RSSAmended FISA bill passed House, telco immunity left in
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published June 23, 2008, 11:52 AM
It appears likely that individuals believing their rights were violated by ISPs during anti-terrorism investigations, will not have much recourse against them after a sweeping House vote Friday that galvanized Republicans and split Democrats.
By a vote Friday afternoon of 293-129, with 13 not voting (including one-time Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul), new compromise legislation passed the US House of Representatives that would restrict the government's ability to conduct warrantless wiretaps on "non-United States persons" in the future. However, the means for those involved in such operations since 9/11/2001 to obtain legal immunity remains in the bill, thereby increasing its chances of being signed by President Bush should the Senate also pass the bill.
As the draft of HR 6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, that passed Friday, now reads, "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be promptly dismissed" if the Attorney General can prove in US District Court that this "person" was instructed to assist -- including by the President -- was given assurances that such assistance was lawful, that the assistance directly pertained to anti-terrorist efforts, and that the assistance itself was indeed lawful.
All these things would be determined by the court, though the Attorney General (representing the Justice Dept.) would have the right to petition the court that the hearing of such evidence on the "person's" behalf may jeopardize the national security if it were to be shared openly. In which case, the court itself may become limited as to how much it can say, even in its own findings. It can, of course, issue a quick dismissal without unduly jeopardizing security.
"This is not the bill I would have written, in an ideal world," stated House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D - Md.) on the House floor on Friday. "However, in our legislative process, no one gets everything he or she wants. Different parties - often with deeply competing interests - come together here to produce a consensus product, where each side gives and takes."
Rep. Hoyer pushed for the bill's passage over the objections of many in his own party As it turned out, the ayes and nays were split among Democrats. That split was even reflected among the current membership of the House Judiciary Committee, whose opinion on the proper role of FISA courts does carry some weight. Democrats on that committee who voted nay included committee chairman John Conyers (D - Mich.), Jerrold Nadler (D - N.Y.), Robert Scott (D - Va.), Melvin Watt (D - N.C.), Zoe Lofgren (D - Calif.), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D - Tex.), Maxine Waters (D - Calif.), William Delahunt (D - Mass.), Robert Wexler (D - Fla.), Linda Sanchez (D - Calif.), Steve Cohen (D - Tenn.), Henry Johnson (D - Ga.), Betty Sutton (D - Ohio), Tammy Baldwin (D - Wisc.), Anthony Weiner (D - N.Y.), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D - Fla.), and Keith Ellison (D - Minn.).
Committee members voting aye included senior member Howard Berman (D - Calif.), Frederick Boucher (D - Va.), Luis Gutierrez (D - Ill.), Brad Sherman (D - Calif.), Adam Schiff (D - Calif.), and Artur Davis (D - Ala.).
Only a single Republican in the House voted against the bill: Rep. Timothy Johnson (R - Ill.), most likely in continuation of his opposition to the principle that any restrictions be placed on anti-terrorist investigations whatsoever.
In his opposition to a similar bill last March, Rep. Johnson stated on the House floor, which did pass but was not signed into law, "Electronic surveillance is one of the strongest weapons in our arsenal. The real enemy is al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism, not our own government working so hard to protect us...Today's bill, the RESTORE Act, marks an undeniable retreat in the war against Islamic terrorism. It limits the type of foreign intelligence information that may be acquired and actually gives foreign targets more protections than Americans get in criminal cases here at home."
The language in Section 802 of the bill deals specifically with an individual's right to sue a "person," claiming his rights may have been violated by that "person" during an anti-terrorism investigation. But in Section 803, which deals with keeping states out of the business of questioning the legality of investigations against their citizens, the language becomes more transparent, referring directly to Internet service providers.
"In General -- No State shall have authority to...conduct an investigation into an electronic communication service provider's alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community," HR 6304 now reads. It adds that states may not require ISPs to divulge information about any investigations they may be conducting, or assistance they may be providing.
From here, the bill has already begun its journey in the Senate, having been placed on the legislative calendar there. Action on this bill may be unusually swift. There has been no official comment from the White House as of Monday morning, though that may change by the afternoon.
The FISA court was set up in the late 70's by the Democrats who recognized that there is not absolute freedom and that while the government is duty bound to protect the American public, there is always a tension between individual rights and the right of the common good.
The purpose of the court is to provide a vehicle that allows a court to review a case to eavesdrop on it's merits. Yes it is a secret court but, in today's world, with proper safeguards, this is a reality of what is needed. The fact that Bush/Cheney did not use this court in the NSA spying only means they should have been impeached not that the court doesn't have merit or is needed.
With both home grown terrorists and foreign terrorists, we need the ability to monitor traffic but one that is covered by some judicial process.
If, prior to 9/11, this administration had used the FISA court to monitor the foreign terrorist instead of being more concern about invading Iraq, then 9/11 might not have happen or not been as bad as it was.
The sad fact of today's world is that whether it is terrorists or a country, technology will play a key to America's success or failure in defending herself.
As far as the immunity issue, this was a necessary thing so that FISA court could issue an ok to taping without the ISP being threaten with a lawsuit. The fact is that FISA must change as technology changes.
Score: 0
|Wow.
I am amazed by how well you wrote that.
Seriously.
Sorry if that sounds like a thinly veiled insult, but damn. You nailed it.
Kudos.
Cookie: What if your business meeting was held in a public forum? (A friend sent me the link. I damn near laughed myself sober!)
Score: 0
|..apart from the impeaching Bush/Cheney part, which is getting sooo tiresome.
Score: 0
|Heh...
Missed that bit.
They would argue that falls under the presidents ability to enact or end-run certain laws during wartime.
The debatable bit is "wartime"... Did we actually ever declare war on Iraq, or is this still the "war" on terrorism?
Score: 0
|The government spent 40 billion dollars on Intelligence, surveillance, and terrorist threat assessment but still got caught with their shorts around their ankles on 9/11.
Tools were not the problem, intelligence spending is was not the problem. competence is what we were missing.
Score: 0
|Tools were not the problem, intelligence spending is was not the problem. competence is what we were missing.
Wow, so we could have just trained a few people a little better and we'd not need to have created a new department, fix communication issues, enact new laws, enforce greater security or any of that hogwash?
I guess we should have just asked you first. Would have saved us all a bunch of money...
Score: 0
|I think we're at war with ourselves.
Score: 0
|Nah...just the media.
Score: 0
|If FISA ends up in the SCOTUS it will be revoked just like the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
The constitution does not list out who does and who does not get to enjoy their natural rights. Who you are doesn't matter. The government, by constitutional law, cannot create a law that would deprive you of your natural rights. Yes even if you are a wild-eyed fanatic Muslim born in Saudi Arabia and arrested in Afghanistan. If the US government claims authority over you it must recognize your natural rights.
We get away with violating the privacy of people outside of our country but not because the government has the authority to do it. Fear mongering and demagoguery may win the day but this law is so over the top it will end up in the SCOTUS. Then four maybe five people who actually understand the constitution will look at it and probably, maybe, hopefully toss it out.
Score: 0
|???
FISA already exists. Has for decades. This is merely an amendment to it. You're aware of that, right?
Score: 0
|FISA: It's everywhere you want to be.
Score: 0
|What is consider a "non-United States persons"?
Score: 0
|Anyone who lacks the resources to defend themselves all the way to the SCOTUS.
Score: 0
|So this bill basically made it legal for the president's complete violation of the law in the past. This bill makes it sound like the president is above the law and allowed to change existing laws whenever he wants if they don't suit him.
Score: 0
|Stop blaming on Bush, he is doing exactly what is best for him and his friends. If you not happy about it, become a politician and change it.
Score: 0
|So this bill basically made it legal
president's complete violation of the law
Heh...
The President can take certain liberties with the law during wartime. It's been done in the past and has been perfectly legal.
Do you think the libs (or the real conservatives) would have let him get away with it otherwise?
Score: 0
|"If you not happy about it, become a politician and change it. "
Yes...amazing advice! Everybody, if you're not happy with what Bush is doing, drop your life, everything you've worked for, dump it...change your life and become a politician so you can change what you don't like!
It's not like I have a well established career and my own goals...who needs those right? I just need to drop everything and become a politician because I don't like Bush's policies!
Score: 0
|Are you seriously saying you have no problems with this bill???
Score: 0
|Sure. I said that.
???
Judging by your rant below, I have my doubts you even know what it's about.
FISA ain't new. It isn't changing much, and it's a hell of a lot better than no oversight at all.
The NSA, FBI, et all do sometimes need to get things done faster than our courts allow. I don't think anyone argues this. It's either get it done or miss a potentially singular opportunity. In these cases, such a court is a tenable compromise.
The immunity is a separate issue I don't even think should be in the bill, but I really just want that part done and over.
Score: 0
|Yep, I'm gonna do it! I think I'll call myself Barack Obama. Then I can do and say just about anything I like and all manner of strange people will fall all over me like I'm the new messiah.
Score: 0
|FISA needs to be rewritten so it's less vague about when it's appropriate for the government to do wiretapping without a warrant. FISA really doesn't provide any oversight at all if the government can simply use the excuse that it's an emergency (even when it's not). Since the war on Iraq started there has never been a single emergency situation that's made wiretapping without a warrant legal.
Score: 0
|It's vague for a reason. The FISA court decides each request based on it's merit, not some incomplete list that can quickly become outdated.
Score: 0
|What we need to do is dig up the founding fathers and attach magnets to them, and then wrap wire around on the inside of the casket. I think that might solve the energy crisis because they must be spinning in their graves over this.
Score: 0
|that would depend on witch one's you are refering too.
Score: 0
|*shrug*
FISA=good. This stops further end-runs around the rights of us "poor" Americans by whatever head-honcho may be running the show.
The immunity is debatable. I don't really know how much time should be wasted on it though. Either fine them or drop it.
Amazing the only thing this Congress has been able to achieve so far is a minimum wage increase and pissing off...everyone.
While both sides of the aisle are busy congratulating themselves, the public is left wondering what planet they're on and when they plan on returning and doing anything, ya know....useful.
Score: 0
|"FISA=good. This stops further end-runs around the rights of us "poor" Americans by whatever head-honcho may be running the show."
Yes it's really good...let the government tap anyones phones, spy on everything they do on the net, without their knowledge and without any warrant for 10 days...with complete immunity....awesome!! Oh and guess what...if they HAVE broken the law in the past, it doesn't matter now because this bill makes them immune from anything they may have done in the past! That's What the Constitution is all about!
Score: 0
|You have no idea what FISA is, do you?
FISA requires a court, sure, it's one that isn't accountable, but it at least implies some burden of proof.
It's a bit better than "let the government tap anyones phones, spy on everything they do on the net, without their knowledge and without any warrant for 10 days...with complete immunity."
Knee-jerk much?
Score: 0
|Sorry Tool...I was wrong...it's not 10 days, its actually 7 days:
"requires security agencies (such as the FBI) to get court orders before wiretapping individual Americans—except in emergency situations; then they can wiretap for seven days without a warrant"
Emergency situations...that can be pretty much anything no?
Oh and if you decide to sue because you thought it was an illegal wiretap? With this new amendment, all they have to do is say it was a matter of national security or something along those lines and the courts have to DISMISS the case.
Take your privacy for granted much?
Score: 0
|*laughs*
Privacy?
Hmmm...
I didn't catch the part where they made any information public.
Score: 0
|"I didn't catch the part where they made any information public. "
Its implied in the law. Clearly the information can be used in Court. In which case it becomes public. Even if the Government loses its case. Just like in any wire-tapping case against organized crime.
However the part about a 7 day search warrant free period is bad. It doesn't even take 24 hours to get a search warrant. In an emergency one can often be obtained in about the same amount of time it would take to set up the wire-tap. That is not likely to stand up in the Supreme Court.
Score: 0
|Its implied in the law. Clearly the information can be used in Court.
If it makes it to court, there are grounds for the case that would stand up in any normal court.
This court has been here since the 70's. This is *not* new. I must have missed the multitude of trials that were spawned from it abusing it's power...
Score: 0
|"If it makes it to court, "
Obviously. I felt there was no need to make my post look even more awkwardly written. I tried it both ways. I think before I post.
"This court has been here since the 70's. This is *not* new."
I didn't claim otherwise. The idea of not bothering to get a search warrant is new for this. Same for 7 days without one. Not new for the all of the US government since that creep Hoover thought he was the law and needed no search warrant. The memory of him is one reason people are torqued off about this.
I notice that you are ignoring that 7 day part still. It will get that law overturned in the Supreme Court.(I refuse to call it SCOTUS, looks to much like scrotum.)
Score: 0
|"If it makes it to court, "
Obviously.
So we're agreed.
The idea of not bothering to get a search warrant is new for this. Same for 7 days without one
Both the limit and the oversight of FISA will allow it to get through the Supreme Court.
Hoover...the memory...
*laughing*
Like 90% of the population today has any more than a vague clue as to who he even is. Have you been out in public lately? People are morons when it comes to history, so yes...be prepared for it to repeat itself here.
Score: 0
|"So we're agreed."
On that. Not the lack of proper search warrants for seven days. Laws do not overturn the Bill of Rights.
"People are morons when it comes to history, so yes...be prepared for it to repeat itself here. "
It already did. Bush wiretapped without search warrants. Which would have broken no US laws if it had only been overseas communications. But he did domestic wiretaps. Which is why it leaked. Someone did respect the Constitution.
I don't expect the kids to remember Hoover. However you pretend to be educated. You are not acting that on this. All Bush had to do was get a search warrant. From a pet judge. Its not hard. It doesn't take seven days.
If you really think that history will repeat itself again then you should be against that part of the bill.
Frankly I don't expect another Hoover. The Congress does remember him. Well enough of them do. Its still a bad idea to not get a search warrant in reasonable length of time. Reasonable being based on how long it takes to get one not on how long Bush thinks he can get away with now that he knows he can't completely overturn the Constitution.
Score: 0
|Its still a bad idea to not get a search warrant in reasonable length of time. Reasonable being based on how long it takes to get one
And if the critical piece of information happens to pass unnoticed while this is taking place...
No harm, no foul, right?
Score: 0
|"And if the critical piece of information happens to pass unnoticed while this is taking place...
No harm, no foul, right? "
What part of "reasonable length of time" did you fail to understand?
7 days is not reasonable. Are you capable of admitting that you were mistaken when you said you had no problems with the legislation or are you going to continue to stonewall this?
Yes, that may be a false dichotomy. I feel justified in this case. Perhaps you have a brilliant justification for this length of time. However you seem to misplaced it so far.
I said 7 days without a search warrant is a bad idea. Not anytime without a search warrant no matter what.
Please stop misrepresenting what I write. I am not John Kerry and I will point it out when someone attempts this sort of crap.
I seriously doubt that you or anyone else could find a legitimate justification to dawdle for 7 days getting a search warrant.
Surprise me. Brilliance or an admission. Either will be a surprise at this point.
Score: 0
|No surprise. Sorry.
You think it's unreasonable, I do not.
If it takes 7 days to normally get one of these warrants (a likely scenario with all the bureaucracy involved), I would rather them do what they need to do without it if they have reasonable suspicion.
I never *once* misrepresented you. You would have them wait, be it 7 days or 1 day, which in a perfect, ideal world, would be both sensible and practical. This is neither a perfect nor ideal world. Times have changed since the 70's, hmmm?
Sorry to disappoint you.
That said, why should the length of time even be an issue? One would think, to someone of high-minded ideals, that *any* time without a warrant would be inexcusable.
...and Kerry is a sniveling weenie. I wouldn't even accuse Zridling of such a thing. ;)
Score: 0
|"
You think it's unreasonable, I do not."
You are thick on this. These next two statements of yours appear to show why you are so far off.
"If it takes 7 days to normally get one of these warrants (a likely scenario with all the bureaucracy involved), I would rather them do what they need to do without it if they have reasonable suspicion."
It doesn't take 7 days. Period. It can be done in less than a day. Often in hours. This has been done for a long time.
"I never *once* misrepresented you. You would have them wait, be it 7 days or 1 day, which in a perfect, ideal world, would be both sensible and practical"
Again you misrepresent. I NEVER SAID THAT. Not once. I said 7 days is far longer than it takes. What part of that is hard to understand?
Look oh un-perspicacious one. The law says they can wiretap without a warrant for seven days. I said 7 was way more than is reasonable. How does that become what you claim I said. Thats misrepresentation.
You seem to congenitally incapable of comprehending someone disagreeing with you without being foolish. So you make up things in your head that I didn't say.
Is this getting through yet?
"Times have changed since the 70's, hmmm?"
Yes, as a search warrant can be obtained faster than ever.
"Sorry to disappoint you. "
You didn't. I expected further silliness. You produced it. While I find shooting fish in a barrel easy but it is boring. Besides no one else is reading my deathless prose nor being appalled at just how obtuse you are managing to be. Such a waste.
"That said, why should the length of time even be an issue? One would think, to someone of high-minded ideals, that *any* time without a warrant would be inexcusable."
Again you seem to think you know things you don't. That I said things I didn't.
Get this straight Oh All Knowing One.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
See this if you still fail to comprehend what I have just said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...n_is_not_a_suicide_pact
Now since this seems to be just beyond the horizon of your imagination I will spell this out step by baby step.
1. The Constitution requires search warrants.
2. Some rather annoying people have chosen the US as an enemy and wish to do Americans harm.
3. They sometimes plan or at least discuss things in the US instead other countries where the US Constitution does not apply.
4. In those countries it is harder for the US to engage in electronic surveillance.
5. In the US electronic surveillance is fairly easy but a search warrant is required.
6. Search warrants can obtained in far less than seven days.
7. Still it takes time to get one.
8. The US government decided to not bother getting a search warrant. Ever. Claiming they were afraid of leaks not the lack of time. This smacks of overweening fear and lack of courage about the American way of government.
9. Someone in the know decided that this smelled of a police state and leaked it. It smells to me and others. If it doesn't smell to you, check your nose. It may be missing. Perhaps you had a midnight olfectorectomy while high on John Locke and Ann Rand.
10. Congress in its infinite wisdom has set a procedure to deal with this problem.
11. Start surveillance. Then get a search warrant and quit pretending that this is too much effort for Americans to actually try to follow the Constitution that they most likely swore to uphold.
12. Congress in a major failure to reign in a blatantly out of control administration gave them 7 days to get that search warrant.
13. You said you were OK with this.
14. I said 7 days was way too many.
15. You claimed I said they shouldn't wiretap without a search warrant.
16. That is misrepresentation.
17. Seven days by the Bush administration or any other is too long to peek and poke without Judicial review. Congress is not the part of government responsible for Judicial review nor does it have the power to set aside Judicial Review over search warrants. This is called separation of powers.
18. Do not claim this is saying:
"You would have them wait, be it 7 days or 1 day, which in a perfect, ideal world, would be both sensible and practical. "
Is this getting through your obdurate mind?
Do try reading what people write instead of what you imagine they write. This sort of muddy thinking is endemic on the internet. If someone disagrees they must be failing to reason things out in the minds of many. So they couldn't possibly have said what they actually said. They must have meant something foolish. So in your case you just plain wrote
"You would have them wait, be it 7 days or 1 day" which is in no way what I said.
Seven days is too much.
Get a search warrant in a reasonable length of time.
I thank you for this opportunity to hone my rhetoric. I have been out of practice for some time. Perhaps I failed to spell things in the usual three different ways I find often helps the less fortunate to get a clue.
I just wish there was someone besides a mere self described tool reading this. Oh well I do need the practice.
Yours truly Jack the Ripper
Errr
Ethelred
Who in a silly failure of memory long ago chose the name of the redeless one. However I find that has worked out pretty well so far. Its fun watching the silly errors in thinking that this engenders in trolls.
Score: 0
|Besides no one else is reading my deathless prose nor being appalled at just how obtuse you are managing to be.
*laughing*
You aren't here to have a discussion. You've done *nothing* but insult me and use 5-dollar words. Who, exactly, are you trying to impress? zridling? All you have to do to impress him is bash MSFT.
If you wanted an actual discussion, you wouldn't be mincing words.
Just for my own amusement...
1.) Unless the person in question is deemed an enemy combatant (unprotected by our constitution or the Geneva Conventions)
2.) ..and some other rather annoying people appear to think our old methods used to deal with entrenched forces will continue to work.
3.) The US Constitution does not apply to them...anywhere.
4.) Sounds like your making the case for me. Get 'em here, while they're talking to someone on US soil.
5.) Again...not for enemy combatants.
6.) In most cases.
7.) Yes, it does.
8.) That is your opinion of it.
9.) More insults. Shocking.
10.) As is their job whenever such things are called into question, regardless of final finding.
11.) Hmm... Start surveillance, get a warrant...sounds like the plan. You aren't one of those people who thinks "up-to"="always", are you? Up-to 7 days doesn't equal seven days. Just like u-to 6mbps doesn't equal 6mbps.
12.) ...the failure bit is your opinion. You've yet to make a case for it, other than whining that it should be blatantly obvious (which interestingly, proves nothing but your own lack of thought on the subject).
13.) I did indeed.
14.) You did.
15.) I did. In your "prose", I misunderstood your implication. It happens.
16.) A little stuck on this bit, aren't you? Nothing else to say? You've *never* misinterpreted someone? Ever? You must be God himself....
17.) By what law are you claiming this? Our Constitution, in fact, *none* of our laws protect enemy combatants. Not the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Geneva conventions...not one.
18.) Again with the misinterpretation. Get over it already.
The only question here, really, is whether or not the person on US soil, be they citizen or otherwise, can be deemed an enemy combatant for conspiring with...the enemy. That's something debatable, that's got teeth on it.
The very fact that they aren't going this route and are instead affording them some rights is foolish, IMO, and not at all realistic to the situation.
Score: 0
|I lost my first pass on this. Clicked the wrong button. And I know better. Got lazy and typed it all in the box instead of an editor. Shame on me. I'll try to keep it shorter the second time around. It may not look short. The first pass was longer.
"You aren't here to have a discussion. You've done *nothing* but insult me and use 5-dollar words"
I finally got you to admit that I did not say what you claimed I said. That is not nothing. If it takes calling you thick to get to you stop that well so be it.
As for $5 words, I thought you were educated. My mistake.
You can buy 100,000 words for as little as $5, its called a dictionary. They have been around for a long time now. Free on the Internet.
"If you wanted an actual discussion, you wouldn't be mincing words. "
You do have a sense of humor. I thought you didn't. Just put *laughing* in all your posts to cover things up. Oh, very good.
"zridling? "
Who? I take it that is one of the Vista trolls you are so enamored with. Few of them are worth bothering with. And you need to use a different style in any case. You do look like a troll sometimes. That is one reason I picked you out for Flame Warrior lessons Weedhopper. You are slow and clumsy. But I see some promise.(I watched Kung Fu and Remo Williams a few too many times.)
"Just for my own amusement..."
Most posts are for people's own amusement. I like to practice my writing skills as well though.
Comment one:
Enemy combatants are not involved in this discussion. Except in that its not the up to the Bush administration to decide who is an enemy combatant at least without Judicial review. Citizens are always covered by the Constitution even if Bush claims otherwise. Note that the one US citizen that was caught in Afghanistan got a real court trial in a reasonable length of time.
I am not going to cover each comment. Many are exactly this same error. 1, 3, and 5 for instance.
Comment 4
I am making the case for the law on both sides of this issue. This should have clued you into not claiming a lack of thought on my part. That it didn't doesn't speak well for you.
Comment six. Show how it takes seven days.
Comment eight. Some of it is my opinion. Some of it is public record. Which I will get to after dealing with the enumerated comments.
Comment nine. What insults? Either it smells to you or it doesn't. If not then I think your in need of a nose check. If you find that insulting there is no helping you.
The rest is both a joke and a probe.
Weedhopper in your Flame Warrior lesson for today you must try to use humor to test your opponent. See if he flinches or deals with it by a counter joke.
You flinched. However the secondary probe failed. I was attempting to discover things about your politics. Thinking that you read John Locke and Ann Rand is not an insult. However if you do its a sign you might be a Libertarian which affects my tactics.
John Locke was a major influence on the Founding Fathers. Ann Rand I have jokes for.
Tactics Weedhopper. Strategy. Learn them. Use them wisely.
Comment 11. Weedhopper gets a clue as to what I was on about when I said he was misrepresenting me. However I can count. I even understand that less than or equal to is not the same as equal to. I learned that in the seventh grade. In the sixties. Before the Beatles. I think it was before John Kennedy was assassinated. I was home sick that day.
Comment 12. Oh dear. You whine that I insulted you and now you accuse me of whining. Pot meet kettle. Do you have a sense of irony?
"You've yet to make a case for it,"
Sorry I thought you might have noticed that search warrants are issued at all hours of the day or night. No court session is needed. Just a willing judge. More to come.
Comments 15, 16 and 18. If you had listened when I said you had it wrong the first time there would have been no long enumerated list. Its you own doing. Redundancy was clearly needed. Massive redundancy.
"You must be God himself...."
I am Agnostic. So I wouldn't be able to believe in Myself. I vanish in a puff of logic.
Still here. Must not be a god. Blast it.
Comment 17. Comming in the blob later. Right after this quotation of you.
"
The only question here, really, is whether or not the person on US soil, be they citizen or otherwise, can be deemed an enemy combatant for conspiring with...the enemy. That's something debatable, that's got teeth on it"
The Supreme Court does not agree with you as can be seen in the recent decision on Guantanamo. I already mentioned that case of the US citizen in Afghanistan. How about a quote from W himself?
From:
http://www.whitehouse.go...2004/04/20040420-2.html
"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution. "
He doesn't even make an exception there for enemy combatants. Of course he doing what he said shouldn't be done at that time. I can't help it if he is a hypocrite. I can point it out though.
The Constitution is not there to protect our enemies or criminals. Its there to limit the government and thereby protect the citizens from the government. Separation of Powers is part of that. Legal decisions are not up to the Administrative arm of the government they are the purvey of the Judiciary.
The FISA 1978 law made it legal to wiretap without Judicial Review for 72 hours and up to 15 days after Declartion of War, which hasn't happened since WWII. I think that is adequate. Its not up to the President be he Bush or anyone else to decide who is subject to the Constitution and who is not. Its up to the judges. Says so in the Constitution.
US Constitution:
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;-- between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
---------
Please note that treaties are included in Judicial review. That includes the Geneva Convention.
As for the time involved:
Its not like they have to write up a 300 page proposal.
Track down the one judge to his lair with dogs and Indian Guides experienced in the ways of leather shoes and concrete.
Subject them to days of sleep of deprivation combined with masks, crowbars and waterboarding.
Then translate the proposal into the Serbo-Croation as preferred by the IRS.
Send the signed warrant by Pony Express to the tappers who then must decode the message with a one time pad at which point they may turn on the switch.
There are 11 judges in the FISA, up from 7, any of them can be reached at any hour of the day or night. Its part of the job. They can be reached by an administration representative who can be sent by phone or Internet in the same city. How does 72 hours now become 7 days?
Three days is reasonable. Seven is not.
I am beginning to despair for you Weedhopper. If you want to win the Flame Wars you must learn to reason wisely, use humor, and most of all show some sign that you have at least some knowledge of what you speak. No one is going to take *laugh* as an devastating rejoinder. Not outside of Junior High anyway.
Score: 0
|