Public has no right to view documents on warrantless wiretapping

[Oliver]

I just read about the latest decision regarding the warrantless
Wiretapping documents at MSNBC:

Spy court won't release eavesdropping docs
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22203707/) Finds public has no right to view documents on warrantless wiretapping

Now taking the thousands of probable Terrorists within and beyond
the US Borders into account, I fully agree that the American Public
surely doesn't deserve any information from "Me, the Government".

After all - and this might surprise you: "Sorry, national security info".
Personally I think it's pretty amusing reading about it on the other
side of the planet - but what about you? What do you think - and
what did the "We safe you!"-Democrats :rolleyes: do about it?

And as a topic-related, funny joke: Rudi08! *lol*

[Undesired Walrus]

Land of the Free indeed.

[Oliver]

Land of the Free indeed.


How so? :confused:

[Undesired Walrus]

/sarcasm]

[WildCat]

How so? :confused:
Because if the government has secrets that means it's not a free country. For example, in Germany you can ask the government all about their clandestine activities, and they will publish a detailed article on it on the front page of Die Welt revealing all of their methods and sources. But the US has secrets they won't reveal, therefore it's really a dictatorship.

[Oliver]

Because if the government has secrets that means it's not a free country. For example, in Germany you can ask the government all about their clandestine activities, and they will publish a detailed article on it on the front page of Die Welt revealing all of their methods and sources. But the US has secrets they won't reveal, therefore it's really a dictatorship.


That's not quite correct. If we had warrantless wiretapping over here,
the press would go wild about it - and the people as well. We don't
have a Fox-like media that says: "Oh, come on - we are Reps,
everything is okay".

Anyway: You seem to be fine with your Governments policies
regarding domestic spying - no matter if Terrorists, Politicians
or the Press is targeted....

At least you have some guts to hold that opinion. :)

[KoihimeNakamura]

.. yo missed his point. Asking the US To reveal it's intelligence secrets /may be a bad idea/

However, you didn't ask him if he thought it was bad. You simply presumed that he thinks it it isn't.

[Oliver]

.. yo missed his point. Asking the US To reveal it's intelligence secrets /may be a bad idea/

However, you didn't ask him if he thought it was bad. You simply presumed that he thinks it it isn't.


Nope - the point is: "YOU!..." , literally "You, the people" are not allowed
to know what your government is doing with your rights. They declare
"National Security" every time it's getting nasty.

This has nothing to do with National Security - it has something
to do with "SHUT UP, CITIZEN!".


Funny that you actually excuse the misuse of your right to know
about your rights.

Skeptical? - No, that doesn't seem to be accurate concerning some
people in here.

[Darth Rotor]

Skeptical? - No, that doesn't seem to be accurate concerning some
people in here.
Like Oliver.

DR

[Oliver]

Like Oliver.

DR


Indeed. Point out how this is democratically/constitutionally in
any way to shut up the public -aka: You.

You really don't care?

[Kestrel]

Because if the government has secrets that means it's not a free country. For example, in Germany you can ask the government all about their clandestine activities, and they will publish a detailed article on it on the front page of Die Welt revealing all of their methods and sources. But the US has secrets they won't reveal, therefore it's really a dictatorship.

In this case, the secret is the process for assuring that the government does not spy on American citizens. The FISA law currently on the books specifies that it is the sole process for making such decisions. The new secret process replaces the process mandated by law.

THe question is, when did we become a society ruled by secret decree instead of by law?

[Darth Rotor]

Indeed. Point out how this is democratically/constitutionally in
any way to shut up the public -aka: You.

You really don't care?
My comment was regarding your remark that other persons were not skeptical. I find your making that comment ironic in the extreme. You are a walking, talking example of confirmation bias in action.

Also, I'd like to ask you about that last sentence: is that a question or a statement? If it is a statement, you are wrong, if it is a question, why did you ask it?

DR

[Oliver]

My comment was regarding your remark that other persons were not skeptical. I find your making that comment ironic in the extreme. You are a walking, talking example of confirmation bias in action.

Also, I'd like to ask you about that last sentence: is that a question or a statement? If it is a statement, you are wrong, if it is a question, why did you ask it?

DR


It's a honest question. Do you care or not?
You should be more skeptical concerning those issues affecting
your very own person.

So why don't you care? Are you really giving up any right of
transparency whenever the current government says: "You
don't deserve transparency - national security."

Are you THAT gullible? :confused:

[Tailgater]

It's a honest question. Do you care or not?
You should be more skeptical concerning those issues affecting
your very own person.

So why don't you care? Are you really giving up any right of
transparency whenever the current government says: "You
don't deserve transparency - national security."

Are you THAT gullible? :confused:

Why should he mix emotion and skepticism?

[Beerina]

.. yo missed his point. Asking the US To reveal it's intelligence secrets /may be a bad idea/

That is, of course, not the real issue. There exists a secret court to issue warrants to wiretap, in normal situations. What they do is reviewed by Congress, in secret, but it is not revealed publicly because, obviously, you don't want, say, a mob boss finding out the government is spying on him.

However, accountability remains, ultimately, via recording and Congressional oversight, which is to say, oversight by elected officials.

This situation is different. Nobody is doubting they are looking for terrorists. But we worry they are looking beyond that, perhaps to non-terrorist crimes, or, worse, into political or business opponents.

And that, in the long run, may be more harmful to the future of the country than some more 9/11 attacks.

[Policenaut]

This country and most powerful countries had and and still have secrets that the public would be outraged to find out about. The only difference is that now in the US you can almost assure total anonymity when releasing leaked info to the press and be sure that they will run just about anything. People really get their panties in a twist today regarding government secrets as if this is some new development that never happened in previous history. With technology it gets more pervasive. If the internet was around in the 60's you can bet the US and Russia would have been checking your emails.

[Darth Rotor]

It's a honest question. Do you care or not?
That the FISA court has made a ruling? I find that of considerable interest.
You should be more skeptical concerning those issues affecting
your very own person.
You think you can tell me what I "should do" and how I "should think" Oliver.

You are invited to play in the Autobahn.
So why don't you care?
I see. You ask a question, then you answer it yourself without waiting for my answer. You presume falsely, again.
Are you really giving up any right of transparency whenever the current government says: "You don't deserve transparency - national security."
I took the time to read the original FISA law about two years ago. On another board, I had some interesting discussions. The court itself is a sound, Constitutionally sanctioned body. Some of the stunts the Bush administration have tried to pull on that law are, to me, reprehensible. What is supposed to happen is the court reviews operations that are explicitly spelled out in the law, with the intent of ensuring proper oversight without violating OPSEC, or any of hundreds of laws on the books that cover how one handles classified information.
Are you THAT gullible? :confused:
I bothered to inform myself of the law, and I have a profound objection to the short cuts that Bush and his team insisted had to be taken. Short summary, they were too lazy to do the proper staff work to comply with a law that, drafted in the 70's, allowed up to 72 hours to report on a variety of activities, after the fact.

The court is working as it should. I suggest you look up the law in question. All of it. It was a well considered law, explicitly crafted to balance the needs for security and oversight of the executive branch by a court. What Bush and his lads have done to try and get around it is, IMO, incorrect.

Let me ask you a question:

Are you really that ignorant?

And I'll answer it.

Yes, you are that ignorant, and willfully so.

(See, two people can play this game.)

DR

[Oliver]

That the FISA court has made a ruling? I find that of considerable interest.

You think you can tell me what I "should do" and how I "should think" Oliver.

You are invited to play in the Autobahn.

I see. You ask a question, then you answer it yourself without waiting for my answer. You presume falsely, again.

I took the time to read the original FISA law about two years ago. On another board, I had some interesting discussions. The court itself is a sound, Constitutionally sanctioned body. Some of the stunts the Bush administration have tried to pull on that law are, to me, reprehensible. What is supposed to happen is the court reviews operations that are explicitly spelled out in the law, with the intent of ensuring proper oversight without violating OPSEC, or any of hundreds of laws on the books that cover how one handles classified information.

I bothered to inform myself of the law, and I have a profound objection to the short cuts that Bush and his team insisted had to be taken. Short summary, they were too lazy to do the proper staff work to comply with a law that, drafted in the 70's, allowed up to 72 hours to report on a variety of activities, after the fact.

The court is working as it should. I suggest you look up the law in question. All of it. It was a well considered law, explicitly crafted to balance the needs for security and oversight of the executive branch by a court. What Bush and his lads have done to try and get around it is, IMO, incorrect.

Let me ask you a question:

Are you really that ignorant?

And I'll answer it.

Yes, you are that ignorant, and willfully so.

(See, two people can play this game.)

DR


I probably am - since I don't care about the actual text
of the law rather the intention of the law: "warrantless wiretapping".

So you're okay with that because the explanation for "warrantless
wiretapping" makes sense to you?

*lol* Okay, I accept that.

[Darth Rotor]

I probably am - since I don't care about the actual text
of the law rather the intention of the law: "warrantless wiretapping".

So you're okay with that because the explanation for "warrantless
wiretapping" makes sense to you?

*lol* Okay, I accept that.

When you found your argument on a sound byte, rather than an understanding of the law, your position exposes itself as pathetic.

Since you choose not to remedy your ignorance, you get to be called

Ignorant Oliver

for a while.

DR

[Oliver]

When you found your argument on a sound byte, rather than an understanding of the law, your position exposes itself as pathetic.

Since you choose not to remedy your ignorance, you get to be called

Ignorant Oliver

for a while.

DR


So be it. Run away...

[casebro]

Wasn't it posted on this site that Clinton used the "national security" dodge 275 times, while Bush II has only used it 75 times? Seems the 'administration' has ALWAYS used the fact to keep secrets hidden. There has always been a system to allow investigations in secret. Certainly we should be concerned with potential abuse. But aren't these allegations more political than 'legal'? Just another bit of muckraking by Bush haters?

[Oliver]

Wasn't it posted on this site that Clinton used the "national security" dodge 275 times, while Bush II has only used it 75 times? Seems the 'administration' has ALWAYS used the fact to keep secrets hidden. There has always been a system to allow investigations in secret. Certainly we should be concerned with potential abuse. But aren't these allegations more political than 'legal'? Just another bit of muckraking by Bush haters?


This isn't about Bush or Clinton - or Dem's and Rep's.
I give a **** about both things since I don't see a
difference between the Dem's and the Rep's opinion.
They're blabbering all day long about each other - but
act the same way.

So forget about that and rephrase your question.

[Oliver]

No other opinions besides the British voices in here? Anyone
actually able to be "skeptical" about the topic?

[Oliver]

'08 Dems Pressure Reid Over Wiretap Law (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/12/08-dems-pressure-reid-ov_n_76508.html)

[KoihimeNakamura]

.. OLiver, what is your objection to the FISA court?

[Undesired Walrus]

I'm consistently amazed how much information the security services release, and how open they are with sensitive details.

[Unabogie]

I don't necessarily have a problem with this decision. If the information is truly a matter of state secrets, there's a good reason to keep it from becoming public. The problem has never been the issue of secret wiretaps. It's the issue of warrants and following the LAW and the argument from the Bushies as to WHY they can bypass FISA and ignore a 30 year old law. They claim that a President does not have to obey laws, period. Any laws. So much so that the author of this horrid doctrine, John Yoo, went so far as to claim that the US could torture children as long as the President thought it a good plan.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/13/122210/473

FISA was enacted to prevent the kind of abuses that were revealed during Watergate (but had been perpetrated by past administrations since WW2). The theory was that if you created a revolving court which would force a President to reveal every subject of a wiretap, then he would be deterred from wiretapping his opponents or other dissidents (like the way MLK was treated).

As Bush has broken this law multiple times, he has in essence dared Congress to challenge this dangerous notion of a President beyond the law. We now see the results of a "Unitary Executive". Torture. Lawlessness. Corruption. War on false pretenses.

It was my opinion that the FISA violations alone warranted removal from office, and it's to Pelosi's shame that she has failed in her duty on this.

[Yalius]

And that, in the long run, may be more harmful to the future of the country than some more 9/11 attacks.

Wow. That might be the closest I've ever seen to someone saying, "I'd prefer the deaths of 10,000 people to letting someone read my mail."

[KoihimeNakamura]

"Those who give up freedom for safety deserve neither."

[fuelair]

In this case, the secret is the process for assuring that the government does not spy on American citizens. The FISA law currently on the books specifies that it is the sole process for making such decisions. The new secret process replaces the process mandated by law.

THe question is, when did we become a society ruled by secret decree instead of by law?
When certain persons made the mistake of voting for (and covering for) a world class fool and it's handlers. I am proud to say I did not do that.

[sinclairmcevoy]

When certain persons made the mistake of voting for (and covering for) a world class fool and it's handlers. I am proud to say I did not do that.
I am also proud to say the same.