Warrantless Wiretapping

Darla,

I can't even begin to tell you how many bush fans spent the last two years lecturing me on why Bush's NSA spy program was legal.

And FISA just ruled it wasn't. I hate being right all the time. ;)


And this points out the absolute neccessity of judicial oversight. You know, the oversight that BushCo. claimed wasn't really needed in a "post-9/11 world".

FISA is traditionally almost a rubber stamp. Its the bare minimum of oversight we need. If they say something was illegal, it must have really gone over the line.
 
Cypress said:
Darla,

I can't even begin to tell you how many bush fans spent the last two years lecturing me on why Bush's NSA spy program was legal.

And FISA just ruled it wasn't. I hate being right all the time. ;)


And this points out the absolute neccessity of judicial oversight. You know, the oversight that BushCo. claimed wasn't really needed in a "post-9/11 world".

FISA is traditionally almost a rubber stamp. Its the bare minimum of oversight we need. If they say something was illegal, it must have really gone over the line.
Click to expand...

I thought I was within the law? WTF? The FISA laws are clear. They broke them. There's no room for wiggle here, and yet...

I'm going to do some f'd up stuff this weekend, and then say "i thought I was within the law, I'll need a review". When a review shows I broke the law, I can say, well, I didn't know, my bad.

I swear sometimes I feel like I fell into a giant hole and I don't understand anything.
 
Darla said:
AS I said, who cares? The part about needing FISA approval was not changed, was illegal, still illegal.

You don't "believe" you're within the law.
Click to expand...
It was the part that was contested in court. Your side was vindicated in this one. You are being deliberately disingenuous if you think they always are in every case where they believe the "law is clear". Sometimes one side is vindicated by the courts decisions, sometimes the other is.

In this case they contested that requirement for these specific ones because the calls originated and ended out of the nation and only passed through nodes. There was no participant in the conversation in the US. The courts disagreed and they asked for and got the change in the law.

The system worked as it was supposed to, it is what the courts are there for.
 
Darla said:
I thought I was within the law? WTF? The FISA laws are clear. They broke them. There's no room for wiggle here, and yet...

I'm going to do some f'd up stuff this weekend, and then say "i thought I was within the law, I'll need a review". When a review shows I broke the law, I can say, well, I didn't know, my bad.

I swear sometimes I feel like I fell into a giant hole and I don't understand anything.
Click to expand...
It's called a trial. First thing they have to do is prove that they have enough evidence to try you. A judge can throw a case out if they believe that there isn't enough or that the law was not violated.

You really are being deliberately obtuse, or you have no idea what checks and balances are.
 
Cypress said:
Darla,

I can't even begin to tell you how many bush fans spent the last two years lecturing me on why Bush's NSA spy program was legal.

And FISA just ruled it wasn't. I hate being right all the time. ;)


And this points out the absolute neccessity of judicial oversight. You know, the oversight that BushCo. claimed wasn't really needed in a "post-9/11 world".

FISA is traditionally almost a rubber stamp. Its the bare minimum of oversight we need. If they say something was illegal, it must have really gone over the line.
Click to expand...
Which is what happened. What moron, when a judge rules against something, says that there was no judicial oversight? What is the judge? They ruled that because they passed through nodes there needed to be more oversight than the other side believed.

There is a reason that the Ds in Congress simply changed the law to reflect the decision and didn't send articles of impeachment.
 
Darla said:
I thought I was within the law? WTF? The FISA laws are clear. They broke them. There's no room for wiggle here, and yet...

I'm going to do some f'd up stuff this weekend, and then say "i thought I was within the law, I'll need a review". When a review shows I broke the law, I can say, well, I didn't know, my bad.

I swear sometimes I feel like I fell into a giant hole and I don't understand anything.
Click to expand...


HaHa! You're right.

The only thing I would add, is that what Damo is saying, is not wholly without merit.

In cases of civil law, for a something to be a criminal act, I think it has to involve intent and malice...as well as the simple act of taking action that went past what the law allows.

I think they would have to prove that BushCo intentionally, maliciously, or through egregious negligence, went past what the law allowed.

That's why Scooter Libby and Rove are walking free. Fitzgerals could never nail them on the Covert Agents Identity Act. He couldn't prove that they intentionally and knowingly knew they were outing an undercover CIA agent.


But, you're right in the sense that if BushCo knowingly exceeded the law, or if there was any malice or egregious negligence involved, then they could theoretically face criminal charges


Anyway, I might be totally wrong. But, I think that's the way most civil law works.


And personally, I think they knew they were exceeding the law
 
Last edited:
Darla said:
The law always stated, and still does, that they need FISA approval.

It's being disingenious to be able to read the law?

They broke the law, it's real simple here.
Click to expand...

Actually, they thought that within the war powers granted to Bush that he had this capability within the law. The courts said... no, you do not... they went to Congress and got the authority they needed.

Now... that is what the admin stated. Could they have really been saying screw you, we will do what we want... sure... that is a possibility.
 
Cypress said:
And personally, I think they knew they were exceeding the law
Click to expand...

I think it is certainly possible, and they for sure thought it was possible that they were. But I think they also thought it was possible that they were within the law considering that the communications in question were only passing through a node here and there were no US participants in the conversation.

I'm not defending the action, I am simply stating that this is how the system does work. It is why there are courts, and what the system of checks and balances are all about.
 
Damocles said:
I think it is certainly possible, and they for sure thought it was possible that they were. But I think they also thought it was possible that they were within the law considering that the communications in question were only passing through a node here and there were no US participants in the conversation.

I'm not defending the action, I am simply stating that this is how the system does work. It is why there are courts, and what the system of checks and balances are all about.
Click to expand...

I was only speculating. I don't know the wording of the pertinent law. I think some civil laws have an "intent" standard that has to be met, for it to be considered a criminal act. Some, probably don't have an "intent" standard.


Considering how laughable the Adminstrations arguments are to defend going past what the law allowed, I think there was actual intent and malice. So, I agree with Darla...IMO, I think there was criminality involved here.
 
Cypress said:
I was only speculating. I don't know the wording of the pertinent law. I think some civil laws have an "intent" standard that has to be met, for it to be considered a criminal act. Some, probably don't have an "intent" standard.


Considering how laughable the Adminstrations arguments are to defend going past what the law allowed, I think there was actual intent and malice. So, I agree with Darla...IMO, I think there was criminality involved here.
Click to expand...
Which still doesn't change my point. This is what checks and balances are about. When one branch exceed their authority, the courts or another branch can do something about it. In this case the decision went against the Executive branch, other times it goes against the Legislative, and sometimes two branches must work together to pass amendments and defeat court decisions.
 
Damocles said:
Which still doesn't change my point. This is what checks and balances are about. When one branch exceed their authority, the courts or another branch can do something about it. In this case the decision went against the Executive branch, other times it goes against the Legislative, and sometimes two branches must work together to pass amendments and defeat court decisions.
Click to expand...

In general, yes. My point, broadly speaking, is that if it can ever be shown that BushCo knew or should have known that they were exceeding the law, that potetially becomes a criminal act. And I think both Darla and I think BushCo either did know (or were so woefully negligent that they should have known), that they were exceeding what the law allowed.
 
Damocles said:
As I said, it was taken to court, they were ruled against, they asked for and received a change, that is how it is supposed to work if one side believes that they are within the law and the other side disagrees.

Sometimes they are vindicated in their belief, sometimes they are ruled against. In this case they were ruled against.
Click to expand...

and why would the court rule against them if they were in compliance with the law ?
 
uscitizen said:
and why would the court rule against them if they were in compliance with the law ?
Click to expand...
That isn't the point, for gawds' sakes!

I am looking at the system. One side disagrees on an interpretation with another, the courts decide, it is how it works.

Of course they would have ruled for them if the courts interpreted the law as they did. It didn't go their way, they asked for and got changes in the law, all of this is within how the system was designed to work.

Can nobody here attest to ever taking a Civics course?
 
Damocles said:
That isn't the point, for gawds' sakes!

I am looking at the system. One side disagrees on an interpretation with another, the courts decide, it is how it works.

Of course they would have ruled for them if the courts interpreted the law as they did. It didn't go their way, they asked for and got changes in the law, all of this is within how the system was designed to work.

Can nobody here attest to ever taking a Civics course?
Click to expand...

yeah... but why did the courts rule against them?

:D
 
uscitizen said:
Umm seems like if I break the law and the courts rule against me I get punished....
Click to expand...
It depends on which kind of law. Civil law, you just end up with an injunction to "cease and desist", which is the procedure that was followed here. Criminal law you wind up with some sort of sentence.
 
uscitizen said:
Umm seems like if I break the law and the courts rule against me I get punished....
Click to expand...

Oh no, not from this day forth. From this day forth you just say, "are you shitting me, taking that car without paying for it is illegal? Man, why do they have them on the lots with big signs on them saying "try me" then? well, my bad" and you are free to go on to do something else you didn't "realize" was illegal.
 
As I said before, if you really believe it is impeachable talk to the Congress that simply voted him back the power with FISA oversight...

Congress can quite literally impeach for anything "misdemeanors" and "high crimes" are not exactly what people think they are. There is a reason that they simply voted him back the power, Ds included, and it isn't because he should be impeached for this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top