Invasion of Privacy?

[-mogwai]

actually, they were nationalist socialist... they were against the communists.

[Tim Burton]

What perfect world you must live in. I by no means want to flame you, but you seem a little delusional. So they have admited to international calls. So i pose a few questions for you to ponder.

Sorry, been out of town....

Since this was an illegal leak, it is logical to say that they were strictly international calls, otherwise the leaker would have said that there were domestic2domestic calls. Also the NYT would gain by pointing out it was domestic2domestic calls, but they didn't point to that. So it is safe to say it is domestic2international and vice-versa calls.

1. Where is the list of those people. I know it will be lclassified as top secert, but isnt that an easy cover?

We don't know, and since the program was leaked it is safe to assume one of two possibilities: 1. The leaker doesn't know. 2. The names are all Muslim and would give no political points to an unofficial release of the names.

2. If these people had ties with AQ, why not just get the signature of a judge?

Security, the more people know, the less likely it is to be kept a secret.

Then it could be seen as legal, and not an over use of powers.

Again, I pointed out that the Supreme Court said it was not illegal in previous cases and neither does the Federalist Papers (No. 64).

Federalist 64 says, "It seldom happens in the negotiation of treaties, of whatever nature, but that perfect SECRECY and immediate DESPATCH are sometimes requisite. These are cases where the most useful intelligence may be obtained, if the persons possessing it can be relieved from apprehensions of discovery. Those apprehensions will operate on those persons whether they are actuated by mercenary or friendly motives; and there doubtless are many of both descriptions, who would rely on the secrecy of the President, but who would not confide in that of the Senate, and still less in that of a large popular Assembly."

http://patriotpost.us/fedpapers/fed_64.html

Index: http://patriotpost.us/fedpapers/fedpapers.html

So even John Jay understood that there were times it was required and lawful to have the President act apart from any knowledge of the other parties in some instances.

I also listed an article with a list of legal searches that DO NOT require a warrant. Yet you didn't respond to any of those listed. Also, I am still waiting for you to hermeneutically address the word "unreasonable" in the 4th Amendment with regards to Acts of War and criminal conduct.

Since this is an issue with the War Powers in the Constitution, the 4th Amendment doesn't apply. The 4th Amendment is for criminal actions, not acts of war against the nation. Even if it did cover acts of war (it doesn't), the key word to understand the 4th Amendment is "unreasonable".

Then it would break the checks and balances established in our laws.

It scares me that you would toss out that term and not actually have any working knowledge of the Federalist Papers or history. (I bet you believe that the 1st Amendment applies to States too) Since the founding of the Nation, it has been lawful to search without warrant people and places involved with enemies of the nation. It was also acknowledged by both Jay and Franklin that there were things that were legitimately kept secret from Congress in the case of national security, even though the Con. Congress voted to be kept in the loop for any negotiations.

3. Admitting to spying on international calls could be seen as a diversion from the real problem. That calls made inside the US are being monitored?

They didn't admit it. It was leaked. If there was domestic2domestic called being spied on, it would have been leaked too. Since it wasn't, it is safe to say that there is no domestic spying. Elechon is legally not considered spying, but that is a huge discussion outside of the scope of this reply. To make a long story short, basically data mining is legal, because it is not spying, but statistical analysis, and when the data indicates certain reasonable tendencies of calling certain flagged numbers or people, it then becomes reasonable for the analysis of a human to verify the risk otherwise no human looks and therefore is under a legal sense not spying.

4. Why is it that Clinton is always used by those on the right to justify what the are doing.

Because it points out the hypocrisy of the MSM (the left). There was very little outcry and the few articles about Clinton doing the spying (which was much more invasive toward domestic2domestic calls, because it was used to actually look at Republican calls that gave inside information. Also, there was no outcry of the MSM for the fact that the FBI gave the DNC 400 files on Republicans, which tend to contain less than flattering information such as medical records and affairs and such, which are great for blackmail. In fact, the MSM said it was an accident and no harm, no foul.

They use his actions as un-american yet they do the same. Is there no one else the Republican party can go after other then Bill Clinton?

Oh, like the fact that the AG for Carter said he did the same thing that Bush did with terrorists.

Then you have FDR, who not only did the same amount of spying on Germans and Japanese, but took it a step farther, because he realized the REAL threat and legally protected the US by interning Japanese and even MORE Germans (all with the approval of the Supreme Court as Constitutional). It was only the irrational and false myth that the internment was racist that caused Congress in the 80s to pay reparations for it, it it affected more Germans and yet they still haven't been paid for their internment.

Also, many from the Reagan administration. But then again, that goes back to the history that you and nearly every American ignores: The approval of secret actions in Federalist 64 in International issues. So I am still waiting for that great historical disertation that these were actions that did not occur or were looked upon by the Founding Fathers as illegal.

then watching the Right try to make the media look bad for letting the people know about something that affects them directly.

:tard:

It only effects you if you are calling Afganistan or a phone number found on a confiscated laptop/notebook from a terrorist. It does not affect you if you are calling your grandmother.

BTW, edit to add this. That newsmax site is extremely right. I read 1 story and knew then that nothing on that site could be trusted.

Yes, that article was so full of crap, that it quoted 60 minutes. Was 60 minutes full of crap? (Well, it was when it said that Bush was AWOL, but that is getting off topic).

60 Minutes Transcript: http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm

What about the BBC? Since they are sooooo right:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/503224.stm

The fact is that I used them as a source, since I had the link on hand. If you actually were trying to be intellectually honest, you would attack the facts presented, not the source.

Edited to put a URL to Federalist 64 and fix a BB Coding error

[Tim Burton]

Successful in preventing terrorist attacks?

What happened during all those pre-9/11 years when we didn't have the government spying on its citizens? Not a single organized terrorist attack if I recall, and the only big one (9/11) was discovered, and yet they just sat on their hands.

Less restrictions on intelligence gathering should be the least of their concerns.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin

Uh, we did have government spying. It was called Echelon, also we know that FDR, Eisenhower, Truman spied on enemies. Kennedy spied on Communists and so did Nixon. Carter, Reagan, Bush spied on Terrorist cells in the US and Communist spies. Clinton spied on terrorists (but had walls set up to keep the information from being shared between departments) and even spied on at least 400 Republicans using government sources.

Also, we had attacks in the US. It was called WTC Bombing. It happened in 93.

Finally, the quote is dealing with criminal actions, no where is the quote implies actions in the case of war.

[Tim Burton]

Also, Washington felt it was very good and was an enthusiastic supporter of spy networks in times of war. He created the Culper Gang and even was openly supportive of spying during times of war.


http://www.si.umich.edu/spies/stories-networks-3.html

Lincoln's Generals in the Civil war supported local spying, all without a warrant. Even more shocking is that they used a private corporation to do the spying:

http://intellit.muskingum.edu/civwar_fo ... npink.html

The company was Pinkerton Security.

So the idea that warrantless searches/spying dealing with foreign and domestic acts of war is unprecidented and unConstitutional is historically garbage.

[killswitch83]

Also, we had attacks in the US. It was called WTC Bombing. It happened in 93.

Yep, but they didn't quite get it the first time. The only thing I remember seeing about it, as I was only 10 back then and didn't have a firm grasp on the news then, is it didn't decimate the buildings as it did in 2001, but still caused quite a bit of damage. Just out of ignorant curiosity (as I am ignorant in this because I was so young), what was the response on this? I mean, would it have been possible to catch him (Osama?) then? Would have saved a lot of headaches. Btw, very intelligent of you to be able to have all this knowledge and resources on hand.....I like people who can back their point

[Tim Burton]

The only thing I remember seeing about it, as I was only 10 back then and didn't have a firm grasp on the news then, is it didn't decimate the buildings as it did in 2001, but still caused quite a bit of damage.

Yes, had they had more knowledge of building structure most engineers said that they could have taken the building down.

Here is an overview of the bombing:

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/wtc/

Basically, what happened was they thought that putting the truck up against the foundation wall, would bury a hole that would weaken the foundation. A basic knowledge of dynamite or mining would have told them they were wrong. In mining they dig holes and put the dynamite into the holes. This makes the earth move when it explodes. The reason is if they just placed the dynamite outside of the wall or earth they want to move/mine, the explosion would go to the path of least resistance away from the wall, instead of digging into the earth.

Had they placed the truck farther into the building structure next to the supporting pillars the blast would have definately taken one group, and probably two supporting pillar groups (they were placed in the center in groups). That would have collapsed the building according to most engineers.

Just out of ignorant curiosity (as I am ignorant in this because I was so young), what was the response on this?

Clinton treated this like a crime, not an act of war.

This is why Carl Rove said, "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

I mean, would it have been possible to catch him (Osama?) then?

After words...Yes.

In fact Clinton was offered Osama's head on a plater by the Sudanese.


http://www.sudan.net/news/press/postedr/125.shtml

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... sp?ID=9721

Would have saved a lot of headaches. Btw, very intelligent of you to be able to have all this knowledge and resources on hand.....I like people who can back their point

I don't come to a gun fight with a knife. ;)

Seriously, my degree is in Systematic Theology, so hermeneutics is my strong point, and since Scripture and the Constitution have more in common than the Constitution and Modern Law, so I have spent a lot of time studying the Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers and such.

Also, I normally debate very actively in a mature political forum at: http://www.websonix.ca/~wce Feel free to check us out. The members are both Left and Right and US and International.

[killswitch83]

now that's a damn shame, considering how we could have easily cleaned house on his terrorist ass and Bill "I didn't 'get' my d**k sucked by that woman" Clinton refused to allow extradition.......it might have very well given bin Laden some rights in accordance to our justice system, but if it were easy to link him to the terrorist acts orchestrated in '93, couldn't this have stripped those rights? Man, and now this laugh parade with Hussein's trial.....he's got balls to pull some of the s**t he's pulled in court, and I hope they fry his ass......terrorists don't deserve to live IMO. Btw, in considerations with that site, I have some political knowledge but: 1) it's a right-leaning knowledge, which I believe the current administration is lying to the American people (well, actually Clinton's admin has done a good deal of that too, but still....) and 2) I don't have enough IMO to put up a good fight on the entrenching political topics.....I'll still check it out though.

[Tim Burton]

Well, you're always welcome to read it.

If there is anything you think the Administration is lying ask there. You will get both sides responding.

[pointreyes]

Seriously, my degree is in Systematic Theology, so hermeneutics is my strong point, and since Scripture and the Constitution have more in common than the Constitution and Modern Law, so I have spent a lot of time studying the Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers and such.

Thank you. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only nut on technical forums that thinks this way. Many years ago if I would have continued my studies I would have had a Pastorial Degree with a minor in Koine Greek. I'm a Reformed Theologian though. Have you read any Rushdoony books? I'm not reading one right now but I am reading: The Bible Lessons of John Quincy Adams for His Son. I'm also going through the three volume series God and Government by DeMar.

[Tim Burton]

Presently, I am re-reading Shaeffer's philosophical apologetics against Post-Modernism. I am also re-studying (for personal enjoyment) Gangadeans work on Rational Christianity (Apologetics based solely on logic). The last work I read here and there when I have time, "Reign of the Servant King" by J. Dillow

Conservative Theology all the way.