4th amendment

[SpidermanTuba]

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?

 

[5stringJeff]

 

[Hobbit]

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.

 

[KarlMarx]

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.

 

[Avatar4321]

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?

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?

 

[dmp]

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?

word?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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.

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.

Now, that's about as simply as it can be explained.

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?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Furthermore, FISA also allows for cases where the surveillance target is not involved in any criminal activity.

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.

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.

Does this case have a name?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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?

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?

 

[KarlMarx]

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?

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:

The Attorney General hereby is delegated the power to approve the use for intelligence purposes, within the United States or against a United States person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes, provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken unless the Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Electronic surveillance, as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 [section 1801 et seq. of this title], shall be conducted in accordance with that Act, as well as this Order.

from the Wall Street Journal

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

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, 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."

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.

 

[Gunny]

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?

Are you ever going to get off this little rant you're on? Geez.... in case you didn't notice, most people don't care, and the Prez is making people like YOU the butt of his jokes.

I don't CARE if they listen to terrorists. This is just one more attempt by you left wingnuts to throw something against the wall and see if it sticks. If it was Dem President doing it, you'd be falling all over yourself trying to justify it.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Are you ever going to get off this little rant you're on? Geez.... in case you didn't notice, most people don't care, and the Prez is making people like YOU the butt of his jokes.

I don't CARE if they listen to terrorists. This is just one more attempt by you left wingnuts to throw something against the wall and see if it sticks. If it was Dem President doing it, you'd be falling all over yourself trying to justify it.

I don't care about them listening to terrorists. Or criminals for that matter.

In case you jokers hadn't figured it out yet, the 4th amendment was written to protect THE INNOCENT. And it was written by a bunch of people who had a FUNDAMENTAL MISTRUST OF GOVERNMENT, something you jokers seem to LACK.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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.

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.

 

[MtnBiker]

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.

How do you know that?

 

[Hobbit]

How do you know that?

And so long as they weren't used in court, why do you care? It's not like they started a blog and published conversations between two ditzy teenagers talking about pimples, People, and periods.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

How do you know that?

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

 

[SpidermanTuba]

And so long as they weren't used in court, why do you care?

Because this is the U.S - not George Orwell's 1984. I have a right to not have my private conversations listened to by the executive branch without the executive branch showing probable cause to do so to the judicial branch.

 

[jimnyc]

Spiderman - I couldn't help but notice your signature. Can you please point out where GWB "willfully lied" to us? Not your biased rhetoric or unfounded conspiracies but proven lies.

And before you even think about replying, keep in mind that you need to prove that he LIED - in other words he knew the truth but told us something else anyway.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

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

Unless I missed something recently, I don't believe you are right about that. Or maybe you're just telling a willful lie.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-2.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.

 

[KarlMarx]

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.

That's not my understanding of the situation. The monitored calls involved one party who was outside of the borders of the US.

Now it's my turn to rant....

This is incredible... we are at a time of war and the President has to explain himself. It's almost as if FDR had to stand in front of the cameras every day and explain that what was done during D-Day didn't transgress the law.

I'm sure if the Lefties of the NYT and other newspapers had gotten their hands on the exact time and places of the D-Day landings, they would have published those, too.

In my opinion the real lawbreakers are the ones who disclosed classified information to the advantage of the enemy. Now the operatives know they're being watched and will use other, more secure means of communicating.
In this case, the ones who hurt the cause of liberty did not sit in the Oval Office but in a newsroom.

My understanding of the situation is that the newspapers that released this story sat on it for over a year, then blabbed it to the public to embarrass Bush. Disclosing classified information to the public is a federal offense. Freedom of the press does not give the press license to disclose information that jeopardizes national security. You can take that case to any court and you won't find a single judge that disagrees with that statement. Personally, I'd like to see the arrest, trial and conviction of the reporters who are involved in this reprehensible, and treasonous outrage.