NSA warrantless wiretapping unconstitional

So what?

It will just go to the Supreme Court where they'll say it's OK.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 17 2006, 02:06 PM) [snapback]304759[/snapback]</div>

I would be better if nothing were done?

 

Speak a little closer to the microphone please.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 17 2006, 02:06 PM) [snapback]304759[/snapback]</div>

Maybe not. If the cite "foreign law" as they have recently (to my great dismay) they will certainly overthrow this decision.

I am curious why the ACLU chose this judge to hear the case? She is a Carter appointee, card carrying member of the ACLU, and decidedly liberal. She attempted to re-direct an affirmative action case involving the U of Mich a short while ago away from another judge.

I am concerned that she has overlooked the real issues of the case (i have not read her decision) that I believe have been argued before in front of other numerous courts, all of which have found in favor of this program of eavesdropping on INTERNATIONAL calls placed by persons with known terror ties. It is my sincerest hope that our security agencies continue to look out for our mutual safety and security until this decision can be moved up to a more independant jurist(s).

Believe it or not there are still people out there trying to kill us. We need to rewrite the current laws guiding our governments procedures on international and national calls - that should be done while the current programs are running so we do not leave ourselves totally defenseless. I do not think anyone would disagree with that - or I would hope not.

Our laws/guidlines that are currently on the books are not designed for this current conflict and need to be updated - this should be done post-haste and done while we have are current guards up and active.

 

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

I am actually stunned by this decision. We now cannot listen in on international call being made by those with ties to terror (including those from Iran, Syria, Lebanon), we can no longer track international (non-US based) financial transaction (thanks to the NY Times), the NSA data mining progam is now front page NY Times, we have granted terrorists habeus corpis rights (Hamden vs. Rumsfeld)....

Are we all asleep at the wheel here?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 17 2006, 02:11 PM) [snapback]304797[/snapback]</div>

I disagree. Well, sort of.
I think there should be more emphasis on changing our arrogant attitude and U.S. foriegn policy. Instead of blast walls, wiretaps, and anti-terrorism force protection (which, in the long run, can never be truly effecdtive), why not take a closer look at why other groups hate us, and try real international diplomacy (spelled understanding, compassion, and compromise) ? :huh:

I, for one, believe we can do a lot better on this front, and that the alternative is unthinkable.

 

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

naw, only the rightards who put those chuckleheads in the white house to begin with.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 17 2006, 11:06 AM) [snapback]304759[/snapback]</div>

So what?
Another liberal activist judge makes a ruling siding with the ACLU. Yawn.

This one won't be heard by the Supreme Court. It will quickly be overturned by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, the ACLU will ask for an appeal, and the Supreme Court will ignore it and let it stand.

Whahhhhh, Whaaaaahh, the big bad NSA is listening in on terrorists' phone calls into the US. They are reading terrorists' emails . . . . shame on them . . . don't they have any moral decency . . . don't they know it's not nice to eavesdrop . . . haven't their mothers taught them it's best to just ignore the people they don't like? Whaaah, Whaaaaah, Whaaaaah.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Aug 17 2006, 03:28 PM) [snapback]304808[/snapback]</div>

And, according to MSNBC, also makes a ruling against the ACLU.

So does this make the judge an "activist" or "fair & balanced"?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jmccord @ Aug 17 2006, 03:23 PM) [snapback]304803[/snapback]</div>

So we should not try to protect ourselves why we continue trying your plan -

note to author - 1900's -2001 tried to play nice with people who live in dessert on top of large oil reserves who do not allow other religions in their land who partnered with Hitler --

-- built their oil infrastructure, provided them with riches beyond their imagination, stayed away and out of their politics.

-- people will always hate us -- not my problem unless they try to kill me

Tojo hated us
Hitler too
Stalin also
Castro too

Why did they hate us?

What international diplomacy do you think they want not to hate us ?????????????????????????????????

Anything in your mind that suggests something funny going on since all that hate us also hate and suppress their own people? That they have no truly free press or freedom of religion.

And what brought them to perform 9/11. We tried your plan for the EIGHT years between WTC I (1993 when only 6 innocent Americans were killed and over 1,000 innocent Americans were injured) and WTCII(9/11). Any thoughts about that??

 

Plaintiffs included branches of the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Washington and Detroit branches of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Greenpeace.
[CNN story linked above]

Greenpeace??? Damnit Jim! I didn't know whales were being harmed as part of this secret NSA program! :huh: :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Aug 17 2006, 03:37 PM) [snapback]304816[/snapback]</div>

Activist. Why did the ACLU seek her out. Funny where she lives too.

She has now placed in jeopardy 300,000,000 American lives. Cool. One ding-dong. She could have done a lot of other things besides going for the home run ball.

Her decision does not bother you?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jtullos @ Aug 17 2006, 03:26 PM) [snapback]304806[/snapback]</div>

International calls do not apply. There are no constitutional guarantees to foreigners making calls into or receiving calls from the US. Those are the ones I would be MOST interested in.

I agree with the legal hoops that must be jumped through - I think FISA has to be updated from when it was first written over 30 years ago and special attention has to be paid to the potential of throw away cellphones and other advanced technology. Additionally the process has to be streamline to allow us to process each request with the least amount of red-tape/procedure that with FISA can take hours if not days per application. The volume of calls has to be appreciated here and the amount of manpower that would be required, noted.

In either case, I opt for security and safety.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 17 2006, 03:47 PM) [snapback]304829[/snapback]</div>

So the only way she's not an activist judge is if she had thrown out both cases? Or is she an activist judge simply because she's a Carter appointee? i don't suppose it's possible she actually made a decision based on the arguments presented to her.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 17 2006, 03:47 PM) [snapback]304829[/snapback]</div>

No, it doesn't. As previous posters mentioned, this doesn't eliminate all wiretaps. Just warrantless ones. Tap away, but do it in accordance with the law that's in place. If the law needs to be changes, then that's congress's job (unless I was asleep during Civics class).

I didn't realize that illegal wiretaps were required to keep Americans safe.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Aug 17 2006, 04:02 PM) [snapback]304836[/snapback]</div>

let me mention again - INTERNATIONAL CALLS -- NOT DOMESTIC
what did your civics class teach you about those types of calls?

and if the laws need changing, than do so while our defenses are up - NOT down.

and yes, if a certain judge is sought out by the aclu to hear their case, i will assume they will choose a liberal activist judge rather than a conservative judge - no?? Your law classes teach you that when defending your client to seek a judge that would be disadvantagious to you/your client?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Aug 17 2006, 03:46 PM) [snapback]304826[/snapback]</div>

What part of International are we not understanding here. Foreigners are not granted the rights and liberties Americans are - especially if they are on a terrorist list.