LawTalkers - The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Huh? For all wiretaps one has to get a warrant. The difference is the level of proof required. The 4th amendment standard for criminal cases is relatively high. FISA lowers that burden, but with the tradeoff that the information can't be used for law enforcement purposes (that's the "wall" that we heard about in the 9/11 hearings). Bush claims that there's a third set of cases, defined by him, that allows FBI/NSA/CIA to make wiretaps without any kind of court approval, either before or after (which FISA provides for).

Um, so Bush is saying he doesn't need a warrant? Or do you not (I don't do criminal) need court approval for a warrant?

ETA Spanky's question seems fairly basic, if he's asking why Bush's actions are being treated differently from the FBI's -- I'm trying to determine whether the answer is that Bush is not doing what the FBI does.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

02-22-2006 07:29 PM

Port (yes, whine) Issue

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Um, so Bush is saying he doesn't need a warrant? Or do you not (I don't do criminal) need court approval for a warrant?

ETA Spanky's question seems fairly basic, if he's asking why Bush's actions are being treated differently from the FBI's -- I'm trying to determine whether the answer is that Bush is not doing what the FBI does.

Last I checked, the FBI is in the executive branch, as is the NSA. There's no relevant difference between the standards for anyone in hte executive branch under the constitution (there may be different statutory limits imposed).

Bush is saying he doesn't need court approval. I don't think he's claiming he can issue a warrant, which are traditionally issued only by a court. But it doesn't really matter whether he's claiming no need for a warrant or the right to issue them--the point is he's asserting that he does not need approval from the judiciary to instigate the wiretaps.

ltl/fb

02-22-2006 07:34 PM

Port (yes, whine) Issue

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Last I checked, the FBI is in the executive branch, as is the NSA. There's no relevant difference between the standards for anyone in hte executive branch under the constitution (there may be different statutory limits imposed).

Bush is saying he doesn't need court approval. I don't think he's claiming he can issue a warrant, which are traditionally issued only by a court. But it doesn't really matter whether he's claiming no need for a warrant or the right to issue them--the point is he's asserting that he does not need approval from the judiciary to instigate the wiretaps.

Which would appear to answer Spanky's rather basic initial question.

Hank Chinaski

02-22-2006 08:08 PM

Port (yes, whine) Issue

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Um, so Bush is saying he doesn't need a warrant? Or do you not (I don't do criminal) need court approval for a warrant?

Don't do criminal? did you do bar exam?

Jesus. RT- any further action on the minor league forums I suggested?

Spanky

02-22-2006 10:42 PM

Port (yes, whine) Issue

First you said:

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop When people talk about the constitutionality of the wiretaps, they are usually talking not about whether the wiretapping violates one's Fourth Amendment rights, but about whether the wiretapping is within the President's power under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution,

Then you said:

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The idea that Art. II, sec. 2 has anything at all to do with wiretapping is freakishly novel.

So are most of the people, like you, that are complaining about the constitutionality of the wiretaps, basing their complaints ona freakishly novel approach? That seems to back up the argument that these people don't have much of a leg to stand on and it is just political hyperbole.

I think most people think of the wiretapping issue as a civil liberties issue and a violation of their consitutuional rights. That is the way the Dems are trying to spin it. But it isn't. All the calls either leave the US or originate outside of the US, and one has no constitutional right to privacy with those type of calls.

It may be a breach of FISA, but FISA restricts the Federal governments ability to use wiretaps beyond the limits set by the constitution. So this is not really a constitutional issue, but just one of the executive branch breaking a congressional law.

Spanky

02-22-2006 10:52 PM

Port (yes, whine) Issue

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Bush, however, has asserted that regardless of FISA, as commander in chief he has inherent authority to execute wiretaps without regard to the limits imposed by FISA.

OK this makes sense. So he is saying as commander and chief he has the authority to listend to foreign phone calls. I can see the argument.

So he is saying that FISA only limits his ability to wiretap, if the wiretaps are being used for criminal investigation but national security issues.

In other words FISA does not apply to national security. I understand but I don't buy it. It may not be unconstitutional but it is a violation of the law (FISA). If he don't like FISA time to amend it.

Spanky

02-22-2006 10:58 PM

Port (yes, whine) Issue

Quote:

Yes I believe that is correct.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) Bush is saying he doesn't need court approval. I don't think he's claiming he can issue a warrant, which are traditionally issued only by a court.

I think you are making the mistake of not differentiating the types of wire taps. I don't think anyone has ever argued that a purely domestic call does not need a warrant. When I saw Cheney interviewed he was saying that all the wiretaps don't need a warrant because in all cases part of the calls are foreign. I believe he is right as far as the constitution is concerned. But I do think this is a violation of FISA. Congress can not abridge peoples rights but they can extend their rights, and that is what they did with FISA.

Tyrone Slothrop

02-22-2006 11:17 PM

Port (yes, whine) Issue

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
First you said:

Then you said:

So are most of the people, like you, that are complaining about the constitutionality of the wiretaps, basing their complaints ona freakishly novel approach? That seems to back up the argument that these people don't have much of a leg to stand on and it is just political hyperbole.

I think most people think of the wiretapping issue as a civil liberties issue and a violation of their consitutuional rights. That is the way the Dems are trying to spin it. But it isn't. All the calls either leave the US or originate outside of the US, and one has no constitutional right to privacy with those type of calls.

