• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Warrantless wiretaps unlikely to be OK'd

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Ya and what happens when the case does not meet the standard of probable cause;
Bullshit ALERT! More than 99.9% of all requests for warrants are approved so please stop the Chicken Little chickenshit fear tactic.

I'll write it again...only Republicans in this Forum want the Constitution spit on, crumpled and burnt which explains so much about their character and lack of patriotism.

Patriots defend the Constitution they do not destroy it.
 
26 X World Champs said:
Bullshit ALERT! More than 99.9% of all requests for warrants are approved so please stop the Chicken Little chickenshit fear tactic.

Bullshit alert those situations were under totally different circumstances not in anyway involving the current NSA program, the cases today are far harder to prove probable cause then were cases involving the Soviet Union and other state actors and in those circumstances we were not attempting to put large volumes of cases through the FISA court at one time, the enemy today is far far different from the enemy of the past which the FISA act was designed to deal with, you're comparing apples and oranges. You're trying to fight Jet Fighters with bi-Planes.

I'll write it again...only Republicans in this Forum want the Constitution spit on, crumpled and burnt which explains so much about their character and lack of patriotism.

Patriots defend the Constitution they do not destroy it.

Yes they do which explains why un-patriotic liberals like you want to violate the Presidents inherent Constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Bullshit alert those situations were under totally different circumstances not in anyway involving the current NSA program, the cases today are far harder to prove probable cause then were cases involving the Soviet Union and other state actors and in those circumstances we were not attempting to put large volumes of cases through the FISA court at one time, the enemy today is far far different from the enemy of the past which the FISA act was designed to deal with, you're comparing apples and oranges. You're trying to fight Jet Fighters with bi-Planes.



Yes they do which explains why un-patriotic liberals like you want to violate the Presidents inherent Constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.

The President's Constitutional authority is limited by the following:

[SIZE=+1] The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
[/SIZE]
 
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

why should this extend to persons outside the country making phone calls into the country?
 
Doubtful, but it's things like this that explain why the terrorists celebrated the democratic voctory last week, isn't it?

Yea. The same way the Iranian revolutionaries celebrated in 1980 when Reagan was elected.

These people don't have the slightest understanding of the American political process or the American form of government, which, at least, is one thing they share in common with our President.
 
ProudAmerican said:
why should this extend to persons outside the country making phone calls into the country?

If the calls are coming into this country, then the person recieving them is on American soil. The warrant would therefore stipulate whether or not it is an American citizen who is being called, and whether or not the caller is indeed a terrorist suspect, or just somebody the executive branch just doesnt like for some reason (Remember the Alien and Sedition Acts?).

Its not hard to understand. The Fourth Amendment was created to prevent just these kinds of abuses by governmental authorities.
 
If the calls are coming into this country, then the person recieving them is on American soil.

correct. and the person making it isnt and is the member of a terrorist organization.

extending that person the same freedoms we as American citizens get is just nuts IMO.
 
danarhea said:
The President's Constitutional authority is limited by the following:


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[/size]

Key word "unreasonable" these searches are wholly reasonable.

There is a long precendence of the expansion of the President's Constitutional authority during wartime to conduct warrantless wiretapping dating back to Abraham Lincoln and the telegraph taps; furthermore, the Constitutional protections do not apply to people who are in this country with the soul purpose of killing its citizenry. Furthermore; in the Re Sealed Case the FISA court, found that the these surveillance techniques are well within the Presidents Constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, and again in Re Sealed Case No. 2 they found that even without the Presidents inherent authority that under the balancing test established in SCOTUS's Keith Decision that these wire taps are certainly reasonable IE the primary use of the warrantless search is to collect foreign intelligence as per presidential authority, rather than a warrantless search to gather evidence to use in a criminal trial. Are you honestly going to assert that wiretapping suspected AQ members to prevent future attacks within the United States constitutes as an unreasonable search?
 
Last edited:
wonder cow said:
Yea. The same way the Iranian revolutionaries celebrated in 1980 when Reagan was elected.

These people don't have the slightest understanding of the American political process or the American form of government, which, at least, is one thing they share in common with our President.
Good one! Excellent! Warrantless Bush will be one of his legacies.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
And if the Democrats get away with this the death of thousands of innocent Americans will be their legacy.

