NSA warrantless wiretapping unconstitional

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jtullos @ Aug 17 2006, 04:15 PM) [snapback]304846[/snapback]</div>

True, as long as certain criteria are met. But if the person on the other end is in international lands or if either one is on the terror list - nope.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jtullos @ Aug 17 2006, 01:45 PM) [snapback]304752[/snapback]</div>

Some additional info:

the federal courts have held on a number of occasions that the President has the constitutional power under Article II to order warrantless surveillance for national security purposes. The Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Circuits have so held, as has the special FISA Court of Review. And those cases dealt with domestic warrantless intercepts, as opposed to the international communications that fall within the NSA program.

Again, the aclu went judge shopping and finally hit the "jackpot". This decision must be overturned and will be.

A good night to all. Off to a little Krav Maga.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 17 2006, 03:22 PM) [snapback]304801[/snapback]</div>

No, you're completely and totally missing the point.

The administration has the power to conduct wiretaps without prior approval, as long as they go before a FISA court within a reasonable amount of time to justify the action and get a FISA warrant (which is retroactive back to the moment they started listening). FISA warrants aren't tough to get, and if the administration believes they have a fairly compelling reason to be listening to the calls, the FISA court will probably agree and grant the warrant.

Now, the FISA courts were created by Congress back in the 1970's sometime. Congress mandated the court to make sure that any survelliance was legal, ethical, and followed the mandates of the constitution. It means that even President Bush has to allow judicial oversight... which is a good thing. FISA was created because previous administrations had abused the rules before, by illegally monitoring communications.

The question is really not whether or not the administration can wiretap, it is really whether or not the administration can wiretap without any judicial oversight whatsoever. The judge says they can't. The judge is right.

Now, explain to me why the president can't monitor these supposed international calls from terrorists through the current FISA court system?

Dan

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Aug 17 2006, 04:48 PM) [snapback]304869[/snapback]</div>

Very true. Here's another question, though. The creation of the FISA courts, and the laws around which they operate (and interact with the executive branch) are the exclusive domain of the legislative branch, and the executive branch can't ignore laws passed by the legislative branch (signing statements notwithstanding). The U.S. Constitution spells out the separation of powers very clearly.

President Bush signed 30 some Executive Orders authorizing this program, some apparently after being informed that the legality of the programs was in serious question.

So, based on that, President Bush appears to have violated the laws of the country, and his oath of office, where he promises to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Isn't this an impeachable offense?

I mean, undermining the principles our nation was founded on probably doesn't compare to the heinous act of receiving a blow job, but isn't is still a "high crime or misdemeanor"?

Dan

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(danoday @ Aug 17 2006, 02:03 PM) [snapback]304874[/snapback]</div>

In the eyes of his crowd, an offense is impeachable only if it involves giving evasive answers to irrelevant and immaterial questions in a politically motivated law suit totally devoid of any merit.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Aug 17 2006, 03:48 PM) [snapback]304869[/snapback]</div>

It won't matter.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jtullos @ Aug 17 2006, 08:50 PM) [snapback]305011[/snapback]</div>

Actually, I as referring to Dr. Berman and efusco's quote. It won't matter how many legal citations are posted. He won't change his position or accept them.

I'm not giving up. I'll continue to vote. But as long as so many Americans think warrantless wiretapping and torture are OK, I have to wait for enough sane people to vote the incumbants out.

(The Uniter. What a joke.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Aug 17 2006, 03:38 PM) [snapback]304859[/snapback]</div>

When I come on these threads too late I miss out....

efusco----good post! Totally agree.

dbermandmd and company will NEVER agree with us. They can't wait until we are a truly Fascist state with the government controlling everything! I don't know what makes them want to give up their civil liberties. Oh, fear, that's right.

 

Just keep in mind though, yeah, sure, you've got the code, law is law, but it's only worthwhile if there is real, meaningful, action taken against violators... It's kind of like getting a speeding ticket, yeah, it's against the law, you did it, big deal, you either get off, or get found responsible, either way, it's a BS "minor" issue to squabble against, so you don't care, you don't take it too seriously 'cause all you'll get is a slap on the wrists, so you think nothing of doing it again...

The law, contrary to popular belief, is 100% malleable... You only need one, or both, of the following items to shape it around almost anything you do:

1. resources
2. creativity

To put it absolutley crude and blunt: the law only really applies to the poor, and those who can't defend themselves...


Let me sum it up like this:

I'm sure Bush ain't losing sleep over it...

 

I think the real problem is the complete lack of oversight by the judicial or legislative branch. The executive branch is performing unconstitutional activities and keeping the other branches completely in the dark about its activities.

The FISA court was there to perform oversight by the judicial branch, but it has been completely bypassed. Similarly, congressional oversight was derailed.

The executive branch can tap the telephones of George Soros and Michael Moore for its own political purposes and there is nothing anyone can do. Clearly this is unconstitutional activity by the executive and the judge is right to stop it.

At least with congressional or judicial oversight there would be some constraints on the executive branch power.

An amazing thing has happened in the past. Presidents who swore to uphold the constitution did so, under circumstances far more threatening and demanding than those facing the current administration.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eyeguy13 @ Aug 17 2006, 07:16 PM) [snapback]305034[/snapback]</div>

lieguy

I have replied to your post where you accused me of multiple instances of Plagiarism. I want you to post that proof or I want an apology. I have also PM'd you so no excuse that you didn't know. Personal attacks and insults don't faze me but when you attack my character directly as in this manner I react. Address this baseless accusation or I go to the admin's.

Wildkow :angry:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jtullos @ Aug 17 2006, 04:47 PM) [snapback]304868[/snapback]</div>

As you are undoubtedly aware the Constitution vested the PRESIDENT with ultimate war time powers including the ordering of warrantless wiretaps of DOMESTIC calls. FISA takes a second seat to this - always. FISA is an attempt to wrest power from the executive.

And - multiple courts have already ruled on this issue in the affirmative including the 3rd, 5th, and 9th circuit courts to name a few.

BUT PLEASE explain to me the exact violations of the 4th amendment and the other amendments that she cites and how they are even REMOTELY relevant to this decision.

Also, I am extremely bothered by the actions of an UNELECTED person playing any decisive role in this nations security and now potentially placing 300,000,000 innocent Americans in additional harms way. Did not the recent terror bust wake her up? This is PURE POLITICS and will FURE SURE get overruled by any person with an IQ above roadkill.

At 73 years of age - she should retire and take her personal politcal agenda too and stop the BS especially when it puts us all in GREATER DANGER

Thanks.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Aug 18 2006, 08:41 AM) [snapback]305246[/snapback]</div>

Love your avatar(sp?)

I understand. I think the President has been invested with Constitutional powers that trump FISA and extend to every aspect of what our nation may bring to bear against what he/she deems as a clear and present danger to national security.

I hope we are not waiting for another 9/11 before we ALL take this threat seriously.

I agree that the "PR job" that the President must be intricately involved with in bringing a general understanding to the American people of this threat has been lacking.

I am upset that for the first time in our history we have our major politcal parties divided during a time of war.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 18 2006, 05:00 AM) [snapback]305241[/snapback]</div>

Can you please cite one United States Supreme Court ruling interpreting the constitution to give the President such unchecked power as you claim it does?

Have you read the actual court opinion? It is available on the CNN website at "Read the complete ruling -- PDF".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 17 2006, 03:53 PM) [snapback]304829[/snapback]</div>

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Ben Franklin 1759

Careful for what you "opt" for, you might just get it. Freedom is stolen not in one fell swoop, but most often in small measures, little by little, until those losing it realize what's happening, and then it's too late.

The Patriot Act, and the way it was "introduced", was one of the first small acts of this administration to chip away at our civil liberties under the guise of fighting the war on terror.

We had, as a nation, a golden opportunity after 9/11 to make a REAL change in our energy policy (or, perhaps to actually create this policy); Bush could have (and should have) made alternative energy sources one of his top priorites. My belief is that at that particular point in time, most if not all of the country would have been behind this, regardless of what "sacrifice" it would have entailed.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Aug 17 2006, 06:05 PM) [snapback]304911[/snapback]</div>

AND involves adulterous oral sex.
Sorry, I think you left that out :lol: