"In the meantime, this program is conscious of people's civil liberties, as am I. This is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America -- and I repeat: limited."

---President George W. Bush



SECRETARY RICE: Tim, first of all, the President has authorized -- and it's important to talk about what he's actually authorized -- he's authorized the National Security Agency to collect information about the activities of a limited number of people with ties to al-Qaida so that there is not a seam between the territory of the United States and the territory abroad

---Secretary Condoleezza Rice Meet The Press



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...401373_pf.html

SURVEILLANCE NET YIELDS FEW SUSPECTS

Washington Post Staff Writers

Sunday, February 5, 2006; A01

Intelligence officers who eavesdropped on thousands of Americans in overseas calls under authority from President Bush have dismissed nearly all of them as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat, according to accounts from current and former government officials and private-sector sources with knowledge of the technologies in use.
The Bush administration refuses to say -- in public or in closed session of Congress -- how many Americans in the past four years have had their conversations recorded or their e-mails read by intelligence analysts without court authority. Two knowledgeable sources placed that number in the thousands; one of them, more specific, said about 5,000.

The scale of warrantless surveillance, and the high proportion of bystanders swept in, sheds new light on Bush's circumvention of the courts. National security lawyers, in and out of government, said the washout rate raised fresh doubts about the program's lawfulness under the Fourth Amendment, because a search cannot be judged "reasonable" if it is based on evidence that experience shows to be unreliable. Other officials said the disclosures might shift the terms of public debate, altering perceptions about the balance between privacy lost and security gained.

Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the nation's second-ranking intelligence officer, acknowledged in a news briefing last month that eavesdroppers "have to go down some blind alleys to find the tips that pay off." Other officials, nearly all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not permitted to discuss the program, said the prevalence of false leads is especially pronounced when U.S. citizens or residents are surveilled. No intelligence agency, they said, believes that "terrorist . . . operatives inside our country," as Bush described the surveillance targets, number anywhere near the thousands who have been subject to eavesdropping.

Supporters speaking unofficially said the program is designed to warn of unexpected threats, and they argued that success cannot be measured by the number of suspects it confirms. Even unwitting Americans, they said, can take part in communications -- arranging a car rental, for example, without knowing its purpose -- that supply "indications and warnings" of an attack. Contributors to the technology said it is a triumph for artificial intelligence if a fraction of 1 percent of the computer-flagged conversations guide human analysts to meaningful leads.

Many features of the surveillance program remain unknown, including what becomes of the non-threatening U.S. e-mails and conversations that the NSA intercepts. Participants, according to a national security lawyer who represents one of them privately, are growing "uncomfortable with the mountain of data they have now begun to accumulate." Spokesmen for the Bush administration declined to say whether any are discarded.

If most Americans new the specific details of Bush's spy program, they would reject it resoundingly. Currently Americans do not realize just how massive and invasive the data mining promgram is. And Bush and Rice have done nothing but lie about it by using words such as limited to describe the program's reach.

This country is not better off by having an administration that practices anti American policies.

Unfortunately, you are right...But why?

Most Americans "aren't" curious enough to find out what is really going on. They are worried about IRAQ, the economy, healthcare etc...So it makes it easy for the ADMIN to slip their "arguments" in as a buttress..

Have you seen some of the poll questions? Some of them do not even mention FISA..which is the "only" or "exclusive" means by which warrantless spying is justified.

It will put the whole discussion in context..

__________________
"Only a fool tests the depth of the water with both feet."

Most Americans dont consider it anti-American. The polls are consistent on that.

The scope IS limited, because the information collected can only be used against you with regards to terrorist activities. Thats the only way it could ever be admitted into court as evidence.

So what exactly is it you are losing? The ability to keep the government from listening in on your phone sex? What?

Most Americans understand that, and thats why they are OK with it. As usual, liberals are completely out of touch with the American mainstream. Thats the only reason this comes as a shock to them.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

That's not how the law works, really. It doesn't care whether the government uses the information in court or not; it cares that the government is listening in the first place.

Much free-speech and warrant law has come about in the context of government using someone's *noncriminal* actions against them. The FBI spent 38 years investigating the Socialist Party without ever filing a charge; that investigation came to be viewed as abuse and harassment, and was shut down. Nixon and the FBI almost never brought charges based on their CoIntelPro surveillance -- instead they used what they found to harass, undermine and blackmail antiwar activists. People lost their homes and their jobs because of it. FBI agents would send anonymous letters to the wives of activists saying their husband was having affairs.

Joe McCarthy and the HUAC was all about embarassing and silencing people, not about bringing provable charges of wrongdoing.

Warrantless surveillance is not okay just because the information is never used in court. If the government has no business listening in on a conversation, then it has no business listening -- even if it never acts on what it learns.

__________________
Man up.

Maybe...but most Americans dont seem to care. And in the end, that is what matters.

It isnt the first time Americans have nullified their own laws. Jury nullification is common in America.

But in this case, it DOES have business listening in. The specific purpose is to detect terrorist activities. Most Americans agree that the loss of privacy is acceptable to this end.

Obviously the government knows it is under a microscope, and is therefore unlikely to abuse this power.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

Well, that is the debate at issue here. Actually the debate isn't even over whether the government can listen in on the calls of terrorist suspects; it's about the level of proof needed before someone can be called a "terrorist suspect", and the checks and balances involved in making that decision.

Conservatives are so cute when they go all "trust the government." Especially when they complain about the people keeping the government under a microscope.

__________________
Man up.

So basically it is okay to violate the constitution as long as a lot of Americans think it is okay.

American opinion is clear. Under the circumstances, it is ok.

If you believe that this is only a conservative trait, then you got larger problems. it means that the number of conservatives have increased since the election.

When did I complain about that?

Pretty much, yeah.

Thats what jury nullification is. It is the People temporarily nullifying the law based on unique circumstances.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

Here is the latest polls, produced today.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060210/...ltBHNlYwM3MTY-

Interestingly, the last poll may be the most indictative. I believe a power shift in Congress will take place. Back to the left. If this happens, there will be a major battle between proponents for and those against Bush's idea of executive priveledge. Ironically, it will probably be ethical issues that strip power from Republicans in Congress (ironic, because the Republicans ran on the "restore dignity" ticket).

__________________
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty" - Thomas Jefferson

Sorry, that was a too-broad comment. You haven't. Many "conservatives" have.

__________________
Man up.