BlogBlurb - NSA
Bush-approved [warrantless] eavesdropping took place during phone calls originating outside our borders.
American citizens are subject to warrantless searches all the time.
Airport TSA searches, questioning and detaining at border points of entry, random DUI roadblocks. These all constitute a warrantless search on behalf of the executive branch, and occur daily without report from the press.
Imagine the outrage if another full-scale attack occurred and it was made known that the administration had the ability to listen in on international calls made to known terror suspects... but did nothing.
Think about it.
posted by Mr. Ed at 8:01 AM
7 Comments:
If our rights are not protected then we'll become a dictatorship. We need warrants or King Bush will be video taping our every movements. Ultimately that's what he really wants imperialism and total control.
I agree that our rights ought to be carefully protected. But upon what can you base that ridiculous statement? Both Carter and Clinton used warrantless surveillance in national security concerns spanning 25 years.
The FISA court (with real judges) has been established to provide oversight of these orders, retroactively granting warrants. Only 7 of nearly 2,000 orders were ever rescinded.
So where does your rhetoric find it's substance?
I think the way the warrantless searches is set up, it's intent is to protect our greater good. If Bush was really abusing executive rights our very willing congress will check him. What makes our country great is our freedoms and we need to protect them all, but responsibility comes with freedom. If we don't have some faith in those in power that they're using proper responsiblity one of the foundations of our freedoms will be no longer. If we have to make laws for every little thing we no longer have freedom but a dictatorship.
Ian I agree with you, we need an extreme set of checks and balances for good ole boy Bush. Mr. Ed in response to your comment of Clinton and Carter, they never abused their rights like Bush did. The King to be respectful but if we had faith in Tom Delay or Frist, how far would they have taken advantage of our system?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I originally messed up some info on my comment, so I deleted and reposted this one.
This is quite a long post; in fact, I'm considering just placing a Rant on the main page. Meanwhile, read my responses here. I’ve put some major research into this. Great discussion guys, keep it up!
a.) Niles, Frist called for an initial investigation, but considering that congress was briefed on these warrantless intrusions 13 times makes it hard to call for an investigation into something you knew about. They know it's legal within defined perameters, and that's what the FISA court is about, guys. As far as faith in Delay, I'm there with you. But how can I trust lying Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi either? I guess I'm a cynic in general, or maybe just too informed... Frist himself has done nothing wrong.
b.) How can you say that Clinton never abused his power as President? How many "gates" did he dance through? , Whitewater, Filegate (IRS), FBI-gate, Monica (Perjury), traveltate, Cattlegate, most dangerous of all-Chinagate...
In fact, my latest Misgiving is a diatribe into how Clinton's Administration abused it's power, and is doing so as we speak.
By mid-December 2000, President Clinton had issued 347 executive orders, which have far-reaching consequences. Among these, there were 80 classified Presidential Decision Directives (PDDs) mandating secret, unilateral executive actions that impact most Americans.
Clinton added a new dimension to these secret PDDs, which are not published anywhere – not even Congress is privy to them.
1.) One of them, PDD-25, assigned U.S. troops to serve under foreign U.N. commanders. Clinton signed it in 1994. On the basis of PDD-25, U.S. Army Specialist Michael New was court-martialed and discharged for refusing to wear a U.N. uniform without the U.S. flag on a U.N. mission.
2.) Another one established that U.N. treaties supersede the laws of the United States.
3.) In another secret order, the details of which are not known because they have not been made public, U.N. personnel are protected from civil or criminal prosecution for violation of U.S.
4.) Supported the U.N. notion of an International Criminal Court (ICC), a tribunal that could potentially prosecute Americans with international laws while operating on U.S. soil.
5.) One allowed the Clinton administration to bomb and wage war on Yugoslavia (i.e., executive orders 13119, 13120, 12846, 12934, etc.) without having Congress declare war, as required by the Constitution.
6.) PDD-62, issued on the pretext of fighting terrorism, grants the FBI the power to maintain surveillance on Second Amendment groups and civic organizations opposed to the U.N., as well as "extremist" Christian fundamentalist groups.
7.) PDD-63, supposedly signed to prevent unauthorized access to government computers, instead allows executive agencies to spy on the electronic communications of private citizens using the Internet.
8.) Executive Order 13107, issued on December 4, 2000, sets aside 84 million acres in the Pacific Ocean, the largest protected area in the U.S. territories, preventing fishing (commercial and recreational) and the much-needed oil drilling that can be carried out in this largely desolate area.
9.) With Executive Orders 13087 and 13132, President Clinton attempted to revoke our revered system of federalism and infringe on the 10th Amendment, which prevents the federal government from arrogating powers from the states granted to them by the U.S. Constitution.
10.) In the midst of "filegate" Clinton approved the confiscation of 900 illegally requested FBI files for the IRS - all of which were of Republicans. The random audits proved no wrongdoing, but who knows what else was done with the info.
11.) Executive orders restricting property rights (13061, 12852)
12.) Clinton even used an executive order (13045) to revoke a Reagan executive order intended to protect families from government bureaucracies and regulations.
13.) In an exceedingly rare act, the courts once even reacted by striking down one of President Clinton's executive orders.
Clinton is only the second president in history to have an executive order declared unconstitutional. (1996 Ex. order for labor unions)
All these decisions were made without the approval of the legislative powers that be.
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt was quoted in the Washington Times on June 14, 1999, as saying, "We've switched the rules of the game. We're not trying to do anything legislatively." Congress is just too slow, I guess.
_______________________________
While my latest Misgiving outlines the Clinton's knack for dragging out litigation and hindering the investigations and their access to files, Bush and Reagan did the opposite. President Ronald Reagan ordered Attorney General Edwin Meese III to waive all privilege during the Iran-contra investigation. Bush told the Attorney General and his entire White House staff to tell "everything reasonable" to Pat Fitzgerald. So much was revealed in fact, that the only indictment to come out of that (thin as it was) was on a matter totally unrelated to the original investigation. If anything, they were TOO open. (go figure)
In 1972, during the final reaches Viet Nam war, the Supreme Court ruled that the executive branch had authority to conduct "eavesdropping" searches in conjunction with the NSA when it was believed that the subjects posed a clear and present danger (not the Clancy novel) to the national security of the United States. Liberals, especially in conversation regardint the nomination and confirmation of future-Justice Alito, are quick assert that court cases be law-binding when it suits their interest (read: Roe v. Wade, 1973) but open to interpretation when they feel they can gain politically from it. We hear about the "potential" for civil liberties abuses under teh auspices of the Patriot Act or NSA "spying" although they have yet to provide one law abiding citizen who can even suspect that his/her civil liberties have be violated as part these measures. Of course, the media has proven that is more than willing to jump on any story, true or not, that stands to promote the liberal agenda. (read: Rathergate) Its not suprising that FOX dominates the cable news circuit. People are simply fed up with the liberal spin doctors. Its the same old tired song and dance.
Post a Comment
<< Home