NSA Wiretap Program Must Stop

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Magnetic Poles, Aug 17, 2006.

  1. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Federal judge rules NSA wiretap program unconstitutional. Says it violates free speech and privacy. She ordered an immediate stop to warrantless wiretaps.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14393611/
     
  2. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,909
    Likes Received:
    295
    This decision will be overturned in due course.
     
  3. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,909
    Likes Received:
    295
    http://levin.nationalreview.com/

    There are four things that strike me most about Taylor’s opinion. First, she grants standing to such plaintiffs as the ACLU, CAIR, Greenpeace, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Christopher Hitchens, and others, without a shred of information showing any connection between the plaintiffs’ assertions of constitutional violations and any harm to them. However, Taylor reveals herself in this excerpt from her ruling:

    "… [T]he court need not speculate upon the kind of activity the Plaintiffs want to engage in – they want to engage in conversations with individuals abroad without fear that their First Amendment rights are being infringed upon. Therefore, this court concludes that Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirement of alleging “actual or threatened injury” as a result of Defendants’ conduct"

    Taylor writes later:

    "Although this court is persuaded that Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient injury to establish standing, it is important to note that if the court were to deny standing based on the unsubstantiated minor distinctions drawn by Defendants, the President’s action in warrantless wiretapping, in contravention of FISA, Title III, and the First and Fourth Amendments, would be immunized from judicial scrutiny. …"

    In other words, if Taylor had ruled properly and found that the Plaintiffs had no standing to bring their lawsuit, she would have denied herself the ability to strike down the NSA intercept program by throwing out the lawsuit.

    Second, Taylor fails to address adequately that which has been debated here and elsewhere for months, i.e., the president’s inherent constitutional powers as commander-in-chief, and the long line of court cases (and historical evidence) related to it.

    Third, in many places, the opinion reads like a political screed.

    Fourth, Taylor insists on the immediate implementation of her decision, meaning that the NSA must stop intercepting enemy communications at this very moment, unless it succeeds in getting judicial relief elsewhere.
     
  4. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with Levin/carpro, it'll get overturned. I think this judge is wrong. I have no problem with this wiretapping. As I've said before, if it is being used to wiretap political enemies then the President, of whatever party, should be impeached, but I believe the President is using the technological means available to intercept and monitor the communications of those identified as threats. If this saves some lives and the only people whose "rights" being violated are terrorists, no loss. Though I respect the Left's (and some on the Right who disagree with these wiretaps) constitutional scruples here, but disagree with them, I believe that when lives are lost because we did not avail ourselves of such means to prevent it, the Left might then think this worthwhile, too.
     
    #4 fromtheright, Aug 17, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 17, 2006
  5. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    It isn't wiretaps that is at issue, it is the lack of warrants.
     
  6. hill

    hill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2006
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    0
    Warrants are not needed now or during any previous administration, until this activist judge inserted her two cents. Oh well it won't stand.
     
  7. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    They sure are. That is why we have the FISA courts. Warrantless invasion of privacy is a hallmark of totalitarian regimes, not of a free people. Just because you disagree with a ruling, doesn't make a judge an "activist".
     
  8. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, it was them dern activist founding fathers who just had to insert that pesky 4th Amendment to the Constitution.
     
  9. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    Reading through Judge Taylor's opinion now. I do agree with the judge that the plaintiffs had standing, but I believe that the national security, and the lives of Americans, outweighs some reporter's right to get a story or even attorney-client privilege.
     
  10. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think a compromise on this issue is possible.

    If data is being gathered without a warrant it will be okay if it is not going to be used in criminal case.

    If it is later decided to use the data in criminal case, then the appropriate court must issue a warrant or else the data cannot be used in a court.
     
  11. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that this is a game of semantics.

    Warrants were not needed to wiretap for national security . . .

    The constitution prevents legal search and seizure - it does not prevent the military from protecting against enemies foreign and domestic.

    The difference is whether or not the wiretap can later be used in court of law . . .

     
  12. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    See my post above. The compromise has always been there.

     
  13. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    And for all of you that want to practice that freedom you so casually brag about:

    Go to DC walk over to 2650 Wisconsin Avenue, NW and wave till your arms are tired, tired, tired of living in a free country.

    ;) Same thing if you go to the American Embassy in Moscow . . . And probably even London.

    But, if you really must have a totally free day and not be surveilled - go to Baghdad and tell the men and women how proud you are of their sacrifice.
     
  14. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you are on a public street, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy (except search of your person and seizure of your property). If you are in your own home, you do expect not to be spied on by your own government - without a warrant and probable cause.
     
    #14 Daisy, Aug 18, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 18, 2006
  15. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,332
    Likes Received:
    786
    The wire tapps had plenty of probable cause. And while no warrants were issued congress was made aware of this on a regular basis. I think that is a great compromise.
     
  16. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    You pays your money and takes your choice.

    The people in Stalan's USSR never had to worry about terrorists.
     
  17. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    Don't worry, carpro, as well as anyone else who so willingly relenquishes their Constitutional rights, this will be reversed on appeal.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14416571/
    BiR
     
  18. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    All that had to be done was to go to the FISA courts. Former President Clinton didn't seem to have any trouble staying within the guidelines of the law.....
     
  19. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    First, dwelling on your ommission of his impeachment, President Clinton did not have to deal with 9-11.

    Further, had President Clinton dealt with Osama better - we would not be having this discussion.

    President Clinton has said that he would have done what President Bush had done in starting the war on terror . . .

    Lastly, I think we as americans need to be realistic - American Airlines is still one of the top terror targets of the islamic terrorists.

    Therefore - wiretapping conversations outside of one's home (transmissions go into the public domain) that go to people on terrorist watch lists:

    Must be monitored to prevent a second 9-11.

     
  20. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Willingly?

    No one willingly went into the twin towers to be murdered by terrorists that hide behind the Constitution of the USA.

    Willingly?

    Take up your Constitutional Right to protect your country. There is no right for an American to be a traitor. There is no Constitutional protection of cowards, traitors, and terrorists.

    Show us where in the Constitution that it says, "And by the way - terrorists and their sympathizers have the protection of our country to wage a war of terror."



     

Share This Page

Loading...