Come on Everybody Let\'s Wiretap!

Originally posted by GigaShadow

It hasn\'t been decided that the wiretapping was illegal in the first place. [/B]

Well, sort of...

http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html

I\'m not using this to prove my point, just to offer up direct quotes (instead of some hometown op-ed piece) from legal paper.

I think the problem centers on the vagueness of this document.

As an American, I feel as if my rights are infringed upon, but I\'m more pissed that this is where my tax dollars were going toward. The program was wholly uneffective - that\'s why I feel so taken advantage of. If we would have caught a few more "terrorists" in the wiretapping, this would be a totally different argument.

Giga, you\'re requesting evidence that my rights are being infringed upon. I\'m requesting you show me some HARD proof that wiretapping and the Patriot Act have worked.

Originally posted by GigaShadow


"Congress by statute has confirmed and supplemented the president\'s recognized authority under Article II of the Constitution to conduct such warrantless surveillance to prevent catastrophic attacks on the homeland," the Justice Department document said.

I don\'t know what statute the AG is referring to.  I also don\'t have time right now to research it, so if you could do that for me, I would greatly appreciate it.  Thanks.  
 

Just for the sake of argument and to show how warped your thinking is lets just say the president has to make an instant decision on saving 3 million lives or ignore some existing law you would chose to follow the law?  Are you sure you aren\'t a Vulcan?

To pursue your extreme example:  As far as I\'m concerned, the president is welcome to save 3 million lives by breaking the law, so long as he admits his "crime" after  the fact, and submits to any necessary investigations or hearings against him. If he\'s cleared, that\'s cool.  

In this case, the President never acknowledged his illegal actions until the news media released the story, and now he\'s arguing for proceedings against the whistleblowers.  He\'s taking on the appearance of a dictator.

I\'ll give you an obvious extreme example to respond to:  If illegal wiretapping is OK with you, then what is not OK?  Shouldn\'t we have video cameras installed in every home to monitor your personal conversations, and make sure you\'re not discussing a bomb plot against your local Dairy Queen?   When you start bending the rules, you have NO comprehensible line to draw on what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.  Our only line is THE LAW, and our President has an even greater responsibility to observe the law than any of us.

The government spying on its citizens is the infliction on its citizens\' rights that we\'re talking about.

We don\'t need to prove that happened, apparently. In fact, it seems the government needs to prove that while it definitely happened, it happened legally and with just cause.

Anyway, if you need me I\'ll be next door spying on my neighbors.

I\'m at a heightened state of alert and everything.

-Dan

Originally posted by GigaShadow
Young and clueless - I guess that best describes you hyper, need I point out you are from Kalifornia which shares nothing in common with mainstream US.  

Old and senile. Did I not accept that a balance must be struck between liberty and security? A working democracy must not only be free, but also just. Allowing terrorists suspects to run amok targeting the innocent clearly would be immoral.

Be that as it may, the government\'s wider powers should be based on clear-cut terrorism laws passed by Congress, not the piecemeal legislations that the Bush administration forces down whenever it wants. Illegally wiretapping citizens and indefinitely detaining "enemy combatants" without Congressional mandate reek of executive hubris that will open the doors to abuse. Also, these powers should be accompanied by increased scrutiny. Would it be so hard for Bush to follow due process when enacting his policies? No. In fact, he would greatly increase his legitimacy if he could show that these behind-the-scenes surveillance policies were themselves being watched and questioned by judges and politicians. As it stands, what we have is a secretive executive branch that disregards checks and balances and civil liberties in the name of security.

You say I am out of touch with the majority for criticizing the administration? Apparently not, according to the Supreme Court.

From The Economist:

"Last June, the Supreme Court made three rulings that were a severe blow to Mr Bush\'s detentions policy. First, the court ruled, prisoners at Guantanamo had the right to petition against their detention. Second, it decided that Yaser Hamdi, an American citizen captured in Afghanistan, may not be held indefinitely as an "enemy combatant" without any opportunity to face a court. And third, the court granted Mr Padilla another chance to have his case against detention heard in a lower court."

"Fortunately, the courts are there to uphold the law, and this week the administration was dealt a sharp rebuff when a federal appeals court ruled it was wrong to hold hundreds of deportation hearings in secret. "The executive branch seeks to uproot people\'s lives, outside the public eye, and behind a closed door," it said. "Democracies die behind closed doors." It was right. Whatever the need for greater surveillance, no case has been made for abandoning the right to open justice."

