Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder As long as we're posting long artcles- <a href="http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1147675633.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.themoderatevoice.co m/posts/1147675633.shtml</a> Guest Voice: Bush's NSA Wiretaps are Highly Illegal by Joe Gandelman The Moderate Voice from time to time runs Guest Voice posts by people who are not regular contributors but make an interesting case on an issue. Views expressed do not necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or this site's cobloggers. We post them because of the way they're written and because they could also serve as a good basis for discussion in the comments section. This was a piece we saw in an email list. We asked the writer who goes by the name Beast from the Middle East about posting it here and got the go ahead. The author's has also just posted this as well on his blog HERE. Bush's NSA Wiretaps are Highly Illegal When President Nixon broke the law and lied under oath, he was forced to resign. When President Clinton lied under oath in 1998, he was impeached by the House of Representatives. President Bush's authorization of unwarranted wiretaps by the National Security Agency (NSA) constitutes a similar violation of law and presidential ethics. The New York Times broke the story on December 16, 2005 that President Bush in 2002 had signed a presidential order allowing the NSA to monitor, without a warrant, the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of American citizens. This revelation created a storm of controversy in December and the earlier months of 2006 that has yet to subside. Opposition to the wiretaps crossed party lines, as Republican Senators John McCain of Arizona and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania joined their Democratic counterparts in condemning the deal. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed two separate lawsuits against the NSA in January.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Please provide an example of NSA wiretaps on ordinary citizens. Specifically, wiretaps without warrants." If a tree fell in the woods do we really have to ask if it made noise hitting the ground?
Originally Posted By DlandDug SPP, with all due respect, I could trot out literally dozens of guest editorials from conservative blogs that would support anything the President does. With full citations. Can we do better than a guest editorial from an anonymous blogger named "Beast from the Middle East?" >>"Please provide an example of NSA wiretaps on ordinary citizens. Specifically, wiretaps without warrants." If a tree fell in the woods do we really have to ask if it made noise hitting the ground?<< But no tree has fallen. At least, no one has yet been able to offer any proof. Not even the slightest rustle in the grass.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Can we do better than a guest editorial from an anonymous blogger named "Beast from the Middle East?" With some of the screen names around here, you're going to poke at this guy's?
Originally Posted By DlandDug It's not just the name. I have an inherent distrust of blogs-as-information. I can see that there's much of interest in what he has to say. I would prefer it came from some source that has a verifiable track record. I try as much as possible to use "legitimate" news sources in my posts. At times I have found great supporting documents, but have declined to use them because they were partisan. So I tend to look at other links with a certain degree of skepticism. (Of course, who knows WHAT we can trust these days???)
Originally Posted By jonvn "This analogy is not only false, it's simply absurd. " It was a perfect analogy. He stated that because no one had declared that the law was broken, the law had not been broken. But you are correct, it was absurd, as was my analogy, in that an analogy to an absurdity is going to be absurd. "The actions of the NSA have not broken the law." Thank you for your legal opinion on the matter. It's comforting to know you are so sure about it. A lot of others, though, are not, and are of a rather different viewpoint. "Please provide an example of NSA wiretaps on ordinary citizens. " Since they did it in secret, it is a ridiculous question to ask. Records are being requested, and the government does not want to give them up. So, your request is pointless and ridiculous.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>It was a perfect analogy. He stated that because no one had declared that the law was broken, the law had not been broken.<< That is not what he asserted at all. What he said was: >>"you don't have a legal decision where any laws have been broken"<< This is an accurate description of where things stand at the present. The reply was: >>Oh, I see. So, until we have a legal decision that says a law is broken, a law is not broken? So, if someone goes and robs a bank, but no one is convicted of robbing that bank, the bank was never robbed?<< This analogy is false, in that whan a bank is robbed, a clearly delineated law has been broken, regardless of whether the person who broke the law is convicted. It is clearly against the law to rob a bank. What is not clear is whether the present activities of the NSA are in violation of the law. Merely because some have already drawn conclusions before all the facts are in does not close the matter. >>"The actions of the NSA have not broken the law." Thank you for your legal opinion on the matter.<< That is not my legal opinion. It is the present state of the matter. If it was clearly understood that the law had been broken, then rather than legal challenges, this would be a matter for law enforcement. (When a bank is robbed, the victims do not seek legal opinion on interpretation of the law.) >>"Please provide an example of NSA wiretaps on ordinary citizens. " Since they did it in secret, it is a ridiculous question to ask.<< This is a perfectly valid question, for which there is, apparently, no satisfactory answer. If this was done in such secret that no victims have been identified, then why are some absolutely certain it has happened? If anyone wishes to make charges, that is their privilege. But when one is unable to provide the slightest scintilla of evidence, one should be prepared to be taken with a grain of salt. >>So, your request is pointless and ridiculous.<< Noted. And I still eagerly await some proof of the confident assertion that the NSA has been wiretapping ordinary citizens.
Originally Posted By jonvn "That is not what he asserted at all." Actually, yes, it was. I said wiretapping (or just looking at phone records) without a warrant is illegal. Which it is. He stated that "no decision" was made that stated it as such. It's still illegal. Whether or not it's been decided that the government in this case has done this, it's still illegal. Why? Because a clearly delineated law, no searches without a warrant, was violated. You do understand that the government is not supposed to do a search without a warrant, don't you? "That is not my legal opinion. It is the present state of the matter." That is for a court to decide. You're not in a position to issue a proclamation stating that they broke no laws. If they have searched or wiretapped without a warrant, which is apparently what they have done, they have broken the law. That's all there is to it. It shouldn't take a lot of grey matter to understand this. "This is a perfectly valid question," Of course it's not a valid question. It just recently came out that this happened, that phone companies were turning over records to the government. If they turned them over without a warrant, and there is no one saying they had one, then this violates the law. And that is why some are certain it happened, because Bush himself said he authorized it to happen, which IN ITSELF is illegal. SO, you have your info, it was authorized,Bush stated it was authorized himself. From Fox News: "But Bush's remarks come after a weekend of criticism against the president that dimmed much of Thursday's election excitement. On Saturday, the president acknowledged that over the past four years, he renewed authority more than 30 times for the National Security Agency to engage in domestic surveillance without court-ordered warrants." <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0</a>,2933,179026,00.html The Attorney General has implied that the activity went even further than the President admitted, and that's even more illegality. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801587.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801587.html</a> Now, of course the response is going to be "But show us some evidence." Or maybe "you have no proof that anyone was spied on." Because that's all certain folks say. No matter how much evidence is shown, it's "show us some evidence." Ridiculous. THEY ADMITTED DOING IT. It is illegal. Maybe if people who don't understand what the laws in this country are read up on them, these things may be clearer to them. Because it's pretty clear to me, and if you don't, then you are calling the President and the Attorney General a liar, because they admitted to this behavior and you say they didn't do it. But I suppose that is better than a criminal.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I said wiretapping (or just looking at phone records) without a warrant is illegal. Which it is. He stated that "no decision" was made that stated it as such.<< The actual exchange (from Post #50) was as follows: [jonvn]<< Your arguments are that we need to do whatever possible to stop some violent acts. Well, that's simply wrong. We're a nation of laws, and they are there for a reason. And the REALITY is that if we throw out our freedoms and our protections, then we are no better here than if we lived in a totalitarian regime.>> [Beaumandy] No laws have been broken, you don't have a legal decision where any laws have been broken, and worse, you have no better plan how to stop a deadly terrorist attack. This is why you are going to lose on election day if and when you push this.<< Now, it is clearly understood here that wiretapping the private calls of American is illegal, but what has not been established in any definitive way is that this has been done. No legal decision has been made that says otherwise, and no concrete examples have been provided to support any other conclusion at this time. From the above post: >>Whether or not it's been decided that the government in this case has done this, it's still illegal... That is for a court to decide... If they have searched or wiretapped without a warrant, which is apparently what they have done, they have broken the law... If they turned them over without a warrant, and there is no one saying they had one, then this violates the law... That's all there is to it. It shouldn't take a lot of grey matter to understand this.<< WHETHER OR NOT... for the court to DECIDE... IF they have searched... APPARENTLY... IF they turned them over... It takes not a lot of gray matter to understand that these are all modifiers, properly used when dealing with an issue that is not resolved. >>On Saturday, the president acknowledged that over the past four years, he renewed authority more than 30 times for the National Security Agency to engage in domestic surveillance without court-ordered warrants.<< Within the NSA the President can authorize various levels of surveillance without warrants. The QUESTION at this time is to what degree that is true. >>Maybe if people who don't understand what the laws in this country are read up on them, these things may be clearer to them.<< Yes, indeed. Perhaps some background from USA Today would be helpful: <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm" target="_blank">http://www.usatoday.com/news/w ashington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm</a> EXCERPTS (emphasis mine): >>The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program DOES NOT INVOLVE THE NSA LISTENING TO OR RECORDING CONVERSATIONS... The government is collecting "external" data on domestic phone calls but is not intercepting "internals," a term for the actual content of the communication, according to a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the program. This kind of data collection from phone companies is NOT UNCOMMON; it's been DONE BEFORE, though never on this large a scale, the official said... A special court, which has 11 members, is responsible for adjudicating requests under FISA... Paul Butler, a former U.S. prosecutor who specialized in terrorism crimes, said FISA approval GENERALLY ISN'T NECESSARY for government data-mining operations. "FISA does not prohibit the government from doing data mining," said Butler...<< >>Now, of course the response is going to be "But show us some evidence." Or maybe "you have no proof that anyone was spied on." Because that's all certain folks say. No matter how much evidence is shown, it's "show us some evidence."<< But NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN SHOWN. That is the crux of this argument. IF incriminating evidence comes to light, then this argument is valid. But to draw the conclusion that the law has been broken on the basis of a series of suppositions (IF, WHETHER, APPARENTLY) is wrong.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Since they did it in secret, it is a ridiculous question to ask. Records are being requested, and the government does not want to give them up. So, your request is pointless and ridiculous.>> Translation: I don't have any evidence, I have nothing at at all that we are being spied on. But I REALLY, REALLY, feel like they are spying on me. I just KNOW they are. I can FEEL it.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Meanwhile, back in Canada (remember, Canada? Where the terror plot was foiled?), the following editorial offers an interesting take: <a href="http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1149545411662" target="_blank">http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/ cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1149545411662</a> >>They brought their war against the West to two great American cities in 2001. Next were Spain and England. In Holland, they butchered a filmmaker on the street. Australians got theirs in Bali. It's surprising it took them so long to turn to Canada. Let's be clear about who we mean by "they." We mean Islamists. Not Muslims. A Muslim is one who practises Islam, a great religion. An Islamist is one for whom Islam is not just a religion, but a political ideology. Islamists seek to establish pure Islamic societies governed according to the harshest interpretation of Islam. As Canadians process the significance of this weekend's anti-terror arrests, it's important to remember that not all Muslims are Islamists.<<
Originally Posted By jonvn "Now, it is clearly understood here that wiretapping the private calls of American is illegal, but what has not been established in any definitive way is that this has been done." This has already been discussed. You have been given a response. I see no need to repeat myself. "WHETHER OR NOT... for the court to DECIDE... IF they have searched... " Already been admitted, as you've been told. "Translation: I don't have any evidence" The translation is incorrect. There already is evidence, as provided by the executive branch, as has been said already.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>"Please provide an example of NSA wiretaps on ordinary citizens. " (jonvn)<<Since they did it in secret, it is a ridiculous question to ask.<< (dldug) <This is a perfectly valid question, for which there is, apparently, no satisfactory answer.> No, it really is a silly question. By definition, no one who has been tapped is going to know. So how are we supposed to provide examples? <If this was done in such secret that no victims have been identified, then why are some absolutely certain it has happened? > Some of us aren't. But we (me, anyway) didn't say that. I'm not certain they tapped anyone other than suspected terrorists. What I'm saying is that without court oversight, how can we know? That's why you HAVE court oversight. To check the power of the executive. Maybe this administration is completely above board and would never do anything, ever ever ever that exceeded its legitimate authority. But once the precedent is set, what about the next administration? Maybe they're only tapping suspected terrorists, as they say. But if that's the case, get a warrant. FISA has turned down something like a whopping FOUR requests in over 25 years. On the other hand, maybe they're tapping the DNC. Nixon did. Maybe a President Hillary would tap the RNC. How do you make sure the executive doesn't overstep its bounds? Require a warrant. Frankly, I don't trust this administration or ANY administration not to be corrupted by power (since power tends to corrupt), and that's why we have checks and balances built in. Insisting unilaterally that the check and balance doesn't apply in this instance because "we say so" doesn't wash. Is the target legit? Get a warrant.
Originally Posted By jonvn "We mean Islamists. Not Muslims. A Muslim is one who practises Islam, a great religion. An Islamist is one for whom Islam is not just a religion, but a political ideology." OK, if you want to use that wording. I am simply not comfortable with labeling an entire religion. Smacks of nazism.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>OK, if you want to use that wording.<< It's not my wording, it's the assertion of the editorial writer.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>"Now, it is clearly understood here that wiretapping the private calls of American is illegal, but what has not been established in any definitive way is that this has been done." This has already been discussed. You have been given a response. I see no need to repeat myself.<< The response did not answer the question, hence the disagreement. >>"Translation: I don't have any evidence" The translation is incorrect. There already is evidence, as provided by the executive branch, as has been said already.<< The Executive Branch has at no time provided evidence that they authorized wiretaps of ordinary citizens. They have said that they authorized what is allowed under the provisions of the NSA. Therefore, the request remains: Please provide an example of NSA wiretaps on ordinary citizens.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>No, it really is a silly question. By definition, no one who has been tapped is going to know. So how are we supposed to provide examples?<< It is silly only if taken out of context. But in the context of confident assertions that the law has been broken, it is a reasonable request. I am more than willing to go as far as accepting, "The law may have been broken," or even, "The law appears to have been broken." But when one says, without qualification, "The law has been broken," one should be prepared to support the statement. This has not been done.
Originally Posted By jonvn "The response did not answer the question, hence the disagreement." Repeatedly. The same things are answered repeatedly. For example, how many times has the equal protection clause been brought up, only to have the same question asked and answered again? Even if you don't agree with the answer, what is the point of asking the exact same question again, only to get the same exact answer, and to do this multiple times? "The Executive Branch has at no time provided evidence that they authorized wiretaps of ordinary citizens." They have already stated they have authorized warrantless searches, and the AG has stated that even more than what was stated as being done was done. It's illegal behavior. "Therefore, the request remains: Please provide an example of NSA wiretaps on ordinary citizens." You've already been told why this is a ridiculous request. All this was done in secret, so it can not be known what individual this was done to. So you can stop asking, because you're not going to get a different answer other than: It was done in secret, so at this time, the question as to specific individuals can not be answered. However, the executive branch has already stated publically that they have authorized warrantless searches, which is illegal. I'll simply refer you to this post number for future redundant requests.
Originally Posted By jonvn "But when one says, without qualification, "The law has been broken," one should be prepared to support the statement." Because they've said they've done things that are not legal. That's why.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Even if you don't agree with the answer...<< It doesn't matter whether anyone agrees or disagrees. The answer given does not address the question. >>They [the Executive Branch] have already stated they have authorized warrantless searches...<< Yes, warrantless searches which are legal under the provisions of the NSA. >>...the AG has stated that even more than what was stated as being done was done.<< But the AG has NOT stated that anything illegal was done. (Is there any point in asking for any evidence that he has done so?) >>Because they've said they've done things that are not legal. That's why.<< And here we are again...