It may be a breach of FISA, but FISA restricts the Federal governments ability to use wiretaps beyond the limits set by the constitution. So this is not really a constitutional issue, but just one of the executive branch breaking a congressional law.

You are correct (although I don't know enough about the Fourth Amendment in this context to be sure about that part). The issue is one of the executive branch wiretapping people for four years even though a federal statute makes it a criminal offense, and then asserting that the president has a right to ignore the law.

Spanky

02-23-2006 01:16 AM

Port (yes, whine) Issue

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You are correct (although I don't know enough about the Fourth Amendment in this context to be sure about that part). The issue is one of the executive branch wiretapping people for four years even though a federal statute makes it a criminal offense, and then asserting that the president has a right to ignore the law.

The question I have is how do we know that the wire taps are not on domestic calls? This question is becoming a little more pertinent to me because I was just told by the Chief of Staff of a high ranking Republican that if I continue with my efforts to take out Delay, Doolittle and Pombo that not only was my political future dead, but my professional future also.

Professional future? What the hell does that mean? I buy and sell real estate. Are they going to figure out a way to disbar me? I am pretty sure this guy is just blowing smoke up my derrier but sometimes desperate people can do some pretty stupid things.

The thing that is pathetic is that these guys are making my job very easy. The more we research Pombo the more crap we find. The guy is just not the sharpest knife in the drawar when it comes to covering his tracks.

On Thursday I am throwing a fundraiser for Campbell who is Delays biggest rival and I am taking McCloskey to the convention this weekend. I am definitely not going to be the bell of the ball.

Gattigap

02-23-2006 11:09 AM

Port (yes, whine) Issue

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
The question I have is how do we know that the wire taps are not on domestic calls? This question is becoming a little more pertinent to me because I was just told by the Chief of Staff of a high ranking Republican that if I continue with my efforts to take out Delay, Doolittle and Pombo that not only was my political future dead, but my professional future also.

Professional future? What the hell does that mean? I buy and sell real estate. Are they going to figure out a way to disbar me? I am pretty sure this guy is just blowing smoke up my derrier but sometimes desperate people can do some pretty stupid things.

The thing that is pathetic is that these guys are making my job very easy. The more we research Pombo the more crap we find. The guy is just not the sharpest knife in the drawar when it comes to covering his tracks.

On Thursday I am throwing a fundraiser for Campbell who is Delays biggest rival and I am taking McCloskey to the convention this weekend. I am definitely not going to be the bell of the ball.

Time for an update to the motto. "It's all fun and games until they take away your porn. Or start employing the Unitary Executive power to tap your calls."

sebastian_dangerfield

02-23-2006 11:16 AM

Port (yes, whine) Issue

Quote:

McCloskey? Jesus man, is he still continent?

Tyrone Slothrop

02-23-2006 11:30 AM

Port (yes, whine) Issue

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
The question I have is how do we know that the wire taps are not on domestic calls?

We don't. If you paid attention to the Attorney General's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee a few weeks ago, it plausibly sounded like he was trying to avoid talking about other programs that maybe hadn't been made public yet. Since the President claims the power to ignore Congress and the courts on matters relating to national security, and not tell anyone, and since national security is a pretty broad concept these days, you pretty much have to trust him.

Quote:

This question is becoming a little more pertinent to me because I was just told by the Chief of Staff of a high ranking Republican that if I continue with my efforts to take out Delay, Doolittle and Pombo that not only was my political future dead, but my professional future also.

Professional future? What the hell does that mean? I buy and sell real estate. Are they going to figure out a way to disbar me? I am pretty sure this guy is just blowing smoke up my derrier but sometimes desperate people can do some pretty stupid things.

That blows.

sgtclub

02-23-2006 12:02 PM

Port (yes, whine) Issue

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Well, it's not at all clear what they were told, and at least one of them (Rockefeller) wrote Cheney a letter to protest. He had to write it by hand, since the security regulations wouldn't let him use his secretary. If you think they were all "comfortable" with this, you haven't listened to them.

From what Roberts says (and he is one of the few politician's that seems to shoot straight), Rockefeller sent the letter as a CYA.

Quote:

Did you look at Article I, Section 8? Congress gets to govern re the military in all sorts of ways. The question here is not what the President gets to do in the abstract -- it's what the President can do when Congress has passed a law very explicitly saying that he can't do it.

I didn't realize the military was involved in the wire taps. Oh wait. They weren't.

Replaced_Texan

02-23-2006 12:08 PM

Port (yes, whine) Issue

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I didn't realize the military was involved in the wire taps. Oh wait. They weren't.

So how does the whole "commander in chief" thing justify the wire taps then?

The argument I've heard is that intelligence gathering is an inherent part of the military, even if it's not the army or navy that's doing the intelligence gathering.

baltassoc

02-23-2006 12:09 PM

Port (yes, whine) Issue

Quote:

So you are saying that a high ranking Republican threatened to ruin politically and professionally a political rival? Nice.

I would imagine the threat would be simple to carry out, if you do not self-finance your investments. They simply call your bank and let them know all Republicans at the state and federal levels will be unable to address any of their concerns so long as they continue to extend you credit. When you move to the next bank: rinse, repeat.

Delay peddled influence to get good tables at nice restaurants. Why not for revenge?

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:01 PM.

Page 271 of 334

271

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page