Warrantless wiretapping in place before 9/11

[All Else Failed]

how can you say that to him , when if we tap a phone it may save thousands of lives , or is that ok with you .

The FBI/CIA/Homeland security has been saving thousands of lives for a long time without using such methods.

 

[Tim]

I think that every man and woman who serve in the military should be outraged at this. Along with their family members...
Warrantless wiretapping violates the constitution and as any member of the military can tell you, they took an oath to protect the constitution. I do believe that the oath meant something to them when they took it.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

 

[All Else Failed]

I think that every man and woman who serve in the military should be outraged at this. Along with their family members...
Warrantless wiretapping violates the constitution and as any member of the military can tell you, they took an oath to protect the constitution. I do believe that the oath meant something to them when they took it.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Bingo.

I respect most soldiers. Like i have said, I have various family members in the forces. I support them in the idea that they are going through an extremely stressful and life altering experiance over there, and to me at least, this administration violating the constitution like this is spitting in their faces!

 

[Homer]

The FBI/CIA/Homeland security has been saving thousands of lives for a long time without using such methods.

but this isn't the 1800's anymore times have changed and we have to change with them , you may like some of the changes and hate the rest but if you care about saving lives you going to have to deal with it.

 

[All Else Failed]

but this isn't the 1800's anymore times have changed and we have to change with them , you may like some of the changes and hate the rest but if you care about saving lives you going to have to deal with it.

I refuse to believe that they need this type of power to protect us, though. Why would then need WARRANTLESS wire taps????? Why can they not do it legally?

 

[groundpounder]

I don't it's a matter of whining...

That really wasn't meant for you, Tim.

And no the government has not conducted wide scale warrantless wiretapping before. I'm sure there have been a few cases of misconduct in the past, but NOTHING on this scale.

My point is that if you believe this, you are kidding yourself. The correct way to state this IMO is "The gov't has not been caught conducting wide scale warrantless wiretapping before."

The President takes an oath to uphold the constitution when he takes office. And it doesn't bother you that he will wantonly violate that oath?
If this program isn't that bad... then why did so many top officials in the justice department (Bush appointees) quit over it?

If you think that Bush is the first President, Dem or GOP, to stretch the constrains of the Constitution, you have your head so far in the sand, you should be speaking Mandarin Chinese. The Bush Administration is the first one stupid enough to get caught, which comes as no surprise.
As I am sure that you two would love to have Clinton's lovechild, have you ever wondered what REALLY happened to Vince Foster? Yeah yeah yeah, I know Ken Starr's investigation ruled it a suicide along with two others, but really.

 

[groundpounder]

LMAO WHAT
:24:
Yeah man my 4 relatives in the marines are nasty terroriztztzzs!!!!111!!

you have a short memory, apparently, which I am sure is a handy feature.

 

[groundpounder]

I refuse to believe....

says it all right there. You refuse to believe the things that are inconsistent with your scattered, liberal beliefs and substitute as bedrock truth what you think and patronize those who disagree.

 

[Tim]

how can you say that to him , when if we tap a phone it may save thousands of lives , or is that ok with you .ps times have changed and we have to change with them .

I agree with you Homer, if a wire tap is needed to gather information to protect us, great! I'm 100% for that. I don't need to know who the government is listening in on, Hell, I want them to listen in on every person that may cause a threat. BUT! I want it done in accordance with the law. I want Judicial branch of the government to sign off on it. They are NOT in the habit of denying such requests. But it keeps the executive branch accountable. We have 3 branches of the government for this reason.

but this isn't the 1800's anymore times have changed and we have to change with them , you may like some of the changes and hate the rest but if you care about saving lives you going to have to deal with it.

How have times changed? How are we in any more danger than when nuclear war was a button push away? Homer, you lived through that everyday. Remember when you were told to hide under your desk in school? How many bomb drills did you have in the course of a school year?
Homer, you get so mad when Peter busts on the US, yet when the President does, you have no problem with it. For someone who loves this country so much, I would think that you would care.

My point is that if you believe this, you are kidding yourself. The correct way to state this IMO is "The gov't has not been caught conducting wide scale warrantless wiretapping before."

No, wide scale wire tapping was never possible before. There was never a time in history where we had the computing power or storage to hold all of the calls in the US. This is NOT something that was done by past administrations. When the law is broken by any administration, it comes to light eventually. Things like this are always leaked by someone sometime down the road.


If you think that Bush is the first President, Dem or GOP, to stretch the constrains of the Constitution, you have your head so far in the sand, you should be speaking Mandarin Chinese. The Bush Administration is the first one stupid enough to get caught, which comes as no surprise.
As I am sure that you two would love to have Clinton's lovechild, have you ever wondered what REALLY happened to Vince Foster? Yeah yeah yeah, I know Ken Starr's investigation ruled it a suicide along with two others, but really.

Stretch the constraints of the constitution? This is not a stretch, it is a clear violation of constitution law. Why can't he just follow the law and get warrants? The system was set up so that it could be done quickly and effectively. They can even get the warrant 3 days after they start the surveillance so they don't waist time.

 

[Homer]

come on Tim how can you say that theirs alot of thing i don't like about Bush but i wont disrespect him because of it , and as much as you are into the changes we've made in the last 20 years i'm :confused about you not understanding where i'm coming from , if tapping a phone can save lives i'm all for it and i can' see where waiting for someone to say it's ok will help when the damage is aready being done , let them be accountable after/give their reasons i say we need all the help we can get and if a tap will help keep people safe i'm all for it.

 

[Breath]

I am on the side that says wire-tapping is fine as long as the legal means were used to acquire the rights to it. America has always been a proud nation because of the beliefs of our Constitution. To forego one of our fundamental beliefs is preposterous. It's not like permission to do it would be a months-old process. if you're going to do something, do it right, or don't do it at all.

 

[Tim]

come on Tim how can you say that theirs alot of thing i don't like about Bush but i wont disrespect him because of it , and as much as you are into the changes we've made in the last 20 years i'm :confused about you not understanding where i'm coming from , if tapping a phone can save lives i'm all for it and i can' see where waiting for someone to say it's ok will help when the damage is aready being done , let them be accountable after/give their reasons i say we need all the help we can get and if a tap will help keep people safe i'm all for it.

I think you miss my point... I'm with you 100% on being able to wiretap phones for our security. I just want it to be done legally, the way it's layed out in the constitution. That's all.

I just find it funny that so many people are willing to let the government do anything they want in the name of safety.
We are willing to let them violate the constitution when it comes to the 4th amendment.

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.

Yet if it was the second amendment, people would marching in the streets of Washington.

I will not let a cop just go to my house anytime he wants and rummage through my drawers to see if there is anything that might be illegal. How would you feel if you came home one day to see that happening? Would it upset you? I mean if there is nothing to hide, is it still ok if they do that? Well this is the same thing only we can't see it happening.

 

[groundpounder]

Stretch the constraints of the constitution? This is not a stretch, it is a clear violation of constitution law. Why can't he just follow the law and get warrants? The system was set up so that it could be done quickly and effectively. They can even get the warrant 3 days after they start the surveillance so they don't waist time.

I do not disagree with you on this. I wish the FBI, NSA, CIA, et al would obtain the warrants.

My point is that it's been happening for a loooooong time and there is no need to bash Bush over it because you're liberal. And Bush isn't doing it. It's happening on his watch, and the agencies involved are working with tacit approval of this administration's policies, but what I'm saying is Clinton did it, Reagan did it, Carter did it, Kennedy did it. THEY ALL DID IT!! And if you TRULY think Bush is the first one, that's partisan thinking.

And they'll keep doing it. Romney would do it, Obama would do it, Hillary would do it, Guliani would do it, even that saint Kucinch would do it.

To some degree, it's going to happen. My pervading point is that if you think the US Gov't, un-partisan, doesn't do secret stuff that is in violation of the Constitution but in our better interests arguably, you're nuts. So lay off Bush.

 

[Homer]

things happen to fast anymore Tim and how much would be missed by waiting , it wasn't long ago we didn't have the net or cell phones and the bad guys/terrorest are useing them to kill people , so i see tapping as the lesser of two evils , do you think terrorest aren't loving this , like i said how much would be missed if we waited for a warrant , believe me i hate changes and i've said it before i wish i'd lived back around 1870.

 

[Tim]

I do not disagree with you on this. I wish the FBI, NSA, CIA, et al would obtain the warrants.

My point is that it's been happening for a loooooong time and there is no need to bash Bush over it because you're liberal. And Bush isn't doing it. It's happening on his watch, and the agencies involved are working with tacit approval of this administration's policies, but what I'm saying is Clinton did it, Reagan did it, Carter did it, Kennedy did it. THEY ALL DID IT!! And if you TRULY think Bush is the first one, that's partisan thinking.

And they'll keep doing it. Romney would do it, Obama would do it, Hillary would do it, Guliani would do it, even that saint Kucinch would do it.

To some degree, it's going to happen. My pervading point is that if you think the US Gov't, un-partisan, doesn't do secret stuff that is in violation of the Constitution but in our better interests arguably, you're nuts. So lay off Bush.

First and foremost... I am not liberal and if you think that holding our government accountable for their actions is, then I really don't know what to say about that.
Second, I do not believe that this has ever been done like this before, not on every American. Now until you can show me anything to the contrary I must maintain my belief. (Isn't that a little on the conspiracy side to think that all presidents have been wiretapping America without warrants?)
And last..... if you are a subscriber to the belief that the government can do anything they want as long as it's in our better interests, as you so mildly put it, then again, I don't know what to say to you...

If this program is so important Then why doesn't he do it legally?

 

[Tim]

things happen to fast anymore Tim and how much would be missed by waiting , it wasn't long ago we didn't have the net or cell phones and the bad guys/terrorest are useing them to kill people , so i see tapping as the lesser of two evils , do you think terrorest aren't loving this , like i said how much would be missed if we waited for a warrant , believe me i hate changes and i've said it before i wish i'd lived back around 1870.

Absolutely nothing. Because we can tap the phone then get the warrant up to 3 days later. The law was written this way so we DIDN'T have to wait for a warrant and miss the intell.

 

[Homer]

now if their was a way for them to get the information and have to get a warrant to use /show cause after go for it , our hands are already tied to much in this damn war.

 

[Tim]

now if their was a way for them to get the information and have to get a warrant to use /show cause after go for it , our hands are already tied to much in this damn war.

We can Homer... a warrant isn't needed until 3 days after we tap the phone or do the search. That way they don't ever have to wait.

 

[Homer]

Absolutely nothing. Because we can tap the phone then get the warrant up to 3 days later. The law was written this way so we DIDN'T have to wait for a warrant and miss the intell.

as long as we are not missing any info i'm happy.

 

[groundpounder]

First and foremost... I am not liberal and if you think that holding our government accountable for their actions is, then I really don't know what to say about that.

Holding the gov't accountable is patriotic and neither conservative nor liberal. Howling about how Bush is doing it (you make it sound like he's in there running the wires and has the earphones on) while simultaneously denying that other administrations, Dem and Rep, have, is.

Second, I do not believe that this has ever been done like this before, not on every American. Now until you can show me anything to the contrary I must maintain my belief. (Isn't that a little on the conspiracy side to think that all presidents have been wiretapping America without warrants?)

My central point is that if you don't think this has been happening since the late 40's, you're crazy!! Hoover was in power for 48 years, both under Republicans and Democrats.
Isn't it a little on the conspiracy side to suggest that EVERY American is being surveilled? I'm sure they have priorities.

And last..... if you are a subscriber to the belief that the government can do anything they want as long as it's in our better interests, as you so mildly put it, then again, I don't know what to say to you...

Careful now. I never said that. I said Black Ops and domestic intel were necessary evils. I did NOT say I agreed with them.

If this program is so important Then why doesn't he do it legally?

Agreed 100% There is a better way.