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

[Madison Redskin]

Keeastman:

I have several problems with your position in this thread. First, you have no idea what the wiretapping program entails, but you support it. That you support a program whose contours are grey (at best) is perplexing.

Second, you believe that we should defer to the NSA, CIA, etc. and allow them to make the determination as to whether their actions are necessary or constitutional. Do you also believe that police should be able to conduct warrantless searches and wiretaps to prevent crime? If not, why? After all, crime kills FAR more Americans than terrorism. If so, do you simply believe the 4th Amendment is a silly anachronism?

Finally, as a lawyer, I have enormous respect for "the rule of law." Rules exist for a reason; they are what differentiate our society from backward-ass dictatorships and lawless states. It's sad that so many people have so little regard for the law.

[Special K]

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."?

Like I said, check out the lawsuit ACLU brought against NASA. I gave you the case, you're a big boy, google it.

Keeastman:

I have several problems with your position in this thread. First, you have no idea what the wiretapping program entails, but you support it. That you support a program whose contours are grey (at best) is perplexing.

That's fine. I have problems with other peoples' positions in this thread. Such is life.

Second, you believe that we should defer to the NSA, CIA, etc. and allow them to make the determination as to whether their actions are necessary or constitutional.

When it pertains to national security and tapping phones where one recipient is located outside the United States, yes, I'm fine with that. Furthermore, from what I understand about the situation, wiretapping in purely domestic situations have been performed pursuant to current domestic law.

Also, as far as the fourth ammendment is concerned, from what I understand, the issue was over whether privacy was a "reasonable expectation." In international calls, privacy is not a reasonable expectation.

Here's a link from one of my most favorite law professors, Mr. Eastman ( ) that I thought explained things pretty well shortly after the program became public...

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=926000

Finally, as a lawyer, I have enormous respect for "the rule of law." Rules exist for a reason; they are what differentiate our society from backward-ass dictatorships and lawless states. It's sad that so many people have so little regard for the law.

I have very high regard for the law as well and I don't see this as an unconstitutional program, which is why I am not against it. Glad to see we can agree on something which would be our mutual respect for the law

[Madison Redskin]

When it pertains to national security and tapping phones where one recipient is located outside the United States, yes, I'm fine with that. Furthermore, from what I understand about the situation, wiretapping in purely domestic situations have been performed pursuant to current domestic law.

Also, as far as the fourth amendment is concerned, from what I understand, the issue was over whether privacy was a "reasonable expectation." In international calls, privacy is not a reasonable expectation.

Do you really believe that it is not reasonable to expect an international phone call to be private? So, if you call someone in Spain, you believe there is a good chance someone is listening? If so, whom? Government authorities? The government should not be able to argue that it listens in on international phone conversations, people should expect as much, and therefore, listening in on international phone conversations does not intrude on expectations of privacy.

Here's a link from one of my most favorite law professors, Mr. Eastman ( ) that I thought explained things pretty well shortly after the program became public...

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=926000

I have very high regard for the law as well and I don't see this as an unconstitutional program, which is why I am not against it. Glad to see we can agree on something which would be our mutual respect for the law

FYI, the link is to an abstract, not the full article.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't know the scope of the program, so I won't comment on its constitutionality. I am, however, troubled by what I do know about it.

Moreover, I do not believe we should blindly trust that bureaucrats and government officers will correctly interpret the constitution and rigorously follow it in protecting our nation. Our form of government is based on a system of checks and balances and the legislative and the judicial branches shouldn't abandon their duty to check the executive branch whenever matters of national security are at issue.

[Special K]

Do you really believe that it is not reasonable to expect an international phone call to be private?

Actually, no, I don't believe it is reasonable to expect privacy in an international call. Not so much from our country (although now it is the case), but from the governments of those other countries.

You bet you can't expect complete privacy, especially from other countries' governments, most notably in the developing world or in countries where some of the terrorist operations/charities/etc. are located. This is one of the things I was taught while traveling abroad, particularly to developing countries (even before Sept. 11)...don't mouth off and be stupid. It's quite a difficult task for me, but I've managed so far.

Anyway, from what I understand, this is the foundation upon which the administrations have partially based their arguments on the constitutionality of the wiretapping program.

FYI, the link is to an abstract, not the full article.

The link (actually, about 5 or 6 links) to the full PDF article is within the link I gave you. Couldn't copy and paste the PDF address, sorry. It's just an extra click though.

[Burgundy Burner]

The link (actually, about 5 or 6 links) to the full PDF article is within the link I gave you. Couldn't copy and paste the PDF address, sorry. It's just an extra click though.

That was an interesting read and based on what I knew from recent years, it came as no surprise that Pres. Obama was going to continue the program.

[Madison Redskin]

BB:

So much for getting rid of the video, huh? I saw it was gone, but now it's back. So, you are aware that people view it as offensive/racist, but you still find it so funny that it needs to stay up?

[Madison Redskin]

The link (actually, about 5 or 6 links) to the full PDF article is within the link I gave you. Couldn't copy and paste the PDF address, sorry. It's just an extra click though.

Thanks. I missed the links at the top of the page. I'll read through it.

