Posted on 08/17/2006 1:02:27 PM PDT by Peach
Press conference to start shortly; podium is set up waiting for Gonzales.
You missed the point. The 9th amendment made it clear that the rights listed out in the bill of rights were not to be taken as an exhaustive list.
The 4th amendment coupled with the 9th makes privacy a pretty clearly protected right.
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a call from the united states to a foreign country. Additionally a wiretap is neither a "search" nor a "seizure". No property which belongs to a person on a phone is confiscated and the minute the conversation leaves the confines of a man's house or his handset, it is no longer protected by the fourth amendment.
It is a judicial fiction which claims that phone taps or listening in on phone conversations is a violation of the fourth amendment. Such a doctrine was not envisioned by the framers.
The president answers to the electorate every 4 years. Wrongs are generally righted at those times. In the interism, gross misbehavior can result in an impeachment and removal from office.
In the meantime, if the President says "I tapped the line of terrorist sympathizers because of an immediate need regarding those who murdered 3000 of our citizens on 9/11, and with whom we are officially in conflict by act of Congress." then I'm going to believe him.
If he says, "I'm requiring as commander in chief that all commercial enterprises to send me a thousand bucks a year.", then I won't.
I'm able to tell the difference.
That's a woman? Wow, there realy aren't any good looking lib women outside of Hollywood.
Thanks for that report, DoughtyOne. I'm confident in front of a fair judge the administration will prevail.
I am certain that most judges today do not recognize a separation of powers. I read a statement from one scotus justice (?) about a year or two ago in which he honestly said that they were the most powerful officials in the world.
I don't know why I didn't save that. It was SO obscene and power mad. I couldn't believe it.
Thats a pretty thin reed to hang your hat on for something you assert in such a conclusive fashion.
Peach, in the short term I believe it will. I have no idea what the SCOTUS will do. If they do the right thing, the program will continue. If they start looking to Europe for precdence and other gobble-de-goop, all bets are off.
I turned up this email for ann beeson beeson@aclu.org. I think we need to fill her mailbox.
It's Harry Potter in drag.
You really believe that? You might want to let the courts know about this misconception as warrants for wiretaps have been required virtually since their inception.
You think the framers envisioned a police state?
Well, it's my understanding that you could only do that if a COURT said you could, after you had established just cause based on the Arrowhead1952's involvement with someone who could be connected with terrorism. If you got all that, go for it!
With a scanner, I can tap your phone. I can intecept your phone calls with electronic junk I can buy at Radio Shack. Why should you expect that the government can't? IMO it is no different than talking too loud in your backyard. I would say that if the FBI snuck into your house in the middle of the night and put some device on your phone, then that would likely violate the constitution in the absence of a warrant. But if you start talking on a phone, you have no reasonable expectation that someone isn't listening either on the other end of the line or somewhere between where you are and the person you are speaking with is. That is the risk you take by using electronic communications devices. If you want to have a private conversation, have it in private.
It is not "unconsitutional" to listen in on phone conversations. It is illegal because there are laws against it. But if the president of the United States orders wiretaps for national security reasons, there is clearly no constitutional prohibition.
Nah, Harry's prettier.
It's illegal for you to do that and is for the government to do it as well without a warrant.
It may be illegal, but it is not unconstitutional. The right to privacy in phone calls is a right created by statute and not by the drafting of our constitution. The government is not searching or seizing your "persons, houses, papers, and effects" by listening in on your telephone conversations. If that is an illegal activity it is because the government has passed laws prohibiting it. The forth amendment does not protect your conversations, only your "persons, houses, papers, and effects".
You are arguing for judical activism by arguing that phone conversations are included in this amendment. If you think phone conversations should be constitutionally protected, then pass an amendment.
Bears repeating.
Also, do these "talkers" have that same protected expectation of privacy when the call leaves the U.S.? I mean, from the governments of those to whom they are talking? Really, do they get sent copies of the warrant at some point? You know, from those countries that are so much better and so much more "progressive" than the U.S.?
Just asking...
;o)
Gonzales is one of the Pres's best picks, IMO. Under his leadership, he's taken some serious trouble off the street. Internet kiddie predators have been rounded up by the thousands, not to mention how many terrorist plots have been foiled that we never hear about.
He does a great job on camera, low key but effective. I notice how the administration is coming out swinging almost immediately these days. GOOD!
Carter appointee.
***
Says it all.
Pretty sad that many of our enemies are right here at home.
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.