Former NSA Chief Says Surveillance "Limited"

[Pabster]

Story Here

It appears the NSA's "broad" operations weren't so "broad" after all, straight from the Chief in charge at the time.

I've said from day one this whole "spying" thing was nonsense and that the mainstream media was pimping it out, like they do just about everything these days.

 

[Rainsford]

Ok, first of all he is the former Director...it's not a bunch of Indians over at Ft. Meade...

Secondly, General Hayden isn't exactly an unbiased critic of the program. From what I know of the guy, he seems like the upstanding public servant type, but it's in his best interest that the program isn't found to be illegal...he'd almost certainly be in some kind of trouble for giving the ok if it turns out to be less than legal.

Thirdly, very little of the opposition to the program has anything to do with it being "broad" in any sense. Illegally spying on US persons is illegally spying on US persons, even if you only did it once.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Story Here

It appears the NSA's "broad" operations weren't so "broad" after all, straight from the Chief in charge at the time.

I've said from day one this whole "spying" thing was nonsense and that the mainstream media was pimping it out, like they do just about everything these days.

What a professional liar says and what is truth could potentially be two very different things. Shocking revelation I know.

 

[OrByte]

stay the course!!
hold the line!!!
just like a good administrator/trained monkey.

I am going to flat out say this man is lying. And besides, what is the difference of 100 Americans rights infringed as opposed to 10,000?

but we don't look at THAT aspect of this issue do we?

I find it enormously funny that they all spout off about the same ol, "well, if we had this program in place prior to 9/11..." YEAH....right...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Pabster
Story Here

It appears the NSA's "broad" operations weren't so "broad" after all, straight from the Chief in charge at the time.

I've said from day one this whole "spying" thing was nonsense and that the mainstream media was pimping it out, like they do just about everything these days.

What a professional liar says and what is truth could potentially be two very different things. Shocking revelation I know.

The problem here isn't whether or not General Hayden is lying, the problem is that Pabster and everyone like him uncritically accepts WHATEVER people in authority tell them.

Well jeez, the dude who used to be in the charge of the program says it was ok...well that's a relief, no need to worry about this anymore.

What's the point of a democracy if you let other people do your thinking for you?

 

[Darkhawk28]

People like Pabster are traitors and cowards. They don't care about the Constitution, nor do they care about their country.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
People like Pabster are traitors and cowards. They don't care about the Constitution, nor do they care about their country.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the vast majority of people to become tired of their message. "Safety at any cost!" is not exactly a catchy slogan.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
People like Pabster are traitors and cowards. They don't care about the Constitution, nor do they care about their country.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the vast majority of people to become tired of their message. "Safety at any cost!" is not exactly a catchy slogan.

Fear and Terror already won a national election.

 

[raildogg]

Whatever the case, the central government is expanding and that is a bad thing. We need less government but the opposite is true. Bush should stick to his words and fight for less government like he has said many times before.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Thirdly, very little of the opposition to the program has anything to do with it being "broad" in any sense. Illegally spying on US persons is illegally spying on US persons, even if you only did it once.

"Not broad" refers not to numbers but to the specific targeting of people thought to be associated with Al-Quaeda.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Thirdly, very little of the opposition to the program has anything to do with it being "broad" in any sense. Illegally spying on US persons is illegally spying on US persons, even if you only did it once.

"Not broad" refers not to numbers but to the specific targeting of people thought to be associated with Al-Quaeda.

Ah, my bad.

Of course that makes no difference at all, the opposition to the program does not seem to rely on the idea that it was being used to listen to the phonecalls of every American. Even if it was only used to target suspected terrorists, that doesn't make it any more legal. That tends to be how the laws work, you can't just dodge them on the basis that "well this guy was REALLY a bad guy".

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Whatever the case, the central government is expanding and that is a bad thing. We need less government but the opposite is true. Bush should stick to his words and fight for less government like he has said many times before.

Perhaps he flip-flopped on the issue?

Actually, wasn't most of what he said about small government back during the 2000 election? That's a long time in politics Not that I don't agree with you, but I'd sooner look to the Dems for smaller government than Bush's Republican party.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: raildogg
Whatever the case, the central government is expanding and that is a bad thing. We need less government but the opposite is true. Bush should stick to his words and fight for less government like he has said many times before.

Perhaps he flip-flopped on the issue?

Actually, wasn't most of what he said about small government back during the 2000 election? That's a long time in politics Not that I don't agree with you, but I'd sooner look to the Dems for smaller government than Bush's Republican party.

Not really, the Demoncats would probably expand the social programs and the federal government's power. As bad as the Republicans are, the Democrats would be a lot worse in handling the role of the federal government. But maybe corruption would be down and less spying on citizens, so there are tradeoffs. Both parties stink at the moment.

That is why I choose not to vote for anyone. Bush has flip-flopped definately. Remember when he said there would be no nation building?

Anyways, the issue that troubles me most about Bush is that he calls Pakistan an ally. What a phony. This fake war on terror is exactly that, fake. You cannot have a war on terror with a country like Pakistan as your ally.

We need better leadership ASAP.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
People like Pabster are traitors and cowards. They don't care about the Constitution, nor do they care about their country.

Still haven't got any facts, do ya? :laugh: :laugh:

Your insults are as pathetic as you are.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Pabster
Story Here

It appears the NSA's "broad" operations weren't so "broad" after all, straight from the Chief in charge at the time.

I've said from day one this whole "spying" thing was nonsense and that the mainstream media was pimping it out, like they do just about everything these days.

What a professional liar says and what is truth could potentially be two very different things. Shocking revelation I know.

The problem here isn't whether or not General Hayden is lying, the problem is that Pabster and everyone like him uncritically accepts WHATEVER people in authority tell them.

Well jeez, the dude who used to be in the charge of the program says it was ok...well that's a relief, no need to worry about this anymore.

What's the point of a democracy if you let other people do your thinking for you?

I find it extremely ironic that those who so vocally condemn "liberals" for putting so much trust in government are themselves so blindly trusting in goverment when it comes to others' civil liberties. They see government as totally incompetent ... except when it is infallible. They see government as staffed with inept deadbeats and thieves ... except for all those perfect people in the BushCo agency named in today's scandal. Bush says, "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie," and the Bush faithful mindlessly lap it up as gospel. Bush is my Shepard, I shall not want.

 

[morkinva]

pabster which are you, one of the 70% that believes saddam was personally responsible for 911, or the 45% that believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old?

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: RainsfordEven if it was only used to target suspected terrorists, that doesn't make it any more legal. That tends to be how the laws work, you can't just dodge them on the basis that "well this guy was REALLY a bad guy".

Of course not, but just because one legal argument ("bad guys") doesn't work doesn't mean no argument does.

 

[CSMR]

One argument that seems OK to me:

John Schmidt (Chicago Tribune):

In the Supreme Court?s 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president?s authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial 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.?

The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an ?agent of a foreign power,? which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law?s procedures.

But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, ?FISA could not encroach on the president?s constitutional power.?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Not really, the Demoncats would probably expand the social programs and the federal government's power. As bad as the Republicans are, the Democrats would be a lot worse in handling the role of the federal government. ...

I seriously doubt that, especially not while there is a Republican President. The best way to keep government reigned in, at least a little, is to never have a single party in power. When you have a Republican President, you want Democrats in Congress, and vise-versa. Single-party rule is a sure ticket to waste and abuse of power. Bush's personal amorality only aggravates the inevitable.

 

[glenn1]

Ah, my bad.

Of course that makes no difference at all, the opposition to the program does not seem to rely on the idea that it was being used to listen to the phonecalls of every American. Even if it was only used to target suspected terrorists, that doesn't make it any more legal. That tends to be how the laws work, you can't just dodge them on the basis that "well this guy was REALLY a bad guy".

It's possible to be both right on the abstract and wrong in the practical. If (and that's still a big if) the Bush adminstration went overboard with wiretaps, it's not going to be a charge that really resonates with the American people unless it's extremely widespread or some instances of politically motivated wiretapping are discovered. That's because most voters would rather have a President who was a bit too agressive in pursuing terrorists instead of too passive.

Those opposed to the President would do well to heed some wise words:

"when people are [feeling] insecure, they?d rather have somebody who is strong and wrong...than somebody who is weak and right." (Bill Clinton)

Now, your challenge should be to be both strong and right. Of course, when your party leader proclaims things like "we won't have an Iraq policy for the 2006 elections" you've made it impossible for yourself to be right. Democrats already start off with a huge disadvantage on these questions because your pacifist wing leads many voters to question your sincerity on defense issues. Like it or not, combine that with the natural optimism of Americans that their leaders will do the right thing, and you'll find that they'll basically agree with the premise that surveillance was limited. Doesn't matter if it's a correct or incorrect conclusion since once that consensus is reached, you're going to sound like you're more concerned with the civil rights of Al Qaeda members than winning the war on terror.

 

[1EZduzit]

If he's always wrong then he shouldn't be strong.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
If he's always wrong then he shouldn't be strong.

The liberal motto! :laugh:

He's strong and it drives you nuts.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: CSMR
One argument that seems OK to me:

John Schmidt (Chicago Tribune):

In the Supreme Court?s 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president?s authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial 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.?

The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an ?agent of a foreign power,? which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law?s procedures.

But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, ?FISA could not encroach on the president?s constitutional power.?

That would be a nice argument if it was directed towards US citizens.

The words, "Agent of a foreign power" are important.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
If he's always wrong then he shouldn't be strong.

The liberal motto! :laugh:

He's strong and it drives you nuts.

your lack of a strong argument drives us nuts.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
If he's always wrong then he shouldn't be strong.

The liberal motto! :laugh:

He's strong and it drives you nuts.

Actually, I like strong leaders, and I personally would like Bush if he made good decisions. But being strong isn't enough, being steadfast in your mistakes is even more worthless than being wishy-washy in the first place. What's the saying about learning from your mistakes?