oldreliable67 said:
Yes, I do. I doubt it very much.
..why we even have the Patriot Act: because some of the preventive measures to the events of 9/11 and terrorist targeting of the US were unforeseen and indeed, unknowable, by the framers of the constitution. There are a number of provisions of the Patriot Act and they have absolutely nothing to do with the NSA surveillance program at the heart of the current controversy.
But the Patriot Act requires Bush to obtain a court order prior to conducting any surveillance. Let's not forget his speech in April 2004.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
So the first thing I want you to think about is, when you hear Patriot Act, is that we changed the law and the bureaucratic mind-set to allow for the sharing of information. It's vital. And others will describe what that means.
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
The Bush administration has claimed that when Bush was talking that day, he was addressing only the Patriot Act (yeah right). Accepting that statement as true, if the Bush administration has the right to conduct surveillance without a court order, why would he point out that he has to get a court order before he does a "roving wiretap"?
..Why did we create the FISA court in the first place? Like the NSA surveillance program, FISA was created long before the need to provide 'roving' wiretaps became evident, before cell phones existed, in fact. In the context of the times in which FISA was created, it was thought that tapping the main 'land-line' phones used by suspected drug dealers and/or organized crime figures would be sufficient. Technology advances rendered that point of view moot.
FISA was created with various situations in mind, including an act of war. Why do you think it allows for surveillance prior to obtaining a court order? It understood that there were times when surveillance would be necessary right away. If Article II genuinely allows the president to conduct surveillance without a court order, then why would FISA address this very issue? It was created because a president overstepped his bounds.
...why is there a rule that allows the president to obtain a court order after the wiretapping? Quite simple, actually. As technology advanced, so did the need for investigative procedures to respond faster. The FISA provisions allow for the initiation of domestic wire-taps under certain circumstances and with various approvals, including the approval of the AG and others in a supervisory position. In other words, even though the wiretaps can begin before a court order is obtained, there must still be demonstrated a need for such using specified criteria and such must be approved by those in supervisory positions before the wiretap can begin. These procedures and gaining of approvals still take time, just not as long as FISA court approval. "Immediate" is not really immediate or instantaneous in this context, but it is faster than FISA court approval.
How does wiretapping first and then seeking a court order slow down the process. The people conducting the surveillance are not the same people who are filing the request with the FISA court. It makes no sense to have a provision that allows you to obtain a court order after the fact if the president has the right to never file a court order.
...It doesn't make sense. It makes considerably more sense when you learn more of the details behind the programs and the reasons for their existence. As they have become available, increased knowledge of the details of the programs makes way more sense than the scare headlines and the sophomoric ranting of those seeking partisan advantage.
I say again: The AG has put forth his (and thereby, the Administration's) legal foundation for the NSA surveillance program. It refers to several legal precedents for such. However, if these precedents are found wanting when subjected to congressional review, then so be it. There may well be enough doubt to warrant a SC review, and in the larger scheme, that might be a good thing, in that it would go a long way toward resolving some of these issues that have arisen because of advances in technology coupled with historically unforeseeable, unknowable events and a President willing to push the limits of historical precedents.
I really don't care what the AG says--he is the president's puppet. The AG said that we didn't have the follow the Geneva conventions either. My personal belief is that Bush overstepped his bounds and it was all because someone tried to restrain him and he was not going to have any part in that. It's rather pathetic--the president is a tantrum-throwing baby.
I'm adding in part of the transcript from last Wednesday's Countdown, where a constitutional law professor from Georgetown said that she didn't think Bush had the authority to do what he did under either the Constitution or the 9-11 provisions. She is "Low Bloch."
STEWART: Both the president and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have referred to constitutional authority, a certain authority that allows them to go forward and spy in this manner. What specifically in the Constitution are they referring to?
LOW BLOCH: Well, they‘re referring to a provision in the Constitution, Article II, that makes the president the commander-in-chief of the military. But it doesn‘t follow from that, in my opinion, and I think the opinion of many people, that that gives them the authority to secretly wiretap Americans.
STEWART: So that‘s where the issue comes in, on the domestic wiretappings, whether they‘re accidental or not, of people‘s personal conversations?
LOW BLOCH: That‘s right. And then he claims that the Constitution gives him the authority. He also seems to suggest that, when Congress authorized the use of force against those who attacked us on 9/11, that Congress was implicitly authorizing secret spying. But, again, I think that‘s a stretch. I don‘t think that‘s what Congress intended. I don‘t think that‘s what the language suggests.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10572822/