About Domestic Spying without a Court Order by the FBI Page 5
|November 10th, 2005||#41|
| || |
Please note that 98% of what I say is my opinion and/or my "version" of the facts. Most of what I say is rumor with little to no evidence to back it up, just something I picked up somewhere.
|November 10th, 2005||#42|
| || |
bulldogg, because defending everything at once is a recipe for disaster. You have to understand the capabilities and methodology of your enemy. You wouldn't defend yourself from nuclear ICBMs in a war against Somalia, you're resources are much better spent in other ways in such a fictional war. Same thing with al-quaida, true you don't want to believe the bedtime fairy tale you laid out but it's equally dangerous to turn them into a nightmare boogyman story.
|November 11th, 2005||#43|
| || |
Hence the entire programme of the BBC called the "Power of Nightmares". Its three or four hours long and is interesting if nothing else.
"The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental." - John Steinbeck
|December 21st, 2005||#44|
| || |
Domestic Spying without a Court Order info
Anyone who follows the news in the US knows all about this issue. President Bush, after 11 SEP 01, created a domestic surveillence without any type of court approval. There is also debate as to if congress approved the progam. The White House says yes, most of congres says know.
There are a few Constitutional issues here. By bypassing court approval, the program may violate the system of checks and ballances of the US Constitution. Then there is the 4th Amendment
""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."
Lastly, the President may have acted outside his delegated powers granted to him under the constitution. In history class, this is called the usurpation (unlawful siezure) of undelegated powers.
How does everyone feel about this
"The best form of taking care of troops is first-class training, for this saves unnecessary casualties." Erwin Rommel
|December 21st, 2005||#45|
| || |
No president is above the law. I thought we had that out already, 1) Truman vs the Steel Cos - Supreme Court ruled Truman did not have power to take over the Steel Cos. 2) Watergate and all of that stuff.
"It doesn't take a hero to order men into battle. It takes a hero to be one of those men who goes into battle." - Norman Schwarskopf, Commander of Desert Storm Operations
|December 21st, 2005||#47|
| || |
I just thought I'd throw this out here for your consideration. Whether right or wrong, this is certainly nothing new and nothing unique to the Bush administration. Evidence in point:
"CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER
CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER
Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval
Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."
WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."
Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.
I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which in truth, they are.
Gen. W.T. Sherman
|December 21st, 2005||#48|
| || |
Well I am the "Not Sure" vote, on principle no I dont support it but there may well be times where it is not prudent or timely to get a court order and in those cases I do support it.
ie If you have a limited window of opportunity to get the information that may save lives and following protocol would mean you will miss said opportunity then by all means go for it otherwise follow the rules.
We are more often treacherous through weakness than through calculation. ~Francois De La Rochefoucauld
|December 21st, 2005||#49|
| || |
If you disregard the rules regardless of intent or reasons you establish a precedent and in the case of the US with its inherited common law system it is a dangerous one indeed. It is this same method that has lead the "freedom of speech" to now encompass people thinking they have the constitutional right to "say anything". Was this the intent of the drafters of the constitution? NO. Is it the reality of the US today? YES. How did it happen? "Salami method". Small imperceptible slices, whittle and eroding away liberties and intent one piece at a time till you're left with nothing but a worthless piece of parchment.
First its the writ of habeaus corpus. Next its the right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Next its the posse comitatus... it will NOT end until the once great experiment in a democratically elected republic deriving its power from the people becomes an authoritarian capitalist police state and 100 years from now our children's children are writing on a forum asking "How did this happen?"
The authours of the US constitution placed checks and balances on all parts of the government including the office of the president. Nothing supercedes the constitution. No law. No emergency. Nothing. IT is the supreme law of the land. It must follow the process of amendment and be ratified according to the provisions laid out within in order to change this. Why the people responsible, the Attorney General, is not persuing the enforcement of the applicable laws is a testament to just how far the US has strayed from her noble foundations. It sickens me, yet I acknowledge I am powerless to change anything. Money runs the show and it has a stranglehold on our government.
Last edited by bulldogg; December 21st, 2005 at 06:40..
|December 21st, 2005||#50|
| || |
DTop beat me to my first punch, my second is this. Google ECHELON and CARNIVORE, and educate yourself beyond what the Washington Post feels like telling you. These programs have (Had in the case of CARNIVORE) been going on for well over a decade, and even though the info was out there (it was actually a pretty poorly kept secret), nobody cried about it until the last few days.
When I first learned of these programs, around 1998, they had already been up and running for a while, and it didn't bother me then. I have NEVER known, or heard of any law abiding citizen getting taken away because they said something anti-government on the phone or in an e-mail. They bother me even less now.
The sheeple of this country need to wake up and realize we are at WAR. There is a large group of people that want us DEAD. They cannot be reasoned with, they will NEVER stop, and they don't care about "rules".
The only reason the WP is writing about this now is the clear bias against the current Administration. If they were so concerned about "spying on Americans", why did they not write about the above mentioned Programs during the Clinton years when this program came up to full speed?
Last edited by Forrest_Gump; December 21st, 2005 at 06:37..