Domestic Spying Program to Get Judicial Oversight

Alchemist253 writes "The U.S. Justice Department has consented to court oversight (albeit via a secret court) of the controversial domestic wiretapping program (the "Terrorist Surveillance Program") previously discussed at length on Slashdot. From the article, "[oversight] authority has been given to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and [it] already has approved one request for monitoring the communications of a person believed to be linked to al Qaeda or an associated terror group.""

Comments

Re:But what about the illegal wiretapping?

[megaditto]

Perhaps you are confused here: Al Qaeda are not people that deserve "rights". They are hell-bred mentally abberant, subhumanly evil crazies, pure and simple. You cannot argue with them you cannot convert them, you cannot appease them.

I am not going to link it here at a family-friendly server, but methinks it would do you good to watch the "Nick Berg Beheading" video to see what would happen to you and me the moment you give those terrorists a chance. One you watch it, ask yourself if they cared that Berg was a "liberal" and defended their "liberties?"

Again, with rational people you can bargain, argue, and negotiate. It pains me greatly that you and those like you fail to see, however, that with terrorists and madmen no rational argument is possible. Two outcomes only possible: i)you and your family get killed -OR- ii)the scum (bin Laden, Hitler, Pol Pot, Ted Bundy, Saddam Hussein, Marcel Petiot, "BTK" Dennis Rader) get captured and neutralized

Than again, perhaps you could negotiate some kind of a truce with this guy where he only gets to torture, rape, and kill your kids, your parents, your wife, but spare your life?

Now, since you quoted Bush directly saying that wiretaps require warrants (in 2004), and I have linked to you a court document which reveals that Bush authorized warrantless wiretaps in 2002, what does this mean, logically? He lied, plain and simple.

Either that, or perhaps this means the warrants are not required to listen to foreign terrorists making phonecalls from outside the US?

And in general, most of our laws do not apply to those OUTSIDE the U.S. of A.'s jurisdiction (hence the reason we do not actively arrest, try, and kill all the paedophiles and potsmokers in Holland). More to the point, since none of the info collected from foreign terrorists in this way can be used in court, you can rest assured that the terrorists' rights are safe and sound.

Bush's Warrantless NSA Spying Was Always Illegal

[Doc Ruby]

No, it was 100% illegal, as ruled in Federal court last year. If you still believe in 2nd Millennium institutions as quaint as "Federal courts", it's obvious that Bush has repeatedly and determinedly broken the FISA law, violated the 4th Amendment, and committed other high crimes against Americans. The very kind of tyrant the Constitution provides for the Congress impeaching. Maybe this Congress, not a wholly owned Rove subsidiary, will actually do it. And not a moment too soon.

Especially as Bush has already started a new war with Iran. Just when you think it can't get any worse, Bush breaks new ground.

Re:Bush's Warrantless NSA Spying Was Always Illega

[Doc Ruby]

The Senate's lobbying bill is bipartisan. The "blogger registration" amendment is Republican.

If Democrats don't impeach Bush, I will continue to condemn stalling and evasion of that duty, as I have already. Though not BusHalliburtonMcChimpy dupes (because that's the Republican fascism), but rather just politicians who prioritize "don't rock the boat, we're winning anyway" over justice. I understand the political requirement to marshal support beyond mere 5:1 disapproval of Bush to actually impeach. Like evidence produced by real investigations with legit processes, not Clinton-blowjob-style impeachment bullshit. But I'm not a Democrat, so I have no problem badgering them to do their duty and impeach. And to end the Iraq War, rather than merely enable Bush to brand all Republicans in 2008 as "Iraq Warmongers". Which I do regularly, as well.

Next loaded hypothetical question, please.

In the meantime, who did you vote for president in 2004?

Re:Bush's Warrantless NSA Spying Was Always Illega

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation -2
    100% Flamebait

Countering a message pretending that Bush's warrantless NSA spying wasn't illegal with a link to the Federal court decision that it was is "Flamebait"? Or maybe pointing out that such a crime is impeachable is "Flamebait"? Or maybe pointing out yet another impeachable crime already underway, an Iran War, that can be stopped before it kills thousands, maybe millions, is "Flamebait"? Maybe pointing out that the 109th (Republican) Congress was under Karl Rove's political control is "Flamebait".

No, that's all just simple reality, directly contradicting the claim that Bush's crimes are legal, and ontopic to the story we're discussing. Just because fascist Bushbabies are pisspants crybabies doesn't make that message a flame, it makes them hairtrigger partisan zombie trollMods.

Re:Bush's Warrantless NSA Spying Was Always Illega

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation -1
    100% Flamebait

NSA trollModBot is wedged on "Flamebait". Can't the latest version sometimes trollMod as "Offtopic" or "Troll"?