Eavesdropping, Spying, Surveillance ........ Doing What is Right (President Bush is Right)

Free Republic ^ | 12/19/05 | self

[beyond the sea]

Found this little piece moments ago. Seems to apply to all the absurd hubbub over what G.W. has very properly done.

.....

From:

http://www.slate.com/id/117041/

(snip) --

In time, Congress grew concerned about the FBI's power, and after Prohibition's repeal it outlawed all non-consensual wiretapping (but not bugging) as part of the 1934 Communications Act. In 1939, the Supreme Court upheld that law, ruling that since taps were illegal, evidence obtained from using them was inadmissible in court.

Even so, executive officials kept using wiretaps. In particular, Franklin Roosevelt sought to carve out a large exception to the statutory ban. In 1940, he wrote his attorney general, Robert Jackson, that while he accepted the court rulings that upheld the 1934 law, he didn't think those prohibitions applied to "grave matters involving the defense of the nation"—an increasingly high priority as world war loomed. On the contrary, Roosevelt ordered Jackson to proceed with the secret use of "listening devices" (taps or bugs) to monitor "persons suspected of subversive activities … including suspected spies."

Concerned about a German "fifth column" in the United States, Roosevelt specified that his order applied to espionage by foreign agents. But when Harry Truman succeeded FDR in 1945, America's enemies list was changing fast. The next year, as the Iron Curtain fell and the Red Scare flared, Truman's attorney general, Tom Clark, expanded FDR's national security order to permit the surveillance of "domestic subversives." Clark and Truman endorsed wiretapping whenever matters of "domestic security" were at stake, allowing taps to be placed on someone simply because he held radical views.

[lizma]

You're not wrong by any means but what is the best way to handle it?

Giving terrorist Constitutional Rights is just ludachrist.

[Porterville]

I was mowing the lawn today and in my mind I called them

economic-sepratist

[FreeReign]

The treaty must fall in line with the constitution or it is of non-effect. Oh wait, that is just me being a kook because I believe in the rule of law as established by the Constitution.

During times of war, unalienable rights may best be protected through non-Constitutional means. This country has a long history of CIC's -- from the War of 1812 and the Civil War all the way to the present -- who during times of war supersede the Constitution.

The check has always been, is it necessary to do so and when the war is over, are these super-constitutional actions brought to an end.

[loneroofer]

I would like to know two things. 1) Bush said the interceptions were made outside of our country , Does this mean our law cannot be broken because we have no jurisdiction outside of our boundaries? 2) When did enemy agents become protected ny our Constitution , aren't they covered by the Geneva Convention?

[FreeReign]

Bush said the interceptions were made outside of our country...

The citizens of this sovereign country have an unalienable right to protect themselves from what may enter this country.

There is no unalienable right (and no Constitutional right) to privately enter this country whether it be in person or by communications.

[loneroofer]

My point or question is this, if we did this outside of our boundaries there is no law broken because we have no jurisdiction thus the President is entirely within the law. Is this a fair summary?

[shield]

Here are the Three Main Points that Tokyo Rose used in every program to break the will of America's fighting men and women.

1. She told them that their President was lying to them.

2. She told them that they were fighting a war they couldn't win.

3. She told them they were fighting because the big corporations wanted things in Japan and SE Asia.

Are we hearing these same things right now?

Who are the Modern Day Tokyo Roses?

[FreeReign]

My point or question is this, if we did this outside of our boundaries there is no law broken because we have no jurisdiction thus the President is entirely within the law. Is this a fair summary?

I would agree with that.

BTW, how do you lift the packs of shingles by yourself onto the roof? :)

[DJ MacWoW]

Name an American who has lost any rights because of FISA or the Patriot Act.

Eavesdropping Program Netted Local Man

Jimmy Carter Assumed Same Spy Power As Bush

Clinton NSA Eavesdropped on U.S. Calls

[zook]

"I doubt your hearing the music, and just to clear up any misconceptions, within a week, your probrably sending some data packets through a router, switch, or server that I have set up or supported based on the fact I have worked at or for every Big 5 company, four of the Fortune 5 companies, the 3 of the top 5 banks in the US, and every major carrier in the US and a few overseas, without touching the smaller banks, healthcare, and bioengineering companies performing advanced data communications setup."

This one sentence explains a lot: the CIA planted a radio in your head, right?

As for your other point, I'll put it to you again that it's extremely unlikely that any of the men you listed would have had any objection to what President Bush has (lawfully) done. Moreover, it's strikingly revealing that you left out Abe Lincoln's name, a man which you, apparently, would have had sent off to prison during the Civil War.

[zook]

"The bastards should have been shot, hung, drawn and courtered, take your pick."

And you'd be singing "Sieg Heil" today.