Court ruled what we already know - warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional.

[TK-8252]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/17/domesticspying.lawsuit/index.html

[Dagobahn Eagle]

It's seemed for a while that "the second McCarthy era" is faltering. People are starting to realize just what Bush is doing to their great nation. It's good to see it.

[Samuel Dravis]

Read about that a few hours ago. It's good to hear.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

A "landmark victory" indeed. Now let's hope it gets all the way through.

[Nancy Allen``]

So0 no more spying by the NSA then. Makes the job to catch terrorists harder but if it makes Americans sleep easier at night...

[Dagobahn Eagle]

She declared that the program "violates the separation of powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III."

 

Her ruling went on to say that "the president of the United States ... has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders."

 

The lawsuit, filed January 17 by civil rights organizations, lawyers, journalists and educators, "challenges the constitutionality of a secret government program to intercept vast quantities of the international telephone and Internet communications of innocent Americans without court approval."

Good show. Score one for civil liberties.

[TK-8252]

So0 no more spying by the NSA then. Makes the job to catch terrorists harder but if it makes Americans sleep easier at night...

 

Except that's not what this ruling does in the slightest.

 

NSA can still wiretap suspected terrorists. Which I encourage.

 

They just have to do it legally.

[Nancy Allen``]

That's one of the biggest problems with the whole issue, as it's not unreasonable to say that this has been going on for years, and in doing so they have snapped up terrorists. Certainly I can understand where people are coming from, especially as the majority of them fear the athorities, distrust the government and hate Bush more than they do the terrorists. But I remember a case where the FBI was denied permission by the courts to wiretap a suspect, they did it anyway and got information on stolen weapons to be sold to terrorists, which the FBI couldn't use. That's crazy.

[Samuel Dravis]

That's one of the biggest problems with the whole issue, as it's not unreasonable to say that this has been going on for years, and in doing so they have snapped up terrorists. Certainly I can understand where people are coming from, especially as the majority of them fear the athorities, distrust the government and hate Bush more than they do the terrorists. But I remember a case where the FBI was denied permission by the courts to wiretap a suspect, they did it anyway and got information on stolen weapons to be sold to terrorists, which the FBI couldn't use. That's crazy.

I'm unsure of how this has an effect on the ability to wiretap the all the terrorists that the government wants... They simply have to go through FISA. Notably, FISA has only not allowed about 4 wiretaps out of something like 10,000 (I don't remember the exact numbers, however). It's probably a pretty safe bet that they will be able to obtain the warrants they need.

 

The instance you talk about, with the information not being able to be used, is EXACTLY what I want to see happen. When the FBI exceeds their authority it means they are not working in the interests of the citizens whom they are supposed to be protecting, as those citizens set (via proxy) the guidelines within which the FBI must function. If they are not working in the interests of the citizens, just who are they working for?

 

And yes, we should be wary of the government (though not paranoid). Terrorists can't blow up 'liberty', they can't kill 'the pursuit of happiness'. The only people who can destroy the ideals of American society is ourselves.

[TK-8252]

And yes, we should be wary of the government (though not paranoid). Terrorists can't blow up 'liberty', they can't kill 'the pursuit of happiness'. The only people who can destroy the ideals of American society is ourselves.

 

Amen, sir.

[Nancy Allen``]

So, you want terrorists to be able to get off on weapons smuggling charges even there is conclusive evidence of their involvement?

[TK-8252]

So, you want terrorists to be able to get off on weapons smuggling charges even there is conclusive evidence of their involvement?

 

I've never even heard of that story. When was this??

 

It sounds like something that could happen... a worst case scenario. But that's the cost I guess when you don't live in an authoritarian state.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Makes the job to catch terrorists harder but if it makes Americans sleep easier at night...

I don't think it'll be that much harder.

[TK-8252]

What they need is more funding to the Dept. of Homeland Security.

 

First they need to GET RID OF the joke that is the Department of Homeland Security. Along with 2/3 of the rest of the massive bureaucracies that exist in the central government.

 

Then the government can actually get something done, instead of just expecting the rest of the bureaucrats to do something and then blaming eachother when something happens. FEMA anyone?

 

And stopping the ****ing around in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East would help.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Yeah, I removed the funding part when I realized I had no idea of what I was talking about:rolleyes:. Not in time, though, apparently.

[Nancy Allen``]

I've never even heard of that story. When was this??

 

It occured some twelve years ago, about the time of Waco. No it was later than that. Not sure of how accurate it is, something a little bird told me.

 

It sounds like something that could happen... a worst case scenario. But that's the cost I guess when you don't live in an authoritarian state.

 

Yeah, that's the thing. By rights the good guys have to play by the rules. The bad guys are pretty much expected not to.

[TK-8252]

It occured some twelve years ago, about the time of Waco. No it was later than that. Not sure of how accurate it is, something a little bird told me.

 

 

 

Yeah, that's the thing. By rights the good guys have to play by the rules. The bad guys are pretty much expected not to.

 

Chances are that if there's a real al-Qaeda plot suspected, the FISA court is going to issue a warrant no problem. Twelve years ago we weren't under threat from international terrorism, so getting off when the FBI screws up isn't likely. We do live in a... if I may borrow from the official neocon terminology... post-9/11 world.

[Nancy Allen``]

I think post Iraq world is perhaps a better term. In a post September 11 world everyone was all for going after terrorism. Iraq in a lot of ways had wrecked that and the target is less terrorism in the minds of a lot of people and more Bush and America.

[toms]

Its alwys strange to me how much 9/11 has altered the mindset of the american people. Terrorism isnt new. Its been around for centuries. All the other major powers have experienced it in some way or another numerous times.. even the US has experienced it with Timothy McVey and a number of incidents abroad.

 

Its been know for centuries tha you can't have a FREE society that is also a SECURE society.. you have to choose one or the other. Or some sort of balance.. which you could then argue is neither. Hence the saying "the price of freedom". People used to be willing to pay the price of freedom.. now they are more concerned about security and tv.

 

Iran has very high security. Almost no trouble at all. No pesky terrorists or trouble makers. Not much crime either. The secret police cleared all that right up.

Now the only people committing crimes are the secret police.. but thats because they have been given unlimited power to carry out their duties without the pesky interference of things like due process and oversight.

 

If evidence that was obtained illegally was allowed in court, then why wouldn't people commit illegal acts to get the evidence? They'd just wiretap everyone and then worry about the consequences later.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

It's always strange to me how much 9/11 has altered the mindset of the American people.

All large-scale attacks such as 9/11 alter mindsets. Nothing strange about it.

 

What's strange - and scary - to me is how the neo-cons seem to accept everything their masters and allies do. Torture is wrong until America does it, then suddenly it's not only OK, but a fundamental part of keeping the country safe. Killing civilians is wrong, until US's best friend Israel does it, then it's suddenly the victim's fault she's getting killed.

[Nancy Allen``]

After the implication that Lonna Vash was tortured to death I've gone against torture as well, but you're right. I was one of those neo cons who, if such tactics would work to gain information from a terrorist, then bring it on. Nothing like the **** pulled in Abu Gharib but if it meant saving innocent lives **** whatever rights terrorists may have.

[Windu Chi]

You know this really enrages me.

 

This wiretapping is another example of Bush and his republician allies atempt to grap absolute power in the U.S. goverment.

 

The same simlar thing as Hitler did in Germany.

 

He is trying to make it as he and his allies are always right and never ever wrong.

 

I been trying to tell you people that if people keep supporting this f**ker; then there is going to be hell to pay.

[rccar328]

Well, a better case of judge-shopping I've never seen...leave it to the ACLU and CAIR to find some liberal wacko Carter-appointed judge who they knew would rule just the way they wanted.

 

I read the opinion...the decision stands on shaky ground, to say the least.

 

In reality, anyway, this decision means nothing; it will be appealed, and very likely will be overturned.

[TK-8252]

Well, a better case of judge-shopping I've never seen...leave it to the ACLU and CAIR to find some liberal wacko Carter-appointed judge who they knew would rule just the way they wanted.

 

Yup... only a liberal wacko could possibly stand for the Constitution.

 

This ruling was not liberal at all. Seems more like a conservative (note: not neoconservative) ruling to me. Big government = bad.

 

In reality, anyway, this decision means nothing; it will be appealed, and very likely will be overturned.

 

Sadly, you're right about that. It's what happens when all three branches of government are controlled by a single political party.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Yup... only a liberal wacko could possibly stand for the Constitution.

Right. It's not like the neo-cons piss their pants out of fury every time somone dares as much as think about interpreting their 2nd Amendment any other way than they do.