The Twist you all have been waiting for...

[southsider2k5]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10711930/site/newsweek/

[mreye]

On one hand, it doesn't surprise me that they would find out some relevant info.

 

On the other, it doesn't surprise me that the Administration would claim this - true or not.

 

Just my $0.02

[juddling]

No...No...No... How dare anyone imply that Bush is using the Patriot Act to do anything but watch Bob Smith's library account. How naive can you be!!!!

 

 

Edited January 5, 2006 by juddling

[Balta1701]

Wait a second, as far as I can tell, neither of these cases actually deal at all with the facts of the case. The key element of this whole mess has been the Bush Administration's decision to seek wire taps of conversations between U.S. citizens without either a declaration of war or a FISA warrant.

 

FISA allows the government to engage in surveillance of any non U.S. citizen without a warrant. Warrants are only required in the event that the people on both ends of the conversation are U.S. citizens.

 

The 2nd case that Newsweek offers up is entirely a different story...because the guy in question most certainly was not a U.S. citizen, and secondly, he was clearly in contact with someone overseas. Consequently, he fits neither of the requirements which would have mandated the government seek a FISA warrant to monitor his communications - that surveillance was 100% legal without a warrant.

 

Secondly, the Brooklyn Bridge Blowtorch guy part includes this nugget, which at least suggests that proper procedures were followed in his case.

aris’s current lawyer, says he is convinced this information came from Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who had just been arrested in Pakistan. Armed with this information, the FBI then arrested Faris and later took him to the FBI academy at Quantico, Va., where he was questioned for several weeks and allowed to make cell-phone calls, which his lawyers believe were monitored with a warrant from the Justice Department’s secret foreign-intelligence surveillance court. The Justice Department announced Faris’s arrest, and guilty plea to terrorism charges, after the existence of the investigation was disclosed in a NEWSWEEK cover story.

If the DOJ did obtain a FISA warrant to monitor his communications, that again means that this case is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. FISA set up those courts specifically to make sure the government was behaving when undertaking surveillance against U.S. citizens. If the government went to FISA and got a warrant, then they met the requirements of FISA, were acting legally, and were not making use of any of the programs that we have been discussing for the last 3 weeks.

 

If the government did not go to FISA and get a warrant, btw, then if any of those wiretaps were used as evidence in that case, the lawyer for the suspect could very well use that fact to get the conviction overturned, as the evidence would have been collected illegally.

 

At least based on what Newsweek presented in that article, neither of the cases they describe actually involved Bush's order to allow the NSA to undertake surveillance of U.S. citizens without a warrant in defiance of the requirements of FISA.

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10711930/site/newsweek/

 

As Balta pointed out, not really such a great connection.

 

And honestly, even if it was, it's completely irrelevant to my feelings on this issue. I am sure the police could catch a lot more criminals if we threw some rules regarding probable cause, warrants and weapons registration out the window. But that's not OK either. None of this is worth stepping on the Constitution.

[Rex Kickass]

In either case, what prevented the NSA or FBI or administration from attempting to obtain a FISA warrant within 72 hours after the surveillance started?

[Balta1701]

In either case, what prevented the NSA or FBI or administration from attempting to obtain a FISA warrant within 72 hours after the surveillance started?

As far as the information in the Newsweek article...in the first case, they actually did obtain the FISA warrant, unless the Newsweek article is wrong. See the block I excerpted above.

 

In the second case, the FISA warrant was unnecessary, because the subject of the surveillance was not a U.S. citizen. FISA gives the government the power to legally conduct surveillance on non-U.S. citizens without seeking a warrant, so there was no need.

 

Neither of these cases appears based on the Newsweek piece above to involve the specific program which we've been discussing, they both appear to involve normal usage of the FISA.

[sec159row2]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/...1649.shtml?s=et

 

this link kind of applies to both threads I posted it in... sorry if it isn't..

 

upon further review..... I googled some names out of this article and these guys were arrested, BUT... all their targets were in Europe... so the wiretapping is correct, the plot /targets media agenga is suspect... but consider the sourse right... newsmax...

Edited January 6, 2006 by sec159row2

[Balta1701]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/...1649.shtml?s=et

 

this link kind of applies to both threads I posted it in...  sorry if it isn't..

 

upon further review.....  I googled some names out of this article and these guys were arrested,  BUT...  all their targets were in Europe... so the wiretapping is correct, the plot /targets media agenga is suspect... but consider the sourse right... newsmax...

Of course, even if their targets were in the U.S., the NSA would have been fully within their legal rights to spy on those folks however much they wanted, because, once again...they're not US Citizens.

 

But of course, there's always the question of whether or not these guys actually knew waht they were doing, or whether they were planning to say, go after the brooklyn bridge with blowtorches or something idiotic like that.

[Texsox]

Of course our rights come with a price tag.

 

Get rid of Miranda and Search and Seizure laws and more criminals (and innocent people) will be off the streets.

 

I am certain, and I am using an extreme example, the Gestapo and SS could show how their tactics saved lives by getting criminals off the streets. But that isn't America and it isn't what generations have fought to preserve.

[NorthSideSox72]

Of course our rights come with a price tag.

 

Get rid of Miranda and Search and Seizure laws and more criminals (and innocent people) will be off the streets.

 

I am certain, and I am using an extreme example, the Gestapo and SS could show how their tactics saved lives by getting criminals off the streets. But that isn't America and it isn't what generations have fought to preserve.

 

Exactly. As I said earlier, the result is not relevant. Constitutional rights must be protected, even at a high price.

[WCSox]

Of course our rights come with a price tag.

 

Get rid of Miranda and Search and Seizure laws and more criminals (and innocent people) will be off the streets.

 

I am certain, and I am using an extreme example, the Gestapo and SS could show how their tactics saved lives by getting criminals off the streets. But that isn't America and it isn't what generations have fought to preserve.

 

Not that I disagree, but I wonder how many New Yorkers feel that their rights are being violated when their bags are searched now in the subways. My guess is not too many.

[NorthSideSox72]

Not that I disagree, but I wonder how many New Yorkers feel that their rights are being violated when their bags are searched now in the subways.  My guess is not too many.

 

Completely different scenario. That's a person submitting to a search as part of a voluntary course of action (taking the subway). The surveillance is more like someone going into your house and searching your bag while you are away.

[WCSox]

Completely different scenario.  That's a person submitting to a search as part of a voluntary course of action (taking the subway).

 

I don't see how it's much different than voluntarily talking on an cell phone that's on a network regulated by the FCC.

 

The surveillance is more like someone going into your house and searching your bag while you are away.

 

Now, that, I would have a problem with.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't see how it's much different than voluntarily talking on an cell phone that's on a network regulated by the FCC.

Now, that, I would have a problem with.

 

Are you serious? ALL telephone communications are regulated by the FCC, leaving you no other options, and all communications could be monitored by surveillance equipment. There is no choice there. Taking the subway, on the other hand, is an actual choice. You could take a bus, or a surface train, a car, a cab, walk, bike... and not get searched!

 

Listening in on your communications of any kind without a warrant is no different than someone searching your belongings without one.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't see how it's much different than voluntarily talking on an cell phone that's on a network regulated by the FCC.

Now, that, I would have a problem with.

 

Also, if you know you are getting on the subway where searches are now routine, there is no EXPECTATION of privacy in your bag. There is, on the other hand, a logical expectation that a phone call or email in private would stay that way, barring someone breaking the law. Like, say, the NSA.

[WCSox]

Are you serious?  ALL telephone communications are regulated by the FCC, leaving you no other options, and all communications could be monitored by surveillance equipment.  There is no choice there.

 

Some people in New York have no other finacial option than to take the subway to work. For those who need to travel thousands of miles for work-related business, taking a plane is the only option. I see no difference between that and using a telephone.

[WCSox]

Also, if you know you are getting on the subway where searches are now routine, there is no EXPECTATION of privacy in your bag.  There is, on the other hand, a logical expectation that a phone call or email in private would stay that way, barring someone breaking the law.  Like, say, the NSA.

 

So, if you take a subway somewhere and you don't have a weapon in your bag, nothing happens to you and you're allowed to go on your way.

 

For the sake of argument, let's say that there is no expectation of privacy in phone or e-mail conversations anymore. If you're not plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge via conversations with your buddy in Saudi Arabia, what exactly do you have to worry about? Just curious.

[NorthSideSox72]

Some people in New York have no other finacial option than to take the subway to work.  For those who need to travel thousands of miles for work-related business, taking a plane is the only option.  I see no difference between that and using a telephone.

 

The difference is the expectation of privacy, and the level of necessity of access.

 

Regarding expectation of privacy, see my other post.

 

Regarding level of necessity, let's put this in perspective. Surveillance of communications could cover phone, cell phone, 2-way radio, email, even direct conversation. Pretty much everything. So, if they are monitoring you without a warrant, then you have lost ALL ability to communicate privately, and they did that without a warrant. Clearly, this is a violation of privacy.

 

On the other hand, a bag search on an airplane is much smaller in scope and is obviously an expected result of the choice. They search what objects you are carrying with you - not all things you own, or do, or say. And you know going in that you will be searched. Plus, for 99.9% of us, it is not necessary to take a plane somewhere to function normally in society. There are some jobs that require it, and it is certainly the most convenient option at times. But it's not truly a necessity, like basic communications are.

[NorthSideSox72]

So, if you take a subway somewhere and you don't have a weapon in your bag, nothing happens to you and you're allowed to go on your way. 

 

For the sake of argument, let's say that there is no expectation of privacy in phone or e-mail conversations anymore.  If you're not plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge via conversations with your buddy in Saudi Arabia, what exactly do you have to worry about?  Just curious.

 

And right there (bold above), we have taken a huge step away from the Constitution and a free state, and moved towards fascism. I would hope that any American would be scared to death of that happening. This whole "I have nothing to hide" argument is so ridiculous that it could be used successfully to defend the Nazis.

 

And BTW, if the conversation was overseas to Saudi, and/or I'm not a citizen, it isn't protected by law anyway. The law-violating situations are domestic communications.

[WCSox]

And right there (bold above), we have taken a huge step away from the Constitution and a free state, and moved towards fascism.  I would hope that any American would be scared to death of that happening.  This whole "I have nothing to hide" argument is so ridiculous that it could be used successfully to defend the Nazis.

 

Oh, so our government is suddenly going to turn into Nazi Germany if phone and e-mail conversations are monitored. That's extremist rhetoric if I've ever heard it.

 

I'm not necessarily advocating the monitoring of electronic communications without a warrant, but I don't think it's fair to say that there's an "expectation of privacy" anywhere outside of one's own property.

[Rex Kickass]

So, if you take a subway somewhere and you don't have a weapon in your bag, nothing happens to you and you're allowed to go on your way. 

 

For the sake of argument, let's say that there is no expectation of privacy in phone or e-mail conversations anymore.  If you're not plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge via conversations with your buddy in Saudi Arabia, what exactly do you have to worry about?  Just curious.

 

If that were only the case, I think I could live with bag searches on the subway. But, its not. The NYPD has said if they find anything they can use against someone in a bag search, they will. So it might not be a bomb. It might be something else. Not related to terrorism and that would constitute a huge growth of access into your private life by federal or local authorities. You may not have a problem with it now. But what if one day it affects you. What if you're carrying a can of spray paint home to paint something at your house and they think its to tag up the subway station?

 

Let's say your friend makes a joke to you about blowing something up on the phone and its intercepted for no real good reason. The joke comes out of nowhere and means nothing. But you're put under surveillance as a result. Would you be happy with that? Or would you be upset that a few words uttered by one of your friends is putting your life under the microscope?

 

If you're saying "let them investigate me, I've got nothing to hide," you obviously have nothing worth protecting. You can have total security or you can have freedom. But you can't have both. I'd rather be somewhat vulnerable than watched at every moment.

 

You know who ran the most famous surveillance programs of its citizens in the 20th century? The communists. The Stasi in East Germany encouraged children to spy and report on their parents and neighbor to do so against neighbor. Saying its ok to investigate someone without a warrant in any case, puts us a giant step closer to that.

[southsider2k5]

Oh, so our government is suddenly going to turn into Nazi Germany if phone and e-mail conversations are monitored.  That's extremist rhetoric if I've ever heard it.

 

I'm not necessarily advocating the monitoring of electronic communications without a warrant, but I don't think it's fair to say that there's an "expectation of privacy" anywhere outside of one's own property.

 

Ever hear of "echelon"?

[NorthSideSox72]

Oh, so our government is suddenly going to turn into Nazi Germany if phone and e-mail conversations are monitored.  That's extremist rhetoric if I've ever heard it.

 

I'm not necessarily advocating the monitoring of electronic communications without a warrant, but I don't think it's fair to say that there's an "expectation of privacy" anywhere outside of one's own property.

 

 

I knew you'd pick out the word Nazi and try to make it sound like I said that (even though I said no such thing). If you can't defend your position, paint the other person as an extremist. A favorite tactic of the current Administration.

[WCSox]

If that were only the case, I think I could live with bag searches on the subway. But, its not. The NYPD has said if they find anything they can use against someone in a bag search, they will. So it might not be a bomb. It might be something else. Not related to terrorism and that would constitute a huge growth of access into your private life by federal or local authorities. You may not have a problem with it now. But what if one day it affects you. What if you're carrying a can of spray paint home to paint something at your house and they think its to tag up the subway station?

 

If that's the only evidence they have, I have nothing to worry about.

 

Let's say your friend makes a joke to you about blowing something up on the phone and its intercepted for no real good reason. The joke comes out of nowhere and means nothing. But you're put under surveillance as a result. Would you be happy with that? Or would you be upset that a few words uttered by one of your friends is putting your life under the microscope?

 

A guy in Philadelphia told a bartender that he was going to kill Nixon back in the early '70s. The FBI showed up at his home, asked him a few questions, looked around the house, and nothing happened... until the guy attempted to hijack a plane at BWI and ended up killing a security guard and a pilot in the process. It works both ways.

 

You can have total security or you can have freedom. But you can't have both. I'd rather be somewhat vulnerable than watched at every moment.

 

The families and friends of 9/11 victims might disagree with you.

 

You know who ran the most famous surveillance programs of its citizens in the 20th century? The communists. The Stasi in East Germany encouraged children to spy and report on their parents and neighbor to do so against neighbor. Saying its ok to investigate someone without a warrant in any case, puts us a giant step closer to that.

 

You're "comparing apples to rocks." The justice system in America is just a teeny-weeny different than that in East Germany was, don't you think?

 

Again, I'm not necessarily advocating the monitoring of electronic conversations without a warrant. I don't know what the solution to fighting terrorism is, but I do know that protecting one's right to complete and utter privacy no matter what the cost is certainly less important than taking the necessary action to save lives.