Warrantless Wiretapping Ruled Unconstitutional
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Look, what I understand is this... The NSA routinely monitors the incoming and outgoing transmission of telephone signals overseas, and has done so for many years, it's not illegal to do so. This is where you hear the term "chatter" come from. They hear thousands of voices and they are deciphering on the fly, looking for key words, things that would indicate a pattern, when they detect something such as this, they report it. As well they should, we are hoping to avert another 9/11 from happening, right?
Okay, if you are with me so far, continue on... if not, re-read what you just read again until you understand the way the root intelligence is done. Once a pattern of phrases or terms that might indicate a terror plot is heard and defined, a decision has to be made to listen to the isolated conversations before they stop. This might be any time, there is no way to determine this without listening in further on the conversation. What do you think we should do at this point? Wait for FISA? And what do we have them ask FISA? Can we listen and see if this pattern of a particular phrase is a terror plot? Well... maybe they will get to it after lunch tomorrow... no big deal. Right?
Remember, we don't know what is being planned or plotted and for when. We know what the pattern in the chatter indicates and nothing more. Bush says we can listen and see if the isolated conversation is pertaining to a terror plot or national security threat, and if it's not it's not, but sometimes this might not be so clear or easy to determine. FISA can't issue a warrant to wiretap, based on suspect chatter that may or may not be terror related for individuals that haven't been disclosed. The judge says that Bush needs a court order to wiretap anyone, and the chatter can't be isolated and monitored without violating the 4th. You had all better hope this isn't how it ends up, because if this stands, our gooses are cooked, we can't monitor the chatter any further and we can't protect the country from outside terror attacks.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
Right.
Um, the court says your wrong since this "chatter" bull, in so far as pulling intelligence by eaves dropping on people without warrants, was part of what was ruled unconstitutional.
Again, you appear to be totally ignorant of the fact that FISA allows you to take immediate action and seek a warrant after the fact.... which is the point I made that inspired this response of yours... which proves my point that you are totally ignorant of the fact that FISA allows the gov't to take immediate action.
Annie
Not So Junior Member
Regardless of legality, do you really think that taking it to this court was the brightest thing to do? In all liklihood it appeal will be ongoing during the election, do you think that's best for the Democrats?
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
Going through the justice system is what is best for America. Democrats be damned.
Annie
Not So Junior Member
Unless of course, they have a good prosecutor connecting the dots? Not too mention the possibility of SCOTUS ruling that it's legal?
Annie
Not So Junior Member
Wow, I'm impressed with the deflection! Good job. Terry Schiavo being crossed with NSA!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, it's not un-Constitutional or illegal for the NSA to monitor the airwaves for chatter. The Constitution does not cover monitoring of international airwave frequencies, and neither does US law. It's one of our most well-established technological surveillance tools, and has been for quite some time, since before you were born, actually. The chatter is not eavesdrop, because you can't discern the full context of conversation, you are only aware of patterns, nothing more.
In the process of isolating the specific chatter and monitoring the sender/recipient, a violation of the 4th is occurring, according to the judge. Without this ability, the monitoring is restricted to chatter only, and dependent upon a judge in court, as to whether the weight of the chatter is worthy of a wiretap warrant. Essentially, it kills the ability for intelligence to hone in on a potential terror plot and stop it before it happens. Liberal ACLU types, just made America less safe.
Whooop, Whoop!! Strawman Alert!!! Whoop Whooop! Strawman Alert!
I have never stated such. I stated that it would be unprecedented to impeach over this and also a bit ridiculous. Just as Congress often passes laws that are unconstitutional and suffers no punishment other than having them struck down, and courts consistently have their decisions overturned by higher ones without retribution and getting fired, the Executive also does not get fired for having a ruling go against them on this.
We are not all constitutional scholars, that is why we have the courts.
One must remember that this will go through appeal and likely finish at the SCOTUS. At that time we can be assured of the ruling, until then it is simply preliminary.
Annie
Not So Junior Member
Deflection #2. Good job!
maineman
Banned
no deflection at all.... a federal judge has agreed with all of the democrats on here who were screaming that Bush had violated not only the letter of the LAW (i.e. FISA) but the Constitution itself (4th Amendment) and Dixie, the wannabe legal scholar, was saying that we didn't know what we were talking about....now that a learned federal judge who has been on the bench for 27 years has called it exactly the way we called it, Dixie is saying that SHE doesn't know what the fuck she is talking about.
Don't you find that even a little bit laughable?
Did Dixie stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?
Come on! Dixie, the one hour photo guy, is telling a federal judge that her interpretation of the law ans the constitution is wrong???? What's next? Will Dixie tell us that it's impossible to cut something into three equal pieces? (ooops.... he's already done that!) Will he tell us that God gives him stock tips in the shower?(oops...he's already done that) Will Dixie tell us that American forces will "win" the war against the insurgency before even EIGHT more American GI's have died? (oops... he's already done that too)
Don't you find that even a little bit laughable?
Did Dixie stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?
Come on! Dixie, the one hour photo guy, is telling a federal judge that her interpretation of the law ans the constitution is wrong???? What's next? Will Dixie tell us that it's impossible to cut something into three equal pieces? (ooops.... he's already done that!) Will he tell us that God gives him stock tips in the shower?(oops...he's already done that) Will Dixie tell us that American forces will "win" the war against the insurgency before even EIGHT more American GI's have died? (oops... he's already done that too)
I prefer to wait for a higher jurisdiction to rule on this particular case. Otherwise you may end up with egg on your face. Consistently the courts are overturned by higher courts with a different legal opinion. Now, if we take the left's POV on this, that must mean that the Judge who ruled incorrectly should be impeached. I guess the 9th Circuit should no longer exist then....
When Truman was brought to court for taking over the steel mills, the supreme court said that Truman, although he broke the constitution and Law, notified ALL OF CONGRESS IMMEDIATELY upon his actions of taking over the mills and requested ALL OF congress to write legislation to cover his ass...(basically)..... He did NOTHING IN SECRET, from ALL of congress....Congress was aware of all of his actions and intent.
This was not the case with President Bush, he chose to HIDE ALL of his actions from the entire Intelligence commitees and by law was required to inform the whole committees....He also said to Congress, "I don't need you", complete opposite of Truman.... President Bush also took Law and totally ignored it, such as FISA, even when Congress objected to it..... once again, spitting in my representative's face.... Truman did no such thing....
It would be interesting to see a nonpartisan supreme court make a decision on GWB's illegal actions and intent....
But the Court is STACKED by Bush with his last two SC choices, all rulings will go his way....
care
Last edited:
maineman
Banned
there will still not be "egg on my face". I realize full well that the Supremes are a totally political court owned by the republican party and cannot be counted on to rule with any sort of unbiased jurisprudence...the fact that they so willingly abandoned their staunch state's rights positions to annoint Dubya as President by overturning the authority of the Florida Supreme Court to supervise its own state's election process is a prime example of that. The fact will remain that a well respected federal judge has ruled that the Bush administration violated the law and the constitution. The ruling's condemnation of Bush's violations of the incredibly lax procedures of FISA is pretty direct and quite damning...