Bush Authorized NSA Eavesdropping in U.S. - Page 2

VelociMorte · 12-17-2005, 13:34

The headline should have read: " New York Times Conspires with Traitors to Undermine National Security".

GreenSalsa · 12-17-2005, 13:58

These people (who are leaking) sicken me

I am getting weary and tired of these types of leaks…we need to at a minimum imprison some folks here for a LONG time and potentially execute a couple for treason.

Solid · 12-17-2005, 16:19

I feel that it is important at this point in the argument to interject and remind everyone that both sides, republican and democrat, are equally guilty of the crimes mentioned here, just at different times and depending on who you listen to.
This is the nature of the system. Turns out people aren't all inherently good... who would've guessed?

Back on subject:
I started my posting in this thread by ripping it out of the ACLU and reactionaries to the new NSA eavesdropping authorization. To be fair, there is ALWAYS a potential for actions like this to lead to usurption of power- and bad things can come of this.

For example (both sides of the coin) Ollie North or Richard Clarke. Power was accumulated and in both cases misused in some way, despite supposed checks on this kind of behaviour. It CAN happen, so the role of the press to expose it is important. Both sides of the press. It just so happens that this fits the liberal media's purposes right now- you can bet that if this happened with the dems in office, the rightwing media would be doing the same.

JMO,

Solid

BMT (RIP) · 12-17-2005, 16:31

Anyone remember the movie and book "Seven Days in May"?

BMT

JMI · 12-17-2005, 17:17

Is it legal for the POTUS do authorize this activity? Does the constitution protect citizens from eavesdropping?

**Pete** · 12-17-2005, 17:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMI

Is it legal for the POTUS do authorize this activity? Does the constitution protect citizens from eavesdropping?

Depends on who you are talking to. If you are talking to a terrorist who lives overseas and the NSA is recording his calls then I would guess "No" to protection, your calls are fair game.

If you are talking to your better half on the cell phone about what to bring home for chow and when you mention Chilie and you're called a terrorist then I would say "Yes" your call is protected.

So, who you been talking to?

Sten · 12-17-2005, 17:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMI

Is it legal for the POTUS do authorize this activity? Does the constitution protect citizens from eavesdropping?

Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

**Pete** · 12-17-2005, 17:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sten

Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

Even under the above, if a judge grants a wire tap on a suspect and that suspect calls you up that phone call is recorded.

Take care with your friends, you sleep with the dogs and you wake up with fleas.

rubberneck · 12-17-2005, 17:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sten

Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

Go back and read the damn article. It said quite clearly that the Bush administration went before the national security court to get approval. Since those documents are secret I doubt you will see them in public for a long time. The fact of the matter is the President did this legally and above board. Those pissing and moaning about this only do so to gain political advantage.

Sten · 12-17-2005, 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubberneck

Go back and read the damn article. It said quite clearly that the Bush administration went before the national security court to get approval. Since those documents are secret I doubt you will see them in public for a long time. The fact of the matter is the President did this legally and above board. Those pissing and moaning about this only do so to gain political advantage.

no need to get hostile, I was answering part of JMI's question.

**Pete** · 12-17-2005, 18:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sten

no need to get hostile, I was answering part of JMI's question.

Recording a conversation between a terrorist overseas and his buddy in the states is not the same as recording a conversation between Joe Bubba and Slick Weed. The MSM, ACLU and Dim-Wits claim that they are.

This has been pointed out a few times in this thread but some still are following the herd.

rubberneck · 12-17-2005, 18:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sten

no need to get hostile, I was answering part of JMI's question.

You didn't even answer his question. He asked:

Quote:

Is it legal for the POTUS do authorize this activity? Does the constitution protect citizens from eavesdropping?

The answer to the first question is yes with court approval. The answer to question two is no but the bar to do so is set fairly high.

VelociMorte · 12-19-2005, 08:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete

Recording a conversation between a terrorist overseas and his buddy in the states is not the same as recording a conversation between Joe Bubba and Slick Weed. The MSM, ACLU and Dim-Wits claim that they are.

This has been pointed out a few times in this thread but some still are following the herd.

USSID 18 is the applicable Directive. Like all laws, it's all a matter of interpretation.

**Razor** · 12-19-2005, 09:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sten

I am still going to say it is important to watch the government. You QPs are all used to working with the best and brightest. That is not the case for the rest of us, as a general rule the vast majority of government is staffed and directed by the merely adequate.

Would you mind sending me the contact information of your first line supervisor so I can get an objective reading on if you're the best and brightest in your line of work, or merely adequate? If you're only the latter, should we require you find another job? Should everyone working in your field be the absolute best and brightest, and everyone else be fired? Be careful to demand excellence in others if you're not up to the task yourself.

BMT (RIP) · 12-19-2005, 09:43

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...8/221452.shtml

Guess this time it was ok! Slick was only checking up on who knew what about
the BIMBO.

BMt