Return to Article: NSA spy program hinges on state-of-the-art technology
-
15334
Just as I predicted: No response from "Fed." I cited the U.S. code section that proves his Dear Leader is breaking the law, but he has nothing to say about it, not even any of the shameless personal attacks his party has brought to an art form. In fact, I haven't seen a single comment from "Fed" on anything since then. Perhaps he's too ashamed to admit he was wrong. Or maybe the realization that he was worshipping a false god drove him to suicide. Whatever happened, I can't say I'm sorry that he's gone. But I hope he's been jolted enough to start thinking for himself for once. That's what this country needs, more rational thinking and less mindless hero-worship.
-
14867
Hey, Fed, I think I may have found your magic numbers!
50 U.S.C. 1809. Criminal sanctions (a) Prohibited activities: A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally -- (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute;
Now, until you can show a statute that specifically authorizes eavesdropping without a warrant on the international communications of Americans, that code section constitutes proof that this program is illegal.
And I'll go ahead and predict your response. You'll do one of more of the following:
1. Fail to acknowledge the substance of this post in any way.
2. Mention a statute that does not in fact authorize such surveillance, and lie about it.
3. Make up an obviously fraudulent law out of whole cloth and pray no one calls you on it.
4. Bring up some past wrongdoing by a Democrat that has no bearing on the discussion at hand as a smokescreen.
5. Fall back on your worship of the Dear Leader, and declare on the basis of no evidence that he can ignore any law he feels like, thus further exposing your disdain for the rule of law.
6. Insult the evil liberals for their unforgivable sin of not being you. -
14824
Bringing up FDR as precedent is disingenuous. FDR could not possibly have violated FISA, as it was not passed until 1978.
There may be legal issues on his interception of communications, but I think they pale in comparison to the internment camps used to imprison innocent Japanese-Americans. I sincerely hope we won't have to revisit that precedent.
-
14814
Yeah, Fed, go back 40 years to talk about Kennedy's wrong doing. For Bush and Cheney's crimes, we only have to go back to yesterday, and the day before that, and the day before that.
-
14798
If you are so concerned about being intercepted, don't make any calls to, or accept any calls from, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria or North Korea, and you'll be just fine!
Seriously though, I ask those of you who think these interceptions are illegal, would you have felt the same way about FDR's administration intercepting the Japanese diplomatic and naval codes, or the British intercepting the German Enigma codes, in World War II?
The way I see it, there is a difference between intercepting communications between enemies of the United States in times of war, and the interception of criminal conversations by civilian law enforcement agencies in the course of conducting criminal investigations, which does require a court order. Can't you make that distinction? Even in the Civil War, Union and Confederate troops tapped into each other's telegraph lines, to obtain intelligence. Are you suggesting that they should have obtained court orders as well?
All this talk of totalitarianism, and Bush being "the world's biggest terrorist," is way out of line, and is just overblown rhetoric that only serves to divide us in a time of war, and give aid and comfort to our enemies. You have a right to say what you feel, but think of the repercussions first before you speak.
-
14764
Read up on Article II. The executive branch pretty much has the power to do what it feels is needed against a threat to the nation. The other two branches need to do what they are doing to be the check and balance. The legislature enacts laws, the judicial branch reviews to determine if other parties were within the constraints. And I did misspeak, looks like the administration is putting more effort into trying to claim the 2001 act grants it the power, vice going back to Article II of the Constitution itself. Stupid move in my opinion. They have a stronger legal case going back to the original source than using a broad-brush supplementary act. (Specific law almost always trumps the more general.)
-
14756
Okay, Fed, what magic numbers will you accept? What language do you need this to be in? Should we find you a translator? Or are you just blind, deaf, and stupid?
Here's a little of what's been violated: Article 2, U.S. Constitution: Requires, among other things, that the President uphold the law. Amendment 4, U.S. Constitution: Requires probable cause for searches and seizures. FISA, as stated in a previous post: Requires a warrant to intercept international communications of Americans. Executive Order 12958: Forbids classifying information in order to conceal violations of law.
Now, why don't you try your own challenge? Cite the U.S. code section that grants this President (and it seems only this President) the authority to ignore federal law whenever he finds it inconvenient. Where in the law is he declared a god? Can't find it, huh? Okay, then is there any limit whatsoever on the power of this President that you would accept? Or are limits only for wimpy Democrats?
-
14750
To all you worrywarts:
Again, what section of U.S. law was broken? Please cite the U.S. code section. You can't. If a federal law was broken, charges against the offenders would be filed, there would be an indictment and trial. I enforce federal law, make arrests and seek prosecution. No arrests or indictments have been sought due to the interception of telephone calls. It is obvious that you all just don't get the plain, simple fact that a law was not broken. You all sound as foolish as Sen. Kennedy, who in fact, broke the law when he drunk drove his mistress into the lake and left her to die.
-
14650
Uber Libertarian,
Exactly where do you get "Supreme Executive Power" from the Constitution? Wasn't the whole point to have three co-equal branches of government, each serving as a check on the power of the others? Wasn't there supposed to be some kind of oversight, rather than just letting the president do whatever he wants? If the Founding Fathers had wanted a King, they would have just said so.
If FISA conflicts with the Constitution, it's not by taking power away from the executive but by lowering standards for warrants set out in the Fourth Amendment. And the Bush Administration is not arguing that FISA is unconstitutional. They're saying they don't need to follow it because it's too old, without defining how old a law has to be before it no longer applies. They're saying it doesn't apply because they've been granted authority for the wiretaps by Congress, when Congress has no memory of doing so, which proves either the administration is lying, or Congress is incompetent. My money's on both. Every rationale for this program is spurious and conflicts with all the others, but the people running the show don't seem to notice.
-
14643
Hey, Fed, two posts below yours someone says which law was broken. You just didn't bother reading it.
-
14632
All this nonsense and name calling! The anonymity of the internet makes everyone fearless, doesn't it?
A couple of points - "conservatives" traditionally are absolutely against big government but addicted to big power and telling people what they can/can't do, "liberals" are addicted to big government taking care of every possible need and distributing the cost of said programs to everyone regardless of their being the recipient of said programs.
The main question in this one is does the FISA derive its power from the Constitution or has it over-ridden the Constitution's inherent authority? The administration says the Constitutional powers are supreme and point to it as their authority to do what they did. Their detractors point to the FISA and claim the law was broken. Both may be right. The FISA was in fact not followed, but if the Constitution's Executive Branch powers are supreme, that doesn't matter. One for the courts to decide.
But for everyone that is simply bashing the president because his name is Bush (see another article), I have a question: if the Constitution is not the ultimate power and it doesn't take an amendment, but every law the crackpots of both parties sign into law overrides it, then what the heck will you point back to as preventing them from anything they feel like doing?
-
14619
Fed,
It saddens me to see that Americans have become so cowardly, so weak, so fearful about what might happen, that they're completely willing to let Bush do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, to whomever he wants to justify whatever he's doing. Where's the line for people like you? What's too much power to people like you? It's OK when it happening to someone else but when they come for you, what then? Would it be OK if they arrested people in the middle of the night without a warrant or hold them in jail without charges (oh, that's right, that's already happened) because they feel it's necessary in the war on terror? We are on a slippery slope here and its attitudes like yours that allowed Hitler to seize absolute power in Germany. And, it's even sadder that all this is happening and we're not one whit safer, nor is the world, since Bush took over the White House. How many nations has Al-Qaeda attacked since Bush's "war on terror?" Sorry, you may believe what they tell you but they have zero credibility in my book. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
-
14529
Just as I thought -- No one can cite what law was broken. If the law was broken there would be indictments and a trial. Hasn't happened, won't happen, since no federal criminal law was broken. Plain and simple.
-
14501
"Fed" says: The interception of communications that originate from outside the United States is perfectly legal.
Sorry, but it's very much _not_ legal. The U.S. Constitution only grants certain limited powers to the government, and the power to spy on communications within, entering, or leaving the country was not one of them. If the police and spy agencies feel they have a need to wiretap someone, they can bloody well show cause for it, and get a valid warrant as is required by the Constitution. If it's done in this country, by our government, the restrictions of the Constitution apply, and no amount of whining by Bush (who I voted for, by the way) can overcome that. Gunslinger
Today, as always, the people, no less than their courts, must remain vigilant to preserve the principles of our Bill of Rights, lest in our desire to be secure we lose our ability to be free. - Chief Justice Earl Warren
-
14478
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) forbids intercepting international communications with one end in the US without a warrant. To accommodate warrants for covert intelligence, FISA also established the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). A warrant can be obtained from this court in secret, and if necessary retroactively, with no danger of tipping off the target. FISC virtually never rejects warrant applications. But the NSA domestic eavesdropping program authorized by President Bush made no attempt to obtain the warrants required by FISA, even after the fact. And it's not just Democrats questioning the wisdom and legality of the program.
Bush is actually opposing efforts to make the program legal: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10530643/from/RL.4/
But don't worry, Fed. You don't have to find a way around the law. You don't have to consider the possibility that Bush could be wrong. The Dear Leader has declared that FISA no longer matters, because it was passed in 1978, and it's "a different world now." Exactly how old does a law have to be before it ceases to be binding? Is there any pre-9/11 law Bush would consider himself bound by, given this argument? Is murder now legal, because the laws against it were passed so long ago? Is the Constitution obsolete?
For the President to arbitrarily declare any inconvenient law null and void is deeply troubling to me. But not to you, Fed, I'm sure. You're a conservative, and conservatives have always trusted the government. Haven't they?
-
14476
Hello there "Fed", Although I am not a liberal, some might say I'm mentally ill and in need of psychiatric help. Who can say? At least they're letting me run around loose!
As for the law that was broken?? I have no idea; however, I am damn sure somebody is dancing around (if not actually trampling on) the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States! Now, as for my butt, I rather dislike you or anyone from the government looking out for it -- please stop as I can "feel" your eyes on it and that is creeping me out!
-
14454
And most liberals are mentally ill and in need of psychiatric help. Please cite what law was broken? What statute under the U.S. Code was violated? The interception of communications that originate from outside the United States is perfectly legal. Don't worry Mr. Liberal, the USG does not care what you are saying on the phone. The only concern that the USG has is looking after your sorry butt.
-
14393
The NSA, I believe, tracks key words. So, either keep words like Bush, terrorism, etc., out of your conversations, or, if you're into jamming the NSA, include them in every conversation. Oh, and in case you NSA people are reading these e-mails: Bush, terrorism, Islam, Republican . . .
-
14392
I believe hyper-conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once spoke of interpreting the Constitution as written, based on the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Of course, he just forgets he ever said that when it becomes inconvenient.
-
14380
Hey, Fed - If you want to live in a country that believes in totalitarianism, you might want to try one of the mid-eastern Islamic states. As for me, I believe in the sanctity of the Constitution of the United States as written by the founding fathers. If that makes me a "liberal Democrat," then so be it. Patriotism is not blind, deaf or dumb. It stands in the face of fear and holds its head high -- and so do I.
-
14363
Next thing you know Bush will be saying "I am not a crook!" -- sound familiar?
-
14356
Nothing the government does is ever wrong! All true conservatives know that bigger and more intrusive government is the solution to all problems! Anyone who compares warrantless wiretaps to the actions of a totalitarian regime is a traitor who should be thrown into a dungeon for life without trial.
(In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic. Past experience suggests that many people are far too stupid to recognize sarcasm.)
"Not all conservatives are stupid but most stupid people are conservative."
-
14349
Shane,
Another great article from you. Thanks.
-
14348
It is not illegal. You need to learn and comprehend federal law before you speak. Open mouth, insert foot, just as typical liberal Democrats do.
-
14341
And not only is it illegal, they contracted it out!!!
-
14325
Once your communication has left the United States, you have no expectation of privacy. Why should the United States not listen or record when everyone else will be doing just that? Whether the communication is picked up in international waters or as it leaves your phone on its way to Euro Disney is not relevant.
The politics over this issue is similar to the scandal over reading Diplomatic cables in the 1920s. Foreign governments expect us to read their mail if we can. Read the "American Black Chamber" by Yardley.
This nonsense reminds me of a dog trying to chew his own tail.
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.