• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

And I was dissapointed

Archdean said:
I accept your edit after my reply and appreciate it also!!

There is no harm in keeping records what-so-ever, in fact it protects the actionary as well as the actionees!!

And now we agree with the exception of the probability that you claim: "btw, I, and when I say "I", I mean me. ...wouldn't prejudge the mental capacity of that sleepy long haired dude in sandals occupying seat C Isle 17. He might be smarter then the pilot."

He may very well be but then again he may not!! You stick him up front if you like and I'll step down Sir!!

Dean

So I don't also don't understand how you have arrived at this point. The question as I understand it was "are you disappointed by Bush'es decision to not use the secret court as is authorized to have a warrant to do the wiretaping".

Well I am going to say "YES!!!" and I am damn mad that Bush did not follow established procedures as dictated by the laws of this country to protect everyone from unwarranted invasions of our privacy.

If a democratic president had done this (if the same thing happened in his adminstration i.e. 9-11) without a secret court order I can see the republicans going berserk over the fact that the president did not get a warrant first. I sense a double standard in the postings here and I am somewhat bothered by it as it is not balanced.

I belong to no political party and will not join or proclaim that I belong to a political party, I find that it would make it to difficult to say to a republican or a democrat "YOU ARE WRONG". The 3 branches of our government has to be informed in the correct manner and no one is all knowing and all wise.
 
Good post Skemo! And welcome to our Forum!!!! :)

I just tried to digest this thread. I lean more to OA's way of thinking. Dean, I don't think OA or anyone is saying the common man needs to be made aware of spying & such. Just that the FBI or whatever agency is doing the spying should go thru the motions which were put in place for the protection of all. If the procedures put in place do not work, then it is the President's and Congress's job to change them to something that does work. Four years have passed since 911. This administrations focus was to ignore the rules rather than make the rules work as intended.

Does anyone else remember times when the FBI has ruined someones live because they were wrong? Richard Jewel and the Atlanta bombing comes to mind. Given the scenerio the FBI is now working under, they could do it to anyone and no records would show who what or why it happened. No justification whatsoever, other than someones hunch. How could anyone know if there is more justification, since there are no records?

Please don't confuse this issue with how our CIA operates. This has nothing to do with them and their covert operations. They operate primarily outside our borders and follow guidelines that I am not aware of ...but they are not the subject of these illegal wiretaps ....well, technically they were not illegal wire taps, but I think they should have been.

For the four years they've been operating this way, I can recall one band of possible terrorists that were caught. That's it. A whole lot of breaking the rules going on for very little added security. IMO
 
B_Skurka said:
"nor do I believe that 'a time of war' or similar situation warrents breaking the law."

Archdean said:
I encourage a rethink be undertaken on your above statement! Laws are written in times of vastly different circumstances and per say rarely are elastic enough to encompass such a narrow description!!

Well I think I thought it out pretty well the first time I said it. But at your request I thought it over again. I feel the same way.

A well written law will take many future circumstances into account, perhaps the current laws are badly written, but violating those laws should still be considered unacceptable. We have due process. If the President of any administration wants a wire-tap, I have to believe that he can find a judge in very short order to issue the warrent for the wire tap. Heck he probably has a few on speed dial. I do not believe that the intent of the laws we have is to prevent spying on people within our borders, I fully believe that is an acceptable practice, all I am suggesting is that we have two things that must be taken into account. Reasonable Cause. Due Process.

I stand firmly by what I wrote. The actions of President Bush are clearly wrong in the law. They are clearly right in the eye of emotion. He is doing the right thing but doing it the wrong way. If we break our own laws we are no better than common criminals.
 
B_Skurka said:
He is doing the right thing but doing it the wrong way.
At last! The entire situation boiled down into 12 words that say it all. The only thing left to add is, "Why is that important?" It's important because it opens the door for others to do the same thing, and it might not always be the right thing.
 
