Warrantless Wiretapping ruled Unconstitutional

[Lueyen]

Arlos - I owe you an apology, my statement about WMD's was meant to be a one liner obnoxious assertion with no backup similar to those that seem to frequently pop up here. In short I was just being a shit, and I'm not very good at the one liner thing~.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe that there is a strong possibility there were WMD's there (or perhaps still are buried somewhere). But what I believe and what I can prove are two different things. Being that I enjoy most of your posts, even if I don't agree, I do feel bad that I baited a waste of your time if you will.

To get this thread back on track..

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 12036

(Carter Administration)

"Activities described in sections 2-202 through 2-205 for which a warrant
would be required if undertaken for law enforcement rather than intelligence purposes shall not be undertaken against a United States person without a judicial warrant, unless the President has authorized the type of activity involved and the Attorney General has both approved the particular activity and determined that there is probable cause to believe that the United States person is an agent of a foreign power."

2-202 through 2-205 discuss electronic and mail surveillance, cameras and physical searches. Here is a link to the entire order for those interested:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12036.htm

When Carter was in office he agreed that the Executive branch had the right as an extension of it's responsibility to national security to conduct both surveillance and searches without a warrant if there was "probable cause to believe that the United States person is an agent of a foreign power." Although terrorists are not a country per say, I think it's safe to say they are a foreign power.


EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949

(Clinton Administration)

"the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section."

Basically the Clinton Administration expanded the Executive power in the areas regarding physical searches.. still we find the administration supporting the idea that for purposes of national security the executive branch of government can conduct surveillance without a court order or warrants.

I won't even go into things done by the executive branch when the great liberal icon FDR was in office, or compare the actions of rounding up a group of people and placing them in camps based on their heritage vs paying extra attention to ethnicity when it comes to security check points at airport terminals.

Bush really isn't arguing anything new, yet you people who are ranting about surveillance of suspected terrorists weren't up in arms about Carter or Clinton "tearing up the Constitution" now were you?

[Narrock]

haha gotta love hypcrisy.

[araby]

haha gotta love illiteracy.

[Narrock]

haha gotta love illiteracy.

I was referring to this quote by Lueyen in particular:

Bush really isn't arguing anything new, yet you people who are ranting about surveillance of suspected terrorists weren't up in arms about Carter or Clinton "tearing up the Constitution" now were you?

That's why I said "gotta love hypocrisy." I see it everyday how the liberals are whining about this and that with our current administration, but it's ok for their good ol boys to do the same thing? LOMFL

[Arlos]

the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.

Did the attorney general of the time ever ACTUALLY approve of warrantless searches? If so, you bet I'd oppose it as well. Doesn't matter WHO is infringing upon civil liberties and the freedoms guaranteed to us under the Constitution, it's wrong, period. If this really was an active program, not just a potential one, and had I known about it at the time, you bet I would've been protesting quite vociferously about it. As for Carter, I don't agree with that policy either. Given that I was 6 when he was elected President, however, I was a bit young to be protesting subtle points of civil liberties.

So, sorry, Mindia, no hypocrisy here. Wrong is wrong, period. Simply because I like the general political stance of someone doesn't mean I will support their actions when they do something I don't believe in. I don't support Bush infringing upon civil liberties, I wouldn't support Clinton doing so either. So please, get your facts straight before you go accusing me of something as serious as being a hypocrite please, K?

Oh, and Leuyen, if you feel that I support in any way the practice of internment of the Japanese in WW2, you have an extremely inaccurate picture of my beliefs. Yes, I liked a great deal of what FDR did while in office. Does that mean I liked everything that he did? Of course not. No one is perfect, and just because I agree with some actions a political figure takes, does not in any way guarantee that I will agree with ALL of them.

The thing with Bush, is that he has YET to do much of ANY action with which I *DO* agree. Yes, I agree with invading Afghanistan, but even there, I consider the methodology to have been bungled in the extreme. Taliban still running around the hinterlands provinces? Yep. Catch any of the senior Taliban leadership? Nope. Catch Osama or any of the senior Al Qaida leadership? Nope. Sounds pretty bungled to me. In any case, if he did something I DID like, I would acknowledge it. So far, such cases are basically nonexistant.

-Arlos

[Narrock]

Maybe you're not being hypocritical Arlos, but many of your liberal bretheren are.

[Snero]

mindia, thats what comes with blind trust and it's true of both sides of the political spectrum

[Lyion]

mindia, thats what comes with blind trust and it's true of both sides of the political spectrum

Very true. However, I give faith to our bipartisan process which currently gives the public two parties at each others throat. Better oversight one could not desire.

Blind trust would be giving the President the authority to do whatever he wants, as is misrepresented by Arlos and his ilk. Nothing could be further from the truth with this program.

This program has a lot of oversight and is a very small and directed program. Could it be unconstitutional? Sure, but that is for SCOTUS to decide, and I get the feeling they'll come down on the side of the Justice Department, and many people on both sides of the isle who feel this program is perfectly legal and within the framework of our law.

[Snero]

I don't know, seems to me that the only case where this sort of thing is really necessary is if the current wiretap review and approval process has too many leaks. If this is the case, they should be fixing that, rather then coming up with a whole new process that seems to go against some of the basic tenets the country was founded on.

If this is needed, it should be temporary while they clean up the existing wiretapping approval process

[Evermore]

He either lied, or invaded a country on false information. You decide which is worse.

To me, they are the same. it has cost the US. BILLIONS of dollars and thousands of lives. This is another vietnam. Should Don Bush be impeached. Absolutely.

[Diekan]

What is soooo hard about getting a warrant?

If they suspect terror linked communications, they're obviously going to have to set up the technology to intercept the information - so why can't they just get a warrant in the mean time?

I want a GOOD explaination on WHY they need to circumvent the "system."

[Diekan]

Actually, this whole thing just pisses me off to no end. This whole "war on terror" bullshit that we're being fed on practically a daily basis.

King George and his ilk running over the constitution, lying, starting wars to satisfy personal agendas... I can't wait for him and the GOP to put out of office like yesterday's trash. It's to bad the DNC doesn't have much better to offer.

This country is fucked.