Liberal Judge Makes Intercepting Enemy Communications ILLEGAL

Exactly.

They'll make any excuse to erode and encroach upon personal liberty if there's a small chance, it might, someday, possibly, stop a terrorist.

I hate to tell you guys this, but if there were actually that many "freedom hating" terrorists we'd already have been attacked many more times.

All a foreign terrorist has to do is go to south/central america and walk across the border to get into the country. A home made bomb can be constructed from household chemicals you can buy at any walmart or home depot store. And that doesn't even cover these "domestic" home grown terrorists.

Get real!

 

What rights are being suspended? The rights to ask an al-qaeda member the weather in his cave?

 

Our constitutional right not to be spied on without a warrant.

 

Yeah what kind of answer is that?

Please, trying to pigeon hole this down to a yes or no answer is a weak strategy at best. What's wrong with my answer besides the fact that you can't find any flaw in it?

Furthermore, show me one statement, just one, I've made in this thread that upholds any opinion but the answer I've given you. You can't.... know why? Because saying someone is a flip flopper doesn't make them one. Stop asking about windage and show me your example of where I said I am against wiretapping.

One more time in case you missed my answer, we know how you like to overlook things:

GTech look at how ridiculous you look in this reply. The whole thing is spent trying to make me look like my name is George Kerry... when frankly I gave you the answer in the very post you're replying to! I cannot teach you any further young padawan. I've told you time and time again that you can't pigeon hole me with your classic anti-liberal comebacks. With me... you have to actually address what I'm saying directly else you'll continue to look like a foolish party line tower not to be taken seriously just like this time.

 

I think the fact the some right wing nutjobs on this thread are forgetting is it is not about the fact the judge ruled the spying illegal, it is the spying without a warrant that is illegal. Of all the years the NSA has been "spying", trying to find potential threats, they always went to a judge a got a warrant to actually "spy" on that person. This administration went around that, they ignored the other branches and did their own thing. That is unconstitutional. And there have only been about 8 times when a warrant was not granted. 8!!! Out of how many thousands?

I find it ironic that the right wing nutjobs here would want the administration to have the same power and freedom to do what they want.....just like the terrorists and dictators do in their own countries. Hmmm.....that is really funny. So who is supporting fascist regimes and terrorists?

It all comes down to ensuring, no matter what, that American's personal freedoms are protected and secured. Take that away, and this country goes to shit really fast.

And of course their are some left wing nutjobs here that wouldn't help the situation either.

 

So you are calling al qaeda all the time then, is that your problem?

 

Reread my post. No, never mind, I'll repeat myself.
FISA would approve a warrant, they do on a regular basis approve such warrants. They very rarely deny them. In todays circumstances they would probably be even more inclined to approve the warrants, and I expect that considering what's going on in the world today.

Even more important, as I already pointed out, the law allows wiretapping to begin without the warrant. They just have to submit the request after the wiretapping has begun. The terrorists are NOT given more time while the warrant is being approved.

Are you unaware of these facts? Are you ignoring them?

And if you were anticipating my response, I think you are spending too much time here.

 

The issue is not about warrants at all. The issue brought before the "judge" was that journalists (and some others) said they couldn't do their job because they were being theoretically listened to while they were on calls overseas. Since they do not know if warrants were issued (since they are not made public), they do not know about that.

The issue is the entire concept of listening in on calls going to al qaeda. That is what the judge stopped - warrants issued or not, she tried to nix the whole thing.

 

And what did she state her grounds were for "nixing the whole thing"?

 

Precisely.

Liberty > Security ALWAYS

You take that away and you've let the terrorists win. Some people here (like compuxp, gtech and lorien) are fear mongering and supporting what the terrorists want - for the people to be scared into giving up freedom.

 

The same guy like this?

"The US and Israel Stand Alone"

[SIZE=-1]Former US president Jimmy Carter speaks with DER SPIEGEL about the danger posed to American values by George W. Bush, the difficult situation in the Middle East and Cuba's ailing Fidel Castro[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Read here[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]I'm not american nor Israeli but for Israel[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]He's got caught left handed [/SIZE]

 

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor wrote that the program violates First and Fourth Amendments by monitoring communications without warrants.

Please note the "without warrants" part. The judge cannot nix the whole thing. She only said it's a violation of the law if they don't get warrants.

If the get the warrants, no problem.

 

Like I've said for a long time... shredding up the constitution and acting like a dick-tator.

 

Taking these one at a time. No fourth amendment rights are being broken. This is an intelligence gathering exercise, no court proceedings are being brought up using the information. It is for gathering intelligence; that is the business this program is in. No one is being denied their liberty. Congress knows this is going on, simply has not acted on it (for whatever reason). No specific cases of abuse have been alleged. The people who brought the suit simply theorized their rights were being violated.

First amendment rights are not being violated either. The suit alleges that since this is going on, contacts are less willing to talk since they may be listened to. Since no one would know its happening (save Congress) if the NYT didn't post a story about it, maybe the suit should have been brought against them, for creating this chilling effect in the first place. Quite simply, No one is being prevented from talking on the phone.

I know yo-yo thinks all investigations should start after the bombs go off and people are already killed, admitting to this yesterday, but that is not a way to defend this country. This isn't a police action.

Before yesterday, not a single court in this country said the President lacked the ability to do this. In fact, other presidents have used the power without any lawsuit coming into play. Until the ACLU (backed by CAIR) stepped in. Purely political motivation. Judge shopping. The usual.

There is even a 2002 precedent supporting this! Which, the "judge" failed to note in her 44 page "opinion"

The president is far more accountable for this, as he is elected. If people die because of her opinion, she isn't accountable to anyone at all.

 

Taking them both at once, I'm sure that judge knows more than you pretty boy

I never said this. Get a fucking warrant and stay within the constitution.

Spying on american citizens for nothing more than being "suspect" is no way to defend this country. They want around the warrants so they don't have to present any evidence or reasonable suspicion, just any suspecion at all is supposed to be good enough.

Maybe you support the ban of all personal firearms? After all, it's the only way to defend this country from gun violence right? We obviously can't wait until somebodies been shot to start our investigation can we, better just ban everyone's firearms now, right lorien? That's the retarded and pathetic fear mongering logic you're currently using.

 

The only time you are ever concerned about the Constitution is when it comes to the rights of terrorists

 

But it does lean towards a police state
Like the Stazi

 

Little too close to home, yo-yo?

This was your reponse when I asked how do you catch terrorists if you cannot profile, check international bank transfers or tap international calls to terror cells. Your reply yesterday. Seems that's what it says to me. Or did you mean something else?

citizens who place phone calls to Al Qaida. Or is that a god given right?

Nice way to change the subject since you don't have a factual response.

 

Actually it's a good point in my opinion.

Isn't the argument "In case the government turns against the people the people has the right to own gun(s)" the most common one?
Shouldn't one that stands behind this argument not also be against total control from the governement.

Afterall can you trust the Government?

Oh, yeah...something i like to mention.
When i read about these type of experiences the American People has to put up with from their Government it makes me wonder how many U.S. citizens have experienced the same frustrations and that did not make it to the news...

You'll probably don't like hearing this Lorien, GTech, CompuXP...and others whom i may have forgot but the war on terror is already lost!

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=70657
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=62467

Some threads i started some time ago when i read the experiences from these "terrorists"...

 

OMFG the terrorist are coming the terrorist are coming !

Oh wait - it's been like 6 years since 9/11 and the terrorist aren't coming.

Never mind - go back to sleep.

The terrorist - in their fanatical attempts to destroy America can't seem to :

1. Blow anything up in 6 years time.
2. Make it across the US/Mexico border.

Oh - I am so so very scared.

Big brother save me !