Enough. Let's Try 'Accountability.'

[Fred Jones]

Once again, not getting the point. I sure hope your civil liberties are never violated. Tbear, if the FBI believed a person was selling highly classified information to another country I doubt it would be very difficult to get a wiretap legally. Judges were giving search warrants away after 9-11. The FBI/NSA didn't have to do anything illegal that's the point.

[BlueTalon]

I work for NSA (I'm in the Marine Corps, but my job has me under the purview of NSA also). I'd like to know what exactly people think we're doing that's violating their privacy or whatever.

[stevenaa]

You liberals are a complete joke. You've asked for Bush to accept responsibility, and he has. Now, that's not good enough. You want to play symantics and now clamor for Accountability, as if that's somehow different. Next you ***** when he authorizes wiretaps and alerts members of congress and the court that normally authorizes them that he's going to do it. If he didn't have legal authority to do this, he would have been called on it initially. Show me some evidence that it's been abused.

[DCRunner]

You mean like a President lieing under oath in front of a Grand Jury. Ohhhhh, Now I get it. :laugh:

I hope you're not referring to Clinton because this is not what happened. It's important sometimes to get your facts straight before you argue a point.

[Sarge]

I work for NSA (I'm in the Marine Corps, but my job has me under the purview of NSA also). I'd like to know what exactly people think we're doing that's violating their privacy or whatever.

THe only people who have had their "rights" violated are sleeper cell members who are not even American citizens, but live here as "good neighbors", just like atta and the rest of the sauds did before 9/11.

But that's not the point..

The point is libs can take this time to bash Bush since they have nothing else to talk about.

See, if it were me in charge, not only would I be listening to terrorists, but I'd be listening to the terrorists lawyers at the ACLU as well:)

[twa]

You liberals are a complete joke. You've asked for Bush to accept responsibility, and he has. Now, that's not good enough. You want to play symantics and now clamor for Accountability, as if that's somehow different. Next you ***** when he authorizes wiretaps and alerts members of congress and the court that normally authorizes them that he's going to do it. If he didn't have legal authority to do this, he would have been called on it initially. Show me some evidence that it's been abused.

Very well put sir :applause:

[Chopper Dave]

You liberals are a complete joke. You've asked for Bush to accept responsibility, and he has. Now, that's not good enough. You want to play symantics and now clamor for Accountability, as if that's somehow different. Next you ***** when he authorizes wiretaps and alerts members of congress and the court that normally authorizes them that he's going to do it. If he didn't have legal authority to do this, he would have been called on it initially. Show me some evidence that it's been abused.

Bush accepted responsibility only when the poll numbers showed it would be good for him to. Accountability means that when your responsible for something, you face its consequences. As someone put it in another thread, if I call up the police and tell them I'm going to speed, that doesn't mean they won't give me a ticket.

Just alerting the court is useless. The court is there for a reason. His circumventing of it is symbolic of the administration's attitude that they can do what they want. It's virtually unheard of for the secret intelligence court to not grant a wiretap. They could have easily gone through them without wasting any time, but they didn't, because they are apparently above all law and protocol.

And just because he can legally do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. This sets a precedent that only begins with going around wiretapping procedures. If he's above the law in this case, what's to stop him from being above it in less trivial ones?

[DCRunner]

You liberals are a complete joke. You've asked for Bush to accept responsibility, and he has. Now, that's not good enough. You want to play symantics and now clamor for Accountability, as if that's somehow different. Next you ***** when he authorizes wiretaps and alerts members of congress and the court that normally authorizes them that he's going to do it. If he didn't have legal authority to do this, he would have been called on it initially. Show me some evidence that it's been abused.

Semantics? You think this is about semantics?

No, we want him to stop breaking the law and violating the Fourth Amendment. You know, one of those pesky little liberties people are supposed to be willing to die for. One of those little technicalities this nation is founded on. What is it about the Bill of Rights people are finding so objectionable? How can anyone say they love this country when they aren't even willing to stand up for our basic liberties? When they aren't even offended when they are arrogantly violated?

The President cannot avoid his duty - his oath of office - to follow the law by "notifiying Congress." It just doesn't work that way. And quite frankly we really don't know what various members of Congress were told in this "notification" because they can't repeat it. Most of the ones I've heard are saying that they were not specifically told that the law was being skirted. If Bush and his minions were trying to avoid following the law then what makes you even think they were completely forthright about what they told Congress about their activities?

Where did he say he notified the FISA Court that he was skirting FISA? As if that is a way out of obeying the law - it is not.

Read Rockefeller's letter for why it was so difficult to call the administration on their abuse. It is clear that they felt that they could not even discuss suspected abuse with anyone - not even with the Senator's legal counsel so he or anyone else could assess the abuses.

[BlueTalon]

You think Bush has been conducting government-by-polling? That he's been going around with his finger in the air to see which way the political winds are blowing? If he was interested in looking good politically, he would have done about everything differently than he has. For you to believe that just shows that you're not thinking it through -- and from that, I can extrapolate that you're getting your information from some liberal source.

