Posted on 06/23/2007 8:03:06 PM PDT by TheTruthAintPretty
A federal judge who used to authorize wiretaps in terrorist and espionage cases criticized President Bush's decision to order warrantless surveillance after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Royce Lamberth, a district court judge in Washington, said Saturday it was proper for executive branch agencies to conduct such surveillance. "But what we have found in the history of our country is that you can't trust the executive," he said at the American Library Association's convention.
"We have to understand you can fight the war (on terrorism) and lose everything if you have no civil liberties left when you get through fighting the war," said Lamberth, who was appointed by President Reagan.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.myway.com ...
Is that a sad thing, that we must surrender rights to preserve our safety? Of course! But the needs of the many (the United States and our allies) outweigh the needs of the few (who don't have anything to worry about if they are innocent).
Because that’s the more truthful headline.
Judge Royce Lamberth is worth listening to.
If he lies to us about amnesty and border enforcement, he'll lie to us about anything!
Precisely what instances can Judge Lamberth point to in the past where we have had "no civil liberties left" when we finished fighting the war?
Is he referring to Lincoln and habeas corpus?
Is he referring to FDR and Quirin?
Or is he just making it up as he goes?
---attributed to Benjamin Franklin
I grew up on SAC bases that I'm quite confident were painted with a big fat bullseye on Soviet ICBM targeting systems, so forgive me if I have trouble believing the threat we currently face is sufficient for me to cough up my liberties in hope of obtaining a little "security." We faced a much, much more dire threat during the Cold War than today. It makes me sick to see so many of my fellow citizens running scared because of a bunch of maladjusted Muslim extremists.
We're better than that.
We're stronger than that.
And I have no doubt that we will prevail if we don't let a bunch of suicidal maniacs cause us to forfeit our precious liberties, dearly won through the blood shed by our ancestors.
Which is why the Constitution has a fly by the seat of your pantsamendment provision
Did you just really say to hell with the constitution? Is that what passes for conservative thought these days?
Of course, the administration always leaves out the fact that it has 72 hours to get a retroactive warrant from a FISA court to cover any wiretaps.
and that the president had inherent authority under the Constitution to order warrantless domestic spying.
They just make it up as they go along, don't they?
Can you please point me to the Article, Section, and Paragraph of the Constitution which enumerates that authority Mr. President?
I'll wait, but not too long. 30 minutes should be sufficient.
Thanks in advance.
L
Sorry - the opponent during the Cold War was afraid of getting hit back as hard as he could hit us. Mutual Assured Destruction was a viable means of keeping the enemy somewhat at bay. (And given the atheist nature of Communists - they don’t want to end this life early - since they believe there is nothing after this life.)
On the other hand - our present enemy - exemplified by Islamic Nazism, is willing to kill any women or children as they kill themselves. Their hate is irrational, and Mutual Assured Destruction is a blessing to them, because it might usher in either the Caliphate in this world, or the return of the 12th Iman, and they have a chance to go directly to paradise.
But the article fails to indicate that these “warrantless wiretaps” are focused on tapping phones of non-citizens who have been linked to terrorism. Those opposed to these types of wire taps are basically stating that our country must use the Marquis of Queensbury rules on Islamic terrorists, while they are free to ignore any and all rules of civilized behavior.
Our voters should know which politicians want to extend Constitutional protections, Miranda-type rights to terrorists, whether they are operating inside this country, or outside this country. Sort of like during WWI, when a politician decried any effort at intelligence gathering and spying ... “gentlemen don’t read other gentlemen’s mail.”
To liken this to Ben Franklin’s statement is fairly ignorant of history. We are not sacrificing rights of citizens (unless there is an inherent right to converse with a terrorist without). The Constitution is not a suicide pact, and those people not in this country that don’t respect the Constitution do not deserve ANY protections of the Constitution.
And the New York Times - in leaking the fact that our country was wire-tapping these foreign phone calls - decided to come down on the side of the terrorists. What is the term for someone who aids and abets an enemy of our country? Of course, the NY Times failed to fully cover the story. Why not indicate that often we might capture terrorists with cell phones or computers, and when we track back and look at numbers in the computer, or numbers dialed (or called in) - there might be a reason to go for a wire-tap those numbers. There might be many reasons to keep the program quiet (lest it leak, like it did) ...and there are othen reasons why it might take time to go through a judge (and where in the Constitution does it say a judge needs to approve a wire-tap of a foreign call coming into our country?). But lets not confuse the public with all the facts - there might be a large majority that don’t want to unilaterally disarm, and would vote out politicians stupid enough to parrot the Ben Franklin line (like Bernie Sanders of VT).
Mike
A. The Congress authorized the President as Commander in Chief to use all necessary measures in the War on Terrorism (enacted shortly after 9/11) to “engage and defeat” those terrorists who would act against this country.
B. - It was not Domestic wiretapping - unless you want to extend that protection to those inside the country receiving a phone call from outside the country where the outside country line has links to terrorists.
Other than that - what’s the problem?
(And read my other post.)
Mike
Are you saying that the President could order American citizens to quarter US Troops in their homes without recompense as a 'necessary measure'? Are you saying that the President could order all US citizens to turn in their firearms as a 'necessary measure'?
Perhaps you're saying that the President could order the imprisonment without charge or trial, or the torture of US citizens as a 'necessary measure'. Is that what you mean?
What if President Hillary decided that a 'necessary measure' was the arrest of Rush Limbaugh or that the "War on Terror" necessitated the abolition of the 5th Amendment entirely. How would that sit with you.
What if Her Thighness decided that postponing a couple of Federal Elections was a 'necessary measure'?
that the president had inherent authority under the Constitution to order warrantless domestic spying.
Once again for the comprehension impaired:
Can you please point me to the Article, Section, and Paragraph of the Constitution which enumerates that authority Mr. President?
The President isn't asserting that Congress granted him this authority. The President is asserting that this authority is 'inherent in the Constitution'.
I'm just asking which Article, Section, and Paragraph this 'inherent' authority is enumerated.
Maybe it's in one of those 'penumbras' that were 'emanating' back in the '70s. That must be because it sure as hell isn't a specifically enumerated power in any copy of the US Constitution I've ever seen.
L
Interesting.
You wrote:
“But the article fails to indicate that these “warrantless wiretaps” are focused on tapping phones of non-citizens who have been linked to terrorism.”
Do you believe that? Only “non-citizens who have been linked to terrorism?” Outside of the bleatings of administration apologists, where is the proof? Oh. Yes. We must trust those in authority.
Fast forward a couple of years. Do you trust that authority in the hands of Dennis Kucinich? Hillary? Howard Dean?
Really?
Well, I don’t. And I don’t trust it in the hands of our current administration, either.
I have no doubt that the monitoring without warrants has extended well beyond supposed Islamic extremists. After all, without warrants there is no review, no oversight. FISA was not a major burden.
That it has been tossed overboard by a highly secretive administration without credible justification tells me someone in Washington has something to hide. There is no proof that I’ve seen that monitoring has been limited to non-citizens, and I don’t trust this government as far as I can toss them. Maybe I’m a little too libertarian for some.
Whatever. I stand by my position. We face a rabble who in their wildest dreams can be no more than a mosquito on the elephant. I for one will not yield to unwarranted fear.
I feel sorry for those who espouse hopeful, wishful arguments such as you have made.
Good luck to you.
There is an interesting episode playing out here. First...this war won’t end this year or next or in ten years. We will be sitting here in 2020...with the war still in full swing. Second....there will likely be more 9-11’s...with thousands more Americans killed by madness in the Islamic community. Third...while the American public will pump up the talk on action...more internal surveillance and more executive actions will be taken with questionable constitutional authority. We will eventually train ourselves to simply look the other way and not question the actions of the government. Fourth...eventually...a presidency down the road...in twenty-odd years...either Democrat or Republican...will take some actions that we today would absolutely never stand for...but we will have conditioned ourselves by that point to just accept it. By that point...the enemy will have made his point upon our society and changed the constitution without ever allowing us to vote on the change.
Until society and the executive are willing to take “all actions necessary” outside our borders...this doesn’t end. I don’t see “all actions” being taken today...nor do I see us going to the “ends of the earth”. So....sit and simply watch as time goes by...this will not be country that you grew up in.
“Is that a sad thing, that we must surrender rights to preserve our safety? Of course! But the needs of the many (the United States and our allies) outweigh the needs of the few (who don’t have anything to worry about if they are innocent).”
excuse me? you call yourself a conservative??? How does that “needs of the many” sound when it comes to Shrillary exercising those powers on YOU?
Thank you so much for posting this. So sad to see a bunch of terrified cowboy “conservatives” wetting their pants because of these freaks.
Man up, people! this is NOTHING like the Soviet or Nazi threat, and we didn’t sacrifice these liberties then...
yep—i’m tired of this “Unitary Executive” bullshit. And I dread to think what a Democrat admin will look like using that theory of governance.
Amend the constitution, declare martial law, or leave your grubby big-government GOP hands off my civil rights.
good point. He doesn’t have that authority. his insistence on saying he does makes him look like the sort of dictator that the Libs say he is.
I can’t wait for a real Conservative to be president—not this cockamamied authoritarian who passes for a Republican.
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.