Federal judge orders end to wiretap program
- Thread starter rick_reno
- Start date
its a blanket policy, they cant simply pick and choose whom is tapped until they find some potential threat.I dont like it anymore than if the govt would set up cameras in everyones home and watch to see who is misbehaving.everyone would agree that doing that would certainly be a violation so what is the real difference?no harm no foul?thats why we have a constitution in the first place, to prevent these things from happening,to have a system of check and balances to insure that things are never taken to extremes.
Rich,
We are really entering the realm of Con Law a topic, that I must admit, I am not really all that knowledgeable of.
I do understand your slippery slope argument, but again I feel that arguing against a current issue based upon future possibilities is a relatively weak argument. A valid one, but not a reasonable basis for stopping Wire Taps.
That is why we have checks and balances in place. I do not agree with the current administrations decision to bypass the FISA Court with these wiretaps, but then again Congress was notified of this operation and did not choose, at that time, to object. The objections, when announced, were politically motivated.
So we have had some of the checks and balances utilized, and yet Congress did not object to the operation.
Ultimately you and I have our finial check and balances with the election of our officials, and our duty to write our representatives so they understand our view.
Rich, again it is not so much that I agree with this operation, I just don't believe that it currently infringes upon my constitutional rights. I have never believe that arguing against a current situation to prevent slippery slope is a valid option. I believe that making my view know to my representatives, staying informed and voting are the actions to take.
Egad
This shows an absolute lack of understanding of the Terrorist mindset. We are the enemy, staying out of the Middle East will not change that, nor will ignoring the problem make it go away.
We were not involved in Afghanistan or Iraq the first time terrorist tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993.
Charles
We are really entering the realm of Con Law a topic, that I must admit, I am not really all that knowledgeable of.
I do understand your slippery slope argument, but again I feel that arguing against a current issue based upon future possibilities is a relatively weak argument. A valid one, but not a reasonable basis for stopping Wire Taps.
That is why we have checks and balances in place. I do not agree with the current administrations decision to bypass the FISA Court with these wiretaps, but then again Congress was notified of this operation and did not choose, at that time, to object. The objections, when announced, were politically motivated.
So we have had some of the checks and balances utilized, and yet Congress did not object to the operation.
Ultimately you and I have our finial check and balances with the election of our officials, and our duty to write our representatives so they understand our view.
Rich, again it is not so much that I agree with this operation, I just don't believe that it currently infringes upon my constitutional rights. I have never believe that arguing against a current situation to prevent slippery slope is a valid option. I believe that making my view know to my representatives, staying informed and voting are the actions to take.
Egad
This shows an absolute lack of understanding of the Terrorist mindset. We are the enemy, staying out of the Middle East will not change that, nor will ignoring the problem make it go away.
We were not involved in Afghanistan or Iraq the first time terrorist tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993.
Charles
JuanCarlos
New member
Of course, in 1993 we did have a sizeable non-Muslim army positioned in "the Holy Land." We had also been intimately involved in Iraq just two years earlier. Also, having a couple brigades on Iraq's border, as well as enforcing no-fly zones and economic sanctions, would probably qualify as "being involved." But that's just me.
Your assertion that Islamic terrorists will always and would always have attacked because "they hate our freedom," or whatever, ignores cultural and logistical issues. In order to continue undertaking complex terrorist operations in the US, a large amount of funding and recruiting is necessary. The two main reasons this level of recruiting was available to men like Osama Bin Laden was because he could use both our (infidel) troops in the Holy Land, as well as our unwavering support for Israel, as recruiting propaganda. People don't blow themselves up for money, and as much as Islam might lend itself to terrorism it would be hard to convince random Muslims to become suicide bombers if we weren't (and hadn't been) involved in the region.
Now, I will argue that filling our energy needs outside the Middle East alone will not do much, especially now. But "staying out of the region" (which would include dropping support for Israel...being in the region and all) quite probably would take the wind out of the sails of any remaining terrorist groups. Not saying it's an option, just saying that your dismissal of its effectiveness might not be accurate.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Charles-
But I did not make a "slippery slope" or "future possibilities" argument. I argued the here and now and threw in the inevitable march of authoritarianism to try to hammer my point home.
As to the fact that Congress was "informed", that goes back to my origibnal statement in this thread:
But I did not make a "slippery slope" or "future possibilities" argument. I argued the here and now and threw in the inevitable march of authoritarianism to try to hammer my point home.
As to the fact that Congress was "informed", that goes back to my origibnal statement in this thread:
Rich,
Again, I just don't believe that my rights are currently infringed upon by the wire taps.
I don't believe that Bush should have bypassed FISA.
I do appreciate your opinion, and I will again, look at the program and see if a new look at the wire tap program changes how I feel about it. Currently I just don't feel that having my phone tapped if I am talking with a terrorist suspect (maybe I am misunderstanding the program) infringes upon my rights. I do appreciate your thoughts. I will again look at the program and re-consider my position.
That is not what I stated, I simply stated that our lack of reliance on Middle Eastern Oil would not change anything.
True.
Maybe logistical issues, but after extensive reading, including the Koran I believe I have at least a fundamental understanding of the culture.
Just some food for thought.
Koran
BTW, I have a friend who is a Muslim. I am not attempting to insight dislike of the culture, just trying to provide a little insight into the mindset.
We are getting off topic.
Charles
Again, I just don't believe that my rights are currently infringed upon by the wire taps.
I don't believe that Bush should have bypassed FISA.
I do appreciate your opinion, and I will again, look at the program and see if a new look at the wire tap program changes how I feel about it. Currently I just don't feel that having my phone tapped if I am talking with a terrorist suspect (maybe I am misunderstanding the program) infringes upon my rights. I do appreciate your thoughts. I will again look at the program and re-consider my position.
That is not what I stated, I simply stated that our lack of reliance on Middle Eastern Oil would not change anything.
True.
Maybe logistical issues, but after extensive reading, including the Koran I believe I have at least a fundamental understanding of the culture.
Just some food for thought.
Koran
BTW, I have a friend who is a Muslim. I am not attempting to insight dislike of the culture, just trying to provide a little insight into the mindset.
We are getting off topic.
Charles
Camp David
New member
GoSlash27 said:
If that is true then dissolve the president of his rights to protect this nation and its people from terror and go hide in your backyard bombshelter and await Al Qaeda's dirty bomb attack knowing the Constitution is safe but the people are dead!
JuanCarlos
New member
Yes, because once again these are the only two options. I guess Muslims don't have the market cornered on extremism...
DonR101395
New member
I've read in the thread that there are more options, but nobody seems to expand on the other options. Could someone lay out a feasible plan of other options for my dumb redneck a**? Please, please, I want to side with those who have a better idea, but I haven't seen one, I've only read of these elusive options.
contender6030
New member
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yeah that!!!
Yeah that!!!
JuanCarlos
New member
Well, we work within the historical confines of the Constitution to catch all the terrorists we can. This should foil 99% of terrorist plots. After all, it isn't like airliners were exploding right and left before 9/11 and these wiretapping programs
All these expansions of government power have basically been in an attempt to stop that last 1% of terrorist attacks. The sad thing is, all it does is force terrorists to change tactics; there will be another successful terrorist attack, it's just a matter of time. Heck, the DC sniper proved that you don't need liquid explosives or hijacked airplanes to spread terror. All you need are guns and bullets. I almost think we should leave programs like this in place, just to hear the thunderous cries of "I told you so" when the next attack succeeds despite the increased power in the hands of the government.
See my posts over in the thread regarding the men arrested in Texas if you want more of my opinion on the matter. We could burn the entire Bill of Rights, and terrorist attacks would still happen...just marginally less often. Especially when you are dealing with terrorists who don't particularly fear death or imprisonment.
There is a certain assumption of risk that comes with any freedom. We don't (at least not around here) think banning all handguns is a feasible plan to stop handgun violence. We don't (generally) think banning alcohol is a reasonable step to stop people from drinking and driving. And both of those are dramatically more likely to kill you and I than terrorists. Yet here we are arguing that maybe the Constitution might need a little tweaking in the name of the "War on Terror."
I'd rather die free that live in a climate of fear and suspicion. It's one of the many side effects of having a backbone.
To clear up my first post that stated the Presidents sworn duty to protect the People was in fact wrong, and I removed that statement from the Post, but I will add this for the record: If the President does not do everything he can to protect the people of the United States, I garentee you that his A** would be on the line and his head on the chopping block because he failled to do so, It boils down to this, Every one wants to be safe from attack but they don't want the tools necessary to keep them safe, Someone Quoted Ben Franklin saying that if you give up freedom for safety then you have none, or something to that effect, I FAIL TO SEE WHERE A MONITORED PHONE CALL BETWEEN THE US AND ANY FORIEN COUNTRY INFRINGES ON MY FREEDOMS, nor do I see a direct infringement on the Bill of Rights, Personally I as stated I have no problem with the program nor did the Congress untill the NY Times broke the story in the news, for no other reason than they were going to be scooped by a person that had written a book and was due to release it so the times could not be outdone, AND by releasing the story in the paper gave them more fodder to fire at the President and the Administration. Which caused the Democrats to NOW BECOME HOLLIER THAN THOU, and declair a foul, GIVE ME A BREAK, the dems were ok with the program until they saw some fodder to add into the cannon against the President and his administration. They are all a bunch of two faced people that are not at all concerned with the Safety and Protection of the Country or it's people, but you can garentee they ARE CONCERNED WITH GETTING CONTROL OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE AND HAVE BEEN SINCE 2000, and will do or say anything to achieve that goal.
Last edited:
BIG BLUE , wrote,Hey guys, it's time to celebrate! Celebrate another case of a left wing radical judge tying the hands of our government in it's efforts to defeat terrorists. I don't know what these people do that they are so terrified of the government finding out, but as for me they are welcome to listen in any time they want. Heck if it will help I'll make only conference calls. Come the next terror attack, I just don't want to hear any complaining or talk of the government not doing enough to root out terrorists.
That was really laughable the way Rich turned the statement around and changed it from, revealing state secrets, to, the President has secret powers. I wish I had that vivid of an imagination.
Don
I agree with your assesment and would add this, Anything The ACLU IS PUSHING I'm AGAINST, That Group has done more harm to the CIVIL LIBERTIES AND FREEDOMS OF THIS COUNTRY AND IT'S PEOPLE THAN ANY WIRE TAP PROGRAM HAS.
That was really laughable the way Rich turned the statement around and changed it from, revealing state secrets, to, the President has secret powers. I wish I had that vivid of an imagination.
Don
I agree with your assesment and would add this, Anything The ACLU IS PUSHING I'm AGAINST, That Group has done more harm to the CIVIL LIBERTIES AND FREEDOMS OF THIS COUNTRY AND IT'S PEOPLE THAN ANY WIRE TAP PROGRAM HAS.
JuanCarlos
New member
Saying it in caps doesn't make anybody more likely to agree.
That said, I give you:
Now, it isn't established legal fact, and thus debateable...however, in the opinion of most that feel this wiretapping is unconstitutional phone calls are a logical extension of papers and effects. I'd wager if the guys who drew this rule up had been around in the year 2000, they'd have included "communications" in there...because back then "papers" pretty much covered all forms of communication that could be siezed by the government.
Note that this doesn't say that phone calls cannot be monitored. It just says a warrant is needed. These warrants had traditionally been rubber-stamped, and could be applied for after the fact, so the idea that they "don't have time to get a warrant" is silly.
EDIT:
You know, if it'll help stop gun violence, I'll give up all my guns...I'll even let the cops swing by my house and search daily to make sure I don't have any. Oh, and I'll expect you to do the same.
Doesn't sound spiffy? Then don't volunteer my civil liberties away either.
By the way you didn't hear me personally complaining that the government didn't do enough to root out terrorists after 9/11, and you won't hear it from me after the next one either.
And in case you're wondering why people like their phone calls to be private, I can imagine plenty of reasons. Homosexuality isn't exactly widely accepted, and I imagine somebody prominent in the community wouldn't want to be "outed" (or blackmailed) by an unscrupulous NSA agent. People cheat on their spouses. People have drug addictions. Hell, I attend school long-distance from my wife (though not in a different country)...the idea that the NSA could be listening to me talk dirty to her would creep me out. Phone calls have traditionally been a private form of communication, and not everybody likes the idea of people listening in whenever they feel like it.
JuanCarlos
New member
Oh, you mean like the IED that went off 15 meters from my HMMWV, sending shrapnel flying off the armor (thank God!)?
Or like the rocket that came in less than 50 meters from where I was standing, leaving me deaf and running for cover (thank God it was on the other side of a wall of Hesco barriers)?
Those were just the close calls, too...I heard (and felt) plenty of other nearby explosions.
Or the feeling I had every night because somebody thought it would be brilliant to place the shower/bathroom for my company about 25 meters from the edge of our FOB, within sight of plenty of 2 and 3 story buildings (woohoo, I was sniper-bait!)?
My life has been in real danger...that's why the big bad boogeyman everybody is so afraid of stateside doesn't phase me. And I put my life in the very real danger, at least in theory, in order that I, my wife, and my future children could live free in the country I grew up in, not the country people like you are busily creating. Again, I'd rather die free than live scared. Or, a quote I'm fond of, "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees."
And I've actually put my a** on the line proving it. So please don't question my sincerity.
DonR101395
New member
I don't think anyone is questioning your sincerity. Just remember you're not the only one who has served this country, we all have a vested interest in this country and many served before you so that you had the opportunity to serve. The same way you served so that others will have the opportunity. You don't have the market cornered on being a patriot or serving your country.
JuanCarlos
New member
I never meant to suggest I did, and I apologize if I came off that way. I was responding to this (which, to me, did very much question my sincerity)...
...by emphasizing that that time had, to an extent, already come for me, and my conviction had not been shaken. And that I believe that the United States is not just a piece of land between two oceans, but rather a set of ideals and a way of life...both of which seem to be changing rather quickly due to this recent threat. I didn't sign up to defend a piece of land. I'm not speaking for all veterans; I am, however, very emphatically speaking for this veteran. There's no point defending America anymore if it's own people are willing to tear it apart.