Bush Doesn't Confirm NSA Data Collection

AP on Yahoo ^ | 5/11/06 | Laurie Kellman - ap

[Snidely Whiplash]

Is "circumventing a law" the same thing as "breaking a law"?

How would we know? The White House has successfully (thus far) managed to end-run the courts and Department of Justice on this one, and keep any judicial body from reviewing the program for legality. They just wave their hands and say, "Oh, don't worry, it's legal. We're protecting you, see? Now...shhh...go back to sleep...that's right, sleep..."

If anyone actually read the stories on this so far, they'd find that Qwest asked the NSA to bounce their request off of the FISA court, and the NSA categorically refused, because the FISC might not agree with them. Why on earth would that happen? That court is usually VERY agreeable to such requests.

Then Qwest asked the NSA to get a letter from the Attorney General's office authorizing the data collection. Again, the NSA refused.

Wonder why? I can't imagine the AG of all people would refuse such a request, given his support for the program... Curious. Wonder what they're hiding...?

SW

[pollyannaish]

Great. That means they're running loose in my neck of the woods.

[FUD-EP]

This goes WAY too far. Imagine this info in the hands of a Hillary admin. It'll be blackmail-city for political enemies, whistleblowers, activists of any kind...

[Txsleuth]

Do you believe everything you read or hear in the MSM???

I don't, not EVER>

[Snidely Whiplash]

If having a database of phone connections is illegal, shouldn't phone companies be required to destroy all records of phone connections as soon as they bill their customers?

Dunno. Maybe there is a time limit on how long they keep the records. What they're NOT allowed to do is just give out the information to anyone who asks, especially The Law (w/o a court order). They got busted for allowing private companies to sell phone records to anyone with the cash - d'ya think they should get a pass on this one?

SW

[Snidely Whiplash]

Go back to your history class. Slaves were not citizens.

Hm. That history degree I have must be defective, because I coulda sworn that slavery ended 143 years ago, and we're talking about actions taken by our government TODAY. Try to stay in the present day, wouldja?

The 14th Amendment effected slaves, not non-citizens.

Huh? WTF does the 14th Amendment have to do with this conversation? This is about possible illegal search & seizure (i.e. 4th Amendment), not equal protection. Not directly, anyway...

Besides, you're utterly, embarrassingly wrong. To wit:

Amendment 14: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [emphasis mine]

See those bold, unitalicized bits? That says "any person," as in ANY person. It means what it says. It's quite clear. If they'd wanted it to only apply to citizens, they'd have said so. It applies to anyone and everyone within the boundaries of any of the States (and by extension, the entire country). It isn't difficult to understand.

SW

[Prost1]

"Hm. That history degree I have must be defective.."

Well, I guess we found something we can agree upon.

[oceanview]

or what if we had a government agency that demanded every financial institution send records of our transactions and earnings to them once a year?

oh sorry, we already do - and it doesn't violate the 4th amendment.

[oceanview]

what suspicious call cluster patterns are smokers and religious persons going to generate? this is pure paranoia.

[Snidely Whiplash]

Well, I guess we found something we can agree upon.

Objection, non-responsive. Care to, you know, flesh out your argument a bit? Provide something other than smarta$$ comments?

Please, tell me why I'm wrong about the application of the 14th Amendment. There are only two ways I could be wrong:

1. If I misconstrued your argument, and you weren't talking about people within the borders of the United States, or;

2. If there's some court decision I'm unaware of that categorically exempts non-citizens from constitutional protections. (I am an historian, not a lawyer, after all).

Show me either, and I'll gladly retract my argument. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.

SW

[rudabaga]

i am in the category of US citizen. and apparently my calls are being tracked. you like that? fine. i don't. and for what its worth, i do not believe that ignoring FISA is a legal activity. there is only one reason not to go there and get a warrant (even up to 72 hours after you start listening) and that is, no judge would grant one. that is scary.

[rudabaga]

go ahead and be scared of everything. i think we should be more courageous and hold firm to our constitutional rights, but hey, that's just me, obviously.

[syriacus]

or what if we had a government agency that demanded every financial institution send records of our transactions and earnings to them once a year?

Great point!!

[Prost1]

You do not know what you are talking about or you
are and enemy agent.

You figure it out!

[Peach]

Democrats were okay with Eschelon and Carnivore which captured every phone call, every e-mail, every baby monitor (!), every ATM transaction and more, and that program is okay, pre war on terror, but this program isn't okay.

Eschelon and Carnivore information:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1543118/posts?page=1#1

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1542838/posts

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1543318/posts

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21387

Oops - Clinton's NSA spying program accidentally (ahem) captured a Republican's phone calls.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1553101/posts?page=1

And just for kicks, the Commies insisted on FISA:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21453

Flashback: Gore planned to bug America:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1559386/posts

NYT called domestic surveillance a necessity when Clinton was president:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1556815/posts

This is the December 2005 NYT article which says what today's USA Today article says regarding NSA collecting phone numbers.

Clearly, Democrats (and some RINOs) have manufactured their outrage over this already reported on program. LOL

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/politics/24spy.html?ei=5090&en=016edb46b79bde83&ex=1293080400&pagewanted=print

[rudabaga]

"You do not know what you are talking about or you
are and enemy agent."

well that basically conveys absolutely nothing so...