In the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, Vice President Dick Cheney and his top legal adviser argued that the National Security Agency should intercept purely domestic telephone calls and e-mail messages without warrants in the hunt for terrorists, according to two senior intelligence officials.
But N.S.A. lawyers, trained in the agency's strict rules against domestic spying and reluctant to approve any eavesdropping without warrants, insisted that it should be limited to communications into and out of the country, said the officials, who were granted anonymity to discuss the debate inside the Bush administration late in 2001.
The N.S.A.'s position ultimately prevailed. But just how Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the agency at the time, designed the program, persuaded wary N.S.A. officers to accept it and sold the White House on its limits is not yet clear.
7 comments:
Nadir: I thought that your new policy on legal matters was to close your eyes and mouth, and merely accept court decisions. Why are you observing and commenting on this matter? "The court has not decided" that any of these actions are illegal.
I, though, oppose your head-in-the-sand perspective, and will fulfill my democratic obligation by observing and commenting. I agree with you that the Bushies are behaving as though they can mandate un-checked laws. The biggest problem I have is that they are operating without oversight by the other two branches of govt.
It is interesting to me, Nadir, that federal prosecuters could very well employ the Duke DA strategies that you refuse to observe or oppose, and you would surely observe and oppose if such tactics got used against any American with regard to charges of terrorism!
What if some "rich white punk" gets pulled over for DWI, and claims that he's running from some Arab terrorists, who he overheard plotting to bomb a shopping mall? What if a fedl prosecuter announces that the Arabs are guilty prior to completing his investigation? What if subsequent data show that these guys were not together at the time? What if another rich white guy in the car initially refutes the accuser's story, but then changes his view when the fedl prosecuter gives him favorable treatment on his own previous criminal charge?
I found this to be an intersting take on this subject:
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3869
This writer says we can succeed in only two of following three goals:
1. You want the government to prevent terrorist attacks.
2. You don't want the government to target specific groups.
3. You don't want the government to engage in widespread surveillance.
I suppose that Nadir and Pat Buchannon would say that we can obtain these goals, by pulling all military outposts back to the USA. They might be right.
The government doesn't have to target all Americans in an effort to prevent terrorist attacks. It is a huge waste of time and resources because so much of the data will be useless. There is another agenda in the wiretaps and datamining.
The Duke rape case has nothing to do with national security, nor does it have much to do with me personally. I have problems with both the DA's and the defense's actions in that case, but it doesn't matter at this point. The evidence will (hopefully) determine right and wrong there.
Your insistance that the rich white kids are getting a bum rap or your badgering me into taking a stand on the issue won't change that.
My primary concern is that the single mother/college student had to put herself in that position just to work her way through college. I've known several women who have done the same thing, and I think that is the bigger issue.
A woman shouldn't feel like she has no other choice than to be an object for a bunch of drunk assholes, and put herself into a situation where she may be attacked. I'd bet none of the lacrosse players even has a part-time job.
But the point is that your government is spying on you, and you don't care. That's good. You can live in ignorant bliss about this regime if you want to because you put them and keep them in power.
I put them in power? I thought they stole both elections.
I do care that they are enacting these programs without approval and oversight from the other two branches of government. I think you might have grounds for impeachment there.
Okay. You helped put them in power.
This is grounds for impeachment. Now if we can just get the punk Democrats in Congress to do something about it (see http://bluestalkin.blogspot.com/2006/05/democrats-are-punks.html)
Post a Comment