Judge orders halt to NSA wiretap program

[sgeeeee]

If that is what it takes to prevent 24 folks from blowing up 10 air planes (~4,000 people) where do I sign the petition to make it legal?

Huh. I'm not sure how you equate illegal wiretapping with prevention of the 9/11 attacks. The issue being challenged in court is about requiring wiretaps to be done legaly -- not stopped. No one wants the "bad guys" to get away. They just want to make sure we don't have a government of "bad guys" who abuse power and hurt some of the "good guys". No matter how much you are enamored with the current administration, you might want to insure due process. Remember, someone like Clinton will be in office again some day. If you open up the door for abuses by this administration, then it will be pretty hard to close it later on when you are in the minority.

 

[Gumby]

Getting blown up?

NSA is led by a (extremely competent, extremely aware of the legal restrictions on his authority) general officer. 

I saw what came out of the NSA in the confirmation hearings for General Michael Hayden to be CIA Director.  His contempt for Congress was manifestly evident in his persistent refusal to give straightforward and non-evasive answers to questions about the wiretapping program.  I am still amazed that the Senate let him get away with it.  If he is representative, I think we have much to fear from the NSA.

 

[HFWR]

I think it's a given that we had enough intelligence to thwart the 9/11 attacks. What we apparently didn't have was coordination between agencies, and upper management who wouldn't or didn't use due diligence. For all the criticism of the Clinton administration's handling of Al Qaeda, the Bush team wasn't much, if any, better at it before 9/11...

I support our intelligence agencies, but I'd prefer to keep the judicial review process intact.

 

[Texas Proud]

Getting blown up?

NSA is led by a (extremely competent, extremely aware of the legal restrictions on his authority) general officer. The organization has more civilian than military personnel by far. In general, you don't need to worry about the military personnel or the career professional intelligence civil service folks knowingly doing anything illegal. I'd be more concerned about appointees full of enthusiasm and no background concerning past abuses.

I'll bet a buck that this decision is overturned by the 6th circuit court.

I guess you do not get it.... I do not care how competent any of the people doing this are... I think is illegal... just because it is convenient to do does not change that... if we let some 'competent' people get away with this, then what happens when the incompetents are in charge We have already set the precedent that it was 'legal', so why stop it...

Remember Nixon... according to the theory that Bush is doing, what he did was legal... who is to say what is in the national interest besides our Commander and Chief

SO, I will take your bet... but I thought it was in the 5th.. but I could be wrong...

Also, if it is REALLY like what they say, then getting a warrant would be EASY... ergo, legal.. and they still get to do what they want..

 

[eridanus]

Those of us concerned about civil liberties should be the ones most fervently hoping that the present laws and security measures (including surveillace) prevent another successful attack.

The FISA includes a retroactive warrant provision. For the first 22 years, the court modified only .0153% (!) of the requests.

Why then would Bush et al want to ignore it? Because since 2001, the court has modified 3.2% of the requests. The court also outright REJECTED the first (six) warrants in its history.

This is not a court of whiny bleeding liberals. It is, however, a court of responsible and knowledgable judges that had no problem with the thousands of warrant requests presented to it previous to the Bush adminstration (including under Reagan and Bush the elder).

If alarm bells aren't ringing, you aren't paying attention.

 

[Texas Proud]

The FISA includes a retroactive warrant provision. For the first 22 years, the court modified only .0153% (!) of the requests.

Why then would Bush et al want to ignore it? Because since 2001, the court has modified 3.2% of the requests. The court also outright REJECTED the first (six) warrants in its history.

This is not a court of whiny bleeding liberals. It is, however, a court of responsible and knowledgable judges that had no problem with the thousands of warrant requests presented to it previous to the Bush adminstration (including under Reagan and Bush the elder).

If alarm bells aren't ringing, you aren't paying attention.

I do not even NEED to know if they are doing thing that would be rejected... I do not care if they would get 100% agreement from the courts.. the thing that were ringing bells in my head was 'warrentless wiretap'.. nuff said...

And I am SURPRISED that all of the republicans are agreeing just because it is Bush... were we not concerned with 'big government'... and the power it has

I kind of LIKE my checks and balances of government the constitution gave me... I don't want to give any of them up just for the convenience of the current crisis...

 

[alphabet soup]

I do not even NEED to know if they are doing thing that would be rejected... I do not care if they would get 100% agreement from the courts.. the thing that were ringing bells in my head was 'warrentless wiretap'.. nuff said...

And I am SURPRISED that all of the republicans are agreeing just because it is Bush... were we not concerned with 'big government'... and the power it has

I kind of LIKE my checks and balances of government the constitution gave me... I don't want to give any of them up just for the convenience of the current crisis...

You've made the list of Texans I wouldn't be embarrassed to meet.

Along with the Dixie Chicks and Kinky Friedman.

 

[Texas Proud]

You've made the list of Texans I wouldn't be embarrassed to meet.

Along with the Dixie Chicks and Kinky Friedman.

Don't get me wrong.... I was a big Bush supporter.. even when the Dixie Chicks were getting into trouble... but, he has not done what should have been done and is just making things worse.... so I am not a Dixie Chick fan..

Now Kinky!! I hope he wins!!! I am not and probably never will be a left leaning person... but the republicans have been worse in spending on crap that does not matter and (I can not believe I am saying this... ) cutting taxes even more... I do not have kids, but I do have nephews and nieces and do not think I should put my debt on their shoulders so I can live for today.. and running a continuous deficet is what we are doing.. I guess you could say I am more of a libertairian... but not that weird group....

 

[REWahoo]

You've made the list of Texans I wouldn't be embarrassed to meet.

Along with the Dixie Chicks and Kinky Friedman.

Texas Proud, you are in some very exclusive company since that list of “Texans I wouldn’t be embarrassed to meet” is only half as long as soup thinks it is. (Only 1/3 of the Dixie Chicks are Texan - Natalie Maines. The other two are from MA and PA.)

Out of a population of almost 21,000,000, just three of you made the list. You should be honored. (BTW, unless something changes the Kinkster is also getting my vote in November.)

Hey soup, I’d like to nominate two more as worthy of your consideration. They don’t really look like Texans, but I understand they do have some sort of say in whether or not you can fill up your car with gas…and how much it will cost you when you do.

 

[youbet]

I am more of a libertairian... but not that weird group....

Really? Hmmmm......

 

[obryanjf]

When the liberals disobey idiocy it is called civil dis-obedience and when bush does it is called near treason.

This is no big deal and they should continue to do the tapping they want until the appeals are heard and a Supreme decision is made.

job

 

[sgeeeee]

Everyone agrees that they should continue to do the tapping. It's just that many people feel like it should be done legally rather than illegally. Apparently, that's a hard concept for some people to grasp. This administration hasn't even offered an explanation for why they think they should be the first administration in history that should be allowed to do it illegally. They seem to simply think that they are above the law and are out to prove it.

It's hard for me to understand how anyone with even a simple minded understanding of the history of this country and the principles it is founded on would want to allow any administration to ignore the law.

 

[youbet]

Everyone agrees that they should continue to do the tapping. 

I don't think that that is true. What do you base that on?

 

[sgeeeee]

I don't think that that is true.  What do you base that on?

You're probably right. I'm sure there is someone who is against wiretapping on principle. But you'll have to find them yourself if you want to have an argument with them. That's not what this case is about and I haven't heard anyone on this forum or elsewhere say that is the issue.

A lot of times political spin doctors like Limbaugh or O'Reily like to paint those who oppose anything this administration says or does as charlatans. They do this by first misrepresenting the opposing position. That makes it is easy to put down. If you get to state your opponents idea in the dumbest way possible, then you can easily defeat them. It works as long as the audience is too simple minded to listen to anyone but you.

This case is not about letting "bad guys" plot against the country without fearing retaliation. It is about whether this administration is really above the law or whether they should follow the same legal procedures every other administration has had to follow.

 

[alphabet soup]

[quote author=sgeeeee link=topic=9165.msg166062#msg166062 .  It works as long as the audience is too simple minded to listen to anyone but you.

You must be referring to Daddy O. 8)

 

[Texas Proud]

When the liberals disobey idiocy it is called civil dis-obedience and when bush does it is called near treason.

This is no big deal and they should continue to do the tapping they want until the appeals are heard and a Supreme decision is made.

job

Never called it treason.. and I do not remember anybody here say that.. but I could be wrong..

But I DO think it is a crime... but nobody will pay any price for committing this crime (if in the end it is upheld as one)..

And like others have said... tap away with the bad guys.... I WANT them to do it... but, I also want a court of law to monitor them and make sure they are doing it WITHIN THE LAW...

As it is now, there is nothing stopping them from tapping YOUR phone and listening to every conversation you have... now, I have had one of my BIL tell me, so what, they can listen in... I am thinking WTF!!! For some false peace of mind, people are willing to throw away their rights..

I am sure someone can find the real quote... but there is one that is something like... if citizens are willing to give up their rights for security, soon they will have neither..

 

[razztazz]

And like others have said... tap away with the bad guys.... I WANT them to do it... but, I also want a court of law to monitor them and make sure they are doing it WITHIN THE LAW...

As it is now, there is nothing stopping them from tapping YOUR phone and listening to every conversation you have... now, I have had one of my BIL tell me, so what, they can listen in... I am thinking WTF!!! For some false peace of mind, people are willing to throw away their rights..

This is really the whole contention. Not what tyhey are doing. HOW they are doing it. Where is the oversight? Where are the boundries? Where is the accountability? Who is held responsible if something goes wrong? (ie An honest American is ruined for no good reason)

This "I can do whatever I want to whomever I want for any reason as long as I think it is or might be terrorist related" attitude is nothing but a naked power grab under cover of "terrorism". And they can use any data they get any way they want and nobody is allowed to ask questions because they are "protecting Americans". We can trust them, of course.

Joe Scarborough said on CSPAN at some event, believe it or not someday a Democrat will be in the White House again and you won't want him to have the kind of power you're letting george w bush get away with. I can't believe republicans are being so stupid.

 

[Cal]

Joe Scarborough said on CSPAN at some   event, believe it or not someday a Democrat will be in the White House again and you won't want him to have the kind of power you're letting george w bush get away with.  I can't believe republicans are being so stupid.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Nobody I know that opposes this has a problem with it because there is a republican administration doing it. Everyone I know that opposes it does so because it is illegal and a gross violation of the constitution. Unfortunately, there are too many morons in this country that will gladly sign away all liberties because some spin doctor says it is necessary to do so in the name of "security" or anti-terrorism. Look at how the spin doctors have already started using the word "treason" when this is a discussion about legality. People got their undies in a knot because Clinton "broke the law and lied under oath". Apparently this is a much bigger problem than blatantly disregarding the checks and balances in the constitution that ALL executive administration officials have sworn to protect. Apparently breaking that oath is acceptable because the spin doctors throw in the magic word "terrorism".    :

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing.  It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

"It is weakness rather than wickedness which renders men unfit to be trusted with unlimited power." -- John Adams, 1788

"The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes." -- Thomas Paine

"If we become a people who are willing to give up our money and our freedom in exchange for rhetoric and promises, then nothing can save us." -- Thomas Sowell

"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too." -- Somerset Maugham

"The trade-off between freedom and security, so often proposed so seductively, very often leads to the loss of both." -- Christopher Hitchens in the August, 2003 issue of Reason.

"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

"No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation." -- General Douglas MacArthur

"Man is not free unless government is limited." -- Ronald Reagan: Farewell Speech, 1988

 

[Gone4Good]

Everyone agrees that they should continue to do the tapping.  It's just that many people feel like it should be done legally rather than illegally. 

And everyone here seems sufficiently qualified in Constitutional law to declare, unequivocally, that the surveillance program is illegal.  But the courts have held in previous cases that "the President [has] inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance."
  If one end of the conversation is a suspected international terrorist, does this fall under "foreign intelligence surveillance?"  The Supreme Court will decide.


In the mean-time we need to think very hard about whether our current law enforcement infrastructure is up to the task at hand.  Our existing approach to preventing crime relies almost entirely on deterrence and the incarceration of those who can not be deterred (i.e. repeat offenders).  Unfortunately, suicidal mass murderers who don't expect to survive the commission of their crime can not be deterred through any earthly punishment society can meter out.  Incarceration is obviously of no use here either.

The only way to prevent suicidal mass murderers from achieving their aim is to stop them before they have committed a crime.  But the concept of apprehending, surveiling, searching, and incarcerating someone before they've committed a crime is anathema to our concept of rights.  Indeed the concept of "probable cause" may prove too high a standard where early action to disrupt terrorists is necessary to save thousands.  Clearly a balance between security and governmental restraint is needed.  But equally clear is the fact that certain changes need to be made so that subway, airplane and truck bombs don't become common occurrences.

But not everyone sees it that way.  There are those who see any infringement on any "right", real or imagined, as an unacceptable response to the threats we face.  Here in New York City, the ACLU brought a lawsuit trying to stop the NYPD from conducting random bag searches before people entered the subway system.  This, just days after the subway bombings in London.  The ACLU argued that peoples rights against unreasonable searches and seizures were violated by the bag searches.  As if people have a right to use the subway.  Thankfully the courts sided with the NYPD and did not endorse the ACLU's expansion of presumed "rights" to the use of public transportation.  Those of us who commute on the subways everyday are safer for it.

 

[bpp]

The only way to prevent suicidal mass murderers from achieving their aim is to stop them before they have committed a crime.

I saw that movie... That Scientologist guy, right?

 

[bpp]

You've made the list of Texans I wouldn't be embarrassed to meet.

I concur.

Actually, I lived in Texas for about six months when I was around 2 years old. Does that qualify me as Texan?

In the vein of Trivial Pursuit, as far as I know there are four states which were independent countries before becoming states of the US, and I have lived in all of them. I wonder if that influenced my world view at all...

 

[Texas Proud]

I will address two of your statements... and leave the rest for other...

And everyone here seems sufficiently qualified in Constitutional law to declare, unequivocally, that the surveillance program is illegal. But the courts have held in previous cases that "the President [has] inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance."
If one end of the conversation is a suspected international terrorist, does this fall under "foreign intelligence surveillance?" The Supreme Court will decide.

Two issues... the first is are we knowledgeable in constitutional law.. the answer of course is NO... even contitutional lawyers are on both sides... but most of the ones defending it are in the presidents corner... and you are right... in the end the Supreme Court will decide... and that decision could be that they just leave the lower court ruling to stand (or the appeals court if they rule).. but, it does not pass the smell test to me..

And about the decision.. I do not see anything in the constitution or the bill of rights protecting them from unwarrented search or seizure... but guess what... WE HAVE IT... let's not throw it away..

But not everyone sees it that way. There are those who see any infringement on any "right", real or imagined, as an unacceptable response to the threats we face. Here in New York City, the ACLU brought a lawsuit trying to stop the NYPD from conducting random bag searches before people entered the subway system. This, just days after the subway bombings in London. The ACLU argued that peoples rights against unreasonable searches and seizures were violated by the bag searches. As if people have a right to use the subway. Thankfully the courts sided with the NYPD and did not endorse the ACLU's expansion of presumed "rights" to the use of public transportation. Those of us who commute on the subways everyday are safer for it.

Yes, I do not want any of my real rights or imagined rights to be swept under the rug for convenience of the current gvmt... because we will not get them back...

I am mixed on this one... but in the end I came to a middle ground.. the police are doing a quick check, not looking at everything you have.. to make sure you do not have a bomb.. it is not intrusive... and if you as a citizen did NOT want them to look, you SHOULD have the right to turn around and walk away without showing them you bag.. maybe a strange way of thinking... but to me they are looking to see if you have something in order to board the train.. if you decided you do not want to board, then their reasoning to search has gone away... but I bet they look anyhow..

 

[Texas Proud]

I concur.

Actually, I lived in Texas for about six months when I was around 2 years old. Does that qualify me as Texan?

In the vein of Trivial Pursuit, as far as I know there are four states which were independent countries before becoming states of the US, and I have lived in all of them. I wonder if that influenced my world view at all...

Hmmmmm... that seems a bit strange.. as we are taught that it was only Texas..

I do know that Texas was brought into the USA by treaty and no other state was...

so unless the others were part of the original 13.....

 

[Nords]

Hmmmmm... that seems a bit strange..  as we are taught that it was only Texas..
I do know that Texas was brought into the USA by treaty and no other state was...
so unless the others were part of the original 13.....

You should see what they teach us in Hawaii about Texas!

I'm not sure how Hawaii's "annexation" compares to a treaty. Sanford Dole et al seemed to think it was a good idea at the time but Hawaii's surviving royalty felt otherwise...

 

[Gone4Good]

And everyone here seems sufficiently qualified in Constitutional law to declare, unequivocally, that the surveillance program is illegal. 

Even legal experts who agreed with a federal judge's conclusion on Thursday that a NSA surveillance program is unlawful were distancing themselves from the decision’s reasoning and rhetoric yesterday.  

They said the opinion overlooked important precedents, failed to engage the government's major arguments, used circular reasoning, substituted passion for analysis and did note even offer the best reasons for its own conclusions.

It'd be nice if we could trust the courts to offer objective legal opinions instead of politically partisan ones on matters of life and death importance.  No one should feel happy or vindicated with the recent ruling.