Why does the Rightwing in this country believe that the Executive branch of government has the constitutional right to interpret what the Constitution says about who holds which powers. In the end the power is held by the people and those elected by the people either perform up to our expectations or they will all be unemployed. Power to the People. Peace
Posted by: steve at July 13, 2006 01:41 PM
Democrats, Democrats, it's always those damn America hating, flag flushing, gay loving, Godless Democrats. What a minute, what party is Specter in?
He's one of the very few Republicans who takes his oath and job more seriously than towing the party line. That's why I voted for him.
You guys are really getting pathetic.
Posted by: 3moreyears at July 13, 2006 02:16 PM
Funny, considering it was Specter (R-Pa) who brokered the deal.
If it's legal, then there is no reason to fear it going to a court.
Posted by: Georgia Frawg at July 13, 2006 02:17 PM
Matt, didn’t Rehnquist appoint all of the judges on the FISA court? So you don’t trust republicans?
Posted by: Barneyg2000 at July 13, 2006 02:18 PM
Matt, didn’t Rehnquist appoint all of the judges on the FISA court? So you don’t trust republicans?
Posted by: Barneyg2000 at July 13, 2006 02:56 PM
Could spmeone please explain to me why going to a FISA judge 3 days after listening to a phone call for a warrent hurts the war on terror.
Posted by: Casper at July 13, 2006 03:39 PM
I think warrants apply when you're planning on using the "evidence" in court. Warrants don't apply and are not required by military units who listen in on enemy communications - so they can kill them. Would the Army need a warrant to monitor enemy radio traffic in the field? Apparently Democrats think so.
Posted by: Kahn at July 13, 2006 04:37 PM
I have a question...
If the programme is legal, and the president has the inherant authority to authorize this program, then why are you guys so worried about it going to court?
Posted by: Georgia Frawg at July 13, 2006 04:45 PM
Kahn,
Can you give me an example of a Democrat that wants army units to get warrants to listen into radio traffic in the field? FISA was written for civilian comunications and it seems pretty open to me.
Posted by: Casper at July 13, 2006 05:01 PM
Kahn, you are absolutely RIGHT!!! The biggest problem is that a couple judges on the FISC admitted publicly that they considered referrals for FBI warrants that were generated by NSA intercepts to be tainted, and refused to grant warrants based solely on the intercepts.
According to government officials familiar with the program, the presiding FISA judges insisted that information obtained through NSA surveillance not form the basis for obtaining a warrant and that, instead, independently gathered information provide the justification for FISA monitoring in such cases. They also insisted that these cases be presented only to the presiding judge.
These are the same judges that are now going to review the legality of the program? One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to guess how that'll turn out.
Posted by: Retired Spook at July 13, 2006 05:15 PM
Kahn, that is just ignorant. FISA applies to persons legally in the US. It does not apply to foreign invading armies, or communications (radio) that travel through public space. Telephone, cell and internet access and usage is paid for and therefore are private.
Posted by: Barneyg2000 at July 13, 2006 05:39 PM
Firstly this will make it's way to the Supreme Court as I think it should...
This in part due to the fact 2 appeals courts in 1973(5th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in the 1973 case of United States v. Brown) and 1980 (4th Circuit's 1980 opinion in United States v. Truong)that the Constitution GIVES the President authorization (read:POWER) to do warrantless wires taps. In the case of Truong it was completely within the USA, did invlove National Security and the participant was a US citizen and lasted over 250 days.
Nonetheless it would be good for ALL concerned if the matter were settled by the USSC.
Barney... one thing you fail to realize is the government OWNs all airwaves and otrher forms of cuommunications..and can at will revoke licenses... and next as to anything being private...get a life...
When dealing with ANYTHING international...read anything.... the government, without warrants TODAY and has for decades, been able to open anyones mail, packages, luggage...even your backside without warrants...
I can 100% guarantee you the courts will side with the Bush admin or subsequent admin on the eavesdropping as long as it involves National Security and/or an international destination.. whether a call/fax, email orginates in the US going cross border or vice versa...
Not only do you have case precidence on the admins side but you also have historial precidence for opening mail, packages, luggage.. (read: everything) etc... on aything involving international /cross border communications, travel etc...
common sense
Posted by: theblksheepwasright at July 13, 2006 06:04 PM
Let me clarify one thing... as to privacy.. When I stated get a life... that is to say ANYHING involving an international origin or destination and quite possibly given the opinion in Truong.. that would include anything which dealt with nationals security...
Posted by: theblksheepwasright at July 13, 2006 06:10 PM
What's so wrong with surveiling potential terrorists? This is too important to be left up to unelected tyrants in black robes. Our safety is at stake. Real Americans don't mind giving up a little liberty for freedom.
Posted by: Bob Arctor at July 13, 2006 10:17 PM
No, but we would be happy if eavesdropping were done legally, the way Mr. Bush originally stated it was.
Posted by: PM at July 13, 2006 10:19 PM
Bob said-
"Our safety is at stake. Real Americans don't mind giving up a little liberty for freedom."
Benjamin Franklin said-
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety... deserve neither safety nor liberty."
Taken from http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/How_did_the_founding_fathers_define_liberty_and_freedom
Posted by: Jeff at July 14, 2006 02:13 PM
Why does the Rightwing in this country believe that the Executive branch of government has the constitutional right to interpret what the Constitution says about who holds which powers. In the end the power is held by the people and those elected by the people either perform up to our expectations or they will all be unemployed. Power to the People. Peace
Democrats, Democrats, it's always those damn America hating, flag flushing, gay loving, Godless Democrats. What a minute, what party is Specter in?
He's one of the very few Republicans who takes his oath and job more seriously than towing the party line. That's why I voted for him.
You guys are really getting pathetic.
Funny, considering it was Specter (R-Pa) who brokered the deal.
If it's legal, then there is no reason to fear it going to a court.
Matt, didn’t Rehnquist appoint all of the judges on the FISA court? So you don’t trust republicans?
Matt, didn’t Rehnquist appoint all of the judges on the FISA court? So you don’t trust republicans?
Could spmeone please explain to me why going to a FISA judge 3 days after listening to a phone call for a warrent hurts the war on terror.
I think warrants apply when you're planning on using the "evidence" in court. Warrants don't apply and are not required by military units who listen in on enemy communications - so they can kill them. Would the Army need a warrant to monitor enemy radio traffic in the field? Apparently Democrats think so.
I have a question...
If the programme is legal, and the president has the inherant authority to authorize this program, then why are you guys so worried about it going to court?
Kahn,
Can you give me an example of a Democrat that wants army units to get warrants to listen into radio traffic in the field? FISA was written for civilian comunications and it seems pretty open to me.
Kahn, you are absolutely RIGHT!!! The biggest problem is that a couple judges on the FISC admitted publicly that they considered referrals for FBI warrants that were generated by NSA intercepts to be tainted, and refused to grant warrants based solely on the intercepts.
These are the same judges that are now going to review the legality of the program? One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to guess how that'll turn out.
Kahn, that is just ignorant. FISA applies to persons legally in the US. It does not apply to foreign invading armies, or communications (radio) that travel through public space. Telephone, cell and internet access and usage is paid for and therefore are private.
Firstly this will make it's way to the Supreme Court as I think it should...
This in part due to the fact 2 appeals courts in 1973(5th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in the 1973 case of United States v. Brown) and 1980 (4th Circuit's 1980 opinion in United States v. Truong)that the Constitution GIVES the President authorization (read:POWER) to do warrantless wires taps. In the case of Truong it was completely within the USA, did invlove National Security and the participant was a US citizen and lasted over 250 days.
Nonetheless it would be good for ALL concerned if the matter were settled by the USSC.
Barney... one thing you fail to realize is the government OWNs all airwaves and otrher forms of cuommunications..and can at will revoke licenses... and next as to anything being private...get a life...
When dealing with ANYTHING international...read anything.... the government, without warrants TODAY and has for decades, been able to open anyones mail, packages, luggage...even your backside without warrants...
I can 100% guarantee you the courts will side with the Bush admin or subsequent admin on the eavesdropping as long as it involves National Security and/or an international destination.. whether a call/fax, email orginates in the US going cross border or vice versa...
Not only do you have case precidence on the admins side but you also have historial precidence for opening mail, packages, luggage.. (read: everything) etc... on aything involving international /cross border communications, travel etc...
common sense
Let me clarify one thing... as to privacy.. When I stated get a life... that is to say ANYHING involving an international origin or destination and quite possibly given the opinion in Truong.. that would include anything which dealt with nationals security...
What's so wrong with surveiling potential terrorists? This is too important to be left up to unelected tyrants in black robes. Our safety is at stake. Real Americans don't mind giving up a little liberty for freedom.
No, but we would be happy if eavesdropping were done legally, the way Mr. Bush originally stated it was.
Bob said-
"Our safety is at stake. Real Americans don't mind giving up a little liberty for freedom."
Benjamin Franklin said-
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety... deserve neither safety nor liberty."
Taken from http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/How_did_the_founding_fathers_define_liberty_and_freedom