Judge Throws out wireless searches and why it don't mean a thing.
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Sunday, August 20, 2006 19:32
VIEWED: 2071
PAGE 2 of 3
Quote:The Alliance?
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hero- And... how is that you like Firefly again? I just can't understand who you identify with since you're a major authoritarian. :puzzled:
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hero- And... how is that you like Firefly again? I just can't understand who you identify with since you're a major authoritarian.
I identify with the ship. Either she flies or she don't. The most unforgiving and authoritarian character on the show was Serenity.
Besides the show's all about conservative values vs. liberal-elitism. For example, I can very much see The Alliance telling you not to smoke in your own home because its not good for you and they know better, or what to drive or what to eat. And not one of those rules would apply to the folk with the John Kerry accents running things and making their pronouncments from on high. Now I know some of you folk out there will point to things like abortion and say conservatives meddle just as much as liberals. But I'm not talking about the elitist leadership...I'm talking plain folk and most plain and simple folk are conservatives (even the Democrats).
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Moving my questions about FISA from the Gullible thread....
First of all, you said that in general the Constitution holds that privacy is a thing unto itself, although there are exceptions. But in this thread you lean towards "no harm no foul". Why would you lean in that direction for THIS interpretation?
My other question is- Is there any particular reason why you would support WARRANTLESS wiretapping. In your other answer, you said that the wiretapping was restricted to people who were in contact with known or suspected terrorists. Given that fact, it seems like a FISA surveillance order would be easy to get (historically, they have been VERY easy to get) and for cases of immediate urgency there is the 72-hour after-the-fact provision. There is no question that wiretapping is needed, the question is- does it have to be warrantless?
It seems to me that it's up the the Administration to make the case that they NEED warrantless wiretapping since on the face of it, warrantless wiretapping violates the Constitution and FISA.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves wiretapping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.
Today a Federal Judge, Anna Diggs Taylor (a Carter appointee...wow), ruled that the Terrorist Surveillance Program's warrantless wiretaps were unconstitutional and ordered the program stopped (pauses while the leftists to cheer and the terrorists dial thier bomb suppliers).
What does this mean? Nothing. First of all the NSA will appeal the ruling and the Court of Appeals will stay execution of the order.
Second, the ruling will be overturned. Why? Beause the question of whether or not the Constitution has been violated is not relevant to the case. As the above quote notes, the ACLU filed this suit on behalf of persons who are not the subject of the program. There is a black letter rule that says a person cannot assert the Constitutional rights of another, in this case the journalists, lawyers, etc. are asserting the rights of their "overseas contacts" aka Osama Bin Laddin and company.
So before PirateNews and the board's liberals start calling FireflyinOsama and the board's terrorists, you might want to be aware of the simple fact that 'you can't stop the signal'.
Also, suppose the NSA simply refuses to comply. You can't arrest the NSA. At most they can sue the NSA, but legally your constitutional rights have a nominal value...$1. The worst thing is that the Court can exclude any recorded calls from trial...but who cares if it stops an attack? So legally I say screw the court's ruling and listen to everybody you need to listen too...for now anyway.
H
Hero, I hope you are correct, however I wouldn't put anything past the ACLU. They are despicable human beings, the enemy within in my humble opinion. I might have a different opinion if I thought they had conviction in their lawsuits. But they have proved time and time again they sue just because they can.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero _ I don't think the story is about liberals versus conservatives. First of all, you cross-wire the identification of liberals with elitists and common folk with conservatives. But, I have a real life to live, so I will take this up with you later.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
First of all, you said that in general the Constitution holds that privacy is a thing unto itself, although there are exceptions. But in this thread you lean towards "no harm no foul". Why would you lean in that direction for THIS interpretation?
Because it makes sense to me and it has the added benefit of being the way Constitutional interpretation seems to be leaning. In the olden days police were given way too much leeway. Then they were properly reigned in. Now we can start letting the leash out a bit.
The idea is that while a person is harmed by a violation, society is also harmed in that justice is not served. The Court is seeking to balance that competing interests when there is no intentional or actual harm, society should not be unduly punished. (Kinda a good faith doctrine mixed with the no harm no foul approach).
Quote:
My other question is- Is there any particular reason why you would support WARRANTLESS wiretapping. In your other answer, you said that the wiretapping was restricted to people who were in contact with known or suspected terrorists. Given that fact, it seems like a FISA surveillance order would be easy to get (historically, they have been VERY easy to get) and for cases of immediate urgency there is the 72-hour after-the-fact provision. There is no question that wiretapping is needed, the question is- does it have to be warrantless?
First of all FISA needs revised. It does not apply specifically to these types of situations or these methods of communication. Also FISA courts are understaffed like most Federal courts (because Bush appointees can't seem to get hearings) and historically take a long time to operate. The system was designed for long term espionage investigations, not rapid fire terrorist interception. It needs revised, perhaps incorporating a streamlined process.
Another argument is that the authorization Bush received in 2001 and again in 2003 authorizes him to bypass FISA in war related circumstances. Its implied and historically consistant with Presidential war making power.
The Bush administration made use of FISA where it was practicle and informed Congressional leadership of this program to bypass them when it was not. This was not a unilateral program and with the exception of the a few liberals (including one who likes to hit cops) most of Congress has refused to call for the program to end. They're just mad because they were not informed (actually they need something to attack the President with).
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Some peeps see Clockwork Orange as a story of a kid that the government tries to squash the uniqueness out of and control like a pet.
Originally posted by SignyM:
I don't think the story is about liberals versus conservatives. First of all, you cross-wire the identification of liberals with elitists and common folk with conservatives.
Others see it as a cautionary tale told through the eyes of a sociopath.
And some feel Mal prolly has a poster of Dubya next to his bed, we just didn't see it 'cause of lefty libby Joss not lettin' us.
Like Rue says: filters...Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
heres whats so scary to me:
theyre telling us this war on terror is never ending. if "war" justifies survelience, then a never ending war justifies never ending survelience.
what makes someone a terrorist? since its not limited to muslims, i guess anyone who dissents or disagrees with the government is one; isnt that what your implying HERO? the Patriot act says that anyone who violates a state or federal law can be classified as a terrorist.
do you want them holding you captive in secret, or putting you in concentration camps? what do you think will happen upon the next attacks? this is a dangerous precedent, and i hardly, HARDLY believe its benevolent
the constitution is not antiquated, the nature of warfare is. if it is someones mentality or ideals that initiates their "terrorist" behavior, how does starting wars and killing innocent civilians help solve the problem? dont you have to negotiate with terrorists, so you can see what the cause of their afflictions are? or maybe they never cared all along
...maybe this was the real reason for the cold war, so governments could transfer that technology into policing their own populaces
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But OTOH, when justice does not REQUIRE a warrantless invasion of privavy, then there is no reason for that action. So assuming no harm came out of a warrantless wiretap (for example), it didn't protect society either. In other words, the Constitution was violated with no benefit.
The idea is that while a person is harmed by a violation, society is also harmed in that justice is not served. The Court is seeking to balance that competing interests when there is no intentional or actual harm, society should not be unduly punished. (Kinda a good faith doctrine mixed with the no harm no foul approach).
So I come back to my statement that it seems that the Administration has to show that they NEED warrantless wiretaps. So far, they haven't done that. YOU may say that FISA doens't work but so far I haven't heard Alberto Gonzales claim that the FISA courts are too slow or too restrictive.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
All I got out of Zero's posts was:
brown people with big noses !!!
blah blah blah
brown people with big noses !!!
Oh and Zero,
your dialogue:
Quote:looked an awful lot like you were offering deviant sexual favors in a way that's probably illegal.
Again, screw you.
And my reply...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME