Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 27 of 27
  1. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #21  
    Hobbes thanks for your input. But I think my question still stands unaddressed.
  2. #22  
    Okay...sorry for my brief comments, but VERY busy day. But I think I address at least part of your statement claiming there was NO oversight, which is false. It can be argued that there was not full over sight, but both congress and FISA were notified of the program. This program was not a surprise to those in the know when it was, IMHO, unwisely broke to the public. At that point it became a political game with skewed definitions of common words/phrases like No Oversight.

    Tonight was the first time I had to read anything substantial about this case beyond the brief and very uninformative 5 paragraphs the one Da linked to.

    So as for this ruling with the judge and your question about warrentless searches being constitional........

    Okay I have a couple views:

    One as I stated is that I do not have a problem requiring accountability of the use of the tools we have available today to monitor terrorist activities. In other words, if the congress is informed (as they were), FISA is informed (as they were but warrents were not sought or given), and warrents are required with the ability to act immediately with a 72 hr or so grace period to file for a FISA warrent for at least accountibility (which I feel the Admin should have done whether they felt legally they had to do or not just to avoid this very situation).

    This evening, I first read her statement.....here is one thing that I don't like about the judge's statement:
    Accordingly, the Fourth Amendment, about which much has been written, in its few words requires reasonableness in all searches. It also requires prior warrants for any reasonable search, based upon prior-existing probable cause, as well as particularity as to persons, places, and things, and the interposition of a neutral magistrate between Executive branch enforcement officers and citizens.
    ---- Case 2:06-cv-10204-ADT-RSW Document 70 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 31 of 44

    http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/de...anceruling.pdf
    This simply is not true. Warrentless searches happen all the time. Not ALL searches require a warrent with prior evidence to the situation. Look at searches at public schools, searches by citizens in airports, a police officer during a traffic stop and searches the car for drugs, (it's late and I am sure there are others that could think of a lot more examples), etc.... There are exceptions...and I believe there are exceptions written into, or about the 4th (though I do not recall the exact statements of exceptions without looking it up again)....a fact she failed to mention.

    I then went onto the net to see what the news articles were saying. I found this one from the NY Times interesting:


    Experts Fault Reasoning in Surveillance Decision
    Even legal experts who agreed with a federal judge’s conclusion on Thursday that a National Security Agency surveillance program is unlawful were distancing themselves from the decision’s reasoning and rhetoric yesterday.

    FULL STORY
    I really gotta go, I do have some other thoughts, but these are some of my initial thoughts with seeing much of the information for the first time this evening.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 08/20/2006 at 02:02 PM. Reason: correcting spelling
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Hobbes thanks for your input. But I think my question still stands unaddressed.
    NRG....just curious of your thoughts of my response to your question.
  4. #24  
    Seems that the judge in this case was in charge of a trust that donated $45k to the ACLU....
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG View Post
    Hobbes thanks for your input. But I think my question still stands unaddressed.
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    NRG....just curious of your thoughts of my response to your question.
    Man this issue went quite real fast here as well as in the media.
  6. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Man this issue went quite real fast here as well as in the media.
    Sorry, I was traveling, then I...... just forgot.
  7. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Okay...sorry for my brief comments, but VERY busy day. But I think I address at least part of your statement claiming there was NO oversight, which is false. It can be argued that there was not full over sight, but both congress and FISA were notified of the program. This program was not a surprise to those in the know when it was, IMHO, unwisely broke to the public. At that point it became a political game with skewed definitions of common words/phrases like No Oversight.
    I think this is where we diverge. The 'No Oversight' claim I believe still stands. Sure they were notified of the program, but they do not review each instance of it, which IMO would be true oversight. Not the "hey i have got a program here but you can't see how works" type deal.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Tonight was the first time I had to read anything substantial about this case beyond the brief and very uninformative 5 paragraphs the one Da linked to.

    So as for this ruling with the judge and your question about warrentless searches being constitional........

    Okay I have a couple views:

    One as I stated is that I do not have a problem requiring accountability of the use of the tools we have available today to monitor terrorist activities. In other words, if the congress is informed (as they were), FISA is informed (as they were but warrents were not sought or given), and warrents are required with the ability to act immediately with a 72 hr or so grace period to file for a FISA warrent for at least accountibility (which I feel the Admin should have done whether they felt legally they had to do or not just to avoid this very situation).
    Again, they (Congress and FISA) were informed of the program but not the activities of it. There in lies my problem. We agree on the accountability point.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    This evening, I first read her statement.....here is one thing that I don't like about the judge's statement:
    This simply is not true. Warrentless searches happen all the time. Not ALL searches require a warrent with prior evidence to the situation. Look at searches at public schools, searches by citizens in airports, a police officer during a traffic stop and searches the car for drugs, (it's late and I am sure there are others that could think of a lot more examples), etc.... There are exceptions...and I believe there are exceptions written into, or about the 4th (though I do not recall the exact statements of exceptions without looking it up again)....a fact she failed to mention.
    The problem with your examples are these searches are usually given on a consent basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I then went onto the net to see what the news articles were saying. I found this one from the NY Times interesting:


    Experts Fault Reasoning in Surveillance Decision I really gotta go, I do have some other thoughts, but these are some of my initial thoughts with seeing much of the information for the first time this evening.
    I agree the ruling could have been done without the rhetoric, but that is not what is at issue here. The constitutionality of the program is what we are talking about, not the judge.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions