namelesstavern.net

OK, Mindia, I'll go through your scenarios 1 by 1.

Scenario 1:
Well, I don't buy this one even as a hypothetical, to be honest. If the DHS and FBI have that level of certainty about this meeting, then they must have already done significant investigatory work, and worked with a judge. Even if they were given only 20 minutes warning of the actual meeting time/location, there is functionally zero chance that they wouldn't have already obtained the necessary warrants and permissions to move in and arrest everyone.

Not to mention, there's a difference between being able to arrest people and being able to search the premises. Even if the scenario unfolded exactly as you laid out, if the government is absolutely sure that these people are terrorists, they could move in, arrest them based on Probable Cause, but NOT do any more of a search than is necessary to be sure no people are still there. Then they would seal the building, get the judge on the phone, get his approval to search, and THEN go in and scour for evidence. Upshot of all of this: Terrorist cell still arrested, evidence still obtained, no requirement for governmental forces to break their own laws.


Scenario 2
No watch commander would give approval for moving in to do a search if he didn't have warrants in hand, because he knows any evidence they obtained would be thrown out of court because the government is not allowed to break the law. If they have sufficient evidence of him being a sexual predator and they saw him enter the house with a young child, then they have every right to move in and arrest him because they have PC to believe someone's life is at risk. They still wouldn't search the place until such time as the search warrant arrived, though.


Scenario 3
Cops wouldn't be that stupid. If they found drugs in one part of his car, they could arrest him and have the car impounded, which is exactly what they would do in such a situation. They could then go to a judge and give their evidence about what they saw sitting on the seat, the driver's attitudes, etc. and their belief that there may be more drugs in the trunk. At that point, the odds that the judge would approve a search warrant for searching the trunk approach 100%. If the cops WERE stupid enough to open the trunk then yes, that indivdiual would have to be let off scott-free from what was in his trunk, as it would've been an illegal search. The cops would impound the cocaine, and any guns he didn't have ownership papers and a license for, of course.

-Arlos

Diekan wrote: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?

What in the world are you talking about? Nobody except Mindia wants everyone listened to. Although the left wing whackjobs are wrongly saying thats whats going on in their fear mongering.

The government is not taping or tapping all our calls. They are not taping or tapping even a small percent.

What they are doing is monitoring communications with known or highly suspected Al Qaeda people, some of which originate in the US. This is the crux of the arguement. Some don't want these calls monitored without going through FISA. Some wrongly bring up the 48 hour deal, which has very strict guidelines and is not good for operational monitoring.

Now, if you want to argue that we should not be monitoring any communicationss from any US citizen, regardless of if he calls Osama, that's fine and understanable. To falsely claim there is a large amount of taping and tapping going on is just silly, and usually is a result of W derangement syndrome, which is in plain evidence here.

Also, I have yet to see any real episodes of tapping being shown or used for anything domestic, or any proof of anyone outside of Al Qaeda being monitored.

President Bush and his senior aides have stressed that his executive order allowing eavesdropping without warrants was limited to the monitoring of international phone and e-mail communications involving people with known links to Al Qaeda.

Oh, Please. Show me where *ONCE* I have stated that the government should NOT wiretap conversations it believes to be taking place between terrorists. You know what? You won't find any such statement. Indeed, you will find the exact opposite. I believe they SHOULD be listening in. What I do not, and WILL not agree to is the government breaking CONSTITUTIONAL LAW in order to do so. Especially when there is a painless method for them to obtain legal authorization to engage in the wiretapping.

How'd I know you'd claim "biased polling"? Any time you see data you don't like, you claim it MUST be the product of the liberal attack media! Funny, there is no such liberal media conspiracy, hate to disappoint you. And what "nutjob" sites would you be referring to? Hate to break it to you, but my sources for news are various mainstream media sites: major newspapers, online news sites like the BBC or CNN or ABC news, etc. I don't read ANY blogs, and never go to places like MoveON, etc. Meanwhile, you're quoting freely from ultra-rightwing whackjob nuttery sites. I'd say pot, meet kettle, but that doesn't apply, since YOU are the only one doing what you're accusing others of doing. And hey, you have posted contradictions, spin and blatant mistrutths here probably taken from a far-right site who sees W as Lord High God and Savior Who Can Do No Wrong, and could care less about the Constitution.

As for lying, what about what I have just said is a lie? Lets recap, shall we? 1) Yes, some Democrats knew about the program. 2) At least some of those that knew about it protested it from the very first time they were informed about it. 3) 3% of Congress knowing about something does NOT constitute anything resembling a high level of "oversight", especially given at least some of that 5% was opposed to the program from the start. 4) No one, ANYWHERE, has given any sort of plausible scenario under which it would be necessary to wiretap without ever asking for a warrant. Remember, boys and girls: 48 hours of wiretapping before those lawyers need to have evidence in front of the FISA court.

Which of those statements is a lie? Answer: none of them. Just because truths are uncomfortable or disagree with your prejudices doesn't make them any less untrue.

So, let me recap, for the clue-impaired like yourself.
1) The government SHOULD listen in on conversations between terrorists.
2) The government MUST follow Constitutional Law.
3) The government CAN do 1 while following 2 by going through the FISA process.
4) If the government has NO case against an individual to the point where the courts would deny a wiretap, then they should NOT be wiretapping them. Sorry, but just because they're the government, doesn't obviate them from the need for evidence before pursuing a case.

-Arlos

arlos wrote:OK, Mindia, I'll go through your scenarios 1 by 1.

Scenario 1:
Well, I don't buy this one even as a hypothetical, to be honest. If the DHS and FBI have that level of certainty about this meeting, then they must have already done significant investigatory work, and worked with a judge. Even if they were given only 20 minutes warning of the actual meeting time/location, there is functionally zero chance that they wouldn't have already obtained the necessary warrants and permissions to move in and arrest everyone.

Not to mention, there's a difference between being able to arrest people and being able to search the premises. Even if the scenario unfolded exactly as you laid out, if the government is absolutely sure that these people are terrorists, they could move in, arrest them based on Probable Cause, but NOT do any more of a search than is necessary to be sure no people are still there. Then they would seal the building, get the judge on the phone, get his approval to search, and THEN go in and scour for evidence. Upshot of all of this: Terrorist cell still arrested, evidence still obtained, no requirement for governmental forces to break their own laws.


Scenario 2
No watch commander would give approval for moving in to do a search if he didn't have warrants in hand, because he knows any evidence they obtained would be thrown out of court because the government is not allowed to break the law. If they have sufficient evidence of him being a sexual predator and they saw him enter the house with a young child, then they have every right to move in and arrest him because they have PC to believe someone's life is at risk. They still wouldn't search the place until such time as the search warrant arrived, though.


Scenario 3
Cops wouldn't be that stupid. If they found drugs in one part of his car, they could arrest him and have the car impounded, which is exactly what they would do in such a situation. They could then go to a judge and give their evidence about what they saw sitting on the seat, the driver's attitudes, etc. and their belief that there may be more drugs in the trunk. At that point, the odds that the judge would approve a search warrant for searching the trunk approach 100%. If the cops WERE stupid enough to open the trunk then yes, that indivdiual would have to be let off scott-free from what was in his trunk, as it would've been an illegal search. The cops would impound the cocaine, and any guns he didn't have ownership papers and a license for, of course.

-Arlos

Ok, thanks for answering.

out of the thousands of FISA warrant requests in the past decade, you can count the # that were denied on both fucking hands. there's no excuse not to go through the proper goddam channels unless what they're doing is illegal/baseless and they know it

A simple question, Arlos. Should we, or should we not monitor all comms to Al Qaeda hotspots in the Middle East? Should we shut them off if it comes from the US to them, and if it hasn't been through FISA, yet?

Also, read this in regards to your continuing wrong assertations:

http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/12%20 ... letter.pdf

It explains the legality, oversight necessity and answers all your questions. You don't seem to understand Article II of the Constitution which sets out the powers and duties of the President. The executive branch is coequal with the legislative and judicial branches. The President has powers under the Constitution, and they cannot be taken away or limited by Congressional legislation.

Second, you still ignore the fact a LOT of DNC members had access and routine updates to the program you are attacking. Outside of one subtle letter from Rockefeller, none had complaints that were raised, except after an illegal leak which you seem to have no problems with and continually ignore, even though the traitors who leaked this did so knowing it was wrong. Both leaders, both intel groups, and probably many more. Saying there wasn't oversight and congress wasn't in the know is a bold faced lie.

Third, you have not shown the government violating the law. Period. All you do is keep wrongly implying something without fact, legal precedent, and just an open ended finger pointing at the fourth amendment.

[quote="John Hinderaker"]There is one relevant constitutional provision that acts as a restraint on the President's inherent power as Commander in Chief. That is the Fourth Amendment, which states:That is the Fourth Amendment, which states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So all searches and seizures of Americans or their property (including, as the courts have appropriately ruled, interceptions of telephonic and electronic communications) must be reasonable. Note, however, that this requirement does not apply to terrorists overseas. A Special Forces soldier can pick a cave arbitrarily and search it. He isn't trying to prosecute terrorists, he is trying to kill them. He doesn't need probable cause.

The Fourth Amendment includes requirements for the issuance of search warrants, and many critics of the NSA program seem to assume that this means that all searches must be executed pursuant to a warrant. This assumption is wrong. There are dozens of situations where warrantless searches have been approved by the courts. The overriding principle is that searches of Americans (defined to include resident aliens) must be reasonable.

One of the many situations where warrantless searches have been approved is when the government is seeking foreign intelligence information, such as information relating to potential terrorist threats. Next to the Constitution itself, of course, the highest authority is the United States Supreme Court. At least three Supreme Court cases have discussed this subject.

In 1967, the Court decided Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347. Katz involved the warrantless interception of a conversation held by a criminal defendant in a phone booth. The Court held that the Fourth Amendment applies to such conversations, and that in an ordinary criminal prosecution (subject to many exceptions, as noted above) a warrant is required for wiretap information to be admissible in court. The Court specifically noted, however, that its decision did not apply to situations involving national security:

Whether safeguards other than prior authorization by a magistrate would satisfy the Fourth Amendment in a situation involving the national security is a question not presented by this case.

Five years later, the Court decided United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972). This case arose out of a criminal prosecution for conspiracy to destroy government property. (One of the defendants was charged with dynamiting a Michigan office of the C.I.A.) The Court's majority opinion framed the issue as follows:

[This case] involves the delicate question of the President's power, acting through the Attorney General, to authorize electronic surveillance in internal security matters without prior judicial approval.

[Emphasis added.] While acknowledging that American governments had conducted warrantless surveillance in internal security cases "for more than one-quarter of a century," the Court held such surveillance unconstitutional under the circumstances presented.

For the present purpose, the relevant portions of the opinion are those that distinguish the case before the Court from cases involving foreign intelligence gathering:

[T]he instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country.

And again:

We emphasize, before concluding this opinion, the scope of our decision. As stated at the outset, this case involves only the domestic aspects of national security. We have not addressed, and express no opinion as to, the issues which may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents.

It should be noted, too, that the Court did not hold that in domestic security cases, warrants are always required; it merely rejected the government's assertion of a blanket exemption for all such surveillance.

The third relevant Supreme Court case is Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004). Hamdi was an American citizen who was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and sued the Defense Department, claiming that his indefinite detention as an enemy combatant was unconstitutional. The Court upheld Hamdi's detention, while also ruling that he was entitled to a limited hearing regarding the facts of his detention. The government offered alternative theories in support of Hamdi's detention; the Court's plurality opinion describes them as follows:

The Government maintains that no explicit congressional authorization is required, because the Executive possesses plenary authority to detain pursuant to Article II of the Constitution. We do not reach the question whether Article II provides such authority, however, because we agree with the Government's alternative position, that Congress has in fact authorized Hamdi's detention through the AUMF [the post-September 11 Authorization for the Use of Military Force].

The Court noted that apprehending military combatants is a necessary incident of the use of military force:

We conclude that detention of individuals falling into the limited category we are considering, for the duration of the particular conflict in which they were captured, is so fundamental and accepted an incident to war as to be an exercise of the "necessary and appropriate force" Congress has authorized the President to use.

Thus, neither the language of the Constitution nor the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence can justify a claim that the NSA program is illegal. While the Court has never specifically ruled on the issue, its decisions are entirely consistent with the administration's view that the President has the inherent constitutional authority to obtain foreign intelligence information through warrantless searches. We turn now to the decisions of the federal Courts of Appeal.

