Ideology 1, Law 0: Another Strange Decision

Townhall ^ | 8/23/06 | Paul Greenberg

[Molly Pitcher]

confuses the Constitution of the United States with a suicide pact.

Hmmmm....

[Steel Wolf]

Because even the possibility that the feds might be listening in - none of the defendants claimed their phone lines were actually tapped - could inhibit their conversations with terrorist suspects abroad.

Ah, yes. The age old "You're infringing on my rights to talk to terrorists" defense.

And, what infringement is there, really? There's no censorship issues here. How is the speech being infringed upon? If you're talking to someone you suspect to be a terrorist, maybe you should call the FBI first, for that matter? Communicating with a foreign based enemy during time of war shouldn't be something that you do behind your own country's back, and expect it to be protected.

[RustMartialis]

And, what infringement is there, really? There's no censorship issues here. How is the speech being infringed upon?

Warrantless electronic surveillance on US citizens violates the 4th Amendment. Further, such surveillance is specifically forbidden by FISA (50 USC 1801 et seq). Then you toss in the chilling effect it has on lawyers talking to their clients - they can't talk on the phone because the government might be (illegally) listening in. Ding, 1st Amendment.

The US is a government of laws, not men. They should either get Congress (who writes the laws) to get its ass in gear and DO SOMETHING, or they should comply with FISA, or they should stop breaking the damn law. Right now, any prosecution that tried to use any phone taps to get warrants or in a criminal case is looking at real problems because the source of the data is illegally obtained information.

--R.

[Louis Foxwell]

Right now, any prosecution that tried to use any phone taps to get warrants or in a criminal case is looking at real problems because the source of the data is illegally obtained information.

________________________

Now isn't that precisely the issue?
The NSA is not gathering information for court filings. It is looking for plots to blow up your sweet a**. Once again the courts want to apply their ivory towered principles to all aspects of American life.
Sorry, I do not live my life according to the dictates of SCOTUS and neither, thank God, does the NSA. Nor should it.
Let the President be the Supreme Commander and let the judges stick to their courtrooms. No judge is granted Constitutional authority to declare or carry out warfare.

[tadowe]

Hi Molly, I'm not sure what your comment, "Hmmmm," means? Are you in doubt about the judge's ability to dictate that intelligence operations on our foreign enemy, during a time of war, cannot be done? Or, are you commenting negatively on the observation that such activity is tantamount to putting a gun in the hand of our enemy.... or at the very least tying our national hands behind our collective back's? This judge is partisanly driven, obviously, and since she completely ignores the Constitution and the fact that we are at war. Of course, the Leftist/Democrat lawyers attempt to find standing by bringing their suit in a jurisdiction they know will be favorably considered, by the Leftist/Democrat judge who will hear the case. Now, the Supreme Court will hear the case . . . and the Leftist/Democrat judges there will finally compromise themselves, if they decide in favor of Taylor's idiotic claims.

[tadowe]

Imagine I'm a soldier in Iraq, listening to broadcast radio communications out of Iraq. I record a suspected al Qaeda terrorist/organization making a cell phone call and find that it is to a number in the United States . . .

Do I tell myself -- "Hell, no! I can't listen to this conversation! That would be wrong!"

Or, would that make me an idiot -- kinda like the idiots who are seditiously defaming the war, our troops, our commander-in-chief and lying about each and every instance that I can muckrake and revile to gain votes for my "gang," and who have been for almost 4 years, daily, minute-by-minute?

Would I be a slimey, foresworn trooper capitulating to the enemy . ..

. .. or would I be a "hero," a patriot to liberalism over nation . . .?

[HiTech RedNeck]

This is not happening under Iraq's constitution but America's. Big hole in your analogy.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Ah, yes. The age old "You're infringing on my rights to talk to terrorists" defense.

Ah yes, the age old "misstate the argument" counter. If Ms. Taylor's diatribe is so weak in foundation why stoop to this?

[Steel Wolf]

Then you toss in the chilling effect it has on lawyers talking to their clients - they can't talk on the phone because the government might be (illegally) listening in. Ding, 1st Amendment.

I'm guessing that the "Article II plus the Congressional Authorization to Use Military Force against al-Qa'ida" arguement doesn't hold much sway with you. As a historical point, U.S. Presidents have always assumed broad Article II wartime powers (many far more severe than anything Bush has done) and we are at war with al-Qa'ida.

Since we can use deadly force against them, intelligence collection is commonly understood to be an integral part of warmaking process. The target of the intelligence collection is the suspected al-Qa'ida link. Since they don't wear uniforms or identify themselves, it's often hard to prove that link to a legal standard one way or another without ... surveillance!

The position of the United States government is that they'd rather disrupt a terrorist attack than prosecute terrorists. That's no different than wanted to stop Japanese Kamikazi pilots, rather than capture them. Sure, the terrorists may get away, but it's better to foil their plans than to convict them posthumously. Waiting until there's enough evidence for a court of law to grant a FISA warrant is completely reasonable in a peacetime criminal, but suicidal against an armed enemy that we are at war with.

Al-Qa'ida is a military threat, and is largely being dealt with through military channels. Law enforcement certainly has a role to play, but it is secondary.

[Steel Wolf]

This is not happening under Iraq's constitution but America's. Big hole in your analogy.

Anything an American soldier does is judged under the U.S. Constitution, the UCMJ, and whatever Status Of Forces Agreement (SOFA) is in place with the local government. You won't see a U.S. soldier judged by Iraqi courts or required to obey the Iraqi constitution (except as directed by our own side) until we get a SOFA with them, which won't be anytime soon.

[tadowe]

Okay, the US (America hating) judge forbids intelligence gathering on any "overheard" conversation within the US (it might be a ***citizen*** being listened to!)

So, the government (still interested in fighting Islamic cultist terrorism and inhuman sacrifice to gain their religion worldwide hegemony/theocracy) tries, AT LEAST, to find out what numbers my Iraq terrorist/organization is calling, so they can get some Warrants on Probable Cause!

NO! The subversive, treasonous, seditious mobsters of the Left/Democrats WHINE AND MOAN -- Puling their liberal hearts out, "Nine, nicht ist verboten to gather public information from telephone companies!!!!"

What a bunch of scurrilous traitors the jackass party has become ... not free speech heroes or patriots but slimy, backstabbing, terrorist (human sacrifice) supporting subhumans . . .

[tadowe]

"This is not happening under Iraq's constitution but America's. Big hole in your analogy."

I'm not talking about Iraq's constitution, you seem to be misdirecting. . . something I've observed is inveterate with the Left/Democrats . . . not that you are one of those.

You can't seem to actually address the analogy directly -- I count coup.

[Zon]

Right on target. Such irony. A person digs a whole and proclaims someone else dug it... Then they step in it themselves. Awaiting for someone such as yourself to throw them a rope. Question is, will they use the rope to climb out -- acknowledge their error -- or keep digging.

[tadowe]

You say, "Anything an American soldier does. . .which won't be anytime soon."

You didn't say anything, at all, on point!

[Steel Wolf]

Ah yes, the age old "misstate the argument" counter. If Ms. Taylor's diatribe is so weak in foundation why stoop to this?

That wasn't her point, it was the plaintiff's point, and it wasn't misstated.

As to Judge Taylor, I'm sure there is a case to be made that the TSP may infringe on the 4th Amendment, but she lacks the requisite information to prove it because it's classified. A hunch that a law is being broken is insufficent, and the plaintiffs can't show they've been materially harmed or are even targets. You may as well say that you suspect the CIA is following you with spy satellites, and you want them to stop. Since they don't have standing, there's no real case here.

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know what venue you'd need to use, but until someone shows that they've been harmed, I don't know how you'd prove a theoretical like that. I'm guessing you'd need someone within the program to step forward with a list of abuses, or to otherwise leak said abuses to the press.

[mrsmith]

The worst aspect of this case is that top secret information about the program was given to this judge.

I hope there is a very good surveillance net about her.

[Steel Wolf]

You didn't say anything, at all, on point!

Uh, originally I was trying to back your point, Jefe. Now that I've reread your posts, I'm guessing that your point doesn't extend much further than "I drink lots of coffee!! Wheee!!!"

[tadowe]

I enjoy the effort to gather collectively and congratulate, pat eachother on the back, for saying absolutely NOTHING!!!

Say!? You're not one of them, are you? The (shudder) Leftist/Democrat traitors who can only argue pejoratively, "Off your meds, Grandpa?"

[kesg]

And, what infringement is there, really? There's no censorship issues here. How is the speech being infringed upon?

It isn't a First Amendment issue at all. The NSA program prevents no one from expressing themselves. If anything, it is a Fourth Amendment issue and also the President's inherent constitutional powers as commander in chief. Every court until this one has said that the President has inherent constitutional power to use warrantless foreign surveillance to gather foreign intelligence.

[tadowe]

The US Constitution DOES NOT apply to my "soldier," in the conduct of military intelligence operations overseas and against our enemy, there . . . or anywhere!

The call is broadcast, and Constitutional protections do not apply to calls from our enemy to anyone, anywhere. The analogy was to bring that fact home to another enemy situated domestically . . .

Neither would any Iraqi constitution, however formulated, restrict that soldier from conducting intelligence operations agains our enemy, anywhere they are overheard.

BTW, you will have absolutely no effect by mocking me, at all, amigo. I'm an old man and know my capabilities and capacities . . .