Domestic vs International

[Mulder]

This is from the White House website to try and set the record straight,as they put it, regarding so called Domestic spying.

Setting The Record Straight On The Scope Of The NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program.

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) Calls The NSA Program A "Domestic Spying Program." "That is why Americans of all backgrounds and political parties are concerned about the NSA's domestic spying program." (Sen. Harry Reid, Press Release, 1/23/06)

But The President's Authorization Only Covers International Communications In Which One Party Is Suspected Of Links To Al Qaeda Or Related Terrorist Organizations.

* Deputy Director Of National Intelligence General Michael Hayden: "One End Of Any Call Targeted Under This Program Is Always Outside The United States." GEN. HAYDEN: "I don't think domestic spying makes it. One end of any call targeted under this program is always outside the United States. I've flown a lot in this country, and I've taken literally hundreds of domestic flights. I have never boarded a domestic flight in the United States of America and landed in Waziristan. In the same way - and I'm speaking illustratively here now, this is just an example - if NSA had intercepted al Qaeda Ops Chief Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in Karachi talking to Mohamed Atta in Laurel, Maryland, in say, July of 2001 - if NSA had done that, and the results had been made public, I'm convinced that the crawler on all the 7 by 24 news networks would not have been 'NSA domestic spying.'" (General Michael Hayden, Remarks, Washington, DC, 1/23/06)

DEFINITION: Domestic Vs. International.

* Domestic Calls are calls inside the United States. International Calls are calls either to or from the United States.
* Domestic Flights are flights from one American city to another. International Flights are flights to or from the United States.
* Domestic Mail consists of letters and packages sent within the United States. International Mail consists of letters and packages sent to or from the United States.
* Domestic Commerce involves business within the United States. International Commerce involves business between the United States and other countries.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060124-4.html

I'm sorry, but this is bull****.

If the government conducts a wiretap on an individual INSIDE the United States, even if he is on a conference call with 50 other people in the Middle East, Europe, Africa, and Asia that qualifies as at least PARTLY DOMESTIC.

If even one party is a domestic party, they must follow the guidelines of FISA.
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1802

§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—

(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—

(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1801

“United States person” means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.

It's good to see that the reporters at the White House press briefing are starting to hammer Scott McClellan on this because their 3rd grade definition of domestic is garbage.

[SamFisher]

The white house really honestly has decided to function as all 3 branches of government with regard to domestic spying. I think there should be even more outcry than there is, on separation of powers grounds. So-called judicial conservatives and "strict constructionists" should be OUTRAGED. I mean, f-cking seriously bothered. This is a humongous slap in the face.

[tigermission1]

The white house really honestly has decided to function as all 3 branches of government with regard to domestic spying. I think there should be even more outcry than there is, on separation of powers grounds. So-called judicial conservatives and "strict constructionists" should be OUTRAGED. I mean, f-cking seriously bothered. This is a humongous slap in the face.

Conservatives and strict constructionists hardly exist anymore, our federal government is overrun by partisans.

[wnes]

During my phone conversations, I sometimes hear strange clicking noise or key pad touching sound. The strange thing is neither I nor the persons I was talking to did anything with the phones, like playing with the cords or keys. Should I suspect the wiretapping?

EDIT: it happens mostly, if not exclusively, in international phone calls.

[Trader_Jorge]

As we have seen from polling data, the public supports wiretaps on phone calls suspected from coming from al Qaeda. This appears to be what the Bush Administration has focused on, in their counter-terrorism intelligence operations. The liberals, eagerly seeking an issue to complain about and score political points, have concocted the case that the Administration is spying on domestic, non-terror related phone calls. Are the liberals lying and distorting the facts to attempt to gain traction in the polls? Are the liberals so upset that they aren't even listening to the White House's defense of the program? I think that much is certain.

My question for the liberals is this:

What evidence do you have that supports your outrage regarding the Administration spying on domestic-to-domestic phone calls?

Or are you so desperate for political attention that you oppose spying on al Qaeda?

[rimrocker]

During my phone conversations, I sometimes hear strange clicking noise or key pad touching sound. The strange thing is neither I nor the persons I was talking to did anything with the phones, like playing with the cords or keys. Should I suspect the wiretapping?

EDIT: it happens mostly, if not exclusively, in international phone calls.

Nice knowing you. I hear Cuba is nice this time of year.

[Azadre]

What evidence do you have that supports your outrage regarding the Administration spying on domestic-to-domestic phone calls? A concept of innocent until proven guilty

[wnes]

Or are you so desperate for political attention that you oppose spying on al Qaeda?

That's a funny question. Why do we need to spy on al Qaeda? By virtue of being al Qaeda members, shouldn't they be taken out?

[Trader_Jorge]

Ok, in the few minutes after posting my very salient points, two libs have responded.

Azadre -- Posted a nonsense post that shows that he doesn't understand the argument. (typical)

wnes -- Doesn't understand why we need to spy on al Qaeda.

Any liberals with even a rudimentary understanding of the issue care to respond?

[rimrocker]

As we have seen from polling data, the public supports wiretaps on phone calls suspected from coming from al Qaeda.

http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=21058

A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll finds that a slim majority of Americans say the administration was wrong to wiretap conversations between U.S. citizens living in the country and suspected terrorists elsewhere without obtaining a court order. However, nearly 6 in 10 Americans say a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the matter.

[wnes]

Nice knowing you. I hear Cuba is nice this time of year.

You mean Gitmo?

[Trader_Jorge]

http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=21058

Rimrocker, you are now mixing issues. We are talking about the wiretapping itself here, not the issue of whether we need to go through FISA. wnes' post about suspecting his own calls as being monitored proves my point. This issue isn't about FISA, it's about balancing privacy and counter-terrorism operations.

Here is the poll that says that America supports wiretapping al Qaeda to US phone calls.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm

[wnes]

Ok, in the few minutes after posting my very salient points, two libs have responded.

wnes -- Doesn't understand why we need to spy on al Qaeda.



T_J, if you are so sure that you have identifed al Qaeda members in USA, why don't you scoop 'em up? Waiting for another 9/11 to happen?

[Trader_Jorge]

T_J, if you are so sure that you have identifed al Qaeda members in USA, why don't you scoop 'em up? Waiting for another 9/11 to happen?

AGAIN you prove you are clueless on the issue. International (al Qaeda) to domestic phone calls are what we are talking about here. We are spying to attempt to figure out who in America is helping them. This knowledge would lead to arrests. I can't believe I have to explain this. Please, for the purpose of a healthy debate, recuse yourself from the discussion.

[white lightning]

My question for the liberals is this:

What evidence do you have that supports your outrage regarding the Administration spying on domestic-to-domestic phone calls?

Or are you so desperate for political attention that you oppose spying on al Qaeda?

Be prepared to have this report shot down by TJ as a liberal fantasy by a disgruntled employee. Read the whole article as the author investigates all of the clues. Here's an excerpt about charges by a former NSA employee:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/19/14619/9977

NSA spied on its own employees, other U.S. intelligence personnel, and their journalist and congressional contacts. WMR has learned that the National Security Agency (NSA), on the orders of the Bush administration, eavesdropped on the private conversations and e-mail of its own employees, employees of other U.S. intelligence agencies -- including the CIA and DIA -- and their contacts in the media, Congress, and oversight agencies and offices.

The journalist surveillance program, code named "Firstfruits," was part of a Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) program that was maintained at least until October 2004 and was authorized by then-DCI Porter Goss. Firstfruits was authorized as part of a DCI "Countering Denial and Deception" program responsible to an entity known as the Foreign Denial and Deception Committee (FDDC). Since the intelligence community's reorganization, the DCI has been replaced by the Director of National Intelligence headed by John Negroponte and his deputy, former NSA director Gen. Michael Hayden.

...
In addition, beginning in 2001 but before the 9-11 attacks, NSA began to target anyone in the U.S. intelligence community who was deemed a "disgruntled employee." According to NSA sources, this surveillance was a violation of United States Signals Intelligence Directive (USSID) 18 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The surveillance of U.S. intelligence personnel by other intelligence personnel in the United States and abroad was conducted without any warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The targeted U.S. intelligence agency personnel included those who made contact with members of the media, including the journalists targeted by Firstfruits, as well as members of Congress, Inspectors General, and other oversight agencies. Those discovered to have spoken to journalists and oversight personnel were subjected to sudden clearance revocation and termination as "security risks.

[rimrocker]

You are the one confusing the issue. The issue is not whether we should listen in on conversations that might have a bearing on National Security. Of course we should. The issue is should we do it legally according to the principles set forth in our Constitution (that pesky 4th Amendment) and according to the process codified by the legislation that created the FISA Court.

It is no surprise that a majority of Americans (as reflected in your Rasmussen poll) believe "the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States."

Notice that the poll you cite doesn't mention "warrantless" searches.

[Azadre]

Ok, in the few minutes after posting my very salient points, two libs have responded.

Azadre -- Posted a nonsense post that shows that he doesn't understand the argument. (typical)

wnes -- Doesn't understand why we need to spy on al Qaeda.

Any liberals with even a rudimentary understanding of the issue care to respond?
Are you insinuating one of the concepts this was very nation was built upon is nonsense? You, sir, are out of touch with reality as always. If it was your way, George W Bush would be king, liberals would be enslaved working on fiefs, and you would be all-the-merrier. Democracy and Freedom will reign over your tyrannous ideals.

[Trader_Jorge]

rimrocker -- Nice try, but as you are well aware, this thread is not dealing with the FISA process, but rather the issue of spying itself. 99% of the liberals outrage on this topic is related to eavesdropping, not the warrant issue. That is a convenient accessory to the argument which gives them some technical detail to hide their partisan rage behind. It's not the core of the issue. And it's not what the above posts from fellow libs are moaning and groaning about.

White lightening: You posted a story that even DAILYKOS thought was rubbish. They couldn't verify it until they found a disgruntled ex-employee. You've got arguably the most partisan left wing lunatic fringe website in the history of man who didn't even believe the story. Nice try, but we're going to need something objective here.

Here is DailyKos' take on the source:
At first I didn't want to believe it, and tried to do a little more research. Every version of this report I could find seemed to come from one single source - Wayne Madsen of the self-titled Wayne Madsen Report. The site itself struck me as a left-wing Drudge Report, bad graphics with super-partisan slant, so I remained skeptical. I couldn't find any major newspaper or blogs which might have done any additional background or detail on this story, although I did find a mention on conspiracyplanet.com. (?!!?!) After that, I pretty much wrote the entire thing off as being paranoid tin-foil-hattery.

That's just sad that you would post there here, white lightening. Step up your game.


Can any liberal answer my bolded question from above? I'm eagerly waiting an answer.

[Mulder]

Insert Straw man here

Jorge, they are BREAKING THE LAW!!!!

And no, they are not allow to spy on ANYONE if they crush civil liberties in the process.

As I stated previously, if ANYONE in the conversation is a "United States person" as defined in the Code, they can't surveil without a wiretap. I did not mention domestic to domestic although that CLEARLY fall outside of FISA.

[mc mark]

My question for the liberals is this:

What evidence do you have that supports your outrage regarding the Administration spying on domestic-to-domestic phone calls?


Tell ya what jorge, during next week's hearings why doesn't Specter subpoena Ashcroft and Commy and have them testify under oath why they wouldn't sign off on Jr's little spying program?

But we know the answer to that one don't we?

[white lightning]

... who didn't even believe the story. [/b]

Did you even read the whole thing? He goes on to mention other clues that leads him to believe that there is something to the story. What kind of evidence do you expect? Do you think Bush is going to offer a list of every phone tapped with dates and times? You have to add up small clues that together will piece together what really happened. This article points out several small clues. NBC is investigating wire taps on one if it's reporters, who is married to a Kerry spokesman. That's another clue.

Just because someone doesn't have the same political view as you doesn't give you any reason to discount their information as partisan posturing.

[FranchiseBlade]

rimrocker -- Nice try, but as you are well aware, this thread is not dealing with the FISA process, but rather the issue of spying itself. 99% of the liberals outrage on this topic is related to eavesdropping, not the warrant issue. That is a convenient accessory to the argument which gives them some technical detail to hide their partisan rage behind. It's not the core of the issue. And it's not what the above posts from fellow libs are moaning and groaning about.

White lightening: You posted a story that even DAILYKOS thought was rubbish. They couldn't verify it until they found a disgruntled ex-employee. You've got arguably the most partisan left wing lunatic fringe website in the history of man who didn't even believe the story. Nice try, but we're going to need something objective here.

Here is DailyKos' take on the source:
At first I didn't want to believe it, and tried to do a little more research. Every version of this report I could find seemed to come from one single source - Wayne Madsen of the self-titled Wayne Madsen Report. The site itself struck me as a left-wing Drudge Report, bad graphics with super-partisan slant, so I remained skeptical. I couldn't find any major newspaper or blogs which might have done any additional background or detail on this story, although I did find a mention on conspiracyplanet.com. (?!!?!) After that, I pretty much wrote the entire thing off as being paranoid tin-foil-hattery.

That's just sad that you would post there here, white lightening. Step up your game.


Can any liberal answer my bolded question from above? I'm eagerly waiting an answer.

Your question has nothing to do with why people are upset. People are upset because as rimrocker Sam Fisher, and others have pointed out, the wiretapping is being done without abiding by FISA and our constitution.

I don't know of anyone who doesn't want the U.S. to wiretap al-Qaeda when possible. I surely do, as do all the other liberals I know. Nobody is upset about that.

[rimrocker]

rimrocker -- Nice try, but as you are well aware, this thread is not dealing with the FISA process, but rather the issue of spying itself.

On the contrary, it is FISA and this administration's contempt for the law that is the core of the issue. Ask yourself this... If none of this had come out and the administration were not trying to spin their arguments in the most awkward way, would this thread even exist?

Again, spying is necessary. Intelligence gathering is necessary. Doing both while following the law is necessary.

[white lightning]

From Bush's speech in April 2004

"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

Why would he lie?

[Trader_Jorge]

Gotta love the D&D!! The_Conquistador can debate the liberals at a 7-on-1 disadvantage and come out unscathed. Nary a blow has been landed on The_Conquistador!

If the issue is so worthy of outrage, why can't the liberals provide a *single* example of domestic-to-domestic spying? That's what they've been complaining about for so long, yet they can't cite even one example? Have the liberals been distorting the truth to try to make an issue out of nothing? NO. Can't be. Surely there are many examples that they can provide which bolsters their claims. Right? RIGHT??? Where are they, libs?

.... or is this another contrived controversy that the libs are hoping to divide America and score political points with? YAWN

[Mulder]

Since I started the thread I think I know what it is about.
I started the thread to discuss the White House's incorrect assessment of the term Domestic in relation to surveillance. The lynchpin of it is FISA which I why I listed the Provisions of the Code in the initial post.

Thank you for your attempt to derail the thread. You are hereby dismissed.

[white lightning]

Gotta love the D&D!! The_Conquistador can debate the liberals at a 7-on-1 disadvantage and come out unscathed. Nary a blow has been landed on The_Conquistador!

If the issue is so worthy of outrage, why can't the liberals provide a *single* example of domestic-to-domestic spying? That's what they've been complaining about for so long, yet they can't cite even one example? Have the liberals been distorting the truth to try to make an issue out of nothing? NO. Can't be. Surely there are many examples that they can provide which bolsters their claims. Right? RIGHT??? Where are they, libs?

.... or is this another contrived controversy that the libs are hoping to divide America and score political points with? YAWN

It's posts like this that make me realize it's useless to debate someone who is not willing to consider or even acknowlege any evidence contrary to his position.

