Jack Cafferty; the Al-Quaeda Commentator?

[VeeKaChu]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/08/17/cafferty-on-the-nsa-ruling-bush-is-breaking-the-law/

Would any Bush apologists like to take some swings at the judge (a Carter appointee), since you can't argue the veracity of the ruling that our president is violating the law?

Gonzalez is a complete tool, by the way.


Oh and let me just add that in light of this ruling, anyone who continues to support the current criminal administration is obviously in favor of abolishing the Constitution, and probably guilty of treason. See you in Guantanamo, terrorists.

[Tone-Loc]

I am confused about this whole wiretapping thing, because I haven't heard a definintive answer on what the actual scenario is the problem here. Here are the things I have heard, maybe others can fill me in on what is actually happening.


1. American citizens are having their lines tapped without a warrant.
- I don't think this is actually happening, but if it is, then its a problem. From what I understand, the gov't. gets 72 hours from the time they start tapping to obtain a warrant with FISA. No reason this can't be followed, and if this is what is being violated then we do have a serious problem.

2. American citizens aren't being tapped specifically without a warrant. Only those outside of the US who are known or suspected of being associated to al-Qaeda. American citizens are only being listened to, because they happen to contact these foreign folks who are already being tapped.
- I have no problem with this what so ever. If this is true, then they aren't tapping US citizens, they are tapping foreigners, and US citizens are contacting them.


So what's actually happening here, please fill me in. And please let me know of any other scenarios that apply.

[dys]

Tone, calls coming FROM the U.S. to foreign countries - to places or people that have been deemed suspicious, are being tapped, without a warrant. The rationale behind it was because in order to get that warrant - the phone call was already over with. I'm not certain how the warrants work, for example once a warrant is given on a specific person calling, again FROM the U.S., does that warrant expire, or can it be applied for future calls? OR, does a warrant need to be requested PER call? If I've gotten any of these things wrong, someone please set me straight, i'm all ears. (eyes)

I have to say that i'm on the line with the whole issue. With my super biased opinion of reporters, I really have no problem with their calls being tapped in efforts to pinpoint their contacts, many of whom are high-profile figures. But as for regular citizens without that special press-pass, it's kind of tough.

I don't necessarily like the overall system, but I am all for doing what needs to be done to locate these high-profile figures. I don't like seeing freedoms taken away, but at the same time i think a lot of people are being pussies about things that really don't affect them. I'm sorry, I just think national security should take precedent over the press and I just don't see a problem with it since i've nothing to really hide in my overseas phonecalls.

[koruptid]

And it means a 75 year old black female judge in Michigan...
Wow.

[Obscure]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701540.html

[schtoofa]

Oh and let me just add that in light of this ruling, anyone who continues to support the current criminal administration is obviously in favor of abolishing the Constitution, and probably guilty of treason. See you in Guantanamo, terrorists.

Veek, I think you're a bright guy, but comments like this sound infinitely more ridiculous than Bush's often mumbly and stumbly rhetoric. I suppose that's okay, since you're making an emotional statement of how you feel (as opposed to an argument backed up with support) ... but still. Just wow.

Also, why couldn't someone argue the veracity of the ruling? That's exactly what's going to happen up in the Sixth Circuit.

In fact, from the Keith decision, i.e., UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN ET AL. (PLAMONDON ET AL., REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST)
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, a 1972 decision mentioned by Judge Taylor in her ruling, read Footnote 20:

For the view that warrantless surveillance, though impermissible in domestic security cases, may be constitutional where foreign powers are involved, see United States v. Smith, 321 F. Supp. 424, 425-426 (CD Cal. 1971); and American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Electronic Surveillance 120, 121 (Approved Draft 1971, and Feb. 1971 Supp. 11). See also United States v. Clay. 430 F.2d 165 (CA5 1970).

Funny. She didn't quote that part or debate the potential support there, provided by a higher US Supreme Court... go figure.

[Terminotaur]

2. American citizens aren't being tapped specifically without a warrant. Only those outside of the US who are known or suspected of being associated to al-Qaeda. American citizens are only being listened to, because they happen to contact these foreign folks who are already being tapped.
- I have no problem with this what so ever. If this is true, then they aren't tapping US citizens, they are tapping foreigners, and US citizens are contacting them.
If they are tapping US citizens contacting suspected foreign terrorists without a warrant, then they are tapping US citizens without a warrant. How about if the government was to assert that a US citizen was suspected of having a suspected terrorist in his private yacht's party in international waters, found this suspected terrorist on his yacht through a search with a warrant, and then proceeded to search the US citizen's house without a warrant (and everyone else on the boat who was a US citizen) just to be on the safe side because of their possible suspected ties to terrorism? Would that be okay?

The 4th amendment does not state "searches must be conducted with warrants unless one of the parties involved in the search is a suspected foreign terrorist or is suspected of contacting a foreign terrorist."

The administration's unitary executive theory and attempts to thwart oversight from the judicial branch (such as the denial of security clearances to judicial agencies that historically have had the power to oversee secret government programs) is attempting to break down the seperation of powers as described in the Constitution.

Funny. She didn't quote that part or debate the potential support there, provided by a higher US Supreme Court... go figure.
She wouldn't need to because the limits and peculiarities of surveillance of foreign powers was defined six years later in 1978 by Congress. The Bush administration is arguing that it can ignore FISA. FISA is the law and not a guideline the administration can selectively adhere to as they argue they should under the Authoriziation of Use of Military Force passed by Congress shortly after 9/11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy#FISA_issu es
Second, FISA permits the President to authorize the Justice Department to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance for up to one year without a court order. 50 U.S.C. §1802(a)(1). [22] In this situation, the surveillance must be directed solely at communications used exclusively by foreign powers; United States citizens can be considered agents of a foreign power, but not solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 50 U.S.C. §1805(a)(3). FISA provides for both criminal and civil liability for intentional electronic surveillance under color of law but not authorized by statute. FISA defines a "foreign power" as a foreign government, any faction(s) or foreign governments not substantially composed of US persons, and any entity directed or controlled by a foreign government. FISA limits its use against US persons who are citizens, foreign resident aliens of US corporations. Finally, FISA applies to surveillance whose significant purpose must be for gathering foreign intelligence information, which is information necessary to protect against actual or potential grave attack, sabotage or international terrorism.

[Tone-Loc]

If they are tapping US citizens contacting suspected foreign terrorists without a warrant, then they are tapping US citizens without a warrant. How about if the government was to assert that a US citizen was suspected of having a suspected terrorist in his private yacht's party in international waters, found this suspected terrorist on his yacht through a search with a warrant, and then proceeded to search the US citizen's house without a warrant (and everyone else on the boat who was a US citizen) just to be on the safe side because of their possible suspected ties to terrorism? Would that be okay?

No they are not tapping US citizens, they are tapping terrorists and suspected terrorists. In doing so, if a US citizen happens to contact someone they are listening to, then they are just supposed to cut off the tap? They weren't tapping the US citizen, they were tapping the foreigner.

As to your terrorist on a yacht, found through a warrant, and how to proceed with everyone else involved... do the authorities need a warrant when there is probable cause? To me they may want to get a warrant ahead of time, just to ensure that they search doesn't get thrown out later, but if they nature of the yacht meeting would indicate pretty strongly that the US citizens most likely knew who was in there party... sounds like probable cause to me. But I guess I am just a goosestepping, jack-booted patriot.

[VeeKaChu]

Veek, I think you're a bright guy, but comments like this sound infinitely more ridiculous than Bush's often mumbly and stumbly rhetoric. I suppose that's okay, since you're making an emotional statement of how you feel (as opposed to an argument backed up with support) ... but still. Just wow.
My point, same as Cafferty's, which is the point of the FEDERAL COURT RULING, is that our president is openly violating Federal law. Like a criminal.

And certainly my statement is a cauldron of boiling hyperbole, but the kernel of truth remains; no real American (and certainly no one who claims to be a "patriot") should countenance a criminal government. On the contrary, we should demand accountability from them, and we should demand that the judiciary and the congress check the bastards, as the Founding Fathers intended.

There's no lack of evidence of incompetence and bald-faced corruption, and now there's a Court ruling to bolster the pile. Ignore it at your peril.


Also, why couldn't someone argue the veracity of the ruling? That's exactly what's going to happen up in the Sixth Circuit.
Well obviously the Courts can argue it, I did not express myself clearly. We common citizens can "argue" amongst ourselves as we're doing now, but the precedence of the current ruling itself is inviolable, until a higher court strikes it down (or indicts the criminals). George Bush is a bona fide criminal until the ruling is overturned, is all I'm saying. Sorry I mis-spoke.

[schtoofa]

My point, same as Cafferty's, which is the point of the FEDERAL COURT RULING, is that our president is openly violating Federal law. Like a criminal.

And certainly my statement is a cauldron of boiling hyperbole, but the kernel of truth remains; no real American (and certainly no one who claims to be a "patriot") should countenance a criminal government. On the contrary, we should demand accountability from them, and we should demand that the judiciary and the congress check the bastards, as the Founding Fathers intended.

There's no lack of evidence of incompetence and bald-faced corruption, and now there's a Court ruling to bolster the pile. Ignore it at your peril.

Well obviously the Courts can argue it, I did not express myself clearly. We common citizens can "argue" amongst ourselves as we're doing now, but the precedence of the current ruling itself is inviolable, until a higher court strikes it down (or indicts the criminals). George Bush is a bona fide criminal until the ruling is overturned, is all I'm saying. Sorry I mis-spoke.

Fair enough, and I agree that the bastards need to be checked... a lot.

That a stay was granted almost immediately (pending appeal) does send a message. It means that the courts seem to recognize that the program has value and the court process should not interrupt it. Kinda interesting.

I'm speculating here, but Judge Taylor could've assumed that regardless of her ruling, this matter was on its way up to the sixth circuit. It wouldn't have mattered which side "lost" -- this puppy is working its way on up. She got to express her opinion on it, though, because this is a hotly contested issue with legal experts divided.

Termino: I think you're misinterpreting the bold face there. IMO it's saying that US citizens can be considered agents of a foreign power (which makes sense), but this judgment has to be established through means that are not protected by the first amendment. It also states that foreign agents are permitted to be surveilled. Therefore, if the gov't has proof (not obtained in a way that violates the first amendment) that a US cit. is a foreign agent, there is grounds for wiretapping that particular US citizen. That's what it's saying, according to my interpretation.

So, in short, your bolded statement does not address on the situation when there is definitely a foreign (non-US) agent on one side and a US cit on the other; instead, it's discussing what a foreign agent is. There is no debate over whether the international person can be tapped. FISA makes that clear. Hence, the footnote I mentioned (from the Keith decision) is still relevant.

It would be plain stupid to restrict warrantless wiretapping to purely international communications. If the foreign agents know that all they need is a US cit on one side in order to not be wiretapped, how much do you want to bet that they'll bump up careful recruiting of US citizens just to pick up that protection? It's so simple and dangerous and I think most understand that. I would say that the issue here is that of necessity of warrants, which is what's being debated (and is mentioned in, but not decided by that 1972 case).

[Terminotaur]

No they are not tapping US citizens, they are tapping terrorists and suspected terrorists. In doing so, if a US citizen happens to contact someone they are listening to, then they are just supposed to cut off the tap? They weren't tapping the US citizen, they were tapping the foreigner
Yes, they are supposed to cut off the tap unless they can obtain a warrant even if that warrant is retroactive. When tapping such a communication, you are eavesdropping on all parties involved and violating the American citizen's freedom from unwarranted searches. Violating the American citizen's freedom from unwarranted searches because he exercised his first amendment right is simply blatantly unconstitutional.

Do you believe that the government should be able to warrantlessly wiretap all communications involving a foreign suspected criminal and American citizen?

