Or, at least our judges...
Posted on 08/17/2006 9:49:00 AM PDT by neverdem
It won't surprise me if a future president abuses this power. When they do, we'll have to deal with it. Right now IMO there is a justified reason for what is taking place. In the future, there may come a time when the reason is not justified.
I would be willing to bet that if this judge were reviewing the same thing under Clinton, she would deem it to be a separation of powers issue and refuse to rule on it.
AT times I get tired of laying it on thick. I figured I'd give him something to think about.
It's simple: In wartime you monitor the enemy's communications.
Of course, we've got plenty of ops around the world doing this 24/7 and have been for decades.
This issue is about mining domestic communications, which is an infringment.
It it is argued that the only "wiretaps" being done are international phone calls to known "persons of interest" then that is indeed cause and a warrent would be in order for DOMESTIC communications.
Let's not worry about the wiretapping. In the end, that will help us.
If you want to fight a better fight about rights we are losing, come look at this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1684452/posts
Is Congress spending your money in secret? [EARMARKS]
Fight the enemy within.
All those earmarks are components of a VERY big bill called Healthy People 2010.
THAT is where our rights are being lost.
I agree, and I'm sure this ruling will be overturned by Appeals courts or the SCOTUS, although they will probably clarify and restrict the circumstances for warrentless wiretapping to some extent. I'm afraid I missed the subtle sarcasm in your post #17, but I won't miss it next time...lol.
You're kidding, right? (Yeah, thank heaven the Brits had a FISA court...)
Some people trust government more than others.
You'll get some heat on this site for supporting this decision, but you are right.
That's ok, everyone has an opinion.
Some people trust government more than others. Indeed.
I have an "in-law" who has been in "government service" for 20+ years. assignments both domestic and over seas.
Those in "positions of command" will overstep and over reach at every opportunity. There must be limits.
I agree with your comments. Don't sweat missing the sarcasm. A number of people with their head screwed on straight did the same thing. They called me on it as well, and that's actually a good thing.
I should have put an </sarcasm> on it...
What is so hard about showing cause and getting a warrent?
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.
Even if the above were not true, the further difficulty is that the party being listened to is in a foreign country. There is no U.S. entity - outside of the executive branch's inteeligence services - that can authorize such. Do you really think that we have courts to authorize wiretapping an apartment in Germany?
Respectfully, your argument - in context - is absurd.
First, FISA agrees that the NSA isn't required to consult them. Second...oh nevermind, your argument is just silly.
Hmmm. So I properly identified your argument, just not its cause. :)
Except that we're not really talking about wiretaps on communications within the U.S. At least one party in these calls is outside the United States.
Just food for thought...
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?
IMHO, this isn't an invasion of privacy by our government, so much as it is an unwarranted expectation of privacy by the users.
Actually, the main one resigned in a huff when this first came out, after having been rebuked by the whole of the court for just plain making up requirements.
Oops
"when making a call to a foreign national" should have been "when making a call to a foreign nation"
A warrant issued by whom? FISA agrees that the NSA doesn't have to go to them...and what court has the authority to issue a warrant that is valid outside of the United States and its territories?
No...it isn't. It's about mining foreign calls, including those that come to people in the United States.
"You forgot the sarcasm tag. That remark is dripping, I mean dripping."
Ya think! I long for the good old days on FR, when people were bright enough to get IT!
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.