• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bush-ordered wiretaps illegal, judge says

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
(03-31) 13:42 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The Bush administration wiretapped a U.S.-based Islamic charity under an illegal surveillance program that was not authorized by Congress or the courts, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled today.

The ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker marked the first time that a court has found that the government illegally wiretapped an individual or organization since President George W. Bush authorized warrantless wiretapping of suspected foreign terrorists in 2001.

The government inadvertently sent a classified document in 2004 to the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, reportedly showing that two of its lawyers had been wiretapped. Several months after the surveillance began, the government classified Al-Haramain as a terrorist organization, a description its leaders called false.​
Click to expand...

This is a victory for the rule of law, but let's not celebrate yet, but hold Obama's feet to the fire too, and make damn sure this does not happen again. Without a court order, wiretapping is illegal. Period.

Article is here.

​
 
Last edited:
Good, glad to hear it, and am waiting to see if we will see the same with the current administration. From what I understand, the same policies are still in place now.
 
lizzie said:
Good, glad to hear it, and am waiting to see if we will see the same with the current administration. From what I understand, the same policies are still in place now.
Click to expand...

I think that's right and they shouldn't be. Presidents should follow rule of law like everyone else.
 
danarhea said:
This is a victory for the rule of law, but let's not celebrate yet, but hold Obama's feet to the fire too, and make damn sure this does not happen again. Without a court order, wiretapping is illegal. Period.

Article is here.

[/COLOR][/LEFT]
Click to expand...

Hopefully they abide by this ruling.
 
I do wonder on a couple of things here

I wonder on the proportion of people who were for such wire taps before will be against them now with a new president vs the proportion of people against such wiretaps before but are for them now

Which side will have the greater number of people changing their mind
 
You seem to be saying that there is a significant number of people who are changing their minds between then and now and attaching it to the election of the new president.

Is there any evidence that there has been a real shift in public sentiment? I would think not.
 
Well President Obama it is time to stop these wiretaps now. Court has made their ruling and it is time to obey.
 
Ikari said:
Hopefully they abide by this ruling.
Click to expand...

Excerpted from “Bush-ordered wiretaps illegal, judge says” By Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer, The San Francisco Chronicle, Wednesday, March 31, 2010
[SIZE="+2"]T[/SIZE]he Justice Department declined to say whether it would appeal today's ruling …
Click to expand...

I don't doubt the administration will obey the law but I do wonder whether they will appeal …
 
danarhea said:
This is a victory for the rule of law, but let's not celebrate yet, but hold Obama's feet to the fire too, and make damn sure this does not happen again. Without a court order, wiretapping is illegal. Period.

Article is here.

[/COLOR][/LEFT]
Click to expand...


A San Fran Judge ruled something Bush did was illegal? Well **** color me Fred and call me shocked! This must truly be a monumental day in Jurisprudence! For all the land knows that Judges from San Francisco are the epitome of fair, balanced and stick to the Constitution.
 
MrVicchio said:
A San Fran Judge ruled something Bush did was illegal? Well **** color me Fred and call me shocked! This must truly be a monumental day in Jurisprudence! For all the land knows that Judges from San Francisco are the epitome of fair, balanced and stick to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

So am I right in assuming you're in favor of the government being able to listen to your phone calls without those pesky things like warrants, evidence, or probable cause?

Did you also hold this view in 2007?
 
danarhea said:
This is a victory for the rule of law, but let's not celebrate yet, but hold Obama's feet to the fire too, and make damn sure this does not happen again. Without a court order, wiretapping is illegal. Period.

Article is here.

[/COLOR][/LEFT]
Click to expand...

unless its your crazy-ass wife you are getting divorced from ;)
 
danarhea said:
This is a victory for the rule of law, but let's not celebrate yet, but hold Obama's feet to the fire too, and make damn sure this does not happen again. Without a court order, wiretapping is illegal. Period.

Article is here.

[/COLOR][/LEFT]
Click to expand...

But, but, but, but, but the illegal, nazi, commune, fascist, homosexual, secular, muslim, jewish, terrorists win.

The Giant Noodle said:
unless its your crazy-ass wife you are getting divorced from ;)
Click to expand...

Dont get married in the first place. 90% of them are nothing but lies.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
I do wonder on a couple of things here

I wonder on the proportion of people who were for such wire taps before will be against them now with a new president vs the proportion of people against such wiretaps before but are for them now

Which side will have the greater number of people changing their mind
Click to expand...

It's hard to say. The American populus was pretty stunned following the 9/11 attacks, and many people were more willing to let the government do whatever they thought was necessary to beef up security. Many people didn't really understand what was in the Patriot Act and other governmental legislation for quite some time- they just wanted to feel like we were more secure (yeah, right). It took a few years for some people to catch on to what was happening, and I think this has as much to do with the current level of distrust of the current administration as Obama himself has. It's probably not just one or the other, but a growing sense of distaste at how our constitution is being stomped on little by little.
 
I am a liberal Democrat. I am entirely opposed to warrantless wiretapping, and I am exceedingly disappointed that Obams doesn't seem to think this issue is important.

Admittedly, he would be skewered, just skewered by the Republicans if he did announce the end of the taps, and later a terrorist attack occurred. Politically, he can't gain much by stopping them. However, he should have some backbone.

He is probably just waiting on the Courts to rule on the matter, rather than spending the political capital he would have to in order to end the practice. This is something I despise, because all branches of the gov't are supposed to uphold the Constitution. In my view, it should be one of their top priorities.
 
Deuce said:
So am I right in assuming you're in favor of the government being able to listen to your phone calls without those pesky things like warrants, evidence, or probable cause?

Did you also hold this view in 2007?
Click to expand...

Show me where they were just listening in to random people for fun vice say... suspected terrorist. Otherwise like most on this issue, you're just freakin for no reason.
 
MrVicchio said:
A San Fran Judge ruled something Bush did was illegal? Well **** color me Fred and call me shocked! This must truly be a monumental day in Jurisprudence! For all the land knows that Judges from San Francisco are the epitome of fair, balanced and stick to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Typical partisan hackery. You passed right by the point and went right for anything in the story that looked too liberal for your liking.

Do you not care that your government illegally wiretaps without anyone's permission?
 
Another nail in Bush's "Worst President in History" coffin. He'll never be brought to justice but, his reputation will always be lower than a snake's belly in a wagon wheel rut. Hint: That's really low. :mrgreen:
 
MrVicchio said:
A San Fran Judge ruled something Bush did was illegal? Well **** color me Fred and call me shocked! This must truly be a monumental day in Jurisprudence! For all the land knows that Judges from San Francisco are the epitome of fair, balanced and stick to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Making excuses are we? :roll:
 
A triumph for Bush bashers everywhere.

:july_4th:

Hope Obama doesn't tap any lines with renewed Patriot Act.
 
American said:
A triumph for Bush bashers everywhere.

:july_4th:

Hope Obama doesn't tap any lines with renewed Patriot Act.
Click to expand...

If he does, it will still be illegal and wrong. All presidents should follow the law. This shouldn't be hard to understand or change because we have irrational fears.
 
Boo Radley said:
If he does, it will still be illegal and wrong. All presidents should follow the law. This shouldn't be hard to understand or change because we have irrational fears.
Click to expand...

Yeah, unfortunately politics was the reason here, could you imagine the republican response if he hadn't have renewed the patriot act. You'd never hear the end of it.

I think it is still against the law and should become defunct. But then you gotta fix your politics and your fear mongering first. I had a realization the other day as I took a quite a few greyhound busses a couple of weeks ago, that if a terrorist really wanted to do something, he could. YOu can't protect every single thing in America. When I went in the Greyhound bus, they didn't check my bag, ID, nothing. I could have put anything in that bag. I just think the possibilities of targets is so large, that it just doesnt seem like it would be that hard to have terrorist attacks. So why aren't they happening?

EDIT: I am not enciting Terrorism!
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
I do wonder on a couple of things here

I wonder on the proportion of people who were for such wire taps before will be against them now with a new president vs the proportion of people against such wiretaps before but are for them now

Which side will have the greater number of people changing their mind
Click to expand...
I was for them before, and I am for them now.

HOWever, I notice a general lack of condemnation from those who voted for hope and change in this regard.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Yeah, unfortunately politics was the reason here, could you imagine the republican response if he hadn't have renewed the patriot act. You'd never hear the end of it.

I think it is still against the law and should become defunct. But then you gotta fix your politics and your fear mongering first. I had a realization the other day as I took a quite a few greyhound busses a couple of weeks ago, that if a terrorist really wanted to do something, he could. YOu can't protect every single thing in America. When I went in the Greyhound bus, they didn't check my bag, ID, nothing. I could have put anything in that bag. I just think the possibilities of targets is so large, that it just doesnt seem like it would be that hard to have terrorist attacks. So why aren't they happening?

EDIT: I am not enciting Terrorism!
Click to expand...

It was never a realistic possibility. When Clinton did next to nothing, it still took eight years. It was an irrational fear from day one. This is not to say that one day something might happen, but a lot of attacks were never a realistic fear. Frankly we have to fear from home grown fanatics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom