Echalon Under the Clinton Administration.

[chobie]

I choose freedom from being spied on in my own home, on my own phone, on my own computer. It's a shame to imagine our government wasting resources spying on Americans when they should be protecting our borders and screening the bad guys.

Why do you trust them so much, Tigger Magic? Haven't you ever heard of abuse of power? This is it.

Plus, we don't have "talking points." We just think for ourselves. No one feeds us talking points. Novel idea; you should try it.

True. Besides aren't Conservatives usally the ones that don't trust the government? I mean they don't trust them to handle social security, they don't trust them to handle medical care, but they trust them to spy on us?

 

[momof2inPA]

Denying that the problem of terrorism exists and the potential scope of the problem is many's primary problem. Seems to me people who believe this were the first ones to blame Bush for 9/11 and will be the first ones who blame him for a potential future attack.

The 9-11 attackers were not Americans. Most of them were Saudi's, openly taking flying lessons and practicing their routes in the months leading up to the attacks. Bush and Co. should have approached the court for wire tapping authority in the case of the 9-11 terrorists. It would have been granted, and it would not have been abuse of power.

I don't think anyone is arguing for no surveillance. We are arguing that the administration should go through the courts, in a legal manner. It's a valuable system of checks and balances.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I choose freedom from being spied on in my own home, on my own phone, on my own computer. It's a shame to imagine our government wasting resources spying on Americans when they should be protecting our borders and screening the bad guys.

Why do you trust them so much, Tigger Magic? Haven't you ever heard of abuse of power? This is it.

Since I have done nothing wrong/illegal, I have nothing to fear. Do you?

Just an FYI... I don't trust the gov't. any further than I can throw it. However, in this instance, I'm trying to maintain an open mind before I leap to an automatic conclusion based on my personal politics.

Plus, we don't have "talking points." We just think for ourselves. No one feeds us talking points. Novel idea; you should try it.

At least 98% of this thread is nothing more than "talking points" cobbled together from various talking head shows, web sites, articles, blogs, etc. That applies to both sides.

 

[sodaseller]

You might consider meditating on the advice you so freely bestow on others. "Pithy attack" ... oh phuleeze... quit being so melodramatic. As for what's been admitted and conceded, I quote: "Beware of responding formulaically." Again, thanks for sharing your side's talking points and for keeping them so pithy, too!

Please confirm, if possible, that there is any factual dispute as to whether the Administration sought a warrant either in advance or even after conducting these searches.

USA Today

Now that law is at the center of a fierce controversy over the administration's decision to spy on some Americans' international phone calls without going to a secret court for a warrant.

"Do I have the legal authority to do this?" Bush said Monday. "And the answer is, 'Absolutely.' " He cited his constitutional authority as commander in chief and the congressional resolution, which he said authorized him to bypass requirements for a warrant.

If you are aware of any other source for the proposition that the Administration indeed sought judicial approval, I would like to see it.

 

[dcentity2000]

True. Besides aren't Conservatives usally the ones that don't trust the government? I mean they don't trust them to handle social security, they don't trust them to handle medical care, but they trust them to spy on us?

Interesting point. Conservatism advocates minimal government, so it is strange this Republican administration is doing the exact opposite.



Rich::

 

[M:SteveO]

The 9-11 attackers were not Americans. Most of them were Saudi's, openly taking flying lessons and practicing their routes in the months leading up to the attacks. Bush and Co. should have approached the court for wire tapping authority in the case of the 9-11 terrorists. It would have been granted, and it would not have been abuse of power.

I don't think anyone is arguing for no surveillance. We are arguing that the administration should go through the courts, in a legal manner. It's a valuable system of checks and balances.

The feds got Zacarias Moussoui's (the 20th hijacker) computer shortly before the attacks occurred, which they could have used to extract information from. But, due to the bureaucracy involved with the FISA court, they couldn't do it quickly enough. The feds thought about shipping him off the France, actually, so that the search could occur quicker, but by the that time, the attacks had already occurred. But I see where most of your priorities are.

 

[chobie]

Since I have done nothing wrong/illegal, I have nothing to fear. Do you?.

Oh, I see, so if you want the Constitution upheld its because you must be guilty of something.

 

[M:SteveO]

Interesting point. Conservatism advocates minimal government, so it is strange this Republican administration is doing the exact opposite.

Rich::

True, but us conservatives advocate less gov't is good in all areas except defense (i.e. Reagan). This president has done nothing to curb spending and is really spending at a greater rate than his predecessor, a democrat, which is truy a problem in my mind.

 

[AlanH]

I haven't read the entire thread. But I really think the issue is very simple. Read the 4th Amendment to the Constitution:

"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."

There is a long history of court decisions that wiretaps are subject to the 4th Amemdment. I just do not see how the President can authorize wiretaps on American citizens inside the United States without a warrant and not violate the 4th Admendment. He can not appeal to "inherent" power or authority under the 2nd Article of the Constitutiion when the 4th Admendment is part of the same Constitution and very clear.

It doesn't matter how serious the situation is or how valuable the information obtained by warrantless searches is, it is a violation of the Constitution.

Unless Bush can pull some legal rabbit out of the hat, he should be impeached
for violating the Constitution and his oath of office. That oath by the way is in Article 2, Section 2, Clause 8 of the Constitution:

:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

[momof2inPA]

Since I have done nothing wrong/illegal, I have nothing to fear. Do you?

Just an FYI... I don't trust the gov't. any further than I can throw it. However, in this instance, I'm trying to maintain an open mind before I leap to an automatic conclusion based on my personal politics. At least 98% of this thread is nothing more than "talking points" cobbled together from various talking head shows, web sites, articles, blogs, etc. That applies to both sides.

I don't listen to talking head shows, don't read political websites or blogs, I don't even have extended cable. I read a few newpapers and listen to the News. Then I form my OWN opinion. Why is that concept so difficult to grasp? Hmm. It's a pity.

And whether or not I have done or may have done something worth investigating is for a court to decide, not an individual member of any president's administration. There is a system of checks and balances to protect your rights and my rights. Why give up that protection so easily? Think about it. These are your rights you want to give up.

 

[sodaseller]

Interesting point. Conservatism advocates minimal government, so it is strange this Republican administration is doing the exact opposite.



Rich::

Simply put, they don't think they will be effected.

Asset forfeiture under RICO and other civil forfeiture statues is the paradigmatic example. All were enthusiastic when it was passed - we would keep those criminal from profiting. We even gave broad language to seize all related property. Since at least 1992, the USSC has been severely curtailing the practice, which was deemed excessive. Did a paper once analyzing declining public acceptance of the practice under H. Richard Niehbuhr's (son of the famous Proestant theologian) "Relational Value Theory", and overly fancy academic way of saying "Depends on who's ox is being gored" (a particularly fun pun given the biblical origins of asset forfeiture, which cam from killing a beast (and surrendering its value) if it caused others harm).

Making it even simpler, asset forfeiture's broad provisions were being used to seize homes of parents of teenagers that had pot there, or absentee landowners, etc. Suddenly the populace was outraged - i.e., when we agreed to this, we never though it would be used on good white people! Four USSC decisions later, the practice has been severely limited.

The minute that "good white people" are effected by this program, it will be ended. That's what some mean when they say they have "nothing to fear", i.e., these kind of law enforcement tools are not used against people like us!

 

[M:SteveO]

Oh, I see, so if you want the Constitution upheld its because you must be guilty of something.

The Constitution gives the president (any president) the power to do this in times of war and according to his role as commander-in-chief. Other presidents have claimed this power (no, they have not actually done it) as the right of the president. In other words, previous presidents believed that the office of the president has the authority to conduct warrantless searches for national security purposes.

 

[chobie]

Simply put, they don't think they will be effected.
The minute that "good white people" are effected by this program, it will be ended. That's what some mean when they say they have "nothing to fear", i.e., these kind of law enforcement tools are not used against people like us!

Sad, but true.

 

[momof2inPA]

The feds got Zacarias Moussoui's (the 20th hijacker) computer shortly before the attacks occurred, which they could have used to extract information from. But, due to the bureaucracy involved with the FISA court, they couldn't do it quickly enough. The feds thought about shipping him off the France, actually, so that the search could occur quicker, but by the that time, the attacks had already occurred. But I see where most of your priorities are.

In hindsight, they should have made the search more of a priority. The solution is to improve the bureaucracy, not violate the Constitution.

 

[chobie]

The Constitution gives the president (any president) the power to do this in times of war and according to his role as commander-in-chief. Other presidents have claimed this power (no, they have not actually done it) as the right of the president. In other words, previous presidents believed that the office of the president has the authority to conduct warrantless searches for national security purposes.

Where in the constitution does it say that?

 

[momof2inPA]

The Constitution gives the president (any president) the power to do this in times of war and according to his role as commander-in-chief. Other presidents have claimed this power (no, they have not actually done it) as the right of the president. In other words, previous presidents believed that the office of the president has the authority to conduct warrantless searches for national security purposes.

What war? The "War" against terror is a nebulous and never-ending situation. The war against Iraq was declared over on a battleship.

 

[M:SteveO]

The minute that "good white people" are effected by this program, it will be ended. That's what some mean when they say they have "nothing to fear", i.e., these kind of law enforcement tools are not used against people like us!

"Good white people" aren't effected by this program because most 'good white people' aren't making international phone calls to terrorists. Do you think the gov't really has time to listen on millions of what's-for-dinner-tonight phone calls? I don't think so.

 

[sodaseller]

"Good white people" aren't effected by this program because most 'good white people' aren't making international phone calls to terrorists. Do you think the gov't really has time to listen on millions of what's-for-dinner-tonight phone calls? I don't think so.

Thanks for proving my point!

 

[M:SteveO]

What war? The "War" against terror is a nebulous and never-ending situation. The war against Iraq was declared over on a battleship.

And that, my friends, is exactly your problem. You don't believe there is even is a war against terrorism. How quickly 9/11 fades away from your memory. But I guarantee that you would be the first one in line to attack Bush for another attack. I completely understand your viewpoint now, because it is wrong for the gov't to come in and spy on you when there's no reason to.

 

[M:SteveO]

In hindsight, they should have made the search more of a priority. The solution is to improve the bureaucracy, not violate the Constitution.

The point is there is bureaucracy, which is detrimental to the ever-changing world of terrorism intelligence gathering. Let's remember that for the vast majority of cases, the gov't seeks a warrant from the FISA court. This warrantless searching is a limited program needed for quick surveillance that other presidents have claimed.