The greatest wrong was Starr's spending $50 mil for nothing.

Then Blame Reno! She told him to, and paid him! Dont shoot the messenger!

What most people don't realize is that there is no evidence that they ever monitored a US citizen without first obtaining a warrant through FISA.

This is the thing: the Bush admin. doesn't necessarily want to listen in on (loyal) US ~~citizens~~; they want to be able to monitor calls to and from certain people and numbers from the MidEast. Call me silly and naive, but I think that's a good idea.
The whole thing about spying on little Billy the Paperboy's conversation with his Grandma is mainly just politcal maneuvering by the Dems and then perpetuated by the paranoid liberals (especially the "grey ponytail" crowd, who still smart from the secret war in Cambodia and Watergate).

So.....when presidents use it in peacetime, and with proper warrants, it's okay. But in wartime, when time is often of the essence and the situation desperate, they still should go through proper channels and red tape, often perhaps even facing hostile judges? Bullshit, davad.

You're ignoring the fact that they don't have to jump through any hoops to do an emergency tap. They can do it with permission from the AG and then have three days to show justification. There has only been one reported case of a Fisa judge being hostile, and that was only with a fed who had previously been caught falsifying information for a warrant.

What evidence has been shown that these judges are hostile? They have denied about a tenth of 1% of all the applications they've received.

There has been no valid reason shown to justify bypassing Fisa.

There have also been no arrests or convictions based on evidence that was obtained from the NSA.

This is the thing: the Bush admin. doesn't necessarily want to listen in on (loyal) US ~~citizens~~; they want to be able to monitor calls to and from certain people and numbers from the MidEast. Call me silly and naive, but I think that's a good idea.

Nobody has said it's not a good idea...just do it the way that the law provides for.

ferreted out by anyone with the inclination to do so.

Gideon -

With due respect, just "who" would have both such an inclination and the access? I don't want to say you're paranoid, but do you seriously believe the President or the NSA is interested in "getting the goods" on county commissioners? Or has the time and resources to devote to you? That's the FBI's job, remember?

davad -

I'm not 100% certain, but I believe both Echelon & Carnivore were in fact domestic surveillance programs, to what extent actually deployed being a subject of continuing debate.

I'm not 100% certain, but I believe both Echelon & Carnivore were in fact domestic surveillance programs, to what extent actually deployed being a subject of continuing debate.

Yes, I realize that Echelon was a domestic program (not sure about carnivore), but there has never been evidence shown that anyone was targeted by it without a warrant from Fisa.

What about purely domestic surveillance would require a FISA warrant? The point of Echelon & Carnivore was targeting "everyone" to sniff out criminal activity. Part of the reason they were shelved (at least, we think they've been shelved) was the indiscriminate nature of the surveillance.

That very unwillingness to even inadvertently expose our citizens to monitoring was one of things so spectacularly exploited by Bin Laden on 9/11.

that's hardly the case. both the nsa and the fbi were monitoring calls placed by at least two of the hijackers. unless you're suggesting bin laden was somehow blocking agent brainwaves by long distance.

on top of that, i've seen reports to the effect the nsa intercepted a number of calls between atta (in the us) and khalid sheikh mohammed (wherever the hell he was at the time).

Republicans assume guilt in the Whitewater business. Democrats assume guilt in the Plame business. All just a matter of who's horse is being gored, whether a dollar is well-spent or wasted.

gotta give ya props (and points) for this one!

What about purely domestic surveillance would require a FISA warrant?

This would involve a completely different process. Is there proof that Echelon did this, and did it without a warrant?

You're ignoring the fact that they don't have to jump through any hoops to do an emergency tap.

Yeah, okay...I gotta give you this one. Not intentionally "ignoring it", though; just didn't remember to add it to the equation.

What evidence has been shown that these judges are hostile?

I didn't have to when I said "perhaps". That makes it conjecture. This isn't a courtroom; conjecture is allowed. Although it seems possible to me.

There have also been no arrests or convictions based on evidence that was obtained from the NSA.

True....and that also includes Billy the Paperboy and his Grandma, whose right to talk freely has in no way been suppressed.
But if Billy and his Grandma were talking about blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge during rush hour, I'd like someone in authority to know about it.

(not sure about carnivore),

Carnivore was a domestic program to intercept and monitor all e-mails.

My problem is that both it and Eschelon were a wider net than Bush is asking for, which was cast during peacetime for reasons much less imperative and dire. And yet, no outrage against Dollar Bill.

You're ignoring the fact that they don't have to jump through any hoops to do an emergency tap. They can do it with permission from the AG and then have three days to show justification. There has only been one reported case of a Fisa judge being hostile, and that was only with a fed who had previously been caught falsifying information for a warrant.

Yep, just like you're ignoring the fact that before 1978, FISA as we know it did not exist. Jimmy Carter signed it into being in 78.

Perhaps you can explain, though, why it didn't "chill" free speech when Clinton did it, or Bush 41, or Reagan, or Carter, or Ford, or Nixon......especially Nixon. If you do a little research you will discover that the circumstances involved in the other Presidents were quite different.

Which puts Ford and Nixon on the "other" side of the equation. Since they did it also but did not have FISA to cover their butts.

My problem is that both it and Eschelon were a wider net than Bush is asking for, which was cast during peacetime for reasons much less imperative and dire. And yet, no outrage against Dollar Bill.

Yes, they were potentially bigger nets, although we don't really know how big the net is with this NSA program. But, they got warrants.

Yep, just like you're ignoring the fact that before 1978, FISA as we know it did not exist. Jimmy Carter signed it into being in 78.

How am I ignoring that fact? I haven't discussed anything that was before Fisa.

I'd appreciate a link to information about Ford doing domestic eavesdropping.

I'd appreciate a link to information about Ford doing domestic eavesdropping.

How about this one? Link


Next time do your own research, ok?

that's hardly the case. both the nsa and the fbi were monitoring calls placed by at least two of the hijackers.

They already had some reason (and warrants) to do so, kb, though the significance was unknown at the time, and I don't believe the FBI & NSA had mutual knowledge of the content of those taps. You're not quite talking apples & apples here. Our intelligence policies & practices, including the "wall" preventing the sharing of domestic & foreign intelligence data, were exploited by Al Qaeda, knowingly or otherwise.

Yes, they were potentially bigger nets, although we don't really know how big the net is with this NSA program. But, they got warrants.

Prove it. Prove there is a warrant for every one for Clinton and before. Or do not make statements of fact that you cannot authenticate.

How about this one? Link Next time do your own research, ok?

Thanks for the link, jackass. Why do you have to be such a hostile asshole all the time?

Prove it. Prove there is a warrant for every one for Clinton and before. Or do not make statements of fact that you cannot authenticate.

Don't be silly, the administration freely admits that it hasn't gotten warrants for this NSA program. With Echelon and Clinton, they have always said they got warrants and no one has offered evidence that they didn't. I don't have to prove anything to you. If you don't believe what I said, show me proof that shows otherwise.

Then Blame Reno! She told him to, and paid him! Dont shoot the messenger!

Touché, but then once she appointed him she had no contol over his spending.


All this would be much ado about nothing, inasmuch as the government wouldn't get it all together to act on the data anyway, except that info on innocents would be used by con-artists for identity theft.

Thanks for the link, jackass. Why do you have to be such a hostile asshole all the time?

Because I don't care much for jerk-offs that want everybody else to do research for them! Next time don't be so thin-skinned. There was "nothing" hostile in my last reply to you. There is this time.

With Echelon and Clinton, they have always said they got warrants

Dont be silly yourself. You stated a fact. A fact is proveable. So prove it.

Touché, but then once she appointed him she had no contol over his spending.

true, but she had control over the content.

Dont be silly yourself. You stated a fact. A fact is proveable. So prove it.

I don't have to prove anything. I stated a widely accepted fact. If you have proof otherwise feel free to share it.

Because I don't care much for jerk-offs that want everybody else to do research for them! Next time don't be so thin-skinned. There was "nothing" hostile in my last reply to you. There is this time.

I asked you for a link that's all. Did I say I didn't believe you? No, I did not. I was on my way out the door and didn't have time to look it up.

Virtually all your posts have a hostile tone to them.

I'm a jerk-off for asking for a link? I didn't ask you to do any research for me. If I was going to ask anyone to do research for me, it would definitely not be you.

I don't have to prove anything. I stated a widely accepted fact. If you have proof otherwise feel free to share it.

If it is widely accepted, you will have no problem proving it. So do it, and quit dodging around.

let all of us ordinary people see all the court orders. Or are you just accepting someones word as a fact? That cannot be. For you would never be so stupid to do such a silly thing.

I asked you for a link that's all.

So did I. Seems you are in short supply of them

If it is widely accepted, you will have no problem proving it. So do it, and quit dodging around. let all of us ordinary people see all the court orders. Or are you just accepting someones word as a fact? That cannot be. For you would never be so stupid to do such a silly thing.

Let you see all the court orders? Are you mistakenly under the impression that I am someone who has all these orders close at hand. Do you think I am a clerk for the FISA court?

I don't have time to run down all the links at the moment, but this should get you started;

The Clinton administration program, code-named Echelon, complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was obtained. CIA director George Tenet testified to this before Congress on 4/12/00:

I’m here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National Security Agency…

There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department.Link

Now do you have some evidence that Tenet was lying?