come on "constructionists"

[vidcc]

With the pending supreme court nomination hearings and the crys from the "right" for the need for a "strict constructionist" I wonder what view those of this mindset have about wiretaps without warrants on US citizens, especially as they could have been done legitimately with warrants with the system in place.

Is the 4th ammendment not important when it comes to the constitution?

I have heard the arguement put forward that they are only listening to "bad people".... however we only have their word for that, and if they are indeed only listening to "bad people" then why avoid the court system?

[Santa]

In the 50/60's there was an art movement called the "Constructivists". There work was purelly about minimizing form into squares, circles etc this lead to the minimalists whom believe (stll today) that the purest "painting" (outdated genre) is a "monocrome" (one coloured surface). Both these fields affected architcture and design as you know it today.

Should your "Constructionists" follow the same path, i suggest fear is in order, yet it is a necessary path inorder to get to where we are nowadays.

[Biggles]

Whilst I am sure builders with a leaning for leather and cuffs have their place in society surely a Judge would be a better choice? :ph34r:

[JPaul]

Whilst I am sure builders with a leaning for leather and cuffs have their place in society surely a Judge would be a better choice? :ph34r:
That's just bigoted thinking, it should be open to anyone.

[j2k4]

Kind of a faux argument, vid; we could get deeply into all this, but perhaps at the outset we might acknowledge that to use the term "constructionist" to discuss this is a malaprop, as the founders had not tumbled to telephony, much less the ability to listen from the shade.

As an aside, one wonders what the authorities are required to say to any innocents whose conversations with the legitimately "tapped" criminal element are discovered?

I'm guessing not a whole lot, huh?

I mean, really...where's the beef?

Besides which, I'm on semi-holiday from serious topics just now. :)

[vidcc]

Kind of a faux argument, vid; we could get deeply into all this, but perhaps at the outset we might acknowledge that to use the term "constructionist" to discuss this is a malaprop, as the founders had not tumbled to telephony, much less the ability to listen from the shade. As with many things that come before the supreme court today the founders could have no idea that such things could happen with advances.
If the constitution said "no man shall take an axe to any tree owned by the state" it doesn't mean that men with chainsaws have a free run.
"constructionist" point to the founders and say they "didn't have this in mind when they wrote the constitution" on many of todays cases, mostly only when they don't like the subject. however article 4 is clear and i don't believe it should be ignored because of technical advances.... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized


As an aside, one wonders what the authorities are required to say to any innocents whose conversations with the legitimately "tapped" criminal element are discovered?

I'm guessing not a whole lot, huh?

I mean, really...where's the beef?

So you would be happy for your calls to be monitored without warrant?...For this exercise let's assume that Clinton is in office while this is happening.
Now I am totally for wiretapping the bad guys before someone makes a silly suggestion. I do however believe that it should be done with warrants. And seeing as those warrants can be obtained after the deed has occured and the system in place is basically a rubber stamp I see no legitimate reason for the path chosen.
Maybe it's because it's their guy doing but it does seem odd that the ones that believe the strongest in small government with limited powers are the ones silent on this issue.

[j2k4]

You've been saving for this one, eh? :P

One would have to be a complete noob to believe this kind of stuff hasn't gone on under every administration for decades.

Clinton apparently did it to Gennifer Flowers, but that was just over illicit sex, not National Security, so he should get a pass?

After all, wasn't his personal security the paramount concern of his administration?

Again, I'm stuck for time (on my way to work), but trust me, vid-this isn't going anywhere-it's a non-issue.

I suppose we'll get into it more later...:dry:

[clocker]

One would have to be a complete noob to believe this kind of stuff hasn't gone on under every administration for decades.
People (and governments) have been committing murder for millennia, so I guess that makes it OK now by virtue of precedent. Kind of a "grandfather clause" sort of thing, eh?

Clinton apparently did it to Gennifer Flowers, but that was just over illicit sex, not National Security, so he should get a pass?


After all, wasn't his personal security the paramount concern of his administration?
Give it a rest, j2. It's been six years now and the "Yeah, but look what Bill Clinton did!" defense is wearing more than a bit thin.

Again, I'm stuck for time (on my way to work), but trust me, vid-this isn't going anywhere-it's a non-issue.

It's a "non-issue" why?
Because it reflects poorly on the Republican administration?
How egregiously do the Bushies have to fuck up before it becomes an issue with you- at least a bigger issue than a blowjob and the definition of the word "is"?

I assume you have already removed your firewall and antivirus apps to make monitoring your personal PC easier for the government...after all, where's the beef if some security functionary wants to cruise your pr0n collection? You have nothing to hide, right?
While we're at it let's install a tracking device on your car and security cameras at every intersection (ala Great Britian)...makes it easier to prove you aren't a terrorist.

No doubt Bill would have done all this had he not been busy banging fat chicks, so it's OK.

[vidcc]

Clinton apparently did it to Gennifer Flowers, but that was just over illicit sex, not National Security, so he should get a pass?
If it can be proven he did it he deserves the full power of the law bearing down on him. However as Clocker said this "but Clinton" is getting a bit old.

Again, I'm stuck for time (on my way to work), but trust me, vid-this isn't going anywhere-it's a non-issue.

I suppose we'll get into it more later...:dry:

So let's have an answer to the question posed..... would you be ok with your personal communications being recorded?
I think it fair to add that i am not looking for anyone to condemn the man they voted for, just to be honest as to if they believe in the constitution is law or not especially as i mentioned that the ones so silent on this are the ones demanding judges that rule only by the constitution. Do you think Bush had this in mind when he put Miers forward...supreme court russian roulette perhaps?
I do also wonder if the likes of ann coulter et al who are so for this would be just as happy for it to continue if Hillary wins in 08.

I found the following arguement interesting



Why Bush’s Warrantless Spying Programs Puts Americans At Risk

Today, President Bush attempted to justify his secret domestic spying program:

"The NSA program is one that listens to a few numbers, called from the outside of the United States and of known al Qaeda or affiliate people. In other words, the enemy is calling somebody and we want to know who they’re calling and why."

In fact, according to this explanation, the program was not only illegal but unnecessarily puts the American people at risk.

If we know that U.S. persons are communicating with al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates, the surveillance would be approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. (Remember, doing so would not slow the process down because you can obtain the approval up to 72-hours after the surveillance has begun.) Evidence obtained with a warrant from the FISA court, in most cases, can be used to charge and prosecute a suspect. In fact, Section 218 of the Patriot Act amended FISA to make it easier to introduce evidence obtained with a FISA warrant to prosecute people.

Every conversation monitored under Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program is a missed opportunity to get someone who is talking with terrorists off the streets and behind bars.

Why? Becuase evidence obtained by Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program is probably not admissible in court. Convictions obtained with evidence from this program may be overturned. Suspected terrorists are already pursuing appeals.

Conversation between U.S. persons and a known terrorists should be monitored. But those conversations should be monitored in a way maximizes the security of the American people. Bush’s secret program doesn’t do it. We’d be much safer if he would cancel it and start following the law.

WHat do you think?

[JPaul]

What's a "constructionist".

I looked it up.

"A person who construes a legal text or document in a specified way: a strict constructionist."

I thought everyone did that.

Do you chaps have a more specific meaning for it in the USA.

[j2k4]

So you would be happy for your calls to be monitored without warrant?...For this exercise let's assume that Clinton is in office while this is happening.


Ooops.

I think this belongs to you, vid.

Clocker, are you paying attention?

Hey, whatever.

The foaming-mouth Dems will dissect the issue within an inch of it's life and beyond-nothing will come of it; not because they can't carry the ball, not because the major media won't bore us to tears with repetitive detail, but because there is no illegality involved, and no innocent parties were injured.

I am not necessarily defending Bush's actions, just pointing out political reality-the Dems will push the rhetoric for show, but if they push too hard, it'll come back to bite them on the ass, 'cuz they've done it too-not for reasons of national security, but to forward their political agenda.

As I've alluded earlier, there is a rather fevered legal battle being fought just now as to whether or not certain heretofore-hidden political dirt ought to see the light of day; stay tuned, because of it does, there will be eggs, dirt, and actual shit flying, and it'll be sticking to people you guys like...;)

[vidcc]

[QUOTE=vidcc]
So you would be happy for your calls to be monitored without warrant?...For this exercise let's assume that Clinton is in office while this is happening.



Ooops.

I think this belongs to you, vid.

Clocker, are you paying attention?yes it is my quote, but it was to get your view as to if you would be happy if clinton tapped your line. we were simply stating that because someone else did something doesn't make it right, and to use clinton to excuse bush is simply not justification.

I will say it for the record. If this was clinton i would be just as miffed.


Hey, whatever.

The foaming-mouth Dems will dissect the issue within an inch of it's life and beyond-nothing will come of it; not because they can't carry the ball, not because the major media won't bore us to tears with repetitive detail, but because there is no illegality involved, and no innocent parties were injured.this remains to be seen. It does however answer my original question, Constructionists (and i believe you are one, correct me if i am wrong) are not really that bothered about the constitution unless it suits their purpose. I am not saying this as a personal attack Kev. but it really is coming across this way. If there is a law that Bush can show does allow this then that law appears to be unconstitutional. I say a law that allows, in time of war he has temporary overruling powers but this seems to be stretching it a tad.

I believe that Bush escaping would have more to do with the numbers of seats held by the republicans at the moment than actual justice.


I am not necessarily defending Bush's actions, just pointing out political reality-the Dems will push the rhetoric for show, but if they push too hard, it'll come back to bite them on the ass, 'cuz they've done it too-not for reasons of national security, but to forward their political agenda.
Ok my own bit of "this is getting old" but didn't the republicans do the same over a blow job?


As I've alluded earlier, there is a rather fevered legal battle being fought just now as to whether or not certain heretofore-hidden political dirt ought to see the light of day; stay tuned, because of it does, there will be eggs, dirt, and actual shit flying, and it'll be sticking to people you guys like...;)
You think Abraimtryingtogetoff is only going to tell on Democrats? :huh: I don't care who it is.

Or are you talking about the history of clintons impeachment process?

[j2k4]

There you go fucking things up with the quote function again.

Just a few posts in and you've already made a hash of the thread.

I'll deal with you later, young man. :angry:

[clocker]

Clocker, are you paying attention?


The foaming-mouth Dems will dissect the issue within an inch of it's life ...
Yeah, I was.
Then you decided that this "non-issue" was only of interest to "foaming-mouth Dems" and I lost interest.

Fortunately, I believe that the midterm elections and the 2008 Presidential election will sweep you "calm, rational, yet consistently wrong" Republicans from power so I'm just biding my time.

Then I can define what is an issue and what is not.

[vidcc]

There you go fucking things up with the quote function again.
Not sure what you mean :unsure:



besides you put so much into your limbaugh scripted rant i felt i had to answer it all.

btw. There are some principled conservatives and right wingers foaming at this.


Just a few posts in and you've already made a hash of the thread. Ah this means i have touched on a sore point.


I'll deal with you later,

Got to read coulter or rush to find out how you feel about the subject ?;) :lol:



young man. :angry: does me being ( i believe only a couple of years) younger make you that angry? :unsure: :P


Besides Kev, the reason i used the title i did is because i honestly feel that this goes against the constitution. I have been searching and Phylis is silent on this..... I can't understand why....Phylis will take on GW..... unless it is the case that the constitution is only to be used when it's convienient.
Look at the foaming we got on the right when miers was nominated "because she is not a constitutional lawyer"

[j2k4]

I find your over-use of the split quote distracting and deflective, as it makes the proper 2-3 minute response into a 15-minute chore, and I am not inclined to invest that amount of time just now.

Clinton has made another unfortunate appearance in this thread due to your mention; it is not my duty to observe your flexo-bendy brand of contextual convenience, vid.

As to the actual issue, you can bet that Schumer, Pelosi and Reid et.al., will institute a proper investigation, and if Bush's "over-step" warrants impeachment, you'll get your wish, won't you?

I myself don't see what the problem is, given the current situation vis a vis terrorism, and no matter who is President.

You might begin your debate by determining just what is required to validate a marginally exceptional exercise of war-time executive power before delving into your usual bloviations.

In the meantime, leave the investigation to the liberal Democrats-they can handle it just fine.

Don't get your panties in a bunch. :D

[vidcc]

so that's your answer then Rush.

Deflect from the debate by trying to make it sound as if there was a "liberal witch hunt" going on. The 4th is of little importance to you it appears

As to the actual issue, you can bet that Schumer, Pelosi and Reid et.al., will institute a proper investigation, and if Bush's "over-step" warrants impeachment, you'll get your wish, won't you?
I was unaware that Arlen specter, Dick Lugar, Lindsey Graham et al were "foaming democrats" as they are calling for the investigations as much as any democrat. try to spin it into a partisan issue if you wish, but it would be just that....spin.

[3RA1N1AC]

What's a "constructionist".

I looked it up.

"A person who construes a legal text or document in a specified way: a strict constructionist."

I thought everyone did that.

Do you chaps have a more specific meaning for it in the USA.
in the usa, as far as the constitution is concerned, a constructionist supposedly reads the constitution according to the literal definition of every word, without further interpretation or speculation about things not explicitly mentioned in the text. a synonym might be "literalist." for example, to follow the logic of constructionism, one might say u.s. congress is entitled to pass laws to ban manual letter-writing, painting, sculpture, smiling, frowning, singing, computerized communication, and sign-language because (although they are forms of personal expression) those methods of expression are neither press nor speech. furthermore, one might say the state & local governments are allowed to ban press and speech because those governments are not the u.s. congress.

personally i reckon that someone described (or self-described) as a constructionist is usually a conservative and the claim of literalism, or however constructionists care to describe this non-interpretationism, is false. a mere pretense for ascribing to their interpretations a higher degree of faithfulness than they ascribe to other interpretations. but some might disagree. :unsure:

also: i think some of the people who call themselves constructionists, when they describe their beliefs, could be more properly called "originalists." people who believe that the text should be interpreted according to the definitions & intentions (as much as can be detected) that the authors had in mind at the time of the constitution's writing... without necessarily forbidding elaboration/extension of the ideas contained therein. almost like the distinction between puritan and orthodox christianities -- is puritanism truly more literal than orthodoxy, and so forth.

[vidcc]

personally i reckon that someone described (or self-described) as a constructionist is usually a conservative and the claim of literalism, or however constructionists care to describe this non-interpretationism, is false. a mere pretense for ascribing to their interpretations a higher degree of faithfulness than they ascribe to other interpretations. but some might disagree. :unsure:



spot on;)

[JPaul]

What's a "constructionist".

I looked it up.

"A person who construes a legal text or document in a specified way: a strict constructionist."

I thought everyone did that.

Do you chaps have a more specific meaning for it in the USA.
in the usa, as far as the constitution is concerned, a constructionist supposedly reads the constitution according to the literal definition of every word, without further interpretation or speculation about things not explicitly mentioned in the text. a synonym might be "literalist." for example, to follow the logic of constructionism, one might say u.s. congress is entitled to pass laws to ban manual letter-writing, painting, sculpture, smiling, frowning, singing, computerized communication, and sign-language because (although they are forms of personal expression) those methods of expression are neither press nor speech. furthermore, one might say the state & local governments are allowed to ban press and speech because those governments are not the u.s. congress.

personally i reckon that someone described (or self-described) as a constructionist is usually a conservative and the claim of literalism, or however constructionists care to describe this non-interpretationism, is false. a mere pretense for ascribing to their interpretations a higher degree of faithfulness than they ascribe to other interpretations. but some might disagree. :unsure:

also: i think some of the people who call themselves constructionists, when they describe their beliefs, could be more properly called "originalists." people who believe that the text should be interpreted according to the definitions & intentions (as much as can be detected) that the authors had in mind at the time of the constitution's writing... without necessarily forbidding elaboration/extension of the ideas contained therein. almost like the distinction between puritan and orthodox christianities -- is puritanism truly more literal than orthodoxy, and so forth.


Thanks for that, I appreciate the obvious effort you put in. It's very much appreciated.

[3RA1N1AC]

er... in my previous post, wherever the term "constructionist" appears, "strict" should go directly before it. i'm ignorant. or forgetful. that it isn't really abbreviationable to just "constructionist" when there's an opposite type, the "liberal constructionist." i've rarely heard that term, though. i think in political discussion "judicial activist" is preferred?

oh wait no, i was just playing along with the precedent already set by the thread's title and by jpaul's question... yeah, that's it... :O

[JPaul]

The concept of "strict constructionist" seems a bit strange to me. If as I understand it they are people who read the US constitution and take it's literal English meaning. I say this for 3 reasons.

1, Surely you would have to consider any notes, discussions, relevant historical documents which relate to it. In order to give you a context for what the signatories intended.

2, One would also have to look at the socio-economic conditions at the time to understand what was truly intended. I think the right to bear arms thing is relevant here. They perhaps needed them to protect the newly founded country. However does that relate to today.

3, Wouldn't it be appropriate to also look at how it impacts today. e.g. They did not specifically mention things like electronic telecommunications. However the principals in the constitution should be applied to them.

I think the same about people who literally translate things like The Bible. Some of it is parables chap, it's the lesson that's important, not the narrative.

That's my 2p ($13) worth.

[j2k4]

so that's your answer then Rush.

Deflect from the debate by trying to make it sound as if there was a "liberal witch hunt" going on. The 4th is of little importance to you it appears

As to the actual issue, you can bet that Schumer, Pelosi and Reid et.al., will institute a proper investigation, and if Bush's "over-step" warrants impeachment, you'll get your wish, won't you?
I was unaware that Arlen specter, Dick Lugar, Lindsey Graham et al were "foaming democrats" as they are calling for the investigations as much as any democrat. try to spin it into a partisan issue if you wish, but it would be just that....spin.

No spin-

The difference will be that if, as and/or when any investigation occurs, Specter, Lugar and Graham, as well as any other like-minded Republicans, will be satisfied with the result (which I predict will be a small thing), whereas the Democrats will continue to piss and moan that the "American People" demand no less than impeachment, and any decent human being would resign the Presidency (never mind that Bush has already been assigned sub-human status by your own self as well as the Dems).

It's not spin, vid, it's a well-informed read on the situation.

[clocker]

The difference will be that if, as and/or when any investigation occurs, Specter, Lugar and Graham, as well as any other like-minded Republicans, will be satisfied with the result (which I predict will be a small thing), whereas the Democrats will continue to piss and moan that the "American People" demand no less than impeachment, and any decent human being would resign the Presidency (never mind that Bush has already been assigned sub-human status by your own self as well as the Dems).

It's not spin, vid, it's a well-informed read on the situation.
Ah...got it.
So you predict the Dems (foamy mouthed and minty fresh) will act just like the Repubs after Clinton was cleared.
That "forgive and forget" attitude ya'll are so famous for, eh?

Actually, you're probably right.
Soon they'll be feasting on Abramhoff and Delay and the gore will cover any minor Constitutional abuses.

[j2k4]

That "forgive and forget" attitude ya'll are so famous for, eh?

Are You saying the Dems Practice this? :dry:

Actually, you're probably right.
Soon they'll be feasting on Abramhoff and Delay and the gore will cover any minor Constitutional abuses.

Here's another prediction:

As the Abramoff saga plays out, the Democrats will endeavor to downplay the guilt of any Democrats he had on the hook, at least relative to the Republicans, and forward the notion that Democrats cannot properly be considered the targets of any investigation.

Watch and see...;)

BTW-vid:

I haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh in about six years.

Any mutually-held views are a result of his monitoring my output in this forum.

[vidcc]

Kev.

All I am after your view re. the 4th. Your answer seems to be "the 4th doesn't really matter".
Your post was high on froth and low on substance.... A typical Rush type rant, hence my comments.

I believe Bush has broken the 4th but I haven't foamed or called for impeachment and didn't suggested anything in that direction in the opening or following posts. I don't think there was a need to bypass the courts and would like to hear genuine justification as to why he did. There is nothing in the court system that would have hindered wiretapping of terrorists.

I am after a "constructionist" constitutional opinion and why that opinion is held so that we can debate that...... not a party pie fight.

I look forward to you giving one once the froth has dried.

[j2k4]

Do you believe us to be on a genuine "war" footing, vid?

I do.

It is not so comprehensive a circumstance as to require rationing, black-outs, mandatory recycling, victory gardens and industrial-plant conversion, but a nod toward intelligence-gathering capability?

I'm all for that.

I mean, they're not onto Busyman, yet; what have you and I to fear?

Never mind the 4th.

Remember the discussions we had about stateside detention during WWII?

We could be doing that, you know?

We could close the borders down, but I seem to remember you having a problem with that, too.

Granting that we are constantly barraged with anecdotes about sieve-like airport security, and, as I've already noted, the border situation is a joke, but phone taps are cheap, too; they don't cost poor people a thing. ;)

[jesus' general]

Never mind the 4th.

Absolutely right. I think the best way to deal with this situation can be summed up by the ancient British nursery rhyme "Oh Hokey Cokey Cokey".

"You put your 4th amendment in
You take your 4th amendment out
In, out, in, out, shake it all about!"

Say what you like about the Brits, bad teeth, bad food and worse weather, but when it comes to politics they're way ahead of their time! They don't even have a constitution, kickass!!

Anyway, can you imagine how many lives would be put at risk if GW had to get a warrant after the phone-tapping had taken place? Typical libs, always playing fast and loose with the lives of ordinary working Americans.


I mean, they're not onto Busyman, yet; what have you and I to fear?

Damn right. As long as you're not a member of Al-Qaida, the Vegan Community Project, Greenpeace, the Catholic Workers group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or the American Indian Movement, theres no reason to be concerned!

Nothing to see here! (http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060103/NEWS/601030301/1036)

Or here! (http://www.boiseweekly.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A156999)

Hehe, I never liked those veggy eating, tree-hugging, working Catholic, animal loving brown people anyway!

heterosexually yours,

JG

[thewizeard]

Hehe, I never liked those veggy eating, tree-hugging, working Catholic, animal loving brown people anyway!

heterosexually yours,

JG

Me neither, the last tree I hugged, an oak, was so rough and nobbly..

[vidcc]

Ok kev you have basically trotted out this "we are at war so we need to compromise" spin. A trade off of civil rights for security

The implication that what Bush did was necessary for national security. But it's not a trade off at all. Everything Bush did, as he's described it ... tapping phone calls "from Al Qaeda" ....could have been done through FISA, since it's doubtful that the 4 or 5 cases FISA turned down, compared to the 19,000 (give or take) it approved, involved phone calls from Al Qaeda.

There is no trade off. There is no amount of security that would have been traded off had Bush followed the law. All the wiretaps needed would have been granted and we'd have had all the security that resulted from them.

Remember the discussions we had about stateside detention during WWII?

We could be doing that, you know?

We could close the borders down, but I seem to remember you having a problem with that, too.Oh so because something esle was done before that excuses this? Besides, what kind of arguement or defence is that...
Bush: "well we could have done something worse you honour, at least we haven't rounded up all arabs and put them in consentration camps"
Alito: "Good point snookums, and valid enough to throw any "lesser...and cheaper" violations out...case dismissed... now can you find out what everyone is saying about me"
As to the border comment, go back and check your memory files and stop attributing the views of others to me.


I give you a do over.

[JPaul]

So what was the justification for the interceptions sans warrant.

[j2k4]

Ok kev you have basically trotted out this "we are at war so we need to compromise" spin.

Why are you so enamored of that word?

You don't care for the Patriot Act (neither do I, but for entirely different reasons than you) because it's intrusive.

Perhaps you'll recount for us it's impact on your own life.

Your paranoia over phone taps isn't justified; if you all of a sudden hear the Government is hiring 100,000 news transcriptionists to handle phone taps, then maybe, but until then...:dry:

I give you a do over.


You mean a do over, and over, and over, and over, and over...you want to argue, and I do not.

I've said my piece, and, barring further developments, have no more justification to offer.

I know it's been dead in here lately, but this is so intuitively sensible (given the circumstances) I am loathe to question it.

Prior to 9/11 the U.S. was "invincible".

After 9/11, we see we have reason to be paranoid, as our vulnerability has been demonstrated.

If you wish to blame someone for Bush's actions, try Al Qaeda and UBL, because if not for them, we're not having this discussion, and you know it.

[vidcc]

You mean a do over, and over, and over, and over, and over...you want to argue, and I do not.

I've said my piece, and, barring further developments, have no more justification to offer.

I know it's been dead in here lately, but this is so intuitively sensible (given the circumstances) I am loathe to question it.
Nobody is arguing that tapping terrorist calls isn't "sensible" i stated i am for it. What i don't get is why the 4th is being ignored when it doesn't have to be.
Prior to 9/11 the U.S. was "invincible".

After 9/11, we see we have reason to be paranoid, as our vulnerability has been demonstrated.

If you wish to blame someone for Bush's actions, try Al Qaeda and UBL, because if not for them, we're not having this discussion, and you know it.
No I blame Bush, i repeat he could spy on terrorist without any restraint under the system in place.

[JPaul]

I seem to be agreeing with vidcc here, why not get warrants.

Unless there is some time related issue.

[j2k4]

...why not get warrants.

Unless there is some time related issue.

There is that, but Bush's Attorney General's parsing of relevant law did not demand it, and, I gather, the nature of the logistic factuals (cell phones, etc., and the attendant variables/variants) dictated he err on the side of what he determined was caution.

It's quite simple.

[JPaul]

...why not get warrants.

Unless there is some time related issue.

There is that, but Bush's Attorney General's parsing of relevant law did not demand it, and, I gather, the nature of the logistic factuals (cell phones, etc., and the attendant variables/variants) dictated he err on the side of what he determined was caution.

It's quite simple.
Thanks for clearing that up. Very much appreciated.

I thought for a moment that your Government may have ridden roughshod over your constitution.

Heaven forfend.

[vidcc]

If we know that U.S. persons are communicating with al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates, the surveillance would be approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. (Remember, doing so would not slow the process down because you can obtain the approval up to 72-hours after the surveillance has begun.) Evidence obtained with a warrant from the FISA court, in most cases, can be used to charge and prosecute a suspect. In fact, Section 218 of the Patriot Act amended FISA to make it easier to introduce evidence obtained with a FISA warrant to prosecute people.

..

[JPaul]

So have your chaps done the interception thing without getting the proper warrant.

If so what was the justification for the breach of the Constitution.

Or is this all hypothetical.

[vidcc]

So have your chaps done the interception thing without getting the proper warrant.

If so what was the justification for the breach of the Constitution.

Or is this all hypothetical.
It has been going of for about 4 years. The paper that broke the story recently knew before the last election but didn't print it after Bush asked them not to.

[JPaul]

So have your chaps done the interception thing without getting the proper warrant.

If so what was the justification for the breach of the Constitution.

Or is this all hypothetical.
It has been going of for about 4 years. The paper that broke the story recently knew before the last election but didn't print it after Bush asked them not to.
Has there been any official attempt to justifying what, prima facie, is a breach of the Constitution by the US Government or it's agencies.

This is surely an enormous scandal.

[j2k4]

This is surely an enormous scandal.

Actually, no.

If it were, Bush would have already been keel-hauled.

The fact he hasn't should tell you all you need to know.

That there are several apparently weak-kneed Republicans out there would seem to indicate they know something we don't, except if that were the case, the Dems would have already made sure that information was published, ergo...;)

Intestinal fortitude goes begging for want of re-election.

[JPaul]

So let me get this right. The US Government has been using illegal wiretaps, without warrants, contrary to the US constitution.

This has been reported in the press and the citizens of the USA and it's legal authorities have basically said, "Whatcha gonna do".

Unless I've picked you chaps up wrong I find that astonishing.

[j2k4]

So let me get this right. The US Government has been using illegal wiretaps, without warrants, contrary to the US constitution.

This has been reported in the press and the citizens of the USA and it's legal authorities have basically said, "Whatcha gonna do".

Unless I've picked you chaps up wrong I find that astonishing.

You'd have to cast a discriminating eye on just which media outlets are reporting the story which way, JP.

Journalists who practice in the mainstream media over here garner (many polls have shown, and the opinions of the liberal contingent of this forum aside) about half the level of respect given used-car salesmen.

The staff at the Beeb, bad as they are, absolutely tower over their American "Big Three" counterparts, and those who toil for the major print outlets aren't fit to work at my local paper.

Again, that's not just my opinion.

[JPaul]

So has there been any official response to the stories, or have they just decided on the age old principal, "todays news, tomorrow's fish and chip wrapper".

[JPaul]

from the January 05, 2006 edition of Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0105/p09s01-coop.html) I have no idea of the quality of said source

Congress is partly to blame for Bush's warrantless wiretaps

By Pat M. Holt

WASHINGTON – Congress is in an uproar over the Bush administration's use of warrantless wiretaps in the United States against American citizens. And well it might be. But to find the culprit, Congress has only to look in a mirror. The sad truth is that Congress does not want to exercise effective oversight of intelligence activities.

President Bush, for his part, says Congress implicitly authorized eavesdropping and other searches without a warrant when it authorized the president to respond to 9/11. The president has also asserted his inherent power under the Constitution to wiretap without congressional authorization, either implied or explicit. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has admitted that the administration backed off seeking congressional authority because of advice from Capitol Hill that it would be too difficult to pass. So, if you don't think you can get it, say you don't need it.

Mr. Bush is not the first president to claim an inherent power in matters of national security. The last one before Bush was his immediate predecessor, Bill Clinton, who claimed it in connection with the sale of secrets by CIA employee Aldrich Ames. The issue is not political; it is institutional.

There is a further institutional issue between the executive and legislative branches: conflicting views of what is involved in consultation between them. Traditionally, the executive branch has thought it has consulted Congress when in fact it has done no more than inform Congress. Congress, on the other hand, does not think it has been consulted unless there has been discussion as to what to do about a given problem.

The president and the attorney general have repeatedly made the point that Congress has been briefed on warrantless wiretapping a dozen times. The briefings consisted of assembling eight members of Congress out of 535: the chairmen and ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, the speaker of the House, the House minority leader, and the majority and minority leaders of the Senate. This select group was brought to the White House, sworn to secrecy even with respect to their peers on Capitol Hill, and told - not asked - about what the administration was doing. We still don't know if they were told everything.

Some of them were troubled. So far as we know, only Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D) of West Virginia was troubled enough to do anything about it. What Senator Rockefeller did was to send a handwritten letter (if his secretary had typed it, she would have learned what he had sworn not to tell her) to Vice President Dick Cheney saying he was "concerned."

Given the circumstances, was there something else Rockefeller or others in the select group could have done? For one thing, they could have refused to accept the information on the strict terms under which it was offered. They could have gone to the president himself. If they were still dissatisfied, they could have demanded a secret session of the Senate and/or House and laid the problem before their colleagues. This has been done in the past, and such sessions have been remarkably leak-free.

The basic problem here is a fundamental disagreement over the constitutional powers of the president and Congress. Suppose Congress tells the president that it's OK to wiretap foreigners but not Americans without a warrant "particularly describing," as the Fourth Amendment puts it, "the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." And suppose the president then does it anyway. This leaves the country in a major constitutional crisis.

It has happened twice before in the past 40 years. In the first instance, the Supreme Court struck down President Nixon's assertion of authority to withhold documents relating to Watergate, and Nixon resigned rather than face an impeachment trial in the Senate. In the second instance, which is more pertinent to the present case, Congress prohibited aid to the Nicaraguan contras and the Reagan White House supplied it anyway.

[j2k4]

So has there been any official response to the stories, or have they just decided on the age old principal, "todays news, tomorrow's fish and chip wrapper".

I believe the administration is cognizant of the dynamic at work (each of the political "sides" hunkered down with their beliefs), and keeps the media at arm's-length until whatever happens, happens.

The most important impending event at this point is Justice's investigation of what the administration now alleges is a "leak".

Time has been purchased thus for both sides, with most benefit accruing (obviously) to the winner of this first round.

Other events (the Alito confirmation hearings, etc.) will serve to lengthen the process.

All the while, the issue of media bias is getting some long-overdue play as well.

An interesting time to be alive...:)

[vidcc]

Kev. There are many right wing hard conservatives questioning this. To make it out as a partisan issue is misleading and isn't addressing the legality.


I shall repeat the 4th.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



Now the constitution being the ultimate rule of law in the land I am at a loss how ANY law that contradicts this is constitutional as it doesn't give exceptions. There are of course "emergency" provisions the president has but these are temporary powers and 4 years is enough time for "checks and balances"


Now if there is a law that has yet to be challenged that allows this then I would like to hear about it. And then I would like to get an opinion from a "constructionist" as to if that law is constitutional and if so why. That is the whole point of my original.
Just saying the president is doing it to "protect us" isn't a legal arguement.

I am not looking to make points if one admits it is unconstituional "but so what on this one". However I would like to know why that person isn't bothered when the whole thing could have been done under FISA .

[JPaul]

The most important impending event at this point is Justice's investigation of what the administration now alleges is a "leak".


That quite nicely sidesteps the issue. The leak itself becomes more of an issue than what was leaked, nice strategy that.

I found this interesting


Warrantless ''National Security'' Electronic Surveillance .--In Katz v. United States, 151 Justice White sought to preserve for a future case the possibility that in ''national security cases'' electronic surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney General could be permissible without prior judicial approval. The Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to ''bug'' in two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority on a theory of ''inherent'' presidential power and then in the Supreme Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a ''reasonable'' search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required. 152 Whether or not a search was reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause; except in a few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, only those searches conducted pursuant to warrants were reasonable. The Government's duty to preserve the national security did not override the gurarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy. 153 This protection was even more needed in ''national security cases'' than in cases of ''ordinary'' crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the Fourth. 154 Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is required. 155

The question of the scope of the President's constitutional powers, if any, remains judicially unsettled. 156 Congress has acted, however, providing for a special court to hear requests for warrants for electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence situations, and permitting the President to authorize warrantless surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information provided that the communications to be monitored are exclusively between or among foreign powers and there is no substantial likelihood any ''United States person'' will be overheard. 157

from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/05.html#6

[j2k4]

from the January 05, 2006 edition of Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0105/p09s01-coop.html) I have no idea of the quality of said source

Congress is partly to blame for Bush's warrantless wiretaps

By Pat M. Holt

WASHINGTON – Congress is in an uproar over the Bush administration's use of warrantless wiretaps in the United States against American citizens. And well it might be. But to find the culprit, Congress has only to look in a mirror. The sad truth is that Congress does not want to exercise effective oversight of intelligence activities.

President Bush, for his part, says Congress implicitly authorized eavesdropping and other searches without a warrant when it authorized the president to respond to 9/11. The president has also asserted his inherent power under the Constitution to wiretap without congressional authorization, either implied or explicit. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has admitted that the administration backed off seeking congressional authority because of advice from Capitol Hill that it would be too difficult to pass. So, if you don't think you can get it, say you don't need it.

Mr. Bush is not the first president to claim an inherent power in matters of national security. The last one before Bush was his immediate predecessor, Bill Clinton, who claimed it in connection with the sale of secrets by CIA employee Aldrich Ames. The issue is not political; it is institutional.

There is a further institutional issue between the executive and legislative branches: conflicting views of what is involved in consultation between them. Traditionally, the executive branch has thought it has consulted Congress when in fact it has done no more than inform Congress. Congress, on the other hand, does not think it has been consulted unless there has been discussion as to what to do about a given problem.

The president and the attorney general have repeatedly made the point that Congress has been briefed on warrantless wiretapping a dozen times. The briefings consisted of assembling eight members of Congress out of 535: the chairmen and ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, the speaker of the House, the House minority leader, and the majority and minority leaders of the Senate. This select group was brought to the White House, sworn to secrecy even with respect to their peers on Capitol Hill, and told - not asked - about what the administration was doing. We still don't know if they were told everything.

Some of them were troubled. So far as we know, only Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D) of West Virginia was troubled enough to do anything about it. What Senator Rockefeller did was to send a handwritten letter (if his secretary had typed it, she would have learned what he had sworn not to tell her) to Vice President Dick Cheney saying he was "concerned."

Given the circumstances, was there something else Rockefeller or others in the select group could have done? For one thing, they could have refused to accept the information on the strict terms under which it was offered. They could have gone to the president himself. If they were still dissatisfied, they could have demanded a secret session of the Senate and/or House and laid the problem before their colleagues. This has been done in the past, and such sessions have been remarkably leak-free.

The basic problem here is a fundamental disagreement over the constitutional powers of the president and Congress. Suppose Congress tells the president that it's OK to wiretap foreigners but not Americans without a warrant "particularly describing," as the Fourth Amendment puts it, "the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." And suppose the president then does it anyway. This leaves the country in a major constitutional crisis.

It has happened twice before in the past 40 years. In the first instance, the Supreme Court struck down President Nixon's assertion of authority to withhold documents relating to Watergate, and Nixon resigned rather than face an impeachment trial in the Senate. In the second instance, which is more pertinent to the present case, Congress prohibited aid to the Nicaraguan contras and the Reagan White House supplied it anyway.

There is a good bit of truth to the facts laid out here.

The Dems are making a lot of noise, but not the kind that will put the spotlight on their own culpability, which stems from their view that it is politically expedient to "allow" Bush to do things they see as happily detrimental to his own party.

This view, while not shared by any Republicans, colors them nonetheless as they grow faint at the prospect of openly supporting Bush's actions, especially when considering it's effect on their re-election efforts.

Congress as a whole seeks to cover it's collective ass when the electorate shows signs of interest in such matters.

[JPaul]

It's like the argument, we all "know" it goes on, but we don't really know it goes on. So we have plausible deniability when it becomes public knowledge.

[j2k4]

It's like the argument, we all "know" it goes on, but we don't really know it goes on. So we have plausible deniability when it becomes public knowledge.

Exactly, but to address that issue would require a much more elemental discussion, having the horrifying effect (for politicians) of riling voters of all (both :lol:) persuasions.

Politicians would characterize such a development as having the potential to "rend the very fabric of our country's foundation", or some similar rot, never acknowledging any foundation made of "fabric" hasn't much to recommend it in the first place.

Funny story:

Back sometime during the Clinton impeachment deal, I remember some Democrat being interviewed (I think it was Charlie Rangel, D-NY) who gave forth with a similar rhetorical masterpiece, and when the commentator made note of the awkwardly purple prose, Rangel said, "But you know what I mean". :lol:

[JPaul]

So what we have is the President and Congress ignoring the Constitution and the American people accepting this, albeit by apathy.

Do the Senate speak on this issue, jointly or severally.

[j2k4]

So what we have is the President and Congress ignoring the Constitution and the American people accepting this, albeit by apathy.

Do the Senate speak on this issue, jointly or severally.

Officially?

Justice's investigation will render a result, which the Senate may or may not choose to take up for a sanctioning vote.

If Justice's finding is favorable to the administration (likely, I think), the majority on the Senate would probably go along, but the Dem leadership (such as it is :lol:) would continue to scream bloody murder.

[vidcc]

A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments.

The Congressional Research Service's report rebuts the central assertions made recently by Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales about the president's authority to order secret intercepts of telephone and e-mail exchanges between people inside the United States and their contacts abroad.

The findings, the first nonpartisan assessment of the program's legality to date, prompted Democratic lawmakers and civil liberties advocates to repeat calls yesterday for Congress to conduct hearings on the monitoring program and attempt to halt it.

The 44-page report said that Bush probably cannot claim the broad presidential powers he has relied upon as authority to order the secret monitoring of calls made by U.S. citizens since the fall of 2001. Congress expressly intended for the government to seek warrants from a special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before engaging in such surveillance when it passed legislation creating the court in 1978, the CRS report said.

The report also concluded that Bush's assertion that Congress authorized such eavesdropping to detect and fight terrorists does not appear to be supported by the special resolution that Congress approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which focused on authorizing the president to use military force.

"It appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations here," the authors of the CRS report wrote. The administration's legal justification "does not seem to be . . . well-grounded," they said.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has pledged to hold hearings on the program, which was first revealed in news accounts last month, and the judges of the FISA court have demanded a classified briefing about the program, which is scheduled for Monday.

"This report contradicts the president's claim that his spying on Americans was legal," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), one of the lawmakers who asked the CRS to research the issue. "It looks like the president's wiretapping was not only illegal, but also ensnared innocent Americans who did nothing more than place a phone call."

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the president and the administration believe the program is on firm legal footing. "The national security activities described by the president were conducted in accord with the law and provide a critical tool in the war on terror that saves lives and protects civil liberties at the same time," he said. A spokesman for the National Security Agency was not available for a comment yesterday.

Other administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the CRS reached some erroneous legal conclusions, erring on the side of a narrow interpretation of what constitutes military force and when the president can exercise his war powers.

Bush has said that he has broad powers in times of war and must exercise them to target not only "enemies across the world" but also "terrorists here at home." The administration has argued, starting in 2002 briefs to the FISA court, that the "war on terror" is global and indefinite, effectively removing the limits of wartime authority -- traditionally the times and places of imminent or actual battle.

Some law professors have been skeptical of the president's assertions, and several said yesterday that the report's conclusions were expected. "Ultimately, the administration's position is not persuasive," said Carl W. Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor and an expert on constitutional law. "Congress has made it pretty clear it has legislated pretty comprehensively on this issue with FISA," he said, referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. "And there begins to be a pattern of unilateral executive decision making. Time and again, there's the executive acting alone without consulting the courts or Congress."

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the report makes it clear that Congress has exerted power over domestic surveillance. He urged Congress to address what he called the president's abuse of citizens' privacy rights and the larger issue of presidential power.

"These are absolutely central questions in American government: What exactly are the authorities vested in the president, and is he complying with the law?" Rotenberg said.

The report includes 1970s-era quotations from congressional committees that were then uncovering years of domestic spying abuses by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI against those suspected of communist sympathies, American Indians, Black Panthers and other activists. Lawmakers were very disturbed at how routinely FBI agents had listened in on U.S. citizens' phone calls without following any formal procedures. As they drafted FISA and created its court, the lawmakers warned then that only strong legislation, debated in public, could stop future administrations from eavesdropping.

"This evidence alone should demonstrate the inappropriateness of relying solely on executive branch discretion to safeguard civil liberties," they wrote. The lawmakers noted that Congress's intelligence committees could provide some checks and balances to protect privacy rights but that their power was limited in the face of an administration arguing that intelligence decisions must remain top secret.source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010601772.html)

[JPaul]

It really does seem that your Administration is acting in a particularly unilateral way, again. They did it with regard to torture, they are also doing it with regard to electronic surveillance (including your own citizens).

It seems their view of the Constitution may be a tad more flexible than I had been led to believe. They seem to use some untenable legal arguments to justify ignoring it, or at the least bending it a wee bit.

[clocker]

Cynthia Ice-Bones, 32, a Republican from Sacramento, Calif., said knowing about the program made her feel a bit safer. "I think our security is so important that we don't need warrants. If you're doing something we shouldn't be doing, then you ought to be caught," she said.
A distillation of Bush's take on this as voiced by one of his supporters.
The logic (or maybe just the parsing) in play here makes my eyes bleed.

[JPaul]

Cynthia Ice-Bones, 32, a Republican from Sacramento, Calif., said knowing about the program made her feel a bit safer. "I think our security is so important that we don't need warrants. If you're doing something we shouldn't be doing, then you ought to be caught," she said.
A distillation of Bush's take on this as voiced by one of his supporters.
The logic (or maybe just the parsing) in play here makes my eyes bleed.
I concur.

Your proud tradition of civil liberties and freedom (feck you even sing about it) may have slipped into reverse by accident (or design).

To me, as an outsider, this is a more important issue than your right to bear arms.

4th > 2nd.

It seems your citizens may disagree.

[j2k4]

Some info that bears on the situation; a quote, actually.

Take note of the bi-partisan name-dropping, of you please?

"...The President has the power as commander-in-chief under the Constitution to intercept and monitor the communications of America's enemies.

Presidents have asserted and exercised this power repeatedly and consistently over the past quarter-century.

To be sure, federal courts have ruled that the Fourth Amendment's bar of 'unreasonable' searches and seizures limits the President's power to intercept communications without obtaining a warrant, but that doesn't apply to foreign intercepts, as the Supreme Court made clear in a 1972 case, writing, 'the instant case requires no judgement on the scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country'.

The federal courts of appeals for the 5th, 3rd, 9th and 4th Circuits, in cases decided in 1970, 1974, 1977 and 1980, took the same view.

In 2002 the special federal court superintending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act wrote, The Truong court, as did all the other courts to decide the issue, held that the President did have the inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information...We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power'.

Warrantless intercepts of the comunications of foreign powers were undertaken as long ago as 1979, by the Carter administration. In 1994, Bill Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, testified to Congress, 'The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes'.

In the Dec. 15th Chicago Tribune John Schmidt, associate attorney general in the Clinton administration, laid it out cold: 'President Bush's post-Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior Presidents'.

That should be sufficient explanation for all of you.

[JPaul]

Thanks for that. A few points.

1. "within or without this country", surely they mean outwith.

2. "Feck it's only foreigners so why should we bother with warrants" is actually quite offensive to us foreigners.

3. Point 2. is commensurate with your position on torture, "we can do it to Johny Foreigner, outside of our fair land".

4. Do you have a source or sources for this explanation. I wouldn't mind seeing it in context.

[j2k4]

Thanks for that. A few points.

1. "within or without this country", surely they mean outwith.

I think what is more surely meant is "...the activities of Foreign Powers within or without this country".

Proximity need not afford an enemy "safety" if it is on your own soil, I don't think; do you?

2. "Feck it's only foreigners so why should we bother with warrants" is actually quite offensive to us foreigners.

Are you a terrorist? A mal-intending foreign power?

3. Point 2. is commensurate with your position on torture, "we can do it to Johny Foreigner, outside of our fair land".

Bigfoot does what is necessary to protect it's own, and if you are attempting to equate targeted electronic surveillance to torture as a matter of standing policy, you need to get back to the matter at hand.

This discussion is not about torture, last I looked.

4. Do you have a source or sources for this explanation. I wouldn't mind seeing it in context.

It is an excerpt from a column by Michael Barone that is apparently too new to have been archived; I have read it but cannot find it on-line.

As I had to transcribe it myself so that you could read it, I suppose it is totally suspect, huh? :P

[JPaul]

Thanks for that. A few points.

1. "within or without this country", surely they mean outwith.

I think what is more surely meant is "...the activities of Foreign Powers within or without this country".

Proximity need not afford an enemy "safety" if it is on your own soil, I don't think; do you?

2. "Feck it's only foreigners so why should we bother with warrants" is actually quite offensive to us foreigners.

Are you a terrorist? A mal-intending foreign power?

3. Point 2. is commensurate with your position on torture, "we can do it to Johny Foreigner, outside of our fair land".

Bigfoot does what is necessary to protect it's own, and if you are attempting to equate targeted electronic surveillance to torture as a matter of standing policy, you need to get back to the matter at hand.

This discussion is not about torture, last I looked.

4. Do you have a source or sources for this explanation. I wouldn't mind seeing it in context.

It is an excerpt from a column by Michael Barone that is apparently too new to have been archived; I have read it but cannot find it on-line.

As I had to transcribe it myself so that you could read it, I suppose it is totally suspect, huh? :P


Not suspect in the slightest, I have no probable cause to assess you are misquoting.

I am neither a terrorist nor a "mal-intending foreign power", however who is to judge that, prior to intercepting my communications. I had assumed it would be your Courts, not your Administration.

The torture point was intended as being indicative of your Administration's general outlook. It's OK to treat foreigners a certain way, but not US citizens. Double standards and so forth. Are not all men created equal.

The without / outwith comment was more linguistic than geographical. I had assumed you would see that.

"which is apparently too new" > "that is apparently too new"

[j2k4]

The without / outwith comment was more linguistic than geographical. I had assumed you would see that.

"which is apparently too new" > "that is apparently too new"

Ah...cunning. :D

Really, though:

What's new about all this?

Granting that any "outrage" should be aimed at Bush-as he is in charge-no one seems to have any recollection of his predecessor(s) having done any of this, and if, as they say, this is what makes Bush "evil" why do they take such exception when, as a normal course of debate, someone raises the matter of precedent,and the outrage turns to umbrage at the mention?

Odd, that. :huh:

[JPaul]

The without / outwith comment was more linguistic than geographical. I had assumed you would see that.

"which is apparently too new" > "that is apparently too new"

Ah...cunning. :D

Really, though:

What's new about all this?

Granting that any "outrage" should be aimed at Bush-as he is in charge-no one seems to have any recollection of his predecessor(s) having done any of this, and if, as they say, this is what makes Bush "evil" why do they take such exception when, as a normal course of debate, someone raises the matter of precedent,and the outrage turns to umbrage at the mention?

Odd, that. :huh:


I've never been a fan of the "we've always done that" as a justification for actions.

Or even the "you did it, so you can't talk" as a defence for them.

If it's wrong, it's wrong. Stand alone. It matters not one jot whether people did it before, or whether those doing it were like minded to me.

Slavery is wrong, we legislate against it now. That, to me, is a good thing. No matter what our ancestors did. This is an example, albeit irrelevant to the current debate.

[vidcc]

It is an excerpt from a column by Michael Barone that is apparently too new to have been archived; I have read it but cannot find it on-line.

I believe it was this (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/michaelbarone/2005/12/26/180370.html)
Kev may not be using his source out of context however that does not mean Barone isn't.

I read it last week (like to get diffferent views)

[j2k4]

I've never been a fan of the "we've always done that" as a justification for actions.

Or even the "you did it, so you can't talk" as a defence for them.

If it's wrong, it's wrong. Stand alone. It matters not one jot whether people did it before, or whether those doing it were like minded to me.

Slavery is wrong, we legislate against it now. That, to me, is a good thing. No matter what our ancestors did. This is an example, albeit irrelevant to the current debate.

Slavery is probably the poorest analogy one could use, but aside and apart from that fact, my point had nothing whatsoever to do with precisely who may or may not be guilty of what you regard as transgressing behaviors; it is, rather, that these behaviors/tactics have been used by several recent administrations, and likewise several members of those administrations made statements in support of warrantless surveillance that vindicate it's use, cite legal precedent, and that I personally agree with.

A superb and magnanimous demonstration of non-partisanship by yours truly, for those who think otherwise.

Tangentially, I also feel that exception taken in Bush's case by those suffering an unqualified loathing for him indicates nothing, apart from their typical undifferentiated ideological bias.

[JPaul]

j2

I learned a new phrase today "tu quoque".

It is a concept you should be familiar with.

[j2k4]

j2

I learned a new phrase today "tu quoque".

It is a concept you should be familiar with.

I am now, thank you.

To reiterate though, you may consider the anecdotal recountings which include quotes from Clinton administration officials as merely an extension of my reasoning vis a vis Bush's actions.

I use them to support my case, not to accuse the Clinton administration, or engage in any permutation of 'them too'-ism.

Why exactly do you think this is the case?

[JPaul]

The fact that it's acceptable for any President to behave this way is, in a sense, worse than them circumventing the rule of law.

[j2k4]

The fact that it's acceptable for any President to behave this way is, in a sense, worse than them circumventing the rule of law.

What is your understanding of the transgressions alleged?

[JPaul]

The fact that it's acceptable for any President to behave this way is, in a sense, worse than them circumventing the rule of law.

What is your understanding of the transgressions alleged?
My understanding, based on your post is that there weren't any. That POTUS has the inherent power to do what he (they) did.

[vidcc]

Bit of a read, my apologies


The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
United States House of Representatives
2426 Rayburn House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515-2214

Dear Congressman Conyers:

I appreciate your interest in my views as a constitutional scholar regarding the
legality of the classified program of electronic surveillance by the National Security
Agency ("NSA") that the President authorized within months of the September 11, 2001,
attacks by Al Qaeda, a program whose existence the President confirmed on December
17, 2005, following its disclosure by The New York Times several days earlier.
Some have defended the NSA program as though it involved nothing beyond
computer-enhanced data mining used to trace the electronic paths followed by phone
calls and e-mails either originating from or terminating at points overseas associated with
terrorists or their affiliates or supporters. But that type of intelligence gathering, whose
history long antedates September 11, 2001, typically entails little or no interception of
communicative content that would make it a "search" or "seizure" as those terms are
understood for Fourth Amendment purposes (see Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)
(the "pen register" case)), or "electronic surveillance" as that term is used in the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)(see 50 U.S.C. § 1801 (f)(1)-(2)). Unfortunately, as
Attorney General Gonzales candidly conceded in a press briefing on December 19, 2005,
the program under discussion here authorized precisely such interception of "contents of
communications." See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/print/20051219-
1.html.

Although there may be room for debate about the boundary between content
interception and mere traffic analysis in other contexts, the Attorney General eliminated
speculation on the point when he said in that press briefing that the "surveillance that . . .
the President announced on [December 17]" is the "kind" that "requires a court order
before engaging in" it "unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress," and it is
undisputed that a court order is precisely what the Executive Branch chose to proceed
without. The President was therefore being less than forthright when, two weeks after admitting that he had authorized what the FISA defines as "electronic surveillance" that
would normally require a judicial warrant, he told reporters in Texas that the "NSA
program is one that listens to a few numbers" because "the enemy is calling somebody
and we want to know who they're calling . . . ." See
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Bush.html?ei=5094&en=8b73b4903455b75...
(1/3/2006). To be sure, the President did say "we want to know who they're calling and
why," to "find out what the enemy's thinking," hopefully alerting the attentive listener to
the possibility that the contents of individual messages are being intercepted. But by
centering the discussion on what sounds more like number-crunching than content-trawling,
the President encouraged the program's other apologists to depict it as relatively
innocuous by shifting attention away from precisely what makes this program of secret
surveillance so legally controversial.

Equally diversionary is the frequently repeated suggestion that, whatever the
program intercepts, the only messages it reaches are "communications, back and forth,
from within the United States to overseas with members of Al Qaeda," to quote the
Attorney General's December 19 press briefing. Again, however, the attentive listener
might have caught the more precise account the Attorney General let slip at another point
in that same briefing, when he noted that the surveillance that had been going on under
presidential auspices for roughly four years in fact reaches all instances in which "we . . .
have a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of
Al Qaeda, affiliated with Al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with Al
Qaeda or working in support of Al Qaeda." Given the breadth and elasticity of the
notions of "affiliation" and "support," coupled with the loosely-knit network of groups
that Al Qaeda is thought to have become, that definition casts so wide a net that no-one
can feel certain of escaping its grasp.

A strong case can be made that, even under the circumstances confronting the
United States in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks launched by Al Qaeda on September
11, 2001, and even with assurance that conversations are being intercepted solely to aid
in preventing future terrorist attacks rather than for use as evidence to prosecute past
misdeeds, so indiscriminate and sweeping a scheme of domestic intrusion into the private
communications of American citizens, predicated entirely on the unchecked judgment of
the Executive Branch, violates the Fourth Amendment "right of the people to be secure . .
. against unreasonable searches and seizures" even if it otherwise represents an exercise
of constitutional power entrusted to the President by Article II or delegated to the
President by Congress in exercising its powers under Article I.

The precise question of such a scheme's consistency with the Fourth Amendment
has never been judicially resolved -- nor is it likely to be resolved in this situation. For
the scheme in question, far from being authorized by Congress, flies in the face of an
explicit congressional prohibition and is therefore unconstitutional without regard to the
Fourth Amendment unless it belongs to that truly rare species of executive acts so central
to and inherent in the power vested in the President by Article II that, like the power to
propose or veto legislation or to issue pardons, its exercise cannot constitutionally be
fettered in any way by the Legislative Branch.

Any such characterization would be hard to take seriously with respect to
unchecked warrantless wiretapping. As the Supreme Court famously held in Youngstown
Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), an emergency presidential takeover
for a limited time of certain critical publicly held corporations like Bethlehem Steele Co.
and the United States Steele Co., in order to avert the threat that would be posed to our
national security by a stoppage of the steel production needed for weapons and other
materials essential to the ongoing Korean War, falls outside that tiny category of
congressionally illimitable executive acts and is indeed unconstitutional unless
affirmatively authorized by Congress. If that is so, then certainly an unchecked
presidential program of secretly recording the conversations of perhaps thousands of
innocent private citizens in the United States in hopes of gathering intelligence
potentially useful for the ongoing war on a global terrorist network not only falls outside
that category but misses it by a mile.

The only escape from that conclusion would be to hold that inherent and
illimitable presidential power to abridge individual liberty and erode personal privacy
categorically exceeds presidential power to displace temporarily the corporate managers
of entirely impersonal business property, without confiscating, transferring, or otherwise
touching the property's ultimate ownership by the holders of its shares. But our
Constitution embodies no such perverse system of priorities.
The presidential power at issue in this case is therefore subject to the control of
Congress. And that Congress has indeed forbidden this exercise of power is clear. The
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 unambiguously limits warrantless domestic
electronic surveillance, even in a congressionally declared war, to the first 15 days of
that war; criminalizes any such electronic surveillance not authorized by statute; and
expressly establishes FISA and two chapters of the federal criminal code, governing
wiretaps for intelligence purposes and for criminal investigation, respectively, as the
"exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . and the interception of domestic
wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted." 50 U.S.C. §§ 1811, 1809,
18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f). The House version of the bill would have authorized the
President to engage in warrantless electronic surveillance for the first year of a war, but
the Conference Committee rejected so long a period of judicially unchecked
eavesdropping as unnecessary inasmuch as the 15-day period would "allow time for
consideration of any amendment to this act that may be appropriate during a wartime
emergency." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 95-1720, at 34 (1978). If a year was deemed too long,
one can just imagine what the Conferees would have said of four years.
Rather than reaching for the heaviest (and, in this context, least plausible and
hence most ineffectual) artillery by claiming an inherent presidential power to spy on
innocent American citizens within the United States even in the teeth of a clear and
explicit congressional prohibition of that technique of intelligence-gathering beyond the
first 15 days of a declared war, the administration points to the FISA's own caveat that its
prohibitions are inapplicable to electronic surveillance that is "otherwise authorized" by a
congressional statute, which of course encompasses a joint resolution presented to and
signed by the President.

The Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) against Al Qaeda, Pub.L. No.
107-40, 115 Stat. 224 §2 (a) (2001), is just such a resolution, the administration claims,
for it authorizes the President to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against
"nations, organizations, or persons" associated with the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001, in order to protect the nation from the recurrence of such aggression. Although
that resolution of course says nothing about electronic surveillance as such, neither does
it say anything specifically about the detention of enemy combatants fighting for Al
Qaeda in Afghanistan as part of the Taliban, the organization from within which the Al
Qaeda terrorist network launched those infamous attacks. Yet, in the face of
congressional legislation (the Non-Detention Act) expressly forbidding the executive
detention of any United States citizen except "pursuant to an Act of Congress," 18 U.S.C.
§ 4001(a), the Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 124 S.Ct. 2633 (2004), held that
such detention in the United States of individuals who are U.S. citizens captured while
fighting against American forces in Afghanistan "for the duration of the particular
conflict in which they were captured," in order to prevent them "from returning to the
field of battle and taking up arms once again," escapes the prohibition of that anti-detention
statute by virtue of its implied authorization by the AUMF as an exercise of the
"necessary and appropriate force" Congress authorized the President to use, a conclusion
supported by the fact that such detention for this limited purpose is a "fundamental and
accepted . . . incident to war." 124 S.Ct. at 2640.

If Hamdi treated the AUMF as an "explicit congressional authorization," 124
S.Ct. at 2640-41, for imprisoning an enemy combatant despite AUMF's failure to
mention "detention" or "imprisonment" in so many words, the argument goes, the AUMF
must be read to impliedly authorize the far less severe intrusion of merely eavesdropping
on our terrorist enemies, and on members of organizations that indirectly support them.
After all, the collection of "signals intelligence" about our enemies abroad is no less an
accepted incident of war than detaining the captured enemy -- just as signals intelligence
of foreign agents (including some going to and from the United States) has been accepted
as an inherent power of the President even in the absence of war. Surely, then, now that
Al Qaeda has launched a war against us, and now that Congress has responded with the
functional equivalent of a declaration of war in the AUMF, even the entirely innocent
American citizen in Chicago or Cleveland whose phone conversation with a member of
an Al Qaeda-supportive organization happens to be ensnared by the eavesdropping being
undertaken by the NSA cannot be heard to complain that no statute specifically
authorized the Executive to capture her telephone communications and e-mails as such.
Invasion of that citizen's privacy was, alas, but one of war's sad side effects -- a species
of collateral damage.

The technical legal term for that, I believe, is poppycock. Hamdi obviously rested
on the modest point that statutory authority to kill or gravely injure an enemy on the field
of battle impliedly authorizes one to take the far less extreme step of detaining that
enemy, solely for the duration of the battle, to prevent his return to fight against our
troops. Power to engage in domestic electronic surveillance on a wide scale within the
territorial United States -- intercepting, recording and transcribing conversations of
4unsuspecting citizens who have committed no wrong, are not foreign agents traveling to
and from the United States, and in fact pose no threat themselves but merely happen to
have accepted a phone call or received an e-mail from, or sent an e-mail to, a member of
an organization that is said to be supportive of the Al Qaeda network -- is by no stretch
of the legal imagination a "lesser included power" contained within the power to repel
future terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda on the United States.

Thus the argument that the AUMF does not impliedly authorize this wide-ranging
and indefinitely enduring program to extract potentially useful intelligence from ordinary
citizens easily survives challenge based on Hamdi. More than that, Hamdi in fact yields
added support for the conclusion that the AUMF cannot provide the requisite
authorization. For the Hamdi plurality agreed "that indefinite detention for the purpose of
interrogation," even of conceded enemy combatants, "is not authorized" by the AUMF.
124 S.Ct. at 2641 (emphasis added). It follows a fortiori that indefinite subjection of
American citizens who are not even alleged to be enemies, much less enemy combatants,
to ongoing invasions of their privacy in the United States for purposes of obtaining
valuable information is not authorized either.

Moreover, it makes a difference that the FISA's specific regulation of all
electronic surveillance in the United States deals with the subject at issue here in a far
more comprehensive and elaborate way than the Anti-Detention Statute involved in
Hamdi dealt with the military detentions at issue there -- military detentions that the
Court treated as falling within the Anti-Detention Statute merely for the sake of argument
when it held only that, if that statute otherwise applied, then it was trumped by the more
specifically relevant AUMF. Here, in contrast, there can be no serious doubt that it is the
FISA, and not the AUMF, that deals more specifically with the activity in question.
Construing the AUMF, taken in conjunction with the President's power as
Commander in Chief under Article II, as implicitly conferring broad authority to engage
in whatever warrantless surveillance the President might deem necessary in a war of
indefinite duration against Al Qaeda-related terrorism even in the face of FISA's
prohibitions would entail interpreting the AUMF far more broadly than anyone could, in
truth, have anticipated. If that AUMF authorization were indeed this broad, the President
must simply have overlooked its continued existence when he recently chided Congress
for failing to reenact the PATRIOT Act's provisions. To be sure, the AUMF, even on the
Justice Department's extravagant reading, enacted no criminal proscriptions of the sort
that parts of the PATRIOT Act included. Nor did it purport to authorize the President to
enact such criminal laws, morphing into some sort of one-man legislature. But, on the
government's broad reading, the AUMF certainly had armed the President, as of
September 18, 2001, with the authority to take most of the steps the PATRIOT Act
expressly authorized -- including all of the purely investigative and preventive actions it
empowered the President to take -- until the recent sunsetting of some of its provisions.
And it had empowered him as well, again on the government's reading, to override any
statutory prohibitions that might otherwise have stood in his way.

On the government's proposed reading of the AUMF, in other words, the
PATRIOT Act, insofar as it confers the powers of investigation and prevention most
fiercely sought by the President, becomes a needless and mostly redundant bauble. A
statutory construction with such bizarre and altogether unanticipated consequences --
and one that rests on so shaky a foundation -- would be inadmissible even if accepting it
would not leave us with serious questions under the Fourth Amendment, which it of
course would.

Finally, it is telling that Attorney General Gonzales, when asked in his December
19 press briefing why the administration hadn't simply proposed to Congress, in closed
session if necessary, that it amend FISA to grant legislative permission for the kind of
domestic surveillance program the President deemed essential to the nation's security,
replied that the administration had concluded such a request would probably have been
futile because Congress would most likely have denied the authority sought! To argue
that one couldn't have gotten congressional authorization (in late 2001, when the NSA
program was secretly launched) after arguing that, by the way, one did get congressional
authorization (in late 2001, when the AUMF was enacted) takes some nerve. Apart from
the obvious lapse in logic, it is axiomatic that legislative reluctance to relax or eliminate a
prohibition is no defense to a charge of its violation.

The inescapable conclusion is that the AUMF did not implicitly authorize what
the FISA expressly prohibited. It follows that the presidential program of surveillance at
issue here is a violation of the separation of powers -- as grave an abuse of executive
authority as I can recall ever having studied.

Yours truly, Laurence H. Tribe

[j2k4]

Conyers is from my state, Michigan.

I know what I think of him.

That he sought out Tribe's opinion is telling.

I know what I think of Tribe, too.

His opinion doesn't trump that any other legal "scholar".

The matter will be decided one way or another, and we will all live with and argue about the result.

Nothing new about that, either.

[j2k4]

What is your understanding of the transgressions alleged?
My understanding, based on your post is that there weren't any. That POTUS has the inherent power to do what he (they) did.

I did say alleged, didn't I? :huh:

[vidcc]

Conyers is from my state, Michigan.

I know what I think of him.

That he sought out Tribe's opinion is telling.

I know what I think of Tribe, too.

His opinion doesn't trump that any other legal "scholar".

The matter will be decided one way or another, and we will all live with and argue about the result.

Nothing new about that, either. Now now Kev.

You posted a "right wingers" opinion on the matter and i didn't make comments about the authors legal opinion based on his politics.

[j2k4]

Conyers is from my state, Michigan.

I know what I think of him.

That he sought out Tribe's opinion is telling.

I know what I think of Tribe, too.

His opinion doesn't trump that any other legal "scholar".

The matter will be decided one way or another, and we will all live with and argue about the result.

Nothing new about that, either. Now now Kev.

You posted a "right wingers" opinion on the matter and i didn't make comments about the authors legal opinion based on his politics.

Yes, yes.

You were the literal personification of civilized discourse. :dry:

[JPaul]

My understanding, based on your post is that there weren't any. That POTUS has the inherent power to do what he (they) did.

I did say alleged, didn't I? :huh:
My apologies, it's just a way of reading things. To me it was a silent "alleged".

If the transgressions were impossible (based on your post), then the allegations were of no consequence.

[j2k4]

I did say alleged, didn't I? :huh:
My apologies, it's just a way of reading things. To me it was a silent "alleged".

If the transgressions were impossible (based on your post), then the allegations were of no consequence.

Basically, what occurred was this-

Known terrorists' cell calls originating in Pakistan and Afghanistan were traced to U.S. locations.

The numbers at those locations (or cells) were monitored.

That's pretty much it.

I don't believe this constitutes infringement of any objectionable sort.

What do you think?

[JPaul]

My apologies, it's just a way of reading things. To me it was a silent "alleged".

If the transgressions were impossible (based on your post), then the allegations were of no consequence.

Basically, what occurred was this-

Known terrorists' cell calls originating in Pakistan and Afghanistan were traced to U.S. locations.

The numbers at those locations (or cells) were monitored.

That's pretty much it.

I don't believe this constitutes infringement of any objectionable sort.

What do you think?


Dead simple, put warrants in place. What was the problem in doing that.

Unless there wasn't enought time to do it. In which case exceptionally circumvent the proper procedure, but retrospectively apply.

I am uncomfortable with "known". By whom, some omniscient politician.

I am happier with probable cause, due process and constitutional rights.

The Court is there to listen to the argument that the criminal / crime is "known" and to make a desion on whether or not the person making this judgement has reasonable grounds to do so.

[j2k4]

edit

[j2k4]

I am uncomfortable with "known". By whom, some omniscient politician.

The Court is there to listen to the argument that the criminal / crime is "known" and to make a desion on whether or not the person making this judgement has reasonable grounds to do so.

By "known", I meant known in Pakistan and Afghanistan; on the "battlefield", as it were.

Should we seek domestically-issued warrants for foreign surveillance?

The "known" part is self-evident, stateside.

Reports indicate the desirability of warrantless surveillance was a factor, for tactical/technical/strategic reasons.

[vidcc]

on the lighter side



"The GOOD OLD PARTY line" - Republicans create millions of job opportunities

WASHINGTON D.C. - (NEWSWIRE) - January 13, 2006 - Save your country and get paid to help your fellow Americans have their voice heard.

Millions of positions available for the Bush administration's new "Reach Out and Tap Someone" program. According to a white house spokesman "The key to having your view heard in America is now as simple as picking up the phone, calling any friend, and mention words like terror, Jihad, or Guantanamo.
Once the government begins listening in you can mention bringing the troops home from Iraq, medical care for our citizens, and protecting the Alaska wilderness."

If the more than half of our country that didn't vote for George W. Bush begin to take advantage of this exciting new method of utilizing the first amendment it will require thousands of listeners. Not since the introduction of phone sex operators has a business opportunity been introduced that allows US workers to sit at home, watch TV, and make a living on the couch. Make money, and make a difference.

Apparently this offer is not void where prohibited about law.

[JPaul]

I am uncomfortable with "known". By whom, some omniscient politician.

The Court is there to listen to the argument that the criminal / crime is "known" and to make a desion on whether or not the person making this judgement has reasonable grounds to do so.

By "known", I meant known in Pakistan and Afghanistan; on the "battlefield", as it were.

Should we seek domestically-issued warrants for foreign surveillance?

The "known" part is self-evident, stateside.

Reports indicate the desirability of warrantless surveillance was a factor, for tactical/technical/strategic reasons.

Sorry misunderstood, I thought you were talking about foreign calls into, or out off the US, being made by suspected terrorists.

I can fully understand why, in a war situation, you would not wish to go to the power you were against in order to obtain warrants. That would just be mental

What is your current position re Pakistan. Is the USA on poor diplomatic terms with them.

"The "known" part is self-evident, stateside.", that's OK then.

[j2k4]

What is your current position re Pakistan. Is the USA on poor diplomatic terms with them.


I think we're basically OK with Pakistan; some of the calls originated there, we're told.

[JPaul]

What is your current position re Pakistan. Is the USA on poor diplomatic terms with them.


I think we're basically OK with Pakistan; some of the calls originated there, we're told.
To Afghanistan presumably.

Any reason you chaps didn't feel the need to get warrants in Pakistan, as you were bugging in their country.

Anyway, how would the Constitution have anything to do with this, if it wasn't US citizens and it wasn't in the USA.

[j2k4]

Anyway, how would the Constitution have anything to do with this, if it wasn't US citizens and it wasn't in the USA.

Therein lies the irony.

The Dems are screaming about stateside warrantless surveillance on numbers derived from the overseas component, raving that this constitutes rampant domestic infringement on the privacy of your average U.S. citizen.

Bush begs to differ.

[vidcc]

The Dems are screaming about stateside warrantless surveillance on numbers derived from the overseas component, raving that this constitutes rampant domestic infringement on the privacy of your average U.S. citizen.

Bush begs to differ.
Not just democrats. And who said the numbers are just those derived from overseas?...certainly not the whistleblower.

[j2k4]

The Dems are screaming about stateside warrantless surveillance on numbers derived from the overseas component, raving that this constitutes rampant domestic infringement on the privacy of your average U.S. citizen.

Bush begs to differ.
Not just democrats. And who said the numbers are just those derived from overseas?...certainly not the whistleblower.

The whistleblower's name is Johnny-Come-Lately.

Time will tell, I guess.

[JPaul]

I'm confused again. Have the US authorities been intercepting calls to/from the USA sans warrant.

Any chance of one of you chaps giving a yes/no answer on this. Or is it all just spin.

[vidcc]

I'm confused again. Have the US authorities been intercepting calls to/from the USA sans warrant.

Any chance of one of you chaps giving a yes/no answer on this. Or is it all just spin.
Yes they have. From 2001 at the very least.

[JPaul]

Well what's all the talk about "tactical/technical/strategic reasons" and applying for domestic warrants for foreign intercepts. The warrants would be applied for in the US Courts, for intercepts in the US.

Is there some tactical/technical/strategic reason for not applying to your own Courts.

[j2k4]

Well what's all the talk about "tactical/technical/strategic reasons" and applying for domestic warrants for foreign intercepts. The warrants would be applied for in the US Courts, for intercepts in the US.

Is there some tactical/technical/strategic reason for not applying to your own Courts.

Initially calls were made to the U.S. to numbers which in turn were surveilled.

It is from these taps the complaint derives.

Precisely why warrants for these taps were not pursued immediately has been claimed to be Executive prerogative by reasons of tactical/technical/strategic necessity; this prerogative is also indicated rather strongly by pending investigation of the Justice Dept. and the revelations of (to date) approximately nine "whistleblowers".

One wonders why, if there are nine to choose from, they've chosen to reveal the identity of the primary leaker, whose name ironically escapes me at the moment.

Is he the one who's associated with James Risen of the NYT and his abominable book?

Can't remember...

[vidcc]

Precisely why warrants for these taps were not pursued immediately has been claimed to be Executive prerogative by reasons of tactical/technical/strategic necessity; this prerogative is also indicated rather strongly by pending investigation of the Justice Dept. and the revelations of (to date) approximately nine "whistleblowers".


On the flip side you omit the questionable nature of the "Executive prerogative" as indicated by congressional hearings. :rolleyes:

BTW his name is Russell Tice

[JPaul]

Precisely why warrants for these taps were not pursued immediately has been claimed to be Executive prerogative by reasons of tactical/technical/strategic necessity
Sounds like bunkum to me.

On the assumption that you can make application for warrant ex-parte what reason is there to preclude Judges from the process. I can think of only two.

1. You suspect your Judges to be in league with the subject of the warrant.

2. You really want the warrants, but don't think you have enough evidence to convince a Judge that you should get them.

The latter appears the more likely. It boils down to this, "We, your Government, will stick to the rule of law, unless it becomes inconvenient".

The fact that previous Governments have also done this is irrelevant.

It wouldn't happen here.

[j2k4]

Precisely why warrants for these taps were not pursued immediately has been claimed to be Executive prerogative by reasons of tactical/technical/strategic necessity; this prerogative is also indicated rather strongly by pending investigation of the Justice Dept. and the revelations of (to date) approximately nine "whistleblowers".


On the flip side you omit the questionable nature of the "Executive prerogative" as indicated by congressional hearings. :rolleyes:

BTW his name is Russell Tice

I have noted previously just why the opposing Republican voices are making noise, and it should certainly be no mystery as to why the Dems are screeching.

The Congressional hearings?

Pay close attention to their timing and rhetoric relative to the Justice investigtion of the leak; it should be highly instructional.

[vidcc]

It boils down to this, "We, your Government, will stick to the rule of law, unless it becomes inconvenient".
Bush has taken to using signing statements when signing bills into law with the effect that he reserves the right to ignore such laws. He did it with the torture ban

[vidcc]

I have noted previously just why the opposing Republican voices are making noise, and it should certainly be no mystery as to why the Dems are screeching.

The Congressional hearings?

Pay close attention to their timing and rhetoric relative to the Justice investigtion of the leak; it should be highly instructional.

I take it you hold the impeachment of clinton by congress with the same "lack of importance" :rolleyes:

As to the timing well the story broke just before the holidays and the investigations were announced almost immediately. The story was "held down" because of the elections already. Should the hearings be delayed untill next year?

[j2k4]

Precisely why warrants for these taps were not pursued immediately has been claimed to be Executive prerogative by reasons of tactical/technical/strategic necessity
Sounds like bunkum to me.

On the assumption that you can make application for warrant ex-parte what reason is there to preclude Judges from the process. I can think of only two.

1. You suspect your Judges to be in league with the subject of the warrant.

2. You really want the warrants, but don't think you have enough evidence to convince a Judge that you should get them.

The latter appears the more likely. It boils down to this, "We, your Government, will stick to the rule of law, unless it becomes inconvenient".

The fact that previous Governments have also done this is irrelevant.

It wouldn't happen here.


So , then, to distill the situation to it's salient factors:

Foreign surveillance should be practiced only to the extent the host country's legal system will sanction it, OR-

If you choose to ignore the native legalisms in order to optimize the quality of the intelligence you are gathering, and the intelligence leads you inside your own borders to factions who are part of, or sympathetic to, those who are based overseas, THEN-

You must grant the interlopers the protections afforded average, non-combatant, bonafide U.S. citizens, thus affording them stealth status and rendering them impervious to any exceptional methods of deterrence.

Is that about right?

[j2k4]

I have noted previously just why the opposing Republican voices are making noise, and it should certainly be no mystery as to why the Dems are screeching.

The Congressional hearings?

Pay close attention to their timing and rhetoric relative to the Justice investigtion of the leak; it should be highly instructional.

I take it you hold the impeachment of clinton by congress with the same "lack of importance" :rolleyes:

What are you on about now?

[vidcc]

I take it you hold the impeachment of clinton by congress with the same "lack of importance" :rolleyes:

What are you on about now?

You seem to think that the hearings are purely about elections and nothing to do with the possibility that Bush could have broken the law. If this is the case then you must surely agree then that the clinton impeachment was about politics and nothing to do with purgery.

Glad you are with us on that.

[vidcc]

Sounds like bunkum to me.

On the assumption that you can make application for warrant ex-parte what reason is there to preclude Judges from the process. I can think of only two.

1. You suspect your Judges to be in league with the subject of the warrant.

2. You really want the warrants, but don't think you have enough evidence to convince a Judge that you should get them.

The latter appears the more likely. It boils down to this, "We, your Government, will stick to the rule of law, unless it becomes inconvenient".

The fact that previous Governments have also done this is irrelevant.

It wouldn't happen here.


So , then, to distill the situation to it's salient factors:

Foreign surveillance should be practiced only to the extent the host country's legal system will sanction it, OR-

If you choose to ignore the native legalisms in order to optimize the quality of the intelligence you are gathering, and the intelligence leads you inside your own borders to factions who are part of, or sympathetic to, those who are based overseas, THEN-

You must grant the interlopers the protections afforded average, non-combatant, bonafide U.S. citizens, thus affording them stealth status and rendering them impervious to any exceptional methods of deterrence.

Is that about right?

Are you suggesting that the secret court set up to deal precisely with this would refuse to allow tapping of those you described?

[JPaul]

Sounds like bunkum to me.

On the assumption that you can make application for warrant ex-parte what reason is there to preclude Judges from the process. I can think of only two.

1. You suspect your Judges to be in league with the subject of the warrant.

2. You really want the warrants, but don't think you have enough evidence to convince a Judge that you should get them.

The latter appears the more likely. It boils down to this, "We, your Government, will stick to the rule of law, unless it becomes inconvenient".

The fact that previous Governments have also done this is irrelevant.

It wouldn't happen here.


So , then, to distill the situation to it's salient factors:

Foreign surveillance should be practiced only to the extent the host country's legal system will sanction it, OR-

If you choose to ignore the native legalisms in order to optimize the quality of the intelligence you are gathering, and the intelligence leads you inside your own borders to factions who are part of, or sympathetic to, those who are based overseas, THEN-

You must grant the interlopers the protections afforded average, non-combatant, bonafide U.S. citizens, thus affording them stealth status and rendering them impervious to any exceptional methods of deterrence.

Is that about right?

What does any of that have to do with whether or not you should apply for a warrant when conducting technical surveillance in the USA, possibly on US citizens. It's not even specious, it's bunk.

If you need to do it, you can get a warrant. No-one is suggesting the authorities shouldn't do it, that would be mental.

With regard to "Foreign surveillance should be practiced only to the extent the host country's legal system will sanction it". If the Pakistani's wanted to carry out technical surveillance on US citizens, would you expect them just to do it in any way they wanted. Or would you expect them to follow the rules under your law and your Constitution - please note this is rhetorical as I know the answer already.

[j2k4]

Are you suggesting that the secret court set up to deal precisely with this would refuse to allow tapping of those you described?

I'm not suggesting anything except that I am not privy to the reasoning for bypassing that particular process, and note only that this was apparently done for a reason, because the administration has said that this is so.

I have not seen or read anything that indicates they are obligated to divulge the "why" of this, at least until the investigations pending are complete.

Once the status of the leak/leaker(s) is more firmly fixed, we may know more.

I think you'll find our "right to know" such things doesn't supercede the process.

[j2k4]

please note this is rhetorical as I know the answer already.

It would seem this qualifier could be stickied to most of what we write here. :D

[JPaul]

please note this is rhetorical as I know the answer already.

It would seem this qualifier could be stickied to most of what we write here. :D
:lol:

Indeed, the shoe fits, I shall wear it.

[JPaul]

I think you'll find our "right to know" such things doesn't supercede the process.
Unlike your administration's right to circumvent process.

[j2k4]

I think you'll find our "right to know" such things doesn't supercede the process.
Unlike your administration's right to circumvent process.


Did you miss something? :huh:

[JPaul]

Unlike your administration's right to circumvent process.


Did you miss something? :huh:
Often, but not this time.

You - POTUS doesn't have to go to Court to get warrants and he says he has his reasons.

You (out of character) - We should just accept he has good reasons and STFU.

Me - Such circumvention of process should only be when it is absolutely necessary e.g. no time.

Me - technical/tactical/strategic reasons = talking pish.

It's the torture thing all over again mate, follow rules until they become inconvenient.

[j2k4]

Did you miss something? :huh:
Often, but not this time.

You - POTUS doesn't have to go to Court to get warrants and he says he has his reasons.

You (out of character) - We should just accept he has good reasons and STFU.

Me - Such circumvention of process should only be when it is absolutely necessary e.g. no time.

Me - technical/tactical/strategic reasons = talking pish.

It's the torture thing all over again mate, follow rules until they become inconvenient.


Me - He has the power and legally-spelled-out authority to do what he did, though certain officials believe this not to be true; investigations are ensuing.

Until these investigations are complete, we have no right or overweening need to know the specifics of his reasonings; that is for the investigative effort to determine.

Until that point we can only lay rightful claim to a tortuous curiousity.


You - But what about the Constitution?


Me - See above.


You - But he's cheating!


Me - Not until it is proven; see above.


You - But you're talking pish.


Me - Prove it.


You - That's pish, too.


Me - No it's not.


You - Yes, it is.


Me - You talk pish yourself.


You - No I don't.


Me - Yes, I'm afraid you do.


You - Prove it.


Me - Prove it's not.


You - But what about the Constitution?


Me - Vid, is that you? :huh:

[vidcc]

Me - He has the power and legally-spelled-out authority to do what he did, though certain officials believe this not to be true; investigations are ensuing.

Until these investigations are complete, we have no right or overweening need to know the specifics of his reasonings; that is for the investigative effort to determine.


I beg to differ very strongly.

We may not have the right to know exactly which calls he tapped (for security reasons) but we have every right to know the specifics of what he bases his right to act as he has. Just saying "I am protecting the American people" is not an answer.

The president is our servant, not the other way round.

[j2k4]

Me - He has the power and legally-spelled-out authority to do what he did, though certain officials believe this not to be true; investigations are ensuing.

Until these investigations are complete, we have no right or overweening need to know the specifics of his reasonings; that is for the investigative effort to determine.


I beg to differ very strongly.

We may not have the right to know exactly which calls he tapped (for security reasons) but we have every right to know the specifics of what he bases his right to act as he has.

To steal a phrase, "That's just pish"

The president is our servant, not the other way round.

Come now, vid...that is only supposed to be true, but hasn't been since about 1800.

Go ahead and try to make the President your bitch.

I'll watch.

[vidcc]

To steal a phrase, "That's just pish"

And that is not an arguement. (unless you use Bush reasoning). And this from someone that feels the president owes the whole country an apology and an explaination for getting his dick sucked. If you feel we don't have that right, put forward your reasons why.
If the president says "I have that right" then he should explain where he gets that right from.

If you feel the president owes us no explaination then I suggest you move away from calling him mr. president and substitute mr. dictator


What do you think elections are for ?

[j2k4]

And this from someone that feels the president owes the whole country an apology and an explaination for getting his dick sucked.
If the president says "I have that right" then he should explain where he gets that right from.



Perhaps Clinton should have assayed his legal status vis a vis blow-jobs from fat girls (not his wife) in thongs.

He might have invoked Executive Privilege and avoided the whole thing.

I am saying that, as these matters will now be thoroughly investigated, Bush will be correct to reveal such particulars to those in charge of the ultimate disposition of the matter, which must assuredly ain't us.

You'll just have to wait for the impeachment, like we did for your boy Clinton.

BTW-this isn't an argument either, although it fits the bill as an answer perfectly. ;)

[JPaul]

Until these investigations are complete, we have no right or overweening need to know the specifics of his reasonings; that is for the investigative effort to determine.

Shall I ask for the Drawing Room to be closed, or have you already done that.

You - But what about the Constitution?

I really don't give a feck about the Constitution. I'm more interested in why he didn't apply to the Courts. Oh that's right, he had his reasons.



I tried to cut out as much bunkum as I could, it wasn't easy.

[j2k4]

Until these investigations are complete, we have no right or overweening need to know the specifics of his reasonings; that is for the investigative effort to determine.

Shall I ask for the Drawing Room to be closed, or have you already done that.

You - But what about the Constitution?

I really don't give a feck about the Constitution. I'm more interested in why he didn't apply to the Courts. Oh that's right, he had his reasons.



I tried to cut out as much bunkum as I could, it wasn't easy.


:lol:

[silent h3ro]

I guess the wiretaps worked....

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1600806&page=1

http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/feeds/ap/2006/02/09/ap2514860.html

[Busyman]

I guess the wiretaps worked....

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1600806&page=1

http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/feeds/ap/2006/02/09/ap2514860.html
I think it's bullshit that the illegal wiretaps are the reason this attack was foiled...if this attempt even existed.

Tbh, this whole administration is getting tiresome. I'd like to believe the President but skeptism gets in the way.

Either way, I don't understand why he can't get legal wiretaps AND if not, governments do covert spying all the time.

If he's signing off on shit like this he's doing a shit job at keeping it "covert".

Ex. secret prisons - I'm sure we've had secret prisons for decades. I'm sure many countries do. Now ours are public knowledge.

This administration does nothing well.

[3RA1N1AC]

IT'S NOT A SECRET IF EVERYBODY KNOWS ABOUT IT.
too true.

[vidcc]

I guess the wiretaps worked....

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1600806&page=1

http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/feeds/ap/2006/02/09/ap2514860.html


Erm........... there is nothing about this that suggests the wiretaps had anything to do with it. If they had don't you think Bush would have been shouting it out loud.
Some unnamed "asin country" is the hero here so it seems.

This was a political release to put pressure for the patriot act to be renewed.

[JPaul]

I guess the wiretaps worked....

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1600806&page=1

http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/feeds/ap/2006/02/09/ap2514860.html


Erm........... there is nothing about this that suggests the wiretaps had anything to do with it. If they had don't you think Bush would have been shouting it out loud.


Even if it did that's no reason for going thro' the proper procedures to get the warrants. Unless of course you get better evidence from an illegal tap. :blink:

[silent h3ro]

I guess the wiretaps worked....

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1600806&page=1

http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/feeds/ap/2006/02/09/ap2514860.html


Erm........... there is nothing about this that suggests the wiretaps had anything to do with it. If they had don't you think Bush would have been shouting it out loud.
Some unnamed "asin country" is the hero here so it seems.

This was a political release to put pressure for the patriot act to be renewed.Actually it does... I got it off a news site which said Bush's wiretaps successfully foiled terrorist attemps. I agree that this sounds like bs too tho because even if Bush never said that they worked then more ppl would dislike him. He couldn't even say much details about how it worked or where they tapped.

[vidcc]

Erm........... there is nothing about this that suggests the wiretaps had anything to do with it. If they had don't you think Bush would have been shouting it out loud.
Some unnamed "asin country" is the hero here so it seems.

This was a political release to put pressure for the patriot act to be renewed.Actually it does... I got it off a news site which said Bush's wiretaps successfully foiled terrorist attemps. I agree that this sounds like bs too tho because even if Bush never said that they worked then more ppl would dislike him. He couldn't even say much details about how it worked or where they tapped.
Forgive me. I was going by what Bush actually said and not the assumed analasys of a news report.

[silent h3ro]

Actually it does... I got it off a news site which said Bush's wiretaps successfully foiled terrorist attemps. I agree that this sounds like bs too tho because even if Bush never said that they worked then more ppl would dislike him. He couldn't even say much details about how it worked or where they tapped.
Forgive me. I was going by what Bush actually said and not the assumed analasys of a news report.Ohhhh its cool. I guess I took that the wrong way.

[vidcc]

funny how "conservative" views on civil rights change (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a27337612f5.htm) :rolleyes:

[Busyman]

funny how "conservative" views on civil rights change (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a27337612f5.htm) :rolleyes:
Good find on old news I was igorant of.

That shit sounds similiar to the Patriot Act besides the fact that you can be detained without anyone knowing. The Patriot Act goes a step further.

Both of them suck.

What ever happened to "covert"?


Physical searches to gather foreign intelligence depend on secrecy, argued Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick. If the existence of these searches were known to the foreign power targets, they would alter their activities to render the information useless.

:1eye: dUh! :1eye:

[j2k4]

funny how "conservative" views on civil rights change (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a27337612f5.htm) :rolleyes:

Did you read what you posted?

It seems you've suffered a bit of a misapprehension.

[vidcc]

So they wern't complaining about abuse of the 4th?
Some of the outrage


This is beyond frightening. Thank you for this find. . . .

Franz Kafka would have judged this to wild to fictionalize. But for us - it's real. . . .

Any chance of Bush rolling some of this back? It sounds amazing on its face. Why didn't Wen Ho Lee just "disappear" into one of these Star Chambers, never to return? . . .

This is one of those ideas that has a valid purpose behind it, but is wide open to terrible abuse. And there's no way to check to see if it is abused.

Like all things that don't have the light of day shining on them, you can be sure that it is being twisted to suit the purposes of those who hold the power.