# 4 yrs. of widespread wiretaps, torture, infiltrations. Domestic Al-Q caught:1 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 26, 2005, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-yrs-of-widespread-wiretaps-torture-infiltrations-domestic-al-q-caught-1/337269 "2005-12-26T18:46:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-yrs-of-widespread-wiretaps-torture-infiltrations-domestic-al-q-caught-1/337269/61 "2005-12-27T21:59:56Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Opinions of the U.S. in the Arab world have been on the rise for the past two years, and thanks to the U.S. military aid in Pakistan, the opinion of the U.S. in Pakistan is higher now than it was before the Iraq war. > > Oh, and you left out the big one - support for Al-Qaida has absolutely collapsed in the Muslim world in the last couple of years. I am sure that you have cites for these extravagnt prounoucements, and merely failed to adduce them through an oversight, Feel free to make some up if you don’t have them handy. Your reverence for accuracy is all that we will need to assure ourselves that the studies you cite are legit. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-yrs-of-widespread-wiretaps-torture-infiltrations-domestic-al-q-caught-1/337269/62 "2005-12-27T22:04:24Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > What? Are you seriously arguing that Congress could pass a law eliminating the warrant requirement for US Citizens and it would pass Constitutional muster? Really? Otherwise, I don’t know what this means… No, what I am saying is that _you_r opinion that any of this stuff violates the 4th Ad is worthless. So far the USAG claims it doesn’t. Until and when SCOTUS (or perhaps a lower federal court, depending) rules it does, his opinion holds. Thus, unless you can show us a Cite where it _has_ recently been held UnConstitutional by a high Court- then I’d like to see your qualifications for deciding it does. Like, for instance the brief _you_ are presenting to SCOTUS. Until then, I’ll have to assume that the Attorney General knows just a _tad_ bit more about Constitutional law than you do. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-yrs-of-widespread-wiretaps-torture-infiltrations-domestic-al-q-caught-1/337269/63 "2005-12-27T22:13:39Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > No, what I am saying is that _you_r opinion that any of this stuff violates the 4th Ad is worthless. So far the USAG claims it doesn’t. Until and when SCOTUS (or perhaps a lower federal court, depending) rules it does, his opinion holds. Thus, unless you can show us a Cite where it _has_ recently been held UnConstitutional by a high Court- then I’d like to see your qualifications for deciding it does. Like, for instance the brief _you_ are presenting to SCOTUS. Until then, I’ll have to assume that the Attorney General knows just a _tad_ bit more about Constitutional law than you do. :rolleyes: The Attorney General knows. The Attorney General lies about what he knows. Deos that help any with your confusion? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-yrs-of-widespread-wiretaps-torture-infiltrations-domestic-al-q-caught-1/337269/64 "2005-12-27T22:15:21Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > I am sure that you have cites for these extravagnt prounoucements, and merely failed to adduce them through an oversight, > > Feel free to make some up if you don’t have them handy. Your reverence for accuracy is all that we will need to assure ourselves that the studies you cite are legit. As you wish… [Support for Terrorism Declining in the Muslim World](http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-12-07-voa44.cfm) > [@](#): > > “There’s no question that there is a turning in the Muslim world of opinion against Islamic terrorism,” Jodie Allen, the Senior Editor of the Pew report, explains. > > “I think it is in large part because of their experience with it and as more and more Muslim populations, rather than just a bunch of, you know, distant New Yorkers or Londoners, are affected by it, you see this rising concern,” she says. > > Ms. Allen says in most predominantly Muslim countries, the mastermind of the September 11th 2001 terror attacks against the U.S., Osama bin Laden, and his Al-Qaida terror network are no longer popular. [Support for the U.S. is surging in some parts of the Muslim world.](http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007699) > [@](#): > > So much for the popularly peddled view that anti-Americanism in the Muslim world is so pervasive and deep-rooted it might take generations to alter. A new poll from Pakistan, a critical front-line in the war on terror, paints a very different picture–by revealing a sea-change in public opinion in recent months. > > Long a stronghold for Islamic extremists and the world’s second-most populous Muslim nation, **Pakistanis now hold a more favorable opinion of the U.S. than at any time since 9/11, while support for al Qaeda in its home base has dropped to its lowest level since then.** > … > Released today, the poll commissioned by the nonprofit organization Terror Free Tomorrow and conducted by Pakistan’s foremost pollsters ACNielsen Pakistan shows that the number of Pakistanis with a favorable opinion of the U.S. doubled to more than 46% at the end of November from 23% in May 2005. Those with very unfavorable views declined to 28% from 48% over the same period. Nor is this swing in public opinion confined to Pakistan. A similar picture is evident in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation. Again that’s largely because of American generosity in the wake of a natural disaster. A February 2005 poll by Terror Free Tomorrow showed that 65% of Indonesians had a more favorable opinion of the U.S. as a result of American relief to the victims of last December’s tsunami. If these changes in Pakistan and Indonesia influence thinking in other countries, then we could be looking at a broader shift in public sentiment across the Muslim world. Next time, you might try leaving the snarkiness out of your post until you find out whether or not I was actually being accurate, lest you find yourself looking stupid. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-yrs-of-widespread-wiretaps-torture-infiltrations-domestic-al-q-caught-1/337269/65 "2005-12-27T22:18:45Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > The Attorney General knows. > > The Attorney General lies about what he knows. > > Deos that help any with your confusion? There aren’t enough “rolleyes” in the world… ☹ **Sam Stone** - still, a 28% “very unfavourable” means we have a long way to go. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-yrs-of-widespread-wiretaps-torture-infiltrations-domestic-al-q-caught-1/337269/66 "2005-12-27T22:24:17Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > As you wish… > > [Support for Terrorism Declining in the Muslim World](http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-12-07-voa44.cfm) > > [Support for the U.S. is surging in some parts of the Muslim world.](http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007699) > > Next time, you might try leaving the snarkiness out of your post until you find out whether or not I was actually being accurate, lest you find yourself looking stupid. fThe voice of America? Please. Even in yiour cite, Telhami makes it plain that Al Q benefits from our current policy. The drop off vis a vis terror that came as a bllip after the Jordan bombing could be attributed to americn policy, I guess, since Zarqawi works for us, but I don’t think that’s what you had in mind. Likewise, editorials from the wall sttreet journal are not authority in the visigotrh courts. As ever, your faithful correspondent, Stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-yrs-of-widespread-wiretaps-torture-infiltrations-domestic-al-q-caught-1/337269/67 "2005-12-27T22:27:02Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > But you see- we’ll never know how many acts of Terrorism were prevented by cutting the flow of unregistered and unlawful funds into the USA. One? A few? Dozens? > > Let’s say it was \*just one. \* I’d say that the Anti-money-laundering provisions were then well worth it. > > Now sure, the various Intelligence orgs have stuck their noses into a few areas where there weren’t needed. How did they know that before they looked? But what has been the cost? Can you point to innocent lives ruined? > > I admit that I am not entirely confortable with _all_ the snooping- it clearly needs to be fine-tuned. Using the criteria of preventing potential harm to the most Americans I think a good case could be made for having the NSA monitor all corporate phone traffic for evidence of Enron/Worldcom/Anderson/Sunbeam/Morgan Stanley type fraud. If they’ve done nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear, right? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-yrs-of-widespread-wiretaps-torture-infiltrations-domestic-al-q-caught-1/337269/68 "2005-12-27T22:34:21Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > how easy it would be to disrupt my chunk of the universe. nc. .? Let me walk you through this: Major pREMISE: 'Sama never sleeps. And when he does sleep, he dreams of huge body counts of inocent american civiliians. Minor premise: He can be prevented from this crime only by constant vigilence and effective action of our steely eyed president. Facts: 1. I was easy to fuck us up on September 11 2. Per the 9/11 commission, it is STILL easy 3. Every test of our security apparatus shows that it is utterly porous. 4. TTHERE HAS BEEN NO FURTER ATTACK,( even though our, per the major premise, our enemies go to bed every night thinking a day without killing an american is an affront to allah.) I submit to you that if something is easy to do, and someone wants to do it, it will get done. All the government has done in four years is piss into the wind. cconclusion:The major premise is flawed. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-yrs-of-widespread-wiretaps-torture-infiltrations-domestic-al-q-caught-1/337269/69 "2005-12-27T22:46:30Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > fThe voice of America? Please. > > Even in yiour cite, Telhami makes it plain that Al Q benefits from our current policy. > > The drop off vis a vis terror that came as a bllip after the Jordan bombing could be attributed to americn policy, I guess, since Zarqawi works for us, but I don’t think that’s what you had in mind. > > Likewise, editorials from the wall sttreet journal are not authority in the visigotrh courts. > > As ever, your faithful correspondent, > > Stupid. I suppose you didn’t read close enough to see the source material, huh? The first site references the Pew Global Attitudes Project, which is hardly a Republican front. The second references a poll conducted by AC Nielson. The rest of your comments, especially the juicy bit about ‘Zarqawi working for us’, I’ll just let stand for other people to gape over. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-yrs-of-widespread-wiretaps-torture-infiltrations-domestic-al-q-caught-1/337269/70 "2005-12-27T23:01:45Z")
I thought it a nice bit of understatement. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-yrs-of-widespread-wiretaps-torture-infiltrations-domestic-al-q-caught-1/337269/71 "2005-12-27T23:07:47Z")
Al-Sharq al-Awsat reports that guerrillas set ablaze a gas pipeline carrying gas from Kirkuk to Samarra, via an improvised explosive device that they detonated in southwest Samarra, We, for instance, have no such exposed infrastructure, do we?? ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-yrs-of-widespread-wiretaps-torture-infiltrations-domestic-al-q-caught-1/337269/72 "2005-12-28T00:45:09Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > But you see- we’ll never know how many acts of Terrorism were prevented by cutting the flow of unregistered and unlawful funds into the USA. One? A few? Dozens? > > Let’s say it was \*just one. \* I’d say that the Anti-money-laundering provisions were then well worth it. Actually, money laundering restrictions have probably affected white collar crimes (embezzlement, tax evasion, fraud) far more than it affects terrorism. All the money al-Queda needed to bring into the country in order to launch the Septemer 11 attacks was living expenses, plane fare, and $0.99 box cutters, along with a few months of aviation school tuition for a few of the agents. That is peanuts compared to the billions that are laundered in real estate scams and off-shore banking institutions every year. (Which begs the question–if in fact the restrictions are within Constitutional bounds–of why we waited so long to explicitly attack money laundering schemes.) > [@DrDeth](#): > > Now sure, the various Intelligence orgs have stuck their noses into a few areas where there weren’t needed. How did they know that before they looked? But what has been the cost? Can you point to innocent lives ruined? But the argument that the provisions of the Patriot Act might have prevented some unspecified terrorist activities–and we can be certain that if any specific, realistic threats had been averted the Administartion would have held a press conference complete with names, places, times, and other details to taut the success of Patriot and the Department of Homeland Security–doesn’t really hold water with respect to unConstitutional, unwarranted wiretaps and other surveillance. Are there immediate and quantifiable harms if the people under investigation “keep their noses clean”? Perhaps not. And perhaps you wouldn’t mind if the goverment installs a video camera in every room in your house, subjects you and your family to random searches, records your television watching preferences, demands periodic drug testing, and the like. After all, if you don’t do anything wrong, what do you have to worry about? This is, after all, the sort of logic that permitted would-be despots, from Josef Stalin to Richard Nixon to justify any number of eventual abuses. This is the rationale that led Joe McCarthy to make his (largely groundless) accusations of a massive underground Communist conspiracy on his unseen list. People who have even the most tenuous affiliation with Communist or socialist movements or organizations suffered unjust accusation and lost jobs, marriages, and fortunes. The Patriot Act, or rather the mentality behind it, is merely a continuation of that ill-begotten philosophy, that it is better to threaten and persecute many innocent people in the hopes of deterring some unidentified boogieman. Oh, but you want a specific example of abuse leading to harm? How about [Brandon Mayfield](http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/0/9090373de4fa9c7d85256f3300551e42?OpenDocument). On the topic of Homeland Security, I find myself in complete agreement with **David Simmons** ’ comments; we’ve seen a new bureaucracy that has rapidly become entrenched but has failed to provide any of the services that it was created to do. The debacle with FEMA in New Orleans is a clear sign that moving organizations–particularly one like FEMA which has a past reputation for actually being effective and responsive–under the aegis of Homeland Security is no panacea for fixing communication problems and agency rivalries which prevented information from being put together in a cohesive picture. Given that the analysis that has come from CIA, NSA, and other sources has been skewed to support this Administration’s agenda, rather than vice versa, and that the senior posts in Homeland Security and its child agencies are largely political appointees loyal to the Administration above all else (including the free dissemination of factual data), I think we can fairly conclude that objective analysis is not occuring, and that where abuse is permitted by the Patriot Act and similar permissiveness it _will_ occur in the service of advancing said agenda. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-yrs-of-widespread-wiretaps-torture-infiltrations-domestic-al-q-caught-1/337269/73 "2005-12-28T00:58:40Z")
> [@](#): > > Iyman Faris, the only named American target of the National Security Agency’s secret warrantless wiretap program, will consider a lawsuit against the president of the United States, according to his criminal defense attorney, David Smith. [Dec. 23, 2005](http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/12/23/nsa/) ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-yrs-of-widespread-wiretaps-torture-infiltrations-domestic-al-q-caught-1/337269/74 "2005-12-28T01:03:04Z")
> [@Stranger On A Train](#): > > Actually, money laundering restrictions have probably affected white collar crimes (embezzlement, tax evasion, fraud) far more than it affects terrorism. All the money al-Queda needed to bring into the country in order to launch the Septemer 11 attacks was living expenses, plane fare, and $0.99 box cutters, along with a few months of aviation school tuition for a few of the agents. That is peanuts compared to the billions that are laundered in real estate scams and off-shore banking institutions every year. (Which begs the question–if in fact the restrictions are within Constitutional bounds–of why we waited so long to explicitly attack money laundering schemes.) That’s what I don’t get. If we’re being silently protected from terrorists, then why do billions & billions of dollars’ worth of marijuana, cocaine and heroin make it over our borders every year? Why do thousands and thousands of illegal immigrants make it over our borders every year? And as you say, what about all the money laundering? We aren’t being protected from anything but illegal parking and the ability to grow your own organic pot. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-yrs-of-widespread-wiretaps-torture-infiltrations-domestic-al-q-caught-1/337269/75 "2005-12-28T01:03:20Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > .? > > Let me walk you through this: > > Major pREMISE: 'Sama never sleeps. And when he does sleep, he dreams of huge body counts of inocent american civiliians. > > Minor premise: He can be prevented from this crime only by constant vigilence and effective action of our steely eyed president. > > Facts: > > 1. I was easy to fuck us up on September 11 > > 2. Per the 9/11 commission, it is STILL easy > > 3. Every test of our security apparatus shows that it is utterly porous. > > 4. TTHERE HAS BEEN NO FURTER ATTACK,( even though our, per the major premise, our enemies go to bed every night thinking a day without killing an american is an affront to allah.) > > I submit to you that if something is easy to do, and someone wants to do it, it will get done. > > All the government has done in four years is piss into the wind. > cconclusion:The major premise is flawed. I agree that our infrastructure is vulnerable. I would go so far as to say you understated the idea. Your conclusion is flawed. You assume if it was easy it would be done and since it hasn’t then a threat doesn’t exist. You are dismissing the 9/11 commission outright. If all the government has done is piss in the wind then the commission would be recommend dismantling of the Patriot Act. It would be a more logical conclusion to assume that attacks have been prevented over the last 4 years and that every effort should be made to decrease the odds of it happening again. All of this discussion revolves around the premise that we are being spied on by the NSA in any calculable fashion. I don’t see it happening to me in even the remotest percentage of probability. What I do see is my local government spying on me with cameras. The percentage probability of that happening is 100%. Twice a day, 365 days a year. The best I can hope for from this little slice of 1984 is that a terrorist bomber will get an electronic traffic ticket (posthumously). If the NSA’s job is to seek out foreign enemy’s who have infiltrated our open borders it shouldn’t even be a discussion that we monitor them during a time of war. If the President’s job is to protect the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic then it is his duty to use whatever tools are available to achieve that goal. If Congress wants to monitor and advise then it should be done in such a manner that doesn’t provide aid to the enemy. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-yrs-of-widespread-wiretaps-torture-infiltrations-domestic-al-q-caught-1/337269/76 "2005-12-28T01:15:04Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > If the NSA’s job is to seek out foreign enemy’s who have infiltrated our open borders it shouldn’t even be a discussion that we monitor them during a time of war. If the President’s job is to protect the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic then it is his duty to use **whatever tools are available** to achieve that goal. If Congress wants to monitor and advise then it should be done in such a manner that doesn’t provide aid to the enemy. What do you mean by “whatever tools are available?” If you mean legal tools that don’t violate the constitution, I don’t think anyone is disagreeing. If you mean illegal or otherwise unconstitutional tools, you’ll need to be more specific–since you surely don’t believe that _every_ method of gathering information is an appropriate method. P.S. The NSA’s job isn’t to seek out foreign enemies who have infiltrated our open borders–that’s the FBI’s job. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-yrs-of-widespread-wiretaps-torture-infiltrations-domestic-al-q-caught-1/337269/77 "2005-12-28T02:27:11Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > No, what I am saying is that _you_r opinion that any of this stuff violates the 4th Ad is worthless. So far the USAG claims it doesn’t. Until and when SCOTUS (or perhaps a lower federal court, depending) rules it does, his opinion holds. Thus, unless you can show us a Cite where it _has_ recently been held UnConstitutional by a high Court- then I’d like to see your qualifications for deciding it does. Like, for instance the brief _you_ are presenting to BTW, SCOTUS. Until then, I’ll have to assume that the Attorney General knows just a _tad_ bit more about Constitutional law than you do. :rolleyes: The same AG who tried to define torture such that it wouldn’t be a violation of the Geneva Convention. Yeah, he’s got the Constitution tattoed on his dick, he loves it so much. Funny thing though, my cite is Bush himself: > [@President GW Bush](#): > > “Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires – a wiretap requires a court order,” he said on April 20, 2004 in Buffalo, New York. > “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,” he added. > “You see, what that meant is if you got a wiretap by court order – and by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example,” he said in Hershey, Pennsylvania. Hell, I’m gonna violate the rules on quoting from a copyrighted article if I keep going. Read about it [here.](http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051220/ts_afp/usattacksintelligence) On a slightly different subject, my opinion is worthless, huh? Damn it, I’m a veteran, a citizen, and a registered voter who hasn’t missed an election in the 19 years I’ve been eligible to vote … , this isn’t the Pit so I can’t say what I think of the attitude. I may not have a law degree, but I can read one sentence written in English and understand it. Which part of “shall not” and “no” are you struggling with? I’ll do my un-JD’d best to help. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-yrs-of-widespread-wiretaps-torture-infiltrations-domestic-al-q-caught-1/337269/78 "2005-12-28T03:09:57Z")
Here’s some interesting information that sheds some light on why the Bush administration went around the FISA court: [Secret court modified wiretap requests](http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/253334_nsaspying24.html?source=mypi) > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON – Government records show that the administration was encountering unprecedented second-guessing by the secret federal surveillance court when President Bush decided to bypass the panel and order surveillance of U.S.-based terror suspects without the court’s approval. > > A review of Justice Department reports to Congress shows that the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four previous presidential administrations combined. So much for, “FISA always grants the request, so why not go through the process?” As for whether these wiretaps are new: > [@](#): > > The 11-judge court that authorizes FISA wiretaps has approved at least 18,740 applications for electronic surveillance or physical searches from five presidential administrations since 1979. > > … > > The judges modified only two search warrant orders out of the **13,102 applications that were approved over the first 22 years of the court’s operation.** In 20 of the first 21 annual reports on the court’s activities up to 1999, the Justice Department told Congress that “no orders were entered (by the FISA court) which modified or denied the requested authority” submitted by the government. > > But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration. A total of 173 of those court-ordered “substantive modifications” took place in 2003 and 2004 – the most recent years for which public records are available. > > The judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years – the first outright rejection in the court’s history. What will be interesting to see is whether the court started rejecting these because the Bush administration was asking for something very abnormal, or whether the court was acting in partisan fashion. Nonetheless, there have been 18,000 wiretaps since 1979, of which only 5,800 came from the Bush administration. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-yrs-of-widespread-wiretaps-torture-infiltrations-domestic-al-q-caught-1/337269/79 "2005-12-28T04:14:30Z")
> [@Richard Parker](#): > > What do you mean by “whatever tools are available?” > > If you mean legal tools that don’t violate the constitution, I don’t think anyone is disagreeing. > > If you mean illegal or otherwise unconstitutional tools, you’ll need to be more specific–since you surely don’t believe that _every_ method of gathering information is an appropriate method. > > P.S. The NSA’s job isn’t to seek out foreign enemies who have infiltrated our open borders–that’s the FBI’s job. In general I mean legal tools. If my community is about to be nuked or poisoned then all bets are off. And the NSA does not operate as a counterpart to the FBI. Their function is in the area of surveillance and cryptology. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-yrs-of-widespread-wiretaps-torture-infiltrations-domestic-al-q-caught-1/337269/80 "2005-12-28T04:22:17Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > What will be interesting to see is whether the court started rejecting these because the Bush administration was asking for something very abnormal, or whether the court was acting in partisan fashion. You would do well to give a possible, even hypothetical, example of how a particular request would be rejected on “partisan” reasons, unless of course you’re defining “partisan” as “questioning Bush”. > [@](#): > > Nonetheless, there have been 18,000 wiretaps since 1979, of which only 5,800 came from the Bush administration. First, cite? Second, generously assuming that’s both true and applicable, that’s 32.2 % of the taps over 19.2% of the years in question, including the years when Bush 1 and Clinton had their eyes on the ball. Third, of the wiretaps we know to be illegal, 100% have been under Dubya. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-yrs-of-widespread-wiretaps-torture-infiltrations-domestic-al-q-caught-1/337269.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-yrs-of-widespread-wiretaps-torture-infiltrations-domestic-al-q-caught-1/337269.md?page=5)