Judge orders halt to NSA wiretap program

[Texas Proud]

Really?

Consider the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the French Moroccan who came to the FBI's attention before Sept. 11 because he had asked a Minnesota flight school for lessons on how to steer an airliner, but not on how to take off or land. Even with this report, and with information from French intelligence that Moussaoui had been associating with Chechen rebels, the Justice Department decided there was not sufficient evidence to get a FISA warrant to allow the inspection of his computer files.

I think most people will say that the level has been lowered a bit on something like this..

 

[Texas Proud]

Hawaii and Texas have been mentioned by other posters. The remaining two are Vermont and California.

Hmmm... from Wikipedia...

During the outset of the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), in the town of Sonoma forty U.S. settlers revolted and established the California Republic, an independent republic, June 14, 1846. This short lived independent republic was annexed by the United States on July 9, 1846. The Mexican officials fled without a fight.

Now, I would not say a country is formed by forty people that did not even survive a month.. maybe someone else will....

We have some fruitcakes in Texas that have suceeded from the US.. out in west Texas where the police just kind of let them do their thing as long as they don't bother people.. and they lasted more than a month... does this mean we had another country inside Texas?? NO..

Also, did Mexico recognize that they no longer were the sovern of the land If not, then it is not a separate country...

 

[sgeeeee]

Really?

Consider the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the French Moroccan who came to the FBI's attention before Sept. 11 because he had asked a Minnesota flight school for lessons on how to steer an airliner, but not on how to take off or land. Even with this report, and with information from French intelligence that Moussaoui had been associating with Chechen rebels, the Justice Department decided there was not sufficient evidence to get a FISA warrant to allow the inspection of his computer files.

This gets back to the point I was making about getting all your news from spin doctor idealogues. William Kristol is the lap dog of W and Karl Rove. You should definately place him in the same bed with Limbaugh and O'Reiley. In this piece, Kristol offers this administration an excuse for their failure to seek a wiretap prior to 9/11. Notice that the courts did not deny them the right to tap. This administration's justice department simply did not seek permission.

 

[samclem]

Well, it turns out that there can be a cost for approaching the FISA court, as the FBI learned:

(This is from a Newsmax report of a NY Times story. No, didn't go back to the Times to research the original source."
******************
"In a May 2002 report the Times noted: "Two days later, F.B.I. agents in Minnesota asked Washington to obtain a special warrant to search his laptop computer."

However, there was a problem. The paper explained:
"Recent interviews of intelligence officials by The New York Times suggest that the Bureau had a reason for growing cautious about applying to a secret national security court for special search warrants that might have supplied critical information."

"The F.B.I.," officials told the Times, "had become wary after a well-regarded supervisor was disciplined because the [FISA] court complained that he had submitted improper information on applications."

The secret court went so far as to discipline Michael Resnick, the F.B.I. supervisor in charge of coordinating terrorist surveillance operations, saying they would no longer accept warrant applications from him.

Intelligence officials told the Times that the FISA Court's decision to reprimand Resnick, who had been a rising star in the FBI, "resulted in making the Bureau far less aggressive in seeking information on terrorists."

"Other officials," the paper said, complained that the FISA Court's actions against Resnick "prompted Bureau officials to adopt a play-it-safe approach that meant submitting fewer applications and declining to submit any that could be questioned."

Sen. Charles Grassley is among those who think that the FBI might have been able to stop the 9/11 attacks if the FISA Court hadn't discouraged the Bureau from aggressively pursuing a warrant in the Moussaoui case."

 

[Texas Proud]

"The F.B.I.," officials told the Times, "had become wary after a well-regarded supervisor was disciplined because the [FISA] court complained that he had submitted improper information on applications."

The secret court went so far as to discipline Michael Resnick, the F.B.I. supervisor in charge of coordinating terrorist surveillance operations, saying they would no longer accept warrant applications from him.

So, let's see if I am getting this right...

A respected FBI agent LIED to a secret court that gave out warrants like candy (remember, there were only a small percentage refused)... the court decided that the person might lie again so they said they would not accept warrants from him, so a whole agency said 'screw it'... we are not going to even try for a warrant...

I would not place the blame on the court for that one... I would place it on Resnick who LIED in the first place...

And we do not know if he had done something like this before, so the court had a history on him...

AND, does this not say in a LOUD VOICE that we can not trust the people who are saying 'trust us', we are only listening to terrorist calls They even lied to a court!!!

 

[REWahoo]

We have some fruitcakes in Texas that have suceeded from the US..

TP, those nutjobs attempted to secede, but they didn't succeed...

 

[bpp]

Hawaii and Texas have been mentioned by other posters. The remaining two are Vermont and California.

Gumby wins.

I guess California's claim may be a bit shakier than I remembered hearing about, but the others are solid. Seems like Texan textbooks could stand some revision.

 

[Gone4Good]

This gets back to the point I was making about getting all your news from spin doctor idealogues.  William Kristol is the lap dog of W and Karl Rove.  You should definately place him in the same bed with Limbaugh and O'Reiley.  In this piece, Kristol offers this administration an excuse for their failure to seek a wiretap prior to 9/11.  Notice that the courts did not deny them the right to tap.  This administration's justice department simply did not seek permission. 

1) The article was not intended to be a definitive source on the matter, but rather a response to your claim that "neither side was raising probable cause an issue."  Clearly that is not true.

2) And although you summarily dismiss the source, you don't even attempt to deal with the substance.  Do we want the government to have the ability to monitor the international communications of these people?

3) The Supreme Court will eventually rule whether such activities fall under the "President's Constitutional authority to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance" or not.  If not, it seems wise to amend FISA to apply a "reasonable suspicion" standard for suspected terrorists (as is the case for foreign spies) rather than the higher "probable cause" standard currently imposed. After all, the objective is to identify these people before they commit mass homicide, not identify their remains afterward . . . right?

 

[sgeeeee]

1) The article was not intended to be a definitive source on the matter, but rather a response to your claim that "neither side was raising probable cause an issue."  Clearly that is not true.

2) And although you summarily dismiss the source, you don't even attempt to deal with the substance.  Do we want the government to have the ability to monitor the international communications of these people?

3) The Supreme Court will eventually rule whether such activities fall under the "President's Constitutional authority to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance" or not.  If not, it seems wise to amend FISA to apply a "reasonable suspicion" standard for suspected terrorists (as is the case for foreign spies) rather than the higher "probable cause" standard currently imposed.  After all, the objective is to identify these people before they commit mass homicide, not identify their remains afterward . . . right?

Your reasoning is incredibly faulty. You make an incredible leap of faith when you assume that if we don't provide this administration with the right to be above the law, then we will be unable to stop terrorism. There is no proof of that, no reason to believe it is true. In fact it is an absurd assumption.

I believe that if we do provide this administration with the right to be above the law then we have institutionalized terrorism.

 

[Martha]

One thing that seems to be missing from this discussion is the different standards for warrants under basic criminal law and the FISA.

Under the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be based on probable cause to believe that a crime has been or is being committed. In contrast, surveillance under FISA is permitted based on a finding of probable cause that the surveillance target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. It doesn't matter whether the target is suspected of engaging in criminal activity. However, if the target is a "U.S. person," there must be probable cause to believe that the U.S. person's activities may involve espionage or other similar conduct in violation of the criminal statutes of the United States. Nor may a U.S. person be determined to be an agent of a foreign power "solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20021126.html

 

[Gone4Good]

Your reasoning is incredibly faulty.  You make an incredible leap of faith when you assume that if we don't provide this administration with the right to be above the law, then we will be unable to stop terrorism.  There is no proof of that, no reason to believe it is true.  In fact it is an absurd assumption. 

I believe that if we do provide this administration with the right to be above the law then we have institutionalized terrorism. 

For the third time . . . the Supreme Court will rule on whether the administration has acted within its Constitutional authority.  Because you don't get a vote, you may excuse me for not taking your assumption that the "administration is acting above the law" as some kind of proven fact.  I'm willing to wait for the experts on the subject to weight in rather than make the "leap" that you are making.

To your second point, I don't think it is an absurd assumption at all to say that the ability to monitor the communications of suspected terrorists will help prevent terrorist attacks.  You, however, are making the erroneous assumption that the "probable cause" standard is a trifling inconvenience when trying to monitor people whose first and only crime will be suicidal mass murder.  

You still haven't answered wether you think the government should be able to monitor these people - which is the more important question then whether GWB overstepped his authority (except of course if your primary purpose is to score political points).

 

[Texas Proud]

Gumby wins.

I guess California's claim may be a bit shakier than I remembered hearing about, but the others are solid. Seems like Texan textbooks could stand some revision.

Hey... we are brainwashed from early on.... that will not change...

Another rumor is that we are the only state that can seceed from the union without gettting a vote from the US congress etc... they said it was in the treaty that was signed when Texas joined... I read the whole thing and it is not in there... so that one is false..

But, we do have the ability to split into 5 states... but why do something stupid like that?

 

[sgeeeee]

For the third time . . . the Supreme Court will rule on whether the administration has acted within its Constitutional authority.  Because you don't get a vote, you may excuse me for not taking your assumption that the "administration is acting above the law" as some kind of proven fact.  I'm willing to wait for the experts on the subject to weight in rather than make the "leap" that you are making.

To your second point, I don't think it is an absurd assumption at all to say that the ability to monitor the communications of suspected terrorists will help prevent terrorist attacks.  You, however, are making the erroneous assumption that the "probable cause" standard is a trifling inconvenience when trying to monitor people whose first and only crime will be suicidal mass murder.  

You still haven't answered wether you think the government should be able to monitor these people - which is the more important question then whether GWB overstepped his authority (except of course if your primary purpose is to score political points).

You're not reading or thinking, so I'll quit posting.

 

[Nords]

For the third time . . . the Supreme Court will rule on whether the administration has acted within its Constitutional authority.

Just as soon as they get through all those pesky flag-burning issues...

 

[eridanus]

A respected FBI agent LIED to a secret court that gave out warrants like candy (remember, there were only a small percentage refused)... the court decided that the person might lie again so they said they would not accept warrants from him, so a whole agency said 'screw it'... we are not going to even try for a warrant...

Before 2002, the FISA Court rejected exactly zero warrant requests. They modified an absurdly low percentage but rejected NONE.

It seems extremely unlikely that the FISA Court's actions could have "prevented 9/11."


(Is that phrase gaining the same notoriety as "It's for the children!"?)

 

[Gumby]

..

 

[eridanus]

The ACLU agreed to a stay until the 6th hears the appeal.

It's all fun and games when the guy listening in is on your side.

 

[bpp]

But, we do have the ability to split into 5 states... but why do something stupid like that?

Get more Senate seats that way? Of course that would only be effective as long as all 5 new states kept voting as a bloc, which would probably last about 12 minutes.

 

[Texas Proud]

Get more Senate seats that way? Of course that would only be effective as long as all 5 new states kept voting as a bloc, which would probably last about 12 minutes.

My point exactly.... and I am sure that the bloc voting of the house would go down also.. the little that it is a bloc...

But, I doubt if any sane person would even suggest it... political suicide.. more so than fixing SS.. we even got some nutcases that might shot the person..

 

[Gumby]

..

 

[alphabet soup]

What's so f**king unbelievable is that 40% of the people in this country can't recognize fascism when it's staring them right in the face.

They can't ALL be Texans.

 

[REWahoo]

What's so f**king unbelievable is that 40% of the people in this country can't recognize fascism when it's staring them right in the face.

They can't ALL be Texans.

Thanks for the kind words and unbiased opinion, soup. Yes, just like people from California and Florida, all of us in Texas think exactly alike.

 

[Gone4Good]

The next day, however, a local newspaper reported that Bensman "said he would like to see the dam blown up and resents paying taxes to fix dam problems when it is barge companies that profit from the dam."

Workers at the corps' St. Louis office "took a dim view (of the article) and questioned if it was a potential threat," and a security manager forwarded the clipping to the FBI, said corps spokesman Alan Dooley.

Ok.  So the newspaper prints that this guy says he'd like to see the dam blown up.  Someone obviously thought it serious enough to forward to the FBI.  The FBI follows up by asking some questions . . . what's the problem?? 

If the FBI did nothing and the dam was blown up everyone would be saying they should have questioned this guy.  But when they question the guy someone concludes its evidence of fascism . . . please.

Sounds more like FBI CYA then Big Brother to me.

 

[astromeria]

I think the corps of engineers said that in oder to get rid of the dam, it would need to be blown up. This guy claims to have said only that they'd be better off without the dam. AS a well-known ecology-activist, he is typically against dams anyhow. Guess we can't speak our contrarian minds in public any more. And does the FBI think terrorists attend public meetings and identify themselves? : This is starting to remind me of the conformist 50s, where anyone expressing unpopular views was viewed with suspicion. Hmmm...isn't early retirement countercultural, even subversive?

 

[eridanus]

Remember the Hummer dealers going up in smoke? They arrested the responsible "eco-terrorist":

http://tinyurl.com/eo2kf

But then realized that they got the wrong guy.

http://www.grist.org/news/daily/2005/11/16/5/index.html

"The FBI will issue a rare "letter of regret" and pay environmentalist Josh Connole $100,000 after mistakenly arresting him for domestic terrorism."

"His suspicious activities included living communally with fellow vegans, installing solar panels, protesting the Iraq war, and (horrors!) driving an electric car."

Yes, it's true. They got him for using solar panels and driving an electric car. He also was a vegan!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10019329/site/newsweek/

'Agents placed the commune under surveillance and developed a political profile of the residents, discovering the owner of the house and his father "have posted statements on websites opposing the use of fossil fuels," one doc reads. Another says the owner had ties to a local chapter of Food Not Bombs, an "anarcho-vegan food distribution group."'


Hmm, are there "terrorists" among us right now? Nords has solar panels! Rich has a hybrid and even wrote that he likes it!