clinton faces music

[Jenksismyhero]

Show me an instance where the wiretapping (not any wiretapping, but the kind argued on this board as being questionable) did anything to make this country safer.

 

And it never ceases to amaze me how many people are so spoiled by their freedoms living in the U.S. that they use the "I have nothing to hide" argument when this administration chips slowly away at the Constitution. Ironically, it is often these same people who yell and scream that we must vigorously defend our freedoms at any cost... when they want to go to war with a country that represents zero danger to us. I guess freedom is in the eye of the beholder.

 

 

As was pointed out it's difficult to tell if it has worked. However there was the 'threat' on New York financial institutions a year ago that they say was uncovered by listening to phone conversations. Also, I believe the plot to blow up planes using hair gel/liquids in the UK was uncovered by using warrantless taps.

 

As to your second point, there is no such thing as a privacy right expressly written into the Constitution. It was deduced from a 'penumbra' of rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights (uncovered over time through constitutional history). I am of the mind that if you can create rights in the Constitution than you can also take them away or at least alter them slightly. How is wiring tapping with a warrant any different? You're still infringing on a persons privacy rights, but they Court has simply made an exception. Why can't they create another exception when dealing with terrorists/terrorist activities?

 

Further, there have been times in history when the rights guaranteed by the Constitution have been abridged for reasons of safety and security. Ask Mr. Lincoln about his policies leading up to and during the Civil War dealing with habeas corpus.

Edited September 26, 2006 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

As was pointed out it's difficult to tell if it has worked. However there was the 'threat' on New York financial institutions a year ago that they say was uncovered by listening to phone conversations. Also, I believe the plot to blow up planes using hair gel/liquids in the UK was uncovered by using warrantless taps.

First and foremost...no one at all, as far as I know, is opposing the government having the right to wiretap terrorists, people with actual terrorist ties, people making international phone calls, or in cases where there is a "significant national security purpose" for the wiretap. All we're asking is that the President has to go to the trouble of going to a secret court which almost never denies requests and submitting some evidence to that court to show that there's some reason for people to believe it's related to national security. That's it.

 

Secondly, there is no evidence that Mr. Bush's actual warrantless wiretapping program had anything to do with uncovering the london Plot. Several sources wrote this in the weeks after the plot was uncovered:

Washington Post staff writers Dan Eggen and Spencer S. Hsu reported on August 13 that "[m]ore than 200 FBI agents and scores of analysts and other personnel" undertook "dozens of clandestine surveillance and search operations on individuals with possible links to the London plotters," including "people who had been called or e-mailed by suspects or their relatives and acquaintances." But while Eggen and Hsu reported that the extensive surveillance "produced a noticeable surge in applications for clandestine warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," they did not report that surveillance was conducted without warrants. Similarly, New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau reported on August 15 that "the Justice Department sought double or triple the usual rate of court-approved wiretaps to monitor the communications of American suspects" in the plot, reporting nothing about warrantless wiretapping.

Furthermore, several sources also strongly suggested that there was "no U.S. connection" to the London plot, and therefore, there would have been no reason for the "Warrantless wiretapping" program to even matter...because none of the individuals involved were U.S. citizens.

 

And finally, British law is actually somewhat more strict than the U.S. law with regards to wiretapping.

 

British law requires the issuance of warrants before telephone conversations can be intercepted, and every warrant must "name or describe either one person as the Interception Subject, or a single set of premises where the interception is to take place." Being able to eavesdrop only with warrants did not prevent British law enforcement from stopping these terrorist attacks.

 

As to your second point, there is no such thing as a privacy right expressly written into the Constitution. It was deduced from a 'penumbra' of rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights (uncovered over time through constitutional history). I am of the mind that if you can create rights in the Constitution than you can also take them away or at least alter them slightly. How is wiring tapping with a warrant any different? You're still infringing on a persons privacy rights, but they Court has simply made an exception. Why can't they create another exception when dealing with terrorists/terrorist activities?

 

Further, there have been times in history when the rights guaranteed by the Constitution have been abridged for reasons of safety and security. Ask Mr. Lincoln about his policies leading up to and during the Civil War dealing with habeas corpus.

It's probably also worth noting that the suspension of Habeus Corpus was challenged in ex parte Milligan (71 US 2 [1866]) and was found to be unconstitutional.

[southsider2k5]

I guess this has sort of been mentioned, but why aren't more people taking Clinton to task for pushing blame off on someone else? Anytime this has been done by repubs in the last 6 years, I have never heard the end of it, yet Bill Clinton does it, and the focus is actually on what he said, instead of his debate techniques... Why is that?

[KipWellsFan]

I guess this has sort of been mentioned, but why aren't more people taking Clinton to task for pushing blame off on someone else? Anytime this has been done by repubs in the last 6 years, I have never heard the end of it, yet Bill Clinton does it, and the focus is actually on what he said, instead of his debate techniques... Why is that?

 

Maybe because he himself admits failure?

[southsider2k5]

Maybe because he himself admits failure?

 

So has Bush...

[Jenksismyhero]

First and foremost...no one at all, as far as I know, is opposing the government having the right to wiretap terrorists, people with actual terrorist ties, people making international phone calls, or in cases where there is a "significant national security purpose" for the wiretap. All we're asking is that the President has to go to the trouble of going to a secret court which almost never denies requests and submitting some evidence to that court to show that there's some reason for people to believe it's related to national security. That's it.

 

But if it's this easy then who cares? It just becomes an administrative step that wastes time and money. If there's a situation in which they have a feeling some guy X will be contacting some guy Y tomorrow, they might miss the conversation completely by having to file a report to a commission. Who knows how long the process works, but even if it delays it 10 minutes and we miss that phone call it could be huge.

 

I'd be fine with a system simliar to the Patriot Act in which government agencies are allowed to undergo the warrantless tap but have to come back with evidence later (if they couldn't do so before hand) that would validate the tap. So long as we don't miss out on an opportunity to catch people or gain more intelligence because of a formality that, as you say, almost never gets denied, i'm fine with putting SOME 'protections' in place. I just don't agree that we should fundamentally oppose any alteration or exception on a 'right' that the Court has defined and molded to fit certain situations already.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I guess this has sort of been mentioned, but why aren't more people taking Clinton to task for pushing blame off on someone else? Anytime this has been done by repubs in the last 6 years, I have never heard the end of it, yet Bill Clinton does it, and the focus is actually on what he said, instead of his debate techniques... Why is that?

 

 

Because Clinton is a saint to the leftist mainstream media and Bush is not.

[southsider2k5]

But if it's this easy then who cares? It just becomes an administrative step that wastes time and money. If there's a situation in which they have a feeling some guy X will be contacting some guy Y tomorrow, they might miss the conversation completely by having to file a report to a commission. Who knows how long the process works, but even if it delays it 10 minutes and we miss that phone call it could be huge.

 

I'd be fine with a system simliar to the Patriot Act in which government agencies are allowed to undergo the warrantless tap but have to come back with evidence later (if they couldn't do so before hand) that would validate the tap. So long as we don't miss out on an opportunity to catch people or gain more intelligence because of a formality that, as you say, almost never gets denied, i'm fine with putting SOME 'protections' in place. I just don't agree that we should fundamentally oppose any alteration or exception on a 'right' that the Court has defined and molded to fit certain situations already.

 

This whole debate for me comes down to one point. In a situation as such, are you will to sacrifice your own or a loved ones life in order to protect this specific freedoms? Are you willing to have a piece of information which could potentially stop a situation like 9-11 from happening because the government could not get the appropriate warrants in time, not obtained, leading to a terrorist attack? To me that is the true question on how much you believe in these freedoms.

[Balta1701]

But if it's this easy then who cares? It just becomes an administrative step that wastes time and money. If there's a situation in which they have a feeling some guy X will be contacting some guy Y tomorrow, they might miss the conversation completely by having to file a report to a commission. Who knows how long the process works, but even if it delays it 10 minutes and we miss that phone call it could be huge.

 

I'd be fine with a system simliar to the Patriot Act in which government agencies are allowed to undergo the warrantless tap but have to come back with evidence later (if they couldn't do so before hand) that would validate the tap. So long as we don't miss out on an opportunity to catch people or gain more intelligence because of a formality that, as you say, almost never gets denied, i'm fine with putting SOME 'protections' in place. I just don't agree that we should fundamentally oppose any alteration or exception on a 'right' that the Court has defined and molded to fit certain situations already.

Well, that's the real beauty of the FISA system as the U.S. has it. First of all, the Executive branch has the right to conduct a tap without even filling the paperwork for 72 hours. If that deadline needs extended then extend it, but it's worth noting that the President didn't bother asking to extend it in the Patriot Act or in Patriot 2. So in other words, no it doesn't delay a thing. If it was causing problems...then all they need to do is ask for that deadline to be extended...that is one I'd be happy to grant them if they thought it was a problem.

 

Secondly, it's actually a fairly vital administrative step...because it assures that the NSA is not being used for strictly domestic purposes that have nothing to do with national security. Some folks here would like to argue that such a thing could never happen, and that we should trust our leaders all the time...but the problem with that is that those sorts of wiretaps were exactly what prompted the creation of FISA in the first place.

 

The constitution grants the President the right to use wiretaps without obtaining a 4th amendment warrant in any case related to national security. But administrations like Nixon and Johnson decided that their political opponents were threatening the security of the United States, or something like that, so they deployed the surveillance equipment against their political opponents. Johnson had Nixon's campaign wiretapped in 68, Nixon wiretapped everyone he could think of.

 

Because of these actions, the Congress took the step in the late 70's of providing a method through which the courts could confirm that there was some national security reasoning behind a wiretap...the creation of the FISA court. After the Patriot Act revisions, basically all the administration has to do is show that there's some remote reason to think vital foreign intelligence could be gathered through that wiretap and it is supposed to be approved.

[Texsox]

Because Clinton is a saint to the leftist mainstream media and Bush is not.

 

Of course we know the only real Saints are Republicans . . . Shall we toss Reagan pause while the GOP faithful bow, remove their hats, and offer a moment of silnce> into the President as saint discussion? Clinton pales in comparision to the biggest spender and appeaser we've ever seen.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Of course we know the only real Saints are Republicans . . . Shall we toss Reagan pause while the GOP faithful bow, remove their hats, and offer a moment of silnce> into the President as saint discussion? Clinton pales in comparision to the biggest spender and appeaser we've ever seen.

 

 

 

Now that I have paid proper respect to the Gipper........

 

 

Appeaser? Was he the one that said the Soviets couldn't be defeated? Was he the one that said we should try to co-exist with communisim instead of trying to defeat it?

 

 

........

 

 

...........not going to hold my breath waiting for an answer.

[Balta1701]

 

Now that I have paid proper respect to the Gipper........

Appeaser? Was he the one that said the Soviets couldn't be defeated? Was he the one that said we should try to co-exist with communisim instead of trying to defeat it?

........

...........not going to hold my breath waiting for an answer.

Actually, I would say that he was the one both willing to negotiate with the Soviets and with the domestic credibility to do so. I can't recall him actually attacking the soviets militarily.

Edited September 26, 2006 by Balta1701

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Actually, I would say that he was the one both willing to negotiate with the Soviets and with the domestic credibility to do so. I can't recall him actually attacking the soviets militarily.

 

 

No. They got the Afghans to do it for them.

 

 

He also bankrupted their economy with the 1-2 punch of the arms buildup and colluding with the Saudis to tank the price of oil.

[NorthSideSox72]

As was pointed out it's difficult to tell if it has worked. However there was the 'threat' on New York financial institutions a year ago that they say was uncovered by listening to phone conversations. Also, I believe the plot to blow up planes using hair gel/liquids in the UK was uncovered by using warrantless taps.

 

As to your second point, there is no such thing as a privacy right expressly written into the Constitution. It was deduced from a 'penumbra' of rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights (uncovered over time through constitutional history). I am of the mind that if you can create rights in the Constitution than you can also take them away or at least alter them slightly. How is wiring tapping with a warrant any different? You're still infringing on a persons privacy rights, but they Court has simply made an exception. Why can't they create another exception when dealing with terrorists/terrorist activities?

 

Further, there have been times in history when the rights guaranteed by the Constitution have been abridged for reasons of safety and security. Ask Mr. Lincoln about his policies leading up to and during the Civil War dealing with habeas corpus.

Not once did my post refer to a right to privacy. What I was referring to was the burden on government to justify intrusion into out lives, via a warrant.

 

And as Balta noted, any connection between warrantless searches or wiretapping and any material case is non-existent, in anything I have read. Feel free to provide evidence otherwise.

 

 

So has Bush...

Elaborate, please. I have seen no such thing.

[Jenksismyhero]

Secondly, it's actually a fairly vital administrative step...because it assures that the NSA is not being used for strictly domestic purposes that have nothing to do with national security. Some folks here would like to argue that such a thing could never happen, and that we should trust our leaders all the time...but the problem with that is that those sorts of wiretaps were exactly what prompted the creation of FISA in the first place.

 

Assuming the program is used for domestic spying (very very rare I'm sure), any evidence obtained would be thrown out. The person couldn't be convicted unless some other evidence is found through legal means. Of course then it's argued that the illegal tap is just a front and it could lead to finding other evidence legally. At this point, though, who cares? Like I said earlier we're not talking about people who are stealing cable or smoking some pot or whatever small ass crime that a million other people in the country are doing at the same time.

 

I guess this just goes back to the 'if you're innocent you have nothing to worry about' argument. To me there are adequate protections in our justice system to keep innocent people, wrongly accused, out of jail. If a couple of innocent people have to go through the process in order for the government to catch a few terrorist or expose plots before they move into action, so be it. They'll get a hefty chunk of change in their lawsuit against the government (which the american people, as jury, would rightly give them).

 

People fear the NSA (and Patriot Act) will lead to a 1984 style society. This country would revolt if such a situation would arise. It's just not possible and to me it's an unreasonable fear.

[NorthSideSox72]

I guess this just goes back to the 'if you're innocent you have nothing to worry about' argument.

Fortunately, our country uses the "innocent until proven guilty standard", instead of yours. Otherwise, they could pretty much do what they wanted, couldn't they?

[Jenksismyhero]

Not once did my post refer to a right to privacy. What I was referring to was the burden on government to justify intrusion into out lives, via a warrant.

 

But they wouldn't have to justify it unless there was some right to privacy preventing them from doing that right? That's why I brought it up. The warrant is just an exception the Supreme Court has placed on that 'right' and to me if they can make that exception they can make other exceptions.

 

And as Balta noted, any connection between warrantless searches or wiretapping and any material case is non-existent, in anything I have read. Feel free to provide evidence otherwise.

Elaborate, please. I have seen no such thing.

 

And yeah, I could have sworn I read an article or two that said the UK plot was exposed based on an easier wiretap/evidence gathering process. From what Balta posted though, it seems I must have misread the article.

 

Fortunately, our country uses the "innocent until proven guilty standard", instead of yours. Otherwise, they could pretty much do what they wanted, couldn't they?

 

 

How so? They'd still have to go through the judicial process.

Edited September 26, 2006 by Jenksismybitch

[Rex Kickass]

This whole debate for me comes down to one point. In a situation as such, are you will to sacrifice your own or a loved ones life in order to protect this specific freedoms? Are you willing to have a piece of information which could potentially stop a situation like 9-11 from happening because the government could not get the appropriate warrants in time, not obtained, leading to a terrorist attack? To me that is the true question on how much you believe in these freedoms.

 

I fail to see how delaying indefinitely bringing a terrorist to actual justice saves any lives whatsoever. I don't understand why following the laws, getting warrants, and making sure that the freedoms and system of justice that we fight for when we fight against terrorists aren't equally applied to everyone we fight against.

 

That's my point.

[NorthSideSox72]

But they wouldn't have to justify it unless there was some right to privacy preventing them from doing that right? That's why I brought it up. The warrant is just an exception the Supreme Court has placed on that 'right' and to me if they can make that exception that can make other exceptions.

The warrant is an exception? They only have to justify it if there is a right to privacy issue? I think you misunderstand some of the basics of this. A warrant is necessary for ANY search of a citizen or their home/property unless certain very high legal hurdles are cleared (someone in a house screaming "NO! DON'T KILL ME!" for example). It is a basic requirement. Probable cause is used in fringe areas - vehicles for example. And safety issues come into play in law enforcement encounters, such as the wingspan rule.

 

Law enforcement only gets legally "free" access to information that any other citizen could obtain. That's the legal parallel that is key here. Anything else requires some sort of hurdle to be jumped.

 

 

How so? They'd still have to go through the judicial process.

Huh? You just finished saying you were OK with the warrantless taps, and that you didn't have anything to hide, so you don't care. If that is the standard, then no judicial process would take place. They could just search your, your home or your information whenever they'd like.