[Trader_Jorge]

Since I started the thread I think I know what it is about.
I started the thread to discuss the White House's incorrect assessment of the term Domestic in relation to surveillance. The lynchpin of it is FISA which I why I listed the Provisions of the Code in the initial post.

Thank you for your attempt to derail the thread. You are hereby dismissed.

Mulder, you obviously didn't pay any attention to the *article you posted*, which debates international vs domestic calls. Nice try at moving the goalposts there, after your side utterly FAILED to prove the Bush Administration wrong. The Bush Administration stated that at the other end of the phone calls was an international caller. This was said to dispute Senator Reid's lie about this being a "domestic spying program". This issue is obviously international vs domestic. Since your side couldn't produce a SINGLE EXAMPLE of a domestic-to-domestic wiretap, you have to change the issue. I'll accept your attempt at changing the argument as your unconditional surrender.

This has to be the best example ever of the liberals getting nowhere on the spying 'controversy' and having to retreat back to their convenient technical hiding spot -- the warrants. The warrant gambit merely provides them cover. It is not the core of their argument, as Mulder's ill-fated attempt at posting an article regarding international vs domestic wiretapping confirms.



EXPOSED

[Trader_Jorge]

This is from the White House website to try and set the record straight,as they put it, regarding so called Domestic spying.

But now you are saying it's all about the warrants? What made you have to change your argument all of a sudden? Huh? What a great case of:

http://leo.customer.netspace.net.au/lt/lt-owned-01.jpg

Thanks Mulder!!!

[Saint Louis]

Any liberals with even a rudimentary understanding of the issue care to respond?

I think that there is a certain percentage of the American public that just gets nervous when the government appears to be involved in "big brother" type activities. Ever since Watergate there is an always present level of mistrust by some for the federal government. This is a hard one because we need to be diligent and be on the lookout for those planning another 9-11, but we must also be careful not to throw away our personal freedoms. Who is responsible for making sure the eavedropping is used for the right purposes?

I've travelled to a "big brother" country. It is called Singapore. Lovely place. Very orderly. But that beauty, safety and orderly society comes at the cost of a lot of personal freedoms. Males there are required, at least they were 12 years ago, until a certain age to serve one month in military or government service each year. If the male isn't fit for military service, then they are assigned to work say in a post office and look for things like theft or other forms of misconduct. If you don't flush the toilet in the subway restroom your picture may end up in the newspaper. I would say though it is the best city I have ever visited.

Whether Bush did something illegal or not; this is never going to lead to impeachment. It is politically impossible in today's Congress.

[thegary]

i'm with tj. that's why i bought all this cool gear. you libs better watch it

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/3301/surveillancesystem0qc.jpg

[Batman Jones]

Jorge is still pushing the idea that the court orders are incidental. Awesome.

Click the link in my signature for a hilarious back and forth on this, in which Jorge warns that we'd tip off the terrorists when we served them with warrants.

[Trader_Jorge]

Jorge is still pushing the idea that the court orders are incidental. Awesome.

Click the link in my signature for a hilarious back and forth on this, in which Jorge warns that we'd tip off the terrorists when we served them with warrants.
HO HO HO!

Bats, I welcome you back from your sabbatical.

A snippet from that link that Batman directed people to:

But then... at the last possible moment... I was OWNED. Yes, friends. I admit it. I was OWNED right here on clutchfans.net by Trader_Jorge. And not just Jorge, but I daresay truly the most ashamed and embarassed Jorge we have known on this board. But he got me and I have to face the music.

Batman, that thread examined a variety of issues, whereas this thread is examining the Bush Administration's defense of Senator Reid's reckless charge of the "domestic spying program". If you'd like to be at the wrong end of another tittie whipping, please start a new thread about the FISA warrants. If you'd like to stay on topic, please discuss the issue at hand -- International vs Domestic wiretaps.

Can you be the first liberal to provide an example of domestic-to-domestic wiretapping? That really is the only way a rational debate can occur -- because otherwise Senator Reid is on record as being a charlatan.

[wnes]

I think that there is a certain percentage of the American public that just gets nervous when the government appears to be involved in "big brother" type activities. Ever since Watergate there is an always present level of mistrust by some for the federal government. This is a hard one because we need to be diligent and be on the lookout for those planning another 9-11, but we must also be careful not to throw away our personal freedoms. Who is responsible for making sure the eavedropping is used for the right purposes?


If you are wiretapped for absolutely no good reason, you should not get nervous. You should be outraged! T_J only mentions the surveillance on international to domestic phone calls, but the calls I was talking about in my 1st post were made from me in USA to my friends and family (mostly my 76 year old mother) in China. There could be issues with connection quality since I always use prepaid phone cards, but the clicking and key pad touching sound were by no means random background noises in my judgment. To whoever is spying on me, go screw yourself real good and rotten in hell!

[Batman Jones]

I'm not back from my 'sabbatical.' This forum's boring now. There's not a single poster left on the R side of the aisle that makes a single credible argument, so debate's out the window. It's not surprising. Bushco jumped the shark some time back. It makes sense the sensible conservatives would have stopped defending him (and boy howdy, have they) and that the die hard apologists would have lost their minds.

I just de-lurked because this thread was an awesome opportunity to remind everybody of the most hilarious T_J meltdown in BBS history. Enjoy it, y'all.

[tigermission1]

LMAO! Seriously, T_J, great entertainment man, you bring a great sense of humor to the D&D.

Keep going guys, I am enjoying this. :D

[thegary]

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/6966/girlfight2hp.jpg










batman, just giving the appearances of a fair fight.

oh, and sorry i couldn't make it to rudz, next time your in ny maybe

[Trader_Jorge]

So Batman, in other words, you are incapable of offering a rebuttal to the Bush Administration's vicious slapdown of Senator Reid's slander. Quite an interesting position, given that you just finished declaring that no conservatives can put together a credible argument. Looks to me like you can't put one together right here. Why not? Why can't you defend Senator Reid's statement?

Batman Jones: Lots of slander, no substance. Sorry Bats, but you failed right here. Now cram that in your pie hole.

[FranchiseBlade]

Gotta love the D&D!! The_Conquistador can debate the liberals at a 7-on-1 disadvantage and come out unscathed. Nary a blow has been landed on The_Conquistador!

If the issue is so worthy of outrage, why can't the liberals provide a *single* example of domestic-to-domestic spying? That's what they've been complaining about for so long, yet they can't cite even one example? Have the liberals been distorting the truth to try to make an issue out of nothing? NO. Can't be. Surely there are many examples that they can provide which bolsters their claims. Right? RIGHT??? Where are they, libs?

.... or is this another contrived controversy that the libs are hoping to divide America and score political points with? YAWN
Why are you pretending the outrage is something other than what it is? The liberals aren't outraged because of domestic/domestic spying. Liberals are outraged because the checks and balances that protect American citizens has been trounced by this administration, and American citizens have been wiretapped without having any protection.


I'm sure it is very easy to win debates when you debate against what you wish the other side was arguing, instead of what they really are upset about.

[thegary]

the Bush Administration's vicious slapdown


:D :D :D :D :D

[Azadre]

So Batman, in other words, you are incapable of offering a rebuttal to the Bush Administration's vicious slapdown of Senator Reid's slander. Quite an interesting position, given that you just finished declaring that no conservatives can put together a credible argument. Looks to me like you can't put one together right here. Why not? Why can't you defend Senator Reid's statement?

Batman Jones: Lots of slander, no substance. Sorry Bats, but you failed right here. Now cram that in your pie hole.
:D And 2 + 2 = 5!

[rimrocker]

...offering a rebuttal to the Bush Administration's vicious slapdown of Senator Reid's slander.

Deliberately obtuse.

Read Mulder's fine first post from beginning to end. You will see an administration trying to define the problem away and you will see the language of the law, which puts the lie to their spin.

[Ottomaton]

During my phone conversations, I sometimes hear strange clicking noise or key pad touching sound. The strange thing is neither I nor the persons I was talking to did anything with the phones, like playing with the cords or keys. Should I suspect the wiretapping?

EDIT: it happens mostly, if not exclusively, in international phone calls.

It is my understanding that in this case "wiretapping" not a literal term. All of the systems work by intercepting either line of sight microwave communications, or from satelite transmissions, either by satelites in space or using towers on the ground.

A reasonable percentage of traffic still travels undersea, and there is a submarine that taps undersea cables, the Jimmy Carter, but I believe most of the cables are fiber optic, and don't particularly respond to tapping in the way you described.

If they were listening in on your calls, I doubt that you would be able to tell.

[Batman Jones]

So Batman, in other words, you are incapable of offering a rebuttal to the Bush Administration's vicious slapdown of Senator Reid's slander. Quite an interesting position, given that you just finished declaring that no conservatives can put together a credible argument. Looks to me like you can't put one together right here. Why not? Why can't you defend Senator Reid's statement?

Nope. In all these many years, you've never made an argument I (and many others here) haven't knocked down with ease and this is no exception. I'm just finally bored with your game. You know the one. Start a fight, lose the fight, declare victory. Variations include accusing people of supporting terrorists, calling me a drunk, posting pics, etc. Oh yes, and when several posters weigh in on how badly you've embarassed yourself, call it a sign that the winner of the argument is on the ropes and needs help from some kind of liberal posse.

That last thread was the last nail in the coffin. You got beat about six different ways and not only did your usual silly victory dance ("I am so smart! I am so smart! S-M-R-T!") but you actually took a quote from your worst thread ever for your sig. (Wonder why you didn't provide a link?)

I've got to go serve Al Qaeda with a warrant now. We're spying on them, don't you know... See ya.

[Ottomaton]

Batman Jones: Lots of slander, no substance. Sorry Bats, but you failed right here. Now cram that in your pie hole.

You seem to be mixing up the concept of being louder and more obnoxious in order to have the last word with being correct. The two aren't the same thing, though you aren't the only person to think so. (http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/1/3/123632/5836)

Believing that something is true because you say it is true often enough is a halmark of schizophrenia. (http://sabryabdelfattah.tripod.com/docs/Thought.htm)

[Phi83]

You seem to be mixing up the concept of being louder and more obnoxious in order to have the last word with being correct. The two aren't the same thing, though you aren't the only person to think so. (http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/1/3/123632/5836)

Believing that something is true because you say it is true often enough is a halmark of schizophrenia. (http://sabryabdelfattah.tripod.com/docs/Thought.htm)

<img src="http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e339/phi83/internetarguing.jpg" alt="Image hosting by Photobucket">

[wnes]

[image snipped]

I find it very objectional to make a point by making fun of a kid with mental disability.

[wnes]

It is my understanding that in this case "wiretapping" not a literal term. All of the systems work by intercepting either line of sight microwave communications, or from satelite transmissions, either by satelites in space or using towers on the ground.

A reasonable percentage of traffic still travels undersea, and there is a submarine that taps undersea cables, the Jimmy Carter, but I believe most of the cables are fiber optic, and don't particularly respond to tapping in the way you described.

If they were listening in on your calls, I doubt that you would be able to tell.

I don't know. Not long ago Air America Radio liberal talkshow host Randi Rhodes also mentioned she heard similar annoying noise during her phone calls, which I assume were mostly domestic.

According to Maureen Dowd (cited in a Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/01/26/BL2006012600577.html)), perhaps millions of Americans are being monitored on their phone calls, e-mail notes and Internet searches. If the budget of NSA (or whatever the federal agencies) is limited, it's possible they may still be employing low tech methodologies in spying.

[Mulder]

Mulder, you obviously didn't pay any attention to the *article you posted*, which debates international vs domestic calls. Nice try at moving the goalposts there, after your side utterly FAILED to prove the Bush Administration wrong. The Bush Administration stated that at the other end of the phone calls was an international caller. This was said to dispute Senator Reid's lie about this being a "domestic spying program". This issue is obviously international vs domestic. Since your side couldn't produce a SINGLE EXAMPLE of a domestic-to-domestic wiretap, you have to change the issue. I'll accept your attempt at changing the argument as your unconditional surrender.

This has to be the best example ever of the liberals getting nowhere on the spying 'controversy' and having to retreat back to their convenient technical hiding spot -- the warrants. The warrant gambit merely provides them cover. It is not the core of their argument, as Mulder's ill-fated attempt at posting an article regarding international vs domestic wiretapping confirms.



EXPOSED

WRONG WRONG WRONG !!!!

The white says that Domestic to International or International to Domestic = ONLY IINTERNATIONAL. I am saying that is absolute crap aas ONE of the partys is INSIDE the US. I NEVER mentioned anything about PURELY DOMESTIC CALLS. You are changing the call of my question, playing the same BULLCRAP game they are.

Since you are so FOND of asking questions, here's a HYPO:

TRUE OR FALSE

A permanent resident alien, Mohammad Jafari in Dearborn, MI makes a phone call to a cell phone registered to an O. Bin Laden in Pakistan. The President authorizes a wiretap on that individual without a court order. Since this an international call the President has not violated FISA.

[Batman Jones]

Mulder:

Good question. For a couple more good hypothetical questions, swap out the names you mentioned with Bill Clinton calling Nelson Mandela or Billy Joel calling Elton John.

[Ottomaton]

Here is the Wikipedia article on the primary NSA collection system, Eschelon. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschelon)

Here is the Eschelon entry from the Federation of American Scientists. (http://www.fas.org/irp/program/process/echelon.htm)

Here is a newspaper article from New Zealand detailing one little bit of the system. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/sundaystartimes/0,2106,3540743a6005,00.html)

Eschelon is an old-school big budget Cold War system for spying on the Russians. It has massive and expensive and works wonderfully well. The last publicly revealed NSA budget before Bush reclassified it was $3.6 billion, second only to the National Reconnasance Office.

Conversly, the USS Jimmy Carter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Jimmy_Carter) is basically a redirection of cold war surplus. Beyond that I believe that most of the other DIA/NSA operated surface ships are fairly old.

This comes from a list is warning signs by an anti-evesdroping firm. (http://www.tscm.com/warningsigns.html)


5. You have noticed static, popping, or scratching on your phone lines.
This is caused by the capacitive discharge which occurs when two conductors are connected together (such as a bug or wiretap on a phone line). This is also a sign that an amateur eavesdropper or poorly trained spy is playing with your phone lines. It could be nothing more then a problem with your phone line or instrument, but a TSCM person should evaluate the situation to make sure.



I find it difficult to believe that even under the tightest budget conditions the NSA would make mistakes that would be described as "amateur".

I don't mean this to sound confrontational. I've just been interested in the way this stuff works for quite a while and I believe I have a fairly rudimentary uunderstanding of what mistakes could be made. In order to make mistakes of the type you are describing the tap would have to be before the switching station converts it to digital. This would necesitate a physical device at the end-point for everybody they want to tap.

Why do that when it is so much easier to tap the trunk line and get everything at once? Eschelon lets them collect data from the trunk lines, with the exception of the remaining fiber optic undersea cables.

[Saint Louis]

[QUOTE=Phi83]image deletedQUOTE]

I'll pretty much make fun of anything, but it just seems wrong to use special olympic kids as part of a joke.

[jo mama]

I don't know. Not long ago Air America Radio liberal talkshow host Randi Rhodes also mentioned she heard similar annoying noise during her phone calls

randi rhodes must have been listening to herself.

that woman is every bit as annoying as bill oreilly.

[Mulder]

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/british/images/vc264.jpg

[wouldabeen23]

randi rhodes must have been listening to herself.

that woman is every bit as annoying as bill oreilly.

She has moments of "clarity"...but I can't listen to her for more than 10 minutes a stretch and then check back later to see if she is still repeating her point form earlier on.

Now, Al Franken and Jerry Springer--solid gold, they need to coax John Stewart into a syndicated weekly show or something.