Democratic Disinterest and Disdain

Pardon me….I should have written 66 to 32, not 68. Thanks for catching that.

Joe’s assertion that the companies broke the law is not true. There has been no finding of a violation of the law. Additionally, the Supreme Court has already ruled that phone companies records do not have 4th Amendment protections associated with them because they are technically the property of the business and the consumer has no right to privacy as a result. These records are maintained during the normal course of business and are not kept for the purpose of governmental use in investigations. The remedy for consumers is a civil action–which is where the trial lawyers come in–these are NOT crimnal matters as some would suggest, i.e. “Bush broke the law”. That is a Democratic talking point that is meant to cast the Administation as being Nixonian when that is very far from the truth. To suggest that Qwest did not go along with this is also an untested position. The Qwest CEO got busted for his own conduct and choices, just like the Enron CEO did. Additionally, no one knows for certain who did, or did not assist the government in tracking terrorists after 9/11. The ACLU lost a suit this week in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The US Supreme Court let the ruling stand on appeal.

The assertions that the government is wiretapping us all reminds me of the Simpson’s movie where Marge says, “It’s not like the government is monitoring every call you make”. The scene cuts to a large room of analysts listening in on millions of calls. That assertion is not only logistically impossible, it is not supported by facts. I would be very concerned if there were numerous prosections of defendants based on wiretap information that was illegally obtained. That simply is not the case. As I mentioned above, the ACLU lost their suit because none of the parties could show they were being harrassed, abused, or charged by the government. In other words, they had no standing to sue. If you know of an organized conspiracy prosecuting American’s based on violations of FISA please let me know. I will be right in line to stand up and protest that one big time.

The Protect America Act became necessary because one single judge changed the way FISA had been interpreted and operating for over 30 years. It wasn’t good enough for that jurist and additional red tape became the rule of the day.

Say what you want about the President, but he deserves the credit for not allowing another terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. Both he and his predecessor deserves to have all the available tools to keep the United States safe. What the Democrats have done is taken a gamble with the safety of our children and communities in the name of politics. Plain and simple, that is an undefensible position—and it is wrong.

Thank you for your observations 007. I stand by my comments. I note the passion in your argument…and your attempts to belittle me and name call people whom you disagree with. That is unfortunate for you and your arguments to be taken seriously. It seems to be the first refuge you take when responding to most persons comments on this site.

So, I will go back to being my naive little self….but I see right through you.

Speaking of distain, let’s look at the Republican’s disdain for civil liberties of innocent citizens that are often woefully violated under George Bush’s wire tapping laws, for our own protection of course. Thanks big bro’ but we find some of you folks almost as scary as the terrorists.

George Bush’s default mode is fear-mongering. The fact is the gov’t can still eaves drop after the law expired. It just has to revert back to the more cumbersome method of getting orders approved by the FISC. This process is meant to protect US citizens from potential government abuses of authority. You understand, eh? The type of abuses committed by authoritarion regimes?

The FISC does provide for emergencies when time is of the essence. Probable cause must be proved within a few days or permission to wire tap can be reliquished. Checks and balances on power. Call me paranoid, but it sounds reasonable to me.

Believe me, we Democrats are VERY, VERY interested.

007, I won’t put words in your mouth or anyone else. You do a great job with your words and certainly don’t need my help.

The point here is that FISA was working just fine until one judge put more red tape on intelligence agencies. The Protect America Act does not take away from FISA protections for Americans. It sought to continue to same intelligence gathering process that has been going on since Jimmy Carter’s days in 1978–namely, foreigners talking to each other overseas had no 4th Amendment rights–they weren’t American citizens. This judge reasoned that because the telecom network switching stations sometimes routed calls through the US….even if both parties were on foreign soil….the paperwork and time necessary for each of these intercepts is not only time consuming and burdensome, it takes time away from preparation and analysis of the intercepts. The logistics of intelligence efforts are then impeded by the Court. I spent time at an Air Force Base near D.C. that houses some interesting agencies that gather intelligence. I can tell you that these men and women work hard every day collecting information that saves lives and protects American interests before shots have to be fired and more lives lost.

So, do we want our intelligence agencies spending more time preparing for Court and testifying to get warrants, or do we want them to spend the time gathering foreign intelligence on known persons of interest that intend to kill Americans? I have no problem with FISA and the protections it affords Americans….nobody is saying allow the government to wiretap without judicial approval.

I don’t want to put words in your mouth….so, I look forward to your answer besides the Democratic talking points that Bush is an evil warmonger trying to wiretap all of us…………

I’m disgusted with the failure of congress to do anything productive in 2007. I’ve e-mailed Harry Reid and others and expressed my views; have you?

I respect the opinions of most all who post on this site (some people have posted at certain times just to raise one issue then are never heard from again. I have a hard time taking these people too seriously). However, for those who have posted many times with their opinions, I respect them even if I don’t agree.

I’m glad Joe raised this issue. There have been times I’ve wanted to write about national/state issues, but weren’t certain they would be accepted given this is based on Idaho Falls area issues.

So to FISA. I see this as Democrats wasting time in congress. We are living in a different era than even 30 years ago. Let’s start with McVeigh in Oklahoma City, OK. His connections to terrorists is unbelievable when researched. The examples continue.

I’m tired of the bashing of Pres. Bush. The interruption of the 2000 attack on L.A., the intervention of the tunnel (Holland, I believe – I’m sorry I can’t remember right now), plus numerous other atacks on U.S. citizens have been stopped.

I do agree with the previous comments we have sleeper cells in the U.S. They have been openly identified.

One problem I think we currently suffer from, is those who are at a clearance to know the level of threats stopped to the U.S. cannot speak openly. I look for an enormouse amount of books post Bush administration key players who finally can start to tell the threats they stopped. In that sense, I do believe the average American isn’t necessarily being told 100% of the truth.

Have you ever been in LAX, like I have, and had all the mechanical/lighting problems etc. occur so rapidly as they have in the last 2-4 years? If so, don’t you find it a little odd LAX worked so well for so many years, now have frequent times the airport has to shut down? Do I buy that is an aging airport which is suddenly falling apart? Not for a minute. I think that is the easiest story to tell that the public will accept.

Maybe unlike me, you weren’t living in UT during the Olympics, and knew more know about the power grid that suddenly went down about 4000 West and 4000 South (rough estimates, but the Taylorsville area). I knew the FBI person sent specifically to UT to work closely with Mitt Romney to ensure safety. Maybe I know far more than the average person as they certainly didn’t publish that info.

That being said, how many of you remember that a team from INL was selected to be at those Olympics? Sure, they were close to SLC compared to some nuclear facilities at other national labs. My understanding is those teams had specialty training to deal with nuclear threats/actions, had one occurred at the Olympics.

Maybe unlike me, when I flew to Philly for a national meeting in 2001, you weren’t told by Philly airport officials what level of U. S. Marshalls had gotten off of the plane first. When asked why, I was told that was also the weekend of the Army – Navy game and the POTUS would be present. I doubt few, if not living in the Philly area, saw what the POTUS told the men who played in that game.

Think that was spin? I stayed at the same hotel as the ARMY Football team (which is a totally different experience in itself)! Think the sharp shooters the cab driver pointed out to those of us in the car traveling to the convention center was just making it up when we saw them too?

I’m not sure how many here lost someone in 911 like I did. Maybe it doesn’t matter.

Do I know interruptions of subsequent attacks on the U.S. citizens or U.S. interests elsewhere have been stopped by the Bush Administration? YES.

Do I think the House Democrats are dragging their feet and playing games again? YES. As has been mentioned previously, they are having another vacation. The Senate got it done, and as accurately noted Obama and Clinton didn’t vote; consequently no commercials showing the other voting could be made for the Presidential elections. McCain voted.

I respect each person’s opinion on the subject here. I join Mike in saying I think this should be a done deal.

While not being a civil liberties attorney, so probably not knowing every single right which I may be speaking about, I know many of the risks right now. At this point in time, I’d far rather have the telecommunication companies protected against lawsuits and take my chances of what rights I might be loosing.

I don’t see the Bush Administration trying to create a false sense of terror. I see reality and perahps, much like James Woods, have flown one too many flights in First Class and had the wrong person sitting behind me.

I support the Senate for getting this legislation through and think the House Democrats taking another vacation, after they have been at “work” for about a month, taking another vacation as needless posturing for the upcoming elections.

I won’t argue my views. Everyone is entitled to their own. I’ve just shared part of my life expierences that perhaps have helped some understand my views better.

The Dems in the House, from my POV, have totally let the American people down on this one. A few have gotten e-mails from me. You don’t have to live in their district to send them an e-mail telling them to get back to work.

I support the bill.

This may seem obvious to some, but it truly isn’t to me. Why do we have so much interest and concern for the civil rights of the population in general on a national scale, and yet so little regard for the civil rights of an individual on a local scale? Throughout this site, when any individual attempts to raise the issue of a local citizen possibly having his rights violated, all pooh-pooh the idea, (sometimes quite nastily) and yet on this thread, we don’t get that same attitude. Do we really believe our own little community is so perfect that no one’s rights are ever violated here and yet truly believe it’s happening “out there”?

Well, it seems to me the reason they want to eavesdrop on telecommunications is because people are using them to plot terrorist attacks. Not everyone, of course, is doing that, but because some are, then we want to listen to find out which ones are and which ones aren’t. That’s on a pretty large scale. On a small scale, we have local government wanting to violate people’s rights because some people are committing crimes and some aren’t. For ease of an example, let’s say some people are using their cars to transport drugs. Some are, some aren’t. So do we just let local law enforcement pull over all the cars without a warrant so we can find out which ones are and which ones aren’t? Do we let them pull over and search everyone with a criminal record even without some sort of suspicion that they’re doing something wrong at the moment? Maybe that’s not the best example, but it’s the best I could do on short notice. It seems the same thing to me. Obviously the federal government doesn’t want to listen to everyone’s conversations, but don’t they have to kind of try to in order to figure out who is plotting and who isn’t?

Regarding the post in #18, the government could not use any evidence obtained without proper legal authorization to prosecute persons involved in illegal activities. However, these comments miss the point of the Protect America Act. It DOES NOT INVOLVE AMERICAN CITIZENS or ANY PERSONS ON AMERICAN SOIL. It codifies what has been going on for 30 years….namely, interception and analysis of foreign communications that involve planning terror activities against the United States, our allies, and American interests overseas. BTW-through use of data mining and phrase reference, intelligence operatives have precise ways to target surveillance of subjects both known and unknown. It is not like they have to listen to every single conversation to do so. Logistically, this is not possible. That is why computers screen and target calls for intercept.

One single judge refused to allow the practice of intercepting communications that occurred overseas simply because the electronic communication passed through a communication system (switch) that was housed in the United States. This created more bureaucracy and took our agents and analysts away from doing actual work and filling out forms and testifying to get warrants….this does not aid in combating terrorism….it creates more red tape than is necessary, especially when it does NOT involve US Citizens.

So, if we want to listen to foreign operatives in Egypt and Lebanon talking to each other and planning attacks, US intelligence officials now have to go through the cumbersome process of getting warrants (and filling out all the paperwork involved to do so). FISA applied ONLY is one or both of the parties is a US citizen and/or on US soil. The 4th Amendment was never meant to extend to places like Syria, Jordan, Egypt, or Iran. The ruling by this “judge” is ridiculous and has no merit. Courts are in the business of protecting American rights and privileges….they should not be making it harder for us to gain intelligence from foreign terrorists that would seek to kill the very people the Court is vying to protect. It makes no sense. THIS IS NOT A CIVIL LIBERTIES ISSUE FOR AMERICANS. The Protect America Act is an answer to an over-reaching federal judge that made a personal value judgement that terrorists overseas should get 4th Amendment protections.

We see this Civil Liberties ‘Creep’ from the Democrats–they want to close Guantanamo Bay and bring all these terror suspects into the civilian court system. The Democrats also want telecoms brought to answer to civilian courts for lawsuits–this is why they will not vote on this procedural clarification. Can you imagine these types of decision being made at Nuremberg for Hitler’s Generals and Partisans? Would we really have wanted to give these killers of millions the same procedural rights as American Citizens? At what cost? Frankly, these types of nutty decisions by our judiciary makes me even more inclined to keep terror trials out of the civilian realm. I don’t want nutty judges even touching these cases. Let the military tribunals sort the terrorists out–it worked at Nuremberg and it is working here now too.

We know the results of civilian courts–I see that Paul Ezra Rhoades is getting a chance at having another jury trial and/or re-sentencing. He has been on death row since the early 80s for killing many women. Personally, I don’t want a terrorist to sit on death row for 3 decades waiting to get executed. Civilian Courts are not victim friendly. I know, I can hear it now….but terrorists have rights to due process too….spare me the civics lesson. I realize this. Frankly, I am not too concerned about affording every single right to terrorists. I believe American citizens must have full rights to due process but I don’t hold the same belief for terrorists.

The Protect America Act is a good piece of legislation. It deserves to be passed immediately to allow the men and women who have gathered valuable intelligence to continue to do so–and save American lives.

dude: FISA applies if you are on American Soil. Read the Protect America Act and learn the facts of the situation. It has nothing to do with wiretapping or intercepting calls made on American Soil. FOR THE UPTEENTH TIME-IT HAS TO DO WITH FOREIGN OPERATIVES IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

As for the other gem of a comment:
“Both Hillary and Obama advocated trials in federal court or military courts under the Code of Military Justice.”

They can’t have it both ways here and neither can you. They have both noted that Gitmo should be closed and trial moved to civilian courts. They don’t like the military tribunals system (or the military for that matter). That is the point–terrorists should be dealt with in military tribunals, not civilian courts, for acts committed outside the United States as an unlawful enemy combatant. For you to suggest that they want terrorists tried in federal court OR military courts is disingenuous…and simply not true.

And finally, the point is that even in military tribunals acquittals can and do happen. In my view, that is a good thing. It shows the process is not some rubber stamp of guilt attached to the proceedings. The tribunals are fair and rely on evidence to convict. Thanks for making my argument!

You will recall that the tribunal rules had to be revised by Congress. During the lead up to this the trials were put on hold. Since that time, the trials have been occurring. The media just doesn’t report on them anymore. The trials aren’t quick affairs either. Much like our civilian courts, they don’t just happen. There are plenty of hearings involved—just think of it this way, when you have lawyers involved thing always move slower than one would like.

Your entire argument is premised on this act being about protecting civil rights. That is a talking point that is invalid. Does anyone read anymore? Read the darn act. It is not about civil rights for Americans!!! I will say this real s..l..o…w…l…y it is about codifying what American Intelligence has been doing since President Carter–intercepting foreign communications of known terrorists (on foreign soil). If this were about warrantless intercepts of Americans or persons on American Soil I could join your concern–it is not.

**************************************************
Now that I have made the point which some keep glossing over, let’s have some fun with your other points, shall we?

****
“Frankly, I am not too concerned about affording every single right to terrorists.” How exactly are you proposing we decide if they’re terrorists? Who gets to make that decision? The Constitution rarely makes a differentiation between “people” and “citizens” and I don’t think that’s by accident. All people, not just citizens, are entitled to civil rights. The Constitution does not protect foreigners conducting terror acts on foreign soil. Likewise, if persons engage in terror activities as enemy combatants, i.e. not following the Geneva conventions on conducting war–they get no protections under Geneva, nor do they enjoy the same protections as American citizens. So, it is decided by their own conduct and if they choose to engage in war lawfully, i.e. wearing a uniform, declaring war openly, etc….obviously, terrorists don’t play by the rules and get treated accordingly. They are not American citizens. If our embassy in Syria gets bombed by Al Qaeda, can you seriously tell me that you want those murderers to get 4th and 6th Amendment rights conferred on them? If so, I have some ocean front property in Nebraska that I want to sell you.

*****
““Civilian Courts are not victim friendly.” They’re not defendant friendly either, only prosecution friendly. Frankly, the judges in this community couldn’t spell neutral, they all think they’re part of the prosecution team. So you really shouldn’t worry too much about them coming into the civilian courts. They don’t have a prayer of an acquittal. Let’s propose to bring them here. ”

No one is suggesting bringing terror suspects into State Courts in Idaho. That is ridiculous. But while we are on the topic, take a look at the liberal judges in town: Brent Moss–sentences sex offenders to prison only 9% of the time; Joel Tingey-gives sex offender from Dubois a 6 yr. prison term, concurrent to the 7 yr. federal term–thus, the guy won’t serve one day of seperate state time. Our judges are not on the prosecution side in this area. That shows me and others that you don’t really know what you are talking about on this issue.

*****

““The trials aren’t quick affairs either. Much like our civilian courts, they don’t just happen. There are plenty of hearings involved—just think of it this way, when you have lawyers involved thing always move slower than one would like.” Sounds like here. When there isn’t evidence enough to convict at trial, delay, delay, delay. That way, the guy will cop a plea to anything just to put an end to it, guilty or not. Darn those lawyers, just can’t get them to play the game and convict on accusation. We should send them our local defense attorney directory. That’ll cure it. Those guys will be pled out by Friday. And who, exactly is “one” in your “things always move slower than one would like”? Personally, I think it should take as long as it takes to get at the truth. Oh, drat, there’s those pesky civil rights again – a speedy AND PUBLIC trial. What’s a guy to do?”

Unbelievable. IMO, you are an apologist for defense lawyers. Ever wonder why Kimball Mason’s trial took so long? I suppose that was the Prosecution just stringing things out to get Mason on the hook….if you want to give terrorists the same rights as Americans come out and say it. Don’t hide your real contempt for the military tribunals and President Bush using the cover of civil rights. That is NOT what the Protect America Act is all about. Maybe if you spent more time thinking for yourself and read the actual law, rather than talking points by the likes of Nancy Pelosi you wouldn’t be making statements that make absolutely no sense.

BTW–007, I am intentionally issuing a Blown Out of Proportion Alert–but for the poster above who is out to lunch.

Good post Nemisis.
I understand that many of these guys held at Gitmo are terrorists….(or suspected at least),and I have no sympathy for these people, but there are also many there that aren’t. But because they knew somebody or may have associated with a suspected terrorist at one point of their life, they’ve been held there. I also think its important that we abide by the Geneva Convention especially since our country feels the need to “Police the world”.

“if you want to give terrorists the same rights as Americans come out and say it. Don’t hide your real contempt for the military tribunals and President Bush using the cover of civil rights.”

Okay, Mike, I’m saying it. I want to give everyone the same rights as Americans.

4th Amendment – The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It says “people” not citizens. That’s everybody Mike, not just card-carrying Americans.

5th Amendment – No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It says “person” not citizens.

6th Amendment – In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

It says the “accused” which I would infer means any person, not just Americans.

What exactly do you think we’re doing in Iraq? (This should produce an interesting response). I thought we were there to help them establish a democracy like ours (is supposed to be). I have the greatest respect for President Bush. And I have none for terrorists. I absolutely agree with the need to ferret them out. I can respect President Bush without believing I need to give up my civil rights. That would make me someone who doesn’t vote on party affiliation only, an independent thinker. A rarity in this community, I believe. Republicans don’t like civil rights. Democrats do. Democrats don’t like the military. Republicans do. IN GENERAL. But I think there are folks out there like me. They have concerns from both sides of the party platforms.

My concern is the slippery slope. Your familiarity with the court system tells me you know exactly what that is. So, let me ask you again. Who gets to decide? What’s the absolute definition of a terrorist? Could its definition be twisted enough to rope someone in who doesn’t particularly qualify? Did you read the Readers Digest this month? The FBI set up four men for murder. They knew they weren’t murderers but they actively participated in getting them convicted. Two died in prison before the truth came out – 30 years later! So it’s absolutely possible that one or two people can use the term “terrorist” to go around the issues of civil rights to get someone for personal gain. Maybe your “one single judge” is familiar with the slippery slope. Maybe he’s met a few individuals he knows that if he gives them a loophole, they’ll drive an M1A1 through it. There are far too many law enforcement officers who take too many latitudes with civil rights and way too many attorneys and judges who let them get away with it. Once they cross the line, even just a tiny bit, it gets easier every time after that until you have a situation like the one above. “He didn’t really cross the yellow line but I’m sure he’s committing a crime so I pulled him over and lied about it so I could search his car.” “It wasn’t really in plain view but I said it was because he shouldn’t get away with a crime just because I didn’t have a warrant and I’m too lazy to go get one.” “It was only a tiny white lie I told in court but convicting him is more important than my keeping my oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” “You need to abide by the law, I don’t.”

You see, that’s the problem, Mike. Who gets to decide? With liberty and justice FOR ALL. The law can’t be written in a way that gives a person the latitude to start singling persons out or giving exceptions to persons on the say-so of one man. Absolute application to all people.

And I’m no apologist for lawyers. They’re the biggest bunch of hypocrites around. The prosecutors are supposed to care about justice, not convictions. Don’t they swear an oath to that? The defense attorneys are supposed to care about the rights of their clients, not their fees. So they bleed some poor guy for all the money they can get, take the prosecutor to lunch and cut a “deal” that is still way above what the guy should have been charged with in the first place. Truth and justice haven’t seen the inside of our courthouse for years – and both sides are at fault. And the neutrality of the courts. Puh-leeze!

You may think I’m off point, but I can only compare what I see on a local level to what I anticipate will happen on a national level. If it’s happening here, and it is, it will happen there. Maybe your “one single judge” knows that. Maybe he knows a defense attorney will use the fact that the communication may pass through the US and thus be challenged constitutionally for lack of a warrant and wants the law written in such a way as to close that loophole before someone drives a tank through it and lets a real terrorist go free on a technicality like that.

As I said, I have great respect for President Bush. I voted for him. And I despise people who use personal agendas like trashing the president to ignore or deny legislation that’s in our best interest, just because they want Obama or Hillary for President. God forbid! You say it is simply not the case that someone would use something they heard in the monitoring process to go after a citizen. How do you know? Because the reason they focused on the guy in the first place was never disclosed? Because they focused on him as a result of the wiretap and found something else they could use as their establishment of probable cause? That’s a mixed bag of tricks. I want criminals of all kinds brought to justice. And I mean exactly that – brought to justice. Not just convicted, but brought before a neutral court to answer for their crime through due process of law, using all rights and protections, with all considerations for his rights, and those of the victims and public, given full benefit. That’s what it’s supposed to be about, Mike. But it’s a utopian thought. It’s nice to think it might happen but it won’t. The law itself is perfect (or close), it’s the application that is flawed because mere mortals apply it and it becomes subject to their foibles and flaws and personal agendas. And there can’t always be perfect justice. A murderer may be convicted, but that doesn’t bring the victim back to life. But knowing that, we should still try. If there’s a loophole in the current legislation, it needs to be closed now. And once it’s closed, I’ll be the first one on the phone with my congressman giving them hell about the vote.

I don’t like what the terrorists are doing. This is a different kind of war we’re fighting. It’s a war about idealogy, not land. That’s new. But reducing ourselves to their level to fight them isn’t the solution. IMHO.

And in a sidenote on CR7’s comment, I don’t think we should be policing the world. I think we need to bring our behinds home and let the world take care of itself. I’m an isolationist, not a globalist. I realize that’s not a perfect view either, but I think we spend way too much time and money interfering in other countries’ business. There’s no perfect solution there either, as there are horrible things happening out there, but we’ve got some pretty horrible things happening at home too that need our time and attention for awhile. Give these countries a chance to do it themselves for awhile. I think as long as they think we’ll take care of it, they’ll let us. Our foreign policy looks way too much like our welfare system used to. Let’s put the same restrictions on them we put on our welfare recipients a few years back. We’ll help you out for a few years and then you’re on your own.

And now, I’ll go back “out to lunch.”

A most excellent rebuttal!!
Mike? comments….questions….antecdotes….BOP alerts???

I love this place!!!

Mike, I am absolutely delighted at your response in #33, thanks so much for stating your position while respecting mine. I think we have the same intentions overall, but differing viewpoints have us coming at it from separate angles.

I respect your right to disagree with me. I have never labored under the delusion that I am always right (oh, THAT’S a lie, come to think of it, I used to be absolutely convinced that I was always right)…but then, I aged.

Age will do that to a person’s convictions, if they’re open minded, it can lead to being willing to question your strongly held beliefs (or at the very least, being willing to listen to another’s equally strong beliefs) without prejudice.

Thanks again for the opportunity to dialogue with you!

Thanks for your words of comfort hoagster.

In October, the Supreme Court turned away an ACLU challenge to the “state secrets” doctrine on behalf of a German car salesman, Khalid al-Masri, who said he was wrongly abducted, imprisoned and tortured by the CIA in a case of mistaken identity.

In November, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a legal challenge to NSA eavesdropping from the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation. This is the group you referenced that had phone logs maintained on them. This case is no longer open either. And there was no indication of wiretapping on billing records. If the Foundation had transcripts of phone calls perhaps that would be prima facia evidence of wiretaps….it didn’t happen. Keep fishing. Please get your facts straight. We wouldn’t want “misinformation” out there.

Billing records are not the same as active live wiretaps. Billing records are normal business records maintained during the course of business and are kept by telecom companies regardless of the government’s interest in the records. Thus, if telecoms want to cooperate and give records to the government–they can do so. There is no 4th Amendment violation of one’s rights. There is no criminal violation. Anyone can (and will) sue under civil provisions…i.e., the trial lawyers. However, case law is settled on phone records (see US vs. Miller below). Citations provided for your research. I know because I completed this research for a project I work on.

Re: the 4th Amendment: The Amendment protects private conversations, Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). It does not cloak information, even highly personal information, for which there is no individual justifiable expectation of privacy, such as telephone company records of calls made to and from an individual’s home, Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), or bank records of an individual’s financial dealings, United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976).
*****

The point is also about immunity, not amnesty, for telecoms. And yes, cooperation from telecoms is vitally important to National Security…the government cannot conduct meaningful intelligence gathering to protect Americans without this cooperation. With cooperation, you have no intelligence. Thus, the President is correct to tie immunity to the Act.

I too apologize if these points have been made before but I couldn’t let the hoagster get away with attempts to cloud the issue with ACLU talking points.

Nice point, Nemesis,
That has been my discomfort with this site for some time now and I often don’t join a “debate” for that very reason.

Let’s make a few comparisons;

There are millions of Muslims around the world whose foundation of belief is centered in the Koran. These folks live peaceably and enjoy a healthy debate on certain issues within the Koran.

There are millions of Americans whose foundation of belief is centered in the United States Constitution. These folks live peaceably and enjoy a healthy debate on certain issues within the Constitution, most notably the right to free speech and to one’s opinion.

There is a smaller group of Muslims around the world whose foundation of belief is centered in the same Koran mentioned above. These folks believe that if you do not blindly adopt their point of view, based on cherry-picked selections from the Koran, without comment or question, you must be absolutely annihilated. This would be the same war of ideology mentioned in my previous post.

There is a smaller group of Americans whose foundation of belief is cherry-picked from portions of the Constitution. They believe only in their own right to freedom of speech. These folks, some of whom “debate” on this site, believe that if you do not blindly accept their point of view, without comment or question, you must be absolutely annihilated.

I asked above for a definitive definition of terrorist.

Currently, the term “terrorist” is applied to the use of force most often on the basis of whether the speaker agrees with the goal of the violence. Hence the expression “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” From the Daily Diatribe. So basically even the definition of a terrorist is confined to one’s point of view. Too often on this site, “if your point of view doesn’t coincide with mine, you will be annihilated.”

What is the definition of debate? A discussion involving opposing points. We certainly can’t have a discussion if we’re all supposed to have the same point of view.

When an officer doesn’t have a warrant, he asks (or he’s supposed to) for consent to search. When consent is denied, he invariably asks if you don’t have anything to hide, why not give consent? Because I don’t want to. It’s private. The same applies with this wiretap business. The argument will run that if you have nothing to hide, you won’t object to being eavesdropped on. Bull pucky. I don’t have anything to hide but I still want my privacy.

Mike has argued that this thread is more about the immunity for telecoms as their records are public information. I say bull pucky again. I can’t exactly check books out of the library which are illegal to read, but I still don’t want the government reviewing my checkout record. Libraries are civic facilities, but my checkout record shouldn’t be open record.

I haven’t spoken to any terrorists on the phone lately, at least I don’t think I have, but I still don’t want my phone company handing over my phone record to the government. Who I speak with is my business, not theirs. Nor do I want them listening in to see what I’m talking about and with whom.

It’s that slippery slope again. Who gets to choose where we draw the line? First it will be with foreign nationals on both ends of the line, then foreign nationals on one end and U.S. citizens on the other, then U.S. citizens on both ends.

As an example, I remember when the stink hit the fan when Barbara Eden bared her belly button on television. (I Dream of Jeannie for our younger readers) And now we have Dennis Franz’ bare butt on prime time televion, sex, nudity, violence, foul language. We didn’t get there overnight, but we did get there.

Most of our readers don’t know what “standing” means. (Comment #35) Standing is when one has the right to object to something. So, in the eyes of the law, it may be illegal, but if one does not possess the right to object, have standing, it can still be ruled as admissible evidence.

Wow….well said Another Guest.

Mikes solution is to drop out of society drop off the grid if we want to protect our rights.

1 What if no local phone company offers that option?

2 Since no phone companys have admitted helping the feds this way how are we to know who is and who is not?

3 Forfeit all benefits of normal service to protect my rights. Geee ya think the terrorists are using prepaid phones? Why dont the govermt just monitor those?

