Government appeals wiretapping decision

[buckthesystem]

quote buckthesystem: "government should have no trouble at all getting a warrant to intercept and eavesdrop."

How long do typical conversations last? Especially with international long distance rates? It would take more time to write up the warrant, fax it, have a judge review it, sign it and fax it back, than the conversation would last.

You can't work that way. Besides, why in the world is an American having a conversation with an international terrorist? That is suspicious enough to warrant anyone's attention. Any American that chooses to associate with a known terrorist, is a traitor and needs to be watched very closely. This American could be in a terrorist cell and receiving orders to carry out the next attack.

We all have to sacrifice a little when our country is at war. Ask the WWII generation. They sacrificed eating meat and driving vehicles, so our soldiers could receive food and supplies and fuel to support the allied forces.

Look what's going on nowadays in America, SUV's are still the best sold vehicles in America. Our country is lacking humility, which is an important virtue we are losing. Me, Me, Me, Now, Now, Now.

I think you're missing the point Justin. The point is that I don't believe that this legislation is limited to "overseas calls between Americans and known terrorists". If it was, the legislation would make that clear.

Also before this Bill, it was necessary to "get a warrant" and it wasn't a problem, so what is so special about now?

As for "any American who chooses to associate with a known terrorist is a traitor" - that is surely simplifying things a bit. You are assuming that we can trust govenment employees to get things right 100% of the time. Giving gov't open access to your communications is a lot of trust, or naivety.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: America is not at war! If you are referring to the Iraqi conflict, it is just that: A conflict. As much as it would seem that you want to compare this bizarre situation to WWII, it is not even comparable.

[LadyRaven]

quote buckthesystem: "government should have no trouble at all getting a warrant to intercept and eavesdrop."

How long do typical conversations last? Especially with international long distance rates? It would take more time to write up the warrant, fax it, have a judge review it, sign it and fax it back, than the conversation would last.

You can't work that way. Besides, why in the world is an American having a conversation with an international terrorist? That is suspicious enough to warrant anyone's attention. Any American that chooses to associate with a known terrorist, is a traitor and needs to be watched very closely. This American could be in a terrorist cell and receiving orders to carry out the next attack.

We all have to sacrifice a little when our country is at war. Ask the WWII generation. They sacrificed eating meat and driving vehicles, so our soldiers could receive food and supplies and fuel to support the allied forces.

Look what's going on nowadays in America, SUV's are still the best sold vehicles in America. Our country is lacking humility, which is an important virtue we are losing. Me, Me, Me, Now, Now, Now.

I think you're missing the point Justin. The point is that I don't believe that this legislation is limited to "overseas calls between Americans and known terrorists". If it was, the legislation would make that clear.

Also before this Bill, it was necessary to "get a warrant" and it wasn't a problem, so what is so special about now?

Exactly. See if the "known terrorist" is making a call INTO the US or out of it in this scenario there is already a warrant for HIS phone calls. So we hear OSAMA talking to Bill. While Osama is on the phone we cull Bill's number. 15 min to get a warrant to tap Bill's phone, due to his association with OSAMA. What's so hard about that? And we have the contents of the convo because we already had a tap on Osama's phone.

Now when BILL calls people, no would be permanently recorded unless he starts talking about something terrorist related, then those numbers are culled, warranted and then tapped. again, this should not be a problem.

We have the recording and the number, we don't need the wire tap warrant for THAT phone call, we want a wire tap warrant for subsequent calls. It takes 15 min max time to get the warrant. People make this out like it takes weeks or something, it just doesn't. Even if it was done on foot it would take no more than a few hours, and nobody at NSA does anything on foot, those facilities are HUGE.

As for "any American who chooses to associate with a known terrorist is a traitor" - that is surely simplifying things a bit. You are assuming that we can trust govenment employees to get things right 100% of the time. Giving gov't open access to your communications is a lot of trust, or naivety.

What people have to understand is that the government is not a person, it is a "thing" and as such has no loyalities other than to itself. Washington said it was a "fearsome master"...

We also need to understand what our founders understood...if the people IN the government are good, even then things can go wrong. (Who is to say that Osama didn't mash the wrong button on his phone to get your number?) What happens when the people IN the government stop being benevolent and start being corrupt, powerhungry despotic tyrannts? Do we really need laws to make their transition into power easy or should our laws make it hard for these people to operate? We don't make laws based on our government functioning at it's best, we should be making laws which protect us from it at it's worst.

Just because they SAY they are collecting information about terrorism, it does not mean that that is what they are collecting and if you take away the one item that is put there to make sure this is what they are doing (the warrant), how do you KNOW what they are doing? YOu don't. For all you know this could be a formalised watergate type operation. Or something along the line of the 1960s when hippie types were tapped and investigated due to being against the war, or who knows what all.

What I do know is that the way things sit now, any one or any thing which opposes the government can be arrested based on nothing and held without trial as long as they are labelled a terrorist. Tell me if this is what the men and women who fought in WW2, and the people who went without, would have fought for or sacrificed for? No, it is the very epitome of what they were going AGAINST.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: America is not at war! If you are referring to the Iraqi conflict, it is just that: A conflict. As much as it would seem that you want to compare this bizarre situation to WWII, it is not even comparable.

You can't fight an idea with guns, or wiretaps. Terrorism and Islamofascism is an idea just like poverty or illiteracy or any other of the hokey things people have decided to declare "war" on recently. To have a war you have to have two countries in armed conflict or a country in armed conflict within itself. There is none of this here and there never will be. Terrorism will not go away, just as the British. How many years are you willing to live in a police state to avoid something that has less of a chance happening to you than getting run over by a car?

And if we allow our civilisation to turn into a police state in order to "protect" ourselves then the terrorists have won. They have destroyed us. We may look like we are still doing well, be we would have changed to the point we are no longer what we were. Everyone needs to read two books..."The Constitution in Exile" by Judge Napolitano (if I spelled his name right) and "The Crumbling Wall Against Tyranny" by T V Webber. I have links to them on my political blog, or you can just get them from Amazon yourself. Judge N's book is just about everywhere. TV's is a bit harder to find, he self published.

[JustinM]

quote buckthesystem: "I've said it before and I'll say it again: America is not at war! If you are referring to the Iraqi conflict, it is just that: A conflict. As much as it would seem that you want to compare this bizarre situation to WWII, it is not even comparable."

This kind've of thinking is very dangerous for our country. Ask any leader of any country what it would do if it's enemy came into its territory and murdered 3 thousand of its citizens. He would most likely declare it an act of war.

You are the same types of people that would compare Iraq to the war in Vietnam. Well, I am here to compare the War in Iraq to WWII, because we are battling against a fascist-purist ideology not unlike the Nazis.

You like to paint Iraq as a failure, because that worked with Vietnam. Though we were there for a good cause, you and your ilk demonized the American soldiers as they returned. Most of those soldiers were drafted, but it didn't stop the hippies and draft dodgers from condemning their service.

Why are you people so against war? Dialogue with Hitler, Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein did not work. While they attended the meetings, they were only there to patronize the world community and had no intention of complying with the world body's rules. We are not dealing with sane and rational people here. Show me where dialogue alone worked to prevent any war and I will show you the unicorn I have in my stables.

[JustinM]

You would rather sit in your homes on your thrones of self-righteousness and allow brutal, murdering, genocidal tyrants to continue oppressing their people while engaging in circular dialogue.

Jesus said the greatest display of love to anyone is to lay down your life for them. If we didn't love the Iraqi people, the Europeans, The Koreans, etc. we wouldn't have sacrificed so much for their freedom. Think about that and admire yourself for your survival gifts of self-preservation. Jesus Christ certainly had a noble cause worth dying for. Too bad you people don't.

[amdntstr]

If they were listening to anybody and everybody, then I might object over the principle of the thing. Even though I have nothing to hide.

Now these wiretaps are only on overseas calls from America to known terrorist. This does not bother me at all. I think that they need to be monitored.

I would rather these calls be monitored than to take a chance at being bombed again.

I used to work at NSA, back under Clinton. These things have never just been overseas.

Yes, Bush even says that these are call either to or from the US to known terrorist OUTSIDE of the US.

Democratic and Republican senators on Sunday expressed support for congressional hearings to review the program, which President Bush secretly authorized shortly after the September 11 attacks.

It allows the National Security Agency to intercept domestic communications without a warrant, as long as one party is outside the United States.

Asked what he would tell Americans worried that the practice violates their privacy rights, Bush said, "If somebody from al Qaeda is calling you, we'd like to know why.

"In the meantime, this program is conscious of people's civil liberties, as am I. This is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America -- and I repeat: limited."

Bush said the calls monitored are limited to those between known al Qaeda members or their affiliates outside the United States and people inside the United States.

[JustinM]

I understand the point completely.

Bad man contact American, American have 10 minute conversation with badman in ethnic tongue. Badman and American hang up and pretend conversation never happen.

5 minute later Government official receive warrant to tap and record conversation.

This make sense to some, other people confused about what impact on security.

Edited October 17, 2006 by JustinM

[amdntstr]

Attacks on American soil have already been stopped because of these wire-tapping.

I would rather have my phone tapped than to be dead.

I would also like to add that just because Clinton did it does not mean that everyone else is doing it. Clinton did alot of things that were against the law. does anybody remember filegate?

Edited October 18, 2006 by amdntstr

[LadyRaven]

You would rather sit in your homes on your thrones of self-righteousness and allow brutal, murdering, genocidal tyrants to continue oppressing their people while engaging in circular dialogue.

Jesus said the greatest display of love to anyone is to lay down your life for them. If we didn't love the Iraqi people, the Europeans, The Koreans, etc. we wouldn't have sacrificed so much for their freedom. Think about that and admire yourself for your survival gifts of self-preservation. Jesus Christ certainly had a noble cause worth dying for. Too bad you people don't.

You are presenting a straw man to attack. Being against warrantless wiretaps does not mean that there is not a solution to the problem (warranted wire taps, what a concept) which is constitutional or that the "war on terror" should not be waged (though renamed would be a good idea). I'm not anti whatever you want to call it. I think the US is right to go find Bin Laden and blow him up. I'm open about the war in Iraq, though I think it was handled badly I can see why it was done (remember i used to work for NSA). We should never sit around and let people blow us up and get away with it.

However, this does not mean I want a police state. These are two separate issues. It is possible to be anti terrorist and anti breeches of the constitution also....

[LadyRaven]

Yes, Bush even says that these are call either to or from the US to known terrorist OUTSIDE of the US.

That's not what I meant. Under Clinton it also meant inside the US to inside the US and any incoming calls to that number from the US. And honestly, if Osama calls Bill from Afghanistan and then Bill calls Fred, who is in the US...Since Bill is known to be associated with Osama, then Bills call to Fred should be tapped. Who knows, Fred could be one from a terrorist cell here. I'm not saying the government should never listen to US citisens at all. I just want there to be a warrant like our constitution requires. We're not putting a burden on the NSA by requiring this. Trust me, it does not take hours to get these things.

Democratic and Republican senators on Sunday expressed support for congressional hearings to review the program, which President Bush secretly authorized shortly after the September 11 attacks.

It allows the National Security Agency to intercept domestic communications without a warrant, as long as one party is outside the United States.

Asked what he would tell Americans worried that the practice violates their privacy rights, Bush said, "If somebody from al Qaeda is calling you, we'd like to know why.

"In the meantime, this program is conscious of people's civil liberties, as am I. This is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America -- and I repeat: limited."

Bush said the calls monitored are limited to those between known al Qaeda members or their affiliates outside the United States and people inside the United States.

Sure if Osama calls, someone should ask why, but he should do so with a warrant if he listens to any call which is made AFTER Osama calls. We don't need a warrant to tap the calls of known terrorists calling into or recieving calls from the US if they are already known terrorists. This is not and cannot be what the program is about, because we already had the right to do this eons ago. Any time a known terrorist calls into the US and we know his number we already have the right to listen, we didn't need special permission to do so.

The warrants are for listening to the person Osama calls after Osama hangs up, to get to the rest of the network. By the time Osama is off the phone the number he called is already captured and on it's way to a data base. Its been that way for years, way before this war ever started. Warrants were issued for all the numbers in that data base.

Due to new technology you don't need to go, have some dude in a black outfit crawl around on your roof and place a tap on your phone, it can be done from an office at NSA. 15 min from start to finish. It's not a hardship. And WHY would you give the right of the government to listen to US citisens make calls WITHOUT a warrant when it only takes 15 minutes. You would sell our freedoms down the toilet to save 15 minutes?

You do realise that it's entirely possible that within a generation, we will have a dictatorship because we've given away all of our freedoms due to the perceived war powers of the president and the concept that we've not been at peace for years. And you know how they will stiffle the dissent before they show their true colours? One way will be tapping the phone calls of private citissens without a warrant and then rounding them up, just like the night of the long knives.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. You don't GIVE AWAY freedom, even for a good reason.

[LadyRaven]

Attacks on American soil have already been stopped because of these wire-tapping.

I would rather have my phone tapped than to be dead.

I would also like to add that just because Clinton did it does not mean that everyone else is doing it. Clinton did alot of things that were against the law. does anybody remember filegate?

What Clinton did in this case was not against the law. It was allowed under the law that Reagan put into practice. When I went to work for NSA we had to sign this form explaining that we knew we were not allowed to spy on private citisens. If the person's number was called by...say...a Peruvian drug lord, Saddam's Uncle...whoever, it was allowed for that call to be listened to. What we didn't have was the right to tap that number AGAIN after the drug lord or Saddam's uncle hung up without a warrant (which could be easily gotten with a transcript of the phone conversation and the number, again 15 minutes and this was over 12 yr ago).

And frankly, since I was in the military, I have made it obvious to everyone around me that I'll willingly lay down my life in the defense of liberty. And I'd much rather be dead and my children free than alive to see my children live under tyrrany. Perhaps that comes from being Southern.