J
Jim Yanik
READ the article.
So what? CONGRESS still authorized the US Military.
-
Categories
-
Platforms
-
Content
Jim said:Mac wrote:
[snip]
Well, the CIA and especially the FBI have a pretty bad track
record for respecting the limits in the constitution.
But it is my opinion that the people in the NSA understand the
constitution. You can bet that president Bush's illegal order to
monitor US persons without FISA or other court approval was leaked
by someone in the NSA who was disgusted and appalled.
Maybe. Or perhaps it was noticed by someone in the telecom
industry. After all, wiretaps are no longer conducted with
alligator clips in a phone closet anymore. RF interception doesn't
work well for fiber optic systems either. The NSA needs a hook into
the telecom's switching equipment. That leaves behind lots of
evidence in log files, network traffic reports, etc.
As far as I can see, without a bona-fide declaration of war from
the congress, precious little slack should be accorded to the
president on matters of the constitution and limits to executive
power.
The courts have ruled that a state of war isn't justification for
violating provisions of the constitution or the law. And, we're not
even officially at war right now.
Do you think that FISA overrides the Constitution? I don't.
Clinton didn't,either.
http://nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200601240827.asp
I'd say this guy's qualifications indicate he knows what he's talking
about.
And we ARE "officially at war" right now.
Please cite the specific declaration of war.
In both Afghanistan and Iraq, we are (supposedly) acting under the
authority of the UN Security Council.
Jim said:Jim Thompson wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:58:53 -0800, "Richard Henry"
"Jim Thompson" <[email protected]>
wrote in message On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:18:43 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Richard Henry wrote:
[snip]
I agree that monitoring communications between US citizens and
unfriendly
foreigneers is in the US national interest. In fact, Congress
agrees,
so
much so that they set up a special secret court to issue the
necessary warrants so that the Bill of Rights is not trashed in
the process.
That court (the FISA court) will even grant subpoenas after the
fact. So, why is George opposed to using them? My guess is that
the wiretaps in question have nothing to do with the war on
terrorism. Its more likely that the administration is venturing
into areas like industrial espionage or putting together lists of
'Friends of George' and 'Enemies of George'.
Bull puckey.
But George IS "listening" in on calls that end up yielding no
subpoena-worthy information.
And you apparently have no problem with that.
If you are blind listening to calls from "over there" what do you
expect?
To end up in court on the wrong end of a warrant.
In this day and age, I'd call it "Googling" ;-)
Historically, it has been known as "spying".
You'd think on a technical newsgroup people would be more cognizant
of the technology...
The calls are "listened to" by computers looking for "key words".
Not legally in this country without a subpoena.
Calls with certain key words are tagged for human examination.
First, everyone knows about that capability. Years ago, even the
stupid terrorists started using code words or euphemisms for the
actual terminology. Second, the conversations of interest are most
probably in Arabic (one of a number of dialects), Farsi, Pashtun, etc.
The FBI, CIA nd NSA lack the language expertise to parse even the
targeted intercepts, let alone those caught by such a wide net.
That this technique is being used suggests that it is being used
against US residents for entirely different purposes than combating
terrorism.
Do you have a problem with that?
Yes. Its illegal.
If you do, may your town be the next terrorist target ;-)
Maybe, maybe not. But spending time and money looking for porn and
closing strip clubs isn't going to stop that from happening. Read the
9/11 Report about where the intelligence shortcomings are: They are in
data analysis, not collection. The CIA and FBI need better tools to
parse what they legally collect, not get swamped with more data.
They'd be better off throwing the con artists off the FBI IT upgrade
project and hiring somebody competent, for example.
read this;
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/24/130610.shtml?s=ic
About FISA.
That still doesn't excuse going beyond what the Patriot act authorized.
The administration actually asked for more powers than were granted by
the act and congress specifically said, 'No'. So they are intentionally
violating congressional intent.
It'll be a real shame if they lose the capabilities that they have been
granted at present by abusing them.
Jim said:Richard Henry wrote:
[snip]
I agree that monitoring communications between US citizens and
unfriendly foreigneers is in the US national interest. In fact,
Congress agrees, so much so that they set up a special secret
court to issue the necessary warrants so that the Bill of Rights
is not trashed in the process.
That court (the FISA court) will even grant subpoenas after the
fact. So, why is George opposed to using them?
Because it unConstitutionally transfers Executive powers to conduct
war to the Congress or the Courts.That is the SAME as Clinton
asserted during his terms.It's been like that for hundreds of years.