I would still like you to explain exactly what you think it is that I'm doing that is violating your privacy or civil rights or whatever.

[Chopper Dave]

Semantics? You think this is about semantics?

No, we want him to stop breaking the law and violating the Fourth Amendment. You know, one of those pesky little liberties people are supposed to be willing to die for. One of those little technicalities this nation is founded on. What is it about the Bill of Rights people are finding so objectionable? How can anyone say they love this country when they aren't even willing to stand up for our basic liberties? When they aren't even offended when they are arrogantly violated?

The President cannot avoid his duty - his oath of office - to follow the law by "notifiying Congress." It just doesn't work that way. And quite frankly we really don't know what various members of Congress were told in this "notification" because they can't repeat it. Most of the ones I've heard are saying that they were not specifically told that the law was being skirted. If Bush and his minions were trying to avoid following the law then what makes you even think they were completely forthright about what they told Congress about their activities?

Where did he say he notified the FISA Court that he was skirting FISA? As if that is a way out of obeying the law - it is not.

Read Rockefeller's letter for why it was so difficult to call the administration on their abuse. It is clear that they felt that they could be even discuss suspected abuse with anyone - not even with the Senator's legal counsel so he or anyone else could assess the abuses.

Exactly.

Furthermore I think it's funny what the term "patriot" has come to. It used to be that patriotism (in the American sense) was fighting for your country, and in turn the principles that it was founded on. Now, if you fight for those very same principles, you're "the enemy within". The right is a joke.

[Chopper Dave]

You think Bush has been conducting government-by-polling? That he's been going around with his finger in the air to see which way the political winds are blowing? If he was interested in looking good politically, he would have done about everything differently than he has. For you to believe that just shows that you're not thinking it through -- and from that, I can extrapolate that you're getting your information from some liberal source.

I would still like you to explain exactly what you think it is that I'm doing that is violating your privacy or civil rights or whatever.

Wiretapping without a warrant, perhaps?

[Sarge]

Semantics? You think this is about semantics?

No, we want him to stop breaking the law and violating the Fourth Amendment. You know, one of those pesky little liberties people are supposed to be willing to die for. One of those little technicalities this nation is founded on. What is it about the Bill of Rights people are finding so objectionable?

You mean like this?

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

[Federal Register page and date: 60 FR 8169; February 13, 1995]

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

________________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release February 9, 1995

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949

- - - - - - -

FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution

and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801,

et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for

the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes

as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the

Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a

court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of

up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications

required by that section.

Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302( of the Act, the Attorney

General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain

orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign

intelligence information.

Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following

officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or

defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section

303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical

searches:

(a) Secretary of State;

( Secretary of Defense;

© Director of Central Intelligence;

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of

Investigation;

(e) Deputy Secretary of State;

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that

capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications,

unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with

the advice and consent of the Senate.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

February 9, 1995.

Or maybe this?

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

EXERCISE OF CERTAIN AUTHORITY RESPECTING ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE

EO 12139

23 May 1979

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

By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and

104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.

1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this

chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for

foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General

is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign

intelligence information without a court order, but only if the

Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

1-102. Pursuant to Section 102( of the Foreign Intelligence Act

of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(), the Attorney General is authorized to

approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under Section

103 of that Act (50 U.S.C. 1803) to obtain orders for electronic

surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence

information.

1-103. Pursuant to Section 104(a)(7) of the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)), the following

officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national

security or defense, is designated to make the certifications

required by Section 104(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications

to conduct electronic surveillance:

(a) Secretary of State.

( Secretary of Defense.

© Director of Central Intelligence.

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(e) Deputy Secretary of State.

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense.

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that

capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above

certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the

President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

1-104. Section 2-202 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under

section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at

the end of that section: ''Any electronic surveillance, as defined

in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be

conducted in accordance with that Act as well as this Order.''.

1-105. Section 2-203 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under

section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at

the end of that section: ''Any monitoring which constitutes

electronic surveillance as defined in the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be conducted in accordance with that

Act as well as this Order.''.

Jimmy Carter.

http://drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER

CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

END

[Sarge]

You think Bush has been conducting government-by-polling? That he's been going around with his finger in the air to see which way the political winds are blowing? If he was interested in looking good politically, he would have done about everything differently than he has. For you to believe that just shows that you're not thinking it through -- and from that, I can extrapolate that you're getting your information from some liberal source.

I would still like you to explain exactly what you think it is that I'm doing that is violating your privacy or civil rights or whatever.

Don't hold your breath. It's just like the Patriot Act. It's "Bad, bad, bad" but no one has ever been able to list anything rights or liberties that have been taken away from them

[Chopper Dave]

Sarge, what part of CLINTON DOING IT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT do you not understand? Clinton may have did it, but if his faithful herds found out about it at the time, I seriously doubt they would have fought for it as valliantly as you're trying to do.

