“[E]very electronic conversation around the world” includes telephone conversations between Americans. I find it very hard to believe that the Clinton administration obtained a warrant to monitor every conversation around the world at all times. However, rather than ask me to prove a negative (that a warrant did not exist), it might make more sense for you to prove that the Clinton admin actually obtained such a warrant(s).
[Note – I’m not offering an opinion on the legality of Echelon. But as long as we’re talking about it, we should get our facts straight.]
I am not NSA, but I think the difference here is that NSA is sort of “sifting for electronic gold”, in the sense that they check everything (or virtually so) and then look for key words, phrases, etc. that let them know when they have a lead. They don’t actually listen to every single conversation or record it. And AFAIK this is “okay” for sometime. But in the case that you want to target and tape/listen to complete conversations, you need a warrant. And the current administration has sidestepped this inconvenience.
I think you’re being clear. I just have a problem with the hypothetical.
First of all, your question assumes that the Bush admin’s wiretaps were unconstitutional. This is an assumption that I’m not sure I agree with.
Second, even if the Courts determine that Bush’s wiretaps were unconstitutional, it appears that Bush’s actions were motivated (at least in part) by the belief that his actions were perfectly constitutional. So it’s hard to describe Bush’s actions as a heroic defiance of the law, when Bush didn’t believe that he was defying the law.
Third, even if the wiretaps were unconstitutional and Bush knew they were unconstitutional, Bush certainly doesn’t appear to believe he’s going to be punished for them. So it’s hard to think of his actions as totally self-sacrificing because he doesn’t appear to believe his actions should bring about any sacrifice on his part. (Note – I tend to agree with him there)
However, if we assume that the wiretaps were unconstitutional and that Bush knew they were unconstitutional, and that he expected to be punished for them, then I suppose Bush’s actions could be seen as selfless to the extent that they were motivated by a sincere belief that they would protect Americans, that they actually protected Americans (it appears they did help foil a few terrorist plots). But I don’t think “heroic” is the right word, since all he really did was order others to carry out some actions. I think the term “hero” should be reserved for more stunning accomplishments.
Do you have a cite for any of this? Because with all due respect, I think you’re just making this stuff up.
Are you actually contending that the government doesn’t need a warrant to listen to part of your conversations, but needs a warrant to listen to the whole conversation? If so, I’m going to need a cite for that.
And are you contending that the government does not need a warrant if the conversations are first being run over by a machine? And that once the machine does its “sifting,” that the government still doesn’t need a warrant to have a person analyze the conversation? But that the government needs a warrant if the results do not come from a machine, but from human intelligence? If so, I’m going to need a cite for that.
Are you contending that the Echelon program doesn’t record conversations? What about the fact that the 60 Minutes transcript that I just quoted says that Echelon “captures,” “collects,” and “analyzes” virtually ever electronic conversation in the world? How is “capturing” and “collecting” a conversation different than recording it? And if they’re not recording every conversation as they happen, then how are people able to later go back and listen to conversations? Again, I’m going to need a cite.
And what is it about Echelon that you find less threatening? It’s certainly not more reliable, since it merely keys on hot words that are capable of misinterpretation, like “bomb” (see, e.g., mom identified as terrorist suspect after she said her child’s play “bombed”). It’s certainly much broader in scope, since it involves virtually every conversation in the world, including private conversations that take place in people’s homes, even those that aren’t intentionally broadcast electronically (see, e.g., baby monitors). And it certainly involves “spying” on Americans.
But I guess it was done by Clinton, so it must be ok. At least until it was done by Bush, when it became not ok.
They are different, but not in any sense that should justify the utter lack of concern people had with Echelon, and their screaming hysterics as a result of Bush’s wiretaps.
Clinton existed in this conversation long before I came in. And the reason people are still talking about him is because he’s relevant.
I appreciate that. (Believe it or not, I remembered Unca Cece had written on this.) However, Cecil did not say anything that supported your earlier assertions, other than the fact that the gov’t did not record and listen to every conversation (which was something that I never thought they did). So I eagerly await a supportive cite or further explanation.
I object to your characterization as to ‘utter lack of concern’. I request a specific citation besides 60 Minutes. On the subjects I am most aware of, 60 Minutes has rarely gotten anything correct, to the point of falsified information. (Suzuki Rollover, Audi Acceleration)
They often have provocative interviewees, but, from the content of the language, the statements seem overbroad and not to be trusted.
Television news is a starting point, but all I see there is assertations.
Since you are putting a lot of words into my mouth, let’s keep this simple.
I contend that prior to Bush, there is no evidence that any US conversation were fully monitored or recorded without a warrant. If you want to contend differently, please provide cites. Bush is on the record as admitting to illegal wiretaps and more or less saying he fully intends to continue doing so.
And I contend that it doesn’t matter whether the conversations were “fully” monitored or recorded. Partially is plenty. If you have evidence that the government does not need warrants to partially monitor or record conversations, please provide it.
Please see the 60 Minutes transcript I cited and quoted earlier. Did you miss that? Or are you merely ignoring inconvenient facts?
Cite please for Bush admitting that the wiretaps were illegal? Because as I understand it, Bush admitted to wiretapping, but contends that the wiretaps were legal.
You’ve got to be kidding me. You’re rejecting a cite to 60 Minutes? If the 60 Minutes cite is inaccurate, then please feel free to provide me with a cite that contradicts what 60 Minutes said. But since you haven’t provided a single cite to contradict anything that 60 Minutes has said – let alone specifically identified what assertions made by 60 Minutes you contend were falsified – I’ll assume that you’re just grasping at thin straws in an attempt to avoid the facts.
And all I see from you are assertions. If you have some evidence to support your assertions, please provide it.
Actually, I provided cites. One was inaccurate, it was the Jeep CJ who 60 Minutes falsified information for, not the Suzuki Samurai. That was later. http://walterolson.com/articles/crashtests.html
Here is a full transcript of the Echelon interview… theoretically. It is presented as one, at least. http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm
Cryptome is a reputable site, I believe. These are certainly devastating assertations and claims, and they do repeatedly state it has been going on for years. There may well be violations of civil liberties here.
That said, I see no evidence of a President stating he was going to ignore the law. I see no evidence it is a specifically Clinton issue, and that it was not present under Bush or Reagan.
“Anything the President does is legal.”
Hm. After careful examination, anything Mr. Frost did to look at Americans would have been legal, as well.
First hardcore reveal in 1996. It seems that for at least 20 years, since William Casey, the CIA has claimed they were monitoring all international calls.
That said, that still has nothing to do with the fact that a President is blatantly ignoring the law, as opposed to an agency. There is a difference. I never liked Echelon in the first place, but a President claiming powers he does not hold to be a king over us all… I like much less.
Interesting. But totally irrelevant. I need something that contradicts the 60 Minutes transcript on Echelon.
Oddly enough, your new and improved cite is exactly the same as cite that I provided earlier. Is there a reason you’ve re-posted it as your own? I mean, other than the fact that you didn’t read my earlier post?
And so much for your concern for the reputation of my citations, eh? You don’t trust 60 Minutes, but you’re willing to trust impartial sources like www.whatreallyhappened.com, which also sells t-shirts reading “I Survived the Bush Administration … My son, the Marine, did not.” and “Yes, I am an American. Yes, our President is an idiot.”
For Pete’s sake.
I never said it was just a Clinton issue. I was correcting statements that Echelon did not record domestic conversations without warrants during the Clinton administration.
Bush never said he’s going to ignore the law. Bush never said that anything the President does it legal.
Can we please stop making up facts?
That thudding sound you hear is me banging my head against the wall.
Once again, I never said the program was illegal. But surely you’re not actually contending that Mr. Frost could legally monitor any American conversations he wants, and then do whatever he wants with the information. Otherwise, wouldn’t the US gov’t be able to bypass the Constitution merely by hiring a Canadian citizen to install wiretaps, even when not approved by a judge?
Can I have a cite for where the President claimed powers he does not hold to be a king over us all? Because I doubt he ever said that.
I confess, I missed your link, and saw only the transcripted quote.
I provide the cite on 60 Minutes, to point out, that in the cases I am fully qualified, as an automotive professional, to evaluate their reporting, they have failed or fabricated or lied by omission or comission.
I object to using television news magazines as primary cites, as they are, by their nature, sensationalistic.
The quote I used was a shortened version of
“If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president’s decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law.”
This was put forth by Richard Nixon, and defeated by the Courts.
The President’s actions violate FISA and USSID 18. It is possible NSA has been violating 18 all along. This does not make it any better. http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20051217/pl_usnw/president_bush_s_radio_address_to_the_nation__dec17102_xml
The powers he claims, in the program he clearly says he authorized, are not legal. He is not allowed to spy on Americans without a warrant. Full. Stop. The program did so.
The authorities he has so far cites, the JAUMF and the FISA, do not give him this power. He has seized it himself.
I could call him a dictator. It might be more accurate. King is a bit of hyperbole.
As for Mr. Frost? I do not know what the limits on Canadian espionage agents are. It is possible he could publish it all. Or use it to wipe his buttocks. Things are different in Canada. There, citizens have only the rights the Crown gives them. Here, the government only has the rights we give it. A slight, but significant difference.
You know, perhaps I should explicitly state the two points I am making here.
First, I do not trust television newsmagazines to accurately report news. I trust Time and Newsweek only slightly more. I have found them all to have significant errors, or to interview liars and report their words, on more than one occasion.
Secondly, why this night is… why this President’s actions are different from all other Presidents: He has explicitly stated he has done something, and repeated that he would do it again, and that it was done under his authority, that certainly appears to be, on both first and under closer examination, highly illegal. His rationale for doing so is exceedingly flimsy. Were he not the President, and say, a Governor or a CEO, it would be blatantly said it would not wash. As he is the President, it is only highly likely to be unconstitutional, immoral, fattening, and possibly illegal, as opposed to certainly so.
His claim of responsibility is unique, bearing strong resemblance to the Nixon Doctrine. It seems to be that, “In time of war, the President can do anything he feels necessary.” (Lincoln once suspended Habeus Corpus. That was ratified by Congress. It was found by the courts later that Lincoln’s actions were illegal, but Congress’ approval legitimized it.)
Congress does not appear to have ratified his actions at all. There are precidents from Lincoln, Truman, and Nixon about this sort of action, and it seems pretty clear.
This sort of thing may have happened before, but this is the first time it was thrown in our faces.