OkeeDon said:
At last! The entire situation boiled down into 12 words that say it all. The only thing left to add is, "Why is that important?" It's important because it opens the door for others to do the same thing, and it might not always be the right thing.

Don, I think I was pretty clear in my final sentence too. I'm not a real fan of Mr. Bush and this is just another of the mistakes he is making. I'd have no problem if he either changed the law or followed it.

B_Skurka said:
If we break our own laws we are no better than common criminals.
 
For those new to our forum: Moon and Doc are one and the same. I rarely post under Moon, and forgot I was still logged in on that account when posting above.
Every once in awhile Moon will pop up. :)
 
OkeeDon said:
At last! The entire situation boiled down into 12 words that say it all. The only thing left to add is, "Why is that important?" It's important because it opens the door for others to do the same thing, and it might not always be the right thing.

It ain't new, Clinton already did it................

Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches
Does anyone remember that?

In a little-remembered debate from 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has "inherent authority" to order physical searches — including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens — for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body. Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own.

"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."

"It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."

Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."

Reporting the day after Gorelick's testimony, the Washington Post's headline — on page A-19 — read, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches." The story began, "The Clinton administration, in a little-noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S. spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order. The administration's quiet lobbying effort is aimed at modifying draft legislation that would require U.S. counterintelligence officials to get a court order before secretly snooping inside the homes or workplaces of suspected foreign agents or foreign powers."

In her testimony, Gorelick made clear that the president believed he had the power to order warrantless searches for the purpose of gathering intelligence, even if there was no reason to believe that the search might uncover evidence of a crime. "Intelligence is often long range, its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise," Gorelick said. "Information gathering for policy making and prevention, rather than prosecution, are its primary focus."

The debate over warrantless searches came up after the case of CIA spy Aldrich Ames. Authorities had searched Ames's house without a warrant, and the Justice Department feared that Ames's lawyers would challenge the search in court. Meanwhile, Congress began discussing a measure under which the authorization for break-ins would be handled like the authorization for wiretaps, that is, by the FISA court. In her testimony, Gorelick signaled that the administration would go along a congressional decision to place such searches under the court — if, as she testified, it "does not restrict the president's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security." In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court, but the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.
 
It ain't new, Clinton already did it................
First of all, to get a little housekeeping out of the way, I wonder why you mentioned only Clinton, when the policy was created by Reagon and followed by Bush Sr.? To quote your source, "Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power." Therefore, under the executive order, and prior to FISA, it was legal for them (including Clinton) to do so.

It was the Republican-led Congress which pushed for, and enacted, FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) in 1994, because they didn't like Clinton doing the spying. In a classic case of the way in which they usually shoot themselves in the foot, it is the Republican-led legislation which is now causing Bush Jr. his problems. It's typical of Republicans to think that they are they only ones who can decide what's right or wrong.

Once again, I point out the folly of supporting the right, and once again suggest that these acts of playing God and ignoring the laws should frighten the bejezus out of everyone, conservative and progressive alike.
 
Big Dog said:
It ain't new, Clinton already did it................

Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches
Does anyone remember that?


And all who did it are just as wrong. We have laws to elevate us up from the rabble. Without them, to paraphase a great thinker, life and society would be nasty, brutish and short. The laws we are expected to follow should also be followed by our leaders. They keep things orderly and they separate democracies from monarchies. They make us citizens, not servants.
 
B_Skurka said:
Personally I dislike the practice. I see the need for checks and balances. I see nothing wrong with 'spying' on Americans, or 'spying' on people who are here in the US and non-citizens. But I believe there needs to be reasonable doubt and reasonable evidence, at that point we can follow due process. Now if we need an accelerated process in some instances then I would agree to it, provided it is still a process and provided there are checks and balances. I do not believe that a Presidential order is enough to warrent breaking the law, nor do I believe that 'a time of war' or similar situation warrents breaking the law. Again, I'm saying it is OK to spy within our borders but giving up essential freedoms are not an acceptable way to maintain our overall freedoms. This is a massive slippery slope issue.

