No end to Warrentless Wiretaps (1 Viewer)

[Topsez]

If congress fails to pass the warrantless wiretap legislation I think Prez Bush will continue to use the method based on his Executive Constitutional authority. How about you, what do you think will happen?

 

[Cold Dirt]

If congress fails to pass the warrantless wiretap legislation I think Prez Bush will continue to use the method based on his Executive Constitutional authority. How about you, what do you think will happen?

I believe it a very important tool in fighting terrorism..........avg everyday citizens are not being spied on as the liberal media would want you to believe....only people receiving calls from known terrorist into this country.......what I cannot understand is why liberals/democrats want to hog tie the admin from protecting this country from terrorist?

 

[Kandahar]

what I cannot understand is why liberals/democrats want to hog tie the admin from protecting this country from terrorist?

Because those people who are being spied on have been afforded no due process at all. Theoretically, President Bush could decide that your Uncle Bob is a terrorist without any basis, and tap your phones the next time you call him. That does NOT bode well for protecting our civil liberties.

If Bush has PROOF that someone has been in contact with terrorists, he can get a warrant. They aren't difficult to obtain, and can even be obtained retroactively if done within 48 hours.

 

[Topsez]

Because those people who are being spied on have been afforded no due process at all. Theoretically, President Bush could decide that your Uncle Bob is a terrorist without any basis, and tap your phones the next time you call him. That does NOT bode well for protecting our civil liberties.

If Bush has PROOF that someone has been in contact with terrorists, he can get a warrant. They aren't difficult to obtain, and can even be obtained retroactively if done within 48 hours.

To get a warrant one must present to a judge probable cause that a crime will occur as a result of the action you desire. For example to get a warrant for tapping my phone the federal government must present to the judge probable cause that I may be a danger to the state and that OBL is a danger to the state. So, under this legal reasoning a judge would never issue a warrant on my phone because the government cannot prove that I am a danger or will commit a crime. Keep in mind that just because OBL himself is calling me the judge must consider he is wishing me happy birthday and not planning to blow something up. Further, the government cannot listen to OBL and I talk and then use the conversation as justification for the warrant... even if we plan to blow up the Sears Tower the information is not allowed since the government did not present the probable cause in advance of the call.

Think about what you are talking about and think about what would happen if OBL called you by mistake and you didn't agree with him to blow up the Searss Tower... your privacy hasn't been violated anymore by the govrenment than by the wrong number dialed by a terrorist.

The constitution states "unreasonable search" not, absolutely no search without a warrant. Understand the difference. And, understand that there is no way that the government could possibly prove to a judge the facts required to associate any terrorist with OBL himself without the ability to listen first.

 

[Kandahar]

To get a warrant one must present to a judge probable cause that a crime will occur as a result of the action you desire. For example to get a warrant for tapping my phone the federal government must present to the judge probable cause that I may be a danger to the state and that OBL is a danger to the state.

Either one or the other would be sufficient. If the government can show probable cause that OBL is a threat to the state and that he called you, then they'll more than likely be able to get a warrant to tap your phone even if they don't have evidence that YOU are a threat to the state.

So, under this legal reasoning a judge would never issue a warrant on my phone because the government cannot prove that I am a danger or will commit a crime.

There's a different standard of proof for obtaining a warrant than there is for convicting someone in court. Judges can and do issue warrants for things like this. The NSA courts were created specifically for this purpose.

Keep in mind that just because OBL himself is calling me the judge must consider he is wishing me happy birthday and not planning to blow something up.

Simply not true. If a known terrorist is calling you, a judge will most likely issue the warrant.

Further, the government cannot listen to OBL and I talk and then use the conversation as justification for the warrant... even if we plan to blow up the Sears Tower the information is not allowed since the government did not present the probable cause in advance of the call.
Think about what you are talking about and think about what would happen if OBL called you by mistake and you didn't agree with him to blow up the Searss Tower... your privacy hasn't been violated anymore by the govrenment than by the wrong number dialed by a terrorist.

The question is why is the government listening to your conversation in the first place, if he had never called you before and you hadn't done anything to arouse suspicion? And if he HAD called you before or you HAD aroused suspicion, then it would not be difficult to get a warrant.

The constitution states "unreasonable search" not, absolutely no search without a warrant. Understand the difference.

The whole point of a warrant is that a judge has declared that such a search IS reasonable.

