Page 9 of 28 FirstFirst ... 456789101112131419 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 546
  1. #161  
    Ok, I've now heard this Clinton/Carter thing totally debunked. They most certainly DID NOT spy on American Citizens. Get a new talking point.
  2. #162  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    No I am not saying that (there are no absolute rights). Look at the Korematsu (Japanese Internment Camps) case. It was only during the 1980's that Pres. Reagan pardoned him and appologized on behalf of the nation for what we did.

    It's funny that you bring up the Habeaus Corpus issue with Pres. Lincoln. Remember that he retroactively went before Congress after the fact because he recognized he went beyond his executive power under the constitution (regardless of how 'good' or 'important' it was for the nation.)
    Arguably, the equal protection argument and the due process argument go hand-in-hand in a majority of challenges in constitutional issues. You would make the argument that by not providing due process (i.e. getting a warrant first) you are not giving me equal protection under the law as required under the constitution.
    To me, the important issue is not whether the evidence could ever be used (it is important) but rather should the federal government over-step its constitutionally granted authority.
    Fair enough, but you do agree that people 'caught' in this terrorism-surveillance operation will be criminally prosecuted (especially if they are U.S. citizens). And you do see my side of the argument on how a U.S. citizen who makes a call to country X and it is surveillanced by the NSA without a warrant would arguably be unconstitutional.
    This is the case you are referring to: Ex Parte Quirin. Link They appear to have had due process...they were allowed to appeal the decision of Pres. Roosevelt and they lost. Plus you can't compare German citizens with U.S. citizens because the German's were classified as enemy combatants and aren't afforded the same protections as you and I would have.

    Roosevelt was given a lot of discretion by the courts but Con law classes have long debated whether it was constitutional.
    I don't see how the administration could ever expect to get a conviction based on evidence gathered using this warrantless surveillance. Based upon that assumption I conclude they intend only to prevent attacks and not to conduct prosecutions.

    I'm clearly not qualified to argue case law. Suffice it to say that it seems the only thing that's clear is that there is much here that is "arguable", "debatable" or "unclear".
    I agree but protecting the rights granted under the constitution should be as important...otherwise, what are we fighting for? If we really want to be utilitarian about this...why aren't we advocating for martial law
    Come now, the only two choices aren't martial law or total freedom. I don't have a problem with creating a requirement for the Executive to obtain a warrant in the case of foreign intelligence investigations (an expansion of FISA, in other words).
    Not when the surveillance is targeted to U.S. citizens domestically?
    I've seen no reports that US citizens have been targeted by this surveillance. Al Qaeda suspects have been, and I think they are presumed to be non-citizens (for the most part).
    Mixing our military and judicial systems and applying that domestically against U.S. citizens is going to be problematic 'constitutionally'.
    I chose the wrong word. I didn't mean "meld" I meant "mold". Lotta difference in a vowel.
    Indeed it does but there is value in healthy, open debate. [/QUOTE]Agreed, but accusations of (impeachable) crimes against the Constitution are not really conducive to healthy, open debate. Assuming your debate opponent has only evil intentions also is not. I'm speaking here in particular about public figures, not TC'ers.
    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...
  3. #163  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Ok, I've now heard this Clinton/Carter thing totally debunked. They most certainly DID NOT spy on American Citizens. Get a new talking point.
    I notice you excluded Reagan... ;

    I don't think anyone said they did. Their administrations argued that should the need arise, they would not be bound by FISA since it was an overreach into executive powers by the legislature. That was the position of every administration since FISA was enacted. That's a fact, not a talking point.
    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...
  4. #164  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I don't see how the administration could ever expect to get a conviction based on evidence gathered using this warrantless surveillance. Based upon that assumption I conclude they intend only to prevent attacks and not to conduct prosecutions.
    Fair enough...but the information gathered could be used in tons of different ways.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I'm clearly not qualified to argue case law.
    Neither am I...I haven't taken Con Law yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Suffice it to say that it seems the only thing that's clear is that there is much here that is "arguable", "debatable" or "unclear".
    I agree and that's kind of the point. Why ride right up to the edge (or possibly over) the constitutional line. Why not play it safe in the middle (i.e. get the warrant or get it retroactively). With the one FISA judge stepping down, it may be an indication that even those that are well-versed in the law recognize that there is a problem here.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Come now, the only two choices aren't martial law or total freedom.
    I didn't say that. I said IF we really want to be utilitarian about it. I know it's kind of corny but the movie the 'Siege' doesn't seem to be that off the mark. I read on a poll today that most americans are 'ok' with some rights being taken away in the name of safety. I am not one of those, but if what happened in that movie happened in NY, I can see the city being shut down. People are too scared (maybe rightly so...but that is another thread).

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I don't have a problem with creating a requirement for the Executive to obtain a warrant in the case of foreign intelligence investigations (an expansion of FISA, in other words).
    But then you run into the issue you are talking about with DA (overreach into the executive) because any additional 'requirement' would be a limitation.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I've seen no reports that US citizens have been targeted by this surveillance.
    Thats kind of the problem. We may never know. Look how long they held the U.S. citizen in the South Carolina brig. We wouldnt even be having this discussion if it wasn't leaked to the newspaper.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Al Qaeda suspects have been, and I think they are presumed to be non-citizens (for the most part).
    I hope so. But I think the administration would target even I (a U.S. citizen) if they thought that I had ties to Al Qaeda.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I chose the wrong word. I didn't mean "meld" I meant "mold". Lotta difference in a vowel.
    I think it would be a mistake to put the military into a police role. The training and decision-making that each person makes is different.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Agreed, but accusations of (impeachable) crimes against the Constitution are not really conducive to healthy, open debate. Assuming your debate opponent has only evil intentions also is not. I'm speaking here in particular about public figures, not TC'ers.
    Well this is true. However, I don't pay much attention to the politicians or the talking heads on t.v....we have too many good things on here to talk about.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  5. #165  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I agree and that's kind of the point. Why ride right up to the edge (or possibly over) the constitutional line. Why not play it safe in the middle (i.e. get the warrant or get it retroactively).
    The President would (and does) argue that "playing it safe" is what the 911 Commission identified as one of the intel failures that allowed that attack to be successful.
    With the one FISA judge stepping down, it may be an indication that even those that are well-versed in the law recognize that there is a problem here.
    It may also be an indication that judge was not in the judicial mainstream. We'll see.
    But then you run into the issue you are talking about with DA (overreach into the executive) because any additional 'requirement' would be a limitation.
    True - it would be voluntary on the part of the Executive - or would require a constitutional amendment.
    I hope so. But I think the administration would target even I (a U.S. citizen) if they thought that I had ties to Al Qaeda.
    Be careful - these posts end up in Google. That's one high Google score you DON'T want...
    I think it would be a mistake to put the military into a police role. The training and decision-making that each person makes is different.
    That's what I was trying to say - that each would need to adjust their tactics to suit the new reality - not that their roles should overlap.
    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...
  6. #166  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    The President would (and does) argue that "playing it safe" is what the 911 Commission identified as one of the intel failures that allowed that attack to be successful.
    So am I to assume from your post that the 9/11 commission was advocating that the President either violates the constitution or flirts with crossing the line?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  7. #167  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    So am I to assume from your post that the 9/11 commission was advocating that the President either violates the constitution or flirts with crossing the line?
    Your logic is leaping too far.

    It's fairly settled constitutionally that the President has very wide latitude in the defense of the nation in a time of war. The 911 Commission pointed out the failings of the FISA review process (the entire Moussaoui fiasco). The President has done what he believes (and past presidents have concurred) is within his power as commander-in-chief to secure the nation (based of course on what's currently public knowledge).

    Whether his actions "violate the constitution or flirt with crossing the line" is not something I'm prepared to accept as known fact at this time.
    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. #168  
    I'm not saying its a known fact, just that it's debatable. However if there are never any hearings on this....we may never know.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  9.    #169  
    fn hearings. Senators will hold hearings on anything. The hearings should be to find out who leaked to the NY Times and may cause the lack of preventing another horrible event.
  10. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #170  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Ok, I've now heard this Clinton/Carter thing totally debunked. They most certainly DID NOT spy on American Citizens. Get a new talking point.
    Where did you hear that?

