(POL) Federal Judge orders end to NSA Wiretapping program

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Initially, I wholely agreed with the wiretapping program, but after doing some research and thinking on it a bit, I've changed my mind.

Which one is more important isn't the question. The thing is that it's a slippery slope -- once you begin removing or superceding civil rights for the greater good, where does it end? Where's the line, and when do you draw it?

The ability of city detectives to sit in cars and survey a house and subsequently everybody on the street didn't result in a police state that you allude to. It resulted in city detectives watching a house and using common sense on the others things on the public street he/she observed. If he/she saw something illegal going on while surveying a particular house, the detective could report or stop the illegal act. Even though, constitutionally, he was not allowed to survey the un-warranted act.

Common sense is the great weapon against any slipperly slope.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Dutch

And peace on Earth will return. Hooray. Boy, do you have a big shock comin' to you.

??????????????

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The ability of city detectives to sit in cars and survey a house and subsequently everybody on the street didn't result in a police state that you allude to. It resulted in city detectives watching a house and using common sense on the others things on the public street he/she observed. If he/she saw something illegal going on while surveying a particular house, the detective could report or stop the illegal act. Even though, constitutionally, he was not allowed to survey the un-warranted act.

Would be a nice scenario, but I don't think you need a warrant to perform an on-the-street stakeout. And, for that matter, if they saw something illegal going on from a public place (i.e., two police officers taking their lunch break), it would be the same scenario. What is unconstitutional about surveying an illegal act while acting in an appropriate manner?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

We, as a country, don't have a clue as to what liberty means - from those screaming that we need more to those screaming we need less. Look at all those repeating Franklin's quote (...deserve neither and lose both) as if they know what it really means. Bumper Stick History at its best.

agree

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

What's the difference between modifying the law to limit Presidential authority and modifying it because the Judicial branch is better able to make decisions? They're both the same concept, that the Executive doesn't have carte blanche to spy on anyone they want.

Well my point was actually that the law was amended to address its own inadequacies, not to limit presidential power as you are spinning. In other words, you are making it sound like Congress rebuked the President, and modified FISA to reign him in. That isn't the case. His authority to authorize a warrantless search in the interest of National Security wasn't challenged, at least not substantially, by Congress. Congress was addressing the fact that FISA didn't have a mechanism for "secret" physical search warrants.

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

... And besides, what Bush is doing is still against the law, and the President can't break the law, and FISA is the law of the land and hasn't been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Saying what the NSA is doing is against the law is reasonable although debatable from the standpoint that the laws don't adequately address the technology. I wouldn't argue against your position on that point, especially when it comes down to isolating a single call. That sounds exactly like a wire tap to me, but I believe one argument the administration is making is that current laws don't adequately address the situation at hand. Much like the Ames search.

Certainly the part about the President breaking the law is debatable because that is a constitutional question that hasn't been addressed. He is asserting the powers of his office, as he believes them to be. If Congress or the judicial system reign him in, then you might be able to declare that he is breaking the law. We're simply not at that point yet.

From the President's perspective, I'm not sure what the right thing to do would be. Think about it, the NSA has a technology that allows it to actively scan every international call, looking for who knows what, to trigger a closer look. Your legal advisors tell you that, under existing law, there isn't any way to actually get a useful warrant for anything that might be discovered using the new technology. Do you simply not use the technology? Or do you go to Congress to ask for the law to be changed? At the same time, advertising that you have this otherwise unknown capability. Or do you actually do what you and other Presidents have declared is within your authority, and simply authorize actions that might be outside the normal scope of the law in the interest of National Security?

I don't think I can find too much fault in the President's actions, authorizing what he has authorized. I believe he is acting in what he believes is the best interest of the country. I think he could have gone about this differently(as is usually the case), and included a more formal independent oversight mechanism, perhaps overseen by members of Congress. There is oversight in place, in that this is being done under the scrutiny of the NSA, and its policies. It isn't like the President is listening in on the calls of his political enemies. This is being done in the interest of , well, National Security for the lack of a better word.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Well my point was actually that the law was amended to address its own inadequacies, not to limit presidential power as you are spinning. In other words, you are making it sound like Congress rebuked the President, and modified FISA to reign him in. That isn't the case. His authority to authorize a warrantless search in the interest of National Security wasn't challenged, at least not substantially, by Congress. Congress was addressing the fact that FISA didn't have a mechanism for "secret" physical search warrants.

