Former FISA Judges: Bush's warrantless wiretaps completely legal

[GostHacked]

So tapping into every major communications network in the US is fine with you? Do you not get pissed to find out that this has been going on longer than the so called 'new spy program'? 2002, 4 years alreay they have monitored everything that is AT&T. That even means half the stuff we talk about here gets monitored. And not just by Greg. And we are not even in the same country, and could be subject to their laws, under the pretense of Terrorism. Pathetic!

Some of the Internet's major back bones are through AT&T. So any information going through that network but that was not the origin or the destination. That is being monitored. As long as it has been there they have been listening now.

Also quite the ad there on that sight, 'Who's help protecting her online?' Well it should be the mother. Not Big Brother.

Hi, folks, by Executive Order, I can listen into anyone, anytime, anwhere. The law says I can. I did mention that there are alot of lawyers in Washington. Why? Well, I need this information to protect our American freedom and democracy. Throw in a couple 9/11 mentionables to make you cry a bit and then say I need it to track terrorists in and outside of the US.

I do not agree with this law. I think it is wrong and puts too much power in one single person's hands.

[Montgomery Burns]

Translation: They're Republicans ergo they are liars. They lied about Saddam and Al Qaeda being linked. They lied when they said Saddam sponsored int'l terrorism. They lied about Iraq being a terrorist haven. If only they had listened to Uncle Saddam (or any other mass-murdering dictator). Saddam and his ilk are always to be trusted. Republicans are nothing but liars and the people who continually elect them into power obviously do not live in the reality-based community..."

Glad to see you finally get it.

I see these leftwing talking points every day I log on to my computer.

I'm two steps ahead of y'all.

[KrustyKidd]

Hi, folks, by Executive Order, I can listen into anyone, anytime, anwhere. The law says I can. I did mention that there are alot of lawyers in Washington. Why? Well, I need this information to protect our American freedom and democracy. Throw in a couple 9/11 mentionables to make you cry a bit and then say I need it to track terrorists in and outside of the US.

I do not agree with this law. I think it is wrong and puts too much power in one single person's hands.

It is not the optimum situation for anybody but, these are times where the enemy communicates using our systems and, in order to be protected from them, we need to grant special powers. There are checks and balances in place through the constitustion whereby grandfoather clauses and such make these laws come up for revision or cancellation and, that with term governments makes it a fairly begnign system. If you will note, during times of national emergency many laws have been put into place and then quietly been anulled afterwards.

As for too much power in one person's hands, I do believe that prior to being elected (for two terms) this particular president was placed under the microscope more than once so it's not like the US elected a complete stranger. I know that you mean in ANY PERSON'S hands and in that, I agree but, in time of war and, we are at war with a non physical social disease that has an agenda, rationale and the fair possibility of making it work even if most don't see it.

[Black Dog]

I'll let the President handle this one (replying to a liberal audience member yesterday who made a statement full of "progressive" leftwing talking-points; he did NOT ask a question):

THE PRESIDENT: I’m going to start off with what you first said, if you don’t mind, you said that I tap your phones—I think that’s what you said. You tapped your phone—I tapped your phones. Yes. No, that’s right. Yes, no, let me finish.

"Wha? Huh? Who am I? Where am I?"

I’d like to describe that decision I made about protecting this country. You can come to whatever conclusion you want. The conclusion is I’m not going to apologize for what I did on the terrorist surveillance program, and I’ll tell you why. We were accused in Washington, D.C. of not connecting the dots, that we didn’t do everything we could to protect you or others from the attack. And so I called in the people responsible for helping to protect the American people and the homeland. I said, is there anything more we could do.

And there—out of this national—NSA came the recommendation that it would make sense for us to listen to a call outside the country, inside the country from al Qaeda or suspected al Qaeda in order to have real-time information from which to possibly prevent an attack. I thought that made sense, so long as it was constitutional. Now, you may not agree with the constitutional assessment given to me by lawyers—and we’ve got plenty of them in Washington—but they made this assessment that it was constitutional for me to make that decision.

I don't know how many times I can make this point: warrantless surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information is perfectly legal, provided that the communications to be monitored are exclusively between or among foreign powers and there is no substantial likelihood any ''United States person'' will be overheard. However: of a United States person is being spied on (regardless of who they are talking to) and there is no warrant authorizing said surveillance, then the surveillance is illegal. In other words: no-warrant surveillance inside the U.S is strictly verboten. All the half-baked, illogical and misleading talking points in the world canot disguise the fact that the President, by authorizing a program that violates the laws of the land, is a criminal.

[lost&outofcontrol]

Uh oh, there's more: It's legal

..snip..

It may be legal but doesn't it scare you that it is? Don't you think it's wrong for a government to have that much power?

[GostHacked]

Uh oh, there's more: It's legal

..snip..

It may be legal but doesn't it scare you that it is? Don't you think it's wrong for a government to have that much power?

And with the AT&T article I posted, they have been doing it longer than the program has been in place!! Now THAT scares me. That is alarming.

Don't worry it is legal.

Yes the program is new, well actually we been doing it longer than you think.

This was before all their lawyers decided to figure out if it was legal or not.

[Montgomery Burns]

Translation: They're Republicans ergo they are liars. They lied about Saddam and Al Qaeda being linked. They lied when they said Saddam sponsored int'l terrorism. They lied about Iraq being a terrorist haven. If only they had listened to Uncle Saddam (or any other mass-murdering dictator). Saddam and his ilk are always to be trusted. Republicans are nothing but liars and the people who continually elect them into power obviously do not live in the reality-based community.

Blah blah blah. You've nothing to say, so why waste this board's time with your inanities?

Just ignore the first sentence of the article:

A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).

The article is wrong. At no point did any of the judges say the president "did not act illegally" or that he acted "within the law" when he authorized the NSA warrantless surveillance program. Read the transcript of the testimony:

"We will not be testifying today with regard to the present program implemented by President Bush"

Another BD lie, unless you count DEMOCRAT arguments as being "universal". I don't know how BD can look at himself in the mirror.

The judges' statements are universally in favour of judicial oversight of executive power.

Judge Robertson:

"Seeking judicial approval for government activities that implicate constitutional guarantees is, of course, the American way."

Judge Brotman:

"FISA has worked and worked well. It is a necessary court and its orders reflect the balance to which I have made reference. It has no ax to grind, this court. Judicial review provides confidence to the citizens of our country to know that a court has looked on what is being sought. Times change. Methodology changes. Equipment changes.

Processes change. All these things can be and should be accommodated with the FISA Court."

Judge Stafford:

FISA was created by Congress to clarify that the president had the authority to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance, but that the president would do so through a court composed of judges who had been nominated for lifetime appointments by a president and confirmed by the Senate as provided in Article III of the Constitution. This arrangement seems to have worked well for everyone.

Judge Kornblum:

I also want to emphasize that the real success of the FISA statute is that it's proven indisputably that intelligence and counterintelligence activities are fully enhanced by the rule of law and, in fact, are fully compatible with the rule of law.

It must've been frustrating for the chap to be unable to attack a Rupert Murdock news source on this thread.

The Moony Times is worse than "Murdock".

Please stick to the issues and drop the spin. I think we're all a bit tired of your Clintonesque "it depends on what your definition of is is" nuance.

I apologize for the fact that your brain cannot handle the incedibly simple fact that U.S. law prohibits warrantless spying on U.S. persons. But it's not spin.

Why do you think that the "illegal" wiretaps story has dropped off the radar of the MSM

That's rich: you of all people using the MSM's coverage to defend your arguments. Feel the hypocricy!

Edit:

Same story, different interpretation

In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order. They also suggested that the program could imperil criminal prosecutions that grew out of the wiretaps.

Blah blah blah. One can always predict BD's talking points. Bush lied. The Mooney Times. Faux News. It depends on what your definition of is/illegal is. The Iraqis are subhuman; the Afghanis are subhumans.

And BD proves his point by dropping a link to the reprehensible NY Times.

He promised to leave this board and take his ball and go home (when Iraqi document after Iraqi document disproved his outlandish claim that Saddam had no ties to terrorists whatsoever) but he must be a masochist as he still posts here and embarrasses himself day after day after day.

Ah well. You know what they say; progressive liberals have no shame.

[Montgomery Burns]

Uh oh, there's more: It's legal

..snip..

It may be legal but doesn't it scare you that it is? Don't you think it's wrong for a government to have that much power?

Only is someone like Clinton or Carter is in power.

Why do you not want the US to eavesdrop on terrorists? Why do you want terrorists to have so much power? Do you have an agenda?

