Keith Olbermann attack Obama on warantless wiretapping

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I am somewhat familiar with how things get done. The content of the conversation is what's protected. I'm not so hard nose as to object to some sifting of data. Let's say that I made a dozen calls to a known terrorists phone number. In itself that doesn't make me a terrorist. I might be an honest businessman who doesn't know who I'm talking to. That does however raise eyebrows as it ought to. Time for a wiretap? No, not yet. If however it turns out that I'm calling several terrorists or if I'm engaged in a business which is suspect, then at some point it may.

So the agents apply for a warrant, and then commence their surveillance. Let's suppose for a moment though that there was reasonable grounds to believe that I might be engaging in something which requires immediate action. Then the agents commence the wiretaps immediately, then followup with the paperwork afterwords. I'm fine with that. Legitimate needs are accommodated in a timely way, yet the government is accountable to independent scrutiny.

I don't see where that's an unreasonable desire.

This is how the system currently works, I'm glad you are one of the few who fcking get it unlike Olbermann/Turley/Greenwald and the radical left/right.

The first paragraph you described qualifies as one of five triggers that need to be activated by the NSA in order to wiretap.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: JSFLY

Originally posted by: Craig234
Glenn Greenwald's column today not only shows how liberal commentator after liberal commentator is doing what the right so consistently failed to do with Bush, but he eloquently makes the case for why it's important they do so and why they should in this case. Actually, eloquence takes the back seat to the blistering case.

I've previously commented that while nearly all of the right's claims of the left 'blindly' defending Obama for the same things they attacked Bush for are false, that one legitimate such claim was with a Keith Olbermann piece. Now, look at Olbermann go - he opens the second piece in the link with 'Obama is dead wrong'.

His guest speculates in a worrisome theory that Obama is doing this because he feels he has to appease the intelligence community to get their support.

Tonight, Olbermann will have the EFF on with a guest, and it'll likely be also worth watching.

Link to Greewald's commentary and Olbermann video segments.

I agree with what Olbermann is doing. The left wing (me included) can not and should not allow Obama to get away with doing whatever he wants. We need to keep him in check and let him know that we are his base and if he continues Bush policies that we denounced, he will lose our support.

You agree because you don't have a clue about how national security works regarding FISA/FISA 2008/TSP/FISC, what Obama supports, and what has been legally defined by a court ruling as violating Fourth Amendment rights.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Craig234
When we see Obama pursuing policies so opposed to his base's preferences, to the apparent national interest, where he pays the enormous prices both political (reversing his positions on the wiretapping) and literal (hundreds of billions for the financial industry), it raises some worrisome concerns about his 'freedom of operation'.

If there's a consolation, it's that he's *said* that there are big changes needed which would address these things long-term. Those words are sounding more hollow, with bad choices.

Obama never reversed his position on wiretapping. He never said there would be transparency, he voted consistently for telecom immunity and FISA 2008. He said:

Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill [FISA 2008], and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

He never ever advocated the illegal wiretapping of Americans, and yet recognizes that there are extenuating circumstances where Americans who seek to harm us with International help will have to be wiretapped without a warrant. There is no way around it, a court has ruled this, Congress has agreed with majority. Furthermore, I applaud his DoJ for NOT providing transparency in the Jewel v NSA case. Why the fck should the NSA divulge state secrets and give terr0rists the upper hand? That's stupid, and Olbermann/Greenwald are morons who would probably give away classified documents on NSA ops just to see Bush and co go to prison. They need to take the blinders off and realize that nothing good can come out of publically revealing still classified NSA information. Nobody I know has this point of view except extremists, uninformed idiots, or mentally unstable hospital patients.

 

[JSFLY]

Originally posted by: chucky2
The facts are when the liberals in here start spewing the vitriolic prose for Obama as they did for Bush, then the facts will be that liberals are holding Obama to the same standard as Bush.

Until that happens, the facts are you're doing the "That's just terrible dear, terrible..." while sipping your tea.

The facts are that, once your Messiah got to see the state of the world as it really exists, he sure didn't rush to "undo" all that the Ebil Bush has done.....quite interesting since Bush was supposedly an incompetent Satan...that the Messiah continues his work...funny that...

Quick, someone write a song about a puppy who's eager to protect the sheep, but doesn't believe in barking...because it disturbs the sheep. Then the puppy gets put on duty, and figures out the wolves are sneaky little bastards, and he can't be everywhere at once...hence needs to bark sometimes, even if it's annoying to the poor sheep. Should be easy for the musically artistic in here....

Chuck

Bush was in office how many years before the left turned on him?

Obama has been in office how many months?

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: JSFLY

Originally posted by: chucky2
The facts are when the liberals in here start spewing the vitriolic prose for Obama as they did for Bush, then the facts will be that liberals are holding Obama to the same standard as Bush.

Until that happens, the facts are you're doing the "That's just terrible dear, terrible..." while sipping your tea.

The facts are that, once your Messiah got to see the state of the world as it really exists, he sure didn't rush to "undo" all that the Ebil Bush has done.....quite interesting since Bush was supposedly an incompetent Satan...that the Messiah continues his work...funny that...

Quick, someone write a song about a puppy who's eager to protect the sheep, but doesn't believe in barking...because it disturbs the sheep. Then the puppy gets put on duty, and figures out the wolves are sneaky little bastards, and he can't be everywhere at once...hence needs to bark sometimes, even if it's annoying to the poor sheep. Should be easy for the musically artistic in here....

Chuck

Bush was in office how many years before the left turned on him?

Obama has been in office how many months?

the left was calling him stupid and disparaging his experience before he was even elected... it would really be sad if you actually believe what you type... it will be fun watching you eat yourself...

 

[JSFLY]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: JSFLY

Originally posted by: Craig234
Glenn Greenwald's column today not only shows how liberal commentator after liberal commentator is doing what the right so consistently failed to do with Bush, but he eloquently makes the case for why it's important they do so and why they should in this case. Actually, eloquence takes the back seat to the blistering case.

I've previously commented that while nearly all of the right's claims of the left 'blindly' defending Obama for the same things they attacked Bush for are false, that one legitimate such claim was with a Keith Olbermann piece. Now, look at Olbermann go - he opens the second piece in the link with 'Obama is dead wrong'.

His guest speculates in a worrisome theory that Obama is doing this because he feels he has to appease the intelligence community to get their support.

Tonight, Olbermann will have the EFF on with a guest, and it'll likely be also worth watching.

Link to Greewald's commentary and Olbermann video segments.

I agree with what Olbermann is doing. The left wing (me included) can not and should not allow Obama to get away with doing whatever he wants. We need to keep him in check and let him know that we are his base and if he continues Bush policies that we denounced, he will lose our support.

You agree because you don't have a clue about how national security works regarding FISA/FISA 2008/TSP/FISC, what Obama supports, and what has been legally defined by a court ruling as violating Fourth Amendment rights.

Your right I don't how national security works regarding FISA or whatever the hell your referring to.

What I do know is that Obama campaigned on reversing the Bush policy on wiretaps.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9845595-7.html

It's obvious he has had a change of heart, so perhaps he should tell his base exactly why that is.... that way we can get an answer straight from the horse's mouth, instead of from people proclaiming to be national security experts on random internet forums.

Originally posted by: cubeless

Originally posted by: JSFLY

Originally posted by: chucky2
The facts are when the liberals in here start spewing the vitriolic prose for Obama as they did for Bush, then the facts will be that liberals are holding Obama to the same standard as Bush.

Until that happens, the facts are you're doing the "That's just terrible dear, terrible..." while sipping your tea.

The facts are that, once your Messiah got to see the state of the world as it really exists, he sure didn't rush to "undo" all that the Ebil Bush has done.....quite interesting since Bush was supposedly an incompetent Satan...that the Messiah continues his work...funny that...

Quick, someone write a song about a puppy who's eager to protect the sheep, but doesn't believe in barking...because it disturbs the sheep. Then the puppy gets put on duty, and figures out the wolves are sneaky little bastards, and he can't be everywhere at once...hence needs to bark sometimes, even if it's annoying to the poor sheep. Should be easy for the musically artistic in here....

Chuck

Bush was in office how many years before the left turned on him?

Obama has been in office how many months?

the left was calling him stupid and disparaging his experience before he was even elected... it would really be sad if you actually believe what you type... it will be fun watching you eat yourself...

Bush had a 90% approval rating after 9/11. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I am somewhat familiar with how things get done. The content of the conversation is what's protected. I'm not so hard nose as to object to some sifting of data. Let's say that I made a dozen calls to a known terrorists phone number. In itself that doesn't make me a terrorist. I might be an honest businessman who doesn't know who I'm talking to. That does however raise eyebrows as it ought to. Time for a wiretap? No, not yet. If however it turns out that I'm calling several terrorists or if I'm engaged in a business which is suspect, then at some point it may.

So the agents apply for a warrant, and then commence their surveillance. Let's suppose for a moment though that there was reasonable grounds to believe that I might be engaging in something which requires immediate action. Then the agents commence the wiretaps immediately, then followup with the paperwork afterwords. I'm fine with that. Legitimate needs are accommodated in a timely way, yet the government is accountable to independent scrutiny.

I don't see where that's an unreasonable desire.

You're not very far off from how it actually works for cases involving the FBI on US soil... that said, AFAIC, any phone call involving a foreign number should be fair game, and the number of calls to/from that number is irrelevant. After all, what if the capture is occurring at sea, or from foreign soil? Remember, most "taps" are done virtually these days... and, all it takes is a single phone call to turn the tide one way, or another.

Many idiots here, along with a few folks at EFF, object to the metadata capture as well, which is simply ridiculous -- I'm glad you're not on that list.

Whatever the case, FISA 2008 and the last FISC ruling(s) cleared the program(s) that Obama is adopting. Both Congress and the courts have therefore been involved in ensuring that the modern application of FISA is constitutional.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: JSFLY
Your right I don't how national security works regarding FISA or whatever the hell your referring to.

What I do know is that Obama campaigned on reversing the Bush policy on wiretaps.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9845595-7.html

It's obvious he has had a change of heart, so perhaps he should tell his base exactly why that is.... that way we can get an answer straight from the horse's mouth, instead of from people proclaiming to be national security experts on random internet forums..

There was never a "change of heart."

Your problem, because you have no idea what is meant by "FISA or whatever the hell you're referring to," is that you have no fucking clue what is meant when people, including yourself, use the word "wiretap."

Let me spell it out for you: There is more than one wiretapping-related program run by the US government. During the Bush Administration, one of those programs was called the TSP. The TSP was the "warrantless wiretapping" of US persons that Bush claimed Article II authority gave him the power to do. However, even he and his admin quickly realized just how much of a grey area surrounded the TSP, so they stopped the program in its tracks after only 100 US persons were tapped.

Most of the other program(s) used to tap communications were deemed legal and constitutional via the passage of FISA 2008 and FISC (court) rulings.

Therefore, all you need to know is that "Bush's evul wiretappinz programz" are NOT being carried forward, as a whole, by Obama -- he is NOT adopting the TSP.

Instead, Obama is continuing the use of the program(s) that have been deemed legal and constitutional.

Did you expect him to eliminate wiretapping altogether!??

 

[dahunan]

Obama has shown ME NOTHING to prove he is for change.. he is a worthless token black man to sit in the oval office who is an eloquent orator.. nothing more.. Just another politician...

Fuck them all... cowards and thieves.. all of them

 

[JSFLY]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: JSFLY
Your right I don't how national security works regarding FISA or whatever the hell your referring to.

What I do know is that Obama campaigned on reversing the Bush policy on wiretaps.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9845595-7.html

It's obvious he has had a change of heart, so perhaps he should tell his base exactly why that is.... that way we can get an answer straight from the horse's mouth, instead of from people proclaiming to be national security experts on random internet forums..

There was never a "change of heart."

Your problem, because you have no idea what is meant by "FISA or whatever the hell you're referring to," is that you have no fucking clue what is meant when people, including yourself, use the word "wiretap."

Let me spell it out for you: There is more than one wiretapping-related program run by the US government. During the Bush Administration, one of those programs was called the TSP. The TSP was the "warrantless wiretapping" of US persons that Bush claimed Article II authority gave him the power to do. However, even he and his admin quickly realized just how much of a grey area surrounded the TSP, so they stopped the program in its tracks after only 100 US persons were tapped.

Most of the other program(s) used to tap communications were deemed legal and constitutional via the passage of FISA 2008 and FISC (court) rulings.

Therefore, all you need to know is that "Bush's evul wiretappinz programz" are NOT being carried forward, as a whole, by Obama -- he is NOT adopting the TSP.

Instead, Obama is continuing the use of the program(s) that have been deemed legal and constitutional.

Did you expect him to eliminate wiretapping altogether!??

Like I said in my response, if that's the case, fine. But I would prefer to hear it from himself or him administration than from some random person proclaiming to be a national security expert on some internet forum.

That being said, logically speaking if a big Obama fan such as Olbermann, someone who obviously has the resources (being able to speak to high level government officials, national security experts and high priced lawyers) couldn't find a valid excuse for Obama, I doubt your excuse is valid.

