Judge Nixes Warrantless Surveillance

[ImFeklhr]

Everything that makes us safer isn't a good thing.

I am really glad the line has finally been drawn somewhere. The executive branch still has plenty of power to fight terrorism.

No huge fan of the ACLU here, but if they didn't fight this type of stuff, who else would? If some less "wacko" group took over some of these fights, I'd be glad. But the alternative is the public blindly accepting EVERYTHING the government does.

Is that really such a good thing?

Check and balances people. Opposition is a healthy part of the process.

 

[smurphy]

Totally agree, Feklhr. Weasel, you can't honestly take this statement seriously, can you?

if a nuke goes off in nyc, it will be the result of liberal hatred for bush and america.... preventing sane people from doing what is necessary to defend ourselves.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"Can any one point to one time a wire tap was turned down that affected our security"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

and one for you DJV can anyone point to one instances where current system has been abused?

You think ACLU and others aren't looking for 1st instance out of 100,000's so they can say I told you so.

Bottom line--if ruling judge has holds up will it aid us or the terrorist?
---and here is much tougher one--if it holds up who will be celebrating more--liberals or terrorist.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The judge who ruled against the NSA secret surveillance program was accused of "judge shopping" a suit against the University of Michigan Law school in 2002 to preserve the school's affirmative action admissions process.

The Wall Street Journal reports Judge Anna Diggs Taylor tried to take the case away from Judge Bernard Freedman ? who was suspected of being critical of affirmative action ? and replace him with someone more favorable to the school's position.

She dropped that attempt only after Freedman publicly condemned her "highly irregular" efforts.

 

[Chadman]

The issue here is not who brought this lawsuit. The issue here is not whether there should be wiretaps on bad guys, or people who talk to bad guys, or people who might be talking to people that might be bad guys. It's not about us being safer - or someone's loose interpretation of what safer is.

It is simply about an administration who does not follow the law, and when they tried to change the law, they were told they would not pull it off by the legislative branch. They system works just fine, has for years, and this administration simply does not want to follow or abide by it.

I SAY AGAIN (yes, I am typing in capitals...), IF YOU GUYS THINK THIS DOES NOT ALLOW OR ENCOURAGE FOR ABUSES BY AN ADMINISTRATION THEN YOU ARE NAIVE, SHORT SIGHTED, DESPERATELY TRYING TO WIN AN ARGUMENT AT ALL COSTS, OR SOMETHING ELSE MORE SAD.

The key word here is warrantless. And they don't even have to ask for permission before they engage in the act, due to provisions in the law.

If they can't even follow this system, then there has to be a reason for it. And I think anyone who doesn't see this is just plain wrong. I don't care WHAT administration is in power. You cannot allow them to conduct business unchecked. You just can't.

 

[Jabberwocky]

it seems to me that what gets lost in all of this is that the objection is to WARRANTLESS wiretaps, not the wiretapping itself. The FISO act provides for a review process whereby WARRANTS for wiretaps can be obtained within hours. When Arlen Specter and the ACLU agree on an issue you have to take notice. I am dumbstruck by how quick the "anti-government", "conservative", neocons are to concede unlimited, unchecked power to the government in the name of patriotism. It's comical to think of the Bush supporters considering themselves "conservatives." I guess Buckley, Will, Buchanan and countless others are now liberals and the neocons are the true conservatives.

 

[Chadman]

Yeah, can't wait to see what Hillary can do with some well-placed wiretaps and a creative writer to add some signing statements to those pesky laws in the years to come. Evidently, the righty-fellas are gonna be cool with 'dat.

:spotting:

 

[kosar]

Wayne(or anybody),

Let's forget about who started the lawsuit and what color the judge is and reduce the issue to its simplest state:

Is the admin breaking the law with warrentless wiretaps?

Yes or no is really all that's needed.

 

[djv]

To bad our world did not work that simple. Answer at this time is Yes. Congress can make the law fit for Bush If they like. So far they have declined. I wonder why it's controlled by his party.

 

[gardenweasel]

Wayne(or anybody),

Let's forget about who started the lawsuit and what color the judge is and reduce the issue to its simplest state:Is the admin breaking the law with warrentless wiretaps?

Yes or no is really all that's needed.

.

yes,lets forget about who`s trying to undermine our domestic defenses against the headchoppers....

why not forget that o.j.`s blood was all over the place?....sheesh...

the fact that anti-american entities are working to stop nsa surveillance should alert even the dimest bulb....

btw,5 other courts of appeals have seen this the administration`s way....i`m sure nobody was aware of that...

still,if it goes to the supreme court,who knows....

let`s use our common sense here...does anyone understand what`s going on ?...i don`t think so....so,let me lay it out again...

1) nsa intercepts an overseas call between a known terrorist and a cell phone in the united states...

2) nsa notifies the fbi that the following cell phone number originating the the united states has been in communication with a known terrorist....

3) fbi learns that the cell phone number belongs to someone in new york....

4) fbi submits request for a fisa warrant to monitor all calls to the cell phone and obtain the “phone records” from previous calls....

5) fisa approves the warrant and fbi starts the wiretapping and uses the “phone records” to identify others that belong to this terror cell.

the nyt`s and others from the left have a problem with the very first step in the above example...... they say that the nsa has no legal authority to send the intercepts to the fbi because it invades the privacy of the person who is talking to an enemy of the u.s. and is basically the same as “guilt by association”......

so what do you do?...you can`t intercept these calls because it infriges on some reporter`s or cair`s civil rights?.....to do what?...

how many overseas calls do YOU make to terrorists?

what about my right not to be killed?...

is this really what you want?...just to hurt bush?...it`s crazy...

would you rather the gov`t throw out a wide net?...or lose your family?...

the only party the national security agency’s surveillance program actually intends to injure is the enemy.....and that sounds like a mighty fine program to me.....

if some aclu lawyer or cair is talking on the phone to someone who is planning to kill us and the line goes dead because the terrorist at the other end suddenly goes dead, the lawyer ought to send the nsa a thank you card....


this gets overturned on appeal because this woman...by all accounts,wrote a lousy opinion....

again,what the supreme court does,i have no idea...i`ve lost faith in our judiciary...

i do know that this is a huge win for republicans in the coming elections....i still remember hearing harry reid crowing....""we killed the patriot act!!"

i don`t care if it`s clinton, bush or im ho tep.....i`m all for stopping these miscreants....

please...please!!!...somebody report to the forum when their rights have been abridged by the patriot act or nsa.....when there`s a substantive argument instead of a theoretical booger bear being put forth....

then i`ll scream right along with you...


at some scary point in the future of this struggle between “us and them”, the glass will tip to the “ludicrously obvious” degree(imo it already has)....obviously,9/11 didn`t do it......

i hope it happens and everyone wakes up before its to late...

 

[kosar]

Weasel,

Not surprisingly you answered a very simple yes or no question with a frantic, sprawling rant.

This is about warrantless wiretaps. They can legally slap a wiretap on anybody immediately and they have 3 days AFTERWARDS to get the warrant.

If that doesn't work for them, they can try to change the law, with the House, Senate and Executive branch all the same.

What's the problem, buddy?

Plenty of 'supposedly' 'law and order' guys here. You know, someone breaks the law and they pay. Just depends who we're talking about, I guess.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I guess I'm naive Chad--my reasoning I could give rats ass if they listen to any of my phone conversations--in exchange for listening to all the bad guys.

I can't understands who benefits from this except criminals and terrorists. If per chance they happen to listen in on on law abiding Joe citizen --who cares.

I can't for the life of me understand the liberal element--I can put up site link where I can pull up any info on anyone for a few dollars--and they get by because of liberals freedom of press/speach ect ect ----yet they like banshees if you think by some remote chance this admin might listen to conversation in effort to save lives--think about it--sheez :nooo:

 

[RAYMOND]

Dear raymond,



Yesterday, a Democrat-appointed judge in Detroit sided with the ACLU and ordered an immediate halt to the terrorist surveillance program. This decision is a reminder of what is at stake in 2006. Will we use every tool in our arsenal to respond to emerging threats, or embrace the Democrat-ACLU position that just made it harder for our intelligence agencies to detect terrorist plots inside the United States?

Watch our new Web video, whichexposes the Democrats' weak record on national security.

And if you are outraged by this latest development, will you sign the petition against this decision weakening the tools we need to fight the War on Terror?

Democrats like to talk tough, but when it comes to fighting the War on Terror, the record speaks for itself:

Republicans passed and have consistently supported the Patriot Act to disrupt terrorist plots. Senate Democrat leader Harry Reid bragged about "killing" the Patriot Act.
Republicans strengthened and reformed America's intelligence agencies. Democrats want to surrender the tools needed to track and monitor suspected terrorists.
Republicans have increased homeland security funding by 300% over the Clinton Administration, and increased funding for border control and border security by 66% over the Clinton Administration.
And finally, Republicans are committed to confirming fair-minded judges who won't re-write the Constitution. Democrat-appointed judges are the driving force behind decisions that would weaken efforts to track down terrorists.
See the record for yourself and take action by signing the petition against this outrageous decision.

Sincerely,



Ken Mehlman
Chairman, Republican National Committee

 

[smurphy]

Dear Ken Mehlman,

It's naive to think this makes us more secure. All it does is invade privacy.

These scare tactics by Republicans are nauseating. Warrantless wiretaps don't make the bad guys go away. There's no easy fix, stop blaming Democrats for the failings of this administration.

Fvck off, wanker!

Sincerely,

Saul
Chairman, jewwatch.com

 

[bjfinste]

Kosar- since the Wease couldn't give you a clear answer, I'll help out. This is a cut-and-paste from something called The Bill of Rights. Now, I realize that most on the far right consider the second amendment to be the only valid part of this particular document, but I thought I'd post it nonetheless.

Amendment IV
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.

Like I said earlier in this thread (which was conveniently ignored), whether you think wiretapping is necessary or not, the constitutionality of the issue seems fairly clear.

 

[ImFeklhr]

I can't understands who benefits from this except criminals and terrorists. If per chance they happen to listen in on on law abiding Joe citizen --who cares.

The argument that "if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about" is really really scary to me.

Some people still think the government invading privacy IS a big infringement.

Once the government gets power, they will never give it back.. only expand it. Slowly but surely. Until we are all accustomed to the government knowing everything about our lives.

Not Good. Seriously.... I care :scared

 

[djv]

And know we find out today that wire tapped info can't be used in court. Now if they really want to look into something that may be it. They have all the laws needed as we have found out to do the tap. Of course laws are not good enough for some. But then to find the info gathered can't be used to convict I think is bigger failure in system. By the way it's same in Britain. Info from tapped phones not permissible.

 

[gardenweasel]

who`s proven this is illegal?..that`s a false premise as we speak,i`d say.....some democratic hack judge that was appointed by the worst president in my lifetime(nixon was a crook,but he was a step up from the traitor carter)....

one partisan judge vs 5 appeals courts?.....so far,not so good guys.....you do understand that cair and the aclu shopped around for this judge aren`t you?...

anyone care to wager whether the 6th overturns this?.....

lets put our money where our mouths are....

if you can`t win elections...you use the judiciary....even though you`re cutting off your noses in spite of your faces...

again,the constitution isn`t a suicide pact....a bunch of guys in powdered wigs had no inkling as to what we might face in the 21st century....

adapt or die...

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000914.html

that should read..."We the people and foreign terrorists and pedophiles".....i forgot that we can thank the aclu for nambla.....

btw...just saw "redeye" tonight...rachel mcadams is a cutie....with an edge.....

excellent show...

 

[smurphy]

Amendment IV
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.

With so many bizarre interpretations of the Constitution, Bible, etc - I can't see how there's any doubt whatsoever on this one.

The only argument the right makes on pretty much everything these days is based on fear. Ridiculous. Has Bush protected us from shlt? All these tactics are a smokescreen for them simply having more power.

Enough is enough. They don't make us safer. We can't give up an important right of privacy for a bunch of fear mongers.

 

[djv]

This is what happens when one party controls government. There is no check and balances. That's why we always need one part ran by the other party. For the safety of all Americans and there security. And for a better running government over all.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Republicans are no longer forward thinking conservatives (in a great tradition)...they are fear mongering, chickend hawk facists. gw, is the debate about wiretapping or due process? you state that the bush admin is within the fiso guidlines and that liberal, pinko, commie homos are trying to aid and abet the enemy because they love the aclu more than freedom and the us of a, but isn't this whole thing about due process? The objection is that the Bush admin is violating the rules of fiso, not that the government doesn't have the right to wiretap. Seems to be a big point, but in your rhetoric, (and all of your assorted wanna be conservative talking head dissemimaters of hateful nonsense and bullshit) the point gets lost. I know..this is a new kind of war, and due process and personal freedom have to be sacrificed. Our enemy has won...btw, dude, don't ever quote Orwell again. I busted you on your last attempt, but the neocons are the new Orwellians....in a very neofacist sort of way.


btw Smurph...always love your insights...would like to have a beer with you someday.