And, understand that there is no way that the government could possibly prove to a judge the facts required to associate any terrorist with OBL himself without the ability to listen first.

Standard of proof for a warrant - probable cause.
Standard of proof for a conviction - beyond a reasonable doubt.

There's a big difference.

 

[stsburns]

If congress fails to pass the warrantless wiretap legislation I think Prez Bush will continue to use the method based on his Executive Constitutional authority. How about you, what do you think will happen?

Leave it to the Supreme Court. They are the only reason he got into office the first time. :rofl

 

[CurrentAffairs]

If congress fails to pass the warrantless wiretap legislation I think Prez Bush will continue to use the method based on his Executive Constitutional authority.

Warrants or not, let's hope it continues.

 

[jfuh]

Either one or the other would be sufficient. If the government can show probable cause that OBL is a threat to the state and that he called you, then they'll more than likely be able to get a warrant to tap your phone even if they don't have evidence that YOU are a threat to the state.



There's a different standard of proof for obtaining a warrant than there is for convicting someone in court. Judges can and do issue warrants for things like this. The NSA courts were created specifically for this purpose.



Simply not true. If a known terrorist is calling you, a judge will most likely issue the warrant.



The question is why is the government listening to your conversation in the first place, if he had never called you before and you hadn't done anything to arouse suspicion? And if he HAD called you before or you HAD aroused suspicion, then it would not be difficult to get a warrant.



The whole point of a warrant is that a judge has declared that such a search IS reasonable.



Standard of proof for a warrant - probable cause.
Standard of proof for a conviction - beyond a reasonable doubt.

There's a big difference.

:bravo:
Let me add to that. Undermining the courts by circumnavigating warrents neglects checks and balances.

 

[Cold Dirt]

Leave it to the Supreme Court. They are the only reason he got into office the first time. :rofl

No, I see the liberal have their facts wrong again.....as usual....he got into office because he had more votes than Gore.....funny I dont see you liberals crying about voter fraud this election....wonder why???? hypocrites and liars the majority of ya.......

 

[Kandahar]

he got into office because he had more votes than Gore.

Actually Gore had about 500,000 votes more than Bush FYI. But let's not change the subject.

 

[Topsez]

Either one or the other would be sufficient. If the government can show probable cause that OBL is a threat to the state and that he called you, then they'll more than likely be able to get a warrant to tap your phone even if they don't have evidence that YOU are a threat to the state.

You are simply wrong! The entire debate over warrantless wiretaps is based on "there must be a problem getting a warrant". Why would the government use warrantless wiretaps if they could get a warrant? Prove how easy it is with facts you can link to. True the FISA has rejected very few applications for wiretap warrants but that is because the lawyers know what is required. Check out this article and then you go find a source to prove your point that refutes this article.

The difficulty with FISA is the standard it imposes for obtaining a warrant aimed at a "U.S. person" -- a U.S. citizen or a legal alien: The standard suggests that, for all practical purposes, the Justice Department must already have in hand evidence that someone is a problem before they seek a warrant.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121901027.html

There's a different standard of proof for obtaining a warrant than there is for convicting someone in court. Judges can and do issue warrants for things like this. The NSA courts were created specifically for this purpose.

Prove it.

Simply not true. If a known terrorist is calling you, a judge will most likely issue the warrant.

Prove it.

The question is why is the government listening to your conversation in the first place, if he had never called you before and you hadn't done anything to arouse suspicion? And if he HAD called you before or you HAD aroused suspicion, then it would not be difficult to get a warrant.

What if my name was Abdul and I'm on a student visa from Pakistan and only study in America... why should a judge issue a warrant... maybe OBL just wants to say happy birthday Abdul.

The whole point of a warrant is that a judge has declared that such a search IS reasonable.

Prove it.

Standard of proof for a warrant - probable cause.
Standard of proof for a conviction - beyond a reasonable doubt.

There's a big difference.

You are full of crap.

 

[Topsez]

Here is the argument from both sides by top Washington Law school... tell me where I'm going wrong!

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...warrantless+wiretap+debate&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3

 

[Goobieman]

Actually Gore had about 500,000 votes more than Bush FYI. But let's not change the subject.

Bush had 5 more votes than Gore.
But lets not let reality intrude.

 

[Goobieman]

I think the point being missed here is that the information gained here isn't necessarily being used to gather evidence for a criminal prosecution -- much of it is for gaining information to be used for planning anti-terrorist operations.

Having a warrant/not having a warrant really only matters when you're using the information as evidence in a trial -- if you use the information to decide where to drop a JDAM, it doesnt matter if you have a warrant or not.

 

[Topsez]

I think the point being missed here is that the information gained here isn't necessarily being used to gather evidence for a criminal prosecution -- much of it is for gaining information to be used for planning anti-terrorist operations.

Having a warrant/not having a warrant really only matters when you're using the information as evidence in a trial -- if you use the information to decide where to drop a JDAM, it doesnt matter if you have a warrant or not.

First let me apologize to Kandahar for saying he is full of crap... I've debated this subject on other sites and have did the research and know what I'm talking about, he is simply drawn into an argument the left uses to prevent the ability of the Prez to protect the nation form 21st century communications. Because it is so important I think the only way the Prez will let go of this tool is when the Supreme Court takes it from his shaking hands.

I agree with Goobieman that the interest isn't the prosecution of a civil case on someone identified in this method of information gathering but, to simply identify a threat that would otherwise not be identified. It would take very creative FBI work to develop a legal case on PC obtained in this manner but the FBI could build a separate case on the individual on its own to actually charge the individual if it precluded the wiretap from the PC on the case. I think this has already been done with the guy who planned to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge? Regardless I think it should continue for the good of the nation.

 

[aps]

I believe the President will continue to do it and that the Supreme Court will decide this issue.

 

[The Mark]

I hope the "Warrentless Wiretaps" do not stop, as I personally believe that they are needed.

 

[Topsez]

I hope the "Warrentless Wiretaps" do not stop, as I personally believe that they are needed.

Senator Spector challenged Senator Durbin this evening in the Senate to meet the issue head on... Note, Spector is against the warrantless wiretaps... this issue isn't dead and will be in the headlines with details of where each party stood.

Now it is the Democrats turn to be in the barrel of leadership and much of the press will tell the American people the truth as depicted in my link of the Georgetown lawyers as to what the difference is... If the dems kill the tool then they will pay the price, if not immediately, then when the next attack happens and the truth about how a warrant is granted by the FISA becomes public knowledge.

 

[jfuh]

I hope the "Warrentless Wiretaps" do not stop, as I personally believe that they are needed.

Do you also hope for unchecked executive power?

 

[The Mark]

Do you also hope for unchecked executive power?

Hmm......nope. That would be a Bad Idea.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

To get a warrant one must present to a judge probable cause that a crime will occur as a result of the action you desire.

This is not true for FISA warrants.
FISA warrants need only to be to "obtain foreign intelligence information." No nothin about a crime or probable cause or any of that other is required.

 

[Kandahar]

Hmm......nope. That would be a Bad Idea.

That's exactly what warrantless wiretaps are: unchecked executive power. If this is legal, what's to prevent the president from tapping your phones just because he doesn't like you, and saying that he believes you've been in touch with terrorists?

 

[Topsez]

This is not true for FISA warrants.
FISA warrants need only to be to "obtain foreign intelligence information." No nothin about a crime or probable cause or any of that other is required.

I believe this statement located in your link 1801 (a) (1) indicates that if the person is in the US then Probable Cause must be proven prior to wiretap.

(f) “Electronic surveillance” means—
(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001801----000-.html
It this were not the case then there would be no need of warrantless wiretaps.

Please review the arguments of both Georgetown lawyers I submitted earlier. The argument on the left colum is in support for the President's position and the argument on the right colum is the argument of those who support FISA without the President's ability to use warrantless wiretaps.

Notice in the quote above that the person doesn't have to be a US Citizen but, rather by law a "United States person" which would be each and every member of the 9-11 OBL team would not be able to be tapped unless probable cause existed within the government prior to the tap.

 

[jfuh]

Hmm......nope. That would be a Bad Idea.

But that is exactly what warrentless wiretaps represent. The executive branch over reaching it's authority without the check and balance of the courts.

 

[jfuh]

That's exactly what warrantless wiretaps are: unchecked executive power. If this is legal, what's to prevent the president from tapping your phones just because he doesn't like you, and saying that he believes you've been in touch with terrorists?

Damn it Kandahar that was my argument to make and you just had to beat me to the punchline :2wave: