Did the Bush admin break the law? - Page 10 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Elphaba · 01-09-2006, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardknock

The truth hurts. And you know what? It needs to be said. Over and over and over again because apparently, the people of this country do not want to either listen or they're too dumb to comprehend it.

That's why Bush was permitted to violate our constitution in the first place. If citizens had only been paying attention......

That is exactly what Host was trying to tell us for years. Do you finally comprehend his frustration and anger?

Cynthetiq · 01-09-2006, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

That is exactly what Host was trying to tell us for years. Do you finally comprehend his frustration and anger?

host hasn't been on for years.. only months.

Willravel · 01-09-2006, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

host hasn't been on for years.. only months.

I think Elphaba meant 'us' in the wider sense.

pan6467 · 01-09-2006, 05:53 PM

While DK and Will are correct in that the majority need to wake up and see what is going on, I firmly disagree with their prognosis that the end of the country is near, at least in the way they describe. Economically, is what I am worried about.

I do think we are due for a social revolution of the '60's type, but nothing any more drastic unless the government reacts in extreme fashion.

I think what we are seeing is that the penduulum and the GOP have gone too far to the right and the correction will start to occur in the elections this year and in full blown fashion in '08.

I firmly believe once everything comes out on what Bush has done there will be an outcry and the illegalities or borderline legal but ethically wrongs Bush committed will be legislatively taken care of. It seems some people expect things to happen overnight, and they can't evidence has to be gotten, people have to be shown exacts and probables and not conspiracies that are impossible to prove.

I believe we should be more concerned about the economics. The national deficit and the trade deficit are killing us and they are only going to be worsened over time unless we find ways to correct them.

That is where the Dems need to focus and the platform that will win. Focussing on the scandals works, but it gives you only a temporary bump and unless you have a platform that can work and hold people and get their votes, the scandals, alone, aren't going to do it.

Focus on getting money into education and social programs that will better the country.

If we are losing our manufacturing industries to others, then find the next big thing to focus on, develop and work on.

We have been so inundated with conspiracies and scandals people are becoming immune to them. And yes, as long as people have enough to live they don't care because in times like these people are worried about just staying economically viable and afloat.

Elphaba · 01-09-2006, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

host hasn't been on for years.. only months.

Cyn, Host's join date is 9-2004. That would be a year and "only months," more. I assumed he had been here longer, because I have only been here one year.

His exact start date doesn't change my point that he had been trying for "many months" to awaken us to the machinations of the Bush admin. Agreed?

pan6467 · 01-09-2006, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

because I have only been here one year.

And some of us are very happy to have gotten to know you in that year, beautiful.

/end threadjack

Elphaba · 01-09-2006, 07:47 PM

Pan:

Quote:

I believe we should be more concerned about the economics. The national deficit and the trade deficit are killing us and they are only going to be worsened over time unless we find ways to correct them.

I agree Pan. Late last week, China announced it is going to reevaluate it's foreign investments which primarily consists of the US dollar. Our ever escalating debt has been bought up by China, which gives them a hold over our country. Economics, particularly global economics is something I have little knowledge, but it is worthy of it's own thread. I have found a couple of articles that might be worthy of a separate discussion.

Elphaba · 01-09-2006, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

And some of us are very happy to have gotten to know you in that year, beautiful.

/end threadjack

You are such a sweetheart.

Elphaba · 01-17-2006, 06:06 PM

This is a legal tactic that I don't recall seeing before. Rather that waiting for Congress to sort out the legality of the NSA domestic wiretapping, two lawsuits in two different courts are challenging the NSA directly.

Truthout Link Again

Quote:

Two Groups Plan Lawsuits over Federal Eavesdropping
By Eric Lichtblau
The New York Times

Tuesday 17 January 2006

Washington - Two leading civil rights groups say they plan to file lawsuits Tuesday against the Bush administration over its domestic spying program to determine whether the operation was used to monitor 10 defense lawyers, journalists, scholars, political activists and other Americans with ties to the Middle East.

The two lawsuits, which are being filed separately by the American Civil Liberties Union in Federal District Court in Detroit and the Center for Constitutional Rights in Federal District Court in Manhattan, are the first major court challenges to the eavesdropping program.

Both groups are seeking to have the courts order an immediate end to the program, which the groups say is illegal and unconstitutional. The Bush administration has strongly defended the legality and necessity of the surveillance program, and officials said the Justice Department would probably vigorously oppose the lawsuits on national security grounds.

Justice Department officials would not comment on any specific individuals who might have been singled out under the National Security Agency program, and they said the department would review the lawsuits once they were filed.

Brian Roehrkasse, spokesman for the Justice Department, added Monday that "the N.S.A. surveillance activities described by the president were conducted lawfully and provide valuable tools in the war on terrorism to keep America safe and protect civil liberties."

The lawsuits seek to answer one of the major questions surrounding the eavesdropping program: has it been used solely to single out the international phone calls and e-mail messages of people with known links to Al Qaeda, as President Bush and his most senior advisers have maintained, or has it been abused in ways that civil rights advocates say could hark back to the political spying abuses of the 1960's and 70's?

"There's almost a feeling of déjà vu with this program," said James Bamford, an author and journalist who is one of five individual plaintiffs in the A.C.L.U. lawsuit who say they suspect that the program may have been used to monitor their international communications.

"It's a return to the bad old days of the N.S.A.," said Mr. Bamford, who has written two widely cited books on the intelligence agency.

Although the program's public disclosure last month has generated speculation that it may have been used to monitor journalists or politicians, no evidence has emerged to support that idea. Bush administration officials point to a secret audit by the Justice Department last year that reviewed a sampling of security agency interceptions involving Americans and that they said found no documented abuses.

The lawsuit to be filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights has as plaintiffs four lawyers at the center and a legal assistant there who work on terrorism-related cases at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and overseas, which often involves international e-mail messages and phone calls. Similarly, the plaintiffs in the A.C.L.U. lawsuit include five Americans who work in international policy and terrorism, along with the A.C.L.U. and three other advocacy groups.

"We don't have any direct evidence" that the plaintiffs were monitored by the security agency, said Ann Beeson, associate legal director for the A.C.L.U. "But the plaintiffs have a well-founded belief that they may have been monitored, and there's a real chilling effect in the fear that they can no longer have confidential discussions with clients or sources without the possibility that the N.S.A. is listening."

One of the A.C.L.U. plaintiffs, Larry Diamond, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, said that a Stanford student studying in Egypt conducted research for him on political opposition groups, and that he worried that communications between them on sensitive political topics could be monitored. "How can we communicate effectively if you risk being intercepted by the National Security Agency?" Mr. Diamond said.

Also named as plaintiffs in the A.C.L.U. lawsuit are the journalist Christopher Hitchens, who has written in support of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; Barnett R. Rubin, a scholar at New York University who works in international relations; Tara McKelvey, a senior editor at The American Prospect; the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Greenpeace, the environmental advocacy group; and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the country's largest Islamic advocacy group.

The lawsuits over the eavesdropping program come as several defense lawyers in high-profile terrorism cases around the country have begun legal challenges on behalf of their clients, arguing that the government may have improperly hidden the use of the surveillance program from the courts in investigating terrorism leads.

Bill Goodman, legal director for the Center for Constitutional Rights, said that in suing in federal court to block the surveillance program, his group believed "without question" that Mr. Bush violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs wiretaps, by authorizing the security agency operation.

But Mr. Goodman acknowledged that in persuading a federal judge to intervene, "politically, it's a difficult case to make."

He added: "We recognize that it's extremely difficult for a court to stand up to a president, particularly a president who is determined to extend his power beyond anything envisioned by the founding fathers. That takes courage."

The debate over the legality of Mr. Bush's eavesdropping program will be at the center of Congressional hearings expected to begin next month. Former Vice President Al Gore entered the fray on Monday with a speech in Washington that accused Mr. Bush of running roughshod over the Constitution.

American liberties, Mr. Gore said, "have been placed at serious risk by the unprecedented claims of the administration to a truly breathtaking expansion of executive power."

"As we begin this new year," he continued, "the executive branch of our government has been caught eavesdropping on huge numbers of American citizens and has brazenly declared that it has the unilateral right to continue without regard to the established law enacted by Congress to prevent such abuses."

RonRyan85 · 01-20-2006, 02:37 PM

President George W. Bush took an oath to do everything to try and get
justice for the persons who attack America and if listening in to those
who may be planning another 9/11 type attack, I say more power to him.
What do the innocent Americans have to fear? The "Loss of Freedoms?" I
have nothing to conceal from the C.I.A. or F.B.I. IF an Atomic or Bio-
bomb is set off in one of our big cities, the people who hate Bush and
say he is bad for the USA will be the first to say:"Why didn't he do
something to prevent this attack?"

Willravel · 01-20-2006, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonRyan85

President George W. Bush took an oath to do everything to try and get
justice for the persons who attack America and if listening in to those
who may be planning another 9/11 type attack, I say more power to him.
What do the innocent Americans have to fear? The "Loss of Freedoms?" I
have nothing to conceal from the C.I.A. or F.B.I. IF an Atomic or Bio-
bomb is set off in one of our big cities, the people who hate Bush and
say he is bad for the USA will be the first to say:"Why didn't he do
something to prevent this attack?"

Remember 9/11? Remember the speech Bush gave right after the attacks? "They hate our freedom. They hate our democratic system." Bush is the one not respecting the system by breaking checks and balances, and FISA. You cannot simply go around the Judicial system because you feel like it. If there were a threat, then all you need to do is go get a quick FISA warrent, which is really, really easy. You8 don't even need to prove someone has commited a crime, all you need for probable cause is if proof that someone is linked with a known terrorist. If Bush couldn't prove that, if these people who are bugged have NO connections to terrorists, then how, oh how, are these wire taps connected to protecting us?

RonRyan85 · 01-20-2006, 04:07 PM

Al Gore Led Effort to Tap Every Phone in America
Charles R. Smith
Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2006

Big Brother Al

There are times when Al Gore should sit down and shut up. Former Vice
President Al Gore called for an independent investigation into President
Bush's domestic spying program, insisting that the president
"repeatedly and insistently" broke the law by eavesdropping on Americans without
court approval.

