FISA and King George

[Bullypulpit]

Chimpy McPresident had a temper tantrum as Congress failed to rubber-stamp his changes to FISA. Having taken more vacations than any other president, he threatened to reel Congress back in from its recess it they didn't give him what he wanted.

Firstly, FISA was a bad idea to begin with. the very notion of a secret court is inimical to the system of justice laid out in the Constitution. The expanded powers Bush wants in this "update" serve no purpose beyond further concentrating power in the hands of the executive branch and further undermining the Constitution. This "update" would give Alberto Gonzalez the final say in the review of the individual applications of FISA, and given his record, he can't be trusted to do anything more than kiss Chimpy's ass and do whatever he's ordered to do.

It is interesting to note that when trouble started brewing over this issue there was a warning issued that Al Qaeda was, somehow, threatening Washington. The curious timing of this warning seems to have less to do with national security than attempting to stampede Congress into an ill-conceived and hastily crafted piece of legislation that serves no one but the Bush Administration in its ongoing attempts to forge a unitary executive and relegate the Legislative and Judicial branches to the status of advisors rather than co-equals, as was laid out in the Constitution.

My suggestion to Congress, if any there still have a shred of integrity or a backbone, would be for them to tell the President what Dick Cheney told Patrick Leahey to do, and leave Washington until September. We'd all be better off of they stayed home anyways.

 

[Bullypulpit]

According to King George, the terrorists hate us for our freedoms. So rather than actually hunt down and kill the terrorists where they actually are, Bush has decided to tackle the root of the problem...Our freedoms. So, he's undermining them and the document upon which they stand, the Constitution.

 

[Alpha1]

Yeah...FISA was a freekin' bad idea dreamed up in the 70'a by the Democrats.....
The notion that ANY President of the US has to get "permission" to spy on the foreign enemies of the country is ludicrous in the extreme...I can't believe the Dimocrats are so blindly partisan that they would tie the hands of our intelligence efforts while laying claim to the label "patriot" .....
the convoluted logic boggles the mind....

 

[maineman]

Yeah...FISA was a freekin' bad idea dreamed up in the 70'a by the Democrats.....
The notion that ANY President of the US has to get "permission" to spy on the foreign enemies of the country is ludicrous in the extreme...I can't believe the Dimocrats are so blindly partisan that they would tie the hands of our intelligence efforts while laying claim to the label "patriot" .....
the convoluted logic boggles the mind....

on this board, like the other,. I ask you to please explain to me why the federal government cannot get someone in front of a FISA judge within five days after wiretapping an American's phone without a warrant?

Is judicial oversight and protection of basic constitutional rights SO distasteful to your fascist totalitarian vision for America?

 

[Alpha1]

on this board, like the other,. I ask you to please explain to me why the federal government cannot get someone in front of a FISA judge within five days after wiretapping an American's phone without a warrant?

Is judicial oversight and protection of basic constitutional rights SO distasteful to your fascist totalitarian vision for America?

And on this board, like the other, your attempt to change the subject is noted....
The Bush administration began pressing for changes to the law after a recent ruling by the special FISA court that barred the government from eavesdropping on foreign suspects whose messages were being routed through U.S. communications carriers, including Internet sites.

If this request had to do with US citizens only, for other than foreign intell, it would be another matter...

1974), the courts upheld warrantless wiretaps. In Brown, a US citizen's conversation was captured by a wiretap authorized by the Attorney General for foreign intelligence purposes. In Butenko, the court held a wiretap valid if the primary purpose was for gathering foreign intelligence information.

This was settled law until someone thought it advantageous to use our own Constitution to hamstring foreign intelligence gathering.... but its need is noted to protect 4th Amendment rights of US citizens....
but its also plain its being used by the left for political gain, seemingly without thought to the consequences of allowing foreign agents to use the internet and US communications with immunity....

 

[maineman]

I have never had a problem with closing loopholes that prevent terrorists from using the internet or US communications systems. I have always had a problem with warrantless wiretaps of American citizens..and I don't car who they are talking to...one end of the conversation includes an American and they have constitutional rights. period.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

this is hilariouis , president mcchimpy. Good one bp. I think you fail to realize on most things, many republicans are fed up with bush too.

Let me ask a question in all seriousness, if we have terrorists in america, discussing terrorists plots on the phone, cause they feel safe, why not monitor them, infact, why not do more monitoring not less to weed out good muslims from the bad.

Have a nice day buddy

Chimpy McPresident had a temper tantrum as Congress failed to rubber-stamp his changes to FISA. Having taken more vacations than any other president, he threatened to reel Congress back in from its recess it they didn't give him what he wanted.

Firstly, FISA was a bad idea to begin with. the very notion of a secret court is inimical to the system of justice laid out in the Constitution. The expanded powers Bush wants in this "update" serve no purpose beyond further concentrating power in the hands of the executive branch and further undermining the Constitution. This "update" would give Alberto Gonzalez the final say in the review of the individual applications of FISA, and given his record, he can't be trusted to do anything more than kiss Chimpy's ass and do whatever he's ordered to do.

It is interesting to note that when trouble started brewing over this issue there was a warning issued that Al Qaeda was, somehow, threatening Washington. The curious timing of this warning seems to have less to do with national security than attempting to stampede Congress into an ill-conceived and hastily crafted piece of legislation that serves no one but the Bush Administration in its ongoing attempts to forge a unitary executive and relegate the Legislative and Judicial branches to the status of advisors rather than co-equals, as was laid out in the Constitution.

My suggestion to Congress, if any there still have a shred of integrity or a backbone, would be for them to tell the President what Dick Cheney told Patrick Leahey to do, and leave Washington until September. We'd all be better off of they stayed home anyways.

 

[Bullypulpit]

this is hilariouis , president mcchimpy. Good one bp. I think you fail to realize on most things, many republicans are fed up with bush too.

Let me ask a question in all seriousness, if we have terrorists in america, discussing terrorists plots on the phone, cause they feel safe, why not monitor them, infact, why not do more monitoring not less to weed out good muslims from the bad.

Have a nice day buddy

Because its a violation of federal law to do so without a warrant, and one can be obtained within 72 hours of initiating the tap under current FISA. There are no real obstacles to obtaining a warrant to conduct domestic surveillance for probable cause.

The issue is the Bush administration wants to engage in wholesale fishing expeditions and data mining which tie up resources when they could be better served with a more focused effort. Given this administration's current track record, it's a sure bet they would use any information gleaned through this process against political opponents. Which is precisely why no administration should have such authority.

 

[manu1959]

Because its a violation of federal law to do so without a warrant, and one can be obtained within 72 hours of initiating the tap under current FISA. There are no real obstacles to obtaining a warrant to conduct domestic surveillance for probable cause.

The issue is the Bush administration wants to engage in wholesale fishing expeditions and data mining which tie up resources when they could be better served with a more focused effort. Given this administration's current track record, it's a sure bet they would use any information gleaned through this process against political opponents. Which is precisely why no administration should have such authority.

so it is a federal crime to wire tap an opposing "army" that has declared war on the citizens of the us and attacked us soil twice and Us interests dozens of times.....

 

[maineman]

so it is a federal crime to wire tap an opposing "army" that has declared war on the citizens of the us and attacked us soil twice and Us interests dozens of times.....

it is a federal crime to wiretap the homes of American citizens without a warrant... and I don't care WHO they are talking to.

 

[manu1959]

it is a federal crime to wiretap the homes of American citizens without a warrant... and I don't care WHO they are talking to.

was not my question or statement.....however, if you are conspiring with an army that has attacjed the US wouldn't that make you a treasonsist terrorists?

 

[DeadCanDance]

was not my question or statement.....however, if you are conspiring with an army that has attacjed the US wouldn't that make you a treasonsist terrorists?

Yes that would make them a traitor.

What's your point. If there's a reason to suspect someone is aiding terrorists, they can be wire tapped under current law. If it was a matter of great urgency, they can even be wire tapped without a warrant, and FBI agents can go back later and get a warrant approved retroactively.

So I really don't know what your point is.

The issue is whether or not the government has the power to wire tap american citizens, with or without any sort of judicial review and oversight.

The issue is NOT, whether the american government can wiretap suspected terrorists and their associates. We already can do that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes that would make them a traitor.

What's your point. If there's a reason to suspect someone is aiding terrorists, they can be wire tapped under current law. If it was a matter of great urgency, they can even be wire tapped without a warrant, and FBI agents can go back later and get a warrant approved retroactively.

So I really don't know what your point is.

The issue is whether or not the government has the power to wire tap american citizens, with or without any sort of judicial review and oversight.

The issue is NOT, whether the american government can wiretap suspected terrorists and their associates. We already can do that.

All moot, since the PURPOSE is to prevent the government from trying you for crimes without due process. The current arrangement where a warrent is not obtained can NOT be used in a court at all. Your protected even now.

 

[manu1959]

Yes that would make them a traitor.

What's your point. If there's a reason to suspect someone is aiding terrorists, they can be wire tapped under current law. If it was a matter of great urgency, they can even be wire tapped without a warrant, and FBI agents can go back later and get a warrant approved retroactively.

So I really don't know what your point is.

The issue is whether or not the government has the power to wire tap american citizens, with or without any sort of judicial review and oversight.

The issue is NOT, whether the american government can wiretap suspected terrorists and their associates. We already can do that.

no my question was:

is it a federal crime to wire tap an opposing "army" that has declared war on the citizens of the us and attacked us soil twice and us interests dozens of times.....

mainman changed the topic and reframed the question to american citizens

 

[Bullypulpit]

no my question was:

is it a federal crime to wire tap an opposing "army" that has declared war on the citizens of the us and attacked us soil twice and us interests dozens of times.....

mainman changed the topic and reframed the question to american citizens

Since no "army" has declared war on US citizens, your question is irrelevant. However if there was probable cause to suspect that a member of this hypothetical "army" was engaging in clandestine activities detrimental to this nation and its populace, there is no practical obstacle to obtaining a warrant to surveil this individual. In the absence of probable cause, however, there is no justification for surveillance whether the individual in question is a citizen or not.

 

[maineman]

was not my question or statement.....however, if you are conspiring with an army that has attacjed the US wouldn't that make you a treasonsist terrorists?

it would only make me a citizen suspected of such activities. If you want to listen in on my phone conversations to confirm your suspicions, get a fucking warrant.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Yeah...FISA was a freekin' bad idea dreamed up in the 70'a by the Democrats.....
The notion that ANY President of the US has to get "permission" to spy on the foreign enemies of the country is ludicrous in the extreme...I can't believe the Dimocrats are so blindly partisan that they would tie the hands of our intelligence efforts while laying claim to the label "patriot" .....
the convoluted logic boggles the mind....

The issue is that he's spying on american citizens in the united states. You're kinda slow, aren't you?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

this is hilariouis , president mcchimpy. Good one bp. I think you fail to realize on most things, many republicans are fed up with bush too.

Let me ask a question in all seriousness, if we have terrorists in america, discussing terrorists plots on the phone, cause they feel safe, why not monitor them, infact, why not do more monitoring not less to weed out good muslims from the bad.

Have a nice day buddy

That's the point of the FISA court.

In fact, no one is arguing that terrorist suspects should not be monitored. Yet you form your arguments as if that were the central issue. Why is that? Is it because you'd prefer a debate which you can win, and don't mind pretending that the debate is over something which it is not?

 

[dilloduck]

That's the point of the FISA court.

In fact, no one is arguing that terrorist suspects should not be monitored. Yet you form your arguments as if that were the central issue. Why is that? Is it because you'd prefer a debate which you can win, and don't mind pretending that the debate is over something which it is not?

How did that bill get passed a democratic Congress ?

 

[Bullypulpit]

How did that bill get passed a democratic Congress ?

Because Congressional Democrats are a bunch of sniveling, cowardly quislings.