Bush allowed NSA to spy within USA without warrants

[Tribesman]

"The program has operated outside of its legal constraints" sounds systemic and intentional.
No , " the program has operated outside of its legal constraints "
sounds like
"the program has operated outside its legal constraints" .
Thats strange isn't it .
Are you attempting to set up a position to shoot down that hasn't been made ?
I wonder what the common term for that is ?

If you have suspended judgment then you have no further subject matter to discuss nor there is anything being ignored.
If the program has admittedly operated illegaly then there is no point in you posting that the legal basics of the program were legal , as for some reason or other that base legality has not been complied with .
So the base legality is now irrelevant , that is something you have not grasped through all the pages of this topic .

[Pindar]

Tribesman,

I really am amazed you can go for such an extended period without a substantive post. Oppositionism really is a bad thing. It effects both credibility and base reasoning ability. You may feel that your passion is its own justification, but if you are unable to commit to rational discourse then you will never have the wherewithal to convince or the standing to be considered a sober mind. You should consider again.

[Tribesman]

Pindar , you have for several pages churned out irrelevant legal arguements concerning the base legality of the program .
The base legality is irrelevant if the program operates outside of that legal standing .
It has operated outside its legal constraints .

You are still pointing out the fact that the drunk driver had a driving license .

[Goofball]

I can honestly and truly say, that (especially for a thread with such good upside potential to be interesting) this thread has turned out to be the most boring thing I have ever attmpted to read.

[Strike For The South]

I can honestly and truly say, that (especially for a thread with such good upside potential to be interesting) this thread has turned out to be the most boring thing I have ever attmpted to read.

wait... Were supposed to read these things?

[Hurin_Rules]

The debate has unfortunately become rather sterile.

I'm sure it will heat up again in a week, when we start looking towards the congressional hearings on the matter, and have more information.

[Pindar]

I can honestly and truly say, that (especially for a thread with such good upside potential to be interesting) this thread has turned out to be the most boring thing I have ever attmpted to read.

In 381 C.E. an old Visigothic Chieftain named Athanaric came to Constantine's City. As he stood before it and looked on at it the majesty of the high walls, the markets, the many ships, peoples of various lands moving about, the wide streets and architecture he despaired feeling that his life's work of battling against Rome had been in vain. He exclaimed at last, "I am seeing what I have often heard, but did not believe. Surely the Emperor is a god upon the earth and whoever lifts up his hand against him is committing suicide!" The barbarian in his dark wood surrounded by his tribal gods and passion may think he knows the wide world, but it is not so. He may think a war howl is comparable to the recitation of Homer, but he would be wrong. Such is the level of difference between the rational mind and those absorbed by their oppositionism. One shouldn't expect a progressive dialogue or any depth of exchange if one of the participants thinks his mud hut the same as the Hagia Sophia.

[Tribesman]

What an elegant put down Pindar .
It still doesn't alter the fact that you are stuck on trying to avoid the drink driving and basing your position solely on the possesion of a driving licence .
So while you smugly marvel at your security within those wonderful walls and look down on those mud huts outside you have no realisation that your great walls have had their foundations removed .

The legal basis of a program is completely irrelevant if it acts illegally .

[Redleg]

What an elegant put down Pindar .
It still doesn't alter the fact that you are stuck on trying to avoid the drink driving and basing your position solely on the possesion of a driving licence .
So while you smugly marvel at your security within those wonderful walls and look down on those mud huts outside you have no realisation that your great walls have had their foundations removed .

The legal basis of a program is completely irrelevant if it acts illegally .

So before there is a hearing or a trail on the matter - you have already cast guilt.

[Hurin_Rules]

In 381 C.E. an old Visigothic Chieftain named Athanaric came to Constantine's City. As he stood before it and looked on at it the majesty of the high walls, the markets, the many ships, peoples of various lands moving about, the wide streets and architecture he despaired feeling that his life's work of battling against Rome had been in vain. He exclaimed at last, "I am seeing what I have often heard, but did not believe. Surely the Emperor is a god upon the earth and whoever lifts up his hand against him is committing suicide!" The barbarian in his dark wood surrounded by his tribal gods and passion may think he knows the wide world, but it is not so. He may think a war howl is comparable to the recitation of Homer, but he would be wrong. Such is the level of difference between the rational mind and those absorbed by their oppositionism. One shouldn't expect a progressive dialogue or any depth of exchange if one of the participants thinks his mud hut the same as the Hagia Sophia.

29 years later, the Visigoths conquered Rome and realized the Romans were not Gods.

Bad choice of analogies my friend

[Xiahou]

It still doesn't alter the fact that you are stuck on trying to avoid the drink driving and basing your position solely on the possesion of a driving licence .

What are you talking about?

Are you still accusing him of not addressing something that hasnt even been shown to have happened? You attack Pindar with supposition and then when confronted on its proof, you claim you are waiting for the outcome of the hearings. Yet, in the next post you go back to attacking Pindar based on the same supposition. It's truly nauseating. If you think the hearings will prove your point, then save your venom until it does so and ask Pindar to address it when it's been shown. Until it's been shown, you're argument is based on nothing.

[Tribesman]

So before there is a hearing or a trail on the matter - you have already cast guilt.
Poor Red , jumping to conclusions are you ?
Is this to be another baseless yarn from the realms of your imagination as to what people have said or what you think they have said ?

[Tribesman]

What are you talking about?
It is quite simple Xiahou .
Pindar is stuck on the base legality of the program , the base legality is no longer the issue since both the NSA and the administration have said that the program has operated outside of its legal constraints .
So just as having a driving licence means you can drive , if you drive while under the influence then the validity of the original license is irrelevant .

[Pindar]

29 years later, the Visigoths conquered Rome and realized the Romans were not Gods.

Bad choice of analogies my friend

You missed the point. This is probably due to the Election results.

[Redleg]

So before there is a hearing or a trail on the matter - you have already cast guilt.
Poor Red , jumping to conclusions are you ?
Is this to be another baseless yarn from the realms of your imagination as to what people have said or what you think they have said ?

Oh look at the personal attack once again - no surprise there now is there?

The legal basis of a program is completely irrelevant if it acts illegally

Have I missed something in your position at countering Pindar's legal arguement - because several times you have stated that an investigation must take place. An investigation is normally used to determine if the law has been broken, and by whom? After such an investigation the investigators determine if there is enough evidence to brin forth a trail.

If your unwilling to allow such an investigation to take place and for it to determine what wrongdoing has occured, what violations of the law have actually taken place, and by whom those violations were done by or ordered by then the describtion above fits very well.

Is there proof that the government has acted outside the contraints of the law, besides allegations of? Allegations without an investigation - are only allegations.

I find it amusing that a self-proclaimed un-educated achocal abusing Irishman is so concerned about the possible violation of the 4th Amendment by an American President against the citizens of the United States, that he has already determined the guilt of the adminstration ahead of the investigation, but instead of providing sound arguement concerning that possible violation - that said Irishman decides to resort to ah hominem arguements directed at fellow patrons. Interesting isn't?

[Tribesman]

Is there proof that the government has acted outside the contraints of the law, besides allegations of? Allegations without an investigation - are only allegations.

Oh dear Red , time for you to relax a little , you do seem to be rambling somewhat .
It is not allegations , it is admissions . The Whitehouse and the NSA have both said that aspects of the program have gone beyond its legal constraints .
So do you think that they are making unfounded allegations against themselves ? What a novel idea .

Oh look at the personal attack once again - no surprise there now is there?

That is a comment on the baseless content of your post .
If you do not want it then do not post baseless material .
If you wish to work only on assumptions or imaginary content then you will be replied to as such.

If your unwilling to allow such an investigation to take place and for it to determine what wrongdoing has occured, what violations of the law have actually taken place, and by whom those violations were done by or ordered by then the describtion above fits very well.

Not only another example of false assuptions but a sign that you a clearly unable to read the previous posts .

I find it amusing blah blah blahthat he has already determined the guilt of the adminstration ahead of the investigation,
Oh dear Red more assumptions , and once again wrong ones , you really are slipping old boy .

but instead of providing sound arguement concerning that possible violation
Errrr ....an admission of the violations of the program by the people who operate the program and the people who authorise the program are generally as sound an arguement as you could possibly get for now .

[Redleg]

Is there proof that the government has acted outside the contraints of the law, besides allegations of? Allegations without an investigation - are only allegations.

Oh dear Red , time for you to relax a little , you do seem to be rambling somewhat .
It is not allegations , it is admissions . The Whitehouse and the NSA have both said that aspects of the program have gone beyond its legal constraints .

