Bush Vindicated on NSA program!

RMNIXON · 11-28-2006, 02:42 PM

Oversight board told of privacy protections

By John Solomon, Associated Press | November 28, 2006

WASHINGTON -- After a delay of more than a year, a government board appointed to guard Americans' privacy and civil liberties during the war on terror has been told the inner workings of the government's electronic eavesdropping program.

Members say they were impressed by the protections.
The briefing for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board had been delayed because President Bush was concerned -- after several media leaks -- about widening the circle of people who knew exact details of the secret eavesdropping program.

The board, created by Congress and appointed by Bush, focused on other classified work since it was named in spring 2005, but continued to press for a formal briefing by the National Security Agency.
A breakthrough was reached in recent days, and the five members were briefed by senior officials last week.

Board members said that they were impressed by the safeguards the government has built into the NSA's monitoring of phone calls and computer transmissions, and that they wished the administration could tell the public more about them to ease distrust.

"If the American public, especially civil libertarians like myself, could be more informed about how careful the government is to protect our privacy while still protecting us from attacks, we'd be more reassured," said Lanny Davis , a former Clinton White House lawyer who is the board's lone liberal Democrat.
Alan Raul, a former Reagan White House lawyer and the board's vice chairman, said he also was impressed.

"We found there was a great appreciation inside government, both at the political and career levels, for protections on privacy and civil liberties," said Raul, author of a book of civil liberties. "In fact, I think the public may have an underappreciation for the degree of seriousness the government is giving these protections."

__________________________________________________ ________________

Just a little story you probably missed yesterday. To bad the damage to the program by the New York Times is already done. If all of this 'oversight ' could have been done quietly without the total notification of our enemies however.....

6SpeedTA95 · 11-28-2006, 02:44 PM

This ought to be interesting, can't wait to see what some members of the board have to say about this.

Thorgrim · 11-28-2006, 02:45 PM

I don't care how many protections it offers if it steps around Congress in violation of the constitution

Scrum · 11-28-2006, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I don't care how many protections it offers if it steps around Congress in violation of the constitution

Just because you are informing a board that you are breaking the law, doesn't make it legal.

lew · 11-28-2006, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I don't care how many protections it offers if it steps around Congress in violation of the constitution

I never will understand why you dislike Bush's unconstitutionality but you love others, such as FDR.

RMNIXON · 11-28-2006, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Just because you are informing a board that you are breaking the law, doesn't make it legal.

And protest does not make it illegal either.

That is why we have a government represented of "all the people" not just the left activist groups and their lawyers.

RMNIXON · 11-28-2006, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by lew

I never will understand why you dislike Bush's unconstitutionality but you love others, such as FDR.

Japanese consentration camps > very seletive and safeguarded NSA program? Now you can see how Republicans have made things get worse not better? I won't even start on how the FBI acted durring the Democrat party heyday!

Thorgrim · 11-28-2006, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by lew

I never will understand why you dislike Bush's unconstitutionality but you love others, such as FDR.

Because I firmly believe the Axis could have conquered the United States

The terrorists are not going to conquer the US, and they are in no shape to significantly hurt our country

heck, China/Russia are a bigger threat, you don't see Bush violating the constitution to protect us agains them

lew · 11-28-2006, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Because I firmly believe the Axis could have conquered the United States

The terrorists are not going to conquer the US, and they are in no shape to significantly hurt our country

heck, China/Russia are a bigger threat, you don't see Bush violating the constitution to protect us agains them

So, in your eyes, the ends justify the means?

Thorgrim · 11-28-2006, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by lew

So, in your eyes, the ends justify the means?

justified, yes

Saving the Union in the 1860s or saving the World and United States in the 1940s

6SpeedTA95 · 11-28-2006, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

justified, yes

Saving the Union in the 1860s or saving the World and United States in the 1940s

Saving american lives today?

Thorgrim · 11-28-2006, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Saving american lives today?

We'd save tens of thousands of American lives every year if we all stopped driving cars and used horse and buggies

Being conquered is a special condition, there is an exception to the rule

Scrum · 11-28-2006, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Saving american lives today?

You think the actions of this administration is saving lives?

lew · 11-28-2006, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

You think the actions of this administration is saving lives?

Do you think the actions of FDR, Wilson, and particularly Lincoln saved lives?

Scrum · 11-28-2006, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Do you think the actions of FDR, Wilson, and particularly Lincoln saved lives?

Are we just talking about the bending and breaking of constitutional rights? No.

motivez · 11-28-2006, 04:24 PM

Congress explicitly denied funding for several aspects of this program

Congress was not fully informed of the details of this program

This program fails to comply with FISA laws and Congressional intent.

It's unconstitutional, regardless of what some all-but-1-Republican board says.

DosEquis · 11-28-2006, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Do you think the actions of FDR, Wilson, and particularly Lincoln saved lives?

There is a difference between dying for this country and dying for a country that is not ready for democracy and for geopolitical gains.

lew · 11-28-2006, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

There is a difference between dying for this country and dying for a country that is not ready for democracy and for geopolitical gains.

While true, "dying for your country" is open to interpretation.

RMNIXON · 11-28-2006, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Because I firmly believe the Axis could have conquered the United States

The terrorists are not going to conquer the US, and they are in no shape to significantly hurt our country

heck, China/Russia are a bigger threat, you don't see Bush violating the constitution to protect us agains them

Excuses, excuses, and he isn't!

Can I send the second line to Howard Dean?

RMNIXON · 11-28-2006, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Congress explicitly denied funding for several aspects of this program

Congress was not fully informed of the details of this program

This program fails to comply with FISA laws and Congressional intent.

It's unconstitutional, regardless of what some all-but-1-Republican board says.

Line 1-3 do not equal 4.

FISA and congressional intent is not written in the Constitution!