4th amendment

None of the terrorists have any more information than they had before. An individual terrorists still has as much of a clue as to whether or not he in particular is being spied on as he did before.
And you're certain of this, you asked the terrorists, you attended a few Al Queda cell meetings and got the inside scoop, eh?

[
Do you think that using a lot of words to make yourself sound smart is going to change the fact that nothing specific about our wiretaps was revealed - such as who in particular was being spied on, what was found out, etc.?
Using a lot of facts does, though, and that really bugs you, doesn't it?

Frankly, ST, when you continue being pugnacious it doesn't prove your points, it just reflects your character. When confronted with something that you can't rebutt, you simply start acting nasty.

When I, or anyone else on this board, rebutts your nonsense, you just dismiss it all out of hand rather than replying to it. That tells me that you don't have a counter argument.

And, as I suspected, it really didn't occur to you that phone calls contained coded messages, that encrypted message traffic was also being monitored. If it had, you would have addressed it in your reply.

You seem so certain in your claims... "There wasn't any specific information revealed, other than that we were spying on their phone calls, which they already knew", "None of the terrorists have any more information than they had before"... what makes you so certain?

Secondly, if those aforementioned claims are true, then why are you making such a big deal out of the whole wiretapping affair? After all, by your own claims, nothing was compromised, the parties being wiretapped already knew they were being monitored. You're just using a circular argument.
 
manu1959 said:
linkus up dude you almost have me convinced

Allow me.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

So the first thing I want you to think about is, when you hear Patriot Act, is that we changed the law and the bureaucratic mind-set to allow for the sharing of information. It's vital. And others will describe what that means.

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.

The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies.


It's also not what I was talking about.

SpidermanTuba said:
And your error in thinking is discounting the fact that intercepts of calls between two people within the border of the U.S. has occured under this program. The aforementioned case only applies when one party is outside the U.S.

SpidermanTuba said:
Bush told us so. And since its against his own interests to tell us so, I would assume its true.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20051219-2.html

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. First, I want to make clear to the people listening that this program is limited in nature to those that are known al Qaeda ties and/or affiliates. That's important. So it's a program that's limited, and you brought up something that I want to stress, and that is, is that these calls are not intercepted within the country. They are from outside the country to in the country, or vice versa. So in other words, this is not a -- if you're calling from Houston to L.A., that call is not monitored. And if there was ever any need to monitor, there would be a process to do that.

Didn't this whole thing start as an argument about the 4th Amendment?
 
Avatar4321 said:
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?

Firstly, regardless of General Hayden's statments to the contrary, it requires probable cause. Secondly, a warrant is required to conduct wiretaps on U.S. citizens.
 
Bullypulpit said:
Firstly, regardless of General Hayden's statments to the contrary, it requires probable cause. Secondly, a warrant is required to conduct wiretaps on U.S. citizens.

Wiretaps arent being preformed on US Citizens. Wiretaps are being preformed on foreign terrorist suspects who happen to be calling US citizens.

Second, i never said it didn't require probable cause. Being suspected of terrorism is pretty good cause to wire tap them.
 

Forum List

Back
Top