Court Allows NSA Wiretapping Program to Continue During Appeal

[Hobbes]

It was the particular legislation involved at the time and the constitutional prinicple was upheld. Congress cannot legislate away the Presidents constitutionaly authority. Just as it cannot legislate away his veto powers. So if you have a case that says otherwise or can cite in the constitution where the congress has the authority to dictate to the president how he will conduct foreign survielence the previous cites still stand.

You have not proved it is the President's sole authority. In fact, considering all cases involving FISA since its inception have taken for granted the constitutionality of the FISA program when ruling, Congress's ability to make regulation in regards to surveillance is supported by Court decisions. There are you examples showing that Congress has and can make decisions relating to surveillance. To dispute this you would have to show where in the Constitution this authority about surveliiance is SOLELY the president's or at least show a court case (which there arent any) saying FISA is unconstitutional.

And as Rich Lowery reported to expand on what you were posting

"Every administration, liberal or conservative, has claimed this warrantless surveillance power, and no court has ever denied it. The FISA court of review explained, citing the 14th Circuit's 1980 decision in a case involving the surveillance of a Vietnamese spy named David Truong, "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." The court added, "We take it for granted that the President does have that authority.""

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1551281/posts

That quote from the case says nothing about Congress's ability to make laws in regards to survelliance, nor does it talk about a sole inherent authority, which would be necessary to validate your claim that Congress cannot encroach on this Presidential power.

 

[Duke]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217847,00.html

now if we can just get the ridiculous decision overturned, maybe we can continue to fight terrorists.

Yeah, because America's entire anti-terror structure would collapse completely if we can't spy on any random citizen without a court order, without checks and balances.

Don't you just hate it when important civil liberties get in the way of executive power? Jeez!


Duke

 

[Hobbes]

Also, allow me to more fully quote that last bit for you, same paragraph:

'We reiterate that Truong dealt with a pre-FISA surveillance base on the President's constitutional responsibility to conduct foreign affairs of the United States...The Truong court, as did all other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority '

As you can see the court emphasizing in an earlier part that all the cases that have upheld the presidents inherent authority were PRE FISA. They go out of their way to say this. Surely an important part of the ruling, considering all cases post FISA have upheld the constitutionality of FISA.


***and while we're on FISA 2002 Court of Review, I think its very important to keep in mind the final ruling of the court. Minor tidbits don't count for much considering the conclusion was that FISA is constitutional.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217847,00.html

now if we can just get the ridiculous decision overturned, maybe we can continue to fight terrorists.

Exactly. Maybe now we can get back to catching the bad guys.

 

[Hobbes]

Exactly. Maybe now we can get back to catching the bad guys.

As the discussion of appropriate checks and balances in our government somehow impedes the catching of terrorists :roll:

There's plenty of room to catch terrorists within the framework of FISA.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

As the discussion of appropriate checks and balances in our government somehow impedes the catching of terrorists :roll:

There's plenty of room to catch terrorists within the framework of FISA.

Great. You go operate with that framework. In the meantime, the commander in chief will monitor the terrorists phonecalls.

 

[Hobbes]

Great. You go operate with that framework. In the meantime, the commander in chief will monitor the terrorists phonecalls.

Trivializing the issue into one liners proves nothing. This is a complex issue that should be debated.

Take that commander and chief bit, you've taken for granted this is only the President's area to act. But will you try to prove it, or just take it for granted. Because there's plenty of language in the Constitution allowing Congress to rules and regulations about the army and navy, which would be the same area you're claiming the President gets his power.

**It boggles my mind that people will liberally interpret Article II for the Pres, but have to conveniently ignore Article I , Section 8

 

[Duke]

Great. You go operate with that framework. In the meantime, the commander in chief will monitor the terrorists phonecalls.

I've got a question for you: How do you know exactly who the president is monitoring? You don't. I don't. Only he does. He could monitor anyone, terrorists, political opponents, his daughter's cell phones, and nobody could do anything about it; nobody would know. It's not safe. It's an uneven distribution of power, executive power. And do you know what happens to unlabeled things? They fall.


Duke

 

[jfuh]

Trivializing the issue into one liners proves nothing. This is a complex issue that should be debated.

Take that commander and chief bit, you've taken for granted this is only the President's area to act. But will you try to prove it, or just take it for granted. Because there's plenty of language in the Constitution allowing Congress to rules and regulations about the army and navy, which would be the same area you're claiming the President gets his power.

**It boggles my mind that people will liberally interpret Article II for the Pres, but have to conveniently ignore Article I , Section 8

:bravo:Learn something new everyday, great posts.

 

[Stinger]

I've got a question for you: How do you know exactly who the president is monitoring? You don't. I don't.

Well maybe if everyone in the country raises their hand and swears not to tell our enemies then they can just announce it every night on the evening news.

He could monitor anyone, terrorists, political opponents, his daughter's cell phones,

Nope the law controls who the government can or cannot conduct surveillence on and under what circumstances and whether or not a court order is or is not required.

and nobody could do anything about it; nobody would know.

So you believe Bush is doing wire-taps in his office with his super-duper desktop PC or something?

 

[Duke]

Well maybe if everyone in the country raises their hand and swears not to tell our enemies then they can just announce it every night on the evening news.

Yeah, that's bright.:roll: Pointless, though.

Nope the law controls who the government can or cannot conduct surveillence on and under what circumstances and whether or not a court order is or is not required.

These are warrent-less wiretaps. Know what that means? It means Bush gets to pick who he spies on. No checks, no balances; they say he can only spy on this person or that, but who's checking him?

So you believe Bush is doing wire-taps in his office with his super-duper desktop PC or something?

I'm saying that nobody outside of his sphere of influence would know what he's doing.


Duke

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke
I've got a question for you: How do you know exactly who the president is monitoring? You don't. I don't.


Originally Posted by Stinger
Well maybe if everyone in the country raises their hand and swears not to tell our enemies then they can just announce it every night on the evening news.

Yeah, that's bright.:roll: Pointless, though.

Well you were the one complaining you didn't know. Hint: that's what we elect the President to do for us, if you don't like him vote him out.

These are warrent-less wiretaps. Know what that means?

Yes, but you left out that this if foriegn survielence, just like when we tapped the underwater telephone cables of the former Soviet Union without a court order.

It means Bush gets to pick who he spies on.

No the NSA and the CIA and the DIA do if it is foreign survielence. Like when we listened to communications of the Axis powers during WW2.

No checks, no balances; they say he can only spy on this person or that, but who's checking him?

The DOJ, the State Department, his cabinet but then why does he need to be checked on when it concerns foreign surveilence and the constitution gives him the inherient authority to conduct such survielence? Who checked on all previous Presidents who did so? Heck Clinton in fact did do it solely within our borders and even broke into places without a search warrant. Where were your complaints then?

I'm saying that nobody outside of his sphere of influence would know what he's doing.

You mean outside the executive branch, well the heads of the two House and the intelligent committes are informed of the programs and are free to ask.


I guess we could put it on C-span.

 

[Duke]

Well you were the one complaining you didn't know. Hint: that's what we elect the President to do for us, if you don't like him vote him out.

Excuse me for not having a blind faith in someone I didn't vote for. :roll:

Yes, but you left out that this if foriegn survielence, just like when we tapped the underwater telephone cables of the former Soviet Union without a court order.

No the NSA and the CIA and the DIA do if it is foreign survielence. Like when we listened to communications of the Axis powers during WW2.

I'm not talking about foreign surveillance; did you read that link? It wasn't about oversea spying, and nor is this. You're simply bringing this up so you can have something, no matter how irrelevant, to rebuke with. Know what that means? You're still wrong. Try again:

These are warrent-less wiretaps. Know what that means? It means Bush gets to pick who he spies on.

The DOJ, the State Department, his cabinet

His cabinet is not a check nor a balance. That's an extension of him. As for the other things, do you have a link?

but then why does he need to be checked on when it concerns foreign surveilence and the constitution gives him the inherient authority to conduct such survielence? Who checked on all previous Presidents who did so?

Heck Clinton in fact did do it solely within our borders and even broke into places without a search warrant. Where were your complaints then?

Who's to say I wasn't complaining then? I certainly was. You can't read my mind.

But I have a question: were you complaining?

You mean outside the executive branch, well the heads of the two House and the intelligent committes are informed of the programs and are free to ask.

Are they answered? They are not privy to the lists of who the president spies on. All he has to say is "terrorists". But who's making sure? Where are the principles that hold up every part of this nation, checks and balances?


Duke

 

[Stinger]

Excuse me for not having a blind faith in someone I didn't vote for. :roll:

The rest of us did and you are free next election to vote for someone who won't conduct foriegn surveilence on our enemies.

I'm not talking about foreign surveillance;

That is what the whole issue is about, although many seem to want to misrepresent foriegn surveilllance as domestic.

These are warrent-less wiretaps. Know what that means? It means Bush gets to pick who he spies on.

No the NSA and the CIA and the DIA.

His cabinet is not a check nor a balance. That's an extension of him. As for the other things, do you have a link?

No in fact they are, they are also officials who are confirmed by the Congress and are sworn to uphold the law and it is widely known that the congresional leadership and heads of the intellignece committeds are also briefed no need to cite it.


So again I ask how did every other President engage in the same type of surveillence. Should we arrest Jimmy Carter since he was President while we tapped into the underwater telephone cables of the Soviets?

 

[Hobbes]

The rest of us did and you are free next election to vote for someone who won't conduct foriegn surveilence on our enemies.




That is what the whole issue is about, although many seem to want to misrepresent foriegn surveilllance as domestic.




No the NSA and the CIA and the DIA.



No in fact they are, they are also officials who are confirmed by the Congress and are sworn to uphold the law and it is widely known that the congresional leadership and heads of the intellignece committeds are also briefed no need to cite it.


So again I ask how did every other President engage in the same type of surveillence. Should we arrest Jimmy Carter since he was President while we tapped into the underwater telephone cables of the Soviets?

Have any good references for the Jimmy Carter thing? Having little luck finding much on it.

 

[Duke]

The rest of us did and you are free next election to vote for someone who won't conduct foriegn surveilence on our enemies.

Oh hardy hardy har. It's the "Liberals hate America" thing, under the table.

I think I'd rather elect someone who won't conduct foreign surveillance on just anyone, but instead our enemies. How does that sound?

That is what the whole issue is about, although many seem to want to misrepresent foriegn surveilllance as domestic.

That is not what the whole issue is about, that is you diverting the argument into an area in which you think you can win.

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views06/0208-23.htm

Read. "Domestic."

No the NSA and the CIA and the DIA.

Really? Got a link for that? I've already provided several contradicting that.

No in fact they are, they are also officials who are confirmed by the Congress and are sworn to uphold the law and it is widely known that the congresional leadership and heads of the intellignece committeds are also briefed no need to cite it.

As I said, they are not outside of Bush's sphere of power.

So again I ask how did every other President engage in the same type of surveillence. Should we arrest Jimmy Carter since he was President while we tapped into the underwater telephone cables of the Soviets?

You tell me. I'm only trying to protect American Rights, I don't see how anyone in the business of destroying those rights is very pro-America.


Duke

 

[Vader]

Oh hardy hardy har. It's the "Liberals hate America" thing, under the table.

I think I'd rather elect someone who won't conduct foreign surveillance on just anyone, but instead our enemies. How does that sound?




That is not what the whole issue is about, that is you diverting the argument into an area in which you think you can win.

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views06/0208-23.htm

Read. "Domestic."



Really? Got a link for that? I've already provided several contradicting that.




As I said, they are not outside of Bush's sphere of power.



You tell me. I'm only trying to protect American Rights, I don't see how anyone in the business of destroying those rights is very pro-America.


Duke

I agree.

Benjamin Franklin once said "They who can give up essential liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.", as such I think people like Cheney (the big business sell-out --- who traded our rights so his friends at Halliburton could increase their profits), Rumsfield, and the who far-right nazi-facist association needs to be removed from DC and permenantly barred from holding public office.

They are slapping every vetern whoever served or died in service to their country across the face.

 

[Stinger]

Have any good references for the Jimmy Carter thing? Having little luck finding much on it.

Read "Blind Man's Bluff"

"Most of the stories in Blind Man's Bluff have never been told publicly," they write, "and none have ever been told in this level of detail." Among their revelations is the most complete accounting to date of the 1968 disappearance of the U.S.S. Scorpion; the story of how the Navy located a live hydrogen bomb lost by the Air Force; and a plot by the CIA and Howard Hughes to steal a Soviet sub. The most interesting chapter reveals how an American sub secretly tapped Soviet communications cables beneath the waves. Blind Man's Bluff is a compelling book about the courage, ingenuity, and patriotism of America's underwater spies. --John J. Miller --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mans-Bluff-Submarine-Espionage/dp/006103004X

 

[Stinger]

Oh hardy hardy har. It's the "Liberals hate America" thing, under the table.

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth I've said nothing of the sort. If you want to curtail our foriegn signals intelligence gathering then vote for someone who will run on that platform.

I think I'd rather elect someone who won't conduct foreign surveillance on just anyone, but instead our enemies. How does that sound?

Like what we are doing. When you have evidence otherwise post it.

That is not what the whole issue is about, that is you diverting the argument into an area in which you think you can win.

It is exactly what the whole arguement is about, you are trying to create an issue which doesn't exist.

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views06/0208-23.htm

Really? Got a link for that? I've already provided several contradicting that.

That the intelligence agencies and the congressional leaders are all in the loop?

As I said, they are not outside of Bush's sphere of power.

And confirmed by the congress and sworn to uphold the law.

You tell me. I'm only trying to protect American Rights, I don't see how anyone in the business of destroying those rights is very pro-America.

Since no ones rights have been destroyed what are you talking about?

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Cheney (the big business sell-out --- who traded our rights so his friends at Halliburton could increase their profits), Rumsfield, and the who far-right nazi-facist association needs to be removed from DC and permenantly barred from holding public office.

You're free to cast a ballot in 2008. Cheers.

 

[Hobbes]

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth I've said nothing of the sort. If you want to curtail our foriegn signals intelligence gathering then vote for someone who will run on that platform.



Like what we are doing. When you have evidence otherwise post it.




It is exactly what the whole arguement is about, you are trying to create an issue which doesn't exist.

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views06/0208-23.htm

That the intelligence agencies and the congressional leaders are all in the loop?




And confirmed by the congress and sworn to uphold the law.




Since no ones rights have been destroyed what are you talking about?

The NSA program allows Americans to be warrantlessly wiretapped. That certainly violates our 4th amendment rights.

 

[Hobbes]

Read "Blind Man's Bluff"

"Most of the stories in Blind Man's Bluff have never been told publicly," they write, "and none have ever been told in this level of detail." Among their revelations is the most complete accounting to date of the 1968 disappearance of the U.S.S. Scorpion; the story of how the Navy located a live hydrogen bomb lost by the Air Force; and a plot by the CIA and Howard Hughes to steal a Soviet sub. The most interesting chapter reveals how an American sub secretly tapped Soviet communications cables beneath the waves. Blind Man's Bluff is a compelling book about the courage, ingenuity, and patriotism of America's underwater spies. --John J. Miller --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mans-Bluff-Submarine-Espionage/dp/006103004X

I don't intend to buy the book, perhaps you can elaborate on it. So the Soviet cables being tapped were connected to American homes?

 

[Stinger]

The NSA program allows Americans to be warrantlessly wiretapped. That certainly violates our 4th amendment rights.

Not if it involves foriegn signals and talking to terrorist and our enemies. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy on such calls. But if you want to vote for someone who will stop the program then go ahead and vote for them, then take cover.

 

[Stinger]

I don't intend to buy the book, perhaps you can elaborate on it. So the Soviet cables being tapped were connected to American homes?

They transferred international calls just as the signals the NSA monitors now. If you called the Soviet Union it was probably picked up, just as now.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Have any good references for the Jimmy Carter thing? Having little luck finding much on it.

you seriously think this just started happening under Bush?

Theres a reason we never heard about it under Carter or Clinton, but its damn sure not because it wasnt happening.