Following Bush lead, Obama moves to block challenge to wiretapping program

[Hubbs]

Same here. So much for "Hope and Change"

Now, where you will start to see people go nuts is if this is all of a sudden used, not for middle eastern bad guys here and abroad, but the targeting of Ron Paul nuts, or gun nuts etc

This is the mistake Clinton made. Instead of targetting the obvious suspects, he went after domestic types and it stirred the pot up.

Slippery slope

Did you hear about Missouri deciding that support third party candidates or Ron Paul is one of the signs of being a domestic terrorist?

[Larry]

It's hypocrisy... but some would say Obama is learning. I'm fine that the Junior Senator from Illinois is learning that his campaign rhetoric was absolute folly. Good to know he puts our national security over politics (at least in this regard). You KNOW that this has to be an incredibly vital program if even he isn't fighting it.

Or, Obama is fine with the President having unlimited power, as long as he's President.

Amazing how often politicians have no problem at all claiming that the power their opponent has been using represents a threat to the very survival of the nation, until they win the election and step into their former opponent's office. At which time that power is not only all well and good, but is crying out to be expanded, immediately. (For the noblest of reasons.)

Point in case, the power to engage in deficit spending.

[Larry]

Under Obama I can see eventually that all calls will be monitored within the U.S. not just

oversees calls between potential terrorists!

Bush did not abuse it..Obama Will

And the media will say nothin when it is happening either.

:secret:Last I checked, this case arose because it was leaked that the government had been demanding all records from all calls, foreign and domestic.

[Larry]

Do you want to access all the money in my bank accounts?

Assume the answer is yes.

You can ask me to give you access. I can say no. You can send me a formal request on Larry Inc. letterhead demanding access. I can say no. You can even have Mr. Hill O. Beans of Beans Brothers ESQ send me a letter demanding access to my funds. I can say no.

Following?

Could you possibly answer the question, instead of spinning another story?

What difference does it make?

[Madison Redskin]

:doh::doh::doh:

Change my ass.

Only a few select individuals within our federal government know the precise details of the wiretapping program. So, I can't really speak to whether the Bush administration's wiretapping program was unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. For that reason, I can't really condemn Bush for starting the program or Obama for continuing to employ it.

However, I find it amazing that so many people on the right have used this, and other Obama administration policies, to bash Obama. So many on the right said Obama is a softie who will ruin this country. When it turns out that he is not the raging weenie, instead of praising him, many on the right turn out in droves to bash him.

Seriously, Obama can't win with some people who are so stubborn (i.e., stupid) and see the world in black/white and wrong/right terms.

[Larry]

I admit that I may be jumping on you a little here, but its frustrating to see people so dismissive of courts being able to apply the law. We need "panels" or "hearings" to work things out... that's exactly what courts do. They are the place where people settle disputes and the law and Constitution are upheld. What's the problem with that? We don't need any other governing body.

Actually, what I'm finding frustrating are the people claiming that the Constitution's Separation of Powers prohibits the Judicial Branch from even considering the question of whether the government's actions are Constitutional.

I kind-of thought that that was their job.

[December90]

While note President

"That is an abuse of authority"

After becoming President

"Nothing to see behind the curtain, move along"

At least he was not dumb enough to completely undo everything from the last few years after 9/11.

[SnyderShrugged]

Only a few select individuals within our federal government know the precise details of the wiretapping program. So, I can't really speak to whether the Bush administration's wiretapping program was unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. For that reason, I can't really condemn Bush for starting the program or Obama for continuing to employ it.

However, I find it amazing that so many people on the right have used this, and other Obama administration policies, to bash Obama. So many on the right said Obama is a softie who will ruin this country. When it turns out that he is not the raging weenie, instead of praising him, many on the right turn out in droves to bash him.

Seriously, Obama can't win with some people who are so stubborn (i.e., stupid) and see the world in black/white and wrong/right terms.

and to others, he can do no wrong, which is also just as black and white, stupid, and stubborn.

[Larry]

Seriously, Obama can't win with some people who are so stubborn (i.e., stupid) and see the world in black/white and wrong/right terms.

Hey, that's "wrong/left" you right-wing Nazi whacko, you.

[Madison Redskin]

and to others, he can do no wrong, which is also just as black and white, stupid, and stubborn.

Yup. That is equally true.

[Popeman38]

Could you possibly answer the question, instead of spinning another story?

What difference does it make?

I did. You can "want" access to x all you want. But the owner of x has to grant you access. If granting you access to x costs the owners billions die to lawsuits and loss of customers/potential customers, are the owners of x goin got give you access?

Simple questions. Everyone thinks that what the govt wants, the govt gets. In a vacuum, you would be right.

[Larry]

I did. You can "want" access to x all you want. But the owner of x has to grant you access. If granting you access to x costs the owners billions die to lawsuits and loss of customers/potential customers, are the owners of x goin got give you access?

Simple questions. Everyone thinks that what the govt wants, the govt gets. In a vacuum, you would be right.

The question at hand is: Does the federal government have the authority to conduct surveillance within the US, without a warrant of any kind, simply because the Executive branch decides it wants it?

Does the Executive Branch have the authority, after it conducts these actions, to claim that the Judicial Branch has no authority to determine if these actions were Constitutional?

[Thiebear]

Actually, at least within this thread people have remained markedly consistant. Larry, MJ, Tulane and myself voiced worry during Bush and have reiterated it. A number who "hate" Obama have supported this move as they supported Bush.

I'm pretty surprised. Well done. (Of course, one group is being steadfast and wrong)

I'll say the same thing from a year ago.

ALL cases should be reviewed each year and the ones that are incorrectly done should be handled very harshly. Abuse = lose the program.

Getting the wiretap 72hours AFTER doesn't seem that difficult to accomplish.

Without the Checks and balances our government is doomed to failure.

[Midnight Judges]

I did. You can "want" access to x all you want. But the owner of x has to grant you access. If granting you access to x costs the owners billions die to lawsuits and loss of customers/potential customers, are the owners of x goin got give you access?

Simple questions. Everyone thinks that what the govt wants, the govt gets. In a vacuum, you would be right.

I agree with Larry based on the balance of powers, but your example fails regardless -as evidenced by all of the telecom companies folding like cheap tents under pressure from the executive branch. Not to mention your banking information could merely be hacked by the FED without a warrant.

[Popeman38]

The question at hand is: Does the federal government have the authority to conduct surveillance within the US, without a warrant of any kind, simply because the Executive branch decides it wants it?

Does the Executive Branch have the authority, after it conducts these actions, to claim that the Judicial Branch has no authority to determine if these actions were Constitutional?

The Executive can can say they have the authority. But granting yourself authority does not give you power. There was a saying when I was in the army, "Sir/Ma'am, don't mistake your rank for my authority". When I was running the range, the Commander in Chief himself would have to follow my instructions.

[Popeman38]

I agree with Larry based on the balance of powers, but your example fails regardless -as evidenced by all of the telecom companies folding like cheap tents under pressure from the executive branch. Not to mention your banking information could merely be hacked by the FED without a warrant.

And again, there is no evidence that all the telecoms folded like tents. There is evidence that 2 telecoms folded like tents. The others demanded a retraction that was granted. Qwest never participated. Verizon denied any participation. SBc denied participation. Only MCI and AT&T were named as granting unlimited access. MCI contended that they only granted access in accordance with federal statutes.

Regardless of what you think, what the NYTimes reports, and what USAToday swears by, there is only evidence that 1 telecom company granted access. Call me crazy, but that hardly constitutes listening in on every call placed.

[Special K]

I don't know, Obama seems like a pretty reasonable person with some common sense when it comes to our national security...which has been a big surprise to me. That is why I think there must be some important reasons as to why he is choosing to block this inquisition.

How can you verify that that is what the program is doing: "monitoring suspicious individuals." There is no one to even check that that's what the program is for.

Fine, monitoring "everyone." I don't care.

When it comes to our national security, I am fine with the government tapping phones and not having to wait forever to get a freaking warrant to listen to a conversation and by the time the warrant is obtained, the conversation is over and the opportunity lost.

Suspicious according to whom?

According to those in charge of our national security. You knew the answer to that already.

You remember, what was the biggest terrorist attack in US history, before Bush?

Wiretap those jackasses too. Fine with me.

[Big Blue Joe]

A LOT of you have serious misconceptions about everything. Who owns the internet? Who owns the telephony infrastructure? Do you think the ACLU/EFF lawsuit in the 9th Circuit Court had any affect on the answers to the above? Think it through before answering...

It was paid for by our tax dollars.

[Madison Redskin]

When it comes to our national security, I am fine with the government tapping phones and not having to wait forever to get a freaking warrant to listen to a conversation and by the time the warrant is obtained, the conversation is over and the opportunity lost.

That's a strawman. Under FISA, federal authorities may tap lines and then go apply for a warrant. Moreover, nearly all of the requests for warrants to conduct or continue the wiretaps are granted.

[Larry]

And again, there is no evidence that all the telecoms folded like tents. There is evidence that 2 telecoms folded like tents. The others demanded a retraction that was granted. Qwest never participated. Verizon denied any participation. SBc denied participation. Only MCI and AT&T were named as granting unlimited access. MCI contended that they only granted access in accordance with federal statutes.

Regardless of what you think, what the NYTimes reports, and what USAToday swears by, there is only evidence that 1 telecom company granted access. Call me crazy, but that hardly constitutes listening in on every call placed.

1) Your own post contradicts itself.

2) And did you really devote about 6 posts to trying to claim that "well, the government only violated the Constitution once, and they only performed illegal searches of a few tens of millions of American citizens, and if they attempt to violate the Constitution, but they fail to get what they want, then that's not really a violation"?

[Larry]

When it comes to our national security, I am fine with the government tapping phones and not having to wait forever to get a freaking warrant to listen to a conversation and by the time the warrant is obtained, the conversation is over and the opportunity lost.

Boy, it's amazing how often that poor, dead, straw man gets dragged out onto the stage to receive another beating.

The law at the time allowed warrants to be obtained after the fact.

According to those in charge of our national security. You knew the answer to that already.

The Executive Branch is in charge of Law Enforcement, too. But the FBI doesn't issue it's own search warrants. Judges do. That's because, in our system, judges are the people who judge the evidence in individual cases.

Sorry, but I fail to see where people seem to get this belief that the words "national security" means "power to grant myself the power to ignore the entire rest of the Constitution".

(That would be even more stupid than claiming that the words "general welfare" means "the power to do anything, as long as I claim to have good intentions". )

[Special K]

That's a strawman. Under FISA, federal authorities may tap lines and then go apply for a warrant. Moreover, nearly all of the requests for warrants to conduct or continue the wiretaps are granted.

You say strawman, I don't. I love the flinging around of that word in political threads though. Seriously, can we get a bit more original here.

My bottom line is this: national security is one of the most important issues to me. I am okay with granting those with top secret clearance in the NSA to administer wiretaps on "suspicious" individuals or organizations (without going through the bureauocratic red tape first, or hell, even ever) in an effort thwart terrorist attacks and provide security to Americans.

There is some stuff that needs to be kept secret and secure and not paraded out in front of the courts so that people can access that sensitive information.

Obama agreed with you guys too during his campaign. He wanted everything public, blah, blah, blah. But when he actually became privy to the sensitive information, he decided this was something that needed to be done. I think that is very telling about the sensitivity of the information involved here.

Sorry, but I fail to see where people seem to get this belief that the words "national security" means "power to grant myself the power to ignore the entire rest of the Constitution".

Sorry, but I fail to see where Joe Blow seems to get this belief that he has to know everything that is going on in the regarding our national security.

Clearly, the people privy to the information seem to agree that this is what needs to be done in this case. I think I trust the people who actually know this top secret information to make this decision more than a bunch of people crying foul over this on a message board.

[Larry]

You say strawman, I don't. I love the flinging around of that word in political threads though. Seriously, can we get a bit more original here.

She said, while continuing to defend her use of a completely fictional argument that's been known fictional for years.

Sorry, but I fail to see where Joe Blow seems to get this belief that he has to know everything that is going on in the regarding our national security.

I must have missed the post where Mr. Blow claimed that right. Could you point it out to me?

(Or did you make it up, too?)

[Special K]

She said, while continuing to defend her use of a completely fictional argument that's been known fictional for years.

You're funny. Can't even direct a question specifically toward a poster, instead, you have to do your little song and dance while you refer to the poster you've quoted in the third person like it's a show.

Regardless, what's my fictional argument? That I don't think NSA should have to go through bureaucratic red tape in getting wire taps when it's regarding our national security? Or that I trust the people who are actually privy to this highly sensitive information and know what the heck they are talking about rather than people on this site who just think they know what's best in this case but really don't know anything?

You're right, normally, when I don't know what certain subject matter contains, I defer to the people who do...you know, like the president.

I must have missed the post where Mr. Blow claimed that right. Could you point it out to me?

(Or did you make it up, too?)

Nope, didn't make it up...I actually read the article, and many other articles regarding this topic. Maybe you should too, and identify some of the lawsuits that have been filed and the complaints made in these lawsuits. I'd encourage you to specifically peruse over the ACLU vs. NSA lawsuit.

[Larry]

Regardless, what's my fictional argument?

I would have thought that having two people quote it to you would have been sufficient.

When it comes to our national security, I am fine with the government tapping phones and not having to wait forever to get a freaking warrant to listen to a conversation and by the time the warrant is obtained, the conversation is over and the opportunity lost.

Look familiar?

----------

That I don't think NSA should have to go through bureaucratic red tape in getting wire taps when it's regarding our national security?

Right. "Bureaucratic Red Tape". Like "Having to have a good reason, so you can comply with the Constitution.

Pesky things like that.

Nope, didn't make it up...I actually read the article, and many other articles regarding this topic. Maybe you should too, and identify some of the lawsuits that have been filed and the complaints made in these lawsuits. I'd encourage you to specifically peruse over the ACLU vs. NSA lawsuit.

Rather than suggesting that the information might be found somewhere in the discussions of some tpoic, do you suppose you could point out to me the actual place where Joe Blow asserts "this belief that he has to know everything that is going on in the regarding our national security."?

I may have missed it. (It might even be in this thread). But all I've seen is an administration claiming that the entire Judicial Branch lacks the authority to determine whether the government violated the Constitution, (and to determine whether the government actually had a good enough reason, in the individual cases, to have met the requirements of the Constituiton, and relevant laws), and people claiming that they really feel like the government doesn't have the authority to do whatever it wants without any independent oversight whatsoever from the branch of government which has been constitutionally granted the authority to decide Constitutional matters.

In short, I've seen several people agreeing with my position that frankly, as long as the Judicial Branch has some kind of oversight of the program, even after the fact, they're good with it.