Forums | MacLife

bratboy wrote:

jerwin wrote:

I find it rather odd that wiretaps are rejected out of hand as a egregious violation of the fourth amendment, but somehow the interception of communications, a activity far more intrusive than the placing of wiretaps, gets a free pass.

I don't think it has been determined that a warrant is required by the Constitution for international surveillance, but I don't think the information gained can be used in a criminal prosecution.

Finally!  This is NOT about criminal prosecution - it's about stopping attacks.  The Constitution is still in full force when it comes to prosecuting the criminal elements among us.  If evidence is gathered without a warrant, it can't be used in court.  But it CAN be used to disrupt an enemy attack. 

and for those who keep saying "if it doesn't work they should change it" there's a statement on page 512 of the 911 Commission Report that explains partially why that hasn't happened. 

A second impediment was a concern that such reforms would require a challenge to the FISA Court's position on the matter.This was considered risky because the FISA Court of Review had never convened, and one of the judges had previously voiced skepticism regarding the constitutionality of the FISA statute.

say what?  a judge questioning the wisdom of Congress?  FISA might be unConstitutional?  my, my. what would we do if that came to pass?? 

sandbagger wrote:

Finally!  This is NOT about criminal prosecution

I don't think the objective of J Edgar Hoover, in the course of surveilling Martin Luther King, was to ensure an adultery conviction. (several states, including many in the south still criminalize such conduct.). Yet neither was it in support of a legitimate intelligence operation---although initial cooperation was obtained from Justice on speculation that one or another of his advisors was a communist agent, this story proved to be quite laughable. Quite simply, Hoover wished to discredit the man in the eyes of the public, probably through selective leaking of information.

Similarly, government agents working for Richard Nixon burglarized the office of  Dr. Lewis Fielding, in order to obtain psychiatric records pertaining to a patient, Daniel Ellsberg. Previously, Ellsberg had distributed copies of the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times. Perhaps Nixon believed that such materials would be helpful in formulating an effective smear campaign.

The ban on unwarranted wiretaps was not merely to prevent criminal investigations from foundering on the exclusionary rule, but also to prevent the intelligence community from violating the privacy of americans. Collecting blackmail material for use on political enemies may have an intelligence value, but surely it is not a legitimate one.

Now you may argue that I'm a whiny liberal, blinded by paranoia. But history has shown that some espionage agencies, rather than focusing on serious threats, have instead decided to use their talents and resources in pursuit of  political vendettas and personal feuds.

sandbagger wrote:

but to me it's very simple. It's a matter of risk management.   Is the risk of "abuse" by otherwise patriotic Americans (which has happened before and we've always fixed) greater (and potentially more damaging) than the risk (and potential damage) from an Islamofascist WMD attack?

The abuse of government power is much more likely than a terrorist wmd attack.  The likelihood of damage comes out pretty even either way as well.

The extent to which Government officials outside of the FBI must
bear responsibility for the FBI’s campaign to discredit Dr. King is
not clear. Government officials outside of the FBI were not aware of
most of the specific FBI actions to discredit Dr. King. Officials in the
Justice Department ,and White House were aware, however, that the
FBI was conducting an intelligence investigation, not a criminal
investigation, of Dr. King; that the FBI had written authorization
from the Attorney General to wiretap Dr. King and the SCLC offices
in New York and Washington ; and that the FBI reports on Dr. King
contained considerable information of a political and personal nature
which was “irrelevant and spurious” to the stated reasons for the
investigation. Those high executive branch officials were also aware
that the FBI was disseminating vicious characterizations of Dr. King
within the Government; that the FBI had tape recordings embar-
rassing Ito Dr. King which it had offered *to play to a White House
of&al and to reporters ; and that the FBI had offered to “leak”
to reporters high y damaging accusations that some of Dr. King’s P
advisers were communists. Although some of those officials did ask
top FBI officials about these charges, they did not inquire further
after receiving false denials. In light of what those officials did know
about the FBI’s conduct toward Dr. King, they were remiss in fail-
ing to take appropriate steps to curb the Bureau’s behavior. To the
extent that their neglect permitted the Bureau’s activities to go on un-
checked, those officials must share responsibility for what occurred.
The FBI now agrees that its efforts to discredit Dr. King were
unjustified. The present Deputy Associate Director (Investigation)
testified :

Mr. ADAMS. There were approximately twenty-five inci-
dents of actions taken [to discredit Dr. King] . . . I see no
statutory basis or no basis of justification for the activity.
The CHAIRMAN. Was Dr. King, in his advocacy of equal
rights for ,black citizens, advocating a course of a&ion that
in the opinion of the FBI constituted a crime?
Mr. Adams. No, sir.
The CHAPMAN. He was preaching non-violence was he not,
as a method of achieving equal rights for black citizens?
Mr. ADAMS. That’s right . . . Now as far as the activities
which you are asking about, the discrediting, I know of no
basis for that and I will not attempt to justify it

The FBI conducted its investigation of Dr. King and the SCLC
under an FBI manual provision-called COMINFIL--permitting
the investigation of legitimate noncommunist organizations, suspected by the FBI of having been infiltrated by communists, to determine the extent, if any, of communist influence. The FBI’s investigation was based on its concern that Dr. King was being influenced by two persons-hereinafter referred to ‘as Adviser A and Adviser B-that the Bureau believed were members of the Com-
munist Party.
Officials in lthe Justice Department relied on the FBI’s representa-
tions that both of these advisers were communists, that they were in a
position to influence Dr. King, and that Adviser A in fact exercised
some influence in preparing Dr. King’s speeches and publications.
Burke Marshall, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights from
1961-1965, testified that he “never had any reason to doubt [the FBI’s]
allegations concerning [Adviser A].” He recalled that the charges
about Adviser A were “grave and serious,” and said that he ,believed
Attorney General Kennedy had permitted the investigation to proceed because:

Stopping the investigation in light of those circumstances
would have run the risk that there would have been a lot of
complain& that the Bureau had been blocked for political
reasons from investigating serious charges abont communist
infiltration in the civil rights movement

Edwin Guthman, Press Secretary for the Justice Department from
1961 through 1964, testified that Attorney General Robert Kennedy
“viewed this as a serious matter,” that he did not recall “that any of
US doubted that the FBI knew what it was talking about,” and that al-
though the question of whether Adviser A was influencing Dr. King
was never fully answered “we accepted pretty much what the FBI
reported as being accurate.”
We have been unable to reach a conclusion concerning the accuracy
of the FBI’s charges that. the two Advisers were members of the Com-
munist Party, USA or under the control of the Party during the FBI’s
COMINFIL investigation. However, FBI files do contain informa-
t.ion that ,Adviser A and Adviser B had been members of the Commu-
nist Party at some point prior to the opening of the COMINFIL in-
vestigation in October 1962. FBI documents provided to the Commit-
tee to support the Bureau’s claim that both men were members of the
Communist Party at the time the COMINFIL investigation was
opened are inconclusive. Moreover, the FBI has stated that. it cannot
provide the Committee with the full factual basis for its charges on
the grounds that to do so would compromise informants of continuing
use to the Bureau.
Without access to the factual evidence, we are unable to conclude
whether either of those two Advisers was connected with the Commu-
nist Party when the “case” was opened in 1962, or at any time there-
after. We have seen no evidence establishing that either of those
Advisers attempted to exploit the civil rights movement to carry out
the plans of the Communist Party.
In any event, the FBI has stated that at no time did it have any
evidence that Dr. King himself was a communist or connected with
the Communist Party. Dr. King repeatedly criticized Marxist philoso-
phies in his writing and speeches. The present Deputy Associate Di-
rector of the FBI’s Domestic Intelligence Division, when asked by the
Committee if the FBI ever concluded that Dr. King was a communist,
testified, “No, sir, we did not.” *O
The FBI’s COMINFIL investigation appears to have centered
almost entirely on discussions among Dr. King and his advisers
about proposed civil rights activities rather than on whether those
advisers were in fact agents of the Communist Party. Although the
FBI conducted disruptive programs-COINTELPROs-against al-
leged communists whom it believed were attempting to influence civil
rights organizations, the Bureau did not undertake to discredit the
individual whom it considered Dr. King’s most “dangerous” adviser
until more than four years after opening the COMINFIL investiga-
tion. Moreover, when a field office reported to FBI headquarters in
1964 that the Adviser was not then under the influence and
control of the Communist Party, the FBI did not curtail either its
investigations or discrediting program against Dr. King, and we have
no indication that the Bureau informed the Justice Department of
this finding. Rather than trying to discredit the alleged communists
it believed were attempting to influence Dr. King, the Bureau adopted
the curious tactic of trying to discredit the supposed target of Com-
munist Party interest-Dr. King himself.
Allegations of communist influence on Dr. King’s organization must
not divert attention from the fact that, as the FBI now states, its
activities were unjustified and improper. In light of the Bureau’s
remarks about Dr. King, its reactions to his criticisms, the viciousness
of its campaign to destroy him, and its failure to take comparable
measures against the Advisers that it believed were communists. it is
highly questionable whether the FBI’s stated motivation was valid. It
was certainly not justification for continuing the investigation of Dr.
King for over six years, or for carrying out the attempts to destroy
him.
Our investigation indicates that FBI officials believed that some of
Dr. King’s personal conduct was improper. Part of the FBI’s efforts
to undermine Dr. King’s reputation involved attempts to persuade
Government officials that Dr. King’s personal behavior would be an
embarrassment to them. The Committee did not investigate Dr. King’s
personal life, since such a subject has no proper place in our investiga-
tion. Moreover, in order to preclude any further dissemination of
information obtained during the electronic surveillances of Dr. King,
the Committee requested the FBI to excise from all documents sub-
mitted to the Committee any information which was so obtained.
We raise the issue of Dr. King’s private life here only because it may
have played a part in forming the attitudes of certain FBI and admin-
istration officials toward Dr. King.
Man documents which we examined contained allegations about
the political affiliations and morality of numerous individuals. We
have attempted ,to be sensitive to the privacy interests of those individuals, and have taken care not to advance the effort to discredit them.
We have excised many of the Bureau’s characterizations from the doc-
uments quoted in this report. In some cases, however, in order fully to
explain the story, it was judged necessary to quote extensively from
Bureau reports, even though they contain unsupported allegations.
We caution the reader not to accept these allegations on their face but
rather to read them as part of a shameful chapter in the nation’s
history.
The reader is also reminded that we did not conduct an investigation
into the assassination of Dr. King. In the course of investigating the
FBI’s attempts to discredit Dr. King, we came across no indication
that the FBI was in any way involved in the assassination.

I'm all for giving the Executive the power to conduct operations against terror, but I feel that this President has already abused that power.....

you and I will have to agree to disagree.  But then again, that's why we have elections.

.... I'm extremely uncomfortable allowing him to ignore federal law, especially where American citizens are involved.

Again, we disagree.  I believe he is executing his duties to defend the nation, as he is duty-bound by the Constitution.  To do other than he is doing today would be ignoring the law. 

..but this "war" is not anything like a "war" that those Founding Fathers would have recognized.  It has no boundaries, and no specific enemy.

while boundaries are difficult to define, there is indeed a very specific enemy.  You're right also in that many (most?) of our laws deal with relations between recognized states.  We don't really have that here.

sandbagger wrote:

while boundaries are difficult to define, there is indeed a very specific enemy.

Wait, is the enemy members of al qaeida, all islamic militants, evil dictators, or what?

sandbagger wrote:

I believe he is executing his duties to defend the nation, as he is duty-bound by the Constitution.  To do other than he is doing today would be ignoring the law. 

What law would that be, pray tell?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

sandbagger wrote:

I believe he is executing his duties to defend the nation, as he is duty-bound by the Constitution.  To do other than he is doing today would be ignoring the law. 

What law would that be, pray tell?

uuuuuuhhhhhhhh....... I'm just guessing here - the Constitution?

sandbagger wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

sandbagger wrote:

I believe he is executing his duties to defend the nation, as he is duty-bound by the Constitution.  To do other than he is doing today would be ignoring the law. 

What law would that be, pray tell?

uuuuuuhhhhhhhh....... I'm just guessing here - the Constitution?

Wow.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

sandbagger wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

What law would that be, pray tell?

uuuuuuhhhhhhhh....... I'm just guessing here - the Constitution?

Link?

Here's a good one: link

Last edited by mo' ron (2006-02-17 12:37 am)

even more specific than you?

Article I. Section 8.

Congress wrote:

a) In General.--No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

(b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose any geographical limitation on the applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under this section.

(c) Limitation on Supersedure.--The provisions of this section shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions of this section.

(d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined.--In this section, the term ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.

Shrubbie wrote:

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.

Constitution wrote:

Article I Section 8. The Congress shall have power to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

The point? The president and his minions have constructed legal doctrines that pay slight attention to the constitution, which he is duty bound to serve. I don't trust him, and neither should you.

Farmerkev wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Only 2 or 3% of our oil comes from the Middle East. We have no driving need to stay there except to further enrich the coffers and economic powers of the oil corporations.:

Sorry but

In 2002, Canada led the world in our sources of imports, at 17%, with Saudi Arabia (13.7%), Mexico (13.5%), and Venezuela (12%) in a virtual three-way tie for second. The year before the percentages were Canada - 15.4%, Saudi Arabia - 14%, Venezuela - 13%, and Mexico - 12.1%. Canada has been the leader since at least 2001. In 2002, US imports from the Persian Gulf region amounted to 19.8 percent of our total imports. The same year, a total of 40% came from OPEC member nations -- which include countries such as Venezuela and Indonesia that are outside the Persian Gulf.

While you're correct that we're getting virtually nothing from Iraq, the middle east is critical.

Add up your own figures, kev. More than 42% of USA oil comes from this hemisphere, not the Middle East. If we cut our addiction and pushed hard for alternative energy, we could survive without them. Raise taxes on gas alone, improve rail and water transportation, R & D to alternatives and if we are half as successful as we were in the space race, we could have this thing under control and tell the Middle East to kiss our a$$. But I honestly don't see this administration or any NeoCon politico doing that.

Here are the OPEC member states who supply about 40% of the world's oil.
Algeria, Indonesia, IR Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, SP Libyan AJ, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela. With the exception of Venezuela and Indonesia, as you point out, the others are in the Middle East. link

Answer me this question: If security is so smurfin' important, why is this administration so willing to sell 6 of our USA ports to the UAE? Negroponte was asked that question this morning and he ignored it. It was the only question he didn't answer.