. . . or outside the law? (NSA Spying)

The Washington Times ^ | 12/28/05 | Bruce Fein

[ricks_place]

President Bush secretly ordered the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop on the international communications of U.S. citizens in violation of the warrant requirement of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, abominations.

The eavesdropping continued for four years, long after fears of imminent September 11 repetitions had lapsed, before the disclosure by the New York Times this month.

Mr. Bush has continued the NSA spying without congressional authorization or ratification of the earlier interceptions. (In sharp contrast, Abraham Lincoln obtained congressional ratification for the emergency measures taken in the wake of Fort Sumter, including suspending the writ of habeas corpus).

Mr. Bush has adamantly refused to acknowledge any constitutional limitations on his power to wage war indefinitely against international terrorism, other than an unelaborated assertion he is not a dictator. Claims to inherent authority to break and enter homes, to intercept purely domestic communications, or to herd citizens into concentration camps reminiscent of World War II, for example, have not been ruled out if the commander in chief believes the measures would help defeat al Qaeda or sister terrorist threats. ...

[btcusn]

As long as you remember that any info sent electronically will be listened to/read you have no worries. President Bush is not the first to use these powers, I KNOW Clinton did, and it may have gone beak even earlier.
Remember the tag lines to emails that had a list of the so called trigger words? And yes, your cell phone most likely has a GPS transponder built in too.

[servantboy777]

"you obviously believe everything you read from the Enemedia"

Have you not had your second cup of coffee? I was merely expressing concern, not being confrontational.

You obviously have a habit of popping off sarcastic remarks to prop up an ego deficiency or something. Chill out.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

Ridiculousness of this article is duly noted, as per the aforementioned comments. Yet there is one sentence in the editorial with which I agree: " Indeed, no unconstitutional usurpation is saved by longevity. "

This is true and accurate and gives me hope for the overthrow of Roe v. Wade and Kelo. Perhaps once we have five rational, orginalist jurists on the the Supreme Court.

[gakrak]

Well we won't let a little matter of our constitution get in the way of our spin will we. It just goes to show you that, that evil Bush is trying to protect the USA from terrorists and the Libs and MSM want to kill him for it. I wish they would just shut up. Amen.

[harpu]

Why not send Mr. Fein a note and let him know your thoughts about his writings - directly.

Personally, it felt good sharing my views with this ignorant bastard.

[Mr. Bird]

Every time a federal agent (which is what the TSA employees are) searches you or your belongings in an airport? Every time a customs agent inspects your baggage as you enter the country? Warrantless searches conducted on US citizens by the executive branch.

What's funny is that these searches do not even have a remote claim to probable cause, whereas the NSA wiretapping targets individuals with known ties to the enemy.

[Just A Nobody]

...but it kinda sounds like it's gone further than that.

...but I have not seen anything that would lead me to believe it has been limited in scope.

Everything I've read indicates the scope of the eavesdropping has been broad.

These are your words - why are you attacking me?
Your post to me was uncalled for.

[Sweetjustusnow]

Privacy went down the hole when Social Security numbers were issued.

That being said, data mining is what Able Danger was about and listening to foreign phone calls in and out of this country has been going on at least as far back as the Carter administration.

[advance_copy]

December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States.

[servantboy777]

Your post read as if I'm OBVIOUSLY some igmo that believes everything I read from the media. That was uncalled for sir.

First off, your assumption is incorrect. I always try to find multiple sources to get closer to the truth. But how else would you suppose a person get their information at least initially about a particular subject? From the media of coarse. Then you can pick it apart to get at the truth.

Secondly, all the shanagens that go on in the Federal government does not give me a warm fuzzy at all about the "limited scope" of an eavesdropping program.

Hell, look at the Clinton's and how they used the FBI and Internal revenue service to pressure their opponents. What about Sandy Burglar, Hillary and the FBI files, the government guarding our borders--yet millions flow across. I could list hundreds of instances that the government has not been level with the American people.

Do you believe your government when they tell you something? I choose not to have my rights infringed for the sake of catching a couple of guys.

[servantboy777]

"Foreign phone calls" and thats ok, that type of thing indicates limited scope.

I'm realistic, I know we are in a war and sometimes we have to do things that we don't agree with.

My problem is that their is already a mechanism in place to handle searches. If you have probable cause, you may obtain a warrant. Probable cause is pretty broad in itself.

When you begin to move into the gray areas, when you infringe on basic privacy rights of the majority to hope for an arrest of the very small minority, what you've done is deny basic rights for all.

That seems almost self explanatory.

[AmericanChef]

I had to check and make sure I wasn't reading the Washington Post.

-"President Bush secretly ordered..."-

(Because it was a secret!! OOPS - NOT ANY MORE!!)

-"Mr. Bush has adamantly refused to acknowledge any constitutional limitations on his power..."-

Good grief!! If you're confident you haven't broken any laws, how can this be a refusal?

This is all so sickening. Tell ya what - let's just pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan, shut down the NSA, FBI, CIA, forget all about 9/11 (aparently the writer has) and just let the whole world go to hell in a handbasket.

[ricks_place]

Its hard to believe this was printed in the Washington Times. This is a New York Times type attack

This is actually one side of a commentary in a point-counterpoint piece. The front end was written by Michael Barrone. Within . . .(NSA Spying). Mr. Fein makes a fine foil.

[Fruit of the Spirit]

Mr. Bush has continued the NSA spying without congressional authorization or ratification of the earlier interceptions.
___________

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1547700/posts

Bush was denied wiretaps, bypassed them (FISA Court denied them in unprecedented numbers)