Why is it even a question that Bush's domestic spying is illegal?

[JacobJ]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The constitution requires warrants for searches. Isn't that clear?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And isn't the government required to follow the law?

The domestic spying is done without warrants.

ummm....?

So why is it even a question that Bush's domestic spying is illegal?

 

[NJDevil]

Specter seems to think that Bush broke the law. I find it amazing that the party that is in favor of less government intrusion supports such an action. If a democrat tried this, impeachment hearings would have already been held.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060206/ap_...;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

 

[tnitsuj]

Extraordinary actions that have violated many provisions of the bill of rights have been upheld during times of war. A good example is the Japanese Internment during WWII which violated constitutional rights in many ways..but was still allowed by the Supreme Court.

 

[imported_Pedro69]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The constitution requires warrants for searches. Isn't that clear?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And isn't the government required to follow the law?

The domestic spying is done without warrants.

ummm....?

So why is it even a question that Bush's domestic spying is illegal?

Another question: How can they use the Info obtained from the wiretaps when they are obtained illegaly? I mean no court will accept them as evidence anyway.

Just wondering..

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Extraordinary actions that have violated many provisions of the bill of rights have been upheld during times of war. A good example is the Japanese Internment during WWII which violated constitutional rights in many ways..but was still allowed by the Supreme Court.

Yes...our country has an incredibly sordid history...! We must stay vigilant!!!

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Pedro69

Originally posted by: JacobJ

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The constitution requires warrants for searches. Isn't that clear?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And isn't the government required to follow the law?

The domestic spying is done without warrants.

ummm....?

So why is it even a question that Bush's domestic spying is illegal?

Another question: How can they use the Info obtained from the wiretaps when they are obtained illegaly? I mean no court will accept them as evidence anyway.

Just wondering..

That's a very good point.

But, that's why Bush likes to declare people "enemy combatants" and avoid all that courtroom hooey.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: Pedro69

Originally posted by: JacobJ

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The constitution requires warrants for searches. Isn't that clear?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And isn't the government required to follow the law?

The domestic spying is done without warrants.

ummm....?

So why is it even a question that Bush's domestic spying is illegal?

Another question: How can they use the Info obtained from the wiretaps when they are obtained illegaly? I mean no court will accept them as evidence anyway.

Just wondering..

that assumes that a "court" as we know it would be used.

 

[Jhhnn]

"War", gentlemen? What "War"? The phony "War on Terror"?

War exists only between nations, not between nations and nebulous puffed-up boogeymen....

Once the whole ruse is exposed, then the rationale for citizen surveillance falls apart....

 

[Lemon law]

The whole point here is that its possible to ague that implied Presidential power during war time over-rides
that clear language of the fourth amendment------or for that matter-----in Nazi Gemany---the Geman lawyers simply
concluded that Jews and other monorities were not human and its perfectly legal to kill even new born babies of these groups.

But to get back on thread------its now coming out that there was a past raging debate in the Justice Department over these war time powers ability to over-ride the constitution----and that John Ashcroft was one who belived GWB&co. were wrong---and now that those
dissenting in the debate over the leaglity of warrantless spying are now purged th justic department is firmly convinced this warrantless spying is legal-----------GWB is free to declair it legal.-----we can only hope congress and the courts say otherwise.
Or we can kiss our civil liberties goodbye as we watch the formation of a police state.

 

[shady28]

The word of the constitution is pretty clear as you say.

The problem is that the Patriot Act allowed exceptions to the law. In legal parlance, this is known as a 'precedent'.

The root of all of this, in my view, is the idea of 'relativism'. Before I tick some left or right wingers off, let me say I used to consider myself a conservative republican. However, neither Republicans nor Democrats reflect anything I believe now.

Relativism is basicaly how people look at a low that is very clear in what it says, then re-interpret it to mean something other than what it actually says.

Once people started doing this, it was only a matter of time before laws were re-interpreted to restrict our freedoms.

Looking at the constitution, there are paralells with this re-interpretation :

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

First of all, I'd point out that this amendment specifically mentions congress. It does not mention state governments. That is not an oversight, and assuming it was would be one step down the relativism road. That step was taken a long long time ago.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This is now being interpreted by many as meaning that the military, ie US army and/or national guard, has the right to bear arms. People who take that viewpoint believe that this does not protect individuals rights to bear arms. I view that as ludicrous, to say that the military can arm itself. Again, more re-interpretation, since this clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". As well, any historical review will show that the founding fathers viewed the people's ability to keep arms as a major way to *stay free*. The militia in particular, typically used personally owned firearms. A large armed population deters government from running amok. When you see this one go, you will know you are a slave and no longer free.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This is the one you are referring to. It is being whittled away just as the others have been. One key thing here is '...secure in...papers'. Clearly, it meant that the government could not search your personal writings or correspondence without a warrant, and without probable cause and a description of what / when etc. With email and the internet, the government has a way around this - they have been 'fishing' the internet for years. Now, the government can search your home, business, car, even wiretap you without a warrant.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Thi one gets broken all the time. How many times have you seen someone moved to a different district or state for trial?

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

This one has been completely blown apart for nearly a century now. One good example is income tax. No where in the constitution does it give the *Federal Government* the right to tax your income - only to tax *interstate and international trade*. Based on this amendment, the states should be the only ones with the power to tax your income or other goods. Obviously, we all pay income tax.




A last point. I don't think many americans have a decent concept of 'freedom'. Consider, would you have considered a German in the 1930s to be 'free'? For the most part they could travel to other countries, they could invest in whatever corporations or commodities they wished, they could choose their own career and they could choose their place of employment. Like us, they had rights that were normally protected under German law - however the central government could of course 'override' those rights at any time. Sound familiar? It should.

 

[imported_Pedro69]

Originally posted by: PatboyX
that assumes that a "court" as we know it would be used.

Why not just burn the constitution right away. :roll:

 

[shady28]

Oh and a good quote on this :

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts,
and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not
commit suicide."
-- John Adams, 1814

 

[catnap1972]

[brainless wingnut]

Cripes people! When will you get it through your thick skulls that EVERYTHING changed after 911TERRA911?!?!?!?!?! When will you leftists understand that we need to destroy America before the terraists do?!?!?!?

See, this whole thread is another reason why you libs keep losing elections! Maybe one of these days the dims will learn that you don't have any rights if you're DEAD!

[/brainless wingnut]

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Extraordinary actions that have violated many provisions of the bill of rights have been upheld during times of war. A good example is the Japanese Internment during WWII which violated constitutional rights in many ways..but was still allowed by the Supreme Court.

The Executive branch decided to do this without any consent from any other branch. And then lied about it while it was happening, saying that we still get court orders/warrants.

Atrocities from other wars should not be repeated. Should we nuke innocent civilians, or equally as bad, mass conventional bomb civilians? (Hiroshima/Nagasaki, Dresden, Tokyo)

There is absolutely no comparison between World War II and this fight on terrorism.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Extraordinary actions that have violated many provisions of the bill of rights have been upheld during times of war. A good example is the Japanese Internment during WWII which violated constitutional rights in many ways..but was still allowed by the Supreme Court.

This is true, and has been found constitutionally acceptable by the SC. However, that was at a time of war. We currently have no declared wars, and therefore no reason to violate the bill of rights.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Extraordinary actions that have violated many provisions of the bill of rights have been upheld during times of war. A good example is the Japanese Internment during WWII which violated constitutional rights in many ways..but was still allowed by the Supreme Court.

And when this 'war on terrorism' is over, we'll have a 'war on drugs' or 'war on crimes' to continue this practice, right?

 

[OrByte]

anyone watching the hearing? is yahoo's link live?

 

[tnitsuj]

I don't know if the declared war theory will hold up. It is acknowledged that we are in wartime and emergency measures have been enacted.

The main legal obstacle besides the inherent search and seizure provisions seems to be that this action is directly in violation of the FISA act which would mean the president is acting in an area where congress has already passed a specficic law. This was laid out in another wartime powers case..I think it was Truman vs US steel or something of that nature. I will look it up.

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: OrByte
anyone watching the hearing? is yahoo's link live?

Go to c-span.org

 

[Al Neri]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"War", gentlemen? What "War"? The phony "War on Terror"?

War exists only between nations, not between nations and nebulous puffed-up boogeymen....

Once the whole ruse is exposed, then the rationale for citizen surveillance falls apart....

another person who can't keep up with the times :disgust::disgust:

 

[nyker96]

Damn Bush, why is he having so much controversy all the time, can he just stay outta the news for a little while? I mean Iraq war, Repub party taking bribes, now this. Man he liked the news too much. Always try to mk something happening.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: JacobJ
So why is it even a question that Bush's domestic spying is illegal?

The only one purporting that it's legal is the Administration and the partisan Bush fan boys. For everyone else its as clear as the smirk on Bush's face that the program is unconstitutional.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: shady28

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

First of all, I'd point out that this amendment specifically mentions congress. It does not mention state governments. That is not an oversight, and assuming it was would be one step down the relativism road. That step was taken a long long time ago.

The 14th Amendment basically says that the states cannot restrict the rights of citizens:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Thus, any provision of the Consitution that relates to rights or liberties is interpreted as applying to the states as well.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The constitution requires warrants for searches. Isn't that clear?

no, it doesn't.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
The constitution requires warrants for searches. Isn't that clear?

no, it doesn't.
[/quote]
Oh yes it does.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Troll