Liberal Judge Makes Intercepting Enemy Communications ILLEGAL

an increasing totalitarian regime!?

You're making Stalin laugh in his grave. Don't use words that are so excessive, because they lose their meaning.

 

I disagree that precedent says warrants aren't needed. If that's true, then what was FISA set up for? What do they do? No, I have no problem with the concept that some wiretaps are needed in todays world.

I do have a suspicion that the wiretaps are being done on a much wider scale than ever before, and that's why the administration didn't want to get the FISA approval, because they want to keep the scope of the operation secret.

So, in that sense, you are right, I don't like that concept. If the reason for not going thru FISA was to hide the fact that they are wiretapping in unprecendented numbers, yes, I would object to that, because that would be casting too wide a net.

But we don't really know how big this program is. If we assume it is with reason, if we assume it has not exponentially exploded in size, then there is no excuse IMO to bypass FISA. If the program has ballooned in size, I think the public ought to know that.

Dishonest? No, just a patriot concerned that we preserve our system.

 

Given the people that they are going after; who may change methods of communicating if they know they are being listened to, doesn't this make sense?

There has not been a single complaint that the program has overstepped its bounds. Congress has oversight over this, already.

Read page 17 of the ruling (hat tip to Opinion Journal):

Look at whom the plaintiffs admit who they are talking to. Don't you think its probably a good thing that, if NSA is listening, that they are. They ARE talking to suspected terrorists, after all. But, even at that, there is no proof that they were. Again; they theorized they may have been. They may not actually even be a party to a suit - but the suit goes through? Explain that one to me.

Pure sarcasm here; but we will not win cuz our beauocracy makes things more efficient.

 

Actually it would. If there's actaully any proof that this NSA spy program is catching people (that are convicted in a court of law) - and not just some "additional" thing they did after they had reasonable suspision and could have just gotten a warrant.

Where's the proof that they're catching people now that they couldn't without warrants?

 

The recent London incident is prime proof. They caught the terrorists at the AIRPORT - just in time; not at their caves or something Warrants take time.

But again, as lorien said, this thread isn't about warrants, it's about what we have to do to win this war.

 

Perhaps you don't understand big words like "convicted" and "proven" ... don't worry I'm sure enlgish class will get around to it sooner or later

PS: You going to answer all those questions?

 

No, I'm on my way to bed... otherwise I would.

Dude, those guys had explosives in their carry on. Is that enough proof that they were terrorists?

 

Clear conflict of interest has come to play into this NSA decision. Judge should have recused herself from the case (as have others with lesser conflict of interest issues. Her desire to overturn this case will make it far easier to get the appeal to go through and most likely overturned (which was probably inevitable anyways).

 

Our civial liberties are being sacrificed for the greater "security". I'm sure Stalin is laughing...at the irony.

I believe it was Franklin who said "Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither."

Please....look at the bigger picture and beyond what the biased American media says.


And all of this mess is because the administration wanted to avoid more "red tape". Like I said earlier, they can spy on whom ever they want, just have a warrant to do so instead of violating American's civil rights to privacy at their whim. There are other ways to track suspected terrorists than the "carpet bombing" method of surveilence on American's phone calls (and internet traffic!).

 

Do you really think Franklin knew about terrorist and suicide bombers back in the 18th century??? LOL no way he did!

Nowadays, safety BUYS the freedom.

True but not nearly as good, generally, and besides, advancing our effort in the war on terror is not a bad thing. Disabling our abilities to fight our enemies is TREASON!

 

Not as they are today, no. But the saying holds true. So you are saying that you would prefer a "Big Brother" nation as long as you were "safe"? You do realize that if that was the case, you wouldn't even be posting on this thread right now.

No one is disabling anything. If anything, they are increasing the effectiveness of it. Not only will they protect American's rights, but when they go to get a WARRANT they will be even more confident that they are going after a legitimate suspect. The only thing illegal and "unconstitutional" about it right now, is that Bush said "to hell with the law". They are just trying to make sure it is legal when they spy on someone.

Why can't you guys understand that concept. It's not hard.

 

Can you name a single "civil liberty" you feel you have given up?

Actually, that is a matter of controversy and I've covered it a number of times here for people who try to assert that somehow Ben Franklin would be opposed to going after terrorists.

The "American media" is liberal biased, therefore it is already in your favor.

Foriegn to domestic intercepts are already legal. One does not need a warrant to intercept this traffic. This case was not about domestic to domestic intercepts, therefore the premise of your statement is based upon a (deliberate? uninformed? fill in the blank?) notion. I do note though, that many a liberal has tried (unsuccessfully) to make it appear that the government is out spying on the average American citizen. After all, that sounds so much better (no matter how untrue) than the real fact, that they are intercepting foriegn to domestic messages from terrorists suspects.

 

Awake again... and you've conveniently "forgotten" to answer those questions you couldn't answer before

 

Actually, they were long answered. What you did was, put your own additional requirements in after they were answered.

speaking of:

Is that the same courtesy you give our troops?

 

The thing is, 'terrorism' is so globally defined that it could be anything. What if a future future future government abuses this act to spy on the opposition, saying that opposing against the government is an act of terror? I'm not saying that it is happening right now, but I think it is really important to set boundaries. My example sounds ScienceFiction and although I'm convinced that America is such a great democracy that it wouldn't allow it, it has happened in the past. The last thing you want is a government that can make changes without taking the responsibility for its actions. Power corrupts, therefore power needs to be controlled.

 

lmao...even our founders did worse at this. It's called the Alien Sedition Acts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Laws

They basically imprisoned many people of the Democratic-Republic party or kicked them out of the country. So if you know (as well as I), you'll know that this is hardly a bump in the road, and could easily be changed.

I take it to history buddy. Perhaps you would like to take a history tour through the Revolution era and Civil War era with me...doubt you would know as much.

Did you even watch the Senate meeting over this? There is no red-tape if the conversation is going outside of America...only when it's domestic, and that's not even been admitted. Frankly the program is flawed and needs to be reviewed ie legislator should work on making a program that is reviewed after the tap is committed, penalize those whom abuse. Something similiar to this was suggested at the Senate meeting.

 

If anybody cares, it was wiretapping that caught the Brooklyn Bridge plot...

 

It seems like there's principle vs praticality approach in here....too bad some people don't see there's an avenue where they meet. I'd hate to live in either a: fully principled country without a practical foundation or a fully practical country without principle.

 

I beg to differ. Unless this appeal goes through, I hardly consider the need to get a warrant granted first, which can take weeks to months, not disabling a way to catch terrorists. We need to know things about our enemies ASAP to stop something from attacking us.

...and the warrant will come after the attack has already happened. As shown in the case with the liquid explosives recently and the Brooklyn Bridge further back, there is NOT TIME to get a warrant!

When fighting a war, we need to do what it takes to win.

Why can't you guys understand this concept? It's not hard.

 

More happy times for america! Apparently senior citizens are now arrested for telling (distasteful) jokes and charged with terrorizing!

http://news.mainetoday.com/updates/006833.html