Skip to comments.
Judge orders end to NSA wiretapping
baltimoresun.com ^
| August 17, 2006
| Sarah Karush
Posted on 08/17/2006 9:49:00 AM PDT by neverdem
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 next last
To: pw2000
"he terrorists win everytime we huddle like sheep for our physical survival and give up our rights and our freedoms in exchange."
I looked up some of your previous posts (without a warrant of course). Very interesting history you had.
Thomas Jefferson once said...
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure."
I fear that many Americans have grown so removed from the horrible struggle that it took to secure these freedoms that they have grown complacent. Self assured that these freedoms will always be with us despite the fact that history has shown this country to be the exception rather than the rule.
121
posted on
08/17/2006 2:04:05 PM PDT
by
ndt
To: oceanview
I doubt very seriously the NSA is using Cray mainframes any longer, as that wonderful company (after the founder was sadly killed in a car accident here in CO) was bought out by SUN (I think). More than likely the NSA is using clustered server racks, and large multiprocesser servers (like SGI Origins, etc), but hey, I'm just guessing as an IT guy.
As a matter of fact, the only Cray 'supercomputer,' I've seen was on display in the lobby of a building on an Air Force base here; not plugged in of course. I believe it was a Cray YMP-2. State of the art circa 1989 or so.
PS To all of the other posters here who are knee-jerking themselves over this; what exactly about the word warrantless do you not understand? Get a warrant (FISA allows 72 hour retroactive monitoring-warrants) or have congress change the law. It ain't rocket science folks.
To: DoughtyOne
Are you intentionally pretending to not understand the role of the secret FISA court? They expressly do allow monitoring for 72 hours immediately and will issue retroactive warrants. Don't like that restriction? Why don't we just get rid of the judiciary completely then and annoint POTUS king and be done with it? Is that what you want? Bet you'd be on the other side of this silly argument if Billary were president. Think about it.
To: Chuck54
Thanks Chuck. Sorry about the feet, but I'm glad you knew where I was headed there.
124
posted on
08/17/2006 2:16:58 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(Bring your press credentials to Qana, for the world's most convincing terrorist street theater.)
To: gc4nra
125
posted on
08/17/2006 2:17:58 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(Bring your press credentials to Qana, for the world's most convincing terrorist street theater.)
To: Steve in CO
Thanks Steve. Your post and another have expressed views that were certainly not my understanding of the FISA court. In addition, the FISA court also turns down requests for monitoring. In light of that, how can you say that the NSA can have instant access? If a warrant is turned down, they've already screwed the pooch by your explanation.
126
posted on
08/17/2006 2:21:12 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(Bring your press credentials to Qana, for the world's most convincing terrorist street theater.)
To: Steve in CO
They expressly do allow monitoring for 72 hours immediately and will issue retroactive warrants. Don't like that restriction? That doesn't work when you're talking about data mining. What the NSA does is scan every single call. The filters for this program then yanks out all those to or from certain telephone numbers, and in which certain trigger words or phrases appear. It is a constant filtering process of billions of calls each day. How can you possibly get a warrant for each instance of filtering?
Now once they've pulled those suspicious calls and listened to them, they may then decide to put a direct tap on the phone in the U.S. on which that conversation occured. At that point, they have to comply with the 72 hour warrant requirement. But expecting them to do that for the data mining portion of the program reveals a lack of understanding of what that program is.
To: DoughtyOne
The FISA court has turned down less than 1% of all monitoring requests. You can look that up if you like. Even so, if you are afraid that even that is too restrictive; then advocate for congress to change the law, what the NSA is doing, at behest of the executive branch is clearly unconstitutional. How to fix that? Two ways; stop doing it or change the law. It is one of those rare times that it is actually that simple, that black and white. That is why I am so flabbergasted by supposed freedom-loving, law-abiding citizens who are so willing to give one (of the ostensibly co-equal) branches of the government way too much leeway on something so powerful and so susceptable to abuse.
To: Steve in CO
Get a warrant (FISA allows 72 hour retroactive monitoring-warrants) or have congress change the law. Are you suggesting this for data mining, too? If so, how would FISA work? Thanks.
