Cringely on Domestic Eavesdropping

krygny writes "In this week's The Pulpit, Robert X. Cringely presents some interesting factoids he uncovered in his research into the NSA's domestic surveillance. He makes no judgements but offers some interesting stuff you might not have already known." From the article: "Intercepting communications for purposes of maintaining national security is nothing new. From before Pearl Harbor through 1945, EVERY trans-Atlantic phone call, cable and indeed letter was intercepted in Bermuda by the Coordinator of Information (COI) in the White House and later by the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Sir William Stephenson revealed this in his autobiography, A Man Called Intrepid. They literally tapped the undersea cables and shipped all post to Europe through Bermuda, where every single call was monitored, every cable printed out, and every letter opened. FDR and Churchill needed intelligence and they took the steps they needed to get it."

Yeah, great, guess what

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly why we have a little law called FISA. And FISA is why the domestic spying program is a problem, because under FISA the domestic spying program is illegal. FDR wasn't really subject to FISA because FISA was passed in 1978.

Re:Yeah, great, guess what

[mc6809e]

This is exactly why we have a little law called FISA. And FISA is why the domestic spying program is a problem, because under FISA the domestic spying program is illegal. FDR wasn't really subject to FISA because FISA was passed in 1978.

But the constitution trumps FISA. FISA can't take powers away from the president that he is granted under the constitution.

And the "domestic spying" HAS caught at least one guy. Iyman Faris's plan to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge was discovered through monitoring his phone cal

Re:Yeah, great, guess what

[TheNoxx]

Pardon my ignorance, but where, precisely, does the Constitution give the President the authority to override the Bill of Rights?

Re:Yeah, great, guess what

[TubeSteak]

Secret Amendment.

And no, Congress and the Senate don't have clearance to read it.

But it's there, honest.

Re:Yeah, great, guess what

[wfberg]

You may laugh, but consider this; The Netherlands, the pesky little country I'm from actually has secret treaties with the US. These supercede our own constitution. They're the reason we let the US use our airspace and their military bases on our soil in preparation of the current war on Iraq, even though our Parliament did NOT approve. Nor did they get to read said secret treaties with the US.

Now consider this; if our Parliament isn't aware of their content.. Who is? They didn't get to look it up on www.lo

Cite?

[antientropic]

You may laugh, but consider this; The Netherlands, the pesky little country I'm from actually has secret treaties with the US. These supercede our own constitution.

Do you have any citation for that? I'm Dutch and I've never heard of anything like this. In any case it sounds like it would be quite unconstitutional [unibe.ch]:

Article 91
(1) The Kingdom shall not be bound by treaties, nor shall such treaties be denounced without the prior approval of the Parliament. The cases in which approval is not required shall be specified by Act of Parliament.
(...)
(3) Any provisions of a treaty that conflict with the Constitution or which lead to conflicts with it may be approved by the Chambers of the Parliament only if at least two-thirds of the votes cast are in favor. (...)

Please don't perpetuate urban legends without providing proof.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Yeah, great, guess what

[Pike]

Try this [usdoj.gov] on for size.

Some commentators have read the constitutional text differently. They argue that the vesting of the power to declare war gives Congress the sole authority to decide whether to make war. (6) This view misreads the constitutional text and misunderstands the nature of a declaration of war. Declaring war is not tantamount to making war - indeed, the Constitutional Convention specifically amended the working draft of the Constitution that had given Congress the power to make war. An earlier draft of the Constitution had given to Congress the power to "make" war. When it took up this clause on August 17, 1787, the Convention voted to change the clause from "make" to "declare." 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 318-19 (Max Farrand ed., rev. ed. 1966) (1911). A supporter of the change argued that it would "leav[e] to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks." Id. at 318. Further, other elements of the Constitution describe "engaging" in war, which demonstrates that the Framers understood making and engaging in war to be broader than simply "declaring" war. See U.S. Const. art. I, 10, cl. 3 ("No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."). A State constitution at the time of the ratification included provisions that prohibited the governor from "making" war without legislative approval, S.C. Const. art. XXVI (1776), reprinted in 6 The Federal and State Constitutions 3247 (Francis Newton Thorpe ed., 1909). (7) If the Framers had wanted to require congressional consent before the initiation of military hostilities, they knew how to write such provisions.

Finally, the Framing generation well understood that declarations of war were obsolete. Not all forms of hostilities rose to the level of a declared war: during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Great Britain and colonial America waged numerous conflicts against other states without an official declaration of war. (8) As Alexander Hamilton observed during the ratification, "the ceremony of a formal denunciation of war has of late fallen into disuse." The Federalist No. 25, at 133 (Alexander Hamilton). Instead of serving as an authorization to begin hostilities, a declaration of war was only necessary to "perfect" a conflict under international law. A declaration served to fully transform the international legal relationship between two states from one of peace to one of war. See 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *249-50. Given this context, it is clear that Congress's power to declare war does not constrain the President's independent and plenary constitutional authority over the use of military force.

Re:Yeah, great, guess what

[ZachPruckowski]

Ok, and this logic would apply if Al Qaeda was launching spontaneous border raids from Mexico/Canada. But the "war"s we're in have lasted several years. This is not a case of an executive avoiding red tape in order to protect the country. The War Powers Act pretty much defines a "military action" as different from a war. If the President wanted a "war", I bet he could easily get one from Congress. But he hasn't declared that the "War on Terror" is as critical as the War on Fascism (WWII), or the War Between the States. Personally, I feel like the President can't have it both ways. He says "Everyone go about your normal lives", then proceeds to use emergency powers designed for times of extreme danger to America. Which is it?

Re:Yeah, great, guess what

[SEWilco]

Pardon my ignorance, but where, precisely, does the Constitution give the President the authority to override the Bill of Rights?

The Bill of Rights applies to activities within the USA, it does not apply to your international phone calls. Your home in the USA is protected by U.S. laws, but your home in France is not. Your international phone calls may be intercepted by the NSA, while your phone call to the corner store may not be...unless the phone company routes it through Canada or a satellite.

US soil is never mentioned

[InfiniteWisdom]

The Bill of Rights restricts the actions "the government" may take against "the people". That means the US government may not act against anyone in ways that violate the constition anywhere... regardless of whether or not they are on US soil.

Educate Yourself

[CrazyDuke]

Educate Yourself [cornell.edu] I suggest you take some rugged individualistic responcibility for your own education.

From Article II (the presidency) of the US Constitution, the sections that define presidential authority:

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Here are the parts related to Executive Orders:
"He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;" . . . "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States."

In other words, he can recommend stuff to the legislature for consideration. Make orders to insure the laws are executed faithfully. And order his underlings to accomplish that task.

The only possible strech for this to be a law is if you believe this government is a dictatorship, in which case the legislature and the judiciary are his underlings and he can order them to do what he wants, with the power of the military behind him. Is this what you want?

Re:Executive orders

[mesocyclone]

Wikipedia, which is a noble experiment and a great resource, has long acknowledged that in controversial areas, its accuracy is suspect. And indeed it is. During the 2004 election campaign, I put some information that was unfavorable to John Kerry into it. I gave a reference, which was an easily obtained book. My change was rejected because "the book probably doesn't exist" even though the simplest Amazon search showed that it does and was available.

Even today, if you read the Bush and Kerry sections, you will find the phrasing of the Kerry section to be much more favorable than that of Bush (if you have ever studies actual propaganda, you will recognize the technique). The concentration of various facts to be similarly more favorable - selective editing - I'm sure the many Bush haters on here are itching to tell me that both are accurate. They are not - in either case.

Hence citing the Wikipedia as authorithy on *controversial* subjects is ridiculous, as has been discussed here before.

I praise the Wikipedia effort, but one unfortunately side effect is that those who control the keys to the kingdom, or the faction which works the hardest to change an entry, determine the content, regardless of truth and damgingly against balance. Wikipedia is trying to change this, although I cannot think of any methodology that are consistent with its character that will work.

And no, I'm not going to debate this. If you don't believe me, go find some other controversial area and eventually you will discover this sort of shading to be common.

Re:Executive orders

[mesocyclone]

The reason I choose not to debate it is because it has been debated here before in much more detail. Check the archives.

I'm sorry that you chose to take the example as some sort of silly partisan argument rather than recognizing it as merely one (personal, in this case) example of Wikipedia bias.

Pretend that my information was false (which you *assume* it was given the scare quotes you put around the word.

It still doesn't justify the deletioon of my changes on the grounds that "the book probalby doesn't eve

Re:Executive orders

[mOdQuArK!]

Hey, a rational response - I'm impressed!

The article you link to (and everything else that I have read) doesn't say that Executive Orders can be used to override Congressional laws, although some Presidents have tried to use them to do so (and when direct conflict between Congressional law & the Executive Order came about, the courts have ruled against the President).

It _does_ say (and I'd agree) that the Executive Orders use the gray areas caused by sloppy Congressional law-writing to bend/multilate/spindle the law in a way that a President wishes to interpret it, and that the courts have traditionally been pretty lenient about the scope of these gray areas.

When it comes down to it, though, the precedence is pretty straightforward: Constitution (including amendments) trumps all, then Congressional law, then Executive Orders, then agency regulations. As much as it annoys the executive branch, there is no legal way thay can overrule the power of the Constitution & Congressional statutes - it can only interpret in the bounds of any wiggle room that the Constitution & Congress sees fit to grant it.

Of course, if the Supreme Court doesn't have the cajones to call the executive branches on abuses of this law-making power-order, then it's pretty obvious that a President would have essentially the same power as a dictator - making, enforcing & passing judgement.

Re:Yeah, great, guess what

[HangingChad]

And the "domestic spying" HAS caught at least one guy. Iyman Faris's plan to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge was discovered through monitoring his phone calls.

This is the guy who was going to cut down the Brooklyn Bridge with a cutting torch. We could have let him try it and he'd still be out there trying to cut through those cables. His plan was so stupid it could qualify as material on the 3 Stooges.

And this is your big "evidence" that domestic spying thwarts terrorism? I think people like you are the problem as much as the Bush administration. You'd sell out liberty and freedom just to preserve a false sense of security for your fat, dumpy Lay-Z-Boy sitting, SUV driving ass. You're a gutless, spineless, disgusting example of what America has become.

Re:Yeah, great, guess what

[frost22]

FISA can't take powers away from the president that he is granted under the constitution.

This is basically a renewed version of the theory of "Divine Grace". Absolute Monarchs in the 16th and 17th century argued that God had made them rulers by His Divine Grace, and therfore considered their power to be absolute and without limits. They were above all laws. Enlightenment and civil revolution finally did away with this nonsense.

Now you just substitute "divine grace" by "the founding fathers"

It is pretty embarassing that a sizeable part of the population in an enlightened country like the US whith a long democratic tradition suddenly adheres to such theories. If you want to know where such lunacy can end, look uzp terms like "Ermächtigungsgesetz"....

Re:Yeah, great, guess what

[winwar]

"But the constitution trumps FISA. FISA can't take powers away from the president that he is granted under the constitution."

Probably true. But the President doesn't have the authority to for warrantless searches of US citizens. I believe the SCTOUS said something to that effect. Of course, that doesn't mean they can't ignore that ruling.

"And the "domestic spying" HAS caught at least one guy. Iyman Faris's plan to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge was discovered through monitoring his phone calls."

Well, I don't

Re:Yeah, great, guess what

[billsoxs]

You have voiced my basic concern but I proabaly would not have said it so stridently. A real problem that we have is that the House is a rubber stamp of the outer fringe of both parties and is not a true reflection of the people. (IT IS the House of Representitives, not the House of those who cling to power.) As it is, they bend over backward to keep power to themselves, meaning that they lay down for the President (again either party.) We need to solve this problem and some of the other issues - like t

Re:Yeah, great, guess what

[hdparm]

I think I speak for all conservatives...

No, you do not. Only for those without brains.

Re:Yeah, great, guess what

[hdparm]

Cowards is what they are. Scared of freedom.

...says Anonymous Coward...

Re:Yeah, great, guess what

[flyingsquid]

Suck my dick. Modern day conservatives are nothing more that apologists for tyranny, murder, criminality, and rampant immorality.

You forgot massive deficit spending. And tax cuts for people who have more money than God. And failed foreign policy. And governments trying to tell people how to live their personal lives. And barbecuing cute little puppies.

