Israel humbled by arms from Iran

[Lyion]

I definitely agree with the slippery slope analogy, but I think with all factors in place this current program is legal and needed.

Saying it ignores the constitution is not fair. It has approval from the FISA court judges, as well as Justice Deparment oversight. There is legal precedent, and this program is very limited in scope. It encompasses SOLELY calls to a small subset overseas that are identified as potential terrorists. No others. It is not an ad hoc license to eavesdrop, which I think is being wrongly peddled by some.

Furthermore, the evidence shows the Administration painstakingly included bipartisan and heavily cross spectrum people in its discussion. Unfortunately, some do not really care about our country's laws, and thus we've leaked a small program directed solely at foreign terrorists, and wrongly misinterpreted as domestic wiretapping. It is not.

Do you really want to know what the problem and need is? Currently, our intel personnel are not allowed to listen in on U.S. calls, even if they are to Osama Bin Ladens hometown in Tora Bora. You can preach the 72 hour window, but the fact is they are not allowed to listen realtime at all without this Presidential Authorization. Legally, the operators need to put down their headsets and do nothing if the source is from America. Ironically, these are the calls our ops need MOST to be monitoring to Middle Eastern Islamic regimes!

The tapping program allows them to listen to calls to known terrorist hotspots real time which is of extreme importance given what we know of Al Qaeda.

So, there is no domestic to domestic wiretapping. It is needed for real time analysis. It has Bipartisan legislative, judicial, and exectuive knowledge, backing, and oversight to ensure it is legal and more importantly, ethical.

[Narrock]

It's absolutely amazing (and scary) to me knowing that there are U.S. citizens out there who care more about their "constitutional rights" than they care about letting the government do what they need to do to ensure the safety of American citizens.

I swear to God... the far left is going to bring America to it's knees if they keep up with all this backwards-thinking B.S.

[Lyion]

EVERYONE should care the utmost about their constitutional rights.
Moreso than anything else.

If this program indeed crosses the line and really oversteps the Executive Branches power, which Arlos, nor anyone has demonstrated or shown legal precedent for, then it should be shut down.

None of my rights are bargainable for National Security. Sorry.

However, this program IS considered constitutional by the cadre of Lawyers and Legislators who fairly evaluated it, and werent playing politics.

[Narrock]

EVERYONE should care the utmost about their constitutional rights.
Moreso than anything else.

If this program indeed crosses the line and really oversteps the Executive Branches power, which Arlos, nor anyone has demonstrated or shown legal precedent for, then it should be shut down.

None of my rights are bargainable for National Security. Sorry.

However, this program IS considered constitutional by the cadre of Lawyers and Legislators who fairly evaluated it, and werent playing politics.

Wow, this surprises me coming from you Lyion.

[Arlos]

It's absolutely amazing (and scary) to me knowing that there are U.S. citizens out there who care more about their "constitutional rights" than they care about letting the government do what they need to do to ensure the safety of American citizens.

The problem is, Mindia, that once you decide to allow one branch of the government to unilaterally ignore the Constitution over what they consider to be a "National Security" issue, you open a giant pandora's box. Today it is calls from the US to Yemen, say. Who is to say that tomorrow it won't be calls to Germany? Or even domestic to domestic calls? We had situations like that in this country, back in the 50s, 60s and into the early 70s. The FBI illegally wiretapped and surveilled anyone that THEY felt was a "threat to America", including people like Martin Luther King.

Nixon ordered wiretaps and so forth based on presidential authority, but used them against domestic political enemies. That's why Congress created the FISA courts in the first place: to prevent such abuses. The government has ALREADY PROVED that if they have unrestrained ability to unilaterally decide to ignore the 4th amendment, that they will abuse it. The requirement to go through the FISA courts was a way to put checks and balances on the process, to preserve our constitutional rights, while at the same time give foreign intelligence services a chance to get real-time information, and in the cases of time-critical situations, to do the wiretapping now, and get the warrant afterward.

I say again, I am in *NO* way against wiretapping and listening in on conversations made to terrorists **IF** such wiretapping has the approval of a court of law. THAT'S checks and balances as promised by the Constitution. It keeps too much power out of the hands of any 1 branch, since there must be LEGAL reason for the wiretapping, and you don't have 1 governmental group with the ability to decide on its own, with no checks whatsoever, who they're going to listen in on.

Lyion: I repeat, if the law is working correctly (and it may not be; it's possible the FISA law needs to be cleaned up), then ANY situation where they have a legitimate reason to believe that the person making the phone call is associated with terrorism, then they should be able to get a warrant for said wiretapping, even post-event. I cannot, and WILL not support blanket listening in of ALL calls made to certain countries by any and all citizens making those calls, many or most of whom have NO association with terrorists in any way. THAT is unreasonable search, and could indeed emperil the 1st amendment.

Also, Lyion, I have seen plenty of arguments as to the unconstituionality of the warrantless wiretapping program. These "Lawyers" that reviewed it for the government were APPOINTED by the executive branch. Just based on how this administration set up campaign stops, etc. I firmly believe they would've hand-picked lawyers who they knew would rule their way, even if they didn't do it for no other reason than they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. Did you read the article from Pitt Law School I posted? That had some very cogent and clear arguments as to the unconstitutionality of the program.

Lastly, Mindia, I'm sorry that you feel that sticking by the laws of the Constitution is "Backward Thinking". Though, I do find it somewhat ironic that a liberal would be a stricfter constitutionalist in some regards than someone who is supposedly a conservative.

-Arlos

[Narrock]

I think you should just forget that wire-tapping even exists. Life will be much more pleasant for you, and you'll be safer on top of that.

[Arlos]

Heh, sorry, not likely. Should I ever decide to get a lobotomy, maybe I'll consider it at that point. Until then, however, I find myself unable to ignore the geopolitical realities of life, and doubly so for what I consider infringements upon the Constitution, which in a very real way forms the entire basis for our society.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

The FISA court, the numerous Democratic congressional people, and the non partisan lawyers brought in absolutely are not in collusion with the current Administration or even a part of the Exectuive branch, and I think you unfairly brand this program unconstitutional when many scholars on both sides differ in opinion.

Yes, I've seen that article before. I could refute it with articles from UCLA Law School and other opinions. Moreso, the original link to WSJ includes cases that give precedent to this current program and speak to its constitutionality. YMMV.

Also, did you read my last post about how intercepts work real time? It is not always feasible or possible to cover the situation with a warrant and for calls to a KNOWN terrorist locale overseas the President can and should authorize intercepts regardless of it's origin. This has legal precedent, and is part of the powers of the Executive Branch. We are not talking about any sort of Ad Hoc or blanket eavesdropping, at all, as you suggest.

[Narrock]

The government needs to expand that law to include wiretapping/surveillance on "suspected terrorists" (without a warrant) on U.S. soil.

[Lyion]

The government needs to expand that law to include wiretapping/surveillance on "suspected terrorists" (without a warrant) on U.S. soil.

I couldn't disagree more. In theory, everyone could be a suspected terrorist....

Our country is founded on laws, and the minute something supersedes those laws, we lose something of what makes America great.

Realize we need to preserve our liberties and rights, or we've already lost.

[Gidan]

That really wont work because they will just say anyone they tap is a "suspected terrorist"

[Narrock]

It will work, because if you sue the government for using surveillance on you, and you can prove that you're not a terrorist, and they cannot provide legitimate reasons for wiretapping you (and they won't be able to if you're clean), then you will win the case, and the government will lose millions of dollars. The government is not that stupid. They will only wiretap persons who might be a risk to national security. Bottom line is... if you're not a terrorist, you will not be wiretapped, so don't worry about it.

[Zanchief]

You're a parody of a human being.

[Narrock]

Thank you.

[Lyion]

So... the answer to diminished freedoms, is the probability of more lawsuits, based on Top Secret Info that only the CIA and New York Times have access to?

[Narrock]

If you're not a suspected terrorist the government will not wiretap your phone. So... no, there will not be more lawsuits.

[Tikker]

the next thing you know, the US government will be ninja deleting posts from message boards, lyion stylez~

[Narrock]

the next thing you know, the US government will be ninja deleting posts from message boards, lyion stylez~

And he should, because you were being a troll as usual and fuxoring-up a decent thread.

[Tikker]

oh the bittersweet irony of mindia complaining about someone fucking up a thread



it just makes me giggle that half of lyion's arguements today are derived from a conversation we had last night in IM, jeje


ps, help, i'm being oppressed

[Narrock]

Well this thread is dead now. Thanks Tikker.

[Tikker]

np, only 875315891 more threads to pay you back for

[Gidan]

It will work, because if you sue the government for using surveillance on you, and you can prove that you're not a terrorist, and they cannot provide legitimate reasons for wiretapping you (and they won't be able to if you're clean), then you will win the case, and the government will lose millions of dollars. The government is not that stupid. They will only wiretap persons who might be a risk to national security. Bottom line is... if you're not a terrorist, you will not be wiretapped, so don't worry about it.

You have got to be kidding me. If they can prove you’re a terrorist, they will have no problem getting a warrant. You said they should be able to tap anyone they suspect as being a terrorist. You don’t have to prove anything just suspect it. You then have no grounds to sue on because they have broken no law.

[Lyion]

the next thing you know, the US government will be ninja deleting posts from message boards, lyion stylez~

<3

[Lueyen]

You have got to be kidding me. If they can prove you’re a terrorist, they will have no problem getting a warrant. You said they should be able to tap anyone they suspect as being a terrorist. You don’t have to prove anything just suspect it. You then have no grounds to sue on because they have broken no law.

Pretty much with the provisions of FISA that is the way it is. Note that this does not apply to domestic criminal surveillance, only to those concerning foreign powers where national security is involved, and only by the authorization of the executive branch.

Warentless taping can be done for up to 72 hours before anything is submitted to the FISA court (after the fact warrant). The catch here that isn't being made clear in most articles on the subject is that within provisions of the law it is completely legal to never even obtain a warrant nor attempt to get one IF the surveillance is stopped within 72 hours.

To my understanding it would be completely legal to use information gained within the first 72 hours to obtain a warrant for further pursuit for national security purposes, but in no case could the information obtained be used in any way to pursue a domestic criminal case.

Edit: anyone have a link to the actual FISA document? I've been looking for it, and have yet to find it. The above info is what I've been able to glean from articles on the subject, I'd like to get the picture strait from the document it's self however.

[Harrison]

You stop making sense right fucking now!