Bush refuses to answer questions about spying on Americans....

[hapaboy]

Quote from dddooo:

How do you know that's what they are doing, how do you know they are only monitoring people corresponding with "proven" AQ operatives, how do you know they are not monitoring their political opponents or just random americans calling overseas? Can you come up with a single independent and reliable source proving that they are doing what you say they are doing. See, I did not think so, the court would have been this reliable and independent body but they decided to bypass it. I wonder why if they had enough solid evidence to prove that an american is communicating with an AQ agent they could not obtain a warrrant.


You want to trust them blindly, like russians trusted stalin and germans trusted hitler - it's your prerogative, just because you trust them does not mean they are telling the truth or simply competent enough to know what they are doing. Remember they are the same people who invaded Iraq on false pretenses and had no clue what to do next once they got there. The system of checks and balances was created exactly for the reason that I or anyone else would NEVER have to take your or Bush's or any other official's word for it.

I have shown you an argument based on legal precedent.

You have responded with a blanket opinion that you do not trust the government.

That you distrust the government does not validate your claim that Bush commited a crime.

As for "coming up with a single reliable source proving that they are doing what they say they are doing," I'm sorry, but I don't have access to that kind of confidential information. Besides, in case you hadn't heard, this was supposed to be a secret operation to allow us to monitor Al Qaeda communications in order to help detect and thus deter another attack on our country. Now, thanks to the NY Times, it's no longer a secret.

IMO, if you want to find an entity that is irresponsible and dangerous, you need look no further than the Times itself.

 

[dddooo]

Quote from hapaboy:
Noone questions this basic principle. If our soldiers or intelligence agencies discover a terrorist in Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere, the President or his designees can order an air strike or other attack to kill him. It would be very odd if the President has the authority to kill a terrorist, but not to intercept his telephone calls or search his cave."

Odd indeed, if our soliders or intelligence agencies discover a terrorist in Afghanistan they can kill him and/or intercept his phone calls but they are not even allowed to go looking for terrorists in the USA, the FBI is looking for them inside this country and their rules of engagement, rules of spying and burden of proof are significantly different from rules used by our soliders and CIA officers in Afghanistan.

 

[AltarEgo15]

Quote from hapaboy:

Besides, in case you hadn't heard, this was supposed to be a secret operation to allow us to monitor Al Qaeda communications in order to help detect and thus deter another attack on our country. Now, thanks to the NY Times, it's no longer a secret.

IMO, if you want to find an entity that is irresponsible and dangerous, you need look no further than the Times itself.

One would have to be incredibly naive to think that the United States of America, with its highly publicized UAV's like the Global Hawk and Predator, let alone tremendous Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaisance ( ISR ) capability via an amazingly vast technological platform of various data-links and satellite assets would hardly be a secret to al-Qaida operatives, let alone the common man in the street.

Again, you would have to be incredibly naive.
As a result, I do not buy into your argument that it was ever a secret.

http://www.l-3com.com/products_and_services/secure_communication_systems/

 

[AltarEgo15]

Quote from dddooo:

Article II of the consitution declares the president to be commander-in-chief, it does not directly (or indirectly) address issues of warrantless searches or foreign intelligence, let alone warrantless searches of american citizens.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html


On the other side the 4th amendment is quite explicit regarding warrantless searches of american citizens - they are not allowed under any pretext:

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.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/index.html

Very good points.

 

[dddooo]

Quote from hapaboy:

I have shown you an argument based on legal precedent.

What legal precedent? The article described several legal cases, none of them was IMO similar or applicable to current situation. Which specific legal precedent are you talking about?

Quote from hapaboy:

this was supposed to be a secret operation to allow us to monitor Al Qaeda communications

I am not asking for details of the operations, I am asking whether there is an independent and responsible organization monitoring the operation and making sure that the government is not abusing its power and not overstepping its bounds. In this country is not a dictatorship and is based on checks and balances these questions are not just reasonable and responsible, they are necessary, expected and unavoidable.

 

[AltarEgo15]

Quote from hapaboy:

Article II makes the President the Commander in Chief. As the Powerline article states, and feel free to find data that refutes this:

"When it comes to waging war, the President, not the Congress or the courts, is the supreme authority." The Supreme Court has also written that the President has the Constitutional power "to employ [the nation's Armed Force] in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy."

Noone questions this basic principle. If our soldiers or intelligence agencies discover a terrorist in Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere, the President or his designees can order an air strike or other attack to kill him. It would be very odd if the President has the authority to kill a terrorist, but not to intercept his telephone calls or search his cave."

The Administration keeps defending themselves with Article II of the Constitution.
True, it vests the "executive power" in the President and makes him commander in chief of the military.

However, it does not authorize him to conduct domestic spying.

If the above were in fact true, and the President had the authority to conduct domestic spying . . . then why would there have to be a FISA Court at all?

 

[tradenut]

Quote from hapaboy:

AND "which includes information about terrorist threats."

NSA is monitoring international communications about terrorist threats.

How many innocent persons have been detained recently and then after 3 or 4 yrs released without any explantions.
This is what is happening right now, with secret US jails in eastern Europe and Afghanistan.
The point is where is the check and balance.
Anyone can be labelled terrorist and disapear and no one knows why and where......

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from dddooo:

Odd indeed, if our soliders or intelligence agencies discover a terrorist in Afghanistan they can kill him and/or intercept his phone calls but they are not even allowed to go looking for terrorists in the USA, the FBI is looking for them inside this country and their rules of engagement, rules of spying and burden of proof are significantly different from rules used by our soliders and CIA officers in Afghanistan.

What you have just described is the pre-9/11 "wall" that existed between various agencies that contributed to 9/11.

Do you want to revert to those outdated and obviously inadequate measures? Obviously many of the Dims do as they tried their best to kill the renewal of the Patriot Act, which eliminates the barriers to inter-agency cooperation.

Furthermore, the FBI does not have anywhere near the monitoring capability the NSA does. Is your proposal, then, that the NSA be allowed to only monitor international communications of Al Qaeda operatives? So if bin Laden or one of his lieutenants makes a call to an asset in the US, the NSA should just turn off their equipment, tell the FBI Osama has a call to the US, and then hope the FBI intercepts that call in time to gather whatever was being discussed? Is that your idea of an efficient manner to prevent another attack?

 

[Sam123]

Quote from tradenut:

How many innocent persons have been detained recently and then after 3 or 4 yrs released without any explantions.
This is what is happening right now, with secret US jails in eastern Europe and Afghanistan.
The point is where is the check and balance.
Anyone can be labelled terrorist and disapear and no one knows why and where......

Secret U.S. jails? Do you have a clue about the global propaganda war that is going on, or do you simply want to believe in all the things that make the U.S. look bad?

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from AltarEgo15:

One would have to be incredibly naive to think that the United States of America, with its highly publicized UAV's like the Global Hawk and Predator, let alone tremendous Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaisance ( ISR ) capability via an amazingly vast technological platform of various data-links and satellite assets would hardly be a secret to al-Qaida operatives, let alone the common man in the street.

Again, you would have to be incredibly naive.
As a result, I do not buy into your argument that it was ever a secret.

http://www.l-3com.com/products_and_services/secure_communication_systems/

Of course Al Qaeda has to know they're being hunted by the US using all technology available. But publicizing it - and, whether you like it or not, it WAS a secret operation - cannot do any good.

If you were an Al Qaeda operative, wouldn't you be more careful with how you communicated with your assets internationally and in the US?

Bullshit like this, like calls for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, only serves to make them more cautious, which makes it more difficult to track them down.

But of course that's not important to the Left. What's important is making Bush look as bad as possible, national security be damned.