Well, I don't know about that last one. But if that was the worst thing the neocons were up to, this country would be in a hell of a lot better situation th

Re:Yeah, great, guess what

[TheNoxx]

Pardon? The myth that the Japanese could've conquered the United States, is at best, a laughable one. The Japanese attack on American is known as a "naked assault" because they had no chance of winning, at all. After Germany fell, the small, however feirce, Japanese army was *doomed*. Not only that, but the use of massive firebombs on civilian targets was a violation of the Geneva Convention, and is a tactic called, ironically, "Terror-Bombing" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_bombing [wikipedia.org]). Hundreds of thousands died in the fire-bombing on Tokyo and Kobe, not to mention Dresden and Hamburg, all of which were massive civilian populations, not military installations. While the atomic bombing of a civilian target forced the Japanese to surrender early, the ethics of the genocidal slaughtering hundreds of thousands merely to cow the enemy military into submission is simply barbaric, inhuman, and evil.

Do you see a corellation here? The same tactics the US Military used on its targets is now being used against our own populace by a small, militant Islamic faction to get its way. Hell, we even trained them. Maybe that's why we get angry at the goverment for trying to thieve our rights away for trying to fix its own fuckups.

Re:Yeah, great, guess what

[spacecowboy420]

As the addage goes, history is written by the victors. Read the losers history, the truth is somewhere in the middle - far from where you are.

Re:Unlike you, so much the same...

[revscat]

The difference between us is I realize that both of us are rather fond of democracy; I (and other conservatives) just happen to realize Democracy takes some defending even if it means a few calls to known terrorists are tapped.

The difference between us is that I'm not a scared little monkey who willingly sacrifices EVERYTHING out of fear of some overrated boogeyman. Do you think our nation is more at risk now than it was during the American Revolution? Not fucking hardly. Osama bin Laden is nothing more than an Emmanuel Goldstein, and you, cowardly fascist that you are, WANT to absolve your country's principles out of fear.

Someone who claims that someone who protects Democracy is "The Enemy" is I've found someone who has reach the point where there is no reasoning with them. Yes, that's right - it's easier to get a southern baptist to accept gay people than it is to get a blowhard peace loving Democrat to accept that some times when foreign powers are actively trying to hurt U.S. interests that things need to get done.

Peace loving? You argue against strawmen, and think yourself insightful.

I support the war in Afghanistan. I support all efforts to keep those fucksticks in Iran from getting nukes. I supported the military action in Kosovo. I WOULD support military intervention in Sudan.

I do NOT support wholeheartedly throwing away my rights and giving imperial powers to a president in pursuit of those goals. And I am not alone. Your strawmen are pathetic, willfull lies. America's strength comes from it's democracy and its justice system, not its military. We are neither so threatened nor so weak as to necessitate a king who is above the law.

Equal justice FOR ALL, and death to those who oppose it.

Re:Unlike you, so much the same...

[SillyNickName4me]

Your logic skills are amazing.

Did it ever occur to you that wiretaps can also be done in a legal way?

Did it ever register with you that prevention of the 9/11 attacks did not happen because of information not ending up at the right people, and misinterpretation of information, not because the information was not there?

It never occured to you that adding more and more information is just going to make that problem bigger and as a result makes things less safe?

Ah well, please go back to your fox induced reality, hope you are happy there, but please don't claim to be a sentient beign untill you learned something about logic and reasoning.

Re:Unlike you, so much the same...

[grimwell]

You're willing to sacrifice the Brooklyn Bridge (spared from attack because of spying)

From that statement, it sounds like you value the Brooklyn Bridge more than you value the Bill of Rights. Is that correct? An interesting choice but I would disagree with you. A thousand Brooklyn Bridges don't come close to the value of the Bill of Rights. Bridges are way easier to rebuild/restore than civil rights.

The problem isn't fear that someone might listen in on a conversation to Iraq or Afghanistan, the problem is that "King" George couldn't be bothered to follow the law. FISA provides for retroactive wiretapping warrents; listen to who want and get a warrent later, but he couldn't even do that. The fact that the current sitting President commited a felony(and even admitted to it on national tv) and hasn't be arrested or impeached is the problem. The hub-bub about domestic spying is a disattraction away from the actual crime.

And as for the "attack" on the Brooklyn Bridge.... Do you really believe the Brooklyn Bridge could be taken down with blowtorches?

BBC article about Bush/NSA domestic spying [bbc.co.uk]

From the article...
"Several officials said the eavesdropping programme had helped uncover a plot by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker and naturalised citizen who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting al-Qaeda by planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches.

US DoJ statement about Iyman Faris [usdoj.gov]

From the US Dept. of Justice...
According to Faris' admission, the operational leader then told Faris that al Qaeda was planning two simultaneous attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C. The al Qaeda leader spoke with Faris about destroying a bridge in New York City by severing its suspension cables, and tasked Faris with obtaining the equipment needed for that operation.

Faris admitted that upon returning to the United States from Pakistan in April 2002, he researched "gas cutters" - the equipment for severing bridge suspension cables


I have a hard time believing a bunch of guys with blowtorches could cut enough cables on the bridge to make it fall. I'm going to go out on a limb and say someone would stop them well before they even got close.

Please make an effort to see past the talking heads and the spin. Commit some time to researching events, you'll be better informed and the world might be a better place for it.

Re:Unlike you, so much the same...

[colinrichardday]

The President took an oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, not the Brooklyn Bridge.

Re:Unlike you, so much the same...

[kbielefe]

Let me preface my response by saying that I have been Bush's strongest supporter, from Afghanistan to Iraq, and will -- if it comes to that -- support military action in Iran. When I heard about these wiretaps, I felt betrayed. This is why.

Proponents of the wiretap policy have set up a false dichotomy [wikipedia.org] between warrantless wiretaps and no wiretaps at all. They have convinced 60% of Americans that the other 40% of us don't want terrorists' phones to be tapped. That is not true. There is a third option here in the form of a special court specifically designed for obtaining warrants of a sensitive national security nature. I believe that there was just cause for every call that was tapped, and as such, a warrant from the FISA court could have easily been obtained in every individual case.

You talk about protecting democracy. Part of that is protecting individual oversight by a judge every time the rights of an American citizen are abridged, before they are abridged. Oversight as part of a huge list of names, by an overworked congressional committee every few months is not enough.

Counting military casualties (wounded and killed), there have been approximately 20,000 american victims of terrorism since September 11th. In that same time, approximately 6 million americans have been victims of violent crime. Yet, inexplicably, a solid majority of the american public seems to believe that a judge must approve the search of murderers and child rapists on a individual basis, but that an american citizen with even an innocent association with a terrorist does not deserve that individual attention. I disagree, and I'm not the only conservative to do so.

I believe that Bush acted in good faith, but that he made the wrong decision in this case. He had the option of removing all doubt of the legality of his actions, and chose instead to act unilaterally. If one terrorist is released due to a legal technicality that could have been so easily avoided, that will truly be a tragedy.

Re:Unlike you, so much the same...

[rben]

Unlike you, I don't believe that Bush acted in good faith. Every president has access to legal counsel to warn him when he is going beyond the bounds of his constitutional powers. If Bush wasn't warned, than his counsel is incompetant.

I believe that Bush was advised by his political advisors to extend his powers in the hope of regaining some of the executive power that was lost after the Nixon debacle. It's not difficult for federal agents to get court orders to place wiretaps when they are needed. This was just another place where Bush could try to increase the power of the presidency.

Re:Unlike you, so much the same...

[ivan256]

This was just another place where Bush could try to increase the power of the presidency.

Bush is just the first one to get caught. You don't think that the NSA monitored domestic communications beyond their authority under Clinton, Bush Sr., or Reagan? This has been going on for decades and nobody has noticed until now.

Doesn't make it right, but still...

It's not black and white!

[Trinition]

...if it means a few calls to known terrorists are tapped.

And the number of people like me is growing, as witnessed by the 60% approval ratings for wiretapping actions that Bush enjoys.

Why is it that no poll can look like this: What do you think about the wiretapping?

1. Its OK no matter what
2. It would be ok if the admin got FISA to grant warrants
3. It is no tOK under any circumstances

Every time I debate this with people, they always talk about the fact that it's "known" terrorists on the other end so its excusable. I don't care if its your grandma on the other end. If an American at home is on the other end, why is it so imssposible for the administration to just get a warrant?! FISA grants almost every single request. FISA acts quickly, even in the middle of the night. FISA will even let you get the warrant after the fact! So...

Why won't the administration submit requests to FISA?

1. They're not wiretapping who they say they are so no court would actually grant such warrants
2. There are so many terrorist-connected calls coming out of America it would overwhelm the system
3. The administration is trying to save taxpayer dollars by cutting down on paper usage

Re:Yeah, great, guess what

[TheLink]

Get your priorities right.

Making noise about GWB is more to have a greater impact on what happens to us in the future than making noise about FDR.

Why are you even talking about FDR? If you don't like what FDR did and GWB is doing something similar, why'd you even need to bring up FDR? You can just go say GWB is doing something wrong.

I'm not a US citizen, but way too many US people seem to treat this Democrat vs Republican thing the same way those Pro-wrestling commentators do:

No matter what your team does it can do no wrong - even if they are blatantly cheating. "So what if my team is illegally using a chair, hey your team did that too in 2002".

I guess it's fine if it's pro-wrestling, but when it's about the Government and Leaders of the most powerful nation in the world, that sort of thing is so _STUPID_ that it is disgusting.

If someone you support is doing something really wrong, get some integrity and tell them it is wrong. If they are good people, YOU ARE DOING THEM A FAVOUR, and when it comes your leaders, you are doing YOURSELF a favour. If they are really bad people, don't bother telling them, just vote for someone better EVEN if he/she is not the same party you normally support.

Lastly, please make sure your voting systems work correctly. If you guys can spend billions of USD and thousands of lives on elections in Iraq, you should at least get something decent, rather than the dubious crap that Diebold has made. I personally find it strange that the most powerful country in the world picks its leaders using something with the quality of a failed high school project. Especially when they seem to think that free elections and democracy is so important...

HEY US CITIZENS, WAKE UP! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE???

If you can't get that right, outsource your elections to India if you have to. At least the Indians manage to get their elections working for their 1 billion citizens without too many riots or ending up in a civil war.

Sheesh.

Re:Yeah, great, guess what

[ilyaaohell]

I say we go a step further. We should support President McKinley, grow handlebar mustaches, and crack the heads of the filthy Irish!

Re:Yeah, great, guess what

[billsoxs]

Yeah! - Oh wait I am part Irish.... Do I have/get to crack my own head?

Re:Yeah, great, guess what

[chadpnet]

But of course FDR never did anything illegal or unconstitutional as president.

Re:Yeah, great, guess what

[damsa]

Of course not, he even sent Japanese Americans to happy sunshine camps.

Dupe

[arbitraryaardvark]

It's a dupe. Zonk already posted about OSS at 5:24.

+2 Stupid.

We spy on the English, they spy on us

[HornWumpus]

Nobody does any domestic spying. The NSA are in england working with the english spooks that actually spy on us. English spooks work with NSA spying on English subjects (a subject is like a citizen but without guns).

That has been going on sense Truman. Kennedy did it, Clinton did it, so did Nixon and Reagan.

Re:Yeah, great, guess what

[lordholm]

This is intresting, as in Sweden, the goverment is investigating whether to allow for international calls and data transmission in wires to be intercepted. The FRA (Swedish version of the NSA), already intercept radio transmissions, and they want more.

And as usual, international is defined as not-in-sweden, so this includes intra-european traffic as well, which is really way over the line. Not that I am surprised, Sweden have a facshist as minister of justice, who just recently together with his British collegue, pushed through a law in Europe, forcing ISPs, mail-servers, mobile phone companies &.c to log data on their customers communications (not the contents, but bad enough) for TWO years.

While it might be reasonable for European police to be given access to existing records after a court order, this new law is unprecedented in that it regulates what data that is to be stored, which turns out to be a lot more information than was actually stored by telephone and internet companies by default.

This is disgusting and I want none of it.

PS! To any Swede reading this, dispose Bodström in the autum elections, all other questions are secondary! DS!

Does this make it right?

[sriehl]

This still doesn't mean that it is right for communications within the US to be monitored. Just because one thing has been done a long time, does not make it right. Look at slavery for example.

Okay...

[TheNoxx]

Well, guess what, murder, genocide, and rape are nothing new either... that doesn't make them any less reprehensible.

McCarthy did the same thing with communism as Bush is doing with terrorism. I still can't believe Bush hasn't even *apolagized* for breaking our fundamental American rights. Just because doing so is unoriginal has no bearing on the fact of it being completely unethical conduct and grounds for legal action against his administration.

Oh well. I suppose we had a good enough run with freedom and personal liberty (something like... 30 or 40 years out of the thousands of years humans have been around?). Time for another Dark Ages. Hooray.

Re:Okay...

[TopSpin]

I still can't believe Bush hasn't even *apolagized* (sic) for breaking our fundamental American rights

It has been six years and people still hold out hope Bush can be harangued into apologies.

Yay for persistence.

Re:Okay...

[NecroPuppy]

The difference is, McCarthy was right.

Check out the Verona Project records if you don't believe me. Many of the people he questioned or wanted to question actually were Soviet agents.

Re:Okay...

[Scudsucker]

The difference is, McCarthy was right. Check out the Verona Project records if you don't believe me. Many of the people he questioned or wanted to question actually were Soviet agents.

To go straight to Godwin's Law, that's like saying Hitler was right because some of the Jews that were killed actually were bad people. Utter nonsense.

Godwin

[hummassa]

Answer to your first question: YES, McCarthy and Hitler were exactly at the same level of scum. The difference between them being that Hitler was more successful in his goals, at least for some time.
The fact that McCarthy trampled on the civil liberties of a lot of people (just like Hitler did) is not changed by the fact that some of his targets were really communists.
The fact that McCarthy destroyed the life of a lot of people in the process is not changed, either.
Every single witch-hunting season brings e

Re:Godwin

[johnny cashed]

So you think Hitler started out big? No, he worked his way up. McCarthy did some damn nasty shit in his witchhunt. I don't think Hitler started with "I'm going to conquer the world". He had supporters, it got worked up big and good, and then he was a dictator. McCarthy got drunk on power. If he would have been more successful, who is to say that he wouldn't have done the same(as Hitler). Power corrupts. McCarthy was scum, as much as Hitler, but less successful, by a few orders of magnitude.

Re:Godwin

[johnny cashed]

Agreed. My other point I was trying to make is this. Hitler didn't "try to exterminate an entire race" by himself. He was a man, he wasn't alone, he had support. People make Hitler out as though he was ten feet tall, could bend steel with his bare hands, and was evil. Nazi Germany was a human failure. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not defending Hitler. He was a bad man. But he still shared something with you and me, in that he was human. Nazi Germany was bad, bad, bad. Evil things were done. But

Re:Okay...

[symbolic]

I still can't believe Bush hasn't even *apolagized* for breaking our fundamental American rights.

He never will, either. He thinks he has the authority to do what he did. He somehow believes that Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces (which is worrisome enough by itself) somehow equates to Commander in Chief of the United States, and therefore, puts him above the law. Nixon and others have suffered from similar delusional thinking.

Re:Did you vote for Nader in 2000?

[ultranova]

My good man, I voted for Gore, and reluctantly voted for Kerry; not only that, I am more than slightly pissed off at Nader and everyone who voted for him. I'm also completely aware that the GOP even donated money to Nader's campaign to take more votes away from Gore.

Well, everyone who voted for Nader, in my opinion, has some blame to share in the Iraqi civilian deaths, now numbered at 30,000.

You know, you americans desperately need a two-phase presidential elections. In a nutshell, they work like this:

First, you organize the vote normally. This is phase one. If any of the candidates gets over 50% of votes, he gets elected, and that's that. If none does, you organize a new vote, with the only two candidates being the two people who got the most votes in phase one. This is phase two; whoever wins it gets the presidency.

This way, if you don't want Bush in office, you can safely vote anyone but him; you don't need to concentrate your votes behind some "bad but better than Bush" candidate. If more than half of people votes for Bush, he gets elected anyway, no matter how tactical you try to be with your vote; and if less than half votes for him, it doesn't matter how the other votes gets distributed, you'll get a second vote phase anyway. At second phase, you can then choose to vote for Bush's opponent if you think he's better than Bush.

That's the system we use here in Finland, to avoid the kinds of problems you are having.

Of course, this would break the two-party system and turn it into a multiparty system, so it is unlikely to happen.

Re:Okay...

[dangitman]

Oh, come off it. You honestly have no idea that every non-American English-speaking country uses an 's' in that situation instead of a 'z'?

Of course I do. I was not referring to that. "Apologised" is spelled with an "o" in the middle, not an "i."

Sounds like a great security measure

[Anonymous Coward]

> From before Pearl Harbor

Soooo... how'd that work out?

Re:Sounds like a great security measure

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

You know, they *might* just have missed the call saying "Banzai! we're attacking!" as the cables that were tapped were under the Atlantic, and the Japanese probably didn't route their phone calls through them to avoid long-distance charges.

Re:Sounds like a great security measure

[IvyKing]

You know, they *might* just have missed the call saying "Banzai! we're attacking!"

Actually the message was not missed - the US knew by the 4th of December that war with Japan was only a few days away - and orders were sent out for the destruction of decryption gear in the Philipines and Guam. What wasn't known was the exact time and place for the attacks.

There's a slight issue with timing here - from TFA, the intercepts begain before Pearl Harbor, but the US didn't declare war on Germany until December

Re:Sounds like a great security measure

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

the evidence shows that Pearl Harbour was not a surprise, it was allowed to happen so US citizens would get pissed off and want to join the war. the most important ships were moved out of the harbour though.

Depends on who you listen to.

[jd]

There are plenty of people who argue that Churchill (at least) and possibly FDR knew perfectly well about the impending attack and did nothing, in order to draw America into the war. If you believe this theory, then this is a great method to manipulate others by selectively handing out information for political gain.

There are plenty who argue that neither knew about the attack, which would mean that those planning such things are probably smart enough to be discrete about it, which would mean that such surveillance is utterly worthless.

There are claims that Churchill knew about the attack, because older Japanese diplomatic codes had already been broken and enough could be extracted from messages to know the generalities even if not the specifics. (The newer diplomatic codes used were apparently derived from the ones that had been broken, to the point where partial decryption was possible.) If that is the case, then basic signals intelligence between key figures would seem to be more valuable than general monitoring.

Regardless of which of the popular theories you subscribe to, there is one common aspect - the kind of spying being practiced against American citizens is useless, whether or not other forms of signal intelligence has any value.

(Actually, existing sigint practices in general seem pretty crappy. We've had numerous false alarms, where the threat level has been raised but no evidence of any attack ha ever emerged. On the other hand, actual attacks in very recent times - such as those in London - were missed entirely.)

It does nothing to raise confidence levels when you realize that several top US Government officials have been arrested on spying charges in the US... ENTIRELY through a mix of blind luck, observation and routine detective footwork. If the US monitoring program can't even monitor national secrets and foreign agents, then it's not much use as a monitoring service.

Well, either that or it's not being used to monitor "threats" of that kind at all, which raises the question of what it IS monitoring. Nixon's crusade against the Democrats had far more to do with keeping himself in absolute power than with keeping the country safe, and Hoover was notorious for finding out the dirty secrets of anyone who could threaten his personal powerbase. Not to be cynical (reader: "you expect me to believe that?") but a comparison of results versus approach would seem to indicate that this program isn't as much for the benefit of national security as we're being told.

Who cares if is wrong.

[Mrs. Grundy]

This controversy gets a little old as people argue the various ethical merits of government wiretaps. The issue is not whether eavesdropping on communications is necessary, right, or wrong, but whether we want to live in a country where the executive charged with running it is not bound by the law. I'm sure the lawyers in the DOJ will put forth some very creative arguments, but I think it is clear to most people that this breaks both the letter and the spirit of the law. As this plays out, we will be well served to remember that congress writes the laws and the executive branch enforces them. When the president and his staff decide they need not adhere to the laws congress has authored, it is time to consider the meaning of 'high Crimes or Misdemeanors."

Re:Who cares if is wrong.

[Quirk]

As a Canadian I'm reminded of reading that, IIRC, the 7th President... "President Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said of A Supreme court ruling he opposed: "Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Again IIRC, the Supreme Court backed down. Certainly the power of the Supreme Court has increased substantially since Jackson's remark. I doubt any president would repeat the remark.

There may well be a streak in the American character that sees in the presidency something akin to th

Re:Who cares if is wrong.

[TubeSteak]

Damn straight.

This is about Principle.

It drives me crazy when I see "Well, if you don't have anything to hide, you've got nothing to worry about."

Thats not the point

The point is that this should only happen if laws are amended and elected Representatives of the People take part in the process.

No legal consultations, opinions, or equivocations can change the fact that some part of the process broke down & allowed the Executive Office to act unchecked.

That's just not how America the Beautiful [fuzzylu.com] is supposed

Mighty undersea cables

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

They literally tapped the undersea cables and shipped all post to Europe through Bermuda, where every single call was monitored, every cable printed out, and every letter opened.

Letters traveling through undersea cables? clever that...

Tell ya what everyone

[derfletchmeister]

Agree with me that Clinton was as bad a person for doing this as Bush is, and you'll show everyone that at least you're consistent.

Re:Tell ya what everyone

[TheNoxx]

To my knowledge, Clinton never gave a blanket order to the NSA that allowed the violation of every man, woman, and child's privacy in America. By all means, educate me.

Re:Tell ya what everyone

[derfletchmeister]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/18/2214 52.shtml [newsmax.com] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1553101/p osts [freerepublic.com]

Re:Tell ya what everyone

[TheNoxx]

The project ECHELON was a collaboration between the American and British intelligence communties and authorized by the FISA court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_Court [wikipedia.org]), not by Clinton; ECHELON also began operation well before 1992, when Clinton took office.

Fighting FISA goes hand in hand with Bush Sr. and his young boy.

Re:60 minutes transcript

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you expect intelligence agencies to gather intelligence?

Within the bounds of the law...

I know this is all important, but

[Council]

Robert X. Cringely presents some interesting factoids he uncovered

I couldn't help but laugh when I learned, earlier today, that the word "factoid" technically refers to an untrue piece of information that is accepted as true due to repetition in the media.

In a profound stroke of irony, the incorrect definition of 'factoid' (a small piece of information) has become the prevailing one through repetition in the media.

Not modern use

[SuperKendall]

The more modern use it that of a small interesting fact [bartleby.com]:

Factoid has since developed a second meaning, that of a brief, somewhat interesting fact, that might better have been called a factette.

I have not seen a use in recent memory of facts that were not true - though indeed very trivial facts. Modern use tends more towards the "it's true, but really doens't matter much to most people".

Re:I know this is all important, but

[aaronl]

Ugh, if you do that, you make the language less useful. You hinder communication between all speakers of that language, and make it that much more difficult for someone to learn. The way that *your* talking about language changing is to shift around the meanings of existing words. The result of doing so is that now you even need to have the etymology sitting next to you to read a book written out of your generation.

BTW, "nice" and "mean" have exactly the definition that most people expect. You can also

Apathy

[eikonos]

It's obvious that what the Bush administration did is against the law, so why are so many people are too apathetic to do anything about it?

Re:Apathy

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

beause he's only violating the Constitution and the Declaration of Human Rights.

if he started coveting his neighbour's ass you better believe he'd get smacked down.

Much Worse than Apathy

[BrianMarshall]

Many Americans support the President. Many are afraid. Many afraid people make it possible for the government to greatly increase its power. Many people want this. If the government is breaking laws, it is because there is a war on! Serious new measures must be taken! This is what makes me afraid.

Letter censorship in WWII was quite open

[Animats]

The US opened, and censored, international mail during WWII. This was no secret. The US was very open about it; letters were resealed with the marking"Opened By Censor." [stamps-auctions.com]

Re:Letter censorship in WWII was quite open

[hey]

Letters are sealed so its hard to pretend it wasn't opened en route.
No so with phone calls.
Maybe they should briefly interrupt your call with a message:

"the department of arbitrary surveillance is recording this call - thank you citizen"

Would actually be better than today.

Re:Letter censorship in WWII was quite open

[billsoxs]

Look this still happens today from Iraq..... More specifically from GIs in Iraq to anywhere.... In fact, you can put in whatever war zone your want in the above comment and it is true. NOTE This is a military issue. As a member of the Military, you are missing some rights that you would have as a Civilian. (Nature of the military.)

Re:Letter censorship in WWII was quite open

[surprise_audit]

As a member of the Military, you are missing some rights that you would have as a Civilian.

Yes, but there are some compensations, such as being allowed, nay, *expected* to run around with large pieces of ordnance, blowing up bits of the landscape...

Only 20 years too late

[Bushcat]

The Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier: American Military Power in Britain

Duncan Cambell, Paladin 1986 - ISBN 0586086269

None of this scandal really matters until 2006,

[Clockwurk]

When there is a congressional election. If democrats can take back the house, they could possibly impeach the president; no Republican controlled house would ever betray their parties president (especially after he was re(s)elected). The angle that I don't think has been stressed enough is how Bush acted. If he really thought that having to go through a court that has approved 18,742 wiretap warrants and denied 5 was such an unconstitutional restraint of his power, he should have spoken up when he started doing it. Bush is asking for huge increases in executive power during a war he started under false premises.

According to a recent Zogby poll, 52% of Americans approve of impeaching Bush if he wiretapped an American citizen without a judges approval.

This wiretapping scandal can only get bigger as more and more layers get exposed. It appears Bush may have been wiretapping Americans before 9/11. [gwu.edu]

Re:None of this scandal really matters until 2006,

[tomjen]

Correct me if i am wrong, but is it not 2006?

Re:None of this scandal really matters until 2006,

[mattwarden]

This wiretapping scandal can only get bigger as more and more layers get exposed.

If it doesn't happen fast, it could very well die. The American Public gets tired of the same story after it's discussed 6 or 7 times. Then the Super Bowl comes around. Then... OOO!!! SHINY~!!! etc. etc.

But, as the election nears, hopefully the Democrats will grow some you-know-whats and bring the subject to the foreground again.

Re:But 64% approve tapping terrorists

[Clockwurk]

I agree that the president should be able to wiretap, but that he should have to go through a court to do so. The issue is not whether the president should be able to wiretap in times of war, the issue is that Bush broke the existing law (that was very lenient and gave him 72 hours to retroactively seek a warrant if the need was so pressing). Judging from the court's record, I would say that the cases that Bush did not get approval for would be cases that even the rubber-stamp FISA court found would find un

Domestic eavesdropping fails

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the people you're eavesdropping on can set up arbitrarily complex networks of people and messages across different communication networks. The following could be a message to my terrorist buddies: fiesufsdkfjdsjhfdsjhfkjdfsdhjk43243. Woohoo. Now, even if you KNOW I'm a terrorist, you have to check up on EVERYONE who accessed those bytes, and you have to correlate all of their communications to all others who might relay the message offline to still others, who might reconstitute it and retransmit it again, etc., ad infinitum.

Good luck figuring all that out, before something blows up when you least expected it.

Re:Domestic eavesdropping fails

[billsoxs]

So I take it that you would give up your rights for safety?

From http://www.quotationspage.com/ [quotationspage.com]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Why they didn't get warrants....

[pogopop77]

I'm sure if the domestic eavesdropping were a narrowly targeted program, the Bush administration would have gotten warrants from the secret courts and there would be no issue. However, the NSA is likely monitoring a huge range of communications and then mining the data for potential "hits" using voice analysis or some other automated technique. Warrants to monitor specific lines or people don't really make sense unless the "hits" pan out. The 1978 FISA law is out of date given present day monitoring capa

Bad news kids...

[Anonymous Coward]

The country you grew up hearing about in school... dead if it ever existed.

The principles it was founded on... undermined.

The word from all forms of media, public and private... propoganda.

The truth... Too crazy to be believed.

The reality... It's always 1984.

FISA and it's limits

[Anonymous Coward]

FISA is not the be-all and end-all of Surveillaince law, any more than Jim Crow, the law of the land, was consistent with the Constitution. Yes up to and including Plessy vs. Ferguson and a Supreme Court decision affirming the legality of segregation.

FISA was written in 1978, before throw-away cell phones and the idea that terrorism would ever be a threat to Americans. We are at war with a stateless enemy that exists in every nation of the globe and is sworn to our destruction.

Given that, does GWB have the authority under the Consititution to establish basically a giant version of "Snort" on US telco switches and filter out comms to/from Al Qaeda?

My guess is probably. The Constititution and FISA are both notably silent on data mining on telco traffic to/from foreign nations. Though it's worth noting that Bill Clinton and Al Gore asserted JUST such an authority with Echelon back in the 1990s (using the Canadians and Brits to surveill us while we surveilled them and the Aussies and everyone shared). Not to mention Al Gore's defense of the Clipper Chip and Carnivore.

There likely needs to be better oversight (sure any technology can be abused) but adhering to FISA rigidly is like not trusting this new-fangled fingerprint business, or DNA testing. As it is this tech gives us LOTS of leads we'd otherwise never get. Your computer can be used to invade people's privacy, I don't see Slashdot readers deciding to abjure technology and go live in a mud hut somewhere.

Point being that with changes in technology and society the understanding of the Constitution changes. We don't live in the 1890's and don't have LEGAL and Supreme Court approved Segregation. I assume that the Supremes will hold that the President DOES have the authority to check out who's in contact with Al Qaeda without a FISA warrant, and like property qualifications for officeholding and voting FISA itself will go away.

Hypocracy

[MarkusQ]

I find it amusing how the new school "conservatives" (I'm an old school conservative) are so gung-ho about strict interpretation of the constitution, and not "deriving" governmental authority on abstruse theories (commerce clause, anyone?) but they are willing to turn a blind eye to plain language when it suits them:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

A vaguely remember when conservatives were in favor of limiting government, especially the federal government, and most especially the executive branch. Seems like, what, maybe five years ago they just dropped that long standing pillar of conservative ideology, along with fiscal restraint and sound judgment. Now the "conservatives" are all about a nanny state on steroids that spends like a drunken sailor and treats the constitution like a "quaint" piece of litter from the past, to be ignored when it doesn't suit them.

I almost wonder if perhaps they never really were conservative in the first place, and just used us in a cynical grab for power.

--MarkusQ

Re:FISA and it's limits

[winwar]

"The question has centered around whether or not FISA now requires him to get a warrant for such intelligence gathering."

AAARRRRGGGGHHHH!

There is little to no debate about whether the President can do warrantless intelligence gathering on FOREIGN intelligence.

The debate centers on whether he can do it for DOMESTIC intelligence gathering. The answer is almost certainly not legally except perhaps in a time of DECLARED war.

People who support the President's interpretation like to mix these separate issues. Be

Intelligence

[carcosa30]

Bush sorely needs intelligence too.

Value

[porkface]

So there are all these instances where leaders we hold in great esteem arranged pervasive wiretaps, but what was the actual value of those taps? What information did the yield that was really that worthwhile?

And how does that valuation fit into the current "legal" system involving FISA as opposed to the illegal system that skips FISA?

This article is a good history lesson, but it doesn't succeed in supporting unchecked spying? Checks and balances are the foundation of our society, and to destroy them is un

Unitary Executive

[DeadPrez]

These these kind of curtailments of liberties during wartime have a long history in America. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, FDR not only spied domestically but put an entire ethnic group in "jail" clearly violating equal protection(which is still on the books today as precedent). Truman and LBJ both certainly pressed the limits of presidential power during their wars.

The trend on this list is of (great) American liberals. Bush does not fit this mold imo, from various perspectives. Also importantly, the

Re:Unitary Executive

[kevinbr]

But has war been declared? We declare wars in the press: War on Terror, War on Drugs.....etc. But these are just labels. The reality is a REAL war the ENTIRE nation is at immediate risk of their live and nation being dissassembled by a foreign threat.

Today in the US over 50,000 people are killed in Auto accidents. We have Nuclear Plants that are an intrinsic threat of mistakes ( not terrorist attacks ) melting down a plant and the surrounding population.

Yet we live with these threats.

This war is endless? Crime is endless......drug taking is endless......car accidents are endless. This is NOT a war. Terrrorists are criminals and we have plenty of resources to track, arrest and convict criminals. You will NEVER defeat terrorism via military means. repeat: NEVER. Anyone who buys into using the military to defeat Ossama et al is a fool.

The reality is that people in power usually get there because they are addicted to power, and like all addict will perform and act, tell any lie, do any action to ensure they can indulge their addiction. The US political system ensures that only crack junkie power crazed junkies get elected.

Once they get enough power they tell more lies to get more crack power. Altruism? Bah!

They believe that they can cement their hold on power via information - they want to know what you are saying they want to know what you are thinking. This attack on Google is motivated on knowing what you are thinking. What better way to find out? You think a thought.....bang you refine information related to that thought via google. Thinking of a wank? Search = favorite porn phrase. Thinking of criticism of your elected leaders = search for validation of your thoughts with other people or organizations. Once Google is defeated, then they can quietly continue to expand until Google is just an appendage of the power crack junkies search for negative thoughts that MUST BE STAMPED OUT.

This is just a power grab by a load of crack junkies that in other times with a real press with spine would be sent for the therapy they need.

Temporary

[Trinition]

The trend on this list is of (great) American liberals. Bush does not fit this mold imo, from various perspectives. Also importantly, the War on Terror is a much different type on conflict than the wars these Presidents faced. The enemy is borderless, uniformless, with unknown numbers, etc. This type of war is virtually endless, whether we are in Iraq or out of Iraq.

This is exactly why I am worried! Against my will, some of my liberty has been given up in the name of security. But its not even tempora

That book is not an autobiography

[chris-chittleborough]

William Stevenson's book, A Man Called Intrepid, is about the activities of Sir William Stephenson and other intelligence leaders during WW2. It is not an autobiography; in fact, it is not really a biography.

(This book was one of the first published after the Ultra secret, Colossus, Bletchley Park etc were declassified 30 years after WW2. It's a good read, full of fascinating information. For instance, did you know that Rommel's success was largely due to the U.S. State Department? It may still be one of the better single-volume histories of Allied intelligence during WW2. However it is not—how shall I put it?—a book that a good historian would use as a primary source.)

The book does say what Mr. Cringely says it does, but it's alarming to see him describe it as an autobiography.

Rule of Law

[saskboy]

It'd be nice if Cringely put in something about the Rule of Law.

It means that no one, not even the President, is above the law. That means that if the President commits a crime, then he/she is held responsible for the crime, and punished like you would be if you'd broken the law. Without the rule of law, there would be widespread corruption in the political and legal systems, because those governing and enforcing the law would be the people in charge, and not the electorate.

There are systems in place to take over the country should the President find himself in jail for authorizing illegal spying.

Time will tell.

[Irvu]

From the article:

Only time will tell, though, if what they are doing is legal.

No, We the People will tell whether this was legal. It wasn't and isn't. As Cringley noted in his article, the taps were made without the authorization of the FISA court. It is the FISA court which covers exactly these kinds of things. Therefore they are illegal. There exists no special holes in the statutes for presidents who are too lazy, and no openings for things that do not meet the standard.

The very reason that we have a FISA court is to provide some oversight of the process itself and to ensure that the shotgun approach so favored by past presidents is not done.

It still shocks me that people are debating this or, worse yet, accepting Bush's half-assed lines about "inherent authority". These taps are a patent violation of both the letter and the Spirit of the FISA law. What the hell more do we need?

Fundamental misunderstanding

[Software Cowboy]

Having been in the intelligence community (though not NSA), I think it is clear why people are confused on this issue. The administration is treating the "war on terror" as a literal war on terror. Under that definition, the President can intercept these communications to suspected Al Qaeda members as part of a military campaign. Many of the people who are up in arms about this are viewing the "war on terror" as an extended police operation. FISA clearly applies to criminal investigations. It is generally accepted that military actions in war time are held to a different standard.

I believe the courts will probably uphold the administration's version, since they are in many cases, choosing to engage those on the other end of the communication with military (deadly) force. I think if they were just trying to arrest people and prosecute them, the administration's case would be far weaker.

I don't know that it is as clear cut as those on either side say. We'll have to wait for the courts to decide.

Re:And they smoked too!

[TopSpin]

And they both smoked tobacco!

...must work Sport Utility Vehicles into this somehow...

Re:Short memories

[MillionthMonkey]

Wiretapping also works: the Al Qaeda cell in Italy that was planning to outdo 9-11 was caught by wiretapping.

Oh really now? That was the plan, to "outdo 9-11"? Says who?

Oh, right- the same full-of-shit Italian government that gave us the forged Niger-Uranium documents, and is now listed as the sole source in every article covering this story.

Re:Short memories

[quarkscat]

I call "BullShit!" on the parent poster.

The ECHELON program is still being used today, except that the Bush regime has expanded it from it's original mission statement of "Intercepting Overseas CONINTEL" to "Intercepting ALL CONINTEL, Including Domestically Against American Citizens".

The US Senate committee that began (01/20/2006) investigating this illegally expanded program revealed that the Bush regime's CONINTEL program has been directed against domestic political opposition, including a Quaker anti-war group in Miami/Dade County.

These are not the actions of a democratically elected government sworn to uphold the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the rule of law. These are the actions of a regime that siezed power illegitimately in November 2000, and has been using the unchecked and expanding power of the Executive Branch to not only wage an illegal foreign war, but also to consolidate and maintain a totalitarian regime.

Italian wiretapping

[Trinition]

Wiretapping also works: the Al Qaeda cell in Italy that was planning to outdo 9-11 [turkishpress.com] was caught by wiretapping. [nbr.co.nz]

I did some quick Googling, and couldn't find answers to an importantquestion about the wiretapping you seem to be holding up as justification for the current situation in the US: was the Italian wiretapping legal or illegal?. Maybe the Italian police got a warrant. Maybe Italian law doesn't require a warrant. Does anyone know?