Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
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.
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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:
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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:
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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. Just saying "I am protecting the American people" is not an answer.
The president is our servant, not the other way round.
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
