ACLU / Wiretap conversations
Bold is me
Italics is HHM
Regular script is other commenters and orginal commenter
Judge Orders that Wiretap Program must end - She has deemed that the wiretapping program is unconstitutional. This is a huge blow to the Bush Administration. They originally claimied the wire-tap program was protecting America.
What do you think? Do you think that this is constitutional if it protects Americans?
~
The American Communist Lovers Union found a judge who would issue the order. Great! The surveillance techniques that helped foil the plan to explode ten planes on 8/16 has now been "shot down" by a liberal judge. If this is not overturned the next terrorist attack that succeeds is on the ACLU, that judge, and the lib politicians who have tried to make this into a political football.
~
Great.
Damn judge had to come from Detroit.
I can't imagine any judges in New York City would approve this. Bad call, I agree with you guys. I have no problem being wiretapped if it means we catch 21 people trying to board a plan in London to bomb more plans on the way to the States.
ACLU has traditionally been pro-THEM. No surprise here.
~
So, an arrest in England, by English Law Enforcement was because of an American policy? Please explain...That last sentence might sound a little assish, but I seriously don't see how "8/16" had anything to do w/ tapping.
Also, why is this a polical hack job by a judge? Is it soooooo implausible that a judge found virtually unfounded line tapping to be unconstitutional?
We've gone for a very long time, hell, since the start of this nation without resorting to lazy law enforcement techniques. If you want a country that watches and controls your most insignificant moves, throw a wrap around your head and take a ticket to Iran.
And, like it or not, the ACLU is looking out for your best interest.
~
The ACLU is looking out for our best interests??? That's a good one! It ranks up there with "you'll go blind if you do that" and "they come from storks" and "Santa is watching you this very minute!"
However, if you are a pedophile who wants to burn the flag while shouting expletives at a military funeral just before marrying your 14 - year - old cousin, then yes, the ACLU is looking out for your best interests!
~
radar wrote:
The ACLU is looking out for our best interests??? That's a good one! It ranks up there with "you'll go blind if you do that" and "they come from storks" and "Santa is watching you this very minute!"
However, if you are a pedophile
I'll give ya that one...
Quote:
who wants to burn the flag
Surely you aren't suggesting this should be illegal...that'd be the epitome of un-American.
Quote:
while shouting expletives at a military funeral
Free speech...although it's 100% disrespectful, are you willing to to give up your rights for this group?
Quote:
just before marrying your 14 - year - old cousin
I already gave you the pedophile thing...but still, I haven't heard of them standing up for anyone out of this group, but I'm interested if you can provide a link.
Quote:
then yes, the ACLU is looking out for your best interests!
Glad we can agree... Very Happy
Still waiting for someone, anyone to give me a real scenario of how wire-tapping prevented the h2o bottle/mp3 player attack...If not, then does it not suggest that we can prevent terrorism without resorting to giving up civil liberties?
~
Does the ACLU defend pedophiles?! Of course they do, here are some recent examples -
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18029
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2006/07/09/project-proposal-for-the-ac lu/
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060601/NEWS01/606 010463/1006
~
Okay, freedom of speech doesn't allow you to shout, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. It doesn't allow you to mail your congressman and threaten to blow up his house. Like all freedoms, your freedom to flail your fist in the air ends just before it reaches the point of my nose.
This is why the Westboro nutcases that disrupt funerals are going beyond "freedom of speech."
The flag-burning is a personal thing. I risked my life for that flag and the country for which it stands, as did my dad and as did (he recently got back from overseas) my son. Yeah, I am an old guy...
The ACLU tries to attack our religious freedoms and keep us from defending ourselves. In what way does wiretapping of conversations involving terrorists intrude on your rights, may I ask?
In Britain, their rules of engagement and detainment are less strict than ours, fortunately for them and in this case for us as well. I understand that in the case of this latest round of arrests the primary information came from human intelligence but that phone tapping was also involved.
HUMINT is the best (human intelligence) but SIGINT (signal intelligence) is absolutely necessary to ferret out the bad guys:
I was in a security agency (a branch of the NSA in fact) when I was in the military and I can confirm that human intelligence is by far the best BUT the primary source of information comes from the interception of conversations. We have been listening to the conversations of foreigners for decades, scanning for signs of belligerance and threats against our nation. I was involved in the group that was monitoring Russian conversations (back before the Iron Curtain collapsed and the Soviet Union was our greatest perceived enemy).
The Soviets pointed missiles at us and massed large armies ready to move at a moment's notice. We did the same. That is not the biggest kind of threat we face now.
Now it is small groups of people willing to die in the process of a terrorist attack, people who do not wear uniforms or remain in their home countries. How do we find them before they set off nerve gas in a subway station or blow up a jet heading into LA or even detonate a small nuclear device in Chicago? Human intelligence is still best if a possible group is identified, but signal intelligence (which includes wiretaps) is far and away the best way to find such groups in the first place.
The President was given the powers to authorize instant wiretapping of conversations that involved terrorist groups. If someone in this country is sending or receiving a message to a terrorist group overseas, don't you want us to know and hopefully even know what is being said? Do you prefer to be smugly ignorant until the next 9/11 takes place?
This liberal judge has challenged the President's authority given him by congress. I believe her ruling will be overturned. But I perceive this as a political battle and one that could bring about the death of many innocents while it plays out. This doesn't just concern me, it angers me!
Want to play politics? Fine. Want to risk lives? Risk your own first. The ACLU has simply made us more at risk to terrorists and God help them if a successful attack takes place because we are not able to detect the terror cell in time BECAUSE WE HAD NO SIGINT!
~
Have they even reported that the U.S. wiretap program led to the British bust?
~
No, they haven't released anything to my knowledge of what led to the bust...however, what is the chances of them hearing one phone call w/ some guy saying "Hey, Ahmed...you got the water bottles? ... Good, I got this new ipod, too bad I'm gonna use it to blow up a plane, I really like it...have you heard the new Red Hot Chilipeppers album? ... What? No, I'm not listening to western music...gotta go! See ya on the plane we're blowing up!"
The way I see it is that it would have to be intelegence collected through tips...someone had to tip off the authorities...I mean who woulda thought they'd use what they were gonna use?
~
Oddly enough, a lot of intelligence is gathered in that way. One piece of significance in a sea of otherwise meaningless blather. Other times a conversation is all business, short and to the point. People even use codes, but we have decryption people who live to break codes. If you listen to conversations in which one party is a terrorist, the odds are you will pick up on something of use if an operation is being planned.
The idiots who began to publicize this operation in the first place have alerted terrorists to be more careful in their phone conversations. Idiots! Yet even so a phone conversant feels almost anonymous by nature and can slip up. So yes, your scenario is exactly the kind of thing that is being scanned for and does occur.
~
(This conversation is ongoing in a group I belong to and will no doubt continue. One point to add: You cannot run to a judge to ask for a wiretap when a source suddenly gets or sends a call, the call will be over long before that. If an opportunity arises to intercept dangerous transmissions one needs instant response, which is why Congress granted the powers to the President in the first place!)
Italics is HHM
Regular script is other commenters and orginal commenter
Judge Orders that Wiretap Program must end - She has deemed that the wiretapping program is unconstitutional. This is a huge blow to the Bush Administration. They originally claimied the wire-tap program was protecting America.
What do you think? Do you think that this is constitutional if it protects Americans?
~
The American Communist Lovers Union found a judge who would issue the order. Great! The surveillance techniques that helped foil the plan to explode ten planes on 8/16 has now been "shot down" by a liberal judge. If this is not overturned the next terrorist attack that succeeds is on the ACLU, that judge, and the lib politicians who have tried to make this into a political football.
~
Great.
Damn judge had to come from Detroit.
I can't imagine any judges in New York City would approve this. Bad call, I agree with you guys. I have no problem being wiretapped if it means we catch 21 people trying to board a plan in London to bomb more plans on the way to the States.
ACLU has traditionally been pro-THEM. No surprise here.
~
So, an arrest in England, by English Law Enforcement was because of an American policy? Please explain...That last sentence might sound a little assish, but I seriously don't see how "8/16" had anything to do w/ tapping.
Also, why is this a polical hack job by a judge? Is it soooooo implausible that a judge found virtually unfounded line tapping to be unconstitutional?
We've gone for a very long time, hell, since the start of this nation without resorting to lazy law enforcement techniques. If you want a country that watches and controls your most insignificant moves, throw a wrap around your head and take a ticket to Iran.
And, like it or not, the ACLU is looking out for your best interest.
~
The ACLU is looking out for our best interests??? That's a good one! It ranks up there with "you'll go blind if you do that" and "they come from storks" and "Santa is watching you this very minute!"
However, if you are a pedophile who wants to burn the flag while shouting expletives at a military funeral just before marrying your 14 - year - old cousin, then yes, the ACLU is looking out for your best interests!
~
radar wrote:
The ACLU is looking out for our best interests??? That's a good one! It ranks up there with "you'll go blind if you do that" and "they come from storks" and "Santa is watching you this very minute!"
However, if you are a pedophile
I'll give ya that one...
Quote:
who wants to burn the flag
Surely you aren't suggesting this should be illegal...that'd be the epitome of un-American.
Quote:
while shouting expletives at a military funeral
Free speech...although it's 100% disrespectful, are you willing to to give up your rights for this group?
Quote:
just before marrying your 14 - year - old cousin
I already gave you the pedophile thing...but still, I haven't heard of them standing up for anyone out of this group, but I'm interested if you can provide a link.
Quote:
then yes, the ACLU is looking out for your best interests!
Glad we can agree... Very Happy
Still waiting for someone, anyone to give me a real scenario of how wire-tapping prevented the h2o bottle/mp3 player attack...If not, then does it not suggest that we can prevent terrorism without resorting to giving up civil liberties?
~
Does the ACLU defend pedophiles?! Of course they do, here are some recent examples -
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18029
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2006/07/09/project-proposal-for-the-ac lu/
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060601/NEWS01/606 010463/1006
~
Okay, freedom of speech doesn't allow you to shout, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. It doesn't allow you to mail your congressman and threaten to blow up his house. Like all freedoms, your freedom to flail your fist in the air ends just before it reaches the point of my nose.
This is why the Westboro nutcases that disrupt funerals are going beyond "freedom of speech."
The flag-burning is a personal thing. I risked my life for that flag and the country for which it stands, as did my dad and as did (he recently got back from overseas) my son. Yeah, I am an old guy...
The ACLU tries to attack our religious freedoms and keep us from defending ourselves. In what way does wiretapping of conversations involving terrorists intrude on your rights, may I ask?
In Britain, their rules of engagement and detainment are less strict than ours, fortunately for them and in this case for us as well. I understand that in the case of this latest round of arrests the primary information came from human intelligence but that phone tapping was also involved.
HUMINT is the best (human intelligence) but SIGINT (signal intelligence) is absolutely necessary to ferret out the bad guys:
I was in a security agency (a branch of the NSA in fact) when I was in the military and I can confirm that human intelligence is by far the best BUT the primary source of information comes from the interception of conversations. We have been listening to the conversations of foreigners for decades, scanning for signs of belligerance and threats against our nation. I was involved in the group that was monitoring Russian conversations (back before the Iron Curtain collapsed and the Soviet Union was our greatest perceived enemy).
The Soviets pointed missiles at us and massed large armies ready to move at a moment's notice. We did the same. That is not the biggest kind of threat we face now.
Now it is small groups of people willing to die in the process of a terrorist attack, people who do not wear uniforms or remain in their home countries. How do we find them before they set off nerve gas in a subway station or blow up a jet heading into LA or even detonate a small nuclear device in Chicago? Human intelligence is still best if a possible group is identified, but signal intelligence (which includes wiretaps) is far and away the best way to find such groups in the first place.
The President was given the powers to authorize instant wiretapping of conversations that involved terrorist groups. If someone in this country is sending or receiving a message to a terrorist group overseas, don't you want us to know and hopefully even know what is being said? Do you prefer to be smugly ignorant until the next 9/11 takes place?
This liberal judge has challenged the President's authority given him by congress. I believe her ruling will be overturned. But I perceive this as a political battle and one that could bring about the death of many innocents while it plays out. This doesn't just concern me, it angers me!
Want to play politics? Fine. Want to risk lives? Risk your own first. The ACLU has simply made us more at risk to terrorists and God help them if a successful attack takes place because we are not able to detect the terror cell in time BECAUSE WE HAD NO SIGINT!
~
Have they even reported that the U.S. wiretap program led to the British bust?
~
No, they haven't released anything to my knowledge of what led to the bust...however, what is the chances of them hearing one phone call w/ some guy saying "Hey, Ahmed...you got the water bottles? ... Good, I got this new ipod, too bad I'm gonna use it to blow up a plane, I really like it...have you heard the new Red Hot Chilipeppers album? ... What? No, I'm not listening to western music...gotta go! See ya on the plane we're blowing up!"
The way I see it is that it would have to be intelegence collected through tips...someone had to tip off the authorities...I mean who woulda thought they'd use what they were gonna use?
~
Oddly enough, a lot of intelligence is gathered in that way. One piece of significance in a sea of otherwise meaningless blather. Other times a conversation is all business, short and to the point. People even use codes, but we have decryption people who live to break codes. If you listen to conversations in which one party is a terrorist, the odds are you will pick up on something of use if an operation is being planned.
The idiots who began to publicize this operation in the first place have alerted terrorists to be more careful in their phone conversations. Idiots! Yet even so a phone conversant feels almost anonymous by nature and can slip up. So yes, your scenario is exactly the kind of thing that is being scanned for and does occur.
~
(This conversation is ongoing in a group I belong to and will no doubt continue. One point to add: You cannot run to a judge to ask for a wiretap when a source suddenly gets or sends a call, the call will be over long before that. If an opportunity arises to intercept dangerous transmissions one needs instant response, which is why Congress granted the powers to the President in the first place!)