Skip to comments.Intelligence Court Rules Wiretapping Power Legal
Posted on 01/15/2009 9:51:26 AM PST by fremont_steve
WASHINGTON â A federal intelligence court, in a rare public opinion, is expected to issue a major ruling validating the power of the president and Congress to wiretap international phone calls and intercept e-mail messages without a court order, even when Americansâ private communications may be involved, according to a person with knowledge of the opinion.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Libtard heads exploding across the land. Errhead Amerika (if it still exists) will have material for another month. WAR CRIMES MORE IMPORANT THAN EVER FOR BU$HITLER AND CHENEY. /sarc
Its not just the left... I’m not thrilled about wiretapping citizens without warrants except in some extraordinary time sensitive situations.
Trusting President Bush43 is not the same as saying no future administration will abuse this.
Just another item to be quickly forgotten now that the self-anointed 0ne is in.
So never mind.....
are you kidding me????
this is exactly what they want- now they can jusify whenever their messiah spies on people...they will never admit what GWB did was right- they will only justify the action when hussien uses this power because the courts said it is okay...
doesn’t the timing of this ruling raise some suspicion????
Big bump to that! I have been saying the same thing for years.
All hail the glorious 4-16 years of Obama-Clinton wiretapping powers. Support the president in times of war!! (lol)
Without listening to the wiretaps, how would you know you have an extraordinary time sensitive situation on your hands?
The Left wants this power for themselves, not for a Republican administration.
Everything will be okay now. Move along.
The timing is perfect...right before the coronation.
>>Its not just the left... Im not thrilled about wiretapping citizens without warrants except in some extraordinary time sensitive situations.
If you use that logic, you can justify any search - why warrants to search homes or persons or even cavities - you might find something time sensitive?
So don’t call overseas ... not a problem.
>>And somehow the law prevented Buba Klintoon and algore from “wiretapping” American citizens for purely political purposes? Anyone remember Echelon or Clipper?<<
Are you saying that previous government wrong doing makes it so we should relax the law and trust government more?
I was responding to your logic which was, and is, faulty.
Look, these things have already been hashed out. Time of war, communications involving enemy parties outside the U. S., intelligence officers monitor communications and discover terrorism plans that require immediate action. Waiting for a warrant would delay any action beyond the time of the planned terrorism.
Yet, your opinion was that we shouldn’t be allowed to wiretap UNLESS we have an extraordinary time sensitive situation, which means, the situation cannot wait for a warrant.
But if we’re not allowed to wiretap without a warrant, then we would not know about those time sensitive plans until AFTER the terrorists have put the plans into action.
With that in mind, just how does your plan work to protect us? Or are you only concerned with picking up the bodies later?
Intelligence Court Rules Wiretapping Power LegalImagine that. What perfect timing.
I think the poster was refering to the time it takes to get the wiretap, not the time-sensitivity of the info obtained.
The more Obama changes things the more they remain the same Its a terrible shame he had to make all this stuff up against Bush and try to divide the country in order to vote for him and now when he is President he will do nothing different, he may just Communicate it better.
So they aren’t ever going to say Bush was right.... they will triangualte the issue to try and appease all sides and his base will never hold him accountable and even if they try to the media will shut them down.
A distinction without a difference.
If you can’t do the wiretap w/o a warrant, then you won’t even know a warrant is needed . . . until you see the terrorism happening on CNN Breaking News.
It’s called “spying” in Wartime. “No hands tied”...
This gives obama an “out”....now he can wiretap and say he is against it.
All you have to do is redefine “terrorist”, and voila!
Homeschooling Christian families & churches, etc, instantly “enemies of the state”.
That’s what we were telling the libs for years.
However, like I said, I dread that before long, “terrorist group” WILL be redefined to include everyone that opposes democrats.
The left were paranoid about that, with hardly 1/1000th of the reason that we should, indeed, be paranoid about it.
But I just heard last night on NPR that it not only is illegal, it’s unconstitutional and immoral and impacts women and minorities the hardest.
Unbelievable. After all the Bushitler crap, Bush was right on this AND he was right on the surge. Please point me to DUmmie thread as soon as they find out about this. It should be hilarious!
There should be restrictions on warrantless wiretapping, such as a restriction on only international calls.
I’d like to see the details, though. I’m fine with it being on terrorists and worded for that...but I don’t want it to be blanketed.
Well, already Obama’s regime is happily being endorsed.
I hope they’re the first ones to get the brunt of it.
Do you think the Obama administration should be able to tap your phones without a warrant just to make sure there isn't anything untoward going on that would justify further investigation?
What about the power of arrest and interrogation? Should the Obama administration be able grab anyone off the street and question them without probable cause or an arrest warrant just to make sure that there isn't any threat of terrorism?
Yes, this power must be used very carefully and be constantly reviewed for abuses. Any individual abusing it needs to go to prison.
You’re not following the discussion, are you?
Why is that such a difficult concept for so many people to understand?!?
Calling it "Domestic Spying" was one of the most dishonest uses of rhetoric ever. The media consistently used it and let politicians get away with using it unchallenged. The program's owner pointed out he had never gotten on a "domestic" flight and arrived in Pakistan or Afghanistan. It's like calling milk an "alcoholic beverage" so you can restrict its sales to minors.
From all of the reading I’ve done, there are precisely these kinds of restrictions in place now. In a summary, I believe I heard on Rush, they only monitor calls to and from certain regions of the world and international calls to and from certain suspects within the US. This is more restrictive than merely all international calls. So libtards in US calling their libtard friends in the US are not monitored (and neither are the rest of us), and libtards in the US calling their libtard friends in Bolivia are not monitored either (well, perhaps by the DEA maybe).
From their perspective power is routinely abused for selfish ends; be it cooking up crooked deals or directing the NSA to listen in on them.
So an appellate court upholds what was Bush policy, denounced by the Left and printed all over the NYT. Do you think Sgt. Schultz is going to have his ACLU pals take it to the SCOTUS? Heck no, they’ve been blessed by the decision and can use it “Clinton”style and have an out. Now that it is BHO ‘s tool rather than Bush’s policy, the rancor will evaporate.
I’ve followed it well enough to see that you seem to have no problem giving the government an effectively unchecked power of surveillance over citizens—I was merely curious how consistently you were willing to apply that principle.
Can you answer my previous questions?
"... A federal intelligence court, in a rare public opinion, is expected to issue a major ruling"
Federal Intelligence Court?
Someone better hip me to the jive in this new Federal lingo, because I have never heard of 'Federal Intelligence Court' before. Sounds like something you don't want to get dragged in front of. What's this all about? Is this something I missed in the Patriot Act?
No, because they don’t apply to the issue at hand.
This is surveillance of FOREIGN terrorists and suspected terrorists on foreign soil. If they are talking with people in the U. S., then those people are monitored during those communications at the same time.
If those communications lead intelligence officers to believe U. S. citizens are involved in terrorism, then they can apply for a warrant for further surveillance, with one caveat: if the evidence from the surveillance indicates that an event is being put into motion that is likely to happen sooner than the time is would take to get a warrant from a FISA judge, then intelligence officers can gather and act on the evidence and pursue a warrant separately.
At least, that was the law during much of Bush’s presidency.
There is no authorization in any FISA regulations for surveillance of U. S. citizens separate from those specific circumstances.
So, stop the drama. It ain’t happening.
Now you are changing your rationale.
If you feel comfortable giving the Obama administration this kind of power, that’s your business.
Nope, not in the slightest. If you think you can support that wild claim from the record, please provide quotes, not taken out of context, to support it.
All I am saying is no matter what Congress passes as FISA laws, or the FISA court rules, the RATs evesdrop no matter. BUT THE RATS lefty liberals are the ones jumping on Bush for trying to keep us safe from terrorist attacks. Huh?<<
Sorry I misunderstood. Yes, you are right I can already feel their double standards on the way. Heck they picked the queen of double standards for speaker and now they have the White House too.
>>Yet, your opinion was that we shouldnt be allowed to wiretap UNLESS we have an extraordinary time sensitive situation, which means, the situation cannot wait for a warrant.
But if were not allowed to wiretap without a warrant, then we would not know about those time sensitive plans until AFTER the terrorists have put the plans into action.
With that in mind, just how does your plan work to protect us? Or are you only concerned with picking up the bodies later?<<
I do see your point.
Can you see my point that a similar argument to extending warrantless searches to other areas?
I understand that it appears to be similar, but it isn’t. It the present case, we’re talking about foreign enemies, terrorists, plotting to do a large amount of damage, death , and destruction, to Americans, while we are effectively in a state or war with these terrorists.
In the general case of warrants, they are covered well by the 4th Amendment, and have been since the adoption of the Constitution with the first 10 amendments. That protection, if you would, does not apply to foreign terrorists on foreign soil speaking with U. S. citizens. That’s why we needed the FISA legislation, to deal with those circumstances.
The two are not related very strongly, even though warrants are involved with both.
I heard that too! Plus, C-Span had live coverage of congress critters saying the same thing!
Hmm. It's as if wiretapping might just impede NPR and congress critters from...never mind.
I was going to say the same thing. So quickly people forget. Libs are in denial about facts anyways so it doesn’t matter. I supported Bush’s decision because he was after the terrorists. I don’t for Obama.
Can’t wait till Big Brother is spying on me for not recycling or swearing in my own home. Entire the age of the real Thought Police.
The coincidental timing of this ruling is something I find both very odd and very troubling.
Apparently the vibe I'm getting from these bureaucrats is it's not OK for a Republican President to spy of foreign terrorists but it's OK for a Democrat President to spy on his political opponents and adversaries.
This kind of mindset is why people like myself are hunkering down and loading up on ammunition. It seems to me the Demorats have a different idea of what a terrorist is than the Republicans.
The Dems have been well known for their notion of self serving paranoria. Anything or anyone who writes or says anything negative of them or their favored groups is considered a threat to National Security.
All I can say is we conservatives had best watch our backs and keep our powders dry. I'm not real sure what Hussien has in store for how he wants to use these wiretapping powers. If he wants to use them to spy on his political opponents and adversaries or what.
.......but it’s OK for a Democrat President to spy on his political opponents and adversaries........
The Rats have monitored Republican phone calls for years. John Bohner won a $700,000 judgement against Jim McDermott for monitoring a call with Newt Gingrich. The rats said a mom and pop from Florida were accidentally tuned in to the cell phone frequency. It was a blatant lie.