BF2S Forums Court decision today about govn't wiretaps

AAFCptKabbom wrote:

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

AAFCptKabbom wrote:

The ACLU "Judge shopped" and knew this was the person who would rule against a republican President.
Now go read the ruling - I did - and you'll find why she will be overruled even before it gets to the Supreme Court.  I would suggest you not show your stripes so obviously - the gloating gave you away.
Can you spell W-A-R  !!!!  My family and I are both safe and have nothing to hide...

Kaboom.

Can you give a link to the ruling? I can't find it.

And do you have any sources on the "judge shopping"? Curious to know how that's possible. I am very ignorant about how judges are chosen for cases.

Nice try slick - I asked my kid's eight year old friend to find it {he did in under a minute} I'll have him send you link if you like???

It was reported in several newspapers {do your homework - I did mine} and I did also see it on one TV news report however, not the one you watch.  Also, follow the posted links and you'll find a reference to how the ACLU chooses their battles and the grounds they choose to fight them on {Michigan and not Virginia gave it away}. In all fairness you and I, as well as any smart group of lawyers, would file a class action law suit in a jurisdiction that would be more inclined to give us a favorable outcome, now wouldn't we - please don't play dumb - cause we got enough dumb people pretending to think they know what they are talking about.

Bertster7 wrote:

Colfax wrote:

Multiple lawyers with in the administration and outside of the administrations have found it to be legal under the constitution. 

Also about gitmo.  If they aren't U.S. citizens they have not rights under our constitution.  They answer to no laws so why should our laws apply to them.  They are terrorists they have no rights.

They don't know who they are listening to and they are only listening for key words and phrases.  If they need to find out who they are listening to a court order is needed.

People keep bringing up the fact that non-US citizens are not protected by the constitution and the right to fair trial. I should point out that EVERYONE has the right to fair trial under international law. But of course international law doesn't apply to America.

They are only terrorists with no rights once they have been proven to be terrorists in a court!

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

1) Yeah, step back for a sec, and look at why you would have to give up three years to save thousands of your countrymen...

2) It says something about the image of america throughout the world doesnt it. maybe we should be fixing that, not killing people.. i mean "terrorists".. in iraq...

3) its just incredibly arrogant to come into a country and completly change everything for the 'better', aka what america wants, not what the iraqis want.. on the basis that there are WMDs hidden somewhere.

1) Whoa, you went a little to intl. there, you wouldn't sacrifice three years for your country??

2) .......The usual leftist blah blah America's image, I agree it isn't that great, what should we do? Any ideas instead of "not killing people".......

3) Yeah yeah, arrogant, yeah, I understand your point, its not really what should be done I agree, time to get the Iraqis on their feet, and get out!

BTW, I like tacos AND PB&J

Rick_O_Shea678 wrote:

I was looking for YOUR opinions here.  And a little bipartisan discussion, not info from The National Review (a definatively right-wing magazine.)  I'm no expert, like Bryan Cunningham, but I see a couple problems with his article:

The lone judge in American history to order a president to halt in wartime a foreign-intelligence-collection program...
It is certainly debatable that the USA is in "wartime."  War is declared by Congressional Declaration, usually after the President addresses the body.  Has that occured?
Secondly, foreign-intelligence-collection is the crux of the problem.  The Bush administration has authorized DOMESTIC wiretapping and spying, without first obtaining a warrant, that's why this is being challenged.

Cunningham goes on to call the judge amateurish, and accuses her of not doing enough research.  He thinks the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court will overturn.  His tone may seem quite shocking, but it's actually not.  It's par for the course when you disagree with a judicial decision to ridicule it, and puff out your chest like a peacock and declare "we will win at the next level."  To win an appeal, you have to overturn the previous judge's decision, and that starts by tearing down the judge and their logic.

If Cunningham is so confident that the program will be upheld, he should be pleased that the judge in this case didn't do enough research.  A quick decision, even if it knocks down the law, is a good thing.  He's whining that the court didn't gather enough evidence or hold substantive hearings.  But if what AAFCptKabbom says on page one is true, that there was some "judge shopping" going on here...if this court was picked because there was a good chance it would knock down the program...why would Cunningham want the issue tied up at this level, with long hearings etc?  The quicker this challenge gets to the Supreme Court, for its final decision, the better for all.

Cunningham says the impact of the decision is that the Terrorist Surveillance Program "will be shut down and our enemies will know it."  That's not exactly true, because the judge, and both sides in court, agreed to allow the program to continue until the government's case for a stay pending appeal is heard.