As to your terrorist on a yacht, found through a warrant, and how to proceed with everyone else involved... do the authorities need a warrant when there is probable cause?
Yes. The authorities definitely need a warrant even if there is probable cause. Note that the authorities need probable cause to obtain a warrant.

To me they may want to get a warrant ahead of time, just to ensure that they search doesn't get thrown out later, but if they nature of the yacht meeting would indicate pretty strongly that the US citizens most likely knew who was in there party... sounds like probable cause to me.
Are you suggesting that the U.S. government shouldn't have to get warrants to search the physical property of American citizens?

Termino: I think you're misinterpreting the bold face there. IMO it's saying that US citizens can be considered agents of a foreign power (which makes sense), but this judgment has to be established through means that are not protected by the first amendment. It also states that foreign agents are permitted to be surveilled. Therefore, if the gov't has proof (not obtained in a way that violates the first amendment) that a US cit. is a foreign agent, there is grounds for wiretapping that particular US citizen. That's what it's saying, according to my interpretation.
That is correct. But it also means you can't warrantlessly wiretap someone and violate their first amendment in that manner in order to obtain evidence that they are agents of a foreign power.

It would be plain stupid to restrict warrantless wiretapping to purely international communications. If the foreign agents know that all they need is a US cit on one side in order to not be wiretapped, how much do you want to bet that they'll bump up careful recruiting of US citizens just to pick up that protection?
There's something that has been set up decades ago called FISA to address the issue of domestic to foreign surveillance. Bush is claiming he has the authority to violate FISA. I am sure that a warrant on a suspected terrorist would not be denied by FISA if there was reasonable suspicion. The number of denials ever since the establishment of FISA numbers in the single digits.

This administration has not produced a single reason at all why warrantless searches are needed and why warrants are a bad thing. I think it's scary that perhaps this administration believes that the types of warrants they would attempt to obtain for their searches would be denied by FISA on the grounds that their searches are unreasonable.

[stas]

Yes, they are supposed to cut off the tap unless they can obtain a warrant even if that warrant is retroactive. When tapping such a communication, you are eavesdropping on all parties involved and violating the American citizen's freedom from unwarranted searches. Violating the American citizen's freedom from unwarranted searches because he exercised his first amendment right is simply blatantly unconstitutional.

it fails the "unwarranted" test the minute he/she calls the terrorist. please tell me how it isnt probable cause at that point. oh i randomly dialed bin laden, oh crap. yeah, youll have to go a bit farther on this one to explain how its unwarranted.

[Terminotaur]

it fails the "unwarranted" test the minute he/she calls the terrorist. please tell me how it isnt probable cause at that point.
I never argued that such a case isn't probable cause. I am arguing that you need a warrant according to the Constitution.

[stas]

I never argued that such a case isn't probable cause. I am arguing that you need a warrant according to the Constitution.

youre not tapping the citizen, youre tapping the terrorist, the minute the citizen makes the call/connects you have probable cause. it shouldnt be a problem.

[larcain]

I never argued that such a case isn't probable cause. I am arguing that you need a warrant according to the Constitution.


http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/315/315lect06.htm

The probable cause requirement is, in many ways, more important than the reasonableness clause. Not all search and seizures require warrants (e.g., automobile searches, arrest in a public place), but the Supreme Court has interpreted warrantless searches and seizures as unreasonable unless preceded by probable cause. This means that as a general rule, most searches and seizures require probable cause.

[Terminotaur]

Probable cause by itself is not sufficient to allow searches and seizure. A warrant must be obtained. There are only several exceptions that I am aware of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant
Exceptions

In some cases a search warrant is not required, including when consent is given by a person in control of the premises. Another exception is when evidence is in plain view. When police make an arrest, they are also permitted to conduct a search, such as for weapons or other danger. Searches are also allowed in emergency situations where the public is at risk.

Searching automobiles legally requires a warrant or the exceptions listed above.

youre not tapping the citizen, youre tapping the terrorist, the minute the citizen makes the call/connects you have probable cause. it shouldnt be a problem.
Once again, I am not arguing that it is not probable cause. I am arguing that a warrant is required under the Constitution. Are you aware that the Constitution requires warrants for searches and seizures?

[Express]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/08/17/cafferty-on-the-nsa-ruling-bush-is-breaking-the-law/

Would any Bush apologists like to take some swings at the judge (a Carter appointee), since you can't argue the veracity of the ruling that our president is violating the law?

Gonzalez is a complete tool, by the way.


Oh and let me just add that in light of this ruling, anyone who continues to support the current criminal administration is obviously in favor of abolishing the Constitution, and probably guilty of treason. See you in Guantanamo, terrorists.

Hmm didn't we go through this subject at length before ?
Oh well,
UNITED STATES of America,
v.
Usama BIN LADEN
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
Dec. 19, 2000.

. . . Warrantless foreign intelligence collection has been an established practice of the Executive Branch
for decades. . . . Congress has legislated with respect to domestic incidents of foreign intelligence
collection, see FISA, 50 U.S.C. '' 1801 et seq. (1978), but has not addressed the issue of foreign
intelligence collection which occurs abroad. The Supreme Court has remained, in the three decades
since Keith, essentially, silent on both aspects of the issue. . . . While the fact of this silence is not
dispositive of the question before this Court, it is by no means insignificant. See Youngstown Sheet &
Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 610 (1952) ("[A] systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long
pursued to the knowledge of the Congress and never before questioned, engaged in by Presidents who
have also sworn to uphold the Constitution, making as it were such exercise of power part of the
structure of our government, may be treated as a gloss on 'Executive Power' vested in the President by
' 1 of Art. II.").
3. The Absence of a Warrant Procedure
The final consideration which persuades the Court of the need for an exception to the warrant
requirement for foreign intelligence collection conducted overseas is that there is presently no statutory
basis for the issuance of a warrant to conduct searches abroad. In addition, existing warrant
procedures and standards are simply not suitable for foreign intelligence searches. . . . See also
Verdugo, 494 U.S. at 278 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (explaining that several factors counsel against
overseas application of the warrant requirement including: "the absence of local judges or magistrates
available to issue warrants, the differing and perhaps unascertainable conceptions of reasonableness and
privacy that prevail abroad, and the need to cooperate with foreign officials") . . . .
. . . Thus, although this Court does not accept as settled the Government's proposition that it is
impossible to secure a warrant for overseas searches or surveillance, it is clear that the acquisition would
certainly have been impracticable given the absence of any statutory provisions empowering a
magistrate to issue a warrant and the unsuitability of traditional warrant procedures to foreign intelligence
collection. . . .
B. Adoption of the Foreign Intelligence Exception to the Warrant Requirement
In light of the concerns outlined here, the Court finds that the power of the Executive to conduct
foreign intelligence collection would be significantly frustrated by the imposition of a warrant requirement
in this context. Therefore, this Court adopts the foreign intelligence exception to the warrant requirement
for searches targeting foreign powers (or their agents) which are conducted abroad. As has been
outlined, no court, prior to FISA, that was faced with the choice, imposed a warrant requirement for
foreign intelligence searches undertaken within the United States. With those precedents as guidance, it
certainly does not appear to be unreasonable for this Court to refuse to apply a warrant requirement for
foreign intelligence searches conducted abroad.

some other cases;
United States v. Truong, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980); United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871 (9th Cir. 1977); United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974) (en banc); United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1973).

"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm

This is the one that most of the progressive types do not get:
Foreign intelligence collection, especially in the midst of an armed conflict in which the
adversary has already launched catastrophic attacks within the United States, fits squarely within
the "special needs" exception to the warrant requirement. Foreign intelligence collection
undertaken to prevent further devastating attacks on our Nation serves the highest government
purpose through means other than traditional law enforcement. See In re Sealed Case, 3 10 F.3d at
745; United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59. 72 (2d Cir. 1984) (recognizing that the Fourth
Amendment implications of foreign intelligence surveillance are far different from ordinary
wiretapping, because they are not principally used for criminal prosecution).
http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/12%2022%2005%20NSA%20letter.pdf

Its in the first sentence," in the midst of an armed conflict ". You either believe We are at war or you don't.
If you don't....Your a fool...

[stas]

Once again, I am not arguing that it is not probable cause. I am arguing that a warrant is required under the Constitution. Are you aware that the Constitution requires warrants for searches and seizures?

whos talking about searches and seizures? im talking about wire tapping (which is why i quoted the specific part of your response i did). im saying they dont have to cut the tap once the person calls supsected terrorist because they now have probable cause. if theyre watching a prostitute and you pull up in a car and talk with one, they can darn well surveil and tap you if shes wired, they dont have to quit just because you have ammendment rights.

[Civil]

im saying they dont have to cut the tap once the person calls supsected terrorist because they now have probable cause. if theyre watching a prostitute and you pull up in a car and talk with one, they can darn well surveil and tap you if shes wired, they dont have to quit just because you have ammendment rights.

Hes got a very good point there.

[Kartikeya-OD]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701540.html

Nice find. Haven't had the time to read the legal brief yet but I'm sure it will be a good laugh.

[Terminotaur]

Its in the first sentence," in the midst of an armed conflict ". You either believe We are at war or you don't.
If you don't....Your a fool...
When did this war start? When does it end?

whos talking about searches and seizures? im talking about wire tapping (which is why i quoted the specific part of your response i did).
Wiretapping is covered under the searches and seizures of the fourth amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nsa_wiretapping#Legal_issues
As a general rule, the Supreme Court has consistently held since Katz v. United States (1967), that the monitoring and recording of private conversations constitutes an "unreasonable search and seizure" barred by the Fourth Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) was a United States Supreme Court decision that extended the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures to protect individuals in a telephone booth from wiretaps by authorities without a warrant.
...
Charles Katz was convicted in California of illegal gambling. He had used a public pay phone booth in Los Angeles to place bets in Miami and Boston. Unbeknownst to him, the FBI had attached an electronic eavesdropping device to the phone which recorded the conversation. Katz was convicted based on recordings of his end of the conversations. He challenged his conviction, arguing that the recordings could not be used as evidence against him. The Court of Appeals sided with the FBI because there was not a physical intrusion into the phone booth itself. The Court granted certiorari.
...
In the decision the Supreme Court sided with Katz, holding that the Fourth Amendment protect his right to privacy, wherever he may be. Justice Stewart wrote, "No less than an individual in a business office, in a friend's apartment, or in a taxicab, a person in a telephone booth may rely upon the protection of the Fourth Amendment." The thrust of the Court's argument was that the Amendment protects people and not just places. This ruling also extended the protection of the Fourth Amendment to include private conversation in addition to corporal objects.

* "The Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violate the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a "search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment."
...


im saying they dont have to cut the tap once the person calls supsected terrorist because they now have probable cause.
Warrants are required, not only probable cause.

I am not certain as to the legal requirements and restrictions for sting operations.

[stas]

When did this war start? When does it end?

Wiretapping is covered under the searches and seizures of the fourth amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nsa_wiretapping#Legal_issues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States

Warrants are required, not only probable cause.

I am not certain as to the legal requirements and restrictions for sting operations.

so citing your earlier source (the wiki search warrant entry), how would calling a suspected terrorist not be evidence in "plain" view with said wire tap? such actions could also fall under the "public emergency" exception.

[Stayne]

If we knew the terrorists phone numbers, I tend to believe we'd be finding where they live pretty quickly. (Unless you are partial to the belief that the GOP functions by being the "good" guy in a war against evil. If they actually catch the evil doers, then they lose thier role as the "good" guys.) I bring that up because so many people have suggested that the terrorists, not US citizens, are being tapped. And so I have to ask, how does the NSA know which lines to tap?

The problem is, they don't. So, they tap a lot of lines, listen in (via magical computers), and in the process are invading the first amendment rights of thousands of US citizens. Of course, it is all in the name of protection, but so far any claims that this program has protected us in specific cases have been disproven.

I am pretty amazed at the number of people who continue to support this administration. They have committed more aggregious crimes than Nixon, but their propaganda machine keeps churning out three-word sound bites that have managed to keep a 33% fan base of unthinking citizens. Amazing.

[Terminotaur]

so citing your earlier source (the wiki search warrant entry), how would calling a suspected terrorist not be evidence in "plain" view with said wire tap? such actions could also fall under the "public emergency" exception.
Plain view applies to crimes being committed openly and not the suspicion of a crime. Just calling the phone of a suspected terrorist is not a crime in itself. Such actions can sometimes fall under the public emergency doctrine, but only a very small amount. Falling under the public emergency doctrine has special conditions that many wiretaps would not meet.

[Kartikeya-OD]

So why haven't we been attacked again since 9/11?

http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/

[Express]

When did this war start? When does it end?

Warrants are required, not only probable cause.

I am not certain as to the legal requirements and restrictions for sting operations.

The first WTC bombing in 93 is a good start;
According to the journalist Steve Coll in his book 'Ghost Wars' [1], Yousef mailed letters to various New York newspapers just before the attack, in which he claimed he belonged to the 'Liberation Army, Fifth Battalion'. These letters made three demands: an end to all US aid to Israel, an end to US diplomatic relations with Israel, and a demand for a pledge by the United States to end interference 'with any of the Middle East countries (sic) interior affairs'. He stated that the attack on the World Trade Center would be merely the first of such attacks if his demands were not met. In his letters Yousef admitted that the World Trade Center bombing was an act of terrorism, but that this was justified because 'the terrorism that Israel practices (which America supports) must be faced with a similar one.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing

But even more so is bin-ladens 1996 fatwa;
The following text is a fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi, a London-based newspaper, in August, 1996. The fatwa is entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html
The Finish ? When the Evil is cleansed.

You keep beating the illegal wiretap drum. This past ruling will get overturned over the standing issue and when it is all said and done down the road the Supreme Court will uphold it and if the dems get control of the house this nov the attempt to try to impeach Bush over it will fail. The Democratic party will suffer greatly over the attempt.

[Stayne]

Maybe if Isreal would remove thier settlements from palestinian lands and stop being the oppressive, militant rulers that they have been it will be a start to coexistence of differing belief systems in that area (documentary (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696&q=propaganda+war+politics&hl=en)). (I say maybe, because there will probably be something else to fight about after that happens.)

To throw words around like "Evil" is not helpful to any argument. You post those letters and arguments, suggesting that you understand the situation, but its obvious that you are blindly prejudiced and fail to comprehend that the U.S. view on international politics is not the be all end all. Our government (through our media) paints things in a way that will keep our citizens on its side. Other governments are, of course, guilty of doing the same thing. However, despite our touted freedom of the press, the British press and even the Isreali press paint a very different, and more objective, view of the middle east conflict than our "free" media does.

All of that aside, our administration, under the charge of Bush, has broken international and federal laws. There is no argument about that. Instead of arguing thier legality, Bush argues that the systems have been effective. That's a completely different issue and one that also demands review. But, the issue that the congress should be concerned with, and the issue that the judicial branch is concerned with, is the legality of what our administration is doing. It turns out, Bush and friends are wrong on this one.

So, if you listen, Bush appologists aren't aguing that the wiretapping is legal (like you guys are trying to do). They are, instead, suggesting that new legislation be passed that make it legal (Specter's proposal, for example). This idea scares me also. The last thing we need, IMO, is to give even more power to the executive branch at this time. They already take more than they are allowed. But I bring it up to point out that the people who actually know what they are talking about (supposedly) aren't making the same arguements that you Bush supporters are. They are not trying to say that NSA wiretapping IS legal, they are pushing for legislation to MAKE IT legal.

[Terminotaur]

You keep beating the illegal wiretap drum.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Continuous erosion of the fourth amendment is a horrible thing. Give me one good reason why there should not be warrants for wiretaps. If suspected terrorists are suspected to be terrorists, it follows that there should be at least some evidence to support this suspicion. If there is evidence to support such a suspicion, a court would almost certainly approve the wiretap (even retroactively). The only reason I can think of that the administration would not want warrants for their wiretaps is if they are wiretapping targets without any reasonable evidence of suspicion. If you support such wiretapping, you support the destruction of the fourth amendment.

The Finish ? When the Evil is cleansed.
This is incredibly Ambiguous™.

[schtoofa]

The only reason I can think of that the administration would not want warrants for their wiretaps is if they are wiretapping targets without any reasonable evidence of suspicion. If you support such wiretapping, you support the destruction of the fourth amendment.

That's your guess on why they might, but it's just that -- your assumption (but of course you know that). I suppose the administration could clear it up by just explaining why ;) other than just saying "this is 100% legal," and maybe they have and I've missed it. *shrug*

[xero]

That's your guess on why they might, but it's just that -- your assumption (but of course you know that). I suppose the administration could clear it up by just explaining why ;) other than just saying "this is 100% legal," and maybe they have and I've missed it. *shrug*No, you haven't missed anything. They've done the exact opposite. They are now going out and saying that these 'activist' judges (i.e., the ones that read the Constitution sans loopholes to permit obviously unconstitutional activities) are 'hurting America' and 'helping the terrorists win.'

[Zogo]

The rationale behind it was because in order to get that warrant - the phone call was already over with.

which doesn't make sense because the FISA courts already allow them a 2-3 day retroactive grace period for doing such things (which btw is technically uconstitutional anyway.)

I'm sorry, I just think national security should take precedent over the press and I just don't see a problem with it since i've nothing to really hide in my overseas phonecalls.

I don't think security should take precedent over rights ever.

No they are not tapping US citizens, they are tapping terrorists and suspected terrorists.

yes, they have tapped US citizens. they've even tapped US citizens on purely domestic calls too.

So why haven't we been attacked again since 9/11?

I always laugh when fear-mongering politicians cite that there haven't been any attacks. it's a win-win situation for demagoguery..if we aren't hit it's thanks to our great new acts/laws perpetuating an illusion of security..and if we are hit it'll show that we're not spying enough and will usher in an era of even more flagrant unconstitutional laws.

either way the blame is always deflected off the politicians.

[Express]

Maybe if Isreal would remove thier settlements from palestinian lands and stop being the oppressive, militant rulers that they have been it will be a start to coexistence of differing belief systems in that area
What a crock! When the Egyptians were in possession of Gaza for almost twenty years nobody accused them of being occupiers. The Jordanians, who were in possession of the “West Bank" and much of Jerusalem for the same length of time, were not considered occupiers by the nations of the world and by the inhabitants of the area. The Israelis were considered “occupiers” when, after a war of extermination against them, they prevailed and came into possession of these territories. The oldest rule of warfare is that to the victor belong the spoils. Ask the Christian inhabitants of Bethlehem and southern lebanon about the "coexistence of differing belief systems". Or how about the Jewish people who lived in Iraq, Iran, Libya and other Muslim countries after the 1948 war that led to almost 800,000 Jewish refugees created, What about them ?
throw words around like "Evil" is not helpful to any argument. You post those letters and arguments, suggesting that you understand the situation, but its obvious that you are blindly prejudiced and fail to comprehend that the U.S. view on international politics is not the be all end all.
Well I'll tell you what;
May 22, 1970 - Avivim, Israel
Palestinian terrorists attack schoolbus , killing 12 (9 of whom were children), and wounding 24.
May 15, 1974 - Maalot, Israel
PFLP terrorists held children hostage in a Ma'alot school . Of the 27 Israelis murdered, 21 were children. 78 were wounded.
Mar 2, 2002 - Outside of a Jerusalem synagogue, a terrorist detonated a bomb next to a group of mainly women standing outside with their young children, several in baby carriages . The victims: Shlomo Nehmad (40), his wife Gafnit (32), and their daughters Shiraz (7) and Liran (3); Avraham Eliahu Nehmad, (7), Shaul Nehmad (15); Lidor Ilan (12) and his sister Oriah (18 months); Tzofia Ya'arit Eliyahu (23) and her son Ya'akov Avraham (7 months); and Avi Hazan, (37). The Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade took responsibility for the attack.
Aug 19, 2003 - Twenty-three people were killed, including 7 children when a Palestinian suicide bomber detonated himself on a No. 2 Egged bus in Jerusalem's Shmuel Hanavi neighborhood. The bus was filled with children. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack. The child victims: Shmuel Taubenfeld, 3 months, of New Square, New York; Shmuel Zargari, 11 months; Tehilla Nathanson, 3; Issachar Reinitz, 9; Avraham Bar-Or, 12; Binyamin Bergman, 15; Elisheva Meshulami, 16.
Nov. 10, 2002, Revital Ohayon, 34, and her two sons, Matan, 5, and Noam, 4, were shot to death by an Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade terrorist who broke into their home at Kibbutz Metzer.
On May 2, 2004, terrorists ambushed the car of Tali Hatuel, who was 9 months pregnant, and shot her and her four young daughters, aged 2, 7, 9 and 11. It was daylight and the terrorists obviously knew they were killing four small children because they shot them all at point blank range.
And the one that sickens me the most;
On Mar 26, 2001, a Palestinian sniper took aim at 10 month old Shalhevet Pass, who was sitting in her stroller. She was fatally shot in the head. This was hardly an “accident.” She was the target, even though her father was standing right beside her.

Maybe that doesn't fit your definition of evi,l it fits mine.
I pity you if it doesn't fit yours. As for the apologists on this board who do not like to call people Terrorist's, The Murderers who carried out the above acts and more are not "Freedom fighters", "Martyrs" and such. They are Terrorist Murderers nothing more and Perditions Flames await them not any virgins.
Our government (through our media) paints things in a way that will keep our citizens on its side. Other governments are, of course, guilty of doing the same thing. However, despite our touted freedom of the press, the British press and even the Isreali press paint a very different, and more objective, view of the middle east conflict than our "free" media does.
Are you F__king kidding Me, Our media helping the Administration..........

All of that aside, our administration, under the charge of Bush, has broken international and federal laws. There is no argument about that. Instead of arguing thier legality, Bush argues that the systems have been effective. That's a completely different issue and one that also demands review. But, the issue that the congress should be concerned with, and the issue that the judicial branch is concerned with, is the legality of what our administration is doing. It turns out, Bush and friends are wrong on this one.

Dross.......

So, if you listen, Bush appologists aren't aguing that the wiretapping is legal (like you guys are trying to do). They are, instead, suggesting that new legislation be passed that make it legal (Specter's proposal, for example). This idea scares me also. The last thing we need, IMO, is to give even more power to the executive branch at this time. They already take more than they are allowed. But I bring it up to point out that the people who actually know what they are talking about (supposedly) aren't making the same arguements that you Bush supporters are. They are not trying to say that NSA wiretapping IS legal, they are pushing for legislation to MAKE IT legal.
Specter is just A Rino anyway.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Continuous erosion of the fourth amendment is a horrible thing. Give me one good reason why there should not be warrants for wiretaps. If suspected terrorists are suspected to be terrorists, it follows that there should be at least some evidence to support this suspicion. If there is evidence to support such a suspicion, a court would almost certainly approve the wiretap (even retroactively). The only reason I can think of that the administration would not want warrants for their wiretaps is if they are wiretapping targets without any reasonable evidence of suspicion. If you support such wiretapping, you support the destruction of the fourth amendment.
This link is for both of you it is a comment exchange on a law blog read the exchange between Howard Gilbert and JaO it gets really detailed and explains it far better than I could and you can see the start of a shift in positions by JaO.
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/07/hamdan-and-nsa-domestic-surveillance.html

[Stayne]

Express.

I may not have made myself clear. I'm not saying that commiting the atrocities that you have listed is is good, or heroic, or even that they are simply not evil. What I'm saying is that labeling them as evil does nothing to help solve the problem and may actually hinder progress. You made a list that spanned over 30 years. I'm sure that palestinians could make a list of equally atrocious acts that Isrealis have committed against them. Does that mean, then, that the Isrealis are evil? It must, if they have committed equally heinous acts. What does this conclusion leave us with? Two groups of evil people. Nothing more.

What I was suggesting was to try to understand the context in which these crimes are committed in hopes to come up with a way to decrease thier occurrence in the future. Its unlikely that all such crimes will be stopped entirely, especially since we see some pretty atrocious things happen around us right here at home. But, the rate of occurrence can be reduced.

How can the rate of occurrence of these crimes be reduced? There are a lot of different possible solutions, but all of them either include or imply a decrease in the cross-cultural hostility in that area. You say "to the winner go the spoils". That may be true, but that doesn't mean the loser has to stop fighting. If part of the "spoils" is to control a group of people, then the pains of controlling them is also part of that reward. In the case of isreal, that means they will get rocks thrown at them, and if any palestinian manages to find a gun or explosives they will certainly use them. Plenty of isrealis, not just the military, use guns on palestinians.

As for how our media is not countering our government on this issue, and for some info to back up what I typed above, watch the documentary (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696&q=peace+propoganda&hl=en) .

How does all of this relate to the current topic?... Not sure that it does. It was a reaction to Express labelling people as "evil" without realizing that the British, the Isrealis, the USA, and pretty much any other country with any power has committed heinous acts of violence, targetted civilians (Hello, our bombs and soldiers have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraquis!), and could just as easily be labelled as "evil" as anyone else. In fact, that is exactly what the "terrorists" are doing. In thier eyes, we are the wrong doers. Sadly, they have plenty of reasons to believe that.

Now, don't misunderstand. I'm not condoning any of the attrocities. But I'm not going to sit back and point my finger and call someone the devil, either. Seek to understand the situation. The world is not simply black-and-white as our purefect president seems to think.

As for the NSA wiretaps: Its illegal. As for new legislation to make it legal, there's no need. FISA already has it covered. Don't give the executive branch more power. It has taken too much already.

Also, what ever happened to the "we're fighting over there so we don't have to fight here" bit? Guess that wasn't right after all, with all the scares, terror alerts, possibly hijackings, etc that have occurred over the last few years.

edit: Express, thanks for that link to the discussion on NSA and FISA. Was an enlightening read. Maybe we do need new legislation... careful legislation.

[Kartikeya-OD]

What I was suggesting was to try to understand the context in which these crimes are committed in hopes to come up with a way to decrease thier occurrence in the future.

I believe the current situation is that you have several groups whose only intent is to destroy Israel for good. Then you have Israel trying to prevent that while still holding back (go go PR machine).

It was a reaction to Express labelling people as "evil" without realizing that the British, the Isrealis, the USA, and pretty much any other country with any power has committed heinous acts of violence, targetted civilians (Hello, our bombs and soldiers have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraquis!), and could just as easily be labelled as "evil" as anyone else. In fact, that is exactly what the "terrorists" are doing. In thier eyes, we are the wrong doers. Sadly, they have plenty of reasons to believe that.

So we've killed hundreds of thousands of Iraquis huh... Dam where was I for that when CNN was covering the war so well I thought.

So if they are not Evil does that make them Good or even our Friends? I'd love to be friends with some of the stars in this movie! http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/ Espically the sheik with the big sword!

[Stayne]

Kart, you are free to believe what you wish. Even obsession, the little I've read about it at least, suggests that the moderate majority of Islamic countries are not actively engaged in destroying Israel and hope for a peaceful end. They discuss the propaganda that terrorist groups disperse and the violence in many regions that the people are exposed to regularly.

What I don't know if they discuss is how all of that truly desensitizes the people. We just had a thread in the cesspool about how desensitited we are to shit on the internet. Well, those people are seeing that stuff in thier streets. They are living it. For them to engage in it is just a small step. I guess what I'm saying is, the line of morality is easily blurred. Where does this fit in? Its related to the label of "evil". To label someone evil to to suggest that they know what is good and are fighting against it (imo). I think that the terrorists actually think that what they are doing is what is right. Maybe not every action, but that the end justifies the means. No matter, my point still stands that if you label them evil you realy do nothing but hinder progress. Why not discuss how to alleviate a suffering people, as opposed to making this a battle between the Good (which I supose Isreal and the US must be in your eyes) and the Evil (anyone against us).

I dare bet that if we lived the life palestinians live, we'd be out there throwing rocks and shit at isreali soldiers too. That's all I mean.

I may have misspoke when I said hundreds of thousands of Iraquis. I can't find any place that will give totals for the war. But I know that over 17,000 iraqui civilians have been killed just this year. I may have overestimated originally.

So, if they aren't "evil", that doesn't make them anything. Its unnecessary to label them. Why is that so hard to understand?

[Express]

What I'm saying is that labeling them as evil does nothing to help solve the problem and may actually hinder progress.
You miss my point, When your cause is reduced to the intentional murdering of innocent children you have morally bankrupted it. I used those incidents described because each one showed deliberate intent. There were alot more.....
Show me incidents where the Israeli's,the British and US soldiers have delberately set out to put a child in a gunsite and kill it. There is no context to that. Loss of life in war sadly happens. As for using the word Evil to describe a human being who can coldly squeese a trigger or pull an arming cord or a grenade pin or wield the knife on a child, what else can you call it? I don't give a fuck what your cause is there is moral line that transcends all religious or political struggles. As far as I am concerned the faster these killers are they themselves exterminated the better.

I have great empathy for the Palestinians and believed they have been wronged by thier Arab neighbors as much as anyone else. If the war in 1948 had not occured I believe there would be a totally different middle east today.
I also firmly believe that if the Palestinians had adopted the methods of Ghandi rather than the gun the Israeli's and the Palestinian's would be living peacefully side by side and this discussion would be academic.
And for Terminatour, the struggle will end when an Arab and a Israeli are sitting on a bench in Jerusalem commenting on how sweet the figs taste this year each secure in thier own beliefs.

[schtoofa]

Is Judge Taylor partial to the ACLU?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/23/washington/23judge.html

The federal judge who ruled last week that President Bush’s eavesdropping program was unconstitutional is a trustee and an officer of a group that has given at least $125,000 to the American Civil Liberties Union in Michigan, a watchdog group said Tuesday.

...

Three legal ethicists interviewed said although Judge Taylor’s role as a trustee for a supporter of the civil liberties group would not necessarily disqualify her from hearing the case, she should have probably disclosed the connection in court to avoid any appearance of a conflict.

“It certainly would have been prudent” to notify the parties in the case, including the Justice Department, about the issue, said Steven Lubet, a law professor at Northwestern University and an author of “Judicial Conduct and Ethics.”

“I don’t think there’s a clear answer as to whether she should have disqualified herself,” Professor Lubet said. “But at a minimum, she should have disclosed it.”

[Stayne]

More assaults on her character. Too bad there are no good arguments against the ruling. So far the only arguments that I've heard have to do with the effectiveness of the program, not the legality of it. The effectiveness isn't the issue at hand.

[larcain]

More assaults on her character. Too bad there are no good arguments against the ruling. So far the only arguments that I've heard have to do with the effectiveness of the program, not the legality of it. The effectiveness isn't the issue at hand.


Did you read the blog express pointed at? Howard seems to be arguing the DOJ actual position on this matter. He IS arguing the legality of it. I'm not going to post it part and parcel, but he makes a fairly compelling argument.
The one part I will post is this:

[So while it may be true that any form of domestic wiretapping falls through to Title III, any form of foreign intelligence wiretapping that occurs overseas is excluded from Title III unless it falls under the four part definition in FISA. If you doubt this, then answer the question: Which US District Court has jurisdiction to issue a warrant to wiretap a phone in Karachi Pakistan?]

[schtoofa]

More assaults on her character. Too bad there are no good arguments against the ruling. So far the only arguments that I've heard have to do with the effectiveness of the program, not the legality of it. The effectiveness isn't the issue at hand.

You should look closer ;) Up above I criticized her for not addressing a relevant note in a previous decision that she refers to in her ruling. She should have at least mentioned the footnote and explained why it did or did not apply in this case. By avoiding it (or appearing to), it makes her ruling look not quite so thorough imo.

[Stayne]

I'm sorry I wasn't clear in that post. When I said "no one", I wasn't referring to the Average Joe american civilian (Howard is a computer science professor at Yale, so he's probably a bit above average). Yes, I read his points and even commented on them in my reply above. When I said that no one is arguing the legality of the program I was referring to no one in the main stream media and no one in office. Bush, as a prime example, didn't argue the legality of the program, but instead argued the effectiveness of it.

So yes, you guys and other american citizens are debating the question of legality. Our leaders, however, are not. Do they know something we don't? I don't know.

[Express]

Something I just came across might be informative;
Pierre Rehov's feature examines the phenomenon of suicide bombers through interviews with their family members, along with prisoners whose bombing attempts have been thwarted. The film's revelations about the bombers' true motivations are both surprising and shocking.

http://www.pierrerehov.com/

[larcain]

I'm sorry I wasn't clear in that post. When I said "no one", I wasn't referring to the Average Joe american civilian (Howard is a computer science professor at Yale, so he's probably a bit above average). Yes, I read his points and even commented on them in my reply above. When I said that no one is arguing the legality of the program I was referring to no one in the main stream media and no one in office. Bush, as a prime example, didn't argue the legality of the program, but instead argued the effectiveness of it.



Once again, he appears to be arguing the same case as the DOJ. Not only that, this is the same position the AG is taking, and arguing. Bush isn't the AG or a DOJ lawyer so, the fact that he isn't arguing legal specifications isn't all that surprising.

[agi|e]

My point, same as Cafferty's, which is the point of the FEDERAL COURT RULING, is that our president is openly violating Federal law. Like a criminal.

And certainly my statement is a cauldron of boiling hyperbole, but the kernel of truth remains; no real American (and certainly no one who claims to be a "patriot") should countenance a criminal government. On the contrary, we should demand accountability from them, and we should demand that the judiciary and the congress check the bastards, as the Founding Fathers intended.

There's no lack of evidence of incompetence and bald-faced corruption, and now there's a Court ruling to bolster the pile. Ignore it at your peril.

Well obviously the Courts can argue it, I did not express myself clearly. We common citizens can "argue" amongst ourselves as we're doing now, but the precedence of the current ruling itself is inviolable, until a higher court strikes it down (or indicts the criminals). George Bush is a bona fide criminal until the ruling is overturned, is all I'm saying. Sorry I mis-spoke.

This is frankly the truth and government officials who break the law need to be prosecuted and punished just like everyone else. This is like the emperor with no clothes. Bush and company break laws blatantly but nobody does anything about it. It's a sad testament to how low this country has sunk and how badly our constitution has been watered down.

They say "well yes we did make a mistake about the threat to the US from WMDs but since we are already there we need to finish what we started or the whole country of Iraq will descend into chaos". Or words to that effect. What really needs to happen is for the US government to admit to the world that it fucked up and withdraw it's forces from Iraq to cut our and their losses. Then all the people who sanctioned and organized the invasion need to be tried for all the various crimes they have committed. If found guilty they need to be fired from their jobs or put in jail so they don't do any more damage. Letting them continue week after week and year after year with their illegal activities just makes them more brazen and fearless in the commitment of future acts. It's time to stop being nice and get rid of these assholes.

[schtoofa]

Illegal activities like putting forward funds and manpower to help build schools? Yeah, let's hang the bastards!