Warrantless wiretapping ruled illegal

[bascule]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/17/domesticspying.lawsuit.ap/index.html

 

So what's next? Will the appeal uphold the ruling? Will anyone ever be held responsible?

[Sisyphus]

Finally.

[Saryctos]

How is it against free speach for the gov't to hear what you're saying?

 

There may be some valid arguments for reasons concerning privacy, but Which laws specificly state that intercepting communications which are perceived to be private cannot be held without a warrent? I know that the communication intercepted without a warrent cannot be used in a court of law as evidence against you, but where does it say that an agency cannot maintain the use of this information for internal persuits?

[5614]

I think that warrantless wiretapping should be legal, if the security services or a government have some reason to suspect someone, they should be able to wiretap, without having to go through the process of getting a warrant.

[bascule]

How is it against free speach for the gov't to hear what you're saying?

 

You're confused. The problem here isn't the First Amendment, it's the Fourth Amendment which protects against unreasonable search and seisure.

 

There may be some valid arguments for reasons concerning privacy, but Which laws specificly state that intercepting communications which are perceived to be private cannot be held without a warrent?

 

Beyond the Fourth Amendment, there's also the Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Act (FISA)

 

I know that the communication intercepted without a warrent cannot be used in a court of law as evidence against you, but where does it say that an agency cannot maintain the use of this information for internal persuits?

 

The US Constitution

[bascule]

I think that warrantless wiretapping should be legal, if the security services or a government have some reason to suspect someone, they should be able to wiretap, without having to go through the process of getting a warrant.

 

Big Brother is watching you

[5614]

Big Brother is watching you

It wasn't me though! Stop stalking me you illegal....!

[Sisyphus]

It's very easy to get a warrant if you actually have a reason for listening.

[Jim]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/17/domesticspying.lawsuit.ap/index.html

 

So what's next? Will the appeal uphold the ruling? Will anyone ever be held responsible?

 

Who do you want to be held responsible? How do you want them to be held responsible?

 

This is a contest between the three branches of government and, even if the judiciary side with the legislative branch, the President was doing nothing more than what he was supposed to do in championing his own powers.

 

My non-expert opinion is that there was a good faith legal dispute here that could go any direction depending on the composition of the supreme court at a given moment.

 

I still think that the fundamental point of disagreement relates to what it means to be in a war and are we in one now. I don't think most people would chide FDR if he used this type of power in WWII.

[Jim]

It's very easy to get a warrant if you actually have a reason for listening.

 

We've had this debate before and I do not think that is a given. There is a small book to be written for each warrent under FISA.

[Saryctos]

You're confused. The problem here isn't the First Amendment, it's the Fourth Amendment which protects against unreasonable search and seisure.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.

Perhaps it is she who is confused.

As for the fourth amendment, I see nothing there preventing a wiretap. a) unreasonable search? It's completely non-invasive in practice. b)The electronic information they gather traverses through cables not owned by the citizens, so It's not really invading their privacy.

 

All that aside, I really cannot see where the 4th provides a right to privacy. This, being the link to when it was interpretted to mean so, I completely disagree that the discision was correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

 

Beyond the Fourth Amendment, there's also the Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Act (FISA)

This being an internal issue, I don't really see why you would refrence the laws for information gathering on foreign surveillence.

 

The US Constitution

Nowhere in there does it state anything relevent for what I was quoted. One could say that rights not enumerated, i.e. the 9th ammendment provides a right to privacy, but this isn't expressly written, so just saying "The US Constitution" is a bit foolish, considering that would make any form of indirect information gathered would be unconstitutional.

[bascule]

As for the fourth amendment, I see nothing there preventing a wiretap

 

Unless you are a Constitutional lawyer who has extensively studied case law, your interpretation of any given amendment counts for jack. Sorry.

 

This being an internal issue, I don't really see why you would refrence the laws for information gathering on foreign surveillence.

 

You appear to be completely out of touch with this issue, and reality. Could you please study it a little, then get back to me? FISA has been the centerpiece of this case.

 

Nowhere in there does it state anything relevent for what I was quoted.

 

And this is why armchair lawyering should be shunned.

 

One could say that rights not enumerated, i.e. the 9th ammendment provides a right to privacy, but this isn't expressly written, so just saying "The US Constitution" is a bit foolish, considering that would make any form of indirect information gathered would be unconstitutional.

 

Trying to make arguments based on your own interpretation of the text of the Constitution alone, ignoring all surrounding precedent, is foolish.

[bascule]

Who do you want to be held responsible?

 

Bush, who signed off on the program repeatedly throughout its lifetime.

 

How do you want them to be held responsible?

 

Impeachment. We'll see what happens after this november.

 

This is a contest between the three branches of government and, even if the judiciary side with the legislative branch, the President was doing nothing more than what he was supposed to do in championing his own powers.

 

This is perhaps the most blatant way in which this administration has attempted to unduly usurp power (with the possibile exception of signing statements)

 

I don't see any way the NSA wiretapping program can be justified, but it will be interesting to see if a legitimate claim can be made about problems with the FISA court system authorizing warrants and if there was ever legitimate timeliness problems which could've resulted in a terrorist attack.

 

But what it comes down to is: when have we ever let timeliness trump a lack of evidence elsewhere in our court system?

 

My non-expert opinion is that there was a good faith legal dispute here that could go any direction depending on the composition of the supreme court at a given moment.

 

I'm sure he's glad he's being judged by two of his buddies.

 

I still think that the fundamental point of disagreement relates to what it means to be in a war and are we in one now. I don't think most people would chide FDR if he used this type of power in WWII.

 

This is a war the administration has created. The Al Qaeda network is effectively dead. Terror case after terror case has been overblown by the administration, and time and time again defendants were exhonorated for lack of evidence. I believe we're seeing the same thing happening in the UK right now with the "hair gel bombers" and I believe they were captured due to pressure from the US and not because the opposed an immediate threat.

 

I think the real question is: did the Administration create the circumstances which it uses to justify its attempt to usurp more power?

[Pangloss]

Come on, Bascule, you're better than that post. You just slammed a guy for having an opinion even though he's not a constitutional scholar, and in the very next post demanded that Bush be impeached (I guess you're a lawyer), stated factually that Bush fabricated evidence for the War in Iraq (I guess you're an intelligence analyst), declared that Al Qaeda no longer exists (I guess you're a member of the National Security Council), and ruled summarily that there was no threat from the people who were arrested in the UK the other day (I guess you also work for Scotland Yard).

 

Hell why not throw in a 9/11 conspiracy theory while you're at it?

 

I applaud you for shrugging off Bill O'Reilly. I hope this isn't an indication that all you've done is trade him in for Al Franken.

[bascule]

Come on, Bascule, you're better than that post.

 

Criticise something specific and I will address it.

[Pangloss]

Edited above.

[bascule]

All right, thank you for improving specificity.

 

Come on, Bascule, you're better than that post. You just slammed a guy for having an opinion even though he's not a constitutional scholar

 

He has no knowledge of why FISA is applicable to this case. This case centers around why Bush chose to implement this program to circumvent the FISA courts. He's clearly demonstrated ignorance of the issues at hand, and furthermore, his arguments center around his personal interpretation of the explicit text of the Fourth Amendment, rather than case law.

 

and in the very next post demanded that Bush be impeached (I guess you're a lawyer)

 

IANAL, however, I would say the court decision presently corroborates my position. As to whether or not the decision is upheld during the appeals process, only time will tell.

 

stated factually that Bush fabricated evidence for the War in Iraq (I guess you're an intelligence analyst)

 

When exactly did I do that? (Not that I don't consider that to be the case...)

 

declared that Al Qaeda no longer exists (I guess you're a member of the National Security Council)

 

Al Qaeda is a name the US created when they attempted to try Bin Laden on racketeering charges in January 2001, and a name he subsequently adopted when he discovered that Al Qaeda was what the US was calling his organization.

 

It's a name terrorists with a loose connection to Bin Laden have adopted to draw media attention to their terrorist actions, namely al-Zarqawi.

 

"Al Qaeda" is little more than a moniker self-applied by certain groups of radical Islamicists with an anti-American agenda. Their connections to Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri are virtually non-existent.

 

and ruled summarily that there was no threat from the people who were arrested in the UK the other day (I guess you also work for Scotland Yard).

 

I am of the opinion that the administration has substantially overinflated the terrorist threat against this country as part of a campaign to instill fear in an attempt to increase their power.

 

Hell why not throw in a 9/11 conspiracy theory while you're at it?

 

I'm certain you are aware how viciously I decry the 9/11 conspiracy. I have walked past multiple fire stations in New York. I have seen plaques on the walls for each firefighter who died in 9/11. Many 9/11 conspiracy theorists claim that FDNY demolished WTC7 as part of the 9/11 conspiracy. I find this accusation loathesome and vengeful. I do not believe my qualms with the Bush administration are similarly misdirected.

 

The 9/11 attack was the brainchild of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. It was funded and organized by Bin Laden. It was executed by members of the Islamicist movement. Anyone who says otherwise isn't looking at the facts.

 

I applaud you for shrugging off Bill O'Reilly. Now can I talk you into shrugging off Air America?

 

I don't listen to Air America

[Pangloss]

That's much more like the bascule I know.

 

I apologize -- I misinterpreted your line "This is a war the administration has created." to mean that you believe it to be factual that they fabricated evidence of WMDs. I see now that I was mistaken, sorry about that. The statement is actually one I agree with, just not the conclusion that WMD evidence was fabricated or known to be false (I still see that as speculative).

 

Getting back to the point, I feel that you're deliberately spinning events in order to make Bush look worse than he is, and doing so at a direct cost of people's safety regarding terrorism. You downplay things like the recent aircraft plot and overstate cases of innocent people held in custody, while ignoring things like the London and Madrid bombings and the fact that plenty of REAL terrorists may well be behind bars. Sure, you score points with me when you talk about fairness and decency and due process -- absolutely. Then you throw them out the window again when you talk about impeachment and "overblown" dangers from terrorism.

 

You think the comparison with 9/11 conspiracy theories was invalid and insulting? Too bad. You've made your bed. Now you get to sleep in it. If you find it uncomfortable, well I truly am sorry, but you are wallowing in the mud with pigs. When you care more about spinning the truth and winning political victories at all costs, people like me step up and point out to other people what those costs are. And that's when you lose.

 

You know what? I don't live in a fascist state, and neither do you. Hasn't the rise of Iran and North Korea taught you anything about what that really looks like? We're here, we're talking, we're having an open discussion. Nobody is knocking on my door, demanding my hard drive. Nobody is knocking on your door, handcuffing you and taking you to Guantanamo Bay. THE SKY IS NOT FALLING. No matter how badly you wish it were otherwise, George Bush is in charge, and everything is pretty much okay. Concerns? Sure, I'm full of them. Red Alerts, with shields down and photon torpedos inbound? Not so much.

 

That kind of ideological nonsense didn't work when it was about "Thatcherism" and "Ronnie's Ray Gun", it didn't work when it was "Billyboy and his loose belt", and it doesn't work today with George W. Bush. You're not controlling the message. You're not fooling anybody. Bush's approval rating isn't down because Howard Dean and Al Franken are winning hearts and minds. His approval rating is down because of the war in Iraq and high gas prices. The ideological nature of the country hasn't changed one iota.

 

And it WON'T change so long as people keep pounding the podium instead of LISTENING to one another.

[bascule]

Again, I'd appreciate a rebuttal of the points with which you disagree, rather than a barrage of generalities.

 

Here's a series of points. Care to refute them?

 

In the history of the FISA court system, they had turned down at most 5 warrants and requested 200 be modified, of 18,761 granted ([Wikipedia, trust at your own risk!] That's 0.02% rejected, 1% modified.

 

Is the rise in rejections and requested modifications under Bush indicative of a systemic problem with 1) the Bush administration 2) the FISA court system.

 

Is the argument that the number of requested warrants under the Bush administation exceeded the capacity of the FISA court system to handle them justifiable, and are claims of increased danger legitimate?

 

You downplay things like the recent aircraft plot and overstate cases of innocent people held in custody, while ignoring things like the London and Madrid bombings and the fact that plenty of REAL terrorists may well be behind bars.

 

Let me juxtapose this with:

 

THE SKY IS NOT FALLING

 

How does the threat of terrorism compare to heart disease? Smoking? Systemic problems with the average US diet leading to an obesity epidemice? HIV/AIDS? Cancer?

 

Or even... people drowning in their bathtubs? People getting struck by lightning? Suicide?

 

Isn't the threat posed by terrorists overblown? Isn't the persistent malaise of a populus in constant fear contributing to an already sagging economy? And are there any legitimate indications that existing security measures implemented by the US aren't effective? Have we caught terrorists in the midst of a plot against the US, ever, since 9/11?

 

Where are the convictions? Excuse me if I'm being igonrant here, but as far as I can tell, we've arrested several terror suspects, but have any ever been convicted, and if so, of what?

 

The sky isn't falling, Pangloss. So what exactly are we giving up our civil liberties for, other than the Administration's insatiable thirst for power?

 

As far as impeachment goes, this administration has been rife with corruption. Billions of billions of dollars we have invested in Iraq have myseteriously disappeared in a slew of accounting errors. Halliburton has garnered tens of billions in a multitude of no-bid Iraq contracts.

 

And the FISA court system has been circumvented in the wake of an invisible enemy.

 

Why?

 

I am not afraid of terrorists. I am afraid of cancer.

 

Could $300 billion have found a cure for cancer? Isn't that a much more pressing issue?

[doG]

It's very easy to get a warrant if you actually have a reason for listening.

Yes it is but....

 

Suppose a call comes in to the U.S. from a known Al Qaeda operative outside the country. How can our own agents get a warrant to listen to the call before the call is over with? Should such phone calls from a known Al Qaeda operative, to possibly activate some terrorist action be protected, under the 4th Amendment or FISA? To what extent should we allow organizations like Al Qaeda to use our own Constitution against us so that they can successfully launch their operations against our own citizens?

[JohnB]

Bascule, one thing that confuses me (and possibly other non Americans) is why would Bush go to all the effort in the "Administration's insatiable thirst for power"? He's going to be gone in two years time at which point he will just be another ex-President. What's the point? He could be handing all this power to a Democrat in 2008, so what's in it for him? He's got a lust for power just so he can give it to the next guy?

 

If the comments refer to your Parliment, then these powers only benefit the Republicans while they control the government, this too could change after the next election. Unless you expect that the Democrats would also abuse these powers should they gain the Presidency?

 

Sorry mate, but from this side of the Pacific comments about lust for power when the guy is going to be gone in two years just seem a bit silly. I realise you blokes tend to either love or loathe your Presidents, but they are only politicians for crying out loud. You can get rid of them at the next election you know.

[Pangloss]

Again' date=' I'd appreciate a rebuttal of the points with which you disagree, rather than a barrage of generalities.

[/quote']

 

Don't straw-man me. It's not your specifics I'm objecting to -- I've agreed with many of them in the past and still agree to their relevance (and the associated dangers) today.

 

It's YOUR "barrage of generalities" that I'm objecting to:

 

This is perhaps the most blatant way in which this administration has attempted to unduly usurp power (with the possibile exception of signing statements)

Terror case after terror case has been overblown by the administration, and time and time again defendants were exhonorated for lack of evidence.

I believe we're seeing the same thing happening in the UK right now with the "hair gel bombers" and I believe they were captured due to pressure from the US and not because the opposed an immediate threat.

(I asked you a SPECIFIC probing question about that, and you didn't reply, and yet here you are repeating the assertion without even responding to the question. Do you really want to "talk specifics", or do you just want to further your agenda?)

I think the real question is: did the Administration create the circumstances which it uses to justify its attempt to usurp more power?

This is a war the administration has created.

The Al Qaeda network is effectively dead.

 

 

And the specifics you call for based on those whopping generalities:

Bush, who signed off on the program repeatedly throughout its lifetime.

Impeachment. We'll see what happens after this november.

 

It's not your opinion I have a problem with, Bascule. It's your sweeping partisanship and conclusions based on presumptions, combined with a refusal to discuss other possibilities, that I object to. You're channeling Al Franken on my favorite politics board, and I don't like it, and more than you (or I) would like it if someone stepped in here and started channeling Rush Limbaugh. I also think you're better than that, and you've allowed yourself to be swept away by partisanship in direct opposition to logic and reason.

[bascule]

And the specifics you call for based on those whopping generalities

 

Bush' date=' who signed off on the program repeatedly throughout its lifetime.[/quote']

 

Impeachment. We'll see what happens after this november.

 

How exactly are those statements based off "whopping generalities"?

 

Let's try this again:

 

- Bush created this program, and reauthorized it over 30 times.

- A federal judge has ruled the program illegal and unconstitutional.

 

Those aren't "whopping generalities". Those are the facts.

[Jim]

Impeachment.

 

What should be the remedy if FISA is found to have usurped power granted the executive in the Constitution?

 

Here's a damning review of Judge Taylor's opinion. I've not read the opinion yet but if it's true that she didn't hear evidence on the TSP this opinion may have a very short shelf life.

[Pangloss]

You know, if there is one thing I cannot stand in online debate it's people who, when confronted with their errors, draw things out endlessly by spinning and obfuscating details and focusing on side issues, in desperate hope that other observers will lose interest and drift away from the topic, or even better, assume that both sides are in error and call the match a draw. It's a pathetic, weasly thing to do, cheapening debate and lowering the value of all other discussions that take place here.

 

Would you like to take another shot at your last reply, Bascule?