Cynical Nation

Agreed. Let's see what the courts say. To date all 4 federal court cases have given deference to the president on such issues. I see no reason to presuppose the opposite outcome in this instance.

That's a pathetic bit of reasoning.

In case anyone else has forgotten, we aren't discussing spying on foreigners for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence. This is about spying on Americans without a warrant. Stop trying to confuse the issue with gobbledygook about foreign surveillance. We have rules and laws in this country. And we don't have kings with absolute power. The arguments that support the Bush criminal conspiracy in this matter are fallacious and a smokescreen. Barry, I am surprised at you. You pretend objectivity, but you turn out to be a hysterical apologist for criminal behavior. I would have hoped that was beneath you.

Your own quote says that Bush decided ON HIS OWN AUTHORITY AND WITHOUT ANY ACTUAL LEGAL SUPPORT that 9/11 justified new rules with respect to the Fourth Amendment. Gee, we have this Constitution, which Bush says is "just a piece of paper" by the way, that has a whole procedure carefully written up for amending it, but King George decides he's gonna be everyone's daddy and make new rules.

Seriously, I think the 9/11 attacks have made you hystercial and incapable of rational thought, Barry, if you find that line of argument persuasive, that Bush gets to make the rules up as he goes. You need to calm down and look at these things objectively instead of blubbering like a frightened child about terrorism and crying for daddy to save you. Maybe you are ready to shred the Constitution because of 9/11, but there are quite a few of us who aren't.

As for the impeachment proceedings, what you are saying is that I have no right to draw my own conclusions and must defer to the courts before I know what I think about it.

Surprise! I know what I think already! And I have my own opinions! Who died and made you King of When to Have an Opinion? I think you're getting a little hysterical because you realize your hero is a criminal now and you are desperate to save him from his just punishment.

> Surprise! I know what I think already! And I have my own opinions! Who died and made you King of When to Have an Opinion? I think you're getting a little hysterical...

Today's word, boys and girls, is "projection."

You need to get your irony fixed.

Actually, I was blowing your hysteria back on you since you seem to think having a strong opinion is a form of hysteria. That's a neat trick to belittle an opposing viewpoint, especially when it isn't true, by calling the person "hysterical" and thereby avoiding dealing with all manner of argument.

There's little doubt that the courts will be forced to clarify this issue. Until they do so, however, let's hold off on the impeachment proceedings until we know they're warranted, okay? That hardly seems too much to ask.
And who died and made you King of When to Have an Opinion? I say that impeachment has been warranted for quite some time anyway, and this is just the latest example. Your need to protect Bush is making you hysterical, Barry.

"The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act makes it difficult to conduct surveillance of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents unless they are suspected of being involved in terrorist or other hostile activities. That is too restrictive. Innocent people, such as unwitting neighbors of terrorists, may, without knowing it, have valuable counterterrorist information."
-Posner in the WaPo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122001053.html)

Is that the kind of reasoning that appeals to you? We need to shred the Fourth Amendment and spy on "innocent people" to, what, oh yeah, protect our freedom? These are the people with whom you want to be in bed? People of no principle at all, who think the Constitution is toilet paper and think it is okay to vest super-Constitutional powers in George Bush, of all people?

Jesus Christ.

No, I don't want to "shred" anything. And I don't want to be "in bed with" anybody except Halle Berry. Well, okay, and Jessica Alba. Well okay, a *lot* of people, but not GWB nor the GOP leadership.

So cut this crap, nonsense rhetoric, okay?

Anyway, I'm going to North Carolina for Christmas. It'll be about a week before I'm back. I'll debate you then if you can tone it down a notch, all right?

Meanwhile, here's something for you to think about, