Why is it even a question that Bush's domestic spying is illegal?

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: ahurtt
I'm sorry but I just don't see what the big deal is. . .If somebody can present a feasible ulterior motive that the gov't has for wanting wire-tap conversations that doesn't involve catching bad guys, I'm all ears.

lol.

This guy is like Stephen Colbert, but serious.

Let's take away free press and replace it with propaganda. That'll strengthen moral behind catching the terrorist. Come on, they did it in the past.

I believe we're talking about the question of the legality of domestic spying / wiretapping in this thread, not free press. To which thread were you replying?

A lot of people see some kind of conspiracy. I have nothing to hide so I see the gov't doing it's job trying to protect it's citizens from potential harm. How else are we supposed to root out the evil plotters if not by using subversive techniques against them just like the ones they use to plan out attacks? Or will you just deny that there are people living amongst us who are actively trying to plot ways to kill mass numbers of us AND who have every intention of actually carrying out those plots?

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Well things haven't quite gotten bad enough for me to think a repeat of any of those times is necessary just yet.

That's cause it hasn't affected you personally yet. I bet that's how the more democratic Party officials felt in the USSR in the Fall of 1935.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I have always maintained we are not at war unless congress declares war.

iirc, the constitution does not actually define what constitutes a war.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: ElFenix
a search is a search. the court splits hairs to get the result it wants for good policy reasons, but it is obviously a search for weapons. the fact that it is limited doesn't make it not a search.

Read the section I quoted again. It refers specifically to what we are talking about . It makes a clear distinction between a frisk(to ensure the safety of an officer) and a full blown search. Why would it do that? Because warrants ARE required for a search???? In no way does electronic surveillance endanger the investigating officers. This case does not apply.

i wasn't refering to the wiretaps. i was specifically referring to searches. and a frisk is clearly a search by any normal definition of such. that the court has to tinker with the definition to make it not a '4th amendment search' is a legal fiction.

and you still have yet to address the other instances that are clearly searches but the courts let slide.

ever see dirty harry? in it they do a lot of questioning and berating of harry, saying he is breaking the law, violating the rules, being a vigilante cop, etc. but it turns out everything he does in the move is quite within 4th amendment jurisprudence. like when he breaks into the stadium searching for the suspect without a warrant.

 

[eilute]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
I'm sorry but I just don't see what the big deal is. . .If somebody can present a feasible ulterior motive that the gov't has for wanting wire-tap conversations that doesn't involve catching bad guys, I'm all ears.

Isn't the extra authority an unchecked power that will ultimately be abused?

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: ahurtt
I'm sorry but I just don't see what the big deal is. . .If somebody can present a feasible ulterior motive that the gov't has for wanting wire-tap conversations that doesn't involve catching bad guys, I'm all ears.

lol.

This guy is like Stephen Colbert, but serious.

Let's take away free press and replace it with propaganda. That'll strengthen moral behind catching the terrorist. Come on, they did it in the past.

I believe we're talking about the question of the legality of domestic spying / wiretapping in this thread, not free press. To which thread were you replying?

A lot of people see some kind of conspiracy. I have nothing to hide so I see the gov't doing it's job trying to protect it's citizens from potential harm. How else are we supposed to root out the evil plotters if not by using subversive techniques against them just like the ones they use to plan out attacks? Or will you just deny that there are people living amongst us who are actively trying to plot ways to kill mass numbers of us AND who have every intention of actually carrying out those plots?

I have a question for you. If the administration was doing its job in protecting the American people by spying on potential threats within the United States (i.e. al qaeda members or people linked to al qaeda), don't you think that the FISA court, a court which if I recall correctly barely ever refuses to issue a warrant, would grant the administration one? The administration can even ask for the warrant retroactively. This doesn't sound very difficult to me. Why do you think the administration refused to tell the courts or ask for a warrant in certain cases if they were spying on real potential threats?

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: piasabird
I have always maintained we are not at war unless congress declares war.

iirc, the constitution does not actually define what constitutes a war.

The War Powers Act does.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: eilute
Isn't the extra authority an unchecked power that will ultimately be abused?

More accurately, it has already been abused. Nixon ordered break-ins and spyiing on his political "enemies," by both the FBI and and his own "plumbers," to gather information about them, and he ordered the IRS to investigate and prosecute them in any way possible

The Constitutional requirement for a warrant is to provide oversight to prevent such abuses. :| Without such protection, we have only the word of whoever's in power that they are not abusing that power. Considering how many lies Bush has already told to justify little things like wars and torture, I wouldn't trust him any further than I can throw him from where I am, right now.

In a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887, Lord Acton, said "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Isn't it time we learned?

 

[redgtxdi]

(((cough)))......Clinton........(((cough)))..........:disgust:

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The constitution requires warrants for searches. Isn't that clear?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And isn't the government required to follow the law?

The domestic spying is done without warrants.

ummm....?

So why is it even a question that Bush's domestic spying is illegal?

It's a question because Bush is only wiretapping international calls, meaning he is listening in to the foreign party, and the fact that there is an American party on the line is irrelavant (the admin's justification for it -- I'm not saying I agree with it)...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
I'm sorry but I just don't see what the big deal is. . .If somebody can present a feasible ulterior motive that the gov't has for wanting wire-tap conversations that doesn't involve catching bad guys, I'm all ears.

Gee, because our government has NEVER engaged in questionable behavior and abuse of power before. We don't even need to examine something as amorphous as "motives", we have a history of wrongdoing. The very law Bush ignored was created in response to some truly astonishing abuses.

But even if you're right, you're still wrong. It doesn't matter what their motives are, we don't have a system of government that relies on the good-will of the people in charge. Even if that works with the current crop of jokers, that's not helpful with the next set, or the next set after that. We have laws for a reason...

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Adnan
Why ?

Because times change, law need to be changed with the flow.

At the time these laws were made.

There were no suicide bombers.

While the laws are generally good. they just need to be altered to fit these days.

laws from 700 years ago also got changed.

Times change things. These lawas were written by men who barely had light or no light.

:roll:

Follow the law or ask congress to change it. Simple. Don't follow it to the letter, be prepared to deal with the consequences. Clearly, Bush can't be bothered with the law.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: ahurtt
I'm sorry but I just don't see what the big deal is. . .If somebody can present a feasible ulterior motive that the gov't has for wanting wire-tap conversations that doesn't involve catching bad guys, I'm all ears.

lol.

This guy is like Stephen Colbert, but serious.

Let's take away free press and replace it with propaganda. That'll strengthen moral behind catching the terrorist. Come on, they did it in the past.

I believe we're talking about the question of the legality of domestic spying / wiretapping in this thread, not free press. To which thread were you replying?

A lot of people see some kind of conspiracy. I have nothing to hide so I see the gov't doing it's job trying to protect it's citizens from potential harm. How else are we supposed to root out the evil plotters if not by using subversive techniques against them just like the ones they use to plan out attacks? Or will you just deny that there are people living amongst us who are actively trying to plot ways to kill mass numbers of us AND who have every intention of actually carrying out those plots?

Blackmail for one.

If you are even a little bit familiar with RECENT history, you would know that the US government and the FBI used blackmail HEAVILY in the 1940s-1970s.

If nothing else, this is why we should not allow free-for-all wiretaps.

Also, there have been issues with corporate industrial spying and false positives that result in innocent people being accused of crimes.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

The Soviet Union had free-for-all wiretaps. We fought the Soviet Union because it oppressed its people and wanted to oppress the people of the world. Why would we let Bush take even ONE STEP toward that road.

I am not saying Bush is a communist... I am saying that we should NEVER take any steps away from freedom. Court-approved wiretaps have worked for 100+ years, why can't they work today?

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: nyker96
Damn Bush, why is he having so much controversy all the time, can he just stay outta the news for a little while? I mean Iraq war, Repub party taking bribes, now this. Man he liked the news too much. Always try to mk something happening.

You forgotten trying to appoint a lawyer, instead of a judge, to the supreme court.

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: Meuge
The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.

I think Meuge has caught the true meaning of these "wars": permanent state of lawlessness and insecurity with minimum impediment from laws and no oversight from anyone by the administration itself. Remember, one of the the reasons given by the Bush junta was that oversight by the FISA court was inconvenient, time-consuming, and opposed many of their applications for wiretapping.

It may sound strange, but the current administration resembles to an unbelievable degree the rulers of Soviet Russia of the 1920-ies: nearly complete disregard for laws, personal freedoms, and human life. The only difference seems to be that Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin and assorted monsters didn't even pretend to act lawfully, whereas our administration tells us with a straight face "everything we do is lawful". I think that our administration can be safely classified as "Trotskyist": they dream of permanent wars the same way Trotsky dreamed of permanent revolutiuon. I mean, claiming that we live in a time of war is so convenient: wiretapping without warrant, declaring people "enemy combatants", awarding no-bid contracts to buddies: the list goes on and on.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: redgtxdi
(((cough)))......Clinton........(((cough)))..........:disgust:

Those trying to defend our wannabe führer, George Adolph. Bushler's assault on the Constitution have tried to assert that Clinton and Carter did the same thing. It simply is NOT so. Clinton may have asserted that he had the right to order warrantless searches, but regardless of what he said, unlike Bushwhacko, neither he, nor Carter tried to circumvent the law against warrantless searches.

What Cinton signed begins:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:

What Carter signed begins:

By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and 104 of the Foreign intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Even if you have some evidence that Clinton or Carter issued other orders without legal warrants, it doesn't make it right, and if they did they should be prosecuted for it. It doesn't excuse such illegal actions by Bush.

Bush is the only one who claims he doesn't have to obey FISA or any other U.S. law and is in a position to continue his illegal actions. The biggest difference would be that he's in office now. As such, he poses a clear and present immediate danger to our Constitutional rights.

You can stop coughing, now. :roll:

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: ahurtt
I'm sorry but I just don't see what the big deal is. . .If somebody can present a feasible ulterior motive that the gov't has for wanting wire-tap conversations that doesn't involve catching bad guys, I'm all ears.

lol.

This guy is like Stephen Colbert, but serious.

Let's take away free press and replace it with propaganda. That'll strengthen moral behind catching the terrorist. Come on, they did it in the past.

I believe we're talking about the question of the legality of domestic spying / wiretapping in this thread, not free press. To which thread were you replying?

A lot of people see some kind of conspiracy. I have nothing to hide so I see the gov't doing it's job trying to protect it's citizens from potential harm. How else are we supposed to root out the evil plotters if not by using subversive techniques against them just like the ones they use to plan out attacks? Or will you just deny that there are people living amongst us who are actively trying to plot ways to kill mass numbers of us AND who have every intention of actually carrying out those plots?

I'm replying just fine. I was mocking your pathetic argument in which you think it's perfectly fine to destroy liberty, the very foundation of this government, over a war on a concept of terrorism. If you were willing to give up one liberty to strengthen our war on a concept, then why not take away other liberties, such as freedom of speech, to strengthen our fight on terrorism?

Let the "evil plotters" try what they will. Benjamin Franklin had it right back in the founding days: Any society that gives up liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both. What he means is that if you take away our liberties, a tyranny will take over the government, and in such a government you have neither liberty or security.

The problem with your reasoning is that you are putting all of your trust into a partisan political administration, that believes that they are above the law. They have demonstrated in the past that they are willing to bend the rules to benefit themselves. If they break the rules of the checks and balances, and decide that they have the power to break rules in the constitution, they can and will use these illegal powers to promote their own agenda, which goes far beyond the fight against terrorism.

All this administration had to do is get congress's consent to do this. If it's not a big deal, then why didn't they do it. They can't just go around breaking laws.

By supporting the destruction of liberty, you are letting the terrorists win. The terrorists hated us because we fvcked with them in an arms supply race during the Cold War. By fvcking with people in the Middle East again, we are only creating more terrorists that hate America.

 

[CQuinn]

Originally posted by: Fern

Nope, must agree with Elfenix here. An example of a "full-blown search" w/o a warrant - Get caught driving a car w/o proper tag and registration and the police are able to do a "full-blown" search of your vehicle.

It happened to me. No warant was needed.

Probable cause, same as in the case referred above. You have established you were in violation of the law
(lack of proper tag and registration), which establishes a circumstance under which a followup search is
allowable to establish no other violations are apparent.

Did they call in the sniffer Dogs? or what was the extent of the full-blown search?

I assume since you are here posting about it, that they found nothing else during thier search?

If you were pulled over fixing a flat tire, with proper license, tags, and proof of insurance, and the police still asked to
do a search of your vehicle, you could then question the reason for the investigative action.

And I think you guys may be overlooking an important word in the provision: against UNreasonable searches.

Sounds like no protection afforded against reasonable searches

Fern

IANAL:

If you believe the search is not reasonable you can challenge it. Which could probably result in them taking you into
custody, impounding the vehicle, and applying for a warrant to then search the vehicle. In which case you would
be afforded legal counsel and the right to take the police department to task if the investigation did not result in
evidence of anything worthy of filing a warrant for.

 

[Helenihi]

Since the communications were with foreign parties the border search exception to the fourth amendment applies. You don't get 4th amendment protections when you cross into the U.S. and neither do your communications.

The argument is that Bush broke FISA, you don't really have an argument that he violated the 4th amendment (unless you're talking about purely domestic calls, which might have happened, but appear to be very few and only accidental).

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Originally posted by: Fern

Nope, must agree with Elfenix here. An example of a "full-blown search" w/o a warrant - Get caught driving a car w/o proper tag and registration and the police are able to do a "full-blown" search of your vehicle.

It happened to me. No warant was needed.

Nope, you are wrong. The cops may have made it seem like they had the authority to search your car, but you most likely gave them permission to do a warrant less search.

They can hold you until they can verify that you own the car you are driving but that is about it. There is no way they can do a "full-blown search" without a warrant for driving without a proper tag...

They only way they could have searched your car without a warrant is if you were arrested and they can search your car after it is impounded where they do what is called an inventory search.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Originally posted by: Helenihi
Since the communications were with foreign parties the border search exception to the fourth amendment applies. You don't get 4th amendment protections when you cross into the U.S. and neither do your communications.

The argument is that Bush broke FISA, you don't really have an argument that he violated the 4th amendment (unless you're talking about purely domestic calls, which might have happened, but appear to be very few and only accidental).

Wrong. If you are inside the US your call is or should be protected regardless of where it was going. The only way that maybe they could get around this is if they could block what you were saying and only listen to what the outside person was saying.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)


Synopsys:
The United States charged three defendants with conspiring to destroy, and one of them with destroying, Government property. In response to the defendants' pretrial motion for disclosure of electronic surveillance information, the Government filed an affidavit of the Attorney General stating that he had approved the wiretaps for the purpose of "gather[ing] intelligence information deemed necessary to protect the nation from attempts of domestic organizations to attack and subvert the existing structure of the Government." On the basis of the affidavit and surveillance logs (filed in a sealed exhibit), the Government claimed that the surveillances, though warrantless, were lawful as a reasonable exercise of presidential power to protect the national security. The District Court, holding the surveillances violative of the Fourth Amendment, issued an order for disclosure of the overheard conversations, which the Court of Appeals upheld.
(emphasis added)


MR. JUSTICE WHITE found:

As characterized by the District Court, the position of the United States was that the electronic monitoring of Plamondon's conversations without judicial warrant was a lawful exercise of the power of the President to safeguard the national security. The District Court granted the motion of defendants, holding that the President had no constitutional power to employ electronic surveillance without warrant to gather information about domestic organizations. Absent probable cause and judicial authorization, the challenged wiretap infringed Plamondon's Fourth Amendment rights. (emphasis added)


So the US Supreme court found that warrantless wiretaps are in violation of the 4th amendment.

 

[her209]

Let's for the sake of argument assume that the program is legal. Then why all the "hush hush"? Explaining the operational details will not compromise the operation simply no specific target needs to be mentioned. Why not fully disclose to the Senate Intelligence Committee?

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: eilute

Originally posted by: ahurtt
I'm sorry but I just don't see what the big deal is. . .If somebody can present a feasible ulterior motive that the gov't has for wanting wire-tap conversations that doesn't involve catching bad guys, I'm all ears.

Isn't the extra authority an unchecked power that will ultimately be abused?

We will see. . .time will tell. There are evil people out there that need catching though and how else can we do it?