The Bill Of Wrongs

[treedancer]

Re: The Bill Of Wrongs

Maybe I can help a bit.

Spy Agency Sought U.S. Call Records Before 9/11, Lawyers Say

June 30 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed June 23 in court papers filed in New York federal court.
The allegation is part of a court filing adding AT&T, the nation's largest telephone company, as a defendant in a breach of privacy case filed earlier this month on behalf of Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. customers. The suit alleges that the three carriers, the NSA and President George W. Bush violated the Telecommunications Act of 1934 and the U.S. Constitution, and seeks money damages.

``The Bush Administration asserted this became necessary after 9/11,'' plaintiff's lawyer Carl Mayer said in a telephone interview. ``This undermines that assertion.''

The lawsuit is related to an alleged NSA program to record and store data on calls placed by subscribers. More than 30 suits have been filed over claims that the carriers, the three biggest U.S. telephone companies, violated the privacy rights of their customers by cooperating with the NSA in an effort to track alleged terrorists. –

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: The Bill Of Wrongs

Isn't it still up for debate whether or not that power already existed?.........I am generally with JB on this one, but I am also wary of anything that grants our Government more power...........Who knows the skinny, Skinny?

Well with due respect QC, the Fourth Amendment. Read it like you were explaining it to your son.
Then we can debate whether the "Patriot" act lowers the definition for probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be siezed.

Please reconsider that when JB says, "My liberties have not been depleted a bit." is an insult.
Liberty is not defined by safety. Liberty is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference.

 

[QC]

Re: The Bill Of Wrongs

OK, I am still confused, so I did some additional poking around and found this:

"In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects."

Here: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm

Not that I care who has done what, when if in fact it is illegal, but this does not appear to be new . . .

BTW Skinnywater I am also unclear as to why I needed to be told of the relevant weight of JB's opinion vs. the Bill of Rights and the Constitution . . . I may have been vague, but I was referring to warrantless searches and I am still not convinced that this Administration has done anything illegal.

treedancer, I also don't understand what the pre or post 9/11 thing has to do with the illegality of the program. Yes, I understand the explanation is screwy if it was due to 9/11 but started before 9/11. That still does not explain the supposed illegality. What am I missing?

 

[QC]

Re: The Bill Of Wrongs

Funny we were on line at the same time, but I posted before I got the next civics lesson. I'll read up . . . I still don't think you have answered my now more specific question. This sounds like interpretation, not black and white for me yet.

 

[QC]

Re: The Bill Of Wrongs

OK, I quickly re-read the 4th Amendment, so that I could "Read it like you were explaining it to your son", but it left me reeling with the ambiguity of "unreasonable" and the warrant language. So I kept poking around and found this:

"The Fourth Amendment was needed because the writs of assistance had alarmed the country, and had inspired citizens to demand their rights. Congress recognized those demands, and so we have the Fourth Amendment today. But does the word "unreasonable" mean unreasonable according to the people of 1789, or according to people today, or according to judges, or according to juries? This question has not been definitively answered. However, to the extent that the Fourth Amendment is used for purposes of striking down statutes, the framers expected that the standard of review would be clear and irreconcilable variance with the Fourth Amendment."

From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I understand your passion Skinnywater for strict interpretation of the Constitution, and consider it noble. But I do believe we have discussed my assertion that there is a lot of water under that bridge and undoing everything, while cool, is a little . . . eh . . . er . . . unreasonable. Doesn't precedence count for anything?

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: The Bill Of Wrongs

I understand your passion Skinnywater for strict interpretation of the Constitution, and consider it noble. But I do believe we have discussed my assertion that there is a lot of water under that bridge and undoing everything, while cool, is a little . . . eh . . . er . . . unreasonable. Doesn't precedence count for anything?

Alright then, I have you and JB down for doing away with it.

 

[QC]

Re: The Bill Of Wrongs

Wow. We do make leaps now don't we? Do you have a list of what you believe is un-Constitutional that we should send to the Supreme Court? That is right up their alley, no? I must assume that you believe Income Tax is un-Constitutional (it may in fact be). Do you pay it?

 

[jtexas]

Re: The Bill Of Wrongs

My rights have not been violated. I get no suspicious phone calls from the Middle East or other dangerous places, therefore the government isn't listening to my boring phone calls.
I wasn't in Afghanistan or Iraq shooting at Americans so I haven't been incarcerated in any prison camps.
The people whose phones are being tapped and the people locked in the prisons are the enemies of my security.
If the government did nothing to deter the threat of terrorists, them you anti-Bushers would have something to whine about.

If it's only suspicious phones being tapped, why do they want to avoid due process?

You are mistaken about detainees being limited to those who were shooting at American troops. A trip to the middle east sometime in your distant past and a neighbor with a grudge is all it would take for you to be imprisoned indefinately without access to legal representation or family & friends, maybe even tortured.

Maybe my rights are being violated.
My right to free exercise of my Christian religion. If my religion offends criminals then that's too damn bad.
My right of free speech to call a criminal a criminal. These Islamic criminals are Islamic criminals. They are criminal because they are bad people. It is not my fault or any other American's fault that these people are bad. My misunderstanding of their feelings did not make these terrorists bad. They made themselves bad. They are the ones that are violating my rights.

That's just silly. Who's stopping you? If you aren't practicing your Christianity you've only yourself to blame. Who's stopping you from speaking your mind? Your words haven't been deleted...you haven't been imprisoned.

 

[PW2]

Re: The Bill Of Wrongs

I see no irony in my argument whatsoever, Skinny.

I fully support many traditional "conservative" principles.

What passes for conservatism these days is not, in my view, conservatism.

Nor is the notion of "liberalism" as defined it seems by practictioners of current conservativism.

 

[WillyBWright]

Re: The Bill Of Wrongs

Reagan was known as the Great Communicator. And I fully agree with that. No politician in my lifetime was more eloquent or even in the same ballpark. Dubya will be known as the Great Divider. He divides liberals from conservatives, but goes further to divide neo-
conservatives from traditional conservatives. Divide and Conquor works. It got him elected...twice (coupled with party loyalty). But that concept is supposed to be used to defeat your enemies, not your countrymen. To turn brothers into enemies will be his lasting legacy, which is truly unfortunate for all of us.

Unfortunately, Hillary also has that inclination in the opposite direction. It's off subject, but I don't think I'll be able to support her run for the office. I'm tired of divisiveness! Pat Buchanan said long ago that Gee Willikers Bush would end-up fracturing the Republican party. I agree. His concept of "Conservative" is far removed from the traditional one. He may not be the antichrist, but he sure seems to be the antirepublican.

Bush said "I'm the decider". More accurate would've been "I'm the divider". Bush obviously sees that National Security is directly opposed to Civil Rights. That is the view of a Divider. A Uniter does not see those as mutually exclusive terms, but as coexistant and codependant. That would be the presidential candidate I can stand behind no matter what party he/she represents. That's what I think that article was eluding to in the long run. Like Franklin said (roughly), Those that sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

Every liberty lost or diminished is spit on the faces of those who fought for it. If you truly support our troops, you must fully support Liberty. That's what Patriotism is all about, and why the Partiot Act is diametrically contradictory to it's namesake. Now THAT's irony.

 

[technostingray]

Re: The Bill Of Wrongs

"Man I love these political diatribes by non partisan authorities."

You can't be referring to me, Techno. I am neither.

Well, awkshoeally I was, because you are neither. You do, however, publish an excellent diatribe.

 

[demsvmejm]

Re: The Bill Of Wrongs

Typical liberal drivel.

Ayuh,........

I still got My Rights,.............

'Course,.... I'm Not an Enemy Combatant................

Yet.........