[Sarge]

Sarge, what part of CLINTON DOING IT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT do you not understand? Clinton may have did it, but if his faithful herds found out about it at the time, I seriously doubt they would have fought for it as valliantly as you're trying to do.

Carter as well? My point is all presidents and government agencies have, from time eternal, made people disappear and done all sorts of things to make the country safer. There are a few stories I can tell you in 49 more years that would turn you white, but I'm not a Congressman, so you'll just have to wait

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

[

Cohen is a "yellow journalist". He represents everything that is wrong with the fourth estate. He is completely disingenous - a liar, hypocrite, and left-wing apologist. He's just another in a long line of left-wing lapdogs at the Post.

How convenient to forget about this....

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Secret searches of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

1982: COURT SAYS U.S. SPY AGENCY CAN TAP OVERSEAS MESSAGES

By DAVID BURNHAM, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (NYT) 1051 words Published: November 7, 1982

A Federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency may lawfully intercept messages between United States citizens and people overseas, even if there is no cause to believe the Americans are foreign agents.

END

[BlueTalon]

Wiretapping without a warrant, perhaps?

That's kind of what I thought you were going to say. You don't know anything about the intelligence field, this much is obvious -- and what you've heard recently from irate Democrats hasn't advanced your knowledge from zero, either. So here is a clue. For free. Now you'll have one.

What you think of as "wiretapping" is something engaged in by law enforcement agencies in this country. What NSA deals with is foreign communications. There are lots of rules governing what we can and can't do, but basically the privacy of Americans is sacrosanct. And the definition of "Americans" is a little broader than you might think.

So, under normal conditions, if we get communications from a foreigner (could be Al Queda, Hezbolah, doesn't matter) and he's talking to an American citizen, the privacy of the American citizen is protected, and by extension, so is the privacy of the Al Queda/Hezbolah guy -- meaning we can't do anything once we discover there's an American in the communication, other than turn it off. What the administration wants to do is use those comms, meaning we'd be able to listen to the Al Queda/Hezbolah guy, and by extension, listen to the American as well. That technically is a violation of privacy, but it's not one you need to worry about unless you're talking to Al Queda/Hezbolah.

Trust me, there's nothing your liberal butt could possibly say on the phone that would be of the slightest interest to us. There isn't enough hours in the day to do the job looking for enemies, and then spend extra time trying to be entertained by your conversations.

[altair4]

And your point is?

Just because Clinton did it, it is 'right'?

All politicians are liars. how about the people say "enough is enough?"

At least Clinton didn't go to war under false pretences.....

It amazes me how people argue AGAINST integrity in the political process. Perhaps they have none themselves...

[Sarge]

That's kind of what I thought you were going to say. You don't know anything about the intelligence field, this much is obvious -- and what you've heard recently from irate Democrats hasn't advanced your knowledge from zero, either. So here is a clue. For free. Now you'll have one.

What you think of as "wiretapping" is something engaged in by law enforcement agencies in this country. What NSA deals with is foreign communications. There are lots of rules governing what we can and can't do, but basically the privacy of Americans is sacrosanct. And the definition of "Americans" is a little broader than you might think.

So, under normal conditions, if we get communications from a foreigner (could be Al Queda, Hezbolah, doesn't matter) and he's talking to an American citizen, the privacy of the American citizen is protected, and by extension, so is the privacy of the Al Queda/Hezbolah guy -- meaning we can't do anything once we discover there's an American in the communication, other than turn it off. What the administration wants to do is use those comms, meaning we'd be able to listen to the Al Queda/Hezbolah guy, and by extension, listen to the American as well. That technically is a violation of privacy, but it's not one you need to worry about unless you're talking to Al Queda/Hezbolah.

Trust me, there's nothing your liberal butt could possibly say on the phone that would be of the slightest interest to us. There isn't enough hours in the day to do the job looking for enemies, and then spend extra time trying to be entertained by your conversations.

Can you at least listen in on the ACLU once in awhile:laugh:

[BlueTalon]

And your point is?

Just because Clinton did it, it is 'right'?

All politicians are liars. how about the people say "enough is enough?"

At least Clinton didn't go to war under false pretences.....

It amazes me how people argue AGAINST integrity in the political process. Perhaps they have none themselves...

What do you call the action in Kosovo?

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

And your point is?

Just because Clinton did it, it is 'right'?

All politicians are liars. how about the people say "enough is enough?"

At least Clinton didn't go to war under false pretences.....

It amazes me how people argue AGAINST integrity in the political process. Perhaps they have none themselves...

Wow. That just went right over your tiny little head...

:doh:

[Sarge]

Wow. That just went right over your tiny little head...

:doh:

Can we get a clarification? I want to know if Altair4 is a user name or planet of origin :laugh:

[BlueTalon]

Can we get a clarification? I want to know if Altair4 is a user name or planet of origin :laugh:

Chemical compound, perhaps?