[KrustyKidd]

It may be legal but doesn't it scare you that it is? Don't you think it's wrong for a government to have that much power?

No.

These are times where the enemy communicates using our systems and, in order to be protected from them, we need to grant special powers. There are checks and balances in place through the constitustion whereby grandfather clauses and such make these laws come up for revision or cancellation and, that with term governments makes it a fairly benign system. If you will note, during times of national emergency many laws have been put into place and then quietly been anulled afterwards.

As for too much power in one person's hands, I do believe that prior to being elected (for two terms) this particular president was placed under the microscope more than once so it's not like the US elected a complete stranger. I know that you mean in ANY PERSON'S hands and in that, I agree but, in time of war and, we are at war with a non physical social disease that has an agenda, rationale and the fair possibility of making it work even if most don't see it.

[Black Dog]

Blah blah blah. One can always predict BD's talking points. Bush lied. The Mooney Times. Faux News. It depends on what your definition of is/illegal is. The Iraqis are subhuman; the Afghanis are subhumans.

reported to the mod. Ciao.

[lost&outofcontrol]

Uh oh, there's more: It's legal

..snip..

It may be legal but doesn't it scare you that it is? Don't you think it's wrong for a government to have that much power?

Only is someone like Clinton or Carter is in power.

Why do you not want the US to eavesdrop on terrorists? Why do you want terrorists to have so much power? Do you have an agenda?

You're kidding right, now you're accusing me of sympathising with "terrorist" because I disagree with a .gov arbitrarily eavesdropping on people's conversations? You should be the next press secretary for the white house. Why not get rid of due process, the government would never accuse someone without them being guilty right?! I don't know what to say, you would of fitted right in the McCarthy era. I though being a conservative was all about reducing .gov powers...

[Black Dog]

You're kidding right, now you're accusing me of sympathising with "terrorist" because I disagree with a .gov arbitrarily eavesdropping on people's conversations? You should be the next press secretary for the white house. Why not get rid of due process, the government would never accuse someone without them being guilty right?! I don't know what to say, you would of fitted right in the McCarthy era. I though being a conservative was all about reducing .gov powers...

l&ooc: Don't waste your time with someone who's still clingining to the long-discredited "Carter and Clinton did it too!" defense.

[lost&outofcontrol]

l&ooc: Don't waste your time with someone who's still clingining to the long-discredited "Carter and Clinton did it too!" defense.

I know but I still have hope. The way I understand it, the foundation of democracy is at stake here. The US was founded on the principals that today we are losing. It's our duty as citizens to question our .govs actions. This is the only way to strike a balance between the interest of the .gov and it's citizens. If we don't, one day we'll wake up in a totalitarian state and wonder how we got there.

[GostHacked]

The NSA wiretapping may be legal in today's terms. I am getting at the admendmant to the US constitution in an item called The Patriot Act. This Patriot Act basicly overthrows a couple basic constitutional rights.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...llofrights.html

Amendment IV

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.

The Patriot Act seems to kill this important item. But then again, it is the definition of the terms they use. I have harped on this before and I will keep on it. The language is not CLEAR and CONCISE! And according to Bush 'we have lots of lawyers in Washington' to keep it all in check! Meaning, no matter what, the lawyers will find loopholes in everything with the way they word it.

I don't think it is right.

[Black Dog]

The NSA wiretapping may be legal in today's terms.

It's not. Th efirst clue is the fact that the Bush administration and its various apologists have not mounted a particularily vigorous defence of the program in question on the grounds that it conforms to eny existent legislation (half-hearted talk of the AUMF aside). Rather, the administration is claiming warrantless eavesdropping as authorized not by FISA, but by "additional authorities that [the President] has." It bears repeating: the law is specific in banning any searches without warrants on Americans except in extraordinary circumstances. The Bush administration has not cited any of those exemptions for the domestic eavesdropping program (a program which they also claim has monitored hundreds if not thousands of individuals: presumably, a few of the people monitored fall under the stauatory definition of "U.S. person", surevillance of whom is expressly prohibited by law). Rather: they are asying the program is legal on the basis that the President says it is legal.

Here's a hint, l&ooc: if the subject of the NSA program come sup and someone claims it is either legal or necessary, it's a clear sign they don't know what they are talking about.

[lost&outofcontrol]

I just wanted to add this little tidbit from the Wired article you posted.

...included wholesale monitoring of the nation's internet communications.

[Mark] Klein's duties included connecting new fiber-optic circuits to that room, which housed data-mining equipment built by a company called Narus, according to his statement.

Narus' promotional materials boast that its equipment can scan billions of bits of Internet traffic per second, including analyzing the contents of e-mails and e-mail attachments and even allowing playback of Internet phone calls.

So now we are beyond just wiretapping calls made to suspected "terrorist" but we are now keeping track of all communications. And if ATT did it you can be sure all the other major telcos are doing it.

Big brother

[GostHacked]

I just wanted to add this little tidbit from the Wired article you posted.

...included wholesale monitoring of the nation's internet communications.

[Mark] Klein's duties included connecting new fiber-optic circuits to that room, which housed data-mining equipment built by a company called Narus, according to his statement.

Narus' promotional materials boast that its equipment can scan billions of bits of Internet traffic per second, including analyzing the contents of e-mails and e-mail attachments and even allowing playback of Internet phone calls.

So now we are beyond just wiretapping calls made to suspected "terrorist" but we are now keeping track of all communications. And if ATT did it you can be sure all the other major telcos are doing it.

Big brother

Yes, this was very alarming to me when I read that. Being in the IT industry, I know the workings of the Internet pretty damn good. This frightens the F*** out of me. Even if the origin and the destination are NOT AT&T, as long as it runs through the AT&T backbone, it is monitored. I would like to know how many other telco/isp's are in on this as well. This to me is a very big thing.

How much Internet traffic gets relayed through AT&T switches or backbones? I would say ALOT.

Big Brother indeed.

EDIT: Another thing I was thinking about as I was looking this thread over again. Since the NSA can monitor everything through AT&T, not only are terrorists and private citizens being monitored, they can monitor corporations and and foreign government communications. They can monitor anything, that means anything. They can see what is happening around the globe in near real time. And with that knowledge, they can do many things.

International Big Brother.

[GostHacked]

Here is an UPDATE on the AT&T NSA Spy Program.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70650-0.html

AT&T's lawyers also told the court that intense press coverage surrounding the case, including Wired News' publication of Klein's statement, was revealing the company's trade secrets, "causing grave injury to AT&T." The lawyers argued that unsealing the documents "would cause AT&T great harm and potentially jeopardize AT&T's network, making it vulnerable to hackers, and worse."

HAHA !!! In all, I could not really give 2 craps about your trade secrets at this point. If you are doing this, then the public needs to know and AT&T needs to be stopped dead in their tracks in regards to this program. Jepordize the network? Are you kidding me? When you have the NSA monitoring everything, they would know when the hacker will try to get in. I say it is already jepordized.

The EFF declined to comment on the filing, while AT&T did not return a call seeking comment. The case is Hepting v. AT&T.

Hepting v. AT&T

http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/att-complaint.pdf

[GostHacked]

Here is some more information on wiretapping and how it can be used.

An article over at The Inquirer says :

THE NEW look Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) seems to be giving the world an unusual moral code.

Details of the upgraded act, which has the blessing of the music and film industry and the Bush administration, are now coming to light. It appears that the DMCA will have a maximum sentence of ten years inside for the crime of software and music piracy. It will also give the FBI the powers to wiretap suspected pirates.

So this NSA Wiretapping is not just for suspected international terrorists anymore, they are spying on the local American population for piracy. Wake up people, this will get worse, more news is going to come out on this.

In my searching for NSA related articles I came across a few interesting things. Over at The Political Gateway it has been lerned that a tried terrorist will now go free because of the illegal wiretapping.

Here is something over at Media Matters with a Fox "My Opinion" piece. Kind of scary. Watch that video please and tell me this does not alarm you.

It is a war against Bush waged by Americans. It's wrong; it's illegal; and people are going to start going to jail. That's good.

WTF ??? Well if the Americans do not like what the president is doing, they have every right to wage a 'war' on Bush. Get him out of office. Regardless of his claims that the wiretapping program leak hurt the security of the Nation and tipped off Al-Queda. Bush works for America, not the other way around. The reason why it was leaked? My guess is that some important people felt that the American population should know what their governent is doing. Not okay for it to be leaked, but ok for warrentless wiretappings by your own government.

Another article here at

The Jurist

This should send up some red flags among you.

[Black Dog]

WTF ??? Well if the Americans do not like what the president is doing, they have every right to wage a 'war' on Bush. Get him out of office. Regardless of his claims that the wiretapping program leak hurt the security of the Nation and tipped off Al-Queda. Bush works for America, not the other way around. The reason why it was leaked? My guess is that some important people felt that the American population should know what their governent is doing. Not okay for it to be leaked, but ok for warrentless wiretappings by your own government.

The "people" Gibson was talking about were government employees, not the general public. That said, Gibson is still an incipient fascist. "National security" is no defense for illegal behaviour. (I noted in the "Big Brother..." thread that claims that revealing the spy story damage national security ring quite hollow when Bush himself is on record talking in great detail about what kind of surrviellance programs the government conducts.)

[BHS]

Here is some more information on wiretapping and how it can be used.

An article over at The Inquirer says :

THE NEW look Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) seems to be giving the world an unusual moral code.

Details of the upgraded act, which has the blessing of the music and film industry and the Bush administration, are now coming to light. It appears that the DMCA will have a maximum sentence of ten years inside for the crime of software and music piracy. It will also give the FBI the powers to wiretap suspected pirates.

So this NSA Wiretapping is not just for suspected international terrorists anymore, they are spying on the local American population for piracy. Wake up people, this will get worse, more news is going to come out on this.

In my searching for NSA related articles I came across a few interesting things. Over at The Political Gateway it has been lerned that a tried terrorist will now go free because of the illegal wiretapping.

Here is something over at Media Matters with a Fox "My Opinion" piece. Kind of scary. Watch that video please and tell me this does not alarm you.

It is a war against Bush waged by Americans. It's wrong; it's illegal; and people are going to start going to jail. That's good.

WTF ??? Well if the Americans do not like what the president is doing, they have every right to wage a 'war' on Bush. Get him out of office. Regardless of his claims that the wiretapping program leak hurt the security of the Nation and tipped off Al-Queda. Bush works for America, not the other way around. The reason why it was leaked? My guess is that some important people felt that the American population should know what their governent is doing. Not okay for it to be leaked, but ok for warrentless wiretappings by your own government.

Another article here at

The Jurist

This should send up some red flags among you.

Do you have any idea how the Constitution applies vis-a-vis presidential terms of office, or are you just ranting?

[Black Dog]

BHS! Dude, where have you been?

Do you have any idea how the Constitution applies vis-a-vis presidential terms of office, or are you just ranting?

So you're saying that new, radical interpretations of executive power (which include, apparently, the right to abridge the law and possibly the Constitution itself) don't matter because Bush is going to be gone in 2 years or so?

[BHS]

BHS! Dude, where have you been?

Do you have any idea how the Constitution applies vis-a-vis presidential terms of office, or are you just ranting?

So you're saying that new, radical interpretations of executive power (which include, apparently, the right to abridge the law and possibly the Constitution itself) don't matter because Bush is going to be gone in 2 years or so?

I took a break. How've you been keeping? Glad to see you're still here.

Only people hot for Bush's blood view the approach he took in regard to warrantless wiretaps as "new" or "radical". We've been over this. You say potato, etc. I'm amazed this topic is still being discussed. I had no idea you guys were this desperate.

That Bush's term is limited is only part of the point. You don't just get rid of a sitting President. Only a handful of Presidents have been impeached, and I don't believe that any of them were actually removed from office. Certainly not the last guy who went down that road, old what's-his-name, good looking bloke from Arkansas, scheming harpy for a wife.

[GostHacked]

Hehehe AT&T NSA Update 3.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....ECURITY-ATT.xml

SAN FRANCISCO, April 29 - The U.S. government has asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit by a San Francisco civil liberties group against AT&T because it says the case could reveal military and state secrets.

Now that AT&T is tied into everything and even the military at this poing (an assumtption on my part). And this does not seem to concern people at all. I think this is absolutely frightning.

Legal or not. Warrented or not. This is a bad road to go down if the case is dismissed. This means they can tap anything and everything.

[GostHacked]

Seems like Bush is ignoring laws when it is in his best interest.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...ndreds_of_laws/

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

I could not read the rest of the article past page two. Needs a sub.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti.../604300462/1012

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government.

But I suppose those who support Bush are not really concerned about this at all.