[Burgundy Burner]

BB:

So much for getting rid of the video, huh? I saw it was gone, but now it's back. So, you are aware that people view it as offensive/racist, but you still find it so funny that it needs to stay up?

That issue is over. Take it up with the mods if you have a problem. You see it as racist and I asked you to give me a reasonable reason why it is racist. You can't. It's funny - nothing more, nothing less. Hey, we could take a lot of sigs that some may view as offensive, sexist (a ton of them), etc., etc. etc.

[Madison Redskin]

That issue is over. Take it up with the mods if you have a problem. You see it as racist and I asked you to give me a reasonable reason why it is racist. You can't. It's funny - nothing more, nothing less. Hey, we could take a lot of sigs that some may view as offensive, sexist (a ton of them), etc., etc. etc.

As you may recall, I said (in a pm which you ignored and in a thread) it was offensive because video of black men chasing a bucket of fried chicken appeals to well-known, and dumb stereotypes. I find it offensive, and other posters said the same. You then said you would pull the video and, you did. Then you turn around and post it again. It seems that you are trying to stir things up, which, given your sig quote, isn't a big surprise.

[Burgundy Burner]

As you may recall, I said (in a pm which you ignored and in a thread) it was offensive because video of black men chasing a bucket of fried chicken appeals to well-known, and dumb stereotypes. I find it offensive, and other posters said the same. You then said you would pull the video and, you did. Then you turn around and post it again. It seems that you are trying to stir things up, which, given your sig quote, isn't a big surprise.

Again, we have never met. Feel free to pay a visit and you are welcome to stay in my place. You can meet my family. You can meet my friends. You can meet the people that attend church with me. Only then should you judge who I really am and what I represent. I refuse to judge you as you have judged me.

Also, please name one pro team that is all black. Give it a try.

Other posters - uh, no. You and one other person came at me quite hard and made a ton of accusations. Several were supportive of me. Are you willing to make the same kind of effort for many other sigs that can be seen as offensive? How about the ones that are full of scantilly clad women and animated gifs that show them in all kinds of movements?

One other thing. Perhaps you should hear the story of my roommate in college. We're still very, very close.

[Jumbo]

BB & Madison, with respect for both of your POV's, please take any further discussion of this sig to PM if you each wish to continue. If, in the normal course of events, the matter calls for a moderator decision, it will be made. Thank you both.

[Burgundy Burner]

BB & Madison, with respect for both of your POV's, please take any further discussion of this sig to PM if you each wish to continue. If, in the normal course of events, the matter calls for a moderator decision, it will be made. Thank you both.

You betcha.

[Gunny Highway]

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

Ramsy Usef blowing a three story hole in the World Trade Center in 1993, trying to topple one tower into the other?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

But not every judge is deemed worthy of holding the highest security clearance. And there aren't many prosecuting attorneys, or even defense attorneys, that hold those clearances.

Well, that actually misses the point and is inherently wrong.

Judges have CONSTITUTIONAL oversight powers of these programs. ANYTHING that the executive branch does which involves wiretapping, for instance, is reviewable by the courts.

Courts can look at anything under seal. But they don't need "security clearance" because top secret security and compartment security, etc., are terms that describe your level WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. The courts have this power as granted by the Constitution. And to say that the Courts can't review something because the executive power doesn't give them some authority, i.e. security clearance, is the very definition of violation of separation of powers.

The executive branch does not determine the courts' oversight powers, the Constitution does.

[Larry]

Ramsy Usef blowing a three story hole in the World Trade Center in 1993, trying to topple one tower into the other?

How many people died in that one?

[Thiebear]

Well, that actually misses the point and is inherently wrong.

Judges have CONSTITUTIONAL oversight powers of these programs. ANYTHING that the executive branch does which involves wiretapping, for instance, is reviewable by the courts.

Courts can look at anything under seal. But they don't need "security clearance" because top secret security and compartment security, etc., are terms that describe your level WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. The courts have this power as granted by the Constitution. And to say that the Courts can't review something because the executive power doesn't give them some authority, i.e. security clearance, is the very definition of violation of separation of powers.

The executive branch does not determine the courts' oversight powers, the Constitution does.

I like this statement, thus i steal it due to TSF not having the TS SCI/SBI to post it.

Keast is not allowed to talk about this issue as she has no authority to discuss it per ummm me.

[LaxBuddy21]

As you may recall, I said (in a pm which you ignored and in a thread) it was offensive because video of black men chasing a bucket of fried chicken appeals to well-known, and dumb stereotypes. I find it offensive, and other posters said the same. You then said you would pull the video and, you did. Then you turn around and post it again. It seems that you are trying to stir things up, which, given your sig quote, isn't a big surprise.

I find it offensive that black people liking friend chicken is a stereotype. I like fried chicken too! In reality, its a southern thing to like friend chicken not a black thing. Every good ol' boy's mama has a recipe for homemade fried chicken! My great grandmothers was the best!

ETA: Actually I dont find anything offensive because being offended 99% of the time is just stupid and does nothing but stir up more issues and cause more problems. Did that video take food, money or a place to live from anyone? Did it physically harm someone? No, then who really cares?