They before year 2001 had over 6000 taps done and only one warrant was turned away by the court. So system works fine. But you still need folks to do something with info. No one paid any attention to info available summer of 2001. New law not needed. Just need folks paying attention. President does not need any more power.
In 2002, Justice Department said eavesdropping law working well
- Thread starter Chadman
- Start date
dawgball said:
I really don't know but i'd guess they have to remove the tap.
Not much of an answer, but not sure it really matters that much if it's as rare as people are saying. (others also, not just DJV..lol)
- Feb 12, 2000
- 10,652
- 39
- 48
- 50
Thanks, kosar. It's not his information, it's just that his presentation is always from left-wing agenda land.
I agree that if it is the norm for them to obtain FISA warrants post-setting up the tap AND it will not impede necessary information gathering, then they should be doing it by the book every time.
I just don't get why they wouldn't do it like this in the first place. (Insert some left-agenda comment about this administration loving to screw the little man here)
I agree that if it is the norm for them to obtain FISA warrants post-setting up the tap AND it will not impede necessary information gathering, then they should be doing it by the book every time.
I just don't get why they wouldn't do it like this in the first place. (Insert some left-agenda comment about this administration loving to screw the little man here)
Too long to paste, but if you have 10 minutes this is an interesting article about the behind the scenes battle among loyal conservatives regarding the expansion of executive power.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11079547/site/newsweek/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11079547/site/newsweek/
Actually, dawgball - not that it plays into my case well but it's important to learn from - I searched a little this AM on that topic. I could not find anything about it, but did find some writings as to the "after-the-fact-warrants" taking time to get, as they might have to have them approved (in a sense) prior to going forward with them. In other words, having to go through some filings or checking with judges to make sure they will be approved before they can act. This is pretty fuzzy to me, and I have been spouting off this question repeatedly, and I maybe shouldn't have. I still stand by my opinion that there has to be some checks on power, and feel that way completely. But it might change my opinion to not be so focused on that point.
Would like to hear about what the legalities would be if they did it and the warrant was in fact turned down. If it's as simple as removing the tap, then it REALLY doesn't seem like a big deal to have to follow it. But I don't know.
Would like to hear about what the legalities would be if they did it and the warrant was in fact turned down. If it's as simple as removing the tap, then it REALLY doesn't seem like a big deal to have to follow it. But I don't know.
- Feb 12, 2000
- 10,652
- 39
- 48
- 50
I believe we are almost in agreement on this. I guess the only difference is where we stand on Bush and this administration, in general. I agree that they should be going about this under the guidelines set by the Justice Dept. because, as you stated, we have checks and balances for a reason.
I guess I just don't view this administration as one who is out abusing their power (anymore than past administrations -- we just have more and more coverage daily) at any given whim.
I do appreciate the fact that you are willing to post findings here even though they are not lock step in what you believe. That is to be commended.
I guess I just don't view this administration as one who is out abusing their power (anymore than past administrations -- we just have more and more coverage daily) at any given whim.
I do appreciate the fact that you are willing to post findings here even though they are not lock step in what you believe. That is to be commended.
It's working well. Make you feal better. Not sure why you have to bite all the time. But does it not seem one turn down for over 6000 taps is excellent. And does it not make sence if they don't make use of info it's a waist. No mater what party. Not just left.
Bush Broke the Law
by Charley Reese
When The New York Times revealed that President George Bush had authorized warrantless surveillance of Americans, the Bush administration reacted in its usual manner: attack and then stage a public-relations campaign.
The attack was in the usual jingoistic mode, implying that both the Times and its source, a whistle-blower at the National Security Agency, were providing aid and comfort to the enemy and undermining the war on terror.
That's garbage, of course. Any terrorist with more than a two-digit IQ knows that the NSA has the means to intercept any electronic communication. Terrorists don't need to read the Times to figure that out.
The reason it is important for the American people to know is because the president appears to have violated both the law and the Constitution. A recent Zogby poll revealed that 52 percent of Americans think that if this is proven to be true, then the president should be impeached. This is a most serious issue.
It goes to the question, Is the president above the law? The answer, if we wish to maintain our free republic, must be no. Hence, the public-relations campaign, which consists of the president and his minions fanning out to make speeches asserting that what he did was both legal and necessary. The operative word is "asserting." An assertion is not a fact. It is merely a claim. What it all boils down to is, "Trust me." The American people have no way of verifying if, in fact, the surveillance is limited to people actually making contact with actual terrorists.
As to the legality, that's plain. What the president did was illegal. Some act does not become legal just because some hired lawyers say it is. The act must be measured against both the law and the Constitution; Bush's act was illegal and unconstitutional.
Some years ago, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It sets up a special court that can issue warrants authorizing surveillance of Americans. This court has routinely issued the warrants and even gives the government 72 hours in which it can get a warrant after the fact. In other words, if what Bush says about only surveilling people with known ties to terrorists is true, then he would have had no problem getting the warrants.
Gen. Michael Hayden, now deputy director of national intelligence and former director of the National Security Agency, was trotted out before the press to justify this and, frankly, made a fool of himself. When someone raised the issue of probable cause, the general petulantly denied that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution requires probable cause. Then he said that the standard is reasonable, and added that nobody was more familiar with the Fourth Amendment than the NSA.
Well, he's dead, flat wrong.
Here's the text of the Fourth Amendment: "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."
What the Bush administration is saying is, to hell with the Bill of Rights. We are changing the standard. No probable cause and no oaths or affirmations are needed. All that is needed is if we personally decide that search and seizure is reasonable. By that standard, no police department in the U.S. would need to bother with search warrants.
Sorry, but the Constitution cannot be amended by arrogant public officials who don't wish to bother with it. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and if the American people allow it to be violated at will, then they will deserve the loss of liberty that will surely follow. We do not need to become a dictatorship just to catch terrorists. Nor does a declaration of war (which Bush, by the way, doesn't have) suspend the Constitution.
January 31, 2006
by Charley Reese
When The New York Times revealed that President George Bush had authorized warrantless surveillance of Americans, the Bush administration reacted in its usual manner: attack and then stage a public-relations campaign.
The attack was in the usual jingoistic mode, implying that both the Times and its source, a whistle-blower at the National Security Agency, were providing aid and comfort to the enemy and undermining the war on terror.
That's garbage, of course. Any terrorist with more than a two-digit IQ knows that the NSA has the means to intercept any electronic communication. Terrorists don't need to read the Times to figure that out.
The reason it is important for the American people to know is because the president appears to have violated both the law and the Constitution. A recent Zogby poll revealed that 52 percent of Americans think that if this is proven to be true, then the president should be impeached. This is a most serious issue.
It goes to the question, Is the president above the law? The answer, if we wish to maintain our free republic, must be no. Hence, the public-relations campaign, which consists of the president and his minions fanning out to make speeches asserting that what he did was both legal and necessary. The operative word is "asserting." An assertion is not a fact. It is merely a claim. What it all boils down to is, "Trust me." The American people have no way of verifying if, in fact, the surveillance is limited to people actually making contact with actual terrorists.
As to the legality, that's plain. What the president did was illegal. Some act does not become legal just because some hired lawyers say it is. The act must be measured against both the law and the Constitution; Bush's act was illegal and unconstitutional.
Some years ago, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It sets up a special court that can issue warrants authorizing surveillance of Americans. This court has routinely issued the warrants and even gives the government 72 hours in which it can get a warrant after the fact. In other words, if what Bush says about only surveilling people with known ties to terrorists is true, then he would have had no problem getting the warrants.
Gen. Michael Hayden, now deputy director of national intelligence and former director of the National Security Agency, was trotted out before the press to justify this and, frankly, made a fool of himself. When someone raised the issue of probable cause, the general petulantly denied that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution requires probable cause. Then he said that the standard is reasonable, and added that nobody was more familiar with the Fourth Amendment than the NSA.
Well, he's dead, flat wrong.
Here's the text of the Fourth Amendment: "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."
What the Bush administration is saying is, to hell with the Bill of Rights. We are changing the standard. No probable cause and no oaths or affirmations are needed. All that is needed is if we personally decide that search and seizure is reasonable. By that standard, no police department in the U.S. would need to bother with search warrants.
Sorry, but the Constitution cannot be amended by arrogant public officials who don't wish to bother with it. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and if the American people allow it to be violated at will, then they will deserve the loss of liberty that will surely follow. We do not need to become a dictatorship just to catch terrorists. Nor does a declaration of war (which Bush, by the way, doesn't have) suspend the Constitution.
January 31, 2006
Another sidebar to this scenario is that many conservatives (here included) rant and rave about protecting the articles of the constitution and have long maintained that supreme court candidates and other judges merely uphold the constitution and not adjudicate from the bench.
I would assume that they should have some sort of understanding and dismay when an administration does this very thing, assisted by an appointed Attorney General - BY the same administration.
Maybe we should take a look at all of the articles of the Constitution and see what parts of them can be bent a little for the good of America in "Times of War." I think that would be an interesting exercise.
I would assume that they should have some sort of understanding and dismay when an administration does this very thing, assisted by an appointed Attorney General - BY the same administration.
Maybe we should take a look at all of the articles of the Constitution and see what parts of them can be bent a little for the good of America in "Times of War." I think that would be an interesting exercise.
How About Article 2:
The second states, in its entirety, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Current case law (including U.S. Supreme Court decisions) tends to assert that the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is an individual right but not an absolute right, and that the states and federal government may omit certain classes of people from the general-public sense of the "militia" for cause (criminal record, young or old age, mental incapacity, etc.), and may limit the types of weapons to which the right applies. The Supreme Court first examined the Second Amendment in United States v. Cruikshank, in 1875. Compared to other amendments there is little caselaw about the second. The Second Amendment remains unincorporated, and thus is not applicable to the states.
----------------------------
How about taking the guns away from people who have accepted or made calls from the US to another country? I mean, heck, they could be considered suspects and could hurt innocent Americans. It's not an absolute right, as described above, and the government can omit certain classes of people from the right to bear arms. I would sure as heck feel more safe is some of the "collectors" out there had their guns taken away from them.
A stretch? Off point? Maybe. But you see where I'm going with this. Where does it stop? I'd imagine you could do this exercise with a few more articles, too.
The second states, in its entirety, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Current case law (including U.S. Supreme Court decisions) tends to assert that the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is an individual right but not an absolute right, and that the states and federal government may omit certain classes of people from the general-public sense of the "militia" for cause (criminal record, young or old age, mental incapacity, etc.), and may limit the types of weapons to which the right applies. The Supreme Court first examined the Second Amendment in United States v. Cruikshank, in 1875. Compared to other amendments there is little caselaw about the second. The Second Amendment remains unincorporated, and thus is not applicable to the states.
----------------------------
How about taking the guns away from people who have accepted or made calls from the US to another country? I mean, heck, they could be considered suspects and could hurt innocent Americans. It's not an absolute right, as described above, and the government can omit certain classes of people from the right to bear arms. I would sure as heck feel more safe is some of the "collectors" out there had their guns taken away from them.
A stretch? Off point? Maybe. But you see where I'm going with this. Where does it stop? I'd imagine you could do this exercise with a few more articles, too.