    One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants.
    In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.
    Previous administrations also asserted the authority of the president to conduct searches in the interest of national security.
    In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government.
    That same year, Congress approved and Mr. Carter signed FISA, which created the secret court and required federal agents to get approval to conduct electronic surveillance in most foreign intelligence cases.

    http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...2610-7772r.htm
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  11. #171  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Ok, I've now heard this Clinton/Carter thing totally debunked. They most certainly DID NOT spy on American Citizens. Get a new talking point.
    Cite?
  12. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #172  
    Pardon my ignorance, but aren't we talking about snooping on 'Americans', as part of an ongoing investigation, that have been receiving international phone calls from terrorists? You ppl honestly think the government is snooping on ordinary joes? imho, they neither have the resources to accomplish such a feat, nor the desire.
  13. #173  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    The hearings should be to find out who leaked to the NY Times and may cause the lack of preventing another horrible event.
    I don't have a problem with this either.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  14. #174  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Pardon my ignorance, but aren't we talking about snooping on 'Americans', as part of an ongoing investigation, that have been receiving international phone calls from terrorists?
    Aren't Americans 'ordinary joes'? But yes, we (at least I am) focusing on the federal government listening to your phone calls that you make from within the U.S. without a warrant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    You ppl honestly think the government is snooping on ordinary joes? imho, they neither have the resources to accomplish such a feat, nor the desire.
    I can partly agree with the desire part but....do you think that the NSA does not have the capability to listen to any of the phone calls that you make today (or even read the words you put in any emails today)?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  15. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #175  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I can partly agree with the desire part but....do you think that the NSA does not have the capability to listen to any of the phone calls that you make today (or even read the words you put in any emails today)?
    Sure they do, at least I'd certainly hope that they'd have that capability. But try this reasoning... doesn't it make sense to focus that capability on those that are possibly plotting to do us serious damage? International phone calls to/from jihad headquarters are what some of us would call 'indicators', after all.
  16. #176  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Pardon my ignorance, but aren't we talking about snooping on 'Americans', as part of an ongoing investigation, that have been receiving international phone calls from terrorists? You ppl honestly think the government is snooping on ordinary joes? imho, they neither have the resources to accomplish such a feat, nor the desire.
    Regardless, there is no reason not to go through the FISA courts.
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #177  
    This is nothing new, anyways, and going nowhere. Bush isn't the first to authorize this sort of thing, it wasn't done in 'secret', it was internally communicated to congress and reviewed on a regular basis. To me, the real story is who leaked this. We've had to listen to 2 years about some deskjockey at the CIA getting 'outted'.... not a peep about who leaked this 'story' to the press. Also, why did the press sit on the story for months and months... until right after the Iraqi elections? To shift from a positive story back to a negative story. Leaks like this may cost us many lives. Its serious business.
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #178  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Regardless, there is no reason not to go through the FISA courts.
    just like clinton didn't?
  19.    #179  
    According to the New York Times, the federal government was able to disrupt a terror plot aimed at the Brooklyn Bridge by using information gleaned from intercepted phone calls that originated in the United States.

    But I digress, let's stay on the Democrats talking points...Impeach Bush the Liar!
  20. #180  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Ok, I've now heard this Clinton/Carter thing totally debunked. They most certainly DID NOT spy on American Citizens. Get a new talking point.
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I don't think anyone said they did.
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Where did you hear that?

    One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants.
    In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.
    Previous administrations also asserted the authority of the president to conduct searches in the interest of national security.
    In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government.
    That same year, Congress approved and Mr. Carter signed FISA, which created the secret court and required federal agents to get approval to conduct electronic surveillance in most foreign intelligence cases.
    I stand corrected. Not only did Clinton believe he had the authority, he had Aldrich Ames' (a US citizen on US soil) door kicked in so a warrantless search could be conducted. I'll also remind everyone that Clinton did this during peacetime.

    Can we now please agree that Bush is not ursurping the Constitution, at least no more than previous administrations. He is clearly acting within powers he and previous administrations believe lie in the Presidency. Can anyone now believe the vocal Democrats really have the best interest of the nation in mind when they criticise Bush and hint at possible "impeachable offenses"? Or did we impeach Clinton for the wrong crimes?
    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...
Page 9 of 28 FirstFirst ... 456789101112131419 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions