Again, check out the EFF case against AT&T, where all IP traffic was being diverted to an NSA tap. This was inside the USA.
Don't even go there; my wife is from China... the corruption there is unbelievable, and the police are largely unchecked. And didn't the Stasi basically investigate everyone? Sure, that's not the US, but it could be, and we've been treading the slippery slope a lot lately...
Today 08:37 PM
Quote:
There is no constitutional impediment to the executive overseas
Clearly that is not true.
Note that the FISA law in question here involves warrantless wiretaps where one party is a US citizen inside the USA.
Quote:
And the power granted to the exec is limited domestically only.
Where in the Constitution is that written?
Quote:
If you can find an overseas limitation on executive power in the COTUS, kindly share it with us.
The limitation isn't necessary, as the Constitution isn't a list of things the government can't do; rather, it is a list of things the government can do.
You mean that is whats alleged......
So in other words....rhetoric, no facts.
Here I'll postulate this....The vast majority of this unlawful "snooping" is against folks who have some articulable connection to terrorism. Got examples of the innocent being victimnized?
That's not possible. Since the Constitution applies to the whole of the US government, and in fact created the US government, at all times and places; the executive branch has no additional power outside the US than within it.There is no constitutional impediment to the executive overseas,
That's not how the US Constitution works. If a power is not listed, expressly, then that power is non-existent. The US government is granted power, it cannot lawfully create a power not granted.So you asked me to find something (a lack of a lmitation)in the constitution, that you admit would be unnecessary?
If the power is not listed, then it does not exist, it matters not where the executive is physically located or where the power is to be exercised. The executive doesn't have any power not forbidden, it has no power not granted by the Constitution. Again, that's how the US Constitution functions.If there were a constitutional impediment to the exercise of executive power overseas, it would be stated in the COTUS.
zukiphile said:There is no constitutional impediment to the executive overseas
Which is categorically an international communication, not a domestic one.NS said:Clearly that is not true. Note that the FISA law in question here involves warrantless wiretaps where one party is a US citizen inside the USA.
No. Citizens and states have rights against the government, and the role of government is limited, and the power of the executive of that government limited by courts and legislature.
There are plenty of facts, if you bothered to pay attention instead of merely trolling. But you can't be bothered; instead of looking at the source documents, you just wave your hands and dismissively call it "allegations" as if that makes it any less true.
First, see above. Furthermore, since these are classified government programs (note the government's attempt to shut these lawsuits down with the "state secrets privilege") so it's very difficult to cite specific examples... yet if you go through the documents on the EFF site that I linked to above, you'll find them.
Pat, the "people" referred to in IV means everyone anywhere in the world?
So the answer is yes, the US government is prohibited by the Constitution as amended from infringing upon ANY persons right to be armed.
Unfortunately not before John Adams was able to load the federal courts with their judges, including one of the worst Supreme Court justices in US history, John Marshall.
I gave you a link to sworn testimony. Beyond that, it's classified and there's no judicial oversight. What more do you want? What more can you reasonably expect, when the entire program is classified?Thats all they are though, arent they...allegations...or is ANYTHING true as long as it fits an agenda?
Nothing... except the sworn testimony of an insider. Oh, and the government's appeal to the state secrets privilege, which wouldn't have happened if this was all smoke and mirrors.In other words, nothing to show the innocent are the ones being victimized by "snooping"....
Thanks for playing.
Unfortunately not before John Adams was able to load the federal courts with their judges, including one of the worst Supreme Court justices in US history, John Marshall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zukiphile
There is no constitutional impediment to the executive overseas
Quote:
Originally Posted by NS
Clearly that is not true. Note that the FISA law in question here involves warrantless wiretaps where one party is a US citizen inside the USA.
Which is categorically an international communication, not a domestic one.
But earlier, in regards to the government violating Constitutional rights of Americans outside the borders of the US, you wrote:
Quote:
No. Citizens and states have rights against the government, and the role of government is limited, and the power of the executive of that government limited by courts and legislature.
So which is it? There is an inherent contradiction in your positions.
If citizens were only to have 4A rights inside the country, this law is still illegal because it allows the government to tap, without a warrant, the international communications where one party is a citizen within the borders.
The only way your argument holds up is if citizens have no rights, period.
Seriously, people... FISA warrants are not difficult to obtain. Why short-circuit this minimal civil rights protection?
Zuk Wrote
So you asked me to find something (a lack of a limitation)in the constitution, that you admit would be unnecessary?
If there is a limit on executive power overseas in the COTUS, that implicates no citizen (since citizenship implies domestic issues), shown it to us.
If you realise there is no such limit, don't show us.
In this case, the feds are already monitoring that phone in Dubai. The feds already have probable cause to obtain any warrants necessary to intercept all stateside calls to that number. I see nothing problematic about this scenario.WA said:With that, Al, lets say the call originates from the US to and non citizen in Dubai who has a telephone number listed on a laptop siezed at Tora Bora?
...And perhaps one or two Supreme Court cases that say otherwise? Which seems to conflict with:nemoaz said:Your understanding is wrong. If it crosses the border, the only impediments are statutes.
I'm not aware of a case in which the expectation of privacy, while on the phone, was limited to the national boundary, like those other items. Can you refer me to that case?It doesn't matter whether it's a letter, a package, your car, an email, or a phone call.
So I'm calling you out. WA, you're a statist. You'd probably consent to Big Brother's telescreens snooping in our bedrooms, if given the chance. (Speaking of agendas.)
In this case, the feds are already monitoring that phone in Dubai. The feds already have probable cause to obtain any warrants necessary to intercept all stateside calls to that number. I see nothing problematic about this scenario.
It's not "well beyond COTUS language." I'm arguing for COTUS language, which does not grant the Executive unlimited power overseas.NS, you appear to be arguing a result, comprehensive limitation of exec power well beyond actual COTUS language,
Pat H answered this one:NS, I issued to you an invitation to produce the constitutional language that limits the execs power overseas. That you haven't shown us indicates the answer.
Pat H said:That's not how the US Constitution works. If a power is not listed, expressly, then that power is non-existent. The US government is granted power, it cannot lawfully create a power not granted.
Of course not, but I also don't think that anyone in power these days particularly cares what the COTUS says, either. The Executive is apparently engaged in domestic dragnet surveillance and domestic/international warrantless wiretapping, according to the links I posted earlier. These are violations, yet they may get away with it due to the "state secrets" argument.zukiphile said:Do you think FISA amends the COTUS?
Here, I'll quote Antipitas:Emphasis added. NS, if an international communication is intercepted overseas, it isn't domestic and 4th Am protections are not present.
Antipitas said:I'm not aware of a case in which the expectation of privacy, while on the phone, was limited to the national boundary, like those other items.
No, that's my response to you ignoring the data I've presented (which, I might add, is far more informative than the... ahem... total lack of information that you've presented to refute it.)WA said:So thats your response to your lack of facts...ad hominems....nice
Which one? EDIT: found it (Google to the rescue), the ACLU case, denied cert. on standing issues (essentially due to secrecy.) Nothing new here.By the way I see another Snooping case got dismissed.
And you know this from the many FISA warrants for which you have successfully applied?
Quote:
And you know this from the many FISA warrants for which you have successfully applied? I know this from the history of the FISA warrants, which are almost never declined. And that they can be applied for retroactively.
Quote:
NS, I issued to you an invitation to produce the constitutional language that limits the execs power overseas. That you haven't shown us indicates the answer.
Pat H answered this one:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat H
That's not how the US Constitution works. If a power is not listed, expressly, then that power is non-existent. The US government is granted power, it cannot lawfully create a power not granted.
zukiphile Do you think FISA amends the COTUS? said:Of course not, ....
And again, there's no oversight.
The real issue here is not whether the President is “above the law,” but rather which “law” he must see “faithfully executed” when there is a conflict between the Constitution and an inconsistent statute. I submit that his highest duty is to the Constitution itself, and that our real problem here is that Congress has forgotten that it, too, is subject to the “rule of law.”
***
When Congress passed the first wiretap statute in 1968, it expressly declared that nothing in the new law would limit “the Constitutional power of the President” to collect foreign intelligence information. Every Administration from FDR to (and including) Jimmy Carter engaged in warrantless foreign intelligence wiretapping.
In the 1980 Truong case, for example, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that the Carter administration “did not seek a warrant for the eavesdropping on Truong's phone conversations or the bugging of his apartment.” Instead, it relied upon a “‘foreign intelligence’ exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.” The court upheld the Carter Administration’s position that: “In the area of foreign intelligence . . . the President may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs.”