D'OH! Clinton's Excecutive Order of ELINT Without Court Order, D'OH! Carter Too!

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Bring us proof.

There is none. Go find us examples of people that have had their phone lines tapped, pressed charges against the government for such invasions. Bring us examples of citizens that have been indicted, charged, tried or found guilty from illegal wiretaps. Find us someone that has been let off on charges due to illegal wiretaps.

Go find us these phantom instances you insist have taken place. Bring us proof.

Hearsay and conjecture are not proof.

BTW, the law you used as a flawed example only relates to common carriers. VOIP has not been determined to fall under that same category. Neither has email or any kind of IM technology.[/QUOTE]

The reason there have been no complaints/people pressing charges is because this was done completely in secret, without oversight. We didn't even know it was going on until Bush failed to kill a NYT story (which they held for a year on his request).

despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics/21nsa.html?hp&ex=1135227600&en=4ef661fe7d71febe&ei=5094&partner=homepage

We don't have specific examples, but the administration itself admits what they were doing. Spoken conversations, between someone in a foreign nation, and somoene in the US. It doesn't get much clearer than that.

Also, the law doesn't cover VOIP and IM, but I'm sure legal precedent will include VOIP in the description of "voice/spoken conversations"

Second, as to tracking VOIP based on phone number: you could easily determine the location of someone using VOIP, regardless of the phone number used. You simply track the IP. An IP is assigned first based on geographical location.
 
[quote name='Quillion']Also, the law doesn't cover VOIP and IM, but I'm sure legal precedent will include VOIP in the description of "voice/spoken conversations"

Second, as to tracking VOIP based on phone number: you could easily determine the location of someone using VOIP, regardless of the phone number used. You simply track the IP. An IP is assigned first based on geographical location.[/QUOTE]

So IP masking is now impossible? Sorry, if message board posters use it to circumvent bannings so can a terrorist use it to mask a VOIP call.

Another interesting technology that isn't covered by common carrier restrictions is your phone service through a cable company. Cable companies are not regulated as common carriers.

[quote name='Quillion']Also, the law doesn't cover VOIP and IM, but I'm sure legal precedent will include VOIP in the description of "voice/spoken conversations"

Second, as to tracking VOIP based on phone number: you could easily determine the location of someone using VOIP, regardless of the phone number used. You simply track the IP. An IP is assigned first based on geographical location.[/QUOTE]

So IP masking is now impossible? Sorry, if message board posters use it to circumvent bannings so can a terrorist use it to mask a VOIP call.

Another interesting technology that isn't covered by common carrier restrictions is your phone service through a cable company. Cable companies are not regulated as common carriers.
 
Those examples might be coming soon. Howard Dean's filing a FOIA:

Ms. Elizabeth Farris
Supervisory Paralegal
Office of Legal Counsel
Room 5515
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530-2038

Re: Freedom of Information Act Request

Dear Ms. Farris:

This letter constitutes a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §552 (“FOIA”), and is submitted by the undersigned individuals who are concerned about the Bush Administration’s reported decision to undertake a massive program of spying on American citizens in apparent violation of the law and the Constitution.

President Bush stated on December 19 that his legal authority to have the National Security Agency conduct such spying derives from his inherent constitutional powers and from the congressional authorization for the use of military force in Afghanistan. Of course, these assertions made no sense, in view of the express statutory provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, 50 U.S.C. §§1801 et seq. that flatly prohibit any such spying without a court order. It is the duty of your Office to advise the President on precisely such questions relating to his constitutional and statutory authority. The American people certainly have a right to know whether the President has knowingly acted in blatant violation of the law or believed he was acting within the law based on advice of your office.


· We therefore request all documents in the possession, custody or control of the Office of Legal Counsel, prepared on or after January 20, 2001, referring, relating to or discussing the authority of the President of the United States to authorize any agency of the U.S. Government, including but not limited to the National Security Agency, to conduct electronic surveillance of a United States person, as defined in FISA, 50 U.S.C. §1801(i), or where there is a substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of a communication to which such a United States person is a party, without obtaining a court order as required by FISA.


