Bush Admin: Constitutionality of Wiretapping Unchallengable In Court

[ACW]

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/bush-administ-1.html

I understand the argument (though I think it's invoked too broadly), but isn't there some way to get judges and lawyers w/ security clearances, and (as much as I hate the idea) close the case to the public?

[Popeman38]

The plaintiffs have the burden of proof. Prove that you were spied on. They can't, unless they know they were speaking to someone that is a known terrorist.

[AsburySkinsFan]

So secret spying is can't be challenged because its secret, and as such the gov't is going to keep doing it because there ain't a dang thing you can do about it.

I swear to goodness I am constantly amazed by those who seek to protect our freedoms here in this country by taking away those very freedoms that they are supposedly protecting!!!

[Popeman38]

So secret spying is can't be challenged because its secret, and as such the gov't is going to keep doing it because there ain't a dang thing you can do about it.

I swear to goodness I am constantly amazed by those who seek to protect our freedoms here in this country by taking away those very freedoms that they are supposedly protecting!!!

Have you even read the FISA law, and the new update? Additionally, do you think anything should remain out of the public eye? Should we reveal all of our intelligence operations, to avoid any suspicion of abuse? The people that have entered into this lawsuit have no proof they were spied on. None. There is a lot of stuff this country does that you will never know about. And believe it or not, they aren't doing it to take away your civil liberties. Besides, a telephone conversation isn't private anyway. You are using public lines of transmission.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Besides, a telephone conversation isn't private anyway. You are using public lines of transmission.

First you couldn't be more wrong, second, you couldn't possibly be more wrong. If you don't believe me then just try to let the police get someone convicted using evidence that was obtained via a wire-tap that was not authorized by a warrant.

[SUSkinsFan]

Besides, a telephone conversation isn't private anyway. You are using public lines of transmission.

Not true. Broadcast networks are public because anyone can receive them free of charge. Parks are public because anyone can use them free of charge. Telephone lines are not public because when I make a phone call, I am paying for the right to make that call. I can't just go to the store, but a phone, plug it in and make a call. I have to pay first.

Also, the reason people don't normally demand to know about intelligence gathering means, spying, etc. is because they don't feel like the government is abusing their right to do it and because they don't feel like it is being done to them illegally. People don't get that feeling with this administration.

[ACW]

Popeman, there's gotta be a way to have a closed trial if need be.

[Buddy Dude]

First you couldn't be more wrong, second, you couldn't possibly be more wrong. If you don't believe me then just try to let the police get someone convicted using evidence that was obtained via a wire-tap that was not authorized by a warrant.

This man knows his ****...Well, in this case at least

[AsburySkinsFan]

Popeman, there's gotta be a way to have a closed trial if need be.

Secret spying, secret evidence, secret arrests, secret trials, held in secret courts. Gee this sounds great!

[PeterMP]

First you couldn't be more wrong, second, you couldn't possibly be more wrong. If you don't believe me then just try to let the police get someone convicted using evidence that was obtained via a wire-tap that was not authorized by a warrant.

You're mixing and matching definitions again. Just because something isn't admissable in court doesn't mean it was private. There is nothing preventing the people transmitting the signals from "listening" to your conversation. Furthermore, unless you have something that specifically states otherwise in your contract w/ them (which I'll bet isn't in the standard contract), there is nothing to prevent them from selling/sharing that information w/ a third party (e.g. the US goverment).

[Destino]

You're mixing and matching definitions again. Just because something isn't admissable in court doesn't mean it was private. There is nothing preventing the people transmitting the signals from "listening" to your conversation. Furthermore, unless you have something that specifically states otherwise in your contract w/ them (which I'll bet isn't in the standard contract), there is nothing to prevent them from selling/sharing that information w/ a third party (e.g. the US goverment).

I could be wrong but didn't Bush recently try to get private companies that provided information made exempt from lawsuits? If that's the case then your assumption that they broke no agreements would seem to be incorrect.

found it:

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- U.S. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Tuesday he favors giving communications providers prospective immunity for turning over customer information to federal investigators.

Prospective immunity from criminal and civil liability would not appear to shelter companies who handed over records as part of the Bush administration's warrantless wiretap program. The companies were not formally subpoenaed, and at least one company, Qwest Communications International Inc. (Q), refused to comply.

The White House is asking for blanket and retroactive immunity as part of its efforts to reauthorize and expand its authority to gather information under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, including its domestic program, according to the lobbyists following the bill.

In his weekly radio address Saturday, President George W. Bush said he wanted the legislation completed and sent to the White House for his signature this week. That bill, Bush said, should "allow the government to work more efficiently with private-sector entities like communications providers, whose help is essential."

Bush's proposals, including the request for civil and criminal immunity for communications providers, are opposed by civil liberties groups.

"It is unprecedented and undemocratic to give retroactive and sweeping immunity to an entire industry," said Caroline Fredrickson, lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union, in a statement released last week. "Who exactly is the administration looking out for when they ask Congress to let the phone companies off the hook for violating Americans' privacy?"

In May 2006, the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed class action lawsuits against AT&T Inc. (T), BellSouth and Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) alleging that the companies violated communications privacy laws and seeking $50 billion in damages.

The Bush administration is opposed to the lawsuit. Even if the court were to find unlawful activity, it couldn't award damages because doing so would confirm details of the secret program.

http://www.smartmoney.com/news/on/index.cfm?story=ON-20070731-000678-1400

[AsburySkinsFan]

You're mixing and matching definitions again. Just because something isn't admissable in court doesn't mean it was private.

PeterMP, I really can't believe that you're defending this.:doh: Let me ask you this question: why is the evidence not admissable in court? Because its private that's why, its called illegal search and seizure they can't come into your home and do this and they can't listen into your phone calls, all because you have the reasonable expectation of privacy with BOTH. Good Lord I can't believe how loosely ya'll are playing with the Constitution.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

You know, this sort of stuff wouldn't be NECESSARY for the government to do if the CITIZENS of this country would get off our lazy, worthless asses and take a much more active part in defending and securing our country. Unfortunately the American people are mostly sheep at this point, totally afraid that if they open their mouths about anything that seems remotely suspicious that they're going to get sued, or worse. Until the citizens of this country start getting actively involved in helping defend this country, the government really doesn't have any other choice than doing this sort of thing.

[Larry]

You're mixing and matching definitions again. Just because something isn't admissable in court doesn't mean it was private. There is nothing preventing the people transmitting the signals from "listening" to your conversation. Furthermore, unless you have something that specifically states otherwise in your contract w/ them (which I'll bet isn't in the standard contract), there is nothing to prevent them from selling/sharing that information w/ a third party (e.g. the US goverment).

1) Yes, there are laws prohibiting monitoring of phone conversations. Those laws apply to your roommate, the cops, the phone company, and the government.

Granted, the government did decide, after carefully listening to the lobbyists from the Privacy Invasion Industry, to basically allow all corporations to use pretty must any other surveillance techniques the want, and to do whatever they want with the data once they get it, but the laws for phone conversations were written back before there was a corporate profit benefit attached to privacy invasion.

2) Your phone line is private because it's owned by a corporation, not by the government. The street in front of your house, the local park, and so forth, are public because they're owned by the government.

3) The government needs a warrant to monitor you phone call, because the Fourth Amendment says so, and the Fourth doesn't care who owns the wire, or whether it's a land line or a cell phone, or whether a corporation is allowed to spy on you, or whatever.

-----

Now, as to the ruling:

IMO, a much better headline (if I was going to make one up) would be "Court: Constitution not worth anything.".

What the court ruled was that, unless the plaintiffs could prove that they, personally, had been monitored, then they had not been harmed. (And therefore could not sue.)

My counter to that argument would be that living in a country where the government is required to follow the Constitution, is, in itself, a thing of value. (People have died for it.) That there is an inherent difference between living in a place where the Fourth Amendment applies, and a place where it doesn't really count, but we're not coming after you, yet.

That the Constitution is a contract between the people of the US and their government, and that when that contract is breached, all the people have suffered a loss.

But that's just me, and I'm not a lawyer.

[chomerics]

1) Yes, there are laws prohibiting monitoring of phone conversations. Those laws apply to your roommate, the cops, the phone company, and the government.

Granted, the government did decide, after carefully listening to the lobbyists from the Privacy Invasion Industry, to basically allow all corporations to use pretty must any other surveillance techniques the want, and to do whatever they want with the data once they get it, but the laws for phone conversations were written back before there was a corporate profit benefit attached to privacy invasion.

2) Your phone line is private because it's owned by a corporation, not by the government. The street in front of your house, the local park, and so forth, are public because they're owned by the government.

3) The government needs a warrant to monitor you phone call, because the Fourth Amendment says so, and the Fourth doesn't care who owns the wire, or whether it's a land line or a cell phone, or whether a corporation is allowed to spy on you, or whatever.

-----

Now, as to the ruling:

IMO, a much better headline (if I was going to make one up) would be "Court: Constitution not worth anything.".

What the court ruled was that, unless the plaintiffs could prove that they, personally, had been monitored, then they had not been harmed. (And therefore could not sue.)

My counter to that argument would be that living in a country where the government is required to follow the Constitution, is, in itself, a thing of value. (People have died for it.) That there is an inherent difference between living in a place where the Fourth Amendment applies, and a place where it doesn't really count, but we're not coming after you, yet.

That the Constitution is a contract between the people of the US and their government, and that when that contract is breached, all the people have suffered a loss.

But that's just me, and I'm not a lawyer.

Great post Larry, and I concur completely!!!

[PeterMP]

I could be wrong but didn't Bush recently try to get private companies that provided information made exempt from lawsuits? If that's the case then your assumption that they broke no agreements would seem to be incorrect.

found it:

http://www.smartmoney.com/news/on/index.cfm?story=ON-20070731-000678-1400

You actually appear to correct. They at least aren't free to give the information to the goverment.

