Wiretapping and National Security

[Jim]

Depth?

Our government is listening in on phone conversations that involve people in America. He should have a warrant. I don't care who's done it before. I really don't. I don't think there's a whole lot of depth to look into, unless of course you find a flaw within the sentence in bold.



Appreciated.

There are two issues:

1. Is it legal.
2. Is it right.

With respect to #1, I've not heard any meaningful distinction of the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case and it seems to me that eavesdropping on enemy communications into the United States is a "fundamental incident" of war. The Congressmen who complain about this argument speak to their subjective intent when the force resolution. This, of course, is irrelevant.

With respect to #2, I agree it is not good policy to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens without a warrant unless absolutely essential. The administration is hamstrung in explaining the need publically as that would compromise the program. I can speculate as to the need for a more agile response but that is all I can do.

I will say that FISA has a gaping hole in that it only allows warrants on communications with US citizens who are agents of foreign powers. You may recall that in 3/01, Atta (i think it was him) emailed 31 flight schools in the US. Now, imagine those as telephone calls (not sure if the program applies to emails or not) and imagine that we knew Atta was a terrorist. Under FISA no warrant could issue because the US recepients were not agents of foreign powers.

 

[KCConservative]

I have no guess as to whether it will be found legal or illegal. But regardless of how it comes down, I'm grateful we were keeping tabs on the terrorists by wiretapping and I hope it continues.

 

[Jim]

I have no guess as to whether it will be found legal or illegal. But regardless of how it comes down, I'm grateful we were keeping tabs on the terrorists by wiretapping and I hope it continues.

I'd still be interested in how those with strong feelings on the lawfulness issue distinguish Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. I've not heard an argument as of yet.

I would prefer that we get warrants if that is feasible. However, I suspect that we need a more agile response as an early warning type of system. I doubt that we'll really get the info necessary to make a judgment on that point.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

The 'sentence in bold' is fine except that it is an incomplete description of the events that are transpiring. A more complete sentence would be something like,

"Our government is listening in on phone conversations that involve people in America as one party to the communication while the other party to the communication is outside the US and there is probable cause to suspect this second party is affiliated with al Qaeda, which makes this call important to US national security."

That is fine, but I would argue that the rhetoric "affiliated with al Qaeda" could not be checked by a judge to ensure no abuse of power. There is no way for judge's to ensure anything because they are being kept out of this flow.

Now, if a call such as being referred to in this sentence is from a phone that we have known about previously, then we will most likely have obtained a warrant thru the FISA Court and will be sitting on that phone with a warrant, just waiting for communication to take place.

But, if we have just learned about this phone from, say, the phone or laptop harddrive captured on the battlefield from another al Qaeda type, then we want to 'go up' (as the signal intel guys call it) on the the phone as quickly as possible. Why? Because we know that as word gets around about who was captured and/or whose laptop was lost, etc., those phones will be quickly abandoned. Consequently, time is of the essence. We can't wait the hours or days necessary to go thru the FISA warrant process. We know that sufficient probable cause exists, almost by definition: we did recover the phone number on the battlefield from a known terrorist - the guy was shooting at us or attempting an ambush or sniping or etc, etc. When this set of circumstances is presented to a senior colonel at NSA, and appropriate assurances are in hand with regard to identity, probable cause, minimization of invasiveness, and other program civil liberty safeguards, NSA can almost immediately go up on that phone and have a chance at obtaining valuable intel.

I believe that the 72 hour rule is most efficiently used in this case. Inform a judge about it. If there are preliminary obstacles that endanger Americans, take care of those obstacles, but a judge should in some way at some point ASAP approve the legality of the wiretap. With probable cause, a police officer can search a van and later that search is reviewed to check the legality of the search. That's what I'm asking.

In other words, just saying that one end of the call is in the US is clearly and unequivocally insufficient recognition of the entire set of circumstances.

I can agree with that, and I apologize if such a thing is necessary.

 

[oldreliable67]

the rhetoric "affiliated with al Qaeda" could not be checked by a judge to ensure no abuse of power.

With probable cause, a police officer can search a van and later that search is reviewed to check the legality of the search. That's what I'm asking.

Please note that with a vehicle stop and search, the review is done by the on-the-scene officer's immediate superior, unless an arrest results, in which case, the circumstances are reviewed by the district attorney's office. In neither case is there judicial review. Furthermore, there are a number of other warrantless searches whose level of 'probable cause' are significantly less than those encountered on the battlefield.

In fact, a major enabling factor in this whole exercise is the strength of probable cause: this is battlefield intelligence. That means that any phone numbers, e-mails etc., that are recovered are recovered, well, on the battlefield. If I'm being shot at, and I recover a cell phone or hard drive from that guy that was trying to kill me or my buddies, then he is, or was, most certainly an enemy and highly likely affiliated with al Qaeda. Granted, in Iraq, not every insurgent is al Qaeda; this is where the battalion S2 guys earn their big bucks. If an al Qaeda affiliation is suspected, the situation goes up to NSA, where procedures are in place 1) to affirm or deny that affiliation, and 2) make sure that the prescribed minimization procedures are adhered to, thus providing a higher level of protection against abuse of power than in most warrantless searches here in the US.

Conclusion: the circustances giving rise to the identification of a suspected al Qaeda communication appears much stronger with respect to probable cause and protection of civil liberties than a police search following a vehicle stop, or a warrantless search in virtually any of the other situations in which warrantless searches are permitted in the US.

 

[Billo_Really]

It is interesting that Bush's State of the Union speech emphasized spreading freedom around the world and almost in the same breath he is restricting freedom at home by violating the 4th Amendment.

 

[Jim]

I believe that the 72 hour rule is most efficiently used in this case. Inform a judge about it. If there are preliminary obstacles that endanger Americans, take care of those obstacles, but a judge should in some way at some point ASAP approve the legality of the wiretap. With probable cause, a police officer can search a van and later that search is reviewed to check the legality of the search. That's what I'm asking..

The 72 hour notice doesn't address FISA's requirement that the recipient of the communication must be an agent of a foreign power.

Also, you are assuming that the warrant process is agile enough to find a needle of a relevant message in a haystack of spam.

 

[Jim]

It is interesting that Bush's State of the Union speech emphasized spreading freedom around the world and almost in the same breath he is restricting freedom at home by violating the 4th Amendment.

I repeat: How do you distinguish the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld decision in 2004 by the US Supreme Court? If you can't, are you sure it's a violation?

Could the violation be that of congress seeking to usurp powers given the executive in the Constitution? Why isn't this even considered?

 

[Billo_Really]

Orginally posted by Jim
I repeat: How do you distinguish the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld decision in 2004 by the US Supreme Court? If you can't, are you sure it's a violation?

Could the violation be that of congress seeking to usurp powers given the executive in the Constitution? Why isn't this even considered?

The only powers the President has is the ones Congress gives him. Congress makes the laws, the Executive branch is supposed to Administer them. Not break them.

 

[oldreliable67]

It is interesting that Bush's State of the Union speech emphasized spreading freedom around the world and almost in the same breath he is restricting freedom at home by violating the 4th Amendment.

Not everyone believes that he is violating the 4th Amendment.

 

[Jim]

The only powers the President has is the ones Congress gives him. Congress makes the laws, the Executive branch is supposed to Administer them. Not break them.

The Constituion is the supreme law of the land and, in fact, the Executive branch does have its own Constitutional powers.

In this case, the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case suggests that it is not necessary to use those powers but, instead, the executive can properly rely on the authorization of force resolution. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-6696

The threshold question before us is whether the Executive has the authority to detain citizens who qualify as "enemy combatants." There is some debate as to the proper scope of this term, and the Government has never provided any court with the full criteria that it uses in classifying individuals as such. It has made clear, however, that, for purposes of this case, the "enemy combatant" that it is seeking to detain is an individual who, it alleges, was " 'part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners' " in Afghanistan and who " 'engaged in an armed conflict against the United States' " there. Brief for Respondents 3. We therefore answer only the narrow question before us: whether the detention of citizens falling within that definition is authorized.