We urge you, in considering this request, to forego invoking Exemption 5 to FOIA allowing the government to withhold documents based on deliberative process or attorney client privilege. In these exceptional circumstances, where the President of the United States may have acted in gross disregard of the law and the Constitution, the stakes for the American people are too high for the Bush Administration and the Department of Justice to hide behind legal privileges as an excuse for withholding these documents.

The undersigned requestors fall in the category of “other requestors” for purposes of FOIA and the Department’s FOIA fee regulations. On behalf of the undersigned requestors, the Democratic National Committee will pay any fees for searching or copying the requested records.

We look forward to your response within twenty (20) working days as the law requires. If you have any questions or need any further information concerning this request, please contact the first signatory below, Governor Howard Dean. Thank you for your prompt attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,
Governor Howard Dean
430 South Capitol Street SE
Washington, DC 20003
 
Good old Coward. Perfectly willing to play the fool and foil for easy partisan attacks. God love him.

I'm glad he continues to have his interests in topics unrelated to fundraising, his main job, just makes beating donkeys that much easier.

He's going after NSA activities and documentation with this. He might as well ask where the alien bodies are hidden.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']He's proven NOTHING.

You're applauding failure?[/QUOTE]

I've proven that what Bush admitted to publicly was illegal. I've also proven that your attempt to equate Bush's actions with Carter/Clinton's is entirely false: Carter/Clinton's executive orders specifically mandate that said spying is performed within the laws created by congress. Bush's executive order explicitly violates the law by authorizing wiretapping of voice communications on lines within the US.

You're now reduced to technical arguments over the differences between telephone lines and VOIP (despite the fact that it probably doesn't matter, because the law specifies voice communication without making reference to the technology used.) I'm taking this as a win.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']This page makes me giggle; good form Drocket.[/QUOTE]

No love for me? I'm hurt.

[quote name='E-Z-B']Those examples might be coming soon. Howard Dean's filing a FOIA:[/quote]

Good. I'd like to see more information. I still don't like Dean.

[quote name='PAD']So IP masking is now impossible? Sorry, if message board posters use it to circumvent bannings so can a terrorist use it to mask a VOIP call.

Another interesting technology that isn't covered by common carrier restrictions is your phone service through a cable company. Cable companies are not regulated as common carriers.[/quote]

Surely you're not saying that the NSA is limited to using the same tools that the moderators on a message board use? Because I assure you, IP masking is not the last word by any stretch of the imaginiation.

The cable carrier? Now you're just being silly. What do you think that is? It's VOIP.
 
N.Y. Times, Get Your N.S.A. Stories Straight
Posted by Mithridate Ombud on December 20, 2005 - 13:32.
Dear journalists of the New York Times,

Perhaps you'd like to take a few moments to gather yourselves and figure out which of your stories are correct and which stories are politically motivated fabrications.

COURT SAYS U.S. SPY AGENCY CAN TAP OVERSEAS MESSAGES
By DAVID BURNHAM, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (NYT) 1051 words Published: November 7, 1982

A Federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency may lawfully intercept messages between United States citizens and people overseas, even if there is no cause to believe the Americans are foreign agents, and then provide summaries of these messages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Because the National Security Agency is among the largest and most secretive intelligence agencies and because millions of electronic messages enter and leave the United States each day, lawyers familiar with the intelligence agency consider the decision to mark a significant increase in the legal authority of the Government to keep track of its citizens.

Reverses 1979 Ruling

The Oct. 21 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit involves the Government's surveillance of a Michiganborn lawyer, Abdeen Jabara, who for many years has represented Arab-American citizens and alien residents in court. Some of his clients had been investigated by the F.B.I.

Mr. Jabara sued the F.B.I, and the National Security Agency, and in 1979 Federal District Judge Ralph M. Freeman ruled that the agency's acquisition of several of Mr. Jabara's overseas messages violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free of ''unreasonable searches and seizures.'' Last month's decision reverses that ruling.

In earlier court proceedings, the F.B.I. acknowledged that it then disseminated the information to 17 other law-enforcement or intelligence agencies and three foreign governments.

The opinion of the three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals held, ''The simple fact remains that the N.S.A. lawfully acquired Jabara's messages.''

The court ruled further that the lawyer's Fourth Amendment rights ''were not violated when summaries of his overseas telegraphic messages'' were furnished to the investigative bureau ''irrespective of whether there was reasonable cause to believe that he was a foreign agent.''
Link

You're only winning in your own mind and amongst the Kool Aid drinkers.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']STUFF

Link

You're only winning in your own mind and amongst the Kool Aid drinkers.[/QUOTE]

You should read a little further down before posting.
Though it is a very interesting precedent, and kudos to Mithridate for finding it, it doesn't seem to apply to the subject at hand.

The decision (which the Supreme Court later declined to review) was really not about whether the government could conduct surveillance without warrants, but whether intelligence agencies who already had information could pass information on to the FBI even though the FBI didn't have a warrant. The lower court's decision read, "We do not believe that an
expectation that information lawfully in the possession of a government
agency will not be disseminated, without a warrant, to another
government agency is an expectation that society is prepared to
recognize as reasonable."

The difference between the surveillance conducted on Jabara and the surveillance in question now is that, in fact, no surveillance was conducted on Jabara - the NSA was monitoring international communications for certain key words, and intercepting those communications that contained those key words. Some of Jabara's communications were thus intercepted. The issue today is that FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, deals with "intentional" surveillance, which appears to be what the Bush administration was allowing without warrants, something FISA makes clear is a no-no.
Click to expand...

That was from the link you posted. You just reinforced my/our argument.
 
Someone else goes a little further on that page and says:

according to FISA, the NSA can conduct random and undirected interceptions of foreign communications if those communications contain certain key words. (I'm not a supporter of that, by the way, but regardless...) What FISA does not allow is warrantless directed surveillance, that is, a specific wiretap against all communications of a certain person, and that appears to be, by Bush's own statements, what was going on
Click to expand...
 
Frankly, this has gotten off-topic. The original post, which we proved incorrect and now through PAD's factless rhetoric has gotten swept under the rug, (just like a good republican bait and switch), was about clinton and carter supposedly doing the same thing, not about whether Bush was in the right.
 
[quote name='rabidmonkeys']Frankly, this has gotten off-topic. The original post, which we proved incorrect and now through PAD's factless rhetoric has gotten swept under the rug, (just like a good republican bait and switch), was about clinton and carter supposedly doing the same thing, not about whether Bush was in the right.[/QUOTE]

Yes and no. The OP maintained subordinately, that Bush was in the right, because others had done it before him.

I don't think PAD will be back.
 
Still no one has challeged or refuted the legal opinion of one of Clinton's Associate Attorney Generals.

You know, someone that actually worked on this type of case law within the government and actually knows what they're talking about?

Say all you want about how you think I personally am wrong but not one person has assailed the facts and opinions of the legal expert I put forth.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Still no one has challeged or refuted the legal opinion of one of Clinton's Associate Attorney Generals.

You know, someone that actually worked on this type of case law within the government and actually knows what they're talking about?

Say all you want about how you think I personally am wrong but not one person has assailed the facts and opinions of the legal expert I put forth.[/QUOTE]

I think the key word here is "opinion". Much like assholes, everyone has one. Bush's opinion is that he can circumvent the 4th amendment. Guess what? If he does, he's liable to be punished. So what if a previous atty Gen has the opinion that Bush was in the right? Gonzales' opinion was that it was A-OK to torture prisoners in Abu Ghraib. Look how well that turned out. Just because someone high ranking lawyer has an opinion does not mean that he is correct.

That being said, we've already provided more than enough evidence to show that A) NSA only has authority to search transmissions for keywords
without a warrant and
B) NSA has no authority to direct searches towards any single person or group.

Both of which prove that Bush commited a crime, outside of his open acknowledgement of perpetrating the crime.
 
Of course his opinion is more valuable in the free market, legal and government circles and more likely based in truth, law and precedent than a message board asshole such as yourself whose main reason for declaring guilt is "I HATE GEORGE W BUSH.".
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Of course his opinion is more valuable in the free market, legal and government circles and more likely based in truth, law and precedent than a message board asshole such as yourself whose main reason for declaring guilt is "I HATE GEORGE W BUSH.".[/QUOTE]

A) Just because his opinion is worth more doesn't make it right (*points at Gonzales again*)
B) You didn't refute anything. Just reverting back to your usual asshattery.
 
What do I need to refute?

That your opinion isn't worthless? You have nothing close to expert status, background, education, qualification, aptitude or practical experience in the legality of foreign intelligence gathering. You cite no persons expert opinion, no statute, no precedent, no historical context, offer nothing insightful, factual or intellectually honest and just say....

I hate Geroge W. Bush?

Who's the asshat? You bring nothing to the table or substance. You're the forensic equivilent of bringing green bean casarole to a Thanksgiving dinner and go home thinking you fed the entire family with your paltry and insignificant contribution to the cause.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']What do I need to refute?

That your opinion isn't worthless? You have nothing close to expert status, background, education, qualification, aptitude or practical experience in the legality of foreign intelligence gathering. You cite no persons expert opinion, no statute, no precedent, no historical context, offer nothing insightful, factual or intellectually honest and just say....

I hate Geroge W. Bush?

Who's the asshat? You bring nothing to the table or substance. You're the forensic equivilent of bringing green bean casarole to a Thanksgiving dinner and go home thinking you fed the entire family with your paltry and insignificant contribution to the cause.[/QUOTE]
Ah ha, so any and all posts prior to my previous post (regardless of the poster in question) mean nothing to you?

That being said, what exactly do you know of my education, background and expertise? Put your intelligence gathering to the test, and let us found out how good you really are at this. That being said, just because an opinion is worth a lot doesn't make it right. That's something you can't refute. Sure, you can jeer at it, but, it really does nothing more but level your credibility from, well, 0 to negative.

Also, since you posed the question, YOU are the asshat. You seem to relish in providing blogquip after news article of intellectually devoid "arguments" that have more to do with convoluting the argument, point fingers, and blaming it all on "librrals" then to actually get to the point at hand. You are a living contradiction whose only purpose is to try and blame everything on liberals. Hell, the guy in your avatar delegated powers to Ollie North to sell weapons to the very terrorists you hate!

In the end, your posts degenerate into just being a mouthpiece of conservative bloggers and Washington Times/FOX news Op-Ed pieces. Or, they go even further into poorly written (possibly copied) rants with similes that make little to no sense rather than actually defending your position. You are a gigantic asshat.
 
She's a republican supporter, married to Greenspan. I'm sure the last thing she wanted to do was to expose the RNC lies.
 
Oy vey. That, in itself, doesn't make her a Republican hack. I can't say she is for certain, because I know better than to watch MSNBC (unless it's Olbermann, of course).

Look at Carville, for example.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Find me one place where I blamed liberals for anything.

Go ahead.

I'll wait.[/QUOTE]
Stay on topic.

Go Ahead. However, i won't wait for you.
 
You know what the best thing to come out of this is? For the first time, I heard a politician mention the word "impeachment". Between this and the Plame leak and the lies about Iraq, I believe Bush will not finish his second term. The Republicans will pay dearly during next year's elections (assuming the Democrats play their cards right and keep reminding the public of the sins of Bush, Frist, DeLay, et. al.).
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Still no one has challeged or refuted the legal opinion of one of Clinton's Associate Attorney Generals.

.[/QUOTE]

What is there to refute? The opinion doesn't authorize the president to search US citizens. The phrase "foreign intelligence searches" would indicate that the opinion is consistant with the FISA defination of suspects- which is a narrowly defined population.

The whole issue here is the presidents apparent broader search of US citizens. Gorelick didn't say that was okay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top