92 Comments for “More on Bush’s “Violation” of the “Right to Privacy””

1. 

   1skeptical catholic

   wrote on 23 December 2005 at 19:56

   So, in summary, it would seem that Bush has acted in accordance with the law, not in violation with the Constitution

   It is possible to act in accordance with the law and also in violation of the Constitution. That is why laws are overturned by the Judiciary as unconstitutional on occasion.

   In this particular case, it appears there is enough verbiage on the books to possibly make it legal for Bush to do what he has done. But, if you read Amendment 4 in the Bill of Rights, you’ll see what he has done is unconstitutional.

   The Executive is required to have probable cause and present this evidence to the Judiciary along with specific details of what is to be searched or seized. Should the Judiciary agree, a Warrant is issued. This is an important check on the abuse of Executive power. It is being violated in the instances you cite.

   You should learn to be a little more skeptical of the people in power, Katelyn. Bush is usurping the 4th Amendment. No. It is not surprising that other Presidents have done the same. Yet, we really only have this President to deal with. We can’t go back in time and change what was done by previous administrations.

   Previous usurpations of the constitution do not set a precedent for this present one. Remember the lesson your mother taught you long ago: Two wrongs don’t make a right. Well, neither do two unconstitutional acts make the second constitutional.
2. 

   2LNaranjoiv

   wrote on 23 December 2005 at 20:48

   Oh mr skeptic…lol….you’re funnier than some of the other posters.
   You posted:

   ” It is not surprising that other Presidents have done the same. Yet, we really only have this President to deal with. We can’t go back in time and change what was done by previous administrations. ”

   So, it’s okay, that during the time, ol Clinton did what he did, as well as others…but..BUSH…OOOOOOOOOO, WE”VE GOT TO GET BUSH!!!!!!

   Please…..you’re tired old rhetoric from the Liberal hate Bush crowd, stinks.

   What’s done is done, but back then, they didn’t have terrorists flying airplanes into tall skyscrapers housing 3000 plus citizens working in them. So, I’d say, very much so, is there a precedence to DO what has been DONE. I’ll agree with you on ONE point: That precendence wasn’t established by ANY former President. It was established by the Terrorists.
3. 

   33Q

   wrote on 24 December 2005 at 0:12

   Constitutional interpretation goes well beyond the scope of a high school education, which is why it’s required for all law students and tested heavily on the Bar. You’re right… the Constitution does not expressly speak of a “right to privacy”, but the right is there nonetheless. The brilliance of our Constitution is in its simplicity, allowing it to be adapted as needed. However, even for strict interpretationalists, the right to privacy is absolutely Constitutional. In 1965, the Supreme Court identified Constitutional penumbras (”shadows”) in Griswold v. Connecticut, a case in which a CT law making the use of birth control illegal was struck down as unconstitutional because it was a violation of the right to privacy. The Court pointed out that various express guarantees of the Constitution, taken together, create very real zones of privacy. The First Amendment guarantees our right to associate and to speak our minds, the Third Amendment prohibits the quartering of soldiers during peacetime, the Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable” searches and seizures (and listening in on phone conversations and reading private correspondence has been identified as “searches”), the Fifth Amendment protects us from compelled self-incrimination, and- most importantly- the Ninth Amendment reserves to THE PEOPLE those rights unennumerated in the Constitution itself. Simply by saying that such rights are reserved to the people, we know that the list as given is not exhaustive. Simply copying and pasting the Amendments isn’t going to do you any good if you don’t know how those words have been interpreted… and reinterpreted. Yeah, there were a couple of dissents (Black and Stewart), but the majority opinion is the law of this land, and that opinion has not been overturned. Besides… does it really make any sense to you at all the the Founding Fathers would be so consumed with these notions of liberty and justice, but NOT take something as fundamental as privacy into consideration? I think the stronger argument is that the concept is so flipping obvious that they never really believed that there’d be an argument against it! It was a Constitutional “DUH!”

   The fact that there has been privacy-busting precedent does not make it right. Slavery was legal once, too, but that doesn’t mean it was right, or that we should do it again.
4. 

   4LNaranjoiv

   wrote on 24 December 2005 at 0:56

   3Q??
   Besides being liberal, what else are you?

   Slavery was legal once, and we’ve allowed it BACK, only now we don’t call them ” N**** “, we call them ” Undocumented workers/Illegal Aliens “.

   You worry about PRIVACY issues, while you fruit loops just let EMINANT DOMAIN pass thru without blinking an eye. Humorous.

   You said ” The brilliance of our Constitution is in its simplicity, allowing it to be adapted as needed. ”

   That’s a Liberal point of view, and you foolios try to do just that, as often as possible, to fit YOUR needs when YOUR views aren’t accepted by the mainstream of America. Passing LAWS from the BENCH, isn’t in the constitution either…..I believe the role of Judges is to ENTERPRET law, not MAKE laws.

   But, like most liberals, that’s lost upon you as well.

   Typical.
5. 

   53Q

   wrote on 24 December 2005 at 1:56

   I’ve already told you you’re an idiot, and now you’ve proven to be uneducated as well. You actually know nothing about my ideology, you have simply attached a label to yourself and then assumed that anyone with a different viewpoint must be the polar opposite. This whole rant against “activist judges” is a way for politicians to get the unwashed masses into a lather. The only time a judge is being activist is when they interpret the law to mean something other than what you believe it should. Newsflash: Congress makes the law, and the courts decide what the law means. It has always been that way. I thought Marbury v. Madison was required for all US history courses. Were you asleep that day? I’m sorry, Orange, but you have no grounds to fight me here. Unless you’re prepared to do battle with actual case law, you are in no position to tell me what the law is and is not. You simply lack the education. And the intellect, clearly. I don’t think you can find your bottom with both hands and a map.

   As for “Mainstream America”, the reason that federal judges are appointed and not elected is so they don’t have to answer to the great unwashed such as yourself, who blow this way and that with the political winds. What is Constitutional is not always what is popular, and the courts have repeatedly had to go against “Mainstream America” in order to create a better world. Jim Crow mean anything to you? Mainstream does not mean it is good or right. Mainstream brought us parachute pants and the Achy Breaky Dance!

   The Constitution is brilliant in its flexibility, whether you like it or not. This is not a “liberal” viewpoint, it’s simply a point of fact. And before you get all hot and bothered about how I must go to a “liberal” law school, I go to Baylor. Doesn’t get more conservative than that. My ConLaw professor also heads the Baylor Law shooting team. No joke.

   I haven’t a clue where eminent domain entered your twisted little worldview, but you assume too much. Do you assume that simply because I disagree with you on most things, I disagree with you on all things? As tempting as that is (and as much as it makes me shudder to agree with you on any point), I don’t think anyone thought that taking private property to hand over to private industry was a good idea, conservative or liberal. Well, ok, five Justices did. But you should read the dissents! Scathing. Oh, wait… you wouldn’t understand them.

   Keep talking. You’re only making a fool of yourself.
6. 

   6hellokitty

   wrote on 24 December 2005 at 10:22

   so you are one of the “you have no right to privacy” pinheads, eh?

   i’m so glad you can’t vote, dimwit.
7. 

   7Conservative Schooler

   wrote on 24 December 2005 at 13:27

   Skeptical and 3Q,

   Could you please type the following words:

   “I believe that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were in violation of the constitution when they approved warentless wire taps”

   BTW, if you want to argue about case law, I present to you United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan et al,:

   “Further, the instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the President’s surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country. The Attorney General’s affidavit in this case states that the surveillances were [407 U.S. 297, 309] “deemed necessary to protect the nation from attempts of domestic organizations to attack and subvert the existing structure of Government” (emphasis supplied). There is no evidence of any involvement, directly or indirectly, of a foreign power.”

   It could be argued that the President should have gone to the FISA Court. However, FISA is basically useless in that as of 1998, it had never denied an application for survailence. And furthermore, it has been argued by every President (including Jimmy Carter, who signed the bill into law) that FISA does not prohibit warentless searches for national security.
8. 

   8skeptical catholic

   wrote on 24 December 2005 at 15:06

   If Clinton and Carter allowed warrantless spying on US citizens, then they too violated the Constitution and should have been stopped. The fact is, we can’t rewind the clock to stop them. It is over and done with. I’ll repeat what I said before: Previous usurpations of the constitution do not set a precedent for this present.

   If you are actually advocating that Bush be given a pass because someone else got away with similar illegal action, then you are morally bankrupt.
9. 

   9Conservative Schooler

   wrote on 24 December 2005 at 15:22

   “If you are actually advocating that Bush be given a pass because someone else got away with similar illegal action, then you are morally bankrupt.”

   I would agree with you, but it is hardly clear that Bush’s actions were illegal. There has been no opinion from the Supreme Court on the matter, and previous presidents and their councils believed it to be legal.

   Bush was just following precedent.
10. 

    10JC

    wrote on 24 December 2005 at 16:17

    “In 1965, the Supreme Court identified Constitutional penumbras (”shadows”) in Griswold v. Connecticut, a case in which a CT law making the use of birth conUtrol illegal hewas struck down as unconstitutional because it was a violation of the right to privacy.”
    Yet liberals go gung-ho about “safety” laws requiring seatbelts and stuff, permitting cops to pull people over without cause.
    In _Griswold_, the couple sued because they couldn’t *buy* contraceptives from a pharmacist. The case had to do with the *sale* of contraceptives, yet the court made the leap of logic to say that “the use of contraceptives is private, therefore protected by ‘unreasonable search and seizure.’”

    There are plenty of things that are “illegal to use” but legal to sell, and there are plenty of things that are “illegal to sell” or use, but their usage occurs “in private” (e.g,. marijuana).

    There *is* no “right to privacy” as such; it’s a legal fiction made up by activist judges.

    *HOWEVER*, the Constitution *should* be interpreted in the light of history. And contrary to what some people have said, America has always been dealing with terrorists–from Timothy McVeigh all the way back to the Boston Tea Party.

    Consider the context of the writing of the Constitution: the British would raid people’s homes on the suspicion of being allied to the revolutionaries (or, prior to 1776, to being part of “seditionist” groups).
    That applied especially to Catholics.
    If you were part of a group whom the British considered a threat, your home could get searched, raided, or even taken away.

    Now, the great Imperialist George Bush, with his FDR/JFK-Liberalism masked as “compassionate conservatism,” does exactly what the Bill of Rights was designed to protect.
11. 

    11Katelyn

    wrote on 24 December 2005 at 16:45

    Quote: “so you are one of the “you have no right to privacy” pinheads, eh?

    i’m so glad you can’t vote, dimwit.”

    No, I’m a “There’s no right to privacy specifically mentioned in the Constitution or the bill of rights” pinhead. And, if your happiness depends on me not voting, then it’s going to greatly diminish in oh, about 3 years.

    Also, I love your thoughtful arguments. Keep it up.
12. 

    123Q

    wrote on 24 December 2005 at 17:12

    JC-
    Go back and read Griswold. Griswold was a doctor who was charged with aiding and abetting for counseling married couples in the use of contraceptives. Be careful, since Katelyn is HUGE on doing your homework. I don’t know where you got your facts, but you’re dead wrong.There was no wild leap of logic, and absolutely no reference to the 5TH Amendment, so perhaps you should go back and learn about the case before we spar over the meaning and the “judicial activism” involved.

    Any Constitutional interpretation requires “judicial activism”. If the meaning of the words is in question, then reasonable people can disagree as to their meaning and it is the job of the courts to interpret them. When people disagree with the interpretation, they call it “activism”, and when they agree, they call it “strict interpretation.” whatever. As for history and the context of the Constitution, you’re going to have go a little bit deeper to make a point. It goes WAY beyond a little Catholic harrassment. Every single sentence of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights has a separate and distinct context. Your understanding of the Constitution and of history is too rudimentary to go into it further.

    Conservative Schooler-
    “I believe that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were in violation of the constitution when they approved warentless wire taps”. I do, too.

    Hellokitty-
    You’re an idiot, too.
13. 

    13Conservative Schooler

    wrote on 24 December 2005 at 18:16

    I really don’t see where GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT comes into play here. Griswold created a right to privacy, but it didn’t at all address the issue of warentless survailence for national security purposes, which is what we are dealing with here. So it’s a huge leap to use that decision (a rediculous decision, BTW) in this case.

    The Supreme Court has refused to address the issue, even when it very easily could have (see my first comment). So there is little legal precedent to suggest that President Bush’s actions were unconstitutional.
14. 

    143Q

    wrote on 24 December 2005 at 18:53

    Good grief, I thought that everyone was at least one board with the concept that the constitutional issue with warrantless surveillance WAS the right to privacy. I’m sorry that you fail to see how the two are related, I just don’t know how to make it simpler. As to the fact that you consider it a “ridiculous decision”, you’ll excuse me for not falling all over myself to agree with you. Greater minds with greater training came up with that, and since they were all smarter and better educated in legal reasoning than either of us are, I think I’ll defer. (Yes, this opens the door to the whole City of New London thing, but you know… I can’t explain all of it). As for the Supreme Court “refusing” to hear the case, you know nothing of how issues come before the Supremes in the first place. They don’t just choose to issue opinions on subjects, there must be a judicial issue to be decided amongst parties with standing. So, you’re wrong… they could not have “easily” addressed the issue. In this case, the only people who would have standing are those who were the subject of warrantless surveillance, but because it’s all a big secret… see the problem? As records are released, perhaps someone with standing will bring suit. Until then, the Supremes have nothing to say. Allen v. Wright. There’s more to the justiciablity issue, but standing is the problem right now.

    If it were really so simple that any punk, with or without a high school diploma, could go toe to toe with the legal system, would we require that practitioners go through one of the most rigorous graduate programs out there? C’mon, don’t be simple-minded. You wouldn’t sit there and try to diagnose a sick patient without a medical degree, do you really feel qualified to diagnose a sick political body? You clearly don’t even understand the most basic elements of Constitutional law or judicial procedure. I’m not saying that you’re expected to know these things, only that you don’t even know enough to recognize your own ignorance.
15. 

    153Q

    wrote on 24 December 2005 at 19:06

    HEY! It just dawned on me that it’s Christmas Eve. Don’t you Christians have more important things to do than chat??? I get a two-week break to study for my exams, but you guys are supposed to getting ready for a Birthday party, right? A great article from Rabbi Gelman :
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10564240/site/newsweek/
16. 

    16Katelyn

    wrote on 24 December 2005 at 20:57

    skeptical catholic (and 3Q also),

    I realize that “in accordance with the law, not in violation with the Constitution” are separate issues. That is why I tried to address both. In the sentence you cite, I was listing what I believe Bush’s actions were. I can see how someone would misinterpret that. I should have said, “in accordance with the law, and also not in violation with the Constitution.” I’ll change that so that no more confusion occurs.

    I am glad that you (skeptical catholic) have agreed that what Bush has done is not illegal. That been said, as of now, I do not believe that Bush has violated the 4th amendment. Please allow myself to explain why.

    The fourth amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. I myself do not believe that reasonable electronic surveillance fits into that. In my opinion, electronic surveillance is a separate category because it does not create a burden or disruption to the subject of the surveillance, as a physical search and seizure would. However, it should also be reasonable.

    Now, I am very aware that the Court has gone back and forth as to whether electronic surveillance is a “search” and I am also aware that, in recent years, it has been on the side that it does constitute a “search.”

    (3Q- It is indeed sad that because I have not yet finished high school, I am unable to understand Constitutional interpretation. While sad, it is also peculiar, as I had thought the constitution was ordained and established by “we the people” or as you scornfully describe it, the “unwashed masses”.)

    (BTW, you would think that “life” would be a constitutional “duh,” but our founding fathers obviously felt it important enough to mention that.)

    As a note, “privacy” in recent years has been used by the Supreme Court as a way to ignore the issue of whether something is right or wrong, as a way of saying “We don’t want to deal with it.” A prime example of this is Roe vs. Wade.

    As JC points out, “There are plenty of things that are “illegal to use” but legal to sell, and there are plenty of things that are “illegal to sell” or use, but their usage occurs “in private” (e.g,. marijuana).” This brings out an important question- Why is drug use, which occurs “in private,” not also believed to be protected? Because it is not, I have to come to the same conclusion: “it’s a legal fiction made up by activist judges.”

    3Q, it is true that in Griswold v. Connecticut the state law was against the use of contraceptives, but not the sale, which is why Justice Stewart calls it “an uncommonly silly law.” However, I have no idea what you are talking about in that there was “absolutely no reference to the 5TH Amendment.” JC never said that there was. Perhaps you meant something else. However, I would agree with Conservative Schooler that this case is irrelevant to this discussion.

    Skeptical Catholic, you say that this “This is an important check on the abuse of Executive powe
17. 

    17Katelyn

    wrote on 24 December 2005 at 20:58

    Continued-

    Skeptical Catholic, you say that this “This is an important check on the abuse of Executive power. It is being violated in the instances you cite.” I do not believe so, and it would appear that both Congress and Supreme Court don’t either. Why? Because Jimmy Carter’s executive order has been here since 1979, and has not been overturned, although, in my understanding, it certainly could have been.
18. 

    18Katelyn

    wrote on 24 December 2005 at 21:12

    Quote: ” HEY! It just dawned on me that it’s Christmas Eve. Don’t you Christians have more important things to do than chat???”

    I’m glad to see that you are putting your intellectual superiority to work. Maybe you could do that once more- Christmas is the birth of Christ. Christmas Eve is the night before Christmas. And, in between preparing for Christmas, I am writing this.
19. 

    193Q

    wrote on 24 December 2005 at 23:14

    OK, OK… I got involved because of lnaranjov’s maniacal rantings, but I really don’t want to get into a weenie-wagging contest with minors. I’ll let you play amongst yourselves. Merry Christmas to you both… and I mean that sincerely. I hope that you continue to be interested and involved in the world around you. If interest is measured in votes, then we’re an important minority.
20. 

    20Intellectual Insurgent

    wrote on 25 December 2005 at 1:17

    Putting aside the legality of the conduct, can anyone explain to me how Republicans, the supposed supporters of smaller government, continue to give GW a blank check to enlarge the government to unprecedented sizes? If you believe in smaller government, you have to admit that a government that dedicates resources to listening to our phone calls is troubling on many levels. I appreciate that there are those whose phones should be tapped, but traditional courts are suitable for that purpose.

    If you look at the Constitution, you see a document that was designed to check the government, to keep it small and to minimize its intrusions into our lives. Since phones weren’t around during the times of the founding fathers, it is quite reasonable to believe that they would have mentioned wiretaps in the the 4thA if they knew about them.

    How do you define freedom without privacy?
21. 

    21skeptical catholic

    wrote on 25 December 2005 at 1:53

    In my opinion, electronic surveillance is a separate category because it does not create a burden or disruption to the subject of the surveillance

    Was this the intent of the 4th amendment? That is, do you believe the 4th amendment was written merely to make sure people weren’t inconvenienced?

    I don’t buy it and neither do the courts. Wiretapping and eavesdropping do not “create a burden or disruption to the subject of the surveillance”, yet both of these acts have been found subject to the fourth amendment. See Berger v.

    Because Jimmy Carter’s executive order has been here since 1979

    It is important to understand what that Executive Order actually stated. You misrepresent it if you say it is authorizing the same thing Bush did.

    First, this executive act authorizes people to act in accordance with FISA. The act explicitly permits electronic surveillance without a court order for up to one year provided certain certifications are made by the Attorney General.

    Second, such certification by the AG must certify in writing under oath that, among other things, “the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers” (§1802(a)(1)(A)(i)); and “there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party” ((§1802(a)(1)(B)).

    So, all Carter did was authorize the AG to administer the law Congress passed. That law specifically prohibits electronic surveillance on any United States person.

    BTW, United States person is defined in (§1801)(i):

    ““United States person” means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8 ), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.”

    Note that Carter’s executive order is to uphold the FISA, which explicitly protects the rights of US persons under the Fourth Amendment.

    Bush appears to have disregarded the restriction against eavesdropping on US Persons. Thus, I thank you for questioning my previous post, because it made me dig deeper. And having done so, I must rescind my previous statement about Bush having, perhaps, not broken the law. It appears now that he both violated the Constitution and broke the law.
22. 

    22Conservative Schooler

    wrote on 25 December 2005 at 3:17

    II,

    I admit, I have been disappointed with how large George W. Bush has allowed the Government to grow. I certainly do not like his perscription drug entitlement, or No Child Left Behind. And I don’t like that he has shown little interest in reigning in spending.

    But when it comes to National security, I want the President to do anything in his power to keep me and my family safe. If that means wiretapping phones that are strongly suspected of being used by terrorists, then he should do so.

    Skeptical,

    I am going to quote Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal, as it lays out the rebuttal to your argument far better than I can:

    “The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But no Administration then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President’s power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it. FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed.

    The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal “court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.” And further that, “We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”
23. 

    23Katelyn

    wrote on 25 December 2005 at 4:19

    ii,

    Quote: “that dedicates resources to listening to our phone calls is troubling on many levels. I appreciate that there are those whose phones should be tapped, but traditional courts are suitable for that purpose.”

    I would doubt that we, unless we are part of an anti-terrorist intelligence agency, would be able to fully understand what exactly is needed or what would be suitable. Such intelligence officials have said that this method is needed. I would agree with you that the smaller the government, the better, and the smaller the eavesdropping, the better. The problem is, we who are outside of the intelligence loop don’t know what the minimum surveillance level is.
24. 

    24skeptical catholic

    wrote on 25 December 2005 at 8:45

    Conservative Schooler, that quote from an editorial in the Wall Street Journal doesn’t rebut a thing. It doesn’t matter what the opinion of any administration is concerning a violation of the fourth amendment of the constitution. It doesn’t matter how many people you line up to say the President can wiretap without a warrant, unless five of them happen to be Supreme Court Justices rendering a judgment on a case before the court. The fact is, the SC has upheld the 4th Amendment and consistently required the Executive to procure a warrant when it wishes to wiretap US citizens.

    As for your citation of US v. Truong, context is important. That appeal by the government of an FISA court decision concerned the ability of the government to use Foreign Intelligence data procured under FISA for criminal prosecution. The government was arguing it could use the information. The original court warrant barred the government from doing so. So, there was never a question about warrantless taps involved.

    It is really very simple. The President does not have authority to perform warrantless wiretaps on US citizens.

    For better context on this issue, go read the FISA. It specifically gives the President the authority to wiretap non US persons without a warrant. The Bill of Rights concerns the relationship between US citizens and the US government. Non US persons are not US citizens and therefore do not fall under the protection of the Bill of Rights.
25. 

    25skeptical catholic

    wrote on 25 December 2005 at 13:00

    Just wanted to point out that in looking into the charges against Clinton and Carter made here, what I’ve found is mischaracterization and error in the service of Republican partisanship.

    It appears the Republican media has been busy with purposeful mischaracterizations (read lies) about the executive orders issued by Clinton and Carter. In reality, the executive orders signed by Clinton and Carter do not authorize warrantless searches outside of compliance with FISA, which as I have documented above does not permit warrantless searches on US citizens. In fact, both of the former Presidents specifically included in their executive orders that their attorney generals must make the certifications required by the FISA.

    So, the action of Bush in this situation is a change in executive practice from prior Democratic administrations. It does violate the constitution of the United States. And it does violate the law (FISA).

    Please be more careful and research your arguments instead of just repeating what you hear pumped out by Limbaugh, O’Reilly, and Drudge. Those sources have a history of lying for partisan purposes and hence have no credibility.
26. 

    26Conservative Schooler

    wrote on 25 December 2005 at 16:14

    “The President does not have authority to perform warrantless wiretaps on US citizens.”

    Please find me the US Supreme Court decision that says that the president cannot perform warentless servailence for the purpose of national security.
27. 

    27skeptical catholic

    wrote on 25 December 2005 at 23:17

    Conservative Schooler, I don’t need to find a Supreme Court ruling. Show me in the Bill of Rights where it conditionalizes the enumerated rights. There is no “national security” exception.

    The FISA was the attempt by Congress to clearly delineate the conditions under which the President could perform warrantless wiretaps… and it requires the care be taken not to include US citizens.

    I really don’t understand the right-wing mentality which puts its faith and trust in the rule of a man instead of supporting the rule of law.
28. 

    28FreeAgencyRules

    wrote on 26 December 2005 at 6:53

    I will (mostly) repeat comments on another blog on this subject.

    I am a Constitutionalist and am still waiting for an explanation of why a warrant can not be obtained 72 hours after the fact.

    The only “good” reason I can think of is because of concerns about a “leak” to the bad guys or the MSM, (who sometimes are on the same side as the bad guys as they both hate Bush.)

    If the reason is to avoid “leaks” then fix that problem.

    I don’t mind being “inconvienced” at the airport, but I do not want any of my rights taken away.

    “Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Benjamin Franklin

    I am a Christian first, a right wing Conservative second, and a Republican third.

    The Constitution is the single most important document (along with the Bill of Rights) in the world today.

    It is worth defending against all who would attack it or try to remove parts of it.

    I believe it is close to hanging by a thread and is under attack from Libs and Athoritiarians on both sides.

    I support most of the Patriot Act, but I am against Agents being able to write their own warrants and against the provision that says if you have your home or property searched and you tell even your lawyer, you will go to jail.

    I support our troups and the President in the effort to defend our Country against foriegn “and domestic” threats, but I am worried about giving up freedom in the name of security.

    I am waiting for a response from the Administration on why they can not find at least one trustworthy Judge to get in the warrant process. The 4th Amendment is too important to ever sidestep.
    
    FAR.
29. 

    29FreeAgencyRules

    wrote on 26 December 2005 at 6:57

    BTW, I did not make it clear, but those were my comments on another blog, not ones that were by someone else I quoted.

    Just to clear that up in case someone was wondering if they belonged to someone else.

    FAR.
30. 

    30Lnaranjoiv

    wrote on 27 December 2005 at 16:36

    3Q says:

    ” You wouldn’t sit there and try to diagnose a sick patient without a medical degree ”

    Well, I guess you have to have a medical degree, to know when you’re sick now?? That’s probably WHY Dr’s now have to actually MARK, which side is LEFT/RIGHT on patients, cause, they can’t figure it out themselves, AND, they work on the wrong side.
    Oh yea, you’re on a roll with that logic!!

    Ahahaha, oh, this is a hoot, coming from someone who’s expressing the old
    ” I’m smarter than you ” logic.

    Gotta love the lawyers.

    Ahahahahahaha
31. 

    31CathClaud \

    wrote on 27 December 2005 at 20:49

    In this day and age when phones can be cloned (happened to me) then I have NO PROBLEM with my phone calls being monitored as it rolls across the govt “radar”. IF this monitoring had been in place, then the bits and pieces that the CIA tracked before 9/11 could have been put together.

    Assuming (which may be a BIG leap) that all here are law abiding citizens, I have no problem with FISA listening in to my conversations. In all actuality, it is a computer (not a person) who is listening for particular key words, which then flips the call to a person if the words are there.

    This is done in ALL stock and securities houses for all emails coming and going from brokers/reps. Businesses have been scanninng calls in house for years ~ so what! If you aren’t doing something that you aren’t supposed to be doing they just move on.

    If this “wire tapping” which is actually “airwave tapping”, since most of the calls tapped are cellular, stops one more 9/11 type activity - Thanks be to GW!
32. 

    32skeptical catholic

    wrote on 27 December 2005 at 21:40

    CathClaud, it sounds nice to the frightened and gullible. Some “good guys” listen to phone calls and if something bad is going to happen, the “good guys” spring into action.

    The problem is the “good guys” in the current majority party often confuse “national security” with “presidential policy” and “partisan politics”. When one cannot criticism Presidential policy without being accused of treason, it should make you stop and think about the potential abuse the founders were trying to prevent when they penned the Bill of Rights.

    Thanks be to GW!

    Again, an expression of trust in man instead of law. The right-wing mentality, and I mean this sincerely, is too much like that of Germany 1936.
33. 

    33Katelyn

    wrote on 28 December 2005 at 0:43

    Skeptical Catholic-

    Although I do not claim to know what exactly was the intent of the 4th Amendment, I would expect that it would have to do with the random searches conducted by the British during that time. I believe that our founding fathers were outraged because their houses were being arbitrarily searched, for no further reason than to disrupt the colonists who might try to start something. However, from what I have seen, our founding fathers did recognize the use of reasonable searches by our new government to put away criminals. They also gave us a way to official decide whether something was reasonable- warrants.

    As I have said, I believe that eavesdropping, electronic or not, is different from searches and seizures as it does not disrupt anything. This opinion was formerly held by the Supreme Court. Because I am not a founding father, I do not know whether eavesdropping was intended to be in the same category. But, I also believe that government eavesdropping should always be reasonable, and warranted if at all possible.

    Skeptical Catholic, I hope you realize that while having a questioning attitude is great, you must be willing to question both ways. You say that I “should learn to be a little more skeptical of the people in power.” Well, SC, I am, and it’s not just when I dislike the person in power.

    That said, I’ve looked at what you said, Skeptical Catholic, and have discovered that you have missed a few things- (summarized from a memo from the Assistant Attorney Generalhere

    1. The President, as Commander in Chief, first of all, is given powers in the Constitution.

    2. Courts have noted “the President’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance” (UNITED STATES FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT OF REVIEW, In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001). “In both United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1973), and United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974), the courts upheld warrantless wiretaps. In Brown, a US citizen’s conversation was captured by a wiretap authorized by the Attorney General for foreign intelligence purposes. In Butenko, the court held a wiretap valid if the primary purpose was for gathering foreign intelligence information.” (from here) Also, in a concurring opinion in KATZ v. UNITED STATES, Judge White states, “Wiretapping to protect the security of the Nation has been authorized by successive Presidents. The present Administration would apparently save national security cases from restrictions against wiretapping. See Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 112 -118 (1967) (WHITE, J., [389 U.S. 347, 364] dissenting). We should not require the warrant procedure and the magistrate’s jud
34. 

    34Katelyn

    wrote on 28 December 2005 at 0:44

    We should not require the warrant procedure and the magistrate’s judgment if the President of the United States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has considered the requirements of national security and authorized electronic surveillance as reasonable.”
    3. Furthermore, in the Authorization for Use of Military Force, the President “http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.html”>is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
    4. To quote directly- “Communications intelligence targeted at the enemy is a fundamental incident of the use of military force. Indeed, throughout history, signals intelligence has formed a critical part of waging war. In the Civil War, each side tapped the telegraph lines of the other. In the World Wars, the United States intercepted telegrams into and out of the country. The AUMF cannot be read to exclude this long-recognized and essential authority to conduct communications intelligence targeted at the enemy. We cannot fight a war blind. Because communications intelligence activities constitute, to use the language of Hamdi, a fundamental incident of waging war, the AUMF clearly und unmistakably authorizes such activities directed against the communications of our enemy.”
    5. Therefore, Bush is also in compliance with the FISA. Title 50, 1809 states, “A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally— (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute”. To quote from the assistant attorney general again- “The AUMF satisfies section 109’s requirement for statutory authorization of electronic surveillance, just as a majority of the Court in Hamdi concluded that it satisfies the requirement in 18 U.S.C. 9 4001(a) that no U.S. citizen be detained by the United States “except pursuant to an Act of Congress.”
    6. The Supreme Court has stated that “Only in those exceptional circumstances in which special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable, is a court entitled to substitute its balancing of interests for that of the Framers.”
    7. The assistant Attorney General believes that “Foreign intelligence collection, especially in the midst of an armed conflict in which the adversary has already launched catastrophic attacks within the United States, fits squarely within the “special needs” exception to the warrant requirement. Foreign intelligence collection undertaken to prevent further devastating attacks on our Nation serves the highest government purpose through means other than traditional law enforcemen
35. 

    35Katelyn

    wrote on 28 December 2005 at 0:45

    You claimed that I was “just repeating what [I] hear pumped out by Limbaugh, O’Reilly, and Drudge.” Thank you for the compliment, but I came to my conclusion on my own. I had admitted that it seemed to me that Carter’s executive order did not agree with the FISA. It would appear that I made the same mistake you did. You have said, “the executive orders signed by Clinton and Carter do not authorize warrantless searches outside of compliance with FISA.” Yes, it would be assumed so, for both the FISA and executive order to be legal. However, could you explain to me what was the use of the new executive order, if it did not change anything?

    Another question is what constitutes a “United States person.” According to the FISA, “’United States person’ means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section. “

    But in that same section, a “foreign power” (ie. not a US person) includes “(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor” and an agent of a foreign power is defined as someone who “acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this section”. It’s not clear in which category a person in the US, but part of a terrorist organization would be.

    In summary, while I do believe that Bush’s actions were both constitutional and lawful for the reasons listed above, the law and courts are unclear. It would, of course, be better for everyone if warrants are obtained before surveillance. If that is not always possible now, something needs to be changed.

    Quote:”The problem is the “good guys” in the current majority party often confuse “national security” with “presidential policy” and “partisan politics”. When one cannot criticism Presidential policy without being accused of treason, it should make you stop and think about the potential abuse the founders were trying to prevent when they penned the Bill of Rights.”

    Could you please tell me where you are getting this?

    Quote:” The right-wing mentality, and I mean this sincerely, is too much like that of Germany 1936.”

    I sincerely hope you didn’t get that from http://www.hermes-press.com/germany1930.htm”>here.
36. 

    36Katelyn Sills

    wrote on 28 December 2005 at 4:42

    Sorry, I mean- get that from here.
37. 

    37skeptical catholic

    wrote on 31 December 2005 at 12:20

    I sincerely hope you didn’t get that from here.

    No. I got it from observing politics from around the time I became politically aware in the 1960s through today. What I find is there is a group of people, who are usually conservative, that do not learn from the past, but think that somehow their “pure intentions” make them different from people who lived sixty years ago.
38. 

    38skeptical catholic

    wrote on 31 December 2005 at 12:34

    Although I do not claim to know what exactly was the intent of the 4th Amendment, I would expect that it would have to do with the random searches conducted by the British during that time. I believe that our founding fathers were outraged because their houses were being arbitrarily searched, for no further reason than to disrupt the colonists who might try to start something. However, from what I have seen, our founding fathers did recognize the use of reasonable searches by our new government to put away criminals. They also gave us a way to official decide whether something was reasonable- warrants.

    If we are to assume you are correct, that suggests the question of why the founding fathers didn’t clearly state some exceptions to requiring a warrant before a search or seizure could take place?

    These men were smart enough to discriminate between reasonable and unreasonable searches. We don’t have to resort to crystal balls or naval gazing over original intent. We can just read the law they inacted as they clearly believed it captured their intent.

    The fourth amendment explicitly requires the judiciary be involved in determining what is reasonable using a criteria of probable cause BEFORE a search is conducted. I guess I’m kind of simple on this one. Asserting the President doesn’t have to obey the Fourth Amendment is just silly.
39. 

    39skeptical catholic

    wrote on 31 December 2005 at 12:38

    Courts have noted “the President’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance”

    But not where US Citizens are involved.
40. 

    40skeptical catholic

    wrote on 31 December 2005 at 12:43

    Therefore, Bush is also in compliance with the FISA.

    The FISA allows Bush to engage in warrantless wiretaps for purposes of foreign intelligence provided a couple of criteria are met. You can go reread my previous post. One of those criteria is that these taps not be placed on US Persons. Another is that within one year after the tap, the US Atty General must make a report to the FISA court on the warrantless searches.

    It is alleged and likely that the Bush administration was no careful about excluding US Persons. And it appears such taps have not be accounted for to the FISA court.

    So, regardless of the opinion of the man who wrote the memo justifying torture, it appears Bush and his administration are in violation of the FISA law.
41. 

    41skeptical catholic

    wrote on 31 December 2005 at 16:02

    So, regardless of the opinion of the man who wrote the memo justifying torture

    My apologies, I misread your quoted article to say Atty General, but it said Asst. Atty General. So, I will amend that previous statement to:

    So, regardless of the opinion of the assistant to the man who wrote the memo justifying torture…
42. 

    42Katelyn

    wrote on 31 December 2005 at 19:57

    Quote:“If we are to assume you are correct, that suggests the question of why the founding fathers didn’t clearly state some exceptions to requiring a warrant before a search or seizure could take place?”

    Well, it could have been because communication between a person in another country and a person in this country at that time would not only have been unheard of, but physically impossible.

    Quote:“The fourth amendment explicitly requires the judiciary be involved in determining what is reasonable using a criteria of probable cause BEFORE a search is conducted. I guess I’m kind of simple on this one.”

    It requires reasonableness, which the Supreme Court has said usually means a judiciary warrant. But what happens when these warrants are not available for one reason or another?

    The FISA states that “A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—
    (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute.” According to the assistant Attorney General, they believe that “The AUMF satisfies section 109’s requirement for statutory authorization of electronic surveillance, just as a majority of the Court in Hamdi concluded that it satisfies the requirement in 18 U.S.C. 9 4001(a) that no U.S. citizen be detained by the United States “except pursuant to an Act of Congress.”

    Quote:“It is alleged and likely that the Bush administration was no careful about excluding US Persons. And it appears such taps have not be accounted for to the FISA court.”

    Could you tell me how you came by this view?

    Quote:“So, regardless of the opinion of the man who wrote the memo justifying torture, it appears Bush and his administration are in violation of the FISA law.”

    Are you sure you want to get into this? Maybe you should read a memo from the Assistant Attorney General on August 1, 2002 concerning torture. It might clear some of your confusion.
43. 

    43Conservative Schooler

    wrote on 31 December 2005 at 20:14

    Wow Katelyn. I hadn’t noticed that this discussion was continuing down here.

    Great job. I am going to put this up on my blog. I have nothing to add to what you said.
44. 

    44skeptical catholic

    wrote on 31 December 2005 at 23:04

    Well, it could have been because communication between a person in another country and a person in this country at that time would not only have been unheard of, but physically impossible.

    Nonsense. There was communication by post, by messenger, and in person. And, not every country was across the Atlantic. Consider Canada. Are you suggesting the colonists could not have corresponded in a somewhat timely manner with people in Canada? Are you suggesting that a Canadian could not come down to the colonies or a colonial go up to Canada to communicate?

    It requires reasonableness, which the Supreme Court has said usually means a judiciary warrant. But what happens when these warrants are not available for one reason or another?

    The standard is probable cause to be determined by the judiciary. The burden is on you to prove there are reasons it is burdensome for the Executive to obtain a warrant before wiretapping US citizens.

    Could you tell me how you came by this view?

    I’ve been reading the accounts of this. In 2002, Bush order the NSA to spy on US citizens without obtaining warrants. This violates the 4th amendment.

    Are you sure you want to get into this?

    We can put off your defense of the administration’s confusion over what constitutes torture to another thread.
45. 

    45Katelyn

    wrote on 1 January 2006 at 2:41

    Nonsense. There was communication by post, by messenger, and in person. And, not every country was across the Atlantic. Consider Canada. Are you suggesting the colonists could not have corresponded in a somewhat timely manner with people in Canada? Are you suggesting that a Canadian could not come down to the colonies or a colonial go up to Canada to communicate?

    That’s obvious. What I mean is that they could not communicate at the same time, as we do electronically now. There would never be an instant in time then in which a foreign power outside our country and a person in the US would be sharing information that our government would need to see or hear that instant (unless they were standing on the border). Nonsense indeed.

    Secondly, I was not asking how you came to believe that Bush violated the 4th amendment. I was asking how you came to know that “the Bush administration was no [sic] careful about excluding US Persons”. If you make wild claims like that, you might want to try to support them.

    The burden is on you to prove there are reasons it is burdensome for the Executive to obtain a warrant before wiretapping US citizens.

    If they want to declassify the information and tell me, then maybe I can prove it to you. But now, all we have to deal with is, roughly, the people inside the organization saying warrantless surveillance is necessary, and the people outside the organization saying that it is not.

    My belief is that warrantless surveillance shouldn’t be necessary. But if our system now would not allow for certain needed surveillance, and the information is greatly important to our national security, then they would have to do it without a warrant. It would of course be better with a warrant, so that we can know for sure that everything is legal, but if that is not possible, what alternative would you have if Osama is calling someone in LA right now this instant?

    We can put off your defense of the administration’s confusion over what constitutes torture to another thread.

    Why? What’s stopping you from discussing it now, since you felt you needed to mention it?
46. 

    46Conservative Schooler

    wrote on 1 January 2006 at 3:14

    “It would of course be better with a warrant, so that we can know for sure that everything is legal, but if that is not possible, what alternative would you have if Osama is calling someone in LA right now this instant?”

    What a silly question Katelyn! You are supposed to just let the call proceed without listening in, because we would not want to violate someone’s civil rights now do we?

    The minds of liberals work in strange ways.
47. 

    47Sacto Dan

    wrote on 1 January 2006 at 6:06

    It seems like since we are at war with these people, as a country we would want the benefit of the doubt to go to our own President, not the potential adversary.

    Sort of like, ”wow, these terrorists want to kill us and appear to be contacting someone in the US. They could be coordinating an attack, let’s see what’s going on, and stop them”.

    There were extraordinary measures taken in WWII that out of context seem draconian. Those actions did not survive beyond the war, as these will not.

    Some common sense is in order here folks. Funny thing, the libs always accuse the cons of seeing only black and white, not shades of gray. Here we have the opposite.
48. 

    48skeptical catholic

    wrote on 1 January 2006 at 8:31

    I was asking how you came to know that “the Bush administration was no [sic] careful about excluding US Persons”.

    The leak which is being investigated by the Bush administration is that Bush ordered the NSA to spy on US Citizens. Bush hasn’t denied the allegations, but has instead defended the action.

    The burden is on you to prove there are reasons it is burdensome for the Executive to obtain a warrant before wiretapping US citizens.

    If they want to declassify the information and tell me, then maybe I can prove it to you.

    Your response here is amazing.

    “We the People” established the government in such a way as to make it accountable to the people who, and at whose pleasure, it serves. The Constitution establishes a set of checks and balances to insure this accountability and prevent any branch of the government from abusing power.

    You, on the other hand, happily accept the rule of men who tell you they will violate your rights for reasons that are too important to let you know. Should we just do away with the Bill of Rights since GW is such an good man we don’t have to worry?

    When you get older, you will hopefully see enough of the world and realize that rules confining the power of the government were established because individuals within the government are easily corrupted by the power and trust placed in them.

    Why? What’s stopping you from discussing it now, since you felt you needed to mention it?

    Ok, then. Defend the administration’s position on torture. Use a bunch of weasel words when you do it. Feign ignorance about torture, just like Bush and his cronies do. Be sure to include references to Papal statements defending the morality of torture.
49. 

    49skeptical catholic

    wrote on 1 January 2006 at 8:38

    It seems like since we are at war with these people, as a country we would want the benefit of the doubt to go to our own President, not the potential adversary.

    Which people are these that we are war with? No one is upset about the President conducting foreign intelligence by spying on foreign nationals or foreign powers. The issue at hand is the spying on US Citizens.

    And, to be clear, no liberal is upset about Bush spying on US Citizens provided he has shown probable cause to suspect them of criminal activity and obtained a warrant. Indeed, the FISA even allows Bush to wiretap a person for a year before he has to acquire the warrant.

    The problem is wiretapping US Citizens without a warrant and failing to provide the FISA court with the probable cause within a year after they’ve tapped the call.

    Some common sense is in order here folks. Funny thing, the libs always accuse the cons of seeing only black and white, not shades of gray. Here we have the opposite.

    On the contrary, Bush is given great lattitude, many shades of grey to work with. What we oppose is his resorting to the black (violating the laws which give him wide lattitude) because he feels he is above the law.
50. 

    50Conservative Schooler

    wrote on 1 January 2006 at 19:20

    “Which people are these that we are war with? No one is upset about the President conducting foreign intelligence by spying on foreign nationals or foreign powers. The issue at hand is the spying on US Citizens.”

    I don’t know, maybe we are at war with some people who crashed a few airplanes into our buildings a few years ago. Have you forgotten?

    And maybe those people are in communication with people in the United States, including some US citizens.
51. 

    51Katelyn

    wrote on 2 January 2006 at 0:50

    The leak which is being investigated by the Bush administration is that Bush ordered the NSA to spy on US Citizens. Bush hasn’t denied the allegations, but has instead defended the action..

    No, actually it is that the NSA (and therefore Bush as the President) spied on the communications between “foreign” terrorists and terrorists (or at least friends of terrorists) within the United States. The allegations were not that it was “US citizens” by the way, it was that it was “US persons,” which would be a different group.

    Your response here is amazing.

    “We the People” established the government in such a way as to make it accountable to the people who, and at whose pleasure, it serves. The Constitution establishes a set of checks and balances to insure this accountability and prevent any branch of the government from abusing power.

    Checks and balances obviously do not mean that I as an average citizen would be able to know classified information. That would be because if I know, then your average terrorist would be able to know that same information. If this is “amazing” to you, then you have shown that you are beyond reason. I will repeat what I have said before: But now, all we have to deal with is, roughly, the people inside the organization saying warrantless surveillance is necessary, and the people outside the organization saying that it is not.

    Quote:“Ok, then. Defend the administration’s position on torture. Use a bunch of weasel words when you do it. Feign ignorance about torture, just like Bush and his cronies do. Be sure to include references to Papal statements defending the morality of torture.”

    You seemed to have missed the point, as always. If you mention something, you should have to support your position. For instance, if I say that all liberals are idiots, I would have to support and explain my statement before you would have to support yours. Right now, I see no reason for me to spend time talking about this when you won’t even defend your statement. If however, you do attempt to defend your statement, I would be happy to tell you where you’re wrong.
52. 

    52skeptical catholic

    wrote on 2 January 2006 at 13:39

    No, actually it is that the NSA (and therefore Bush as the President) spied on the communications between “foreign” terrorists and terrorists (or at least friends of terrorists) within the United States.

    Katelyn, you are wrong here.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html

    “Friday, December 16, 2005; Page A01

    President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night.”

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1216/dailyUpdate.html

    “December 16, 2005 at 11:30 a.m., updated at 4:45 p.m. [...]

    A few months after 9/11, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop on Americans and others in the US without having to obtain the court warrants normally required in these situations, according to government officials.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/

    “After The New York Times reported, and CNN confirmed, a claim that Bush gave the National Security Agency license to eavesdrop on Americans communicating with people overseas, the president said that his actions were permissible, but that leaking the revelation to the media was illegal.”

    There are just three sources with quotes. The fact is that Bush authorized spying on Americans without warrants. He doesn’t deny it. He says he is justified in doing it. He isn’t. If we didn’t have single party rule in this country, he’d be impeached. He may yet be.
53. 

    53skeptical catholic

    wrote on 2 January 2006 at 13:51

    Checks and balances obviously do not mean that I as an average citizen would be able to know classified information. That would be because if I know, then your average terrorist would be able to know that same information.

    Katelyn, the FISA put in place a procedure whereby the President could get warrants in secret from the judiciary. It even addressed the claim that sometimes one must tap before a warrant can be obtained by allowing the President to eavesdrop and put off obtaining the warrant for up to ONE YEAR. But, the law did require the warrantless taps to be submitted to the court within a year. This is a reasonable check on the power of executive branch. It keeps them accountable to the judiciary.

    What is beyond reason is for Bush to flout the accountability requirements of the constitution and the law.

    I will repeat what I’ve said before. No one is upset about Bush eavesdropping on a US Citizen for whom there is probable cause to suspect criminal activity. The objection is Bush’s refusal to abide by the requirements of the 4th amendment to demonstrate probable cause.
54. 

    54skeptical catholic

    wrote on 2 January 2006 at 14:10

    If you mention something, you should have to support your position.

    You should read the papers. The Bush administration has been knee-deep in defending the use of torture.
55. 

    55Conservative Schooler

    wrote on 2 January 2006 at 20:24

    “There are just three sources with quotes. The fact is that Bush authorized spying on Americans without warrants. He doesn’t deny it. He says he is justified in doing it. He isn’t. If we didn’t have single party rule in this country, he’d be impeached. He may yet be.”

    That statement alone proves your lunacy. There is no single party rule in this country. Democrats still retain enormous power even though they are the minority party in Congress right now. One must only look as far as the Democrat’s power of fillibuster to see how much power they have.

    Your suggestion that Bush be impeached also is a sign of lunacy. If we impeached every president who did something where the legality of the action was disputed, then nearly every Presdient would be impeached. Reagan, Kennedy, Truman, FDR, Lincoln, Adams, ext. All impeached.

    “Katelyn, the FISA put in place a procedure whereby the President could get warrants in secret from the judiciary. It even addressed the claim that sometimes one must tap before a warrant can be obtained by allowing the President to eavesdrop and put off obtaining the warrant for up to ONE YEAR. But, the law did require the warrantless taps to be submitted to the court within a year. This is a reasonable check on the power of executive branch. It keeps them accountable to the judiciary.”

    It is hardly clear that these wiretaps were within the scope of the FISA legislation. Over on my blog, I have posted the portion of the FISA Act that specified that the act only applies “if such acquisition occurs in the United States”

    So if the wiretaps were obtained from outside the United States (very possible considering that all of the tapped conversations were between terrorists outside the country and people in the US), then we have nothing to talk about.

    “What is beyond reason is for Bush to flout the accountability requirements of the constitution and the law.”

    Again, that is hardly proven.

    “I will repeat what I’ve said before. No one is upset about Bush eavesdropping on a US Citizen for whom there is probable cause to suspect criminal activity. The objection is Bush’s refusal to abide by the requirements of the 4th amendment to demonstrate probable cause.”

    You can point to no opinion of the Supreme Court to back this up. In fact, the court has refused to decide whether warentless wiretaps violate the constitution, even when it very easily could have.

    I think it is also a good time to point out that because the details of the program are still classified, it is basically impossible to determine the program’s legality. As an American, I would expect that you would give the benifit of the doubt to your commander and chief. But I guess the commander in cheif only gets the benifit of the doubt when he has a D next to his name.

    “You should read the papers. The Bush administration has been knee-deep in defending the use of torture.”

    Translated: I’m too lazy to defend my stateme
56. 

    56skeptical catholic

    wrote on 3 January 2006 at 5:56

    Translated: I’m too lazy to defend my stateme

    The proper translation however is:

    PICK UP A NEWSPAPER AND READ.

    Don’t you be lazy. You can do a google and find quite a lot about the Bush administration and its defense and use of torture. Here are some keywords to use in the search:

    * Gonzales torture memo
    * Cheney Vice President of Torture
    * Porter Goss defends waterboarding
    * Bush threatens veto McCain amendment
    * CIA extraordinary rendition Syria Uzbekistan
    * secret CIA torture prisons
    * Habibullah and Dilawar tortured to death
    * GITMO torture
    * Abu Ghraib torture

    Those are a few to start you out. Now, get to reading, you are way behind on 21st century history.
57. 

    57Conservative Schooler

    wrote on 3 January 2006 at 6:24

    I do read the newspapers, thank you very much. But my point is that you can’t defend a statement like that by simply saying “go read a newspaper.”

    That would be like President Bush defending the NSA wiretaps by simply saying “Go read the law.”
58. 

    58skeptical catholic

    wrote on 3 January 2006 at 8:56

    And my point is, feigning ignorance is not a defense.
59. 

    59Katelyn

    wrote on 5 January 2006 at 16:37

    First, Skeptical Catholic, your quotes say everything I just said. The terrorists (or friends of terrorists) within the country that the terrorists outside are communicating with are the “Americans” that Bush is spying on. DUH. Hopefully, you can understand that? Good grief.

    Quote:“Katelyn, the FISA put in place a procedure whereby the President could get warrants in secret from the judiciary. It even addressed the claim that sometimes one must tap before a warrant can be obtained by allowing the President to eavesdrop and put off obtaining the warrant for up to ONE YEAR. But, the law did require the warrantless taps to be submitted to the court within a year. This is a reasonable check on the power of executive branch. It keeps them accountable to the judiciary.

    What is beyond reason is for Bush to flout the accountability requirements of the constitution and the law.”

    Yes, I realize that there needs to be accountability. However, this is a case when, according to those in the program, they were not able to get the warrants they desperately needed. So, the solution would be to modify the FISA so that warrants would be possible. This would not be to “make it legal instead of illegal” but to make it easier on everyone and easier to have accountability. The problem with some of the critics (which I would suspect includes you) is that if indeed a terrorist attack occurred because they were unable to obtain a warrant, they would be the first to say that Bush isn’t doing his job.

    Secondly, Skeptical Catholic, you said, “And my point is, feigning ignorance is not a defense.”

    The only one “feigning ignorance” is you, Skeptical Catholic, since you can’t even defend your own statement, but instead say, “Go read.” Well, I have read, but I’d like to hear it from you. Also, the fact that you would state the media as a source for your own opinion shows how much your opinion depends on what the media says. Perhaps, if you try hard enough, you yourself could give backing to your own statement? Please?
60. 

    60JC

    wrote on 5 January 2006 at 19:23

    3Q,
    I’m hardly letting a 15-year-old do my homework for me.
    I’m just going by what I was taught in college, and by the literal reading of the Constitution.
    You say “all constitutional interpretation involves activism,” and I say “Yes,” because the constitution was never meant to be “interpreted.”
    Words mean things. A text means one thing, and one thing only.
    Only through the use of liberal sophistry can a text be interpreted otherwise than what it means. There is no place in the Constituiton that says “right to privacy.” Period.
    There is no place in the Constitution that says “Supreme Court interprets Constitution.” The Constitution *is* explicit in forbidding the Courts from making laws.

    If one is to “interpret” a document, be it legal, moral or literary, it must be interpreted in the context of authoral intent. As Flanenry O’Connor says, “There are plenty of ways my story can be interpreted, but only one interpretation by which it could be written.”
    The intent of the Founding Fathers was that the Constitution was to *limit* the power of the federal government, not expand it. The express will of the Founders was that the arbiters of the Constitution were the state governments themselves, not the Courts.

    “Right to privacy” is a legal fiction. But if you are going to label anyone who disagrees with you as a “moron” with a “rudimentary” understanding of things, there’s no point in debating with you.

    I daresay you think that that Judge Robert Bork is a “moron” with a “rudimentary” understanding of things.

    All of this does not change the fact that the Patriot Act violates the 5th Amendment in both letter and spirit.
61. 

    61skeptical catholic

    wrote on 6 January 2006 at 2:20

    The terrorists (or friends of terrorists) within the country that the terrorists outside are communicating with are the “Americans” that Bush is spying on. DUH. Hopefully, you can understand that? Good grief.

    Hopefully you can understand that it doesn’t matter what crime you are accusing Americans of committing, the American government must show probable cause before it can search or wiretap them.

    Your fear is not reason to violate my rights. Good grief, indeed!

    However, this is a case when, according to those in the program, they were not able to get the warrants they desperately needed.

    Poppycock!

    You are really stretching here, Katelyn. How is it that Bush couldn’t get the warrants he desperately needed when the law doesn’t require him to have warrants before the tap? The FISA allows him to tap prior to obtaining a warrant. What is so onerous about obtaining the warrant later? Why is he trying to escape accountability? And don’t try to plead national security here. The FISA court is a confidential body. Why can’t Bush comply with the law? What will accountability show?
62. 

    62skeptical catholic

    wrote on 6 January 2006 at 2:26

    Also, the fact that you would state the media as a source for your own opinion shows how much your opinion depends on what the media says. Perhaps, if you try hard enough, you yourself could give backing to your own statement? Please?

    Nice rhetoric, Katelyn. Really it is very good.

    However, I did not state the media as a source for my opinion. I gave google search phrases that you can use to find information that supports the fact that the Bush administration has been knee deep in defending the use of torture.

    Perhaps if you try hard enough, you can read through the material and see that Bush administration officials from Porter Goss, to Dick Cheney, to Alberto Gonzales, to Bush, himself, have been involved in trying to justify the use of torture or reserve the privilege of using torture to the executive branch. You will also find that the use of torture during this administration is not limited to a few low level national guardsmen in Abu Ghraib
63. 

    63Katelyn

    wrote on 7 January 2006 at 0:06

    Quote:“Hopefully you can understand that it doesn’t matter what crime you are accusing Americans of committing, the American government must show probable cause before it can search or wiretap them.”

    Obviously. And, as I said, the courts have decided that that usually means getting a warrant.

    BTW, above you said, “Katelyn, you are wrong here.” So, I was I right about US citizens (or US persons) and terrorists not being mutually exclusive, or was I wrong?

    Quote:“Your fear is not reason to violate my rights. Good grief, indeed!”

    First, your rights are not being violated. Secondly, it is not fear. It is an awareness of our enemies that we didn’t have before 9/11. Thus, thirdly, that doesn’t pertain to this subject.

    Quote:“Poppycock! You are really stretching here, Katelyn. How is it that Bush couldn’t get the warrants he desperately needed when the law doesn’t require him to have warrants before the tap? The FISA allows him to tap prior to obtaining a warrant. What is so onerous about obtaining the warrant later? Why is he trying to escape accountability? And don’t try to plead national security here. The FISA court is a confidential body. Why can’t Bush comply with the law? What will accountability show?”

    Well, to answer that question all you have to do is read the newspapers. Or, you could Google the words “spying” and “Bush”.
64. 

    64Katelyn

    wrote on 7 January 2006 at 0:07

    I’m just kidding. Obviously, that would be a pathetic response. I would think that because you are talking to me, you would want to hear my opinion, and would want me to substantiate it.

    So, I’m going to give it to you. As I said, (for the third time now?) because this is, by nature, secret intelligence, we normal citizens can’t expect to know all the details, because then the terrorists would know all the details too. In other words, neither you nor I can know for sure what is necessary and what is not. So, all we have to go on is what the “experts” say. So what did they say?

    Well, PBS had a NewsHour on it, with an expert for both opinions. Here’s an excerpt of what both of them said:

    JAMES BAMFORD (the author of two books about the NSA, “The Puzzle Palace” and the “Body of Secrets”): “FISA has been adequate all these years. If somebody needs a FISA warrant in a very quick period of time, it’s provided for that. The court allows 48 hours, a 72-hour grace period so you can begin eavesdropping immediately.”

    JOHN McLAUGHLIN (the former acting director of the Central Intelligence Agency, who had a three-decade career at the CIA and is now a senior fellow at Johns Hopkins University): “Even though there are emergency procedures where you can get a warrant and then have 72 hours to justify it, it’s also true that in that 72 hours in this modern communication era, it’s highly likely that the terrorist you’re following is on a different phone number, a different cell phone and you’d be getting warrants one after another, which let me come back to it and say that’s not to say that FISA is not an important instrument. It’s been very effective for a certain type of terrorist target. But we need more agility and more speed and I think that’s what the president was searching for here.”

    Warrants are not always necessary. The Supreme Court has said that, and the FISA said that warrantless surveillance was illegal except “as authorized by statute.”

    That said, there should not be a time where warrants cannot be obtained for reasonable intelligence. Indeed, warrants are *supposed* to be there as proof that something is reasonable. So, we are left with two possibilities- either the warrant system needed to be “reworked”, or Bush needs to “restrained”.

    Obviously, you’ve made up your mind, even though I would suspect that you know no more about the NSA than I do.
65. 

    65Katelyn

    wrote on 7 January 2006 at 0:47

    Quote:“Nice rhet