America... Spying on Americans

cicerone imposter wrote:

McG wrote:
If you can answer those questions for me, feel free. I would be very appreciative.

_________________

I do not go on wild goose chases to answer irrelevant questions posed by ignoramouses.

I didn't think you could answer the questions, but thought you should have the oppotunity to put your money where your mouth is. Turns out you are just all mouth.

0 Replies

No, McG, you're the one with all the mouth and no brains. You can't even do a search to support your position (very simple to do), so you ask somebody else to be your patsy. Doesn't work.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Do you if Americans were specifically targetted for surveillance?

Yes, Bush has admitted as much.

Quote:

Do you know if calls were monitored by people or computers?

Why does it matter? We know both to have occurred.

Quote:

Do you know what the law specifically says about either of these?

Yes, we do. See FISA.

Quote:

Do you know anything at all about what the program actually did or how it functioned?

We only know what Bush and others in the administration have told us.

Quote:

I know that I do not know the answers to these questions. I can't make any judgements based on what the media tells me because I don't trust them to tell the complete truth.

I do know that all the people, Republicans and Democrats alike, that have been briefed about how the program works have been silent about it. That tells me that the administration has either found a loophole in the law, or what they have done may be legal. I will wait to see what happens before passing judgement.

Really? You seem to ignore the fact about some questioning its legality long before it was made public. They were silent in the public arena because it is top secret. They were not silent in stating they were uncomfortable about its legality or their inability to find out if it was legal.

0 Replies

Tico,

You believe that the FISCR court decision does away with FISA completely? That is the only interpretation that supports the spying in the fashion you claim.

Why?

Because of an important question: who determines what is foreign and what is domestic intelligence?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Tico,

You believe that the FISCR court decision does away with FISA completely?

No, I don't.

Quote:

That is the only interpretation that supports the spying in the fashion you claim.

No, it isn't.

Quote:

Because of an important question: who determines what is foreign and what is domestic intelligence?

Cycloptichorn

Obviously the initial determination is made by the Executive Branch. While I understand why you think that's an important question and a big downside to the warrantless search program, it still doesn't mean the FISA law can override an inherent authority held by the Executive.

0 Replies

You are incorrect; FISA does limit the president's inherent authority. It has done so since the moment it was signed into law by Carter in 1978. The FISCR court decision does not invalidate a standing law.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Also, the Executive Branch cannot be the only decider of what is foreign and what is domestic surveillance; otherwise, they just call it all 'foriegn,' slap a top secret on it, and then FISA is effectively neutered. This runs contrary to both the letter and the spirit of FISA.

Your big problem is that Carter signed this law in 1978. He never should have done that. Once he did, he created a legal agreement to bind not only him, but all further presdients, according to the wishes of Congress - in perfect harmony with the Constitution.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You are incorrect; FISA does limit the president's inherent authority.

It purports to ... and to the extent it does, it is unconstitutional.

Quote:

The FISCR court decision does not invalidate a standing law.

I never claimed it did "invalidate" it.

0 Replies

Until FISA has been found to be unConstitutional, it is by definition Constitutional. Do you disagree with this?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Also, the Executive Branch cannot be the only decider of what is foreign and what is domestic surveillance; otherwise, they just call it all 'foriegn,' slap a top secret on it, and then FISA is effectively neutered. This runs contrary to both the letter and the spirit of FISA.

I never claimed there could not be some review process to ensure the process is not overstepping.

Quote:

Your big problem is that Carter signed this law in 1978. He never should have done that. Once he did, he created a legal agreement to bind not only him, but all further presdients, according to the wishes of Congress - in perfect harmony with the Constitution.

Cycloptichorn

A President does not have the authority to enter into an "agreement" that would invalidate his inherent authority, and even if he could "agree" to such a thing, he certainly could not bind future Presidents to such folly.

0 Replies

Your problem is that my side of the argument carries the force of law behind it, while your side rests on an opinion about what the law should say or should be. It doesnt' matter what your opinion of the law is. The law is quite clearly written, and until it is declared unconstitutional and stricken from the rolls, it is law and the President is bound by it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Until FISA has been found to be unConstitutional, it is by definition Constitutional. Do you disagree with this?

Cycloptichorn

Don't you recall me disagreeing with that the first time you asked it?

0 Replies

Yeah, I just wanted to hear you say it again. Because you are, of course, completely wrong.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Tico,

You believe that the FISCR court decision does away with FISA completely?

Ticomaya wrote:

No, I don't.

FISA is either consitutional or unconstitutional.

If FISA is constitutional, it is the supreme law of the land and it is binding upon the president.

Nevertheless, Tico takes the untenable and irreconcilable position that FISA is consitutional, yet the president is not bound by the limitations that FISA places on the executive branch.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

That is the only interpretation that supports the spying in the fashion you claim.

Ticomaya wrote:

No, it isn't.

Tico takes the position that the president has inherent power to violate a constitutional enactment. Tico's position has no legal support. See Youngstown.

Quote:

Because of an important question: who determines what is foreign and what is domestic intelligence?

Cycloptichorn

Ticomaya wrote:

Obviously the initial determination is made by the Executive Branch. While I understand why you think that's an important question and a big downside to the warrantless search program, it still doesn't mean the FISA law can override an inherent authority held by the Executive.

The purpose of FISA is to prevent governmental abuse of power and to provide the necessary impartial check on the government's determination that the targeted United States person is an agent of a foreign power. The executive branch has no authority to conduct warrantless searches and seizures of the electronic communications of United States persons for whom there is no probable cause to believe that they are agents of a foreign power.

If FISA cannot place that necessary judicial check on executive branch powers to prevent governmental abuses of power, then it is unconstitutional on its face. Inasmuch as FISA is not unconstitutional, it is the supreme law of the land and the president is bound to obey it. Congressional enactments are not merely good advice that the president is free to follow or to ignore at the president's pleasure. Tico doesn't understand the basics. He doesn't understand the elementary principle that he can't have it both ways. Only a moron would argue that FISA is a constitutional enactment, yet the government is not bound by it.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yeah, I just wanted to hear you say it again. Because you are, of course, completely wrong.

Cycloptichorn

Let's go back to your defense of Debra's pronouncement of Bush as "guilty." Now, if he's guilty, he's guilty before he is tried, but he is entitled to the presumption of innocence until he's found guilty in a court of law. It seems you are advocating a similar presumption to be applied to laws passed by Congress. Unconstitutional laws are unconstitutional from the moment they are passed, but you think they should be deemed Constitutional until found unconstitutional by a court with jurisdiction to decide the matter. In other words, if Congress passes an obvioulsy unconstitutional law -- and we could devise some very creative and extreme examples if we cared to (e.g., Congress passes a law requiring the President to torture prisoners) -- you advocate that the President MUST follow the obviously unconstitutional law for as long as it takes the Supreme Court to weigh in and declare the law unconstitutional. I'm telling you he is authorized to ignore an unconstitutional law ab initio, but bears some risk in doing so prior to the Judicial determination.

Marbury v. Madison states that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is," but it doesn't say "exclusively." Many Presidents have historically claimed the power to decline to enforce a law they believe to be unconstitutional. The oath taken by the President is to support the Constitution, yet you would ask him to ignore that oath by following a law he believes in good faith to be unconstitutional?

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Tico,

You believe that the FISCR court decision does away with FISA completely?

Ticomaya wrote:
No, I don't.

FISA is either consitutional or unconstitutional.

If FISA is constitutional, it is the supreme law of the land and it is binding upon the president.

And to the extent it's unconstitutional, it's not worth the paper it's written on.

Quote:

Nevertheless, Tico takes the untenable and irreconcilable position that FISA is consitutional, yet the president is not bound by the limitations that FISA places on the executive branch.

No, you take the untenable position that a portion of a law cannot be unconstitutional while another portion of a law is.

To the extent it encroaches on the President's inherent authority, FISA is unconstitutional.

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
That is the only interpretation that supports the spying in the fashion you claim.

Ticomaya wrote:
No, it isn't.

Tico takes the position that the president has inherent power to violate a constitutional enactment. Tico's position has no legal support. See Youngstown.

Wrong, and you are misrepresenting my position. But a President need not follow an unconstitutional enactment. You disagree?

0 Replies

Tico has no clue what the Constitution states in the fourth Amendment, or how it applies when the congress limits unwarranted wiretaps through FISA against American citizens, and he's an attorney. I wonder what kind of law he practices?

0 Replies

He is an ambulance chaser and obviously knows nothing. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Tico,

You believe that the FISCR court decision does away with FISA completely?

Ticomaya wrote:
No, I don't.

Debra wrote:
FISA is either consitutional or unconstitutional.

If FISA is constitutional, it is the supreme law of the land and it is binding upon the president.

Tico wrote:
And to the extent it's unconstitutional, it's not worth the paper it's written on.

Tico now determines that what congress has done is unconstitutional. I wonder if Tico is a member of the Supreme Court?

America... Spying on Americans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know