Steve
I guess it depends on what you call terrorism.
Is breaking into medical research labs and setting the animals free (or just taking them) and then trashing the place terrorism? It causes millions in damage and sets back research by years.
Or what about burning down car dealerships? Just as a matter of course, that's 20 years in jail; worse if someone dies trying to put out the fire.
I bet all the Pro-Choice groups wouldn't have a problem with the feds listening in on the Pro-life groups.
Of course, not one Democrat had a problem with someone listening in on Newt Gingrich's cell phone calls and the publishing them.
As we have come to find out, what they are doing now is very tightly controlled, reviewed every 45 days, the congressional leadership and the judges they normally would go to were all informed, Including the Democrats that are now having a cow.
No one is listening to someone's dirty phone calls to get political dirt, all the calls were international calls that originated outside the US (If I remember right), and although some would dispute it, the lawyers at the justice department think that it's ok under existing laws.
This whole kerfuffle is nothing more than the Times hawking a book and trying to influence legislation and the Democrats being their usual political opportunist selves.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Please stop stripping the Presidency of its Constitutional authority to defend America.
That is the real issue raised by the Beltway furor over last week's leak of National Security Agency wiretaps on international phone calls involving al Qaeda suspects. The usual assortment of Senators and media potentates is howling that the wiretaps are "illegal," done "in total secret," and threaten to bring us a long, dark night of fascism. "I believe it does violate the law," averred Mr. Feingold on CNN Sunday.
The truth is closer to the opposite. What we really have here is a perfect illustration of why America's Founders gave the executive branch the largest measure of Constitutional authority on national security. They recognized that a committee of 535 talking heads couldn't be trusted with such grave responsibility. There is no evidence that these wiretaps violate the law. But there is lots of evidence that the Senators are "illegally" usurping Presidential power--and endangering the country in the process.
The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But no Administration then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President's power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it. FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed.
The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
On Sunday Mr. Graham opined that "I don't know of any legal basis to go around" FISA--which suggests that next time he should do his homework before he implies on national TV that a President is acting like a dictator. (Mr. Graham made his admission of ignorance on CBS's "Face the Nation," where he was representing the Republican point of view. Democrat Joe Biden was certain that laws had been broken, while the two journalists asking questions clearly had no idea what they were talking about. So much for enlightening television.)
The mere Constitution aside, the evidence is also abundant that the Administration was scrupulous in limiting the FISA exceptions. They applied only to calls involving al Qaeda suspects or those with terrorist ties. Far from being "secret," key Members of Congress were informed about them at least 12 times, President Bush said yesterday. The two district court judges who have presided over the FISA court since 9/11 also knew about them.
Inside the executive branch, the process allowing the wiretaps was routinely reviewed by Justice Department lawyers, by the Attorney General personally, and with the President himself reauthorizing the process every 45 days. In short, the implication that this is some LBJ-J. Edgar Hoover operation designed to skirt the law to spy on domestic political enemies is nothing less than a political smear.
All the more so because there are sound and essential security reasons for allowing such wiretaps. The FISA process was designed for wiretaps on suspected foreign agents operating in this country during the Cold War. In that context, we had the luxury of time to go to the FISA court for a warrant to spy on, say, the economic counselor at the Soviet embassy.
In the war on terror, the communications between terrorists in Frankfurt and agents in Florid
But you have to know that PeTA and Greenpeace both have sponsored organizations that have used violence as a means to their ends. PeTA has funded a couple of extremist organizations, such as the one that burned down a ski resort a couple of years ago. They denied contributing to these types of groups, but their public IRS records gave them away. Not only did they donate to groups that committed violence only days before their violent acts, but PeTA donated to the defense funds for those charged after the fact. My opposition to PeTA is for many reasons, but most importantly that they DO SUPPORT VIOLENT ORGANIZATIONS. Do I want to use the "terrorist" buzzword here? Hell yes.
Greenpeace's links to violent means is well documented. Do a google search, and you will find many cases.
PeTA and Greenpeace should be investigated and suspected of terrorism. They are both horrible, deceitful organizations. You should not use such extremist groups to highlight the fact that Bush and his cronies are going way too far.
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
The real terrorist in the U.S. *is* the bush administration.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
And Osama will - after he gets his CIA check for the job - like last time. Or didn't you know, he was a "company man"?
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
I swear sometimes that some people are just too stupid to live. How is the water, you idiot?
Wasn't the approval ratings for the then currently ruling party's policies something like 75% in 1936 in Germany?
Wow it only took four messages to invoke Goodwin's law. That's gotta be some kind of record.
I'm getting tired of the Nazi references in every discussion. A lot of us don't like Bush either but we don't make that stupid reference. Get back to me when Bush has roasted 16,000,000 people in ovens and killed another 20,000,000 or so in a war of aggression.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.