The video is self-explanatory (hat tip: JunkYard Blog)
(Click here for QuickTime version)
(Click here for WindowsMedia version)
As Instapundit would say…. watch the whole thing!
Our greatest weapon against al-Qaeda is our information technology capability; don’t let the Gore/HClinton/Kerry/Dean/Boxer/Kennedy Democrats and their buddies at the ACLU disarm America in wartime!
Remember folks, the Constitution is not a suicide pact!
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
The ACLU & co are not saying the the gov’t can’t collect the dots, only that they can’t do it illegally.
And no, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, but it is the law of the land which means everybody must follow it. Even “king” George.
The Constitution prohbits unreasonable searches and seizures. Apparently, the ACLU feels it unreasonable to listen in on phone calls between Al Qaeda and their operatives in the USA.
If this were World War II, the ACLU probably would be suing to prevent the Allies from using the Enigma code to spy on the Nazis. After all, listening in on encoded Nazi transmissions violated the privacy rights of Nazi spies.
V the K:
If these searches were “reasonable”, why not get a warrant? If the conversations they listened in on were hot, they had a three day window in order to go to FISA and get a retroactive warrant or they were SoL.
World War II was a different story because we actually were in a state of war. In spite of everyone’s statement to the contrary, we are not a nation at war according to the constitution unless Congress met, passed a declaration, and both the main stream media and the blogosphere somehow missed it all this time.
Don’t forget those liberals Bob Barr, Grover Nordquist, Paul Weyrich, and David Keene who also oppose illegal spying by the NSA!
Bush has shown himself to be nothing if not restrained and competant- I mean when has he ever messed up? Why wouldn’t anyone trust the guy? So, why shouldn’t he (and any future president) have the right to spy on anyone, court order or not?
Clearly the NSA should monitor all phone calls, emails, letters, etc between US citizens in order to protect our freedoms!
I mean, Clinton got a BJ while he should have been violating our civil liberties to protect them! Liberals are sooo stooooooopid- don’t they understand that the freeist free societies have been those with the freedom to violate those freedoms in order to protect them?!?!?!?
I think this “Bush didn’t play Mother-May-I with the courts” is a canard, frankly. I don’t see, in all honesty, where a judge is in any better position than an intelligence officer to make a determination of whether listening in on a terrorist contact was reasonable. I can, however, see that letting judges micromanage intelligence ops would be a recipe for disaster. The program was narrowly constructed to tap only calls originating or terminating with known Al Qaeda contacts.
Yes, I support the surveillance of terrorists. The ACLU opposes the surveillance of terrorists. They also support the right of NAMBLA to distribute information on how to kidnap and rape children. They oppose ordinances requiring paedophiles to remain confined on Hallowe’en. And since the ACLU didn’t sue the Clinton Administration over the far more wide-ranging Carnivore and Echelon programs, or over the abuse of the IRS and other agencies to harass political opponents in the Clinton Admin (as described in the Barrett report that Democrats are blocking the release of) it could not be more obvious to me that the motivations behind the sudden objection to the Bush Admin wiretapping terrorist contacts are entirely political.
And when Al Qaeda signs onto the Geneva Accords, and agrees to conduct warfare under the terms thereof, then we can consider extending to them the protections of that treaty.
V the K:
The problem is Bush wasn’t just spying on the terrorists. He was spying on organizations who oppose “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, several gay student groups like NYU’s OUTLaw which is their student group for LGBT law students, and then there’s that group of Quakers as well.
These groups are not terrorists yet they were spied on. You can cover it with a smokescreen of patriotism and national defense all you want but it will not change facts.
You mention Carnivore and Eschelon but that is being handled by another civil liberties group, the Electronic Privacy Information Center. The ACLU may lend them a hand down the road but EPIC’s apparently taken the lead on it.
The intelligence agency can write up a request for a warrant, show their probable cause, and thus get the warrant. Doesn’t take much effort and covers the bases.
In supporting warrantless searchs under the pretense of “terrorism” of anyone be they the grandmother next door or Osama bin Laden’s New York loft, you support warrantless searches across the board because that is the way they will go.
The “wire tapping” is reasonable and I support it. Fixating on semantics and technicalities, as the Democrats do in situations that are potentially deadly, fluid and ever changing, renders the antiquated FISA court scheme nothing less than crippling bureaucracy.
Here’s an illustration: You drive and come to a four way stop. You begin to slow when you see in your rear view mirror a flat bed semi carrying ten tons of steel I-beams bearing down on you at 65 miles per hour, its brakes have failed. The law says you must come to a full stop at the stop sign only a few yards away. What are you going to do?
The “wire tappings” are an effort in self preservation and attack prevention during a time of war. For you doubting Thomas’s, war has been declared upon us. It’s time for the Dems to get their heads out of the clouds of abstract thoughts about civil liberties and take a look at the real world. If you can help then by all means help. Be constructive! But right now you’re destructive and just in the way.
And exactly how do you determine who the terrorists are without conducting surveillance?
Echelon and Carnivore were uncovered in 1996. So, the American Criminal Liberties Union sat on their hands through Clinton’s entire second term. Within weeks of the NYT Times story, they were filing suit against the Bush Admin. But, of course, they’re completely non-partisan. /sarc
And there is, as of yet, no real evidence (fevered conspiracy theories from leftist radicals don’t count) that the Patriot Act or the NSA Wiretapping have been abused in any way. But, if the Democrats want to brag about killing the Patriot Act and going back to the days when terrorists operated freely, when the FBI couldn’t look at Zacarias Moussaoui’s laptop because a judge said no, and when intelligence and law enforcement could not share information because of Jamie Gorelick’s wall… let them. And if they succeed in killing the Patriot Act and shutting down the wire-tapping, I just hope I’m not in DC when Al Qaeda manages to pull off the next mass terror attack.
Exactly, Dave. The Democrats are more concerned with protecting the “privacy rights” of terrorists than they are about protecting people’s lives. You can’t enjoy any civil liberties if you’re dead.
If the Bush Admin were using the wiretaps for political spying, I would oppose that. But so far there is no evidence that it was used for anything other than listening in on terrorists.
#7 Wrote: The problem is Bush wasn’t just spying on the terrorists. He was spying on organizations who oppose “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, several gay student groups like NYU’s OUTLaw which is their student group for LGBT law students, and then there’s that group of Quakers as well.
What is your source?
How would you know this to be true?
Can you provide corroboration?
Do you have an insider in the Federal government?
If so, to what extend were these groups “spied” on?
Why are you convinced that examination of these groups is without merit?
How would you know?
Frankly your allegation smells like political propaganda.
#11 — Remember the student who claimed the FBI had visited him after he checked out Mao’s Little Red Book from the library. He turned out to be a liar. The paranoid claims of the left that they are being spied on primarily come from the same sort of paranoia and delusions of significance. Frankly, you can’t trust those people.
On the other hand, I don’t think sending agents to check out anti-war groups is entirely unreasonable. (Remember the “We Support Our Troops When They Shoot Their Officers” and “I Like NYC Better Without the WTC” banners at the Anti-War Demos?) If you want to catch people who are burning black churches, Klan meetings are probably one place you want to watch.
The problem is Bush wasn’t just spying on the terrorists. He was spying on organizations who oppose “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, several gay student groups like NYU’s OUTLaw which is their student group for LGBT law students, and then there’s that group of Quakers as well.
And as I pointed out yesterday, the Holy Land Foundation was allegedly a “pacifist” and “human rights” group.
This is more lying and disingenuousness on the part of liberal moonbats. What they don’t admit is just who these groups were inviting to their rallies and meetings, like “Free Palestine” groups and International A.N.S.W.E.R., whose avowed goals are supporting terrorism and anti-US actions — just so they could get more people to the event.
In short, you lay with dogs, don’t be surprised when you’re checked for fleas.
ND30: You guys need to stop using that word. It’s getting old, is rather childish, and according to the Wikipedia you’re not even using it right.
As for the sources for the American groups being spied on, you’ll have to Google it. Last time I posted a list of links here the spam filter got triggered.
V the K:
And under the constituion, any charges brought against domestic groups being spied on would be dropped because without a warrant any evidence gained through or as a result of wiretaps is inadmissable.
Perhaps to better suit you the NSA and CIA should merge and change their initials to KGB.
Angry Fag comment #3: After 9/11, Congress did declare war against Al-Qaeda and authorized President Bush to use all means necessary to fight the enemy.
Are you a September 10th American? Just curious.
It’s kind of telling that while the Democrats are eager to use the NSA program to impeach Bush, none of them are proposing any legislation to change or outlaw the program. I think the Democrats really don’t want to have a public debate on this issue.
Just like they didn’t want to have a debate on Alito –because their positions are out of step with the majority of voters… but instep with WaltWhatDayIsItCronkite.
#14 The AngryFag… well, on the issue of the NSA spying on gay groups, I did Google it and guess what? The main sources seem to be the DailyKos, AmericaBlog, OutSports, Peoples Weekly World, and Huffington’s website.
Go figure. I was hoping for NYT, Boston Globe, any MSM electronic outlet, WaPost, or even HowieDean’s PR machine.
But nope. All we got were some fringe radical Democrat-based hateblogs.
I think your blogsite needs a name change to AngryDemocratFag.
#2 – Angry Fag is at it again.
It’s entirely possible that the Bush Administration should not have sought FISA warrants because the FISA court lacked jurisdiction. For example, the NSA monitoring facility was outside U.S. premises and so was one end of the call. FISA wouldn’t have (or be allowed) jurisdiction under those conditions.
There is much about the programs we just don’t know. (And shouldn’t!)
Moreover, Presidents of both parties have asserted the government’s right to monitor for authentic intelligence gathering purposes, without warrants. There is a vast different between merely trying to “collect the dots” for intelligence purposes, vs. a criminal investigation (attaching criminal jeopardy). The latter is where U.S. law mainly requires warrants.
So Angry Fag, stop spreading your canards that have already been thoroughly refuted, OK?
If these searches were “reasonable”, why not get a warrant?
Uhmmmmm…..Because they didn’t have to. DUH!!
In spite of everyone’s statement to the contrary, we are not a nation at war according to the constitution unless Congress met, passed a declaration, and both the main stream media and the blogosphere somehow missed it all this time.
Clearly the liberal blogosphere and media are blinded by so much hate that they have no idea what’s going on. Not only did we have a declaration, but we also had the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 which directed the POTUS to change the regime in Iraq.
After the “Democrat” president ignored it, because he would have had to actually do something, but when a Republican president actully fulfilled it, liberals go apeshit, claim it’s illegal, and deny their previous concerns about WMD and imminent threat.
Long story short, why the hell should we believe, vote for & put liberals into power?
I suspect if the ACLU had its way the NSA would be left to hiring psychics, because that is the only way they are going to be able to collect and connect any dots. Although, the ACLU would probably sue over that one too.
#21
The ACLU doesn’t want to connect ANY dots. They clearly want the USA obliterated. They’re of the same mind as the rest of the leftist in that we deserve every bit of 9/11 and more.
Victoria Toensing in Today’s WSJ points out some unpleasant facts that AngryFag won’t like and Ridor can’t deal with.
The overarching problem is that FISA, written in 1978, is technologically antediluvian. It was drafted by legislators who had no concept of how terrorists could communicate in the 21st century or the technology that would be invented to intercept those communications. The rules regulating the acquisition of foreign intelligence communications were drafted when the targets to be monitored had one telephone number per residence and all the phones were plugged into the wall. Critics like Al Gore and especially critics in Congress, rather than carp, should address the gaps created by a law that governs peacetime communications-monitoring but does not address computers, cell phones or fiber optics in the midst of war.
Democrats who believe that Texas ANG units had Microsoft Word in 1972 understandably have difficulty understanding technological continuity.
Victoria Toensing in Today’s WSJ points out some unpleasant facts that AngryFag won’t like and Ridor can’t deal with.
The overarching problem is that FISA, written in 1978, is technologically antediluvian. It was drafted by legislators who had no concept of how terrorists could communicate in the 21st century or the technology that would be invented to intercept those communications. The rules regulating the acquisition of foreign intelligence communications were drafted when the targets to be monitored had one telephone number per residence and all the phones were plugged into the wall. Critics like Al Gore and especially critics in Congress, rather than carp, should address the gaps created by a law that governs peacetime communications-monitoring but does not address computers, cell phones or fiber optics in the midst of war.
Democrats who believe that Texas ANG units had Microsoft Word in 1972 understandably have difficulty understanding technological continuity.
Apparently you are unaware of the genesis of the “constitution is not a suicide pact” cliche. It was in a dissent in a free speech case. The dissenter opposed the right to free speech.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030107_fletcher.html
Ironically the dissenter, Justice Jackson, had been the chief Allied prosecutor against the Nazis at the Nuernberg trials. (I use the German spelling) Of course, the Nazis opposed free speech, too.
V the K — January 18, 2006 @ 8:46 am – January 18, 2006
The Constitution prohbits unreasonable searches and seizures. Apparently, the ACLU feels it unreasonable to listen in on phone calls between Al Qaeda and their operatives in the USA.
Actually, you don’t have to suspect anything. Go to http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/17/aclu.nsa/ and the ACLU home page at http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/index.html
The ACLU suit, as far as I can tell, doesn’t challenge the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with its grant of a 72 hour sliding window for warrantless searches. What the ACLU’s suit does challenge is the GWBush’s administration’s contention that it can ignore the 72 hour limitation, contrary to statute. “Rule of law” don’t you know?
Yes, it has long been held that searches can be held without a warrant. Indeed, most of the early searches in the OJ Simpson case were conducted without a warrant. The reasonableness of the searches depends upon the facts and circumstances. The FISA law defines the facts and circumstances, and provides a reasonable compromise between civil liberties and national security. And that is why FISA was enacted in the 1970s.
The ACLU’s suit: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/17/aclu.nsa/
BTW, I do not know whether or not you are gay, but, just to let you know, it was not unusual for law enforcement to infiltrate gay rights groups in at least the 1950s and 1960s (and probably earlier) to “take names,” probably for blackmail purposes. They certainly wiretapped MLK to try to dig up dirt on him for blackmail purposes. All of that was without a warrant. If you really want unlimited warrantless searches, be careflul about what you wish for.
#25
Apparently you are unaware of the genesis of the “constitution is not a suicide pact” cliche
That is possible only if GP doesn’t read his own links.
#25
More so than liberals are aware of the origin of the “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” cliche.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/a/146858.htm
Or the origin of “wall of separation between church and state.” (Hint: Think bed sheets and burning crosses.)
This is one of these issues that leaves me scratching my head. Even though I’m liberal, I support the government working to do things like, say….stopping terrorists from attacking us again. Using wiretaps on cel phones is clearly something that is helping to accomplish this goal, along with other modern forms of electronic surveillance.
Why is it though that the members of the Bush administration want to sidestep an established court order process for performing these wiretaps. From what I’ve read (and tell me if I’m wrong), the laws as written allow for both secret issuance of court orders and for court orders “after the fact” if it’s deemed necessary to perform a wiretap in a timely manner.
Allowing a goverment to do something completely in secret, may sound good if the initial goals are agreed upon. However, the old saying goes that absolute power corrupts absolutely. If these acts can be used against bona-fide suspected terrorists, what’s to stop someone in position of power in the government from using these against his/her own enemies, perceived or real? Let’s not forget Nixon….his downfall stemmed from the fact that he used what he thought was the power of the presidency to work secretly against his “enemies”.