I don't see where we should abandon our Constitution and our laws to give the President the power to spy without due process. If the process is broken then fix that, and then follow the new process.

I've read through this whole thread for the first time. The above quote from Bob fairly well sums up my thoughts. One thing that I was curious about though was how people view their cell phone conversations? I don't know if it would still hold true, but several years ago a friend of mine (yes, I have one) had me over to see all his radio equipment. He is a ham radio nut and a nut anything "radio". He showed me where he could pick almost any random cell phone conversation. Once locked onto that conversation, he could even enter the conversation! He had no way, that I'm aware of, to track a single cell number, but I don't doubt that people with more money and knowledge could. Basically, my thought is that ever since then I've treated every single cell phone conversation as if I were broadcasting the call in public; which is actually what you are doing. Over time, I like what has happened to my phone manners; I say nothing about someone that I wouldn't say directly to that person. I give no account numbers or credit card numbers over my cell phone. I won't discuss any sensitive or personal, business or personal, topics over a cell phone.

I've also noticed that my cell phone "etiquette" has carried over to my land line phone etiquette. Afterall, we all know that our phone calls could easily be intercepted. For me, I spend more time on my cell phone than I do on my land line since my business requires me to be mobile quite often. I'm just wondering if any else conducts their phone conversations as if they were being monitered by someone; whether it be their business competition or by someone they are talking about? To keep us all safe and to thwart potential terrorist activity, I don't see how we can make it illegal for the government to intercept cell phone calls when I've seen and heard with my own eyes and ears that individuals can do it for hobby.
 
B_Skurka said:
And all who did it are just as wrong.
Bob, I assume your were creating your post and had not yet seem mine, in which I referenced the legality. A presidential executive order, unless overridden by the court or the legislature, carries the force of law. Reagan's executive order made the practive legal, even for Clinton. In a typical rush to judgement, in 1994, after the Republicans had gained the majority is both houses of Congress, someone noticed that Clinton was making use of the Executive Order so carelessly left in effect by Reagan and Bush Sr., and quickly enacted legislation that made it illegal. This is all referenced in Big Dog's post. Then, they carelessly forgot to flip-flop back the other way and cancel the legislation once their own lackey got back in office. Bush Jr., of course, knew that they would have changed the rules once again if they had thought of it, so he simply and conveniently pretended like they had, and went ahead and did what he wanted,
 
FWIW, It's easier to track what you do on the internet than it is to tap your phone lines.

It's pretty safe to say that we are all quite easily profiled simply by our posting to this board. I suspect that a lot of what we submit is stored in various cache's as well as the main server and could easily be retrieved with or without a warrant.

SSL/HHTPS transimissions are only encrypted at the protocol level. Once the information arrives at its destination it is no longer encrypted and depending upon the diligence of the server operator the information may or may not be stored securely.

If you have something to hide - then you better be working pretty hard at hiding it because it isn't really hidden.

;)
 
Don, I saw yours and that is why I said "all who did it are just as wrong."

Dargo, just because your friend could do it does not make it legal to do. But I also suspect that he picked up an ANALOG phone conversation as opposed to a DIGITAL phone conversation. The technologies are very different. Ham radio, as I understand it, operates on analog technology.
 
OkeeDon said:
First of all, to get a little housekeeping out of the way, I wonder why you mentioned only Clinton, when the policy was created by Reagon and followed by Bush Sr.?

Once again, I point out the folly of supporting the right, and once again suggest that these acts of playing God and ignoring the laws should frighten the bejezus out of everyone, conservative and progressive alike.

Clinton would have more impact.........;) being his party are the ones raising the most stink! I continue to wait for more innovative ideas from what ever party. Like I said before, bitchin and moanin does nobody any good. Ignoring what's been done already (it's water under the bridge), nobody is knockin my socks off with solutions especially the ones doing all the complaining of the present admin! Action speaks greater than words.

No warrants has been done more than we know and it doesn't matter who's in office, it will continue! If it's in the name of national security, I haven't a problem with it. We continue to strengthen the enemy with such bullchit. In the name of security, who would fear such actions unless they have something to hide? Surely not a law abiding citizen!

Doc, the previous statements are by no means directional. I continue to learn from your dialogue!
 
Dargo said:
I've read through this whole thread for the first time. The above quote from Bob fairly well sums up my thoughts. One thing that I was curious about though was how people view their cell phone conversations? I don't know if it would still hold true, but several years ago a friend of mine (yes, I have one) had me over to see all his radio equipment. He is a ham radio nut and a nut anything "radio". He showed me where he could pick almost any random cell phone conversation. Once locked onto that conversation, he could even enter the conversation! He had no way, that I'm aware of, to track a single cell number, but I don't doubt that people with more money and knowledge could. Basically, my thought is that ever since then I've treated every single cell phone conversation as if I were broadcasting the call in public; which is actually what you are doing. Over time, I like what has happened to my phone manners; I say nothing about someone that I wouldn't say directly to that person. I give no account numbers or credit card numbers over my cell phone. I won't discuss any sensitive or personal, business or personal, topics over a cell phone.

I've also noticed that my cell phone "etiquette" has carried over to my land line phone etiquette. Afterall, we all know that our phone calls could easily be intercepted. For me, I spend more time on my cell phone than I do on my land line since my business requires me to be mobile quite often. I'm just wondering if any else conducts their phone conversations as if they were being monitered by someone; whether it be their business competition or by someone they are talking about? To keep us all safe and to thwart potential terrorist activity, I don't see how we can make it illegal for the government to intercept cell phone calls when I've seen and heard with my own eyes and ears that individuals can do it for hobby.

Another reason it will continue! I forgot about this take and I heard it on Limbaugh yesterday! It isn't just the government that might hear your conversation. Bob, the public has access to the technology, even illegally, to hear any transmitted signal.
 
B_Skurka said:
Don, I saw yours and that is why I said "all who did it are just as wrong."
Ah, you were taking the moral high ground. I'm mortified that I didn't recognize it; considering that's where I usually try to hang out, and I know that you often spend time in the same stratosphere. This time, I had lowered myself to the level of merely what is legal.
 
Big Dog said:
In the name of security, who would fear such actions unless they have something to hide? Surely not a law abiding citizen!
So, by this do you mean that all of those who are questioning this practice have something to hide and are not "law abiding citizens"? Would you go along with whatever the president said (no matter who was president) if it was in the name of national security? No offense (sincerely), but it is thinking like that that really scares me (I do scare easily though).
Bonehead
 
BoneheadNW said:
So, by this do you mean that all of those who are questioning this practice have something to hide and are not "law abiding citizens"?

No, I realize the importance of individual privacy!

Would you go along with whatever the president said (no matter who was president) if it was in the name of national security?

Situational and I haven't had time to think of a situation I wouldn't comply, not that there might be!

No offense (sincerely), but it is thinking like that that really scares me (I do scare easily though).
Bonehead

What you sceered of?............:yum: , and give me a for instance?
 
OkeeDon said:
I know that you often spend time in the same stratosphere.

Don, where I hang out the air is often thin. Consequently I get dizzy quickly. :D

BoneHead said:
So, by this do you mean that all of those who are questioning this practice have something to hide and are not "law abiding citizens"?


Personally I think all good citizens should keep a wary eye on their government. We granted the government power through the US Constitution, too often we forget that we granted power to the government and we reserved power for ourselves and the states. The federal government, also often forgets and believes it should hold the power instead of the people or the states. To keep our government honest, we need to make sure it does not overstep the powers we have granted it, and when it does overstep, the courts need to slap it back down. Unfortunately, too many people don't know their history or the Constitution and too many people simply don't care enough to learn from the mistakes and are too willing to become subjects.
 
