Spying on US citizens

[Alexander Hamilton]

This story has been boiling for a few days.

 

spying story

 

Over the weekend, I saw both Rice and Gonzalez two-stepping around this issue of wiretapping US citizens without a warrant. It's just plain illegal, and that the government would do it is frightening.

 

Condi's explanation on Meet the Press was twofold: (1) I'm not a lawyer, and (2) the President acted within his authority. As to the first dodge, she can bite me. She was the fugging National Security Advisor when this was going on. She can't hide from the question of whether it was legal or not by saying she's not a lawyer. IT was her job to insure things like this are legal. As to her second refrain, that the president acted within his authority, she couldn't be more wrong. Nothing, not war, not anything, gives the federal government the right to wiretap US citizens without a warrant. Nothing.

 

Gonzalez's explanation is that Congress authorized this wiretapping when it authorized the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. That is a complete load of sh1t, and I can't believe he's got the brass balls to say that.

 

This, to me, is an impeachable offense. It's a blatant violation of the law. There is no gray area here to play in. I understand that the war on terror changes many things, but the rights of Americans to be free of search without warrant is clear.

 

Since Bush personally authorized this wiretapping several times, I hope he gets impeached. No matter how pure his motivations in fighting the war on terror and keeping America safe, this is an extreme Constitutional violation.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

This, to me, is an impeachable offense. It's a blatant violation of the law. There is no gray area here to play in. I understand that the war on terror changes many things, but the rights of Americans to be free of search without warrant is clear.

536609[/snapback]

 

What about the rights of non-citizens in this country?

 

Do you think they should be afforded the same rights as the rest of us?

[Mickey]

This story has been boiling for a few days.

 

spying story

 

Over the weekend, I saw both Rice and Gonzalez two-stepping around this issue of wiretapping US citizens without a warrant. It's just plain illegal, and that the government would do it is frightening.

 

Condi's explanation on Meet the Press was twofold: (1) I'm not a lawyer, and (2) the President acted within his authority. As to the first dodge, she can bite me. She was the fugging National Security Advisor when this was going on. She can't hide from the question of whether it was legal or not by saying she's not a lawyer. IT was her job to insure things like this are legal. As to her second refrain, that the president acted within his authority, she couldn't be more wrong. Nothing, not war, not anything, gives the federal government the right to wiretap US citizens without a warrant. Nothing.

 

Gonzalez's explanation is that Congress authorized this wiretapping when it authorized the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. That is a complete load of sh1t, and I can't believe he's got the brass balls to say that.

 

This, to me, is an impeachable offense. It's a blatant violation of the law. There is no gray area here to play in. I understand that the war on terror changes many things, but the rights of Americans to be free of search without warrant is clear.

 

Since Bush personally authorized this wiretapping several times, I hope he gets impeached. No matter how pure his motivations in fighting the war on terror and keeping America safe, this is an extreme Constitutional violation.

536609[/snapback]

I just don't understand why. Under FISA, they can go ahead and tap without a warrant for 72 hours so the "ticking bomb" scenario doesn't apply, the law allows for that. So they don't have to wait to get a warrant before tapping. Once they do, they have 3 days to get one and the court has issued 1,226 warrants out of 1,226 applications so its not as if the courts have been giving them a hard time on this, absolutely the opposite. I think they only ever turned down 4 applications and on appeal, all 4 of those, if I am not mistaken, were all granted.

 

Even if it was illegal, almost as bad though is the "why" of it. Why did they do an endrun around the FISA warrant procedures which were designed specifically to handle issuing warrants in emergency situations involving nationa security?

 

I don't think this should be pre-judged so we should wait until they provide the specific basis for their claim that it was legal before reaching any conclusions. I have to wonder though that if they worked the legality issue out to their satisfaction long ago, why wasn't it trotted out immediately by Rice and the others over the weekend after the story broke? I assume that if its legality were worked out before they did it, they would have all the supporting info at their fingertips.

 

No way we should use the "I" word at this point, no way. For all we know, there was some reason based on a given sitation where he felt he had no choice but to proceed as he did, outside of FISA. If a reasonable explanation can be offered along those lines, I think it would have to slide. Again, that is why I just don't get why they had to do it, I have to believe they had a good reason to avoid FISA but then again, the credibility of the administration at this point is like the weather outside my office, near zero.

 

From Abu Ghraib to WMD's, from rendition to illegal wiretaps, from Plamegate to "last throes", the administration is starting to look like the Keystone cops with apologies to the Keystone cops.

 

I heard Bob Barr, Bob Barr for crying out loud, go crazy over the illegality of these wiretaps. Ditto Arlen Specter. Even republicans and conservatives are starting to ask the same question the rest of us have about this administration, that being: What the eff!?!?!?!

[VABills]

The US has been capturing signal intelligence on US and non-US citizens for years. The only difference is that the US is now being permitted to take action on anything learned from US sources. It had always been inadmissible evidence in a court of law unless a prior warrant had been requested.

 

But other then overtly taking action on the information and not requiring a second source before action is taken what the hell is the difference since the 70's?

 

Oh I know Bush Bad.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I don't think this should be pre-judged so we should wait until they provide the specific basis for their claim that it was legal before reaching any conclusions.  I have to wonder though that if they worked the legality issue out to their satisfaction long ago, why wasn't it trotted out immediately by Rice and the others over the weekend after the story broke?  I assume that if its legality were worked out before they did it, they would have all the supporting info at their fingertips.

 

 

536644[/snapback]

 

Gonzalez said that Bush acted under authority of the Congress when the Congress authorized the war on Iraq and Afghanistan. The National Security Advisor at the time said the President acted with Constitutional authority.

 

Me, I get hung up on the Bill of Rights.

[Mickey]

The US has been capturing signal intelligence on US and non-US citizens for years.  The only difference is that the US is now being permitted to take action on anything learned from US sources.  It had always been inadmissible evidence in a court of law unless a prior warrant had been requested. 

 

But other then overtly taking action on the information and not requiring a second source before action is taken what the hell is the difference since the 70's? 

 

Oh I know Bush Bad.

536645[/snapback]

Why do Bob Barr and Arlen Specter disagree with you? Are they also part of the "Bush Bad" crew?

[Alexander Hamilton]

What about the rights of non-citizens in this country?

 

Do you think they should be afforded the same rights as the rest of us?

536629[/snapback]

 

No, they don't. But this wiretapping was done on US citizens.

[Alexander Hamilton]

The US has been capturing signal intelligence on US and non-US citizens for years.  The only difference is that the US is now being permitted to take action on anything learned from US sources.  It had always been inadmissible evidence in a court of law unless a prior warrant had been requested. 

 

But other then overtly taking action on the information and not requiring a second source before action is taken what the hell is the difference since the 70's? 

 

Oh I know Bush Bad.

536645[/snapback]

 

It's a lot more than "Bush bad" soundbyte boy. I'm hung up on the fact that the federal government targeted specific US citizens to wiretap without a warrant. This wasn't signal capture--it was specifically targeted wiretaps on US citizens.

 

My argument isn't "Bush bad": it's "Constitution good."

[VABills]

Why do Bob Barr and Arlen Specter disagree with you? Are they also part of the "Bush Bad" crew?

536656[/snapback]

I don't know, other then politics as usual. However, there was plenty of noise back in the 80's when the NSA completed their antenta farms around Chantilly. They were asked some pretty bold questions, about what they were doing, whether they caused cancer, why was it needed since it was "illegal" to capture US transmissions, etc.....

 

A lot of this covered ad nauseum, on a national and local DC level because of a lot of these same issues. The word at that time was yes they capture all signals, but anything captured on US soil was automatially archived and not "researched" unless a warrent existed for the source of the information. Then they would hand over everything to the FBI for follow-up. It was non-actionable either way by the NSA or CIA.

 

Now that is what was said, reality is they probably do/did analysis and follow up to find second source info, get the warrant and then use it, but at the time (80's) what I said above was the official word.

[VABills]

It's a lot more than "Bush bad" soundbyte boy. I'm hung up on the fact that the federal government targeted specific US citizens to wiretap without a warrant. This wasn't signal capture--it was specifically targeted wiretaps on US citizens.

 

My argument isn't "Bush bad": it's "Constitution good."

536661[/snapback]

I get the impression that the wiretaps are not a traditional tap as you want to believe but rather taking action off the cell phone signals that are in fact captured. If it is a traditional hardline tap, then I would agree with you. But public signal capture is in effect putting "signals into the public domain" and should be allowed for free capture.

 

As far as the email capture goes, the internet is really ARPANET which was a US military and intelligence backbone, so anything there is free game, as far as I am concenred.

[Mickey]

Gonzalez said that Bush acted under authority of the Congress when the Congress authorized the war on Iraq and Afghanistan. The National Security Advisor at the time said the President acted with Constitutional authority.

 

Me, I get hung up on the Bill of Rights.

536652[/snapback]

Yeah, I heard Rice say that certain people beleived he was acting within his constitutional authority but she gave no specifics and every one she cited was an administration official like Gonzalez and herself. No objective opinions were sought.

