More Egregious Affront to the US Constituions

I don't think the courts can astutely interpret connections of data, and the probability of such. Law is a different thing that works when all the pieces of a body is laid out, whereas the implication of different scenarios, and situations can be addressed. If the intelligence is strong, yet in piecemeal, then I'm afraid the courts cannot or will not grant approval when all the experts in the area state this should be an absoloute go.

 

It wasn't my Clinton administration. I never voted for Clinton, nor did I vote for Gore in 2000.

I myself mentioned our govts. history of using illegal spying. That is a reason why we should be vigilant and aggressive in checking that power rather than rolling over and letting them get away with it whenever they want, on whomever they want. They have already shown themselves to target people for surveilance that were never a threat, such as the MLK jr., or the socialist workers party etc.

I would also believe Clinton should have been impeached, and held accountable if he was spying without warrants, or court approval.

The Waco group was also stockpiling firearms and explosives. That would be a little more of a threat than a quaker group and a 79 year old grandmother who are all pacificists. But if the govt. wants to gather private data on them, then let them show a court there is a need for it. I haven't seen any indication that there was illegal wiretapping or surveilance going on in regards to the Waco group. I believe they had court approval for that part of it.

 

Then you are basically against het 4th amendment of the constitution? Because the constitution spells out the the courts are very specifically the ones to interpret connections of data, and the reliability of that data in regards with carrying out this kind of surveillance and information gathering.

Case history of the FISA court shows that they almost always agree with the desire to wiretap. They do so at better than a 98% clip.

 

As pointed out, a peaceful religious group may be the next Waco from the Clinton era, or the next Jones camp. The court order afterward is in doubt when the type of intelligence does not present itself in a format where intangibles is key. We should have the intelligence to act when a demonstrated threat of terrorism is a clear and present danger. This is the differance of wrongful spying in the 1950's compared now is the establishment of a clear and present danger, as it deals now with terroristic cells.

 

I agree we have to spy on terrorists cells, and use spying to prevent terrorism. But when the executive branch places a group of quakers on the list as being potential terrorists, and lies about having congressional approval, then I think it is reasonable to demand that the checks and balances laid out in the 4th amendment be followed to ensure that groups the govt. calls terrorist cells really are. Because despite being labeled as a terrorist threat by this administration, the Quakers are not a terrorist threat.

 

I will disagree with your specificity. The courts must have all facts and precedent to establish the sancitiy of the law. The report by the Justice dept. to those in the other branches of government demonstrate the keeping of Constitutional precedent by the President on his actions from aspects of the actual Constitution to reasoning and implication of past cases. This is strong grounds on why the actions is NOT in conflict with the 4th. I am a big supporter of the Bill of Rights in it's entirety. I refute the assumption of your question...

 

I missed this part on the claim.

 

It will be ok to agree to disagree in this situation, then. Because gathering information related to illegal activity such as terrorism seems to be what the 4th amendment is all about.

Either way, thanks for sharing your views in well reasoned and thoughtful manner. I have enjoyed this discussion.

 

That was a reference to Dick Cheney claiming that congressional leaders had been informed and there was never any dissent. Senater Rockefeller then produced a letter that was dated from over a year ago, that questioned the whitehouse about the surveilance operation. His letter stated that it was never made clear what the executive branch was doing, and under what authority. It also said that from what information he did have about it, he could never say he endorsed such a practice and wanted to know more about what was being done. He never got a reply.

Nancy Pelosi also had sent a letter questioning and not approving of the practice, but the letter was classified. She has since requested that her letter be made unclassified, in order to shed light on the claim that congressional leaders of both parties had were informed, and agreed with the practice. I will try and find links to the news stories about that, later.

 

Roxran;

I think you are mistaking ruling on a case with issuing warrant. To issue a warrant a court need not have all of the facts and connections laid out but instead are making sure that there is sufficient probably cause to proceed with surviellance under due process. Further as have been pointed out under the FISA rules surveillance can be conducted without a warrant up to 72 hours before a warrant is applied for.

The FISA rules are anything but constraining and IMO are even too loose given that they can apply for a post warrant. OTOH what the DOJ is arguing for is no constraints on the ability to surveil. The implications of this go even further because without having to apply for a warrant at all they won't even need to have a reviewable paper trail incase there is an abuse of that power. Your idea that if something goes wrong the judicial branch can review later is moot because the Executive branch could conduct surveillance without telling any other part of government that they ever had done that in the first place.

 

I'm confused about obtaining a warrant retroactively. What happens if the request for a warrant is denied? Is the information gained just deemed inadmissable in court? Does the government need to make restitution to the people they were spying on?

 

I believe they have to cease the wiretap, and I would guess any info obtained couldn't be used in court, but it could definitely be used to stop someone at an airport, prevent a bomb from going off etc. This is only a guess, by someone with next to no qualifications to give a guess.

I am wondering if they did wiretap someone and heard incriminating if they could use what they heard as part of the reasoning for the retroactive wiretap.

 

giddy, we're had several abortion threads, and they are usually quite heated (which is why I tend to stay out of them), but the controversy on everyone's mind right now is the illegal spying on Americans by this President. Maybe you do, but I just can't see how the two subjects are related.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

We had some good lamb chops the other night...oops sorry giddy.

Maybe if you excluded the reference to the Constitution, the vote would be a bit different. Since abortion gets into somewhat of a gray area for most people...whether you like it or not...it's unclear then what is it's impact WRT the Constitution, whereas abuse of powers is a direct, obvious threat to our Constitution and Nation.

 

By far the most interesting thing to emerge from this thread is the word "vaquealistic." I challenge anyone to define it or to prove that it exists.

 

But I think someone had a good point about the constitution mentioning that it applies to people "born..."

So even if the unborn are lives that are innocent and being tragically taken from us in a legal fashion, it probably doesn't have that much to do with the constitution.

 

young children dying? is this an exaggeration?