Talk:President Bush of the United States authorized NSA surveillance of citizens, bypassing court warrants
I'm not sure who wrote this article, but the typo in the title ("autorized") needs to be fixed immediately.
There is a lot of speculation in this article, "perhaps thousands"? An estimation is fine, but please attribute it to whomever it belongs to. In addition, this article is lacking much background and present information and quotes, which would make for a much better article. Please search for some new sources if you cannot find anything else to put in this article, as it is very short and very brief. I've moved this back into developing, as I feel this article will need to be edited quite a lot. Additionally, there are items that aren't addressed in this article - such as responses from WH officials, etc. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- You are continue with your critisised pattern of using tag first and, in the best cases, critisise on talk later. International 23:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- And yet frankly, I'm dumbfounded. When I don't use the tag and explain, you complain when I leave messages. When I tag and don't leave a message, you accuse me of dashing. I tag and leave explanation, you're all up in my face. Pick something and deal with it. This is a wiki. I'll object to anything that I see isn't up to our policies. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I see you dont have a clue International 23:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Does ASAP mean +3 hour of nothing from your tag? Just curious International 00:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I want to suggest some more information for this article. The news reports in your more thorough minority among the mainstream media (i.e. NPR news, Meet the Press) are sporadically mentioning a 1972 Supreme Court decision against Nixon that outlawed this exact practice (domestic espionage without a warrant). However finding information on this has been difficult, and the only legal perspective I've found in this article and most others are references to PATRIOT or FISA which, while relevant, are simply conveying the Whitehouse's widely publicized justification and do not represent an objective or complete explanation. --Knuckle Bean 16:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- It would be nice to expand the article to include more background information on
1) the NSA mandate 2) the 1972 decision that you mentioned (first time I heard about it) 3) the reasons given by the current administration
- that would move the article out of the he-said-she-said realm to something that could be used to actually inform the reader to make his own opinion. I am all for it, but will be away from the computer all day today. Knuckle Bean, if you get a start on it, I am sure others will help. --vonbergm 16:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Someone changed the title whitout discussion. i suggest another one:
"Report: Bush secretly authorized NSA domestic surveillance without courtwarrants" International 01:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
"Report: Bush secretly authorized NSA domestic surveillance of international conversations without courtwarrants"
International 02:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
"Report: Bush secretly authorized NSA domestic eavesdrop of international conversations without courtwarrants"
International 02:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
By now, there are several independent reports out, so we can drop the "Report:". Also, the title should be as short and concise as possible. The original title was actually quite good. I also like the Post's title. --vonbergm 02:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- The new title is good too. I still believe we should drop the "Report:". --vonbergm 03:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Its ok for me to drop "Report:" International 03:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
The following quote from the Post should sufficiently justify dropping the "Report:"
- The existence of the NSA domestic surveillance program was reported late Thursday by the New York Times and confirmed by U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials.
Isn't "court warrant" written separately? - Apollyon 15:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Reverted Mrm:s titlechange. Discuss titelchange here befor. International 16:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Reverted again, this is not funny International 16:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, it's not? I guess you want discussion now? Well, too bad. I do believe you drove away any comments from me yesterday (as seen from above). I will refuse to discuss any items of this article any further. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- How very mature... - Apollyon 17:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
As they say, it takes two to tango. MrM, I've not spent all that much time on wikis really, but I've yet to see an edit war where bboth parties were not at fault. Everyone, ONE set of reverts is a natural part of wiki operation. People must take it to the talk page once people find themselves reverting one another; however, people should not feel obligated to use the talk page until one set of reverts has occured. Nyarlathotep 17:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Mrm dont like Title:
Acknowledged: Bush secretly authorized NSA domestic spying
and revert it back to his usuall...What to do? International 21:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Im not sure how to use this image
anywikinewsie know? International 01:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Tanks IlyaHaykinson! International 02:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
The author of the NYT piece has a book coming out on the same topic in weeks, he's hardly an unbiased source. There was also no secret about this, apparently Congress was briefed over a dozen times, there is also little indication that this was done WITHOUT FISA court approval. -Jbamb 17:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see how the author also writing a book about this makes him biased. The other statements you made contradict ALL the sources of the article. Do you have ANY evidence to support what you are saying? --vonbergm 18:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
bush speech today says he indeed did this, gives his reasons, and says he will continue. he also criticizes release of this info. i assume someone is busy incorporating this info into article, but i don't know how to check.--Cogito 19:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- He also says it's legal. Let's put it this way, it's not up to me to prove it's legal, it's up to those who assert otherwise to prove it illegal. -- Jbamb 22:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- The 4th Amendment in the Bill of Rights states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." monitoring all phonecalls by someone because of possable connections with terrorists is unreasonable and does not describe what's being searched. -- JedG 00:09, 31 December 2005 (EST)
Very good. The article does report Bush's statement. Moreover, it points out that there is a legal memo claiming that it is consistent with the law. So I relly do not see what you are complaining about. --vonbergm 23:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh grow up. --184.108.40.206 20:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I think this is breaking news now. Mrm reverted the tag. Anywikinewsie who agree its breaking news feel free to tag it. International 21:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure why people insist on changing the title to misrepresent the story! 1) What is up with the Report:? This information has been verified by several independent sources and now President Bush himself. Can the overly conservative wing of wikinews please stop trying to be even more protectionist of Bush-lover's feelings than the White House itself! 2) At issue here is not that the NSA is surveilling "international conversations". After all, that is its mandate. The issue is that now the NSA has been authorized to spy on American citizens within the territory of the Unites States of America, while they are convesing with abroad. One would think that anyone with enough interest in editing the article would have figured that one out by now. (Looking at the edit history, my assumption that people that change the title have an interest in developing the article stands on very weak footing....) --vonbergm 00:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Y'all need to have a nice cup of tea and a sit down before y'all have a stroke. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Vonbergm, you make good points. However, you're making them all on the subject, and not the article that is on Wikinews. The article is all about the NYT report, and was published last night. International or yourself should have made a separate article for Bush's acknowledging of the incident, however just changing the title doesn't quite cut it. If you think the title should include all that stuff, add it in the article first and then propose a title change. But don't juice up the headline if the story doesn't have the meat inside of it. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- I dont understand this. I taged the article Breaking just to gets wikisnewsies attention after I changed the title  so it could be made up to date. Then you reverted tag  and title mrm. Now you complaining about that I didnt split the article. I will fullfill your wish. International 02:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Now I suggest we change title to "Bush secretly authorized NSA domestic eavesdrop of international conversations without court warrants" International 02:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- I will object to that; that title is way too confusing and too long (it's almost too long in it's current state). Once an article is published, it is assumed "complete". New articles will be made after the previous one is published. If the article was developed for a little bit more, there would only be one article, and you wouldn't have to go through this again. However, the changes you wanted to make warrant a new article. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree its to long "Bush secretly authorized NSA domestic eavesdrop without court warrants" is a good sum up of the article International 03:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- MrM, at the time that the article was first published, there were two sources, namely the Times and the Post, that did confirm the story independently through sources. The Post article did distinguish which part is based on the Times article and which one is not. The part that was particular to the times was (and still is) indicated as attributable to only one single news source. All of this was explicitely discussed on the talk page BEFORE people went ballistic on the title yesterday, and WY BEFORE people continued to do this today. The only reason that the article was still developing today instead of being followed up by a new article was that some people started taging it with NPOV and forced further development, at which point it seems silly to ignore new development. --vonbergm 06:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
MrM, I don't know where your getting off with the current title, it does not address the actual issue, which is that the surveillance was appplied to U.S. citizens within the U.S. International, your title with spying in it is just asking for it. Titles can be "computed" from information priority, which can be reasonably objectively ranked as follows:
1) domestic surveillance without warrent 2) applied to U.S. citizens 3) Bush & NSA 4) international endpoint
MrM, you are clearly pushing a very low priority point. Clearly, all four of these points must be treated in the first paragraph, but you absolutely can't say international without somehow saying domestic. Of course, I fully suppport your desire to replace the loaded word spying with surveillance. How about:
- Bush authorized NSA surveillance of citizens, bypassing court warrants
With the international endpoint being clarified in the first sentence or two. Seem okay to everyone? Nyarlathotep 17:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
"Authorized" suggests he had the authority to do this. A dubious contention at best.
I'm not sure I have a better term, but "authorized" seems wrong.
Perhaps better: "Bush ordered NSA surveillance..."
"Bush initiated NSA surveillance..."
"Bush initiated illegal NSA surveillance..."
- You are very right. While "Bush initiated illegal NSA surveillance..." faces the same problem as at this point the legality/illegality is not established, the term "ordered" seems to fit perfectly. If other people agree I will change "authorized" to "ordered" in the title. --vonbergm 14:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)