[flixxx]

interesting read...especially coming from tnr (though I have not yet read the comments to this article on their website...

[rellimpank]

-b-

[flixxx]

OK..I just read some of the comments on tnr's website in response the the article...the rabid left is not pleased that his has been posted on the tnr website....

[NonValueAdded]

bttt

[arthurus]

WHAT IF WIRETAPPING WORKS?

This is the question that excercises the left the most. If it actually prevents AQ doing more major damage inside the US then it is helping W stay effective and is therefore evil,illegal, unconstitutional, etc.

[The_Republican]

Since NSA doesn't have to meet any specified criteria as to who define as Al-Qaida or Terrorist and their sympathizers, they have free reign to listen in on any call they like that is going in or coming out of this country.

Since deep in their heart, administration does not consider Arab/Muslims to be real Ameircan Citizens, they are all under surveillance.

Fire away.

[xcamel]

FYI: Not Ronald Dworkin.

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is a political phrase that was coined by Justice Robert H. Jackson in his dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. Chicago, a 1949 free speech case in the USA. The majority opinion, by Justice William O. Douglas overturned the disorderly conduct conviction of a priest whose anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi rantings at a rally had incited a riot. The court held that Chicago's breach-of-the-peace ordinance violated the First Amendment.

[tet68]

Considering that Iran is trying to get permission for international flights to the US direct from Iran,
I'd say we have plenty to worry about...

[Dallas59]

To login to the website:

login name:
beenbugged

password:
republic

[shrinkermd]

I liked this. Well reasoned. My big problem with this whole issue is "wiretapping." To me this conjures up two fat guys in a white panel truck slurping coffee and enjoying listening to phone sex with a Mafioso and his mistress. Or two FBI agents at a telephone switching place listening intently to Colombians speaking in a foreign language the officers cannot fathom.

President Bush and his Administration have labored mightily to escape "wiretapping" and they simply have to do better. One way is no one from the Administration uses this word whatsoever. Anything else will do.

Semantics is everything when trying to elicit an emotional response from others. Mark Twain had it right, "...what most people call thinking is really emoting...the aggregation of which is called public opinion...and everyone knows that settles everything and may even be the voice of God..."

I am sure if someone asked the man on the street what he thought of "wiretapping" he would express outrage. If that same person was asked what he thought of surveillance as a weapon against terrorism no doubt the answer would be in the affirmative.

[ndt]

"The problem with FISA is that, in order to get a warrant, the government must have grounds to believe the "U.S. person" it wishes to monitor is a foreign spy or a terrorist."

If the U.S. person is talking to a known terrorist abroad, that would be sufficient evidence to get a FISA warrant. The NSA can continue to record the conversation and retroactively get the warrant.

"Even if a person is here on a student or tourist visa, or on no visa, the government can't get a warrant to find out whether he is a terrorist; it must already have a reason to believe he is one."

That is the whole point of of the 4th amendment. If you have no reason to believe someone is guilty of a crime why would you want to spy on them? If you have reason to believe someone is guilty of a crime then you can get a warrant.

"The benefits of such programs are easy to see. At worst, they might cause terrorists to abandon or greatly curtail their use of telephone, e-mail, and other means of communicating electronically with people in the United States."

No, at worse it would make countless Americans innocent and not, subject to extreme government scrutiny without any pretext of being reasonable and make the 4th amendment meaningless.

"So the problem with fisa is that the surveillance it authorizes is unusable to discover who is a terrorist, as distinct from eavesdropping on known terrorists"

Untrue, by monitoring know terrorists you gain information about new potential terrorists though both who they talk about and who they contact, you can then get a warrant to spy on the new targets.

"Even to conduct fisa-compliant surveillance of non-U.S. persons, you have to know beforehand whether they are agents of a terrorist group, when what you really want to know is who those agents are."

As opposed to what an open ended dragnet across the entire population for the U.S. to spy on everyone to try to find a few potential terrorists? This is the very definition of a fishing expedition.

"Fisa's limitations are borrowed from law enforcement. "

No, FISAs limitations are borrowed from the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution. That's where law enforcement got them from.

"In counterterrorist intelligence, you don't know whom to suspect--you need surveillance to find out. "

So we should spy on everyone so that we know who to spy on?

"The recent leaks from within the FBI, expressing skepticism about the NSA program, reflect the FBI's continuing inability to internalize intelligence values. Criminal investigations are narrowly focused and usually fruitful. Intelligence is a search for the needle in the haystack. FBI agents don't like being asked to chase down clues gleaned from the NSA's interceptions, because 99 out of 100 (maybe even a higher percentage) turn out to lead nowhere. The agents think there are better uses of their time. Maybe so. But maybe we simply don't have enough intelligence officers working on domestic threats."

If we get enough intelligence officers, then maybe we can each get our own personal handler, that will fix the problem.

"Hayden's initiative was within his military authority. But, if a provision of fisa that allows electronic surveillance without a warrant for up to 15 days following a declaration of war is taken literally (and I am not opining on whether it should or shouldn't be; I am not offering any legal opinions), Hayden was supposed to wait at least until September 14 to begin warrantless surveillance. That was the date on which Congress promulgated the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which the administration considers a declaration of war against Al Qaeda."

FISA does not give Hayden the ability to call on the provisions of section 1811 of FISA, only the President through the A.G, may do that.

"Permit surveillance intended to detect and prevent terrorist activity but flatly forbid the use of information gleaned by such surveillance for any purpose other than to protect national security."

Who defines "national security" in this case? This president, the next, both?

"Once you grant the legitimacy of surveillance aimed at detection rather than at gathering evidence of guilt, requiring a warrant to conduct it would be like requiring a warrant to ask people questions or to install surveillance cameras on city streets."

There is no no expectation of privacy while walking down the street, that is not true whien sitting on my couch at home.

"That is too high a standard for surveillance designed to learn rather than to prove."

"surveillance designed to learn", is that what we are calling big brother now?

[CyberAnt]

Hmmmm?? What if ..??

I recall a whole bunch of DOJ lawyers standing outside somewhere - and all of them giving testimony to SOME of the people who have been captured with this method - and SOME of the terrorist events which have been stopped as a result of our being able to listen to these foreign conversations.

There is no WHAT IF about it - IT WORKS - and I believe it's a good deal of the reason why we have not been attacked again.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

This article....this question is predicated on an erroneous assumption:

WHAT IF WIRETAPPING WORKS?

What went on with regard to the monitoring of supposed Al Qaeda phone conversations was NOT WIRETAPPING.
If it was, then there would certainly have been laws broken if the Bush Administration had handled it in the same way.
But it was not wiretapping...it was the monitoring of wireless communications. Two totally different things.
It drives me mad when these Leftist commentators like Chris Matthews and Imus scream about "Bush wiretapping everybody".

It seems as if they go out of their way to educate the ignorant of this country...the Mr. and Mrs. Mundanes of the world...with totally wrong information.
Just to get as much of the electorate as possible to parrot their lies.