# Wiretaps on US citizens



## Everness

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/

If you are a US citizen and you made international calls or sent emails abroad after 9/11/01, there's a chance that intelligence agents electronically eavesdropped on you. Bush said today that he gave the National Security Agency license to eavesdrop on Americans communicating with people overseas. He added that he re-authorized this program more than 30 times. Our presi argues that such authorization is "fully consistent" with his "constitutional responsibilities and authorities." Others argue that although  the US government can eavesdrop on communications worldwide, it needs a warrant for wiretapping on domestic soil. 

If I hadn't watched the mini-series "Sleeper Cell" on Showtime for the last couple of weeks, I would have come down heavily on Mr. Bush. However, I think that this kind of trampling on our constitutional rights might be warranted. 

Ah, the power of Hollywood! (By the way, the 2-hour long big finale of "Sleeper Cell" is tomorrow Sunday at 8pm)


----------



## BasedowLives

He acknowledged during the address that he allowed the NSA "to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations."

if this is true, i don't care but i don't know what to believe.  i've made calls overseas to my family and it apparantly hasn't affected me (that i know of).  it's certainly an intrusion of privacy if they're doing it to random people though...


----------



## cuchuflete

Most people in most countries will sacrifice legal rights for perceived security.  Fear is a strong motivator.

Whether this makes sense under current conditions is a valid question.
A totally distinct question is whether it is legal under the constitution.
I suspect that if the occupant of la casa blanca were a Democrat, the current Republican majority in the US Senate would consider it grounds for an impeachment trial.


----------



## jimreilly

This is only one small example of how our government seems willing to violate all kinds of human standards, as well as the law, in what it calls the fight against terror. I don't doubt that there needs to be protection against terrorism, and that the government is an appropriate agent to do this. And I guess I don't particularly "care" if my overseas phone calls are listened to. Or my e-mails read or this forum monitored (do you suppose...). But if it is illegal to do these things, the government shouldn't be doing them, whether I "care" or not.

But I do care, a great deal, if people are tortured, held in prisons without the opportunity to defend themselves, held in secret prisons, or kidnapped in our own country or abroad. I also care about what justifications are used to convince a country to go to war.

Where is our (the USA) ability to put ourselves in the place of others? There's an old saying, fortunately not limited to Christianity, which begins, in one form, "Do unto others....."


----------



## cuchuflete

Ayyyuh!

Do unto others in accord with the size of their contributions to my PAC.


----------



## jimreilly

Cuchuflete, you belong in politics, as you have grasped the basic organizing principle of much of it. Too bad that you are correct. But how does one push things even two inches in the other direction? Can one start by taking ethics seriously, or are we beyond that?


----------



## Edwin

This is much more disturbing than wiretaps. But it may be part of the same program:  (I hope it is an urban myth, but it looks legit.)



> NEW BEDFORD -- A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's tome on Communism called "The Little Red Book."
> Two history professors at UMass Dartmouth, Brian Glyn Williams and Robert Pontbriand, said the student told them he requested the book through the UMass Dartmouth library's interlibrary loan program.



Source: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm


----------



## Everness

Edwin, just in case I returned my copy of the Quran to the library. Now I understand why the librarian gave me this funny look the other day when I checked it out. Ah, so far, no black SUVs in the neighborhood. Keep you posted. Gracias hermano por el dato!


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Most people in most countries will sacrifice legal rights for perceived security.  Fear is a strong motivator.
> 
> Whether this makes sense under current conditions is a valid question.
> A totally distinct question is whether it is legal under the constitution.
> I suspect that if the occupant of la casa blanca were a Democrat, the current Republican majority in the US Senate would consider it grounds for an impeachment trial.



"When people are feeling insecure, they'd rather have someone who is strong and wrong rather than somebody who is weak and right." -Bill Clinton


----------



## cuchuflete

we have someone who is [by far] right, however wrongly, and weak, and feeling cornered by events beyond his control. That's dangerous.


----------



## ampurdan

I got lost: who is the one being by far right? Mr. Bush?


----------



## lauranazario

Everness said:
			
		

> Bush said today that he gave the National Security Agency license to eavesdrop on Americans communicating with people overseas.


Depending on who you ask or how they view things, my island can be regarded as "overseas" (even though we're a 'US Commonwealth')... so, am I even the least bit worried that the government may be listening in to my conversations? That's a huge no... simply because I have nothing to hide.

If wiretaps are needed to monitor 'people of interest' to the government and that somehow translates into increased security (real or perceived) for me and any Joe Smith, then so be it. I guess it's the price of living in the techno-crazed 21st century.

Saludos,
LN


----------



## ampurdan

I wonder how would your country protect you only by making wiretaps at random. I guess they are going to focus on some target, don't you think? 

On the other hand, have you seen that movie of Will Smith... Enemy of the State. Well, it was filmed in 1998, well before 9/11, and the public worries then in your country were quite different; but it just makes you wonder what information can take a government from wiretaping their citizens and how can it be used...


----------



## lauranazario

ampurdan said:
			
		

> I wonder how would your country protect you only by making wiretaps at random. I guess they are going to focus on some target, don't you think?


I was not referring to wiretaps "at random" but rather on wiretaps on individuals regarded as 'people of interest' to the US government, those are the ones being monitored by the wiretaps --specifically people with alleged 'ties' to terrorist groups or cells.

And if monitoring these people of interest can contribute even a small increase in terms of safety (again, real or perceived) to me as an American citizen living on an offshore US Commonwealth and to other American citizens living in the mainland USA, then that's fine by me because, as I said earlier, I have nothing to hide.

Saludos,
LN


----------



## cuchuflete

There is a problem when the government, or just a single branch of it, is able to decide, with no oversight, and no checks and balances, who the 'people of interest' are.

J. Edgar Hoover, who headed the FBI for decades, wiretapped people he didn't like, often those who were publically opposed to the policies of the regime in power.  So he bugged Martin Luther King.  

Congress passed a law to restrict such surveillance, and required a court order for domestic spying.  The current regime has ignored this law, and W has stated that he will pretty much do as he pleases.  That's worrisome.

It's also contrary to the law passed by the US Congress, and may well be a constitutional violation as well.  Many representatives and senators share these concerns, and have declared their intention to investigate the actions of the executive branch.   I suppose that makes them potential targets for wiretaps as well.


----------



## cuchuflete

The so-called Church Committee, composed of U.S. Senators, investigated domestic activities by both the FBI and CIA.  Here is an excerpt from its findings.



> The Committee finds that the domestic activities of the intelligence community at times violated specific statutory prohibitions and infringed the constitutional rights of American citizens. 1  The legal questions involved in intelligence programs were often not considered. On other occasions, they were intentionally disregarded in the belief that because the programs served the "national security" the law did not apply. While intelligence officers on occasion failed to disclose to their superiors programs which were illegal or of questionable legality, the Committee finds that the most serious breaches of duty were those of senior officials, who were responsible for controlling intelligence activities and generally failed to assure compliance with the law.


  Source: *FINAL REPORT* 

OF THE 

SELECT COMMITTEE 
  TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS 

WITH RESPECT TO  

INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES 
  UNITED STATES SENATE

The full text is available here: http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIca.htm


----------



## lauranazario

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Congress passed a law to restrict such surveillance, and required a court order for domestic spying.  The current regime has ignored this law, and W has stated that he will pretty much do as he pleases.  That's worrisome.


That's precisely the problem... had Mr. W gone through the usual channels (getting a court order for the wiretaps) I'm sure he would have gotten approval through a like-minded judge ruling "on behalf" of the Patriot Act. It could have been so easy to make those wiretaps _legal_... but nooooooo. As always, this Mr. W wants things done in his own peculiar way. It's no wonder things keep blowing up in his face... 

Saludos,
LN


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> There is a problem when the government, or just a single branch of it, is able to decide, with no oversight, and no checks and balances, who the 'people of interest' are.
> 
> J. Edgar Hoover, who headed the FBI for decades, wiretapped people he didn't like, often those who were publically opposed to the policies of the regime in power.  So he bugged Martin Luther King.
> 
> Congress passed a law to restrict such surveillance, and required a court order for domestic spying.  The current regime has ignored this law, and W has stated that he will pretty much do as he pleases.  That's worrisome.
> 
> It's also contrary to the law passed by the US Congress, and may well be a constitutional violation as well.  Many representatives and senators share these concerns, and have declared their intention to investigate the actions of the executive branch.   I suppose that makes them potential targets for wiretaps as well.



Summarizes my thoughts on this topic. Thank you. 

Having said that, I restate my previous statement. King George might have a point when he decided to put Americans' rights to confidentiality and privacy on hold. Why? I watched the finale of "Sleeper Cell" last night. No wonder why this mini-series got excellent reviews across the board! Although it had a hollywoodesque ending (among other things, the good guy doesn't die and he makes ammends with his sweety and they apparently reconcile; no dirty bomb goes off killing thousands of people; etc), it shed new light on the complexities of terrorism on US soil. "Sleeper Cell" reminds you that just a few dedicated people can cause a lot of destruction and deaths. Therefore, you need to be very aggressive in the way you collect intelligence. Interestingly enough, this is consistent with other ways this administration is fighting the war on terror: secret prisons in other countries, use of torture, etc.


----------



## Everness

The following interview with the presi should galvanize public support for this cause. 

http://www.unconfirmedsources.com/?itemid=1381


----------



## GenJen54

And back to the issue at hand.  Bush's take on the subject?  



> President Bush on Monday said disclosure of his domestic eavesdropping program was a “shameful act” and said he will keep using it “for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens.”


 
Translation? How dare you let my dirty little secret?  No one was supposed to know about that?  I am my country's worst enemy.  And now you're making me look like a bigger a** than I already am.



> “As president of the United States and commander in chief I have the constitutional responsibility and the constitutional authority to protect our country,” he said in an opening statement at a year-end news conference.


 
Translation?  Bend over....


----------



## TrentinaNE

> King George might have a point when he decided to put Americans' rights to confidentiality and privacy on hold. Why? I watched the finale of "Sleeper Cell" last night. No wonder why this mini-series got excellent reviews across the board! Although it had a hollywoodesque ending (among other things, the good guy doesn't die and he makes ammends with his sweety and they apparently reconcile; no dirty bomb goes off killing thousands of people; etc), it shed new light on the complexities of terrorism on US soil. "Sleeper Cell" reminds you that just a few dedicated people can cause a lot of destruction and deaths. Therefore, you need to be very aggressive in the way you collect intelligence.


There are aggressive means available without violating the Constitution of the United States, and that's what warrantless wiretaps do. Bush had a perfectly reasonable legal alternative available, which was to request warrants through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court. From 2001 through 2004 the FISA court has approved 99.92% of the almost 5,000 applications presented to it. Even the four it rejected were probably resubmitted with slightly different wording for subsequent approval. The warrants are secret. And the law allows the warrant applications to be submitted up to 72 hours *after the fact*, so as not to impede the government's ability to act "faster and quicker" as W would say.

The real question is why the administration circumvented a legal process that is already extremely accommodating about providing the tools to thwart terrorist attacks. Possible answers: (1) they're just that ass-holey, (2) they're tapping parties that they know the court would not grant them permission to target, like journalists.  President Bush is acting like a dictator: "Trust me to keep you safe."  No, thanks, bub, I trust the limits and oversight procedures provided for in our Constitution.


----------



## jimreilly

We can do whatever We say is necessary to protect the country. We don't have to tell you if We do it, or what it is. 
If you find out about it and talk about it, or write an article about it, you are being unpatriotic.

What could We do?

Wiretapping your conversations without a warrant?
Accessing your library records.
Monitoring your internet use.
Picking you up for questioning.
Putting you in jail with your rights protected.
Putting you in jail without your rights protrected, i.e.
     no lawyer or right to communicate or defend yourself.
Putting in a secret jail that "no one" even knows is there.
Torturing you.
Letting--or helping?--you die there after you are tortured.

How many of these things have We done? Don't even ask, it's not patriotic. We can't let the Enemy know what our tactics are. If you are even reading this, you are unpatriotic. These are not matters for discussion. We would never do anything bad, after all. Trust us!


----------



## TrentinaNE

Unfortunately, *jimreilly*'s post is not facetious.  That is indeed the attitude of the Bush administration.  Earlier this year, I reread _1984_ for the first time in decades.  I think Karl Rove uses it as his playbook.  Either that, or George Orwell was eerily prescient.


----------



## ampurdan

Is it so? Hum, if Mr. Leviathan does such things to his own subjects, what will he do with the rest of us, mortals?


----------



## cuchuflete

Estimad@ Ampurdan,
según la (poca) mente del señor arbusto, sois todos súbditos suyos.  Welcome to the club of the oppressed for their own good.

I listened to him for a long time today.  It was frightening.

cuchu

PD- the most scary thing is that he either believes what he says, or doesn't give a damn what people think.  He has the power and is going to use it because he has it.


----------



## Edwin

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I listened to him for a long time today.  It was frightening.



Cuchu, you have a much stronger stomach than I do. 

Well, at least Shrub hasn't banned Beethoven's Ninth Symphony---yet. 



> Earlier this month, Ali Rahbari, conductor of Tehran's symphony orchestra, resigned and left Iran to protest the treatment of the music industry in Iran.
> 
> Before leaving, he played Beethoven's Ninth Symphony to packed Tehran theater houses over several nights last month — its first performance in Tehran since the 1979 revolution. The performances angered many conservatives and prompted newspaper columns accusing Rahbari of promoting Western values.  Source.



Things are bad all over.


----------



## Everness

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=ai.AVwHdumRw&refer=top_world_news

The U.S. isn't "spying on American citizens calling their neighbors,'' he (Attorney General Alberto Gonzales) said. "One party to the communication has to be outside the U.S.,'' Gonzales said. 

Bueno, ahora estoy más tranquilo... Vamos Albertito carajo! Siempre dejando a los hispanos bien parados!


----------



## jimreilly

I watched him today too, Cuchuflete, which is where the ideas came from for my earlier post. I didn't have to think hard at all.....

It is precisely to protect us from people like him (and the people behind him) that there are such things as the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court, etc. This is a real test of both whether our governmental system will work and how much the American people will put up with when their fears are played upon.

He let us know today (again) that he will do whatever it takes....


----------



## TrentinaNE

> Bueno, ahora estoy más tranquilo...


 Well, I'm not _más tranquila_! Gonzales is Bush's lapdog, just like Rice. Nothing either of them says comforts me because they've proven time and again that they'll say whatever they think will help their boss. 


> He has the power and is going to use it because he has it.


 When even conservative pundits like George Will in today's *Washington Post* question Bush's actions, perhaps there is light at the end of the tunnel... Dare we hope? 

Elisabetta

P.S. Very interesting link here about how well FISA does work.


> The real story behind the unauthorized wiretaps authorized by President Bush probably concerns the source of the info. It appears the most likely explanation is that the Bush Administration did not want to have to tell a Federal judge that they were using information obtained from interrogations that violated the spirit and the letter of the Geneva Conventions. Instead of protecting the nation the President may be covering his derrier.


 
_Limited to 4 sentences, but different ones than the mod left.  Also want to note that the above quotation is used with permission from TPMCafe.com, a service of TPM Media LLC._


----------



## cuchuflete

Shrub feels emboldened by his party's control of both houses of Congress, so he will continue to ignore the Constitution, and have the lesser legal minds on his staff provide butt coverage.

It stinks!  He also continues to trot out his 'in times of war' anything goes excuse.  Funny, I thought the Constitution had something to say about declaring war.  I must have been sleeping for the past few years.  I missed the declaration of war, as provided for by the Consitution.

Ah well, shrubby will just change his holier-than-thou text to 'global police action in defense of liberty' or whatever else Rove puts in his breakfast cereal.

To paraphrase another presidential luminary, the late and unlamented R.M.Nixon, let me be perfectly clear about this.
I do see a need to collect intelligence about the real bad guys, who have demonstrated that they exist and can and will do us --that's a broadly defined 'us' not limited to the U.S.--harm.
That is no reason to throw law out the window.  If we do, the bad guys will have already achieved part of their mission.


----------



## TrentinaNE

BTW, Bush stated in an April, 2004 speech that 


> Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.


Four rather extraordinary sentences, if I counted correctly.  

Peace,
Elisabetta


----------



## Everness

I know that some of us don't like the concept of collective responsibility but I think the American people can't look the other way and take no responsibility for the current state of affairs. After all, it was us, and not the Canadians, who reelected him for 4 more years. 

King George has been savvy enough to tap into Americans' fear and do things that are illegal, unconstitutional and unethical with little resistance by the public and the other two branches of government. Should I remind people that the US invaded a sovereign country with absolute disrespect for international law; that the US allowed or instigated torture at Abu Ghraib prisons; that the US wants to keep torture as a valid method of interrogation; that the US recently and openly acknowledged that it spies on American citizens without warrants; etc.  

The worse thing is that if, God forbid, we have another 9/11, 1) all this outrage will fade, 2) we'll go back to a post-9/11 collective state of mind, 3) Congress will again support anything King George proposes, and 4) the whole country will be paralyzed by fear. 

I can already picture W. on national TV saying, "I told you so..."


----------



## GenJen54

Everness said:
			
		

> I can already picture W. on national TV saying, "I told you so..."


Stop now, or you'll get the conspiracy theorists up in arms! Who's to say shrub and his cronies aren't already well on their way to "opening the door," for someone to do something else via their idiotic policies, so then that "told you so," wasn't as prophetic as it may have seemed. 
Go see "Syriana" and you'll see what I mean.

What I like is the Feds taking down license plate numbers from average citizens who chose to exercise their right of assembly and expression by attending a peaceful anti-war protest meeting or similar gathering. 

Who needs J. Edgar when we've got Cheney and Rove?


----------



## GenJen54

Even more frightening is this online article from _Newsweek_. Apparently, Bush knew the NYT was going to break the "Spygate" story and wanted to hush it. This man will stop at nothing to ensure his "empire" is built. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/

*EDIT:* Now it gets even worse. Now, he is encouraging us to "SPY ON EACH OTHER?"  Isn't there a constitutional Amendment guaranteeing our right to privacy? Or, has Bush not read that part?


----------



## TrentinaNE

GenJen, Andy Borowitz is a satirist, but he's so good, you think what he's writing is for real!

Elisabetta

_Edited next day to add: I thought that might be the case, GenJen, but wasn't sure. _


----------



## GenJen54

I knew that. I guess I didn't infuse enough sarcasm in my own post to convey that!


----------



## jimreilly

Satire, humor, poetry, the arts. It is difficult to know how to place these things in response to absurdity which is at the same time great cruelty. I used to sing a song about Hitler, by Kurt Weill, a Jewish-leftist refugee from Hitler's Germany,, that made fun of Hitler's illegitimacy. Not that Hitler didn't deserve to be made fun of, but somehow the song didn't seem worth doing, and I was always uncomfortable performing it. Certainly Weill had a right to write it, but....

I digress, but only to get to the point. What are the appropriate responses to the situation we face today, where anything but acquiescence is "unpatriotic". Satire, humor, venting in a humorous manner--these things all make life more tolerable, to be sure. We can complain as much as we want, but almost all of the people who are willing to listen are people who already agree with us.

Not acquisiescing is one valuable thing. Not ceasing to discuss, not ceasing to question, not accepting what we're told, not trusting people who are so obviously untrustworthy. That's just a start, but it's a start. And continuing to work. I read today that among other organizations and events the FBI had monitored was a Quaker peace rally. So the next time I do a fundraiser for Friends for a Non-Violent World, a Quaker organization here in Minnesota, I hope the FBI is there to enjoy the music.


----------



## cubaMania

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Is it so? Hum, if Mr. Leviathan does such things to his own subjects, what will he do with the rest of us, mortals?


 
He's already doing it: invade a country, drop bombs, kidnap people off your streets and send them to rot in vile prisons, subject to torture and sadistic degradation, support nasty dictators who comply, and oppose democratically elected governments who don't comply.

As U.S. citizens we have a responsibility to act to stop these horrors committed by our country against others. And if we have any sense at all we must also act to protect our heritage of personal liberty against the ghastly erosion taking placing under cover of "9/11", "protecting the American people", "mushroom cloud over New York", and general fear-mongering.... Flood your senators and representatives with letters, e-mails, and phone calls. Join the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and Amnesty International and give a generous donation. Protest in any way you can -- whether marching in demonstrations, working for decent political candidates, contributing time and/or money to the opposition political party, campaign to get your state to de-certify Diebold voting machines (and refuse to use them yourself), work at the polls on election day, and more. And above all VOTE!!!!!!!! It's insane the number of people who don't bother to vote when our traditions and the entire world are being so damaged, possibly irreversibly so.

P.S. (my opinion) I really wish you'd all stop using "shrub." It sounds silly and churlish and detracts from the apparent seriousness of the grave matters under discussion. All our attention should go to those matters and not to any distracting goofy name-calling like "shrub.''


----------



## Everness

"The President and I believe very deeply that there is a hell of a threat," Mr Cheney said, *calculating that "the vast majority" of Americans support the Administration's surveillance policies*.

http://smh.com.au/news/world/americ...-cheney-insists/2005/12/21/1135032081437.html

Why is it that I always find myself in the minority camp?


----------



## Everness

Another thought.

Mr Cheney argues that "the vast majority" of Americans support the Administration's unconstitutional and illegal surveillance policies. But is Dick also aware that most Americans would rather pay no taxes? Does this mean that if we cheat on our taxes, currently a criminal offense, we won't go to prison? I like that!


----------



## GenJen54

everness said:
			
		

> Why is it that I always find myself in the minority camp?


 
Because you are not inclusive of that select and _exclusive_ group of individuals who make up the majority of the Bush-supporting minority.  

Gallup, for one, agrees with you. 

As does a major network-affiliated news site, which conducted its own non-scientific "reader" poll. Of those 135,048 respondants, 68% believe Bush's "spygate" to be unconstitutional.  The "majority" 26% are in favor of domestic "eavesdropping," and the remaining 6% are undecided.


----------



## TrentinaNE

Everness, the article you linked also has Cheney saying:


> "And so if there's a backlash pending, I think the backlash is going to be against those who are suggesting somehow we shouldn't take these steps in order to defend the country."


Critics have been and need to keep reminding the White House that they're not saying the steps needed to defend the country shouldn't be taken, but that the steps -- and the President -- need to comply with the law and the Constitution. If legal methods aren't sufficient, then the WH needs to make the case for changing them, not just bypassing them.

And Mr. Cheney needs to be reminded of the various "facts" and predictions he's spouted in the past that have turned out to be flat wrong.

I like your tax analogy.  

Elisabetta


----------



## Everness

_The Bush administration's decision to sometimes bypass the secretive U.S. court that governs terrorism wiretaps could threaten cases against terror suspects that rely on evidence uncovered during the disputed eavesdropping, some legal experts cautioned._

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_Domestic_Spying.html

I wonder if the lawyers of Jose Padilla, a US citizen held for more than three years as an "enemy combatant," read this article...


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness,
Check the ruling of the judge in the Padilla case.  He gave the administration a kick in the posterior...a strong one.  And, he is generally a pro-administration judge.


----------



## Everness

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...ps_said_to_sift_all_overseas_contacts?mode=PF

This article highlights some risks involved in the practice of eavesdropping on Americans without a warrant.

First, the spy agency's computers will collect personal information that has no bearing on national security. E.g.: the pictures you sent to your cyberlover who lives in Russia... yes, don't blush or pretend that you don't know what I'm talking about... 

Second, the intelligence agents programming those computers will be tempted to abuse their power to eavesdrop for personal or political gain. E.g.: what if the agent who takes a peek at your email attachments with the pictures is a voyeur and likes them or, even more interestingly, likes you? Or think about this other scenario: what if the agent is a neighbor of yours and he/she is also interested in becoming the president of the PTO and he/she decides to use this "knowledge" to ruin your political aspirations?  

Third, and most importantly, this practice could be a flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


----------



## Noel Acevedo

Everness,

You should have come down hard on Mr. Bush.  There is a law in place passed about ten years back that creates a secret (as in secret) court that gives the Justice Department and other Security agencies the right to intercept all communications on any suspicion of illegal terrorist activity based on the request to do so through a warrent on probable cause grounds.  The court has authorized around 99% of all requests.  The act is structured in such a way that you can do the intecept first and then legalize it afterwards.  So there is no excuse for violating the rights of citizens.  In addition, it seems that the inteceptions only overloaded the FBI and did not produce any worthwhile evidence conducive to the overall protection of the US http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0117-01.htm

You also have to look at these inteceptions along with the practice of extraordinary rendition, secret prisons, torture and the prevalent practice of signing statements on behalf of this presidency.  All indicate a restrictive civil rights environment and a loss of the democratic principles upon which the US is founded.

Noel




			
				Everness said:
			
		

> http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/
> 
> If you are a US citizen and you made international calls or sent emails abroad after 9/11/01, there's a chance that intelligence agents electronically eavesdropped on you. Bush said today that he gave the National Security Agency license to eavesdrop on Americans communicating with people overseas. He added that he re-authorized this program more than 30 times. Our presi argues that such authorization is "fully consistent" with his "constitutional responsibilities and authorities." Others argue that although the US government can eavesdrop on communications worldwide, it needs a warrant for wiretapping on domestic soil.
> 
> If I hadn't watched the mini-series "Sleeper Cell" on Showtime for the last couple of weeks, I would have come down heavily on Mr. Bush. However, I think that this kind of trampling on our constitutional rights might be warranted.
> 
> Ah, the power of Hollywood! (By the way, the 2-hour long big finale of "Sleeper Cell" is tomorrow Sunday at 8pm)


----------



## Papalote

Everness said:
			
		

> I know that some of us don't like the concept of collective responsibility but I think the American people can't look the other way and take no responsibility for the current state of affairs. After all, it was us, and not the Canadians, who reelected him for 4 more years.
> .."


 
Unfortunately, on January 23rd, 2006 Canadians will be electing our own mini-me Bush, Esteban el arpita. So, we will probably be just as guilty, even if we don`t vote for the Conservatives, but as a collective majority, for the `war on terror`mentality crossing our borders. They`ll just run into a few glitches when the wire-tapping will have to be bilingual   .

Cheer up, there`s still hope for America when there are still free-thinking people like you foreros.

Take care,

P


----------



## jimreilly

Papalote said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, on January 23rd, 2006 Canadians will be electing our own mini-me Bush, Esteban el arpita. So, we will probably be just as guilty, even if we don`t vote for the Conservatives, but as a collective majority, for the `war on terror`mentality crossing our borders. They`ll just run into a few glitches when the wire-tapping will have to be bilingual   .
> 
> Cheer up, there`s still hope for America when there are still free-thinking people like you foreros.
> 
> Take care,
> 
> P



I hope you are right that there is hope, Papalote. If the free-thinking people keep thinking, speaking and acting...

Too bad about Canada and too bad about what will happen, barring some miracle, to our Supreme Court here in the US. But bravo Chile!


----------



## blancalaw

I am not really bothered by the possibility of my phones being tapped because I am not plotting a scheme against the government.  I have nothing to hide, and I’m sure they would not be too interested in my conversations.  That's my personal opinion.


----------



## cuchuflete

Having exercised my constitutional right to vote in both presidential elections in which the illustrious dubya stood as a candidate, and having found him lacking on both occasions, I
cannot help but wonder if that is sufficient "evidence" of ill-intent to cause my line to be joined by a snoop.

He and his pandilla of self-righteous hacks don't seem to think that they are subject to any constitutional restraints. He has said that he has the power, and intends to use it.  That should be a serious concern for the innocent, as well as for any genuine evildoer.


----------



## jimreilly

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> That should be a serious concern for the innocent, as well as for any genuine evildoer.



....and one of the problems is that it should not be up to a few people (or even up to the majority) to determine who is  "innocent" and who is an "evil doer" without appropriate checks on their power to do so. Our constitution, laws, and traditions give us substantial protections not only against those who seek to declare us "evil-doers" but also against those who seek to investigate us without good reason.

Power corrupts, and power without oversight and safeguards corrupts even faster. It is true conservatism to recognize this, and some of the folks hiding behind the label "conservative" today are really right wing radicals. Their strength should scare all of us, whether we consider ourselves innocent or guilty of anything.


----------



## cubaMania

Hear, hear!  It should be of concern to every U.S.A. citizen who still believes in our traditional form of government.  Our constitution is being subverted right before our eyes under a cloak of lies, not the least of which is "you can trust us to use unchecked power only for righteous purposes."  Yeah, right!


----------

