NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional

[ElvisFan42]

Sorry, what you are saying is not true. The NSA program targeted specific individuals. The standard for such a recording was that at least one party in the conversation has ties with Al Qaeda. The decision whether or not to tape a specific conversation was not made by anyone within the White House, but career analysts within the NSA, actually the senior most people.

Sorry, it is true

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/After_domestic_spying_reports_U.S._spying_1227.html

Random calls and emails were sampled for keywords
http://www.avantnews.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=246

Here, Bush says it's communications between people in the US and people overseas, not Al-Queda
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/

And some FBI and NSA agents telling what was monitored
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002087.html

Even if it was only citizens talking to known terrorist organizations (like they are in the phone book, how do you know that?) let's make this clear

ALL THEY HAD TO DO IS GET A FREAKING WARRANT!

What part of that don't you get? Even Bush says it's not in the constitution, but that FISA is what gives him the right to this. If you can't see the possibilities for abuse here, you are blind. Don't forget, our next Democrat Executive will have these same abilities if they hold up.

 

[steelerguy99]

Random calls and emails were sampled for keywords
http://www.avantnews.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=246

Not by humans. What the program was doing was using data mining to trigger potential persons that need to be more closely monitored i.e. actual survailence. No one's random conversations were being recorded by person's within the NSA

Here, Bush says it's communications between people in the US and people overseas, not Al-Queda
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/

The NSA director indicated in his congressional testimony that the persons had to have some link to Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda affiliated before they would actually monitor the call, tape it and have the conversation transcribed.

Even if it was only citizens talking to known terrorist organizations (like they are in the phone book, how do you know that?) let's make this clear

ALL THEY HAD TO DO IS GET A FREAKING WARRANT!

They are not in the phone book, but intelligence agencies have a good idea of who is who in terrorist organizations and the intelligence agencies have their own "phone books" of terrorists or terrorists

Besides, the warrant is not necessary. Warrants are important when evidence obtained is going to be used against persons in a court of law, i.e. a criminal prosecution. However, the evidence being obtained in these tapings was not being obtained to use against suspects in a court of law, but used to prevent attacks before they happen. I don't care if persons are prosecuted. I am more concerned with preventing attacks to begin with.

And the warrants are not easy to obtain. Gonzalez pointed to this and other legal experts confirmed this. Before he can authorize the monitoring of an individual within the U.S, he needs to make sure 100% that the necessary paramters for the warrants are met. That is a ton of paperwork as FISA applications have upwards of 30-50 pages. He can't go to FISA with a one page memo and say, we have reason to believe this person has links to terrorism. If he can't fulfill the normal reqirements for a warrant, he can't authorize the taping so a potential call which may have a link to terrorism can't be taped in your world.

Even the Democrats that are briefed have seen the value of the program.

What part of that don't you get? Even Bush says it's not in the constitution, but that FISA is what gives him the right to this.

Actually it is part of the Constitution.

If you can't see the possibilities for abuse here, you are blind

If you can't see the value of monitoring international phone calls. then you are blind

. Don't forget, our next Democrat Executive will have these same abilities if they hold up.

That is fine with me. National security shouldn't be a politcal issue

 

[ElvisFan42]

Not by humans. What the program was doing was using data mining to trigger potential persons that need to be more closely monitored i.e. actual survailence. No one's random conversations were being recorded by person's within the NSA

No one said recorded, we said monitored.

The NSA director indicated in his congressional testimony that the persons had to have some link to Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda affiliated before they would actually monitor the call, tape it and have the conversation transcribed.

Random samplings of all overseas communications flies in the face of what he says.

Besides, the warrant is not necessary. Warrants are important when evidence obtained is going to be used against persons in a court of law, i.e. a criminal prosecution. However, the evidence being obtained in these tapings was not being obtained to use against suspects in a court of law, but used to prevent attacks before they happen. I don't care if persons are prosecuted. I am more concerned with preventing attacks to begin with.

No, the warrant is there to protect your rights via checks and balances. The reason it comes into play in court is because without it, your rights have been violated.

And the warrants are not easy to obtain. Gonzalez pointed to this and other legal experts confirmed this. Before he can authorize the monitoring of an individual within the U.S, he needs to make sure 100% that the necessary paramters for the warrants are met. That is a ton of paperwork as FISA applications have upwards of 30-50 pages. He can't go to FISA with a one page memo and say, we have reason to believe this person has links to terrorism. If he can't fulfill the normal reqirements for a warrant, he can't authorize the taping so a potential call which may have a link to terrorism can't be taped in your world.

BS, warrants are obtained every day.

If you can't see the value of monitoring international phone calls. then you are blind

I see the value, monitoring international communications was happening before Bush and will continue after him. Did I say there was no value? The program will be useless when you are arrested and released because your rights were violated. Of course, since this program has yet to yield a single piece of valuable information, we may never see this happen. This type of spying is exactly one of the evils of the USSR we were told about in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

 

[steelerguy99]

No one said recorded, we said monitored.

They weren't monitored or recoreded
Data mining, such as that portion of the program, have been deemed to be Constitutional

Random samplings of all overseas communications flies in the face of what he says.

No it doesn't. He was talking about one part of the program, the taping or actual monitoring of conversaions by human ears.

No, the warrant is there to protect your rights via checks and balances. The reason it comes into play in court is because without it, your rights have been violated.

And Warrants have less of a value if the evidence obtained can't be used against you in a court of law.

BS, warrants are obtained every day.

Not BS. Simply the facts regarding FISA warrants

I see the value, monitoring international communications was happening before Bush and will continue after him. Did I say there was no value? The program will be useless when you are arrested and released because your rights were violated. Of course, since this program has yet to yield a single piece of valuable information, we may never see this happen. This type of spying is exactly one of the evils of the USSR we were told about in the 50s, 60s and 70s.[/

Analogizing this program to the USSR is simply bunk. No one is going to the goulag because of this monitoring. Evidence is not being used against people. This evidence is not being used to repress dissenters. This evidence is being used to protect citizens against attacks. This program is being used to protect citizens from threat of death.

 

[ElvisFan42]

Not BS. Simply the facts regarding FISA warrants

You're ignoring that warrants only need to be applied for in seven days, not obtained.

Analogizing this program to the USSR is simply bunk. No one is going to the goulag because of this monitoring. Evidence is not being used against people. This evidence is not being used to repress dissenters. This evidence is being used to protect citizens against attacks. This program is being used to protect citizens from threat of death.

Really? Bush wants to subject citizens to a military tribunal. Sounds like the USSR to me. No one is argueing the data is useful or can protect people, only how it's being obtained.

 

[steelerguy99]

]You're ignoring that warrants only need to be applied for in seven days, not obtained.

You're ignoring the fact that before a conversation can be monitored under FISA, the AG needs to make sure that all the requirements for a warrant can be met. Of if they can't be met, the conversation can't be monitored.
He can't authorize an emergency monitoring under FISA even if the analyst has a strong belief that this person is affilliated with Al Qaeda

No one is argueing the data is useful or can protect people, only how it's being obtained.

So I guess you are conceding the information is useful to preserve peace and security. You are just objecting how it is being obtained. However, the evidence isn't being used against anyone, only to give us information regarding potential attacks which we would like to prevent. How are rights being violated if the information obtained is not being diclosed publicly to anyone and not being used against anyone? Show me how people have been adversely affected by this program. I bet you can't

 

[Harlan Norris]

When a man is Elected President,he takes the oath of office.Included therin,is a vow to uphold and protect the constitution.We must all die one day,one way or another.Personally, I'd rather die in a democracy.Warrentless searches of any kind,directly oppose democracy,and are unconstitutional.I am frankly amazed by the number of those that are willing to give up our democracy,for the illusion of safety.It is even more amazing that the vast majority of these individuals claim to be Christian.

 

[burrow_owl]

Besides, the warrant is not necessary. Warrants are important when evidence obtained is going to be used against persons in a court of law, i.e. a criminal prosecution.

Another reason we have warrant requirements is for oversight. We don't want the President spying on his/her political rivals, so we require that it be run by a disinterested party. (here, a FISC judge)

And the warrants are not easy to obtain.

'But officer, I broke the law because it's hard to follow the law!' That's the gist of the "warrants are hard" quasi-argument.* The remedy is to change the law if warrants are hard to obtain: streamline the process.

* They're actually not hard to get. Agencies exist to spew out paper, so a 30-50 page application? That's nothing.

However, the evidence isn't being used against anyone, only to give us information regarding potential attacks which we would like to prevent.

You have no idea if this is the case.

 

[steelerguy99]

Another reason we have warrant requirements is for oversight. We don't want the President spying on his/her political rivals, so we require that it be run by a disinterested party. (here, a FISC judge)

There is no possibility of that happening in this case
The decision on who to record is being made by NSA Analysts, not the White House, and only certain conversations can be taped, no solely domestic conversations can be monitored

'But officer, I broke the law because it's hard to follow the law!' That's the gist of the "warrants are hard" quasi-argument.* The remedy is to change the law if warrants are hard to obtain: streamline the process.

It's not a valid law if if violates the Constitution which is the Supreme Law. That is the PResident's duty

* They're actually not hard to get. Agencies exist to spew out paper, so a 30-50 page application? That's nothing.

It can't be 40 or 50 pages of jibberish, and my previous points regarding such warrants still stand

You have no idea if this is the case

Yes we do. The government needs to indicate how evidence was obtained in any criminal trial.

 

[burrow_owl]

The decision on who to record is being made by NSA Analysts, not the White House, and only certain conversations can be taped, no solely domestic conversations can be monitored

It would be very simple for the President to get the NSA to spy on political opponents (either foreign political figures or American ones, who have been known to leave the country)

It's not a valid law if if violates the Constitution which is the Supreme Law.