So do you think that they are making unfounded allegations against themselves ? What a novel idea .

admissions that aspects of the program have gone beyond its legal contraints does not always imply that the law has been broken, it means that the depeartment feels that they might have done something wrong. The scope of that error needs to be investigated to determine what exactly has been done, and if it was a willful violation of the constitution and the establish law by the adminstration. If it was willful then any prosecutions done by the state from the evidence will need to be overturn, and Congress must determine what laws need to be ammended to prevent possible abuse in the future.

Oh look at the personal attack once again - no surprise there now is there?

That is a comment on the baseless content of your post .
If you do not want it then do not post baseless material .
If you wish to work only on assumptions or imaginary content then you will be replied to as such.

Again personal attacks it seems are your bulwark of a defense for your agruement. Should I make another like approach and degenerate this thread to a simple exchange of insults?

If your unwilling to allow such an investigation to take place and for it to determine what wrongdoing has occured, what violations of the law have actually taken place, and by whom those violations were done by or ordered by then the describtion above fits very well.

Not only another example of false assuptions but a sign that you a clearly unable to read the previous posts .

Interesting since I see you have changed your definition in this thread numerous times. Your attempting to pass a judment of guilt, but now you are claiming that you are not? That in itself is interesting.

I find it amusing blah blah blahthat he has already determined the guilt of the adminstration ahead of the investigation,
Oh dear Red more assumptions , and once again wrong ones , you really are slipping old boy .

Not an assumption at all - just looking at your words. And like before should I exchange your insult here with another one of my own, resorting to a futher breakdown in the discussion.

but instead of providing sound arguement concerning that possible violation
Errrr ....an admission of the violations of the program by the people who operate the program and the people who authorise the program are generally as sound an arguement as you could possibly get for now .

Which one is it Tribesman an admission of violations of law - or that they have gone beyond the contraints of the law?

How amusing you are, which direction are you really attempting to argue.

[Tribesman]

Interesting since I see you have changed your definition in this thread numerous times. Your attempting to pass a judment of guilt, but now you are claiming that you are not? That in itself is interesting.

Once again the mighty Red demonstrates his inability to read

Oh I get it now ....
The scope of that error needs to be investigated to determine what exactly has been done, and if it was a willful violation of the constitution and the establish law by the adminstration.
You want an investigation to find out what went wrong that led to the agency operating beyond its legal bounds . But since that is what I have been saying then I must really have been meaning something else as I could not possibly have been saying that could I , as that is what you want and I can never ever can be in agreement so that means I must have meant something else .
Windmills again

Which one is it Tribesman an admission of violations of law - or that they have gone beyond the contraints of the law?

What nonsense is that ? going beyond the constraints of the law is a violation of the law .

[Pindar]

What nonsense is that ? going beyond the constraints of the law is a violation of the law .

This will not due. A glitch by definition is neither systemic or intentional. Without both of these criteria the NSA admission does not speak to criminality. Rather, one simply has a system adjustment which is quite normal.

The original question raised by the Times concerned the base legal authority for the President to conduct warrantless surveillance. I have explained how this is possible both in regards to the Constitution and case law.

The next possible question is what the NSA program involved. The Justice Department based on its Dec. 22 letter explained the scope of the program. Thus, far no evidence has come forward to suggest the program was other than so described.

All that remains is political bluster, paranoia and oppositionism.

[Goofball]

I can honestly and truly say, that (especially for a thread with such good upside potential to be interesting) this thread has turned out to be the most boring thing I have ever attmpted to read.

In 381 C.E. an old Visigothic Chieftain named Athanaric came to Constantine's City. As he stood before it and looked on at it the majesty of the high walls, the markets, the many ships, peoples of various lands moving about, the wide streets and architecture he despaired feeling that his life's work of battling against Rome had been in vain. He exclaimed at last, "I am seeing what I have often heard, but did not believe. Surely the Emperor is a god upon the earth and whoever lifts up his hand against him is committing suicide!" The barbarian in his dark wood surrounded by his tribal gods and passion may think he knows the wide world, but it is not so. He may think a war howl is comparable to the recitation of Homer, but he would be wrong. Such is the level of difference between the rational mind and those absorbed by their oppositionism. One shouldn't expect a progressive dialogue or any depth of exchange if one of the participants thinks his mud hut the same as the Hagia Sophia.

*scratches testicles*

Uh.. What?

Sorry, but are you calling me a goth?

Dude, you're way off. I never listened to Marilyn Manson.

Duh...

*farts*

Oops.

'scuse me...

*goes back to watching Girls Gone Wild 2*

[Redleg]

Interesting since I see you have changed your definition in this thread numerous times. Your attempting to pass a judment of guilt, but now you are claiming that you are not? That in itself is interesting.

Once again the mighty Red demonstrates his inability to read

Or is it your ability to write a statement that actually uses logic and facts, verus emotional appeal.

Oh I get it now ....
The scope of that error needs to be investigated to determine what exactly has been done, and if it was a willful violation of the constitution and the establish law by the adminstration.
You want an investigation to find out what went wrong that led to the agency operating beyond its legal bounds . But since that is what I have been saying then I must really have been meaning something else as I could not possibly have been saying that could I , as that is what you want and I can never ever can be in agreement so that means I must have meant something else .
Windmills again

Beyond legal bounds covers a lot of different areas, both legal and illegal. One can go beyond the constraints - and still be within the legal letter of the law.

Maybe you should rethink some of your statements, verus attempting to use the standard ad hominem arguements directed at the person and not the arguement.

It seem you have confused yourself on the emotional appeal of the addmission verus the legal application.

Which one is it Tribesman an admission of violations of law - or that they have gone beyond the contraints of the law?

What nonsense is that ? going beyond the constraints of the law is a violation of the law .

Not necessarily. One can violate the spirt of the law without violating the letter of the law. What seems to be happening in this issue is a violation of the sprite of the law might have occured, but no proof of a violation of the letter of the law has occured.

Going beyond the contraints of the law could simply mean that the agency felt with their admission that they might have stumbled and needs to insure that they have not violated the letter of law.

[Pindar]

Uh.. What?
Sorry, but are you calling me a goth?
Dude, you're way off. I never listened to Marilyn Manson.

I was trying to explain why the thread might have a certain boorishness. In simpler terms: an objectionism that is the equivalent to living in mud huts and howling at the moon should not be and cannot be expected to understand dialectic or rational discourse. Therefore the "discussion" is rather one sided and stilted.

You may not be a goth but I did hear you are into other things.

[Roark]

In simpler terms: an objectionism that is the equivalent to living in mud huts and howling at the moon should not be and cannot be expected to understand dialectic or rational discourse. Therefore the "discussion" is rather one sided and stilted.

Maybe the thread lost some of its passionate impetus because poring over legislation is so mindbuggeringly boring...

Not that we don't hold those of you able to master its complexity in some awe...

[Pindar]

Maybe the thread lost some of its passionate impetus because poring over legislation is so mindbuggeringly boring...

That it is. As for as the legal question, all you need do is go to my post #90 (page three I think). That post covers the basic case history. Legally this program is quite mundane. What's really telling is no one, to my knowledge, has yet called for the program to halt. That alone should help even the legally untrained to distinguish political bloviation from legal reality.

[Hurin_Rules]

Although you are certainly entitled to your opinion, Pindar, it seems that many judges, lawyers and law school professors have serious doubts about the legality of the program.

As a way of reinvigorating the debate as we head towards the hearings, we might like to consider the recent remarks by senior law professors at Georgetown and George Washington Univerisity:

Law professors weigh in
Stephen Saltzburg, a law professor at George Washington University, said that Gonzales’ comments do not explain why the administration doesn’t go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to obtain warrants.

“If they are using a probable cause standard, they would have no problem going to the FISA court,” said Saltzburg. “The executive might think there’s a reasonable basis. Courts might not agree.”

Georgetown University law professor David Cole said the reasonable basis standard is not equivalent to probable cause.

Moreover, said Cole, Gonzales’ comments seem to conflict with those on Monday by Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, principal deputy director of national intelligence.

Hayden said that when weighing whether to proceed with surveillance under the president’s program, “the trigger is quicker and a bit softer than it is” with FISA.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said there is no conflict between the statements of Gonzales and Hayden and that “it is really just a matter of speed; as the AG said, the standards are essentially the same.”

In his address, Gonzales said, “I keep hearing, ’Why not FISA?’ Why didn’t the president get orders from the FISA court?

“It is imperative for national security that we can detect reliably, immediately and without delay whenever communications associated with al-Qaida enter or leave the United States.”

The 15-day window
Gonzales told his audience: “You may have heard about the provision of FISA that allows the president to conduct warrantless surveillance for 15 days following a declaration of war. That provision shows that Congress knew that warrantless surveillance would be essential in wartime.”

Sharply disagreeing, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said FISA’s purpose “was never to grant warrantless surveillance for the war.”

“While Congress saw some need to loosen the standard in the initial days of a war, it wanted the president to comply with FISA in carrying out surveillance in the United States,” Turley said.

The attorney general said the program is limited in scope, and he blamed the news media for suggesting otherwise.

“These press accounts are in almost every case, in one way or another, misinformed, confusing or wrong,” said Gonzales. “And unfortunately, they have caused concern over the potential breadth of what the president has actually authorized.”

© 2006 MSNBC Interactive
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11018747/page/2/

[Pindar]

Although you are certainly entitled to your opinion, Pindar, it seems that many judges, lawyers and law school professors have serious doubts about the legality of the program.

As a way of reinvigorating the debate as we head towards the hearings, we might like to consider the recent remarks by senior law professors at Georgetown and George Washington Univerisity:

Hi Hurin,

I don't think three law professors constitute many. Regardless, their comments are directed toward a probable cause standard. This is not the legal justification for the NSA Program. Gonzales correctly explained in the Georgetown University law school debate, I assume they attended, what the legal justification is:

"The terrorist surveillance program is firmly grounded in the President’s constitutional authorities.... It has long been recognized that the President’s constitutional powers include the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance aimed at detecting and preventing armed attacks on the United States. Presidents have uniformly relied on their inherent power to gather foreign intelligence for reasons both diplomatic and military, and the federal courts have consistently upheld this longstanding practice.
If this is the case in ordinary times, it is even more so in the present circumstances of our armed conflict with al Qaeda and its allies."

Here is some historical context from the same speech:

"[A]s long as electronic communications have existed, the United States has conducted surveillance of those communications during wartime—all without judicial warrant. In the Civil War, for example, telegraph wiretapping was common, and provided important intelligence for both sides. In World War I, President Wilson ordered the interception of all cable communications between the United States and Europe; he inferred the authority to do so from the Constitution and from a general congressional authorization to use military force that did not mention anything about such surveillance. So too in World War II; the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt authorized the interception of all communications traffic into and out of the United States. The terrorist surveillance program, of course, is far more focused, since it involves only the interception of international communications that are linked to al Qaeda or its allies."

This inherent authority stance is supported by at least five federal appellate court decisions I can think of with not a single contrary or conflicting decision.

[Xiahou]

Anyone who's interested can see a debate on the matter that was on CSPAN Tuesday here. Atty. Gen. Gonzales Speech on Domestic Surveillance

Gonzales speaks for about the first half hour and then the panelists begin debating.

What's really telling is no one, to my knowledge, has yet called for the program to halt.

I agree, that speaks volumes.

[Pindar]

What's really telling is no one, to my knowledge, has yet called for the program to halt.

X: I agree, that speaks volumes.

It's also interesting to ask why no inquiry was formed when the Administration first notified Congressional Leaders. The brouhaha didn't begin until after the Times report and the swamp fever went rabid. We have been looking at the legal question proper which is a non-starter, but what is really interesting is the political dynamic. I think most of the Demos in Congress and other Senate old guard are being forced down a road they know is very dangerous. I am really happy to see this debate drag on for as long as possible. It is a mine field for the Demos and the Mid-Term Elections are getting closer.

[Adrian II]

What's really telling is no one, to my knowledge, has yet called for the program to halt.

Indeed! Then why do you continue defending its existence?

The legality of the program is not disputed here. Nor is the ultimate necessity of the program. Nor is the President's competence to apply it to the extent of the law.

What is disputed in this thread is the President's right to apply it beyond the extent of the law. Now if you would stop being obnoxious and start addressing the issue, it would make the thread less.. repetitive, shall we say?...

[Pindar]

Indeed! Then why do you continue defending its existence?

The legality of the program is not disputed here. Nor is the ultimate necessity of the program. Nor is the President's competence to apply it to the extent of the law.

What is disputed in this thread is the President's right to apply it beyond the extent of the law. Now if you would stop being obnoxious and start addressing the issue, it would make the thread less.. repetitive, shall we say?...

Obnoxious? That's not quite cricket.

If the NSA warrantless surveillance program's legality is not under dispute then what beyond are you referring to? If the President has the Constitutional authority to conduct warrantless surveillance then what does beyond mean here? Are you charging the President went beyond his Constitutional authority? In what way? Are you charging the program was doing something other than what the Department of Justice said it was/is doing? If so, what is that? If not, then I don't know what you mean.