Judge nixes warrantless surveillance

[Surfrider]

This is incorrect.? The Fourth Amendment's application is not limited to citizens.

The fourth Amendment does not extend to protect foreign nationals; why the need to spy on American citizens without a warrant?

The Fourth Amendment applies to the people, not just citizens.? Read the amendment; the extent to which the amendment applies is not clear.? It is a completely different question whether the Fourth Amendment applies to government action in a different country.? The amendment clearly doesn't cover those situations.

FISA already gives them 72 hours to work without one, so you can not argue that it limits their investigation. Why does the president feel that he can violate the Bill of Rights as he sees fit?

As to the first part, I never made that argument.?  As to the second, I think you are begging the question.? That is precisely the dispute.? The president believes that he has the power to do this, where others believe that he does not.? It is not as clear cut as you make it sound.

[SLCPUNK]

The Fourth Amendment applies to the people, not just citizens.  Read the amendment; the extent to which the amendment applies is not clear.  It is a completely different question whether the Fourth Amendment applies to government action in a different country.  The amendment clearly doesn't cover those situations.

First you said it "does not", then you say it is "not clear" (My entire point in the first place is that it is set up to protect US citizens and that this government has full power to spy on anybody else without a warrant. Be it "the people" or "USA citizens" that the 4th amendment protects.) That point is moot anyway as I am speaking of Bush violating that Amendment by not obtaining a warrant to look into people's email, listen to their phone calls etc. You are completely ignoring my next point which was that FISA allows them 72 hours to work without one. So again, why does Bush feel that he can proceed outside the law and without obtaining a warrant? 72 hours is more than enough time to obtain a warrant for probably cause.

It doesn't "beg the question" by any means. The President is asking for an unlimited right to wiretap. His claims are that  he is "fighting terror", even though this began prior to 9-11. He claims he is the first president not bound by our Bill or Rights and is able to ignore the 4th amendment.

I want to hear one valid reason why the Executive Branch feels it can violate the Bill of Rights and ignore the Constitution. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence were created by individuals who were "patriotic" about giving trust to their government or allowing rulers to determine their freedom. Nor should we now.

[Surfrider]

The Fourth Amendment applies to the people, not just citizens.? Read the amendment; the extent to which the amendment applies is not clear.? It is a completely different question whether the Fourth Amendment applies to government action in a different country.? The amendment clearly doesn't cover those situations.

First you said it "does not", then you say it is "not clear" (My entire point in the first place is that it is set up to protect US citizens and that this government has full power to spy on anybody else without a warrant. Be it "the people" or "USA citizens" that the 4th amendment protects.) That point is moot anyway as I am speaking of Bush violating that Amendment by not obtaining a warrant to look into people's email, listen to their phone calls etc. You are completely ignoring my next point which was that FISA allows them 72 hours to work without one. So again, why does Bush feel that he can proceed outside the law and without obtaining a warrant? 72 hours is more than enough time to obtain a warrant for probably cause.

Read my post.  I said that the Fourth Amendment's application to people that aren't citizens.  You argued that it does not help foreign nationals.  That is simply incorrect.  The Fourth Amendment does apply to foreign nationals in the US.  Furthermore, I never ignored your point regarding the 72 hours.  I never said you were incorrect on that point.  In fact, I agree with you.

It doesn't "beg the question" by any means. The President is asking for an unlimited right to wiretap. His claims are that? he is "fighting terror", even though this began prior to 9-11. He claims he is the first president not bound by our Bill or Rights and is able to ignore the 4th amendment.

Yes, it does beg the question.  You asked why the President feels that he can violate the Fourth Amendment as he sees fit.  He doesn't believe that he is violating the Fourth Amendment.  Nor do many consitutional scholars that are out there.  You are assuming that he violated the Fourth Amendment; I am not so sure.  I certainly wouldn't place my money on a decison written by a known liberal judge from Detroit.

I want to hear one valid reason why the Executive Branch feels it can violate the Bill of Rights and ignore the Constitution.

Again, you are begging the question.  I think the appropriate question would be: I want to hear one reason feels he has Constitutional authority to do what he is doing without violating the Bill of Rights?  To this question there are many answers.

[SLCPUNK]

Of course he does not feel that he is violating it! That is the point! It doesn't mean that he is not.

Answer the question: Why does the President feel that he can ignore the law and spy without a warrant? And why would he want to do it without one in the first place?

Why would YOU support spying without a warrant?

[Drew]

Why would YOU support spying without a warrant?

I don't think the President/NSA/Governement should have to worry about warrants listening in on phone calls. Especially when they have sufficent evidence of terrorists movement and planning. To me, there's no problem if the governement listens in on my phone calls. I'm not a terroists and I'm not planning any attacks on Americans. The NSA is not interested in what "Sally" is fixing her kids for dinner. They're interested in people of Middle Eastern decent, Muslims, and Islamists.

I don't feel my civil rights are being violated at all by this government program. I do think it helps with the national security of this country and Americans. Doesn't makes us completely safe but it goes a long way in making Americans safer.

[Surfrider]

Of course he does not feel that he is violating it! That is the point! It doesn't mean that he is not.

Answer the question: Why does the President feel that he can ignore the law and spy without a warrant? And why would he want to do it without one in the first place?

I thought I stated it in pretty plain terms.  Here it is plainer: he does not believe that he is violating the law. 

It is like me asking you: why do you think you can come on this board and violate the rules and insult people without any repercussion?  What will your answer be?  I don't do that; the latter part of the question assumes the first part is true, even though it may not be.

Your question makes assumptions that make it misleading and unanswerable.  As to the latter question, it is a pain to go to these courts, even with the 72 hour cushion.  I have had several federal prosecutors tell me so.  Additionally, considering all of the leaks that take place in our government with the more people the information gets exposed to, they probably think it is safer to tell as few people as possible.

[SLCPUNK]

Why would YOU support spying without a warrant?

I don't think the President/NSA/Governement should have to worry about warrants listening in on phone calls. Especially when they have sufficent evidence of terrorists movement and planning. To me, there's no problem if the governement listens in on my phone calls. I'm not a terroists and I'm not planning any attacks on Americans. The NSA is not interested in what "Sally" is fixing her kids for dinner. They're interested in people of Middle Eastern decent, Muslims, and Islamists.

I don't feel my civil rights are being violated at all by this government program. I do think it helps with the national security of this country and Americans. Doesn't makes us completely safe but it goes a long way in making Americans safer.

So you are willing to give up your freedoms under the 4th amendment for nothing? Even when they already have 72 hours to spy before obtaining a warrant?

You feel that fighting a war (that was never declared by congress btw) on terror is worth giving up your freedoms that your founding fathers have fought so bravely for? That allowing a leader to act as he wishes without regard to law is actually ok?

[SLCPUNK]

Of course he does not feel that he is violating it! That is the point! It doesn't mean that he is not.

Answer the question: Why does the President feel that he can ignore the law and spy without a warrant? And why would he want to do it without one in the first place?

I thought I stated it in pretty plain terms.  Here it is plainer: he does not believe that he is violating the law. 

It is like me asking you: why do you think you can come on this board and violate the rules and insult people without any repercussion?  What will your answer be?  I don't do that; the latter part of the question assumes the first part is true, even though it may not be.

Your question makes assumptions that make it misleading and unanswerable.  As to the latter question, it is a pain to go to these courts, even with the 72 hour cushion.  I have had several federal prosecutors tell me so.  Additionally, considering all of the leaks that take place in our government with the more people the information gets exposed to, they probably think it is safer to tell as few people as possible.

Of course he knows he is breaking the law. It's the fawkin' law! You can not spy on people without obtaining a warrant. Bush is saying he doesn't need a warrant and to "trust him." You honestly want me to believe that he feels he is within the law? That is why a court just reminded him that he was NOT within the law. Thank God there are people left in this country who actually respect our Bill of Rights and the hard work put down by the people that framed it.

