Federal judge orders end to wiretap program

I think I'd rather have my guns and worry about whether someone is listening to my phone conversation!
Click to expand...
On the mark again, I see. So long as you give .gov the right to snoop into your everyday telephone conversations, they will surely never find reason to check into your firearms purchases or ownership.

Now THAT is what I call brilliant tactics.
Rich
 
"NICS"?
That's not hardly enough, contender. "NIC's" is the equivalent of Airline Security back in the days before .gov took it over and made such sense out of it as we have today. NIC's is for pansies in this War on [What Is Today's War?]. NIC's is tantamount to the Fourth Amendment back before the days of Mass Warrantless Wiretaps. It's an anachronism.

An anachronism just like "gun owners". Many Gun Owners have "tendencies". They demonstrate an [almost] Phallic Love Affair with weapons of [mass] destruction. Why would We ever believe that They would abide by NICs checks when They have already demonstrated Their tendencies toward [Mass] Violence; when They could easily buy more weapons on the Black Market?

No, NIC's is just the beginning for Right Thinking Americans like you and I. We want something more than what those Fools offered us 250 years ago. In fact, We DEMAND it. SAFETY....that's the ticket.

Thanks for joining me in this crusade. You do your Nation proud with your clear understanding of its principles and its heritage.

Tell every other Right Thinking American, far and wide: Safety At All Costs!
Rich
 
I'm with Eghad. Give them a right and they'll end up controlling your life. And you won't have any guns to play with either.
I understand what they say they're trying to do with wiretapping and all. But what are they really doing? No one knows.
For the people,by the people is no more.
It's more like, to the people,by the government.
NICS is a way for the gov and anti gunners to keep track of who's got what and how many.
"Terrorism" is a way for bush to make himself look good. Just like he is going to claim that we stopped the war in Israel.
All this is BS and I wonder just how much of the crap on the news in planted by gov to help somebody look good.
Gun control works,just ask Hitler.
Trust your government...ha ha!! They're all a bunch that swings the way the dollars dictate.
When are the people going to realize we're being "led" by a bunch of anal retentive crooks that will lie to make the gov look good.
Let us have our guns,let us protect what's left of this country.
Put some real (working man) types in government and get this crap over with.
I don't care if I'm being recorded but they probably won't like what I have to say about all the crap going on in gov today.And I doubt it's going to stop terrorists either.
We got a pres that ignores the constitution and the bill of rights and makes his own policy. What next? And he's still in office?????:confused:
He didn't even serve real military time and he's running the show now? I want to puke every time I see him salute real military people.
He's about as qualified as I am. At least I did 4 years in the USAF during 'Nam.
Heck I may be more qualified.I just don't have enough money to pump into getting elected.
We're screwed and it's going to get worse.
BS BS BS BS Bulls**t is what it is.
 
Yah that's it!! Let's turn a blind eye on terrorists, take our chances. MAYBE they'll leave us alone:rolleyes:
By the way, you guys keep talkin about Hitler and his gun control, our current administration doesn't want your guns! If you recall That was the last set.:mad:
 
Yah that's it!! Let's turn a blind eye on terrorists, take our chances. MAYBE they'll leave us alone
Click to expand...

Again, that's a false dilemma. Our choices aren't limited to surrendering our freedoms or ignoring terrorist threats.
 
Geech said:
Again, that's a false dilemma. Our choices aren't limited to surrendering our freedoms or ignoring terrorist threats.
Click to expand...

How else are they suppose to gather intelligence in a timely manner? It's already been stated that a warrant for a wire tap on a single line is useless because they use diposable phones. I'm the last to say I want my rights violated, but am I so conceited as to say my right to a private conversation is worth more than someone's life taken by a terrorist?
 
We got a pres that ignores the constitution and the bill of rights and makes his own policy. What next? And he's still in office?????
Click to expand...

What scares me most about this is the precident he's set for when a REAL liberal (think Hillary, gun grabber, etc) becomes president.
 
Guys I was going to stay out of this one but after reading several of the replys, I feel compelled to jump in.

Not to long ago I was jumped all over for getting off topic and some of the post were less than complimentary, and here is a lot of replys to the origional post that are totally off topic in my opinion, and it seems to be just fine, Sort of a double standard as far as I can see. the Question was inregard to the Judges decision to rule that the Wire taps are unconstitutional, be that as it may, what if anything does that have to do with any of our guns or our collections, or some of the other comments that were off topic.

If you don't like the President trying to protect our backsides from the people that would be really happy killing us all, fine that is your opinion, I don't think any one of you would say that he was wrong if the ones that were not killed were your family members if the attack was stoped by the methods the President is using to try to protect the people of the United States.

If the wire taps will keep more US Citizens froim getting killed by a bunch of fanatics so be it, You go on and protect your guns and collections which is your right to do and I would be glad to stand watch with you to do the same.

This issue was not about our guns it was about the Legality of the wire taps to try to detect terrorits plans, cells, plots, and Methods of operation, I personally have no problem with it.

The thing that gets me here is the way I was chastized for getting off topic by some of the people here on the FORUM and I agreed that I was in fact off topic and apoligized for my error even went to the extent of removing offending post, I tell you for a fact that won't happen again, What's good for the GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER. I'm DONE NOW!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
Not quite done yet, one question for you all, WHICH ONE OF YOU COULD HONESTLY DO A BETTER JOB UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

In a situation where every thing you try to do is blocked by the opposing party, you are constantly called a liar, your own party turns on you for their own political gain, because of the midterm ellections and you are trying to be the best president you know how to be, to protect the people to the best of your ability, and yet all the support you get are fron the swords that have been put in your back to prop you up from falling down.

The president of the United States is nothing more than a Whipping post for every one to take a turn at the CAT-O-Nine Tails.

Just try to put yourself in his position, and see what you would do, no never mind because you every one will take the high ground and say "WELL I WOULDN'T DO WHAT HE IS DOING". BS

HE didn't steal the ellection in 2000 and was reelected in 04, so that should mean that he was doing something right untill the Press and the DEMOCRATS started their hate campain all over againt and the war didn't go just the way the anti's thought it should, and they got tired of the thing and there was no political gain for continuing the fight, except to keep on bashing BUSH.

I probably should have stayed out of this one but I'm a glutton for punishment, so fire away, I won't reply though so know that up front, Now I'm Done!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
contender,
Try this on for size: We handle the threat of terrorism legally and within the scope of the Constitution. You have yet to explain to me why this is so impossible.
In the specific case of the wiretapping, very little changes. You can still listen in on whatever you want. Make a note of the number and why you chose that particular number. Take it to the secret court set up specifically to handle this. You're in the clear even if you wait several days after the fact. They will give you the okay so long as you're not abusing the privelige.

What...is so difficult about this? How does this, in any way, keep them from tracking terrorists?
 
Kelly,
It is *not* his sworn duty to protect the people of the United States, it's his sworn duty to protect the CONSTITUTION . Nobody ever guaranteed you safety or protection, but they did guarantee you your individual rights.

Under the circumstances, I honestly feel that I could do a better job.
 
-the separation of powers doctrine,
-the Administrative Procedures Act,
-the First
-and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution,
-the FISA and
-Title III."
Click to expand...


-the separation of powers doctrine, intelligence gathering falls under the president
-the Administrative Procedures Act,
-the First Nobody has said you can't say anything you want
-and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution, How is listening to possible terrorists unreasonable search
-the FISA allows for monitoring calls
-Title III. what human rights are being ignored? Is it now a human right to be able to plan a terrorist attack without govt interferrance?

I'm sure my calls have been monitored and have no problem with it. I frequently call home from Pakistan on a pakistani pre-paid cell phone. If they would like to hear about my day, my wifes day, my kids day, the cat throwing up on the couch, I don't care. Listen away if eventually they hear someone talking about future plans and the can intervene early to stop a plan, good.

How many terrorists have we caught so far using wire taps? I don;'t mean "potential" terrorists, I mean actual terrorists.

How many innocent people have been harrassed or have had their privacy infringed upon?
Click to expand...

A potential terrorist is someone they stop before they are able to execute there plan. I'm happy if they catch them before they make their plan a reality.

If you don't think that other government agancies from outside the U.S. aren't listening to conversations from their end you would be wrong. Pakastani ISI is listening to calls originating in Pakistan to the U.S. and UK from people they suspect. I'm sure UK officials are listening to calls from the U.S. and Pakistan from people they suspect and neither are getting warrents in the U.S. to listen to your private calls.
I wouldn't consider it harrassment or infingment listening to calls originating from outside the U.S. from countries that have a high terrorist content. I would call it prudent.
Remember the calls they were intercepting (the NSA said) originated outside the U.S. I look at it as the price of doing business. If I don't want my calls intercepted, I won't call from countries that have a high terrorist content.
 
If you recall That was the last set.
Click to expand...

Did Pres. Bush say that if Congress renewed the Assault Weapons ban he would sign it. The minute those politicians dont need the gun owners vote they will be on firearms rights quicker than a school of pirhana on fresh meat.
 
goslash said:
contender,
Try this on for size: We handle the threat of terrorism legally and within the scope of the Constitution. You have yet to explain to me why this is so impossible.
In the specific case of the wiretapping, very little changes. You can still listen in on whatever you want. Make a note of the number and why you chose that particular number. Take it to the secret court set up specifically to handle this. You're in the clear even if you wait several days after the fact. They will give you the okay so long as you're not abusing the privelige.

What...is so difficult about this? How does this, in any way, keep them from tracking terrorists?
Click to expand...

Did you just completely skip my last post. If they use diposable phones that meens the number is diffferent EVERY time they call.:rolleyes: How much good will it do to get a warrant on a number when that number probably will never be used by the suspect again????
As far as doing a better job let's hear your plan of action for stopping potential terrorist attacks.
 
Uniformed discussion is always so stimulating.

It is obvious that the majority of posters have not read the Judges opinion and have no understanding of the law.

Try reading.

http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/taylorpdf/06%2010204.pdf

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=113132

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008816

A lawyers analysis.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015042.php

More analysis.

http://newsbusters.org/node/7045

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/18/1950/58256

Then get back with a little more informed intelligent discussion.

Whether you agree or disagree with the program, a basic understanding of law and an understanding of the components necessary to argue is essential to an intelligent conversation.

The Judge?s decision has no legal basis, if you are for the wire taps her decision is helpful because it will easily struck down. If you are against wire taps her decision is harmful because it is such a poor legal argument.

A politically motivated judiciary is a poor way to legislate.

Charles
 
Charles-
Agreed it will be overturned, but not because her reasoning was so flawed; simply on the grounds of the State Secrets Doctrine.....which is a bit of an abomination in itself.

The SSD says that, if facts in a case will reveal State Secrets, that case must be dismissed. In order to rule against the Wiretap Program, Judge Taylor had to come to the conclusion that no State Secrets were at issue. Personally, I think she makes a persuasive argument: In her opinion she writes that the program is well known throughout the world (and to Al Qaeda); further, that she has reviewed its classified portions and does not find that those will be necessary for the State to make its case. Thus the State Secrets Doctrine does not apply.

I believe this will be over-ruled by the higher Court, given its inclination to increase Presidential Power.

But what is at issue for us as voters is the White House assertion that it has, essentially, Supreme Power in times of undeclared, fuzzily defined War; so long as that position is upheld, it allows this (or any future) Administration to act independent of Congress (and the Courts) in attaining its goals.....so long as it unilaterally declares War on something or someone.

What is at stake here is summed up in a simple question:
Is the Bill of Rights a fair weather document only, to be disregarded in times of perpetual, undeclared War? If so, it should never have been penned in the first place. I, for one, believe the Framers intended to design a system whereby the Common Defense could be maintained without sacrifice of God Given rights.

Naturally, your mileage may vary.
Rich
 
Now the discussion really is interesting.

Rich,

What is at stake here is summed up in a simple question:
Is the Bill of Rights a fair weather document only, to be disregarded in times of perpetual, undeclared War?
Click to expand...

I sincerly hope not.

I, for one, believe the Framers intended to design a system whereby the Common Defense could be maintained without sacrifice of God Given rights.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%.

My question to you is which of your rights are infringed upon with the Wire Tap's? Certainly not your first amendment right. Your fourth? What is seized?

Honest questions?

I believe this will be over-ruled by the higher Court, given its inclination to increase Presidential Power.
Click to expand...

Again, I believe that you are correct in that statement.

I guess I am just dumbfounded that an Opinion from a Federal District Court can be handed down without meeting the legal requirements necessary for a valid legal opinion. It is not so much that the logic is flawed, it is more the entire lack of logic or substance in the opinion. The opinion is purely political and as such, I have a problem with it.

Rich, it is not so much that I agree with a blanket wire tap system, it is that I am uncertain as to how my rights are currently being infringed upon. I understand the whole slippery slope argument, but the intelligence currently gathered is not used for in Court, it is utilized as tactical intelligence to prevent events like the one in London.

I do agree with you 100% that the original framers of the Constitution intended to design a system whereby the Common Defense could be maintained without sacrifice of God Given rights. I for one am not interested in giving up my freedoms. I am however willing to make sacrifices of convenience for my safety. That is why I carry a gun.

Just my opinion and worth all you paid for it.

Charles
 
Well, at least there an occassional judge out there who rules in favor of the Constitution and doesn't rubber-stamp the govt agenda.

If wire taps will keep more US citizens from getting killed by a bunch of fanatics, so be it.....
Click to expand...

No thank you. I'd rather take my chances against Jihad Joe. My rights aren't for sale, conditional on a state of war or negotiable.:mad:

Franklin (?) had it right when he said "Those who'd surrender their liberty for safety deserve neither."

Go Slash27 +1
 
My question to you is which of your rights are infringed upon with the Wire Tap's? Certainly not your first amendment right. Your fourth? What is seized?
Click to expand...
That certainly IS the nub of the question, to which reasonable men can differ.

For myself, I have an expectation "to be secure in [my] person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". Like the Founders, I believe that this is a right granted by God to all Free Men, not by the Constitution. But what does the Fourth really mean? What are it's limits?

First off, it is not enough for the Administration to argue that no warrants are issued as a result of these taps; that they are investigative only. The words "secure....against unreasonable search" stand on their own; the latter clause regarding warrant issuing only on probable cause being related, yet separate. Similarly, it is not enough to say nothing was "seized"; the Fourth clearly proscribes unreasonable search AND unreasonable seizure. Separate proscriptions.

Next we come to what is "unreasonable search"....this is where we may differ. For me, eavesdropping (of any kind) on a private residence, without checks and balance crosses the line. Unless I am an active target of criminal investigation, with Court oversight of the search, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy in my emails (papers) and my personal telephone conversations. To accept otherwise is to grant to the government...what?
- The authority to monitor our domestic calls also? NSA is already mining those.
- The authority to monitor our every move electronically?
- The authority to monitor every purchase we make?
- The authority to visually monitor our activities in our home?
- The authority to search our homes and effects in clandestine manner and without Court Order?

These are each a stone's throw from the authority to drop in on my international conversations. And while each could fruitfully be argued to be valuable tools is a War on something as amorphous as "Terror" (and may well be argued for in coming years unless we stop it), they are not the tools envisioned by the Framers or embraced by Free Men.

Again, YMMV.
Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top