Comments on: Ex-NSA Chief Blasts Taps, Calls for CIA Breakup

By: ex.vig

ex.vig — Thu, 11 May 2006 02:48:19 +0000

Chicago Station wrote…
———-
”“Hayden’s appalling lack of comprehension regarding the 4th amendment as well…“
Example?“
———–
LOLLLLOLLOL
http://www.google.ca/search?q=hayden%2B4th+amendment&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
jokes, type some words in to google, or are you as inept as the current administration, heh!

By: rutty

rutty — Thu, 11 May 2006 01:05:23 +0000

One question regarding Tice: Why would a professional talk like a thriteen year old?
Seriously. He uses the english language like an 8th grader. That doesnt make him wrong, of course. I just found it odd is all.

By: rutty

rutty — Thu, 11 May 2006 01:01:40 +0000

Would Mohamed Atta qualify as one the “americans whose rights have been violated” if the eavesdropping had been in place before 9/11/2001 and had been used to catch him? I am not trying to be a smartass. I am not aware (granted I am not all-knowing) of one specific person that has been targeted with this program. And let’s be honest here. Would that lawyer (Linda Something, I think) who was illegally passing along info for that blind sheik in jail (remember the first WTC bombing?) qualify as one of these oppressed americans? (Does anyone remember the name of the organization she belongs to? Arent they one of the ones claiming that had been wire-tapped by the NSA? I wonder why the NSA would ever watch them.)
And what about this article: “Security services identify 700 potential al-Qa’ida terrorists at large in Britain” (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article363121.ece). Would these people qualify as oppressed, too, if the NSA monitored their phine calls into this country?

By: Chicago Station

Chicago Station — Wed, 10 May 2006 22:42:17 +0000

“Hayden’s appalling lack of comprehension regarding the 4th amendment as well…“
Example?
I’d also like an explanation of the reasoning behind Inman’s belief that, “[t]his program is not authorized”. That’s a conclusion. What’s it based on? Quoting Inman without an argument is at core an appeal to authority.

By: Johnson

Johnson — Wed, 10 May 2006 22:20:41 +0000

Inman ought to know a lot about the illegal wiretaps. He was a maybe still is a member of the board of directors of AT&T. He joined the SBC board in 1985 or 1986. He probably knows how the phone company was deployed to help with this program and what they might have received in return.

By: FD

FD — Wed, 10 May 2006 22:08:49 +0000

JSAllison wrote…
“I’m sorry, but I don’t see any reason whatsoever to pay any attention to former Carter administration officials. They were incompetent then and I’ve seen no evidence that they’ve learned from their mistakes.“
ahhhh, ok, besides the fact that it’s another person who basically agrees with the majority of the American population regarding this absolute subversion of the law, constitution and respect for America and its citizens.
It’s just too bad nobody mentioned Hayden’s appalling lack of comprehension regarding the 4th amendment as well…that in itself should be grounds for a reversal on selecting this person to head the CIA, jeesh what other perverse ways will he interpret various laws and codes? Ah well, Bushie, like always, will stay the course and damn the rest of us.

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Wed, 10 May 2006 18:51:34 +0000

Good Morning Folks,
Of course JSAllison is correct, but why not let the goofy Admiral play in the Bush sand box.
Bobby would be a good fit with the “Beara” look alike that has been put up to run the Bush’s NKVD, ooop’s sorry I mean the CIA.
Lets face it, pun intended, Gen. Hayden has the face that looks like someone who runs a spy agency, just not sure which side. Besides when Senator Diane Finestein has the “hots” for you, your in. Now there’s a power couple.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

By: JSAllison

JSAllison — Wed, 10 May 2006 17:39:48 +0000

I’m sorry, but I don’t see any reason whatsoever to pay any attention to former Carter administration officials. They were incompetent then and I’ve seen no evidence that they’ve learned from their mistakes.

By: Noah Shachtman

Noah Shachtman — Wed, 10 May 2006 15:48:25 +0000

CS:
I don’t remember that *specific* case being discussed. But there was a sense among all three panelists that, when it comes to snooping on U.S. persons, the FISA statute has been violated by these NSA programs.
nms

By: Chicago Station

Chicago Station — Wed, 10 May 2006 06:47:51 +0000

Noah, did anyone ask Inman if he’s read the “In re:Sealed Case”? Have you?
Here’s the relevant quote from the FISA Court of Review [Nov. 2002]:
“The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information…We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.“
If the President has “inherent authority” to authorize searches to obtain foreign intelligence what is Inman talking about when he says “this activity is not authorized”?