Federal judge orders end to wiretap program

No problem Juan, just trying to bring the dicussion back in a civil manner. It's been pretty heated and it's really starting to take the enjoyment out of debating a difficult and often heated subject.
 
a-ha! Ive got it!why dont we close the borders, since some believe its acceptable to monitor,record or peep in on peoples private communications and lives, minus a warrant ,because the boogeyman is everywhere and theres just no time to follow the constitution. seems to me that keeping them out would be a good idea too, doncha think?

cant do it or...wont do it?


...have a coke and a smile,theyll keep doing it anyways.seems to be the way things are done these days.Im sure it makes the sheeple feel safer knowing the nanny is looking after them for their own good.Me,I dont buy it, seen this movie before.


while we are at it, why not just have everyone take their guns to the river and dump them in..afterall its for our own good.:rolleyes:
 
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.
Click to expand...
Only "laughable" if you fail to read the article which clearly states:
The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.
Click to expand...
It is being stated there that the President has the authority; but the President can't prove that authority without revealing State Secrets. So what authorities DOES the President have that cannot be revealed?

Not laughable at all.
Laughable is gleefully handing over your life and heritage because some people would wish to harm you and you're too frightened to join other Free Men to in the task of protecting your Country..

Laughable is seeing the world so black and white that your only perceived choices are being a live Subject or a dead Free Man. After all, there really IS a BoogerMan, you know.

Bwa-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha.
:D

Rich
 
No problem Juan, just trying to bring the dicussion back in a civil manner. It's been pretty heated and it's really starting to take the enjoyment out of debating a difficult and often heated subject.
Click to expand...

Fair enough... :D

So, as for my opinion on the subject at hand, I think that the idea of mass surveillance without any real oversight is a step in the wrong direction. There was already a framework in place to monitor such communications (FISA) which allowed for what amounted to rubber-stamped after-the-fact warrants.

At that point, by bypassing FISA (which was, in itself, barely a speedbump and no real check on power) the administration was basically once again expanding the power of the unitary executive, which in my opinion is not a good thing. Essentially what we are moving towards is an idea that the President quite simply cannot break the law, especially in time of war. Which, since we have created a state of war that will likely never end, is especially dangerous.

Finally, I leave you with this quote from Al Gore (who in turn quotes Adams and Madison)...

A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our Founding Fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. Indeed, they recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution - our system of checks and balances - was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law. As John Adams said: "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men."

An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the Founders sought to nullify in the Constitution - an all-powerful executive too reminiscent of the King from whom they had broken free. In the words of James Madison, "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
Click to expand...

Interpret the Constitution however you please, but quotes such as these (and other from the founders of this nation) suggest to me that those that wrote the Constitution would frown upon this program, terrorism or no.
 
"It is being stated there that the President has the authority; but the President can't prove that authority without revealing State Secrets. So what authorities DOES the President have that cannot be revealed?"


maybe he has dorothys' ruby slippers.:D



seriously, Id like an answer to that one too and Id like to know what authority it gives to bypass the checks and balances we were founded upon in a "war" that probably wont ever end.
 
From the President's speech to the nation on 9/20/01 (full text here ):
Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.
Click to expand...
These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us, because we stand in their way.
Click to expand...

From the President's speech on 3/17/03, just prior to the Iraq war (full text here ):
Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this, they would fail. No act of theirs can alter the course or shake the resolve of this country.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that if we allow our government to infringe any of our rights, diminish any of our freedoms, or to ignore any of our country's laws, then we are allowing the government to accomplish the terrorists' goals. (disruption of our way of life)

I'm not totally convinced that the warrantless wiretapping has infringed rights or freedoms, but I do think (in my layman's opinion) that it ignores the FISA laws. Within the law, they can listen to whomever they want and then ask for the warrant up to 72 hours after the fact. How can this requirement possibly be too inconvenient that it must be ignored?

It looks to me like we are allowing the erosion of checks and balances on one branch of government in the name of 'safety'. If this isn't acting out of fear, I don't know what is.

Is America more fearful now than it was on September 10, 2001?
Does America now have more allies or less than we had on September 10, 2001?
Has the course of our country been altered since September 10, 2001? If so, by what?

If we are more fearful, with less allies, and on an altered course, then (according to the President) we are proceeding as the terrorists would like us to.

Who spreads more fear in this country; actual terrorists or the government warning us constantly about terrorists?

What was that the President said about fear? Oh yeah....
Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this, they would fail.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm.....
 
"It is being stated there that the President has the authority; but the President can't prove that authority without revealing State Secrets."
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why the ruling is a just one. The President's authority is completely transparent and documented. There is no classified section of the law or the Constitution.
No matter how you cut it, this program is illegal and everybody knows it.
Let's take a look at the ACLU's legal standing to bring this lawsuit in the first place. If it gets overturned, that's the reason it'll happen.
 
I've read in the thread that there are more options, but nobody seems to expand on the other options.
Click to expand...

GoSlash27 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...

Was this not sufficiently expansive?? What more information do you need? It seems pretty simple to me; fight terrorism within the law. If the law is proving to be a hindrance, change the law.
 
I haven't read all of the previous posts, but isn't there a standing issue here. Where is the American citizen that had their rights violated by a warrantless wiretap?

As much as it pains news networks or democratic senators, there has to be an injury for a conflict to be justiciable, and I just don't see it here. Someone enlighten me.
 
Stage-
The "standing" was granted to named American Citizens who felt that their 1st and 4th Amendments were being violated.

Shall we now argue that, unless some Citizen can prove that he was the target of a SECRET government wiretap, no American Citizen has "standing" to take issue with the SECRET program that has been revealed AND boasted about by that very government? Widespread program. Widespread effect. Widespread "standing". See the correlation?

There's a bunch of Banana Republic mini-generals who would love that one...."Unless someone steps forward to accuse us of having tortured and murdered them, how can there be an accusation of Human Rights Violations?".

Rich
 
I haven't read all of the previous posts, but isn't there a standing issue here. Where is the American citizen that had their rights violated by a warrantless wiretap?
Click to expand...

They either wouldn't know about it (due to it being secret), or they wouldn't be able to tell anyone about it (due to it being a no-no under USA PATRIOT to disclose a terrorism-related NSL, subpoena or charge to any third party).

It's like arguing that your rights aren't violated if a pervert tapes you in the shower at the health club as long as you don't notice the camera.
 
Marko, I like your pervert analogy. Especially since I consider the idea of a government with secret, non-public-approved rights being acceptable is perverted.

Cheers,
Wolfe.

(P.S. - I'm surprised nobody's quoted Ben Franklin yet. Isn't he the one that said folks willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither?)
 
Rich,
I'm going out on a limb here, but I believe that legally speaking Stage has a point here.
This is the obvious basis for the appeal. Let's set aside the fact that it's garbage for a moment and take a look at it.

Cowled,
At some point or another every founding father has been quoted on the matter along with the Constitution and the law. Apparently our president and his supporters aren't swayed. After all, isn't he the guy that said "The Constitution is just a (expletive) piece of paper"?
 
JuanCarlos , First off thank you for your service to this country, it is greatly appreciated, and no one is questioning your Patriotisim, but you are not the only one who has served this Country nor are you the last one if you would be a bit more civil inyour responces you would not put yourself in a defenceable posture all the time, I've said before that iof you disagree with someone that is fine and if you reply to the person with a different point of view that is fine to but you do not have to do it in a manner of an attack as I have told you before that if you attack you will be attacked in return then tempers flair and everything gets out of hand, just try to tone it downa bit you canstill get your point across, Again from one Veteran to Another thank you for your service and welcome home, I assume you are home.
 
International communications have historically head less protection then communications solely within the US.
The reading of international cable traffic as been SOP pretty much since the first telegraph. Even traffic just passing through the US between foreign sources has been viewed as fair game.
How we balance the needs to track communications (what most of the intercepts actually are, not actual voice taps) and dealing with a non-nation foreign entity is going to take some careful thinking.

The decision as rendered is a joke, as a number of legal analysts in various places have pointed out.
And yes I read the entire thing.
 
The "standing" was granted to named American Citizens who felt that their 1st and 4th Amendments were being violated.

Shall we now argue that, unless some Citizen can prove that he was the target of a SECRET government wiretap, no American Citizen has "standing" to take issue with the SECRET program that has been revealed AND boasted about by that very government? Widespread program. Widespread effect. Widespread "standing". See the correlation?
Click to expand...


I understand what you are saying, but at the same time "feeling" that your rights are violated doesn't and shouldn't get you there.

The fact that there is a widespread effect is an assumption. No one knows if a single citizen has been wiretapped without a warrant. There ought to be some type of process where the judge examines the documents similar to what they do for privileged docs such as work product.

Without this, going to court without any idea of whether your rights were violated or not is an abuse of the judicial system and flys in the face of hundreds of years of precedent.
 
its illegal to inform the person that they are being spy'ed on.its illegal and hush hush.so who would know except those doing the actual snooping?the ol "I cant tell you or Id have to lock you up thing...but its for your own good,trust me".

kinda reminds me of that silly scifi spof..mars arttacks, where the aliens were running around vaporizing people while broadcasting from a handheld microphone"we're here to help,we are your friends"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top