(Bush spying issue) Why isn't anyone asking:

If the people being spied on had known ties to terrorists, then why the hell weren't they picked up and arrested?!?!?!

I guess I could imagine that Bush would say they were left out there so more intel could be obtained by spying on them.

Hence, one of the problems.

I've heard that "humdreds" of Americans have been subjected to electronic surveillance under this presidential directive. Are there really hundreds of Americans calling al-Qaida on the telephone? What, have they got a number that's only one digit off from a take-out deli in Manhattan?

in my mind is hilarious.

I can see hundreds of Americans attempting to call Al Katie's Deli in Mobile and having Commander Bunnypants confusing their orders for roast beef on Jewish rye with no fries for 'roaring bombs on the Jewish side in the no-fly zone.'. :rofl:

Sorry - a bit of levity always helps refresh the beleaguered mind.

Apparently, from what I've been hearing on MSNBC, his justifications for doing this spying are incredibly weak. If they are as weak as they appear, it's Nixon all over again.

And I have a questions of my own: who were the people in Congress who were notified? What information were they given and did they actually engage in any sort of oversight? If they did not, as a result of any legal anti-terrorism provisions in the law, then perhaps we need to rewrite whatever laws ostensibly resulted in that result. (It sounded as if Bush was going beyond the Patriot Act in his justifications.)

raise as he gets into 'our' helicopter. He doesn't seem to be humble in anyway. I will remind him that he flys around in 'our' helicpoters and 'our' 747s (when he isn't flying around in a Carlyle or Enron jet).

Doesn't ECHALON give the NSA the ability to surveil any and all telephone communications, WORLDWIDE?

That is the difference, as I understand it. Bush was spying on US citizens in the US with absolutely no oversight whatsoever. The courts didn't know, and despite what they're claiming, neither did Congress.

started in the 90s.

Before, if a person mentioned something like Eschalon s/he would be instantly categorized as a kook conspiracy theorist. Now 'They' admit it proudly and declare they will do it as much or as often as is necessary. *sigh*

it's only spying.

It's not like he's gonna kidnap and torture people and detain them indefinitely.

Oh wait...

Patriot Act says you never have to mirandize them, nor let anyone know you're arrested. Ever. This is why I've campaigned hard against the Patriot Act for years.

I mean is Bush in his opinion allowed to spy on anybody ? Or can he only spy on "terrorists" ?

(who takes orders from *) and * himself.

Maybe the Kerry people, Fitzgerald, the Quaker grannies,...who knows since he didn't go to any court to get authorization.

Maybe he's looking at you, too, did you vote Dem this past election? You may be on his list.

I am from the Netherlands :)

;)

But I am wondering whether it is now "legal" for Bush to spy on his political opponents, his girlfriend, businesses that he is interested in, or any other American citizens that have no ties to "Al Qaida" whatsoever, by tapping any phone that he is interested in. This can't be legal can it ?

Torture isn't legal either, but this admin was asking for exemptions in the McCain amendment. If there is no judicial oversight, he can order surveillance on anyone he wants, just like Nixon did in the 70's.

If you have people in the US (US citizens) and you use illegal wiretap, how can you introduce that evidence in court, when it is obtained illegally?

What does he mean when he talks about using these tools to bring people to justice? How do you do that when you cannot use the information in court? Is he talking about another kind of justice?

Yesterday, watching Ms. Rice defend the program, I wished Tim Russert would have asked that question: How can this be useful when you cannot use it in court?

is not going to see the inside of a US court so it doesn't matter. They will be branded enemy combatants, and MIGHT go before a military tribunal, but no regular court, with right to appeal etc. See Jose Padilla

They would have simply gone to the uber-secret court and gotten an uber-secret warrant and taken them to an uber-secret jail for some uber-secret uber-interrogation.

So, they must not have been, and thus required uber-uber-secret spying.

-Hoot

WHY not go through FISA, if there isn't something very questionable about what they are doing. What reason can they possibly give for that?

I've mentioned elsewhere that I've visited a Lebanese website, a chat room (although I've never managed to chat with anyone as it is always empty), but I can't help but wonder if, technically, I could be surveilled for this, on the basis of what they've been saying. Jeez. I'm not saying I think they actually did so, only that, given the twisted logic and confusion about what constitutes a threat, it seems entirely within the realm of possiblity that some goof-ball might think such a thing a reasonable thing to do. Why not, when there is no real oversight?

This is completely un-American! It violates our most basic Constitutional rights.


Hi, agent Mike!

This is what I mean about terrible, terrible journalism and fundamental reporting: why didn't anyone ask if these people had ties to terrorism, why aren't they in jail, but even more importantly, this press conference was telling for what it shows not happening: if these people did have ties, then that is exactly where they would be and they are not - in secret jails and the such. It's a subtle thing that no one in the MSM is picking up on. And since these people with ties to terrorism have not been picked up, then what are they really discussing? Nothing maybe?

Obviously, not everyone has, but how do we know that there aren't people rotting in jail, held without charges, legal counsel, or outside contact as a result of this program?

But that isn't the point here. We can always do that as an extra-legal activity. The problem is that they didn't go to the FISA court because WHY?

They didn't want FISA to know about them? FISA would have refused the Warrant? Who knows?

That is why I want * arrested for this shit.

-Hoot