The Government maintains that no explicit congressional authorization is required, because the Executive possesses plenary authority to detain pursuant to Article II of the Constitution. We do not reach the question whether Article II provides such authority, however, because we agree with the Government's alternative position, that Congress has in fact authorized Hamdi's detention, through the AUMF.

Our analysis on that point, set forth below, substantially overlaps with our analysis of Hamdi's principal argument for the illegality of his detention. He posits that his detention is forbidden by 18 U. S. C. §4001(a). Section 4001(a) states that "[n]o citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." Congress passed §4001(a) in 1971 as part of a bill to repeal the Emergency Detention Act of 1950, 50 U. S. C. §811 et seq., which provided procedures for executive detention, during times of emergency, of individuals deemed likely to engage in espionage or sabotage. Congress was particularly concerned about the possibility that the Act could be used to reprise the Japanese internment camps of World War II. H. R. Rep. No. 92-116 (1971); id., at 4 ("The concentration camp implications of the legislation render it abhorrent"). The Government again presses two alternative positions. First, it argues that §4001(a), in light of its legislative history and its location in Title 18, applies only to "the control of civilian prisons and related detentions," not to military detentions. Brief for Respondents 21. Second, it maintains that §4001(a) is satisfied, because Hamdi is being detained "pursuant to an Act of Congress"--the AUMF. Id., at 21-22. Again, because we conclude that the Government's second assertion is correct, we do not address the first. In other words, for the reasons that follow, we conclude that the AUMF is explicit congressional authorization for the detention of individuals in the narrow category we describe (assuming, without deciding, that such authorization is required), and that the AUMF satisfied §4001(a)'s requirement that a detention be "pursuant to an Act of Congress" (assuming, without deciding, that §4001(a) applies to military detentions).

This is why I keep asking how that case can be distinguished.

 

[ProudAmerican]

I will say that FISA has a gaping hole in that it only allows warrants on communications with US citizens who are agents of foreign powers. You may recall that in 3/01, Atta (i think it was him) emailed 31 flight schools in the US. Now, imagine those as telephone calls (not sure if the program applies to emails or not) and imagine that we knew Atta was a terrorist. Under FISA no warrant could issue because the US recepients were not agents of foreign powers.

amazing!!!!

I cant believe any American would want this.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Jim
The Constituion is the supreme law of the land and, in fact, the Executive branch does have its own Constitutional powers.

In this case, the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case suggests that it is not necessary to use those powers but, instead, the executive can properly rely on the authorization of force resolution.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...&invol=03-6696

Quote:
The threshold question before us is whether the Executive has the authority to detain citizens who qualify as "enemy combatants." There is some debate as to the proper scope of this term, and the Government has never provided any court with the full criteria that it uses in classifying individuals as such. It has made clear, however, that, for purposes of this case, the "enemy combatant" that it is seeking to detain is an individual who, it alleges, was " 'part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners' " in Afghanistan and who " 'engaged in an armed conflict against the United States' " there. Brief for Respondents 3. We therefore answer only the narrow question before us: whether the detention of citizens falling within that definition is authorized.

The Government maintains that no explicit congressional authorization is required, because the Executive possesses plenary authority to detain pursuant to Article II of the Constitution. We do not reach the question whether Article II provides such authority, however, because we agree with the Government's alternative position, that Congress has in fact authorized Hamdi's detention, through the AUMF.

Our analysis on that point, set forth below, substantially overlaps with our analysis of Hamdi's principal argument for the illegality of his detention. He posits that his detention is forbidden by 18 U. S. C. §4001(a). Section 4001(a) states that "[n]o citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." Congress passed §4001(a) in 1971 as part of a bill to repeal the Emergency Detention Act of 1950, 50 U. S. C. §811 et seq., which provided procedures for executive detention, during times of emergency, of individuals deemed likely to engage in espionage or sabotage. Congress was particularly concerned about the possibility that the Act could be used to reprise the Japanese internment camps of World War II. H. R. Rep. No. 92-116 (1971); id., at 4 ("The concentration camp implications of the legislation render it abhorrent"). The Government again presses two alternative positions. First, it argues that §4001(a), in light of its legislative history and its location in Title 18, applies only to "the control of civilian prisons and related detentions," not to military detentions. Brief for Respondents 21. Second, it maintains that §4001(a) is satisfied, because Hamdi is being detained "pursuant to an Act of Congress"--the AUMF. Id., at 21-22. Again, because we conclude that the Government's second assertion is correct, we do not address the first. In other words, for the reasons that follow, we conclude that the AUMF is explicit congressional authorization for the detention of individuals in the narrow category we describe (assuming, without deciding, that such authorization is required), and that the AUMF satisfied §4001(a)'s requirement that a detention be "pursuant to an Act of Congress" (assuming, without deciding, that §4001(a) applies to military detentions).

This is why I keep asking how that case can be distinguished.

I am completely against this concept of "enemy combatants" not being afforded Geneva Convention provisions. Alberto Gonzales redefined these terms just so we could torture people and I find that appauling. That is not what this country is about. Nor is it spreading aggression around the world. We have checks and balances in place that prevent any of the three branches of government from taking over. We have laws we must adhere too. We must hold the President accountable for the crimes he commits. We cannot look the other way when the following is being done in our name:

Many Guantanamo detainees not tied to 'hostile acts'
Thursday February 9, 10:36 AM

More than half of the US "war on terror" detainees at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba prison camp never committed any "hostile acts" against the United States, two lawyers said in a report.

Based on an analysis of government documents regarding the more than 500 people held at the US naval prison facility, lawyers Mark Denbeaux and Joshua Denbeaux estimated that 55 percent "are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies".

Moreover, they said that only eight percent of the detainees were characterized in the documents as Al-Qaeda fighters, while 60 "are detained merely because they are 'associated with' a group or groups the (US) government asserts are terrorist organizations".

The lawyers, who represent two Guantanamo detainees, noted that only seven percent of the 500 detainees had been captured by US and coalition forces.

Of the rest, 47 percent were turned over to the United States by Pakistan and Afghan Northern Coalition forces, and the captors of another 44 percent held were unknown.

The study suggests that at least some of these detainees were turned over to US forces by bounty hunters and reward-seekers without verification of the detainee's status.

In the wake of the October, 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, US forces offered "millions of dollars" for the capture of Al-Qaeda and Taliban members

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/060209/1/3ykqq.html

 

[aquapub]

I am completely against this concept of "enemy combatants" not being afforded Geneva Convention provisions. Alberto Gonzales redefined these terms just so we could torture people and I find that appauling. That is not what this country is about. Nor is it spreading aggression around the world. We have checks and balances in place that prevent any of the three branches of government from taking over. We have laws we must adhere too. We must hold the President accountable for the crimes he commits. We cannot look the other way when the following is being done in our name:

We cannot look the other way while the ACLU and their liberal supporters try to talk our government out of using common sense in preventing terrorist attacks. Aggressive interrogation is not torture. And it is necessary. You people need to stop falsely demonizing those trying to protect us.

Let it be YOUR family be put in eminent danger by terror-friendly, hippy policies and delusional assertions about Constitutional rights for foreign terrorists.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Please note that with a vehicle stop and search, the review is done by the on-the-scene officer's immediate superior, unless an arrest results, in which case, the circumstances are reviewed by the district attorney's office. In neither case is there judicial review.

The search's premises are always reviewed in a court of law. If it was a bogus search, the judge will rule evidence obtained as inadmissable. There is a check for unjust searches.

Furthermore, there are a number of other warrantless searches whose level of 'probable cause' are significantly less than those encountered on the battlefield.

Like what?

In fact, a major enabling factor in this whole exercise is the strength of probable cause: this is battlefield intelligence. That means that any phone numbers, e-mails etc., that are recovered are recovered, well, on the battlefield. If I'm being shot at, and I recover a cell phone or hard drive from that guy that was trying to kill me or my buddies, then he is, or was, most certainly an enemy and highly likely affiliated with al Qaeda. Granted, in Iraq, not every insurgent is al Qaeda; this is where the battalion S2 guys earn their big bucks. If an al Qaeda affiliation is suspected, the situation goes up to NSA, where procedures are in place 1) to affirm or deny that affiliation, and 2) make sure that the prescribed minimization procedures are adhered to, thus providing a higher level of protection against abuse of power than in most warrantless searches here in the US.

Conclusion: the circustances giving rise to the identification of a suspected al Qaeda communication appears much stronger with respect to probable cause and protection of civil liberties than a police search following a vehicle stop, or a warrantless search in virtually any of the other situations in which warrantless searches are permitted in the US.

Nothing to say that I haven't already said.

 

[battleax86]

I am completely against this concept of "enemy combatants" not being afforded Geneva Convention provisions.

I'd say we're affording them better provisions than they would have gotten in previous wars. If they had tried this any time before the 1970s, they would have been executed for not wearing uniforms or belonging to an official national entity. Now, we're all but bending over backwards to accommodate their religious requirements, dietary restrictions, etc.

Alberto Gonzales redefined these terms just so we could torture people and I find that appauling.

If there were serious evidence of torture, Bush would have been impeached for breaking the law by now.

That is not what this country is about. Nor is it spreading aggression around the world.

Nor is it giving our enemies access to our domestic courts or granting them the same rights granted to every American citizen.

We have checks and balances in place that prevent any of the three branches of government from taking over.

Tell me, who's keeping the judiciary in check at the moment?

We have laws we must adhere too. We must hold the President accountable for the crimes he commits.

And when he commits a crime, we will.

We cannot look the other way when the following is being done in our name:

You posted the estimate of two defense lawyers who are working for Guantanamo detainees. They're not exactly reliable sources, but even if everything they say is true, the vast majority of them are tied to terrorist organizations.

 

[oldreliable67]

The search's premises are always reviewed in a court of law. If it was a bogus search, the judge will rule evidence obtained as inadmissable. There is a check for unjust searches.

My impression is: only if a prosecutor takes the case to court, or if the person whose car or property was searched files a suit. Remember, the first thing that has to happen is for someone to be charged with a crime. Charges are levyed by the District Attorney; there is the first hurdle of legitimacy for a non-warrant search. If insufficient evidence, no charge. Otherwise, there is no reason for a judge to examine the results or reasons for a search. But I'm not a lawyer...

Like what?

Oh, like airport seaches, searches of open fields, and others. Here is a partial list:

Consent searches. If the police ask your permission to search your home, purse, briefcase or other property, and you agree, the search is considered consensual, and they don't need a warrant. The police typically obtain a person's consent by threatening to detain her while they obtain the warrant.
Searches that accompany an arrest. When a person is placed under arrest, the police may search the person and the immediate surroundings for weapons that might be used to harm the officer. If the person is taken to jail, the police may search to make sure that weapons or contraband are not brought into the jail. (This is called an inventory search.) Inventory searches also frequently involve a search of the arrested person's car (if it is being held by the police) and personal effects on the theory that the police need a precise record of the person's property to avoid claims of theft.
Searches necessary to protect the safety of the public. The police don't need a warrant if they have a reasonable fear that their safety, or that of the public, is in imminent danger. For example, an officer who suspected a bomb-making operation while walking his beat might be justified in entering immediately and seizing the ingredients. And in the famous O.J. Simpson case, the police justified their entry onto O.J. Simpson's property on the grounds that they feared for the safety of other family members.
Searches necessary to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence. A police officer does not need to obtain a warrant if she has observed illegal items (such as weapons or contraband) and believes that the items will disappear unless the officer takes prompt action. This exception arises most frequently when the police spot contraband or weapons in a car. Because cars are moved so frequently, the officer is justified in searching the entire vehicle, including the trunk, without obtaining a warrant. On the other hand, if the police learn about a marijuana-growing operation from a neighbor, they usually would need a warrant, as it is unlikely that the growing plants and other evidence of the operation will disappear quickly enough to justify a warrantless search.
"Hot pursuit" searches. Police may enter private dwellings to search for criminals who are fleeing the scene of a crime.

Source.

 

[aquapub]

There is plenty of validity in citing the Constitution on due process, search and seizure, and civil liberties in general...if you are dealing with criminals. The problem is that we are dealing with enemies in a war-most often, enemies who aren't even citizens of this country and have no constitutional rights to begin with.

Democrats suspended certain rights of Japanese-Americans during WWII. It was the right move for our security in a time of war.

Lincoln broadly suspended people's rights by declaring marshal law during the Civil War.

There is nothing new and nothing illegal about what Bush is done here.

 

[Jim]

The search's premises are always reviewed in a court of law. If it was a bogus search, the judge will rule evidence obtained as inadmissable. There is a check for unjust searches.

Should we require Courts to review electronic searches at airports or on entering a federal courthouse?

Hamdi anyone?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by battleax86
I'd say we're affording them better provisions than they would have gotten in previous wars. If they had tried this any time before the 1970s, they would have been executed for not wearing uniforms or belonging to an official national entity. Now, we're all but bending over backwards to accommodate their religious requirements, dietary restrictions, etc.

Is that why we are force-feeding them at GITMO against the rules of the Geneva Conventions.

Originally posted by battleax86
If there were serious evidence of torture, Bush would have been impeached for breaking the law by now.

If you don't see evidence of torture now, then you are as blind as a bat.

Originally posted by battleax86
Nor is it giving our enemies access to our domestic courts or granting them the same rights granted to every American citizen.

"We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men..." All means all.

Originally posted by battleax86
Tell me, who's keeping the judiciary in check at the moment?

Judiciery doesn't make the laws. It just interpret's them.

Originally posted by battleax86
And when he commits a crime, we will.

He has committed many. Like starting a war prior to Congressional authorization.

Originally posted by battleax86
You posted the estimate of two defense lawyers who are working for Guantanamo detainees. They're not exactly reliable sources, but even if everything they say is true, the vast majority of them are tied to terrorist organizations.

Care to post the proof that the opposite is really the case? Or am I supposed to take your word for it?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by aquapub
We cannot look the other way while the ACLU and their liberal supporters try to talk our government out of using common sense in preventing terrorist attacks. Aggressive interrogation is not torture. And it is necessary. You people need to stop falsely demonizing those trying to protect us.

Let it be YOUR family be put in eminent danger by terror-friendly, hippy policies and delusional assertions about Constitutional rights for foreign terrorists

I don't care who you are or what you are accused of, everyone on this planet deserves the right of due process of law.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

My impression is: only if a prosecutor takes the case to court, or if the person whose car or property was searched files a suit. Remember, the first thing that has to happen is for someone to be charged with a crime. Charges are levyed by the District Attorney; there is the first hurdle of legitimacy for a non-warrant search. If insufficient evidence, no charge. Otherwise, there is no reason for a judge to examine the results or reasons for a search. But I'm not a lawyer...

This is true, but all the same in such a situation the accused would walk just as he would if the DA to took the case to court betting on evidence obtained in an illegal search.

Oh, like airport seaches,

While federally regulated, airports are privately owned and have the right to their own security. On top of that you have the right to refuse such a search at an airport and default not to get on airplaine.

searches of open fields

Not if it's private property, and if they are looking through a field, chances are they have a good reason to do so on tax payer dollars and time.

Source.

All things mentioned in your list have some form of probable cause. For instance, if the police officer cannot prove that there was an imminent danger and he breaks in the door of Ted Kacznski, then he just killed any hope of effectively prosecuting him.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Should we require Courts to review electronic searches at airports or on entering a federal courthouse?

You have the right to decline such searches, and to leave the airport or courthouse.

 

[battleax86]

Is that why we are force-feeding them at GITMO against the rules of the Geneva Conventions.

We're force-feeding them at Gitmo because we don't want them to DIE. Or were you under the impression that food is the new torture device?

If you don't see evidence of torture now, then you are as blind as a bat.

No, I just know how to wade through the BS when I see it.

"We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men..." All means all.

To begin with, that's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Secondly, if all men being created equal means treating all men equally, why don't we let Osama bin Laden or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or anybody else from the Muslim world vote in our elections? All means all, does it not?

The reason that these people don't get a vote is because they are not American citizens, nor do they carry the rights and responsibilities that being an American citizen entails. They do not have the right to enter our country without our permission. They do not have the right to stay without our permission. They do not have the right to work without our permission. They have the rights and responsibilities that being a resident alien entails. Likewise, al-Qaeda detainees at Gitmo or anywhere else have the rights of illegal enemy combatants. Those rights do not include the same access to American courts that is granted to American citizens.

Judiciery doesn't make the laws. It just interpret's them.

That's their designed function, yes. Unfortunately, the courts have taken to creating laws by spinning strange interpretations of prior laws, making them say whatever they want them to say in order to force certain types of laws upon their jurisdictions. Tell me, who is keeping the judiciary in check?

He has committed many. Like starting a war prior to Congressional authorization.

Which war would that be? Congress passed authorization of force resolutions in regard to both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Care to post the proof that the opposite is really the case? Or am I supposed to take your word for it?

You're supposed to take my word for it as much I'm supposed to take the word of two defense attorneys representing enemy combatants.

 

[Billo_Really]

Were getting off topic here. If you want to debate the torture issue of enemy combatants, go to the appropriate thread and I will be more than happy to discuss it there. So I will go one more round with you here.

Originally Posted by battleax86
We're force-feeding them at Gitmo because we don't want them to DIE. Or were you under the impression that food is the new torture device?

It is against International Law to force-feed prisoners.

Originally Posted by battleax86
No, I just know how to wade through the BS when I see it.

That's the problem. All you want to see is BS.

Originally Posted by battleax86
To begin with, that's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Secondly, if all men being created equal means treating all men equally, why don't we let Osama bin Laden or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or anybody else from the Muslim world vote in our elections? All means all, does it not?

The reason that these people don't get a vote is because they are not American citizens, nor do they carry the rights and responsibilities that being an American citizen entails. They do not have the right to enter our country without our permission. They do not have the right to stay without our permission. They do not have the right to work without our permission. They have the rights and responsibilities that being a resident alien entails. Likewise, al-Qaeda detainees at Gitmo or anywhere else have the rights of illegal enemy combatants. Those rights do not include the same access to American courts that is granted to American citizens.

If you can't distinguish between human rights and voting rights then yes, you got me, I do not want UBL voting in my country's elections. As for GITMO, the rules of the Geneva Conventions apply to everyone that is detained.

Originally Posted by battleax86
That's their designed function, yes. Unfortunately, the courts have taken to creating laws by spinning strange interpretations of prior laws, making them say whatever they want them to say in order to force certain types of laws upon their jurisdictions. Tell me, who is keeping the judiciary in check?

I have answered that in theory. In reality, I do not know the answer.

Originally Posted by battleax86
Which war would that be? Congress passed authorization of force resolutions in regard to both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Bush started bombing Iraq in the spring of 2002. A full nine months before authorization from Congress.

Originally Posted by battleax86
You're supposed to take my word for it as much I'm supposed to take the word of two defense attorneys representing enemy combatants.

That's a cop out.

There's a thread titled, "Bush approves use of torture". Go to that thread if you want to respond. Otherwise, lets get back to the debate on wiretapping.