Stop Warrantless Wiretapping!!!

The American Civil Liberties Union is asking for an immediate halt to the warrantless wiretapping program. The Bush administration says it is necessary and legal but opponents to the program say that it is a violation of the Constitution.



It appears that this issue is going to get heated up the closer we get to election time. It the ACLU's position that The framers of the Constitution never intended to give the president the power to ignore the laws of Congress even during wartime and emergencies, I happen to agree with the ACLU on this one but if the government gets it's way this case is going nowhere. the government's assertion is that no court can consider the issues. I wonder what they will use to prove this assertion?


Related News Links:
www.swissinfo.org

Taps

Everything I've seen so far indicates that these programs are in fact legal.

However, the claim that they cannot be subjected to judicial oversight is absurd.

I look forward to a full and thorough judicial review of these programs.

The sooner, the better.

I assume that this will be the real issue at hand......

TextThe case goes to the heart of the larger national debate about whether U.S. President George W. Bush has assumed too much power in his declared war on terrorism.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out

The link in the original post does not go to the quoted story. Here are similar links:
www.baltimoresun.com...

www.aclu.org...

Originally posted by Majic
Taps

Everything I've seen so far indicates that these programs are in fact legal.

However, the claim that they cannot be subjected to judicial oversight is absurd.

I look forward to a full and thorough judicial review of these programs.

The sooner, the better.

Legal?

No wonder we have illegal wiretapping in the firstplace. People are mental.

Go read the Federal US code.

Wiretaps or pentraps against US citizens are ILLEGAL without a warrant.

I see people like you everyday Majic. People have no understanding of the laws and the constitution. People come up with crazy interpretations and they roll over and support gun control, surveillance, federal power, and suppression of our 1st amendment rights. They think the President has all the power. They think the federal government can do anything it wants.

You do know the Constitution limits the power of the federal government right? Go read the federal laws. Half of them are illegal. The federal government pretty much only has the power to only regulate interstate commerce and to determine our taxes. The federal government makes laws for crime, the environment and everything in between. Those laws are supposed to be made by the State's.

I would put money half of Americans don't even know how the federal government is supposed to operate and how far they are out of control. I would say more then half don't know anything about the Constitution.

It's pretty obvious. A person like Majic comes here to this forum and talks about conspiracies, how screwed the government is, when he doesn't even have a basic education. Nor does he do any research about what he talks about.

Here are the laws:
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and

This law says that the President can issue wiretaps without warrants as long as they are directed against foreign persons and they don't intercept communications of US citizens.

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

This law says that the President can issue wiretaps without a court order that cannot exceed 15 calendar days after a declaration of law for FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE only.

1) The Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General,[1] or any Assistant Attorney General, any acting Assistant Attorney General, or any Deputy Assistant Attorney General or acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division specially designated by the Attorney General, may authorize an application to a Federal judge of competent jurisdiction for, and such judge may grant in conformity with section 2518 of this chapter an order authorizing or approving the interception of wire or oral communications by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or a Federal agency having responsibility for the investigation of the offense as to which the application is made, when such interception may provide or has provided evidence of— (lists crimes that would warrant a wiretap here, its a long list)

This law says that the FBI, CIA, NSA, or whoever else needs to have the Attorney General or one of his minions make an application to a court judge to get a warrant for a wiretap or pentrap.


Majic? You still think it's legal?





[edit on 12-6-2006 by ImplementOfWar]

It's really to bad when The ACLU has to do the job of congress. Apparently they refuse to do the job they were elected for so why should they ever be elected again? Throw out all incumbents.

Majic,

I agree with you. However, I tend to think that a "full judical review of these programs" will not be very productive. The executive branch will (successfully) argue that they have indeed disclosed to the legislative branch (read congressional "Gang of Eight") the particulars of these programs, as required by law and common practice. Just because a few (non-briefed and non-cleared) senators have a few hairs across their bums will not compell anyone to disclose that which they consider to be information vital to our national security. Congress is the most notorious source of security leaks in Washington, and the people at NSA (and the contractors who support them) are not going to jeopardize billions of dollars of infrastructure and the success of our war against terrorism to placate a few grandstanding blowhards on Capital Hill. The presidents of the various telecommunications companies will say nothing, even under oath, as they have been legally bound to say nothing unless relief is provided by the controlling authority of the classified information. Congress cannot compell anyone to disclose classified information controlled by the executive branch via the subpoena and oath.

ImplementOfWar,

Why don't you spend a little less time ranting and disparaging the other posters, and a little more time adding meaningful content to the discussion? Anyone can quote various part of the US Code and claim they are being violated, and yada yada yada. What's more germane to the subject is "whose interpretation of the law is correct"? Or more importantly, "Why should congress create such a fuss over this issue when polling data clearly shows that the majority of Americans support these activities within the current framework and boundaries in which they exist"?

What people like you fail to realize is that the great unwashed masses of the American public simple want to be safe in their own country. They don't care about the finer points of constitutional law, or the inner workings of our government. They go to work, pay their taxes, and live their lives on a day-to-day basis wanting to feel safe. They expect the government to keep them safe. And when the government says that these programs are necessary and helping us find and eliminate terrorists, then these American people are (for the most part) going to gladly sign up. And you know what? Their uneducated, ignorant opinions (and votes) are just as important as yours. They hold equal weight. So, until the opinion of the majority of Americans changes, you can blather on about constitutional law and executive power and priviledge all you want, but its not going to change anything.

I would bet you 10,000$ that if every US citizen was asked at the next ballot wether they supported warrantless wiretaps the majority would be STRONGLY opposed to that idea. The same for gun control, wether the president should have any other powers not prescribed to him by the Constitution, wether we should be safe from warrantless searches, wether our personal information should be kept private, and wether we have an absolute right to free speech.

These questions won't get asked at the polls because the government has too much to lose. One of the major reasons for limiting power in the federal government is so the minority can't dictate their ideals onto the majority. By doing a census of American's real thought's, they would lose too much of their power.

Instead they rely on uneducated conformists like you to "tolerate" eroding our Constitution's integrity.

All of the polls I have seen done by the media show that Americans DO NOT support warrantless wiretaps so how about you contribute something truthful? It's against the forum rules to post information that is not accurate.


[edit on 12-6-2006 by ImplementOfWar]

Mod Edit: Removed Quote.

[edit on 12/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]

I'm gonna say this one more time. What NSA is doing is not wiretapping. Therefore, they are not breaking any wiretapping law. You can continue to say they are doing illegal wiretapping all you want, but when--and if--it ever comes up for judicial review the court is going to rule in NSA's favor.

To be clear, I was referring to telecommunications surveillance as a whole, and not specifically about any alleged "warrantless" wiretapping. One has to do but a cursory Google search on the topic to find plenty of data to support my statement that Amercans broadly support the notion of conducting electronic surveillance in the US to deal with terrorists, within limits of course. Most Americans strongly support wiretapping to find terrorists, while most American also believe that these activities should be strongly regulated and approved by a court order.

The issue of "warranted" versus "warrantless" wiretapping is in reality a small thread of a larger argument that the Bush haters, the Libertarians, and the ultra-left have latched on to in an effort to demonize their anit-christ, GWB. Well, guess what? These programs were approved, grown and flourished under the protection of the last Democratic administration. And if an Democrat is elected 2 years from now, these programs will continue on.

Please spare me your libertarian ramblings. You are no less free than you were 5 years ago. And spare me your labels. As far as being an "uneducated conformist", I am willing to wager that I know a lot more about these programs than you will ever hope to know in an entire lifetime. I believe in their usefulness and capabilities, because I have seen their results.

I get a kick out of people like you who decry the eroion of the "Constitution's integrity" and so forth, but you offer no real world answers to real world problems. Idealism doesn't pay the rent. Idealism doesn't put food on your table. And idealism doesn't keep you safe from terrorism. Your like a group of old Athenian scholars, debating the merits and morality of warfare while the Spartans batter down the city gates.......

Originally posted by Astronomer70
I'm gonna say this one more time. What NSA is doing is not wiretapping. Therefore, they are not breaking any wiretapping law. You can continue to say they are doing illegal wiretapping all you want, but when--and if--it ever comes up for judicial review the court is going to rule in NSA's favor.

You're right they aren't wiretaps, they are pentraps. Wiretaps and pentraps are basically the same thing and they are both illegal without probable cause and court permission.

Originally posted by Pyros
To be clear, I was referring to telecommunications surveillance as a whole, and not specifically about any alleged "warrantless" wiretapping. One has to do but a cursory Google search on the topic to find plenty of data to support my statement that Amercans broadly support the notion of conducting electronic surveillance in the US to deal with terrorists, within limits of course. Most Americans strongly support wiretapping to find terrorists, while most American also believe that these activities should be strongly regulated and approved by a court order.

This isn't about the FBI, NSA, CIA or whoever else having a FISA warrant to listen in on some foreign exchange student who grew up in a terrorist training camp making calls home to Jihad Dad. This is about warrantless pentraps and eavesdropping on ALL COMMUNICATIONS in the US.

Originally posted by Pyros
The issue of "warranted" versus "warrantless" wiretapping is in reality a small thread of a larger argument that the Bush haters, the Libertarians, and the ultra-left have latched on to in an effort to demonize their anit-christ, GWB. Well, guess what? These programs were approved, grown and flourished under the protection of the last Democratic administration. And if an Democrat is elected 2 years from now, these programs will continue on.

Under what law are these programs authorized under? There is no law that grants permission to our intelligence agencies for free access to our communications infrastructure.

Originally posted by Pyros
Please spare me your libertarian ramblings. You are no less free than you were 5 years ago. And spare me your labels. As far as being an "uneducated conformist", I am willing to wager that I know a lot more about these programs than you will ever hope to know in an entire lifetime. I believe in their usefulness and capabilities, because I have seen their results.

You beleive that US intelligence agencies should have free reign to conduct surveillance on US citizens? You beleive it is useful? I have never heard anything useful come out of any widespread domestic surveillance program. There have been no domestic terrorist attacks averted by widespread surveillance on US citizens.

Originally posted by Pyros
I get a kick out of people like you who decry the eroion of the "Constitution's integrity" and so forth, but you offer no real world answers to real world problems. Idealism doesn't pay the rent. Idealism doesn't put food on your table. And idealism doesn't keep you safe from terrorism. Your like a group of old Athenian scholars, debating the merits and morality of warfare while the Spartans batter down the city gates.......

My answer to the problems is to follow the Constitution. It's just as much about morality and freedom as it is about security. I wouldn't be worried about terrorism if we upheld the Constitution. The only major domestic terrorist attack to have happened in the last 10 years happened at Oklahoma City. Their motives were the violation of the Constitution and a federal government that was enforcing laws that they had no power or position to enforce (gun laws and posse comitatus against WACO and RUBY Ridge US citizens). I fear more for my life now from attacks happening as a result of the corruption of our country then I do from any tree hugger or racist. Im afraid people may start to feel threatened or angry the same way McVeigh did. This is unecessary stress that our government puts on their people for enforcing unjust/unconstitional laws, and illegally authorizing intelligence gathering.

ELF burns things down, the white and black supremacists rape, pillage, murder, and sabotage, but the Constitutional/Freedom defenders are alot smarter, alot greater in numbers, and feel alot more justified in whatever war they wage. I would feel alot more safe living in a country that held integrity to the Constitution then I do living in 2006 under a police state with eroding rights and privacy. I know how much I despise the federal government as it is now, I'm sure there are others even more disgusted. That is why the direction of my country scares me. There is alot of pissed off people who hold an utter hatred of the government. I see and hear it almost everyday from all walks of life. All mostly for reasons that I can relate directly back to the erosion of the Constitution. Poverty, drugs, and mental disorders lead to crime, a society living under constant surveillance and dwindling rights might lead to a full out rebellion.

[edit on 12-6-2006 by ImplementOfWar]

All americans seem to agree that it is wrong to do technical surveilance on americans, but it's ok to do it to the rest of the world, right?

What if some other government would "wiretap" US citizens? Would that be ok too?

People Like You

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
I see people like you everyday Majic. People have no understanding of the laws and the constitution.

I see people like you everyday as well. People who are apparently unable to discuss topics without making uninformed judgments about other members -- which, by the way, are off-topic by definition.

You should know that I strongly resent this, whether the target of this misconduct is myself or others, and that consequently your derisive tirades contain nothing of interest to me.

I am particularly offended at your fraudulent insinuation that I have "no understanding of the laws and the constitution."

Why? Because I know who I am, and you clearly do not. What you don't know about me could fill a public library -- or a specious harangue -- and it shows.

I have expressed my opinion on this topic here briefly, and at length elsewhere. The many posts I have made on this issue are available for anyone interested in what I actually think to go read them, and I invite you to do so.

Perhaps if you do, you will come to understand why your claims about me are so outrageous -- and why you owe me an apology for your hateful slander.

Please refrain from posting false claims about ATS members, whether myself or others. Doing so violates the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use Items 1 and 2, and may result in disciplinary action.

Although I am responding on my behalf, I note with disappointment the insults you have directed toward other members in this thread. Respect for and courtesy toward your fellow members is a prerequisite for continued membership at AboveTopSecret.com. Please consider this when composing future posts.

The topic is Stop Warrantless Wiretapping!!!, not me or any other member of the ATS community, and though I thought an informed rebuttal to the post in question was necessary, I apologize to my fellow members for going off-topic in response.

Originally posted by northwolf
All americans seem to agree that it is wrong to do technical surveilance on americans, but it's ok to do it to the rest of the world, right?

What if some other government would "wiretap" US citizens? Would that be ok too?

Apparently that's what Echelon does. Other countries snooping on US citizens then passing the info back to the NSA. Some sort of legal loophole. But I guess it doesn't matter nowadays since they can openly snoop on you now, and wot yous gonna do 'bout it mang?

Echelon has been directly categorising and tracking US internal dataflow for years, including anything between, CellPhones to WWW to microwave communications.

I was refering to a foreign country doing intel for themselves, like US snoops on foreign citizens.