Warrantless Surveillance To Continue For Now 402
NormalVisual writes "It appears that the unconstitutional and controversial warrantless surveillance program being conducted by the Bush Administration can continue until an appeals court can hear the case, according to an AP article. The 6th Circuit ruled that while the lower court had ruled the program was unconstitutional, they felt that the case's chances before the appeals court and the possible danger to national security warranted their decision to let it continue despite the likelihood that the appeal process will take months."
It's been said by a smarter person than I (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, back to your big SUVs, tiny cell phones and reality television.
Perhaps we will wake up before the world turns its back on us permanently.
Typical (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Do something blatantly unconstitutional.
2) Get it knocked down in court.
3) Tie it up in appeals for years, continuing to do whatever you were doing.
4) Eventually get it killed by the supreme court, but have made a great run of it.
Politicians game the system and have no respect for the courts. Film at 11.
U.S. citizen foreign national (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the court will find the action legal. The U.S. Constitution is actually pretty gray in this area because it wasn't foreseen that anyone could be able to communicate over long distances instantaneously. The U.S. has always been able to search and seize foreign mail, so that is probably the best argument they have to making long distance calls tappable.
It's a shame. The U.S. has become a place that is hostile to immigrants and travelers. Give me your poor huddled masses, indeed.
Re:So ? (Score:3, Insightful)
What if it became illegal to have blue eyes? To be left-handed? To have a black or Jewish grandparent?
It's a big deal. Trust me.
touche (Score:5, Insightful)
If I've got nothing to hide, why do they need to watch me?
Excuses, excuses! (Score:2, Insightful)
That's the excuse for everything. You name it, and some pro-security / anti-terrorism phrase will be tossed out, regardless of how irrelevant it factually is. Must be nice to have a bugaboo for all occasions.
Just another year and a month, folks. Just another year and a month.
We have all been here before... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So ? (Score:3, Insightful)
As someone said here http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/19/1
The only safeguard between yourself and unjustified prosecution and imprisonment is a thin, old piece of paper and people's willingness to uphold the words written on it. Please don't be under the mistaken assumption that innocence will protect you.
The Founding Fathers knew their stuff (Score:2, Insightful)
"Much of the strength and efficency of the government, in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends on..the wisdom and integrity of its governors."
Benjamin Franklin
Speech in the Constitutional Convention at the Conclusion of Its Deliberations - Sept 17, 1787
A rather insightful individual I'd say.
Don't leave things out (Score:1, Insightful)
Every time I see this argument, they leave out every mention of the fact that the wire taps happen when there's a known terrorist on the end of the line.
Every time.
Why is that? Afraid to mention that because it weakens your argument?
Re:hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Saying they are controversial is acceptable, prejudging that they are unconstitutional is opinion.
It really is getting depressing, I mean we are supposed to be slogging it out here in the comments, not in the post. Heck, what's the point in coming here? You can get all this news in other formats, it is the discussion that is interesting.
Let the post speak for itself and if you want to argue about it, do it here NormalVision.
CowboyNeal should have edited and excisized the editorial comments from the posting.
That's not the purpose of a constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not the purpose of a constitution. A constitution doesn't grant rights to the people or offer them protection. And it isn't something that can be "enforced" on people, citizen or not.
The one and only purpose of a constitution is to set limits on the power of the government.
Read one, sometime. Ours, for example. The whole thing is a mass of "this branch of government may not do so and so, except in these very special circumstances" and "this branch of government is required to do thus and so".
Why?
Because the founders of constitutional governments are almost uniformly recent survivors of abuses of government authority. King George's belief that he could do anything he felt like (the equivalent, in his day, of the unitary executive, or the "If the president does it it isn't illegal" school of thought) did not sit well at all with our founding fathers.
--MarkusQ
Arguments for this are getting^Wstale. (Score:5, Insightful)
But what real use is this warrantless surveillance program to fighting terrorists? If you evidence, get a warrant. If you have a shred of something resembling evidence, go to FISA and you have about a 99.8% chance of getting a warrant. If there's no time to waste, start tapping and you can file for a warrant (which in an emergency case can be approved within an hour) any time in the next 3 days. To those who support this program: What conceivable set of circumstances would simultaneously require so many resources that there isn't one intern left over to file a request sometime within the next 3 days marked "urgent" with an institution that rubber-stamps nearly every request that crosses it's path, yet also be totally unknown and not under any previous surveillance. Such a set's parameters are absurd: it doesn't exist. Bush's warrantless surveillance program is nonsense in this regard.
But debating the merits and usefulness of any such program is a moot point. The Fourth Amendment forbids any unreasonable search and any search not affirmed by a judge. The Bush administration refuses to provide evidence that the wiretaps are reasonable (instead insisting that we take it's word), and the fact that they are not affirmed by a judge is the whole point of the program. Therefore, this program is inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment and any program or law contravening the Constitution, it's Amendments, or Treaties is illegal. End of debate, national security be damned. This is a nation of law, no matter what might be convenient, useful, or even life-saving. No one with even the foggiest clue what America is about petitions to destroy the 4th Amendment because it would be a great help to other criminal investigations (and hell yes it would be more convenient and efficient to not have to deal with judges and evidence beforehand), yet when "terrorists" come up, certain people who have all rules and regulations disappear. That is wrong, and history provides abundant evidence why.
Re:Don't leave things out (Score:1, Insightful)
Could you provide us some proof? You know, facts.
Re:Don't leave things out (Score:2, Insightful)
- Twi
Re:U.S. citizen foreign national (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right. However, note that it specifically applies itself to tangible property that can be messed with or taken. There was no less spying or eavesdropping when the amendment was written, but the amendment is carefully addressing a distinct issue. Now I relize that the supreme court has decided that this amendment means everything up to and including that babies are fair game for dismemberment until their head clears the birth canal... however, the Constitution requires the president to take an oath of loyalty to what the Constitution actually says.
Re:Don't leave things out (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time. "
How could you possibly know that? How could you possibly know that?
Are the men who run these programs infallible? They never make a mistake?
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
- James Madison, Federalist #51 [constitution.org]
Re:U.S. citizen foreign national (Score:4, Insightful)
My turn to go, 'wait...what?'
If your assertion is true, then there is nothing wrong with US troops in Berlin searching the homes of German citizens. After all, the violation of rights occurs outside of American territory.
There IS nothing wrong, according to American Law with that scenario (assuming the order was given legally through the chain of command). The 4th Amendment to USCon does not protect German citizens in Berlin. What DOES protect the German citizens in Berlin is International Law (specifically the concept of National sovereignty), and also, incidentally, the German Military. I imagine that German law also looks down pretty poorly upon foreign armies executing searches on citizens in their country.
This is not America... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what the judges in courts do...
Where's the editorial again?
In other words (Score:3, Insightful)
It's so unconstitutional that the appeals court is going to rule that
Re:U.S. citizen foreign national (Score:2, Insightful)
You're positing a false dichotemy, there. There's a lot of room in between "coming to America and leaving your entire identity and culture behind" and "coming to America and doing your best to make the local courts practice Sharia law" (as an example... a more mild example might be to change the centuries-long practice of presenting certain government documents and services in a single language and start adjusting the prevailing society around the immigrants, rather than asking the immigrants to adjust (not abandon) their ways around the prevailing society.
One wag mentioned this, in regards to France, these days: it's not that Moroccans want to move to France, it's that they want to move Morrocco to France.
Liberty and Freedom are not for everyone, in that view.
True, they aren't for everyone. They're for the people willing to pay the price of liberty and freedom, and those willing to take the responsibilities (like, say, taxes) that are part of that framework. For example, people who break the law, rather than taking their turn to immigrate, aren't exactly committing themselves to the responsibility side of the equation.
I see that sort of veiled racism all the time
You're confusing frustration over what people do (or don't) with what color they are.
As If This Is A New Concern? (Score:2, Insightful)
I only think that in today's age of technology, political correctness, and softness that it has actually been dragged out into the public for debate, whereas in the past it was simply done when it was deemed necessary, and no one questioned it.
Of course, the fear is that the power will be abused. In some cases it will. That is inevitable. However, I say the good outweighs the bad. But that's just me.
Political Garbage (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Arguments for this are getting^Wstale. (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny how you're leaving out the fact that the leading figures in the party that bitterly dislikes him also say we need this. At least be honest - it gives you a better shot at being credible.
But what real use is this warrantless surveillance program to fighting terrorists? If you evidence, get a warrant. If you have a shred of something resembling evidence, go to FISA and you have about a 99.8% chance of getting a warrant.
You can't get evidence of what a loose group of people in several countries using a trunk full of disposable cell phones are working on until you assemble data about the network of calls. You get the evidence of these overseas communications by looking for patterns. When you get on-the-ground type intel from other sources, that can sometimes expose a cell phone number (or a collection of them) that in turn provide an anchor to more pattern matching. The only internation calls that are "tapped" are those that actually include such contacts (those, in other countries, known to have such ties). FISA doesn't help you at all when you're dealing with a shifting network of multiple, one-time-use trash phones, VoIP, etc.
If that network of international calls does point to someone here in the US as part of the picture, then the FBI does go and get one of those pretty-easy-to-get warrants, and there you go.
Re:Arguments for this are getting^Wstale. (Score:4, Insightful)
Please don't reinforce the fraud that national security is an issue here.
During the Cold War the USSR had spies in the US, their own US political party, and thousands of nuclear ICBMs half an hour from deleting the US from history. We won that conflict with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act intact.
What we're doing now is more on the scale of suppressing the Barbary Pirates (who, remember, destroyed entire cities).
FISC doesn't handle lawsuits, frivolous or not (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you kidding? Where do you people come from? I mean, I've made some bone-headed statements in my life, but I do generally try to research something before I spew it forth.
Being wrong is one thing--everyone makes mistakes--but to say that frivolous lawsuits are hampering the war on terror, causing the Executive Branch to jettison the need for warrants altogether, is so far in left (by that I mean right) field that I must infer that you really are a space alien.
Re:This is good. (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of people here are predicting this.
I predict the opposite. I predict the Republicans will retain control over both houses of Congress.
I predict this because despite the fact that awareness of the problems of electronic voting is higher now than ever before (keep in mind that awareness and caring are not the same thing), about 40% (cite [nytimes.com]) of the country will be using unauditable electronic voting machines for the November election. That's easily enough to make it possible to undetectably change the outcome of any race that's reasonably close and where such machines are in use. And the Republicans are in a much better position to pressure the machine manufacturers into subtlely changing (via software) the results in regions that matter the most, if only because they control the two electable branches of government.
The outcome may be "surprising" in some cases, but people will accept it just the same as they always have.
translation (Score:2, Insightful)
It's well past time people recognized the US is now an occupied government, taken over in a series of "stealth" coups, some violent, like the 9-11 reichstagg fire event, some non violent like the blackbox voting hijacks. This alleged government-more properly called a "dictatorship" by anyone who has any shred of decency left and can look at all the available evidence, is run like a huge mafia-like organization. That's it in a simple nutshell, it's a violent armed gang. Now I know this sucks, this really sucks, even contemplating it sucks, but it needs to be done. Ostrich head in the sand action is not working to get anything fixed back to just partially corrupt and rotten like the good old days. That was normal and tolerable - but today? The assaults on freedoms, the rape of the economy, the further divisions into the "above the law-connected rich elite" with government ties vs everyone else is simply unacceptable. It's a fraud, a lie and a clear and present danger.
For the remaining innocent and honest people in government, comes a time you have to fish or cut bait-you are either with the fascists or you aren't. For people outside of government-do what you can, try to get the hacked voting fixed and then vote every single incumbent OUT before it is too late for even that to maybe work. They are corrupt and bribed off and blackmailed off. The only change we have seen with the combined crew in there now is for the worse, and anyone can see that. They will not, and can not, and may not do any better than that.
The fix is in, look at last weeks 100% senate vote for the stripping of the remaining rights, quickly overshadowed and knocked off the news headlines by the relatively trivial congressional pervert "news". Ever notice all the critical votes have some distractions always appear? Something for the coup plotters to use to remind the "elected representatives" who really runs tings? that's what the pervert outing was. Remember the Patriot act original vote and the *conveniently timed* alleged "terrorist" anthrax attacks? Same thing. And this doesn't make people suspicious? please..
This... so called legalization of the pure military dictatorship package they passed is obscene and is part of their coverups for the high crimes and misdemeanors, and a clear indicator of what they have planned that hasn't happened yet.
ANYONE can now be called a "terrorist", by any appointed pseudo-military appointed political tribunal goon and be "disappeared" into the system. If you are aware of your friend or associate getting "disappeared",and dare to tell anyone about it, YOU can be arrested for "terrorism", said label being the magic words they use to dispose of enemies-and believe me, it is just getting started, just like you see in any other tinpot dictatorship which demands complete loyalty to the "leaders"
The full senate thought that was a good idea. They voted for it, ALL of them, as did the bulk of the house. They have also clearly warned any judges to "not interfere", which is a clear threat to them to sit down and shutup-"or else". That was a direct threat from the fascist AG to the judges, go look it up, it happened.
Go find any decent legal analysis of the package, google around, they are out there now, you'll see what I have said is just the tame stuff, it is very, very bad. And it is being pushed through this catch-all of "national security".
Funny, but I don't see washington, madison, jefferson, monroe, hale, hancock or franklin agreeing with them, do you? Seems like that was the original idea they thought up, to GET AWAY FROM such a style of government.
Re:U.S. citizen foreign national (Score:2, Insightful)
Screw California. When did Puerto Rica stop being part of the US? They're citizens!
And, yeah, anyone who thinks immigrants will come in and take out identidy is either a racist or a moron. How many cultures have we chewed up and spit out, again?
Sure, they'll come here, and won't speak English.
Their kids will grow up to be honor students and speak near-perfect English and whatever other language.
Their kids won't speak the other languages, speak English with a local accent, roll their eyes when their grandparents talk about 'the old country', get married to someone their parents disapprove of, and generally be Americans.
Their kids will speak of their 'heritage' and have no clue what they're talking about, imagining a sort of parody of that country gained from old movies.
In 100 years the country might be slightly browner. It might have a few more Spanish words, and it might have a few more Mexican food places.
It will still be America. It will probably have changed in unrecognizable ways, yes, but that will have nothing to do with immigration, legal or otherwise.
For a country that constantly influences the entire damn world's culture via movies and television, it seems rather egotistical to worry about a single culture, especially one that already 'invaded' the entire Southwest like 100 fucking years ago. It's like worrying about Italian influence, or English influence! Hey, that ship already sailed, dumbasses. We've sucked in so much of their culture we have real Mexican restaurants and fake Mexican restaurants, and 'Mexican' dishes in normal restaurants, just like Italian food.
I wonder how much of this is anti-Catholic.
Re:hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
It says no UNREASONABLE searches and sezures. There are no sezures here and if you want to make that leap that a communication is a search and sezure then do remember that in these cases the OTHER PARTY is not a citizen and not covered by the 4th amendment.
The current arguement is that during previous wars the president has been able to tap into communications (paper and electronic) in and out of the United States as established by the Supreme Court. Yes, there is a congressional aproval to conduct war against the terrorists passed in 2001.
Thus, the warrentless wiretaps are not Unconstitutional as they fall under war powers as granted by Article 2 of the Constitution.
See? Not only did I read the consititution, I read ALL of it, not just the parts that fit my opinion.
Stipulation: Using the data gathered against the parties involved in a normal court of law would be hard to pull off. Using it to stop an attack or kill/capture a legitimate target is OK.
FISA designed to counter a different threat (Score:5, Insightful)
I've had the opportunity to study under a man that helped write the act, and while I haven't had a chance to discuss the recent developments with him, his view of FISA was that it was designed to serve a counter-intelligence role, but fails to be as useful against other threats.
Counter-Intelligence operations are fundamentally different from counter-terrorist operations. CI operations are much easier to predict, with relatively well understood actors, motives, and a much lower imminent risk to life and property. CI threats are relatively easy to pick out, relatively easy to understand. Of course, the most important word in this post is "relatively"...
Counter-terrorist operations are almost the polar opposite. Targets of foreign intelligence agencies are clear - they're after classified data and those that manage or handle it. The actors are clear - "diplomats", non-official cover officers, and Americans (in this case) with classified data. Targets of terrorists are not, as the focus of many of these groups is simply to kill as many people as possible by whatever means they can use. They don't care about classified data, they don't play games with diplomatic immunity. The actors could be foreign college students or home-grown California boys who decide to support the cause for reasons of their own, as we've seen recently.
Beyond simply acquiring data, FISA also allows for the prosecution of those who hand classified data to those who are not authorized to receive it by allowing evidence to enter into court without entering into the public record. FISA is an excellent tool for what it does. It's much more precise, limited, and focused on its threat.
Counter-terrorist operations require a wider approach - something of a "drag net" - for them to be successful. Pre-9/11 U.S. counter-terrorism was based largely on luck - case in point being the capture of the WTC '93 bombers, whose cell was unraveled because a member thereof just couldn't leave behind the deposit on his truck. More recent attacks should provide ample evidence that we can't fall back simply on luck any longer - we must be more active in preventing attacks rather than mopping up after them.
I think there is room for debate on this matter, and I do not believe that Benjamin Franklin quotes nor tradition should hold us from implementing laws we need to protect ourselves. Of course, this should occur within reasonable limits, in accordance with majority will and proportionate to the threat - which is growing and innovative itself - and without completely losing national character.
A quote I read recently sums up my position:
"To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means." (Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John B. Colvin, September 20, 1810, quoted from Terrorism Freedom and Security: Winning Without War, Heymann, MIT Press, 2003, pg. xi)
Of course, this view must be tempered - we must be careful about those means we do and do not sacrifice - but we also should not sacrifice our nation on the altar of law. There is a time for dogmatic adherence a time to take a more pragmatic view rooted in self-preservation. We should slip from the first to the last cautiously, infrequently, and with friction and great reservation. Yet sometimes, we must slip to survive and pursue our own self-preservation.
I thank you for your comment and for what it brings to this discussion.
Re:hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
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].
President Bush was given AUMF in 2001 by Congress. That gives him War Powers Act powers as defined in the war powers act of 1973. End of story.
BTW, nice sig inciting to violence. =)
Re:hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
The ACLU had brought the case on behalf of a group of reporters, academics, lawyers and activists who believed that their communications with clients, sources or others might have been monitored by the National Security Agency as part of the program, thereby violating their Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable searches, and chilling their First Amendment rights to freedom of expression and association.
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?Sto
They haven't proved they were prosecuted by facts found by being tapped, they are saying they might have been tapped and that it is keeping their sources from being frank with them.
It is a pretty weak standing, and likely the first thing that will go on appeal, did they have standing to bring a suit?
Lower court, probably. Higher court? Unlikely.
Simply Discussing This.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:hmm... (Score:2, Insightful)
"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."
Sure, but you are assuming that this warrantless spying program is not being used otherwise. I have seen no evidence to prove either and neither have you. That's the whole issue here.
Re:Political Garbage (Score:2, Insightful)
Wake up, the terrorists have already won. What happened to your "freedom" and "liberties"?
Welcome to the United Police States of America!
Re:Specific law covers this case (Score:1, Insightful)
>Not really. It says the Executive has to enforce laws passed by Congress, including the 1978 law that regulates eavesdropping on foreign communications
And that congress can't pass any law which allows searches without warrants.
Re:FISA designed to counter a different threat (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorists do not threaten your country in any way that could make you lose your country. Nor do they threaten your freedom.
Terrorists can only threaten the freedom of a very limited number of citizens, by taking them hostage and/or by killing them. That is the only thing terrorists can do. Their power is very limited.
Any other taking of freedom would be done by lawmakers, courts, officers of the law, intelligence agents, and so on, aided by media frenzy and scaremongers. They can threaten your freedom. Terrorists cannot.
Re:FISA designed to counter a different threat (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems to be your argument assumes that such surveillance will be useful, and won't be abused, in return for which the precedent is set for secret, universal, unlimited warrantless surveillance of electronic communications.
Such powers would never be abused to say, oh, listen in on political opponents, now would they?
How long until such powers are used to catch middle class tax "cheats", who are "shirking" (part of) their share of paying for the war that polls for months (years?) have shown at least half the country is against, and that is vastly enriching the company still paying the Vice President a yearly stipend?
Doesn't casting so wide a net then present the problem of sorting out the desirable "fish"? Hasn't that precise problem already been cited has the reason the 9/11 guys weren't stopped, i.e., we had evidence against a few, but it was fragmented amongst agencies, and thus ignored? Given the number of cell phones in use at any given moment is it even practical in the foreseeable future?
While FISA may have been meant for CI, it doesn't mean that same tool can't be used -- the issue is the government having the grounds for wiretapping vs. listening to anybody anytime/all the time to just hear what they can hear and hope for something to pop up.
Let's consider the also the source and context a bit, shall we?
In recent weeks, the US government has been debating what degree of torture is "acceptable", despite the fact that the military and CIA, et. al. are on record as saying that torture is ineffective, counter-productive and produces unreliable information. Never mind that it is just wrong.
Too, we have the Military Detainee Act, an act that essentially eliminates habeas corpus in the US, on the whim of a single individual, at present a failed businessman, recovering alcoholic who has publicly laughed at and mimicked a woman who was pleading for her life after he had signed her death warrant and refused her appeal for clemency. He has already ordered the execution of many people -- he bragged as much in a State of the Union address. But we don't know whom, or on what evidence, now do we? Consider the fact that the military has admitted that a waaaaay too large percentage (majority?) of people at Gitmo are innocent, yet they continue to hold them.
These are the people, tactics and results the Founding Fathers repeatedly warned us about.
Let us not submit to such chicanery.
Let's be careful here. (Score:4, Insightful)
An important distinction needs to be drawn though. Because the president has the power to conduct surveillance as part of his article 2 powers doesn't mean he has an unlimited license to do any surveillance he wishes. Nor does it preclude some form of oversight by the other branches, provided that oversight doesn't amount to an unconstitutional restriction on his Article 2 powers. For practical purposes he can't be free from oversight, because he has no authority to spend money on his own.
To say that any attempt to creates laws regulating the President's exercise of his Article 2 powers is unconsitutional would be a very sweeping assertion. For one thing, it encroaches on a Congressional constitutional power granted in Article 1, Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." The Congress also has the power to regulate the military forces, literally the land and naval forces, but clearly this doesn't preclude the regulation of the air force, which didn't exist back then. Nor, if we are arguing they are being used in the conduct of war, should it preclude the regulation of intelligence services.
So, the Congress can create laws which govern how the President uses his contitutional powers, since the exeuctive branch is part of "the government of the United States, or in any department
The style of relationship that is supposed to exist between the executive and legislative branches was developed between George Washington and the Continental Congress during the Revolutionary War. Early on Washington was vexed by congressional arm chair generals who wanted to direct the war by dispatch. John Adams was an admirable man in almost every respect but his character was marred by his firm belief he was smarter than everyone else around him. Apparently Adams was among the worst offenders. Washington developed an approach to this problem that proved highly effective, not only at securing for himself ample independence for his conduct of the war, but enthusiastic legislative and public support. He worked like hell to keep Congress "in the loop" (to use a modern metaphor). In return he could count on Congress to reach a little deeper when he needed its support. This consultation with his civilian superiors and his field commanders did not come easily to Washington, but it earned him the tremendous stature he enjoyed after the Revolution.
The commonly used phrase "secret wiretapping program" is semantically loaded, because it forces a "take it or leave it" on you. Every wiretapping program has to have an element of secrecy; to say you are against "secret" wiretapping programs sounds like you are against wiretapping programs in general. We end up rhetorically wrassled into a position where it looks like we're against the goals of the program if we thing the program is bad.
A phrase that would more correctly capture our concerns is this: "unaccountable wiretapping program."
Not yet it isn't... (Score:2, Insightful)
controversial: obviously
unconstitutional: Not until the courts rule it. If it is the appeal process it is NOT unconstitutional!!!
Re:hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Firstly, do you have the same security clearance of the Senate Intelligence Comittee members or of the President? If not, you won't see the evidence for which you're looking for another 50 or so years. Congress was informed and they deemed it OK. Only after it was revealed in an illegal leak of classified information and contorted by the Media did it become a probelm.
Re:U.S. citizen foreign national (Score:2, Insightful)
Things you've said that are wrong:
(A) That is only for laws that are constitutional.
(B) If they are unconstitutional, yes. Absolutely. Hell, it's his obligation to do so, if he feels it is necessary.
(C) Only if the Court's interpretation is blatantly and unquestionably unconstitutional. [irrelevant example here]. Then hell yes, he should ignore that.
The funny part, is that you follow up that *stunning* display of ignorance about the roles of both the President & the Courts with this gem: And yes, the President should, and will, abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court. There's no question about that.
Excuse me? No question? The above statement and your point (C) directly contradict one another.
Just to be clear, I was referring to "unitary executive" as described by John Yoo, not the literal interpretation of the words "unitary" and "executive". I feel compelled to say this, since you begin by stating the literal meaning, then supporting the John Yoo version (which, if not fallacious, is intellectually dishonest).
Either way, you seriously need a remedial class in civics. Perhaps you've absorbed too many talking points to recall exactly how the balance between the Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial branches work.
Seriously, this Republican controlled Congress may have given up on their job and refused to do anything about a Republican President usurping their powers, but that doesn't mean the United States system of Government was supposed to work that way.
GWB (Score:3, Insightful)
Given the amount of anti-Bush feeling on this site, I would guess that anybody who expresses such sentiments is open to accusations of siding with terrorism. And your govt. is giving him the tools he needs to back it up.
BTW, if the US became a fascist dictatorship, and there was a popular uprising against it, you do realise that you would all be terrorists ?
Then what you gonna do ?
I guess you can't wrest control of the country from the dictator without breaking the law, so are you just going to give up ?
The law is supposed to be by the will of the people, not against the people.
Government sponsored FUD is also terrorism, just at a more insidious level.
Way to go mods. (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine if "national security" excuse used in 1775 (Score:4, Insightful)
It's amusing how caselaw inserts weird things into our laws. In this case, it's being argued that
has an implicit "unless the violators say 'national security' is involved."
Go back in your mind to 1789 when the words were written. People had their former unhappiness with King George's rule on their mind, and didn't like how officials would just barge in and do whatever the hell they wanted without any court oversight. The framers didn't want people like Sam Adams or Thomas Paine to be unfairly harassed without due process. Do you think they really intended for it to be ok for the British to spy on colonists without a court order, as long as the magic words "national security" were used as a justification later? Everything the revolutionaries did was counter to British "national security" since it threatened to get the colonies to break away -- and protecting those actions is exactly what the Bill of Rights was intended to do.
The words are clear (there is not a list of arbitrary exceptions enumerated, such as "national security" or "if foreigners are involved somehow, even if indirectly") and the intent is pretty obvious too. And yet, caselaw has amended the 4th amendment, all without that pesky and inconvenient constitutional amendment process.
"But.. but.. the constitution says the Executive has the authority to--" The 4th amendment overrides that. That's why it's called an amendment. Amendments change constitutional law, see? That's why I'm not allowed to own slaves, why Congress is allowed to collect income tax, etc. If you want to legalize what the White House is doing, you need another amendment that makes exceptions to the 4th. Perhaps you can make a good argument for why it's a bad idea for the 4th Amendment to be as broad as it is -- maybe national security exceptions are really a good idea -- but there is an established process for changing the law. Follow it.
Re:Arguments for this are getting^Wstale. (Score:3, Insightful)
You suspect incorrectly.
The most recent "liquid explosives on a plane" threat was halted through good old fashioned British Police work.
Yes. That, and overseas eavesdropping and counter-terrorism intel from people in several other countries, backed up by more communcations monitoring. The arrests, involving UK nationals on their soil, absolutely were best handled in a law enforcement framework... but the people on the other end of the money and explosives training trail, overseas, do not have some nightstick-and-a-whistle Bobby on their tails. Not hardly.
which was that the Law Enforcement approach does a better job of preparing you for the aftermath of stopping a terrorist attack
Even if that were true (which probably depends on a lot of circumstances), that doesn't make it the only thing to do. The aftermath of the death of thousands of people still involves the deaths of thousands of people and a huge economic hit. Prepare for the aftermath, but stop it from happening in the first place, too. You can't stop everything, but the more sophisticated plots, or those that are aimed at, say, damaging a large port facility or releasing some bio-nastiness or radiological stain in a big urban center cannot be about after-the-fact prosecution. In any way that matters, that's always too late.