Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Foxfyre wrote:

Looking at Cyclops post, I am reminded that I have been involved in a discussion at another site on a subject that prompted the question: "What Constitutional, legal, or unalienable right was being violated."

The leftie's response was: "Something can be unconstitutional without involving individual rights." He honestly thought that was responsive to the issue.

It must be something in the water. I guess.

Well, I'm sorry that the lefty didn't give you a satisfactory response, but the simple matter is that we have the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. FISA was designed to protect these rights while bowing to the need to conduct surveillance which might inadvertently include US citizens.

If citizens are being searched secretly without probable cause that is a violation of the 4th amendment.

Did anyone on your other board have an answer to why the president felt he couldn't just follow the exising law or ask to have it amended if it was not satisfactory?

The point is that nobody is doing unreasonable search and seizure.

Nobody is listening in on your personal gossip FD unless you are communicating with people suspected of being international terrorists intent on doing you, yours, and everybody else harm.

I honestly can't see how any American can have a problem with that.

Foxfyre wrote:

The point is that nobody is doing unreasonable search and seizure.

How do you know?

Because they said so and nobody has come up with any occasion that they have. How are you so sure they are?

Quote:

Nobody is listening in on your personal gossip FD unless you are communicating with people suspected of being international terrorists intent on doing you, yours, and everybody else harm.

Again, how do you know?

Because they have more pressing conversations to listen in on? How interesting is your gossip anyway? If you are conversing with international terrorists you really might have a concern here. And do you honestly think if they are going to monitor ordinary citizens that the president will sign an executive order to that effect and it will be revealed to anybody?

Quote:

I honestly can't see how any American can have a problem with that.

Can you give me a good reason why the president could not have gotten what he needed using existing laws and procedures?

COURT SAYS U.S. SPY AGENCY CAN TAP OVERSEAS MESSAGES
By DAVID BURNHAM, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
(NYT) 1051 words Published: November 7, 1982

A Federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency may lawfully intercept messages between United States citizens and people overseas, even if there is no cause to believe the Americans are foreign agents, and then provide summaries of these messages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Because the National Security Agency is among the largest and most secretive intelligence agencies and because millions of electronic messages enter and leave the United States each day, lawyers familiar with the intelligence agency consider the decision to mark a significant increase in the legal authority of the Government to keep track of its citizens.

Reverses 1979 Ruling

The Oct. 21 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit involves the Government's surveillance of a Michiganborn lawyer, Abdeen Jabara, who for many years has represented Arab-American citizens and alien residents in court. Some of his clients had been investigated by the F.B.I.

Mr. Jabara sued the F.B.I, and the National Security Agency, and in 1979 Federal District Judge Ralph M. Freeman ruled that the agency's acquisition of several of Mr. Jabara's overseas messages violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free of ''unreasonable searches and seizures.'' Last month's decision reverses that ruling.

In earlier court proceedings, the F.B.I. acknowledged that it then disseminated the information to 17 other law-enforcement or intelligence agencies and three foreign governments.

The opinion of the three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals held, ''The simple fact remains that the N.S.A. lawfully acquired Jabara's messages.''

The court ruled further that the lawyer's Fourth Amendment rights ''were not violated when summaries of his overseas telegraphic messages'' were furnished to the investigative bureau ''irrespective of whether there was reasonable cause to believe that he was a foreign agent.''

Because existing laws and procedures do not allow for temporary throw away phones that the international terrorists are using these days to be less traceable. They have to strike while the iron is hot and immediately or the opportunity is lost. I have explained this before, the President has explained it, and Kay Bailey Hutchinson explained it in detail yesterday morning. I think the explanation is both reasonable and adequate.

How do you know?

Because they said so and nobody has come up with any occasion that they have. How are you so sure they are?

FreeDuck wrote:

Again, how do you know?

Because they have more pressing conversations to listen in on? How interesting is your gossip anyway? If you are conversing with international terrorists you really might have a concern here. And do you honestly think if they are going to monitor ordinary citizens that the president will sign an executive order to that effect and it will be revealed to anybody?

FreeDuck wrote:

Can you give me a good reason why the president could not have gotten what he needed using existing laws and procedures?

Because existing laws and procedures do not allow for temporary throw away phones that the international terrorists are using these days to be less traceable.

They have to strike while the iron is hot and immediately or the opportunity is lost. I have explained this before, the President has explained it, and Kay Bailey Hutchinson explained it in detail yesterday morning. I think the explanation is both reasonable and adequate.

I'm not sure they are, but without checks and balances, how can you be sure they're not?

Amusing, huh?

Under current laws, if the FBI wants to eavesdrop legally on the conversatio of a criminal it must obtain a warrant from a Federal judge. In those cases where the FBI wants to eavesdrop on a specific individual who it believes is an agent of a foreign government, it can apply for a warrant from a special secret panel of Federal judges established just for that purpose.

And this would be the third time I've told you (and the president and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, if they're listening) that FISA allows for after the fact warrants. They are not prevented from striking while the iron is hot. The only thing this law prevented them from doing is surveilling without probable cause.

Nobody has said that their are doing surveillance on anybody without probable cause. What, other than those who routinely criticize and smear the President and/or his administration, gives you the impression that they are doing surveillance without probable cause?

There are many who really really want that to be the case. But from what I've read, what has been said, and all other obvious indications, there is no proof or indication that this is the case.

Do you want it to be true?

This one's deep in the NYT's archives, so for the entertainment of those without subscriptions, here it is in its entirety:

Quote:

COURT SAYS U.S. SPY AGENCY CAN TAP OVERSEAS MESSAGES
By DAVID BURNHAM, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
(NYT) 1051 words Published: November 7, 1982

A Federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency may lawfully intercept messages between United States citizens and people overseas, even if there is no cause to believe the Americans are foreign agents, and then provide summaries of these messages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Because the National Security Agency is among the largest and most secretive intelligence agencies and because millions of electronic messages enter and leave the United States each day, lawyers familiar with the intelligence agency consider the decision to mark a significant increase in the legal authority of the Government to keep track of its citizens.

Reverses 1979 Ruling

The Oct. 21 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit involves the Government's surveillance of a Michiganborn lawyer, Abdeen Jabara, who for many years has represented Arab-American citizens and alien residents in court. Some of his clients had been investigated by the F.B.I.

Mr. Jabara sued the F.B.I, and the National Security Agency, and in 1979 Federal District Judge Ralph M. Freeman ruled that the agency's acquisition of several of Mr. Jabara's overseas messages violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free of ''unreasonable searches and seizures.'' Last month's decision reverses that ruling.

In earlier court proceedings, the F.B.I. acknowledged that it then disseminated the information to 17 other law-enforcement or intelligence agencies and three foreign governments.

The opinion of the three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals held, ''The simple fact remains that the N.S.A. lawfully acquired Jabara's messages.''

The court ruled further that the lawyer's Fourth Amendment rights ''were not violated when summaries of his overseas telegraphic messages'' were furnished to the investigative bureau ''irrespective of whether there was reasonable cause to believe that he was a foreign agent.''

Amusing, huh?

timberlandko wrote:

Amusing, huh?

Well, I found that you snipped a bit of that article, like e.g.:

Quote:

Under current laws, if the FBI wants to eavesdrop legally on the conversatio of a criminal it must obtain a warrant from a Federal judge. In those cases where the FBI wants to eavesdrop on a specific individual who it believes is an agent of a foreign government, it can apply for a warrant from a special secret panel of Federal judges established just for that purpose.

Yep. The warrantless surveillance and interception of this American citizen's messages to overseas' persons by the NSA -- and the dissemination of same to the FBI -- is not a violation of the American citizen's 4th Amendment rights .... so sayeth the 6th Circuit.

Very interesting. Thanks.

blatham wrote:

The present situation isn't good for your side.

Well, I disagree, blatham. I think when push comes to shove, the analysis will have to be which party will do a better job with national security, and there is no doubt about which party that is.

Foxfyre wrote:

Nobody has said that their are doing surveillance on anybody without probable cause. What, other than those who routinely criticize and smear the President and/or his administration, gives you the impression that they are doing surveillance without probable cause?

Please re-read. That's not what I said.

Quote:

There are many who really really want that to be the case. But from what I've read, what has been said, and all other obvious indications, there is no proof or indication that this is the case.

Do you want it to be true?

Can you just give me a reason why he would need to circumvent it? Do I want it to be true? No. I want them to not be able to spy on Americans at all but that's been growing over the last few decades and appears to be unstoppable. I want transparence, checks and balances, some independent somebody making sure the government is doing their due dilligence and respecting individual rights. Why don't you want that?

If that is not what you said, then what is your problem? Either you think the administration is spying on ordinary citizens or you don't. Do you have a problem with them intercepting international calls by people suspected of terrorism? If so, what problem do you see with that? And do you have a better plan in mind to protect the American people from the plans and designs of terrorists?

The fact is that government cannot be 100% transparent and at the same time fulfill its constitutional responsibility to serve and protect. Do you tell drug dealers that you'll be raiding suspected meth labs in their neighborhood on Tuesday? Do you tell the murderer or rapist that you have his location pinpointed and will call to pick him up Saturday morning? Do sometimes the wrong houses get raided? Yes. But we don't think the police should stop raids because of that. Do we sometimes arrest the wrong person? Yes. But does that mean we shouldn't arrest anybody?

Will the government sometimes intercept a conversation by an ordinary law abiding citizen? Probably. But does that mean the government should not be doing what it can to protect us from people who want us all dead? That means that sometimes the government works undercover, trains spies, and does visual and electronic surveillance. None of this will do one bit of good if the government has to explain in advance what it is doing and who it is doing it to. And to 'out' these processes to the press or anybody not authorized to have the information should be 100% criminal.

I do not condone in any way, shape, or form the government invading the privacy of ordinary citizens going about their ordinary tasks. But those rubbing elbows with international terrorists are fair game for meddling so far as I am conerned.