Pain to go to the courts? TOO BAD! It is how this country was set up. Our founding fathers set up this country in such a way so that one man does not have absolute power to ignore laws. Why do you think they wrote that in there? Hmmm? Do you think perhaps it was because they were tired of ONE MAN doing whatever he felt?

[sandman]

Of course he does not feel that he is violating it!

I thought I stated it in pretty plain terms.?

Of course he knows he is breaking the law.

slcpunk - i have no idea what you're argument is.

but i do know that this will be overturned. many other judges (who know much more about the constitution that we do) believe that liberal judge was incorrect in her ruling.

[Drew]

So you are willing to give up your freedoms under the 4th amendment for nothing? Even when they already have 72 hours to spy before obtaining a warrant?

You feel that fighting a war (that was never declared by congress btw) on terror is worth giving up your freedoms that your founding fathers have fought so bravely for? That allowing a leader to act as he wishes without regard to law is actually ok?

I'm not giving up any freedoms for "nothing". I'm in a country where the goverment is trying really hard to stop terrorists attacks and killing Americans. Alot and nothing could happen in the 72 hour time period. Maybe one call comes thru and is heard by Intelligence. Something's up. Then, nothing else more is heard in that next 72 hour period. A warrant is then requested but denied by a judge. Now, by law the NSA isn't able to listen in on phone calls becasue the warrant was denied. The terrorists resume their talks and plans and go thru with their attack. All because of someone's privacy over the majority of Americans security.

I don't think I need Congress to declare a war on terror for me. I can see for myself that there are Muslims and Islamists everywhere that want to kill as many Americans and allies, mainly Britains, as they can anywhere in the world. My founding fathers had good intentions but they do not live in the times as we do now. Things change. The times have changed. And our enemies need to be stopped.

[Mom]

The nerve of some people! Getting a warrant is such a fucking hassle! For that matter so is a trial! Their could be an acquittal! Prosecutors should just be able to throw in prison whoever they want! For that matter why not just put cameras in all houses as a matter of course? Don't you know many of the terrorists plotted in houses!! What are you against filming terrorists?? I mean they're terrorists! How do we know someones a terrorist? Because the government said so! It's true in the sense that they said it! What more do people want?? Now I'm going to smoke crack and listen to "Real American" a hundred times so I can be in the proper mindset to believe the fucking nonsense the government spews!

[The Dog]

So you are willing to give up your freedoms under the 4th amendment for nothing? Even when they already have 72 hours to spy before obtaining a warrant?

You feel that fighting a war (that was never declared by congress btw) on terror is worth giving up your freedoms that your founding fathers have fought so bravely for? That allowing a leader to act as he wishes without regard to law is actually ok?

I don't think I need Congress to declare a war on terror for me. I can see for myself that there are Muslims and Islamists everywhere that want to kill as many Americans and allies, mainly Britains, as they can anywhere in the world. My founding fathers had good intentions but they do not live in the times as we do now. Things change. The times have changed. And our enemies need to be stopped.

Hmmm, sounds like you've had one too many bowls of fear for breakfast.  The law is the law, ignoring them or thinking you are above them has got to be the most un-american thing imaginable.  Our constitution is the very thing that MAKES us american.  The "times changed" alot over the course of our 200+ year history, but the manner and method which we go about in following our laws has not.  And nothing should ever change that.

If bush didn't like the 72 hour time period he should have tried to change the law, not go above it.

[Mom]

If bush didn't like the 72 hour time period he should have tried to change the law, not go above it.

What are you a communist Hanna?!?! There's only one law Bush and America needs, Biblical law. He talks every night with his lawyer Jesus Christ, aka Bill Kristol whispering into his ear.

[SLCPUNK]

If bush didn't like the 72 hour time period he should have tried to change the law, not go above it.

What are you a communist Hanna?!?! There's only one law Bush and America needs, Biblical law. He talks every night with his lawyer Jesus Christ, aka Bill Kristol whispering into his ear.