Off subject and seriously (I don't know)........What party was J. Edgar Hoover affiliated with?
 
So my big question is this, how many of you think that anyone wants to be bothering the President with all these wiretap authorizations? From what I can tell there was a large amount of them done just after 9/11 which to me is pretty obvious why this was done.

However, I doubt that anyone in the FBI/CIA/NSA wants to be pestering the oval office to get special approval from the President. It's probably easier to go to the courts for most of these cases than to go through the President.

I might be wrong, but my take on GWB is that he doesn't seem to be the type of guy who wants to sit down in the morning and do a lot of paperwork.
 
I think Hoover considered himself beyond politics. However, he was appointed by a Republican (Coolidge), and it was primarly Democratic presidents (Truman, Kennedy and Johnson) who considered firing him.

He was obsessed with subversion, which many came to believe he exaggerated. He collected files containing large amounts of compromising and potentially embarrassing information on scores of powerful people, which were kept separate from official FBI records.

His actions line him up, not by political party, but by philosophy, with other radicals like Joseph McCarthy and John Ashcroft, who happen to be on the right. Therefore, I would say that Hoover was a radical right-winger.
 
Big Dog said:
Off subject and seriously (I don't know)........What party was J. Edgar Hoover affiliated with?

I'm pretty sure he was in the 'crossdressers' party!!! :D
 
PBinWA said:
So my big question is this, how many of you think that anyone wants to be bothering the President with all these wiretap authorizations? From what I can tell there was a large amount of them done just after 9/11 which to me is pretty obvious why this was done.

However, I doubt that anyone in the FBI/CIA/NSA wants to be pestering the oval office to get special approval from the President. It's probably easier to go to the courts for most of these cases than to go through the President.

I might be wrong, but my take on GWB is that he doesn't seem to be the type of guy who wants to sit down in the morning and do a lot of paperwork.
Huh? What the President is being criticized for is establishing a policy of letting the intelligence agencies conduct the surveillence without going to the courts, as required by law. No one expected him to approve any individual requests, and, by law, he has no authority to do so even if they asked. Your question indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of just what this problem is...
 
It all comes down to they all lie and the last 2 presidents broke the law! Priority of the behavior is the issue.

No warrants and lying under oath to name a few obstructions!

I withdraw from further discussion on this subject!
 
OkeeDon said:
Huh? What the President is being criticized for is establishing a policy of letting the intelligence agencies conduct the surveillence without going to the courts, as required by law. No one expected him to approve any individual requests, and, by law, he has no authority to do so even if they asked. Your question indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of just what this problem is...

I may be confused as I originally thought this was some form of special instance where the President was authorizing specific wiretaps (something like up to 500 at a time) where the NSA was conducting surveilance between foreign entities and domestic points of contact. However, I can't find that information so perhaps I am mistaken.

I still think this is something that is being blown out of proportion for political gain. But then again, what isn't these days.
 
Big Dog said:
What you sceered of?............:yum: , and give me a for instance?
I had to look this one up as I could not remember where the quote came from:
"The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Studying history is necessary to avoid repeating past mistakes. This
saying comes from the writings of George Santayana, a Spanish-born
American author of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries."

A perfect example of why I am terrified of citizens following their leaders blindly can be seen in the Nazi society (wow, we are back to the thread title!). Without having to list the actions of that society based on what the government told it's citizens (i.e. Jews are evil and must be eradicated, etc), it is not difficult to see why a society's citizens should constantly question authority rather than blindly follow it. Notice I said "question"; that does not necessarily mean there should be riots in the street. If the citizens of a democratic society don't keep watch of what their government is doing (or not doing), who will?
Bonehead
 
PBinWA said:
I might be wrong, but my take on GWB is that he doesn't seem to be the type of guy who wants to sit down in the morning and do a lot of paperwork.
I was going to say something but it's too easy.
Bonehead
 
Top