# Phone Tapping



## MTPheas (Oct 8, 2003)

No comments about Bush illegally authorizing the NSA to conduct surveillance, without a court order? Thought the independent-minded defenders of the Constitution on this board would be outraged. I sure as hell am. Draft the articles of impeachment!


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Why then weren't Carter, Reagan and Clinton gone after for this same thing ...?????

As I understand it this has been a rather common practice since about 1978 and all of the above mentions Presidents used the same provisions to do investigations.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It also was not illegal, but keep hoping.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The Left's privacy hypocrites
By Michelle Malkin

Dec 21, 2005

Allow me to sum up the homeland security strategy of America's do-nothing brigade, led by the armchair generals at The New York Times and ACLU headquarters:

*First, *bar law enforcement at all levels from taking race, ethnicity, national origin and religion into account when assessing radical Islamic terror threats. (But continue to allow the use of those factors to ensure "diversity" in public-college admissions, contracting, and police- and fire-department hiring.)

*Second*, institute the "Eenie-meenie-miny-moe" random-search program at all subways, railways and bus stations.

*Third,* open the borders, sabotage all immigration enforcement efforts and scream "Racist" at any law-abiding American who protests.

*Fourth*, sue. Sue. Sue.

*Fifth*, yell "Connect the dots!" while rebuilding and strengthening the walls that prevent information-sharing between the CIA, State Department, Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security and other key government agencies. :eyeroll:

*Sixth,* hang the white flag and declare victory. :******:

*Seventh*, sit back and wait to blame the president for failing to take aggressive, preventative measures when the next terrorist attack hits.

Repeat. :sniper:

The hindsight hypocrisy of the civil-liberties absolutists never ceases to amaze. And their selective outrage over privacy violations never ceases to aggravate. Last Friday, The New York Times splashed classified information about the National Security Agency's surveillance of international communications between suspected al Qaeda operatives and their contacts all over the front page in a naked attempt to sabotage the Patriot Act. This Tuesday, the newspaper continued to stir fears of "spying on all innocent Americans" by recycling old ACLU complaints about FBI monitoring of radical environmental groups, antiwar activists and some Muslim leaders and groups.

Alarmists in the Beltway want investigations (though not of the leakers who fed the Times its story). The civil-liberties sky is falling, they say, and never have Americans been subjected to such invasive snooping.

Funny enough, another story about unprecedented domestic spying measures broke a week before the Times' stunt. But neither the Times nor the ACLU nor the Democratic Party leadership had a peep to say about the reported infringements on Americans' civil liberties. Sen. Charles Schumer (by the way, Chuck, how's that apology to Lt. Gov. Michael Steele over his stolen credit report coming along?) did not rush to the cameras to call the alleged privacy breach "shocking." Sen. Robert Byrd did not awake from his slumber to decry the adoption of "the thuggish practices of our enemies." The indignant New York Times editorial board did not call for heads to roll.

That's because the targets of the spy scandal that didn't make the front-page headlines were politically incorrect right-wing extremists.

According to the McCurtain Daily Gazette, in the days after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the U.S. government used a spy satellite to gather intelligence on a white separatist compound in Oklahoma. The paper obtained a Secret Service log showing that on May 2, 1995, two weeks after the April 19 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building that killed 168 people, the FBI was trying to locate suspects for questioning.

Investigators zeroed in on the compound in nearby Elohim City. "Satellite assets have been tasked to provide intelligence concerning the compound," the document said, according to the Gazette and Associate Press. The Gazette noted that "America's spy-satellite program is jointly under the control of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of Defense (DoD). Targeting decisions are classified; however, persons familiar with the project say any domestic use of these satellites is barred by agreements between the CIA and DoD." Photoreconnaissance satellites that gather intelligence from space usually target hostile governments and foreign terrorists. "The domestic use of a military satellite for domestic spying is a violation of DoD and CIA regulations regarding the proper use of top-secret national security satellites," the Gazette reported.

But with the exception of a brief Associated Press recap, the story received absolutely no mainstream-media attention. No civil-liberties circus. No White House press-corps pandemonium.

The left believes the government should do whatever it takes to fight terrorists -- but only when the terrorists look like Timothy McVeigh. If you're on the MCI Friends and Family plan of Osama bin Laden and Abu Zubaydah, you're home free.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns ... 79926.html


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

more examples :eyeroll:

If our congress doesn't get serious about the terror issue a lot of americans are going to die

again :******:


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I was going to post a subject on this subject, but I was waiting in hopes that somebody else would step forward. I'm glad they did.

The heart of the matter is that the Bush administration has admitted to conducting illegal eavesdropping an U.S. citizens. Although they government is allowed to do wiretapping on U.S. citizens, they need a warrant first. If the recent allegations are true, the Bush administration conducted eavesdropping on some U.S. citizens without a warrant.

To violate civil liberties is bad enough. However, what completely floored me is Bush's statement that bringing the information on the illegal surveilance as a "shameful act". The arrogance of this president never ceases to amaze me. Evidently speaking out against the government and discussing illegal activities in a time of war is "shameful".

Sorry, but I believe is that our civil liberties are precious. Heck, how many times have we heard the president discussing the need for war to protect our freedoms? At the same time, he is willing to take away certain freedoms of U.S. citizens?

If surveilance of U. S. citizens was necessary and justified, the administration should have obtained warrants and made their case to a judge. Otherwise, it was a clear violation of our civil liberties.

Bush alleges that what he did was necessary and allowed under his powers as commander in chief. Others disagree. I simply hope that the answer to the legality of these acts is found, and Bush is held accountable if he did perform an illegal act.

By the way, if these same types of activities occurred under other administrations, then they were illegal then too.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I just had another thought on this matter after a co-worker of mine stated that the illegal wiretapping is not a big deal since it made us safer. Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. Would you allow for the confiscation of firearms because some allege that it would make our country safer? I don't think so.

My civil liberties are precious, and I will not give them up without a darn good reason. Furthermore, if I want to give them up, it is MY decision. I don't think that the individuals involved were asked if they wanted to give up their civil liberties regarding illegal search and seizure.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

BigDaddy said:


> Would you allow for the confiscation of firearms because some allege that it would make our country safer? I don't think so.


While reading this post, I was thinking of the same example. Why is wire-tapping okay but taking out guns isn't since both our in the guise of making our country _safer_? Seems contradictory.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> the Bush administration has admitted to conducting illegal eavesdropping an U.S. citizens.


No, he did not admit to any such thing. If you have proof that what the President did was illegal and not authorized by present law, please post same. The FISA act signed by President Carter allows the interception of calls originating from overseas without court approval. Next time Bin Laden makes a call to one of his operatives here I'm sure he will be more than happy to be placed on hold while someone runs down to talk to a judge. Oops............ Bin Laden no longer uses his cell phone does he.......I forgot he was tipped off about that by one of our great left wing puppet news papers a few years ago......makes me wonder just who the hell the enemy really is.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> No, he did not admit to any such thing. If you have proof that what the President did was illegal and not authorized by present law, please post same


Just to clarify my earlier statement, Bush has admitted to performing surveilance on U.S. citizens, but he has not admitted that the activity is illegal. However, I have watched interviews with many constitutional scholars, and without exception, they have stated that such activity would be illegal without a warrant.

FISA created a system whereby such warrants can be issued easily and without substantial burden of proof. However, FISA does not allow wiretapping and searches without a warrant. In other words, the NSA still needed a warrant to do what they did, and any wiretapping without a warrant would be illegal.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Isn't it interesting how all this stuff is becoming Illegal ...

Haliburton, Frist, Delay, Libby, Rove, Cheney, Bush ... I know I must have missed a few additional names there.

Geez, it appears we have nothing but a bunch of (yet to be convicted) Crooks running the Country.

In the end we shall see what is criminal and how much is nothing more than Liberal "damn the torpedoes" mentality.


----------



## MTPheas (Oct 8, 2003)

The Bush Administration broke the law by AVOIDING requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--namely retroactive issuance of warrants. NO other President--Democratic or Republican--ever did this.

You will hear right wing talk radio nuts rant about Clinton monitoring phone calls in the 1990s. In fact, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon. The fact is that Clinton complied with FISA by obtaining warrants before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted. CIA director George Tenet testified to this before Congress on 4/12/00.

Meanwhile, the position of the Bush administration is that they can bypass the FISA court and every other court, even when they are monitoring the communications of U.S. persons. It is the difference between following the law and breaking it. This is the reason given by Air Force General Michael V. Hayden, who was NSA director when the surveillance began and now serves as Bush's deputy director of national intelligence, said the secret- court process was intended for long-term surveillance of agents of an enemy power, not the current hunt for elusive terrorist cells.

"The whole key here is agility," he said at a White House briefing before Bush's news conference. According to Hayden, most warrantless surveillance conducted under Bush's authorization lasts just days or weeks, and requires only the approval of a shift supervisor. Hayden said getting retroactive court approval is inefficient because it "involves marshaling arguments" and "looping paperwork around."

So, the general thinks the current law is "inefficient" because it would require him to write down a few things and actually explain why he wants to invade the privacy of Americans in violation of the law?

Then there's Attorney General Gonzales, who said, "This is not a backdoor approach," Gonzales said at the White House. "We believe Congress has authorized this kind of surveillance." He acknowledged that the administration discussed introducing legislation explicitly permitting such domestic spying but decided against it because it "would be difficult, if not impossible" to pass.

Did you get that? Gonzales claims Bush believed that Congress authorized the domestic spying. Then Gonzales says Bush didn't want to ask Congress directly to authorize the spying because he thought Congress would never approve of it. That means Gonzales and Bush knew that Congress opposed legislation permitting domestic spying without a warrant, so they also obviously knew Congress never intended to include such an authorization in the Patriot Act or elsewhere.

So basically, our Attorney General is now lying to us about why he violated the civil liberties of American citizens.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> FISA does not allow wiretapping and searches without a warrant.


Really........ this is from the LA Times, certainly not a conservative supporter.

"the court created under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to provide authorization for international wiretaps is specifically designed to respond quickly to the type of requests in question. The so-called FISA court regularly authorizes these warrants within hours and even minutes. Moreover, in the case of "emergency" situations in which the attorney general deems it necessary to undertake surveillance immediately, the statute itself allows the government to obtain a warrant up to 72 hours after starting the necessary surveillance."

A wireless phone call is over with in seconds, certainly minutes. Ditto for a email. The taps authorized by the President as far as I can tell were electronic eves dropping on the entire air waves. What's the point of getting a warrant for a 5 minute phone call that has expired 71 hours and 55 minutes earlier. Besides, how do we know that routine paper work were not filed as a matter of procedure and then filed away as there was no reason to then issue a warrant. Awful lot of speculation going on here unless of course a person chooses to believe Boxer and Kennedy. Point is, unless you or I have the inside track with legal FISA judges then neither one of us really know if it was legal or not. At this point I think I'll just accept the word of the present Attorney General as well as the Attorney Generals for the last 4 Presidents that say it was within the jurisdiction of the President.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I remember prior to the election all the egg people got on their face by jumping on every crazy rumor that emerged. Personally I'll wait and see. I wouldn't want it any other way though. The more often extreme liberals blow their credibility, the easier the next election will be.

With experience to reference my judgment I would guess this is just another smoke screen. We argue legal and illegal, but have only heard from legal beagles with an axe to grind. We have yet to hear from neutral people knowledgeable in constitutional law.

How many thousand people was it Bill and Hillary used the FBI to check up on, but the story died a fast death?

I might also add that the bigger crime was a supposedly neutral news organization using and timing the story to help destroy legislation that would help protect the nation. If there were no laws broken I would like to see prison sentences for the traitors who published it. These people are willing to risk our lives to get even with Bush for winning the election. They are crazed with hatred, jealously and an insatiable appetite for power. I know liberals who's faces flush, cheeks quiver, and eyes twitch at the mention of Bush's name. I think I'll buy stock in Prozac.

Oh, a question for everyone. How do we know those were U S citizens that were spied on? Is that confirmed or just more jumping to irresponsible conclusions?


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Gohon wrote:



> Really........ this is from the LA Times, certainly not a conservative supporter.
> 
> "the court created under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to provide authorization for international wiretaps is specifically designed to respond quickly to the type of requests in question. The so-called FISA court regularly authorizes these warrants within hours and even minutes. Moreover, in the case of "emergency" situations in which the attorney general deems it necessary to undertake surveillance immediately, the statute itself allows the government to obtain a warrant up to 72 hours after starting the necessary surveillance."


You just confirmed my statement. A warrant IS required to conduct wiretapping. In emergency situations, surveillance can be conducted under FISA, but a warrant does need to be obtained within 72 hours. The news stories that I have seen and read allege that a warrant was never obtained in certain situations.

Plainsman wrote:



> How many thousand people was it Bill and Hillary used the FBI to check up on, but the story died a fast death?


The issue is simply whether any wiretapping and searches was done legally, meaning with a warrant. If a judge issues a warrant, then the surveillance is legal, plain and simple.

I would personally like to see a trial or hearing to allow all evidence supporting these allegations to be reviewed by an impartial third party.

The thing that continues to irk me is the arrogance of this president to call it a "shameful act" for people to even bring the story forward. If allegations of illegal activities are made, it is not shameful to bring them to the public. If anything, it is patriotic to point out any situation when the civil liberties of any citizen are threatened.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> The fact is that Clinton complied with FISA by obtaining warrants before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted


You might want to think on that one again. Not only did Clinton authorize wiretapping without a warrant he authorized the break in of a US citizens house and the planting of bugs, all without a warrant. As it turns out Clinton was right as the two suspects turned out to be spy's and were convicted in court. Nevertheless what he did was illegal. Check it out, you'll find it........