This is well-trodden ground; FISA's constitutionality has never been seriously questioned, and the arguments against its constitutionality were all - to the one- shot down in Hamdan.

It can't be 40 or 50 pages of jibberish, and my previous points regarding such warrants still stand

A 30-50 pg. warrant app can be put together quickly and efficiently. These are professional paper-pushers we're talking about.

 

[steelerguy99]

It would be very simple for the President to get the NSA to spy on political opponents (either foreign political figures or American ones, who have been known to leave the country)

It already spies on foreign countries
However, it would not be possible for the president to order NSA spying on political opponents via this program

This is well-trod ground; FISA's constitutionality has never been seriously questioned, and the arguments against its constitutionality were all - to the one- shot down in Hamdan.

The FISA Court of Review disagrees with you.
They ruled FISA cannot encroach upon the President's power to perform such actions

A 30-50 pg. warrant app can be put together quickly and efficiently. These are professional paper-pushers we're talking about

No it can't. It still has to meet all of the requirments for a warrant, otherwise the AG can't approve an emergency taping. That is how the system works. So if we have a strong suspicion that someone calling into the US is affiliated with AL Qaeda, but have no proof, we can't tape that conversation and then ask for a warrant. The probable cause would have to be established prior to taping it so we could potentially miss Al Qaeda communications if not all elements can be fulfilled prior to the monitoring

Regardless, this info is not being used AGAINST people

 

[burrow_owl]

The FISA Court of Review disagrees with you.

The Supreme Court is a little more important than the FISC app. crt. (even assuming that the decision you cite is relevant and that you're interpreting it correctly). The court in Hamdan notes that inherent power means only that the president can act in the absence of Congressional regulation. Per Hamdi, it's not "a blank check" for the President to do whatever he wants.

It still has to meet all of the requirments for a warrant, otherwise the AG can't approve an emergency taping.

Without oversight, this is a faith-based system. Our entire system is built on lack of trust in government; the founders were smart and prescient to build our system with elaborate oversight mechanisms and procedural checks on power. The NSA saying, "We're the government, and we're here to help. Trust us!" doesn't quite cut it.

 

[ElvisFan42]

So I guess you are conceding the information is useful to preserve peace and security.

Conceding? I never said it wasn't useful. Please take your tactics 101 class learning somewhere else. So far, the information has not helped, but I don't think anyone is argueing it isn't useful.

You are just objecting how it is being obtained.

Thought I made that clear.

However, the evidence isn't being used against anyone, only to give us information regarding potential attacks which we would like to prevent. How are rights being violated if the information obtained is not being diclosed publicly to anyone and not being used against anyone? Show me how people have been adversely affected by this program. I bet you can't

It doesn't matter, as you yourself said, my only objection is how the information is being obtained. It's really that simple.

Have a nice day.

 

[steelerguy99]

So far, the information has not helped, but I don't think anyone is argueing it isn't useful.

Do you know it hasn't helped?
According to the persons in Congress who have been briefed on the program, even some Dems, agree that it has value and has been helpful

 

[trunks2k]

There is no possibility of that happening in this case
The decision on who to record is being made by NSA Analysts, not the White House, and only certain conversations can be taped, no solely domestic conversations can be monitored

You don't know that for sure. The NSA is run by the executive branch.

Heck, I'll grant you the possibility that President Bush is not listening on anyone he shouldn't be listening in on. His intentions may be 100% noble. BUT just because his intentions may be noble does not mean future presidents will have the same intentions. If the precident is set now so that they can listen in on whoever they want without a warrant under the guise of national security, there's nothing stopping them from using that excuse to listen in on people they shouldn't be listening in on.

I simply do not see why having 7 days to apply for a warrant after someone has already been listened in on is such a hinderance.

 

[Nathan Poe]

However, it would not be possible for the president to order NSA spying on political opponents via this program

Why not?

 

[steelerguy99]

I simply do not see why having 7 days to apply for a warrant after someone has already been listened in on is such a hinderance.

Trunks, that is the problem
The AG needs to sign on the dotted line that ALL NECESSARY elements for a warrant can be fulfilled prior to taping a conversation under FISA. If that can't be done, then a taping can't be performed. We can't tape the conversation and then ask for a warrant based on the tape conversation, even if we had a strong inkling someone was affiliated with Al Qaeda, but didn't have definitive proof per se.

They need to change the "bar" for the warrants and the procedure otherwise American's are put at disk

 

[steelerguy99]

Why not?

Well sure, I guess anything is possible, but the decisions as to WHO is being taped are made by analysts, not anyone in the White House.
The President authorized the program, but doesn't control it.

 

[burrow_owl]

You aren't seriously suggesting that a field analyst would refuse an order from the President, are you?

 

[steelerguy99]

You aren't seriously suggesting that a field analyst would refuse an order from the President, are you?

I believe they would
Besides, the orders don't come from the President
They would come from the upper management of the NSA
There is no direct chain of Command that goes from the President to these analysts