 

[treedancer]

Re: The Bill Of Wrongs

treedancer, I also don't understand what the pre or post 9/11 thing has to do with the illegality of the program. Yes, I understand the explanation is screwy if it was due to 9/11 but started before 9/11. That still does not explain the supposed illegality. What am I missing?

See the highlighted parts, I believe that constitutes illegality if it stands. Here is the link, read the article in its entirety.

<<The suit alleges that the three carriers, the NSA and President George W. Bush violated the Telecommunications Act of 1934 and the U.S. Constitution, and seeks money damages.>>


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE&refer=#

 

[demsvmejm]

Re: The Bill Of Wrongs

If it's only suspicious phones being tapped, why do they want to avoid due process?

Because baby bush and all his led-around-by-the-nose followers don't want to be encumbered by the constitution. Baby bush wants to answer to no one. King george is above the law, better than you or me. And most importantly NO ONE tells baby bush what he can or can't do. Just like a spoiled little kid in the sandbox.
If there was nothing but appropriate actions taken by the administration, the FISA court is secret and the admin could have followed the law and sought warrants after the few days limitation. That limitation was intended for the government to be able to conduct surveillance without proof of probable cause in order to obtain that proof. A minor violation of our civil rights, but a violation with certain protections too. After the initial surveillance that yielded the probable cause then the government was supposed to get a warrant to continue the surveillance. But since baby bush and his administration are better than the rest of us, they did not need to. And if Clinton’s administration abused this provision and usurped the authority and purpose of the FISA court, then they were wrong too.
But it all comes down to the FISA court is in place to grant warrants in secret after the government had time to build a case for needing that warrant. The burden of proof was lessened considerably in order to equip the government with the tools necessary to conduct secret searches and surveillance yet still provide the citizenry with a certain amount of protection. But king george cares not for the citizenry, he simply wants to play his game, by his rules, and the rest of us lose.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: The Bill Of Wrongs

I see no irony in my argument whatsoever, Skinny.
I fully support many traditional "conservative" principles.
What passes for conservatism these days is not, in my view, conservatism.
Nor is the notion of "liberalism" as defined it seems by practictioners of current conservativism.

I was sincere in my response to you PW.

This thread had done a good job in pointing out just how "liberal" some "conservatives" think they're not.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: The Bill Of Wrongs

Wow. We do make leaps now don't we? Do you have a list of what you believe is un-Constitutional that we should send to the Supreme Court? That is right up their alley, no? I must assume that you believe Income Tax is un-Constitutional (it may in fact be). Do you pay it?

Not so much of a leap QC. You insist on The Constitution being a '"living" document regardless the framers spirit or instructions.
"ON every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what
meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invent against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed". Thomas Jefferson

How does that set with you?

Now on to what you asked for, I did some homework.

Warrantless ''National Security'' Electronic Surveillance.--In Katz v. United States,151 Justice White sought to preserve for a future case the possibility that in ''national security cases'' electronic surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney General could be permissible without prior judicial approval. The Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to ''bug'' in two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority on a theory of ''inherent'' presidential power and then in the Supreme Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a ''reasonable'' search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required.152 Whether or not a search was reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause; except in a few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, only those searches conducted pursuant to warrants were reasonable. The Government's duty to preserve the national security did not override the gurarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy.153 This protection was even more needed in ''national security cases'' than in cases of ''ordinary'' crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the Fourth.154 Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is required.155
The question of the scope of the President's constitutional powers, if any, remains judicially unsettled.156 Congress has acted, however, providing for a special court to hear requests for warrants for electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence situations, and permitting the President to authorize warrantless surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information provided that the communications to be monitored are exclusively between or among foreign powers and there is no substantial likelihood any ''United States person'' will be overheard.157

Seems the court had big problems with it and Congress made it right by writing in provisions to protect US.

More......

Blanket searches are unreasonable, however 'evenhanded' they may be, in the traditional criminal law enforcement context. See, e.g., Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91-2, 92 n.4 ('79) (invalidating a blanket patdown search of all patrons in a tavern, even though there was probable cause to search the bartender and the premises). The ill that the Fourth Amendment prevents is not merely the arbitrariness of police discretion to single out individuals for attention, but also the unwarranted domination and control of the citizenry through fear of baseless but 'evenhanded' general police searches.

Fourth Amendment protects the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures.' The essence of that protection is a prohibition against some modes of law enforcement because the cost of police intrusion into personal liberty is too high, even though the intrusion undoubtedly would result in an enormous boon to the public if the efficient apprehension of criminals were the sole criterion to be considered. 'The easiest course for [law enforcement] officials is not always one that our Constitution allows them to take.' Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 595 (Stevens, dissenting).

If I might suggest that instead of thinking the Constitution isn't for our times, think instead that it's especially for our times.
The time is getting closer than I thought where "conservatives" start speaking and thinking like pure liberals.

 

[PW2]

Re: The Bill Of Wrongs

All of these laws tend to be written in response to specific over reaches by one government agency or another.

I believe the FISA law was in response to establishing a legal framework for secret wiretaps and other surveilance while avoiding to abuses of the Watergate era. It may well need to be updated for today's technology-I don't know.

As far as conservatives starting to think like liberals, I don't know about that, but I am sure Barry Goldwater would not even recognize the current brand of so-called conservatism, nor would he consent to it.

 

[QC]

Re: The Bill Of Wrongs

You insist on The Constitution being a '"living" document regardless the framers spirit or instructions.

I don't think I have ever said that. How about a big tortoise, very slow to move and also very long lived.

recollect the spirit manifested in the debates,

I believe that is what I was doing.

Now on to what you asked for, I did some homework.

It seems that we both are curious . . .

'The easiest course for [law enforcement] officials is not always one that our Constitution allows them to take.' Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 595 (Stevens, dissenting)

This strikes home for me.

If I might suggest that instead of thinking the Constitution isn't for our times, think instead that it's especially for our times.
The time is getting closer than I thought where "conservatives" start speaking and thinking like pure liberals

You actually read my mind as I was posting about time and semantics and evolution and it evaporated . . . I am actually glad I read this first. This is much simpler for me than you think. When I ask, I want to know. I also question the answers. I do not believe that Jefferson had a Crystal ball. They did not anticipate, nor predict every scenario possible. I don't believe that. Please do not ascribe any more validity than that, it is illogical to me. 100%? No. 98.8%? Probably. Why is there an Amendment process?

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: The Bill Of Wrongs

Why is there an Amendment process?

I like the Amendment process. However, the Supreme Court has to be trusted when considering the lawfulness of amendments they do so without setting policy.
I doubt that there will be anymore amendments without repealing a couple.

I do not believe that Jefferson had a Crystal ball. They did not anticipate, nor predict every scenario possible.

One thing they did know was abusive government. They knew every intimate detail. They were scholars in all things government and were expert statesmen in political execution. With all the validity that is due they knew how to make a government.
One thing above all others that they feared, that they abhored, harped on, and did all they could do to prevent a government that was allowed to do more than they originally intended.

QC, check this out. If it interests you enough let me know what you think about it sometime.

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/

 

[Link]

Re: The Bill Of Wrongs

My rights have not been violated. I get no suspicious phone calls from the Middle East or other dangerous places, therefore the government isn't listening to my boring phone calls.
I wasn't in Afghanistan or Iraq shooting at Americans so I haven't been incarcerated in any prison camps.
The people whose phones are being tapped and the people locked in the prisons are the enemies of my security.
If the government did nothing to deter the threat of terrorists, then you anti-Bushers would have something to whine about.

Well said.
Another way to look at is this.
If you don't have anything to hide, why worry about it.

And if anyone here on iboats thinks that snail mail, (since the 20's) phone calls and email are not monitored, your just living in a bubble.

"WE KNOW WHERE YOU ARE" (book 1984)

LOL