Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson 1

[All Else Failed]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

There is a check and balance--I already explained it to you--the court reviews warrants issued after-the-fact.

Again--you didn't answer the question. Tell me why its consistent under the Constitution for the POTUS to order an air strike without the approval of Congress (and yes--he has that right under the Constitution--that's not debatable) and yet he needs the approval of some low level federal judge to order a wiretap? I don't get that reasoning--can you explain to me why you think a person elected by 50 million people needs approval of a judge appointed by the President himself?

The issue here is not exigency its covert operations. There are times when a few people as possible should know when a wiretap has been ordered. Again, I'm not willing to take power away from the President that's given to him in the Constitution. It appears you are willing to violate the Constitution when its suits you and follow it when it suits you--it doesn't work that way.

I'm not debating if its constitutional or not! I've told you this several times. If its in the constitution, its in the constitution, BUT that doesn't make it right or moral. I personally don't think the decision for war should be in the hands of one man.



this seems to ring a bell:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And if you research cases interpreting the 4th Amendment you'd realize that the first phrase is independent from the second. That is searches and siezures can't be "unreasonable". The second part says a warrant shall issue only upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be siezed. What that means is IF a warrant issues, then it has to be on probable cause, etc. But it DOES NOT mean that every search and siezure requires a warrant. And if you think about it you'd realize that would be a completly impractical manner of law enforcement. For example--a police officer pulls over a vehicle for weaving in traffic and when he walks up to the car and smells alcohol. He arrests the individual, searches the car and finds drugs in it. Does that require a warrant? Should it? Obviosuly, it would be ridiculous to require him/her to go to a judge and obtain a warrant to search the vehicle. And that's why in fact most searches and siezures occur without a warrant.

The check and balance is the search had to be "reasonable"--that is after the fact, a judge will determine if the officer had probably cause to search the vehicle--if he did not, then the evidence obtained cannot be used against the accused.

Its no different with the POTUS--his actions in ordering a wiretap can be viewed after the fact by the judiciary and if evidence gathered was done without probable cause, then the evidence can excluded from a subsequent prosecution.

Keep in mind also that the exception applies only to suspected communications with non-citizens. That is a wiretap could not be ordered on your phone without a warrant unless the Justice Department suspects you are communicating with foreign conspiring to commit acts against the US or US citizens.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

Ahhhh fuck whatever people think, we're the guvmunt! Do you seriously think the government has your best interests in mind? They have THEIR interests in mind first, you second.

As an elected government, the good of the people is directly tied to the good of the government. They gain nothing by abusing or losing our confidence.

I personally believe we don't kick their butts (vote them out of office) as often as we should, but that's a different discussion.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That's a great piece. I think the key word here though is "unreasonable." To me, if you're calling a KNOWN enemy of the United States, that falls under the realm of reasonable.

Could be just me.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

Guess I should have kept reading the Foxy report on#22 and saved myself some typing. Didn't mean to get in your way man. Cary on.

 

[All Else Failed]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

As an elected government, the good of the people is directly tied to the good of the government. They gain nothing by abusing or losing our confidence.

I personally believe we don't kick their butts (vote them out of office) as often as we should, but that's a different discussion.




That's a great piece. I think the key word here though is "unreasonable." To me, if you're calling a KNOWN enemy of the United States, that falls under the realm of reasonable.

Could be just me.

fact: Corporations pretty much run america and use senators and congressmen to get their agenda across. They owe their seats, financial gain and most of their pwoer to them. There are several good books written on special interest groups and corporate power in American law and policy making, I'll link some later. Anyways, its the old "I'll scratch your back and you'll scratch mine" coming into play. They owe where they are mostly to their backers, and if they do not please them, they'll lose a lot. So, the government and those involved have a responsibility to them first, you second. Those who are in power, wish to stay in power, and they will usually do a lot of shady things to do so.

The things is, I'll bet that most Americans are so uninformed about American policy and laws, that they wouldn't even know when their confidence were being abused and lost. A lot of people just don't care or are very apathetic and disenfranchised. The government abuses our confidence daily without much regard to how we feel. I mean, look at what has been done in the past 8 years. No, thats not some moore-ish stab at the president, its just fact that Bush and his cabinet have subverted a lot of our confidence.


