-
Don't forget to enter your score prediction for this week's game vs Ohio State. pick the score contest.
Security Leaks
- Thread starter volinbham
- Start date
CSpindizzy
Five Star Recruit
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 11,352
- Likes
- 542
(volinbham @ May 17 said:
This training camp was in the No-Fly zone in the north under the watch of the US. The Kurds more or less operated this region and they were our allies. If we couldn't get accurate info from our own allies who were there and an area we had watch over, then we had no business making assumptions.
Read Colin Powell's speech before the UN. Go back and research what happened to all of those unmanned drones, chem labs, warehouses, etc. with thousands of barrels and shells of WMDs. How can anyone claim that all of this intel we laid at the laps of the UN was reliable? This wasn't just one smoking gun. This was an entire OJ case worth of info here. This info came from many sources. And since all of it proved false, one wonders if ALL of our intel resources were that pathetic or the whole powerpoint presentation was fluffed. I don't know what is worse - an entire case load of intel proved unreliable from many sources OR the government fluffing it. Either way something is truly FUBAR here.
And to hear that a high ranking cabinet member to Saddam said, before the war started mind you, that there were no WMDs. This is unforgiveable. You do not put our armed forces out like that. You do not expose us like that and discredit us, especially in a region that already suspects us of everything. And to go into this war without even planning for the aftermath was a pathetic act of negligence. Just like in the former Yugoslavia, you take a strong secular government out and allow religion and cultural factions open up and take over. Over 160K US troops cannot contain this. What makes you think an Iraqi armed forces can do any better? And on that note, smart move to bomb their grunts back into the stone age. Then all we're left with is local militia to carve up the place. Smart move. Couldn't keep the grunts intact to help maintain order after the war.
This whole thing was botched. I hope to God that this administration doesn't do any more damage in the two years left.
CSpindizzy
Five Star Recruit
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 11,352
- Likes
- 542
To my Birmingham friend I bring this news. You mentioned how the intelligence committees were briefed on these phone deals. Actually today the White House finally decided to comply with the law (yes LAW) to brief the ENTIRE Senate and House Intel Committees rather than key leaders of these committees. It's hard to provide oversight when you're not even briefed according to the law. Another reason to doubt?
Interesting news indeed.smokedog#3
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2005
- Messages
- 1,645
- Likes
- 0
volinbham
VN GURU
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 69,686
- Likes
- 62,054
Meetings Declassified
Along with the decision to brief intelligence panel members, Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte on Wednesday declassified records of past briefings on NSA activities by administration officials to members of Congress.
The declassification was requested by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. The records show that 95 lawmakers participated in at least 30 briefings. Every one of those lawmakers was briefed more than once.
Pelosi, D-Calif., was briefed six times -- four times between October 2001 and June 2002, and twice in 2004.
One source told FOX News that Pelosi's briefings coincide with the time during which the NSA was putting together its terrorist surveillance program. The briefings she attended were on that program alone and not other NSA programs.
Several officials, however, have said the relevant members of the intelligence committees and the leadership have been briefed on "the totality of what the NSA was doing."
"Committee members understand any and everything the NSA is doing," said one official, adding that the dates show members were being briefed during the "critical start up months of the program."
I understand that there is a 1947 law being suggested by the democrats that was violated when 1/2 instead of all of the intelligence committee was briefed. As I've said all along, if the laws were broken the admin must face the consequences.
That said, clearly Congress was briefed and it is not the role of CIA or NSA operatives to serve the oversight role.
Along with the decision to brief intelligence panel members, Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte on Wednesday declassified records of past briefings on NSA activities by administration officials to members of Congress.
The declassification was requested by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. The records show that 95 lawmakers participated in at least 30 briefings. Every one of those lawmakers was briefed more than once.
Pelosi, D-Calif., was briefed six times -- four times between October 2001 and June 2002, and twice in 2004.
One source told FOX News that Pelosi's briefings coincide with the time during which the NSA was putting together its terrorist surveillance program. The briefings she attended were on that program alone and not other NSA programs.
Several officials, however, have said the relevant members of the intelligence committees and the leadership have been briefed on "the totality of what the NSA was doing."
"Committee members understand any and everything the NSA is doing," said one official, adding that the dates show members were being briefed during the "critical start up months of the program."
I understand that there is a 1947 law being suggested by the democrats that was violated when 1/2 instead of all of the intelligence committee was briefed. As I've said all along, if the laws were broken the admin must face the consequences.
That said, clearly Congress was briefed and it is not the role of CIA or NSA operatives to serve the oversight role.
smokedog#3
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2005
- Messages
- 1,645
- Likes
- 0
CSpindizzy
Five Star Recruit
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 11,352
- Likes
- 542
So let me see. These leaders were not briefed on everything when the law clearly states who should be briefed. It mentions 30 briefings but Pelosi only was briefed how many times? Hmm. Fuzzy math here. Briefings appear to be pick-and-choose. And who is to say what was said and what was not? We have no clue what was discussed. If someone says these items were discussed, they've violated regulations. So all we as the public can do is HOPE that the NSA, CIA, DIA, etc. is showing everything. We have to HOPE that our leaders are even getting the full story in the first place. THEN we have to HOPE that if law is being broken, there can be some way to punish those. The prosecutory power of the government is in the hands of the same branch of government these agencies are. We have already seen where the AG's office went to NSA and requested some info to which the NSA said nope. The AG's office said ok and walked away.
volinbham
VN GURU
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 69,686
- Likes
- 62,054
Except for the selective worst case spin you put on it - that's the way it works, has worked in the past and will work in the future. It's how this representative democracy works.
Even your worst case scenario doesn't justify agency members choosing on their own to leak programs THEY believe to be wrong. I won't paint the worst case scenario of this happening but clearly you can see the problems with this. We're already seeing a lot of misinformation about the NSA programs due to this leaking. Bottomline, we will likely never know what the program is (at least in the near future nor should we).
I assume the law you say is being "clearly violated" is the 1947 law that Harmon is arguing. Her argument isn't getting much traction (she first made these claims in December). Could it be that other subsequent laws since 1947 may mitigate it? My point, you've concluded this is illegal when you don't know that it is. As a defender of the constitution I hope you see the problem with this approach. I'm confident that if this law has been so clearly violated that a judge/jury will reach that conclusion and appropriate actions will be taken.
Don't like it? Vote for other representatives and lobby to get laws changed.
Even your worst case scenario doesn't justify agency members choosing on their own to leak programs THEY believe to be wrong. I won't paint the worst case scenario of this happening but clearly you can see the problems with this. We're already seeing a lot of misinformation about the NSA programs due to this leaking. Bottomline, we will likely never know what the program is (at least in the near future nor should we).
I assume the law you say is being "clearly violated" is the 1947 law that Harmon is arguing. Her argument isn't getting much traction (she first made these claims in December). Could it be that other subsequent laws since 1947 may mitigate it? My point, you've concluded this is illegal when you don't know that it is. As a defender of the constitution I hope you see the problem with this approach. I'm confident that if this law has been so clearly violated that a judge/jury will reach that conclusion and appropriate actions will be taken.
Don't like it? Vote for other representatives and lobby to get laws changed.
OrangeEmpire
The White Debonair
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 74,988
- Likes
- 59
The Supreme Court held in Smith v. Maryland (1978) that government collection of phone numbers called does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that callers cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial:
We doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed. All subscribers realize, moreover, that the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance (toll) calls on their monthly bills. . . .
Even if a caller did harbor some subjective expectation that the phone numbers he dialed would remain private, this expectation is not one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. . . . This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties. . . . When a caller used his phone, he voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and exposed that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business. In so doing, the caller assumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the numbers he dialed.
In sum, the alleged government data collection described by USA Today does not, on its face, violate the Fourth Amendment.
Have you honestly convinced yourself there are not any foreseeable situations where a brief and temporary intrusion into constitutional liberties is not necessary? I only ask this question because anyone with even the slightest imagination could plausibly conceive of a scenario where this would be required and not ask such a question.
However, what if during a world war there was an effort to impede America's ability to effectively engage the enemy? Here are the facts from Schenk vs. United States: This is an indictment in three counts. The first charges a conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917, c. 30, § 3, 40 Stat. 217, 219, by causing and attempting [*49] to cause [**248] insubordination, &c., in the military and naval forces of the United States, and to obstruct the recruiting and enlistment service of the United States, when the United States was at war with the German Empire, to-wit, that the defendants wilfully conspired to have printed and circulated to men who had been called and accepted for military service under the Act of May 18, 1917, a document set forth and alleged to be calculated to cause such insubordination and obstruction.
The count alleges overt acts in pursuance of the conspiracy, ending in the distribution of the document set forth. The second count alleges a conspiracy to commit an offence against the United States, to-wit, to use the mails for the transmission of matter declared to be non-mailable by Title XII, § 2 of the Act of June 15, 1917, to-wit, the above mentioned document, with an averment of the same overt acts. The third count charges an unlawful use of the mails for the transmission of the same matter and otherwise as above. The defendants were found guilty on all the counts. They set up the First Amendment to the Constitution forbidding Congress to make any law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, and bringing the case here on that ground have argued some other points also of which we must dispose.......The document in question upon its first printed side recited the first section of the Thirteenth Amendment, said that the idea embodied in it was violated by the Conscription Act and that a conscript is little better than a [*51] convict.
In impassioned language it intimated that conscription was despotism in its worst form and a monstrous wrong against humanity in the interest of Wall Street's chosen few. It said "Do not submit to intimidation," but in form at least confined itself to peaceful measures such as a petition for the repeal of the act. The other and later printed side of the sheet was headed "Assert Your Rights." It stated reasons for alleging that any one violated the Constitution when he refused to recognize "your right to assert your opposition to the draft," and went on "If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain." It described the arguments on the other side as coming from cunning politicians and a mercenary capitalist press, and even silent consent to the conscription law as helping to support an infamous conspiracy.
It denied the power to send our citizens away to foreign shores to shoot up the people of other lands, and added that words could not express the condemnation such cold-blooded ruthlessness deserves, &c., &c., winding up "You must do your share to maintain, support and uphold the rights of the people of this country." Of course the documents would not have been sent unless it had been intended to have some effect, and we do not see what effect it could be expected to have upon persons subject to the [**249] draft except to influence them to obstruct the carrying of it out. The defendants do not deny that the jury might find against them on this point.
Okay so these anti-war pamphlets were printed and strategically distributed. They were given to those enlisted men of the armed services whose deployment to combat was imminent. I am not going to resuscitate the facts. However, I do agree with the Court's holding. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress [***474] has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. It seems to be admitted that if an actual obstruction of the recruiting service were proved, liability for words that produced that effect might be enforced. HN3The statute of 1917 in § 4 punishes conspiracies to obstruct as well as actual obstruction.
After the attack on Fort Sumter Abraham Lincoln, without the baptizing approval of Congress as they were away on recess, seized telegraph lines without a warrant, suspended habeus corpus without Congress' approval, called upon the raising of troops without Congressional approval (raising a militia), ordered a naval blockade of Southern Ports, proclaimed that all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law, and refused to comply with a federal circuit court decision ruling his suspension of habeus corpus as unconstitutional. Lincoln's famous remark forever immortalized, "Must the entire constitution be destroyed but one clause of it be saved?"
Most assuredly there are some instances where the temporary intrusion into constitutional liberties is required. These are perhaps two examples of those scenarios.
We doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed. All subscribers realize, moreover, that the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance (toll) calls on their monthly bills. . . .
Even if a caller did harbor some subjective expectation that the phone numbers he dialed would remain private, this expectation is not one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. . . . This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties. . . . When a caller used his phone, he voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and exposed that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business. In so doing, the caller assumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the numbers he dialed.
In sum, the alleged government data collection described by USA Today does not, on its face, violate the Fourth Amendment.
Have you honestly convinced yourself there are not any foreseeable situations where a brief and temporary intrusion into constitutional liberties is not necessary? I only ask this question because anyone with even the slightest imagination could plausibly conceive of a scenario where this would be required and not ask such a question.
However, what if during a world war there was an effort to impede America's ability to effectively engage the enemy? Here are the facts from Schenk vs. United States: This is an indictment in three counts. The first charges a conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917, c. 30, § 3, 40 Stat. 217, 219, by causing and attempting [*49] to cause [**248] insubordination, &c., in the military and naval forces of the United States, and to obstruct the recruiting and enlistment service of the United States, when the United States was at war with the German Empire, to-wit, that the defendants wilfully conspired to have printed and circulated to men who had been called and accepted for military service under the Act of May 18, 1917, a document set forth and alleged to be calculated to cause such insubordination and obstruction.
The count alleges overt acts in pursuance of the conspiracy, ending in the distribution of the document set forth. The second count alleges a conspiracy to commit an offence against the United States, to-wit, to use the mails for the transmission of matter declared to be non-mailable by Title XII, § 2 of the Act of June 15, 1917, to-wit, the above mentioned document, with an averment of the same overt acts. The third count charges an unlawful use of the mails for the transmission of the same matter and otherwise as above. The defendants were found guilty on all the counts. They set up the First Amendment to the Constitution forbidding Congress to make any law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, and bringing the case here on that ground have argued some other points also of which we must dispose.......The document in question upon its first printed side recited the first section of the Thirteenth Amendment, said that the idea embodied in it was violated by the Conscription Act and that a conscript is little better than a [*51] convict.
In impassioned language it intimated that conscription was despotism in its worst form and a monstrous wrong against humanity in the interest of Wall Street's chosen few. It said "Do not submit to intimidation," but in form at least confined itself to peaceful measures such as a petition for the repeal of the act. The other and later printed side of the sheet was headed "Assert Your Rights." It stated reasons for alleging that any one violated the Constitution when he refused to recognize "your right to assert your opposition to the draft," and went on "If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain." It described the arguments on the other side as coming from cunning politicians and a mercenary capitalist press, and even silent consent to the conscription law as helping to support an infamous conspiracy.
It denied the power to send our citizens away to foreign shores to shoot up the people of other lands, and added that words could not express the condemnation such cold-blooded ruthlessness deserves, &c., &c., winding up "You must do your share to maintain, support and uphold the rights of the people of this country." Of course the documents would not have been sent unless it had been intended to have some effect, and we do not see what effect it could be expected to have upon persons subject to the [**249] draft except to influence them to obstruct the carrying of it out. The defendants do not deny that the jury might find against them on this point.
Okay so these anti-war pamphlets were printed and strategically distributed. They were given to those enlisted men of the armed services whose deployment to combat was imminent. I am not going to resuscitate the facts. However, I do agree with the Court's holding. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress [***474] has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. It seems to be admitted that if an actual obstruction of the recruiting service were proved, liability for words that produced that effect might be enforced. HN3The statute of 1917 in § 4 punishes conspiracies to obstruct as well as actual obstruction.
After the attack on Fort Sumter Abraham Lincoln, without the baptizing approval of Congress as they were away on recess, seized telegraph lines without a warrant, suspended habeus corpus without Congress' approval, called upon the raising of troops without Congressional approval (raising a militia), ordered a naval blockade of Southern Ports, proclaimed that all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law, and refused to comply with a federal circuit court decision ruling his suspension of habeus corpus as unconstitutional. Lincoln's famous remark forever immortalized, "Must the entire constitution be destroyed but one clause of it be saved?"
Most assuredly there are some instances where the temporary intrusion into constitutional liberties is required. These are perhaps two examples of those scenarios.
CSpindizzy
Five Star Recruit
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 11,352
- Likes
- 542
If you study Smith v. Maryland you will also see that this had to do with an investigation into the petitioner. The police did not apply a search upon all people. They had reason to believe that the person who had the pen register applied was committing a crime since they had threats on record from this person. Read Blackmun's majority opinion. It states that if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, then that would be a violation. After reading this opinion, note the FISA Act response to this and also the Telecommunications act of 1996. This bill said there is an understanding between the telecoms and their clients that there will be no exchange of phone data without the clients' permission.
Smith is not a good example of caselaw to use in this instance. It comes down to either the government violating US law OR it violating the Constitution.
As to exceptions, I don't think there should be any. If you open the door once, you'll have to keep opening the door. It's like when you're a kid and telling a lie or stealing a cookie out of the cookie jar. Who holds the power to say what exception is fine and what is not?
Smith is not a good example of caselaw to use in this instance. It comes down to either the government violating US law OR it violating the Constitution.
As to exceptions, I don't think there should be any. If you open the door once, you'll have to keep opening the door. It's like when you're a kid and telling a lie or stealing a cookie out of the cookie jar. Who holds the power to say what exception is fine and what is not?
smokedog#3
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2005
- Messages
- 1,645
- Likes
- 0
who holds the power, W holds the power and the money. that is the reason he gets away with whatever he wants. if he doesn't get his way, he will come out with a statement that terrorist are going to blow us up. he tries to scare people into getting what he wants, and it almost always works. :bad: :banghead:
OrangeEmpire
The White Debonair
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 74,988
- Likes
- 59
The issue is reasonable expectation of privacy.
Do you have a reasonable expectation that your phone calls are not being recorded and or listened too?
Reasonable expectation of privacy is a blast to discuss.
Why can you have security cameras in a retail store/hospital, etc. and not have listening devices?
Do you have a reasonable expectation that your phone calls are not being recorded and or listened too?
Reasonable expectation of privacy is a blast to discuss.
Why can you have security cameras in a retail store/hospital, etc. and not have listening devices?
volinbham
VN GURU
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 69,686
- Likes
- 62,054
It's tough too to separate program process from program content.
The NSA conducts far more invasive programs than the alleged phone call record database. Yet, if those programs passed proper legal channels people don't seem to have a problem with them.
In the phone call record database - people are saying civil liberties are being destroyed but which liberties are they referring to? Privacy or failure to use the FISA (if applicable) or what are considered standard approval procedures.
If the former, then why not an outcry about other more intrusive (e.g. computer communications monitoring) programs?
In other words, is the beef with the process or the content of the programs? Much of the complaints I've heard are not really about privacy but more about process.
The NSA conducts far more invasive programs than the alleged phone call record database. Yet, if those programs passed proper legal channels people don't seem to have a problem with them.
In the phone call record database - people are saying civil liberties are being destroyed but which liberties are they referring to? Privacy or failure to use the FISA (if applicable) or what are considered standard approval procedures.
If the former, then why not an outcry about other more intrusive (e.g. computer communications monitoring) programs?
In other words, is the beef with the process or the content of the programs? Much of the complaints I've heard are not really about privacy but more about process.
VN Store
