NSA warrantless wiretapping unconstitional

It's also just part of a new trend. Executive power without the need for legislative action.

Here in Illinois, our idiot for a govenor decided he can't get his agenda through the proper channels so he whips it out by executive order.

http://www.lifenews.com/bio1649.html



Same thing for hijacking the pharmacy industry around here. I'd give a horrah for the upcoming election and get out the vote, but the republican candidate is essentially just as liberal as GRod.

Since I'm on it... this one jerks my wallet and makes me angry too... These signs are rectangle, have no graphics. Which one of his cousins owns the firm that got this contract?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...ll=chi-news-hed


If you got money, isn't it ok to spend it? I mean... roughly speaking Chicagoland and the burbs are fairly wealthy areas in comparrison to much of the world.. Right?

http://www.rrstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articl...S0109/107240028


I think we'd be better off with no govenor...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 17 2006, 01:13 PM) [snapback]304844[/snapback]</div>

Two points:

1. What makes you think that Americans are deserving of fair treatment while foreigners are not? Remember that outside the U.S. it's the Americans who are the foreigners, and once we begin to run roughshod over peoples' basic human rights simply because they are not citizens of our country, how can you expect other countries to treat us any better?

2. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Our wannabe-fascist administration wants us to agree with it that if it puts someone's name on a list, accusing that person of being a "terrorist" that from that point on, that person is guilty, without a trial, without judicial review, without any opportunity to present a case that he/she is completely innocent of the charges.

You call everyone a "terrorist" who the administration puts on its list. You appear to be willing to give the administration the right to imprison anyone it likes, without any due process, and all the administration has to do is accuse that person of being a "terrorist."

The reason we have these Constitutional protections is that our founding fathers understood that without them, governments will jail political opponents on fake charges. So we have laws which say the government cannot jail people unless an independent branch (the courts) agrees. And in the case of wiretaps, the administration has to get similar permission.

But you are arguing that we should go back to the days of crazy King George III and allow the government to do whatever it likes, as long as the victim of governmental abuse of power is a foreigner. (Or in the case of wiretaps, if one of the people involved is a foreigner.)

Nobody, American or otherwise, loses his/her basic human rights just because G.W.B. or his cronies accuse that person of terrorism. And when you use the word terrorist in reference to a person, against whom no evidence has been presented to any court, you are engaging in dirty and fraudulent argument. If there is evidence against someone, bring it to a court of law. If there is no evidence, then respect that person's rights. Otherwise you have met one of the most basic elements of fascism.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 18 2006, 09:07 AM) [snapback]305259[/snapback]</div>

Lacking? This administration is nothing but PR and spin doctoring. I feel like I'm in the audience of a magic show. Actually, I'm wrong, I left out undermining and/or overruling the checks and balances put in place to prevent the abuse of power. Unless I completely missed the point, I took Tony's statement about the Pres somehow convincing the nation and Congress that a war was needed as EXACTLY was has happened, not what needs to happen, as you state.

As far as the parties being divided during a time of war, to me that only shows that at least they're not ALL brainless sycophants...maybe we should all follow just Brittany Spear's example and support the president no matter what he decides...geez

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 18 2006, 08:00 AM) [snapback]305241[/snapback]</div>

I decided to something silly and actually take a look at the Constitution. And I noticed a couple things:

1. Article 1, section 8, clause 11 gives Congress the power to declare war. I don't remember a formal declaration.
2. I didn't find any mention of warrantless wiretaps or domestic calls. Not even in the amendments.

There may a Supreme Court case that imbues the President with those ultimate war time powers, even without a formal declaration. And there may be a Supreme Court case that actually mentions number 2. If so, I'd love to see them. I'm always willing to be educated so I can have a better understanding of the issues.

It doesn't matter what you believe ... screaming that someone doesn't understand your position and using hyperbole to make a point aren't effective eductional tools. Neither is slamming someone's opinion. Give us real information and point us to reliable resources so we can educate ourselves. As they used to say before Schoolhouse Rock:

As your body grows bigger / Your mind will flower / It's great to learn / Cause knowledge is power!

 

What I'm trying to mentally picture is what dberman, squid and their ilk's reaction would be if President Clinton or Gore was trying to do what Bush is doing, overruling a Republican congress. Would they still be falling over themselves to justify how he had total executive power and could do whatever he wanted, regardless of the law?

I do hope so, otherwise they're being intellectually dishonest.

I could have sworn that in the not-too-distant past Republican supporters were generally anti-big-government and suspicious of federal power. Hence all that stuff about bearing arms to protect yourself from the government, etc.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Aug 18 2006, 10:21 AM) [snapback]305295[/snapback]</div>

2. you are right so how did the judge rule against it citing several articles in the Consititution. please view USA vs truong for a courts decision specifically rebutting this judges mis-interpretation of the law which served as precedent which she ignored.

Explain how intellegence gathering falls under the preview of the articles cited when they specifically concern criminal wrong-doing. how was anyones liberties violated here - any american could still talk with the terrorist friend - that was not taken away/

not screaming at anyone here - just mad at the level of incompetence that is allowed to judge our laws - at age 73 she should be planting flowers or vegetables - not endangering all of us --

just trying to grow minds here.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Aug 18 2006, 09:21 AM) [snapback]305295[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, those idiot founding fathers - I guess they were too busy IMing each other on their cellphones to give a thought to including an amendment about warrantless wiretaps. And why didn't they include anything about spotted owls? Or cyclamates? And they should have made it unconstitutional for me to be inconvenienced getting into the airport, too! Let's sue somebody, and impeach the whole government!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 18 2006, 11:14 AM) [snapback]305313[/snapback]</div>

Thank you for pointing me towards something I can look at. I appreciate it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 18 2006, 11:14 AM) [snapback]305313[/snapback]</div>

Looks like I'm guilty of a little hyperbole myself. I just get a little tired of the lack of civility from people (not necessarily on this board, mind you) on both sides of the political spectrum. Both sides have an annoying tendency to cherry pick information to suit their beliefs and ignore valid points that conflict with them.

Just curious ... are you for mandatory retirement age for all judges? Your mentions of Judge Diggs' age indicate that you think that judges beyond a certain age shouldn't be on the bench.

Moving on to a different post ...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(glenhead @ Aug 18 2006, 11:35 AM) [snapback]305326[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, those idiot founding fathers - I guess they were too busy IMing each other on their cellphones to give a thought to including an amendment about warrantless wiretaps. And why didn't they include anything about spotted owls? Or cyclamates? And they should have made it unconstitutional for me to be inconvenienced getting into the airport, too! Let's sue somebody, and impeach the whole government!
[/b][/quote]
And that would be why I followed up my statement with this:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Aug 18 2006, 10:21 AM) [snapback]305295[/snapback]</div>

There's lots of things the Constitution doesn't mention. That's what the Supreme Court is for ... to interpret the gray areas. And those gray areas change over time. Help me educate myself by pointing me to something I can read.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 18 2006, 09:07 AM) [snapback]305259[/snapback]</div>

Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out exactly which part of the constitution you believe grants the president that power?

I can't seem to find it anywhere in my copy of the Constitution....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(danoday @ Aug 18 2006, 02:25 PM) [snapback]305460[/snapback]</div>

You must have a copy of the original. We don't use that one anymore...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Aug 18 2006, 04:29 PM) [snapback]305540[/snapback]</div>

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Where in north Jersey are you, Zen? I work in South Orange.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Aug 18 2006, 07:28 PM) [snapback]305620[/snapback]</div>

I live in POMPton Lakes, my office is in POMPton Plains... that;s what makes me so POMPous, I guess... :lol:

What's your avatar? I can't figure out why it looks familiar to me...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Aug 18 2006, 10:38 PM) [snapback]305713[/snapback]</div>

It's from Barry Ween, Boy Genius by Judd Winick.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Aug 17 2006, 12:59 PM) [snapback]304832[/snapback]</div>

Bill Clinton was criticized for his increase in the number of wiretaps by some of the privacy groups (and Republicans, of course) after the OK City bombing, even though they evidently went to the FISA court after the taps as the law allows. This was after some in his administration said the criticism from talk radio probably contributed to domestic terrorism (sound anything like the complaint that Republicans are saying anyone critical of the current administration is helping the Muslim terrorists?)

I can't find the stats now, but the Clinton Administration exponentially increased the spying on Americans, with very few voices raised against them. I remember an article where the author was concerned that President Clinton was getting away with it because the usual privacy supporters were allowing their positive view of him blind them to the growing privacy threat. I think the growth in domestic spying was part of the reaction to the growing threat of terrorism that partisans say didn't exist. But we were collecting information that simply wasn't shared among agencies, and that prevented us from using the information effectively.

I heard an interesting thing the other day ... a commentator said he thought that Congress will probably just put the NSA program under the purview of the FISA court, and the issue will be solved without them embarrassing themselves. Does anyone know if that's actually required? Is there a list of programs that have to be authorized to use the FISA court, by open legislation? That seems counter to the idea of authorizing secret programs, but would give credence to the Administration's claim that they couldn't go before the FISA court without blowing the cover off the program (that's not a claim I've ever accepted, personally).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Aug 21 2006, 01:07 AM) [snapback]306571[/snapback]</div>

But I believe you've hit the nail directly on the head here; Clinton got his wiretaps legally. The privacy supporters were obviously unhappy, but he did this within the law. Bush decided the laws didn't apply to him. I think this is more about the subversion of the laws designed to keep the checks and balances in place which prohibit the abuse of power by one man or governmental branch.

Clinton lied about receiving oral sex in the office. He admitted to the lie (after some semantic gymnastics, true). He was villified for it.
Bush lied about our reasons for going to war in Iraq. He never admitted to this. He's authorized illegal wiretaps. He's rationalized this. Where's the uproar?
Gotta wonder about the moral priorities in this country.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Aug 21 2006, 05:05 AM) [snapback]306623[/snapback]</div>

Well, we only have the Clinton Administration's word for it that all their wiretaps were legal. They say they can't "recollect" having any denied by the FISA court retroactively. The Clinton Administration did back away from much of what they wanted to do with the "Clipper Chip" technology (Google that for an eye opener).

Can you define what a "lie" is? I'm having trouble with your analogy between Bush and Clinton. Being incorrect about WMD, along with most analysts and even the prior administration, is really not comparable to having proven that you intentionally and knowingly told a mis-truth about something you are absolutely certain happened.

Like you, I happen to think the lie Clinton told was insignificant and the situation wherein he did lie should not have happened (i.e., civil cases against sitting Presidents should be delayed until they are out of office to avoid "hounding" by political groups on the other side). It was unseemly, embarrassing, and not in the public's interest to allow the civil case to go forward, and then to televise the spectacle of a President squirming before a grand jury trying to say there might be doubt about the interpetation of the word "is". Sexual harassment is not that important an issue to have tied up the President the way we did; it would have been better to allow him to finish his term before allowing a civil case to go forward.

The real question is whether or not the GWOT (Global War on Terror) constitutes a war in the traditional sense. During times of war, the President, as commander in chief, has always had more latitude. As President Lincoln said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. But, does asymmetrical warfare like the GWOT qualify in the same way as "hot" war? That is the real question.

It may be worth risking another 9/11, or even millions of Americans dead in an atomic bomb detonation to preserve our rights to privacy. We have to ask ourselves that question. I'm trying to understand the sometimes hysterical comparisons to totalitarian regimes when we examine financial records of foreigners (which are not protected constitutionally and indeed, are routinely reported to the government for all citizens). My problem is that the hysteria is always cloaked in conspiracy theories about the Project for a New American Century or irrational hatred of George Bush.

My view is that somewhere between the powers we give the President during "hot" war and the abnormal restrictions on the Executive's power put in place in the 1970's is a workable framework for both protecting our rights and defending against those that want to kill us. I'm not sure what that is, but having congressional review along with executive review of wire tap authority doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

Does anyone know if taking a request before the FISA court exposes that program to public view?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Aug 21 2006, 08:04 PM) [snapback]307288[/snapback]</div>

While Googling in search of an answer, I came across this eye opening news article:

Seattle Post-Intelligencer - Secret court modified wiretap requests

I urge you to read the article in its entirety, but here is likely the main reason the administration is bypassing the FISA Court:

As Artie Johnson used to say on Laugh In: "Very interesting."

By the way, in response to your question, all the FISA Court proceedings are secret: