Page 11 of 28 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314151621 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 546
  1. #201  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    I disagree. When the media and libs make the issue that Bush is acting as a King, a liar, etc. the focus is not on the good these wiretaps has been, the focus is on Bush the Horrible. I don't pretend to know the law, but it sure seems that the legality has yet to be decided. Again, this is all political, trash anything Republican.
    Even so, I haven't read too much (if at all) where someone is saying that this type of surveillance is completely ineffective (rather it has led to stopping terrorist attacks domestically.)

    If you read my posts, I make no mention of Republican and I am completely respectful of Pres. Bush. I am just debating the legal issues.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  2. #202  
    Quote Originally Posted by mendo
    I got nothing to hide.

    surveillance me.

    If it means that someone that is planning to do something bad is stopped, do it.
    But that's not how the constitution (or the law) works. I am glad you are ok with it though.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  3. #203  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    You exaggerate. He hasn't "done away" with FISA. He's gone around it in one specific set of circumstances.
    Fair enough..he has done away with it in this set of circumstances. But look at how he came about with this decision. He arbitrarily decided he didnt need to follow the law. I have an issue when one person decides what the law will be. You and I have to file suit to be able to set aside a law as unconstitional. And Pres. Bush is making the argument that he has this right because it's IMPLIED from the Congressional intent of the Patriot Act and war (at least that is what I read Gonzales saying).

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    It is equally arguable that FISA itself is an unconstitutional overreach into the power of the Executive branch. I'd like to see the Supreme Court resolve the issue. That is after all why we have a Supreme Court (rather than deciding who can play on the PGA tour, for example).
    It's going to be a while before (assuming the court takes the case) we get a constitutional ruling on this.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  4. #204  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    If there really is due cause, why not get the warrant or get it after the fact?
    "It is important to understand, that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."..."Intelligence is often long range, its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise,"..."Information gathering for policy making [!!!] and prevention, rather than prosecution, are its primary focus."

    - Jamie Gorelick testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994

    The point Gorelick was making is still valid. This surveillance (as I keep saying over and over) is not intended to support a criminal prosecution. It is intelligence gathering. Oh, and Bush hasn't claimed to be able to use these powers to assist with policy making...
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  5. #205  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    OK Foreign intellgence data. That is what they are doing, remember the key part is international (more than one country) yes the call may originate in the US but it is going outside the US so it is no longer domestic, or it may originate outside the US and be made to the US but it is still international (foreign). They are targeting KNOWN terror suspects.
    Calls having half their status in the U.S. and involving American citizens. What's the issue with going through FISA? They always approve and will do so retroactively. What's the big fear?

    Likely doesn't matter. The Patriot Act is going down and so will this.
  6. #206  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I have an issue when one person decides what the law will be. You and I have to file suit to be able to set aside a law as unconstitional. And Pres. Bush is making the argument that he has this right because it's IMPLIED from the Congressional intent of the Patriot Act and war (at least that is what I read Gonzales saying).
    You and I also are not co-equal branches of government. The President has powers under the Constitution. He doesn't need a permission slip from Congress (or the Court) to exercise them. When there is doubt or a conflict (as we appear to have now) the Supreme Court is called upon to decide. That appears to be where this is headed, if the Democrats continue to push.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  7. #207  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Calls having half their status in the U.S. and involving American citizens. What's the issue with going through FISA? They always approve and will do so retroactively. What's the big fear?
    Read my post previous to yours.
    Likely doesn't matter. The Patriot Act is going down and so will this.
    The Patriot Act was just extended for 6 months. It will pass, probably with some minor modifications.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  8.    #208  
    I agree you have been simply debating. I'm simply dumbfounded that some folks appear to have forgotten 9/11 and we're at war.

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    If you read my posts, I make no mention of Republican and I am completely respectful of Pres. Bush. I am just debating the legal issues.
  9. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #209  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I am not sure that this is completely true. I have searched a little on google for this and here is what I found:

    That still doesn't make it ok IMO.
    I think the difference now though is that Pres. Bush has done away with FISA.
    Pres. Clinton is just a different thread all together. Impeachment talk isn't what we need, we need debate on this issue. More debate!
    So from your cite it is legal for the attorney general to authorize a search on anyone at anytime

    Now with FISA amended via EO 12949 it is legal for the Attorney General to order searches and seizures of anyone, anytime in the name of National Security.

    The AG said it was ok, the president was performing a legal act.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  10. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #210  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Fair enough..he has done away with it in this set of circumstances. But look at how he came about with this decision. He arbitrarily decided he didnt need to follow the law. I have an issue when one person decides what the law will be. You and I have to file suit to be able to set aside a law as unconstitional. And Pres. Bush is making the argument that he has this right because it's IMPLIED from the Congressional intent of the Patriot Act and war (at least that is what I read Gonzales saying).

    It's going to be a while before (assuming the court takes the case) we get a constitutional ruling on this.
    I have posted more than one article describing the courts decisions on this. They all state that FISA can not interfere with gathering of intelligence data. Every administration has made it clear that this is the case, the courts have agreed, the SC also stated that FISA can not prevent intelligence gathering.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  11. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #211  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Calls having half their status in the U.S. and involving American citizens. What's the issue with going through FISA? They always approve and will do so retroactively. What's the big fear?

    Likely doesn't matter. The Patriot Act is going down and so will this.
    Still if more than one country is involved it is international. That my friend is where the FISA argument will fail.

    Read todays paper. Patriot Act extended.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  12. #212  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    So from your cite it is legal for the attorney general to authorize a search on anyone at anytime
    No...look further down in the article...Im not sure its faced a legal challenge.
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Now with FISA amended via EO 12949 it is legal for the Attorney General to order searches and seizures of anyone, anytime in the name of National Security.
    While this is true, I am not sure if it's legal. Remember with that case, there was a plea agreement (and many argue) that it was done that way as to not be challenged by the Appellate courts.

    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    The AG said it was ok, the president was performing a legal act.
    (Im sure you realize) that the AG works for the President. He argues the legal position that will favor the President. Just because the AG says its ok doesnt make it legal.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  13. #213  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Still if more than one country is involved it is international. That my friend is where the FISA argument will fail.

    Read todays paper. Patriot Act extended.
    Nope. It's domestic spyig and you're trying to win on a 'technicality".
  14. #214  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    I agree you have been simply debating. I'm simply dumbfounded that some folks appear to have forgotten 9/11 and we're at war.
    Why not? The administration seemed to forget and went to Iraq.
  15. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #215  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    No...look further down in the article...Im not sure its faced a legal challenge.
    While this is true, I am not sure if it's legal. Remember with that case, there was a plea agreement (and many argue) that it was done that way as to not be challenged by the Appellate courts.

    (Im sure you realize) that the AG works for the President. He argues the legal position that will favor the President. Just because the AG says its ok doesnt make it legal.
    Right, but your cite says "Now with FISA amended via EO 12949 it is legal for the Attorney General to order searches and seizures of anyone, anytime in the name of National Security." EO 12949 actually lists several postions not just the AG. But, since you specified AG, EO 12949 makes it legal for the AG to authorize so I am sure that he authorized them (even if in hindsight) .
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  16.    #216  
    Does beating the same drum ever get old? We all know, Bush, Haliburton and evil Cheney went to war for oil and money. Yawn. Please, new talking point.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Why not? The administration seemed to forget and went to Iraq.
  17. #217  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I have posted more than one article describing the courts decisions on this. They all state that FISA can not interfere with gathering of intelligence data. Every administration has made it clear that this is the case, the courts have agreed, the SC also stated that FISA can not prevent intelligence gathering.
    I agree. FISA cannot infringe on the President's constitutional powers. However, remember that the key is gathering of foreign intelligence. When the President gathers domestic intelligence, there are constitutional considerations.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  18. #218  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I agree. FISA cannot infringe on the President's constitutional powers. However, remember that the key is gathering of foreign intelligence. When the President gathers domestic intelligence, there are constitutional considerations.
    ... and we get to one of the core issues.

    Our cell phone providers label any call to or from an international location an international call. For purposes of intelligence gathering, the Administration is using the same definition.

    Do we have the same argument if we agree that this all covers foreign intelligence and not domestic intelligence?
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  19. #219  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I agree. FISA cannot infringe on the President's constitutional powers. However, remember that the key is gathering of foreign intelligence. When the President gathers domestic intelligence, there are constitutional considerations.
    I would argue that international phone calls are not "domestic" in terms of intelligence gathering. Why would the NSA simply not set up shop in a friendly country (or international waters) and monitor international communications? This sets up a practical absurdity where the same call can be legally monitored by us if the monitors are outside our territory but not if they happen to be within our borders.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  20. #220  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    ... and we get to one of the core issues.

    Our cell phone providers label any call to or from an international location an international call. For purposes of intelligence gathering, the Administration is using the same definition.
    I am not sure that the legal standard for an international call is the same as the commercial standard for a telephone provider.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    Do we have the same argument if we agree that this all covers foreign intelligence and not domestic intelligence?
    I agree that the NSA can monitor international calls (that do not originate from inside the U.S.) without a warrant.

    (I don't think there is much debate about that.)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

Posting Permissions