Echalon Under the Clinton Administration.

[cardaway]

Next, you've not been unreasonably searched; I've not been unreasonably searched. You could have been, but reality is you haven't. Coulda, woulda, shoulda... you nor I have lost NOTHING. Until you are the direct subject of an unreasonable search as determined by a U.S. court, you've not lost that right.

Since when do we have to be a victim, or even have threat of being a victim, to have a legit concern about a change in the laws concerning something?

 

[Tigger_Magic]

To be fair, terrorism is nothing new - it's an ancient front of arms. The Zealots in Israel, for instance, fought Roman occupation with hit-and-run tactics in public places.



Rich::

This is quite true, however the Zealots in Israel did not have the ability to annihilate entire cities, killing tens or hundreds of thousands or more, with a single device. While horror may be a relative term, the force of numbers is not.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Since when do we have to be a victim, or even have threat of being a victim, to have a legit concern about a change in the laws concerning something?

You can be concerned to your heart's content, cardaway. Heaven knows I can't and wouldn't try to stop you. JMO, there are more important things to be concerned about, but everyone's entitled to their own priorities.

My point is that there is absolutely no proof that anyone has taken a huge eraser and removed the 4th Amendment from the U.S. Constitution.

Allegations to the contrary are just today's convenient mallet used to bash the administration. SSDD.

 

[cardaway]

You can be concerned to your heart's content, cardaway. Heaven knows I can't and wouldn't try to stop you. JMO, there are more important things to be concerned about, but everyone's entitled to their own priorities.

I know the feeling. That's exactly how I feel about Iraq and the people who support our continued "war" there.

 

[dcentity2000]

This is quite true, however the Zealots in Israel did not have the ability to annihilate entire cities, killing tens or hundreds of thousands or more, with a single device. While horror may be a relative term, the force of numbers is not.

True, but didn't the British have a pretty potent force at their disposal? I mean, they had like, an army. They torched the whitehouse!



Rich::

 

[sodaseller]

First, you well could have been searched without being aware of it, under two provisions, one independent of the current firestorm. First, the Patriot Act authorized the proverbial "sneak and peek", described by Dahlia Lithwick as follows:

The law before and how it changed: Police used to have to "knock and announce" their intention of searching before executing any warrant. This gave the person being searched advance notice and a clear picture of what authorities were looking for. In 1978 FISA changed the law, allowing the FISA court to authorize sneak-and-peek warrants but only in cases where "foreign powers or their agents" were suspected of terrorism. The Patriot Act expands the use of these warrants if "immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result." Under Patriot, such warrants are no longer limited to terrorism investigations but now extend to include any criminal investigation at all. Moreover, the act requires only that notice be given of the search or wiretap "within a reasonable period of its execution," which may be extended by the court for "good cause shown."

Second, the recent firestorm involves, to the extent we understand it , some randomized search of electronic communications (See Se. Rockefeller's letter). NSA always did this, but was forced under FISA to use "minimization" procedures to attempt to ensure that no electronic communications from US citizens were intercepted. The Adminsitration claims it is not controlled by FISA. You would not know if such communications were intercepted.

So I may have been searched in two ways without knowing it, though I concede that it is unlikely. That you are unaware of these provisions says much.

As far as Admin quotes: http://www.slate.com/id/2132934/

Q: did you skip the basic safeguards of asking courts for permission for the intercepts?

A: First of all, I—right after September the 11th, I knew we were fighting a different kind of war. And so I asked people in my administration to analyze how best for me and our government to do the job people expect us to do, which is to detect and prevent a possible attack. That's what the American people want. We looked at the possible scenarios. And the people responsible for helping us protect and defend came forth with the current program, because it enables us to move faster and quicker. And that's important. We've got to be fast on our feet, quick to detect and prevent.

We use [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] still—you're referring to the FISA court in your question—of course, we use FISAs. But FISA is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect.

—President

As or the 4th Am's prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure meaning that probable cause must be found by a neutral magistrate (i.e., the traditional safeguards noted above that the President responded to, admitting a "different kind of war" which necessitated that he move "faster and quicker" than that permitted by judicial review, see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

Searches and Seizures Pursuant to Warrant

Emphasis upon the necessity of warrants places the judgment of an independent magistrate between law enforcement officers and the privacy of citizens, authorizes invasion of that privacy only upon a showing that constitutes probable cause, and limits that invasion by specification of the person to be seized, the place to be searched, and the evidence to be sought. 87 While a warrant is issued ex parte, its validity may be contested in a subsequent suppression hearing if incriminating evidence is found and a prosecution is brought. 88


Issuance by Neutral Magistrate .--In numerous cases, the Court has referred to the necessity that warrants be issued by a ''judicial officer'' or a ''magistrate.'' 89 ''The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime. Any assumption that evidence sufficient to support a magistrate's disinterested determination to issue a search warrant will justify the officers in making a search without a warrant would reduce the Amendment to a nullity and leave the people's homes secure only in the discretion of police officers.'' 90 These cases do not mean that only a judge or an official who is a lawyer may issue warrants, but they do stand for two tests of the validity of the power of the issuing party to so act. ''He must be neutral and detached, and he must be capable of determining whether probable cause exists for the requested arrest or search.'' 91 The first test cannot be met when the issuing party is himself engaged in law enforcement activities, 92 but the Court has not required that an issuing party have that independence of tenure and guarantee of salary which characterizes federal judges. 93 And in passing on the second test, the Court has been essentially pragmatic in assessing whether the issuing party possesses the capacity to determine probable cause. 94


Probable Cause .--The concept of ''probable cause'' is central to the meaning of the warrant clause. Neither the Fourth Amendment nor the federal statutory provisions relevant to the area define ''probable cause;'' the definition is entirely a judicial construct. An applicant for a warrant must present to the magistrate facts sufficient to enable the officer himself to make a determination of probable cause. ''In determining what is probable cause . . . [w]e are concerned only with the question whether the affiant had reasonable grounds at the time of his affidavit . . . for the belief that the law was being violated on the premises to be searched; and if the apparent facts set out in the affidavit are such that a reasonably discreet and prudent man would be led to believe that there was a commission of the offense charged, there is probable cause justifying the issuance of a warrant.'' 95 Probable cause is to be determined according to ''the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.'' 96 Warrants are favored in the law and utilization of them will not be thwarted by a hypertechnical reading of the sup porting affidavit and supporting testimony. 97 For the same reason, reviewing courts will accept evidence of a less ''judicially competent or persuasive character than would have justified an officer in acting on his own without a warrant.'' 98 Courts will sustain the determination of probable cause so long as ''there was substantial basis for [the magistrate] to conclude that'' there was probable cause. 99

As to whether it touches citizens

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html

President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night.

The White House made no comment last night. A senior official reached by telephone said the issue was too sensitive to talk about. None of several press officers responded to telephone or e-mail messages.

Congressional sources familiar with limited aspects of the program would not discuss any classified details but made it clear there were serious questions about the legality of the NSA actions. The sources, who demanded anonymity, said there were conditions under which it would be possible to gather and retain information on Americans if the surveillance were part of an investigation into foreign intelligence.

But those cases are supposed to be minimized. The sources said the actual work of the NSA is so closely held that it is difficult to determine whether it is acting within the law.

The argument that "ntil you are the direct subject of an unreasonable search as determined by a U.S. court, you've not lost that right" is almost too stupid to comment on. It's hard to tell whether you are truly having difficulty grasping the concept or are just being deliberately obtuse. Your argument is antithetical to the conception of a "right". A right is capable of being enforced - defined as "A just or legal claim or title." Of course it can be taken away, even if the actual violation has not occurred. Are you trying to assert a Zen argument (I don't think so).

Think of it this way if it's a hard concept to grasp. If you own property, grant me an easement to cross it. Go ahead and record that. I promise not to look that up any time soon, so I won't even know where you live, so I certainly will not cross your property any time soon. Now get your land appraised and see if you're lost a right, and with it, any value. Methinks you have, and the appraiser will agree. You no longer have the right to exclude me from that area. And that is true even if we never litigate that issue.

Without getting into the concepts of standing and "case or controversy", understand that courts routinely make "declaratory judgments" as to right seven before an actual dispute:
Fla. Stat §86.011

The circuit and county courts have jurisdiction within their respective jurisdictional amounts to declare rights, status, and other equitable or legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. No action or procedure is open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment is demanded. The court's declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect and such declaration has the force and effect of a final judgment.

One court stated as such "Allegations sufficient to indicate that the complaining party's rights or privileges are in doubt or jeopardy are of particular necessity when a judicial declaration that a law is unconstitutional is sought"

If that doesn't make sense to you, there's no use discussing it further, because you will never get it.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

(snipped to save bandwidth) If that doesn't make sense to you, there's no use discussing it further, because you will never get it.

All that space wasted to issue a non-response to "Please provide a quote where anyone in this administration has said U.S. citizens no longer have any rights under the 4th Amendment." Wouldn't it have been easier for you to just admit: "Yeah, no one ever said that." Even in your quote from the President, there is nothing that remotely resembles him saying that U.S. citizens no longer have any rights under the 4th Amendment.

It is so amusing to watch the left get themselves so twisted over this non-issue. It is just another example of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

 

[sodaseller]

All that space wasted to issue a non-response to "Please provide a quote where anyone in this administration has said U.S. citizens no longer have any rights under the 4th Amendment." Wouldn't it have been easier for you to just admit: "Yeah, no one ever said that." Even in your quote from the President, there is nothing that remotely resembles him saying that U.S. citizens no longer have any rights under the 4th Amendment.

It is so amusing to watch the left get themselves so twisted over this non-issue. It is just another example of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

You're just being dishonest - your choice

 

[Tigger_Magic]

You're just being dishonest - your choice

When you can't debate, obfuscate. Or in your case, resort to slamming.

 

[cardaway]

When you can't debate, obfuscate. Or in your case, resort to slamming.

It is just another example of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Within ten minutes too.

 

[sodaseller]

When you can't debate, obfuscate. Or in your case, resort to slamming.

So is your argument that the law is never violated unless and until the allegaed violator admits that s/he is knowingly violating the law, or unless a court has entered a judgment to that effect? If that is your argument, I concede that neither has yet occurred. But that makes it impossible to ever evaluate the behavior in any conceivable timeframe, which may be the point. That's a diversion, not an argument.

If you're honest, you will admit that the President responding to a question about avoiding "traditional safeguards" concedes the relevant facts. Yet another example of why meaningful dialogue with Presidential defenders is futile

 

[DawnCt1]

Since when do we have to be a victim, or even have threat of being a victim, to have a legit concern about a change in the laws concerning something?

Maybe you should be more concerned when you scan your grocery card at the check out line, "someone" knows your food preferences and buying habits. Maybe you should be concerned when you charge on your American Express or Visa; nothing is more revealing than your spending habits. Then of course, your phone company knows who you call, the cable company knows what you watch and then if your car has GPS, someone knows where you have been. Don't get sick because your insurance company will know almost as much as your proctologist. It is CRAZY to whine about the privacy of terrorists who reside in this country, not necessarily American citizens, when you voluntarily and involuntarily relinquish your privacy everytime you walk out of your front door.

 

[DawnCt1]

Sodaseller. Anyone who wades through the left wing cut and paste talking points that you have dredged up has much more patience than I. Having said that, President Bush will NEVER be impeached over this, just as his predicessors, Carter and Clinton would have never been impeached. The American people understand the need, more than ever, to be protected from the Islamo Fascists. Those are the fascists YOU need to concern yourselves with. Furthermore, it the Democrats pursue this tactic, they will be seen as more concerned about the supposed rights of terrorists than about the life and liberty of the American people. Saddam Hussein has aserted that he has been tortured and beaten at the hands of his American guards. Maybe you want to rant about that for a while. It will provide some additional comic relief for some of us.

 

[momof2inPA]

This is quite true, however the Zealots in Israel did not have the ability to annihilate entire cities, killing tens or hundreds of thousands or more, with a single device. While horror may be a relative term, the force of numbers is not.

You truly are paranoid.

From Rush's talking points, I have concluded one thing. The people that like to call themselves "Patriots" are loyal to George Bush, not our country.

Those of us defending the Constitution and the government established by our forefathers are the true "Patriots."

 

[sodaseller]

Sodaseller. Anyone who wades through the left wing cut and paste talking points that you have dredged up has much more patience than I. Having said that, President Bush will NEVER be impeached over this, just as his predicessors, Carter and Clinton would have never been impeached. The American people understand the need, more than ever, to be protected from the Islamo Fascists. Those are the fascists YOU need to concern yourselves with. Furthermore, it the Democrats pursue this tactic, they will be seen as more concerned about the supposed rights of terrorists than about the life and liberty of the American people. Saddam Hussein has aserted that he has been tortured and beaten at the hands of his American guards. Maybe you want to rant about that for a while. It will provide some additional comic relief for some of us.

Dawn, you don't lack patience, you lack capacity. You don't even know what's been posted. Those aren't C&Ps from political websites, they're legal citations.

I have never opined as to what the political consequences will be from this action, nor their wisdom strictly as a security measure. The former is not within my purview, the latter beyond the scope of this thread. I have only opined as to their legality, and about the dishonesty of the Administration, some of which you have repeated, not surprisingly, by suggesting that it is a mere continuation of prior policies, notwithstanding the President's boast that he realzied new approaches were needed. You can't even impose a coherence to your cynicism.

I also have made clear that I think this is an egregious violation of everything the nation I love stands for, which I suspect is far different from your conception of what makes this nation great. America is an ideal, not an ethnicity. We are Athens, not Sparta

And I don't think you're concerned about any threat, reading your posts, ceratinly not the threat of fascists. We all have a choice to build or to destroy, to serve the Light or to serve the Darkness. Your choice has already been made clear

 

[Tigger_Magic]

So is your argument that the law is never violated unless and until the allegaed violator admits that s/he is knowingly violating the law, or unless a court has entered a judgment to that effect? If that is your argument, I concede that neither has yet occurred. But that makes it impossible to ever evaluate the behavior in any conceivable timeframe, which may be the point. That's a diversion, not an argument.

I don't recall saying anything like this, but thanks for trying to stuff this argument in my mouth.

I do not know beyond a reasonable doubt that any law has been violated in this situation. I do know, have listened to and read enough opinions, tirades, blogs, thoughts, discussions and talking points. It's possible to find legal scholars to support either contention: (a) what the administration did was legal or (b) what the administration did was illegal. So far there has not been a determination either way by the legislative or judicial branch, which, as my feeble mind understands it, is the way our system of checks and balances works.

I refuse to take the word of the NYT, much less the opinion of any talking head (no matter what their political position is) as to whether the administration did or did not violate the law. If a Congressional committee or a court of law issues a determination that states the law was violated, that I will accept. And if the President violated the law, I will write my Congressman and ask that he be impeached.

If you're honest, you will admit that the President responding to a question about avoiding "traditional safeguards" concedes the relevant facts. Yet another example of why meaningful dialogue with Presidential defenders is futile

"If" I am honest... wow, that's quite a determination to make for someone you don't know from Adam.

Unlike you, I am unwilling to leap to unfounded conclusions based primarily on my personal political stance. I don't know all the facts of this issue yet. Based solely on what I know so far, I am not convinced that any law was violated, that any rights have been obliterated, that we are in any danger of an overthrow of the Constitution. That might change if/when more facts come to light. But they must be facts, not opinions/talking points.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

You truly are paranoid.

And you base this diagnosis on the post you quoted? From what university did you get your psychology degree. Whichever one it was, I'd strongly encourage you to ask for your money back, because you got ripped off big time!

From Rush's talking points, I have concluded one thing. The people that like to call themselves "Patriots" are loyal to George Bush, not our country.

Those of us defending the Constitution and the government established by out forefathers are the true "Patriots."

 

[DawnCt1]

Dawn, you don't lack patience, you lack capacity. You don't even know what's been posted. Those aren't C&Ps from political websites, they're legal citations.

I. We are Athens, not Sparta

And I don't think you're concerned about any threat, reading your posts, ceratinly not the threat of fascists. We all have a choice to build or to destroy, to serve the Light or to serve the Darkness. Your choice has already been made clear

And you have no lack of arrogance. If the terrorists have their way, we won't be "Athens or Sparta", we will be Atlantis. Were you this concerned when Aldridge Aims' home was broken into for a warrantless search or was it a "good thing" that we caught him. BTW, he actually was an American citizen, unlike many of the alledged victims of the "evil Bush's wiretaps".

 

[momof2inPA]

.. The American people understand the need, more than ever, to be protected from the Islamo Fascists. Those are the fascists YOU need to concern yourselves with. Furthermore, it the Democrats pursue this tactic, they will be seen as more concerned about the supposed rights of terrorists than about the life and liberty of the American people..

The American people, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives understand the need to protect ourselves from the Bush administration, now more than ever. They can't legally re-write the rules to fit their purposes/ their agenda, so they ignore the rules, because they know their "core" will never desert them. This shouldn't be a right vs left issue. It should be an American people vs corrupt government issue. Luckily, enough people on either side on the political arena realize this, that something will be done.

 

[momof2inPA]

And you base this diagnosis on the post you quoted? From what university did you get your psychology degree. Whichever one it was, I'd strongly encourage you to ask for your money back, because you got ripped off big time!

Sometimes, it's painful to read your posts. Here is a thought, by a well respected rightie to remember in this situation:

Man is not free unless government is limited. As government expands, liberty contracts.