Careful what you say...

Lisa is busy putting forth the "Clinton did it too" defense below. Ummm...so what? If it's wrong, it's wrong. Here is a link to the transcript of the CBS interview about project Echelon.

Regarding our conversation yesterday regarding how the intel community is only looking to protect us from terrorists--was Princess Diana a terrorist?

Oh and there is oversight by Congress for the NSA, but the NSA doesn't like to cooperate...

How can you all be OK with this?

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

Comments

[Lisa]

This is also on my post:

First of all Chris...it's not an excuse....I bring it up because the democrats are a bunch of hypocrites. The jump up and down and scream foul when Bush does this to protect our country.. but never said a word when Clinton was doing it.

And the reason I bring up the foreign companies is because he was so focused on using Echelon to spy on corporations for money reasons when he should have been focused on the terrorists planning the 9/11 attacks.

Oh, but wait... it was all Bush's fault.

[JFH]

"If it's wrong, it's wrong"... Well, I don't think it's wrong and it's definately not unconstitutional. Look this outrage about domestic spying for national security reasons is a post-Watergate thing. The key is to continue to review and allow Congressional oversite which was and will be happening.

[USMC Steve]

Chris, what is the basis for your comment about NSA not wanting to cooperate with the Congressional oversight officials?

They have no choice but to cooperate or bad bad things will happen, among them funding cuts and other incentives to play along.

What brought on your comment about Princess Diana also? Substantiation please?

[Bombtruck]

Interestingly enough, the 9/11 Commission, the same commission the MSM holds up as above everything short of the Apostles, made reference to the "slowness" of the FISA court in allowing monitoring of suspected terrorists covertly.

This is getting ridiculous. NO ONE FROM THE NSA IS SPYING ON YOU UNLESS YOU ARE PENNING LOVE LETTERS TO BIN LADEN!!!!

[USMC Steve]

Bombtruck, that is what I have been saying, but apparently no one cares to hear me. At least you get the obvious. What do I know, I only did the spook thing for 20 years.

[Bombtruck]

Like I said yesterday, if the Government wants to come after Joe American, they use the IRS, not the NSA, unless you're sending your tax returns to Tehran.

[Bombtruck]

http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html

"The government had long maintained that it had extensive discretion to conduct wiretapping or physical searches in order to protect national security. In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court acknowledged that the President had claimed special authority for warrantless surveillance in national security investigations, and explicitly declined to extend its holding to cases "involving the national security." Id. at 358 n. 23. Similarly, Congress in Title III stated that "nothing in Title III shall . . . be deemed to limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the United States against the overthrow of the Government by force or other unlawful means, or against any other clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the Government."

[hollabackdave]

They shouldn't have done it. I don't trust that whatever good intentions may have been at the heart of it will remain over the long haul. I definitely see it as a slippery slope. I feel the same way about DNA databases. Not everything in life is guaranteed. There's always risk. I don't see a significant benefit for giving up some of these freedoms.

[JFH]

Dave: "I don't see a significant benefit for giving up some of these freedoms."

Me: If the program was reviewed every 45 days with Congress (which was put in place to prevent the slippery slope argument); I'll bet they DID see some specific benefits they just can't be revealed because of the secrecy of the information. BTW, until you start making or receiving phone calls from TERRORISTS, you haven't given up any freedoms.

[hollabackdave]

And who defines terrorists? Say I have a relative in a militia in Montana, which is on some federal watch list. Should my calls be monitored? What about anti-abortion radicals? Don't they employ terrorist-type tactics? It's o.k. to spy on them, too? What about bullies at school? They terrorize other kids. And the neighbor with the loud, large dog that goes nuts everytime you leave the house? That could be considered terrorizing. I know this stuff sounds ridiculous now, but there are already anti-bully movements under way. We have hate crimes. How impossible is it to think that crimes based on race or sexual orentation couldn't eventually be considered acts of terrorism? And then we could justify spying on those offenders, too. Is it too far out of the realm of possiblility to think that someday saying "Merry Christmas" to an unsuspecting bystander could be considered an act of terrorism? Where's it end? I think the slope is a little more slippery than we're aware.

[USMC Steve]

Dave, this is not just about terrorism, but terrorism was added to the provisions that have been in place since the 1970's when dealing with foreign governments and their agencies. The original application was to go after any government or individual who was inimical to the interests of the United States. Thus, yes, domestic terrorists could also be included, and have been eligible from the start. Those militia groups you describe are under the surveillance of the FBI and have been for over two decades. The intelligence community was not and is not now involved with them unless they are dealing with someone outside the US who IS being watched by the intel community. All those domestic groups you mention are the purview of the FBI and they have the mandate to track and observe them. There aren't enough resources to do them and all the threats from outside the country as well, again unless they are dealing with enemy entities outside the US.

[Chris]

Seriously, I didn't say that they were spying on me--what I said was this was a violation of law as I understood it. Now--today we find out that the FBI is monitoring groups like the Catholic Workers and PETA and Greenpeace--within the US under the expansion of the FBI's rules that were instituted under Ashcroft--too much cutting edge stuff and pushing the envelope going on here--and apparently at least two of the Dems voiced concerns which the administration chose to not respond to--change the laws if you need to but you can't violate the existing one

[Lisa]

Hey USMC... I heard you and got what you were saying the first time you said it baby. The government just doesn't have time nor the interest in listening to all of our phone conversations unless we are calling some suspected terrorist. I said yesterday, they are more than welcome to listen to my mother's daily telephone lectures to me on my messy house.

[JFH]

Thanks for the back-up Steve... yeah, I should have said INTERNATIONAL terrorists.

And Dave, please don't play the semantical game of using a lexicological argument of how "terrorist" is defined. This term is very well defined in the law.

[JFH]

Chris, I think that post 9-11 the pendulum has merely swung back to a more reasonable level as post-Nixon we allowed our hands to be tied down too much when it came to domestic spying...

[Chris]

JFH--but law is affected by politics and the conservative movement is changing the language of the debate--in Bill O'Reilly's world gang bangers are terrorists and should be subject to anti-terror legislation--it isn't all that far fetched...and now that the walls between CIA and FBI are down--the definition of terrorist is not all that well defined...

[hollabackdave]

I'm not simply arguing semantics. I'm saying it's possible that some non-conformist group that doesn't draw the wrath of the majority today can become a terrorist group tomorrow because the majority doesn't like and/or agree with that group.

[Lisa]

No Dave...just only if that non-comforist group is into killing people and blowing up buildings.

[Chris]

Why is it you people don't know enough to be afraid of a state with too much power? You are all smart--scary smart some of you--you all seem to have a really good grasp of history--so what gives? Is it just that you think Americans wouldn't do such a thing? That we know better and will always act in a moral way when it comes to this stuff? I really don't understand how you can't see it--wait, just for a second imagine a democrat was in the WHite House with a Democratic House and Senate? Do you see it now? :0)

[USMC Steve]

Because Chris, that is why we have elected officials in Washington, who WE elected to do these jobs. I have more intimate knowledge of this particular matter, and I just am not all that aroused and alarmed about it. I have faith in the actions of my fellow intel weinies.

There is a significant difference in the usage of the intercept you are so worried about. There has always been a difference between intelligence collection FOR INTELLIGENCE AND COUNTERINTELLIGENCE purposes, as opposed to usage for LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PROSECUTION purposes. The statutes very clearly disallow any usage of classified intelligence collection methods and information for legal purposes under the FISA statutes. If the FBI wants to spook on you with the purpose of arresting and throwing you in jail, the regular laws still apply. And much of these laws were not only overseen by democrats, but put in place by them. So your slightly spastic analogy of "what if the dems were doing it to republicans" is not going to wash.

The fact of the matter is this simple. IF WE GO BACK TO THE PRE 9-11 INTELLIGENCE METHODS AND ORGANIZATIONS, PEOPLE WILL DIE.

If our elected wise men do the job we elected and paid them to do, they will ensure no one runs roughshod over the public, but just remember, they are the ones who passed and put into place much of what you are so worried about, so where does that leave us? We put them in there, and they can do whatever they want to do, really.

[USMC Steve]

Chris, just how would you define a domestic terrorist?

From where I sit, the Crips and the Bloods are just that. They murder people at random, commit assassinations, intimidate those who would be witnesses against them or inform on them, terrorize entire communities, traffic in weapons of all kinds, steal, run drugs to finance their intimidation, extortion, and other illegal and immoral enterprises, answer to no legally constituted government, and are basically autonomous groups controlling significant amounts of turf where they are the supreme authority. And they are utterly amoral and capable of anything. Compare and contrast them with the PLO, Al Qaeda, etc, and there are many similarities. And that would apply to many of the well organized and armed gangs of any ethnic persuasion or nationality out there as well.

[Lisa]

OK Chris... pick one..which would you rather have.

1. Laws that do not allow the intelligence community to tap phones of those living in this country who are in contact with known terrorists.

or

2. Another 9/11.

Because these are the only choices you have. Because of the laws of the Patriot Act..numerous plots for terrorist attacks have been stopped in this country.

So you tell me which you want.

[HC]

It is the court's job to determine who should be wiretap. How do I know that I am not being wired tapped, because I think Bush is a failure as a President? Maybe Bush thinks any who disagrees with him is a terrorist. This illegal wiretapping is violation of my civic rights. Maybe the cowards of the Right are willing to hand on our Civic Rights, but I am not ever going agree to hand my Civic Rights over to any Tyrant that promises me protection. This illegal wiretapping is just another assault on the American Way of life by this administration. If you think I am nuts, then explain his banning any one who disagrees with him from any Public Appearance that he made during his Presidency.

Bush did not use 911 to justify giving the military all available resources to capture Bin Labin, but he has used 911 to justify an Illegal Preempt War on Iraq and the cowards on the right approve.

Bush did not use 911 to justify the completion the purchase of loose nukes, but Bush used 911 to justify the imprisonment an American Citizen without trial and the cowards on the right approve.

Bush did not use 911 justify an Apollo Program for Energy Independence, but he used 911 to justify torture and the cowards on the right approve.

Bush did not use 911 to justify securing our ports, he has used 911 to justify illegal wiretaps, and the cowards on the right approve.

My question to those on the right: What is next Illegal Action by this Administration that you willing to endorse for the illusion of security?

[hollabackdave]

Lisa, the Patriot Act is hardly a guarantee against another 9/11. I think part of the reason we've been fortunate not to have another incident like that is because finding 19 people to commit suicide at the same time is not the easiest thing to do. I also think that the best strategy in the long run is to continue to see democracies emerge throughout the world. As people begin to gain a better understanding and appreciation for freedom, as they see that life is someting special and that they're part of something bigger than themselves, then they'll be less inclined to blow themselves up. I believe that with every free election in Iraq, they move more in that direction.

For me, stuff like the Patriot Act does nothing to further the conversation about what truly needs to change and what's really important. It just continues an us vs. them perspective that needs to change. I don't think I should have to give up personal liberty to further that agenda.

[Chris]

USMC Steve--ok the reference to what if the Dems did it was sarcasm...

and you just proved my point--whatever the Bloods and the Crips may or may not be the new terror laws for foreign terrorists can not apply to them--or at least to those who are citizens. Timothy McVeigh was a domestic terrorist and we dealt with him using laws and we insured his rights--almost except for the documents the FBI withheld from the trial--so you see even with all the safeguards in place the State still screws around--so--thank you for the eloquent demonstration--

Dave--stick around please--it is nice to see someone fighting with USMC Steve that hasn't resulted in name calling :0)