To: ndt
A federal judge ruled today that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. Smells like impeachment set up to me.
To: XJarhead
Fine. Then let's advocate congress to craft a law saying that the NSA is allowed to do this datamining; if it is so compellingly effective (it may very well be); but it does need to be monitored by some oversight to prevent abuse. Republicans will not be in control of the executive branch forever you know?
To: Right_in_Virginia
"Smells like impeachment set up to me."
For the judge? or do you mean a democrat set up for after the next election?
132
posted on
08/17/2006 2:34:59 PM PDT
by
ndt
To: Brilliant
BIG Jimmie (the weasel) Carter appointee!
Would you expect anything less out of the ---hole Carter?
To: ndt
A democrat set up during and after the next election.
To: Steve in CO
Steve, this hasn't taken place in a vacuum. Congress has been in the loop from the beginning. For your concerns to be warranted, you'd have to believe that Bush, the Justice Department of the United States, the National Security Administration of the United States and a number of Congressional leaders from both parties were conspiring to break the law.
On the other hand, you might be comfortable with the American Civil Liberties Union opinion. I am not.
We'll see how this plays out.
135
posted on
08/17/2006 3:05:23 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(Bring your press credentials to Qana, for the world's most convincing terrorist street theater.)
To: Jacquerie
Yes, and that's why they put impeachment procedures into our constitution. But fortunately, I don't think Hillary is electable in a national presidential election.
136
posted on
08/17/2006 3:55:40 PM PDT
by
defenderSD
("Rise early, work hard, strike oil." - J. Paul Getty)
To: lepton
The first part is that it is part of the President's war-making powers. It only becomes questionable if the surveilliance is either not of enemy powers, or is used in criminal cases. ...And it's not exactly a "new legal theory". This kind of surveilliance is much older than warrants for criminal investigation, and every president since Roosevelt has authorized it. yeah, so why did the administration seek to secure a warrant from FISA 18,000 times? Because it was the law?
Do you really think that we have courts to authorize wiretapping an apartment in Germany?
Of course not, our "intellegence" operatives do that 24/7 /365 - as needed. The problem is the UNWARRENTED taps on domestic sources.
Big difference, and the court, IMHO ruled correctly. You can "feel" any way you wish about it, but the courts have spoken..........................for now
137
posted on
08/17/2006 4:30:18 PM PDT
by
WhiteGuy
(It's about the People Who Count the Votes................. - Wally O'Dell)
To: Steve in CO; WhiteGuy
"I am so flabbergasted by supposed freedom-loving, law-abiding citizens who are so willing to give one (of the ostensibly co-equal) branches of the government way too much leeway on something so powerful and so susceptable to abuse. " It comes from your self-inflicted ignorance of the Constitution.
The Founders argued over whether to give the power to wage war to the congress, where it had been under the Articles of Confederation, or the president.
They gave it to the president instead.
He has constitutional power to "repel sudden attacks", such as terrorist attacks.
No law can take that away from him.
If you wish to do something so foolish- to "even" the powers of the Branches LOL!- then amend the Constitution.
138
posted on
08/17/2006 5:26:28 PM PDT
by
mrsmith
To: CertainInalienableRights
"Is there really any expectation of privacy when making a call to a foreign national (other than privacy from the U.S. government). I mean, beyond all the intermediary telecoms and their respective government, there's little guarantee that the government at the other end of the line isn't listening.
With all these potential entities on the line, is it really an invasion of privacy for the U.S. government to selectively join the party? " That's something that could be given surprisingly great weight by the court.
I would say a person doesn't, I'm sure our Founders didn't expect international communications to be protected.
But the "expectation of privacy" standard is a judicial invention of 1967 and has to be looked at from a legal instead of a constitutional perspective.
139
posted on
08/17/2006 5:43:26 PM PDT
by
mrsmith
To: neverdem
I am furious about this. How dare these judges undermine our security for political gain.
140
posted on
08/17/2006 5:45:01 PM PDT
by
ladyinred
(Thank God the Brits don't have a New York Times!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson