America... Spying on Americans

"To say `unchecked power' basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the president, which I strongly reject," he said angrily in a finger-pointing answer. "I am doing what you expect me to do, and at the same time, safeguarding the civil liberties of the country."

. . . Where does he find in the Constitution the authority to tap the wires and the phones of American citizens without any court oversight?" asked Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Bush's interpretation of the Constitution was "incorrect and dangerous."

. . . Appealing for support, Bush used the word "understand" 25 times in a nearly hour-long news conference. "I hope the American people understand — there is still an enemy that would like to strike the United States of America, and they're very dangerous," he said. Similarly, he said he hoped that blacks who doubt his intentions "understand that I care about them."

. . . The president said the authority to bypass the court derived from the Constitution and Congress' vote authorizing the use of military force after the 2001 terror attacks.

The president said he intends to continue using secret international wiretaps to monitor activities of people in the United States suspected of having connections to al Qaeda.

"In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment," Bush said.

We are oath-bound to defend the Constitution. . . .

The provisions of the Constitution are not time-worn adages or hollow shibboleths. They are vital, living principles that authorize and limit governmental powers in our Nation. They are the rules of government. When the constitutionality of an Act of Congress is challenged in this Court, we must apply those rules. If we do not, the words of the Constitution become little more than good advice.

It is fundamental that the great powers of Congress to conduct war and to regulate the Nation's foreign relations are subject to the constitutional requirements of due process. The imperative necessity for safeguarding these rights to procedural due process under the gravest of emergencies has existed throughout our constitutional history, for it is then, under the pressing exigencies of crisis, that there is the greatest temptation to dispense with fundamental constitutional guarantees which, it is feared, will inhibit governmental action. "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances." Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 120-121. 18 The rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments are "Preserved to every one accused of crime who is not attached to the army, or navy, or militia in actual service." Id., at 123. 19 "f society is disturbed by civil commotion - if the passions of men are aroused and the restraints of law weakened, if not disregarded - these safeguards need, and should receive, the watchful care of those intrusted with the guardianship of the Constitution and laws. In no other way can we transmit to posterity unimpaired the blessings of liberty, consecrated by the sacrifices of the Revolution." Id., at 124.

While the threat of terrorism is omnipresent, we cannot use it as the basis for restricting the scope of the Fourth Amendment’s protections in any large gathering of people. In the absence of some reason to believe that international terrorists would target or infiltrate this protest, there is no basis for using September 11 as an excuse for searching the protestors.

Even putting aside the City’s ill-advised and groundless reference to September 11, its demand for the unbridled power to perform “magnetometer searches at [all] large gatherings” is untenable. The text of the Fourth Amendment contains no exception for large gatherings of people....

As SAW points out, under the City’s theory,

mass suspicion-less [sic] searches could be implemented for every person who attends any large event including: a high school graduation, a church picnic, a public concert in the park, an art festival, a Fourth of July parade, sporting events such as a marathon, and fund-raising events such as the annual breast cancer walk. And if the government began to pick and choose amongst [sic] these groups, viewpoint discrimination would likely result.

Reply Brief of Appellants at 4.

The City’s position would effectively eviscerate the Fourth Amendment. It is quite possible that both protestors and passersby would be safer if the City were permitted to engage in mass, warrantless, suspicionless searches. Indeed, it is quite possible that our nation would be safer if police were permitted to stop and search anyone they wanted, at any time, for no reason at all. Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968) (requiring that police demonstrate individualized suspicion that a suspect is armed before frisking him). Nevertheless, the Fourth Amendment embodies a value judgment by the Framers that prevents us from gradually trading ever-increasing amounts of freedom and privacy for additional security. It establishes searches based on evidence—rather than potentially effective, broad, prophylactic dragnets—as the constitutional norm.

We also reject the notion that the Department of Homeland Security’s threat advisory level somehow justifies these searches. Although the threat level was “elevated” at the time of the protest, “[t]o date, the threat level has stood at yellow (elevated) for the majority of its time in existence. It has been raised to orange (high) six times.” Wikipedia, Homeland Security Advisory System . . . Given that we have been on “yellow alert” for over two and a half years now, we cannot consider this a particularly exceptional condition that warrants curtailment of constitutional rights. We cannot simply suspend or restrict civil liberties until the War on Terror is over, because the War on Terror is unlikely ever to be truly over. September 11, 2001, already a day of immeasurable tragedy, cannot be the day liberty perished in this country.

Furthermore, a system that gave the federal government the power to determine the range of constitutionally permissible searches simply by raising or lowering the nation’s threat advisory system would allow the restrictions of the Fourth Amendment to be circumvented too easily.

Ticomaya wrote:

parados wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

kuvasz wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

I'll ask again ... what does that have to do with your brother?

The absurdity of inferring that people who dissent from government policies are acting in a manner designed to hurt our armed forces, especially those of us who have worn a military uniform and with family in harm's way.

I don't think Asherman was suggesting you wilfully harmed your government or your brother. It's just a by-product of your actions.

A by-product of his actions? Cite the time and place that kuvasz's actions have created this by-prodcut. Cite the SPECIFIC harm. Hypotheticals don't count. it must be specific and provable.

Sorry Tico but your silly claim is just that, silly. There is no evidence that disagreeing with the President has caused harm to anyone let alone harmed them "willfully."

After you cite the specific harm to your or any one else's civil liberties brought about by this eavesdropping program. Cite the time and place that it has interfered with your civil rights. Hypotheticals don't count. It must be specific, and provable.

There's no evidence that this program has caused harm to anyone.

I don't recall stating that my personal rights were violated Tico. You however did state that harm was a result of Kuvasz actions. Deflect seems to be your only response.

Debra,
Where was your outrage when Clinton ordered ECHELON used to spy on Americans?

Since you didnt complain then,you have no right to complain now.

If you approved then,you must approve now.

mysteryman wrote:

Debra,
Where was your outrage when Clinton ordered ECHELON used to spy on Americans?

Since you didnt complain then,you have no right to complain now.

If you approved then,you must approve now.

Since you sad little people can't get through a debate without bringing up Clinton, I'll tell you where I was. I was in front of the crowd of people protesting that gross abuse of power. Earthlink.Net refused to allow ECHELON on their servers. I proceeded to move as many as my clients to Earthlink as was possible just for that reason! WHAT did YOU do about it since you brought it up???

And the reason I mentioned Clinton is because he ordered the creation of ECHELON.
Should I have credited Reagan for it?

Debra,
Where was your outrage when Clinton ordered ECHELON used to spy on Americans?

Since you didnt complain then,you have no right to complain now.

If you approved then,you must approve now.

Well, I found it amusing. Sorry you didn't. Perhaps you are a little sensitive?

But I understand you folks being a little upset these days, what with all the positive news coming from Iraq and all. Not exactly the kind of news that bodes well for your party.

Oh well. Happy Holidays.

Interesting to note in the Washington Post article yesterday, former Sen. Bob Graham is claiming he didn't come away from his briefing knowing the particulars of this secret program involved eavesdropping on domestically initiated international calls. He said: "I came out of the room with the full sense that we were dealing with a change in technology but not policy." One is left with the impression that there is more to the story than has been revealed. Particularly with the statement in the Times: "we satisfied ourselves that we could write about this program -- withholding a number of technical details -- in a way that would not expose any intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities that are not already on the public record." I personally don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to reveal to the terrorists what methods and technology we utilize to monitor conversations. My guess is there is a change in technology being used, and we'll all find out about it at some later point in time. (Perhaps when the Times finds it expedient for its purposes to tell all.)

naaah,
I think the first thing that should be done is to shoot all the lawyers.

You ignored the question,
Why are you complaining now,but you didnt complain when ECHELON was activitated by the Clinton admin?

kuvasz wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

I'll ask again ... what does that have to do with your brother?

The absurdity of inferring that people who dissent from government policies are acting in a manner designed to hurt our armed forces, especially those of us who have worn a military uniform and with family in harm's way.

I don't think Asherman was suggesting you wilfully harmed your government or your brother. It's just a by-product of your actions.

prove it.

kuv wrote:

And I would ask of you what is it about political dissent of government policies that frightens the likes of you or Asherman or right wing fanatics in general and makes you think we don't also love our country and want our armed forces safe?

I'm not frightened by dissent. I'm sure you love your country and want our armed forces safe. But then again when a tool to protect our country from terrorism is revealed on the front pages of the times, that doesn't seem to be doing a whole heck of a lot to fight terrorism, does it?

so you would kill the patient to save it? where have I heard this attitude of having to destroy the village to save it before?

you have just implied it is better to allow the president to usurp power than reveal illegal intelligence metods to the nation.

and how lame can you get to think that terrorists do not know they have to be careful about americans wiretapping them.

here's an article from eight years ago about Echaleon. You must think al queada is too stupid to know the americans are trying to listen to them or the technologies available to them. those folks are not a bunch of Bedoin camel drivers.

http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,15295,00.html

kuv wrote:

Swathing yourselves in the flag and accusing those who dissent from the government as giving aid and comfort to the enemy is about the most repugnant thing an American can do. It flies in the face of what this country was founded upon; freedom and liberty.

I think one of the most repugnant things an American can do is join with those who hurt his government's efforts to protect its citizens, and then have the temerity to claim they are only doing it because they love their country.