I like you a lot already............

I mean.......really!

 

[SLCPUNK]

slcpunk - i have no idea what you're argument is.

Now there is a surprise.........


********

Anyways.........The judge has spoken for the Constitution. That is good enough for me, and is a great step for America.

My hats off!

  Our constitution is the very thing that MAKES us american.  The "times changed" alot over the course of our 200+ year history, but the manner and method which we go about in following our laws has not.  And nothing should ever change that.

Fuckin' A RIGHT!

[Drew]

Hmmm, sounds like you've had one too many bowls of fear for breakfast.  The law is the law, ignoring them or thinking you are above them has got to be the most un-american thing imaginable.  Our constitution is the very thing that MAKES us american.  The "times changed" alot over the course of our 200+ year history, but the manner and method which we go about in following our laws has not.  And nothing should ever change that.

If bush didn't like the 72 hour time period he should have tried to change the law, not go above it.

Or maybe it could just be that your asleep at the wheel. Or too many cups of koolaid. Whichever.

Your right about the law being the law. But speeding is breaking the law too. How many people do that everyday? Does that make alot of people un-American? Yes, the law shuld be changed. But if the governement needs to protect Americans in the mean time, I absolutely have no problems with these security programs whatsoever.

[Guns N RockMusic]

Hmmm, sounds like you've had one too many bowls of fear for breakfast.? The law is the law, ignoring them or thinking you are above them has got to be the most un-american thing imaginable.? Our constitution is the very thing that MAKES us american.? The "times changed" alot over the course of our 200+ year history, but the manner and method which we go about in following our laws has not.? And nothing should ever change that.

If bush didn't like the 72 hour time period he should have tried to change the law, not go above it.

Or maybe it could just be that your asleep at the wheel. Or too many cups of koolaid. Whichever.

Your right about the law being the law. But speeding is breaking the law too. How many people do that everyday? Does that make alot of people un-American? Yes, the law shuld be changed. But if the governement needs to protect Americans in the mean time, I absolutely have no problems with these security programs whatsoever.

I have a real problem with any leader intentionally breaking the law.  Regardless how much are kool-aid drinking friends want to state that these wire taps are illegal, the jury is still out on that one.  One judge rules it illegal, but what about every other bit of judicial review on the matter?  Do we just side with the judge who upholds our opinion even if he/she is in the minority?  The concept of government officials doing as they please with disregard for the law or consequence is the scariest thing I can imagine.  However, I don't believe that this is the case in this matter.  But it still never amazes me how naive and stupid liberals can be on this matter.  In one sentence they advocate how evil and corrupt the government is.  Then in the next they advocate more central control and power given to said government.  Finally, they advocate the complete abolition of private firearms ownership; the last and only linde of defense against a tyranical government (remember, the police and military always side with the government).  Then again, when you believe the government was behind 9/11, I guess you're more likely to believe that big brother is watching you.

[The Dog]

Hmmm, sounds like you've had one too many bowls of fear for breakfast.  The law is the law, ignoring them or thinking you are above them has got to be the most un-american thing imaginable.  Our constitution is the very thing that MAKES us american.  The "times changed" alot over the course of our 200+ year history, but the manner and method which we go about in following our laws has not.  And nothing should ever change that.

If bush didn't like the 72 hour time period he should have tried to change the law, not go above it.

Or maybe it could just be that your asleep at the wheel. Or too many cups of koolaid. Whichever.

Your right about the law being the law. But speeding is breaking the law too. How many people do that everyday? Does that make alot of people un-American? Yes, the law shuld be changed. But if the governement needs to protect Americans in the mean time, I absolutely have no problems with these security programs whatsoever.

Come on, even you have to admit you are comparing apples to oranges.  But I'll play along.  Remember when the speed limit was 55???  Sammy Hagar even wrote a song about it (haha).  Well, that law sucked to many people...so THEY CHANGED IT!!! LEGALLY!!!!  People might have been going above 55 when that was the maximum, and guess what, if they got caught, they were charged and ticketed....b/c THEY WERE BREAKING THE LAW!  And if you go over 65 now and get caught you get charged.  Bush wants to do 80 when the limit is 65 and he thinks he should be able to simply b/c he is the president.  That is not right.

Your boy bush got caught speeding so to speak.....think he'll get a ticket? Or will he be able to sweet talk the officer who pulled him over (aka, the american people).

[The Dog]

Hmmm, sounds like you've had one too many bowls of fear for breakfast.  The law is the law, ignoring them or thinking you are above them has got to be the most un-american thing imaginable.  Our constitution is the very thing that MAKES us american.  The "times changed" alot over the course of our 200+ year history, but the manner and method which we go about in following our laws has not.  And nothing should ever change that.

If bush didn't like the 72 hour time period he should have tried to change the law, not go above it.

Or maybe it could just be that your asleep at the wheel. Or too many cups of koolaid. Whichever.

Your right about the law being the law. But speeding is breaking the law too. How many people do that everyday? Does that make alot of people un-American? Yes, the law shuld be changed. But if the governement needs to protect Americans in the mean time, I absolutely have no problems with these security programs whatsoever.

I have a real problem with any leader intentionally breaking the law.  Regardless how much are kool-aid drinking friends want to state that these wire taps are illegal, the jury is still out on that one.  One judge rules it illegal, but what about every other bit of judicial review on the matter?  Do we just side with the judge who upholds our opinion even if he/she is in the minority?  The concept of government officials doing as they please with disregard for the law or consequence is the scariest thing I can imagine.  However, I don't believe that this is the case in this matter.  But it still never amazes me how naive and stupid liberals can be on this matter.  In one sentence they advocate how evil and corrupt the government is.  Then in the next they advocate more central control and power given to said government.  Finally, they advocate the complete abolition of private firearms ownership; the last and only linde of defense against a tyranical government (remember, the police and military always side with the government).  Then again, when you believe the government was behind 9/11, I guess you're more likely to believe that big brother is watching you.

Wow, talk about making assumptions....I don't remember ever saying the government was behind 9-11.  Infact that never crossed my mind as I saw the planes hit the WTC live on TV, only a mile or two from my apartment in NYC, never crossed my mind as my little brother was only blocks from the towers themselves, hiding in the basement of his apt. building, nor did it occur to me the govt was behind it when my ex girlfriend who told me stories of seeing people with her own two eyes leap to their deaths b/c they didn't want to burn to death.  And I don't remember thinking about any conspiracy theories when a week later I went to ground zero (or as close as the authorities would let us get) and literally smelling the death and destruction in the air.

Think twice before making assumptions a-hole.

[Drew]

Come on, even you have to admit you are comparing apples to oranges.  But I'll play along.  Remember when the speed limit was 55???  Sammy Hagar even wrote a song about it (haha).  Well, that law sucked to many people...so THEY CHANGED IT!!! LEGALLY!!!!  People might have been going above 55 when that was the maximum, and guess what, if they got caught, they were charged and ticketed....b/c THEY WERE BREAKING THE LAW!  And if you go over 65 now and get caught you get charged.  Bush wants to do 80 when the limit is 65 and he thinks he should be able to simply b/c he is the president.  That is not right.

Your boy bush got caught speeding so to speak.....think he'll get a ticket? Or will he be able to sweet talk the officer who pulled him over (aka, the american people).

You've must've never been given a warning by an officer.

Your assuming that Bush is my boy. How would you know? I've never said that Bush is a great president. You don't know what party if any I support. But you outright say something as fact about me. But in this area of concern, I do support his actions trying to make this country more secure. When alot of people are worried about someone listening in on their phone calls. If no one is do anything illegal then no one should have any concerns. I don't think it's putting anyone in danger if a suspected terrorists phone wire is tapped. But I do think it puts many Americans in danger if it's not allowed.