[PeterMP]

PeterMP, I really can't believe that you're defending this.:doh: Let me ask you this question: why is the evidence not admissable in court? Because its private that's why, its called illegal search and seizure they can't come into your home and do this and they can't listen into your phone calls, all because you have the reasonable expectation of privacy with BOTH. Good Lord I can't believe how loosely ya'll are playing with the Constitution.

I'm not defending it, but that doesn't make what you are saying is correct. If I'm talking to you on one of those walkie talkie phones and you are in a public place, then I have no real expectation that the conversation is private, but in many states, if you are recording the conversation w/o my knowledge, that recording is not admissable in a court, and you are in fact breaking the law.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You actually appear to correct. They at least aren't free to give the information to the goverment.

And apparently Bush doesn't give a crap, instead he would rather shred the Constitution and use it for toilet paper. Because he's crapping on the very rights that have separated us from those dictators that we all love to hate. I just can't believe that I'm seeing this in my lifetime, what's more is that there are soo many who applaud him! Oy Vey!!!:doh:

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'm not defending it, but that doesn't make what you are saying is correct. If I'm talking to you on one of those walkie talkie phones and you are in a public place, then I have no real expectation that the conversation is private, but in many states, if you are recording the conversation w/o my knowledge, that recording is not admissable in a court, and you are in fact breaking the law.

But we aren't talking about walkie talkies, we're talking about phones and email which go across private lines of communication, and the gov't IS violating due process by committing illegal search and seizures on this evidence.

[PeterMP]

1) Yes, there are laws prohibiting monitoring of phone conversations. Those laws apply to your roommate, the cops, the phone company, and the government.

AT&T admittedly has been collecting data on calls for years. Nobody is going after them. Appearntly providing that data to the goverment w/o a warrant is illegal. It isn't clear to me if that is true for other 3rd parties based on what I read.

2) Your phone line is private because it's owned by a corporation, not by the government. The street in front of your house, the local park, and so forth, are public because they're owned by the government.

Different meaning of private and public then what we were talking about.

3) The government needs a warrant to monitor you phone call, because the Fourth Amendment says so, and the Fourth doesn't care who owns the wire, or whether it's a land line or a cell phone, or whether a corporation is allowed to spy on you, or whatever.

That's certainly true.

-----

Now, as to the ruling:

IMO, a much better headline (if I was going to make one up) would be "Court: Constitution not worth anything.".

What the court ruled was that, unless the plaintiffs could prove that they, personally, had been monitored, then they had not been harmed. (And therefore could not sue.)

My counter to that argument would be that living in a country where the government is required to follow the Constitution, is, in itself, a thing of value. (People have died for it.) That there is an inherent difference between living in a place where the Fourth Amendment applies, and a place where it doesn't really count, but we're not coming after you, yet.

That the Constitution is a contract between the people of the US and their government, and that when that contract is breached, all the people have suffered a loss.

But that's just me, and I'm not a lawyer.

I'm not sure what Court you are talking about. The link I read suggest that the Bush administration is losing this case in court:

"

Still, two judges have ruled recently that the defense does not apply in two lawsuits challenging Bush's surveillance program. President Bush acknowledged in 2005 that the government was eavesdropping without warrants on communications in the United States as long as one of the parties to the communication was suspected of terrorism and outside the United States."

[Koolblue13]

And apparently Bush doesn't give a crap, instead he would rather shred the Constitution and use it for toilet paper. Because he's crapping on the very rights that have separated us from those dictators that we all love to hate. I just can't believe that I'm seeing this in my lifetime, what's more is that there are soo many who applaud him! Oy Vey!!!:doh:

As he said "it would be easier if it was a dictatorship, if he was the dictator"

I don't however think he would shred the constitution, if he was going to use it as toilet paper though.

[chomerics]

blah. . .blah. . .blah. . .Seig heil. . .blah. . .blah. . .blah . .

There, I fixed it for everyone :thumbsup:

[chomerics]

I don't however think he would shred the constitution, if he was going to use it as toilet paper though.

I agree. . .because that would mean he actually wipes his bum, but we know Sarge is there to lick it clean for him.

[SUSkinsFan]

There, I fixed it for everyone :thumbsup:

wait....what fixes did you make, that is exactly what I read the first time. you didn't quote a few lines though. the full text also includes "blah blah blah I'm overcompensating blah blah blah"

[Mass_SkinsFan]

And apparently Bush doesn't give a crap, instead he would rather shred the Constitution and use it for toilet paper. Because he's crapping on the very rights that have separated us from those dictators that we all love to hate. I just can't believe that I'm seeing this in my lifetime, what's more is that there are soo many who applaud him! Oy Vey!!!:doh:

You know what, Asbury; if the American people would take back society and return it to it's proper form, I'd be in total agreement with you. Unfortunately, I'd say that there are probably less than 5000 people in this entire country right now who DESERVE the rights discussed in the Constitution.