It is sad that starry-eyed conservatives like you cannot see that your president is out of hand. I think the following nicely sums up the situation:

Mr Bush may have made a mistake when he chose to call his response to September 11th a "war." Talk of war conjures up the need for the suspension of normal political life and even of civil liberties. That is bad enough in a war of the conventional kind. But this war, if war it is, is one that may go on for ever. It can certainly never be declared won; terrorism, like poverty, is probably always with us. Awful as it sounds, that may mean learning to live with terror, even as you fight it: to be dominated by a fear of terrorists, to credit them with greater power than they really have, and to tear up your freedoms in the face of their threats is to hand them a needless victory.

- The Economist

Where do you get off saying that California is detached from reality? Not only is it the wealthiest state in the Union, it also contains Stanford, Caltech, Berkeley and the UC system, all of which exemplify the pinnacles of higher education. You live in Alabama. Case closed.

As for the slowness of FISA:

From The Economist:

Mr Bush claims that in some cases his spies needed to act quickly rather than waiting for a warrant. A two-minute phone call between an al-Qaeda operative in America and one of his contacts overseas could lead to thousands of American deaths. Given that wiretap warrants can be granted retroactively, his critics wonder whether this argument adds up. Mr Bush has refused to give many details of how exactly the wiretaps were carried out, citing the need to protect operational secrecy.

What are retroactive warrants, you ask? Let\'s explore further:

From Newsweek:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/

What is especially perplexing about this story is that the 1978 law (that would be FISA) set up a special court to approve eavesdropping in hours, even minutes, if necessary. In fact, the law allows the government to eavesdrop on its own, then retroactively justify it to the court, essentially obtaining a warrant after the fact. Since 1979, the FISA court has approved tens of thousands of eavesdropping requests and rejected only four. There was no indication the existing system was slow—as the president seemed to claim in his press conference—or in any way required extraconstitutional action.

To paraphrase, there was nothing stopping the president from immediately putting wiretaps through. All that\'s required is that he go to a judge for approval within three days. Why he did not choose to use this legal channel and obtain retroactive warrants is beyond me.

I realize that this has been brought up before. Just throwing in what retroactive warrants actually are and how they may have been used.

EDIT: To add a bit more. What concerns would Bush have of obtaining these warrants? Judging from the fact that only 4 out of 19,000 warrants have ever been denied, it seems to me that the only reason for denial would be that the warrants were for something completely outrageous. Expediency would not be an issue, since the warrants would have been granted immediately. The article from the Wall Stree Journal makes no sense.

Originally posted by hyper
Old and senile. Did I not accept that a balance must be struck between liberty and security? A working democracy must not only be free, but also just. Allowing terrorists suspects to run amok targeting the innocent clearly would be immoral.

Be that as it may, the government\'s wider powers should be based on clear-cut terrorism laws passed by Congress, not the piecemeal legislations that the Bush administration forces down whenever it wants. Illegally wiretapping citizens and indefinitely detaining "enemy combatants" without Congressional mandate reek of executive hubris that will open the doors to abuse. Also, these powers should be accompanied by increased scrutiny. Would it be so hard for Bush to follow due process when enacting his policies? No. In fact, he would greatly increase his legitimacy if he could show that these behind-the-scenes surveillance policies were themselves being watched and questioned by judges and politicians. As it stands, what we have is a secretive executive branch that disregards checks and balances and civil liberties in the name of security.

You say I am out of touch with the majority for criticizing the administration? Apparently not, according to the Supreme Court.

From The Economist:





It is sad that starry-eyed conservatives like you cannot see that your president is out of hand. I think the following nicely sums up the situation:



Where do you get off saying that California is detached from reality? Not only is it the wealthiest state in the Union, it also contains Stanford, Caltech, Berkeley and the UC system, all of which exemplify the pinnacles of higher education. You live in Alabama. Case closed.

Blah blah blah when did I say you were out of touch with the majority I said you were out of touch with WHAT needs to be done for national security.

The president is far from out of hand it is his duty to protect this country.  Once again you are sidestepping the issues.  None of you libs have any answers and would handcuff the government in its job of protecting the US.  Once again hyppy how has this effected you?  Come on tell me I am still waiting.

Yes I live in Alabama - I am not a native and I can promise you I have seen more of the world than you will ever see.    

Kalifornia...

Lastly you apparently didn\'t read the full reason as to why going to FISA won\'t work.  You claim that 99 percent of the warrants have succeeded - you are glossing over the fact that FISA will only grant a warrant if it is a slam dunk case.  You never hear about the ones they deny.  You can\'t refute the WSJ article - you use the same liberal talking points over and over again.  The real reason for these attacks on the wiretapping is not about civil rights or any of that bullshit - it is about Bush and the hatred the media and the left has for him.

[Viper_Fujax]

Originally posted by GigaShadow

Kalifornia...

 

i like living here but the politicians are fucking retards...our mayor was retarded, our old governor messed everything up, we elected a damn actor to clean up the huge mess.

even better, the government isnt listing san diego as a target for terrorism so we dont get the protection we need. We have a bunch of stuff here, military bases, a chemical plant about 45 minutes from me, supposedly some nukes (not really sure if thats true..a teacher whose pretty dumb said it).

and if ur basing all of your expectations of what california is based on LA, you couldnt be any more of the stereotype of an ignorant hick. i was too lazy to look for what u ment by \'detached from reality\' which im assuming means that were all from west hollywood

Originally posted by GigaShadow
Blah blah blah when did I say you were out of touch with the majority I said you were out of touch with WHAT needs to be done for national security.

The president is far from out of hand it is his duty to protect this country.  Once again you are sidestepping the issues.  None of you libs have any answers and would handcuff the government in its job of protecting the US.  Once again hyppy how has this effected you?  Come on tell me I am still waiting.

Yes I live in Alabama - I am not a native and I can promise you I have seen more of the world than you will ever see.    

Kalifornia...

Lastly you apparently didn\'t read the full reason as to why going to FISA won\'t work.  You claim that 99 percent of the warrants have succeeded - you are glossing over the fact that FISA will only grant a warrant if it is a slam dunk case.  You never hear about the ones they deny.  You can\'t refute the WSJ article - you use the same liberal talking points over and over again.  The real reason for these attacks on the wiretapping is not about civil rights or any of that bullshit - it is about Bush and the hatred the media and the left has for him.

Ignoring everything that opposes conservative bigotry. Typical of a right-wing nutjob.

Read between the lines, old man. Did I ever say I wanted to take away the powers given to the government? No. I merely suggested that its policies be mandated through the proper channels of checks and balances and judicial review in order to minimize abuse. *smacks forehead* Oh, I forgot! You don\'t know what separation of powers means! Homeland security has censored it from your fucking brain.

How much has this affected me? Very little. Why you think this is relevant? I have no fucking clue. Rarely does a governmental policy have a significant impact on the individual. What we are discussing is the macro trend, of what kind of government we ultimately end up with. I\'m sorry that you can\'t see this.

About the FISA issue. Yeah, we never hear of the ones that are denied... because there have only been four. Unplug the presidential dick from your ass, old man. Perhaps it will clear up your mind and help you see that your beloved idol can be WRONG.

You, seeing more of the world than I have? Newsflash, bigot. I\'ve lived in South Korea for 10 years, which means I\'ve covered the other side of the world far longer than your ineffectual life is capable of. And considering I attend Stanford, surrounded by people from all over the globe and by experts in every field, my cosmopolitanism will always exceed yours.

Be that as it may, it\'s not where you\'ve been, it\'s how much you know. You obviously stick exclusively with the right, absorbing all its literature and propaganda without even considering once to question its validity. Although I may lean to the left, I am always prepared to hear what the other side has to say, which is why I supported the Iraq war.

I\'ve told you before, old man, that the world is not black and white. It\'s well past time you learned this.

He\'s not that old.

Yeah. But he certainly acts old.

Or is it the opposite?

John McCain  believes the President\'s spying program may be illegal and needs to be investigated:

McCain on Fox News Sunday, 1/22/06

WALLACE: But you do not believe that currently he has the legal authority to engage in these warrant-less wiretaps.

MCCAIN: You know, I don’t think so, but why not come to Congress? We can sort this all out. I don’t think — I know of no member of Congress, frankly, who, if the administration came and said here’s why we need this capability, that they wouldn’t get it. And so let’s have the hearings.

Other prominent Republicans who have expressed concerns about the legality of the warrantless wiretapping:  Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN).

Originally posted by hyper
Ignoring everything that opposes conservative bigotry. Typical of a right-wing nutjob.

And you are a typical leftwing moonbat.  Because it doesn\'t fall in line with your beliefs it is full of bigotry?  Well I have some bigotry for you - keep reading.

Originally posted by hyper
Read between the lines, old man. Did I ever say I wanted to take away the powers given to the government? No. I merely suggested that its policies be mandated through the proper channels of checks and balances and judicial review in order to minimize abuse. *smacks forehead* Oh, I forgot! You don\'t know what separation of powers means! Homeland security has censored it from your fucking brain.

[/b]

And this has effected you how????  Homeland Security... hmmm your comment sounds a lot like that certifiable idiot Harry Belifonte.

Originally posted by hyper
How much has this affected me? Very little. Why you think this is relevant? I have no fucking clue.

