Spying on US citizens

[Alexander Hamilton]

Again,  because of an activist court only is the 4th amendment tied to public phone booth privacy. 

 

http://www.free-essays.us/dbase/c2/arn130.shtml

Again I agree with Justice Black, and not a set of activist justices, who will now likely overturn the Katz decision based on some lawsuit likely to come from these actions.

536890[/snapback]

 

LOL. I enjoyed setting you up on that. I can only imagine someone threw you a bone and linked you to the Katz decision.

 

It's funny that you dismiss a decision upholding the actual language of the Constitution as "activist." That's precious, even for you.

 

In any event, the Supreme Court AND a later act of Congress both say that a court has to get a warrant to listen in on a public phone booth. But I'm sure you will keep insisting that such listening sans warrant is legal.

[Johnny Coli]

But in the interest of National Security I have to believe that if a captured transmission has a US citizen planning terrorist acts against the US I would want the government to take action on it. 

537028[/snapback]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they don't even need the warrant ahead of time. They just have to obtain one within 72 hours. How, then, is the security of the US endangered? What could their reasons possibly be for getting around this?

[VABills]

LOL. I enjoyed setting you up on that. I can only imagine someone threw you a bone and linked you to the Katz decision.

 

It's funny that you dismiss a decision upholding the actual language of the Constitution as "activist." That's precious, even for you.

 

In any event, the Supreme Court AND a later act of Congress both say that a court has to get a warrant to listen in on a public phone booth. But I'm sure you will keep insisting that such listening sans warrant is legal.

537049[/snapback]

Again, I don't know why you cannot seem to comprehend. Regardless of the law, I personally have no problem with it and if they choose to change the law, I would support it. Is that clear enough for you?

[TPS]

Sheesh.  First we have VABills Math, now we need to learn VABills definitions?

 

 

Sheesh. There's a pot calling a kettle black...

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they don't even need the warrant ahead of time.  They just have to obtain one within 72 hours.  How, then, is the security of the US endangered?  What could their reasons possibly be for getting around this?

537051[/snapback]

 

72 hours might not be enough to stop an event.

 

But then, you're mixing your issues here - is this a law enforcement issue, or a national security issue? Law enforcement NEEDS the warrant for reasons of criminal law...the military does not for national security purposes...though the military is also forbidden from operations within the continental US...except in time of war...which this may or may not be...

 

It would be nice if it were a clean, clear-cut issue. It's not. There is a definite gray area between the requirements of law enforcement and the needs of national security organizations...which is why the "quasi-warfare" methods of terrorists and insurgents frequently work so well, operating as they do in said gray area. But everyone can just keep ignoring me and arguing about Katz or the public/private nature of Verizon equipment...

[Johnny Coli]

72 hours might not be enough to stop an event. 

537060[/snapback]

Requiring to file for a warrant within 72 hours does not prohibit from acting on that info. They don't need a warrant to stop an event, they just need a warrant to make stopping that event legal after-the-fact, no?

[Clinton, Bill]

Again, I don't know why you cannot seem to comprehend.  Regardless of the law, I personally have no problem with it and if they choose to change the law, I would support it.  Is that clear enough for you?

537052[/snapback]

 

Regardless of the law, I personally have no problem with getting my pole smoked and then lying about it under oath. If they choose to change the law, I would support it.

Edited December 19, 2005 by KRC

[VABills]

Requiring to file for a warrant within 72 hours does not prohibit from acting on that info.  They don't need a warrant to stop an event, they just need a warrant to make stopping that event legal after-the-fact, no?

537074[/snapback]

I don't think so, and I thank the masterbating ape for clarifiying my thought, and he stated quite well.

[Alexander Hamilton]

72 hours might not be enough to stop an event. 

 

But then, you're mixing your issues here - is this a law enforcement issue, or a national security issue?  Law enforcement NEEDS the warrant for reasons of criminal law...the military does not for national security purposes...though the military is also forbidden from operations within the continental US...except in time of war...which this may or may not be...

 

It would be nice if it were a clean, clear-cut issue.  It's not.  There is a definite gray area between the requirements of law enforcement and the needs of national security organizations...which is why the "quasi-warfare" methods of terrorists and insurgents frequently work so well, operating as they do in said gray area.  But everyone can just keep ignoring me and arguing about Katz or the public/private nature of Verizon equipment... 

537060[/snapback]

 

The point, before I went waltzing through the flowers with VA, is that wiretapping US citizens is illegal, and furthermore, the government can EASILY get warrants for terror-related wiretaps.

 

Bush's justification for the wiretaps is this (which is different than what Rice offered up on Sunday).

 

"As president of the United States and commander in chief I have the constitutional responsibility and the constitutional authority to protect our country."

 

That's bullsh1t. He can get these wiretaps without endrunning the 4th Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which makes it illegal to spy on U.S. citizens in the United States without court approval. No one in the administration has offered the slightest legal defense to the wiretaps.

 

For you and BiB, whose comments amount to an accusation that people like me are all fiddling while Rome burns, I don't buy it. The administration can get these warrants to wiretap with ease. The administration hasn't provided one iota of response for how it can justify violating the Constitution. That's troubling.

 

VA doesn't care what the administration does in trampling the Constitution. He doesn't care if the government wiretaps every public phone booth in the US. Basically, the rule of law, to him, is for pu$$ies.

[GG]

Sheesh.  There's a pot calling a kettle black...

537055[/snapback]

 

Just because I chose to abandon the last thread, doesn't mean I was wrong (just tired of arguing with a wall)

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Requiring to file for a warrant within 72 hours does not prohibit from acting on that info.  They don't need a warrant to stop an event, they just need a warrant to make stopping that event legal after-the-fact, no?

537074[/snapback]

 

Technically, they'd need the warrant within 72 hours of setting up the wire tap for the tap to be legal.

 

However, as far as I know that only precludes them from using the information in a legal setting - the issuance of an arrest warrant, the prosecution of someone using the information or anything derived from it.

 

But you could potentially use it in a manner that is non-legal (note: not illegal) - say, issuing warnings and taking appropriate steps when you get credible information that Wall Street's targeted for an attack, or cancelling inbound British Airways flights based on overheard conversations. Both of which have happened (though I'm presuming it resulted from domestic wiretaps - though it's a pretty damned good presumption).

 

And both of which aren't necessarily pure criminal law enforcement applications, but are definite national security applications - though they aren't pure national security applications either. It's that gray area between national security and criminal law again...and the whole reason the gray area exists is because, no matter how much you argue the letter of the law, it simply doesn't provide for a comfortable cross-over between national security and criminal law in these situations.

[Wacka]

Nobody has mentioned that CONGRESS had reviewed tis over a dozen times since 9/11.

Investigate who leaked this info.

We are at war. Leaking this is treason.

"Cpimcidentally" the guy who published the story just happens to be putting out a book now.

Mmm?

[GG]

That's bullsh1t. He can get these wiretaps without endrunning the 4th Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which makes it illegal to spy on U.S. citizens in the United States without court approval. No one in the administration has offered the slightest legal defense to the wiretaps.

 

For you and BiB, whose comments amount to an accusation that people like me are all fiddling while Rome burns, I don't buy it. The administration can get these warrants to wiretap with ease. The administration hasn't provided one iota of response for how it can justify violating the Constitution. That's troubling.

537085[/snapback]

 

Isn't it a little early to jump on the bandwagon to say that there's no legal defense to what they've been doing? There is an accusation from the NYT that conversations of US citizens were listened to, without a warrant. That, in a vacuum, is pretty damning. But we don't know the circumstance, nor the procedure, and as the monkey points out, we don't know whether it falls under criminal or national security grounds. Why was Badilla held for years without a formal charge?

 

I also see a reason why the admin is being tight lipped on the explanation - chances are this is an ongoing activity. NYT outing the process compromises the intel gathering, which now needs to be scrapped. I'm guessing is that for a full accounting of this program to air, many secrets would have to be divulged. You're asking them to come open on all of this in less than a week?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

For you and BiB, whose comments amount to an accusation that people like me are all fiddling while Rome burns, I don't buy it. The administration can get these warrants to wiretap with ease. The administration hasn't provided one iota of response for how it can justify violating the Constitution. That's troubling.

 

I'm not making that argument. I'm just saying that there's definite national security issues as well as definite constitutional issues that have to be considered here...and anyone who ignores one over the other is a congenital idiot.

 

Nor am I accepting Bush's claim. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Ignoring and trashing constitutional protections for the sake of national security is - again - ignoring one consideration over the other, and congenitally idiotic.

 

And furthermore, I've pointed out twice now that there is ample precedent for extra-legal domestic surveillence in war time. No one seems to want to address that simple statement - which is unsurprising, since it's a central consideration to the argument and difficult to accept in a free society. It's much easier to dance around the edges of the issue, and pretend that the partisan politics of the Fourth Amendment Rights of phone booth users is somehow relevant. God forbid anyone outside of me and BiB should try to completely understand an issue rather than throw out knee-jerk reactions.

 

VA doesn't care what the administration does in trampling the Constitution. He doesn't care if the government wiretaps every public phone booth in the US. Basically, the rule of law, to him, is for pu$$ies.

