NSA Wiretapping Facts

..or at least consensus

Published on September 7, 2006 By Draginol In War on Terror

I got into a debate with some friends of mine over the NSA wiretapping program. There is a great deal of question over whether the program is legal or not. They felt it was illegal, I think it may be legal but that not enough information has been presented.

For example, there is apparently a lot of misconception over who is being targeted. They said that the program included targeting Americans where both parties were in the United States.

However, the facts, as we know them presently is that the program is designed for cases where one party is not in the United States. However, because of the nature of cell phones, there have apparently been a handful of cases where both parties were in the US. But that is not the intent of the program. This was reported in the New York Times in December of 2005.

Some people have probably noticed that I don't blog as much on politics. That's because right now, so much of it boils down to Bush-haters vs. non-Bush-haters. And at that point, there's not much to discuss. I will discuss the principles of taxation or universal health care or minimum wage laws or other things where things can be debated. But I have no patience at all for debating things that really about interpreting a law or whether something was good or not. Even the war in Iraq, hey you don't think we should have gone, that's fine. I am glad we went and don't think things are going badly relatively speaking. We don't have to agree on that but there's no point in arguing it because it's so subjective.

Comments

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on Sep 08, 2006

But I have no patience at all for debating things that really about interpreting a law or whether something was good or not.

i think that is what troubles so many on "the other side of the fence" when it comes to these broad exercises of "executive power" and so forth...the administration, over and over again, puts out the position that their people looked it over and therefore it is,,,trust us.

my problem with that, regardless of who the persons are in power, is that legal opinions are just that, esp. in the hands of lawyers vs. judges. i don't think i ever met a lawyer who thought that their view on any law was wrong, let alone illegal. also, given that this administration in particular has become well known for a "shape the evidence around the hypothesis" way of doing business, i have a big problem with it. i am not worried that a secret court fisa judge is really an al qaeda operative, secretly funneling info to osama. the fisa judges, the congress (the part that doesn't rubber stamp everything or is sworn to secrecy ) many former players in the political arena would all love to help in fighting terrorism, but it is the administration who has undergone this power-grab and hold any many people, not only just a bunch of "wacko liberals" are quite sick and tired of it.

yes, we can argue about the legality of that or any program all day long, but that is not the issue here, the issue is that this administration does everything it can to avoid anyone reviewing their policies and practices as a habit, and that is not so subjective, in fact they take a certain pride in thumbing their nose at anyone who might want to have some oversight AND be able to curb a practice or policy.

what past administrations have done is work with congress to update the legal standards. this can even be done in a private, classified setting. but this administration sells the idea that only them and about a dozen people in the whole world (who happen to have the same political philosophies and such) can know anything of significance. anyone who can possibly ever even delay anything on their agenda, esp a judge or congressperson outside a classified meeting where they are sworn to silence and thereefore can do nothing with the info is downright dangerous.

yes, the startegy of terrorism which is being used by certain extreme sects of islamist militants is a danger to everyone. yes, it must be dealt with as a perenially high priority at all levels of government. but in the long run, and more importantly, i want this country to remain "America." defeating religious extremists is in vain if in the end, we aren't the same free to do what we want, as fair as it can be for everyone, goverment of , for and by the people country it was.

i can say without fear of contradiction that i will never willingly surrender any inherent right as an american i have enjoyed since birth. that includes my privacy, search and seizure and other rights designed by the framers to protect me against any goverment oppression. no amount of suicide bombers or terrorist attacks will ever change that for me. i do believe that certain laws need updating, but we must do it within the laws we have. but it not fair for law enforcement to jump thru a new set of legal hoops everytime a new communication method is developed, or varied.

i think the bottom line in all of this arguing over what is legal and what is not boils down to this....we need to change this mentality that only W, Dick, and a dozen others can keep us safe. that working with congress and judges, esp in closed chamber sessions is not a voilation of national security. that there are thousands, if not millions of good americans and good people worldwide who are more than willing, able and such to help out in this war on terror, and that goes beyond doing the grunt work and letting them singlehandedly set all policies and decisions in this republic that works within a democratic framework.

quite frankly, the rest of us, outside of the "loyalist" circles and the "i'm so conservative, i can call bush a liberal" circles aren't at all impressed with their decision making process or most of the conclusions the y come to. and some of us woud feel a whole lot better if some folks who haven't drank the Kool-Aid could have a look, and maybe a small say in a few things.

so, when you are debating the next time, realize that it isn't all about bush vs. his haters. that is the way bush and company have framed everyhthing in a convenient "black and white" "us against them" "with us or against us" world they want. all terrorists can't do what they do because they believe in their cause (no matter how wrong it may be), they must hate us for our freedom. no one can oppose their policy or decision making process,,,they just hate bush.

i don't think so, in fact i know so. this administration now has a poor 6 year track record. before 9/11, it has been shown al qaeda was not a top priority or on their radar screen as a major danger. after 9/11 they were easily distracted into a war of their choice , based on flimsy evidence at best and have made bad decisions, one after another. examples? outside of the hot potato terrorism issues, there is harriet myers, katrina, an unfunded education mandate, a costly, confusing medicare bill that does little more than line pharmecutical companies pockets, no border security outside of banning canadian perscription medications which might save a few poor seniors a few bucks instead of lining the pharmy's execs pockets, a divided, partisan , bitter political mood in this country, no negotiating leg to stand on since hastily depleting our resources and credibility on an old grudge and so on...

bottom line, you may see the "hate of bush" but for the rest of the world, it's a lack of confidence in their ability to run this country, not only effectively, but in the way americans are supposed to do things, esp in times of crisis.

but i ramble,,,take care:)

sean:)

pseudosoldier

on Sep 08, 2006

i think that is what troubles so many on "the other side of the fence" when it comes to these broad exercises of "executive power" and so forth...the administration, over and over again, puts out the position that their people looked it over and therefore it is,,,trust us.

In actuality, collection programs like this are only barely looked at for legality by any administration; NSA and other intelligence services police themselves for the most part.

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" would be a more valid concern than anything against the President's 'evil empire.'

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on Sep 08, 2006

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" would be a more valid concern than anything against the President's 'evil empire.'

i think my point is about "who guards the guards?" ...but anyway,,,just to clarify,,,i never called the president's administration "evil."

i think they have made a host of bad decisions and i don't agree with their philosophies for the most part, but they are more incompetent and not evil in my book.

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on Sep 08, 2006

oops...sorry...double posted by accident...disregard this...

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!