4 Stop using clel service altogether. What a magnificently brilliant idea. I’m an innocent american but to protect my rights I must forfeit my rights.

If they all share our information illegally, how can we vote with our pocketbook?

Typical circular logic.

Yes, I appreciate the fact that Americans want to protect their privacy. I share those same convictions. However, this entire article has been about collecting FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE. Several posters here have drug in domestic surveillance into the debate. The point is that foreign intelligence targets don’t have “Alltel” accounts. They have overseas accounts and their carriers merely use existing infrastructure to route and switch calls. The practice of gathering foreign intelligence on foreign subjects should be a no-brainer (in my book).

Americans want privacy. Fine. However, we also want to prevent terror attacks before they happen–and before innocent lives are lost…and military resources have to be committed after the fact. The Protect America Act has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. That is the confusion being perpetrated by uninformed posters. Look at the Act…it is about codifying common intelligence gathering practices that have been occurring for the last 30 years–well before the Patriot Act came along. The old saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” comes into play here. Based on one judge feeling that foreign subjects constitutional protections for calls made outside the US…and not even made to a US location….by merely passing through phone routing stations electronically, this Judge severely interrupted the ability of the American Intelligence apparatus to collect and analyze sensitive data that assisted in protecting America and her allies from attacks. Like I said before, IMO, you don’t extend the 4th Amendment to callers talking to each other in Iran, Jordan, Egypt, etc….now, if one of the parties is in the US, then that is a different story–and the Foreign Intelligence Act Court would need to be involved to seek a warrant authorizing collection of information.

Overall, this is a good Act. It assists our intelligence professionals keeping us safe and allowing us to live our lives with a reduced threat of being blown up or killed in some horrific type of attack. So, my earlier suggestions were more for Domestic situations. If some posters are so paranoid to think the government is listening into their communications, no one is forcing them to use standard phone communications. Like I said, show me one case where individuals have been convicted, or even tried, for evidence obtained illegally….there isn’t one to be found.

The Protect America Act deserves to be voted on. Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Leadership in the House will have no excuses to give to the families of dead Americans if an attack is successful. This is a common sense act that will keep us safe. This should not be turned into a political football….and it should not be confused with DOMESTIC intelligence activities. Plain and simple, they are not the same activities as some paranoid folks on the far left or right would have you believe.

Thank you for the forum… great discussion! I apologize if I end up being a one-time poster, but I couldn’t help adding my opinion.

I believe in overseas wiretapping for wartime intelligence; I do not believe that electronic routing of communications within the US, between exclusively overseas parties, causes those communcations to become officially domestic.

I do not believe that retroactive immunity for illegal wiretapping inside the United States should be connected to the Protect America Act. To connect the two is to provide a potential of future such abuses. The attitude of, “do it now and get retroactive immunity later”, as a political tactic, will create more problems.

I believe we should pass the PAA free of retroactive immunity clause. We can argue the telcom immunity issue separately.

Thank you, everyone!

The Inspector General’s Audit occurred in two phases 2003-2005 and 2006. There has been no audit of activities in 2007 as Joe stated in his mail. The 2007 audit is in the works. Ashcroft WAS part of the problem that led to the culture of abuses that were allowed to continue. He cannot be dismissed as a major contributor to abuses perpetrated (and condoned) under his tenure.

After the FBI fouled up with Zacharias Moussaui and failed to follow-up on information pre-9/11 there have been some over reaches on the use of National Security Letters. It strikes up debate on legitimate investigative perogative of field agents and supervisors not reigning in agents for fear of failing to detect another pending attack.

To dismiss a law used by other American Intelligence Agencies because of some abuses by some FBI field offices is an over reaction. It is also dangerous. Do we have to wait until we are hit again to implement Patriot Act, Part II? And one has to ask themselves, if another attack occurs, could it lead to more draconian measures, even martial law, that would envitably be supported by the American Public. Is this the outcome that we want? IMO, it is not. It is the old argument of paying a little bit now to get more later. In this case, the little bit is allowing surveillance and monitoring to occur in arenas overseas, between foreign parties, without judicial interference. All the while, FISA protections must be enforced on calls made to American citizens on American soil. You don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater as Joe has suggested in this case. That is dangerous and I would argue this would do more harm to our civil liberties over the long run.