LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=719)

Gattigap 12-19-2005 06:39 PM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I read something that in a recent year there were around 1500 requests for a warrent, and no denials. Thus, at least as to when the admin seeks the warrent, it seems safe to say they do not over reach (or the Judicial review is a sham).

The court is 8 District judges selected by the Chief Justice- thus they probably are pretty law and order types. Given the 1500-0 I sort of doubt the reason to not seek a warrent has to do with lack of grounds.
This, together with (my understanding) that FISA permits retroactive hearings, actually argues that the Administration decided to bypass FISA simply because it was administratively inconvenient. If the chances of being rejected are vanishingly small because you've never lost, you tell me why they couldn't be bothered with it.

Quote:

It may well be stuff that is so sensitive it isn't worth risking the identity- and not to sound like Penske, but theAmerican people had a vote on who they wanted making this type decision.
Oddly enough, the WH chose to rely on an unreasonably broad reading of the authorization for military action in Iraq to justify their actions here. With all their chutzpah, even THEY were too embarrassed to argue that the American people voted in 2004 to permit a President to ignore laws on the books and to continue secretly spying on American citizens.

Replaced_Texan 12-19-2005 06:39 PM

$5 tomatoes
 
Pete from A Perfectly Cormulent Blog cracks me up.

Replaced_Texan 12-19-2005 06:41 PM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Oddly enough, the WH chose to rely on an unreasonably broad reading of the authorization for military action in Iraq to justify their actions here. With all their chutzpah, even THEY were too embarrassed to argue that the American people voted in 2004 to permit a President to ignore laws on the books and to continue secretly spying on American citizens.
You'd think with a year's notice on the story, they'd have a better response than "fuck ya'll."

Gattigap 12-19-2005 06:43 PM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
You'd think with a year's notice on the story, they'd have a better response than "fuck ya'll."
It's the Jessup argument. "You're goddamned right I did" is cleansing for the soul, perhaps, but sadly for the Colnel, it mightn't play out too well legally speaking.

ltl/fb 12-19-2005 06:51 PM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
You'd think with a year's notice on the story, they'd have a better response than "fuck ya'll."
Is it "fuck y'all" or "fuck all y'all"?

Hank Chinaski 12-19-2005 08:04 PM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Is it "fuck y'all" or "fuck all y'all"?
depends, Panhandle, the plains or Ark-la-Tex?

Spanky 12-19-2005 10:14 PM

$5 tomatoes
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Pete from A Perfectly Cormulent Blog cracks me up.
That was pretty funny.

Tyrone Slothrop 12-19-2005 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I thought you and I had a truce on calling each other racist?
I had to ask, because surely that's not what you were saying.

Quote:

I assume if there was reason to suspect an individual, NSA could have gotten a tap- (if not then I have zero problem with what they did- if we have so hamstrung our ability to fight that we can't even tap when there is cause, then law need to be broken).
Then why didn't they get a warrant?

Quote:

What gets me is that very similar activities occured to break the Mafia.
I'm pretty sure they bothered to get warrants for those. This whole deal where the President gets to ignore statutes and the Constitution is new.

Tyrone Slothrop 12-19-2005 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It also has the word "unreasonable". TSA conducts searches all the time. But they're considered reasonable.

Not saying these are reasonable searches, but the argument could be made.
If the President OK's it, it is reasonable! Res ipsa loquitur.

Tyrone Slothrop 12-19-2005 11:52 PM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I read something that in a recent year there were around 1500 requests for a warrent, and no denials. Thus, at least as to when the admin seeks the warrent, it seems safe to say they do not over reach (or the Judicial review is a sham).
I think I've read that the court will sometimes basically tell them that they need to come back with something more, and so you get the application deferred and then ultimately accepted, instead of rejected outright.

Tyrone Slothrop 12-19-2005 11:53 PM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
This, together with (my understanding) that FISA permits retroactive hearings, actually argues that the Administration decided to bypass FISA simply because it was administratively inconvenient.
Maybe they decided to cast such a wide net that they knew it would never been constitutional.

Hank Chinaski 12-20-2005 08:45 AM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
This, together with (my understanding) that FISA permits retroactive hearings, actually argues that the Administration decided to bypass FISA simply because it was administratively inconvenient. If the chances of being rejected are vanishingly small because you've never lost, you tell me why they couldn't be bothered with it.
I believe "retroactive" means within 24 hours. There are 8 judges spread across the country. On average they'll each see hundreds of requests- anyone ever work in Crim law enough to know how quickly you can get standard warrents- I've seen TV where the cops go wake the Judge up.

Anyways, if you accept that the Admin only does it if there is a clear tie to AQ (and I know none of you guys accept much about the admin), and there are some 1500 per year that go through the normal path, isn't it possible that the ones where they don't follow are just too sensitive to risk the chance of the Judge leaking it? I mean, I not Spanky anti-press, or even expect the press to keep stuff quiet, but there seems to be a lot of leaks of things that probably shouldn't have leaked. If they have a possible tap on some line where an AQ guy has been communicating to the US, and they know its live, I don't know that I want that risked (regardless of how many vowels are in his last name Ty).

I know you guys are better lawyers than the way you analyze stuff here. If the admin is actually getting 1500 warrents a year, it's not like they need to go looking for more. Why potentially or arguably cross a line, unless there is a really good reason to, and the only really good reason I can imagine is the info CAN'T get out, under any circumstance.

Sorry Wonk, I just don't see a dept getting 1500 warrents wanting more, and chasing some where they lack a good reason. If there is no good reason, why risk this controversy? The standards are not that high if they're 1500-0.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/ (actually 1700-0)

Hank Chinaski 12-20-2005 08:56 AM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe they decided to cast such a wide net that they knew it would never been constitutional.
Say if you fish in shark infested water- you cast your net and get thousands of fish- are you going out into the water after a few more fish? Not unless they're really fucking big, right?

baltassoc 12-20-2005 09:37 AM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Say if you fish in shark infested water- you cast your net and get thousands of fish- are you going out into the water after a few more fish? Not unless they're really fucking big, right?
and

Quote:

isn't it possible that the ones where they don't follow are just too sensitive to risk the chance of the Judge leaking it?
Shark infested? I had no idea that the country had that big a problem of Al Queda infiltrating the judicial branch. We really are screwed.

Hank Chinaski 12-20-2005 09:54 AM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by baltassoc
Shark infested? I had no idea that the country had that big a problem of Al Queda infiltrating the judicial branch. We really are screwed.
The Judges would be the net maker, I think.

And the Judges are picked by the Chief Justice so I'm not too concerned about Al Queda infiltration. Remember the Supreme Court is simply a tool of the far right branch of the Republican party.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 12-20-2005 10:15 AM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I believe "retroactive" means within 24 hours. There are 8 judges spread across the country. On average they'll each see hundreds of requests- anyone ever work in Crim law enough to know how quickly you can get standard warrents- I've seen TV where the cops go wake the Judge up.


http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/ (actually 1700-0)
I wonder if they canned the guys who ended their 16,000 warrant win streak in 2003: (stats)

And, yes, they go to the judge's house all the time to get these things approved. And yes, they sometimes have to modify them to get acceptance. DOJ, I understand, who actually seeks the warrants actually imposes a bit of a check itself on the FBI--they feel some duty to have a basis for the application, which the FBI does not believe it has to have.

Secret_Agent_Man 12-20-2005 11:18 AM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If by "very rarely" you mean "never". My understanding of the history is that the FISA court has denied 3 applications. Ever. In 30 years. All three of those were reversed on appeal to the FISA court of appeals.

But, at least there is a process established whereby a judge actually looks at the basis for the wiretap. As distrustful as I am of ex parte, closed-door proceedings, at least this one has some level of safeguard.
I read that, since 1978 (when the Court was created) it has denied 5 out of 15,878 applications.

BTW -- the "retroactive approval" provision in FISA allows approval of a warrant up to 72 hours after the tap begins.

The WaPo article on the story today quotes administration officials as saying that they needed "more agility" than FISA provides, and that most taps under the Bush program last for only "a few days or hours" and are approved by a "shift supervisor." Gosh, that is comforting.

I see no sign of a need to bypass the FISA procedures.

S_A_M

Sidd Finch 12-20-2005 11:20 AM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think I've read that the court will sometimes basically tell them that they need to come back with something more, and so you get the application deferred and then ultimately accepted, instead of rejected outright.

This certainly happens in some criminal courts, I can say from experience. What also happens is that warrants are issued, but in a more limited form than requested.

More importantly, it is ridiculous to draw the conclusion that seeking warrants shouldn't be necessary, or that law enforcement would never overreach, from the fact that most, or even all, applications for warrants are granted. People behave differently when they know that their actions are subject to review. Very few people will drive over the speed limit, or break a store window, if a police cruiser is in plain view. Does that mean that police oversight is unnecessary to prevent speeding or burglary?

Sidd Finch 12-20-2005 11:23 AM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Anyways, if you accept that the Admin only does it if there is a clear tie to AQ (and I know none of you guys accept much about the admin),
Today's NYTimes reports that, after 9/11 when Ashcroft loosened the rules on FBI investigations, the FBI used their new power to conduct surveillance of such known Al Qaeda subsidiaries as Greenpeace, PETA, and Catholic Workers.

If you accept this, you would have to question the assumption quoted above (and I know none of you guys accept much about the NYTimes)

Sidd Finch 12-20-2005 11:27 AM

Darwin 1, Intelligent Design 0
 
Penn judge rules against (former) school board (aka hell-bound perjurers).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220/...olution_debate

Secret_Agent_Man 12-20-2005 11:33 AM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I believe "retroactive" means within 24 hours. There are 8 judges spread across the country. On average they'll each see hundreds of requests- anyone ever work in Crim law enough to know how quickly you can get standard warrents- I've seen TV where the cops go wake the Judge up.
72 hours, actually -- so no reason not to seek retroactive approval -- and BTW -- no reason for any terrorist to think that they _were_ or _weren't_ being monitored absent the public disclosure of this program.

As to the criminal question, there is always a magistrate on duty (or on call) for warrants, and you can generally get said warrant within a couple of hours if you have the basis and do the paperwork right. It can be done over the phone -- but the Judge has to trust you not to lie to them (of course).

As to the rationale -- I have to believe that it is primarily administrative convenience, Hank. Anything else raises real questions about the scope of the taps/grounds for the warrants -- which we just don't know, and won't have any idea of until the Specter hearings.

No one from the government has yet argued that any of this intelligence is too sensitive to risk sharing with these federal judges with Top Secret clearances, who already review hundreds of classified requests each year.

The president says it is "shameful" to disclose this, and just aids the enemy. Well, almost everyone thinks that they personally have good judgment and can be trusted to do the right thing. I know, for example, that I would make an excellent King, and I may have even made the same decision as Bush.

However, this case is a classic example of the benefits of having a free press, three branches of government with checks and balances, and means to pull someone up short when they ignore some of those.

S_A_M

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 12-20-2005 11:41 AM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

The president says it is "shameful" to disclose this, and just aids the enemy.
I'm not sure this argument is correct. He asserts that bin Laden learned his communications on sat. phone were being tracked, so stopped using it. But is that necessarily a bad thing? If terrorists know they're being tracked, and stop using cell phones, doesn't that fear substantially disrupt their activities? If we were able to turn off all cellphones owned by terrorists, would that be a useful tool? If disclosure of this accomplishes that much, is that a bad thing?

baltassoc 12-20-2005 11:52 AM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm not sure this argument is correct. He asserts that bin Laden learned his communications on sat. phone were being tracked, so stopped using it. But is that necessarily a bad thing? If terrorists know they're being tracked, and stop using cell phones, doesn't that fear substantially disrupt their activities? If we were able to turn off all cellphones owned by terrorists, would that be a useful tool? If disclosure of this accomplishes that much, is that a bad thing?
I haven't been following this as closely as I'd like, but tapping bin Laden's phone was done without a warrant? WTF? Why, in god's name, would they not get a warrant for this? No probable cause? Were they worried they'd have to cough up secret information to get it (what would that be, beyond "bin Laudin has a satellite phone we are technologically able to tap"?)?

Hank Chinaski 12-20-2005 11:54 AM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Today's NYTimes reports that, after 9/11 when Ashcroft loosened the rules on FBI investigations, the FBI used their new power to conduct surveillance of such known Al Qaeda subsidiaries as Greenpeace, PETA, and Catholic Workers.

If you accept this, you would have to question the assumption quoted above (and I know none of you guys accept much about the NYTimes)
Sidd, I'm glad you're back- Ty has been hating the Italians, and I know he won't if you're here-

Do you remember the Douglas Brackman rant on the airplane- "Things just have to make sense to me....." - airplane stuck on tarmac?

Anyway that what throws me here- the standard for the warrent is obviously low. How could any tap that excites NSA enough that it justifies going outside the procedure not meet the standard?

It's like the "Bush lied" to get us into Iraq argument- why would he?

And for those of you who don't buy into the "too senstive explaination" look at SAM's post above- "I guess we'll all know what the taps are for once Spector's investigation is over." WTF?

Gattigap 12-20-2005 11:56 AM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I know you guys are better lawyers than the way you analyze stuff here. If the admin is actually getting 1500 warrents a year, it's not like they need to go looking for more. (actually 1700-0)
As others have already pointed out, you're justifying this by saying that their earlier success either (a) means they don't need to worry about it here because they'd win anyway, or (b) implies that it must've been really important, so it's OK to skip the procedure here.

I know you're a better lawyer than the way you're analyzing stuff here.

Hank Chinaski 12-20-2005 11:57 AM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by baltassoc
I haven't been following this as closely as I'd like, but tapping bin Laden's phone was done without a warrant? WTF? Why, in god's name, would they not get a warrant for this? No probable cause? Were they worried they'd have to cough up secret information to get it (what would that be, beyond "bin Laudin has a satellite phone we are technologically able to tap"?)?
Maybe I'm whiffing, but you do know Article 3 Judges technically don't have authority in Pakistan, don't you?

Actually I think this law would allow tapping a US citizen's phone w/o warrent if done outside the US.

ltl/fb 12-20-2005 11:59 AM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Anyway that what throws me here- the standard for the warrent is obviously low. How could any tap that excites NSA enough that it justifies going outside the procedure not meet the standard?
I bet there are people in the NSA who get a hard-on (or wet-on, whatever) just thinking about how they can go do something without judicial approval. Because it makes them special -- rules only apply to the little people, so not having to obey the rule makes them a big important person. And once you get used to not having to get a warrant, you can go tap people/things you are just curious about or hate.

Like, if they gave me access to the right system, and I knew I wasn't being checked on, I'd totally look up that-bitch-I-hate's comp.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 12-20-2005 12:02 PM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by baltassoc
I haven't been following this as closely as I'd like, but tapping bin Laden's phone was done without a warrant? WTF? Why, in god's name, would they not get a warrant for this? No probable cause? Were they worried they'd have to cough up secret information to get it (what would that be, beyond "bin Laudin has a satellite phone we are technologically able to tap"?)?
No, I was speaking to the more general point. Bush is pissed that someone leaked the fact that they were doing this (I don't think he went so far as to say he'd fire the person). He asserts that disclosing the fact of these wiretaps undermines efforts to combat terrorism. The analogy drawn was to the disclosure of inception of bin Laden satphone communications.

Sidd Finch 12-20-2005 12:05 PM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Anyway that what throws me here- the standard for the warrent is obviously low. How could any tap that excites NSA enough that it justifies going outside the procedure not meet the standard?

I question whether Nixon could have gotten a warrant for everyone on his "enemies" list.

Given Bush's view that everyone who questions him, or any aspect of his tactics or his execution of the plan for postwar Iraq (assuming there ever was a plan, beyond sweets and flowers), is "with the terrorists", I have similar questions about him.

Hank Chinaski 12-20-2005 12:05 PM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I bet there are people in the NSA who get a hard-on (or wet-on, whatever) just thinking about how they can go do something without judicial approval. Because it makes them special -- rules only apply to the little people, so not having to obey the rule makes them a big important person. And once you get used to not having to get a warrant, you can go tap people/things you are just curious about or hate.

Like, if they gave me access to the right system, and I knew I wasn't being checked on, I'd totally look up that-bitch-I-hate's comp.
Yeah but Bush approves them. Do you think he's in on the pettiness?

Oh, and prissy bitch makes:

Prissy Bitch Salary= Fringey Salary + $50,000

Replaced_Texan 12-20-2005 12:06 PM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by baltassoc
I haven't been following this as closely as I'd like, but tapping bin Laden's phone was done without a warrant? WTF? Why, in god's name, would they not get a warrant for this? No probable cause? Were they worried they'd have to cough up secret information to get it (what would that be, beyond "bin Laudin has a satellite phone we are technologically able to tap"?)?
I think it was because he is out of the country. They don't need warrants for tracking communications outside of the country, only inside.

There was a guy on NPR this morning who talked a little bit about communications where both parties are outside of the US but somehow or another the conversation gets routed through US owned lines. Even then, it's not a big deal to get a warrant.

Hank Chinaski 12-20-2005 12:07 PM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I think it was because he is out of the country. They don't need warrants for tracking communications outside of the country, only inside.

There was a guy on NPR this morning who talked a little bit about communications where both parties are outside of the US but somehow or another the conversation gets routed through US owned lines. Even then, it's not a big deal to get a warrant.
Am I on ignore?

ltl/fb 12-20-2005 12:09 PM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Am I on ignore?
Very, very soon.

I think she makes more than $50k more than I do. Probably double.

Hank Chinaski 12-20-2005 12:10 PM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Very, very soon.

I think she makes more than $50k more than I do. Probably double.
I cleaned up my act solely for you- you put me on ignore still?

Sounds like she's fucking someone important- does she have big breasts?

Shape Shifter 12-20-2005 12:21 PM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Very, very soon.

I think she makes more than $50k more than I do. Probably double.
That is double, isn't it?

Hank Chinaski 12-20-2005 12:24 PM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
That is double, isn't it?
The company subsidizes breakfast lunch and snacks at the Cafeteria, and Fringey takes better advantage of it than Prissy bitch, so it depends on how you calculate it.

ltl/fb 12-20-2005 12:25 PM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The company subsidizes breakfast lunch and snacks at the Cafeteria, and Fringey takes better advantage of it than Prissy bitch, so it depends on how you calculate it.
Tuesday is the new Friday?

taxwonk 12-20-2005 12:37 PM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
not to sound like Penske, but theAmerican people had a vote on who they wanted making this type decision.
Odd, that rule didn't apply when Clinton was in the White House, and quite frankly, I tend to get a whole lot more worked up about illegality that could affect anyone in the US. I am also less than impressed with the Administration's "Fuck you, we didn't feel like obeying the law and we'll do it again if we feel like it" response.

taxwonk 12-20-2005 12:38 PM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Where they prosecuted for installing illegal wire taps or violating peoples constitutional rights? I thought they were prosecuted for breaking and entering, assault etc. Anyone know the answer to this?
They were prosecuted for both the B&E and the wiretaps.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 12-20-2005 12:40 PM

Punishing the Guilty
 
Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
Odd, that rule didn't apply when Clinton was in the White House,
Clinton never got a majority of the popular vote.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:29 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com