Spying on Americans, so What?

Published on May 31, 2006 By Moderateman In War on Terror

Simple question time.

Why do you care if the government is listening to your phone calls? I don't care at all. If they capture one terrorist or break up one attack on America then it's well worth it.

If you have something to hide from the government, I suggest you do not use the phone any longer. THE ENTIRE ARTICLE WRITTEN ABOVE THIS WAS GENERATED OUT OF FEAR AND A MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHAT EXACTLY I WOULD BE GIVING UP. i WAS WRONG IN WRITING IT AND ASK SIMPLY FOR UNDERSTANDING THAT I TO DO SOME DUMB THINGS TIME TO TIME. ELIE

Comments (Page 2)

stutefish

on May 31, 2006

"and if for some reason the judge decides there was not enough reason to issue a wiretap, What then?"

According to some legal scholars, because this is a case of the U.S. government spying on enemy forces within and without U.S. borders, the President has a Constitutional duty to carry on with the wiretaps anyway, and both the Judicial and the Legislative branches are Constitutionally prohibited from interfering, and any laws passed by the Legislative branch (such as FISA) that might interfere can be legitimately ignored by the Executive in the dishcharge of his Constitutional responsibilities.

And as a question of Constitutional authority and interpretation, the only legitimate method for putting a stop to the program is for either the Executive or the Legislative branch to petition the Judicial branch to issue a ruling.

But until the Supreme Court takes the case (and that can't even happen until a case has been made in court to begin with), the authority of the Executive to interpret the Constitution however it likes is in no way subordinate to the Legislative's authority to do the same, and the Executive's authority is in no way limited by legislation that assumes a competing interpretation of the Constitution.

Moderateman

on May 31, 2006

Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Wednesday, May 31, 2006Well, I guess there's nothing to discuss. There will BE no such apology.

so be it. mr. only your opinion counts.

Moderateman

on May 31, 2006

Reply By: stutefishPosted: Wednesday, May 31, 2006"and if for some reason the judge decides there was not enough reason to issue a wiretap, What then?"According to some legal scholars, because this is a case of the U.S. government spying on enemy forces within and without U.S. borders, the President has a Constitutional duty to carry on with the wiretaps anyway, and both the Judicial and the Legislative branches are Constitutionally prohibited from interfering, and any laws passed by the Legislative branch (such as FISA) that might interfere can be legitimately ignored by the Executive in the discharge of his Constitutional responsibilities.And as a question of Constitutional authority and interpretation, the only legitimate method for putting a stop to the program is for either the Executive or the Legislative branch to petition the Judicial branch to issue a ruling.But until the Supreme Court takes the case (and that can't even happen until a case has been made in court to begin with), the authority of the Executive to interpret the Constitution however it likes is in no way subordinate to the Legislative authority to do the same, and the Executive's authority is in no way limited by legislation that assumes a competing interpretation of the Constitution.

so if in his judgement the President decides that someone is such a threat to life and security he can in Essence "suspend" the constitution on a case by case basis, only in time of WAR can this be done.

Moderateman

on May 31, 2006

Reply By: little-whipPosted: Wednesday, May 31, 2006

The cool thing about "God given" rights is that we as citizens cannot vote (or give) them away under duress, which is what I see MM advocating here. In these stressful times, he feels that in the interest of saving American lives, the fourth amendment should be violated. He wouldn't mind a bit if 'his' 4th amendment rights are violated because 'he' is doing 'nothing wrong,' That may very well be true, however, since the right is considered "God given" then MM has no right to give my fourth amendment rights away, even if he doesn't value his own. Our government cannot take them away, either, for the same reason.

now this is something I can agree with, but I am not talking about spitting on the constitution or even amending it, I just feel there are times when the right to privacy is just not as important as thousands of people being attacked with mutated germs warfare.

It is indeed a slippery slope and I would not like being the one making this decision, but a President in time of war has some pretty broad powers.

However, inferring that anyone who has a problem with giving up their 4th amendment rights is some sort of criminal or has something to hide is disingenuous at best, insulting at worst. You know I'm living legal, MM, but do I want the feds listening in on my private phone conversations? Hell no, not anymore than I would want them going through my drawers and closets without notifying me of the fact.

I did not intimate that whip, this is a discussion on how each individual feels about unauthorized wiretaps. I do not feel that the government can just willy nilly go around and listen to anyone's phone call, they should have some damn good reason to do so. There would be no reason for the government to illegally wiretap Mr Jones the guy that owns a newsstand, or Mrs. smith the lady that waits on you in the local bakery.

Moderateman

on May 31, 2006

Reply By: little-whipPosted: Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Rethink your position on this, I really don't think you mean what you say here. I think your passion (and compassion) has fuzzed your thinking a bit...just a little?

maybe so, I am way down about michele and her illness and my powerlesnes to do anything., I need to rethink this whole thing.

thanks for reasoning with me whip and not just jump out there with slanderous accusations.

Moderateman

on May 31, 2006

Ok on further review I can see that even if it is for a good cause it's the wrong way to go about it.

I will leave this up till you respond whip then I will close it and put it away so at some point in the future I can see how from fear I was ready to give something precious {our right to privacy} away.

Moderateman

on May 31, 2006

Reply By: little-whipPosted: Wednesday, May 31, 2006

I love ya, ya big lug. Get some rest, take care of you, ok?

gonna take that advice and go lay down.

{whip} xoxo

drmiler

on May 31, 2006

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Sorry LW but there are already in place items that give the president the right to abrogate the 4th amendment. Can you say "presidential war powers act"?

Draginol

on May 31, 2006

and would you allow it to save lives?

Only if the actual nation state known as the United States was in jeopardy. So no, I wouldn't support it just to save lives. We could save thousands of lives each year if we put all kinds of regulations on how people behave. We could greatly reduce welfare if we required the citizens to have to apply to get a license to have children (all citizens would be injected with those 5-year birth control inserts).

But then we wouldn't be a free country. It's a slippery slope.

Chakgogka

on May 31, 2006

Although things got a bit heated here, isn't this thread a great ad for the whole idea of political blogging? Someone puts out an idea, people respond and the original poster has the guts to say, "hey, maybe I was wrong"...

... usually when we put our ideas out there, it is supposed that this is our considered and final opinion on the matter which we will stubbornly defend to the death. For this reason, people who disagree feel the need to go in hard with their counter-argument, heat is generated, but sometimes only a little light...

... in reality many of our opinions are provisional. I've changed my mind more than once after reading what someone else has to say here. It seems though that we imagine that our laudable free competition of ideas can only come about through fixed and rigid opinions. Of course that can be good; it often leads to good quality debates. But it also means that we're not allowed the luxury of publically exploring ideas. What about this for a possible style: "Hey guys, I'm not sure about this, but... What do you think?"

I'm a great believer in wishy-washy fence sitting; it's a useful place to be until it starts to feel uncomfortable, at which point you're likely to fall naturally to one side or the other.

drmiler

on May 31, 2006

Sorry LW but there are already in place items that give the president the right to abrogate the 4th amendment. Can you say "presidential war powers act"?

Yes, but the question at the heart of all this is does it apply to our current situation?

The jury is still out on that one, and I'll leave it to more learned minds than mine to decide.

Seems to me that the congress "declared" war or "something" like that.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(

PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (

is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5( of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(

SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Link

drmiler

on Jun 01, 2006

No need to state the obvious, drmiler! However, there is a good deal of controversy right now over the technical legality of the NSA wiretaps, if it were that cut and dried there wouldn't be this huge public discussion going on, right?

That's the whole point! There should be no discussion about it. The left are the ones pushing this and they conveniently seem to forget about the info I previously posted.

Dr Guy

on Jun 01, 2006

Interesting discussion Moderateman. Was that the whole article before your retraction? I found the comments especially interesting. As Chak said, it was an enlightening debate.

Moderateman

on Jun 01, 2006

Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Thursday, June 01, 2006Interesting discussion Moderateman. Was that the whole article before your retraction? I found the comments especially interesting. As Chak said, it was an enlightening debate.

yup doc was whole article, all I did was add retraction.

Moderateman

on Jun 01, 2006

Reply By: Brad WardellPosted: Wednesday, May 31, 2006and would you allow it to save lives?Only if the actual nation state known as the United States was in jeopardy

that was my intention brad, to save american lives. period.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!