Is there any evidence, from the congressional record or anything, that the Republican congress of 1995, a congress coming in on a platform of anti-Clinton and pro-small government had no interest in limiting the President's power? Why was the law amended if not to limit his powers? What other reason would it be? Isn't that the job of warrants, to limit the power of a law enforcement agency? Isn't congress saying, "No, you can't do that," explicitly limiting his power? I'm still not getting how telling someone they can't do something is not limiting what they can do.

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Saying what the NSA is doing is against the law is reasonable although debatable from the standpoint that the laws don't adequately address the technology. I wouldn't argue against your position on that point, especially when it comes down to isolating a single call. That sounds exactly like a wire tap to me, but I believe one argument the administration is making is that current laws don't adequately address the situation at hand. Much like the Ames search.

Certainly the part about the President breaking the law is debatable because that is a constitutional question that hasn't been addressed. He is asserting the powers of his office, as he believes them to be. If Congress or the judicial system reign him in, then you might be able to declare that he is breaking the law. We're simply not at that point yet.

From the President's perspective, I'm not sure what the right thing to do would be. Think about it, the NSA has a technology that allows it to actively scan every international call, looking for who knows what, to trigger a closer look. Your legal advisors tell you that, under existing law, there isn't any way to actually get a useful warrant for anything that might be discovered using the new technology. Do you simply not use the technology? Or do you go to Congress to ask for the law to be changed? At the same time, advertising that you have this otherwise unknown capability. Or do you actually do what you and other Presidents have declared is within your authority, and simply authorize actions that might be outside the normal scope of the law in the interest of National Security?

I don't think I can find too much fault in the President's actions, authorizing what he has authorized. I believe he is acting in what he believes is the best interest of the country. I think he could have gone about this differently(as is usually the case), and included a more formal independent oversight mechanism, perhaps overseen by members of Congress. There is oversight in place, in that this is being done under the scrutiny of the NSA, and its policies. It isn't like the President is listening in on the calls of his political enemies. This is being done in the interest of , well, National Security for the lack of a better word.

The thing is, you don't know any of this. Quite frankly, and I really mean no disrespect and I don't mean to be insulting, but you are talking out of your ass here because you (and I) know next to nothing about this program except that they somehow spy on American citizens without warrants. You are just going on faith in the Bush administration, you are going on faith that they are not spying on domestic calls, that they are within the framework of the law, that they are not spying on political enemies, that they have the best interests of the country in mind, etc. The only reason you have faith in these things is because they told you to. And these same people that have told you to have faith have faught at every turn not to have their legal reasoning tested in court, and when it finally was tested, it lost, it lost big time. And they can't even use info from the wiretaps in court, because the courts will throw it out. So where is this faith coming from?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Is there any evidence, from the congressional record or anything, that the Republican congress of 1995, a congress coming in on a platform of anti-Clinton and pro-small government had no interest in limiting the President's power? Why was the law amended if not to limit his powers? What other reason would it be? Isn't that the job of warrants, to limit the power of a law enforcement agency? Isn't congress saying, "No, you can't do that," explicitly limiting his power? I'm still not getting how telling someone they can't do something is not limiting what they can do.


The thing is, you don't know any of this. Quite frankly, and I really mean no disrespect and I don't mean to be insulting, but you are talking out of your ass here because you (and I) know next to nothing about this program except that they somehow spy on American citizens without warrants. You are just going on faith in the Bush administration, you are going on faith that they are not spying on domestic calls, that they are within the framework of the law, that they are not spying on political enemies, that they have the best interests of the country in mind, etc. The only reason you have faith in these things is because they told you to. And these same people that have told you to have faith have faught at every turn not to have their legal reasoning tested in court, and when it finally was tested, it lost, it lost big time. And they can't even use info from the wiretaps in court, because the courts will throw it out. So where is this faith coming from?

As for the FISA changes. I was awake during those years, and I don't recall defending Clinton against the partisan railings of my anti-Clinton friends, nor even my pro-Privacy whacko lefty friends. The republicans didn't actively complain about it and slap his wrist. They modified the FISA law because it didn't address something it needed to.

As for the talking out my ass part. The administration has said that the law doesn't address the specific technology being addressed here. A FISA judge has essentially come out and said the same. I'm taking a bit of a leap on how the technology works, and I'm certainly simplifying it, but it seems like a reasonable deduction to me. I do know that the President doesn't have a set of headphones in his office, scanning foreign phone calls. That is occurring over at the NSA, and the NSA has rules about what it does. They don't allow people, not even the President, to use NSA assets for their own personal agenda. Their policies are the oversight. An example of this oversight was given by one of the NSA folks heading up the, now infamous, phonecall database program. He said that the actions, that is to say the queries, of one technicians/analysts didn't pass the muster of those reviewing the "appropriateness" of the requests/queries. That technician/analyst had their employment terminated. I'll go along with you saying the oversight isn't sufficient to quell critics' distrust, but I don't think it is fair to say that there is no oversight.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

As for the FISA changes. I was awake during those years, and I don't recall defending Clinton against the partisan railings of my anti-Clinton friends, nor even my pro-Privacy whacko lefty friends. The republicans didn't actively complain about it and slap his wrist. They modified the FISA law because it didn't address something it needed to.

I don't remember it being a huge issue at the time either, but Clinton wasn't going around back then proclaiming himself to be above congress when it comes to national security, and nobody, especially a Republican, was going to come out in full-throat defense of traitor selling secrets to Russia.

So why do you think that the law was changed to not allow physical searches without a warrant if the reason wasn't to take away unilateral power from the executive? You keep saying that it 'needed to be addressed', but why?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

You give too much credit in that there really aren't any examples of the program being misused in the manner that flere describes(without a diagram actually).

Actually, I happen to know a number of "brown" people who will no longer travel to the U.S. (they're British or Indian citizens) because of the "treatment" they got the last time through (and no, I'm not just talking about being delayed and asked questions). And none of them are in any way terrorist threats.

Besides, there are plenty of stories about various people having things screwed up because they mistakenly got on No-Fly lists. For some, it's been even worse than identify theft.

It's all been pretty mainstream press stuff. I'm surprised you haven't heard of these stories.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Not a zombie GOP fact. I heard it on NPR.

Ah, but they routinely bring on David Brooks to make a fool of himself....

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

And really, Presidents Reagan, Bush "the first", and Clinton all issued signing statements on multiple bills declaring that they will obey them so long as they didn't constrain the responsibilities of their office. It is that assertion that will have to be challenged, and I'm not sure what the outcome of that challenge will be.

Until Reagan, 75 signing statements were used by Presidents from James Monroe onward. Reagan, Bush I and Clinton made about 250 signing statements. Bush II has made at least 130 so far.

A key proponent of signing statements, who made a persuasive argument for using them while a staff attorney for President Reagan, is now-Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

So, basically signing statements were generally unnecessary for the first 200 years of this country, but then Sam Alito comes along and all of a sudden the Executive Branch gets to pick-and-choose what parts of law the Legislative Branch has passed that it wants to implement?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

And peace on Earth will return. Hooray. Boy, do you have a big shock comin' to you.

I'd settle for a return of dignity to the Office of the President.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

From the President's perspective, I'm not sure what the right thing to do would be. Think about it, the NSA has a technology that allows it to actively scan every international call, looking for who knows what, to trigger a closer look. Your legal advisors tell you that, under existing law, there isn't any way to actually get a useful warrant for anything that might be discovered using the new technology. Do you simply not use the technology? Or do you go to Congress to ask for the law to be changed? At the same time, advertising that you have this otherwise unknown capability. Or do you actually do what you and other Presidents have declared is within your authority, and simply authorize actions that might be outside the normal scope of the law in the interest of National Security?

Instead, what the Administration actually did was to go to the House & Senate Intelligence Committees, in closed session, and say "we have this new technology, we're using it now, we're going to continue to use it, and there's nothing you can do about it. Furthermore, if you say anything to anyone about it, things will go badly for you."

I have to believe there's a reasonable middle ground, especially in light of the fact that the Senators and Representatives kept their end of the bargain (under duress) and did not reveal what the NSA was doing.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I have to believe there's a reasonable middle ground, especially in light of the fact that the Senators and Representatives kept their end of the bargain (under duress) and did not reveal what the NSA was doing.

yes yes yes

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Actually, I happen to know a number of "brown" people who will no longer travel to the U.S. (they're British or Indian citizens) because of the "treatment" they got the last time through (and no, I'm not just talking about being delayed and asked questions). And none of them are in any way terrorist threats.

Besides, there are plenty of stories about various people having things screwed up because they mistakenly got on No-Fly lists. For some, it's been even worse than identify theft.

It's all been pretty mainstream press stuff. I'm surprised you haven't heard of these stories.

Yes Yes, because this program resulted in those happenings. <--I've really only rolled eyes a couple of times previously.

I'm saying that no one, NO ONE, has any evidence of the program being addressed here in this post being misued. What you are describing is attributable to a long list of injustices, no doubt, but not this program.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Until Reagan, 75 signing statements were used by Presidents from James Monroe onward. Reagan, Bush I and Clinton made about 250 signing statements. Bush II has made at least 130 so far.

A key proponent of signing statements, who made a persuasive argument for using them while a staff attorney for President Reagan, is now-Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

So, basically signing statements were generally unnecessary for the first 200 years of this country, but then Sam Alito comes along and all of a sudden the Executive Branch gets to pick-and-choose what parts of law the Legislative Branch has passed that it wants to implement?

Actually I thought Alito was borderline against Reagan's increased use of Signing Statements. The Idea was Ed Meece's, as I understand.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I'm saying that no one, NO ONE, has any evidence of the program being addressed here in this post being misued. What you are describing is attributable to a long list of injustices, no doubt, but not this program.

So wait a second, it's not OK for me to suggest that these problems were possibly the result of this program or programs like this, but it's OK for you and others to suggest that this program specifically has been responsible for stopping terrorist threats (though no evidence exists for that)?

Congrats, I think you've pulled the thread to a new level of absurdity. Can we talk about my tiger-repelling rock now?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Actually I thought Alito was borderline against Reagan's increased use of Signing Statements. The Idea was Ed Meece's, as I understand.

Since Alito worked for Meese at the time, it's kind of a chicken-and-the-egg issue as to who came up with the idea. However, Alito did write the "white paper" on the subject and was active in promoting it internally.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So wait a second, it's not OK for me to suggest that these problems were possibly the result of this program or programs like this, but it's OK for you and others to suggest that this program specifically has been responsible for stopping terrorist threats (though no evidence exists for that)?

Congrats, I think you've pulled the thread to a new level of absurdity. Can we talk about my tiger-repelling rock now?

You might find others suggesting that these tools have been successfully used in the prevention of terrorism, but not me. I don't know.

I do know that is their purported reason for existence, and I have no reason to doubt that is what the technology is being used for. That said, we still don't have any evidence that it has been successful. Nor is there any evidence to indicate it is being misused, so the claims that it is specifically responsible for preventing attacks, are just as much hyperbole as the claims that it is being used to populate the no fly lists.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I don't remember it being a huge issue at the time either, but Clinton wasn't going around back then proclaiming himself to be above congress when it comes to national security, and nobody, especially a Republican, was going to come out in full-throat defense of traitor selling secrets to Russia.

So why do you think that the law was changed to not allow physical searches without a warrant if the reason wasn't to take away unilateral power from the executive? You keep saying that it 'needed to be addressed', but why?

I'm saying it was changed back then because Ideally we don't want the President authorizing actions without warrants signed by a judge. I'm also saying that one can honestly argue that what Bush has done is not significantly different that the actions Clinton took. If the law doesn't address the technology being utilized, then it really isn't much different than the law not recognizing a physical search. In both cases the Presidents' claimed the authority to fill the void.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

If the law doesn't address the technology being utilized, then it really isn't much different than the law not recognizing a physical search.

Let's examine this a little bit. How does the law not address the technology? Let's assume that the technology, if there is some technology, is some kind of mass gathering and filtering method to determine potential terrorists and/or assorted other evildoers. When they sort out these evildoers, don't they have to wire tap (or just listen more intently) their phones to get more information? And doesn't the law clearly state that phone taps without warrants is illegal?

Or what kind of technology is it that is not addressed by present laws?

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Until Reagan, 75 signing statements were used by Presidents from James Monroe onward. Reagan, Bush I and Clinton made about 250 signing statements. Bush II has made at least 130 so far.

A key proponent of signing statements, who made a persuasive argument for using them while a staff attorney for President Reagan, is now-Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

So, basically signing statements were generally unnecessary for the first 200 years of this country, but then Sam Alito comes along and all of a sudden the Executive Branch gets to pick-and-choose what parts of law the Legislative Branch has passed that it wants to implement?

How does this compare to the total number of bills passed in the first 200 years compared to the total number of bills passes since?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Let's examine this a little bit. How does the law not address the technology? Let's assume that the technology, if there is some technology, is some kind of mass gathering and filtering method to determine potential terrorists and/or assorted other evildoers. When they sort out these evildoers, don't they have to wire tap (or just listen more intently) their phones to get more information? And doesn't the law clearly state that phone taps without warrants is illegal?

Or what kind of technology is it that is not addressed by present laws?

I agree with your assessment that at the point that they target an individual call, they are essentially tapping the phone. At least from a practical sense, that is the result. I said that fairly clearly above when I said:

Saying what the NSA is doing is against the law is reasonable, although debatable, from the standpoint that the laws don't adequately address the technology. I wouldn't argue against your position on that point, especially when it comes down to isolating a single call. That sounds exactly like a wire tap to me, but I believe one argument the administration is making is that current laws don't adequately address the situation at hand. Much like the Ames search.

I do think the new technology is sufficiently different for the argument to have some potential. Considering that it is different enough that a judge said that they couldn't actually issue a warrant to cover its use. That scenario sounds much like the FISA court's inability to act with validity regarding Ames.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

How does this compare to the total number of bills passed in the first 200 years compared to the total number of bills passes since?

I took a brief look here and there doesn't seem to be a large increase over time, but I admit I haven't looked at every year.

[MrBigglesworth]

Does this ruling officially make Bush a felon? Or would he have to go through a criminal trial to officially be a felon? He admitted to it, after all.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Well, we can all rest easy. Apparently, the White House has relented -- the terrorist surveillance program will be subject to the FISA court.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16673270/

Thankfully, our constitution was only trampled on for 5 years or so.

[sterlingice]

I guess that's good news.

I'm still a bit suspect of the whole idea in general as the biggest argument as to why the President should be doing this during the whole debate was because it was basically a rubber stamp court anyways. Doesn't that throw up a red flag, too?

SI

[JPhillips]

Or maybe not...

From the NYTimes

The administration said it had briefed the full House and Senate Intelligence Committees in closed sessions on its decision.

But Representative Heather A. Wilson, Republican of New Mexico, who serves on the Intelligence committee, disputed that, and some Congressional aides said staff members were briefed Friday without lawmakers present.

Ms. Wilson, who has scrutinized the program for the last year, said she believed the new approach relied on a blanket, “programmatic” approval of the president’s surveillance program, rather than approval of individual warrants.

Administration officials “have convinced a single judge in a secret session, in a nonadversarial session, to issue a court order to cover the president’s terrorism surveillance program,” Ms. Wilson said in a telephone interview. She said Congress needed to investigate further to determine how the program is run.