Posted on 12/27/2005 10:47:23 AM PST by Pragmatic_View
WASHINGTON, Dec. 26 (UPI) -- U.S. President George Bush decided to skip seeking warrants for international wiretaps because the court was challenging him at an unprecedented rate.
A review of Justice Department reports to Congress by Hearst newspapers shows the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than the four previous presidential administrations combined.
The 11-judge court that authorizes FISA wiretaps modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102 applications approved over the first 22 years of the court's operation.
But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for surveillance by the Bush administration, the report said. A total of 173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and 2004. And, the judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years -- the first outright rejection of a wiretap request in the court's history.
I have yet to get an answer to the question "What rights have you lost?"
For some reason, nobody will answer that one.
"Appeals panel rejects secret court's limits on terrorist wiretaps "
In regards to this CNN article...this decision would seem to be fairly important to this whole question. No? I am, obviously, no "legal eagle", but this is saying basically that the panel decided these wiretaps do NOT violate the constution. Correct?
So, why would this be so secret? Why do we not hear of this anywhere else?
The internet is an amazing place, isn't it?
Even somebody like me, down here in North Carolina, sitting at a desk, can prove these fools wrong in about five minutes.
When are they going to learn not to mess with us?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1548048/posts
"I have yet to get an answer to the question "What rights have you lost?" "
That would be the fourth amendment right to unreasonable search and seizure.
The system is designed so that a lower court commits error if it does not follow the holding of superior law, and in the US, SCOTUS decisions are near or at the very top of the "superior law" pile. I doubt there was a case that literally "went against" the result of Korematsu, although there may be citations that describe why Korematsu is not applicable to the situation the lower court was facing, etc.
There may also be SCOTUS opinions that water down the original law of Korematsu. I don't know the lay of that land. In fact, I was surprized when I read Korematsu that it expressly did NOT address the constitutionality of internment.
Yes, I was a bit surprised myself when I heard someone say that, but I heard it from more than one source so it intrigued me. But if, as you say, Korematsu didn't deal explicitly with the question of internment, then it's possible that the '80s case was misunderstood. I'll have to look into it further now.
Franky, I think that question is pointless in the substantive argument. What rights would you lose if you had a government minder? I think the answer to that is -NONE-, except for "privacy," and that could be managed (e.g., we submit to infrequent intrusions now, so the question of "minder" is merely one of frequency).
Of course I realize that "government minder" is an extreme hypotetical that is certainly not suggested, nor does the hypothetical have a snowball's chance in hell of coming about. My point in raising the ridiculous extreme hypothetical is to illustrate that even in that case, the public would not lose any rights.
I can't think of any rights that I lost while the country was under Clinton, or Carter either - or ant that I would lose if Hillary! was elected POTUS.
I certainly don't lose any rights if my phone is tapped full time, and the tax man is calls me in for an audit once a quarter. My rights are unaffected if all of my travel, car rental, hotel visits, bank transactions and retail purchases are reported to the government either, although that would add a compliance cost.
The FISA review court in "In re: Sealed Case" did not get to exactly that question, and instead was answering the question of "The Gorelick Wall" based on a request for review by then Atty Gen. John Ashcroft.
As for the question of "legal," you'll notice plenty of sloppy rhetoric. Were the searches within the parameters established by 50 USC 1801 et seq.? If so, some construe the action as "illegal." But even if outside of 50 USC 1801, et seq., the action may comport withe the Constitution. If so, do you call it "illegal but Constitutional?" or "legal?"
As for the case being a secret, you certainly know by now that the media operates by soundbite and subterfuge. The questions of legality and Constitutionality are not trivial, and even in the vaunted halls of FR, the discussions shed little light on the issues and balances involved. Where we as a country draw the line "reasonable" is a complex decision.
The Court in Korematsu expressly avoided the question of internment.
Since the petitioner has not been convicted of failing to report or to remain in an assembly or relocation center, we cannot in this case determine the validity of those separate provisions of the order. It is sufficient here for us to pass upon the order which petitioner violated. To do more would be to go beyond the issues raised, and to decide momentous questions not contained within the framework of the pleadings or the evidence in this case. It will be time enough to decide the serious constitutional issues which petitioner seeks to raise when an assembly or relocation order is applied or is certain to be applied to him, and we have its terms before us.
You have my curiosity aroused too, as to cases that cite Korematsu.
So, you think it's unreasonable to search foreigners contacting terrorists?
Good to know.
Ah, HUH? The POINT is that nobody can name any rights they're lost.
It appears that most of the people objecting to the act think "unreasonable" should be replaced with "ANY."
Sorry. I want my government hunting terrorists.
Nor could they in any of the hypotheticals I named, yet most would object to such intrusion.
But, if your objective is to "score points," by all means, you are the winnah.
The first line of the article and the headline as well. The proof of the claim is described in the article NOWHERE. That is odd isn't it? Well no it isn't. It is actually quite common in the leftist media.
Score points? I don't know what the heck you're talking about; I'm sure it's buried in there somewhere, amind all the pontification that doesn't answer the question.
This act has been in force since October of 2001, and frankly most of us (who aren't breaking the law) haven't noticed one bit of difference.
As for Hillary having the power, let's all pretend not having it would stop her; can you says "FBI files?" I knew that you could.
Lawyers don't win wars. Countries that put them in charge lose wars.
Yeah, "score points," "win an argument of little or no substantive content."
I happen to think the surveillance at issue is reasonable, but discerning why one concludes that won't happen in the context of answering "what rights have you lost", so I reiterate that I think the challenge to "name what rights you have lost" is a pointless exerize. That is unless the point is to "show the other guy is wrong because he can't show an example of a lost right." I.e., "score points" in the argument; win on the strawman.
And I did "answer the question," you just didn't see my answer. I haven't lost any rights on account of the surveillance in question, and I wouldn't lose any rights in any of the hypothetical surveillance scenarios I put forth either.
As for Hillary having power, let's all pretend not having it would stop her; can you says "FBI files?" I knew that you could.
FBI files. I said it. What's your point? Mine is that Hillary's obtaining 900 FBI files does not impinge on my rights. It might as well be legal to give access to FBI files to all elected officials, as far as affecting my rights is concerned.
But you go right on ahead and keep up the "what rights have you lost" challenge, if it makes you feel like a winnah.
First off, a military incursion into the United States isn't a crime. The President isn't basing his authority for wiretaps on a crime spree. It's as Commander in Chief, defending against a large scale, synchronized attack from a hostile organization. To that end, the scale of the 'crime' is entirely relevent to the response.
Given the circumstances, most people will find that being in contact with overseas agents of Al Qaida are reasonable grounds for a quick check by the NSA. Why? To see if you're about to blow something up, under orders from a hostile foriegn power. If there is grounds to pursue it, then law enforcement can start an investigation and see what they find. If not, then the only harm done is that some analyst somewhere wasted time on a lead that didn't pan out.
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.