What Al Gore forgot to tell his audience was that he not only supported
eavesdropping on Americans without court approval - he also chaired a
project designed to execute just that in total secrecy. In short, Al
Gore wanted to bug every phone, computer and fax in America.

In 1993 Al Gore was charged by then President Bill Clinton to run the
"Clipper" project. Clipper was a special chip designed by the National
Security Agency (NSA) to be built into all phones, computers and fax
machines. Not only would Clipper provide scrambled security, it also
contained a special "exploitable feature" enabling the NSA to monitor all
phone calls without a court order.

In 1993, VP Al Gore went to work with a top secret group of Clinton
advisers, called the IWG or Interagency Working Group, and delivered a
report on the Clipper project.

"Simply stated, the nexus of the long term problem is how can the
government sustain its technical ability to accomplish electronic
surveillance in an advanced telecommunications environment," states the TOP
SECRET report prepared by Gore's Interagency Working Group.

"The solution to the access problem for future telecommunications
requires that the vendor/manufacturing community translate the government's
requirements into a fundamental system design criteria," noted the Gore
report.

"The basic issue for resolution is a choice between accomplishing this
objective by mandatory (i.e., statutory/regulatory) or voluntary
means."

The documented truth is that America was to be given no choice but to
be monitored by Big Brother Al. This awful conclusion is backed by
several other documents. One such document released by the Justice
Department is a March 1993 memo from Stephen Colgate, Assistant Attorney General
for Administration.

According to the Colgate memo, Vice President Al Gore chaired a meeting
with Hillary Clinton crony Webster Hubbell, Janet Reno, Commerce
Secretary Ron Brown and Leon Panetta in March 1993. The topic of the meeting
was the "AT&T Telephone Security Device."

According to Colgate, AT&T had developed secure telephones the U.S.
government could not tap. The Clinton-Gore administration secretly
contracted with AT&T to keep the phones off the market. Colgate's memo noted
that the administration was determined to prevent the American public
from having private phone conversations.

"AT&T has developed a Data Encryption Standard (DES) product for use on
telephones to provide security for sensitive conversations," wrote
Colgate.

"The FBI, NSA and NSC want to purchase the first production run of
these devices to prevent their proliferation. They are difficult to
decipher and are a deterrent to wiretaps."

Buried in the Colgate memo is the first reference to
government-developed monitoring devices that would be required for all Americans.

According to the March 1993 Colgate memo to Hubbell, "FBI, NSA and NSC
want to push legislation which would require all government agencies
and eventually everyone in the U.S. to use a new public-key based
cryptography method."

Gore Lied

Al Gore quickly embraced the Clipper chip and the concept of monitoring
America at all costs. In 1994, Gore wrote a glowing letter supporting
the Clipper chip and the government-approved wiretap design.

"As we have done with the Clipper Chip, future key escrow schemes must
contain safeguards to provide for key disclosures only under legal
authorization and should have audit procedures to ensure the integrity of
the system. We also want to assure users of key escrow encryption
products that they will not be subject to unauthorized electronic
surveillance," wrote Gore in his July 20, 1994 letter to Representative Maria
Cantwell.

However, Gore lied. In 1994, federal officials were keenly aware that
the Clipper chip design did not have safeguards against unauthorized
surveillance. In fact, NASA turned down the Clipper project because the
space agency knew of the flawed design.

In 1993, Benita A. Cooper, NASA Associate Administrator for Management
Systems and Facilities, wrote: "There is no way to prevent the NSA from
routinely monitoring all [Clipper] encrypted traffic. Moreover,
compromise of the NSA keys, such as in the Walker case, could compromise the
entire [Clipper] system."

Ms. Cooper referred to Soviet spy John Walker, who is serving life in
prison for disclosing U.S. Navy secret codes. In 1993 Ms. Cooper did not
know of Clinton Chinagate scandals, the Lippo Group, John Huang or
Webster Hubbell, but her prophetic prediction was not so remarkable in
retrospect.

Yet, Al Gore pressed ahead, continuing to support a flawed design
despite warnings that the design could "compromise" every computer in the
U.S.

A 1996 secret memo on a secret meeting of CIA Directer John Deutch, FBI
Director Louis Freeh and Attorney General Janet Reno states, "Last
summer, the Vice President agreed to explore public acceptance of a key
escrow policy but did not rule out other approaches, although none seem
viable at this point."

According to the 1996 report to V.P. Gore by then CIA Director Deutch,
Reno proposed an all-out federal takeover of the computer security
industry. The Justice Department proposed "legislation that would ... ban
the import and domestic manufacture, sale or distribution of encryption
that does not have key recovery. Janet Reno and Louis Freeh are deeply
concerned about the spread of encryption. Pervasive use of encryption
destroys the effectiveness of wiretapping, which supplies much of the
evidence used by FBI and Justice. They support tight controls, for
domestic use."

Yes the Democrats did bug us...they just had the liberal Press to keep
everything secret. Why is it that all left wing Senators who goof up
get a pass and Republicans who missspeak get drummed out of office?
Senator Kennedy is a good example. He should have been ridden out of
town,tared and feathered after letting that woman drown. Democrats are
without any honesty and do exactly what they preach against.

roachboy · 01-20-2006, 04:22 PM

ronryan: please post a link to the source when you bite an article.

Willravel · 01-20-2006, 04:28 PM

Found the article: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...106.shtml?s=lh

alpha phi · 01-20-2006, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Found the article: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...106.shtml?s=lh

Totally not backed up by facts or evidence
and a mis-repensaition of the Clipper project
Besides the fact that asuming it was completly true
HOW does one persons crime excuse anothers!!!
So some dude killed someone in the past
do I get a free pass to do the same?

Elphaba · 01-20-2006, 05:41 PM

Thanks, Will. That was "enlightening."

Addition: Great link, Alpha Phi and I agree that the excuse of "they did it too," is well beyond it's shelf life.

Willravel · 01-20-2006, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha phi

Totally not backed up by facts or evidence
and a mis-repensaition of the Clipper project
Besides the fact that asuming it was completly true
HOW does one persons crime excuse anothers!!!
So some dude killed someone in the past
do I get a free pass to do the same?

You're preaching to the choir, here. Actually, you're preaching to an archangel. I posted the link to exposed the website that it came from, which is a right wing propoganda machine at best.

alpha phi · 01-20-2006, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

You're preaching to the choir, here. Actually, you're preaching to an archangel. I posted the link to exposed the wensite that it came from, which is a right wing propoganda machine at best.

I know Will.....I know
I wasn't disagreeing with you
I hope it didn't seem that way

I have found you to be one of the most intelligent posters here.
On the rare occasion I disagree with your point of view,
It causes me to stop and rethink my view
just to make sure my thinking is straight.

Willravel · 01-20-2006, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha phi

I know Will.....I know
I wasn't disagreeing with you
I hope it didn't seem that way

I have found you to be one of the most intelligent posters here.
On the rare occasion I disagree with your point of view,
It causes me to stop and rethink my view
just to make sure my thinking is straight.

That's one of the nicest thing's that I've ever read. Much thanks, and the feeling is certianly mutual.

samcol · 02-07-2006, 05:45 PM

This is too damn funny. I wish I knew how to do that cool embedded video thing. Oh well

George Washington authorized electronic surveilence too
I'm guessing he was trying to get at how other presidents abused their power too, but apparently it came out wrong.

alpha phi · 02-07-2006, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

This is too damn funny. I wish I knew how to do that cool embedded video thing. Oh well

George Washington authorized electronic surveilence too
I'm guessing he was trying to get at how other presidents abused their power too, but apparently it came out wrong.

If our Goverment had electronic surveillance way back in 1776
I want to know WTF else they are hideing from us.

If that's the case....We should be traveling on a beam of light by now!

shakran · 02-07-2006, 06:50 PM

All kidding aside, this is just another example of what those currently in power are doing to try and justify their illegal actions. Assuming the attorney general really meant that Washington had authorized non-electronic surveillance such as mail intercepts, he has two fundamental flaws in his logic.

1) It was not illegal then. FISA had not been estableshed yet. This argument ignores the fact that it is illegal NOW and the president broke the law in the PRESENT.

2) Even if it was illegal then, that is no excuse for the current president to break the law. I cannot murder someone just because someone else once murdered someone. And if I try to tell the judge "well gee Charlie Manson murdered someone so you should let me off because he did it too" he will laugh me out of the court room before throwing me in jail. Or possibly the nuthouse for thinking such an argument is valid.

Elphaba · 04-08-2006, 06:51 PM

I am bumping this topic. Those of you that are electronic communication experts certainly knew what I merely suspected. There was no conceivable way that the NSA could cherry pick an international call or email communication. It was obvious to me that they had to be swallowing the entire pipeline. Therefore, no warrant could be asked for or given by FISA under that circumstance. A whistle blower has come forward and I will bet you dollars to donuts...err make that euros, that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Link

Quote:

Whistle-Blower Outs NSA Spy Room
By Ryan Singel
Wired News

Friday 07 April 2006

AT&T provided NSA eavesdroppers with full access to its customers' phone calls, and shunted its customers' internet traffic to data-mining equipment installed in a secret room in its San Francisco switching center, according to a former AT&T worker cooperating in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's lawsuit against the company.

Mark Klein, a retired AT&T communications technician, submitted an affidavit in support of the EFF's lawsuit this week. That class action lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Francisco last January, alleges that AT&T violated federal and state laws by surreptitiously allowing the government to monitor phone and internet communications of AT&T customers without warrants.

On Wednesday, the EFF asked the court to issue an injunction prohibiting AT&T from continuing the alleged wiretapping, and filed a number of documents under seal, including three AT&T documents that purportedly explain how the wiretapping system works.

According to a statement released by Klein's attorney, an NSA agent showed up at the San Francisco switching center in 2002 to interview a management-level technician for a special job. In January 2003, Klein observed a new room being built adjacent to the room housing AT&T's #4ESS switching equipment, which is responsible for routing long distance and international calls.

"I learned that the person whom the NSA interviewed for the secret job was the person working to install equipment in this room," Klein wrote. "The regular technician work force was not allowed in the room."

Klein's job eventually included connecting internet circuits to a splitting cabinet that led to the secret room. During the course of that work, he learned from a co-worker that similar cabinets were being installed in other cities, including Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego.

"While doing my job, I learned that fiber optic cables from the secret room were tapping into the Worldnet (AT&T's internet service) circuits by splitting off a portion of the light signal," Klein wrote.

The split circuits included traffic from peering links connecting to other internet backbone providers, meaning that AT&T was also diverting traffic routed from its network to or from other domestic and international providers, according to Klein's statement.

The secret room also included data-mining equipment called a Narus STA 6400, "known to be used particularly by government intelligence agencies because of its ability to sift through large amounts of data looking for preprogrammed targets," according to Klein's statement.

Narus, whose website touts AT&T as a client, sells software to help internet service providers and telecoms monitor and manage their networks, look for intrusions, and wiretap phone calls as mandated by federal law.

Klein said he came forward because he does not believe that the Bush administration is being truthful about the extent of its extrajudicial monitoring of Americans' communications.

"Despite what we are hearing, and considering the public track record of this administration, I simply do not believe their claims that the NSA's spying program is really limited to foreign communications or is otherwise consistent with the NSA's charter or with FISA," Klein's wrote. "And unlike the controversy over targeted wiretaps of individuals' phone calls, this potential spying appears to be applied wholesale to all sorts of internet communications of countless citizens."

After asking for a preview copy of the documents last week, the government did not object to the EFF filing the paper under seal, although the EFF asked the court Wednesday to make the documents public.

One of the documents is titled "Study Group 3, LGX/Splitter Wiring, San Francisco," and is dated 2002. The others are allegedly a design document instructing technicians how to wire up the taps, and a document that describes the equipment installed in the secret room.

In a letter to the EFF, AT&T objected to the filing of the documents in any manner, saying that they contain sensitive trade secrets and could be "could be used to 'hack' into the AT&T network, compromising its integrity."

According to court rules, AT&T has until Thursday to file a motion to keep the documents sealed. The government could also step in to the case and request that the documents not be made public, or even that the entire lawsuit be barred under the seldom-used State Secrets Privilege.

AT&T spokesman Walt Sharp declined to comment on the allegations, citing a company policy of not commenting on litigation or matters of national security, but did say that "AT&T follows all laws following requests for assistance from government authorities."

Swell, just fricken swell. Are we feeling safer yet?

dksuddeth · 04-09-2006, 05:17 AM

Wow, all my talk about guns should have the ATF knocking at my door pretty soon. I'm feeling safe.

host · 07-13-2006, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

host hasn't been on for years.. only months.

It probably just seems like years....

Here's some new coverage of this controversy from the <a href="http://www.mcclatchy.com/100/story/179.html">"second-largest newspaper publisher in the United States."</a> You've most likely never heard of them. That will probably change. Mcclatchy purchased Knight Ridder in 2006. Knight Ridder, IMO, offered actual "fair and balanced" news reporting, and there was speculation that this reputation actually decreased profitability. The new owner, Mcclatchy, provides the following coverage from it's Washington bureau.
The original Mcclatchy Co. has owned the "Sac Bee" since it's founding, by James McClatchy, in 1857.

Their reporting is consistent with what Knight Ridder was capable of, and it confirms my worst fears. If it's true, and more is disclosed and confirmed, if that is even possible in the "new order", the implications should scare the shit out of everyone:

Quote:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwash...athan_s_landay
Posted on Thu, Jul. 13, 2006

Bush agrees to have domestic eavesdropping program reviewed
By Jonathan S. Landay
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - In a policy reversal, President Bush has agreed to sign legislation allowing a secret federal court to assess the constitutionality of his warrantless domestic eavesdropping program, a senior Republican senator announced Thursday.

By having the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court conduct the review instead of a regular federal court, the Bush administration would ensure the secrecy of details of the highly classified program. The administration has argued that making details of the program public would compromise national security.

<h3>However, such details could include politically explosive disclosures that the government has kept tabs on people it shouldn't have been monitoring.</h3>

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who's questioned the program's legality, said the legislation he's sponsoring strikes a balance between the president's inherent constitutional authority to protect the country and citizens' right to privacy.

"It is a weighing of the interests in security to fight terrorism with the privacy interests which are involved," Specter said. "You have here a recognition by the president that he doesn't have a blank check."

Specter said the FISA court wouldn't have to make it findings public.

<b>Bush agreed to sign the bill only if it passed Congress without major changes, Specter said.</b>

The bill was the result of weeks of negotiations between Specter and the White House.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales welcomed the measure, saying it "recognizes the president's constitutional authority to gather up information."

Civil liberties groups called the measure a ruse designed to keep Congress and the public in the dark about the full extent of what they condemned as an illegal program run by the National Security Agency, which conducts electronic eavesdropping.

"Senator Specter's proposal would set up a sham judicial review," charged Kate Martin, the director of the Center for National Security Studies. "It gives them a blank check and legal cover for what they have been doing."

Lee Tien, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group that's suing AT&T over its cooperation with the NSA program, called the bill "terrible" in part because it provides no opportunity for outside attorneys to contest the program's legality before FISA court.

"This bill says nothing about how any outsider or the folks that we represent would have any kind of a voice in this," he said. "It's almost alien to the concept of judicial review in this country."

The NSA has been monitoring overseas telephone and Internet communications of Americans suspected of supporting or belonging to al-Qaida or other terrorist groups without court orders since just after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Bush confirmed the existence of the Terrorist Surveillance Program after its disclosure by The New York Times in November. He said the revelation had seriously damaged national security, and he rejected charges that the program was illegal.

Democrats and civil liberties advocates contended that Bush violated the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The act requires federal officials to obtain warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor overseas communications of U.S. citizens.

Some Republicans, including Specter, also expressed concerns that the program violated FISA.

The administration said Bush could authorize warrantless wiretaps under his constitutional authority to protect the nation's security and a congressional resolution empowering him to use force against al-Qaida.

The bill would allow the secret court to determine the constitutionality of foreign intelligence surveillance operations, <h3>but wouldn't make such reviews mandatory.</h3>

<b>Specter said Bush insisted on that language "because the president does not want to bind presidents in the future" to having to seek the court's permission to conduct warrantless eavesdropping programs.....</b>

...... -Would also allow the attorney general to seek the transfer of all regular federal court challenges to federal surveillance programs to the FISA court for adjudication. If the FISA court found problems, the cases would be sent back to the original court.

There are about 100 such cases pending.

Sending all the legal challenges to the FISA court would vastly reduce the number of judicial authorities weighing in on their legality, said Tien, the civil liberties group attorney.

This article is a wake up call. These "authorities" have been illegally monitoring domestic political opponents, and they want to use this law to keep confirmation of that, secret, hiding behind the excuse of "national security concerns". I predict that there will be a determined effort to hustle this bill into law, before the november, mid-term elections.

I regard this effort as a Bush "signing statment", dressed up to resemble a legislative initiative. It will become increasingly difficult to <b>confidentially</b> campaign and win against the ruling party. We are witnessing the death of our parents' republic and it's constitution "by a thousand cuts", IMO.

Clam Dip · 07-14-2006, 08:11 AM

hey, host, lemme axe you a question... or three...

1: why do you always post an entire article when just the gist will suffice along with a link to it?

2: why do always place emphasis on what you like in the quoted article when the article did not?

3: do you really believe we would be better off with john kerry?

i mean, look at the "big dig"... a few years ago while campaigning in massachusetts, he referred to it as a quagmire regarding over-spending by the government on the project. now because of cost over-runs, cut back demands on his part, as well as the part of the contractors forced to do so, has cost the life of a person. i'm just wondering if he will set a withdrawl date.

how do you ask a commuter to be the last to die for a mistake?

Willravel · 07-14-2006, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clam Dip

hey, host, lemme axe you a question... or three...

1: why do you always post an entire article when just the gist will suffice along with a link to it?

I'll field this one: no one seems to want to click on the links. When people, myself included, post links, rarely is the information in the link considered by posters. A lot of people don't care. Also, Host tries to point out the gist by placing emphasis or putting in bold or large letters the gist of the article, but that doesn't meet with your approval because:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clam Dip

2: why do always place emphasis on what you like in the quoted article when the article did not?

You're giving mixed messages.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clam Dip

3: do you really believe we would be better off with john kerry?

The "lesser of the two evils" argument has been beaten to death here, so why not let it die. Those who wanted Kerry in office have given the argument over and over and over. Do you really think Kerry would be connected with a domestic spying program?

host · 07-14-2006, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clam Dip

hey, host, lemme axe you a question... or three...

1: why do you always post an entire article when just the gist will suffice along with a link to it?

2: why do always place emphasis on what you like in the quoted article when the article did not?

3: do you really believe we would be better off with john kerry?

i mean, look at the "big dig"... a few years ago while campaigning in massachusetts, he referred to it as a quagmire regarding over-spending by the government on the project. now because of cost over-runs, cut back demands on his part, as well as the part of the contractors forced to do so, has cost the life of a person. i'm just wondering if he will set a withdrawl date.

how do you ask a commuter to be the last to die for a mistake?

1.) Answer: What willravel said, and, before a recent "revision" of tfproject forums, the entire forum was searchable, any post was retrievable using search words. That resource disappeared from here in the last ten weeks.

If I had simply posted this link,
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/r...20030714.shtml in this post concerning Bob Novak's columns about "Joe Wilson's CIA wife".... or this link, http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1000978837 both in this post, http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...6&postcount=18
they would be meaningless now, because both of those links no longer resolve. It happens with at least half the links, after a short while, and with almost every link to NY Times reports....so....I know of no other way to preserve the docmentation in what I post. Do you have any suggestions to solve this, or should I post with the recognition that documentation and references should vanish after a brief period? Doesn't make much sense, to me.

2.) As willravel said, "You're giving mixed messages." How do you know "when the article did not?" (emphasize a certain point....) In the FISA "reform" legislation article that I posted, I enlarged and bolded the sentence:
"However, such details could include politically explosive disclosures that the government has kept tabs on people it shouldn't have been monitoring."

Why do you think that this sentence is placed as the third paragraph in the article, if it is not intended to "stand out" by it's author? In the original article, none of the sentences are highlighted. I observe "placement" of ideas and facts in news reporting, as one of the ways to determine what details are being emphasized by the reporter. How do you decide what is important, once you get past the headline of an article?

3.)John Soloman is an AP reporter with, if you research his reports, a reputation for less than unbiased reporting, when it comes to his pieces on prominent democrats.

Here is another AP report that counters Soloman's reporting on Kerry and the "Big Dig". I'll just post the link and headline:
http://www.showmenews.com/2004/Feb/20040208News030.asp
Kerry defends ‘Big Dig’ decision
Company gave him money, report says.
Published Sunday, February 8, 2004

As far as your last question, I have plenty of company, as far as my opinion:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11385.xml?ReleaseID=919
June 1, 2006 - Bush Tops List As U.S. Voters Name Worst President, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Reagan, Clinton Top List As Best In 61 Years

http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/9549319.html
Historians say Bush is sinking fast

Kerry, or just about any native born, American citizen, over aged 35, would have been a better choice in Nov., 2004, than Bush.

01-09-2006, 05:53 PM	#364 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	While DK and Will are correct in that the majority need to wake up and see what is going on, I firmly disagree with their prognosis that the end of the country is near, at least in the way they describe. Economically, is what I am worried about. I do think we are due for a social revolution of the '60's type, but nothing any more drastic unless the government reacts in extreme fashion. I think what we are seeing is that the penduulum and the GOP have gone too far to the right and the correction will start to occur in the elections this year and in full blown fashion in '08. I firmly believe once everything comes out on what Bush has done there will be an outcry and the illegalities or borderline legal but ethically wrongs Bush committed will be legislatively taken care of. It seems some people expect things to happen overnight, and they can't evidence has to be gotten, people have to be shown exacts and probables and not conspiracies that are impossible to prove. I believe we should be more concerned about the economics. The national deficit and the trade deficit are killing us and they are only going to be worsened over time unless we find ways to correct them. That is where the Dems need to focus and the platform that will win. Focussing on the scandals works, but it gives you only a temporary bump and unless you have a platform that can work and hold people and get their votes, the scandals, alone, aren't going to do it. Focus on getting money into education and social programs that will better the country. If we are losing our manufacturing industries to others, then find the next big thing to focus on, develop and work on. We have been so inundated with conspiracies and scandals people are becoming immune to them. And yes, as long as people have enough to live they don't care because in times like these people are worried about just staying economically viable and afloat. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

01-20-2006, 04:22 PM	#373 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ronryan: please post a link to the source when you bite an article. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-20-2006, 05:41 PM	#376 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Thanks, Will. That was "enlightening." Addition: Great link, Alpha Phi and I agree that the excuse of "they did it too," is well beyond it's shelf life. Last edited by Elphaba; 01-20-2006 at 05:47 PM..

04-09-2006, 05:17 AM	#384 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	Wow, all my talk about guns should have the ATF knocking at my door pretty soon. I'm feeling safe. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

01-20-2006, 02:37 PM	#370 (permalink)
RonRyan85 Insane Location: Lone Star State,USA	President George W. Bush took an oath to do everything to try and get justice for the persons who attack America and if listening in to those who may be planning another 9/11 type attack, I say more power to him. What do the innocent Americans have to fear? The "Loss of Freedoms?" I have nothing to conceal from the C.I.A. or F.B.I. IF an Atomic or Bio- bomb is set off in one of our big cities, the people who hate Bush and say he is bad for the USA will be the first to say:"Why didn't he do something to prevent this attack?"

01-20-2006, 04:07 PM	#372 (permalink)
RonRyan85 Insane Location: Lone Star State,USA	Al Gore Led Effort to Tap Every Phone in America Charles R. Smith Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2006 Big Brother Al There are times when Al Gore should sit down and shut up. Former Vice President Al Gore called for an independent investigation into President Bush's domestic spying program, insisting that the president "repeatedly and insistently" broke the law by eavesdropping on Americans without court approval. What Al Gore forgot to tell his audience was that he not only supported eavesdropping on Americans without court approval - he also chaired a project designed to execute just that in total secrecy. In short, Al Gore wanted to bug every phone, computer and fax in America. In 1993 Al Gore was charged by then President Bill Clinton to run the "Clipper" project. Clipper was a special chip designed by the National Security Agency (NSA) to be built into all phones, computers and fax machines. Not only would Clipper provide scrambled security, it also contained a special "exploitable feature" enabling the NSA to monitor all phone calls without a court order. In 1993, VP Al Gore went to work with a top secret group of Clinton advisers, called the IWG or Interagency Working Group, and delivered a report on the Clipper project. "Simply stated, the nexus of the long term problem is how can the government sustain its technical ability to accomplish electronic surveillance in an advanced telecommunications environment," states the TOP SECRET report prepared by Gore's Interagency Working Group. "The solution to the access problem for future telecommunications requires that the vendor/manufacturing community translate the government's requirements into a fundamental system design criteria," noted the Gore report. "The basic issue for resolution is a choice between accomplishing this objective by mandatory (i.e., statutory/regulatory) or voluntary means." The documented truth is that America was to be given no choice but to be monitored by Big Brother Al. This awful conclusion is backed by several other documents. One such document released by the Justice Department is a March 1993 memo from Stephen Colgate, Assistant Attorney General for Administration. According to the Colgate memo, Vice President Al Gore chaired a meeting with Hillary Clinton crony Webster Hubbell, Janet Reno, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and Leon Panetta in March 1993. The topic of the meeting was the "AT&T Telephone Security Device." According to Colgate, AT&T had developed secure telephones the U.S. government could not tap. The Clinton-Gore administration secretly contracted with AT&T to keep the phones off the market. Colgate's memo noted that the administration was determined to prevent the American public from having private phone conversations. "AT&T has developed a Data Encryption Standard (DES) product for use on telephones to provide security for sensitive conversations," wrote Colgate. "The FBI, NSA and NSC want to purchase the first production run of these devices to prevent their proliferation. They are difficult to decipher and are a deterrent to wiretaps." Buried in the Colgate memo is the first reference to government-developed monitoring devices that would be required for all Americans. According to the March 1993 Colgate memo to Hubbell, "FBI, NSA and NSC want to push legislation which would require all government agencies and eventually everyone in the U.S. to use a new public-key based cryptography method." Gore Lied Al Gore quickly embraced the Clipper chip and the concept of monitoring America at all costs. In 1994, Gore wrote a glowing letter supporting the Clipper chip and the government-approved wiretap design. "As we have done with the Clipper Chip, future key escrow schemes must contain safeguards to provide for key disclosures only under legal authorization and should have audit procedures to ensure the integrity of the system. We also want to assure users of key escrow encryption products that they will not be subject to unauthorized electronic surveillance," wrote Gore in his July 20, 1994 letter to Representative Maria Cantwell. However, Gore lied. In 1994, federal officials were keenly aware that the Clipper chip design did not have safeguards against unauthorized surveillance. In fact, NASA turned down the Clipper project because the space agency knew of the flawed design. In 1993, Benita A. Cooper, NASA Associate Administrator for Management Systems and Facilities, wrote: "There is no way to prevent the NSA from routinely monitoring all [Clipper] encrypted traffic. Moreover, compromise of the NSA keys, such as in the Walker case, could compromise the entire [Clipper] system." Ms. Cooper referred to Soviet spy John Walker, who is serving life in prison for disclosing U.S. Navy secret codes. In 1993 Ms. Cooper did not know of Clinton Chinagate scandals, the Lippo Group, John Huang or Webster Hubbell, but her prophetic prediction was not so remarkable in retrospect. Yet, Al Gore pressed ahead, continuing to support a flawed design despite warnings that the design could "compromise" every computer in the U.S. A 1996 secret memo on a secret meeting of CIA Directer John Deutch, FBI Director Louis Freeh and Attorney General Janet Reno states, "Last summer, the Vice President agreed to explore public acceptance of a key escrow policy but did not rule out other approaches, although none seem viable at this point." According to the 1996 report to V.P. Gore by then CIA Director Deutch, Reno proposed an all-out federal takeover of the computer security industry. The Justice Department proposed "legislation that would ... ban the import and domestic manufacture, sale or distribution of encryption that does not have key recovery. Janet Reno and Louis Freeh are deeply concerned about the spread of encryption. Pervasive use of encryption destroys the effectiveness of wiretapping, which supplies much of the evidence used by FBI and Justice. They support tight controls, for domestic use." Yes the Democrats did bug us...they just had the liberal Press to keep everything secret. Why is it that all left wing Senators who goof up get a pass and Republicans who missspeak get drummed out of office? Senator Kennedy is a good example. He should have been ridden out of town,tared and feathered after letting that woman drown. Democrats are without any honesty and do exactly what they preach against.

01-20-2006, 04:28 PM	#374 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Found the article: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...106.shtml?s=lh

02-07-2006, 05:45 PM	#380 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	This is too damn funny. I wish I knew how to do that cool embedded video thing. Oh well George Washington authorized electronic surveilence too I'm guessing he was trying to get at how other presidents abused their power too, but apparently it came out wrong.

02-07-2006, 06:50 PM	#382 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	All kidding aside, this is just another example of what those currently in power are doing to try and justify their illegal actions. Assuming the attorney general really meant that Washington had authorized non-electronic surveillance such as mail intercepts, he has two fundamental flaws in his logic. 1) It was not illegal then. FISA had not been estableshed yet. This argument ignores the fact that it is illegal NOW and the president broke the law in the PRESENT. 2) Even if it was illegal then, that is no excuse for the current president to break the law. I cannot murder someone just because someone else once murdered someone. And if I try to tell the judge "well gee Charlie Manson murdered someone so you should let me off because he did it too" he will laugh me out of the court room before throwing me in jail. Or possibly the nuthouse for thinking such an argument is valid.

07-14-2006, 08:11 AM	#386 (permalink)
Clam Dip Registered User	hey, host, lemme axe you a question... or three... 1: why do you always post an entire article when just the gist will suffice along with a link to it? 2: why do always place emphasis on what you like in the quoted article when the article did not? 3: do you really believe we would be better off with john kerry? i mean, look at the "big dig"... a few years ago while campaigning in massachusetts, he referred to it as a quagmire regarding over-spending by the government on the project. now because of cost over-runs, cut back demands on his part, as well as the part of the contractors forced to do so, has cost the life of a person. i'm just wondering if he will set a withdrawl date. how do you ask a commuter to be the last to die for a mistake?