1. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum...
    You are currently logged out and viewing our forum as a guest which only allows limited access to our discussions, photos and other forum features. If you are a 12ozProphet Member please login to get the full experience.

    If you are not a 12ozProphet Member, please take a moment to register to gain full access to our website and all of its features. As a 12ozProphet Member you will be able to post comments, start discussions, communicate privately with other members and access members-only content. Registration is fast, simple and free, so join today and be a part of the largest and longest running Graffiti, Art, Style & Culture forum online.

    Please note, if you are a 12ozProphet Member and are locked out of your account, you can recover your account using the 'lost password' link in the login form. If you no longer have access to the email you registered with, please email us at info@12ozprophet.com and we'll help you recover your account. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum (and don't forget to follow @12ozprophet in Instagram)!

Everyone Knows They're SPying....

Discussion in 'News' started by KING BLING, Jan 7, 2006.

  1. KING BLING

    KING BLING Guest

    Everyone Knows They're SPying....

    Discussion started by KING BLING - Jan 7, 2006

    We haven't had a good new thread - especailly on the internal spying - recently...



    SOOOOOOO, they used the idea that they felt the law allowed them to urinate directly on the principles of our government...but now, as we all already knew (except the three people here who say they are strict constitutionalists I predict) the law has been broken.......

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10741787/

    Analysts: Bush spying rationale legally shaky
    Memo questions use of presidential power in wiretapping without approval


    WASHINGTON - A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments.

    The Congressional Research Service's report rebuts the central assertions made recently by Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales about the president's authority to order secret intercepts of telephone and e-mail exchanges between people inside the United States and their contacts abroad.

    The findings, the first nonpartisan assessment of the program's legality to date, prompted Democratic lawmakers and civil liberties advocates to repeat calls yesterday for Congress to conduct hearings on the monitoring program and attempt to halt it.

    44-page report said that Bush probably cannot claim the broad presidential powers he has relied upon as authority to order the secret monitoring of calls made by U.S. citizens since the fall of 2001. Congress expressly intended for the government to seek warrants from a special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before engaging in such surveillance when it passed legislation creating the court in 1978, the CRS report said.

    The report also concluded that Bush's assertion that Congress authorized such eavesdropping to detect and fight terrorists does not appear to be supported by the special resolution that Congress approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which focused on authorizing the president to use military force.

    "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 to be . . . well-grounded," they said.

    Lawmakers lash out at spy program
    Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has pledged to hold hearings on the program, which was first revealed in news accounts last month, and the judges of the FISA court have demanded a classified briefing about the program, which is scheduled for Monday.

    "This report contradicts the president's claim that his spying on Americans was legal," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), one of the lawmakers who asked the CRS to research the issue. "It looks like the president's wiretapping was not only illegal, but also ensnared innocent Americans who did nothing more than place a phone call."

    Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the president and the administration believe the program is on firm legal footing. "The national security activities described by the president were conducted in accord with the law and provide a critical tool in the war on terror that saves lives and protects civil liberties at the same time," he said. A spokesman for the National Security Agency was not available for a comment yesterday.

    Other administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the CRS reached some erroneous legal conclusions, erring on the side of a narrow interpretation of what constitutes military force and when the president can exercise his war powers.

    A global, indefinite war?
    Bush has said that he has broad powers in times of war and must exercise them to target not only "enemies across the world" but also "terrorists here at home." The administration has argued, starting in 2002 briefs to the FISA court, that the "war on terror" is global and indefinite, effectively removing the limits of wartime authority -- traditionally the times and places of imminent or actual battle.

    Some law professors have been skeptical of the president's assertions, and several said yesterday that the report's conclusions were expected. "Ultimately, the administration's position is not persuasive," said Carl W. Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor and an expert on constitutional law. "Congress has made it pretty clear it has legislated pretty comprehensively on this issue with FISA," he said, referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. "And there begins to be a pattern of unilateral executive decision making. Time and again, there's the executive acting alone without consulting the courts or Congress."

    Balance of power
    Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the report makes it clear that Congress has exerted power over domestic surveillance. He urged Congress to address what he called the president's abuse of citizens' privacy rights and the larger issue of presidential power.

    "These are absolutely central questions in American government: What exactly are the authorities vested in the president, and is he complying with the law?" Rotenberg said.

    The report includes 1970s-era quotations from congressional committees that were then uncovering years of domestic spying abuses by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI against those suspected of communist sympathies, American Indians, Black Panthers and other activists. Lawmakers were very disturbed at how routinely FBI agents had listened in on U.S. citizens' phone calls without following any formal procedures. As they drafted FISA and created its court, the lawmakers warned then that only strong legislation, debated in public, could stop future administrations from eavesdropping.

    "This evidence alone should demonstrate the inappropriateness of relying solely on executive branch discretion to safeguard civil liberties," they wrote. The lawmakers noted that Congress's intelligence committees could provide some checks and balances to protect privacy rights but that their power was limited in the face of an administration arguing that intelligence decisions must remain top secret.
     
  2. BURLAP

    BURLAP 12oz Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    307

    BURLAP - Replied Jan 7, 2006

    related angle:
    http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_arti...8930f269e2bde50

    Cheney-Rumsfeld Surveillance Plans Date Back to 1980s

    Commentary/Analysis, Peter Dale Scott,
    New America Media, Jan 03, 2006
    Editor's Note: Illegal eavesdropping and illegal detentions of U.S. citizens marks a revival of presidential powers curtailed since Watergate, and likely grew out of a secret Reagan-era program that planned to suspend the U.S. Constitution in the event of a national emergency.

    Revelations that the National Security Agency (NSA) has engaged in warrantless eavesdropping in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act prompted President Bush to admit last month that in 2002 he directly authorized the activity in the wake of 9/11.

    But there are reasons to suspect that the illegal eavesdropping, and the related program of illegal detentions of U.S. citizens as well as foreign nationals, began earlier. Both may be part of what Vice President Dick Cheney has called the Bush administration's restoration of "the legitimate authority of the presidency" -- practices exercised by Nixon that were outlawed after Watergate.

    In the 1980s Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld discussed just such emergency surveillance and detention powers in a super-secret program that planned for what was euphemistically called "Continuity of Government" (COG) in the event of a nuclear disaster.

    At the time, Cheney was a Wyoming congressman, while Rumsfeld, who had been defense secretary under President Ford, was a businessman and CEO of the drug company G.D. Searle. Overall responsibility for the program had been assigned to Vice President George H.W. Bush, "with Lt. Col. Oliver North...as the National Security Council action officer," according to James Bamford in his book, "A Pretext for War."

    These men planned for suspension of the Constitution, not just after nuclear attack, but for any "national security emergency," which they defined in Executive Order 12656 of 1988 as: "Any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States." Clearly 9/11 would meet this definition.

    As developed in the mid-1980s by Oliver North in the White House, the plans called for not just the surveillance but the potential detention of large numbers of American citizens. During the Iran-Contra hearings, North was asked about his work on "a contingency plan in the event of emergency, that would suspend the American constitution." The chairman, Democratic Senator Inouye, ruled that this was a "highly sensitive and classified" matter, not to be dealt with in an open hearing.

    The supporting agency for the planning and implementation was the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA was headed for much of the 1980s by Louis Giuffrida, whose COG plans for massive detention became so extreme that even President Reagan's then Attorney General, William French Smith, raised objections.

    Smith eventually left Washington, while COG continued to evolve. And in May 2001 Cheney and FEMA were reunited: President George W. Bush appointed Cheney to head a terrorism task force and created a new office within FEMA to assist him. In effect, Bush was authorizing a resumption of the kind of planning that Cheney and FEMA had conducted under the heading of COG.

    Press accounts at the time claimed that the Cheney terrorism task force accomplished little and that Cheney himself spent the entire month of August in a remote location in Wyoming. But this may have just been the appearance of withdrawal; as author James Mann points out in "The Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet," Cheney had regularly gone off to undisclosed locations in the 1980s as part of his secret COG planning.

    As to the actual role of Bush, Cheney and FEMA on 9/11 itself, much remains unclear. But all sources agree that a central order at 10 a.m. from Bush to Cheney contained three provisions, of which the most important was, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, "the implementation of continuity of government measures."

    The measures called for the immediate evacuation of key personnel from Washington. Both Cheney and Rumsfeld refused to leave, but Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was helicoptered to a bunker headquarters inside a mountain. Cheney also ordered key congressional personnel, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert, to be flown out of Washington, along with several cabinet members.

    During Cheney's later disappearance from public view for a long period after the attack, he too was working from a COG base -- "Site R," the so-called "Underground Pentagon" on the Maryland-Pennsylvania border, according to Bamford.

    Many actions of the Bush presidency resemble not only what Nixon did in the 1970s, but what Cheney and Rumsfeld had planned to restore under COG in the 1980s in the case of an attack. Prominent among these have been the detention of so-called "enemy combatants," including U.S. citizens, and placing them in special camps. Now as before, a policy of detentions outside the Constitution has been accompanied by a program of extra-constitutional surveillance to determine who will be detained.

    As Cheney told reporters on his return last month from Pakistan, "Watergate and a lot of things around Watergate and Vietnam, both during the '70s served, I think, to erode the authority" of the president. But he defended as necessary for national security the aggressive program he helped shape under President Bush, which includes warrantless surveillance and extrajudicial imprisonment -- in effect, a new Imperial Presidency.

    At least two Democrats in Congress have suggested that Bush could be impeached for his illegal surveillance activities. The chances of impeachment may depend on whether Congress can prove that planning for this, like planning for the Iraq War, began well before 9/11.
     
    BURLAP - Rank: 12oz Member - Messages:
    307
    - Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
  3. Sparoism

    Sparoism Guest

    Sparoism - Replied Jan 8, 2006

    Well, surprise, surprise.
     
  4. John Birch

    John Birch 12oz Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2004
    Messages:
    747

    John Birch - Replied Jan 8, 2006

    the roman empire...nazi germany..all started as democracies and eventually became dictatorships run by "presidents".
     
    John Birch - Rank: 12oz Member - Messages:
    747
    - Joined:
    Apr 14, 2004
  5. Stereotype V.001

    Stereotype V.001 12oz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Messages:
    416

    Stereotype V.001 - Replied Jan 8, 2006

    Actually the early Roman empire was a monarchy, and Hitler's group was the "National German Socialist Worker's Party". Socialism. The roman leader was called "king" and Hitler was the "fuhrer." Not president. Anywho....
     
    Stereotype V.001 - Rank: 12oz Member - Messages:
    416
    - Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
  6. John Birch

    John Birch 12oz Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2004
    Messages:
    747

    John Birch - Replied Jan 8, 2006

    duh... president is just a term...I don't want to get into semantics...I'm saying both started as republics and then delegated power further and further to what can be called in modern terminolgy and usage "the president" until one day this elected president or whatever term suits you became what can be called a dictator or emperor or czar or ceasar or king ...




    *anyway for the record, stay on topic PLEASE and don't argue semantics. I assume everyone here is learned and intelligent enough to know what I'm talking about without wasting our time nit-picking terminology. If it makes you feel superior, start a new thread on being a nit-picking semantics bugger, and who's best at it.


    This is a graf forum discussing politics. I don't need to waste my time spell-checking and explaining terminology on every statement I make...I write as precisely as I need to without wasting my time...


    back to our thread...sorry for the rant...
     
    John Birch - Rank: 12oz Member - Messages:
    747
    - Joined:
    Apr 14, 2004
  7. Stereotype V.001

    Stereotype V.001 12oz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Messages:
    416

    Stereotype V.001 - Replied Jan 8, 2006

    Its more than semantics or terminology. No need to worry about spell checking or terminology. You said they both started as democracies or republics. Hitler started as a Socialist government (communism). And the Roman empire was always a monarchy, not a democracy. That is a totalitarian government. They are night and day different from a democracy or a republic.

    A President is the executive branch of a democratic government. One of three branches, so the power is not all in one person's hands. In a Socialist based government or Monarchy, all the power is in one person's hands.

    So no, its not semantics, your "point" is completely invalid. The only thing off topic is you complaining. Again, if the mods don't like it they can always delete the posts, but this is on topic.
     
    Stereotype V.001 - Rank: 12oz Member - Messages:
    416
    - Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
  8. Stereotype V.001

    Stereotype V.001 12oz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Messages:
    416

    Stereotype V.001 - Replied Jan 8, 2006

    And as far as domestic spying is concerned, I'll say the same thing I wrote in the other thread about it. Right after 9-11 everyone was furious that the government hadn't done enough to prevent it. If they had done something, it would have been technically considered domestic spying since the hi-jackers were here legally.

    The fact that the press is allowed to write critical stories of the government, and break this type of news, is a pretty good indicator that we aren't breaking down into a "dictatorship".
     
    Stereotype V.001 - Rank: 12oz Member - Messages:
    416
    - Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
  9. John Birch

    John Birch 12oz Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2004
    Messages:
    747

    John Birch - Replied Jan 8, 2006

    Its more than semantics or terminology. No need to worry about spell checking or terminology. You said they both started as democracies or republics. Hitler started as a Socialist government (communism). And the Roman empire was always a monarchy, not a democracy. That is a totalitarian government. They are night and day different from a democracy or a republic.

    A President is the executive branch of a democratic government. One of three branches, so the power is not all in one person's hands. In a Socialist based government or Monarchy, all the power is in one person's hands.

    So no, its not semantics, your "point" is completely invalid. The only thing off topic is you complaining. Again, if the mods don't like it they can always delete the posts, but this is on topic.
    [post=4254354]Quoted post[/post]​
    [/b][/quote]


    oi, know your history:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazy_Germany



    I think you didn't understand my point...all republics, irregardless of your definition, eventually (d)evolve into dictatorships usually through the guise of "emergencies." It happened in Rome and it happened in Germany. It happened in Pakistan a few years ago and is happening in the US now...
     
    John Birch - Rank: 12oz Member - Messages:
    747
    - Joined:
    Apr 14, 2004
  10. angelofdeath

    angelofdeath 12oz Elite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2002
    Messages:
    4,375

    angelofdeath - Replied Jan 9, 2006

    "And as far as domestic spying is concerned, I'll say the same thing I wrote in the other thread about it. Right after 9-11 everyone was furious that the government hadn't done enough to prevent it. If they had done something, it would have been technically considered domestic spying since the hi-jackers were here legally."

    well put.
     
    angelofdeath - Rank: 12oz Elite Member - Messages:
    4,375
    - Joined:
    Sep 15, 2002
  11. !@#$%

    !@#$% Moderator Crew

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2002
    Messages:
    18,516

    !@#$% - Replied Jan 9, 2006


    haha i think it's more that the government did not USE the info they HAD
    because they were too busy infighting at the agancies about who's info had to be shared with who.
    there are plenty of sources stating that the goverment had the info to prevent it.

    no, it would not have had to have been spying, after all, they may have been here legally.. some of these guys were already on the watch list ..but they WERE NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS. little bit of a difference there.
    and it ain't semantics.



    would you not also agree that the constant attack on the media as "liberal"...
    (what i consider a laughable allegation that most people have swallowed whole)
    ...has been a blatant attempt to supress dissention????!?!

    FOX news is nothing but a propaganda machine for our government
    I've heard enough straight BULLSHIT reported as fact in the past few months to know
    our media is hardly allowed to say what it wants.
    even the NYtimes sat on the domestic spying issue for awhile
    because the white house asked it to shelve the story.


    and, for the argument with john birch
    it is a bit nit picky
    we all know, power corrupts
    and there has been a brazen attempt by the executive branch of government to consolidate power since they got it.
     
    !@#$% - Rank: Moderator Crew - Messages:
    18,516
    - Joined:
    Oct 1, 2002
  12. Stereotype V.001

    Stereotype V.001 12oz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Messages:
    416

    Stereotype V.001 - Replied Jan 9, 2006

    John Birch- I understand your point fully, but the examples you provided were not democracies or anything close to our current government. Read the links you posted. Sorry if it sounded overly nit-pickingnesslyington, but I have heard the "our government is corrupted, it happens every time, look at history" line over and over but I have yet to hear anyone provide an example of a fully democratic nation.

    Symbols- Actually none of the 9-11 hi-jackers were on the major watchlist that is handed out to airlines and the like. An army intel group "able danger" had Atta on one of their watchlists, and had wind of something big being planned and Atta was considered to be involved. Why did they not alert the FBI and Law Enforcement agencies immediately? Domestic spying laws that were in place made the fact that they had Atta's name on a list illegal, and impossible to pass on the information. If they tried, chances are any agencies would have wanted nothing to do with it. Its even more touchy because it was a military group. All of the "infighting" at the agencies your talking about was caused by laws preventing domestic spying.

    As far as them being legal citizens, this also came up in the previous thread. Some of the hi jackers WERE American citizens. You don't have to be born in America in order to become a citizen, you can take a test and apply for citizenship. The rest had visas, and although temporary the time they are allowed here on a visa they are granted the full rights of any other citizen. So, if we had acted on intelligence it would have been illegal, and exactly what Bush is getting his balls nailed to the wall for right now.
     
    Stereotype V.001 - Rank: 12oz Member - Messages:
    416
    - Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
  13. Stereotype V.001

    Stereotype V.001 12oz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Messages:
    416

    Stereotype V.001 - Replied Jan 9, 2006

    Missed the media part of your post. It is funny that anyone who thinks the news you agree with is "liberal" and must be trying to supress dissension, while anyone who likes FOX is falling for "straight propaganda" because you disagree with it. I personally think FOX is overly biased towards the right, for obvious reasons. I also think other news outlets are biased towards the left, reporting "desecration of the Koran" without checking their sources and reporting the Iraq death toll reaching 2,000 like they were counting down on new year's eve. Zawahiri and others actually use this type of information for the videos they release as little pep talks for all the "holy warriors" watching Al Jazeera in between wiring IEDs and lobbing mortars. But that is all a matter of opinion, and has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.

    All personal views and politics aside, stories like the Abu Ghraib scandal, this scandal about domesticy spying, ect ect is harmful to the Bush administration's image. If we were truly living in a dictatorship/police state or whatever you want to call it, that type of harmful news would be censored and people attempting to publish it would not be allowed to live. And the NYT sitting on the domestic spying story might not be the best example, I'm pretty sure it wasn't a coinky dink they broke this story after sitting on it for a year right before the patriot act came up for renewal.
     
    Stereotype V.001 - Rank: 12oz Member - Messages:
    416
    - Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
  14. hobo knife

    hobo knife 12oz Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2004
    Messages:
    219

    hobo knife - Replied Jan 9, 2006

    Man...

    ...fox news doesn't lean a little too far to the right. Fox news is not a news agency. They don't "lean" either way. Fox news only exists to benefit the republican agenda. End of story.

    Most other major news agencies don't report liberal news, especially tv news agencies. I wish I could drill that through peoples heads. Liberal news might really discuss what happened in the 2000 and 2004 elections. They might discuss the Bush family history. They might discuss what the tax cuts are doing to lower and middle class america. They might investigate the official story of 911 and why so many things don't add up. Or maybe why corporations these days have more rights than humans do. Or look into which social programs are being cut in order to pay for an illegal war based on (lies) bad intelligence, in which a lot of the contracts have been awarded to our vice presidents company. Or bush's dui in texas, or cocaine habit in college, or the fact he was a fucking cheerleader. Why don't they do some reports about how walmart is putting so many small business' under and the gov't hasn't stepped in to stop it. Or the fact that a few mega-corporations own 90% of the media and control what most americans are exposed to. ..blah blah blah. I know a few of these stories have been glossed over during a 3 minute segment on 20/20...but a lot of this should be headline news night after night with real investigating going on.
     
    hobo knife - Rank: 12oz Junior Member - Messages:
    219
    - Joined:
    May 30, 2004
  15. angelofdeath

    angelofdeath 12oz Elite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2002
    Messages:
    4,375

    angelofdeath - Replied Jan 9, 2006

    "...fox news doesn't lean a little too far to the right. Fox news is not a news agency. They don't "lean" either way. Fox news only exists to benefit the republican agenda. End of story. "

    in keeping with the other part of your post.. i could also say that fox news doesnt have any conservative or goldwater republican content. otherwise they would have larry pratt, pat buchanan and those dudes on there all the time. they would be talking shit on big government. they would be talking about overturning gun laws. real shit .
     
    angelofdeath - Rank: 12oz Elite Member - Messages:
    4,375
    - Joined:
    Sep 15, 2002