No. That is also part of Bush's legacy (He was president on 9/11/2001.). Along with the death of at least 3,000 innocent American Soldiers.

People who are so ready to give Government more power scare me. I distrust government and see no reason to expand the authority of the executive branch nor law enforcement.

But often, people have this view that all this stuff is being done to "bad guys" and "someone else", and they don't see it as affecting them.

But if they wait until they are personally affected by an encroaching government, it will be too late to do anything about it.
 
No. That is also part of Bush's legacy (He was president on 9/11/2001.). Along with the death of at least 3,000 innocent American Soldiers.

its a part of AMericas legacy, and innefective administrations for decades. Bush had less to do with it than anyone before him.

People who are so ready to give Government more power scare me. I distrust government and see no reason to expand the authority of the executive branch nor law enforcement.

fortunately thats not what anyone is condoning.

But often, people have this view that all this stuff is being done to "bad guys" and "someone else", and they don't see it as affecting them.

as soon as the government targets someone other than exactly who they say they are targeting, we should definately discuss this.

But if they wait until they are personally affected by an encroaching government, it will be too late to do anything about it.

why? how come it would be too late? do all our lega avenues all of a sudden dissapear because we decided it was a good thing to allow the government to eaves drop on terrorists?
 
wonder cow said:
No. That is also part of Bush's legacy (He was president on 9/11/2001.). Along with the death of at least 3,000 innocent American Soldiers.

Thank the Clinton-Gorelick wall for that which was erected in Clinton's as$ saving campaign in order to save him from the scrutiny of the foreign intelligence agencies in relation to his illegal campaign contributions from Red China, if not for the Clinton Gorelick wall then 9-11 would have been prevented. The Clinton-Gorelick wall prevented operation able danger from providing pertanent intel to the FBI in regards to the "Planes Operation," including the Mohammad Atta cell.
 
Last edited:
ProudAmerican said:
its a part of AMericas legacy, and innefective administrations for decades. Bush had less to do with it than anyone before him.

Bush was the president during 9/11. There is ample documentation that he was aware of an impending threat and did not respond appropriately.

ProudAmerican said:
fortunately thats not what anyone is condoning.

Sure it is. If you condone giving the Government more power, you condone giving the Government more power. There is no way around it.

The patriot act, along with congress finally authorizing Bush to ignore the 4th amendment this year, is “giving the government more power”.

If we throw our principals in the trash over the cowardly excuse, that oh my goodness, there are terrorist out to get us, then what good are our principals?

ProudAmerican said:
as soon as the government targets someone other than exactly who they say they are targeting, we should definately discuss this.

Right. You are exactly amongst those I described in my previous post.

ProudAmerican said:
why? how come it would be too late? do all our lega avenues all of a sudden dissapear because we decided it was a good thing to allow the government to eaves drop on terrorists?

No one said they couldn’t. Just get a warrant and keep the 4th amendment intact. I like the 4th amendment. The bill of rights would not be the same without it.

TOT said:
Thank the Clinton-Gorelick wall for that which was erected in Clinton's as$ saving campaign in order to save him from the scrutiny of the foreign intelligence agencies in relation to his illegal campaign contributions from Red China, if not for the Clinton Gorelick wall then 9-11 would have been prevented. The Clinton-Gorelick wall prevented operation able danger from providing pertanent intel to the FBI in regards to the "Planes Operation," including the Mohammad Atta cell.

Yes, TOT we know. Everything is Clinton’s fault.
 
Wonder Cow said:
Yes, TOT we know. Everything is Clinton’s fault.

Are you saying that the Clinton-Gorelick wall erected by Clinton and his Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, which prevented operation Able Danger from informing the FBI about the Mohammad Atta cell, is not Clinton's fault?

Then whose ****ing fault is it!!!??? Did aliens take over Clinton's brain and force him to erect that wall to save his own as$ in relation to his illegal campaign contributions from Red China?

Yes we know Wonder Cow Clinton is he who shall not be blamed.
 
wonder cow said:
Bush was the president during 9/11. There is ample documentation that he was aware of an impending threat and did not respond appropriately.

There was no more awareness of any threat than there had been for the preceeding years, yeah we knew Bin Laden wanted to strike again. But there was no actionable intelligence. However in the meantime Bush had order a 180 degree change in how we fought the terrorist, they just hit us before it could be enacted but it wouldn't have mattered, even Clarke admitted that was nothing the Bush adminsitration could have done to stop it by then.


The patriot act, along with congress finally authorizing Bush to ignore the 4th amendment this year, is “giving the government more power”.



No one said they couldn’t. Just get a warrant and keep the 4th amendment intact. I like the 4th amendment. The bill of rights would not be the same without it.

How do you know who to get a warrant on? This foreign signals intelligence. And why didn't we need warrants previously to do the exact same thing. We didn't have warrants when we tapped the telephone cable of the Soviet Union. What about Alrich Ames?
 
Stinger said:
How do you know who to get a warrant on? This foreign signals intelligence. And why didn't we need warrants previously to do the exact same thing. We didn't have warrants when we tapped the telephone cable of the Soviet Union. What about Alrich Ames?
Aldrich Ames was a member of the CIA...which means that he signed a release authorizing the tapping of his phone calls...something everyone in the CIA must do.

Therefore your "point" is moot and meaningless as are all arguments to defy the FISA Court. You know very well that you can get warrants AFTER the fact and that the Court approves virtually all requests.

The real question is why there are Americans who are so anti-Constitution and therefore so Un-American and Un-Patriotic?
 
ProudAmerican said:
correct. and the person making it isnt and is the member of a terrorist organization.

extending that person the same freedoms we as American citizens get is just nuts IMO.

We are not talking about whoever is outside of the US, but inside of it. There should be a warrant, and the warrant can stipulate whether or not the resident INSIDE the US is American or not, and whether the foreign call is suspicious or not. I wont trust the executive branch to use the power to wiretap without checks and balances. Once again, this goes back to the Alien and Sedition Acts, in which a Commander in Chief, John Adams, DID have unchecked unconstitutional powers, and used those powers to imprison his political enemies.
 
danarhea said:
We are not talking about whoever is outside of the US, but inside of it. There should be a warrant, and the warrant can stipulate whether or not the resident INSIDE the US is American or not, and whether the foreign call is suspicious or not. I wont trust the executive branch to use the power to wiretap without checks and balances. Once again, this goes back to the Alien and Sedition Acts, in which a Commander in Chief, John Adams, DID have unchecked unconstitutional powers, and used those powers to imprison his political enemies.

Well to bad for you that the SCOTUS already ruled in the Keith decision that a warrant isn't necessary if the wiretapping is done in relations to the inherent powers of the executive to conduct survelience but only if said wiretaps will not be used in a criminal prosecution. The FISA court ruled the same thing not once but twice. It's called a balancing test and warrants are only required if it would be unreasonable not to use them, I doubt that you can honestly assert that it is unreasonable to tap the phones of AQ suspects in an attempt to prevent attacks against U.S. interests at home and abroad.

This isn't even a 4th amendment issue, FISA is the standard and the precedent, the question is did these actions violate the FISA statute? The answer simply is no, not only does FISA violate the Presidents inherent power as Commander and Chief but FISA can be revised by further statute as is the case in this situation with the implemenation of the AUMF against terrorists. The FISA court has ruled on this question also. Furthermore; FISA doesn't apply in the first place because FISA only applies when the original target is located within the U.S. in these cases it is only the secondary targets that are located within the U.S..
 
Last edited:
Are you saying that the Clinton-Gorelick wall erected by Clinton and his Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, which prevented operation Able Danger from informing the FBI about the Mohammad Atta cell, is not Clinton's fault?

I’m saying that you, like many of the President’s supporters, dream up silly bullshit like this in order to deflect blame from Bush and maintain your idealistic view of him.

Yes we know Wonder Cow Clinton is he who shall not be blamed.

There is much to blame him for. And I don't particularly care for him. I think he's a dick.

How do you know who to get a warrant on?

It's called evidence. That is the traditional way to get a warrant. And I'm bit of a reactionary, a throw back, an old fashioned kind of guy.

There was no more awareness of any threat than there had been for the preceeding years

What was the name of that PDB?

And why didn't we need warrants previously to do the exact same thing.

We did. And in this special case, they could be obtained 72 hours after the fact.

We didn't have warrants when we tapped the telephone cable of the Soviet Union.

You would have to be more specific. I'm not sure what you are talking about.

If it occurred outside of the US, then you would not need a warrant. If within the US, and after the FISA regulations, it would have to have been in compliance with FISA.

What about Alrich Ames?

What about him? That investigation was conducted in compliance with FISA, from what I understand.

If not, it was wrong.

Do you people not like the 4th amendment?
 
Last edited:
Bush was the president during 9/11. There is ample documentation that he was aware of an impending threat and did not respond appropriately.

and every day on this very board he is accused of being a fear monger for responding appropriately. those with a political agenda will always find fault.

Sure it is. If you condone giving the Government more power, you condone giving the Government more power. There is no way around it.

im simply condoning the government be allowed to do what it has always done. it is people like you, with a political agenda, that want to limit the government in ways it has never been limited before.
are you going to contend that Bill Clinton never tapped the phone line of a terrorist?

Yes, TOT we know. Everything is Clinton’s fault.

so much of this mess is his fault. its unfortunate so many pare blinded by politics and wont admit it.
 
I’m saying that you, like many of the President’s supporters, dream up silly bullshit like this in order to deflect blame from Bush and maintain your idealistic view of him.

and you, like so many of Clintons supporters refuse to admit there was 8 years of innaction that helped lead to 9-11.

There is much to blame him for. And I don't particularly care for him. I think he's a dick.

you can hardly tell from the dance you are doing.

I stated

its a part of AMericas legacy, and innefective administrations for decades. Bush had less to do with it than anyone before him.

and you shot back with

Bush was the president during 9/11. There is ample documentation that he was aware of an impending threat and did not respond appropriately.

hardly a response showing your bi partisanship and willingness to place blame equally on everyone responsible.

I take it by your blame placing that the next time Bush tells us about an impending attack, I wont see you making any posts about what a "fear monger" he is?
 
and you, like so many of Clintons supporters refuse to admit there was 8 years of innaction that helped lead to 9-11.

Clinton had failings. No doubt. But based on my review of the available documentation, I place more blame on Bush.

you can hardly tell from the dance you are doing.

Really? Maybe some of you assume to much about my views.

hardly a response showing your bi partisanship

Oh let me make myself perfectly clear and make no mistake about it, I am not the least bit bipartisan. I dislike Bush a whole lot more than I dislike Clinton.

I wont see you making any posts about what a "fear monger" he is?

I think that it is clear that he is a fear monger.
 
Clinton had failings. No doubt. But based on my review of the available documentation, I place more blame on Bush.

8 years vs 8 months. yep its so easy to see how you could come to that conclusion.

Really? Maybe some of you assume to much about my views.

I can only know from what I read.

Oh let me make myself perfectly clear and make no mistake about it, I am not the least bit bipartisan. I dislike Bush a whole lot more than I dislike Clinton.

Thanks for clearing up what we already knew.

I think that it is clear that he is a fear monger.

of course you do!!

you complain that he didnt warn us about 9-11, and then call him a fear monger when he does warn us.

partisan nonsense. nothing more.
 
wonder cow said:
I’m saying that you, like many of the President’s supporters, dream up silly bullshit like this in order to deflect blame from Bush and maintain your idealistic view of him.

Sir nobody is dreaming this up the Clinton-Gorelick wall prevented our foreign intel agencies from disseminating pertinent information regarding the Atta cell to the FBI.


There is much to blame him for. And I don't particularly care for him. I think he's a dick.

He was a decent President in regards to Domestic policies but he was incredibly inebt and naive in regards to the threat of international terrorism.

It's called evidence. That is the traditional way to get a warrant. And I'm bit of a reactionary, a throw back, an old fashioned kind of guy.

The SCOTUS ruled in the Keith decision that there is no warrant requirement if the evidence gathered is not used in a criminal prosecution and if the warrant is conducted in the capacity of the Presidents inherent power to conduct surveillance through his roll as Commander in Chief.

What was the name of that PDB?

Almost identical to the one Clinton got:

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States: The following is the text of an item from the Presidential Daily Brief received by President William J. Clinton on December 4, 1998. Redacted material is indicated in brackets.

SUBJECT: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks

1. Reporting [-] suggests Bin Ladin and his allies are preparing for attacks in the US, including an aircraft hijacking to obtain the release of Shaykh 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and Muhammad Sadiq 'Awda. One source quoted a senior member of the Gama'at al-Islamiyya (IG) saying that, as of late October, the IG had completed planning for an operation in the US on behalf of Bin Ladin, but that the operation was on hold.A senior Bin Ladin operative from Saudi Arabia was to visit IG counterparts in the US soon thereafter to discuss options-perhaps including an aircraft hijacking.

IG leader Islambuli in late September was planning to hijack a US airliner during the "next couple of weeks" to free 'Abd al-Rahman and the other prisoners, according to what may be a different source.

The same source late last month said that Bin Ladin might implement plans to hijack US aircraft before the beginning of Ramadan on 20 December and that two members of the operational team had evaded security checks during a recent trial run at an unidentified New York airport. [-]

2. Some members of the Bin Ladin network have received hijack training, according to various sources, but no group directly tied to Bin Ladin's al-Qa'ida organization has ever carried out an aircraft hijacking.Bin Ladin could be weighing other types of operations against US aircraft.Accord-ing to [-] the IG in October obtained SA-7 missiles and intended to move them from Yemen into Saudi Arabia to shoot down an Egyptian plane or, if unsuccessful, a US military or civilian aircraft.

A [-] in October told us that unspecified "extremist elements" in Yemen had acquired SA-7s. [-]

3. [-] indicate the Bin Ladin organization or its allies are moving closer to implementing anti-US attacks at unspecified locations, but we do not know whether they are related to attacks on aircraft. A Bin Ladin associate in Sudan late last month told a colleague in Kandahar that he had shipped a group of containers to Afghanistan. Bin Ladin associates also talked about the movement of containers to Afghanistan before the East Africa bombings.

In other [-] Bin Ladin associates last month discussed picking up a package in Malaysia. One told his colleague in Malaysia that "they" were in the "ninth month [of pregnancy]."

An alleged Bin Ladin supporter in Yemen late last month remarked to his mother that he planned to work in "commerce" from abroad and said his impending "marriage," which would take place soon, would be a "surprise.""Commerce" and "marriage" often are codewords for terrorist attacks. [-]

We did. And in this special case, they could be obtained 72 hours after the fact.

I don't think I wrote what you responded to but I'll answer it, 72 hours is not enough time to make a case for probable cause, and in these cases it will be extremely difficult to even make a case for probable cause to the FISA court.

You would have to be more specific. I'm not sure what you are talking about.

If it occurred outside of the US, then you would not need a warrant. If within the US, and after the FISA regulations, it would have to have been in compliance with FISA.

It was a wiretap of the cable from the Soviet Union to the United States.

Furthermore; not only does FISA violate the Presidents inherent power as Commander and Chief but FISA can be revised by further statute as is the case in this situation with the implemenation of the AUMF against terrorists. The FISA court has ruled on this question also and has established in Re Sealed Case 1 and 2 that the wiretaps are perfectly within the guidelines of the FISA act.. Furthermore; FISA doesn't apply in the first place because FISA only applies when the original target is located within the U.S. in these cases it is only the secondary targets that are located within the U.S..

Do you people not like the 4th amendment?


Well to bad for you that the SCOTUS already ruled in the Keith decision that a warrant isn't necessary if the wiretapping is done in relations to the inherent powers of the executive to conduct survelience but only if said wiretaps will not be used in a criminal prosecution. The FISA court ruled the same thing not once but twice. It's called a balancing test and warrants are only required if it would be unreasonable not to use them, I doubt that you can honestly assert that it is unreasonable to tap the phones of AQ suspects in an attempt to prevent attacks against U.S. interests at home and abroad.

This isn't even a 4th amendment issue, FISA is the standard and the precedent, the question is did these actions violate the FISA statute? The answer simply is no, not only does FISA violate the Presidents inherent power as Commander and Chief but FISA can be revised by further statute as is the case in this situation with the implemenation of the AUMF against terrorists. The FISA court has ruled on this question also. Furthermore; FISA doesn't apply in the first place because FISA only applies when the original target is located within the U.S. in these cases it is only the secondary targets that are located within the U.S..
 
Back
Top Bottom