SternFanNetwork Archive - Dictator Bush: 0, Democracy:1 Judge nixes warrantless surveillance

SternFanNetwork Archive > Other Talk > Politics & News

Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.

Dictator Bush: 0, Democracy:1 Judge nixes warrantless surveillance - Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics

banner

Pages: [1] 2

Dictator Bush: 0, Democracy:1 Judge nixes warrantless surveillance - Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics

incoherent

Judge nixes warrantless surveillance

By SARAH KARUSH, Associated Press Writer 8 minutes ago

DETROIT - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly taping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.

The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule.

Stonewall

incoherent,

This is but the beginning of the legal process.

If you come across the actual written opinion please post a link. I have been unable to find it.

muntz

Thank G-d a judge who understands.... if bushie went thru the FISA court they wouldve ok'ed it... but he didnt want to WAAAAHHH he didnt want others to know....

patcracker

Bush cant spell FISA.

FatesWebb

the only thing is bush doesnt care, he fully intends to procede.

tom sizemore

He thinks hes the emporer of America

Pestilence

Clinton NSA Eavesdropped on U.S. Calls

Newsmax Report

During the 1990's under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon.

On Friday, the New York Times suggested that the Bush administration has instituted "a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices" when it "secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without [obtaining] court-approved warrants."

But in fact, the NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s - all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.

In February 2000, for instance, CBS "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft introduced a report on the Clinton-era spy program by noting:

"If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency."

NSA computers, said Kroft, "capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world."

Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told "60 Minutes" that the agency was monitoring "everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs."

Mr. Frost detailed activities at one unidentified NSA installation, telling "60 Minutes" that agency operators "can listen in to just about anything" - while Echelon computers screen phone calls for key words that might indicate a terrorist threat.

The "60 Minutes" report also spotlighted Echelon critic, then-Rep. Bob Barr, who complained that the project as it was being implemented under Clinton "engages in the interception of literally millions of communications involving United States citizens."

One Echelon operator working in Britain told "60 Minutes" that the NSA had even monitored and tape recorded the conversations of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond.

Still, the Times repeatedly insisted on Friday that NSA surveillance under Bush had been unprecedented, at one point citing anonymously an alleged former national security official who claimed: "This is really a sea change. It's almost a mainstay of this country that the NSA only does foreign searches."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Just thought I'd keep things fair and balanced. :)

vegaseric

Thank god for BUSh and how he stands up to you liberals. 2004 election didn't teach you anything? You should go back and check the results!

FatesWebb

incoherent

Quote: Originally posted by Pestilence
Clinton NSA Eavesdropped on U.S. Calls
Newsmax Report
During the 1990's under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon.
On Friday, the New York Times suggested that the Bush administration has instituted "a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices" when it "secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without [obtaining] court-approved warrants."
But in fact, the NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s - all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.
In February 2000, for instance, CBS "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft introduced a report on the Clinton-era spy program by noting:
"If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency."
NSA computers, said Kroft, "capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world."
Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told "60 Minutes" that the agency was monitoring "everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs."
Mr. Frost detailed activities at one unidentified NSA installation, telling "60 Minutes" that agency operators "can listen in to just about anything" - while Echelon computers screen phone calls for key words that might indicate a terrorist threat.
The "60 Minutes" report also spotlighted Echelon critic, then-Rep. Bob Barr, who complained that the project as it was being implemented under Clinton "engages in the interception of literally millions of communications involving United States citizens."
One Echelon operator working in Britain told "60 Minutes" that the NSA had even monitored and tape recorded the conversations of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond.
Still, the Times repeatedly insisted on Friday that NSA surveillance under Bush had been unprecedented, at one point citing anonymously an alleged former national security official who claimed: "This is really a sea change. It's almost a mainstay of this country that the NSA only does foreign searches."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Just thought I'd keep things fair and balanced. :)

1) Let's see what "fair and balanced" means to a Bush-fetishist like Pestilence:

Clinton's wiretapping- in full compliance with the FISA law and legal
Bush's wiretapping: not in compliance with the FISA law and illegal

2) So how does the above "balance" anything? Except to remind us that Clinton got it right despite harping from help-the-terrorist Republicans like Barr?

3) How is it "fair" to imply equivalence between Clinton's legal program and Bush's illegal program?

4) What's it like to be a Bush-worshipping ditto-head who blindly repeats far-right falsehoods that only cause you to be embarrassed when your misleading deceptions are exposed?

incoherent

https://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affa...ech_041200.html

Statement by Director of Central Intelligence
George J. Tenet
Before the
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
(as prepared for delivery)

12 April 2000

There have been recent allegations that the Intelligence Community through NSA has improperly directed our SIGINT capabilities against the private conversations of US persons. That is not the case.

There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we—the CIA, the NSA and the FBI—scrupulously adhere to whenever the conversations of US persons are involved—directly or indirectly.

We do not collect against US persons unless they are agents of a foreign power, as that term is defined in law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department. And we do not target their conversations for collection overseas unless Executive Order 12333 has been followed and the Attorney General has personally approved collection.

Pestilence

It's funny how I'm a "Bush-fetishist", I'm a "Bush-worshipping ditto-head" and alot of other ad-homenem attack phrases when I have an opinion opposite your own. I also love how when it comes down to the issues at hand, Clinton was spying on the American people even more so than Bush and you're only hung up on the issue that Clinton got FISA court approval. It doesn't matter where the facts came from, facts are facts. Whether you want to say that he should have gotten FISA court accpetance first or not is fine, some could argue that it's within his Presidential power to gain intelligence from wiretaps quickly and efficiently if its within the scope of national defense. Why is that opinion any less valid than your own? Why am I a Bush worshipper because of that? Maybe one day I'll realize that to the almighty, all knowing Incoherent I'm a Bush worshipper or a fetishist l always will be no matter what. Damn me to hell for simply for having a different point of view. I'm so glad that liberals like yourself are so acceptant of descenting opinions.

incoherent

Let's see if Pestilence will apologize for using right-wing FALSEHOODS from Scaife's far-right deception factory, NewsMax.com.

Lets' see if he even OWNS UP to posting falsehoods here.

Let's see if he even addresses the issue:

Quote: Originally posted by Pestilence
It's funny how I'm a "Bush-fetishist", I'm a "Bush-worshipping ditto-head" and alot of other ad-homenem attack phrases when I have an opinion opposite your own. I also love how when it comes down to the issues at hand, Clinton was spying on the American people even more so than Bush and you're only hung up on the issue that Clinton got FISA court approval. It doesn't matter where the facts came from, facts are facts. Whether you want to say that he should have gotten FISA court accpetance first or not is fine, some could argue that it's within his Presidential power to gain intelligence from wiretaps quickly and efficiently if its within the scope of national defense. Why is that opinion any less valid than your own? Why am I a Bush worshipper because of that? Maybe one day I'll realize that to the almighty, all knowing Incoherent I'm a Bush worshipper or a fetishist l always will be no matter what. Damn me to hell for simply for having a different point of view. I'm so glad that liberals like yourself are so acceptant of descenting opinions.

NOPE! Looks like Pestilence FAILS to even address his deception, let alone man up and apologize. Pestilence LIED to us when he posted this:

"But in fact, the NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s - all of it done without a court order..."

1) "All of it done without a court order?" Prove it!

This is a complete and utter lie. Pestilence provides not one shred of evidence to back it up. I have DEMOLISHED it with Bush's favorite CIA director, Tenant.

2) Pestilence, your opinion IS less valid than mine when you opinion is based on falsehoods. Do you see that?

3) I am NOT accepting of opinions that are founded on LIES, dissenting or agreeing. Find a truth-based opinion, and I will be a lot more accepting than the Bush-worshippers here have been of opinions other than their own. But why would be gullibly believe NewsMax?

4) In the interests of utter fairness, I will make an offer. You show us all the many ways you reject the policies of Bush, the record of the Republican-controlled Congress, and the lies of far-right propaganda mills like Scaife's NewsMax, and I'll gladly retract saying you worship them.

Until then, your faith-based acceptance of the lies of Scaife's NewsMax will only further embarrass you.

Crazytree

I regularly send communications that are covered by the attorney-client priviledge. Just another example of why this program was such a piece of shit from the get-go.

IF YOU ARE FOR THIS PROGRAM, YOU HATE FREEDOM IN THE MOST LITERAL SENSE POSSIBLE.

TonyJax

Quote: Originally posted by incoherent
.

Need to call your Senators and have them reel him in incoherhenernethenerernerent...

When are you going to do something about our dictator.

What is the plan???

dic·ta·tor ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dkttr, dk-t-)
n.

An absolute ruler.
A tyrant; a despot.
An ancient Roman magistrate appointed temporarily to deal with an immediate crisis or emergency.
One who dictates: These initials are those of the dictator of the letter.

TonyJax

Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree
IF YOU ARE FOR THIS PROGRAM, YOU HATE FREEDOM IN THE MOST LITERAL :clowny: (without interpretation or embellishment) SENSE POSSIBLE.

cra·zy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (krz)
adj. cra·zi·er, cra·zi·est tree ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr)
n. Affected with madness; insane.

tree ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr)
n.
A perennial woody plant having a main trunk and usually a distinct crown.
A plant or shrub resembling a tree in form or size.

crazytree = Queen or king of madness..............................

Without interpretation or embellishment............... So says crazytree, so it must be true.............................

Crazytree

free·dom ( P ) Pronunciation Key (frdm)
n.

1. The condition of being free of restraints[/u].
2. Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.
3.
1. Political independence.
2. Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.
4. Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want.
5. The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon.
6. Ease or facility of movement: loose sports clothing, giving the wearer freedom.
7. Frankness or boldness; lack of modesty or reserve: the new freedom in movies and novels.
8.
1. The right to unrestricted use; full access: was given the freedom of their research facilities.
2. The right of enjoying all of the privileges of membership or citizenship: the freedom of the city.
9. A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference: “the seductive freedoms and excesses of the picaresque form” (John W. Aldridge).

TonyJax

Quote: Originally posted by incoherent
Let's see if Pestilence will apologize for using right-wing FALSEHOODS from Scaife's far-right deception factory, NewsMax.com.

Lets' see if he even OWNS UP to posting falsehoods here.

Let's see if he even addresses the issue:

NOPE! Looks like Pestilence FAILS to even address his deception, let alone man up and apologize. Pestilence LIED to us when he posted this:

"But in fact, the NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s - all of it done without a court order..."

1) "All of it done without a court order?" Prove it!

This is a complete and utter lie. Pestilence provides not one shred of evidence to back it up. I have DEMOLISHED it with Bush's favorite CIA director, Tenant.

2) Pestilence, your opinion IS less valid than mine when you opinion is based on falsehoods. Do you see that?

3) I am NOT accepting of opinions that are founded on LIES, dissenting or agreeing. Find a truth-based opinion, and I will be a lot more accepting than the Bush-worshippers here have been of opinions other than their own. But why would be gullibly believe NewsMax?

4) In the interests of utter fairness, I will make an offer. You show us all the many ways you reject the policies of Bush, the record of the Republican-controlled Congress, and the lies of far-right propaganda mills like Scaife's NewsMax, and I'll gladly retract saying you worship them.

Until then, your faith-based acceptance of the lies of Scaife's NewsMax will only further embarrass you.

Don't you get tired of putting the same fertilizer up no matter what the topics is........

I guess if you repeat your dribble enough you will believe it........................

Just come out and say, "I hate Bush and it does not matter what he does”. Have a tattoo of it put on your arm and bliss yourself while you look at it.

All you do is quote liberal rags that most dead fish would be angry at being wrapped in. Anybody be damned if they should use a source that is not the new york times, los angeles times or the onion, you act as if the non liberal dung is the same pollution that you wrote in your last post.

Like I said before, e-mail yourself and you will be a very happy egocentric socialist, anti Capitalist dolt..

TonyJax

Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree
free·dom ( P ) Pronunciation Key (frdm)
n.

1. The condition of being free of restraints[/u].
2. Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.
3.
1. Political independence.
2. Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.
4. Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want.
5. The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon.
6. Ease or facility of movement: loose sports clothing, giving the wearer freedom.
7. Frankness or boldness; lack of modesty or reserve: the new freedom in movies and novels.
8.
1. The right to unrestricted use; full access: was given the freedom of their research facilities.
2. The right of enjoying all of the privileges of membership or citizenship: the freedom of the city.
9. A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference: “the seductive freedoms and excesses of the picaresque form” (John W. Aldridge).

Malcolm X
I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it's for or against.

Crazytree

Ok. I want an answer from you TonyJax.

I call my fiancee on a regular basis, as she is working overseas. I feel I should have a right to talk with her in privacy and not feel like our every word may be being recorded on a NSA supercomputer in McLean, Virginia. Ever had a phone conversation listened-in-on? Pretty shitty, wasn't it?

Do I have that right?

I feel that I have that right, and I feel that the rights of the tens of millions of Americans who call relatives overseas should not be trumped by the one-call-in-a-billion that may or may not contain some type of instruction to a terrorist.

Crazytree

Quote: Originally posted by vegaseric
Thank god for BUSh and how he stands up to you liberals. 2004 election didn't teach you anything? You should go back and check the results!

2006 election is coming up. care to make any predictions?

NCMike06

This was nothing except good judge shopping by the ACLU. This is a very liberal Carter appointed judge. But the court shopping phase is over now...the 6th Circuit gets the case and this will be shot down so fast you would think Dick Cheney was holding the shotgun.

Enjoy your temporary, useless victory against America in the war on terror. The forces of good will turn the tide soon enough. And the anti-american, pro terrorist forces will be on here screaming about Bush and Cheney, et al.

From what I understand the order is stayed until early September when a court will rule on a permanant stay through the appeals process.

NCMike06

Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree
Ok. I want an answer from you TonyJax.

I call my fiancee on a regular basis, as she is working overseas. I feel I should have a right to talk with her in privacy and not feel like our every word may be being recorded on a NSA supercomputer in McLean, Virginia. Ever had a phone conversation listened-in-on? Pretty shitty, wasn't it?

Do I have that right?

I feel that I have that right, and I feel that the rights of the tens of millions of Americans who call relatives overseas should not be trumped by the one-call-in-a-billion that may or may not contain some type of instruction to a terrorist.

Unless one of you is connected in some way with Al Qaeda or another terrorist group, you have nothing to worry about.

Suppose that your girlfriend was on her way home from overseas. The NSA could have stopped a terrorist attack, had they been able to listen to a phone conversation between an Al Qaeda agent, and someone overseas. Being unable to do that, the terror plot is successful and the plane your girlfriend is flying home on explodes in mid air.

Would you:

A) Stick by your supposed convictions, and say at least when you talked to her last nobody was listening

b) Blame Bush ect for not doing everything possible to stop the attack, and or blame America in general

C) Put the blame where it lies, the American left who will do whatever they can, even weakening our terrorist defenses and exposing all Americans to future attacks, to inhibit the Presidents ability to fight the War on terror in some insane attempt to retake power. IE...you will see the light.

Billyfromsphily

Another theoretical example that just reinforces the arrrogance maskarading for ignorance of NCMORON06.

incoherent

Quote: Originally posted by TonyJax
Don't you get tired of putting the same fertilizer up no matter what the topics is........I guess if you repeat your dribble enough you will believe it........................
All you do is quote liberal rags that most dead fish would be angry at being wrapped in. Anybody be damned if they should use a source that is not the new york times, los angeles times or the onion, you act as if the non liberal dung is the same pollution that you wrote in your last post.

1) BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! WRONG! TonyJax is wrong AGAIN! As you can see, the quote is NOT from a "liberal" site, it's from the CIA! Primary source!

Or is the CIA too "liberal" a source for TonyJax? We'll all laugh at you again, TonyJax, as you crawl back to your shrine to your idol Bush.

2) This is just more psychological projection from TonyJax, who relies almost exclusively on far-right loony sites, like NewsMax-- which he JUST QUOTED. Is there a clearer example of a person with an acute sense of personal inadequacy trying to PROJECT his own bad behavior (relying on far-right LYING sites like NewsMax) onto me, when I used a non-partisan site - the CIA-- to debunk his lies.

3) Funny how TonyJax can't see the difference between a paper that strives to maintain journalistic integrity, like the New York Times, and a paper gravely lacking in journalistic integrity, like the Washington Times (which makes TonyJax look silly on SFN when he gets caught repeating its deceptions). Like here:

http://www.sternfannetwork.com/foru...511#post3535511

4) Oh, and TonyJax's last shred of credibitlity is in ruins until he owns up to his LIES when he says I used the N-word (others have said TonyJax casts this false accusation whenever he has decisively lost the argument and has his nose rubbed in his own cow-flops.

Here's one of TonyJax's MANY false accusations:
http://www.sternfannetwork.com/foru...589#post3548589

TonyJax, are you done embarrassing yourself?

FatesWebb

Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
This was nothing except good judge shopping by the ACLU. This is a very liberal Carter appointed judge. But the court shopping phase is over now...the 6th Circuit gets the case and this will be shot down so fast you would think Dick Cheney was holding the shotgun.

Enjoy your temporary, useless victory against America in the war on terror. The forces of good will turn the tide soon enough. And the anti-american, pro terrorist forces will be on here screaming about Bush and Cheney, et al.

From what I understand the order is stayed until early September when a court will rule on a permanant stay through the appeals process.

here, copy this as a template for your fearmongering posts. then just paste it in when you feel like posting. This should save you an enormous amount of time.

"blah blah blah blah blah terror blah blah. blah blah blah terror. blah blah blah blah blah terror blah blah. blah blah blah terror. blah blah blah blah blah terror blah blah. blah blah blah terror. blah blah blah blah blah terror blah blah. blah blah blah terror. blah blah blah blah blah terror blah blah. blah blah blah terror. blah blah blah blah blah terror blah blah. blah blah blah terror.

Mike"

you can thank me later.
FW

FatesWebb

Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Unless one of you is connected in some way with Al Qaeda or another terrorist group, you have nothing to worry about.

Suppose that your girlfriend was on her way home from overseas. The NSA could have stopped a terrorist attack, had they been able to listen to a phone conversation between an Al Qaeda agent, and someone overseas. Being unable to do that, the terror plot is successful and the plane your girlfriend is flying home on explodes in mid air.

Would you:

A) Stick by your supposed convictions, and say at least when you talked to her last nobody was listening

b) Blame Bush ect for not doing everything possible to stop the attack, and or blame America in general

C) Put the blame where it lies, the American left who will do whatever they can, even weakening our terrorist defenses and exposing all Americans to future attacks, to inhibit the Presidents ability to fight the War on terror in some insane attempt to retake power. IE...you will see the light.

just like these citizens didnt have to worry?
please check out posts 92-109 all of them about citizens that the patriot act has been used against, for things unrelated to terrorism.

http://www.sternfannetwork.com/foru...363#post3573363

FW

SaintJimmy

So, when is the nsa coming to your house to install the cameras? After all, if you're not breaking any laws, you shouldn't feel weird about having strangers watch you 24/7.
Of course, I know you're not a terrorist making dirty liquid anthrax shoe bombs in your bathtub, but your neighbor might be .

So, continuing this path to it's logical end, we will all be watched all the time, everywhere. Then we'll be safe and free.

It's hard to express in words how goddamn stupid this position is, and when I see people saying that "If you're not a terrorist, you've got nothing to worry about...." shit.... I WANT TO SCREAM. What is wrong with these people that they can't recognize that what they are supporting is ABSOLUTELY UNAMERICAN. And spineless besides. Right wingers tough on terror? Bunch of fucking pussies that want to hide behind the skirt of their bloated government is all I see. Chickshit motherfuckers that are willing to roll over and show thier bellies in exchange for the illusion of security. Idiots.

Stonewall

What you describe and what this program is are two different things. This program is not data mining.

SaintJimmy

Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
What you describe and what this program is are two different things. This program is not data mining.

Uh-hunh. And you're in a position to say that with any authority at all. *right*
Let me guess, you know that's a fact because Rush told you? Or Fox news?
Or maybe it came directly from the White House - that bastion of truth.

Stonewall

Quote: Originally posted by SaintJimmy
Uh-hunh. And you're in a position to say that with any authority at all. *right*
Let me guess, you know that's a fact because Rush told you? Or Fox news?
Or maybe it came directly from the White House - that bastion of truth.

Lets say, it's not what is described in hearings of Congress.

What is described as this program is not data mining.

SaintJimmy

Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Lets say, it's not what is described in hearings of Congress.

What is described as this program is not data mining.

So, they're saying it's not data mining, but evidently, they have failed to prove it. At least according to this judge (and many others), they haven't.

It's called checks and balances, sir, and it's what keeps this country from becoming a dictatorship not unlike the one in Iraq that we found sooooo intolerable.

Stonewall

Quote: Originally posted by SaintJimmy
So, they're saying it's not data mining, but evidently, they have failed to prove it. At least according to this judge (and many others), they haven't.

It's called checks and balances, sir, and it's what keeps this country from becoming a dictatorship not unlike the one in Iraq that we found sooooo intolerable.

It's strange because the Judge tossed the data-mining. The government won on that. What is going forward is this specific program.

incoherent

Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
What you describe and what this program is are two different things. This program is not data mining.

Where in that quote does SaintJimmy mention data mining?

His comments about his girlfriend sound like a good description of Bush"s illegal wiretapping program.

Stonewall

Quote: Originally posted by incoherent
Where in that quote does SaintJimmy mention data mining?

His comments about his girlfriend sound like a good description of Bush"s illegal wiretapping program.

If you read through the thread you will see where data-mining comes in.

The Administration in this case appears to have questioned the constitutionality of FISA. It seems they have been paying attention to our debates. I have concluded that if FISA trumps this program then FISA is unconstitutional. :D

Jack Shit

Right on! I think we all know where the problem lies: THE CONSTITUTION! That document is nothing but trouble; it's all too clear that it was drafted by America-hating liberals who hate America! Why doesn't the Constitution just move to France? :confused: :mad:

SaintJimmy

Quote: Originally posted by Jack Shit
Right on! I think we all know where the problem lies: THE CONSTITUTION! That document is nothing but trouble; it's all too clear that it was drafted by America-hating liberals who hate America! Why doesn't the Constitution just move to France? :confused: :mad:

I concur!!! :D

We should at the very least let George rewrite it (the Constitution) in the interest of national security...well, not rewrite it, but have somebody rewrite it, and then he would read it and make notes and edits...well, not read it, but peruse it and make notes and edits...well, not notes and edits (that would require writin' an' such) , but he would tell the author what he thought of it...well, not what he thought of it (because he didn't read it), but more what he thinks of the author (heckuva job). :D

Stonewall

Quote: Originally posted by SaintJimmy
I concur!!! :D

We should at the very least let George rewrite it (the Constitution) in the interest of national security...well, not rewrite it, but have somebody rewrite it, and then he would read it and make notes and edits...well, not read it, but peruse it and make notes and edits...well, not notes and edits (that would require writin' an' such) , but he would tell the author what he thought of it...well, not what he thought of it (because he didn't read it), but more what he thinks of the author (heckuva job). :D

You don't have to re-write the Constitution. Just understand it. Understand the powers that a Commander in Chief needs to prosecute a war. Listening in to Al Qaeda calls coming into the U.S. is common sense and a military matter. It has nothing to do with anyone but the enemy. Like listening in to calls from Hitler calling someone in the U.S. during WWII. Kind of common sense, military matter. The Constitution was not a document that was created so we could lose wars. The founding fathers having just won a war did not sit around devising ways to prevent the winning of future wars. They didn't figure out how they won and put in place measures that would have prevented that victory.

:D

SaintJimmy

Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
You don't have to re-write the Constitution. Just understand it. Understand the powers that a Commander in Chief needs to prosecute a war. Listening in to Al Qaeda calls coming into the U.S. is common sense and a military matter. It has nothing to do with anyone but the enemy. Like listening in to calls from Hitler calling someone in the U.S. during WWII. Kind of common sense, military matter. The Constitution was not a document that was created so we could lose wars. The founding fathers having just won a war did not sit around devising ways to prevent the winning of future wars. They didn't figure out how they won and put in place measures that would have prevented that victory.

:D

Stonewall, the 4th amendment's only ONE SENTENCE LONG, and they can't seem to figure it out. Listening to crazytree phone-fuck his girlfriend is unconstitutional. Fucking period.

There is no gray area there. They either have a reason to track him or they don't, and the ones to decide that sit behind benches in robes. NOT IN THE WHITE HOUSE. :rolleyes:

KurtB

Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Unless one of you is connected in some way with Al Qaeda or another terrorist group, you have nothing to worry about.

So this is your personal guarantee?
How do you know these are the only people they are monitoring?
Are you the oversight committee?

The FISA court was specifically created for this purpose and almost never denied a warrant. You even had 3 days to monitor before getting a warrant. Why does Bush need to by pass this court?

SDLaw06

Quote: Originally posted by SaintJimmy
Stonewall, the 4th amendment's only ONE SENTENCE LONG, and they can't seem to figure it out. Listening to crazytree phone-fuck his girlfriend is unconstitutional. Fucking period.

There is no gray area there. They either have a reason to track him or they don't, and the ones to decide that sit behind benches in robes. NOT IN THE WHITE HOUSE. :rolleyes:

But it might make for a funny Stern show if Howard got a hold of the tape of crazytree phone-fucking, that's a joke.

Stonewall

Who says they are listening to Crazytree's call? If they were and Crazytree was not Al Qaeda then it would be illegal and I'd take up your argument.

SaintJimmy

Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Who says they are listening to Crazytree's call? If they were and Crazytree was not Al Qaeda then it would be illegal and I'd take up your argument.

I say they are.

Prove me wrong.

You can't.

You know why?

Because The Administration is using "National Security" as a reason to keep this shit from being looked into by impartial parties. - Like Judges an'such.

So, all we have right now is the word of an administration that has proven itself many times over to be let's say....less than honest.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't sit well with me and millions and millions of other Americans.
The sworn word of the Bush White House is worth just so much shit.

Stonewall

Quote: Originally posted by SaintJimmy
I say they are.

Prove me wrong.

You can't.

You know why?

Because The Administration is using "National Security" as a reason to keep this shit from being looked into by impartial parties. - Like Judges an'such.

So, all we have right now is the word of an administration that has proven itself many times over to be let's say....less than honest.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't sit well with me and millions and millions of other Americans.
The sworn word of the Bush White House is worth just so much shit.

I cannot prove you wrong.

I will say however that members of Congress can go in and view this program. According to testimony in Congress a complete record is made of every time this program has been used. Every single time. So, if that is true than it would seem that members of Congress do have a certain amount of oversight. It is done on the basis of Judgements of career NSA Agents.

From the testimony of NSA, from their description of this program, I agree with it.

The problem here is that this has become political. A belief exists that FISA has something to do with this and it does not. FISA exists and this program exists. If FISA trumps this program than FISA is unconstitutional. It steps right on the authority of the Commander in Chief during war time. It is a war time measure. Intercepting enemy communications during a time of war is a proper thing to do. FISA has nothing to do with it. A judge cannot ok or deny a most basic action of war as intercepting enemy communications. A judge cannot deny this. There is seperation of powers between the branches and the judiciary cannot stop a commander in chief from intercepting enemy communications.

If this case keeps going and reaches the Supreme Court they will allow it and may even rule FISA unconstitutional. They may just allow this program and not mess with FISA. But, FISA cannot be the only way here.

These constitutional questions are for all wars and all commander in chiefs. This power cannot be given here to this president and denied another. Or, not this commander in chief, but the next one. This power has been used in the past for every war of global size. Al Qaeda is worldwide.

Reverend Tyler

So Republicans, what is so wrong with obtaining a warrant, with a leeway of filing for the warrant as far as 72 hours after the fact? How is that a huge problem in stopping a terrorist attack?

FatesWebb

http://www.youtube.com/v/EJ53s_Zyr04

Kill Van Kull

Wouldn't Dubya be subject to criminal prosecution for this?

If not, why?

NCMike06

Quote: Originally posted by KurtB
So this is your personal guarantee?
How do you know these are the only people they are monitoring?
Are you the oversight committee?

The FISA court was specifically created for this purpose and almost never denied a warrant. You even had 3 days to monitor before getting a warrant. Why does Bush need to by pass this court?

Please then list the names of injured parties and show damages also.

tourette_ticker

Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
the only thing is bush doesnt care, he fully intends to procede.

As he should and legally can do. The decision has been stayed.

NCMike06

Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
http://www.youtube.com/v/EJ53s_Zyr04

Lets see what the Washington Post had to say: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6081701540.html

Quote: A Judicial Misfire
The first federal court opinion on warrantless NSA surveillance is full of sound and fury.
Friday, August 18, 2006; Page A20

THE NATION would benefit from a serious, scholarly and hard-hitting judicial examination of the National Security Agency's program of warrantless surveillance. The program exists on ever-more uncertain legal ground; it is at least in considerable tension with federal law and the Bill of Rights. Careful judicial scrutiny could serve both to hold the administration accountable and to provide firmer legal footing for such surveillance as may be necessary for national security.

Unfortunately, the decision yesterday by a federal district court in Detroit, striking down the NSA's program, is neither careful nor scholarly, and it is hard-hitting only in the sense that a bludgeon is hard-hitting. The angry rhetoric of U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor will no doubt grab headlines. But as a piece of judicial work -- that is, as a guide to what the law requires and how it either restrains or permits the NSA's program -- her opinion will not be helpful.

Judge Taylor's opinion is certainly long on throat-clearing sound bites. "There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution," she thunders. She declares that "the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution." And she insists that Mr. Bush has "undisputedly" violated the First and Fourth Amendments, the constitutional separation of powers, and federal surveillance law.

But the administration does, in fact, vigorously dispute these conclusions. Nor is its dispute frivolous. The NSA's program, about which many facts are still undisclosed, exists at the nexus of inherent presidential powers, laws purporting to constrict those powers, the constitutional right of the people to be free from unreasonable surveillance, and a broad congressional authorization to use force against al-Qaeda. That authorization, the administration argues, permits the wiretapping notwithstanding existing federal surveillance law; inherent presidential powers, it suggests, allow it to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance on its own authority. You don't have to accept either contention to acknowledge that these are complicated, difficult issues. Judge Taylor devotes a scant few pages to dismissing them, without even discussing key precedents.

The judge may well be correct in her bottom line that the program exceeds presidential authority, even during wartime. We harbor grave doubt both that Congress authorized warrantless surveillance as part of the war and that Mr. Bush has the constitutional power to act outside of normal surveillance statutes that purport to be the exclusive legal authorities for domestic spying. But her opinion, which as the first court venture into this territory will garner much attention, is unhelpful either in evaluating or in ensuring the program's legality. Fortunately, as this case moves forward on appeal and as other cases progress in other courts, it won't be the last word.

And the Wall Street Journal: http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110008816

Quote: President Taylor
A federal judge rewrites the Constitution on war powers.

Friday, August 18, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

In our current era of polarized politics, it was probably inevitable that some judge somewhere would strike down the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretaps as unconstitutional. The temptations to be hailed as Civil Libertarian of the Year are just too great.

So we suppose a kind of congratulations are due to federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who won her 10 minutes of fame yesterday for declaring that President Bush had taken upon himself "the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, itself." Oh, and by the way, the Jimmy Carter appointee also avers that "there are no hereditary Kings in America." In case you hadn't heard.

The 44-page decision, which concludes by issuing a permanent injunction against the wiretapping program, will doubtless occasion much rejoicing among the "imperial Presidency" crowd. That may have been part of her point, as, early in the decision, Judge Taylor refers with apparent derision to "the war on terror of this Administration."

We can at least be grateful that President Taylor's judgment won't be the last on the matter. The Justice Department immediately announced it will appeal and the injunction has been stayed for the moment. But her decision is all the more noteworthy for coming on the heels of the surveillance-driven roll up of the terrorist plot in Britain to blow up U.S.-bound airliners. In this environment, monitoring the communications of our enemies is neither a luxury nor some sinister plot to chill domestic dissent. It is a matter of life and death.
So let's set aside the judge's Star Chamber rhetoric and try to examine her argument, such as it is. Take the Fourth Amendment first. The "unreasonable search and seizure" and warrant requirements of that amendment have their roots in the 18th-century abuses of the British crown. Those abuses involved the search and arrest of the King's political opponents under general and often secret warrants.

Judge Taylor sees an analogy here, but she manages to forget or overlook that no one is being denied his liberty and no evidence is being brought in criminal proceedings based on what the NSA might learn through listening to al Qaeda communications. The wiretapping program is an intelligence operation, not a law-enforcement proceeding. Congress was duly informed, and not a single specific domestic abuse of such a wiretap has yet been even alleged, much less found.

As for the First Amendment, Judge Taylor asserts that the plaintiffs--a group that includes the ACLU and assorted academics, lawyers and journalists who believe their conversations may have been tapped but almost surely weren't--had their free-speech rights violated because al Qaeda types are now afraid to speak to them on the phone.

But the wiretapping program is not preventing anyone from speaking on the phone. Quite the opposite--if the terrorists stopped talking on the phone, there would be nothing to wiretap. Perhaps the plaintiffs should have sued the New York Times, as it was that paper's disclosure of the program that created the "chill" on "free speech" that Judge Taylor laments.

The real nub of this dispute is the Constitution's idea of "inherent powers," although those two pages of her decision are mostly devoted to pouring scorn on the very concept. But jurists of far greater distinction than Judge Taylor have recognized that the Constitution vests the bulk of war-making power with the President. It did so, as the Founders explained in the Federalist Papers, for reasons of energy, dispatch, secrecy and accountability.

Before yesterday, no American court had ever ruled that the President lacked the Constitutional right to conduct such wiretaps. President Carter signed the 1978 FISA statute that established the special court to approve domestic wiretaps even as his Administration declared it was not ceding any Constitutional power. And in the 2002 decision In Re: Sealed Case, the very panel of appellate judges that hears FISA appeals noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "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 couldn't find Judge Taylor's attempt to grapple with those precedents, perhaps because they'd have interfered with the lilt of her purple prose.
Unlike Judge Taylor, Presidents are accountable to the voters for their war-making decisions, as the current White House occupant has discovered. Judge Taylor can write her opinion and pose for the cameras--and no one can hold her accountable for any Americans who might die as a result.

Or a GWU law professor: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_...html#1155854205

Quote: The Fourth Amendment and the NSA Domestic Surveillance Opinion: I've just read through the Fourth Amendment part of Judge Taylor's opinion on the NSA domestic wiretapping opinion, and, well, um, it's kind of hard to know what to make of it. There really isn't any analysis; rather, it's just a few pages of general ruminations about the Fourth Amendment (much of it incomplete and some of it simply incorrect) followed by the statement in passing that the program is "obviously" in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Here's the part that comes closest to being an analysis section:
[The Fourth Amendment requires] reasonableness in all searches. It also requires prior warrants for any reasonable search, based upon prior-existing probable cause, as well as particularity as to persons, places, and things, and the interposition of a neutral magistrate between Executive branch enforcement officers and citizens.
In enacting FISA, Congress made numerous concessions to stated executive needs. They include delaying the applications for warrants until after surveillance has begun for several types of exigencies, reducing the probable cause requirement to a less stringent standard, provision of a single court of judicial experts, and extension of the duration of approved wiretaps from thirty days (under Title III) to a ninety day term.
All of the above Congressional concessions to Executive need and to the exigencies of our present situation as a people, however, have been futile. The wiretapping program here in litigation has undisputedly been continued for at least five years, it has undisputedly been implemented without regard to FISA and of course the more stringent standards of Title III, and obviously in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The President of the United States is himself created by that same Constitution.
I confess that this has me scratching my head. Let's take it bit by bit:

[The Fourth Amendment requires] reasonableness in all searches. It also requires prior warrants for any reasonable search, based upon prior-existing probable cause, as well as particularity as to persons, places, and things, and the interposition of a neutral magistrate between Executive branch enforcement officers and citizens.

It's true that the Fourth Amendment requires reasonable searches. But Fourth Amendment reasonableness is satisfied by a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement, and there are several possible exceptions to the warrant requirement that may apply. Whether and how they may or may not apply depends on the facts of the surveillance, which are currently unknown.

Also, identifying a reasonable expectation of privacy in communications is really quite complicated given new communications technologies; for example, courts have held that there is no REP in transactional information and cordless phone calls, and individuals with no voluntary contact with the U.S. presumably have no Fourth Amendment rights at all. We'd need to know the details of the surveillance to know this, but we don't know those details.

In enacting FISA, Congress made numerous concessions to stated executive needs. They include delaying the applications for warrants until after surveillance has begun for several types of exigencies, reducing the probable cause requirement to a less stringent standard, provision of a single court of judicial experts, and extension of the duration of approved wiretaps from thirty days (under Title III) to a ninety day term

All of the above Congressional concessions to Executive need and to the exigencies of our present situation as a people, however, have been futile..

What does this have to do with whether the program violates the Fourth Amendment?

The wiretapping program here in litigation has undisputedly been continued for at least five years, it has undisputedly been implemented without regard to FISA and of course the more stringent standards of Title III, and obviously in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The President of the United States is himself created by that same Constitution.

It's hardly obvious that the program — or some aspect of it — violates the Fourth Amendment; that's the issue before the court, and my sense is that we really don't know enough to answer it without knowing the facts. And while it's true that the office of the Presidency was created by the Constitution, and the Fourth Amendment is a part of that Constitution, it's not clear how this relates to the Fourth Amendment issue. (Oh, and on an exceedingly minor point, I think that's four years, not five.)

I can come up with explanations for why a district court judge inclined to rule against the program would put out an opinion that isn't quite ready for prime time. For example, Senator Specter's bill would take these issues away from the district court, so the choice might be to speak now or never. But at least based on the court's Fourth Amendment analysis, I suspect this opinion is important more for its political impact and its triggering of appellate review than for any analysis in the opinion itself.

In any event, on to the Sixth Circuit (which, at least this story suggests, may have issued a stay of the injunction already).

This is DOA on appeal.

Kill Van Kull

No one is against eavesdropping on terrorists -- though the righties are working hard on a large batch of kool-aid that spins the issue into another "for or against" scenario.

That's bullshit.

The fact of the matter is that terrorist surveillance/wiretapping can be done both effectively AND legally.

Bushco has broken America's trust -- too many people believe that they abusing this power for their own self-interests.

There's no guarantee as to the final outcome of this decision -- unless you have a crystal ball you're simply bullshitting and hoping. It is just as likely that Dubya will ultimately be convited of a crime as it is that the decision will be overturned.

Stonewall

Quote: Originally posted by Kill Van Kull
No one is against eavesdropping on terrorists -- though the righties are working hard on a large batch of kool-aid that spins the issue into another "for or against" scenario.

That's bullshit.

The fact of the matter is that terrorist surveillance/wiretapping can be done both effectively AND legally.

Bushco has broken America's trust -- too many people believe that they abusing this power for their own self-interests.

There's no guarantee as to the final outcome of this decision -- unless you have a crystal ball you're simply bullshitting and hoping. It is just as likely that Dubya will ultimately be convited of a crime as it is that the decision will be overturned.

If he is convicted for this being a crime then every President who has been at War is a criminal.

SDLaw06

Quote: Originally posted by Kill Van Kull
Wouldn't Dubya be subject to criminal prosecution for this?

If not, why?

I'm not sure what the crime would be. It would be similar to the police obtaining evidence with a bogus warrant or without one. There isn't much of a remedy other than the evidnece not being introduced. I'm not sure if this qualifies under Presidential immunity but I'm pretty sure that's what it is.

FatesWebb

what if you told people that you wanted to buy cellphones, just so you could bust them, just so you could fearmonger? hmmm, I wonder if anyone has thought of that? Clearly fearmongering leads to serious votes.

cecilturtle06

Geez, what an impatient crybaby President. Just get your FISA enacted court order (which I'm sure they'd have no problem approving), and everything is 100% fine!!! Then you can do all the wiretapping you want. Illegal is illegal, period! Same as illegal immigrants are illegal. Go through the proper process, and then everything is hunky-dory. All people want is for President Duh to do this one simple thing. Is it really that hard to get this court order? Apparently it is for this administration.

Stonewall

Quote: Originally posted by cecilturtle06
Geez, what an impatient crybaby President. Just get your FISA enacted court order (which I'm sure they'd have no problem approving), and everything is 100% fine!!! Then you can do all the wiretapping you want. Illegal is illegal, period! Same as illegal immigrants are illegal. Go through the proper process, and then everything is hunky-dory. All people want is for President Duh to do this one simple thing. Is it really that hard to get this court order? Apparently it is for this administration.

What if the judge turns down the request for a warrent?

What if because of this denial an attack occurs?

Has not every President before during time of global conflict been allowed to intercept enemy communications? Why in this war can Al Qaeda call into the U.S. and a Judge determines if there is enough evidence to listen in? Would it have been a good idea to allow the Nazi SS to call and Roosevelt get a warrent? Would he have obeyed the court if the court turned him down?

Should this President just disobey a court if the court turns down his request for a warrent? Does the President have some responsibility to prosecute a war successfully?

What does the judiciary have to do with the interception of enemy communications?

FatesWebb

Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
What if the judge turns down the request for a warrent?

What if because of this denial an attack occurs?

Has not every President before during time of global conflict been allowed to intercept enemy communications? Why in this war can Al Qaeda call into the U.S. and a Judge determines if there is enough evidence to listen in? Would it have been a good idea to allow the Nazi SS to call and Roosevelt get a warrent? Would he have obeyed the court if the court turned him down?

Should this President just disobey a court if the court turns down his request for a warrent? Does the President have some responsibility to prosecute a war successfully?

What does the judiciary have to do with the interception of enemy communications?

the point is that if it is TRULY for war they will not turn it down. if it is for other reasons unrelated they will.

do you not understand the idea of checks and balances as compared to dictatorship?

Stonewall

Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
the point is that if it is TRULY for war they will not turn it down. if it is for other reasons unrelated they will.

do you not understand the idea of checks and balances as compared to dictatorship?

The point is if they are not truly for war, career NSA Agents will not listen in. The point is we have Seperation of Powers. The Judiciary cannot decide. They cannot have veto power of enemy communications coming into the U.S.. They have no say at all.

If Congress wants to end the War on Terror, then they should pass a law that ends it. As long as we are at war there can be no veto power on a Commander in Chief intercepting enemy communications.

cecilturtle06

Wow, a lot of "what if's". Are you that scared of doing things properly? Funny, from what I understand, it sounds like President Duh wouldn't have had a problem with getting a court order. But I guess some people just want him to have "carte blanche" authority. I'm sure the President and his administration could have presented a strong case to FISA for getting the legal authority to do these wiretaps

http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap...fisa_stats.html

also...

http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap...isa_graphs.html

According to the stats, they would seem to concur mine and lots of others thoughts that there wouldn't have been a problem.

FatesWebb

Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The point is if they are not truly for war, career NSA Agents will not listen in. The point is we have Seperation of Powers. The Judiciary cannot decide. They cannot have veto power of enemy communications coming into the U.S.. They have no say at all.

If Congress wants to end the War on Terror, then they should pass a law that ends it. As long as we are at war there can be no veto power on a Commander in Chief intercepting enemy communications.

your war on terror is just made up propaganda to make you scared so you will give up your freedoms. the big majority of it, that is.

FW

DUDE-HERE

well, if your girl is in syria or iran or saudi arabia or paskistan..then your calls are being listened to...for all i know your girl is a sleeper cell using you to get into this counttry..a plan she has been hatching for years ..sucka

Stonewall

Quote: Originally posted by cecilturtle06
Wow, a lot of "what if's". Are you that scared of doing things properly? Funny, from what I understand, it sounds like President Duh wouldn't have had a problem with getting a court order. But I guess some people just want him to have "carte blanche" authority. I'm sure the President and his administration could have presented a strong case to FISA for getting the legal authority to do these wiretaps

http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap...fisa_stats.html

also...

http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap...isa_graphs.html

According to the stats, they would seem to concur mine and lots of others thoughts that there wouldn't have been a problem.

Those "what if's" are things you apparently have no answer for.

FISA has nothing to do with this.

If you want to end this military measure, then you must end the war. Very simple fix. One cannot in all instances mesh the legal FISA with the military war. We are not in a legal battle with Al Qaeda. We are in a war with Al Qaeda.

When Congress authorized the use of military force, the very nature of war requires the interception of enemy communications. We send off people to battle while those at home cry over intercepting enemy communications, Boo Hoo. Cry me a river. :D

hawaiian

I could care less if Bush tapped my phone , because there's no love or hate for him, I just want him to listen to anyone that seems to have terrorist ties. And if that he has to profile to do it then do it so the terrorist don't blow us up here in the U.S.

FatesWebb

Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Those "what if's" are things you apparently have no answer for.

FISA has nothing to do with this.

If you want to end this military measure, then you must end the war. Very simple fix. One cannot in all instances mesh the legal FISA with the military war. We are not in a legal battle with Al Qaeda. We are in a war with Al Qaeda.

When Congress authorized the use of military force, the very nature of war requires the interception of enemy communications. We send off people to battle while those at home cry over intercepting enemy communications, Boo Hoo. Cry me a river. :D

wait a second, we are at war with al qaeda? hmm they were made in pakistan, and the list of hijackers that are supposedly al qaeda were mostly from saudi arabia... hmmm.. when does the war start? or is it just an intelligence gathering war?

FW

incoherent

Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
What if the judge turns down the request for a warrent?

1) I have explained all this to you before. Even if a FISA judge turns down a request for a warrant, the government could legally have STILL BEEN WIRETAPPING FOR THE PREVIOUS 72 hours.

2) FISA denial of warrants almost never happens. Prior to the incompetent Bush administration, FISA judges did not reject a single request for a warrants. They rubber-stamped every one. This gave our rights very little protection, but it was better than the nothing we had back when Nixon routinely volated the Constitution by eavesdropping on his political enemies. What's the difference between Nixon's extrajudicial wiretapping and Bush's? (Other than the fact that Islam is involved and you display consistent, irrational anti-Islamic fearmongering.)

Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
What if because of this denial an attack occurs?

3) Then the FISA court will have a lot of 'splainin' to do. HOWEVER, the mere possibiliy of that is NOT an excuse to throw out 200 years of the Constitutional checks and balances that ensure our liberty. Are you aware that we Americans do not support surrendering our essential liberties because some among us fear for their personal safety?

4) Right now we have the freedom to ride on airplanes. What if, because of our freedom to ride on airplanes, an attack takes place on tall buildings. Do we remove our freedom to ride on planes?

Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Has not every President before during time of global conflict been allowed to intercept enemy communications?

5) Yes. Do you fail to see that under FISA Bush ALSO is allowed to intercept enemy communications?

Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Why in this war can Al Qaeda call into the U.S. and a Judge determines if there is enough evidence to listen in?

6) Because that is the law. It's a good law. It keeps the Constitutrion intact. Are you aware that we won the Cold war following the FISA law?

Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Would it have been a good idea to allow the Nazi SS to call and Roosevelt get a warrent?

7) Yes. (Hysterical how you say "allow the Nazi SS to call")

Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Would he have obeyed the court if the court turned him down?

8) Pure speculation on your part that Roosevelt would not obey the FISA law. I speculate that since Roosevelt was a vastly more competent leader than Bush, that Roosevelt's AG would not screw up FISA applications like Bush's incompetent administration.

Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Should this President just disobey a court if the court turns down his request for