Skip to comments.
Spy Powers: Can the president eavesdrop on private citizens without a judge's ok?
San Francisco Chronicle ^
| January 8, 2006
| Bob Egelko
Posted on 01/11/2006 4:45:36 PM PST by Coleus
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
1
posted on
01/11/2006 4:45:42 PM PST
by
Coleus
To: Coleus
When you find the phone number on a terrorist's cell phone records the search is no longer unreasonable.
Where were these critics when Hillary made off with 800 FBI files of US citizens (officeholders no less), not in a time of war, and in direct contravention to explict laws forbidding such access?
2
posted on
01/11/2006 4:48:32 PM PST
by
thoughtomator
(Illegal immigrants come to America for a better life - yours!)
To: Coleus
The author spends 90% of the article discussing the wrong case, i.e. the need for warrants for domestic crimes. At the very end of the article the author finally gets around to discussing the need for warrants for foreign enemies operating on our soil in a time of war. Of course, "domestic" spying fits the Rats meme.
3
posted on
01/11/2006 4:53:26 PM PST
by
TheDon
(The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
To: Coleus
Thirty-five years ago, President Richard Nixon claimed constitutional authority to wiretap Americans' phone calls to protect national security without asking a judge -- the same assertion that President Bush is making today in the name of fighting terrorism. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Nixon, saying the Constitution granted the powers he was claiming to judges, not presidents. If the current court eventually reconsiders that 1972 ruling, it may affect the fate of Bush's decision to authorize the National Security Agency to wiretap calls between Americans and alleged al Qaeda suspects in foreign countries. Presidents have approved wiretaps without court orders since the 1940s, but the legality of the practice was thrown into doubt after the Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that electronic eavesdropping was a search, and thus covered by the prohibition on unreasonable searches in the Constitution's Fourth Amendment.
One little factoid left out of this article is that this applies to civil matters not enemy combatants during a time of war. We are at war. The Constitution does not apply to enemies who seek our destruction.
4
posted on
01/11/2006 4:54:28 PM PST
by
Man50D
To: Coleus
They can listen to whatever they want whenever they want,
as far as Im concerned.
5
posted on
01/11/2006 4:54:55 PM PST
by
claptrap
(optional tag-line under reconsideration)
To: Coleus
Yes, IF, HER name is Clinton!
6
posted on
01/11/2006 5:10:04 PM PST
by
Waco
To: Coleus
If President Bush wants to listen in on any of my phone conversations, I suggest he tune in around 6pm on any Friday night. We'll either be ordering pizza or Chinese food, and we can order extra for he and Laura. Y'all come!
And my Mom usually calls me to complain about her life between 9 and 10 am on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Sometimes Saturdays, if she wants me to take her to the grocery store. And I just want to state for the record that I have absolutely NO problem wearing a wire when I'm with her...
Oh, and my library card access number is 29405004999677 and the PIN is 3424 if that helps keep us all safe. ;)
(Just how retarded are the Dims? Their mental illness and paranoia knows no bounds.)
7
posted on
01/11/2006 5:19:39 PM PST
by
Diana in Wisconsin
(Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
To: Coleus
Lest we forget ... there was a FL couple would listened and recorded a cellular phone conversation with Newt and ...
That recording made its way to a US Congressman from Washington State who gave it to the press.
Ain't no buddy went to jail over that ... Nothing there ... move along. A felony was very loose under l'Reno.
8
posted on
01/11/2006 5:36:31 PM PST
by
jamaksin
To: Coleus
In defense of its conduct, the administration submitted a sworn statement in 1971 from Mitchell saying agents needed to conduct the surveillance to protect the nation from "attempts of domestic organizations to attack and subvert the existing structure of the government.'' Whereas the current monitoring of signals is in regards FOREIGN organizations, and further that the communications are leaving the country...or do you have something new?
9
posted on
01/11/2006 5:39:37 PM PST
by
lepton
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
To: Man50D
Agreed ... but a minor problem ... no formal Declaration of War is to be seen. War Powers Act is close, but it is not the "real" thingy.
10
posted on
01/11/2006 5:42:09 PM PST
by
jamaksin
To: Coleus
Can the president eavesdrop on private citizens without a judge's ok?
If you collaborate with terrorists, then you are no longer considered a "United States person". You are considered an "Agent of a foreign power", as defined under
Section 1801, subsection(b)(2)(C).
11
posted on
01/11/2006 5:52:20 PM PST
by
joseph20
To: jamaksin
Agreed ... but a minor problem ... no formal Declaration of War is to be seen. War Powers Act is close, but it is not the "real" thingy.
You are forgetting or are not aware of the joint resolution that was passed by Congress (H. J. RES. 114) on October 10, 2002. The resolution is titled
"To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq."
It also states
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;"
Note the word war is used in the joint resolution. This is a declaration of war. Therefore we are at war. I suggest you read www.yourcongress.com the resolution.
