JamesDPS wrote:
The basic idea is that you cannot legally eavesdrop on a US citizen inside the United States without a warrant signed by a judge. Foreign eavesdropping is a different story, and is obviously key to the CIA's operations (the CIA does not operate as much in the US, their chief responsibility is foreign intelligence gathering). The domestic spying that the NSA has been doing, however, under Bush's orders and without court approval is illegal -- the administration is defending it, however, by saying that during wartime the executive is allowed such powers. That's what's being debated: whether or not emergency wartime executive priviledges allow this kind of thing. The usual channel for secret (NSA) domestic surveillance is to get court approval in a special court specifically designed for confidential matters so as to not publicly expose the surveillance (and compromise the source of intelligence), but an impartial judge still has to approve the action. Obviously, it's worth finding out why al queda is calling Americans in the US, but Bush circumvented the courts (he says in the interest of expediency), which is troublesome because it indicates that he believes himself above the law because we are at war. It might seem okay right now when the people spied on have links to actual terrorists, but who's to decide how far is too far? That's why you need a judge involved, to decide what is warranted and what is not (i.e. someone who would say "I see no probable cause to spy on JamesDPS even though he has been writing dissenting opinions posted on public websites", someone who would protect MY civil liberties, and yours, and those of other non-threatening Americans).
It all reminds me of that Jefferson quote, something like (paraphrased maybe) "He who would sacrifice liberty in favor of security deserves neither"--it's a fine line between the two, but when the government can lock people up, silence voices, spy on whomever they choose without any safeguards, and then write it off as necessary because of a war against an IDEA (like the "war on drugs", how do we know when the "war on terror" has been won?), the enemy has won. Bush likes to say they hate us because of our freedoms -- and it seems he is trying to protect us by eroding them away.
Well... I think the question of wether it has been done or not or wether it has been legal or not is a little bit unimportant in the light of the following question:
If it was possible to do this on a short notice... how long has the NSA been doing this now?
You see, the NSA is somewhat an internal intelligence agency, collecting intelligence in their own country. I would rather figure, they do not gather intelligence by just watching Fox News. One point has to be clear: Intelligence agencies always operate on the borders or outside the law. That's why there are no public reports on their activity.
By the way James: the quote "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." is not by Thomas Jefferson but by Benjamin Franklin (taken out of "Historical Review of Pennsylvania" (1759)).
One quote, that is often referred to Thomas Jefferson is "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"... though this quote is also often referred to Wendell Phillips