537085[/snapback]

 

VA apparently mixed a stupid pill in with his Flintstones Vitamins this morning. Note that he was conspicuously absent from my list of "people who try to completely understand an issue".

[Johnny Coli]

Technically, they'd need the warrant within 72 hours of setting up the wire tap for the tap to be legal. 

 

However, as far as I know that only precludes them from using the information in a legal setting - the issuance of an arrest warrant, the prosecution of someone using the information or anything derived from it. 

 

But you could potentially use it in a manner that is non-legal (note: not illegal) - say, issuing warnings and taking appropriate steps when you get credible information that Wall Street's targeted for an attack, or cancelling inbound British Airways flights based on overheard conversations.  Both of which have happened (though I'm presuming it resulted from domestic wiretaps - though it's a pretty damned good presumption).

 

And both of which aren't necessarily pure criminal law enforcement applications, but are definite national security applications - though they aren't pure national security applications either.  It's that gray area between national security and criminal law again...and the whole reason the gray area exists is because, no matter how much you argue the letter of the law, it simply doesn't provide for a comfortable cross-over between national security and criminal law in these situations.

537092[/snapback]

Ambiguity between criminal law and national security aside, I still don't see any reason to not file the warrant. File the warrant and there is no legal/illegal/non-legal issue at all. It smacks of arrogance.

[EC-Bills]

Somewhere out there, TracyLee and BF are reading this thread and thinking "See...this PROVES copying a CD is legal!" 

 

Well...TracyLee is.  BF is reading it and thinking "But somebody threw a cup at Ron Artest!!!"

536832[/snapback]

[EC-Bills]

Do you think the government spied on me talking dirty to the wife? I think I even sang 'You dropped a bomb on me' to her over the phone...should I worry?

536964[/snapback]

 

If John Ashcroft were still the AG, I would say yes, be very afraid. With Gonzalez, I think your safe. He at least understands what you are saying.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Ambiguity between criminal law and national security aside, I still don't see any reason to not file the warrant.  File the warrant and there is no legal/illegal/non-legal issue at all.  It smacks of arrogance.

537123[/snapback]

 

Operational security. If you file the warrant, you're in effect giving notice that you're investigating someone. You may not want that notice given, because that someone then skips town, and you have no more source of information.

 

Or...you may not get the warrant (your evidence backing the request may be lacking), and it's much easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. Which DOES smack of arrogance, indisputably.

 

Or..the evidence backing the request, if divulged, would reveal methods and means, and the revelation ITSELF would compromise national security (which is possible).

 

The bottom-line, non-arrogant reason, though, is that you're simply operating under constraints that preclude it. Your basis for a potential warrant, for example, is data gleaned from interrogations at Gitmo, which I highly doubt are acceptable in a court of law. (That particular example, of course, just shifts the accusation of arrogance from wiretapping to extra-legal prison camps, so it's not terribly satisfactory. But it's hardly the only example...just the only one I have time for now.)

 

And "arrogance" certainly isn't outside the realm of possibility either. It's just that there's plenty of valid ones, as well. Of which "pay phones are public domain" is NOT one, I hasten to add...

[Johnny Coli]

Operational security.  If you file the warrant, you're in effect giving notice that you're investigating someone.  You may not want that notice given, because that someone then skips town, and you have no more source of information. 

 

Or..the evidence backing the request, if divulged, would reveal methods and means, and the revelation ITSELF would compromise national security (which is possible). 

 

537153[/snapback]

So, if that is indeed the case, why have any civil liberty constraints on the Executive Branch at all if they deem the other two branches of power to be security risks? Just about every action this administration takes could be deemed an action in the interests of national security with regards to the GWOT, and therefore not answerable to any laws. Where is the line drawn if they are going to shout "9-11" at every constitutional roadblock?

[Kelly the Dog]

THAT, on the other hand, might be an exaggeration.  There's certainly ample precedent for unilmited wiretapping sans due process by the government in wartime.  The real question then becomes: how "real" a war is the war on terrorism? 

 

VABills might have had more success had he chosen that argument, rather than the constitutional angle.  I suspect, however, that he has more fun trying to argue about things he doesn't understand... 

536961[/snapback]

I'm not sure if you watched it, but Russert said, basically, okay, but give me one thing in the constitution, anything, any law that gives him this right. And she said the I know you have me dead answer of, "I'm not a lawyer". In all my and I would think anyone's years of watching politicians squirm, it's pretty damn easy to see when they know they are stuck or whether they are arguing a point and have conviction. She had zero conviction in her answers. He kept coming back to it, asking for anything resembling a precedent, or a law, or a law that superecedes other laws, and she was just blank.