President may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps!!

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN ^ | June 13, 1979 | OPINIONBY:FREEMAN

[gridlock]

My point is, if we don't do what's necessary to protect the nation our basic liberties are threatened. The government's job is to protect the nation's interests, it's borders (not a stellar track record, I'll grant you on this one) and the citizenry from attack. Civil liberties come second to basic liberties in my book. This really isn't hard to grasp...

The fact that the government is not doing things that are entirely appropriate and within their power to protect the nation, and is instead doing other things, should concern even you.

In any case, I think you are off-base in your assertion that the Constitution's statements in support of the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness means the government can do whatever is necessary to stop all crime. After all, there are a host of legitimate restrictions on government when it comes to stopping crime. If it is a mugger in the alley instead of a suicide bomber on the bus, are you any less dead?

[Raycpa]

The NSA issue is whether or not a reasonable expectation of privacy (impying a private communication) of a US citizen is violated by a warrantless intrusion that supposedly is also shot on probable cause.

If I receive one word that unlocks a coded meesage in an otherwise mundane conversation and I have never had previous communication could the US get a warrant even after the fact?

[XenaLee]

What you and ProdigalSon are failing to understand is that DemRats like Hillary wouldn't bother with little things like LAWS and the constitution ANYway, so why even worry about that? We already know that for a fact from their past 8-yr history in office and little things like almost a thousand FBI files on their opposition which they obtained illegally, using the IRS to harass their political opponents, selling our military missle technology to the commies, and sending in jack-booted thugs to wipe out whole families.

If Bush fails to protect this country from another attack, the lefties will be back in power as soon as the next election occurs ANYway (and probably even sooner if they managed to finally get their Impeachment Wish). We have to worry about the here and now because if we don't survive the here and now, there won't BE anything else to worry about for our future. And that is exactly what Bush is doing and has been doing. Taking care of the present, here and now.

If that philosophy makes me a Bushbot in your eyes, I'll take that hit. And GLADLY so.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Yup. That's a perfectly legitimate stance. Thanks.

[Cboldt]

If I receive one word that unlocks a coded meesage in an otherwise mundane conversation and I have never had previous communication could the US get a warrant even after the fact?

All the US could know (if it even knows this) is that you received a message from somebody. And I think you're onto the nub of the NSA issue. If the person you received a communication from (not necessarily the coded one) is suspected of being a terrorist, should the government be required to obtain a warrant to monitor your communications? Does one contact constitute probable cause?

Or maybe the timeframe for obtaining a warrant is such that the delay admits too much risk of attack.

[antiRepublicrat]

Even if it is technically legal. is it a good idea? The government has a long and proven track record of abusing the power to intercept communications. If not this president, then the next, or the next, but it will be abused.

I'm not even sure I trust this president. After all, he showed no regard for constitutional rights in signing CFR and promising to sign the reauthorization for the "assault weapons" ban. He had protesters he didn't like arrested on the sidewalk of the governor's mansion. He was even in an abuse of eminent domain in a land grab for private gain, and don't forget his "There ought to be limits to freedom" quote when referring to the 1st Amendment rights of his detractors.

Why should he care about our rights when it comes to intercepting communications?

[mrsmith]

"...you shut down your higher brain functions (you know that part that remembers the intent of the Framers)"

"FRIDAY AUGUST 17th. IN CONVENTION
...Mr. MADISON and Mr. GERRY moved to insert "declare," striking out "make" war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.
Mr. SH[E]RMAN thought it stood very well. The Executive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war."

"Good citizens" consider the members of the Constitutional Convention the "Framers", not the members of the Church Committee LOL!

To the Founders the issue to be addresed is whether the president was acting in defense to repel an attack.

Some Americans don't consider it reasonable to suspect people talking overseas to AlQueda phone numbers of being part of a "sudden attack" upon the US. They will, I assume, call for impeachment- the constitutional remedy provided for abuse of authority.

BTW: the Constitution has a method to amend it which must be followed. It can not be amended by mere statute.

[TX Bluebonnet]

bookmark for later

[airedale]

Who decides what's reasonable and unreasonable? That's a good question. There is no requirement that it be a court or judge especially if it's related to foreign affairs. If it's related to foreign affairs the President has sole authority. Congress only control is through purse strings and in the case of treaties advice and consent by the senate.

One of the questions that' raised by this situation is why they Bush administration chose not to get warrants in certain specific cases. It's my understanding while it took only a short time to get approval once all the paperwork was done it took from 2 days to a week to complete the paperwork prior to seeking court approval and tied up several lawyers. If they had to get a separate warrant for each person/number called prior to or within 72 hours of the call (timed from the time of the call not when a human was notified and listened to the call)may have made it impossible. The systems are automated and look for key words. When the words or other things trigger the software it refers the call after the fact to a human analyst who then makes a judgment about the nature of the call. At that point whether the call was valuable or not you would have to obtain an expostfacto warrant jumping through all the paperwork requirements. In the mean time you couldn't act on the info.

One of the requirements of FISA is that to be covered the calls have to be intercepted in the US. Echelon and the other listening systems have major facilities in the UK, Australia and at least one of the former Soviet Union countries. If the signals were intercepted there then FISA doesn't apply. That's probably true if the analysis by the human is actually done in the US.

[Shalom Israel]

Civil liberties come second to basic liberties in my book. This really isn't hard to grasp...

It is if the distinction between "civil" and "basic" liberties itself is problematic. To many, or at least to me, there is only one liberty: the right of self-determination. That includes making any decisions for myself that don't take away your right to make decisions for yourself. Since there is only one liberty, there can't be two different kinds--and hence, one can't take second place to another.

I think what you're calling "basic liberty" essentially means "not dying." The trouble is, there is no such right. People have no right to kill you, and if they try, you have a right to defend yourself--but no "right" guarantees that your self-defense will succeed, or that your murderer will fail. If you give up self-determination in exchange for an outcome, such as survival, then that's your choice, but it's mislabeling to call that "freedom", or a case of "one freedom outweighing another".

[Cboldt]

I just returned from Mexico where our bus was searched by federales. My civil liberties, although non-existenent there, were by definition, violated.

In what way? The stop and search must have been reasonable, by definition. As you say ...

I have little concern I'm being scrutinized. Why? Because there's no reason to.

Me, I'll worry about a suitcase nuke in Boston or Omaha, not about the methods that were used to try to prevent it from going off.

I'm not "worried" about it (although I expect some amount of protection from my overlords), but your advocacy for surveillance hasn't even roughly defined an outer perimeter.

[prairiebreeze]

The fact that the government is not doing things that are entirely appropriate and within their power to protect the nation, and is instead doing other things, should concern even you.

I believe they should be doing all of that.

In any case, I think you are off-base in your assertion

I understand that you do.

[dljordan]

"why are the hiding the Barrett report?"

I would really love to see that report.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Better to have al Qaeda cut my head off than to give up everything that makes life worth living.

Cute. But this isn't about Al Qaeda trying to cut off your head, it is about AQ trying to murder thousands or hundreds of thousands of Americans in a single act. Those persons aren't yours to offer up as a sacrifice, but the President did swear an oath to protect and defend them.

[Just mythoughts]

"I would really love to see that report."


Me to. New campaign 2006 "Free the Barrett report"!!! What are liberals hiding????

[prairiebreeze]

I try to employ common sense cbolt. I have only a minute to continue on this before I return to work though.

While at war, many/most people will accept a chance their civil liberties might be stepped on (emphasize might be) for the greater good of defeating or retarding the enemy. In peacetime, those levels of tolerance might change, however that's not where we find ourselves today.

I have no idea why the bus was searched. It was at one of the checkpoints we went through and full of elderly mostly white Americans. I meant by common definition in this country, as there were no warrants, no probable cause, no consent.

Perhaps the guide didn't grease the federales palms quickly enough :^)

[Cboldt]

Who decides what's reasonable and unreasonable? That's a good question. There is no requirement that it be a court or judge especially if it's related to foreign affairs.

I think there is quite the blurry line between domestic and foreign communications too, but be that as it may ...

Regarding foreign affiars, there is no "reasonable" boundary. The president is empowered to take all he can get. I was just pondering the wisdom of granting the President the sole authority to determine "reasonable" without having to justify his judgment to the people. Or more precisely, how little (or how much) oversight should exist. And then, when there is a difference of opinion between the president and the overseers, what should happen?

There aren't clear cut answers to those. I see Lincoln's habeas corpus actions as somewhat parallel - give and take between the branches following perceived exigencies of circumstance. What's a bit concerning to me is that the people don't "get" the process, and will react to sound bite sloganeering.

[prairiebreeze]

Yes, that's the good point that was raised earlier on the thread. This isn't just about one person, or individual. Thinking collectively is also called for.

aack, now I'm really late, LOL

[Lady Heron]

It's ironic, because under those circumstances probable cause is airtight, and getting a warrant should take about five minutes.

Not with a democrat judge playing politics with our safety.

[WoofDog123]

I find there is a lot of apathy about the concept of the government databasing potentially every communication you make, with that data to be saved forever. Maybe some people haven't imagined how a future government could make surreptitious use of such data without every bringing a legal complaint against you, if they are so motivated.