Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
That is an absolutely tortured reading of the statute. The law states that for the President to take certain action, the AG must swear certain factors are present. The President is taking the same type of action without following the necessary steps listed in the statute. That's not a legal method of acting. Your logic is essentially saying the statute is there for guidance, but doesn't need to be followed since it doesn't say NOT following the statute is illegal. That's absurd.
f/k/a mclamb6
Speaking of which, I don't recall your response to the speciation information I provided at your request...
I have to say that, in addition to being a non sequitor, it's a bad comparison. I haven't denied evolution.
I thought it was interesting and notable. (Though I think the faq section of the evolution site someone else linked to was more comprehensive and convincing, particularly since it included accounts of the same phenomenon observed in the lab, which is more convincing than that observed in the outdoors, I think.)
Speciation has yet to be observed in animals, though, and that might (or might not) be quite different from speciation in plants.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
The fallacy you commit is that you miss the obvious point that in order for an activity to be against the law, there has to be a law that specifically proscribes it. You have quoted no such law. Instead you quote an existing law does not specifically allow it.
You must be joking.
This is clearly, flatly, undeniably, irrefutably illegal- both according to the provisions of FISA and the American Constitution. There is no defense for it. At all.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Mine is not a tortured reading of the statute at all. This statute refers to any monitoring, not to monitoring of only international communications as in the current case. NSA listens to international communications all the time. If fact, that is just about all they do.
If the current situation involved carte blanc monitoring of all communications by a suspect as indicated by this law, my opinion would be different.
You seek to ignore the tight specifications of national security reasons only and international communications only. You ignore all this, and then you can conveniently arrive at your simplistic answer.
The situation is simply not simple.
This is actually a lot like the Elian Gonzalez (sp?) case. There was nothing in the law to require or even allow him to be returned to Cuba, and certainly not without extended hearings. POTUS has the responsibility to run foreign policy, however, not the courts. Once POTUS put that privilege forward, the case was over and Elian was on the fast track back to Cuba.
The guy with the button on the nuclear trigger has a lot of power with regards to foreign policy. If you ignore Article II, Section 1, you will arrive at a lot of wrong answers.
Mine is not a tortured reading of the statute at all. This statute refers to any monitoring, not to monitoring of only international communications as in the current case. NSA listens to international communications all the time. If fact, that is just about all they do.
If the current situation involved carte blanc monitoring of all communications by a suspect as indicated by this law, my opinion would be different.
You seek to ignore the tight specifications of national security reasons only and international communications only. You ignore all this, and then you can conveniently arrive at your simplistic answer.
What? Could you rephrase?
The situation is simply not simple.
The situation could not possibly be any more simple. The NSA or any other agency cannot wiretap Amercan citizens without a warrant. They have been "authorized" to do so by the president, in as flagrant a violation of the law as I can remember.
This is actually a lot like the Elian Gonzalez (sp?) case.
Put down the crack pipe.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Are you really trying to argue that a specific type of monitoring is not subsumed within a general definition of monitoring? That's even more absurd.
Has martial law been declared? National security means we can ignore statutory directives?
You act as if the statute wasn't specifically enacted for National Security purposes. As it is, FISA makes obtaining warrants much easier in certain situations. Guess that was insufficient for Bush, et. al.
f/k/a mclamb6
I don't know the details of why they didn't get the warrants since that has not been leaked yet. One of the reasons already cited was in order to immediately follow up on the information from and the captured computers of high value terrorists.
You guys just continue to make a big leap here. POTUS can go in front of a court and say I am POTUS and this is the authority I need in select circumstances in specific situations as supervised by others in both the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch in order to protect this country. There is no law that restricts this ability and any law that purports to restrict this ability is an unconstitutional intrusion by another branch of government of the powers granted by the Constitution to the Executive.
I will wager that this is a winning argument. FDR imprisoned hundreds of thousands of Japanese Americans using this argument and prevailed. Clinton returne Elian to Cuba using this argument. Bush is just trying to monitor international communications.
I don't even think it is a close call actually, though you never know what a wacko judge will try to do.
POTUS can go in front of a court and say I am POTUS and this is the authority I need in select circumstances in specific situations as supervised by others in both the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch in order to protect this country.
No, he can't. Not when what he's done is violate the law and the Constitution.
There is no law that restricts this ability
The president isn't bound by the laws passed by Congress or the Constitution? That's pretty big news. I must have slept through more history classes than I thought.
I will wager that this is a winning argument.
How much? I will most certainly take that bet, and I'm not a gambling man.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
That is one of the most profoundly ridiculous arguments I've ever heard. Especially coming from someone that professes to cherish the text of the Constitution.
Moreover, the comparison to Japanese internment isn't apt as it has been pretty widely agreed upon that FDR didn't have that authority and it was a mistake, Constitutionally speaking, that no one called him on it...
f/k/a mclamb6
Art, from what I can gather, Bush/Cheney didn't go to get a court approval beforehand and there was no supervision per se after. The judiciary and legislative branches didn't participate in creating the program; they were told about it after the fact. That is a big difference, and I hope that you will pay attention to it and not act like you never heard it.
Now, I couldn't tell if you really believed that judicial/legislative approval and oversight matters, or whether you are essentially arguing here that the president can do whatever the hell he wants when he says he needs to. If that is the case, I wonder if you see any constraints at all. Can the president start having people summarily executed just because he says that they present an "imminent threat to national security"? If that is a possibility in your world, I guess we might as all live in China. Man, you're more of a big government guy than I am.
BTW, I will add this one point. There seems to be an assumption here that the our government doesn't need to be bound by laws and the constitution, because it won't abuse its power. We seem to be saying here that our democratic culture is enough to restrain the government, that the government will know and respect its own bounds. That seems like slippery slope logic that can't be good for the future of our democracy.
Last edited by:
rundhc: Dec 18, 05 14:49
The issue of the Japanese interment did go to the SC who ruled in favor of it, 9-0 if I am not mistaken.
You guys can say this is simple all you want, but the fact is that POTUS has authorized this 30 odd times and is out front defending the program, his role in the program, and that it can continue. If you guys think he is doing this without his having high powered legal advice saying he is acting properly, they you must be high.
I can't explain it any better than I have. We will just see how it plays out.
You guys need to give some thought to the possibility that the fact that we have had no attacks on American soil for over four years might be caused by the fact that there are a lot of very capable people working very hard with considerable resources to protect us. Most of the time, we know nothing about it.
"You guys need to give some thought to the possibility that the fact that we have had no attacks on American soil for over four years might be caused by the fact that there are a lot of very capable people working very hard with considerable resources to protect us. Most of the time, we know nothing about it."
Art, you need to give some thought to the idea that just because something may be preventing attacks doesn't make it the right thing to do. The ends do not jusitfy the means in a democratic free society.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)
As I said in a different thread, let's have an election. My side will advocate that monitoring international communications of those with suspected terrorists connections will be SOP. Your side will advocate that such a SOP might save lives, even millions of lives, but that we shouldn't do it because terrorists have rights too.
I grant I position the sides in an inflamatory manner, but you get the idea.
What you've explained is that you believe the President shouldn't be limited by the Constitution or statute with respect to national security,
The Supreme Court decision you reference is also considered one of the worst in U.S. history, analogous to you other fave, Dred Scott.
And in terms of legal advice, what's just as easily true is that the Bush admin changed the legal context to justify some type of legality. It wouldn't be the first time.
Maybe as more facts come to light, there is nothing illegal about it. I really don't know. Your view towards unlimited Presidential authority in the name of national security is scary. Furthermore, it's not a particularly good feeling thinking that the gov't is spying on people, regardless of cause/justification.
f/k/a mclamb6
"Your side will advocate that such a SOP might save lives, even millions of lives, but that we shouldn't do it because terrorists have rights too"
Your speaking directly out of your ass now Art. The fact is that American citizens have rights, no matter what activities they participate in. We're not talking about the monitoring of foreign jihadists, but of Americans inside of America. Get some perspective.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)
"What you've explained is that you believe the President shouldn't be limited by the Constitution or statute with respect to national security"
I have said no such thing. What I have said is that limited monitoring of international communications is insignificant compared to the issues at hand.
I do agree that Japanese interment was one of the worst SC decisions of all time though.
It is interesting that none of the three of you who are upset by the policy have once acknowledged the very restricted application. Instead you equate it to summary execution and the like.
"It is interesting that none of the three of you who are upset by the policy have once acknowledged the very restricted application. "
What does it matter if something illegal or unethical is only done in a very "restricted application?" If it is illegal to spy on American citizens without a properly obtained warrant, then it is always illegal, no matter how "restricted" you think the offense may be.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)
I realize that you are always the absolutest slowguy, but it matters a great deal.
Rights always conflict in some contexts. The rights of suspected terrorists to privacy surrounding their international communications are going to be weighed against the authority of POTUS to protect the country. I don't think that is going to even be a close call.
Why do you think limiting things to international phone calls, emails, and the like is that narrow of an application? Contacting people internationally ain't what it used to be and a LOT of people do that now.
f/k/a mclamb6
"The rights of suspected terrorists to privacy surrounding their international communications are going to be weighed against the authority of POTUS to protect the country"
The rights of American citizens, suspected terrorists or not, are supposed to be weighed against the laws of the land, not the President's determination that violating those rights might do some long term good.
"I don't think that is going to even be a close call. "
Sadly you might be right. However, just because there are those who are willing to trade liberty for security doesn't make it right. Don't get me wrong. I am a member of the National Security community. I have some education in the field. I am all for going after terrorists and preventing more attacks. However, I am all for doing so within the rules and guidelines set forth by U.S. law. I wish you would stop trying to obscure the issue by continuously referring to "suspected terrorists" as if they were not U.S. citizens. The whole point of judicial oversight is to help make sure I can't just decide you're a suspected terrorist and start infringing on your liberties. The only way laws like the Patriot Act work is if there is confidence among the public that they are being used properly and with the appropriate oversight to prevent abuse.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)
Speaking for myself, I have always assumed that no expectation of privacy exists in international communication. I would compare this to talking on your portable phone that could easily be picked up by a radio. If you expected privacy, you would have used a wired phone.
I would expect NSA to have antennas everywhere picking up any hint of international communications, whether one end was in the US or not. Using information from this source in national security situations bothers me not at all. Using it as part of, say, a criminal prosecution would get a different reaction from me.
Using this information from selected subjects for selected purposes is, at least to me, an obvious policy choice. It may be that most of the time this can be painlessly supervised by a court. I have no problem with this. When it can not, I also have no problem having it supervised by POTUS directed policies.
I do not know what circumstance would make avoiding the court necessary. To the extent the court might have been sidestepped for no reason, I might have a problem with it. It doesn't sound like that happened here upon initial reports, but more will be leaked no doubt.
This situation is very different from that involving only domestic communication. We spy all the time overseas. We shouldn't be spying domestically. I consider monitoring international communications to be overseas spying, at least arguably.
C'mon.....Are you familiar with the word "surveillance"? If you were out and about this weekend, do you know how many video/still cameras captured and stored your image without your permission? Many of these devices belong to private citizens and businesses. Do you have a problem with that? Does your city have traffic signal cameras? Does your employer monitor your e-mail or phone calls? Ever heard of RFID technology?
**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**
"Speaking for myself, I have always assumed that no expectation of privacy exists in international communication."
And yet, what you might expect, and what is legal are not necessarily the same thing.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)
I would expect NSA to have antennas everywhere picking up any hint of international communications, whether one end was in the US or not.
I read this to be exactly the same thing as saying that you expect that the NSA has always been in direct violation of black-letter law. OK.
Using information from this source in national security situations bothers me not at all. Using it as part of, say, a criminal prosecution would get a different reaction from me.
Criminal prosecution? Are you kidding me? These are terror suspects we're talking about, remember? It doesn't matter whether or not they're US citizens- they're terror suspects, therefore guilty, therefore don't merit an actual trial. Aren't you paying attention? After we spy on them in direct violation of US law, trampling all over their Constitutional rights, we're going to rendition them to some secret prison in Eastern Europe, or maybe one of our democratic allies in the Middle East, where they won't be tortured- wink!- because they probably might have some extraordinary information to offer us. God forbid any America hating civil servant put all of us at risk by leaking these vital practices, too.
When it can not, I also have no problem having it supervised by POTUS directed policies.
Sad.
I consider monitoring international communications to be overseas spying, at least arguably.
Not arguably. There is, you know, that law saying otherwise.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Are you really going to argue that having your picture taken in public is the same as having someone listen to your phone conversation or read your emails?
f/k/a mclamb6