I don't have a problem with wiretaps on people who are an ACTUAL threat, but I've read articles where people were tapped who weren't even realistic threats. Those include union organizers, protesters and politicians. Do you really have that much confidence in the power structure that you think they aren't using this whenever they want without good reason? To just harass people and intimidate? Various government agencies have a long track record of that, mostly the CIA.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

fact: Corporations pretty much run america and use senators and congressmen to get their agenda across. They owe their seats, financial gain and most of their pwoer to them. There are several good books written on special interest groups and corporate power in American law and policy making, I'll link some later. Anyways, its the old "I'll scratch your back and you'll scratch mine" coming into play. They owe where they are mostly to their backers, and if they do not please them, they'll lose a lot. So, the government and those involved have a responsibility to them first, you second. Those who are in power, wish to stay in power, and they will usually do a lot of shady things to do so.

The things is, I'll bet that most Americans are so uninformed about American policy and laws, that they wouldn't even know when their confidence were being abused and lost. A lot of people just don't care or are very apathetic and disenfranchised. The government abuses our confidence daily without much regard to how we feel. I mean, look at what has been done in the past 8 years. No, thats not some moore-ish stab at the president, its just fact that Bush and his cabinet have subverted a lot of our confidence.


I don't have a problem with wiretaps on people who are an ACTUAL threat, but I've read articles where people were tapped who weren't even realistic threats. Those include union organizers, protesters and politicians. Do you really have that much confidence in the power structure that you think they aren't using this whenever they want without good reason? To just harass people and intimidate? Various government agencies have a long track record of that, mostly the CIA.

That last post pretty much validates LiberalVichy's arguments in that other thread you've been debating with her so much--about how government doesn't work--you've basically just said the same thing here even though you are debating against that view in another thread. So does government work or not?

BTW--you have your facts wrong--the largest contributors by far to politicians are unions--I have those "facts" for you if you'd like them. Its a common fallacy, especially among liberals, that corporations have all the politicians in their pockets--its lends creedence advocating communism and/or socialism which are pretty much the same thing just a matter of degree.

 

[All Else Failed]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

That last post pretty much validates LiberalVichy's arguments in that other thread you've been debating with her so much--about how government doesn't work--you've basically just said the same thing here even though you are debating against that view in another thread. So does government work or not?

BTW--you have your facts wrong--the largest contributors by far to politicians are unions--I have those "facts" for you if you'd like them. Its a common fallacy, especially among liberals, that corporations have all the politicians in their pockets--its lends creedence advocating communism and/or socialism which are pretty much the same thing just a matter of degree.

No, government works, a lot of it is just controlled by corporate powers. Not all of it though, I should have specified that. read "Losing our democracy". It has an entire chapter on how seats and politicians are bought by corporations and special interest groups. He has reliable citations as well.


Unions can be special interest groups.


I don't even consider myself liberal, and no, democratic socialism is a totally different animal from communism.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

No, government works, a lot of it is just controlled by corporate powers. Not all of it though, I should have specified that. read "Losing our democracy". It has an entire chapter on how seats and politicians are bought by corporations and special interest groups. He has reliable citations as well.


Unions can be special interest groups.


I don't even consider myself liberal, and no, democratic socialism is a totally different animal from communism.

So what's your solution to "pandering"? That's a rhetorical question and this issue always makes me laugh when people bring it up--as if you can change human nature--as if you can come up with some form of pure government where there are no special interests and no pandering to the people in power--what a joke--that's life--live with it--the only way you can eliminate pandering to people in power is to eliminate anyone being in power---again, this lends creedence to LiberalVichy's arguments.

Here the link to contributions:

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

And here's the list of all-time donors--notice how the unions controll the Democrats and they are the largest donors by far in the country. So educate yourself and stop living by this myth of the evil corporations running America.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

No, government works, a lot of it is just controlled by corporate powers.

Absolute and total bullshit--stuff you've heard or read that's completely innaccurate. If you want to know who controls America, follow the money trail--I gave you the link above.

 

[All Else Failed]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

So don't even try to alleviate special interest gruops power over a lot of government officials? Just give in and "well, thats life! LOL". I don't think t hats a very good attitude to solve the many problems in our government. :^/

 

[All Else Failed]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

Absolute and total bullshit--stuff you've heard or read that's completely innaccurate. If you want to know who controls America, follow the money trail--I gave you the link above.

Not really. A good example is the massive military industrial complex in America.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

So don't even try to alleviate special interest gruops power over a lot of government officials? Just give in and "well, thats life! LOL". I don't think t hats a very good attitude to solve the many problems in our government. :^/

I never said that. I have also not even begun to discuss the 1st Amendment issues here. That is the 1st Amendment's freedom of expression comes into play whenever the government attempts to restrict any person or group's rights to support a particular candiddate. For example--how are you going to tell the American Education Association (a union) they are not permitted to make any contributions to a particular political party or candidate that supports there view? Seriously--tell me how you stop that?

 

[All Else Failed]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

I never said that. I have also not even begun to discuss the 1st Amendment issues here. That is the 1st Amendment's freedom of expression comes into play whenever the government attempts to restrict any person or group's rights to support a particular candiddate. For example--how are you going to tell the American Education Association (a union) they are not permitted to make any contributions to a particular political party or candidate that supports there view? Seriously--tell me how you stop that?

I'm totally fine with contributions. I'm concerned with law makers being pressured by groups to push a particular agenda that is harmful to the American people.

 

[Tim]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

...For example--how are you going to tell the American Education Association (a union) they are not permitted to make any contributions to a particular political party or candidate that supports there view? Seriously--tell me how you stop that?

Publicly financed elections, along with the passing of some sort of bribery laws. Politicians work for the people, they should be paid by the people.

This would be similar to passing laws against "War profiteering" since once you take the profits out of war, you stop the wars that aren't necessary.

 

[groundpounder]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

...The government abuses our confidence daily without much regard to how we feel. I mean, look at what has been done in the past 8 years. No, thats not some moore-ish stab at the president, its just fact that Bush and his cabinet have subverted a lot of our confidence....

So up until 8 years ago you had confidence in the US government?

 

[Tim]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

This is a long article, but it sheds some light on this subject, and how I feel the Bush administration has abused it's power...

Bush challenges hundreds of laws - The Boston Globe

 

[Fox Mulder]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

Publicly financed elections, along with the passing of some sort of bribery laws. Politicians work for the people, they should be paid by the people.

This would be similar to passing laws against "War profiteering" since once you take the profits out of war, you stop the wars that aren't necessary.

Well you'll need a Constitutional Amendment revoking or modifying the 1st Amendment first.

And even assuming you could do what you suggest without violating the 1st Amendment, who will decide which candidates get elections funds and how much? How is that all going to work??? Does every person that runs get the same amount? Do the major party candidates get more? Seriously--think about what your suggesting--the logistics of that are impossible.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

This is a long article, but it sheds some light on this subject, and how I feel the Bush administration has abused it's power...

Bush challenges hundreds of laws - The Boston Globe

LOL! That's a funny article--its all speculation, innuendo and emotioanally driven rhetoric--its exactly the same as the article I cited in the first post and then proceed to show was a sham.

Some of you people are easily manipulated. Let me clue you in--stop reading editorials like the one you just posted--they typically are laced with rhetoric, prejudice, and are agenda driven. Focus on discussing a particular law or statute and how its been violated. The article you cited also discusses the "warranteless wiretaps" in a manner that assumes they are unlawful--I've show you here by citing to actual cases interpreting FISA that in fact they are not unlawful and never have been.

So I don't respond to editorials written by some liberal moore-on with a political agenda. If you want to talk about a specific law that suppossedly has been violated, we can do that (which I've done here). But garbage editorials are not worth the paper they are written on and when you start citing to them as authority, you lose credibility. I can find you editorials from Townhall or a number of other sites with the same emotionally charged rhetoric from the other side of the fence. Or we can make an intellectual analysis of specifics and facts and leave the rhetoric to the political pundits and politicians.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

I'm totally fine with contributions. I'm concerned with law makers being pressured by groups to push a particular agenda that is harmful to the American people.

Read what you just wrote--"Harmful to the American People." Who decides what's "harmful?" I think unions are harmful to the American People. So should we prevent them from lobbying Congress? I'd be all for any law that did that, but I suspect you would disagree and I also suspect it would run afoul of the 1st Amendment.

Anyway, there are literally thousands of lobbying groups all of which are doing things that from someone's perspective is harmful to someone or some group. Do you see my point?

 

[groundpounder]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

Mulder, just a real quick word association exercise, okay? Work with me.

Bill Clinton was a _[adjective]__ President because __[50 word or less explanation]__