There is a lot of rhetoric flying around (and fearmongering) which says that the USA has no way to track terrorist threats anymore.  That's not true.  It's not like this decision has declared the NSA or FBI or CIA to be illegal, and forced to disband.  Those organizations continue.  And wiretaps can still be obtained, with a court order.  And there is always the alternative of amending the existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

Cunningham ridicules the judge for discussing a 1765 case, but that's how big this issue is.  Reading people's email and tapping their phones without a warrant goes all the way back to the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution: 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.

Shadovve wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Colfax wrote:

Multiple lawyers with in the administration and outside of the administrations have found it to be legal under the constitution. 

Also about gitmo.  If they aren't U.S. citizens they have not rights under our constitution.  They answer to no laws so why should our laws apply to them.  They are terrorists they have no rights.

They don't know who they are listening to and they are only listening for key words and phrases.  If they need to find out who they are listening to a court order is needed.

People keep bringing up the fact that non-US citizens are not protected by the constitution and the right to fair trial. I should point out that EVERYONE has the right to fair trial under international law. But of course international law doesn't apply to America.

They are only terrorists with no rights once they have been proven to be terrorists in a court!

"Enemy Combatants" Look up the Term, and see how it applies to the Geneva convention.  You find that Gitmo is perfectly leagal Nationally, and internationally.  Do you really beleive with all the senators, and all the liberals that are against gitmo that it would remain if it wasn't leagal?

duk0r wrote:

Wow, some people...

"Here is my freedom, I exchange that for security!"

If you give up freedom for security you have given up both freedom and security.

I think everyone is losing focus of the big picture here. Americans spying on Americans and people are sitting around saying: "Oh I have nothing to hide so it's no big deal". That's not the fucking point, regardless if the system just checks for keywords or all the calls are not being listened to by real people or not. Americans are spying on Americans. With out warrants! Let me repeat that one more time for the hard headed. - With out warrants!!

The American justice system and government is built on a system of checks and balances. The citizens keep the government in check and the government helps keep the people in check. But what happens when you give up your rights to the government? Who will keep them in check? Think about that for a while...

Last edited by lowing (2006-08-20 05:23:05)

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:

duk0r wrote:

Wow, some people...

"Here is my freedom, I exchange that for security!"

If you give up freedom for security you have given up both freedom and security.

I think everyone is losing focus of the big picture here. Americans spying on Americans and people are sitting around saying: "Oh I have nothing to hide so it's no big deal". That's not the fucking point, regardless if the system just checks for keywords or all the calls are not being listened to by real people or not. Americans are spying on Americans. With out warrants! Let me repeat that one more time for the hard headed. - With out warrants!!

The American justice system and government is built on a system of checks and balances. The citizens keep the government in check and the government helps keep the people in check. But what happens when you give up your rights to the government? Who will keep them in check? Think about that for a while...

"Many variants derived from this phrase have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin:
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither" "

I guess we will add your version to the quote list.

The US govt. severely curtailed our freedoms during WW2. Letters to and from the servicemen were censored, for the sake of national security is one of many examples. The president who was in office at the time was a democrat. I don't recall reading about any bitching, and law suits filed by the ACLU to stop that practice. it is pathetic to think that you all support such tactics against the current administration for the sole purpose of trying to secure your foothold on the White House in'08. You are putting politics ahead of national security plain and simple. You are willing to sacrifice soldiers and citizens lives to make sure a republican isn't elected again.

Bottom line.......THERE HAVE BEEN NO TERROR ATTACKS ON  US SOIL SINCE 911, AND SEVERAL THWARTED ATTEMPTS WORLD WIDE!!! You just WON"T admit that this administrations efforts are a big part of that fact can you? Would you actually be happy to see another attack so you can throw THAT up in the face of this president? I have read criticism by several of you that BUSH was the president on 911 and his incompetence let the attacks occur. Well which is it?? are you going to bitch that he let the 911 attacks occur, or are you going to bitch that he started this war, or is it going to be that his SUCCESSFUL efforts in fighting it are a inconvenience to you??

There were only two islamic terror attacks on US soil before it. One of which was instigated in part by the FBI. The administration has nothing to do with it.

Last edited by lowing (2006-08-20 08:15:48)

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

There were only two islamic terror attacks on US soil before it. One of which was instigated in part by the FBI. The administration has nothing to do with it.

