[Angeheade]

Secret Court to Govern Wiretapping Plan - Washington Post, Jan. 17, 2006:

The Justice Department announced today that the National Security Agency's controversial warrantless surveillance program has been placed under the authority of a secret surveillance court, marking an abrupt change in approach by the Bush administration after more than a year of heated debate.

In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said that orders issued on Jan. 10 by an unidentified judge puts the NSA program under the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a secret panel that oversees most intelligence surveillance in the United States. Excellent. This program should have been conducted under FISA all along.

The officials said the new approach will offer the same benefits of the NSA program, along with the advantage of judicial oversight. Ah, that wonderful word - oversight!

[infollafago]

good, now try them for not having it under the court all along.

[Prererularl]

good, now try them for not having it under the court all along.

Will you name one court case that has deemed it unconstitutional? I mean, surely several years into it, there would be at least one upheld case.

[infollafago]

Will you name one court case that has deemed it unconstitutional? I mean, surely several years into it, there would be at least one upheld case.

Its not unconstitutional so much as the data mining is simply illegal. The phone companies which participated in it are being sued, and so is the government. I mean sure, we could go after the conspiracy against rights, but 5,000 dollars per record, and a year in jail, seems a far greater deterrent.

In fact here is a link to the law US CODE--TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

[Gedominew]

Will you name one court case that has deemed it unconstitutional? I mean, surely several years into it, there would be at least one upheld case.

Actually Jot there was a case in Detroit. To my knowledge it has yet to be appealed.

However I would ask those that are applauding this just what they think will be the result. From every source I have heard there is no expectation that there will be fewer wiretaps

[Prererularl]

Its not unconstitutional so much as the data mining is simply illegal. The phone companies which participated in it are being sued, and so is the government. I mean sure, we could go after the conspiracy against rights, but 5,000 dollars per record, and a year in jail, seems a far greater deterrent.

In fact here is a link to the law US CODE--TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

You can paste any law you want, but the fact is we don't know enough information to determine if it is illegal or not; however, there have already been nearly 20 challenges against the NSA [which the NSA has won] and only 1 that has been upheld [which was the ruling of Anna Taylor which will mostly like be appealed]. So if it is so illegal, why aren't there a boatload of cases against the NSA that have been upheld? Nearly 20 cases for the NSA .. I'm gonna bet your wrong.

[Angeheade]

However I would ask those that are applauding this just what they think will be the result. From every source I have heard there is no expectation that there will be fewer wiretaps

I'm applauding it, but not because I think there will be fewer wiretaps. Hell, I wouldn't mind if there were more wiretaps ... just as long as they are conducted under FISA, with judicial review, the way they could have been - and should have been - done from the very beginning.

[Prererularl]

Actually Jot there was a case in Detroit. To my knowledge it has yet to be appealed.

However I would ask those that are applauding this just what they think will be the result. From every source I have heard there is no expectation that there will be fewer wiretaps

This is the case I mentioned, and the 6th Circuit Court stated in October that the administration could continue the surveillance while it appeals the case of Taylor [it was also stayed immediately after the Taylor ruling]... even many experts have claimed that the ruling would not surive an appeal.

[Prererularl]

However I would ask those that are applauding this just what they think will be the result. From every source I have heard there is no expectation that there will be fewer wiretaps

I'm not applauding anything here. I'm just tired of all these people yelling 'it's illegal' or 'it's unconstitutional'; yet, not one case has been upheld [with the exception of one which I've already explained].

[Gedominew]

I'm not applauding anything here. I'm just tired of all these people yelling 'it's illegal' or 'it's unconstitutional'; yet, not one case has been upheld [with the exception of one which I've already explained].

Well clearly the administration thought it might be on shaky grounds and decided giving in might be the better path.

[infollafago]

However I would ask those that are applauding this just what they think will be the result. From every source I have heard there is no expectation that there will be fewer wiretaps

No self-respecting court would ever believe that there is probable cause to spy on almost every American citizen. Further with regards to wiretaps the only reason for the Bush administration to avoid FISA is because they lack enough proof to violate the rights of Americans. They're worried because they know they've committed crimes.

You can paste any law you want, but the fact is we don't know enough information to determine if it is illegal or not; however, there have already been nearly 20 challenges against the NSA [which the NSA has won] and only 1 that has been upheld [which was the ruling of Anna Taylor which will mostly like be appealed]. So if it is so illegal, why aren't there a boatload of cases against the NSA that have been upheld? Nearly 20 cases for the NSA .. I'm gonna bet your wrong.

Alright, unless 200 million Americans are terrorists, I have more then enough information. Let me put that another way so you can understand that. Unless every adult American in the United States is working for the enemy, there is no justification for this. Perhaps you don't understand where the burden of proof lies in America. It is not the citizens requirement to prove why he needs to maintain his rights, its up to the government to prove cause to violate them.

AT&T recently merged with SBC and kept the AT&T name. Verizon, BellSouth and AT&T are the nation's three biggest telecommunications companies; they provide local and wireless phone service to more than 200 million customers.

The three carriers control vast networks with the latest communications technologies. They provide an array of services: local and long-distance calling, wireless and high-speed broadband, including video. Their direct access to millions of homes and businesses has them uniquely positioned to help the government keep tabs on the calling habits of Americans.

Among the big telecommunications companies, only Qwest has refused to help the NSA, the sources said. According to multiple sources, Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants. USATODAY.com - NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls

[MaickiP]

Something is wrong here. There is something missing here.

It's an allowed secret court because it deals with cases that fall under "agent of foreign power" criteria, but this surveillance is being conducted domestically.

No, I don't see any good news in this. There is a missing piece in this puzzle.

[Angeheade]

This is the case I mentioned, and the 6th Circuit Court stated in October that the administration could continue the surveillance while it appeals the case of Taylor [it was also stayed immediately after the Taylor ruling]... even many experts have claimed that the ruling would not surive an appeal.

White House reverses course on spy program - [love that "reverses course" ]

Last August, a federal judge in Detroit declared the spying program unconstitutional, saying it violated the rights to free speech and privacy and the separation of powers. In October, a three-judge panel of the Cincinnati-based appeals court ruled that the administration could keep the program in place while it appeals the Detroit decision.

That appeal, which was scheduled to be heard on Jan. 31, will now likely be rendered moot, said one Justice Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the government has not yet officially decided whether to drop its case. Hmmmm. The same month that the appeal was supposed to be heard, the government does a 180 and puts the program under FISA. Ya think maybe they saw the writing on the wall?

However, if I rob banks for a year and then stop, I still broke the law while I was robbing banks, right? Even though I stopped?

The American Civil Liberties Union, which sued the government over the program, called the Justice Department's announcement "a quintessential flip-flop."

"The NSA was operating illegally and this eleventh-hour ploy is clearly an effort to avoid judicial and congressional scrutiny," said ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero. "Despite this adroit back flip, the constitutional problems with the president's actions remain unaddressed." Indeed.

[Angeheade]

Something is wrong here. There is something missing here.

It's an allowed secret court because it deals with cases that fall under "agent of foreign power" criteria, but this surveillance is being conducted domestically.

No, I don't see any good news in this. There is a missing piece in this puzzle.

FISA has, since 1978, allowed domestic surveillance. The problem with the NSA domestic spy program is that it operated outside of FISA; i.e., no judicial review.

[annouhMus]

Will you name one court case that has deemed it unconstitutional? I mean, surely several years into it, there would be at least one upheld case.

I'll answer your question last, but; My Opinion on the issue.

1. I notice they are still calling it a "warrantless" wire tapping. That was the problem, I heard or saw no one really complaining about the wire-tap, rather, that the law required a warrant but the BUsh Adm refused to follow that part of the law. It appears they have seen the error of their ways.

2. Since they are now apparently doing so, the pressure for impachment may be diminished. Perhaps they are simply "dodging the bullet"

3. Your question and point. Since they had thrown a blanket of security on the issue, do you really think we would have known about any lawsuits regarding the matter??? Quoting National security, the cases couldn't even be BROUGHT to court.

[Eromereorybig]

The Bush administration is just playing the law right up until it seems like there might be a consequence for breaking the law. Then at that magic moment when judges might actually hold him accountable for his crimes, he backs down and decides to follow the law.

Same thing happened with the Padilla case and the Gitmo indefinate, no charges incarceration.

Unfuckingbelievable.

[panholio]

The Bush administration is just playing the law right up until it seems like there might be a consequence for breaking the law. Then at that magic moment when judges might actually hold him accountable for his crimes, he backs down and decides to follow the law.

Unfuckingbelievable.

What's unbelievable is that now the leader of our country during a time of war is being required to answer to a judge, who could've been appointed by anyone and has a political axe to grind. The Dems just weakened the USA's ability to monitor communique leaving this country and headed for known sponsors of terror. It's really sickening how the Dems really want this country to fail in it's efforts against radical muslims.

Varus

[Eromereorybig]

What's unbelievable is that now the leader of our country during a time of war is being required to answer to a judge, who could've been appointed by anyone and has a political axe to grind. The Dems just weakened the USA's ability to monitor communique leaving this country and headed for known sponsors of terror. It's really sickening how the Dems really want this country to fail in it's efforts against radical muslims.

Varus

You think Bush should be above the law?

It's not true that the Dems want the country to fail in the fight against terrorism. That's just bullshit. Don't believe the hype varus.

[panholio]

You think Bush should be above the law?

I believe that every president has the responsibility to monitor information leaving this country heading for known supporters of their enemy. Not only that but every president in the history of this country during a time of war has done this same exact thing. Not allowing the p

It's not true that the Dems want the country to fail in the fight against terrorism. That's just bullshit. Don't believe the hype varus. Not one democrat has done anything to prove otherwise. All they want is to set resolutions, that they have no intentions of enforcing, or monitor our borders and hope we catch the next bomber as he crosses. Other than that all they seem to be about is screaming "blood for oil" nonsense

Varus

[Angeheade]

The Dems just weakened the USA's ability to monitor communique leaving this country and headed for known sponsors of terror.

Wrong, wrong, once again, wrong.

Tell me, exactly, how the ability to intercept communications has been weakened. And while you're at it, tell me, exactly, how the Democrats managed to do this. Is Gonzales a Democrat? Is Bush?

Court to Oversee U.S. Wiretapping in Terror Cases - NY Times, Jan. 17, 2007:

It's really sickening how the Dems really want this country to fail in it's efforts against radical muslims.

No, buddy, any venom you may have over this decision to put the domestic spy program under FISA control should be directed to the person who decided to make this change. And that would be Bush. Kudos to Bush for finally complying with the law.