12
posted on
01/11/2006 6:05:28 PM PST
by
Man50D
To: joseph20
13
posted on
01/11/2006 6:14:21 PM PST
by
Coleus
(IMHO, The IVF procedure is immoral & kills many embryos/children and should be outlawed)
To: Man50D
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effectsThe Supremes have consistently held from the 1920s to the present that the radio-waves belong to the public and the public has the freedom to listen. Public radio-waves do not belong to the person using them. Nobody has a reasonable expectation of privacy. That covers passive radar detectors that listen to the police radar (But not necessarily active ones that send false signals back to the police.) It covers cell-phones like that of the politician visiting Florida and heard on a Radio Shack scanner. That covers phone calls on relayed on micro-wave and bouncing off satellites. Should that Supreme Court precedent be overturned?
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
Is it unreasonable to eavesdrop on a known member of Al Kaida? A suspected member of Al Kaida? It is the job of Congress to define what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. That should be done by a law that automatically sunsets every 10 years. Congress is derelict in its duty in not defining what is reasonable and what is unreasonable.
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.
Again, it is the job of Congress to define probable cause. Congress is derelict in its duty.
Note that there is no prohibition against reasonable searches. Thus the police do road checks for drunk drivers and people not wearing their seatbelts. The courts have determined those checks to be reasonable and thus do not need probable cause. I do not think they are reasonable. But I've been over-ruled.
To: Man50D
Well, almost. You have missed my point ...
Difference:
Declaration of War ... Wilson and FDR asking Congress for a declaration of war. In each case, one negative vote, same person (a pacificist) each time.
War on Terrorism ... A metaphor much like "War on Drugs" or "War on Poverty" - of much lesser weight than the "true" declaration of war above.
For example, was the Korean War a war ... nope, it was a "police action" ... VietNam ... Bosnia ... , etc. None had a "true" [viz., Congressional vote] declaration of war authorizing spending America blood and treasure, and yet it was done.
So, my question is - Why "War Powers Act" (your Resolution) and not Declaration of War? Answer - it is like the Congressional Military Base Closure Committee - politics!
15
posted on
01/12/2006 4:12:58 AM PST
by
jamaksin
To: jamaksin
You've hit the nail on the head. Congress, especially the Senate, is filled with spineless sychophants who lack the courage to even stand up to their own staffers.
To: jamaksin
Well, almost. You have missed my point ... Difference: Declaration of War ... Wilson and FDR asking Congress for a declaration of war. In each case, one negative vote, same person (a pacificist) each time. War on Terrorism ... A metaphor much like "War on Drugs" or "War on Poverty" - of much lesser weight than the "true" declaration of war above. For example, was the Korean War a war ... nope, it was a "police action" ... VietNam ... Bosnia ... , etc. None had a "true" [viz., Congressional vote] declaration of war authorizing spending America blood and treasure, and yet it was done. So, my question is - Why "War Powers Act" (your Resolution) and not Declaration of War? Answer - it is like the Congressional Military Base Closure Committee - politics!
My post is right on point. You failed to at the very top of the resolution is the phrase "Iraq War Resolution. Congress acknowledges this is war and accoridngly gives President the same authority to use the military and fight the enemy just as Congress did with Presidents Wilson and President Roosevelt.
The war on terrorism is not merely a metaphor. There is a major difference between the first term and the latter two. Those criminals who deal with illegal drugs do not have the intent of destroying the United States. No one deliberately creates poverty to destroy the United States. The terrorists sole purpose is to destroy the United States. We were attacked on our own soil by an enemy who wants to destroy us and the result was the deaths of three thousand Americans. Fewer people died during the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and no one questioned this was an act of War before President Roosevelt and Congress addressed it the next day.
You are splitting hairs. Your attitude jeopardizes this nation's security and is exactly how the terrorists hope all Americans will think because it make their goal much easier to achieve. Tell the loved ones of those three thousand Americans who died on 9/11/01 they are merely metaphors and not victims of war.
17
posted on
01/12/2006 6:11:08 AM PST
by
Man50D
To: thoughtomator
Where were these critics when Hillary made off with 800 FBI files of US citizens (officeholders no less), not in a time of war, and in direct contravention to explict laws forbidding such access?
FReerepublic was flooded with such critics. Surprisingly absent today. How about "We the people" listen in on Politicians phone calls and emails? Turn about being fair play and all. Think we'd be amazed, or horrified? Blackbird.
18
posted on
01/12/2006 6:13:29 AM PST
by
BlackbirdSST
(Diapers, like Politicians, need regular changing for the same reason!)
To: spintreebob
Nobody has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Are you a Judge Alito fan? He states clearly that there is a Right to Privacy in the Consitution, when he was being probed on abortion. Just curious. Blackbird.
19
posted on
01/12/2006 6:16:46 AM PST
by
BlackbirdSST
(Diapers, like Politicians, need regular changing for the same reason!)
To: spintreebob
You've hit the nail on the head.
Jamaskin missed it by a country mile. The fact that you compare the acts to destroy the United Stated by an enemy who seeks our destruction to a civilian matter of setting up check points to stop drunk drivers illustrates the point you clearly do not understand the situation. The big difference is drunks are not trying to destroy the U.S.!
20
posted on
01/12/2006 6:18:58 AM PST
by
Man50D
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson