Bush Admin: Constitutionality of Wiretapping Unchallengable In Court

[PeterMP]

Do you really want us to tell the world who we spied on at the end of each business day? Things have to be secret. If the general public knows, our enemies know. And if you can't comprehend that, then life is going to seem very unfair to you.

The FISA court warrants aren't public though. I would assume at some point in time they become public, but that almost certainly isn't for years.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You can't broacast who you are spying on...They hold clearances that we can't. FOIA does not entitle John Q Public to sit in on meetings between DNI and the Senate Intelligence Committee.

And yet with all this accountability the administration still can't be bothered with getting a warrant based on probable cause.........:doh:

[AsburySkinsFan]

The FISA court warrants aren't public though. I would assume at some point in time they become public, but that almost certainly isn't for years.

I believe its 30 years.

[chomerics]

It is actually 72 hours. And you are also basing this on what you read and see on the news. I have also stated that I know the Bush admin has overstepped the law. Doesn't mean that they are actively doing it, or that those are the majority of the cases.

It also doesn't mean they are not actively doing it either. They have already avoided the law, and hid everything behind executive privilage. What makes you think they are not doing it now, because they said so? because they have hidden the documents from view?

We have had many debates Chom. We don't see eye to eye on a lot of things. I respect your opinion and defer to your first hand knowledge on some topics. But this topic, you are talking about something you do not know about. There is oversight.

Simple, prove it to me that there is oversight. I will show you where there has been no oversight in a few cases that have come to light, so I want you to show me who the judge they are bringing the cases to is, what he is ruling, and what the reasoning is for not going to a judge. Also what % of cases are ruled in favor for the govt? (btw, I know the answer, and it does not bode well for you side)

Just because the oversight is not done in the public eye does not mean it doesn't happen.

There is no oversight done in the JUDICIAL eye, and that is what bothers me. I could care less if the public knows about it, an I bet there are many MANY people here who agree. What we are arguing about is the oversight by the JUDICIAL eye which is not being done!!!! Why can't you understand that point? Next time, just ask me what my problem is instead of saying "I don't know what I am talking about", because I most certainly do, and I know how they have overstepped their bounds, and why it is wrong.

And to compare us to the communist Russia is obtuse.

Is it? What is the difference between OUR government making an AMERICAN citizen disappear and Russia doing the same thing?

Did you read about the person who's house was raided by the FBI, his children's computers were taken, all of and his families stuff ransacked through. . . because the government thought he leaked the news about them ignoring oversight by not going before a judge post-facto??? How is this different than any other dictatorship? Since when is someone who leaks information (which is not classified information BTW) targeted by the government? When it is not a member of their administration who is doing it for political purposes?

Read more on what was done Pope, and what they are currently doing. Than ask yourself the question "Why not get a warrant AFTER the fact?" I mean you have 3 days right? What is the purpose not to follow the law? Do you think there could be other motives there? Nah, bush would never do anything like that :doh:

[chomerics]

Let's put it this way. Let's say this admin didn't do anything it has in the past 6 years and we were attacked numeous times by terrorists. What would everyone be saying?? "oh I'm so glad he didn't disregard the constitution"? No, they would be crucifying him saying, why didn't he do more to protect this country. But because he is such a hated president, this is what we get.

Look, I don't deny that he has done alot of things that appear to be unseemly. Handled things poorly, what every you want to call it, but I honestly don't think he has or tried to be dishonest. Call me a kook, insane or stupid. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

Ummm, let me put it to you this way. . .

Afghanistan + Taliban + Al Qaeda = good. 100% behind them.

Iraq + Saddam Hussein = bad. Never were part of Al Qaeda, 9-11 or the GWOT. They made the GWOT larger and worse. It caused an entire generation of people indifferent to America to then turn to terrorism in order to harm us. They lied to the American public about the WMDs and the connections to Al Qaeda in order to get their pet war they had been pushing since the mid 90's.

It really isn't that hard to follow the logic. . .well maybe it is for you, I mean after all, you are still a Bush supporter.

[Popeman38]

It also doesn't mean they are not actively doing it either. They have already avoided the law, and hid everything behind executive privilage. What makes you think they are not doing it now, because they said so? because they have hidden the documents from view?

Simple, prove it to me that there is oversight. I will show you where there has been no oversight in a few cases that have come to light, so I want you to show me who the judge they are bringing the cases to is, what he is ruling, and what the reasoning is for not going to a judge. Also what % of cases are ruled in favor for the govt? (btw, I know the answer, and it does not bode well for you side)

There is no oversight done in the JUDICIAL eye, and that is what bothers me. I could care less if the public knows about it, an I bet there are many MANY people here who agree. What we are arguing about is the oversight by the JUDICIAL eye which is not being done!!!! Why can't you understand that point? Next time, just ask me what my problem is instead of saying "I don't know what I am talking about", because I most certainly do, and I know how they have overstepped their bounds, and why it is wrong.

Is it? What is the difference between OUR government making an AMERICAN citizen disappear and Russia doing the same thing?

Did you read about the person who's house was raided by the FBI, his children's computers were taken, all of and his families stuff ransacked through. . . because the government thought he leaked the news about them ignoring oversight by not going before a judge post-facto??? How is this different than any other dictatorship? Since when is someone who leaks information (which is not classified information BTW) targeted by the government? When it is not a member of their administration who is doing it for political purposes?

Read more on what was done Pope, and what they are currently doing. Than ask yourself the question "Why not get a warrant AFTER the fact?" I mean you have 3 days right? What is the purpose not to follow the law? Do you think there could be other motives there? Nah, bush would never do anything like that :doh:

I am nopt going to argue with you over whether you know what ou are talking about. You don't, other than what is available to the public. You and ASF can harp on how there is no oversight and you are being abused, but you don't know the facts. You can quote and try to bully, but ity doesn't change the fact you are wrong. Call me an idiot, call me simple minded, close minded, a kool-aid drinking fool. Fact is you are debating with partial facts and exceptions to the rule.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I am nopt going to argue with you over whether you know what ou are talking about. You don't, other than what is available to the public. You and ASF can harp on how there is no oversight and you are being abused, but you don't know the facts. You can quote and try to bully, but ity doesn't change the fact you are wrong. Call me an idiot, call me simple minded, close minded, a kool-aid drinking fool. Fact is you are debating with partial facts and exceptions to the rule.

And you are willing to write a blank check to the administration, an administration that by most accounts (read: nearly all except Bill Kristol-ites) has committed many serious errors in the past 6 years, I sir am not willing to sign that check, and simply because Bush sits at 1600 Penn Ave is not reason enough for me to begin trusting him again especially considering his track record. Furthermore, considering Bush's horrid track record we should be asking all the more for hightened transparency and accountability. He has violated the trust that I once gave him and as a result the onus is on him to earn it back, I do not feel that simply because its Wednesday that I should forget all that Bush and his administration has done and begin to blindly accept everything that he says. Call me skeptical if you will, but IMO Bush has earned all the national skepticism that he receives.

[Larry]

Ok, I know I'm probably quite dense, but I'm not sure I follow this completely. I'll just go ahead and put my hat on. :dunce:

The next line is:

Well you got trouble, friends. Right here in River City.

[Popeman38]

And you are willing to write a blank check to the administration, an administration that by most accounts (read: nearly all except Bill Kristol-ites) has committed many serious errors in the past 6 years, I sir am not willing to sign that check, and simply because Bush sits at 1600 Penn Ave is not reason enough for me to begin trusting him again especially considering his track record. Furthermore, considering Bush's horrid track record we should be asking all the more for hightened transparency and accountability. He has violated the trust that I once gave him and as a result the onus is on him to earn it back, I do not feel that simply because its Wednesday that I should forget all that Bush and his administration has done and begin to blindly accept everything that he says. Call me skeptical if you will, but IMO Bush has earned all the national skepticism that he receives.

No, but neither am I under the delusion that FOIA applies to National Security or that the general public should be entitled to know the inner workings of needed secret courts and unpublished information. There are people on this very board that knowingly promote false information. Tye thread about FISA and how they tap and switch to cxapture all calls into or out of the US was a blatant lie. The text of the so called law refuted it.

No blank check. He has violated my trust as well. But, he is the POTUS like it or not. The SCOTUS has thier role and have been ominously silent on these issues. Maybe because they have reviewed them and found them legal? You can armchair all you want, but without knowing the facts of the matter you are speculating somewhat blind. Some "news" organizations have fed into this. USAToday wrote a scathing article claiming to know that certain telecom companies were illegally providing records for this "spying". They ran the story on the front page. They named names. They printed a retraction less than a week later buried on D-16 saying that they did not have any facts to back their article up. Did this repair the damage of all the customers that left the companies for fear? No. Any financial retribution on the part of the paper? No. But people can sue the companies for fear of their info being passed without proof? Sure, their "rights" were trampled. The facts that Chom chooses to ignore (or doesn't know) is that there is oversight. The same papers discuss the oversight, but thos stories are buried. They don't make headlines. That is why I repeatedly ask on this board for the posters knowledge of the situation they speak of. Clippings from newspaper is not proof. They have agendas, as does the spin doctors of ALL the news.

[Larry]

:snore: Yeah, ok. same arguement tactic as Larry I see. I'm insane and I don't know what I'm talking about. Tell ya what, I'd rather have a president fudging the rules to protect this country than one getting orally satisfied doing nothing.

And there it is. 81artmonk would have the President disregard the Constitution.

Well, actually, what he said was "81artmonk thinks the President's sex life is more important than the Constitution."

[AsburySkinsFan]

The next line is:

Well you got trouble, friends. Right here in River City.

The only thing I could find was "The Music Man", never seen it, so not sure of the relevance. :dunno:

[Larry]

The only thing I could find was "The Music Man", never seen it, so not sure of the relevance. :dunno:

Correct reference.

(I'll also point out that that particular scene, is the one in which the star convinces the town to pay for him to start a marching band, by scaring them with the imminent moral decline and eventual collapse of their town caused by the presence of a pool table in their town.)

[chomerics]

I am nopt going to argue with you over whether you know what ou are talking about. You don't, other than what is available to the public. You and ASF can harp on how there is no oversight and you are being abused, but you don't know the facts. You can quote and try to bully, but ity doesn't change the fact you are wrong. Call me an idiot, call me simple minded, close minded, a kool-aid drinking fool. Fact is you are debating with partial facts and exceptions to the rule.

There you go again, telling me I don;t know what I am talking about while offering absolutely ZERO defense to your case other than i don't know what is going on.

Do you have a POINT pope? Are you willing to write off ANY oversight to this administration? Do you even know what this is about???

Earlier in this thread, you tried to take the tact that we should not know who they are spying on, and NOBODY here is arguing that!!! There is not a SINGLE PERSON in this thread that is arguing that. We are arguing about JUDICIAL oversight.

How do I know it is not being followed??? Because BUSH SAID HE WAS NOT!!!! My god, do you even pay attention to what is stated??? Do you understand the issue at all, or are you just arguing what you think is the case, without understanding the actual facts???

here is what a few ®'s had to say about it. . .

HAGEL: I don’t believe, from what I’ve heard, but I’m going to give the administration an opportunity to explain it, that he has the authority now to do what he’s doing. Now, maybe he can convince me otherwise, but that’s OK.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But not yet.

HAGEL: Not yet. But that’s OK. If he needs more authority, he just can’t unilaterally decide that that 1978 law is out of date and he will be the guardian of America and he will violate that law. He needs to come back, work with us, work with the courts if he has to, and we will do what we need to do to protect the civil liberties of this country and the national security of this country.

Hagel joins other prominent conservatives — including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) — who have questioned the legal basis of Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program.

That is what they had to say about warrant less searches!!!

So let me break it down for you. . .

1. We are saying there needs to be oversight

2. The reason for oversight is blatantly obvious, and YOU have not brought a single point as to why oversight is not necessary. your entire argument has been "you don't know what you are talking about"

3. The oversight needs to be by the Judicial branch.

4. They can STILL wiretap WITHOUT a warrant provided they get one post-facto

What is that hard to understand? It was not done, and there are DOCUMENTED cases where it was not done!!!

You are trying to defend (albeit very poorly and with really no defense other than I don't know what I am talking about) the president ignoring the law because he deems he doesn't need to obey it.

Does this bother you? Do you trust Bush to only listen to "terrorists"? Especially when he can decide who is and who is not a terrorist.

Answer some of these questions PLEASE, and stop with the "you don;t know what you are talking about" because it belittles your argument, and it only weakens your piss poor stance to begin with.

Here, please read this article which outlines exactly what the administration is doing, and how the courts are not involved. Then, re-read the FISA laws, Article II of the US Constitution and the 4th amendment. Now, you will be on equal ground as the rest of us. . . because frankly, you declaring that you have read something, then debating strawman issues which nobody is arguing, is quite tiresome.

So before you post again, please comprehend what we are arguing, and then formulate an opinion as to why he should not have ANY oversight (remember judicial, not public) and why he is above the law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?ei=5070&en=437f7c287f2c9d5f&ex=1187323200&pagewanted=print

Read the article which exposed everything and give a good argument as to why he needs no warrants. . .PLEASE!!!!

[AsburySkinsFan]

No blank check. He has violated my trust as well. But, he is the POTUS like it or not.

Sorry, but here's one case where I actually have to agree with Bush

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-857520798758092389&q=can%27t+get+fooled+again+bush&total=26&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

[AsburySkinsFan]

Correct reference.

(I'll also point out that that particular scene, is the one in which the star convinces the town to pay for him to start a marching band, by scaring them with the imminent moral decline and eventual collapse of their town caused by the presence of a pool table in their town.)

Wow, total guess ya had to be there moment. BTW, right on the money;).

Personally I like the "I Robot" reference where the mainframe artificial intellegence uses the upgraded robots to establish a robot controlled police state in order to protect humans from themselves. Thank goodness Will Smith won in the movie, we can only hope that we will win in our reality.

[chomerics]

No, but neither am I under the delusion that FOIA applies to National Security or that the general public should be entitled to know the inner workings of needed secret courts and unpublished information.

Stop with the false references, nobody is saying that, so stop using it as a defense.

No blank check. He has violated my trust as well. But, he is the POTUS like it or not. The SCOTUS has thier role and have been ominously silent on these issues. Maybe because they have reviewed them and found them legal? You can armchair all you want, but without knowing the facts of the matter you are speculating somewhat blind.

You obviously don't know the facts, and you are arguing with a blindfold on. Just because YOU do not know what happened, does not mean the rest of us don't know.

On a side note, is it me, or is this the tact chosen now. people say "THEY" have never heard of something, so it obviously is not happening, and they pound this into the ground. I have seen this lame defense a few times in about 3 or more threads over the past 2 days, and all it does is expose their ignorance of the topic at hand.

Some "news" organizations have fed into this. USAToday wrote a scathing article claiming to know that certain telecom companies were illegally providing records for this "spying". They ran the story on the front page. They named names. They printed a retraction less than a week later buried on D-16 saying that they did not have any facts to back their article up. Did this repair the damage of all the customers that left the companies for fear? No. Any financial retribution on the part of the paper? No.

Again, a different issue all together pope, we are not arguing this, and please stay on topic here.

But people can sue the companies for fear of their info being passed without proof? Sure, their "rights" were trampled. The facts that Chom chooses to ignore (or doesn't know) is that there is oversight.

Sorry Pope, there is SUPPOSED to be oversight, and they have IGNORED it. What part of this do you not understand??? Then you have the AUDACITY to tell me I don;t know what I am talking about???? Man my respect for you has gone down the tubes in a big way in this thread.

The same papers discuss the oversight, but thos stories are buried.

BULL :pooh:

They don't make headlines. That is why I repeatedly ask on this board for the posters knowledge of the situation they speak of. Clippings from newspaper is not proof. They have agendas, as does the spin doctors of ALL the news.

Please, show me where Bush had oversight in THIS ISSUE we are talking about. . .PLEASE!!!! Show me you know that he went to a judge post-facto and got the warrant!!! That is what we are arguing, and the insults, childish petty rants and diversions will not stray us away from the topic Pope!!!

[Ax]

Said the guy who's standard (only?) tactic of "debate" is:

• Invent a fictitious world in which there are only two possible actions:
  
  1. Do what I want
     
  2. Disaster
     

  [*]Demand that everybody must chose one and only one of those two options I've made up. No other options exist.

  [*]Phrase this universe in the form of a question (which you will only accept the two options you've created as answers)

  [*]Demand that no further discussion of the subject will be tolerated unless all debaters join you in the world you've created.

  [*]Declare your generosity, open-mindedness, and rationality, because you're perfectly willing to discuss the subject. As long as the discussion takes place in the world you've created.

The reason no one will "answer your question" is because everybody is intelligent enough to know that "agree with me or I'll kill your kids" aren't the only two answers.

You might as well be demanding that people answer the question "Does pi equal 3 or 4?"

What a great self evaluation Larry. You finally see yourself as you really are. :applause:

[Popeman38]

There you go again, telling me I don;t know what I am talking about while offering absolutely ZERO defense to your case other than i don't know what is going on.

Here, please read this article which outlines exactly what the administration is doing, and how the courts are not involved. Then, re-read the FISA laws, Article II of the US Constitution and the 4th amendment. Now, you will be on equal ground as the rest of us. . .

Read the article which exposed everything and give a good argument as to why he needs no warrants. . .PLEASE!!!!

Chom, there you go again with the bully tactics. I am on more than equal footing with you. I am unable to relay specifics. There are some things that you don't know because you aren't supposed to know. No matter how much you try to change it, you don't have access to the information.

The FISA laws and the new amendment to said law, as well as numerous court opinions and the lack of rulings against support my opinion.

[Predicto]

Chom, there you go again with the bully tactics. I am on more than equal footing with you. I am unable to relay specifics. There are some things that you don't know because you aren't supposed to know. No matter how much you try to change it, you don't have access to the information.

The FISA laws and the new amendment to said law, as well as numerous court opinions and the lack of rulings against support my opinion.

You may have information we don't have, and I hope you are right.

I just want to point out that the lack of rulings from the Supreme Court really does not prove anything. The Supreme Court can only act when it has a proper case before it, and even in the rare situations when it does have such a case, it historically has been extraordinarily reluctant to issue decisions on matters of executive authority, separation of powers or National Security.

[Ax]

Talking like a trucker makes me not a minister, ok, thanks for your professional opinion on what ministers talk like. BTW, you must have never read much of Martin Luther's material from the 1500's, and if you think that me describing what a "Ranger Wipe" is means that I'm not a Christian nor a minister, then you obviously have no idea what it means to be either of those two things. You should also try reading material from a Christian professor from Duke Divinity school a man named Stanley Hauwas who isn't so up on your version of piety.

Gee, I thought the Bible was the book you followed. Please, guide me to the book and chapter where I can read up on the "Ranger Wipe".

look the Constitution is either valid and good all the time or its not.

Tell that to the millions of Native Americans, and African American slaves. Was it good then? Was it "violated" by the very men who wrote it? And many Presidents thereafter?

So don't give me the overly dramatic act.

Yes you should watch it again because it is a cautionary tale about what it means to suspend rights in order to receive protection, and it fits perfectly with your version of what we should do here.

Naw, I prefer reality to science fiction.

[Ax]

Sometimes the arguments of the right are just. . .well, i was going to say laughable, but in all honesty, their utter blindness to their own ideology is quite sad. Party before country, that should be their motto.

I've got to admit. Nobody on this site consistently accuses others of the things they are so completely guilty of themselves, better than you.

BTW ~ I hope everyday that a cure for Bostonitis is discovered before it's too late.

[Larry]

What a great self evaluation Larry. You finally see yourself as you really are. :applause:

I'm mirror, you're glue,

Bounce off me, stick to you.

[Popeman38]

Stop with the false references, nobody is saying that, so stop using it as a defense.

That was a response in an ongoing sidebar me and ASF were having. Wasn't in response to you, turn your sensitivity monitors down.

You obviously don't know the facts, and you are arguing with a blindfold on. Just because YOU do not know what happened, does not mean the rest of us don't know.

You don't know how ironic you sound in this post. You assume you have all the facts. And we see what happens when you assume....

Again, a different issue all together pope, we are not arguing this, and please stay on topic here.

Ummm, the original post was a link to a blog where the Bush Admin was trying to get a lawsuit against a telecom company thrown out. How much more relevent do I need to be? Are you going to argue that the negative impact on telecom companies finances don't exist? I was simply referencing an article that was published nationally that turned out to be not true.

Sorry Pope, there is SUPPOSED to be oversight, and they have IGNORED it. What part of this do you not understand??? Then you have the AUDACITY to tell me I don;t know what I am talking about???? Man my respect for you has gone down the tubes in a big way in this thread.

There are instances where they overstepped. I have admitted that from the beginning. And in your own link to the NY Times there are references to oversight, and specific judges who questioned, suspended and then was satisfied with the changes. The judicial oversight suggested by you and ASF is not going to take place in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for anyone to attend. They are going to be in private rooms, with a strictly controlled access roster. If you have lost respect for me because I won't cite specific cases I am sorry. I try to be rational in my debates. I feel I have been today. I will not be offended just because we disagree.

BULL :pooh:

From your own source: "...the Justice Department audited the N.S.A. program, several officials said. And to provide more guidance, the Justice Department and the agency expanded and refined a checklist to follow in deciding whether probable cause existed to start monitoring someone's communications, several officials said. A complaint from Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the federal judge who oversees the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, helped spur the suspension, officials said. The judge questioned whether information obtained under the N.S.A. program was being improperly used as the basis for F.I.S.A. wiretap warrant requests from the Justice Department, according to senior government officials. While not knowing all the details of the exchange, several government lawyers said there appeared to be concerns that the Justice Department, by trying to shield the existence of the N.S.A. program, was in danger of misleading the court about the origins of the information cited to justify the warrants."

Please, show me where Bush had oversight in THIS ISSUE we are talking about. . .PLEASE!!!! Show me you know that he went to a judge post-facto and got the warrant!!! That is what we are arguing, and the insults, childish petty rants and diversions will not stray us away from the topic Pope!!!

Are you seriously accusing me of insulting anyone? This form the guy who actually responded with a pile of excrement? Stop saying that I defend every action. He overstepped. Doesn't mean an entire side of intel collection should be stopped.

[Ax]

I'm mirror, you're glue,

Bounce off me, stick to you.

You know, once we die, great old limericks like this will be gone forever. :laugh:

[81artmonk]

Ummm, let me put it to you this way. . .

Afghanistan + Taliban + Al Qaeda = good. 100% behind them.

Iraq + Saddam Hussein = bad. Never were part of Al Qaeda, 9-11 or the GWOT. They made the GWOT larger and worse. It caused an entire generation of people indifferent to America to then turn to terrorism in order to harm us. They lied to the American public about the WMDs and the connections to Al Qaeda in order to get their pet war they had been pushing since the mid 90's.

It really isn't that hard to follow the logic. . .well maybe it is for you, I mean after all, you are still a Bush supporter.

WEll that's where you are wrong. Hussien had ties to al Qaeda, and maybe wasn't directly involved with 9/11 but was in bed with Al Qaeda.