 

Maybe his ultimate defense will be that he was under the good faith belief that he was acting legally based on what the Atty. General told him and can't be blamed if it was later determined by a court that the AG was wrong. In other words, he will use the same defense we heard Rice trot out: "I'm not a lawyer, how was I supposded to know it was illegal?" Very close to the way the WMD fiasco was handled. Once the President convinces a subordinate to go on the record with the opinon he wants, whether or not justified by the facts, he is off to the races because he can always blame the subordinate. "How was I to know the WMD intel was overblown when the DCI said it was a slam dunk?" Now it will be "How was I to know it was illegal to tap citizens without a warrant when the AG told me it wasn't?"

 

Interesting defense isn't it? It depends on the President being able to credibly argue that he is too stupid to judge the debate on intel and the law for himself. It workded with WMD's and probably work here. It really is just another version of the "plausible deniability" trick. You just need subordinates willing to fall on their sword to provide cover for the President. I guess Gonzalez will just resign to spend more time with his family, get a medal and vanish into the private sector.

[Alexander Hamilton]

As far as the email capture goes, the internet is really ARPANET which was a US military and intelligence backbone, so anything there is free game, as far as I am concenred.

536676[/snapback]

 

That's idiotic. The Internet is partially public, partially private sector. That doesn't give the government the right to use it to waltz into your email account.

 

Do you have such a high regard for the government, and such a low regard for your rights, that you aren't concerned?

[Mickey]

What about the rights of non-citizens in this country?

 

Do you think they should be afforded the same rights as the rest of us?

536629[/snapback]

They can tap the crap out of them if they want, they just have to get a warrant from FISA within 72 hours after they start the taps. It isn't a question of whether or not they should be tapped, of course they should. The question is why didn't they get warrant, especially since the record on getting those warrants is 100%? Time is not an excuse because you can tap long before you get the warrant. The whole FISA thing was desinged to let us tap like crazy whenever national security is even remotely involved without having to worry about justifying it with anything more than an application sometime within the first 3 days of tapping. They have not offered any explanation as to why even this minimal procedure was too cumbersome for them. I am quite sure that any half-assed explanation, no matter how far fetched, will be enough for the Bush strokers but they haven't even offered that yet.

[VABills]

That's idiotic. The Internet is partially public, partially private sector. That doesn't give the government the right to use it to waltz into your email account.

 

Do you have such a high regard for the government, and such a low regard for your rights, that you aren't concerned?

536693[/snapback]

They don't "waltz" into your amail. They just sniff and capture the data off routers as it is transported around "public" equipment. No need to go to your ISP to get the information.

 

Again, sorry, but this capability has been around for 50 years, nothing new here, the only difference it sounds like is they they are using the information for first action without requiring a second "offcial" source for action.

 

Technology isn't like the soundbytes try to make it out of TV. Reality is, they can capture the information as it floats in cyberspace from one server to the next. Again if they went to my ISP and demanded the data off the server I would have issues, but the fact is they are capturing off the routers.

[GG]

They can tap the crap out of them if they want, they just have to get a warrant from FISA within 72 hours after they start the taps.  It isn't a question of whether or not they should be tapped, of course they should.  The question is why didn't they get warrant, especially since the record on getting those warrants is 100%?  Time is not an excuse because you can tap long before you get the warrant.  The whole FISA thing was desinged to let us tap like crazy whenever national security is even remotely involved without having to worry about justifying it with anything more than an application sometime within the first 3 days of tapping.  They have not offered any explanation as to why even this minimal procedure was too cumbersome for them.  I am quite sure that any half-assed explanation, no matter how far fetched, will be enough for the Bush strokers but they haven't even offered that yet.

536694[/snapback]

 

What if they tap within the 72 hrs of getting the warrant, but within 48 hrs realize that the guy is worthless, is a warrant still needed?

[RkFast]

That's idiotic. The Internet is partially public, partially private sector. That doesn't give the government the right to use it to waltz into your email account.

 

Do you have such a high regard for the government, and such a low regard for your rights, that you aren't concerned?

536693[/snapback]

 

 

Its not idiotic at all. He may be stretching a bit, but VA is 100% correct. The Internet is BECOMING more of a private domain. But it was not designed to be so, as VA pointed out.

[Mickey]

I get the impression that the wiretaps are not a traditional tap as you want to believe but rather taking action off the cell phone signals that are in fact captured.  If it is a traditional hardline tap, then I would agree with you.  But public signal capture is in effect putting "signals into the public domain" and should be allowed for free capture.

 

As far as the email capture goes, the internet is really ARPANET which was a US military and intelligence backbone, so anything there is free game, as far as I am concenred.

536676[/snapback]

So the argument you are making is that technically, it wasn't a wiretap and hence not illegal?

 

Not even the administration is bothering to try and make a silk purse out of that sow's ear. Their argument is not that it wasn't wiretapping but that they had authority to wiretap.

 

As far as the law is concerned, as long as you have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to a given communication, it is contitutionally protected. Technology has led the courts to tweak and refine that basic rule to incorporate changing technology but the rule is essentially the same.

 

The fact that the phone company owns the phone line over which your communication is carried does not allow them to listen in to that signal so even if I were to accept your arguement about ownership of the internet, it does not follow that the "owner", whoever that is, has the right to a warrantless tap, signal capture or whatever you want to call that type of secretly listening in on a private conversation.

 

"Public domain" is really a legal phrase of art relating to patents and copyrights. Jacki O, rest her soul, had no reasonable expectation of privacy in walking down the street so she could be photographed when in public. However, photographing her from a mile away with a telephoto lens peering through a bedroom window would certainly be illegal. She had a reasonable expectation of privacy sitting in her bedroom even if her window was open and she knew that with the right equipment, people could photograph her.

 

Just because a communication is capable of being intercepted does not mean that the persons involved had no reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the communication. That is really the inquiry, the reasonableness of that beleif, not just whether or not the communication was interceptable.

[VABills]

Its not idiotic at all. He may be stretching a bit, but VA is 100% correct. The Internet is BECOMING more of a private domain. But it was not designed to be so, as VA pointed out.

536708[/snapback]

To add on, if people want to talk privately, then let them come up with their own communication devices without ANY PUBLIC funding, without ANY GOVERNMENT ENCRYPTION algorithisms, without using any goverment funding or subsidized phone lines, etc.... Oh and make sure it doesn't cross or need access across public roads or need right of way.

[VABills]

So the argument you are making is that technically, it wasn't a wiretap and hence not illegal?

 

Not even the administration is bothering to try and make a silk purse out of that sow's ear.  Their argument is not that it wasn't wiretapping but that they had authority to wiretap.

 

As far as the law is concerned, as long as you have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to a given communication, it is contitutionally protected.  Technology has led the courts to tweak and refine that basic rule to incorporate changing technology but the rule is essentially the same. 

 

The fact that the phone company owns the phone line over which your communication is carried does not allow them to listen in to that signal so even if I were to accept your arguement about ownership of the internet, it does not follow that the "owner", whoever that is, has the right to a warrantless tap, signal capture or whatever you want to call that type of secretly listening in on a private conversation.

 

"Public domain" is really a legal phrase of art relating to patents and copyrights.  Jacki O, rest her soul, had no reasonable expectation of privacy in walking down the street so she could be photographed when in public.  However, photographing her from a mile away with a telephoto lens peering through a bedroom window would certainly be illegal.  She had a reasonable expectation of privacy sitting in her bedroom even if her window was open and she knew that with the right equipment, people could photograph her.

 

Just because a communication is capable of being intercepted does not mean that the persons involved had no reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the communication.  That is really the inquiry, the reasonableness of that beleif, not just whether or not the communication was interceptable.

536710[/snapback]

Again, I have an issue with a hardwire tap, those going through a telephone companies line. But once it hits the airwaves, it is fair game on capture. Also, I agree if you have an intranet, inside communication on;y then again private. Throw it out to the internet and on government funded switches and routers and it is fair game for capture.

 

As far as the courts and their interpretting law, this goes back to the whole activist judges who change law without a basis in fact or constitution.

[Mickey]

What if they tap within the 72 hrs of getting the warrant, but within 48 hrs realize that the guy is worthless, is a warrant still needed?

536707[/snapback]

I don't know the details but I doubt it. The info is just not useable in court if they tap and don't ultimately get a warrant. If nothing is turned up, there is no need to ever get the actual warrant. It would be a waste of time. No one is going to get all bent out of shape for them dropping an investigation before ever having been required to get a warrant. If that is the case, this is all going to get dropped pretty quickly but I highly doubt that is the issue. If it were, the administration talking heads could have just said that over the weekend when they were all dispatched to defend this on "Press the Meat" and the rest.

 

Its not an argument, that I'm aware of, being made by the people on the inside who know exactly what happened so I see no reason to speculate that this is the case. Their defense is that they tapped US citizens without a warrant but it was within the President's constitutional authority and that the President's handpicked attorney general obligingly reached that conclusion.