NSA Wiretapping found Unconstitutional

[Guest InuYasha]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6081700650.html

 

And then:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14406920/

 

And more:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14416571/

 

And yet more:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14417030/

 

When the dust finally settles on this issue; which will no doubt make it to the Supreme Court, it may fundamentally alter the entire legal structure of the country.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

I can see how legally, it is illegal and unconstitutional. I can also see how some insist that we need it to protect the country.

That argument doens't exactly work with me because there are tons of illegal things we could do to make the country "safer", but doing them wouldn't us "better", instead making us "worse".

 

My thoughts are, freedom ain't free folks. One of the prices you pay for your freedom, is that the laws that exist to give you your freedom end up giving bad guys more freedom to do bad things, freedom they wouldn't have under a more oppressive form of government.

 

Frankly, they're allowed to get warrants AFTER THE ACTUAL TAPPING, which would still make it legal, but they refuse to do that. It bothers me that they won't even do that. I personally could probably agree to some compromise, but there needs to *some sort* of oversight.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Good! You just never can trust people to curb their excesses. Afterall, since so many conservatives think liberals are traitors what is to keep them from wiretapping ME just because I am "anti-american"?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Yeah, that's the thing. How soon before they start wiretapping political opponents, news reporters, etc? It's basically given the administration a blank check to look into whoever they want.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I can see why it'd be valuable, and it's probably done a little to help out with counterterrorism since the program was still going on when the story broke, but we could make our streets safer by having two policemen in riot gear on every street corner beating suckas down for the most minor of crimes too. Sort of an unfair comparison, but the exaggeration is necessary. That's the philosophical part of it. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it.

 

Metr0 pointed out the biggest problem I have with this though, and it's that it's illegal thanks to their own mysterious stubbornness/stupidity! Just get a freakin' warrant afterward if that's what the law dictates! They have what, two weeks to get a warrant after a pre-emptive wiretap? There are thousands of people working for the government, couldn't someone pop down to the courthouse for a minute?

[2GOLD 0]

Metr0 pointed out the biggest problem I have with this though, and it's that it's illegal thanks to their own mysterious stubbornness/stupidity! Just get a freakin' warrant afterward if that's what the law dictates! They have what, two weeks to get a warrant after a pre-emptive wiretap? There are thousands of people working for the government, couldn't someone pop down to the courthouse for a minute?

 

This goes back to one of our biggest problems. Our government is incredibly inefficient and lazy in every section. This is why I have always been opposed to giving them more power over anything because they never seem to be able to handle it.

 

I really wish there was an adminstration that would come in and realize our biggest problem is our government is incredibly out of order when it comes to handling anything. It's one of the reasons the littlest of things takes over a million dollars to do.

 

If you know the guy has committed the illegal act and all you have to do is get the warrant AFTER the fact and you don't do it, then something is screwed up somewhere on the line and needs fixing.

[Guest thetrendsetter]

Does the US have a equivilant to the Canadian "nonwithstanding clause", could bush theoretically use that to overrule the Wiretapping issue if need be?

[Guest InuYasha]

Does the US have a equivilant to the Canadian "nonwithstanding clause", could bush theoretically use that to overrule the Wiretapping issue if need be?

Unless that clause is related somehow to the US through treaty or trade agreement, it's not likely.

[snuffbox 0]

Yeah, that's the thing. How soon before they start wiretapping political opponents, news reporters, etc? It's basically given the administration a blank check to look into whoever they want.

 

1964.

[NoCalMike 0]

The administration has thus far not said or argued or debated anything worthwhile to suggest that they couldn't achieve their objectives while still remaining within the bounds of the law. Something tells me that they don't want to have to go to the courts because then they actually have to tell the judge who they are wiretapping. Currently they don't, they just do it, which brings up the issue that Invader3k stated, regarding wiretapping political opponents, reporters etc...because they simply never have to answer to anyone regarding who they are wiretapping. If all they are doing is what they claim, which is wiretapping suspicious people, then there should be absolutely NO PROBLEM with going to a judge to state, "this person could be a threat to national security, we need to wire tap them" Plus, they are even legally allowed to start the wiretapping before they go to the judge, as long as they do go to the judge eventually.

 

It just seems like everything they want to do, can be done within the bounds of the law, and it raises suspicion when they are so adamant about not having to follow the law.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Or, more frequently, trying to make a new law after failing to alter the current. Is there a record somewhere of all the times this White House has pushed for a civil rights-related law to be changed?

[NoCalMike 0]

Or, more frequently, trying to make a new law after failing to alter the current. Is there a record somewhere of all the times this White House has pushed for a civil rights-related law to be changed?

 

 

Careful there, or you are going to get thrown into a "free-speech zone"

[Special K 0]

Good! You just never can trust people to curb their excesses. Afterall, since so many conservatives think liberals are traitors what is to keep them from wiretapping ME just because I am "anti-american"?

 

There's not many terrorists in the great town of Go Fuck Yourself, Oklahoma.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Good! You just never can trust people to curb their excesses. Afterall, since so many conservatives think liberals are traitors what is to keep them from wiretapping ME just because I am "anti-american"?

 

There's not many terrorists in the great town of Go Fuck Yourself, Oklahoma.

Wow. Somebody has a problem with me? Um... who are you again?

[Special K 0]

I don't have a problem with you, look at where your profile says you're from.

 

And I'm Special K.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

I don't have a problem with you, look at where your profile says you're from.

 

And I'm Special K.

Oh crap. Sorry. Knee jerk reaction. I forgot your old SN as well as having that over there.

[Art Sandusky 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/06/bus...eech/index.html

 

But we're all a bunch of dirty liberal liars who just hate the guy, right? Come on, even the most staunch of supporters here have to admit that this is not what America does. Sort of unrelated, but this ties into the theme of the thread, that being "we're flying head first into a disgusting age where the executive will have most or all of the power unless we change some shit."

 

Bush's acknowledgement came as the president announced that he was sending legislation to Congress that would authorize military tribunals for terror suspects and set clear rules to protect U.S. military personnel from facing prosecution for war crimes.

This is not to imply that it's some rampant problem in our military, but why are our offenders going to be protected instead of held to the same laws we're enforcing for detainees, not all of whom may be guilty (much like our own soldiers)?

[NoCalMike 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/06/bus...eech/index.html

 

But we're all a bunch of dirty liberal liars who just hate the guy, right? Come on, even the most staunch of supporters here have to admit that this is not what America does. Sort of unrelated, but this ties into the theme of the thread, that being "we're flying head first into a disgusting age where the executive will have most or all of the power unless we change some shit."

 

Bush's acknowledgement came as the president announced that he was sending legislation to Congress that would authorize military tribunals for terror suspects and set clear rules to protect U.S. military personnel from facing prosecution for war crimes.

This is not to imply that it's some rampant problem in our military, but why are our offenders going to be protected instead of held to the same laws we're enforcing for detainees, not all of whom may be guilty (much like our own soldiers)?

 

 

Possibly because if they start prosecuting the little guys, they will open their mouths and spill the beans about how higher ups might have ordered them to do certain things. For example with the prisoner abuse, it was noticed that similar practices were being executed in different prisons in different countries where we were holding detainees, which makes a strong argument that it wasn't just a "random soldier getting his kicks" and that is was a direct command from higher up(s) to use those certain practices.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I'm not crying conspiracy so much about this, I just want to see fair treatment for all alleged criminals whether they're our soldiers or terrorists.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Yeah, that's the thing. How soon before they start wiretapping political opponents, news reporters, etc?

 

Not the same program, but...

 

Documents Reveal Scope of U.S. Database on Antiwar Protests

 

By ERIC LICHTBLAU

Published: October 13, 2006

WASHINGTON, Oct. 12 — Internal military documents released Thursday provided new details about the Defense Department’s collection of information on demonstrations nationwide last year by students, Quakers and others opposed to the Iraq war.

 

documents, obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, show, for instance, that military officials labeled as “potential terrorist activity” events like a “Stop the War Now” rally in Akron, Ohio, in March 2005.

 

The Defense Department acknowledged last year that its analysts had maintained records on war protests in an internal database past the 90 days its guidelines allowed, and even after it was determined there was no threat.

 

A department spokesman said Thursday that the “questionable data collection” had led to a tightening of military procedures to ensure that only information relevant to terrorism and other threats was collected. The spokesman, Maj. Patrick Ryder, said in response to the release of the documents that the department “views with great concern any potential violation” of the policy.

 

“There is nothing more important or integral to the effectiveness of the U.S. military than the trust and good will of the American people,” Major Ryder said.

 

A document first disclosed last December by NBC News showed that the military had maintained a database, known as Talon, containing information about more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” around the country in 2004 and 2005. Dozens of alerts on antiwar meetings and peaceful protests appear to have remained in the database even after analysts had decided that they posed no threat to military bases or personnel...

[snuffbox 0]

Bob Haldeman would be proud.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

In short, Judge Taylor ran roughshod over all the rules that should have kept her from deciding this case in the first place. But decide it she did, finding that the TSP violates the separation of powers and the Fourth Amendment because it does not seek judicial warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to authorize its activities. She ruled thus notwithstanding that every federal appellate court to consider the issue, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review itself, had previously found that the president has inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping to protect the nation from external threats.

 

In disregarding this consensus, she effectively claimed that the only public official elected by all Americans — an official whose primary duty happens to be safeguarding the security of the United States — is powerless to order surveillance against an enemy in wartime unless a federal judge says he can.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGU2O...WFhZTdkNzk3MWU=

 

 

What always amazes me is that people like you guys, who are so very concerned with governmental tyranny, are not ardently in support of the Second Amendment.

[snuffbox 0]

you guys?

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Those who have posted in this thread.

[snuffbox 0]

So, everyone that dislikes the wiretapping/surveillance/etc must also be against guns? Learn something new everyday at TSM!

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I am pro-gun. So bite my ass!

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Why aren't you in support of amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 16, etc.?

[snuffbox 0]

Living in Wisco has provided me plenty of reasons to oppose the 2nd...yet, I dont.

 

See, this is what happens when a person bases their argument around nothing but a Party's talking points.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Why aren't you in support of amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 16, etc.?

I support those amendments.

 

See, this is what happens when a person bases their argument around nothing but a Party's talking points.

I'm not registered to a political party, asshole. Why don't you keep your assumptions to yourself.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I'm not registered to a political party, asshole. Why don't you keep your assumptions to yourself.

 

Hey asshat, you just assumed that other people didn't support the 2nd amendment, when nobody had said anything about it.

 

You're an ass.