My guess is that the wiretaps
in question have nothing to do with the war on terrorism. Its more
likely that the administration is venturing into areas like
industrial espionage or putting together lists of 'Friends of
George' and 'Enemies of George'.
Now,the Clinton administration did EXACTLY that.
Conducted illegal espionage? Not likely, or Ken Starr wouldn't have
had to pursue the blow job angle against Clinton.
That's a weapon that's effective against someone who violates the tax
code. If Cinton's enemies were particulary vulnerable to this sort of
attack, maybe they deserved it. If you can't do the time, don't do the
crime.
Jim said:Clinton directed the IRS to audit people he had issues with.
Can a President even do that ?
Graham
Clinton directed the IRS to audit people he had issues with.
Jim said:You have to ask? ALL politicians are crooks.
...Jim Thompson
You have to ask? ALL politicians are crooks.
...Jim Thompson
It's amazing how naive some folks can be.
It was even in the national news.
Jim said:Jim said:Jim Thompson wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:58:53 -0800, "Richard Henry"
"Jim Thompson" <[email protected]>
wrote in message On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:18:43 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Richard Henry wrote:
[snip]
I agree that monitoring communications between US citizens and
unfriendly
foreigneers is in the US national interest. In fact, Congress
agrees,
so
much so that they set up a special secret court to issue the
necessary warrants so that the Bill of Rights is not trashed in
the process.
That court (the FISA court) will even grant subpoenas after the
fact. So, why is George opposed to using them? My guess is that
the wiretaps in question have nothing to do with the war on
terrorism. Its more likely that the administration is venturing
into areas like industrial espionage or putting together lists of
'Friends of George' and 'Enemies of George'.
Bull puckey.
But George IS "listening" in on calls that end up yielding no
subpoena-worthy information.
And you apparently have no problem with that.
If you are blind listening to calls from "over there" what do you
expect?
To end up in court on the wrong end of a warrant.
In this day and age, I'd call it "Googling" ;-)
Historically, it has been known as "spying".
You'd think on a technical newsgroup people would be more cognizant
of the technology...
The calls are "listened to" by computers looking for "key words".
Not legally in this country without a subpoena.
Calls with certain key words are tagged for human examination.
First, everyone knows about that capability. Years ago, even the
stupid terrorists started using code words or euphemisms for the
actual terminology. Second, the conversations of interest are most
probably in Arabic (one of a number of dialects), Farsi, Pashtun, etc.
The FBI, CIA nd NSA lack the language expertise to parse even the
targeted intercepts, let alone those caught by such a wide net.
That this technique is being used suggests that it is being used
against US residents for entirely different purposes than combating
terrorism.
Do you have a problem with that?
Yes. Its illegal.
If you do, may your town be the next terrorist target ;-)
Maybe, maybe not. But spending time and money looking for porn and
closing strip clubs isn't going to stop that from happening. Read the
9/11 Report about where the intelligence shortcomings are: They are in
data analysis, not collection. The CIA and FBI need better tools to
parse what they legally collect, not get swamped with more data.
They'd be better off throwing the con artists off the FBI IT upgrade
project and hiring somebody competent, for example.
read this;
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/24/130610.shtml?s=ic
About FISA.
That still doesn't excuse going beyond what the Patriot act authorized.
The administration actually asked for more powers than were granted by
the act and congress specifically said, 'No'. So they are intentionally
violating congressional intent.
It'll be a real shame if they lose the capabilities that they have been
granted at present by abusing them.
The power of the Executive to use the military is from the Constitution,and
no law Congress passes overrides the Constitution.An UnConstitutional law
is as if there's no law at all.
Even Clinton agreed with that,and I believe there was a USSC ruling cited
in the article that supports it.
Did you even read the articles I cited?
Jim said:Jim said:Mac wrote:
[snip]
Well, the CIA and especially the FBI have a pretty bad track
record for respecting the limits in the constitution.
But it is my opinion that the people in the NSA understand the
constitution. You can bet that president Bush's illegal order to
monitor US persons without FISA or other court approval was leaked
by someone in the NSA who was disgusted and appalled.
Maybe. Or perhaps it was noticed by someone in the telecom
industry. After all, wiretaps are no longer conducted with
alligator clips in a phone closet anymore. RF interception doesn't
work well for fiber optic systems either. The NSA needs a hook into
the telecom's switching equipment. That leaves behind lots of
evidence in log files, network traffic reports, etc.
As far as I can see, without a bona-fide declaration of war from
the congress, precious little slack should be accorded to the
president on matters of the constitution and limits to executive
power.
The courts have ruled that a state of war isn't justification for
violating provisions of the constitution or the law. And, we're not
even officially at war right now.
Do you think that FISA overrides the Constitution? I don't.
Clinton didn't,either.
http://nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200601240827.asp
I'd say this guy's qualifications indicate he knows what he's talking
about.
And we ARE "officially at war" right now.
Please cite the specific declaration of war.
READ the article.
In both Afghanistan and Iraq, we are (supposedly) acting under the
authority of the UN Security Council.
So what? CONGRESS still authorized the US Military.
Jim said:Jim Yanik wrote:
Mac wrote:
[snip]
Well, the CIA and especially the FBI have a pretty bad track
record for respecting the limits in the constitution.
But it is my opinion that the people in the NSA understand the
constitution. You can bet that president Bush's illegal order to
monitor US persons without FISA or other court approval was leaked
by someone in the NSA who was disgusted and appalled.
Maybe. Or perhaps it was noticed by someone in the telecom
industry. After all, wiretaps are no longer conducted with
alligator clips in a phone closet anymore. RF interception doesn't
work well for fiber optic systems either. The NSA needs a hook into
the telecom's switching equipment. That leaves behind lots of
evidence in log files, network traffic reports, etc.
As far as I can see, without a bona-fide declaration of war from
the congress, precious little slack should be accorded to the
president on matters of the constitution and limits to executive
power.
The courts have ruled that a state of war isn't justification for
violating provisions of the constitution or the law. And, we're not
even officially at war right now.
Do you think that FISA overrides the Constitution? I don't.
Clinton didn't,either.
http://nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200601240827.asp
I'd say this guy's qualifications indicate he knows what he's talking
about.
And we ARE "officially at war" right now.
Please cite the specific declaration of war.
READ the article.
(how DOES one declare war against a non-nation/state or multinational
terror group? Congress authorizes use of military force.)
(military force being an "act of war".)
In both Afghanistan and Iraq, we are (supposedly) acting under the
authority of the UN Security Council.
So what? CONGRESS still authorized the US Military.
But not to conduct a war. To support UN Security Council resolutions.
Its one thing to surrender ones rights when your country is at war, but
to do so when a bunch of foreigners in some committee tell us to do so
is unconscionable.
Got news for ya; when Congress authorized the use of military
force against Al-Qa'ida, they DID authorize a war. Using
military force is making war.
Jim said:Jim said:Jim Yanik wrote:
Mac wrote:
[snip]
Well, the CIA and especially the FBI have a pretty bad track
record for respecting the limits in the constitution.
But it is my opinion that the people in the NSA understand the
constitution. You can bet that president Bush's illegal order to
monitor US persons without FISA or other court approval was leaked
by someone in the NSA who was disgusted and appalled.
Maybe. Or perhaps it was noticed by someone in the telecom
industry. After all, wiretaps are no longer conducted with
alligator clips in a phone closet anymore. RF interception doesn't
work well for fiber optic systems either. The NSA needs a hook into
the telecom's switching equipment. That leaves behind lots of
evidence in log files, network traffic reports, etc.
As far as I can see, without a bona-fide declaration of war from
the congress, precious little slack should be accorded to the
president on matters of the constitution and limits to executive
power.
The courts have ruled that a state of war isn't justification for
violating provisions of the constitution or the law. And, we're not
even officially at war right now.
Do you think that FISA overrides the Constitution? I don't.
Clinton didn't,either.
http://nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200601240827.asp
I'd say this guy's qualifications indicate he knows what he's talking
about.
And we ARE "officially at war" right now.
Please cite the specific declaration of war.
READ the article.
(how DOES one declare war against a non-nation/state or multinational
terror group? Congress authorizes use of military force.)
(military force being an "act of war".)
In both Afghanistan and Iraq, we are (supposedly) acting under the
authority of the UN Security Council.
So what? CONGRESS still authorized the US Military.
But not to conduct a war. To support UN Security Council resolutions.
Its one thing to surrender ones rights when your country is at war, but
to do so when a bunch of foreigners in some committee tell us to do so
is unconscionable.
Got news for ya;when Congress authorized the use of military force against
Al-Qa'ida,they DID authorize a war. Using military force is making war.
Jim said:Jim Yanik wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:
Mac wrote:
[snip]
Well, the CIA and especially the FBI have a pretty bad track
record for respecting the limits in the constitution.
But it is my opinion that the people in the NSA understand
the constitution. You can bet that president Bush's illegal
order to monitor US persons without FISA or other court
approval was leaked by someone in the NSA who was disgusted
and appalled.
Maybe. Or perhaps it was noticed by someone in the telecom
industry. After all, wiretaps are no longer conducted with
alligator clips in a phone closet anymore. RF interception
doesn't work well for fiber optic systems either. The NSA
needs a hook into the telecom's switching equipment. That
leaves behind lots of evidence in log files, network traffic
reports, etc.
As far as I can see, without a bona-fide declaration of war
from the congress, precious little slack should be accorded
to the president on matters of the constitution and limits
to executive power.
The courts have ruled that a state of war isn't justification
for violating provisions of the constitution or the law. And,
we're not even officially at war right now.
Do you think that FISA overrides the Constitution? I don't.
Clinton didn't,either.
http://nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200601240827.asp
I'd say this guy's qualifications indicate he knows what he's
talking about.
And we ARE "officially at war" right now.
Please cite the specific declaration of war.
READ the article.
(how DOES one declare war against a non-nation/state or
multinational terror group? Congress authorizes use of military
force.) (military force being an "act of war".)
In both Afghanistan and Iraq, we are (supposedly) acting under
the authority of the UN Security Council.
So what? CONGRESS still authorized the US Military.
But not to conduct a war. To support UN Security Council
resolutions. Its one thing to surrender ones rights when your
country is at war, but to do so when a bunch of foreigners in some
committee tell us to do so is unconscionable.
Got news for ya;when Congress authorized the use of military force
against Al-Qa'ida,they DID authorize a war. Using military force is
making war.
Nope. Not according to the letter of the law.
But that's a moot point anyway, because a state of war does not excuse
the administration from complying with the law.
Jim said:[snip]
Can you show me this "letter of the law"?But that's a moot point anyway, because a state of war does not excuse
the administration from complying with the law.
Law does not override the Constitution;and it's within the Executive's
powers to act as Bush has done.
The ONLY way Congress can change that is to
AMEND the constitution and alter the powers of the Executive office.
http://nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200601240827.asp
*I'd say this guy's qualifications indicate he knows what he's talking
about.*
Better than you or I.
Paul Hovnanian P.E. said:Jim said:[snip]
Can you show me this "letter of the law"?But that's a moot point anyway, because a state of war does not excuse
the administration from complying with the law.
Law does not override the Constitution;and it's within the Executive's
powers to act as Bush has done.
Show me where in the Constitution the Executive branch is exempt from
the fourth amendment.
The ONLY way Congress can change that is to
AMEND the constitution and alter the powers of the Executive office.
They did. Its called the fourth amendment. Whatever powers were granted
to the president by the Constitution itself (including Article II), the
fourth amendment modifies them with regard to this topic.
http://nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200601240827.asp
*I'd say this guy's qualifications indicate he knows what he's talking
about.*
Better than you or I.
But not better than Congress or the Supreme Court.
This has gone way beyond a partisan issue. Some GOP legislators are
making clear that they never intended to grant these powers with the
Patriot Act.
[snip]Jim said:[snip]
Can you show me this "letter of the law"?But that's a moot point anyway, because a state of war does not excuse
the administration from complying with the law.
Law does not override the Constitution;and it's within the Executive's
powers to act as Bush has done.
Show me where in the Constitution the Executive branch is exempt from
the fourth amendment.
[snip]Jim said:[snip]
Can you show me this "letter of the law"?
But that's a moot point anyway, because a state of war does not
excuse the administration from complying with the law.
Law does not override the Constitution;and it's within the
Executive's powers to act as Bush has done.
Show me where in the Constitution the Executive branch is exempt from
the fourth amendment.
You are really getting tiresome. "W" ISN'T violating the 4th
Amendment. Please pay attention!
...Jim Thompson
[snip]Jim Yanik wrote:
[snip]
Can you show me this "letter of the law"?
But that's a moot point anyway, because a state of war does not
excuse the administration from complying with the law.
Law does not override the Constitution;and it's within the
Executive's powers to act as Bush has done.
Show me where in the Constitution the Executive branch is exempt from
the fourth amendment.
You are really getting tiresome. "W" ISN'T violating the 4th
Amendment. Please pay attention!
...Jim Thompson
He's really clueless;during WW2,military censors read all GI mail coming
from the fronts. We interned US citizens of Japanese descent.
I suspect overseas phone calls were monitored,too.
