In a lawful, unfearful manner is how we do it. Otherwise you're just fooling yourself if you think you're really any "safer" today than you were yesterday.
In a lawful, unfearful manner is how we do it. Otherwise you're just fooling yourself if you think you're really any "safer" today than you were yesterday.Originally posted by: ahurtt
Originally posted by: eilute
Originally posted by: ahurtt
I'm sorry but I just don't see what the big deal is. . .If somebody can present a feasible ulterior motive that the gov't has for wanting wire-tap conversations that doesn't involve catching bad guys, I'm all ears.
Isn't the extra authority an unchecked power that will ultimately be abused?
We will see. . .time will tell. There are evil people out there that need catching though and how else can we do it?
Originally posted by: ahurtt
Originally posted by: eilute
Originally posted by: ahurtt
I'm sorry but I just don't see what the big deal is. . .If somebody can present a feasible ulterior motive that the gov't has for wanting wire-tap conversations that doesn't involve catching bad guys, I'm all ears.
Isn't the extra authority an unchecked power that will ultimately be abused?
We will see. . .time will tell. There are evil people out there that need catching though and how else can we do it?
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?
<<The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects>>Originally posted by: 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?
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?
of course, the thing that is lost here is that the constitution does not specifically outlaw eavesdropping, although that was certainly known to the founding fathers (even if electronic eavesdropping was not).
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
<<The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects>>Originally posted by: 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?
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?
of course, the thing that is lost here is that the constitution does not specifically outlaw eavesdropping, although that was certainly known to the founding fathers (even if electronic eavesdropping was not).
What part of that is confusing for you? Eavesdropping sure as hell doesn't translate as secure to me. Should they have included 0.5m satellite imagery as well? How about electromagnetic transmission (computers) from outside your house? Secure is pretty clear cut.
Originally posted by: ahurtt
Originally posted by: Legend
Originally posted by: ahurtt
I'm sorry but I just don't see what the big deal is. . .If somebody can present a feasible ulterior motive that the gov't has for wanting wire-tap conversations that doesn't involve catching bad guys, I'm all ears.
lol.
This guy is like Stephen Colbert, but serious.
Let's take away free press and replace it with propaganda. That'll strengthen moral behind catching the terrorist. Come on, they did it in the past.
I believe we're talking about the question of the legality of domestic spying / wiretapping in this thread, not free press. To which thread were you replying?
A lot of people see some kind of conspiracy. I have nothing to hide so I see the gov't doing it's job trying to protect it's citizens from potential harm. How else are we supposed to root out the evil plotters if not by using subversive techniques against them just like the ones they use to plan out attacks? Or will you just deny that there are people living amongst us who are actively trying to plot ways to kill mass numbers of us AND who have every intention of actually carrying out those plots?
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?
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
<<The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects>>
What part of that is confusing for you? Eavesdropping sure as hell doesn't translate as secure to me. Should they have included 0.5m satellite imagery as well? How about electromagnetic transmission (computers) from outside your house? Secure is pretty clear cut.
Yes, it is a Fourth Amendment issue. While this "lawyer" does a great job of presenting the talking points, they have all been refuted. For example, FISA was established specifically to address these issues. Most of the cases he cites are pre-FISA.Originally posted by: Queasy
Because this is not a 4th Amendment issue because the targets of the wiretaps are not US Citizens and the wiretaps are for foreign enemy/terrorist intelligence gathering.
The targets are foreign terrorists overseas. The only time someone from the US may be involved is when they call or are called by a foreign target.
A lawyer from PowerLineBlog covered this issue nicely.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yes, it is a Fourth Amendment issue. While this "lawyer" does a great job of presenting the talking points, they have all been refuted. For example, FISA was established specifically to address these issues. Most of the cases he cites are pre-FISA.Originally posted by: Queasy
Because this is not a 4th Amendment issue because the targets of the wiretaps are not US Citizens and the wiretaps are for foreign enemy/terrorist intelligence gathering.
The targets are foreign terrorists overseas. The only time someone from the US may be involved is when they call or are called by a foreign target.
A lawyer from PowerLineBlog covered this issue nicely.
Originally posted by: Queasy
Because this is not a 4th Amendment issue because the targets of the wiretaps are not US Citizens and the wiretaps are for foreign enemy/terrorist intelligence gathering.
The targets are foreign terrorists overseas. The only time someone from the US may be involved is when they call or are called by a foreign target.
A lawyer from PowerLineBlog covered this issue nicely.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yes, it is a Fourth Amendment issue. While this "lawyer" does a great job of presenting the talking points, they have all been refuted. For example, FISA was established specifically to address these issues. Most of the cases he cites are pre-FISA.Originally posted by: Queasy
Because this is not a 4th Amendment issue because the targets of the wiretaps are not US Citizens and the wiretaps are for foreign enemy/terrorist intelligence gathering.
The targets are foreign terrorists overseas. The only time someone from the US may be involved is when they call or are called by a foreign target.
A lawyer from PowerLineBlog covered this issue nicely.
The Fourth Amendment DOES apply because at least one of the parties is in the U.S., and is in most cases a U.S. citizen.Originally posted by: Queasy
FISA has nothing to do with this being or not being a 4th Amendment issue. If the target of the wiretap is a foreigner who is also in another country then the 4th Amendment does not apply. Period. The US Constitution does not apply to non-US citizens in other countries.Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yes, it is a Fourth Amendment issue. While this "lawyer" does a great job of presenting the talking points, they have all been refuted. For example, FISA was established specifically to address these issues. Most of the cases he cites are pre-FISA.Originally posted by: Queasy
Because this is not a 4th Amendment issue because the targets of the wiretaps are not US Citizens and the wiretaps are for foreign enemy/terrorist intelligence gathering.
The targets are foreign terrorists overseas. The only time someone from the US may be involved is when they call or are called by a foreign target.
A lawyer from PowerLineBlog covered this issue nicely.
Link to where all this is refuted?
Originally posted by: Queasy
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?
Because this is not a 4th Amendment issue because the targets of the wiretaps are not US Citizens and the wiretaps are for foreign enemy/terrorist intelligence gathering.
The targets are foreign terrorists overseas. The only time someone from the US may be involved is when they call or are called by a foreign target.
A lawyer from PowerLineBlog covered this issue nicely.
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yes, it is a Fourth Amendment issue. While this "lawyer" does a great job of presenting the talking points, they have all been refuted. For example, FISA was established specifically to address these issues. Most of the cases he cites are pre-FISA.Originally posted by: Queasy
Because this is not a 4th Amendment issue because the targets of the wiretaps are not US Citizens and the wiretaps are for foreign enemy/terrorist intelligence gathering.
The targets are foreign terrorists overseas. The only time someone from the US may be involved is when they call or are called by a foreign target.
A lawyer from PowerLineBlog covered this issue nicely.
FISA has nothing to do with this being or not being a 4th Amendment issue. If the target of the wiretap is a foreigner who is also in another country then the 4th Amendment does not apply. Period. The US Constitution does not apply to non-US citizens in other countries.
Link to where all this is refuted?
A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 210-230.
The phrase "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" indicates that there are some exceptions to the universal rule that birth on U.S. soil automatically grants citizenship. The Supreme Court precedent set by the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark interprets the exception narrowly to cover only the following:
* Children born to foreign diplomats
* Children born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States
* Native Americans born on tribal lands
Under this interpretation, the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants and tourists are automatically U.S. citizens. Many opponents of illegal immigration have proposed that this be changed, either through legislation or a constitutional amendment. The proposed changes are usually one of the following.
* The child should have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen.
* The child should have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident
* The child should have at least one parent who is lawfully present in the United States (not an illegal immigrant).
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
The Fourth Amendment DOES apply because at least one of the parties is in the U.S., and is in most cases a U.S. citizen.Originally posted by: Queasy
FISA has nothing to do with this being or not being a 4th Amendment issue. If the target of the wiretap is a foreigner who is also in another country then the 4th Amendment does not apply. Period. The US Constitution does not apply to non-US citizens in other countries.Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yes, it is a Fourth Amendment issue. While this "lawyer" does a great job of presenting the talking points, they have all been refuted. For example, FISA was established specifically to address these issues. Most of the cases he cites are pre-FISA.Originally posted by: Queasy
Because this is not a 4th Amendment issue because the targets of the wiretaps are not US Citizens and the wiretaps are for foreign enemy/terrorist intelligence gathering.
The targets are foreign terrorists overseas. The only time someone from the US may be involved is when they call or are called by a foreign target.
A lawyer from PowerLineBlog covered this issue nicely.
Link to where all this is refuted?
As far as links, just read this thread and the other three or four major threads here re. Bush's illegal domestic wiretapping. You aren't the first to bring up these claims. Or the second. Or even the tenth. It has all been covered before.
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yes, it is a Fourth Amendment issue. While this "lawyer" does a great job of presenting the talking points, they have all been refuted. For example, FISA was established specifically to address these issues. Most of the cases he cites are pre-FISA.Originally posted by: Queasy
Because this is not a 4th Amendment issue because the targets of the wiretaps are not US Citizens and the wiretaps are for foreign enemy/terrorist intelligence gathering.
The targets are foreign terrorists overseas. The only time someone from the US may be involved is when they call or are called by a foreign target.
A lawyer from PowerLineBlog covered this issue nicely.
FISA has nothing to do with this being or not being a 4th Amendment issue. If the target of the wiretap is a foreigner who is also in another country then the 4th Amendment does not apply. Period. The US Constitution does not apply to non-US citizens in other countries.
Link to where all this is refuted?
If one end of the call is in the U.S., FISA applies (with very narrow exceptions not relevant here). Re. the "FISA thing", this has also been discussed in depth. The ruling you cite actually confirms that FISA is the implementation of the President's authority in this area, i.e., FISA does not restrict his authority, it is his authority.Originally posted by: Queasy
And? Someone making a call or receving a call from the target of a wiretap makes it a 4th Amendment issue how? The target of the wiretap is still a foreign source.Originally posted by: Bowfinger
The Fourth Amendment DOES apply because at least one of the parties is in the U.S., and is in most cases a U.S. citizen.
As far as links, just read this thread and the other three or four major threads here re. Bush's illegal domestic wiretapping. You aren't the first to bring up these claims. Or the second. Or even the tenth. It has all been covered before.
Also back to the FISA thing, the courts decided in the Truong case (1980) that the President has the inherent authority to initiate warrantless wiretaps for foreign/terrorism intelligence gathering. This is part of the President's Constitutional powers. Congress cannot restrict the President's constitutional anymore than the President can restrict Congress' Constitutional powers.
. . . and insist that warrantless searches and standards that fall well below "probable cause" are Constitutional?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
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..
Originally posted by: maluckey
Warrantless searches are conducted daily on every single land port of entry in the United States. You do not need probable cause to search an alien or their possessions entering the United States. The very fact that they apply for entry is authorization to search as the inspector sees fit. You do not need warrants to search the belongings of a citizen upon entry either.
Warrants do not apply international calls in all cases. Warrants do not always apply to items shipped from or into the United States from other countries either, any more than phone calls to another country. So long as "suspicion" is present, it is enough under current law. Courts have upheld this over and over.
The real issue that should be discussed is how much power should the executive branch have to do this? How is it documented? To what extent can the information gathered be used in court proceedings? How is it determined that a certain call is suspicious? Can these monitored calls be recorded?