• 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

Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

I condemn it completely. But as I said earlier, it is completely down to politics. The attacks from the right would have been neverending if he didn't renew it.

I condemn because it is against the constitution... blatantly so. But it's allowed due to fear and not wanting to seem un-American (ironic that its called the patriot act). I just dont get how people see the Health Care bill as unconstitutional yet the Patriot act not when it absolutely is, regardless of whether its needed or not.
 
Jetboogieman said:
I condemn it completely. But as I said earlier, it is completely down to politics. The attacks from the right would have been neverending if he didn't renew it.

I condemn because it is against the constitution... blatantly so.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not so blatantly -- the constitution does not require a warrant in -every- event.
 
I think there is a difference between scanning communications lines in general and scanning select lines of individuals.
 
Goobieman said:
Perhaps not so blatantly -- the constitution does not require a warrant in -every- event.
Click to expand...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, 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.
Click to expand...

I do not think, that this supports unwarranted wire tapping.
 
Jetboogieman said:
I do not think, that this supports unwarranted wire tapping.
Click to expand...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

See underlined. Not every search/seizure is unreasonable.

There is a compelling state interest in keeping terrorists from doing what terrorists do. To this end, the government has created a fairly narrow set of corcumstances under which they can listen in to conversations w/o a warrant.

This, arguably, meets the requirements of strict scrutiny, and so does not qualify as an unreasonable search.
 
Goobieman said:
Perhaps not so blatantly -- the constitution does not require a warrant in -every- event.
Click to expand...

In what events does the Constitution require a warrant?
 
American said:
I think there is a difference between scanning communications lines in general and scanning select lines of individuals.
Click to expand...

Aren't warrants needed in both instances?
 
Goobieman said:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

See underlined. Not every search/seizure is unreasonable.

There is a compelling state interest in keeping terrorists from doing what terrorists do. To this end, the government has created a fairly narrow set of corcumstances under which they can listen in to conversations w/o a warrant.

This, arguably, meets the requirements of strict scrutiny, and so does not qualify as an unreasonable search.
Click to expand...

WOH WOH WOH WOH WOH, Slow down there partner. You trust your government not to at any time, under any circumstances break with that strict set of circumstances? what about all the can't trust government and government is the problem? If you conservatives are so worried about the abuse of power, why so readily allow them to use such a tool, that if something democratically went wrong, could be used against you so easily.
 
Jetboogieman said:
WOH WOH WOH WOH WOH, Slow down there partner. You trust your government not to at any time, under any circumstances break with that strict set of circumstances?
Click to expand...
Just laying out the argument for not every search requring a warrant. If a particular instance meets the standards of strict scrutiny, the protection of the 4th is not applied.

In fact, there are many instances where no warrent is necessary - a police officer sees a gun in your car, etc. In those case, the search considered 'reasonable' and no warrant is needed.
 
Goobieman said:
In fact, there are many instances where no warrent is necessary - a police officer sees a gun in your car, etc. In those case, the search considered 'reasonable' and no warrant is needed.
Click to expand...

But you know that, it is happening to you. The cop is physically there, and if you had a gun well sure. But my argument here is against the wire taps. You can't see that person in some government ant hill in the mountains that just has to push a button to hear you. It's not the same. And there is so much possibility for abuse of such a system. That youd never know about.
 
Jetboogieman said:
But you know that, it is happening to you. The cop is physically there, and if you had a gun well sure.
Click to expand...
None of that is relevant to the argument that not -all- searches require a warrant. There ARE instances when a warrantless search IS allowable; the presence or knowledge of the person being searched is not considered relevant.

The only question, then, is if the wiretaps in question fall among those instances.

Given the particulars and cirumstances, I'd say yes.
 
Goobieman said:
None of that is relevant to the argument that not -all- searches require a warrant. There ARE instances when a warrantless search IS allowable; the presence or knowledge of the person being searched is not considered relevant.

The only question, then, is if the wiretaps in question fall among those instances.

Given the particulars and cirumstances, I'd say yes.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I can accept that argument to a certain extent.

But categorically. Are you stating then that there is absolutely no possibility for abuse of such a system?
 
Jetboogieman said:
Fair enough. I can accept that argument to a certain extent.
Click to expand...
:mrgreen:

But categorically. Are you stating then that there is absolutely no possibility for abuse of such a system?
Click to expand...
Sure there's a possibility -- but then, that's always a possibility in anything the government does, and so the full absence of such a possibility isnt a requirement.

If it -is- abused, it will be taken care of in court.
 
Goobieman said:
:mrgreen:


Sure there's a possibility -- but then, that's always a possibility in anything the government does, and so the full absence of such a possibility isnt a requirement.

If it -is- abused, it will be taken care of in court.
Click to expand...

Thank you sir, for a well reasoned argument that did not take us to extreme mud slinging. Have a good day :2wave:
 
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...

LOL No worries on this. It will be appealed
 
ADK_Forever said:
Aren't warrants needed in both instances?
Click to expand...
Seems to me it might depend on how personal it is. Is tapping the phone company the same as tapping your personal phone line? I don't know, but then we don't know to was level the Bush wiretapping went. How about NSA scanning of emails? You think they get a warrant for every email?
 
I can't prove it but I still believe that illegal wiretaps have been going on since the telephone was invented. Always have and always will.

Call me jaded. Just don't call me collect. :mrgreen:
 
American said:
Seems to me it might depend on how personal it is. Is tapping the phone company the same as tapping your personal phone line? I don't know, but then we don't know to was level the Bush wiretapping went. How about NSA scanning of emails? You think they get a warrant for every email?
Click to expand...

I believe they need a warrant for all of the above.

Whether or not they get one doesn't change whether they should have. And yes, I believe it goes on probably more than we would like.
 
ADK_Forever said:
In what events does the Constitution require a warrant?
Click to expand...

It is my understanding that the case in question concerned the narrower argument whether the Executive Department's compliance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's (FISA) provisions on electronic surveillance is mandatory. The court ruled that it is.

FWIW, the relevant provisions of FISA that address warrantless surveillance can be found at:

US CODE: Title 50,1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications;

IMO, FISA is sufficiently robust and flexible to deal with the terrorist threat in a timely fashion, while safeguarding the basic constitutional rights of Americans. Therefore, I agree with the Court's ruling that compliance with FISA is mandatory and do not believe that the ruling should have any significant adverse impact on national security. Indeed, if its effect is to prioritize efforts based on the existence of reasonable evidence (necessary to obtain a court order), the benefits of focusing where such evidence exists might be greater than those associated with simply laying out a broad "net" with the hope of discovering something.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
LOL No worries on this. It will be appealed
Click to expand...

i fear you may be right
if Obama chooses to take the same position as the shrub on this issue, and appeal it, such a stand will be quite revealing (and ominous)
 
American said:
Seems to me it might depend on how personal it is. Is tapping the phone company the same as tapping your personal phone line? I don't know, but then we don't know to was level the Bush wiretapping went. How about NSA scanning of emails? You think they get a warrant for every email?
Click to expand...

You get a warrant for the email accounts.


justabubba said:
i fear you may be right
if Obama will the same position as the shrub on this issue, and appeal it, such a stand will be quite revealing (and ominous)
Click to expand...

Fixed for you
 
Chappy said:
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.
Click to expand...
There's been a major shift in the media coverage. Journalists thought it was so heinous when Bush did it, they were willing to sacrifice national security to make a big deal out of it. Now that the cats out of the bag and there's no risk to national security, they barely mentioned the fact that Obama is continuing the policy.
 
mpg said:
There's been a major shift in the media coverage. Journalists thought it was so heinous when Bush did it, they were willing to sacrifice national security to make a big deal out of it. Now that the cats out of the bag and there's no risk to national security, they barely mentioned the fact that Obama is continuing the policy.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. It was uncovered under Bush, making it news. We know where everyone is on this. The ruling is the news, and it's being reported. And national security was never at risk. In fact, doing it was more risky than following the law in the first place. If you have too many dots, you really can't connect any. Not to mention that if we break one law, breaking others becomes less difficult to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom