Bush refuses to answer questions about spying on Americans....

[hapaboy]

Quote from dddooo:

Oddly no planes crashing into buildings prior to 9/11 either. We had one attack per decade on our soil, the fact that nothing has happened during the last 4 years means nothing.

That's an extremely tenous statement IMO. Don't you think the decimation of Al Qaeda's command structure and ranks might have a little to do with it, not to mention the elimination of their home base? What about the attacks we've thwarted? C'mon, dddooo, you're smarter than that.

The Fourth Amendment protects me against unreasonable searches and seizures

Yes it does. So if you are not exchanging phone calls or e-mails with Al Qaeda, or your name doesn't pop up on one of their cell phones or computers, you have nothing to fear.

Ask yourself why any government agency at any level would wish to monitor you. We all are in far greater danger of being monitored in this way by a computer hacker than by any agency of
government at any level.

Ask yourself if you know of anyone who has been the victim of illegal wire-tapping by any government agency.

Ask yourself why any member of either house of Congress, especially those who voted for FISA, and those who are constantly advised by all administrations as to what the administration is both currently doing in this area, or plans to do, is suddenly so excited about the matter.

Ask yourself why any administration would deliberately place itself in serious jeopardy by illegally wire-tapping anyone, much less people who are innocent of any wrongdoing.

 

[agin1415]

Quote from dddooo:

The Fourth Amendment protects me against unreasonable searches and seizures

In other words, the answer is no, you have lost no liberties.

 

[dddooo]

Quote from hapaboy:

Federal appellate courts have held - unanimously - that the President has the inherent constitutional authority to order warrantless searches for purposes of gathering foreign intelligence information, which includes information about terrorist threats.

Yeah and nobody is disputing that but a FISA provision explicitely declares:
...the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order...under oath that ... there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;

This FISA provision is clear and unambiguous: likelihood of a US person involved = no warrantless surveillance. Either this provision is unconstitutional and illegal or Bush broke the law. Which is it?

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from dddooo:

Yeah and nobody is disputing that but a FISA provision explicitely declares:
...the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order...under oath that ... there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;

This FISA provision is clear and unambiguous: likelihood of a US person involved = no warrantless surveillance. Either this provision is unconstitutional and illegal or Bush broke the law. Which is it?

Come to your own conclusions. You have stated you are not a lawyer, and neither am I.

But please tell me why the FISA Court of Review would say that FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power if by doing so it was abetting an illegal action?

Also, as the President's power to order warrantless searches for purposes of gathering foreign intelligence information is derived from Article II of the Constitution, how has he broken the law?

 

[dddooo]

Quote from hapaboy:

That's an extremely tenous statement IMO. Don't you think the decimation of Al Qaeda's command structure and ranks might have a little to do with it, not to mention the elimination of their home base?

You may be right and that may well be the case. Alternatively they may have decided to attack our european allies while they are planning a major attack in the US which may be bigger than 9/11. I don't know that and you don't know that either, my guess is as good as yours, I hope you're right, I am afraid I am. If they only want spectacular major strikes against the US they'll be happy with one attack a decade and 4 years without an attack means nothing.

Quote from hapaboy:

So if you are not exchanging phone calls or e-mails with Al Qaeda, or your name doesn't pop up on one of their cell phones or computers, you have nothing to fear.

We're all communicating with Wael and he is (or should be) on the terrorist list . Does that mean all my and your emails and phone calls should be monitored by the government? You trust the government too much (I am sure only republican government though), there is a reason why they are not allowed to spy on american citizens without a warrant (checks and balances, remember), they are not always honest, they may abuse their power, make a mistake or get carried away. At any rate they either broke the law or did not, I can respect your legal argument but there is no reason to justify their actions if the law was broken.

Quote from hapaboy:

Ask yourself why any administration would deliberately place itself in serious jeopardy by illegally wire-tapping anyone, much less people who are innocent of any wrongdoing.

Stupidity? Abuse of power, sense of invulnerability? That happens a lot to people with power. Why did Marth Stuart have to break the law, Bernie Ebbers, Dennis Kozlowski, Enron management? They were all multi-millionares...

This adminstartion has done so many dumb things during the last 5 years that it would be just one more and actually not even the dumbest, they've skirted the law so many times that they were bound to cross the line at some point.

 

[dddooo]

Quote from hapaboy:

Also, as the President's power to order warrantless searches for purposes of gathering foreign intelligence information is derived from Article II of the Constitution, how has he broken the law?

Article II of the consitution declares the president to be commander-in-chief, it does not directly (or indirectly) address issues of warrantless searches or foreign intelligence, let alone warrantless searches of american citizens.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html



On the other side the 4th amendment is quite explicit regarding warrantless searches of american citizens - they are not allowed under any pretext:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/index.html

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from dddooo:

Article II of the consitution declares the president to be commander-in-chief, it does not directly (or indirectly) address issues of warrantless searches or foreign intelligence, let alone warrantless searches of american citizens.

Article II makes the President the Commander in Chief. As the Powerline article states, and feel free to find data that refutes this:

"When it comes to waging war, the President, not the Congress or the courts, is the supreme authority." The Supreme Court has also written that the President has the Constitutional power "to employ [the nation's Armed Force] in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy."

Noone questions this basic principle. If our soldiers or intelligence agencies discover a terrorist in Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere, the President or his designees can order an air strike or other attack to kill him. It would be very odd if the President has the authority to kill a terrorist, but not to intercept his telephone calls or search his cave."

On the other side the 4th amendment is quite explicit regarding warrantless searches of american citizens - they are not allowed under any pretext:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Thank you. The key phrase is ..against unreasonable searches. If an American is making calls or e-mails to an Al Qaeda operative, or his number and/or e-mail address are found on a terrorists' communications equipment, would you call that "unreasonable" circumstances to monitor that person's communications?

You are also wrong that "warrantless searches of American citizens - they are not allowed under any pretext."

There are numerous situations that are approved by the courts for American citizens to be searched without warrants. Among the many:

Detain American citizens for investigative purposes without a warrant;

Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the person of an American citizen who has been detained, with or without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained;

Conduct a warrantless search of, and seize, items belonging to American citizens that are displayed in plain view and that are obviously criminal or dangerous in nature;

Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's home and belongings if another person, who has apparent authority over the premises, consents;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's car anytime there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or any evidence of a crime;

Conduct a warrantless search of any closed container inside the car of an American citizen if there is probable cause to search the car — regardless of whether there is probable cause to search the container itself;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property apparently abandoned by an American citizen;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property of an American citizen that has lawfully been seized in order to create an inventory and protect police from potential hazards or civil claims;

Conduct a warrantless search — including a strip search — at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search at the border of the baggage and other property of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;

Conduct a warrantless search of random Americans at police checkpoints established for public-safety purposes (such as to detect and discourage drunk driving);

Conduct warrantless monitoring of common areas frequented by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens and their vessels on the high seas;

Conduct warrantless monitoring of any telephone call or conversation of an American citizen as long as one participant in the conversation has consented to the monitoring;

Conduct warrantless searches of junkyards maintained by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of docks maintained by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of bars or nightclubs owned by American citizens to police underage drinking;

Conduct warrantless searches of auto-repair shops operated by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of the books of American gem dealers in order to discourage traffic in stolen goods;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens working in government, emergency services, the transportation industry, and nuclear plants;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school officials;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school students;

Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens who are on bail, probation or parole.

Clearly, then, the paramount principle is that searches of Americans have to be reasonable.


Furthermore, the 4th amendment doesn't apply to terrorists overseas now, does it? One of our soldiers can go into a cave in Afghanistan and search it, and kill the enemy without needing a warrant. Does it make sense that we can kill him but not monitor his phone calls?

The Supreme Court and the federal court of appeals have made rulings that uphold the concept of warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes as being Constitutional. Combined with what the FISA Court of Review said, I don't understand how you can still argue that the President broke the law.

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from dddooo:

You may be right and that may well be the case. Alternatively they may have decided to attack our european allies while they are planning a major attack in the US which may be bigger than 9/11. I don't know that and you don't know that either, my guess is as good as yours, I hope you're right, I am afraid I am. If they only want spectacular major strikes against the US they'll be happy with one attack a decade and 4 years without an attack means nothing.

Then what do you make of the attacks that have been thwarted and publicized? Aren't those proof in and of themselves that they are still targeting the US? Seems obvious to me.

We're all communicating with Wael and he is (or should be) on the terrorist list . Does that mean all my and your emails and phone calls should be monitored by the government? You trust the government too much (I am sure only republican government though), there is a reason why they are not allowed to spy on american citizens without a warrant (checks and balances, remember), they are not always honest, they may abuse their power, make a mistake or get carried away. At any rate they either broke the law or did not, I can respect your legal argument but there is no reason to justify their actions if the law was broken.

If you and I are communicating with a terrorist, you're damn right we ought to be monitored. How can you disagree with this most common sensical point?

This adminstartion has done so many dumb things during the last 5 years that it would be just one more and actually not even the dumbest, they've skirted the law so many times that they were bound to cross the line at some point.

It is your opinion that they have crossed the line. Legal precedence appears to differ with your opinion.

 

[dddooo]

Quote from hapaboy:

Thank you. The key phrase is ..against unreasonable searches. If an American is making calls or e-mails to an Al Qaeda operative, or his number and/or e-mail address are found on a terrorists' communications equipment, would you call that "unreasonable" circumstances to monitor that person's communications?

How do you know that's what they are doing, how do you know they are only monitoring people corresponding with "proven" AQ operatives, how do you know they are not monitoring their political opponents or just random americans calling overseas? Can you come up with a single independent and reliable source proving that they are doing what you say they are doing. See, I did not think so, the court would have been this reliable and independent body but they decided to bypass it. I wonder why if they had enough solid evidence to prove that an american is communicating with an AQ agent they could not obtain a warrrant.


You want to trust them blindly, like russians trusted stalin and germans trusted hitler - it's your prerogative, just because you trust them does not mean they are telling the truth or simply competent enough to know what they are doing. Remember they are the same people who invaded Iraq on false pretenses and had no clue what to do next once they got there. The system of checks and balances was created exactly for the reason that I or anyone else would NEVER have to take your or Bush's or any other official's word for it.

 

[dddooo]

Quote from hapaboy:
Then what do you make of the attacks that have been thwarted and publicized?

I am not aware of any thwarted attack masterminded by Osama. Are you?

Quote from hapaboy:
If you and I are communicating with a terrorist, you're damn right we ought to be monitored. How can you disagree with this most common sensical point?

If I am communicating with a terrorist get a fucking warrant. If I am communicating with my grandmother overseas I don't want to be monitored by a government bureaucrat unless he has a solid proof that my grandma's with Al-Qaeda in which case he should still use the proof to get a warrant. How hard can it be, you have evidence - get a warrant, you don't have evidence - go find some evidence and get a warrant.

Quote from hapaboy:

It is your opinion that they have crossed the line. Legal precedence appears to differ with your opinion.

Give me a break, we're not lawyers, nor is John who wrote that powerlineblog garbage. He came up with a couple of cases that had very little in common with current case (electronic spying on american citizens without a warrant).