"Resolved that the United States Senate does hereby censure George W. Bush, president of the United States, and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans."


Russ Feingold, you rock. This is the latest in a series of honorable deeds that makes me think that statesmanship is not dead.

I'll vote for Fiengold when he runs for President.

 

Yes, if we ignore the part about how the Supreme Court has ruled in previous cases that the president can authorize wiretaps as long as they are reviewed by the FICA court. Which they all are.

I don't get the wiretapping issue...if you're not a drug dealer, child molester or terrorist, why do you give a shit?

 

I don't know what "review" you're referring to, but anything less than a warrant issued by a court doesn't give the government the power to execute a wiretap. I also don't know what FICA is; did you mean FISA?

I am not a drug dealer, child molester, or terrorist; I am an American and I value my rights. The President has claimed on any number of occasions that it is imperative that freedom be defended and democracy protected. So why would he abridge freedom and ignore the rules of our own democracy, to say nothing of breaking the law?

You must think I'm just picking at anything that gives me a chance to criticize Bush, but that just isn't the case. I was a card-carrying member of the ACLU back in the 90s, long before President Bush started attacking my rights.

 

Before I start, have you even read the 2002 FISA Court Review? It's available here: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html

Conclusion

FISA’s general programmatic purpose, to protect the nation against terrorists and espionage threats directed by foreign powers, has from its outset been distinguishable from “ordinary crime control.” After the events of September 11, 2001, though, it is hard to imagine greater emergencies facing Americans than those experienced on that date.

We acknowledge, however, that the constitutional question presented by this case–whether Congress’s disapproval of the primary purpose test is consistent with the Fourth Amendment–has no definitive jurisprudential answer. The Supreme Court’s special needs cases involve random stops (seizures) not electronic searches. In one sense, they can be thought of as a greater encroachment into personal privacy because they are not based on any particular suspicion. On the other hand, wiretapping is a good deal more intrusive than an automobile stop accompanied by questioning.

Although the Court in City of Indianapolis cautioned that the threat to society is not dispositive in determining whether a search or seizure is reasonable, it certainly remains a crucial factor. Our case may well involve the most serious threat our country faces. Even without taking into account the President’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance, we think the procedures and government showings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant standards, certainly come close. We, therefore, believe firmly, applying the balancing test drawn from Keith, that FISA as amended is constitutional because the surveillances it authorizes are reasonable.

Accordingly, we reverse the FISA court’s orders in this case to the extent they imposed conditions on the grant of the government’s applications, vacate the FISA court’s Rule 11, and remand with instructions to grant the applications as submitted and proceed henceforth in accordance with this opinion.

...you know I meant FISA.

Let's go to the constitution, specifically the Bill or Rights:

"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."

How is wiretapping calls made to and from known or suspected terrorists overseas unreasonable?

From: http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/consti...ment04/05.html

That's the most recent SC case involving wiretapping. The decision was particularly vague and left a lot to the imagination. Even so, the FISA court upholds the warrant requirements.

What rights of yours have been specically affected? Please refer to the Bill of Rights.

Breaking what law? I still don't get it. Nixon tried to wiretap without any sort of courts, warrants or reason to do so and he was unanimously stricken down by the SC for good reason. This is totally different.

Um how is being involved in an organization like the ACLU anything to brag about or use to try to argue the probability that you're a liberal who just hates Bush?

 

Bolding a few sentences at the end didn't stop me from going back to the beginning. This particular case had to do with FISA issuing restrictions on a wiretap along with authorization. The Supremes decided that FISA didn't have the authority to issue the restrictions. Thats pretty much it.

Our justice system relies upon warrants as part of due process. Warrants are actually mentioned right there in the fourth amendment. Thanks for posting it!

Due process is mentioned, as I'm sure you're aware, in the fifth amendment. Read 'em back to back and you get an idea of why spying without a warrant is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

Oh, I know, you went to the trouble of finding that whole thing with the bold text and all, but let me share a dirty little secret with you: none of it matters if it violates the constitution.

I live in NYC and ride the subway almost every day of my life. I can't remember the last time I was on the subway and didn't hear an announcement reminding me that NYPD can search me at any time they want without cause. (Unreasonable search; fourth amendment, United States Constitution.)

And that doesn't even get into the fascist bullshit the government can do under the PATRIOT Act.

The President takes an oath of office to uphold the constitution. Wiretaps without warrants violate at least one amendment, and often more. It falls under "high crimes and misdemeanors."

In fact, I am a liberal who hates Bush, but if President Clinton had tried this stuff I would be taking a big shit on his head too. For me, this is not about partisan politics; its about principle. If we are truly for freedom and democracy everywhere, why are we allowing Bush to corrupt and pervert democracy here?

FYI, that last bit you threw in about me being "a liberal who just hates Bush" is known as the straw man fallacy. Check it out: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
... and never use it again.

 

Are you serious dude? The review was over this question:

QUESTION PRESENTED (U)
Whether the FISC erred in denying in relevant part an application for orders authorizing electronic surveillance where a "significant purpose" of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information, 50 U.S.C. § 1804(a)(7)(B), and intelligence officers conducting the electronic surveillance intend to "consult with Federal law enforcement officers to coordinate efforts to investigate [and] protect against *** international terrorism," 50 U.S.C. § 1806 (k). (U)

Per Curiam: This is the first appeal from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to the Court of Review since the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1862 (West 1991 and Supp. 2002), in 1978. This appeal is brought by the United States from a FISA court surveillance order which imposed certain restrictions on the government. Since the government is the only party to FISA proceedings, we have accepted briefs filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)1 and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) as amici curiae.

AKA, whether or not FISC is constitutional. The petition was filed by the ACLU, good thing they took a break from defending child molesters.

Yes...

Actually I have no idea. Since I'm so dumb, why don't you tell me? You've smartly avoided my bolding of the word unreasonable.

I love how debating with every lib is the same. For Christ's sake, tell me how it violates the constitution!

unreasonable
A adjective
1 absurd, unreasonable
inconsistent with reason or logic or common sense; "the absurd predicament of seeming to argue that virtue is highly desirable but intensely unpleasant"- Walter Lippman

Explain to me how this is unreasonable? It would be unreasonable if they strip searched you or if they went inside your home. It's not unreasonable to delay you for 15 seconds to ensure that you aren't carrying an explosive device.

...which is exactly why I said nothing about it since it's a can of worms not even opening. The USA PATRIOT Act clearly affirms the right of government to do wiretapping on just about anyone they please, I was trying to find examples outside of that. But being the good little liberal with talking points that you seem to be, you made sure to bring it up

Once again, what rights of yours have specifically been violated?

Aren't you sick and tired of saying the same thing without yet telling me how it's unconstitutional? Did you even read any of what I posted?

Why? People like you are blinded by their hatred and use personal opinion and talking points instead of examples, precedents and facts. I think it's entirely worthwhile to point out that you are, in fact, just a liberal who hates Bush. It's similiar to watching a Yankees-Red Sox game with a guy who absolutely HATES the Yankees...you know he's gonna say that A-Rod is the biggest POS ever and that he's the most overrated player in baseball. How exactly am I 'ignoring' your position Are my constitutional and court references detracting from your opinions?

Now try using some facts to back up your arguments instead of BS and personal opinion

 

the problem here is the philosophy that everyone has a secret life. we all have secrets and we all have our right to keep those secrets, as humans. people make mistakes, people who snoop just find them, anyone can shoot into the dark and find something bad. it's up to the courts to decide wether the public actions of a person warrant... a warrant. the patriot act and other similar ideas are based on preventive measures which don't allow people to live their lives out like humans. rather they try to perfect human life, something which obviously will never be perfect.

 

Do you see it now? The question was whether or not FISA was allowed to authorize part of an application and not all of it.

Again, the straw man fallacy. I'll explain it again at the bottom of this post, where you go a little nutty about baseball.

The justice system talks about a search being reasonable based on the presence or absence of "just cause." Absent just cause, like the smell of cordite on me, or things less extreme, NYPD has no cause to search me. Hence the search is unreasonable. (Now that I've put words in bold, is it easier for you to understand?)

Search without just cause = unreasonable. The constitution requires just cause. Clear enough?

It is unreasonable if they have no cause to search me, as with the NYPD searches. Every announcement I hear reminds me that the searches may be "random." I put the word in double-quotes not for emphasis, but because that is the word they always use.

Thats right, being a good liberal and a good American I tend to examine the big picture and not narrow my focus to the point where any meaningful debate becomes impossible.

This is a valid point. My fourth amendment rights have not yet been violated by the NYPD. The idea that I should wait until they do to say something about it is dumb. How many times have I heard that liberty must be guarded vigilantly? Why should I sit back and wait for them to come when I have no rights left?

The fact that I'm a liberal who hates Bush has no relevence to this argument because you could change my underlying beliefs and the argument would still be valid and true. To wit:

1. The Constitution requires a warrant (fourth amendment) and due process (fifth amendment) when the government wants to implement wiretaps.
2. President Bush intentionally and repeatedly ignored the Constitution.
3. President Bush's actions were unconstitutional.

If Laura Bush presented this argument, it would still be true. That is why my personal beliefs are irrelevent to the validity and truth of the argument. If you really still don't see it, PM me and we can talk about syllogistic logic.

OOohhhh, a smiley face. You're really bringing it now. How will I ever defend my ideas against that kind of bulletproof argument?

 

..."The court’s decision from which the government appeals imposed certain requirements and limitations accompanying an order authorizing electronic surveillance of an “agent of a foreign power” as defined in FISA. There is no disagreement between the government and the FISA court as to the propriety of the electronic surveillance; the court found that the government had shown probable cause to believe that the target is an agent of a foreign power and otherwise met the basic requirements of FISA."

In other words, the government is appealing here a decision that imposed limitations on the wiretapping program. How is this not a relevant court case?

I think it's reasonable. The FISC, United States Congress, House of Representatives and Supreme Court all seem to think it's reasonable. Not a single member of the House or Congress has actually said that the government should stop the wiretaps; after Feingold delivered his rant he promptly left the senate and didn't debate it. When Frist asked Reid if he'd like to debate the subject into the night, he refused. Noone has any problem with the wiretaps themselves aside from left extremists. A few in Congress, from both sides, have known about these from the beginning...

Cause:

Cause:

That's personal opinion. I and many other New Yorkers have no problem with it at all. If a 15 second delay means a suicide bomber might be stopped, so be it.

You've narrowed your focus to everything besides facts. I don't see any in here, besides the facts of how you feel and think. Maybe you should start using public opinion polls too...

More personal opinion. I think my 2nd amendment rights have been violated by anti-gun legislation, but it's widely supported. IMO the 2nd amendment is the final check and balance on the government and was meant to be that way by the founding fathers...and it amazes me that people let the government take that power away.

No, your personal beliefs would still be true. I respect them but you have yet to tell me how this is illegal besides by bending the definition of 'unreasonable'. I think it means one thing, you think it means another. Is that really what this is about?

Please use court precedents and judicial fact in supporting your points, which seem to be made purely of opinion. You can't just bend the definition of the word 'unreasonable' to fit your personal beliefs.

See above.

:lmao: See above.

But all your argument consists of is your personal belief about what 'unreasonable' means to you Show me a SC case. Show me some sort of judicial review that supports your points.

With personal beliefs, of course!

 

:lmao: benjamin tries sooo hard.. :reechy: