George Bush protecting your civil liberties by breaking them

Even you are right and it's the Democrats' fault that George Bush failed to get the warrants from the secret court and thus spied on Americans without court oversight, does it make what he did legal/ constitutional?

Schraf..yes, it is legal, but too stir the pot a little bit...

quote:

---

CQ HOMELAND SECURITY - INTELLIGENCE
Jan. 31, 2006 - 9:21 p.m.
Official: Army Has Authority to Spy on Americans
By Jeff Stein, CQ Staff
“Contrary to popular belief, there is no absolute ban on [military] intelligence components collecting U.S. person information,” the U.S.Army’s top intelligence officer said in a 2001 memo that surfaced Tuesday.

​

Not only that, military intelligence agencies are permitted to “receive” domestic intelligence information, even though they cannot legally “collect” it,” according to the Nov. 5, 2001, memo issued by Lt. Gen. Robert W. Noonan Jr., the deputy chief of staff for intelligence.

​

“MI [military intelligence] may receive information from anyone, anytime,” Noonan wrote in the memo, obtained by Secrecy News, a newsletter from the non-profit Federation of American Scientists in Washington.

​

Defense Department and Army regulations “allow collection about U.S. persons reasonably believed to be engaged, or about to engage, in international terrorist activities,” Noonan continued.

​

“Remember, merely receiving information does not constitute ”collection’ under AR [Army Regulation] 381-10; collection entails receiving ”for use,’ ” he added. (Army Regulation 381-10, “U.S. Army Intelligence Activities,” was reissued on Nov. 22, 2005, but had not previously been disclosed publicly.) “Army intelligence may always receive information, if only to determine its intelligence value and whether it can be collected, retained, or disseminated in accordance with governing policy,”

​

The distinction between “receiving” and “collecting” seems “to offer considerable leeway for domestic surveillance activities under the existing legal framework,” wrote editor Steven Aftergood in Tuesday’s edition of Secrecy News.

​

“This in turn makes it harder to understand why the NSA domestic surveillance program departed from previous practice.”

​

Aftergood was alerted to the existence of the memo by another security expert, John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org, who thought that “there is enough ambiguity in the language that with a bit of creativity in managing the U.S. persons files there would have been not too much trouble” applying existing rules to the warrantless eavesdropping by the National Security Agency.

---

LinkThis message has been edited by Tal, 02-01-2006 11:19 AM

---

Hamas Charter
What's your favorite line?

If it's legal, then why did Bush say he had to go around the law, and that the wiretapping couldn't be done under the law?If you can't do something because a law doesn't allow it, that makes doing it illegal.

quote:

---

Bush: See, that's what you've got to understand. I am upholding my duty, and at the same time, doing so under the law and with the Constitution behind me. That's just very important for you to understand. Secondly, the FISA law was written in 1978. We're having this discussion in 2006. It's a different world. And FISA is still an important tool. It's an important tool. And we still use that tool. But also -- and we -- look -- I said, look, is it possible to conduct this program under the old law? And people said, it doesn't work in order to be able to do the job we expect us to do.

---

That's like saying "under the law, we couldn't walk into a bank and take all the money we wanted, so we did it anyway. But it wasn't illegal, because it's 2006."

Bypassing a law is not the same as breaking it. For instance, the Davis Beacon law and Jones Act were both bypassed after Hurricane Katrina hit. The Environmental Protection Agency suspended certain federal fuel standards in response to possible diesel and gasoline shortages. Are these laws? Yes, but there are provisions written that allow them to be bypassed in certain circumstances.How can Bush bypass FISA? And from Associated PressAnd the most important point: Congrats to all of you lefties. You have helped the enemy. I don't know what is so hard to understand about this. If you are talking to Al Qeada, we want to know about it.And by the way, MI can get intel on you anyway..with no warrant.This message has been edited by Tal, 02-01-2006 01:29 PM

---

Hamas Charter
What's your favorite line?

quote:

---

I don't know what is so hard to understand about this. If you are talking to Al Qeada, we want to know about it.

---

Sure, as long as I get to listen in on your conversations whenever I think that there may be some problems. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this, either.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Who says we don't? I want people spying on Al Queda. I want the cops spying on criminals, too.Why shouldn't that happen with warrants? Why should it happen against the law? He didn't "brief Congress", he told a handful of congresspeople who were not allowed to object or indeed, comment at all. Get real. Do you think bin Laden is so stupid he couldn't expect us to be tapping his phones?The only one helping the enemy is Bush apologists like you. Look, I want you to think long and hard about the next president. Pretend he's one of those liberals you hate. Pretend he's totally unhinged.Think about the powers you've just put in his hands. Do you own a gun, Tal? Do you think that's something an ultra-liberal president might want to know about?

If talking to to Al Qeada...listen all you want.

Link? Source? News Article? Anything? I've already explained bypassing. As to the answer of why...speed. Yes, Al Qeada made phone calls to people in the US. They still do, but not as much thanks to all lefties screaming about their civil libetries disappearing. What's your logic behind this statement? My logic is that Al Qeada now KNOWS we monitor ALL international calls. Some of the smarter ones probaly won't make as many phone calls to the US when they otherwise would. Democrats have gimped us a little on the Intel gathering. A Democrat is president. Al Qeada calls someone in the US. I still want that President's Intel to know about it.You guys complain that Bush didn't connect the dots for 911. Now you complain when we try to connect the dots.

---

Hamas Charter
What's your favorite line?

ok, well, i'd better listen in just in case. otherwise, i won't know if you're talking to al qaeda or not.

---

That's because you don't understand it.Your justifications and that accusation are about as transparently stupid as Bush saying he didn't want a law against torture becuase he didn't want terrorists to know we wouldn't torture them, though of course we never would, really, never have, no kidding, heh heh."lefties"...like the conservative Republican senators and reps who have criticized the illegal taps? Like the former Reagan and Bush Sr. administration officials who have criticized the illegal taps? You did mean anyone who objected, right?Bush and Gang are simply looking to cover their exposed-to-criminal law behinds. This will end up before the SCOTUS, at which time we will either reclaim our Republic of laws or lose it at last.You may recall the initial expose of the illegal wiretaps described "thousands" of intercepts: are we really to believe that thousands of Americans are chatting up Al Qaeda on international lines? Al Qaeda has that many agents in the U.S., but haven't managed to blow up even a dog pound since 9/11? The feds didn't need more wiretaps to have forewarning about 9/11--they had it: they ignored it.The WH cover story evolved to claim that the intercepts were precisely targeted after many conservative members of his own party began condemning the program. The taps are not targeted; the feds are listening to a torrent of calls and net traffic.I guess if we keep giving all this comfort to the enemy, we may end up in camps--since we're in the Forever War now, our rights aren't worth the Constitution Bush wipes his butt with... I agree, Tal: with people like Bush running the country, none of our rights are safe. He'll have to destroy our democracy to save it.

I undertand fully. We are at war. There is an enemy both overseas and in the US. When they make calls from overseas to the US, we want to know what they are saying. So if Al Qeada is calling John Snuffy, you don't want to know about it? Maybe that's because we've been listening to Al Qeada conversations since then?Hello. This message has been edited by Tal, 02-01-2006 02:59 PMThis message has been edited by Tal, 02-01-2006 03:26 PM

---

Hamas Charter
What's your favorite line?

We know from the Administration's own comments that speed was not an issue; that hey had no difficulty getting the warrants that they needed from the standard FISA process. This was the rationale they gave, after all, for opposing amendments to the FISA law back in 2003.So either they were lying then, or they're lying now. Which do you believe it is? And you think that's a bad thing? That we're restricted Al-Queda's communications into the US? The FBI thinks it's a good thing that the illegal tapping program has been restricted; they were being inundated with thousands of useless "tips" from the NSA - tips that wasted valuable time to sort out. Why do the terrorists attack us? Because we're a free and liberal society.If I were to go back in time and speak to you the day of 9/11 and tell you about the future, I imagine the conversation would go something like this:Crash: Tal! I bid you greetings from the future.Tal: Oh, woe are we! We're truly on the brink of an epic struggle against the forces of terror. Are dark times ahead?Crash: Indeed. Within 5 years, we'll have casualty rates of 15 soldiers a week; our press will offer nothing but the propaganda our leaders wish them to promulgate; and our government will eavesdrop on our private phone conversations absent any kind of judicial oversight or regulation, and there will be no consequences when they finally reveal this behavior.Tal: ... Oh. So, you're saying we lost, then.Terrorists strike the West because they're threatened by our free and liberal society. Anything that makes our society less free and less liberal - like a precident for ignoring civil rights altogether - aids terrorism. It's exactly what they want us to do. It's idiotic to assume that they didn't already know. Especially since we gave it away years ago at Tora Bora. I do too. But I don't trust the President - any president - to restrict the tapping, on his own, to just the terrorists. Do you?Do you know why we have FISA in the first place, Tal?

So basically what you are saying is that the president now has war-time powers forever and the constitution is suspended.You can not win a war on terror and declare the end to hostilities. So either the constituion is permenanently suspended or we aren't really at war.

So let's see, he has authority based on the Constitution, previous Presidents have used it, federal courts have appoved it, and members of Congress have been kept informed.What is illegal about this agian?

The fact that none of those things are true.