Posted on 12/20/2005 3:56:47 AM PST by unionblue83
Below is the Washington Times' editorial on the issue of spying on terrorists. Our only quibble: The National Security Agency's Echelon project spied on "trillions" of American citizens' conversations during the Clinton administration. Otherwise, the editorial is spot-on. -- The Editors.
Should the National Security Agency secretly eavesdrop on the telephone conversations of suspicious persons in the United States calling al-Qaeda operatives overseas? We might be more shocked if the Bush administration hadn't authorized such surveillance, provided it was done within the law. NSA's substantial resources, like those of the CIA and the military, should be properly and legally harnessed to fight the al-Qaeda threat wherever it appears.
Questions have been raised whether President Bush can do this without violating the law. He thinks he can: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows it, with congressional oversight and checks on executive authority, as well as presidential war powers. The guardians of civil liberties who object may be mistaking precedent -- that the NSA didn't engage in domestic spying activities until late 2001 or early 2002 -- for a nonexistent law saying that it can't.
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
If they want to spy on suspicious persons, then IS IT NOT TRUE that they have over ten million illegal immigrants to start with?
You folks just don't get it. There are tens of thousands of people that come into the country daily. There are many, many thousands of uninspected rail cars that come in. Not to mention the foreign ships that dock.
Why is it all the sudden that Americans need to be spied on?
Isn't this a traitor too? What will it take for people to understand we have enemies and spys among us!? What voice of reason will the people hear? How many more REAL Americans must die, before we deal with the enemy within?
What, did you read the headline and decide to comment without reading the remainder of the article?
It goes to some length to explain how Americans are not targeted by this surveillance, unless they are acting as an agent of a foreign power.
I don't think that it's all that sudden. Anyway, publius sums it up fairly well, "..Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free." This is a war and as an American I am willing to give up this "civil liberty" of being able to have a phone conversation. I am not calling a mosque in Pakistan so I don't worry about it. The Clintonistas waged all out war against political enemies by the Echelon and Carnivore programs. Didn't hear a whole lot of screaming about spying then.
Read this
Sorry, but I do get it. And to our country's failure in that regard we must target those that pose the biggest risk. In my home town, they have finally caught up with Damra at the Radical Mosque...now they have to catch the enemies within. They pose a much larger threat to the security of the United States than an illegal alien seeking work. I know you won't agree with me, but competing for work and stopping terrorism are two seperate priorities of scale. Only one seeks to truly overthrow our way of life.
The New York Sun made a good point yesterday that even a naturalized citizen or permanent resident (defined in the statute as "United States persons") could arguably become targets due to the probability of visa/imnmigration fraud and not disclosing associations with terrorists.
In other words, it's possible for them to lose their protected status.
This has already been done in many other Islamist cases, and it is very clear even to applicants that naturalized citizenship can be retroactively withdrawn due to lying on an application.
From the article:
"Congress could clear the confusion with an unmistakeable formal declaration of war on radical Islamist terrorism. Congressmen who sit on the intelligence committee could detail just how much they know and how long they've known it; it seems clear that several of the critics had prior knowledge of the program. In an era of airport searches and bomb-sniffing dogs, should a suspicious telephone call to Iran or Algeria be exempt from the war on terror? "
I am going to write my Senators/Congressmen today and suggest this very thing.."A FORMAL DECLARATION OF WAR ON ISLAMIC TERRORISTS". Besides the obvious point that it is needed, we need to hold Congress's feet to the fire on this issue. Get them on record. Al Qaeda declared WAR ON THE US in 1998. Are we going to DECLARE WAR in return or not?
Can't we have ONE THREAD where one of you all don't drag that into the discussion?
Stay on TOPIC.
Thanks, mewzilla. That's saved to my file.
That is exactly what happened to Damra, he was head of the Mosque right here in the Cleveland area! It was/is the largest mosque in the area! He has ties to hammas et al. People here think this matter is over with, but I don't. He was a radical imam in charge of a large mosque, what else is crawling around here?
Evil aliens from the planet Mongor have convinced evil friends of the President to listen to Liebowitz' grocery orders?
It is a given that the NSA and other agencies are listening. In fact, I am not opposed to that, even if GWB tried to stop it, he couldn't.
But I am opposed to the politicalization of the whole thing. I am opposed to the idea that if you object to spying, you are guilty. I am opposed to the idea that you are guilty until proven innocent. I am opposed to the idea that some government flunky who is just waiting for his pension to kick in is able to determine somebodies destiny. I am opposed to the idea that many folks now seem to have that they cannot protect themselves, and it is government's duty. I am opposed to the idea that whoever wants to some here should be allowed to, no matter what their religion or experience or allegience.
But most of all I am opposed to the trend that we should discard our law, throw away our rights, and let some unelected bureaucrat slap the chains on us because we were walking down the street and forgot our wallet.
Then you have nothing to worry about. Unless you're al Qaeda, they don't really care what you say.
All you have to do is watch the news to know there are many Americans who want to do harm to this country. The wire tapping only applies to those who have contact with overseas persons of suspect.
Personally I think there are members of congress who need to be under surveillance. Someone sure leaks a lot of info to our enemies.
I thought you'd be interested in this article which details just how, according to which law, the president can do what he's doing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.