Your point completely eludes me.  Why don't you actually respond to my POST, ALL of it.

Because I was only adding context to one point in your post. You stated that there have been no terror attacks since 911. The subtext of which is that there have only been three of relevance ever. The first was a hostage situation in DC, the second the first bombings at the trade center (bomb provided by the FBI sting agent), and the 911 attacks which are themselves steeped in suspicion.

In this context, your point loses the majority of its persuasive force.

acsman50 wrote:

The naivete in believing that a nation's security agencies are responsible for there having been no recent, successful terrorist attacks is staggering. Do you believe that we are fighting a bunch of medieval morons? It is just that sort of arrogance from the west which allows the terrorist to carry out the atrocities. They are biding their time. We in the UK and US are going thru a period of security paranoia at present. When would you launch an attack?

With regard to data tapping, do you really believe that terrorists will use keywords such as 'bomb', etc? They will use codewords, and this means that agencies will need to extend their monitoring to cover apparently harmless words/phrases, and eventually even the context of such phrases. Those of you who believe that you have nothing to fear from data tapping while you only use such innocuous phrases as 'tea-bagging my girlfriend' should think again.

acsman50 wrote:

lowing wrote:

acsman50 wrote:

The naivete in believing that a nation's security agencies are responsible for there having been no recent, successful terrorist attacks is staggering. Do you believe that we are fighting a bunch of medieval morons? It is just that sort of arrogance from the west which allows the terrorist to carry out the atrocities. They are biding their time. We in the UK and US are going thru a period of security paranoia at present. When would you launch an attack?

With regard to data tapping, do you really believe that terrorists will use keywords such as 'bomb', etc? They will use codewords, and this means that agencies will need to extend their monitoring to cover apparently harmless words/phrases, and eventually even the context of such phrases. Those of you who believe that you have nothing to fear from data tapping while you only use such innocuous phrases as 'tea-bagging my girlfriend' should think again.

If the terrorists aren't "morons", of which I agree, and foiled terror plots after 911 all over the world were not the results of intel and surveillance, then you really need to clue me in on how exactly they got exposed.

I think the fact that this is a positive stat on the war on terror and it occurs under Bush's watch, you are going to down play it's significance as much as possible.

I'd be pleased to 'clue you in'. Since the end of the cold war security agencies all over the world have struggled to justify their existence, ('here we go' I hear you say). I hope that you'll agree that their success in foiling recent major attacks, throughout the world, was non-existent. We are now in the situation of being told that they keep finding pieces of string. How long are these pieces? What colour? We have no idea cos of national security issues, (convenient huh?). The fact that our citizens haven't been killed for a few months is, of course, a positive stat, (and as I have little or no interest in the shenanigans of either Bush or Blair I really don't understand your last reference), but how much of that is down to efficient security agency work we really do not know. I hope that you are correct and that they are on the ball. I also sincerely hope that my cynicism is not proven to be well-founded.

acsman50 wrote:

lowing wrote:

acsman50 wrote:

I'd be pleased to 'clue you in'. Since the end of the cold war security agencies all over the world have struggled to justify their existence, ('here we go' I hear you say). I hope that you'll agree that their success in foiling recent major attacks, throughout the world, was non-existent. We are now in the situation of being told that they keep finding pieces of string. How long are these pieces? What colour? We have no idea cos of national security issues, (convenient huh?). The fact that our citizens haven't been killed for a few months is, of course, a positive stat, (and as I have little or no interest in the shenanigans of either Bush or Blair I really don't understand your last reference), but how much of that is down to efficient security agency work we really do not know. I hope that you are correct and that they are on the ball. I also sincerely hope that my cynicism is not proven to be well-founded.

So terrorists REALLY AREN'T out to kill the infidels, and intel and servailence REALLY ISN'T the reason why they haven't since 911. Got it, thank you

Are you following the same thread?

lowing wrote:

Bottom line.......THERE HAVE BEEN NO TERROR ATTACKS ON  US SOIL SINCE 911, AND SEVERAL THWARTED ATTEMPTS WORLD WIDE!!! You just WON"T admit that this administrations efforts are a big part of that fact can you? Would you actually be happy to see another attack so you can throw THAT up in the face of this president? I have read criticism by several of you that BUSH was the president on 911 and his incompetence let the attacks occur. Well which is it?? are you going to bitch that he let the 911 attacks occur, or are you going to bitch that he started this war, or is it going to be that his SUCCESSFUL efforts in fighting it are a inconvenience to you??