Authority for "Wiretapping"

No one has complained about the NSA listening to terrorist electronic transmissions OR. There has been a few complaints about illegal domestic spying though.

Is this your first attempt at propaganda?

 

The question? All I saw was attempt at doublespeak sorry. Illegal domestic spying and listening to terrorist electronic transmissions are two different animals. The issue is domestic spying. Does the constitution allow for domestic spying? No!

That's only because he's in office OR, I'm an equal oportunity basher. You just wait till Hillary is installed in the oval office. Besides Bush Jr. is a globalist minion same as Clinton and Bush Sr.

If I'm guilty of bashing anyone OR, it's the globalists and their minions. George Bush just happens to be one of them. It isn't like I single him out because he's a republican.

[ February 03, 2006, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: poncho ]

 

Well, that is hard to do as your argument is wrong from the outset. This has nothing to do with the Legislative branch. This is an issue that deals with the Bill of Rights.

Nice try, though........

BiR

 

BiR cuts to the chase! Nice one.

 

The Bush bashers on here are getting tiresome, just like the radical leftists are in the day to day Bush political bashings on the national level.

And it's President Bush's responsibility, not just a right.

 

Well said!

 

The question? All I saw was attempt at doublespeak sorry. Illegal domestic spying and listening to terrorist electronic transmissions are two different animals. The issue is domestic spying. Does the constitution allow for domestic spying? No!

That's only because he's in office OR, I'm an equal oportunity basher. You just wait till Hillary is installed in the oval office. Besides Bush Jr. is a globalist minion same as Clinton and Bush Sr.

If I'm guilty of bashing anyone OR, it's the globalists and their minions. George Bush just happens to be one of them. It isn't like I single him out because he's a republican. </font>[/QUOTE]poncho

You state: "All I saw was attempt at doublespeak sorry. "

I repeat the OP so you can identify the doublespeak.

"The Federal Government as established by the Constitution consists of three equal branches: the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary.

Many on this Forum have complained about the NSA listening to terrorist electronic transmissions. Can some of you people tell me where the Constitution gives Congress the authority to grant or deny the Executive the right to listen to these terrorist electronic transmissions?"

It is obvious that you read what you choose and twist it so you can bash Bush. Everyone on this Forum knows your sentiments. It isn't necessary to take every opportunity to bash Bush. Just answer the simple question I asked, if you can. </font>[/QUOTE]You are right OR. The double speak or more accurate newspeak was already done for you by the globalist spin machine. I see now that you weren't knowingly engaging in propaganda. You were just uh, catapulting the ready made propaganda. Sorry for the confusion. I got a case of ismitis after defining globalism on another thread. Think you can ever forgive this poor sinner?


By changing the words, from domestic surveillance to terrorist surveillance they've made it sound like Bush is looking out for people instead of looking into peoples mail. It's an old trick.

The fourth amendment says.

Probable cause. Huh? Wonder if NSA expert General Hayen knows that is in the fourth amendment?

Click here to find out what General Hayden knows. (Real player)

Well, looks like either the expert is ignorant of the law or he's the clumsiest liar the PTB could find to cover for "the boss".

This isn't about presidential powers it's about the bill of rights. The president could have gotten a rubberstamp warrant 72 hours after any such surveillance. Seems simple enough, do your spying get a retroactive rubberstamp warrant 72 hours later. Unless you are engaged in something questionable or illegal getting such a warrant should be relatively easy.

You still don't get it do you? This isn't about Bush or Clinton or liberals or conservatives or democrats or republicans. This is about liberty vs slavery a contsituional repbulic vs a global dictatorship. Partisan politics are usless in this debate, they are unproductive and highly stage managed for your entertainment and a total waste of time. Im everso ho.

 

OldRegular, your MO is getting tiresome.
If you can offer ANYTHING that supports the straw man you are attempting to tear down, then by all means share it with us. But, as usual, you offer absolutely nothing to support your claim, and demand that someone support the assertion that is wholly and completely inaccurate. Moreover, it demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the actual subject at hand.

As usual, abject fatuity, nothing more.
It is not up to me to support the simplistic straw man you have offered, especially given the fact that I have already posted that it involves the Bill of Rights, not the Legislative branch. As it was you who offered that pathetic straw man, I can only assume that you have an elementary knowledge of the Constitution.

I also find it interesting that you refer to everyone who dissents as "Bush Haters." Those same people might accuse you of hero worship. Personally, I wouldn't know, as I am in neither category.

Regards anyway,
BiR (in Idaho)

 

I support the position that Old Regular has taken. I don't agree with Poncho, Baptist in Richmond, or Kiffen on this issue.

At first reading a person could conclude that warrants are always required prior to search or seizure. But that's not at all the case. There are many exceptions to that requirement long recognized by our Courts - the branch responsible for holding the government to the Constitution - as well as by the Legislative and Executive branches. A few key words in the amendment are "to be secure" and "unreasonable". As with all other rights none are absolute and must be balanced against other rights and duties of government.

It's long be recognized that in a state of emergency the government can temporarily suspend numerous individual rights in the interest of general public safety and to re-establish order. It's long be recognized that spying upon suspected enemies of the nation to prevent their execution of attacks upon the citizens of the nation is, in fact, not only a right but a duty of the government. It has long been recognized that law enforcement officers do not need a warrant to pursue and arrest a person who been observed committing a crime. It's long been recognized that a person can be searched and their immediately accessible property can be searched without a warrant when detained or arrested. It's long been recognized that the rights of enemy combatants are not protected by the forth amendment. Etc.

The fact is that the President, as the chief executive officer of the nation, has a right and a duty to take whatever actions are necessary to protect and defend the nation against possible enemy attacks in a timely manner. Just as a police officer can immediately pursue a suspect who's believed to have just committed a crime, so can an NSA security agent immediately monitor a call reasonably believed to involve enemies of the nation. Neither is subject to due process of warrants as described in the forth amendment.

That's exactly what's being done by intercepting the international calls of known terrorist agents such that any actions they are planning can hopefully be uncovered. These potential acts are not criminal acts - they are acts of war. As such they are subject to a completely different criteria of law than suspected violations of civil or criminal law. Let's not confuse these matters and tie our hands in a manner never intended by those who wrote the Bill of Rights. We don't need to work our laws to the benefit of our enemies.

I contend that the President does not need a warrant to pursue these enemies whether outside or inside the United States. There is, of course, a danger in this because if this power is misused the result could be domestic surveillance in the name of preventing enemy attacks when in fact it is not. That's why the President does need to report to Congress - in confidence and to a limited committee thereof - on what's being done and why. The responsibility of Congress is to keep these programs in proper check but also to keep secret that which needs to be secret. Is there anyone left who can keep a secret these days?

 

At first reading a person could conclude that warrants are always required prior to search or seizure. But that's not at all the case. There are many exceptions to that requirement long recognized by our Courts - the branch responsible for holding the government to the Constitution - as well as by the Legislative and Executive branches. A few key words in the amendment are "to be secure" and "unreasonable". As with all other rights none are absolute and must be balanced against other rights and duties of government. </font>[/QUOTE]This is one of the problems that strict constructionists run into - sometimes rights conflict with one another.

Only if you consider since the end of 2001 to be a long time.

Yeah, but what about the Quakers?

That's a conundrum.

It's a pleasure to read such a thoughtful & well-reasoned argument, even if I may not accept it in its entirety.

 

I wonder what the reaction would be on this board if the 2nd amendment rights were being ignoreed to the same extent as Bush is ignoring 4th amendment rights.

e.g. In time of terrorism we should seize all guns held by private citizens.

 

It would be okay S&N, because President Bush did it.

We can trust him.

 

Actually C4K Bush did it through disposable lackeys, in that way the faithful can say Brownie or Chertoff did it and go on worshiping I mean defending Bush's tyranny. And lets remember every time they do something like this they automatically claim ignorance or ineptitude and of course ask for more funding to fix the "problem".

And some people like General Hayden actually show us their ineptitude on mainstream television. Probable cause isn't in the 4th amendment?

Does this guy actually believe this? I doubt it very much. As I see it, this is an attempt to confuse the people and claim that the president doesn't need a warrant for "reasonable searches" define reasonable, then tell me why the founders wrote the fourth amendment the way they did.

In other words if you don't have probable cause don't ask for a warrant. Bush didn't ask for a warrant that he could have easily gotten 72 hours after the fact. Did he have probable cause?

How can one describe the particular place to be searched or the things to be seized in this case the whole of America and Americans?

[ February 05, 2006, 04:02 AM: Message edited by: poncho ]

 

Oops.