Posted on 02/07/2006 8:15:53 AM PST by CyberAnt
I don't know. People from all sides are disagreeing about what is legal and authorized and what is not.
I have a problem with wiretapping Americans without a warrant. I am not a lawyer or AG or Senator. I think it should be challenged and see what the Supreme Court has to say.
I can't believe conservatives would defend warrantless searches of American citizens, which to me are clearly against the 4th amendment. I am not a lawyer though.
That being said, your approach is generally level-headed and I appreciate that. If only the Dems would put aside their Bush-hatred to consider the matter evenly, I'd have no problem.
Privacy is not the same as Liberty. Security DOES TRUMP. If you ask the folks killed in the 9/11 attacks, oops you can't ask them about their privacy or liberty. THEY DON'T HAVE EITHER.
And .. Leahy went off on a tangent about TSA rules and regs in wanding little old ladies and children.
What the heck that had to do with the NSA program - beats me!
Thanks. You are right, if a police officer has a reasonable suspicion that you are doing something wrong, they can search or detain you without a warrant.
Newt was talking about this on O'Reilly last night - and I only caught part of it.
FISA is for normal times - creating a way to protect the general public from spying by the govt - and I agree with that ..
However, Newt pointed out that WE ARE AT WAR - and the president has the powers during WAR TIME to take these extra steps to keep us safe. I wish I had the transcript of what he said because it was very powerful.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Sorry, but foreign terrorist organizations such as Al Quaeda are NOT part of our society. The protections of the Constitution do not extend to non-citizens. Furthermore, there is a night and day difference between foreign surveillance and domestic surveillance. This isn't a 1960s type of case where the feds were questionably wire tapping the White Panthers or the Weathermen. This is wire tapping some guy sitting in Yemen with known terrorist ties making a call to the US.
You don't understand the NSA program - so you keep beating the FISA bush .. the programs are not related - and if the NSA program was so horrible and so UNLAWFUL why hasn't some congress person submitted legislation TO STOP FUNDING IT ..??
Hmmmm?? Interesting!
Are you aware that "disposable" cellphones are available which are purchased over the counter WITH NO ID EVER REQUIRED TO ACTIVATE! By the time you go through all the hoops to get a "John Doe" warrant..., the cellphone is discarded and a new one is in use!
Believe me, it is very easy to thwart "wiretapping" in today's world! You go to an obscure website through your local library computer, leave a coded message and, bingo, the "Bad Guys" ring your new AND VERY TEMPORARY CELLPHONE!!!
FISA Court may be easier than other courts issuing warrants BUT, it is still a time consuming process! If you get a "hit" on a more permanent telephone number (used by a clueless terrorist... and I doubt there are many), you can proceed for a FISA warrant!
If you have ever sought a warrant (as I have), it is a time consuming process under the best of conditions and, while you shuffle paper, make a presentation to various approval levels, you can't do much work!
There is no way in hell to address this threat through "tried and true" methods!
And .......??
However, you left out two key elements .. I'm not a suspected terrorist - and I'm not in a foreign country.
I wish you people would get your facts straight!
Don't bother... I watched it.
I agree. I was talking about listening to conversations of American citizens without a warrant.
Excuse me .. who the heck are you to call me "ignorant".
I'm supporting the NSA program - and I believe I understand how it works. And .. it's nothing like the FISA program which is for domestic uses - while the NSA program is for MILITARY USES. It's designed to catch terrorists calling into the USA - it's not designed to monitor your useless and mundane conversations with your Aunt Mabel.
You're the one with the "blitherings" - not me! LOL!!
Yes. That is why they have up to 72 hours AFTER they have started listening to get a warrant.
Correct!
1. The FISA law is not governing.
2. The FISA procedure is for going to court. The information gained in this surveillance will not be used in court. Warrants carry no legal weight on the battlefield.
Wrong. There won't always be probable cause for a warrant. Suppose Binny calls a friend in the U.S. for a social chat and mentions that he's got to go because he's late for dinner in Peshawar. The tap has to be disconnected. No probable cause that the U.S. resident will commit any crime.
What you and the Dims advocate will result in the pre-9/11 practice. Whenever an AQ phone we are monitoring dials a US area code or receives a call from a US phone, we hang up. Which is precisely what happened before 9/11.
We have to do this for intelligence purposes. The information will probably not be admissible for judicial purposes against the US resident, but that's not why it's being gathered.
"I agree. I was talking about listening to conversations of American citizens without a warrant."
Great, you've got absolutely nothing to worry about then unless you a) receive a phone call from a terrorist or b) place a phone call to a terrorist. When either a) or b) occurs the government, especially in a time of war against said terrorist groups, has every right to listen in without a warrant. Both Article II of the Constitution (which completely trumps FISA) and FISA itself with the "other statute" provision allow for this. Take your pick, the Constitution (my personal favorite) or FISA with its exemption utilizing Congress' authorization for use of military force statute.
Also, since you seem to agree on the non-citizen aspect, what if we find out that most of the people wiretapped in the U.S. were illegal immigrants, visa holders, or green card holders? I bet a majority will be. Since they are not citizens is it illegal to wiretap them? It shouldn't be.
"Yes. That is why they have up to 72 hours AFTER they have started listening to get a warrant."
I know this was already explained once but let's try this again. If following FISA the NSA can not just start listening and then get a warrant 72 hours later. THIS IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. First it must be evaluated by NSA lawyers, by DOJ lawyers, and then by the Attorney General himself. This can take a considerable amount of time and effort, possibly longer than a day. Once it is certified as likely being FISA compliant THEN AND ONLY THEN can the NSA start listening. Next, within 72 hours a true warrant application must be submitted. It is important that this is understood as it is a crucial reason WHY FISA (whether you agree or disagree that it should be used) is unworkable in the situation being discussed. Please stop spouting this "72 hour" inaccuracy if you don't fully understand what it means.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.