And, still more recently than that – no cite, but it was fairly common knowledge during the Reagan years that the FBI was keeping tabs on any American organization that sympathized with leftists in Central America and tried to thwart the Administration’s efforts against them, e.g., CISPES (the Committee in Support of the People of El Salvador – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CISPES). Such surveillance was purely politically motivated and I hope no one in this forum would presume to defend it.
I wouldn’t presume to defend it until it has been established that it occurred.
Your cite says only:
(Bolding mine).
Seems to be roughly the equivalent of the “Plame leak led to the death of a CIA operative” - an assertion without any evidence offered to back it up.
In a thread where it is asserted with such confidence that the NSA surveillance was - definitely, absolutely, no questions about it, swear-to-God - illegal, and was aimed primarily at US citizens, I wonder at the lack of evidence offered to back other allegations up.
As far as I understand it (and I will be the first to admit that I have been paying less attention to this than I might otherwise do - things have been a bit busy for me lately), the NSA was aimed primarily at telephone calls overseas to phone numbers found in connection with investigation of terrorist activities. The difference between this and the same kind of surveillance carried out by previous administrations is, under the Patriot Act, NSA operatives no longer were forced to hang up on calls when they discovered a US citizen was making them.
And that the whole process was vetted by the Justice Department and the Attorney General, and senior members of Congress - including Nancy Pelosi - were informed of the process. Is any of this untrue? Or is this another issue that the SDMB as a whole cannot discuss because it hits too many hot buttons?
Regards,
Shodan
That’s why I prefaced my comment with “no cite” (including a cite only to provide a bit of background info on CISPES for Dopers who might not have heard of it).
If it were established the FBI had been surveilling CISPES, perhaps opening files on known members of it, etc., I hope you would not defend such a practice; such activists were merely exercising their right of political participation.
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18/graham-no-reference/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10663996/site/newsweek/page/3/
I may say that you are projecting too much: your lack of attention is typical for someone that does not what to discuss the matter at hand: that eavesdropping is ok as long as there are warrants, if they are not, one has to face that what Bush did and is doing is illegal.
I fail to see the significance of the Administration having a whore like Alberto Gonzalez “vet” the legality of any proposed action. :rolleyes: It’s rather like Don Corleone running something past his consiglieri Tom Hagen; Hagen might be a lawyer, but that’s neither here nor there.
As for notification of members of Congress, it remains unclear just how many were “notified” and what exactly they were told. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N.S.A._surveillance_without_warrants_controversy#Notification_of_Congressional_leaders. Furthermore, if any particular members of Congress reassured the Bush Admin that such action was not illegal, that does not mean it was not illegal; that question can be decided only with reference to legislation previously enacted by Congress as a whole.
Regarding the FBI probe (and more-than-probe) of CISPES, here’s a good cite: http://www.publiceye.org/huntred/Hunt_For_Red_Menace-12.html
Oh well, that was **Shodan ** just showing his typical ignorance on matters regarding El Salvador, In any case the ACLU found that there was indeed surveillance that was not justifiable:
Regarding that, I’m reminded of a story I read in The Worldly Philosophers, by Robert L. Heilbroner (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/068486214X/qid=1136684238/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-7487383-3235154?n=507846&s=books&v=glance). An attorney of one of the American 19th-Century “robber barons” (I think it was J.P. Morgan) presumed to give his principal a legal caveat about a proposed course of action. Morgan archly replied, “Well, I don’t know as I hire a lawyer to tell me what I can’t do. I hire him to tell me how to do what I want to do.” That seems entirely consistent with the Bush Admin’s way of thinking.
Let’s leave the personal observations out of the discussion. OK?
Rather than pop psych 101 observations about “projection” and what is “typical” of some ill-defined group, just post factual or logical refutations of his observations.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
I agree on the projection thing, sorry about that, but I disagree on the “typical”. Shodan showed before on a thread about Archbishop Romero that he really did not know what happen in El Salvador, yet he pretended to know about the subject.
Has that been determined? Or is this the great unanswered question amid all the sound and fury?
Your cite also says this.
“It appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations here,” the authors of the CRS report wrote. The administration’s legal justification “does not seem … well-grounded,” they said."
So we have another source weighing in with an opinion.
I think hearings should be held. I think the Supreme Court should eventually rule on the question. The issue is too important, both from a security and civil liberties stance, to leave to ambiguity.
That can’t happen unless the issue is presented in a court case – either a criminal prosecution of someone involved (what are the chances?), or somebody seeking an injunction to stop the surveillance.
I remember from Con Law 101 – George Washington once asked the SC for an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of a proposed treaty. He was rebuffed. The justices told him, in essence, “We can’t do that; we can only rule on actual cases at bar.”
Sorry, the you betcha referred to “is this the great unanswered question…” I meant to cut off the first question from your post.
As I read this, the illegality hasn’t been determined; the CRS 's conclusion is that the Administration claims of authorization and oversight are not valid. It doesn’t expressly say anything about the program being illegal.
Personally, I’m happy with a ruling of “not valid,” and totally agree with the OP that we should have hearings.
It’s going to be very interesting year.
. . . In the Chinese sense . . .
Vetted by the Justice Department is an interesting way to put it. Have you not heard about the visit to then-AG John Ashcroft in the hospital?
We don’t really know what Ashcroft’s reaction was and he isn’t commenting, but this does illustrate how shaky even the Justice Department thought the operation was.
I’m not sure what you mean - if Ashcroft refused to approve, would the program have proceeded?
It would seem to me that approval by the Attorney General is pretty close to a thorough vetting.
A search on my user name for “Romero” and “Salvador” did not return anything, so I am not sure what you are talking about either, but I am explicitly saying that I am not well-informed on the subject. As it does not seem to be possible to discuss the topic without automatic accusations of bad faith, perhaps I will satisfy myself by pointing out that you seem to be implying that the ACLU, of all people, are empowered to make findings of fact or of law as regards government operations. Which I misdoubt is the case.
Regards,
Shodan
:dubious: :mad: 
See posts #165 and 168 above.