[Jenksismyhero]

The warrant is an exception? They only have to justify it if there is a right to privacy issue? I think you misunderstand some of the basics of this. A warrant is necessary for ANY search of a citizen or their home/property unless certain very high legal hurdles are cleared (someone in a house screaming "NO! DON'T KILL ME!" for example). It is a basic requirement. Probable cause is used in fringe areas - vehicles for example. And safety issues come into play in law enforcement encounters, such as the wingspan rule.

 

 

It's an exception to the right of privacy, in that, everyone has a right to privacy UNLESS you can obtain a warrant (or the extreme circumstances you mention). If you're a cop and you obtain a warrant and bust into someones home, they haven't given up their right to privacy. The exception that the Court has granted (the warrant) simply overrides that right. So yeah, it's an exception to the general rule that everyone has a right to privacy at all times.

 

 

Huh? You just finished saying you were OK with the warrantless taps, and that you didn't have anything to hide, so you don't care. If that is the standard, then no judicial process would take place. They could just search your, your home or your information whenever they'd like.

 

I'm OK with it in the narrow situation we're talking about: people that pose a national security risk.

 

They could search you or your home but they don't convict you on the spot and throw you in jail. They have to go through the judicial process of charging someone, introducing evidence (which in these cases they would be thrown out) and then getting a conviction. You're still innocent with respect to the law and the legal system.

[southsider2k5]

I fail to see how delaying indefinitely bringing a terrorist to actual justice saves any lives whatsoever. I don't understand why following the laws, getting warrants, and making sure that the freedoms and system of justice that we fight for when we fight against terrorists aren't equally applied to everyone we fight against.

 

That's my point.

 

In a hypothetical situation it could be the difference between being able to execute an attack, and disrupting it.

[Balta1701]

Assuming the program is used for domestic spying (very very rare I'm sure), any evidence obtained would be thrown out. The person couldn't be convicted unless some other evidence is found through legal means. Of course then it's argued that the illegal tap is just a front and it could lead to finding other evidence legally. At this point, though, who cares? Like I said earlier we're not talking about people who are stealing cable or smoking some pot or whatever small ass crime that a million other people in the country are doing at the same time.

 

I guess this just goes back to the 'if you're innocent you have nothing to worry about' argument. To me there are adequate protections in our justice system to keep innocent people, wrongly accused, out of jail. If a couple of innocent people have to go through the process in order for the government to catch a few terrorist or expose plots before they move into action, so be it. They'll get a hefty chunk of change in their lawsuit against the government (which the american people, as jury, would rightly give them).

 

People fear the NSA (and Patriot Act) will lead to a 1984 style society. This country would revolt if such a situation would arise. It's just not possible and to me it's an unreasonable fear.

But here's the real kicker...information can be obtained through domestic spying that can be used in other ways other than National Security. Which is the single biggest reason that we need the FISA Act and its limited protections.

 

In the 60s-70s, for example, that information was used by Mr. Nixon and Mr. Johnson to have direct impacts on the national elections. Nixon, for example, had journalists wiretapped to both find out who their sources were and to find out the things they were writing beforehand. Johnson had Nixon's plane wiretapped in 1968 before the election.

 

Both of them justified their wiretaps by saying, guess what, it was in the interest of national security. But in neither case was it actually so. There were hundreds of other examples.

 

In the right circumstance, that sort of information can swing elections, can cost people jobs, and can be worth millions of dollars. Just the sort of stuff you'd say on your phone or in your office. In national security circumstances, the President has the right to gather that information...but the President does not have the right to determine on his own what circumstances are related to national security, and that is the key point.

[Rex Kickass]

In a hypothetical situation it could be the difference between being able to execute an attack, and disrupting it.

 

You can legally hold someone for 48 hours without charging someone.

[NorthSideSox72]

You can legally hold someone for 48 hours without charging someone.

And FISA warrants can be petitioned for and granted concurrently with execution, if time is of the essence, I believe.

[AbeFroman]

No. They got the Afghans to do it for them.

He also bankrupted their economy with the 1-2 punch of the arms buildup and colluding with the Saudis to tank the price of oil.

 

Levi's Jeans had twice as much to do with causing the collapse of the Soviet Union than anything any president did...