The US Constitution - A Suicide Pact?

I'm referring to the warrant-less wiretaps the administration used on US citizens suspected of terrorism. It was entirely at their discretion with no oversight or checks and balances on it. Such warrant-less wiretaps violate a citizens right to unreasonable search and seizure under amendment 4 of the Bill of Rights.

 

Does it matter? In 1972 the Supreme Court ruled against Nixon's warrant-less wiretaps - wiretaps on individuals suspected of being involved in a terrorist plot.

in fact, the Supreme Court has also said, in regards to the attempted post-process warrant procedure Bush used,

The wiretaps were against the 4th amendment. the supreme court has said so - what difference does it make if a US citizen is placing a domestic or international call? You still need a warrant to place a wiretap on a US citizen.

 

We need to reenact the Alien and Sedition Acts (well, the other three - the Alien Enemies Act is still in force). That will take care of all these undesirables.

Tom

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 10 2007, 12:48 PM) [snapback]476222[/snapback]</div>

I don't opt against security, as you so blandly put it. I opt for enforcing our constitution and system of government. the President isn't above the law. If it's that big an issue of national security, i would expect the President to work with the Judicial system to obtain the warrants necessary to tap calls made to those areas, people, or companies. I would expect government agencies in charge of or security (Homeland Security, CIA, NSA, etc) to already have wiretaps placed on foreign operatives of interest, including suspected foreign terrorists and companies. All of this can be done without diminishing a citizens rights under amendment 4.

Let me ask you something here Berman... The bush administration was placing wiretaps on Americans it suspected of being connected to terrorist organizations. Something clearly tipped them off about the person - how much time do you really think would be wasted by getting a judges signature on a warrant? If the wiretap was truly appropriate, it would involve a presentation of facts (lets see... maybe half an hour?) and then the judge would sign it. done deal. But the administration decided that it was too important to do that, and would tap peoples phones for weeks or months without getting a warrant. That is clearly an abuse of their power.

 

There's a difference between wiretapping and the signals intelligence you mentioned. Wiretapping is listening in on a single phone number for an extended period of time. signals intelligence is monitoring transmissions for certain parameters - a collection of words, a specific voice, whatever. Wiretapping involves recording the conversations and listening to them. signals intelligence involves running them through a computer and throwing them away. Please get your terminology straight so we all know what you're actually talking about.

 

You're probably right - those would be the conversations you're interested in... but how do you even know about the conversation in time to place a wiretap on the phone, even if you don't get a warrant? The discussion thus far has been about wiretaps, are you trying to switch topics on me?

 

Besides, as I understand it, there are already provisions in FISA to put on the wiretap, and then go get the warrant within a certain amount of time (48 hours?). So if they have a situation where they know about a line to tap and don't have time to get the warrant ahead of time, they can still react in time.

The complaint that most have against the hopefully discontinued warrantless wiretap program of the Bush Administration is that they were putting on the wire taps in situations where they knew they wouldn't be able to get a warrant, and then weren't trying to get the warrant afterwards (because they knew ahead of time that they wouldn't be able to).

None of the serious opposition want the government to stop wiretapping terrorists. They just want to make sure that the process is being reviewed by a court system.

If the 4th amendment is truely getting in the way of national security (it isn't), then the solution is to repeal the amendment, not to ignore it.

 

regardless of the amount of time required, i don't see your point berman... it's the law. They have to be filled out and processed...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 10 2007, 03:32 PM) [snapback]476354[/snapback]</div>

I had my timeframe wrong. I looked it up, and it isn't 48 hours.

FISA allows retroactive approval of surveillance in emergencies up to 72 hours after the fact.

Additionally, former presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Royce C. Lamberth has stated that the approval rate for surveillance requests is 99 percent, so it isn't like the administration was having a difficult time getting legitimate wiretaps approved.

The problem is that even though there was a legal process already in place that had already been upheld as Constitutional in previous cases involving organizations such as the IRA, that would allow retroactive warrants, for some reason the Bush Administration decided that they'd prefer to just ignore the law and the Constitution and do whatever they want without oversight from any court.

There has never been an explanation as to why they would choose to do this. Their defense up till now seems to be:

A. tell everyone that we only used the surveillance on terrorists and hope they believe us so it doesn't matter that we broke the law.

B. accuse anyone who wants us to follow the law of having something to hide

C. claim that if you don't like warrantless surveillance then you mustn't want any surveillence at all and so you must just be hoping that the terrorists will leave us alone.

I think most people can see that none of these are justifications for the transgression, and that "C" is just ridiculous.

Anyhow, as you can see, the US Constitution isn't suicide pact. FISA makes defense of our nation possible within the rules of the Constitution, and furthermore, if that wasn't true, the Constitution makes provisions for altering it when needed to adjust to changing times. Therefore there is NEVER a good reason to circumvent the Constitution, and doing so is a crime and ought to be punished as such.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 10 2007, 03:23 PM) [snapback]476344[/snapback]</div>

Sure he does; the mere fact that you dismissed him so boorishly indicates this.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jul 10 2007, 08:22 AM) [snapback]476122[/snapback]</div>

The rights that people say are "trampled" by the Patriot Act were rights not founded by the likes of Jefferson, Adams or Washington, but by the likes of Warren and Burger a scant 40 years ago. Privacy rights were not "discovered" until then, and while "unreasonable search and seizure" is enshrined in our Constitution, the understanding of what that means was dramatically altered by the courts relatively recently.

The astounding ignorance regarding privacy in financial transactions, for instance, shows how clueless most of the left really is ... and they were the ones passing the intrusive reporting laws in the first place! Americans today decry investigation into terrorist's financial activities overseas while not realizing their corner banker reports every transaction they make over $10,000 to the Federal Government.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jul 11 2007, 12:44 AM) [snapback]476631[/snapback]</div>

Privacy rights that were established "by the likes of Warren and Burger" are well within the scope of the intent of "unreasonable search and seizure" set by Jefferson, Adams and Washington. Times change, technology changes, and the Constitution is amended accordingly. It doesn't make it any less valid. Privacy is at the heart of unreasonable search and seizure.

I think the majority of Americans, left or right, are in agreement that investigating terrorists' financial transactions is a perfectly acceptable means of gathering intelligence in times like these. Furthermore, you'd have to live under a rock to not know that the government requires reporting transactions of $10,000 or more. Much more debatable, yet perfectly legal, is the mining of every credit card transaction, every book purchase, etc. for information.

 

Ooops, double post.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 10 2007, 03:44 PM) [snapback]476307[/snapback]</div>

Then your "because" needs to relearn the FISA law. The law ALLOWS for wiretapping without a warrant for 72 hours, after which a warrant must be obtained. As such, the "minute or two" to which you refer is completely within the realm of FISA WITHOUT modification. As long as a warrant is obtained within that 72 hour window the wiretap and subsequent listening on the same number is permissible.

Thanks for showing that you really don't know all that much about FISA though.

Try again.