Wire tapping
Bush’s domestic wire tapping program remains shrouded in mystery after an ACLU lawsuit was dismissed on a technicality. Or perhaps the program is shrouded in myth. Rather than attempting to collect data about hundreds of millions of people, the administration might get more benefit out of making people, both inside and outside the US, believe that such a program exists. It would be highly unusual that such a top secret and extremely controversial program, if it really did exist, could become national news in the first place. It is even more remarkable that there is no proof, other than hearsay, that the program has ever existed. Nor has evidence from this program ever been used in court. Hoax or no hoax, our government is being used for deceitful purposes. Such an egregious violation of public trust shows how cowardly and desperate this administration has become.
This letter has not been edited.
I approve of the program. And trust me Brian, don't think you're so important that they are tapping you. I think they are looking for your enemies. WAKE UP AMERICA>>>QUIT BEING SHEEP!
Posted by on July 13, 2007 02:25 PMJuly 13, 2007 02:25 PM - Good points.
Unfortunately, history has shown that most who write letters to the editor do not log onto this site to see comments, but I’ll try giving one to Brian Quade anyway.
Brian, these are not my words but someone else’s: “The surveillance wasn't strictly domestic and it wasn't "wiretapping." The NSA analyzed calling patterns of telecommunications between overseas terrorists and domestic contacts. This is the way we uncover and prevent terrorist attacks. It's not illegal and no warrant is required.”
Brian, the “technicality” was probably that the program is not illegal and does not violate civil rights. I realize the perception carries that paranoia, but perception is not truth.
Brian's comments, if anything, are not strong enough. We need to recognize that Bush's snooping has been ILLEGAL and that Bush and Cheney should be impeached and convicted. They have justified surveillance on Americans in the name of the "war on terror" while in actuality much of the surveillance was on anti-war groups.
The letter with no author is idiotic tripe and shows the mentality of a Limbaugh "ditto head". To sacrifice our Bill of Rights for the supposed safety that illegal surveillance can never provide is ridiculous.
America does indeed need to wake up, but not to support illegal suveillance, but rather to recognize that the Bush administration is an on-going criminal enterprise that will trample the U.S. Constitution at every opportunity.
The technicality as the letter writer puts it, was actually a ruling that those who's rights are not affected by the wire tapping don't have the grounds to challenge it in court. In other words, if the gov hasn't tapped your communications you can't complain.
My favorite is hearing the labelers calling this "domestic spying" when in reality at least one of the contacts must me outside the US. In addition at least one of the two have to be considering having connections to terrorism.
Bush-haters are up in arms saying to sacrifice ANY liberty for security is flat out wrong. Funny, when I complain about background checks and waiting periods infringing on my 2nd Amendment rights these same people claim we MUST have these controls in place for everyones safety and security.
So which is it? Why are some liberties ok to sacrifice but others are not?
Posted by KW on July 13, 2007 03:22 PMCurt said - "We need to recognize that Bush's snooping has been ILLEGAL and that Bush and Cheney should be impeached and convicted."
Curt, do you have some inside information Congress isn't privy to? I think it's pretty safe to say that if there was any conclusive evidence of any impeachable offenses by the president, he'd be impeached by now.
HURRAH!!!!! The aclu lost......
Posted by not here on July 13, 2007 03:29 PMKW said, wrong as usual:
"In other words, if the gov hasn't tapped your communications you can't complain."
It said if you can't prove the government is wiretapping you, you have no standing. Nobody in the government denied tapping the individuals who sued. In fact, George Bush has admitted publicly that he has been wiretapping without a warrant and will continue to do so.
KW doesn't mind because he needs a daddy figure to make him feel safe.
Posted by Charles B on July 13, 2007 03:46 PMDez said:
"Curt, do you have some inside information Congress isn't privy to? I think it's pretty safe to say that if there was any conclusive evidence of any impeachable offenses by the president, he'd be impeached by now."
Congress has not been told the extent to which Bush is violating the law with his wiretaps because Bush doesn't think he needs oversite and refuses to tell them anything.
The only reason he isn't impeached is because Democrats are inept and Republicans are abstaining from doing their duty for political reasons.
Why are you so scared that you don't think your civil liberties are important?
Posted by Charles B on July 13, 2007 03:52 PMCharles B said - "Congress has not been told the extent to which Bush is violating the law with his wiretaps because Bush doesn't think he needs oversite and refuses to tell them anything."
And you know this how? Read it on the internet, saw it on TV? You know more about what's happening than Congress?
Wrong again CB, the people who took this to court claimed "they were likely to be tapped" because of their careers. Try reading the court transcripts and edjumacate yourself on the subject.
Why are you so scared of wire taps CB? Is there something about you we should know?
If your innocent I recommend you quit listening to moveon and think for yourself for a change.
Posted by KW on July 13, 2007 04:15 PMWhen searching for a needle in a haystack it is not beneficial to add more hay.
Posted by Colorado Dave on July 13, 2007 06:00 PMI do believe it was Ben Franklin who remarked something to the effect that: "People who are willing to trade their freedoms for security will soon find they have neither."
And then of course, we have the good ols "Law'n Order" gang. with its bit that usually goes somewhat like this: "If you aren't guilty of something, you have nothing to be concerned about".
As they praise the holding of people - including American citizens - on nothing more than "suspicion", and endorse torture, etc., along with the concentration camp at Guantanamo.
But why should YOU worry?
They, of course, are the "True Americans" (Trademark Registered), just as in the days of Mc Carthy and the old House Unamercian Activities Committee.
To slightly paraphrase the Bard: A cesspool by any other name smells.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 13, 2007 07:28 PMKW: "Why are you so scared of wire taps CB? Is there something about you we should know"
What can you say to someone who thinks it is OK for the government to tap all the private phone lines in the United States? What can you say to someone who thinks that the only people who do not want their phones tapped are those who are doing something wrong? I think about all you can do is to shake your head in disbelief.
Perhaps KW was raised in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union or China so that he thinks that the government tapping everyone's phone lines is normal.
Posted by Truth on July 14, 2007 06:48 AMHi Old Grouch - the actual quote is
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" - Ben Franklin
The 'catch 22' that allowed the ACLU to lose is that you have to prove you are being baselessly wiretapped - and, with the high levels of administration secrecy (except when they choose to leak something) that isn't going to happen soon.
This administration's ploy has been to scare the US into submision, while dividing us as much as possible. Unfortunately for all of us, the administration who cried "Wolf" has made us less safe, not more by both its actions (invading Iraq - which has been proven to have had nothing to do with 9/11, nor to have had WMD - but has become the 'poster child' for Al Qaeda recruiting ) & inactions (failure to enforce immigration laws comes to mind - remember that most if not all of the 9/11 terrorists had entered the country legally, but were still here on expired visas). The saddest part of all is that the administration had the vast majority of those of us in the US as well as those in the rest of the world on 'our side' after 9/11 when he went after Osama bin Laden. When Bush/Cheney went after Saddam Hussein on what now appears to have been a personal vendetta, they lost credibility. When they advocated torture and were also caught sending supposed terrorists to countries which routinely use torture, they lost credibility, When they determined that warrantless wiretapping was acceptable - despite having FISA to fall back on (if it's an emergency, one can file for permission up to 48 hours after beginning the tap) and the fact that between FISA's inception in mid-1979 and 2005, over 20,000 applications have been made - and only 4 (yes four) denied (all under this administration, and all in 2003) they lost credibility.
I find the hypocrisy of stating that the US is in Iraq to spread democracy to the rest of the world, starting in Iraq, while curtailing it in the US amazing. In addition, I fully those who defend warrantless wiretapping under this administration will have raging hissy fits if/when the pendulum swings and a Democrat gets to authorize warrantless wiretapping - but maybe those folks can't think that far ahead.
Finally - perhaps nobody in this administration will abuse warrantless wiretapping (just perhaps - it's got to be very tempting to tap members of the other party, and anonymously leak anything remotely bad for the Dems) - are you willing to bet your freedom or your children's or grandchildren's freedom on it?
Posted by Mary on July 14, 2007 07:16 AMGerman anti-Nazi activist, Pastor Martin Niemöller
"In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
IT IS NOT WIRETAPPING, PEOPLE. The NSA simply stuies phone calling patterns of suspected terrorists. THAT IS NOT ILLEGAL.
After 9/11 some people blamed Bush for not doing enough to prevent the attacks. Now that he is trying to prevent them, they want him to stop. Brilliant!
Posted by Mountain Cat on July 14, 2007 07:56 AM"I do believe it was Ben Franklin who remarked something to the effect that: 'People who are willing to trade their freedoms for security will soon find they have neither.'"- Old Grouch
OG,
Do you believe that to be an absolute statement; with no exceptions?
Is going through a metal detector and having your bags searched before you get on a plane, unreasonable? Will you soon find you have neither freedom nor security? Or, as Mary pointed out in the actual quote, that you DESERVE neither?
What about a blackout in times of war, so as not to give the enemy targets at night? Aren't you sacrificing liberty for security? How about rationing during war? I imagine you would be against all of those things.
"What can you say to someone who thinks it is OK for the government to tap ALL the private phone lines in the United States?" - Truth (my emphasis)
"...so that he thinks that the government tapping EVERYONE'S phone lines is normal." - Truth (again, my emphasis)
Way to overstate what is actually going on to make your point.
Posted by Mike on July 14, 2007 08:23 AMKW: "Why are you so scared of wire taps CB? Is there something about you we should know"
The whole import of that statement is what I said it was, that is, that no one should object to their phone being tapped if they have nothing to hide. It is an outlandish statement that no mature American would agree with.
Posted by Truth on July 14, 2007 08:38 AMTruth - Again you completely miss the point I was making. You gladly give up liberties you don't care about everyday yet turn around and gripe about the wire taps that have zero impact on you.
Your statement above about tapping "all the private phone lines in the United States" is ludacris as well.
So tell me Truth, why should I be subject to background checks and possible waiting periods to buy a gun if I'm not a criminal? You support the sacrifice of these liberties by telling me it's for the greater good, and have admitted as much several times.
And as I told you last time you posted your Pastor Martin story, your the one not acting as our rights get trampled and you admit it here daily.
YOU are in favor of eliminating the 2nd Amendment.
YOU are in favor of mandatory participation in socialized medicine.
YOU are in favor of trampling private property rights with the no smoking legislation.
The tragic part is when the come for you, you still won't get it.
Posted by KW on July 14, 2007 08:52 AMKW if you hold Truth to the point and make him answer the hard questions without getting to make sarcastic comments, he will ignore you. I too would like to see an answer to the question you asked.
Posted by bwr on July 14, 2007 08:57 AM"Is going through a metal detector and having your bags searched before you get on a plane, unreasonable?"
Yes it is. We know who wants to blow up planes. It's Muslims. Nobody else. But that's "profiling" What utter BS.
Posted by Peter Griffen on July 14, 2007 08:59 AMbwr - Your so right. I completely forgot who I was responding and posing questions to.
It's just that when I take the time to read some of Truth's posts, I cannot believe most of the outlandish and contradictory statements he makes. And I have to shake my head and ask him...
WHAT THE ??? ARE YOU SAYING???
Posted by KW on July 14, 2007 09:20 AM"Is going through a metal detector and having your bags searched before you get on a plane, unreasonable?"
"Yes it is. We know who wants to blow up planes. It's Muslims. Nobody else. But that's "profiling" What utter BS." -Peter
Wow. I thought I had asked a silly question. I didn't think anyone would actually say yes.
Posted by Mike on July 14, 2007 09:26 AMMary,
Thank you for the exact quote. I've seen the paraphrase(s) around so often - in one wording or another - that they have more or less replaced the original in common usage.
Perhaps it's a matter of attempts to be more specific about details, since the fundamental content and scope of the idea of "Liberty" has become almost diffused out of existence nowadays. And so many take for granted that a "little chip here, and a little chip there" is really "harmless" overall.
Mike,
In principle, YES. In practice, YES, even more so.
It is just that "little chip here, and little chip there" that has damaged the foundations of our Liberty, and managed to make the concept as Franklin - and the rest of our Founding Fathers - knew and understood it into nothing more today than approval and accomodation of a set of practices in response to the accidents of time.
History is replete with examples. One starts by accepting the practice as both necessary and inevitable, rather than as being an attempt to deal with a short term problem, which practice can be abandoned when it is no longer necessary. The practice becomes, more or less, enshrined as part of something of "greater experience" - such as a war effort - and also becomes, in and of itself, something that is not to be challenged, because of its identification with that "greater experience".
In time, as the restrictive and repressive practices multiply and become fixed experiences, they are used to measure the individual's support for the "greater experience". The freedom to dissent from, disagree with, and contest not only the practices but the whole of the "greater experience" itself is repressed; and this leads to the loss of that basic Liberty - free speech - which serves to provide at least some check and balance on both the increasing multiplication of practices as well as the worship of whatever the "greater experience" is seen to be.
Finally, over time, the nation has a set of restrictive and repressive practices in place, which are considered to be normal and uncriticizable, since they provide a sense of security against the ravages of the "greater experience" that initiated the practices. And the "greater experience" - usually some form of warfare, foreign intervention, conquest, or other external entity - comes to be the whole goal and purpose for the nation itself.
But the sense of security itself is only temporary, since internal unrest, along with the slightest hint of defeat in the external conflict, cause even more restrictive and repressive practices to be put in place.
And so on it goes. Until there is neither Liberty or Security. And, those who live under the conditions have come to really deserve neither, having allowed the situation to develop unchallenged.
Rome; Byzantium; Czarist Russia - and later the Soviet Union as well; Germany - the several Reichs; are all there as examples. And, yes, Mike, it can happen here as well.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 14, 2007 09:29 AMOG,
I think you and I would agree that liberty is something that should be protected. But, I don't believe in ABSOLUTE liberty. I don't think it is unreasonable to search people before they get on an airplane. I don't think it is unreasonable to monitor phone lines that have been tied to known, or suspected, terrorists in other countries. It wasn't unreasonable to impose blackouts and rationing during World War 2; and, obviously, that didn't become permanent.
I also think it is important to have differing opinions in this area. I don't call people who have a different opinion on wiretapping, "unpatriotic". While I believe in the program; the fact that there is such a huge debate over it, and so many people who bring up valid objections to it, helps protect our freedoms and keeps us from going down that slope you warn against.
Posted by Mike on July 14, 2007 10:00 AMAll the powers given to this administration, or taken by them, may someday fall into the hands of Democrats and a Democratic administration.
Republicans will please hold their complaints in check when that happens because you helped make it possible by your silence.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 14, 2007 11:07 AMSharon B - Assuming the dems get the whitehouse in 2008, and keep control of congress, I think the reps will hold their complaints about as long as the dems did after the 2000 election.
And if the last 7 months are any indication of what's to come from the dems, an independant may very well win next time.
Posted by KW on July 14, 2007 11:20 AMMountain Cat: "Brian, the “technicality” was probably that the program is not illegal and does not violate civil rights."
The technicality, as KW has pointed out, was that the plaintiff did not show that they were the victims of the government's wiretapping program. The court did not rule o the substantive issue of whether or not the program is legal.
The court said that not only did the plaintiffs not show they were victims, but they could not legally even find out if they were victims because of the secrecy of the program.
So the court is not saying that the plaintiffs were not victims. It is saying no one but the government knows if they were victims, and the government doesn't have to say.
It would be fodder for a comedy if it weren't so serious.
This was a ruling by a three man panel. The plaintiffs can now ask for a review by the entire Sixth Circuit.
Posted by Truth on July 14, 2007 06:05 PMKW said:
"the people who took this to court claimed "they were likely to be tapped" because of their careers. Try reading the court transcripts and edjumacate yourself on the subject."
Nothing in this statement is at odds with my post, but you can pretend you made a good comeback if you want...
Posted by Charles B on July 15, 2007 06:44 AMOff topic but related, what's really happening here is that Bush is itching for a fight one way or another. By recently instructing Miers not to respond to a congressional subpoena, Bush is trying to force a judicial ruling, where he thinks he can get a positive outcome from a sympathetic Supreme Court.
He is trying to drastically expand the powers of the executive branch permanently.
As Sharon B. has said in other words "you shall reap what you sow".
I'm very uncomfortable with that kind of concentrated power in anyone's hands, democrat, republican, or independent.
Posted by Charles B on July 15, 2007 07:04 AMWe should ALL be itching for a fight after 911! Damn there are a bunch of sheep on here! Baaaaa
Posted by on July 16, 2007 08:01 AMHere is the way the wire tapping program works.
If your grandmother is calling a relative overseas or e-mailing her to get a recipe for chocolate chip muffins,the NSA won't be listening in. If however she is calling someone overseas that is connected to any terrorist group and wants a recipe for exploding chocolate chip muffins,the NSA wants to listen in.
Whats the problem?
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on July 16, 2007 02:20 PMI hate repeating myself, but it appears that even those with whom I agree are way off base on one major aspect of this topic:
THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT TAPPING THE PHONES LINES!!!!!! THE NSA STUDIES PHONE CALLING PATTERNS OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS AND THOSE WHO ASSIST THEM. THAT IS NOT ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE QUITE WHINING ABOUT IT AND BE HAPPY IT HELPS PREVENT FURTHER TERROR ATTACKS IN THIS FINE COUNTRY AND IN OTHER COUNTRIES!!!!!!!!!
It’s an understatement to say that many people have an utter hatred for George Bush and his administration. It just doesn’t matter at all what it is that they do, those who hate him and his administration will take the simple assumption that if it is they that are doing something then it must be loudly complained about. I don’t like Bush very much either. But at least he is going after terror cells to a large degree.
The way I look at it, although I much prefer not to have to go through the hassle of long security checks and baggage checks, etc., that is far less of a hassle than having my life end at 35,000 feet because a lunatic has brought a weapon on board the plane on which I am traveling.
Even if the phone surveillance doesn’t actually catch some patterns (but I fully believe it has and will continue to do so) it is yet one other deterrent which terrorist have to consider and thus it creates a greater challenge to their efforts, just as baggage check do.