 

[dahunan]

anything deemed legal and constitutional under the Bush admin was a lie.. he had his own version of the constitution written by Darth Cheney

 

[Robor]

Good, detailed info SP33Demon and palehorse. :thumbsup: I'll admit I was uninformed on this issue.

 

[JohnnyGage]

Really good read. Thanks Palehorse and SP33Demon.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: dahunan
anything deemed legal and constitutional under the Bush admin was a lie.. he had his own version of the constitution written by Darth Cheney

FISA 2008 was passed by a Dem-controlled congress, not Bush himself.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: JSFLY

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: JSFLY
Your right I don't how national security works regarding FISA or whatever the hell your referring to.

What I do know is that Obama campaigned on reversing the Bush policy on wiretaps.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9845595-7.html

It's obvious he has had a change of heart, so perhaps he should tell his base exactly why that is.... that way we can get an answer straight from the horse's mouth, instead of from people proclaiming to be national security experts on random internet forums..

There was never a "change of heart."

Your problem, because you have no idea what is meant by "FISA or whatever the hell you're referring to," is that you have no fucking clue what is meant when people, including yourself, use the word "wiretap."

Let me spell it out for you: There is more than one wiretapping-related program run by the US government. During the Bush Administration, one of those programs was called the TSP. The TSP was the "warrantless wiretapping" of US persons that Bush claimed Article II authority gave him the power to do. However, even he and his admin quickly realized just how much of a grey area surrounded the TSP, so they stopped the program in its tracks after only 100 US persons were tapped.

Most of the other program(s) used to tap communications were deemed legal and constitutional via the passage of FISA 2008 and FISC (court) rulings.

Therefore, all you need to know is that "Bush's evul wiretappinz programz" are NOT being carried forward, as a whole, by Obama -- he is NOT adopting the TSP.

Instead, Obama is continuing the use of the program(s) that have been deemed legal and constitutional.

Did you expect him to eliminate wiretapping altogether!??

Like I said in my response, if that's the case, fine. But I would prefer to hear it from himself or him administration than from some random person proclaiming to be a national security expert on some internet forum.

That being said, logically speaking if a big Obama fan such as Olbermann, someone who obviously has the resources (being able to speak to high level government officials, national security experts and high priced lawyers) couldn't find a valid excuse for Obama, I doubt your excuse is valid.

Like many here, Olbermann simply has no clue what he is talking about. His entire show was devoid of ANY discussion of the technical aspects of the various programs in question, which would otherwise be the key element of any worthwhile discussion on this topic. Hell, I don't even think he addressed the existence of more than program, or more than one type of "wiretap."

Knee-jerk rhetorical nonsense FTL.

 

[SP33Demon]

I think the main pieces of this story that have Olbermann and Greenwald's panties in a bunch are twofold:

1) The DoJ is now saying that it cannot be prosecuted on information unless they give "willful disclosure" to the information that any plaintiff alleges. Which basically means it cannot be prosecuted for anything, including bungled investigations (see: Britain's genius who was carrying classified documents that were photographed with a telephoto lens and publically put on the net). IMO this was a poor choice of words, they will need to expand on this because IF evidence arises that they are wiretapping Americans without just cause, then this is defense is bogus. If the government botches an investigation they should be held accountable in a court of law, even if that court is FISC (classified/closed proceedings due to sensitive nature). They should have stated as much and not used such a vague term that is open to such public scrutiny.

2) What they refer to as the DNI's "state secret" doctrine that excuses this case, as well as other cases due to revealing sensitive classified information that would jeopardize national security. This defense was also used to deny the plaintiffs in this case of Jewel v NSA, which I do not have a problem with. All in all, we know that the TSP was wrong but it's no longer operable. If retroactively prosecuting the past admin is going to require uncovering current classified information, then it's not worth it and I agree with the current DoJ. Was full justice served? Maybe not completely, but in the least it helped shape the current intel community policies that guarantee it will never happen again.

To summarize, the only major gripe that is valid is #1 IMO. The DoJ definitely should not have used that definition because it is saying that since they ARE the law, they cannot be prosecuted. Which is the first step toward a police state. Everything would have been fine if they just stuck to their guns with #2, it wasn't an unreasonable defense. I'm sure they will clarify on #1 in the coming months because now the uninformed general public is assuming the government is running illegal wiretapping out of a knee-jerk reactionary response which is simply false. Last, #2 IS continuing Bush policy but it was valid defense (yet abused by them to cover up TSP). #1 is new policy, and has nothing to do with Bush.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Obama never reversed his position on wiretapping. He never said there would be transparency, he voted consistently for telecom immunity and FISA 2008. He said:

Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill [FISA 2008], and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

He never ever advocated the illegal wiretapping of Americans, and yet recognizes that there are extenuating circumstances where Americans who seek to harm us with International help will have to be wiretapped without a warrant. There is no way around it, a court has ruled this, Congress has agreed with majority. Furthermore, I applaud his DoJ for NOT providing transparency in the Jewel v NSA case. Why the fck should the NSA divulge state secrets and give terr0rists the upper hand? That's stupid, and Olbermann/Greenwald are morons who would probably give away classified documents on NSA ops just to see Bush and co go to prison. They need to take the blinders off and realize that nothing good can come out of publically revealing still classified NSA information. Nobody I know has this point of view except extremists, uninformed idiots, or mentally unstable hospital patients.

I don't know why you claim to discuss Obama's reversing himself, when you don't quote the relevant information, such as his pledge to oppose immunity for telecom execs.

Something else our monitoring-friendly posters have ignored while they repeats the mantra about the 2008 bill, is that the acts done before that bill weren't yet legal.

Is there some new ex post facto immunity that says that you can break the law, as long as the acts are later made legal?

 

[chess9]

I think Obama let his legal team decide how to proceed and they felt the best way to protect Obama was to protect the CIA and DOJ, not the American people.

Frankly, this is an obamination.

At this rate, I will be so cool on Obama in another year I'll have to move to Hell to warm up.

-Robert

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Is there some new ex post facto immunity that says that you can break the law, as long as the acts are later made legal?

My grandfather used to run moonshine during the prohibition. He's still alive. Want to hang him for selling alcohol? Just wonderin'...

Here's a clue for you: the "wiretap" program(s) in question were never deemed by any high court to be "illegal" either -- hence the use of "legal grey areas" to describe some of them. Ain't that a bitch?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Craig234
Is there some new ex post facto immunity that says that you can break the law, as long as the acts are later made legal?

My grandfather used to run moonshine during the prohibition. He's still alive. Want to hang him for selling alcohol? Just wonderin'...

Here's a clue for you: the "wiretap" program(s) in question were never deemed by any high court to be "illegal" either -- hence the use of "legal grey areas" to describe some of them. Ain't that a bitch?

Statue of limitations would cover your grandfather.

However, the wiretap programs that were deemed illegal at the time were covered up and that bothers me and it SHOULD bother you too. (actually, i think it does and i believe you have told me so)

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
However, the wiretap programs that were deemed illegal at the time were covered up

By which court? When?

and that bothers me and it SHOULD bother you too. (actually, i think it does and i believe you have told me so)

No, the only program that ever bothered me was the TSP, which was quickly closed down after only 100 citizens were effected. Even so, that program has never been deemed "illegal" by any high court either. Its authority was based, at the time, on the ambiguous authorities granted to a President during wartime under Article II of our constitution. I believe the outcry from that program has tainted every discussion since...

IOW, the program(s) in question never had a high court decide on their legality until FISC addressed the still running programs in 2007 and 2008, just prior to the passage of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
However, the wiretap programs that were deemed illegal at the time were covered up

By which court? When?

and that bothers me and it SHOULD bother you too. (actually, i think it does and i believe you have told me so)

No, the only program that ever bothered me was the TSP, which was quickly closed down after only 100 citizens were effected. Even so, that program has never been deemed "illegal" by any high court either. Its authority was based, at the time, on the ambiguous authorities granted to a President during wartime under Article II of our constitution. I believe the outcry from that program has tainted every discussion since...

IOW, the program(s) in question never had a high court decide on their legality until FISC addressed the still running programs in 2007 and 2008, just prior to the passage of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

It was illegal under current law when it was ongoing regardless of whether they were charged with anything.

After the last three times we had this conversation and agreed on this i thought you knew that, what happened, did you suddenly change your mind?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
However, the wiretap programs that were deemed illegal at the time were covered up

By which court? When?

and that bothers me and it SHOULD bother you too. (actually, i think it does and i believe you have told me so)

No, the only program that ever bothered me was the TSP, which was quickly closed down after only 100 citizens were effected. Even so, that program has never been deemed "illegal" by any high court either. Its authority was based, at the time, on the ambiguous authorities granted to a President during wartime under Article II of our constitution. I believe the outcry from that program has tainted every discussion since...

IOW, the program(s) in question never had a high court decide on their legality until FISC addressed the still running programs in 2007 and 2008, just prior to the passage of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008

It was illegal under current law when it was ongoing regardless of whether they were charged with anything.

After the last three times we had this conversation and agreed on this i thought you knew that, what happened, did you suddenly change your mind?

nope. i actually think you have me mixed up with someone else, because I disagree with the statement you just made completely. Why? Because none of the previous program(s) have ever been deemed "illegal." In actuality, all of the program(s) have been deemed legal by both the FISC decisions and the passing of FISA 2008 -- except for the TSP.

The TSP may be found "illegal" if it is ever implemented again; however, as it stands, no court has ever deemed it so. It was simply halted. The basis or reasoning for trying it at the time were the "wartime powers" granted our President under Article II. The debate raged like wildfire around such powers; but they, along with the TSP specifically, have never been tested in an actual court. Therefore, it's inaccurate to state that even the TSP would be "illegal" under today's laws, or any other. The legality of the TSP remains an unknown.

Immoral? perhaps. "More than likely unconstitutional"? perhaps. But, we'll never know for sure unless some high court takes on the issue in the future. I simply doubt that will ever happen. The TSP may never rise from the dead again...

As it stands, the remaining program(s) are all legal and constitutional, as determined by recent FISC decisions and the passing of FISA 2008.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
However, the wiretap programs that were deemed illegal at the time were covered up

By which court? When?

and that bothers me and it SHOULD bother you too. (actually, i think it does and i believe you have told me so)

No, the only program that ever bothered me was the TSP, which was quickly closed down after only 100 citizens were effected. Even so, that program has never been deemed "illegal" by any high court either. Its authority was based, at the time, on the ambiguous authorities granted to a President during wartime under Article II of our constitution. I believe the outcry from that program has tainted every discussion since...

IOW, the program(s) in question never had a high court decide on their legality until FISC addressed the still running programs in 2007 and 2008, just prior to the passage of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008

It was illegal under current law when it was ongoing regardless of whether they were charged with anything.

After the last three times we had this conversation and agreed on this i thought you knew that, what happened, did you suddenly change your mind?

nope. i actually think you have me mixed up with someone else, because I disagree with the statement you just made completely. Why? Because none of the previous program(s) have ever been deemed "illegal." In actuality, all of the program(s) have been deemed legal by both the FISC decisions and the passing of FISA 2008 -- except for the TSP.

The TSP may be found "illegal" if it is ever implemented again; however, as it stands, no court has ever deemed it so. It was simply halted. The basis or reasoning for trying it at the time were the "wartime powers" granted our President under Article II. The debate raged like wildfire around such powers; but they, along with the TSP specifically, have never been tested in an actual court. Therefore, it's inaccurate to state that even the TSP would be "illegal" under today's laws, or any other. The legality of the TSP remains an unknown.

Immoral? perhaps. "More than likely unconstitutional"? perhaps. But, we'll never know for sure unless some high court takes on the issue in the future. I simply doubt that will ever happen. The TSP may never rise from the dead again...

As it stands, the remaining program(s) are all legal and constitutional, as determined by recent FISC decisions and the passing of FISA 2008.

No, against the law as it was written, the changes made to the law came four years after it the procedure started.

And no, i'm not confusing you with someone else, it was a long thread with lots of posts, most notable posters were you, me and Don Vito.

I don't have the time to discuss this any further right now, but i've given you enough info to at least find the thread.

Cheers brother, keep safe.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Craig234
Is there some new ex post facto immunity that says that you can break the law, as long as the acts are later made legal?

My grandfather used to run moonshine during the prohibition. He's still alive. Want to hang him for selling alcohol? Just wonderin'...

Here's a clue for you: the "wiretap" program(s) in question were never deemed by any high court to be "illegal" either -- hence the use of "legal grey areas" to describe some of them. Ain't that a bitch?

No, it's confusion on your part. Actions don't have to go to court to be unconstitutional.

Are you that clueless about how the law works, after you so constantly make an issue of accuracy about the legal issues on electronic monitoring?

If a President (or a citizen) does something illegal, and later a law is passed making that act legal without including amnesty for past offenses, they are subject to the old law.

If the old law is not enforced for whatever reason - usually political - it doesn't mean they did not violate the law.

If you want the truth, you look at the facts, and don't replace the facts with an arbitrary standard such as 'the courts ruled it was unconstitutional'.

As for whether the actions were in violation of the law, there is more than enough eveidence, and you can find any number of legal experts who will inform you.

You seem informed about the programs, but not the law, with your nonsense about how the 2008 law changing what's allowed retroactively making their earlier actions legal.