[/b]

Exactly, you don\'t have a fucking clue.

Originally posted by hyper
About the FISA issue. Yeah, we never hear of the ones that are denied... because there have only been four. Unplug the presidential dick from your ass, old man. Perhaps it will clear up your mind and help you see that your beloved idol can be WRONG.

[/b]

Anytime someone agrees with a Bush policy he is automatically their idol?  You automatically assume because someone does so they agree with everything Bush does.  You have shown your true colors here hyper.  You are as stupid as Mystiq and you have proven that this isn\'t about "macro government" it is about Bush - thanks for finally admitting that.

Originally posted by hyper
You, seeing more of the world than I have? Newsflash, bigot. I\'ve lived in South Korea for 10 years, which means I\'ve covered the other side of the world far longer than your ineffectual life is capable of. And considering I attend Stanford, surrounded by people from all over the globe and by experts in every field, my cosmopolitanism will always exceed yours.

Since you are ranting on about my age and where I live it is time to fire back at you with some of your tactics.  I am assuming you are South Korean and if this is the case I have lived there myself.  That country is the foulest, dirtiest, shithole I have ever lived in and I have lived all over the world - Europe, Asia, the Middle East.  There is nothing worldly or charming about South Korea.  

Your claim that Stanford is the center of enlightenment and education is laughable.  Most of my education from highschool onward comes from the North East - where the best schools and colleges are.  I went to prep school in New England and spent most of my life in that area.  Sure I completed college in the South East, but then again who the fuck cares?  Where you go to college doesn\'t mean shit and if you haven\'t figured that out yet, you are in for a rude awakening.  

Now go back to eating your Kimchi and STFU about my age and my background and where I happen to live now you racist hypocritical fuckhead.  Don\'t like it do you?  You know nothing of either and you don\'t know my true political beliefs as is evident by your claims I view Bush a God.  I normally like people of all colors unless they cop an attitude, but the underlying message I am getting from your posts is one of racism, which is not suprising given that most liberals are the most racist people in this country and they don\'t even realize it.  

Originally posted by hyper
Be that as it may, it\'s not where you\'ve been, it\'s how much you know. You obviously stick exclusively with the right, absorbing all its literature and propaganda without even considering once to question its validity. Although I may lean to the left, I am always prepared to hear what the other side has to say, which is why I supported the Iraq war.

I\'ve told you before, old man, that the world is not black and white. It\'s well past time you learned this.

Blah blah blah more Howard Dean talking points... :gay:  You have proven my point in that this whole thing about Bush and Republicans and not about what is right and best for this country.  If a Democrat was doing this you wouldn\'t hear me whining about it and I bet I wouldn\'t hear you and others complaining either.  As you have stated this hasn\'t effected you at all.  This is has been going on for years and you haven\'t noticed a thing personally.  Not until the NYT publishes it do you have a problem with it claiming it is erroding our civil liberties and harming Americans.

Taking this away along with the Patriot Act would only leave our country more vulnerable to attack and it seems you are comfortable with this.  There is no viable option that critics to this have proposed - NONE.  Until one of you enlightened progressives can come up with a better idea that will keep our country safe, shut up and stop trying to undermine our national security.  I am listening and hearing the same thing I have heard for the past four years from the left - "It is Bush\'s fault, Bush is evil, Bush is Hitler", etc...

Just maybe if the left would actually propose ideas instead of attacking one man and making everything about partisan politics - this country would actually start moving forward again.

Originally posted by Coredweller
John McCain  believes the President\'s spying program may be illegal and needs to be investigated:

McCain on Fox News Sunday, 1/22/06



Other prominent Republicans who have expressed concerns about the legality of the warrantless wiretapping:  Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN).

Most conservatives look at both McCain and Specter as RINO\'s anyway.  Nothing surprising about this at all.

[Living-In-Clip]

Call me as a liberal, call me paranoid, but I find it disgusting that the goverment would to this. You can give me all these reasons that it may be valid and you know what? It doesn\'t matter. It comes down to one thing and that is privacy. I enjoy my privacy and I don\'t want the goverment to have any right to invade that privacy.

I will say this - one again, Giga goes to show he can\'t debate without cussing and what not at members.

Quotes.....

"Moonbat"

"Fucking clueless"

"Young and clueless"

The list goes on and on. Good job at representing your point of view...:rolleyes: You succesfully threw a tantrum on a forum. Congrat\'s to you, Giga. Just glad to see you are keeping it civil in this topic.

And if anyone is racist and what not, it would be you Giga. You\'ve attacked Mystiq and countless others for stupid stuff.