come on "constructionists"

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?

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form into squares, circles etc this lead to the minimalists whom believe (stll today) that the purest "painting" (outdated genre) is a "monocrome" (one coloured surface).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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

That's just bigoted thinking, it should be open to anyone.

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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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

Quote:

---

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

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...;)

[QUOTE=j2k4]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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?

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I'll deal with you later,

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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"

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2rushk4

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3RA1N1AC

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;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3RA1N1AC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidNancycc

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2rushk4

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

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.

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.

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. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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!

Or here!

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

heterosexually yours,

JG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jesus' general

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..

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2

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.

So what was the justification for the interceptions sans warrant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

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

Unless there is some time related issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

..

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.