Warrantless wiretaps unlikely to be OK'd (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

The first fallout from these elections will be unconstitutional laws.

Article is here.

 

[Gibberish]

OMG we're all going to die now. :roll:

 

[CurrentAffairs]

OMG we're all going to die now. :roll:

Doubtful, but it's things like this that explain why the terrorists celebrated the democratic voctory last week, isn't it? Their phonecalls will no longer be monitored. That's got to enbolden them greatly.

 

[aps]

Doubtful, but it's things like this that explain why the terrorists celebrated the democratic voctory last week, isn't it? Their phonecalls will no longer be monitored. That's got to enbolden them greatly.

Oh brother. Stop exaggerating. Phone calls will continue to be monitored, but with a warrant. Where this president got off on thinking that the rules do not apply to him is beyond me.

I can't remember which comedian/talk show host had a cake made up that said, "Congratulations, Terrorists." I believe it was Jon Stewart. LOL Oh yeah, I am sure they are celebrating the democrats' win. :roll:

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Oh brother. Stop exaggerating. Phone calls will continue to be monitored, but with a warrant. Where this president got off on thinking that the rules do not apply to him is beyond me.

I can't remember which comedian/talk show host had a cake made up that said, "Congratulations, Terrorists." I believe it was Jon Stewart. LOL Oh yeah, I am sure they are celebrating the democrats' win. :roll:

You make a good point. Hopefully the warrants will be expidited and we will be able to continue monitoring the bad guys.

However, rolling your eyes at the notion of terrorists celebrating the democrats victory is silly becuase it's already happened. Several threads here are currently discussing it. To bring you up to speed, Al-Queda and Kohmeni have already issued statements to the global media that they are joyful for the outcome. That certainly gives me pause. Why do you suppose they favored a democratic win in the United States?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

You make a good point. Hopefully the warrants will be expidited and we will be able to continue monitoring the bad guys.

We can catch the bad guys and then get the warrant.

FISA warrants (still) may be applied for retroactively.
​

Why isn't this common knowledge?
Is there some effort to promote the canard that getting warrants may keep us from catching the bad guys in time?

 

[CurrentAffairs]

We can catch the bad guys and then get the warrant.

FISA warrants (still) may be applied for retroactively.
​

Why isn't this common knowledge?
Is there some effort to promote the canard that getting warrants may keep us from catching the bad guys in time?

Another very good point. I think the effort is known as: Distort the facts to get elected!

 

[aps]

Is there some effort to promote the canard that getting warrants may keep us from catching the bad guys in time?

Yes, it's called the Republican talking points. Seriously, they want the general public to believe that we have to be able to get warrants as soon as possible and before we start wiretapping--otherwise, we're dead.

 

[talloulou]

We can catch the bad guys and then get the warrant.

FISA warrants (still) may be applied for retroactively.
​

Why isn't this common knowledge?
Is there some effort to promote the canard that getting warrants may keep us from catching the bad guys in time?

I didn't know that. That seems odd though. Like you can spy on anyone without a warrant and then only if you decide to go to court or go public with what you found do you need to then go get a warrant.

How can a judge deny a retroactive warrant? If the spying has already taken place?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I didn't know that. That seems odd though. Like you can spy on anyone without a warrant and then only if you decide to go to court or go public with what you found do you need to then go get a warrant.

Not exactly.
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 prescribes procedures for requesting judicial authorization for electronic surveillance and physical search of persons engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States on behalf of a foreign power.
​

So it doesn't apply to just anyone.

How can a judge deny a retroactive warrant? If the spying has already taken place?

In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance, no information obtained or evidence derived from such surveillance shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof, and no information concerning any United States person acquired from such surveillance shall subsequently be used or disclosed in any other manner by Federal officers or employees without the consent of such person, except with the approval of the Attorney General if the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person. A denial of the application made under this subsection may be reviewed as provided in section
1803 of this title.
​

(Source URL: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001805----000-.html)

 

[Navy Pride]

We shall see, the American people favor wiretapping on terrorists making calls into this country............It will be interesting to see how the 2 conservatives Casey and Webb vote on the issue...........

 

[oldreliable67]

We can catch the bad guys and then get the warrant.

FISA warrants (still) may be applied for retroactively.

Why isn't this common knowledge?
Is there some effort to promote the canard that getting warrants may keep us from catching the bad guys in time?

Yes, it's called the Republican talking points. Seriously, they want the general public to believe that we have to be able to get warrants as soon as possible and before we start wiretapping--otherwise, we're dead.

Back in those multiple and very extensive threads on the wiretapping topics, the so-called "retroactive" provision was discussed at some length. IIRC, according to Hayden's and the AG's presentations, it isn't as easy or as quick as the either of the above comments suggest. As one might reasonably suspect, there are certain procedures to be followed, including obtaining approvals up the chain of command (approvals first from NSA lawyers, then DoJ lawyers), all to ensure the rights of those to be subject to the proposed surveillance are protected, before any surveillance can begin, even under the 72-hour provision. The NSA, even under the 72-hour provision, cannot simply start surveillance and then go to work on getting a warrant. Again, IIRC, the approval process is exactly the same as with a warrant except that the process culminates with the attorney general or his designate approving the action on the basis of presenting the case to the FISA court not more than 72 hours after he approves of the surveillance. Surveillance can begin only after the AG signs off on it. Even though it isn't an immediate start to surveillance, as many seem to think, the 72-hour provision can indeed help when time is of the essence.

Whether you believe it or not, people's lives certainly can be stake. Flip and cavalier responses to this question are not helpful - if you don't believe it, just ask any other survivor of the WTC (or the Pentagon or Flight 93) or the surviving spouse/parent/loved one of someone who did not survive. The sense of urgency seems to have dimmed quite a bit in the absence of subsequent attacks.

 

[Stinger]

We can catch the bad guys and then get the warrant.

FISA warrants (still) may be applied for retroactively.
​

So what's the point in them? A warrant is to keep the police from listening in the first place unless he has probable cause. So what if they get them later just for the people they want to arrest and after we catch them, they are still listening to the foriegn calls even those that come into the country without a warrant, what everyone complains about.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Doubtful, but it's things like this that explain why the terrorists celebrated the democratic voctory last week, isn't it? Their phonecalls will no longer be monitored. That's got to enbolden them greatly.

Oops! Got it wrong....again! It's not that calls won't be intercepted by the NSA it's just that it will be done legally thru the FISA Court as the FISA law demands.

Why are so many Republican's for breakng the law and lying about the truth? How absurd is it to write that calls will no longer be monitored? REALLY, REALLY ABSURD...and just plain dumb.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Oops! Got it wrong....again! It's not that calls won't be intercepted by the NSA it's just that it will be done legally thru the FISA Court as the FISA law demands.

Why are so many Republican's for breakng the law and lying about the truth? How absurd is it to write that calls will no longer be monitored? REALLY, REALLY ABSURD...and just plain dumb.

Then Mr. Liar, you're dumb also. There.

 

[aps]

Oops! Got it wrong....again! It's not that calls won't be intercepted by the NSA it's just that it will be done legally thru the FISA Court as the FISA law demands.

Why are so many Republican's for breakng the law and lying about the truth? How absurd is it to write that calls will no longer be monitored? REALLY, REALLY ABSURD...and just plain dumb.

I totally agree. I don't get it either. And who buys this horsepoop?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Then Mr. Liar, you're dumb also. There.

Aaah...yet another personal attack...consistent, aren't you? What's next?

Just because you're OK with illegal wiretaps doesn't mean that Americans agree with that sort of stupidity.

You can't use the excuse that you know sh!t about the Fisa Court because you've already come out in favor of trashing the Constitutional rights of a whole group of people....AMERICANS!

 

[ProudAmerican]

the real question to me is, why do liberals want to give terrorists outside the country, making phone calls into the country, the same protection under the law that American citizens get?

 

[26 X World Champs]

the real question to me is, why do liberals want to give terrorists outside the country, making phone calls into the country, the same protection under the law that American citizens get?

My question is why any American is OK with trashing our Constitution and is willing to compromise principles that do not need to be compromised in order to achieve the same result?

It's so weird that in this Forum there are so many Republicans who have no respect for the US Constitution yet pretend to be patriotic! It's a true oxymoron.

 

[Tashah]

Then Mr. Liar, you're dumb also. There.

Moderator's Warning:

Stop that immediately. I would also strongly suggest that you change your siggy at the very first opportunity. It is in violation of Forum Rules

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The first fallout from these elections will be unconstitutional laws.

Article is here.

The first fallout is going to be the loss of our ability to track and stop terrorist attacks. I'm not going to be saying "see I told you so" after the next attack on our soil I'm going to be saying that the Democratic party is a danger to the safety and welfare of the citizenry of the United States and they need to be barred from public office on charges of aiding and abetting the enemy.

 

[Travelsonic]

We shall see, the American people favor wiretapping on terrorists making calls into this country............

I suspect red herring here. The issue at hand is not whether it should be done to terrorists, since I can bet my untainted roast beef lunch that known or suspected terrorists being tapped is not a problem with most. The methods of which it should be done is at question. If we do not go through the method of which we have established to prevent abuses of this system - requiring warrants, then the potential for "abuses" to become more acceptable increases, so the fear goes.

Surely there is balance somewhere that will allow us to monitor suspected and known terrorists without the potential for abuse/bringing n the average, non-terrorist citizen.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Oh brother. Stop exaggerating. Phone calls will continue to be monitored, but with a warrant.

Tell me how are you going to know which phones to get a warrant for? The point of this program is it computer traces key words from international calls from countries known to have large AQ populations and strong jihadist sentiments so how are you going to get a warrant to trace for key words when you don't know whose words you want to trace? Not to mention even when they do know who they're trying to listen to picking a U.S. number off of a dead AQ operatives cell phone in Afghanistan hardly meets the standards of probable cause. The Democrats are going to cut the balls off of our intelligence gathering capabilities and get people killed.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

We can catch the bad guys and then get the warrant.

FISA warrants (still) may be applied for retroactively.

​

Why isn't this common knowledge?
Is there some effort to promote the canard that getting warrants may keep us from catching the bad guys in time?

Ya and what happens when the case does not meet the standard of probable cause; such as, cases where they picked up a number off of a AQ members cell phone and little else was known about the target and what happens when they can't make the case before the 72 hour deadline? Not to mention the sheer volume of warrant requests you would have to place through a single court never designed with that capacity in mind.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I totally agree. I don't get it either. And who buys this horsepoop?

Umm because it's been proven time and time again that this program does not violate the law and infact FISA is a direct violation of the Presidents inherent Constitutional authority as Commander and Chief. Not to mention that FISA doesn't apply in these cases in the first place, because the original targets are from outside the U.S..