• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

NSA shares info

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
As I said before, we don't know exactly what the NSA is doing with the information it's getting from the illegal wiretaps of Americans. But they are sharing it. Link below; my emphasis.

"Information captured by the National Security Agency's secret eavesdropping on communications between the United States and overseas has been passed on to other government agencies, which cross-check the information with tips and information collected in other databases, current and former administration officials said.

The NSA has turned such information over to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and to other government entities, said three current and former senior administration officials, although it could not be determined which agencies received what types of information. Information from intercepts -- which typically includes records of telephone or e-mail communications -- would be made available by request to agencies that are allowed to have it, including the FBI, DIA, CIA and Department of Homeland Security, one former official said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/31/AR2005123100808.html
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Maybe you could explain what the Clinton administration was doing and why you failed to whine back them?

John Schmidt, who served as associate attorney general between 1994 and 1997, argues that both Congress and the Supreme Court have recognized presidents' "inherent authority" to bypass warrants in ordering the eavesdropping of U.S. citizens suspected of conspiring with foreign governments or terrorists to injure or kill Americans.

But in at least one well-documented case, Clinton authorized domestic electronic surveillance of a U.S. citizen without a warrant. FBI agents were allowed to break into the home of 31-year CIA veteran Aldrich Ames in 1993 to install eavesdropping devices.

The book "Main Justice: The Men and Women Who Enforce Our Nation's Criminal Laws and Guard Its Liberties," by The Washington Post's Jim McGee and U.S. News & World Report's Brian Duffy had much more detail. Page 311

"In the early morning hours of an autumn morning in 1993, an unmarked government sedan rolled slowly down an empty tree-lined street in Arlington. The FBI agents inside parked just up from a handsome two-story home. The agents knew the place well. Three months earlier, an FBI team had gone inside to bug the place. That operation had been a quick in and out. This time the agents planned to stay for a while. The owners were out of town on vacation. The house was vacant," the pair wrote. "With several hours to go before dawn, the FBI team slipped inside. They had with them the necessary equipment, but they did not have a warrant."




In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."

John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States.

links;
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed
http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/ames/ames.htm
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200512/POL20051223a.html

Your right to Privacy ends when you infringe on my right to life, liberty,...
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
You and several others have ignored my question, so I'll ask again:

Will you be happy to have this program up and running if Hillary Clinton is the next president of the US?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Will you be happy to have this program up and running if Hillary Clinton is the next president of the US?

I would be unhappy having Hillary as President.

But feel the security of this nation is being challenged by those with no regard for the rule of Law, or the basic tenats of war....if the program is needed...and I feel that unorthadox approaches are,,,then every President should be able to do every thing within thier power to protect the American public.....

So yes as scary as the thought is, if Hillary becomes President she should have every power granted by the Constitution of the United States at her disposal to fight terrorism...


But like her record on illigal searchs is steller?

"In 1996 the White House pulled files from the FBI on hundreds of Republicans
-- ostensibly for security clearance, but hundreds of former Ronald Reagan and George Bush appointees never being considered for jobs were included. Some, like Linda Tripp, were holdovers, but at least 400 were not -- from James Brady to James Baker, John Whitehead to James Carville. (Some White House snoop probably said merrily, "Let's see what they've got on Carville.")"

"First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton was interviewed under oath today by Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr about the circumstances behind the White House's gathering of hundreds of sensitive FBI background files on previous White House employees.

900 files by most accounts searched with out warrants,,,, and not one liberal whined about it then.....
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Well, finally one person on this board has said it will be perfectly fine with him if Hillary has the same right to eavesdrop on my phone conversations as George has. Know what? I don't think it's ok for either Hillary or George to listen in on my phone conversations, or to read my emails, or to know what books I check out at the library. I hold my Constitutional rights very dear and won't give any of them up without a fight.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
I don't think it's ok for either Hillary or George to listen in

But isn't easy for you to ignore the fact that Hillary and Bill already conducted warrentless searches and you failed to complian about it?

And would still be denying the facts had someone not shown proof?
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Steve said:
I don't think it's ok for either Hillary or George to listen in

But isn't easy for you to ignore the fact that Hillary and Bill already conducted warrentless searches and you failed to complian about it?

And would still be denying the facts had someone not shown proof?

I haven't seen any proof that Clinton conducted warrantless searches on American citizens. Please show me that proof or stop blowing hot air. Better yet, put it in a new post so that it will go to the top of the board and I won't miss it. And include a link. Otherwise, it's just more hot air.
 

mp.freelance

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
502
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
Disagreeable said:
Well, finally one person on this board has said it will be perfectly fine with him if Hillary has the same right to eavesdrop on my phone conversations as George has. Know what? I don't think it's ok for either Hillary or George to listen in on my phone conversations, or to read my emails, or to know what books I check out at the library. I hold my Constitutional rights very dear and won't give any of them up without a fight.

I hate to say it, but Disagreeable may a point here. I haven't seen much compelling evidence that current eavesdropping laws were insufficient, and this creates a dangerous precedent. You all know I'm very conservative and generally support what we need to do in the war against terror, but once ANY administration subverts constitutional rights -even with the best intentions- it can become a slippery slope for future abuses. That said, I don't know enough about this to say that Bush definitely subverted the constitution, but it does seem iffy.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Some good points, however, unless overlooking something, I did not see any description of what is really happening with this form of surveillance.

As described by Dan Green, editor of the Record Stockman paper in Denver, and a 'neighbor' of the Buckley Air National Guard base where the surveillance is centered: they use computers and satellites to provide interception of international phone and e-mail traffic, with the computers looking for key words that trigger a close look at a given email or phone conversation. Genuine threats to national security trigger live human surveillance.

Like Mr. Green, I prefer keeping the forces that intend to do evil to us out of our territory. I treasure privacy and rights and freedom and understand that it's pretty hard to assert ones "rights" when you are dead or maimed.

Also both of us notice the double standard of the same media and political pundits who had little or nothing to say of illegal taping of private conversations by Newt Gingrich, for instance, and who now are squealing in protest of necessary, and, in my opinion, cautious use of such surveillance.

MRJ
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Show us where Clinton illegally wiretapped Newt Gingrich. I think you're blowing hot air.

We don't know what this is being used for. Apparently NBC is investigating a story that a CNN reporter is being targeted. Do you feel comfortable with that? If it's true, can you seriously think she's the only one? My emphasis; link below:

"Yesterday, MSNBC.com published a transcript of Andrea Mitchell's interview with author James Risen about the CIA's domestic spying program. In it, Mitchell asked Risen if he had uncovered evidence that CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour was eavesdropped upon. It was a specific and pointed question that led AMERICAblog to ask if the veteran journalist had been spied on by the Bush administration. This afternoon, MSNBC.com removed the portion of the transcript that referred to Amanpour. (link to transcript:) http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/was_christiane_amanpour_eavesdropped_upon_why_did_nbc_edit_its_transcript_30368.asp )

in a statement to TVNewser tonight, NBC explained why:

"Unfortunately this transcript was released prematurely. It was a topic on which we had not completed our reporting, and it was not broadcast on 'NBC Nightly News' nor on any other NBC News program. We removed that section of the transcript so that we may further continue our inquiry."

I sure hope NBC continues the inquiry. Does Amanpour have reason to believe she was spied on? Why? No word from CNN yet...


http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/nbc_removed_reference_to_amanpour_to_further_continue_our_inquiry_30381.asp
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Over the years many spys, spying for the US and against it, have went under the guise of reporters to gain access to info......
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Oldtimer said:
Over the years many spys, spying for the US and against it, have went under the guise of reporters to gain access to info......

Have I missed your response to the question? If so, I'll put it out here again:

Will you be so comfortable with having your phone and email read by the government if Hillary Clinton is the next president of the US?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Disagreeable said:
Oldtimer said:
Over the years many spys, spying for the US and against it, have went under the guise of reporters to gain access to info......

Have I missed your response to the question? If so, I'll put it out here again:

Will you be so comfortable with having your phone and email read by the government if Hillary Clinton is the next president of the US?

I know that Bill Clinton was doing the same NSA monitoring that GW is doing, and nobody came knocking on my doors at midnite...So I guess I could put up with Hillary too...

Like I said before- If you have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear...But Dis, unlike you, I am anti-terrorist.....
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Oldtimer said:
Disagreeable said:
Oldtimer said:
Over the years many spys, spying for the US and against it, have went under the guise of reporters to gain access to info......

Have I missed your response to the question? If so, I'll put it out here again:

Will you be so comfortable with having your phone and email read by the government if Hillary Clinton is the next president of the US?

I know that Bill Clinton was doing the same NSA monitoring that GW is doing, and nobody came knocking on my doors at midnite...So I guess I could put up with Hillary too...

Like I said before- If you have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear...But Dis, unlike you, I am anti-terrorist.....

And as I've said before: show me proof that Clinton had the NSA collecting phone calls and information without warrants on American citizens in the US? I say it's not so and am waiting for your proof otherwise.
 

Cal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,598
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern SD
Disagreeable said:
Well, finally one person on this board has said it will be perfectly fine with him if Hillary has the same right to eavesdrop on my phone conversations as George has. Know what? I don't think it's ok for either Hillary or George to listen in on my phone conversations, or to read my emails, or to know what books I check out at the library. I hold my Constitutional rights very dear and won't give any of them up without a fight.
Unless you're calling or recieving calls from al Qaeda suspects oversees, there shouldn't be a problem.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Disagreeable said:
Show us where Clinton illegally wiretapped Newt Gingrich. I think you're blowing hot air.

**************
Show me where I said it was Clinton who did that.

It was an activist Democrat couple in Atlanta who intercepted Gingrichs' conversation and taped it and gave it to US Rep. Jim McDermott who then used it to bring Gingrich down. Clinton himself did not have to get his hands dirty.....that time. MRJ
*****************

We don't know what this is being used for. Apparently NBC is investigating a story that a CNN reporter is being targeted. Do you feel comfortable with that? If it's true, can you seriously think she's the only one? My emphasis; link below:

"Yesterday, MSNBC.com published a transcript of Andrea Mitchell's interview with author James Risen about the CIA's domestic spying program. In it, Mitchell asked Risen if he had uncovered evidence that CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour was eavesdropped upon. It was a specific and pointed question that led AMERICAblog to ask if the veteran journalist had been spied on by the Bush administration. This afternoon, MSNBC.com removed the portion of the transcript that referred to Amanpour. (link to transcript:) http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/was_christiane_amanpour_eavesdropped_upon_why_did_nbc_edit_its_transcript_30368.asp )

in a statement to TVNewser tonight, NBC explained why:

"Unfortunately this transcript was released prematurely. It was a topic on which we had not completed our reporting, and it was not broadcast on 'NBC Nightly News' nor on any other NBC News program. We removed that section of the transcript so that we may further continue our inquiry."

I sure hope NBC continues the inquiry. Does Amanpour have reason to believe she was spied on? Why? No word from CNN yet...


http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/nbc_removed_reference_to_amanpour_to_further_continue_our_inquiry_30381.asp
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
So you admit you lied when you said Clinton eavesdropped on Newt?

By the way, I get such a laugh every time George is caught red handed and you Bush Groupies hold Clinton up as a model! :lol:
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Cal said:
Unless you're calling or recieving calls from al Qaeda suspects oversees, there shouldn't be a problem.


Not true. Another lie from the Bush Bunch.

"Eavesdropping on communications between two people who are both inside the United States is prohibited under Bush's order that allows some domestic surveillance."

But:

"A surveillance program approved by President Bush to eavesdrop without court warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases, despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil, officials say.

The officials say the National Security Agency's interception of a few communications between people within the United States was apparently accidental, and was caused by technical glitches at the National Security Agency in determining whether a communication was in fact international.

Telecommunications experts say the issue points up troubling logistical questions about the program. At a time when communications networks are increasingly globalized, it is sometimes difficult even for the NSA to determine whether someone is inside or outside the United States when making a cell phone call or sending an e-mail. As a result, people that NSA may think are outside the United States can actually be on U.S. soil."
(more at the link)

The truth is we don't know who they're listening to and what they're doing with the information they pick up either on purpose or accidently. I'm not ok with that. You're so scared of terrorists that you want to give up your freedoms and rights, then move to a country that will promise you security for freedom. It's not here.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/12/21/MNGQ6GB5LM1.DTL
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Here is your proof......again.....no warrant yet the files were searched....thus illigal search.....

Hillary:
"In 1996 the White House pulled files from the FBI on hundreds of Republicans
-- ostensibly for security clearance, but hundreds of former Ronald Reagan and George Bush appointees never being considered for jobs were included. Some, like Linda Tripp, were holdovers, but at least 400 were not -- from James Brady to James Baker, John Whitehead to James Carville. (Some White House snoop probably said merrily, "Let's see what they've got on Carville.")"

"First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton was interviewed under oath today by Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr about the circumstances behind the White House's gathering of hundreds of sensitive FBI background files on previous White House employees.

900 files by most accounts searched with out warrants,,,, and not one liberal whined about it then.....
http://www.epic.org/privacy/databases/fbi/filegate/


Here is your proof......again.....no warrant yet the homes were searched....thus illigal search.....

Bill:
1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has "inherent authority" to order physical searches — including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens
The debate over warrantless searches came up after the case of CIA spy Aldrich Ames. Authorities had searched Ames's house without a warrant,
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200512%5CPOL20051223a.html

further reading:
Washington Post's headline — on page A-19 — read, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches." The story began, "The Clinton administration, in a little-noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S. spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order.

I would imagine when the investigation is done the Clinton's will be further iimplicated, but as it was a secret program, only the news worthy cases came to light......so two national cases of Bill and Hillary searching with out warrants and Bill arguing to continue a program of spying within the US....(if you consider Washington DC part of the US).....
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Steve said:
Here is your proof......again.....no warrant yet the files were searched....thus illigal search.....

Hillary:
"In 1996 the White House pulled files from the FBI on hundreds of Republicans
-- ostensibly for security clearance, but hundreds of former Ronald Reagan and George Bush appointees never being considered for jobs were included. Some, like Linda Tripp, were holdovers, but at least 400 were not -- from James Brady to James Baker, John Whitehead to James Carville. (Some White House snoop probably said merrily, "Let's see what they've got on Carville.")"

"First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton was interviewed under oath today by Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr about the circumstances behind the White House's gathering of hundreds of sensitive FBI background files on previous White House employees.

900 files by most accounts searched with out warrants,,,, and not one liberal whined about it then.....
http://www.epic.org/privacy/databases/fbi/filegate/


Here is your proof......again.....no warrant yet the homes were searched....thus illigal search.....

What homes were searched? Anyone with the proper clearance and justification can look at FBI files. This had absolutely nothing to do with searching anyone's home. Here's a good quote for you: "Ignorance of the truth is no excuse for stupidity". You really should take it to heart.

Bill:
1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has "inherent authority" to order physical searches — including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens
The debate over warrantless searches came up after the case of CIA spy Aldrich Ames. Authorities had searched Ames's house without a warrant,
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200512%5CPOL20051223a.html

further reading:
Washington Post's headline — on page A-19 — read, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches." The story began, "The Clinton administration, in a little-noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S. spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order.

You're wrong. "But Gorelick's testimony does not prove that the Clinton administration believed it had the authority to bypass FISA regulations, as the Bush administration has argued in the case of the NSA's domestic wiretapping program.

Unlike electronic surveillance, the "physical searches" to which Gorelick referred were not restricted by FISA at the time of her 1994 testimony. Therefore, by asserting the authority to conduct physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes, the Clinton administration was not asserting that it did not have to comply with FISA. In October 1994, Congress passed legislation -- with Clinton's support -- to require FISA warrants for physical searches. Thereafter, the Clinton administration never argued that any "inherent authority" pre-empted FISA. To the contrary, in February 1995 Clinton issued an executive order that implemented the new FISA requirements on physical searches.

By contrast, the Bush administration has argued that it has the authority to authorize surveillance of domestic communications without court orders, despite FISA's clear and longstanding restrictions on warrantless electronic eavesdropping."


More: "But as with Gorelick's testimony, the Ames investigation took place before the 1995 FISA amendment requiring warrants for physical searches. In other words, in conducting these searches, the Clinton administration did not bypass FISA because FISA did not address physical searches. Further, there is ample evidence that the Clinton administration complied with the FISA requirements that did exist on wiretapping: U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, who previously served on the FISA court, has noted the "key role" the court played in the Ames case to "authorize physical entries to plant eavesdropping devices"; and former deputy assistant attorney general Mark M. Richard established that "the Attorney General was asked to sign as many as nine certifications to the FISA court in support of applications for FISA surveillance" during the Ames investigation."

At the site below (items 8 and 9) you'll find links to all the proof necessary to show you're wrong.


I would imagine when the investigation is done the Clinton's will be further iimplicated, but as it was a secret program, only the news worthy cases came to light......so two national cases of Bill and Hillary searching with out warrants and Bill arguing to continue a program of spying within the US....(if you consider Washington DC part of the US).....

What investigation? The Republicans investigated Clinton upside and down for years and all they could find was lying about sex with an intern. If they had this, he would have been kicked out of office. Ames copped a plea so the legality of the search was never decided in court. So you still haven't shown proof that Clinton approved an illegal search. Want to keep trying?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512240002
 

Latest posts

Top