Judge orders halt to NSA wiretap program

[obryanjf]

.  It works as long as the audience is too simple minded to listen to anyone but you.

You must be referring to Daddy O.   

Thats fine, another poster called everyone who likes bush to be stupid the other day. Simple minded and Stupid. Seems to be the nature of the debate nowadays. Not much debate, just insult. I hope they continue doing what they are doing until those that want to harm all us and our system are beaten down or eliminated.

job

 

[youbet]

Daddy O

While I don't personally 100% agree with your position, I do agree that name calling like this is inappropriate and sad.

A poster on another thread made the comment that what he liked about the current administration was their uncanny ability to make liberals uncontrollably mad. That sure seems to be the case. Folks, who otherwise seem like thoughtful, positive contributors, "lose it" in political discussions these days. Don't take it personally, they just can't help it.

 

[obryanjf]

No big deal. It is just a board with flippant comments and responses.

There was another poster the other day that said it would take 50 or 75 years for historians to objectively evaluate bush's actions and the results. I agree with that 100%. I do not know it the tapping is the perfect solution or if the war was a great decision. It will take many years for this to play out and determine th ewinners and losers. Many may feel we did not have to play their game, but I believe we did.

The dice are still rolling and it will be awhile to see what they come up as.

job

 

[alphabet soup]

Sorry, DaddyO. As a refugee from the Morningstar Politics board, my first reaction is to rip the other guy's face off first.

Realize now that this forum is for a more civil discourse.

In that vein, let me ask you this. Since, by virtually any measure, Bush has failed in every attempt he's made, both domestically and overseas, to implement his New American Project, or whatever, while alienating the rest of the planet, and, at the same time, continually eroding our civil liberties, by what criteria do you still support him?

P.S. Telling me he's a fine Christian doesn't count.

 

[Gone4Good]

Since, by virtually any measure, Bush has failed in every attempt he's made, both domestically and overseas, to implement his New American Project, or whatever, while alienating the rest of the planet, and, at the same time, continually eroding our civil liberties, by what criteria do you still support him?

5+ years without a successful terrorist attack in the US should be worth something.

 

[Nords]

5+ years without a successful terrorist attack in the US should be worth something.

Dude, it hasn't been five years yet.

In fact I bet a heckuva lot of civil liberties will be violated between now and 11 Sep...

 

[alphabet soup]

5+ years without a successful terrorist attack in the US should be worth something.

By that measure, Herbert Hoover did a great job, but he doesn't make my top ten.

 

[youbet]

It's funny how "what goes around, comes around."  In the 60's, for example, it was the Democrats under Johnson that were busy violating civil liberties as they cracked down on Viet Nam War dissidents and ramped up the draft and military spending.  Now it's Republicans under Bush thinking they're correct to use the tactics they're using to try to track down terrorists.  But for this old timer, it's all starting to look the same.  Hence, I don't trust anybody very much anymore.

Unwavering party loyalists, be they Democrats or Republicans, seem mighty naive from my point of view.  I think it pays to remain independent and support candidates on an individual basis.

I know many on this board will disagree. Please keep your replies civil.........

 

[alphabet soup]

As a fellow oldtimer, I remember those days well. And I agree with your assessment.

By the way, I'm not a Democrat. I'm an anti-fascist. So that makes me anti-Republican by default.

 

[Gone4Good]

Dude, it hasn't been five years yet. 

In fact I bet a heckuva lot of civil liberties will be violated between now and 11 Sep...

You are correct . . . math snafu on my part.  ~5 years, is still valid.

I personally don't feel my civil rights are any more violated by the possibility that my international phone conversations with suspected terrorists might be monitored then I do knowing my cash transactions above $10k will be monitored.  And I'm more than willing to have my bag searched as a requirement to board a train just as I'm willing to submit to airport screening if I want to board an airplane.

By that measure, Herbert Hoover did a great job, but he doesn't make my top ten.

I don't believe international terrorism targeting the US and its interests was a major issue in 1930.


Of all the wisdom that is espoused here on the subject (most of which can be categorized as 'I don't like Bush'), I'm still waiting for someone to address this little problem:

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

 

[Texas Proud]

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...

Actually... it would be interesting... I always wonder what is taught about the various states about themselves and others.. we have a Texas history and an American history... so Hawaii is lumped with the other 49 for us..

I said about the treaty because all other states I know of were 'annexed'.. or whatever word you might want to say.. Texas was a treaty between the two countries.. it spelled out what the US got and what Texas got.. this included the assets of the state and the debts, armies (I believe navies).. all other states were just taken (annexed) by the Congress.. that is except for the first 13...

 

[eridanus]

5+ years without a successful terrorist attack in the US should be worth something.

Clinton went over 5 years without a successful Islamofascist terrorist attack in the US. If that's your only criteria, did you support him?

 

[youbet]

Clinton went over 5 years without a successful Islamofascist terrorist attack in the US. If that's your only criteria, did you support him?

Did he? I can't remember the date of the successful terrorist attack (via truck bomb) on the WTC during his reign? Was that attack early enough that he had five no-attack years afterward?

 

[Gone4Good]

Clinton went over 5 years without a successful Islamofascist terrorist attack in the US. If that's your only criteria, did you support him?

Same answer as the one provided alphabet soup.

From 1990-2000 there were 60 terrorist attacks world wide.  From 2001-2006 there were 140 (subject to check based on a lazy quick count).  The attacks specifically directed against western targets from Islamists is up significantly.  

I'm also not sure what policies were put in place during the 1990's that better protected us.  In fact, wasn't it Clinton's Deputy Attorney General Goerlick who is responsible for erecting the wall between the CIA and the FBI that prevented the agencies from sharing intelligence (based in large part on concerns over protecting "Civil Rights"). 

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

In any event it seems a bit disingenuous to blame Bush for going too far in "the war on terrorism" and simultaneously giving him no credit for the absence of any domestic attacks.  I guess the prevailing attitude here is that if only we just did nothing, the whole problem would go away.

Still waiting for the informed members here to opine on how we might better protect ourselves . . . head in the sand, maybe?

 

[Gone4Good]

Did he?  I can't remember the date of the successful terrorist attack (via truck bomb) on the WTC during his reign?  Was that attack early enough that he had five no-attack years afterward?

WTC I - Feb 26, 2003 - so yes more than 5 years.

 

[youbet]

Oh yeah, it was more than five years.  I goggled up the following:

Previous Bombing


In 1993 terrorists drove a truck packed with 1,100 lbs of explosives into the basement parking garage at the World Trade Center. Despite the size of the blast—it left a crater 22 ft wide and five stories deep—only six people were killed and 1,000 injured. The towers were repaired, cleaned, and reopened in less than a month.

Thank goodness that the six deaths and one thousand injuries weren't higher numbers that time!  Imagine how history would have been different if that attack had been more damaging, such as if the truck had been parked at a more effective location under the building and the building had collapsed.

The relative ease and frequency of these attacks actually makes me surprised that we haven't had more of them.  It's hard for me to be optimistic in this regard. 

 

[eridanus]

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.

Eh? That statement was in relation to the Truong case, which was decided in 1980:

"We reiterate that Truong dealt with a pre-FISA surveillance based on the President’s constitutional responsibility to conduct the foreign affairs of the United States. 629 F.2d at 914."

The Truong case had nothing to do with FISA:

"[A]nother judge in the same district had held that the Truong analysis did not govern FISA cases, since a FISA order was a warrant that met Fourth Amendment standards. United States v. Falvey"


This Review was to decide:

"The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President’s power by providing a
49 mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the
government’s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable."


The FISA Court had restricted a warrant request. The government appealed to the FISC Court of Review. The government was arguing that FISA searches are sufficient to meet 4th amendment requirements.

"The government, recognizing the Fourth Amendment’s shadow effect on the FISA court’s opinion, has affirmatively argued that FISA is constitutional."


The Review in no way invalidates the FISA.

The question remains: Why is the White House ignoring FISA requirements?

Indeed, the Supremes will decide.

 

[sgeeeee]

Thats fine, another poster called everyone who likes bush to be stupid the other day.  Simple minded and Stupid.  Seems to be the nature of the debate nowadays.  Not much debate, just insult.  I hope they continue doing what they are doing until those that want to harm all us and our system are beaten down or eliminated.

job

You assign a quote to me that came from another poster's post.  I also said nothing about Bush or people who support him.  I did make a comment about people who get their news information only from spin doctor idealogues.  Getting news from only one source is . . . well, simple minded.   That applies whether the person who does this is Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative.  The fact that you applied this to yourself and to Bush supporters says more about you than about me.

So, you misquote me and accuse me of stances I never even implied.  That seems unethical to me.  You should appologize.  

 

[Gone4Good]

The question remains: Why is the White House ignoring FISA requirements?

Let me run a hypothetical by you. Say a laptop or cell phone is recovered by the CIA in Pakistan which is believed to be owned by someone associated with terrorists. If that device has US phone numbers in it, will FISA allow wire taps on those numbers based on that information alone? I think the answer is no. But is that the right answer?

 

[bpp]

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

Nope.

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

That may be.

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

Nope.

[Fixed formatting.]

 

[sgeeeee]

Let me run a hypothetical by you.  Say a laptop or cell phone is recovered by the CIA in Pakistan which is believed to be owned by someone associated with terrorists.  If that device has US phone numbers in it, will FISA allow wire taps on those numbers based on that information alone?  I think the answer is no.  But is that the right answer?

You seem to be having a difficult time understanding the point, 3 years. Clearly, the details of the situation matter, but wiretaps are almost certainly allowable under the circumstances you mentioned. Further, in such circumstances the taps can even be put in place for a period of a day or two (I forget the exact timeframe) prior to actually getting the legal permission. The law simply requires that the administration does go through a legal procedure as a check on the process. In most cases, the taps take longer to implement than the legal procedure to gain approval. At least that was true several years ago.

 

[Gone4Good]

but wiretaps are almost certainly allowable under the circumstances you mentioned. 

I'm not sure the situation I described would meet the "probable cause" standard.

 

[sgeeeee]

I'm not sure the situation I described would meet the "probable cause" standard.

As far as I know, this administration has not claimed that the burden of proof for "probable cause" is too great. No one I've heard on either side of the issue has been concerned about this. But if there were a "probable cause" threshold issue, isn't that exactly the case that we should hope would be reviewed?

 

[Gumby]

I concur.

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...

Hawaii and Texas have been mentioned by other posters. The remaining two are Vermont and California.

 

[Gone4Good]

As far as I know, this administration has not claimed that the burden of proof for "probable cause" is too great.  No one I've heard on either side of the issue has been concerned about this. 

Really?

Consider the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the French Moroccan who came to the FBI's attention before Sept. 11 because he had asked a Minnesota flight school for lessons on how to steer an airliner, but not on how to take off or land. Even with this report, and with information from French intelligence that Moussaoui had been associating with Chechen rebels, the Justice Department decided there was not sufficient evidence to get a FISA warrant to allow the inspection of his computer files.