4th amendment

Discussion in 'Politics' started by SpidermanTuba, Jan 24, 2006.

  1. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258
    If, as the right suggests, the 4th amendment is not meant to apply to the President, and by extension any part of the executive branch which he authorizes to bypass the 4th amendment, then who exactly is it meant to apply to?
     
  2. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    :confused:
     
  3. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    You've been told time and again that the fourth ammendment protects U.S. citizens and legal residents from having unwarranted searches used against them in court and that the wire taps that didn't have warrants attached have never been used in court. Right now, if a cop pulls you over and smells pot, he can search your car just fine. If the search is ruled unwarranted, whatever he finds can't be used against you, but it can still be used to find out where you got it and it can even be used as evidence against your supplier/dealer. In fact, if he decides just to let you off with a warning, he never has to even get a warrant for your car. In some states, he doesn't need a warrant in any case, since the pot smell is considered 'probable cause.'

    Now, when the CIA sees an incoming call to the U.S. from a member of Al Qaida, that's the proverbial pot smell. They can then monitor the call, and unless they plan to use it in court, they don't need a warrant. They can still use it to track down the Al Qaida members and thwart their plans all they want. They can even use it in court agaist the guy who was in a foreign country, since they never violated his rights.

    Now, that's about as simply as it can be explained. From this point on, if you continue to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding concerning this topic, I will assume you are either intent on ignoring it solely for the purpose of having yet another thing to hate Bush for (like you need another reason) or that you are retarded, and in either case, you're not worth talking to.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  4. KarlMarx
    Offline

    KarlMarx Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,231
    Thanks Received:
    490
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    ...
    Ratings:
    +490
    The Left kills me... they're the ones who are saying that the Constitution is a "living document" that must change with the times. Then when something like this comes up, they become Constitutional scholars. The same tempest in a teapot occurred when Bush proposed a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage.

    So, what is this present commotion all about? It involves a not too well known piece of legislation passed during the cold war known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Many people have the mistaken notion that activities regulated by this piece of legislation are forbidden under the 4th amendment.

    In cases which involve US citizens alone, the Fourth Amendment does apply. In those cases, search warrants be obtained to perform wiretaps and other electronic surveillance. This is not true under FISA. FISA allows surveillance without a warrant if the target of the surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power (note, that the foreign power doesn’t need be hostile to the United States). Furthermore, FISA also allows for cases where the surveillance target is not involved in any criminal activity.

    So, if I, or any person living the US, regularly have phone calls or exchange emails with a person living outside of the United States and that person is known or suspected to be involved with a foreign power that is or is not hostile to this country, then under FISA, I am fair game for warrantless surveillance with the FISA court’s permission.

    But, there is more to it. No administration since FISA was established has ever conceded that the President is not given power under the Constitution to make exceptions to FISA if national security involved it.

    In addition, in 2002, the FISC (the court which oversees FISA activity) concluded that the President has inherent authority under the Constitution to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information without the court's permission and, under that pretext, FISA does not limit that power.

    In this case, two judges that sit on the FISC already had full knowledge of the surveillance.

    So, Bush did not commit a crime or anything close to it. Again, the Left shows that they are either A) a bunch of idiots who are trying to pass themselves off as knowledgeable or B) are outright liars who will do or say anything to get a Bush trophy to hang over their fireplace mantle.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,529
    Thanks Received:
    8,159
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,148
    No one has argued that the President or the executive branch has authority to "bypass" or ignore the Fourth Amendment.

    The Fourth amendment proscibes the government from performing unreasonable searches. What is unreasonable about listening to terrorists on the phone?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741

    word?



    [​IMG]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258

    I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble finding where in the 4th amendment it says that the 4th amendment only applies to searches which have gained evidence which is used in court.



    You might try referencing an actual court case to support your point, otherwise how do I know you didn't just make all this up? It simply does not say anything in the letter of the 4th amendment that the 4th amendment only applies to evidence which is used in court. So if this is indeed the case, there would be an actual court decision that solidified that interpretation as law. Which one is it?
     
  8. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258

    You must not have actually read the FISA act, have you? It only allows warrantless searches when NO party to the conversation is a US citizen.

    (a)
    (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
    (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
    (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
    (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
    (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
    (C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
    if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
    (2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General’s certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title.
    (3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the court established under section 1803 (a) of this title a copy of his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless—
    (A) an application for a court order with respect to the surveillance is made under sections 1801 (h)(4) and 1804 of this title; or
    (B) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the surveillance under section 1806 (f) of this title.
    (4) With respect to electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection, the Attorney General may direct a specified communication common carrier to—
    (A) furnish all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish the electronic surveillance in such a manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier is providing its customers; and
    (B) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence any records concerning the surveillance or the aid furnished which such carrier wishes to retain.
    The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, such carrier for furnishing such aid.
    (b) Applications for a court order under this subchapter are authorized if the President has, by written authorization, empowered the Attorney General to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title, and a judge to whom an application is made may, notwithstanding any other law, grant an order, in conformity with section 1805 of this title, approving electronic surveillance of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information, except that the court shall not have jurisdiction to grant any order approving electronic surveillance directed solely as described in paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section unless such surveillance may involve the acquisition of communications of any United States person.


    Does this case have a name?
     
  9. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258

    Are you saying that warrants aren't required to listen in to the conversations of suspected criminals? After all, what is unreasonable about listening to the conversation of a suspected criminal?

    How is this power checked? What part of the government insures that the executive is only listening to bona fide terrorist targets?
     
  10. KarlMarx
    Offline

    KarlMarx Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,231
    Thanks Received:
    490
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    ...
    Ratings:
    +490
    FISA has been amended since 1978 to include US persons for the purpose of gathering intelligence information against a foreign power.

    Section 2.5 of Executive Order 12333 states that:


    from the Wall Street Journal

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703

    I believe that your error in thinking is that the president's powers are limited by the 4th amendment in matters involving national security. The 4th amendment is for criminal matters, not for matters which involve foreign or United States citizen who are believed to be plotting attacks against the United States.

    The President, as chief of the armed forces, is also responsible for the National Defense. Electronic surveillance of people who the government has reasonable cause to believe may be involved with plots against the United States by cooperating with foreign powers is clearly a national defense matter.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3

Share This Page