NSA Wiretapping Declared Unconstitutional

navydevildoc · 08-17-2006, 9:00 PM

The NSA's warrantless wiretapping program has been declared unconstitutional in US District Court, and the court ordered an immediate halt to it.

Judge rebukes wiretap program - U.S. Security - MSNBC.com

What I want to know is, how would you know if they stopped or not?

Baketech · 08-17-2006, 9:15 PM

How would you know they aren't tapping your wireless internet....

Hammer · 08-17-2006, 9:17 PM

Do you actually think that a court can stop this?

The Govt will do what they want to do.

ttkarp · 08-17-2006, 9:18 PM

Thank god. We certainly wouldn't want to interfere with any innocent terrorist's plot to kill us. Thanks ACLU.

navydevildoc · 08-17-2006, 9:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ttkarp

Thank god. We certainly wouldn't want to interfere with any innocent terrorist's plot to kill us. Thanks ACLU.

You need to understand how FISA works before you start spewing crap like that. This does not stop wiretapping of terrorists. This stops routine wiretapping of US citizens, which is a violation of the 4th ammendment.

BDA116 · 08-17-2006, 9:34 PM

Yep, and wiretapping innocent American civilians is exactly what the government was doing.

Pretty funny when one of the FISA judges that helped write the legislation stated it was perfectly legal.
But once that great and wonderous ACLU gets involved and starts shopping their case around, they're sure to find a leftist activist judge. Pretty much have them on speed dial.
But yeah, now that evil program of tapping innocent Americans can stop, because EVERYONE that knows ANYTHING knows that is exactly who was being targeted.

navydevildoc · 08-17-2006, 9:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDA116

But yeah, now that evil program of tapping innocent Americans can stop, because EVERYONE that knows ANYTHING knows that is exactly who was being targeted.

I don't know that, and you don't know that. So we can just stop that argument right now. Are they tapping my phone? Probably not, unless they want to make sure I am spilling my guts out to China (my TS/SCI clearance SSBI is up for renewal).

What this does is clearly define the legality of warrantless wiretapping. Will the NSA continue to do it? Who knows. But this sets the precedent. If you want to listen in to a citizen, you MUST get judicial approval as allowed under FISA. FISA even includes an "After the fact" clause where the government can get a warrant after the wiretapping has started. There was no reason for the government to start this program.

Quote:

Yep, and wiretapping innocent American civilians is exactly what the government was doing.

Actually, this was EXACTLY what the government was doing. We are Innocent until proven guilty. They were peforming wiretaps on civilians without warrants. What else would you call this?

BDA116 · 08-17-2006, 9:48 PM

Most of us already know what the FISA court is for, but thanks.

And they were wiretapping phone calls originating from terrorists into the United States. I would call that perfectly acceptable.

If that's not an appropriate use of the system, nothing is.

No warrants should ever be served on anyone, as they are all gross violations of the 4th. Since all are innocent until proven guilty, they should not be trampled on with some warrant, whether issued before or after the fact.

navydevildoc · 08-17-2006, 9:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDA116

Most of us already know what the FISA court is for, but thanks.

Hmmm... some people don't seem to... read ttkarp's post just a few above this one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDA116

And they were wiretapping phone calls originating from terrorists into the United States. I would call that perfectly acceptable.

If that's not an appropriate use of the system, nothing is.

Actually, that's not what has happening. The NSA was wiretapping calls between citizens and overseas destinations. Oh, and while we are at it, please define what makes someone a 'Terrorist'. Oh, that's right, there isn't one. Quite the slippery legal slope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDA116

No warrants should ever be served on anyone, as they are all gross violations of the 4th. Since all are innocent until proven guilty, they should not be trampled on with some warrant, whether issued before or after the fact.

Um.... OK, I guess the train just jumped the track here. The 4th ammendment states:

Quote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So, if the government has probable cause to think someone bears watching or needs to seize property for evidence, they go to a judge, who reviews the information impartially and decides to issue the search warrant. This is prevent unchecked police power. There is nothing wrong with a warrant being served if the judicial branch agrees with the executive branch that there is probable cause. That's what this whole argument is about. The executive branch cannot start its own vendetta unchecked. This is one of the keystones of the checks and balances system.

BDA116 · 08-17-2006, 10:03 PM

Yes, we can all now rest peacefully again, as the Perfect Knowledge has again shown itself.

A terrorist IS very much defineable.
And actually, that IS what is happening. I know you have the directors at the NSA on speed dial and know all about the entire organization, but the fact remains that they WERE tapping conversations from known terrorists to the United States. The calls were originating from overseas.
That is a well documented fact.
Anything else you want to make up and pass of as Perfect Knowledge?

And thank you for completely backing my point with your latest discourse on the obvious.
Now read it again for yourself.
They WERE using the FISA system appropriately, as stated by a sitting FISA judge as well as one that was sitting when he helped pen the legislation.
But what do they know anyway. They do not hold the Perfect Knowledge powers.

And since you hold all knowledge, tell us what exactly the check is on activist judges that make judgements against what others had previously made?

sheepofblue · 08-17-2006, 10:07 PM

clutchslip · 08-17-2006, 10:16 PM

Actually, I have a great distain for the ACLU for wasting lots of time and money on silly lawsuits. However, I do believe this is an appropriate lawsuit.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin - A hero of mine.

BDA116 · 08-17-2006, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

No popcorn necessary, sheeply.
My mind has now been changed and I have seen the light. From now on, I will always trust the opinion of coastal nobodies over the facts distributed by those that run the programs and judges that have already passed judgement on them. Never again shall I question.

Man, this is just too damned easy. Actually to the point of boredom anymore.

sheepofblue · 08-17-2006, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDA116

No popcorn necessary, sheeply.
My mind has now been changed and I have seen the light. From now on, I will always trust the opinion of coastal nobodies over the facts distributed by those that run the programs and judges that have already passed judgement on them. Never again shall I question.

Man, this is just too damned easy. Actually to the point of boredom anymore.

Actually this one is to easy and the popcorn is for watching.

luvtolean · 08-18-2006, 2:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDA116

Man, this is just too damned easy. Actually to the point of boredom anymore.

It is actually. The Constitution, with unmatched brevity and endurance laid down the longest lasting democracy in the world.

When that document is defended in court, especially against the policy of the Pres, any citizen who has read, understands the intent of, and believes in that document should be standing up and applauding.

This was a great day for democracy and the Constitution.

Slowly we undo all the overreaction of 9-11, and the fact our system allows for this to happen quickly, and bloodlessly, even against the wishes of the President, is what makes our country great. Gotta love that little bit about checks and balances...

Repeater · 08-18-2006, 3:53 AM

How come it is always put on some leftist left right whatever. It was wrong period! we have checks and balences. seems that the balance has been wieghed down by one side. a divided and fearful government is a good one. when they the governement does not fear it's people and starts to know all and control all of us it turns into a china type governent of control and censorship.

Take my guns bullets first and oh tap my phone you may get a bullet biatch!

Johnny Diablo · 08-18-2006, 10:31 AM

NSA can tap my phones all they want. I have nothing to hide. I applaud every effort to thwart terrorists because they are still at war with our every way of life.

I still think the governement is going to do what they want. Its easier to ask forgiveness than to ask for permission.

luvtolean · 08-18-2006, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Diablo

I still think the governement is going to do what they want. Its easier to ask forgiveness than to ask for permission.

The real beauty of making unjustified wiretapping illegal, is that any evidence gained cannot be used, and if somehow you're able to prove you were tapped, if the gov't prosecutes, they're screwed.

This makes the gov't much more likely to follow the rules unless they want the bad guys to get away.

I have nothing to hide, but what I say on the phone is none of their ******* business.

Guys, if the government has any evidence that someone is a terrorist, they'll still get a court order for a wiretap with little trouble...they just can't do it indescriminantly.

onevcs · 08-18-2006, 1:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

The real beauty of making unjustified wiretapping illegal, is that any evidence gained cannot be used, and if somehow you're able to prove you were tapped, if the gov't prosecutes, they're screwed.

This makes the gov't much more likely to follow the rules unless they want the bad guys to get away.

I have nothing to hide, but what I say on the phone is none of their ******* business.

Guys, if the government has any evidence that someone is a terrorist, they'll still get a court order for a wiretap with little trouble...they just can't do it indescriminantly.

Actually they can but now it is illegal...

navydevildoc · 08-24-2006, 2:26 PM

Here is a video from CNN... I was amazed over this...

YouTube - CNN - bush Violated 1st & 4th Amendments, Oath, & Lied

Someone on CNN actually has some balls... no, not the first guy, and not Wolf Blitzer. Jack Cafferty should have his own show somewhere. His segment starts at 2:00, but I would watch the whole thing.

esoteric · 08-24-2006, 2:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDA116

Pretty funny when one of the FISA judges that helped write the legislation stated it was perfectly legal.

Since when do judges pen legislation? I thought that was specifically outside their realm of power and one of the major features of the three-branch system. Am I forgetting my High School American Gov't classes, or did someone change something in the interim?