This specific question was first addressed by the Fifth Circuit in United States v. [Cassius] Clay, 430 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1970). In the course of its opinion rejecting defendant’s claim that his conviction was based on information obtained from illegal wiretaps, the court wrote:

The fifth wiretap was not disclosed to defendant because the District Court found that the surveillance was lawful, having been authorized by the Attorney General, for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information. The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether electronic surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information is constitutionally permissible [citation omitted], though Mr. Justice White has expressed the view that such surveillance does not violate the Fourth Amendment. [citation omitted]

We…discern no constitutional prohibition against the fifth wiretap. Section 605 of Title 47, U.S.C., is a general prohibition against publication or use of communications obtained by wiretapping, but we do not read the section as forbidding the President, or his representative, from ordering wiretap surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence in the national interest.

In 1974, the Third Circuit decided United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974), where the defendant was convicted of espionage. The court wrote:

In sum, we hold that, in the circumstances of this case, prior judicial authorization was not required since the district court found that the surveillances of Ivanov were “conducted and maintained solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information.â€

I can Google too, see?

[quote="The University of Chicago Law School Faculty"]Bush's Spy Program and FISA

In an earlier post (“Bush’s Spy Program and the Fourth Amendmentâ€

Uh, except there is no constitutional trampling. I very much like my rights. I, however, disagree, as I'd guess most would on tapping people calling Al Qaeda. I think if you phone a known terrorist overseas, you can and should immediately be monitored. As long as there's oversight, which I've clearly shown and the government has clearly stated time and again there is, despite your unfactual assertions and opinions which are worthless.

I'll also take the courts decisions over Lawyers opinions any day and twice on Sunday. You can try and dismiss Article II until your blue in the face, but it's how our country is and should be run.

I've figured out why you are so pissed off today, Arlos.

This thread is hilarious.

The NSA monitored overseas calls (like inbound/outbound from the US, too) since it was put into place to monitor the soviets. ECHELON is a lot bigger now and the US/UK are basically monitoring satellite space over the entire globe. I'd put a lot of money down that says ECHELON has been monitoring domestic calls since its inception. Seems like the only thing that's really changed is that now, most of the public knows about it. It's like shell shock to paranoid people and a godsend to people living in fear.

I saw something on Myth Busters or some show like that and they had an ex-CIA agent on for an interview and he said (and I totally believe this) that privacy doesn't exist anymore. Someone, somewhere, has access to everything you've ever done. Every transaction, every vacation, everything you do on your computer, everything.

I don't know what's so hard to grasp about it, honestly. The technology has been around for decades now. If you really think you have privacy and the gov't can't pull up a file on you that says every job you've ever had, every country you've visited, every everything, then you are living in serious disbelief IMO

Ahhh, there you go, trying to twist my words again. I never said calls to known terrorist individuals should not be monitored. You claimed that *ALL* calls to LOCATIONS where terrorists are known to be should be called, which I say is patently ridiculous.

Given the fact that legal entities are coming down against this warrantless wirtapping illustrates the fact that your "Article II" grounds are much shakier than you claim.

You have also never once shown that there was serious oversight. You said yourself maybe 12 democrats knew about it, which means slightly more Republicans. That's 25-30 people out of a body of > 600 people. 5%, some of whom OPPOSED THE PLAN FROM THE BEGINNING does not even remotely constitute "oversight". Period. You can say my assertions are baseless til you're blue in the face. Of course, since you're pulling all of YOUR sources from places like the National Review, that leaves you with no leg to stand on whatsoever.

-Arlos

lyion wrote:I'll also take the courts decisions over Lawyers opinions any day and twice on Sunday.

Yeah because you're obviously way smarter than UC Law Professors...

jesus is on his side, it's ok

arlos wrote:Obviously Lyion failed to listen to his personal jesus Bush, who outright admitted, publicly, that the warrantless wiretapping program was real, and it was going on. It's not the invention of "left wing media" or any such nonsense. It is *VERY* real, and it *IS* happening. Period. As I recall, Gonzales or Bush even gave a rough figure for how many people they've tapped under the program.

So, Lyion: Given the existence of government search & siezure WITHOUT warrant, do you still support it? Please remember, that Article 4 of the Bill of Rights SPECIFICALLY states that the Government may *NOT* do any such thing without FIRST getting a warrant.

So you're agreeing with specifically ignoring Constitutional law?

Isn't the President sworn to UPHOLD the Constitution? How exactly does he get away with ignoring it?

That seems pretty much against this. I dunno. Outside of the Liar, liar part which really doesn't leave much to argue.

You seem to not want this, but you do, but you don't. But W cant be telling the truth.. But leaks are ok..

White House wrote: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."

I support this, and think its something we should do. I guess I'll end on that note, since we seem to be adding trolls exponentially.

only after there was a leak and subsequent media coverage did they start criticizing the program.

That's because they were forbidden by law FROM CRITICIZING IT PUBLICLY. Several did so in private, and were completely ignored. Once they COULD speak about it publicly, they DID speak out in protest, publicly. Even if every single Democrat that was briefed was dead-set against it, it wouldn't have changed anything, the Republicans have the majority and the presidency, they could just proceed with the program anyway.

I repeat, since you seem to be confused: I am FOR wiretapping, IF it is legally done, ie with a warrant and court approval. They can wiretap calls that are entirely outside the US all they want, I couldn't care less. But the moment one end of that conversation takes place in the US involving either a US Citizen or resident legal alien, it is covered by constitutional law. Based on Article 4 of the Bill of Rights, that means that warrants are required. Presidential perogative does not extend to ignoring the laws set forth in the Constitution.

As yet, no one, ANYWHERE, not here, not in the news, has ever come forth with any scenario under which the government could not get warrants under FISA law. Furthermore, no effort was ever made to get Congress to amend the FISA law, if it truly is an onerous burden. (which I highly doubt) Why did he ignore the law, instead of trying to get it changed?

-Arlos

Lil late cuz i had to work

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.

No dude thats not really an attack on our culture its something you see as an attack becuase you disagree. Not everyone who lives here is a christain bro and they shouldnt have it forced on them especially in a government building. Id say our culture is under attack becuase of the freedoms and rights that are slowly disapearing.

Over half of Americans are Christian or believe in God. It's the majority, and we all know the majority wins out in things like that (hello, gay rights).
It also isnt being forced on you. Do you honestly read every dollar bill or read your court walls? Is it hard to just leave out "Under God" when saying the pledge?

And why is our culture just now under attack? The Under God, 10 Commandments have been there a long time, and only when one person makes a stink about it, do other idiots complain also.
I'm almost willing to put money down that you had no problem until someone else had a problem with it.


Live with it and shut up like the rest of us. Like I said, majority always wins.

Darcler, some homework for you. Look up the term, "The tyrrany of the Majority" and the Founding Fathers' opinion of it, and how they addressed it in the Constituiton and Bill of Rights.

-Arlos

I don't know about the rest of you, but sticking to a shitload of guidelines written over 200 years ago when pertaining to current events is a bit...ridiculous.

you mean like, religions?

Yes, those certainly fall under the scope of my statement and my own personal belief.

Actually, our system of laws goes back much further than that. You can trace the origins of some of it to the Code of Hammurabi, which date back to 1775 BC. You can trace other elements to Roman law, which lead eventually to english Common Law, which is in large part what our system of laws is based on, plus elements taken from revolutionary thinkers and philosophers of the time.

Obviously, the Constitution is a living document in many ways, certainly in how it applies to technological issues which didn't exist back then. Also, some of it no longer applies, as large portions of it dealt with laws regarding slavery. Since Slavery was abolished, those sections of the Constitution might as well not be there. Also, there's always the possibility of adding amendments to the Constitution, and thus truly updating it to keep up with modern times. Of course, it hasn't happened for a long time, and the last attempt to do so, the Equal Rights Amendment passed congress, but died in the States, back int he 70s, I think it was.

In any case, it is part of the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the law found within the Constitution and to decide the INTENT of the founding fathers, if there are cases that are not difinitively covered. Wiretapping being considered part of the "Search & Siezure" portion of the 4th amendment is one such example. Their other main job is to decide if laws passed anywhere within the US do or do not conform to Constitutional law.

Ultimately, it has worked remarkably well up to now. We are, I believe, the longest-surviving Republic or Democracy ever. (or if not, we're getting close, cause I think only the Roman Republic may have lasted longer as a Republic, before Caesar turned it into a Dictatorship.)

-Arlos

My patient today writes software for the military-he's somewhat of a secret agent I guess, but he told me that they aren't recording conversations that aren't internationally related. /shrug

he said a lot of stuff. why do secret agents keep visiting me?

araby wrote:My patient today writes software for the military-he's somewhat of a secret agent I guess, but he told me that they aren't recording conversations that aren't internationally related. /shrug

he said a lot of stuff. why do secret agents keep visiting me?

He wants to get jiggy wid you.