NSA building massive database of phone records

[Minrott]

You're reasoning is like saying let the three year old kid play with the loaded gun, he hasn't killed anyone before.

[Arlos]

Given the state of our Intelligence apperat, I wouldn't trust them if they said the Sun would rise in the morning, much less their estimation of who is and is not involved with Al-Qaida or other terrorist organizations. How many people have now been released from Gitmo after months or years with NO charges ever filed against them? "Oops, we were wrong, you're not a terrorist after all, you didn't do a damn thing wrong, head along home now after losing years out of your life because you were int he wrong place at the wrong time. No, you don't even get a cookie."

So, let me ask a simple question:

Yes or no:

Any ONE phone call they have wiretapped has involved a US citizen. Regardless of the source of the call, and whether it originated within the US or outside of the US.


If they have listened into *ONE SINGLE PHONE CALL* involving a US citizen and didn't have a warrant for it, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Period. If they want to listen to 2 people calling each other who are both in AssCrackistan, then more power to them. If ONE END of that call was here in the US and wiretapped without warrant, it's illegal and unconstitutional. If you're so damn sure that Al Qaida is involved, GET A FUCKING WARRANT. Even if there is no time to get it before the call happens, the government STILL has 48 hours to present it's case after the start of tapping. If they actually HAVE a case, then getting a warrant would not be a problem. If they DON'T have a case, then they shouldn't be listening. Period. There is no reason, whatsoever, why they cannot operate in accord with FISA law. None.

I see your bolds in the quote above, I simply don't believe him in the least. I believe him to be lying his ass off in those statements. First, Congress certainly didn't consider itself to have been "briefed" on warrantless wiretapping. Half a dozen knew about it, maybe, but were prevented by law from even mentioning it. Some of those who knew sent in formal letters of protest against the practice, and were ignored.

I believe his authorization of ANY warrantless wiretapping, regardless of purpose, to be an egregious breach of the Constitution, as it SPECIFICALLY forbids any such thing. It doesn't say "This does not apply to goods, effects, or papers that were sent from overseas" in the 4th amendment, now does it? Wiretapping has, since it's birth, been considered as being controlled under Article 4. Since Article 4 makes NO exception of any kind for the source, Wiretapping must be held to the same standard.

So, Lyion, what, exactly, is your issue with the government needing to follow the Constitution and actually get a warrant in order to engage in wiretapping?

-Arlos

[Gidan]

Is listening to phone calls actually unconstitutional? They didn't exactly have phones when it was written to forbid it. If its illigal to wiretap a call, how about just listen to it without actually recording it? When exactly does it become illegal (according to the constitution).

If the constitution were written in this day and age, do you think it would even be remotly similar to what it is today? A major problem with following it word for word is it doesn't translate to this day and age. Who knows, if the founding fathers lived today in this country with the dangers that it faces, would they still write the constitution the same way?


I still have not gotten an answer to my question. For those of you who are all for privacy. If the gov't did illegally wiretap and received inportant info to stop a large number of people from dieing, should they use it? Or should they not because that person's conversation should have been private and no one should have known about it.

[Lyion]

I see your bolds in the quote above, I simply don't believe him in the least. I believe him to be lying his ass off in those statements. First, Congress certainly didn't consider itself to have been "briefed" on warrantless wiretapping. Half a dozen knew about it, maybe, but were prevented by law from even mentioning it. Some of those who knew sent in formal letters of protest against the practice, and were ignored.

You're view is unrealistic, and shaded by extreme bias and hatred towards anything GOP. Screaming LIAR LIAR doesn't make one so, as much as you might want it to, Arlos.

You have no proof of any wrongdoing. You ignore the bipartisan oversight, and numerous checks and balances. All you do is scream BUSHITLER EVIL again and again without looking at simple facts.

Fortunately we have common sense that balances monitoring Al Qaeda with protecting personal freedoms. I like my freedoms, and as much as the moonbats want us to be bombed again, fortunately we are constitutionally and legally protected.

The leaders of both parties and many members in congress were briefed about this, and continually updated.

You deliberately ignore the many democrats who say they were briefed and never raised any issues. You also again have not shown or done anything except raise hypotheticals and try to protect calls from the Middle East which should and need to be monitored.

Amazing how the enemy deserves rights, and the President who is walking a tightrope and giving more oversight than the Clinton Administration is the enemy to some.

Its a shame politics overrides everything for some.

[Narrock]

Thats what i think too arlos but i was tryin to get mindia to tell us bout liberals and such

Excuse me, but aren't the liberals behind taking "In God we trust" off our currency, and banning prayer in public schools, and taking the Ten Commandments out of federal buildings because it offends some illegal alien? There's your attack on American culture pal.

[Thon]

Is listening to phone calls actually unconstitutional?

yes, without a warrant it is. that's why wiretapping evidence(or any evidence) gets thrown out at trial if it's acquired without a warrant. jesus, watch Law & Order

If the gov't did illegally wiretap and received inportant info to stop a large number of people from dieing, should they use it?

if they've already got it, then yes they should use it to stop the attack. but it can't be used to convict anyone. even if that means giving a terrorist a plane ticket back to dumbfukistan

Excuse me, but aren't the liberals behind taking "In God we trust" off our currency, and banning prayer in public schools, and taking the Ten Commandments out of federal buildings because it offends some illegal alien? There's your attack on American culture pal.

if offends everyone who doesn't believe your myths

[Narrock]

Given the state of our Intelligence apperat, I wouldn't trust them if they said the Sun would rise in the morning, much less their estimation of who is and is not involved with Al-Qaida or other terrorist organizations. How many people have now been released from Gitmo after months or years with NO charges ever filed against them? "Oops, we were wrong, you're not a terrorist after all, you didn't do a damn thing wrong, head along home now after losing years out of your life because you were int he wrong place at the wrong time. No, you don't even get a cookie."

So, let me ask a simple question:

Yes or no:

Any ONE phone call they have wiretapped has involved a US citizen. Regardless of the source of the call, and whether it originated within the US or outside of the US.


If they have listened into *ONE SINGLE PHONE CALL* involving a US citizen and didn't have a warrant for it, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Period. If they want to listen to 2 people calling each other who are both in AssCrackistan, then more power to them. If ONE END of that call was here in the US and wiretapped without warrant, it's illegal and unconstitutional. If you're so damn sure that Al Qaida is involved, GET A FUCKING WARRANT. Even if there is no time to get it before the call happens, the government STILL has 48 hours to present it's case after the start of tapping. If they actually HAVE a case, then getting a warrant would not be a problem. If they DON'T have a case, then they shouldn't be listening. Period. There is no reason, whatsoever, why they cannot operate in accord with FISA law. None.

I see your bolds in the quote above, I simply don't believe him in the least. I believe him to be lying his ass off in those statements. First, Congress certainly didn't consider itself to have been "briefed" on warrantless wiretapping. Half a dozen knew about it, maybe, but were prevented by law from even mentioning it. Some of those who knew sent in formal letters of protest against the practice, and were ignored.

I believe his authorization of ANY warrantless wiretapping, regardless of purpose, to be an egregious breach of the Constitution, as it SPECIFICALLY forbids any such thing. It doesn't say "This does not apply to goods, effects, or papers that were sent from overseas" in the 4th amendment, now does it? Wiretapping has, since it's birth, been considered as being controlled under Article 4. Since Article 4 makes NO exception of any kind for the source, Wiretapping must be held to the same standard.

So, Lyion, what, exactly, is your issue with the government needing to follow the Constitution and actually get a warrant in order to engage in wiretapping?

-Arlos

With suspicious people who may be a threat to National Security... to hell with the warrants. Maybe we need another amendment to the Constitution if that will make you happy Arlos.

How about "The Government reserves the right to observe in a clandestine fashion, whether electronically, audibly, visually or otherwise, whomever they feel is a threat to the United States or its citizens." Or something to that effect.

Maybe then the shortsighted, selfish lefties will finally stfu and let the government do their job without unnecessary hassle and deadly obstructive delays.

[Narrock]

Thon wrote:

if offends everyone who doesn't believe your myths

Then look the other way. Problem solved.

[Lyion]

With suspicious people who may be a threat to National Security... to hell with the warrants. Maybe we need another amendment to the Constitution if that will make you happy Arlos.

How about "The Government reserves the right to observe in a clandestine fashion, whether electronically, audibly, visually or otherwise, whomever they feel is a threat to the United States or its citizens." Or something to that effect.

Maybe then the shortsighted, selfish lefties will finally stfu and let the government do their job without unnecessary hassle and deadly obstructive delays.

I really hope you don't believe that. That's fascism, not government,

There is a HUGE difference between a program that targets specific Al Qaeda members with oversight and many lawyers and the FISA court ensuring it doesnt cross the line, and unhindered complete access to anything which is terrible.

What you are talking about is what Arlos is falsely representing our government is doing. That would be a bad thing, and it ain't what's happening.

[Narrock]

Whatever you want to label it, the Department of Homeland Security needs more leeway to do their job.

[Arlos]

Lyion, if they really were getting Warrants from the FISA courts for every conversation they wiretapped, we wouldn't be having this conversation. That's the entire point, Bush apparently unilaterally that he would empower the NSA to completely ignore the FISA law and wiretap phones WITHOUT a warrant. Despite whatever right-wing drivel you wish to vomit forth, that fact remains: The NSA has been wiretapping phone calls involving US citizens WITHOUT warrants. There has *NOT* been "bipartisan oversight" of the program. A mere handful of people even KNEW about it, and some of THEM protested it, in writing, and their protests were ignored. Congress as a whole sure as hell didn't know. You care to provide one shred of evidence for your assertion that there were large amounts of Congresspeople who DID know about it and were providing oversight? 10/500, when some of those 10 were opposed to instituting it in the first place does not constitute oversight.

As for politics "clouding my vision", if it were a Democrat president doing exactly what Bush is doing, I would be howling just as loudly and vociferously. Threats to our constitution transcend all matters of politics. Of course, I don't believe most Democrats (or indeed, most Republicans, for that matter) would DO what Bush is doing, but that's a different topic. I have my own beliefs and attitudes, and if ANY party crosses them, I protest. The Democratic party happens to cross them less often than the Republicans, it's true, but they have their own share of asshattery as well. It's convenient for you to try and paint me into such a corner, while at the same time ignoring your position as administration lap-dog and apologist in the same category as a Rush Limbaugh or Karl Rove.

Now, I ask you again what I asked you before: What POSSIBLE legitimate reason would there be for the NSA to wiretap someone if there was not enough of a case for them to get a warrant from the FISA court?

Just answer me that.

-Arlos

[Arlos]

Mindia, if you got such an amendment to the Constitution passed, I would, of course, cease my arguments that what is going on is illegal, because it would manifestly now BE legal. Of course, before that, I would've been extremely active in trying to prevent the passage of such and amendment. Oh, and if it DID pass, I'd be finding someplace to immigrate to, as I wouldn't want to live in a country which would, in effect, be turning itself into Stalinist Russia.

I ask you the same question I asked Lyion: What POSSIBLE legitimate reason is there why the Government, if they really do have evidence that leads them to believe a given phone call is originating from Al-Qaida, cannot go through the FISA court and get a warrant to listen in on the call?

Remember, the FISA court proceedings are top-secret, and completely sealed. Also, in cases of time critical situations, they can wiretap right away, and then have 48 hours to submit their case to the court. If their case is legitimate, the court issues a retroactive warrant.

So? Well?

-Arlos

PS. The removal of religious statements from public buildings & common-use items like money and the pledge is an entirely different discussion. Just off the cuff, however, I'd ask you to look over Article 2 of the Bill of Rights, and to ask you to think how you'd react if a judge were to put up a monument to the Siddhartha (hindu religious book) in his court, or if money were printed with "Blessed Be" after lobbying by Wiccans. If you wouldn't like it, you can bet the other religions don't like Christianity being forced in their faces, and according to Article 2, no religion in the US is supposed to be weighed above any others.

[Narrock]

Mindia, if you got such an amendment to the Constitution passed, I would, of course, cease my arguments that what is going on is illegal, because it would manifestly now BE legal. Of course, before that, I would've been extremely active in trying to prevent the passage of such and amendment. Oh, and if it DID pass, I'd be finding someplace to immigrate to, as I wouldn't want to live in a country which would, in effect, be turning itself into Stalinist Russia.

I ask you the same question I asked Lyion: What POSSIBLE legitimate reason is there why the Government, if they really do have evidence that leads them to believe a given phone call is originating from Al-Qaida, cannot go through the FISA court and get a warrant to listen in on the call?

Remember, the FISA court proceedings are top-secret, and completely sealed. Also, in cases of time critical situations, they can wiretap right away, and then have 48 hours to submit their case to the court. If their case is legitimate, the court issues a retroactive warrant.

So? Well?

-Arlos

PS. The removal of religious statements from public buildings & common-use items like money and the pledge is an entirely different discussion. Just off the cuff, however, I'd ask you to look over Article 2 of the Bill of Rights, and to ask you to think how you'd react if a judge were to put up a monument to the Siddhartha (hindu religious book) in his court, or if money were printed with "Blessed Be" after lobbying by Wiccans. If you wouldn't like it, you can bet the other religions don't like Christianity being forced in their faces, and according to Article 2, no religion in the US is supposed to be weighed above any others.

That's a legitimate question Arlos, and here's the answer... There's too damn many sleeper cells here. To get that many warrants for each time DHS needs to engage in surveillance would be ridiculous. Why aren't you willing to do what it takes to ensure the safety of America? Really, what's the big deal? It's not like this would be a stepping stone to other government "intrusions." "Ask not what your country can do for you... ask what you can do for your country." ~ a dead Kennedy.

[Arlos]

If they already have a bunch of information, or at least enough for Probable Cause, getting a warrant is a quick and painless process. Lawyer goes into the court, meets with the judges for an hour or two, judge says Yes or No. If yes, the court will draw up the formal papers. If no, the government can clarify their case and re-submit, if they're THAT sure.

Note that one thing the government is *NOT* short on is Lawyers. These lawyers have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual investigation of the cases. The intelligence agents can be actively listening in to the conversations of the suspected cell at the same time as the lawyers are doing their thing. No loss of time in doing the wiretapping, no lost man-hours by actual investigators, nothing. Hell, if they have 20 people they want to listen in to, they can get batch warrants for it, like the FBI does when it's investigating organized crime, and need to tap a bunch of people at once.

Honestly, I sincerely doubt there's that many sleeper cells inside the US. Oh, I'm sure there's some, but I would be VERY VERY surprised if their total numbers was anywhere near 1000 people. Since the government would never tell us those figures, that's just going to have to be something we disagree on.

As for your ending question, my answer has 2 parts:

1) I actually *DO* think it would be the stepping stone for further government intrusions. Since when has the government shown it can be trusted to handle things properly with no oversight? Not in MY lifetime, ever, going back to Nixon and Watergate. Your suggestion would create an amazingly broad area of abuse, as who's to say who or what activities would constitute a "Threat to National Security". Without their actions being strictly proscribed by law, the potential for even moderately-high-ranking governmental officials with axes to grind to get people they don't like declared as "Security Threats" and disappeared is huge. Hell, look back at the 50s, where even without the force of law behind it, governmental officials leaking someone's name as a potential communist, even if such an accusation had NO basis in fact, could destroy their entire lives and careers. Sorry, no.

2) To me, this country effectively IS the Constitution. We have always been known as "A nation of Laws, not a nation of Men", meaning that no man shall be above the law, no matter how high his position. If we suddenly throw out the Constitution as the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not allowed in this country, we have completely and totally changed the nature of the country. The Constitution makes very clear which portions of it do not apply in the case of wartime. (for example, Article 5 of the Bill of Rights, which states: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger") There is no such provision in Article 4. Therefore, the stricture against search, seizure, etc. holds just as strongly in times of war as in any other time. By long-held legal interpretation (ie, odds of it changing = 0), things like wiretapping are considered to be controlled by the 4th amendment. So, to recap: 4th amendment states that there are no cases where search/siezure does not require a warrant. Wiretapping counts as search/siezure, and thus requires a warrant.

Note that I have never once argued against intelligence agencies doing what they need to do to protect the US as long as they stay within the bounds of the law. I can think of no case where the government would be even inconvenienced by the need to obtain a warrant within 48 hours of starting surveilance, as long as they have an actual case and actual probable cause. Now, what makes this whole thing especially worrisome, is that the apparently obvious reason as to why they would want wiretapping without warrants is because they might get told no. Well, I'm sorry, but that's the way the law works. If you don't have Probable Cause, or a real case against someone, then the government shouldn't be listening in on their conversation.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

Lyion, if they really were getting Warrants from the FISA courts for every conversation they wiretapped, we wouldn't be having this conversation. That's the entire point, Bush apparently unilaterally that he would empower the NSA to completely ignore the FISA law and wiretap phones WITHOUT a warrant. Despite whatever right-wing drivel you wish to vomit forth, that fact remains: The NSA has been wiretapping phone calls involving US citizens WITHOUT warrants. There has *NOT* been "bipartisan oversight" of the program. A mere handful of people even KNEW about it, and some of THEM protested it, in writing, and their protests were ignored. Congress as a whole sure as hell didn't know. You care to provide one shred of evidence for your assertion that there were large amounts of Congresspeople who DID know about it and were providing oversight? 10/500, when some of those 10 were opposed to instituting it in the first place does not constitute oversight.

There absolutely has been bipartisan oversight. In regards to Congress, Pelosi, Leahy, the House and Senate Democrats on the intel comittee, etc all were briefed and updated on the wiretapping. Over a DOZEN democrats in the Senate and House were briefed on everything OVER four years ago and updated. Given the DNC leadership knew, it's kind of bullshit to say there was no knowledge and oversight. Look it up, if you care. The leaders knew, admitted they knew, and only now do we see out and out lying from guys like Howard Dean about this program, even though he knows nothing.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 60122.html

The NSA's terrorist surveillance program is targeted at al Qaeda communications coming into or going out of the United States. It is a limited, hot pursuit effort by our intelligence community to detect and prevent attacks. Senate Democrats continue to engage in misleading and outlandish charges about this vital tool that helps us do exactly what the 9/11 Commission said we needed to do - connect the dots. It defies common sense for Democrats to now claim the administration is acting outside its authority while their own party leaders have been briefed more than a dozen times - only after there was a leak and subsequent media coverage did they start criticizing the program. Such irresponsible accusations will not keep us from acting to stay a step ahead of a deadly enemy that is determined to strike America again."

It's convenient for you to try and paint me into such a corner, while at the same time ignoring your position as administration lap-dog and apologist in the same category as a Rush Limbaugh or Karl Rove.

I don't like Rove or Limbaugh, but I'm not sure what they've done.

What's funny is people howl about them, but they aren't like Sandy Berger, who walked out with Top Secret Documents and should be in jail. Do you agree?

Or these leaks that so many cheer about, which are actual breeches of National Security and the perpetrators should also be in jail. Do you agree?

Now, I ask you again what I asked you before: What POSSIBLE legitimate reason would there be for the NSA to wiretap someone if there was not enough of a case for them to get a warrant from the FISA court?

Mohammed in NYC buys a bunch of Go Phones with different numbers. He starts calling Al Qaeda in Pakistan rotating phones so the US cannot trace them without getting a warrant, supposedly. During the hours we get a warrant for one phone, he switches to another. He uses this to move a Nuclear Bomb into place, and legally NSA cannot listen to this call, because it originates from the U.S., even though it ends at a KNOWN terrorist location. They can listen to it with an executive order, which is legal and constitutional, which is the proper thing to do, which both parties agreed on, until it became leaked, then the Dems changed their stance.

Now, these are calls to a known cell. They are for Defense, and obviously are a matter of National Security.

I, and most Americans, want our government listening to these calls.

[Thon]

Mohammed in NYC buys a bunch of Go Phones with different numbers. He starts calling Al Qaeda in Pakistan rotating phones so the US cannot trace them without getting a warrant, supposedly. During the hours we get a warrant for one phone, he switches to another. He uses this to move a Nuclear Bomb into place, and legally NSA cannot listen to this call, because it originates from the U.S., even though it ends at a KNOWN terrorist location. They can listen to it with an executive order, which is legal and constitutional, which is the proper thing to do, which both parties agreed on, until it became leaked, then the Dems changed their stance.

for the umpteenth fucking million time, since you obviously can't fucking read what arlos wrote:

they have 48 hours to wiretap and listen all they want while they go to get a warrant. if they've got the ability to listen in, then they can, for 2 days w/o any warrant whatsoever.

and no executive order is legal if it goes against the constitution

[Lyion]

No, they don't. Why don't you get a fucking clue and research on your own, before just regurgitating Arlos posts cluelessly.

Arlos is reposting things the White Houe has said that he disagrees with in a strawman attempt to have his cake and eat it too, in reference to ECPA in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518 of our law. That also requires explicit AG authorization and is different from what is being discussed.

Now, care to add something that you actually know or have read, are do you prefer just to keep your head firmly and ignorantly planted up anothers ass?

[Arlos]

Ah, there you go again, Lyion, posting ultra-rightwing blogs as if they were actually credible news sources. I don't trust THEM any more than I do this administration. You want to prove something, show an article from an actual CREDIBLE news source. Blogs are NOT.

Even if some Democrats WERE briefed, as you said, it's about 10 people or so, out of what, 300? And many of those that WERE brief raised protests over it privately, since they weren't allowed to do so publicly. You seem to ignore that little fact. How in HELL could they have raised a stink about it, when they were not allowed to do so by law? They did so privately, but the republicans ignored them.

I don't like Rove or Limbaugh

Funny, your comments here look like they could be transcripts of comments they make. Your claims of being an "independant" are so laughable as to reach Marx Brothers level of comedy. You are as hardcore a Bush acolyte as I have ever encountered, anywhere. Hell, even MINDIA has been more critical of Bush recently than YOU have.

Or these leaks that so many cheer about, which are actual breeches of National Security and the perpetrators should also be in jail. Do you agree?

Nope. It's long-standing legal position that those that whistle-blow illegal activities are not themselves guilty of a crime. These people believed what was being done was illegal, and brought attention to it in order to have it stopped.


As for your scenario, Thon already said it. The government has 48 hours to listen in on calls while it arranges for warrants. On TOP of which, recent legal changes mean warrants apply to an INDIVIDUAL now, not to a specific phone line. You get a warrant to listen in on calls Achmed is making, it doesn't matter if he changes phones 27 times, you've got approval to listen in to all 27 of them without needing to get 27 different warrants. So, how again does getting a warrant inhibit the ability to listen in to anything that Achmed is doing?

The President can issue "Executive Decisions" all he wants. However, such "decisions" CANNOT in ANY way override constitutional law, NOR should they be allowed to override ordinary STATUTE law. The President is *NOT* above the laws passed by Congress. That's part of the whole "Checks and Balances" between the 3 branches of government. If the President could, by fiat, ignore any law from Congress he didn't care for, then Congress would be no check upon the power of the President whatsoever, and he would be a dictator in all but name. This is *NOT* what was put into the Constitution by the founding fathers!

The president is charged to UPHOLD the Constitution, NOT toss it into the trash heap. NO decision he makes can breaek even the SMALLEST of the laws in the Constitution, or even the smallest of CONGRESSIONAL laws. If he has been defying the will of Congress, he should and must be impeached. Period.

So, Lyion, you have not even come close to giving us a scenario which would require warrantless wiretaps. Care to try again?

-Arlos

[Thon]

Now, care to add something that you actually know or have read, are do you prefer just to keep your head firmly and ignorantly planted up anothers ass?

or i could just like you, and spout off the first ignorant link that agrees with my whackjob point of view

[Lyion]

I've shown an exact situation which I feel would require wiretaps. Said individual doesn't have to put all the phones in his name, so each new call to Pakistan from the US would require AG/FISA approval which wouldn't be feasible in a crisis situation.

The DNC leadership knew about this, from dozens of briefings. Pelosi, Leahy, the Intel councels. What more do you want? I still find it incredible you ignore the real crime, illegal leaks and want to hypothetically attack W based on no facts, but just on DNC news releases that contradict themselves. Should Sandy Berger not be in jail?

There is no overriding of the constitution going on. Just more hate filled rhetoric from Dems whose leaders were always in the know, but are trying to use a constitutionally viable and overseen program to score political points at the expense of peoples safety for a program that is fair, legal, and wise for us to use.

Then again, W could cure cancer and get rid of poverty and I'm sure you'd find a reason to flame and hate on the guy.

Fortunately, most Americans agree with the Prez on this, and it makes me to think that they could be heading right into a Rovian plot to hand even more house seats to the GOP by focusing on where the American people know they suck, National Security.

[Narrock]

Well Arlos, I guess we'll never agree on this issue. Let me shift gears for a minute if I may. I'd like to ask you what you think about these scenarios since you're so passionate about "rights."

Scenario #1:

Let's say the DHS and FBI *know* (with absolute certainty) about an Al Qeida terrorist cell meeting about to occur in a house somewhere. They have about 20 minutes to get in before the meeting is over, arrest everybody, collect evidence, and get out. They call the judge for a warrant, but he's not answering his phone. The watch commander gives the go ahead to bust the door down anyway and send in the troops because he already knows they can *prove* that the people involved in the meeting are terrorist cells. So, they bust the door down and find 6 Al Qeida terrrorist cells sitting around a table, and another standing next to an elaborate chart detailing their next attack -- dates, times, names of each cell and what his role is in the attack, etc. After the cells are proned-out on the floor, the cops continue to search the house. They find another room with 20 fully-operational suicide-bomb jackets, about 5 sawed-off human heads in jars, and other miscellaneous pieces of evidence. What are we going to do? After all... this is an illegal search and seizure, right? WE VIOLATED THEIR RIGHTS!!!

Scenario #2

The FBI is going to raid the home of a known sex-offender felon because they got a tip from a reliable CI that he brings little kids to his house. Again, they are trying to obtain a search warrant, but for some reason they can't get a hold of a judge or any other official. The watch commander gives the go ahead to enter the house... They enter and find him in a sex act with an 8 year old girl. They find tons of kiddie porn all over the house, and his fingerprints are on each piece of porn. Oh, what to do... what to do... they entered the house in an "illegal" fashion, and without a warrant. tsk tsk tsk. Should we let him go because we went in "illegally?"

Scenario #3

A cop pulls over a person for the classic "tail light out." The car is a mid 70's primered hunk of junk. The cop and his partner approach the car. The driver, although initially friendly and cooperative, appears extremely nervous. The partner cop shines his flashlight around the car while the other cop is talking to the driver. The partner notices a zip loc baggie with some green substance in it on the floor in front of the back seat. He opens the door and discovers that it's only a "dimebag" worth of weed (a citationable misdemeanor only). Then the big bad cops demand, not ask, that the driver pop open his trunk. The driver says "no" and puts up a huge fuss about it and plays the "I know my rights" card and blah blah blah. The cop detains the driver while the partner opens the trunk. In the trunk are several pounds of cocaine all in individually wrapped packages (just assume that it is known that the substance is indeed cocaine) with obvious intent to distribute. Then under the bags of cocaine, they find 6 fully-automatic military type assault rifles. Rut-roh... what to do? After all, they opened his trunk illegally.

Yes, I exaggerated some things in these scenarios, but did so to illustrate a point. I'd really like to know how you think things should be handled at this point. Forget about "woulda, coulda, shoulda" answers please. If you were a criminal defense attorney what would you say about these cases? Yes, I'm trying to ascertain what kind of values you really have and if your answers are in line with America's best interests.

[Arlos]

WTF? FOURTY EIGHT FUCKING HOURS, Lyion. 48. That's how long the Government has to wiretap before needing to get a warrant. If they got one for one phone, you honestly think that the court would say no if they came back with a request for expanding the warrant? The *ONLY* plausible reason why the Government would insist on no-warrant wiretaps is if they wanted to listen in on people the courts would say NO to, because the government has no case. If the government has no evidence and no PC, then they shouldn't be listening.

So again, if it's a "crisis situation" then stuff is going to be occuring in less than 48 hours. If the government has so much information that they KNOW something big is about to happen, then they'd have plenty of evidence to go to the FISA court with in order to obtain LEGAL wiretap warrants.

*NO ONE* is saying not to Wiretap, Lyion. No one, not me, not the Democrats, no one. All we are saying is to FOLLOW THE FUCKING LAW. Some Democrats knowing about the program is *NOT* the same as oversight, ESPECIALLY when some of those same Democrats protested the very existance of such a program from the first time they were briefed on it. Hell, when the story broke, large numbers of REPUBLICAN members of Congress raised howls of protest as well, remember that?

And "most americans" agree with the president and you on this issue? O RLY?

New Zogby Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping

By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,216 U.S. adults from January 9-12.

The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

43% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error.

Now, a CNN poll:

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,003 adults found that 50 percent of those polled believe it's OK to forgo warrants when ordering electronic surveillance of people suspected of having ties to terrorists abroad.

Another 46 percent said the policy is wrong, and 4 percent said they had no opinion. (View some of the poll results)

The poll, conducted Friday through Sunday, has a sampling error of 3 percentage points.

50% is FAR from "most", especially given the sampling error. Yes, a recent poll regarding the phone pattern farming situation showed a majority in support of THAT, but that's an entirely seperate issue from warrantless wiretapping. Of course, an ABC poll showed the opposite, so who knows.

The fact remains: FISA law exists, as does the 4th Amendment. The 4th amendment states that searches without warrant are illegal. Period. The FISA law sets forth the means by which the government may obtain secret warrants. The President can issue "executive decisions" until he is blue in the face, but if they contravene EITHER law, then he might as well be issuing an executive decision that the moon is made of green cheese.

It is obvious to everyone that you feel that Bush can do no wrong. You are as rabid an apologist as I have ever seen. You have still failed to provide ANY scenario in which the government could not do necessary wiretapping and still abide by FISA law. So what if it requires a team of lawyers to put in 60 hour weeks to keep up with it, those lawyers aren't doing the investigating. Plus, as I said, the one thing the government has in AMPLE supply is lawyers.

So, care to try again with a different scenario? Your current one fell flat on its face.

-Arlos

[Diekan]

Again I will ask this question. Why does the NSA (or any other gov entity) need to intercept EVERY SINGLE CALL made IN the US? You people said it yourself that they're probably only going to single out one or two calls here and there... fine... if that's the case then why? Why all calls?

Some of you have made the point that there's no way they could listen to every call made. Ok, fine - so that means they have to single out the calls they find most interesting. In order to do that they're going to have to suspect someone first. If they suspect someone then what in the fuck is wrong with getting a warrant? AND - if they suspect someone - why do they need to intercept and record the rest of our calls?

They DON'T. Why is it so hard for some of you to accept that our government is become more communist with every stupid, power hungry driven piece of legislation they try to and pass?

[Drem]

So now seperation of church and state is considered an "attack on American culture, pal?" Silly me... I thought that was in the constitution.

[Lyion]

I suggest you read up on the requirements and laws. You don't seem to understand them, Arlos. You are making stuff up or pulling off one of your nutjob sights.

ABCNews/WaPo poll-- showing a substantial majority (68% or so) of the public approving the program -- did specifically mention that the government was collecting records of dialed numbers

This is what is going on. Our discussion is hypotheticals. Your poll is a poll based on a lot of hypotheticals and typical CNN/Zogby spin.

This type of thing will crater the DNC in this years elections.

I bet if you go poll with a straight, unbiased question of if we should monitor calls from the US to known terrorist spots in the Middle East, most Americans would agree. Not that any poll would be unbiased and explain things clearly, especially from the Clinton News Network.

The DNC and YOU are out and out LYING about this program, the level of oversight, the requirements, what the NSA Can do, and fear mongering in an attempt to score political points. But hey, you have posted contradictions, spin, and blatant mistruths here probably taken directly from a far left site who sees W as the enemy, and could care less about potential threats to the U.S.