> You just confirmed my statement


I did no such thing....... I presented you with a problem of how do you obtain a warrant for a 5 minute phone call that has already expired. You did not answer that question but the answer is simple...... you can't, you don't, and you don't have to if they are non US citizens.

"FISA does authorize surveillance without a warrant, but not on US citizens (with the possible exception of citizens speaking from property openly owned by a foreign power; e.g., an embassy.)

FISA also says that the Attorney General can authorize emergency surveillance without a warrant when there is no time to obtain one. But it requires that the Attorney General notify the judge of that authorization immediately, and that he (and yes, the law does say 'he') apply for a warrant "as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance."

It also says this:

"*In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained*, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest. In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance, no information obtained or evidence derived from such surveillance shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof".

So were these American citizens that were listened to? Did the calls originate in the USA or from over seas? Even if the Attorney General picked up a phone and called one of the FISA judges each and every time, and then turned around as soon as the phone conversation was over and called back saying oh never mind the call is over............ they still didn't need a warrant for the calls they were listening to. As for a trial and investigation, that's just great. Why don't we just open up the front doors and allow every terrorist in the world to discover how we gather intelligence so they can change tactics.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Question ...

If any of the "Brilliant Bush Bashing Minds" here know ... Where was the point of origin on the calls being monitored?

And is it Legal or Illegal for the Military (American Security Forces) to "tap" foreign calls under circumstances of National Safety/Danger???

That's just one observation that crossed my mind as I read all you folks trying so hard to draw "Lines in the Sand" and "Foam at the Mouth" dreaming over the Crucifixion of GWB


----------



## Remington 7400 (Dec 14, 2005)

Personally i don't have a problem with it. This is just an attempt to keep America safe and free of terrorists. From my understanding they only tapped suspectided terrorists, not everybody. So its just not like they picked names at random. Basically, you'd better not say anything over the phone you don't want someone else to hear.

A quick word of advise, if the CIA wants to know something about you they will find out one way or another, and if we find out they will probably have to kill us! :eyeroll:

BRING IT ON!!! :sniper: :******: :sniper: :******: 
:sniper: :******: :sniper: :******: :sniper: :******:


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

I agree ... I refuse to get too worked up ...

First off, under these circumstances and GWB being the President (responsible for the safety of America) ... and knowing these "Thugs" we are fighting can easily use our own system against us ... I'm very willing to sit back and watch for now.

Maybe it's a little like being a teller in the bank and an armed robber is at the window ... the next guy in line pulls a concealed .44 out of is pants and blows the robber off his feet ... and we find out after the fact he had no permit to carry a concealed weapon ... some may try to throw **** at him, but in the end we all realize ... he may have saved some innocent lives ...

If that's screwwed up thinking ... just tell me so.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Gohon:

You are correct that a warrant should not be required for a non-U.S. citizen living in the U.S. Furthermore, I have little problem with tapping calls of non-citizens because their civil liberties are not guaranteed by our constitution.

My concern is whether wiretapping on U.S. citizens was done without a warrant, either before the wiretapping took place or retroactively under the emergency provisions of FISA. The news stories that I have read continue to discuss wiretapping an spying on U.S. cititzens.

Again, many people allege that such illegal activity is OK because it makes us safer. This absolutely baffles me.

This nation is built on certain rights and liberties, including the right to replace our leaders peacefully through election, the right to free speech and religion, and protection from unreasonable search and seizure. For reference, this is found in the Fourth Amendment, shortly after the Third Amendment that discusses the right to bear arms.

For those of you who think that infringing on this civil liberty under the guise of safety is OK, are you willing to let the government infringe on your other civil liberties in the name of public safety? If so, which civil liberties are you willing to relinquish?


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

I wake up every morning and thank GOD, that we don't have a democrat whacko for president. You people who are constantly bashing GWB for the most idiotic things are lthe lowest scum I've seen. IMO you provide aid and comfort to the enemy, the enemies and terrorists know exactly how to play you. If we would have had an attack that could have been prevented by wiretapping, you would have ripped him for not doing it, what a bunch a clowns. I don't even know what else to say, I'm just flabbergasted that we people in this country that claim to be Americans, patriotic, and all the rest and then pull this. WOW.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

I think maybe it boils down to a simple concept ...

Are we safer with a President who is "Proactive" ... or would we be safer with one who is "Reactive?"

We have seen a few of both over the past three decades.

Sure being proactive IS NOT without risk, but don't ever underestimate the value of having a strong "Posture" visible to all particpants both Friend and Foe.

When you stop long enough to remember we were attacked on our own soil by folks who had been on our soil for a considerable amount of time prior to the attack ... Well, I for one can see that some extrordinary measures just might come in order from time to time in the effort to stop attacks rather than simply react to them after the fact and after thousands of American civilians have been killed AGAIN.

And I don't say that in an admission that I think wire tapping is this case is illegal, I don't know enough yet to come to any conclusion.

As far fetched as some may think it is ... one nuke in New York City or Chicago would definately regain the attention of folks here in America ...

I'll take "Proactive."


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

I went back and read all the posts twice to make sure I was reading right, and I think the issue of this thread is trust. Do we trust our Executive or don't we. 
I do not trust the current Executive administration. I believe that in this case, power does corrupt, this administration has exceeded it's constitutional authority, and should have been and still could be reigned in by one or more of the three other branches of govt. (Legislative, Judicial, or we the people.) I don't think I'm suggesting impeachment or a figurative or literal recall, rather some swift work on others part to reign this executive in. 
I believe that corrupt power works incrementally to gain control over the populace. What I mean is, gradual blending of church and state, (Faith based initiatives,) only wire tapping international phone calls in the name of the war on terrorism, (illegal search and seizure,) Detaining AMERICAN CITIZEN Jose Padilla and of course all of our favorites, taking automatic weapons, hand guns, high capacity magazines out of the public hands in the name of public safety. 
What I might be doing a poor job of trying to say is that we are incrementally loosing our Constitutional rights and we should tolerate no more! I believe Big Daddy was right to express bafflement at people willing to give up liberties in order to gain security. Decoy and others correctly noted that this paticular case of wire tapping might not have been illegal, but I think there are plenty of other cases to be upset about, some of which I have noted above
The big picture to me is that I don't believe any American should trust any authority. I didn't trust the Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton administrations, and I sure don't think I'll be trusting many in the future. Submit to their authority some or most of the time? Sure. Replace them regularly thru election? Absolutely. Look askew at everything they do and say? Without exception. 
Geez, I can't tell if I sound like an idiot or not. I guess I can count on you guys to tell me if I do. 
Ok, now having said all that, A very sincere Merry Christmas to you all!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I went back and looked through the posts also. No matter how strong you feel lets not start calling each other names. We all have strong feelings about this, but we are all still on the same side.

I think as artic plainsman said much of it is a matter of trust. That is why we are lucky presidents get only two terms. Good or bad, they go after eight years.

Has bush been dishonest with us? The truth is we really don't know. The media is constantly trying to make us think so, but if I have to trust Bush or the media it is no contest. Many people want to believe that Bush is dishonest, others don't care as long as they can make you believe it. For those who talk about civil liberties I would ask you what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? We are making judgments with no proof, only media and partisan spin. That is all there is to it so far.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I would certainly agree that our civil liberties are to be cherished and guarded. But at the same time I ask myself what civil liberties have I lost from the government listening in on the air waves. The right to privacy? Some kid with a Radio Shack device driving past my house can listen to the same conversation. If I want 100% privacy in a conversation there are means to accomplish that so I don't worry about it and I don't feel my civil liberties are violated from electronic surveillance. It is a simple matter of reality. I wonder just how many pages our constitution would be and what would it really contain if our founding fathers, in their wildest dreams had of imagined what the year 2005 would look like. I don't think a couple sheets of brown paper would have been the only thing they put to words. Our constitution is the foundation which our country is built on but I think it is important to remember it is not the house itself. We live in a ever changing world that requires adjustment on our part if progress is to advance.

As to trust of the government, I would never put blind faith into trusting the government but I feel if we don't have some trust in the people we elect then we are doomed to failure. I don't know if what the President authorized was illegal or not but I suspect we will find out through the courts, and I feel that that alone with the secret being leaked into the public as it was will be more harmful to us a nation than anything the President did. I think our enemies have just learned something they should not do in the future and that can not be good.

I would ask everyone to ask themselves, what constitutional rights have you actually lost during your life time? I don't know of any myself but I can name one that has been trampled on by the government...... separation of church and state. It doesn't exist in the constitution.


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

Hey, wait a minute, I can't call myself an idiot?!?!?!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well the grandkids are gone and the house is still again. Merry Christmas everyone. Ya, arctic, you can call yourself anything you want. I was reminding others that those of us on here are on the same side. I wouldn't say the same about out media.


----------

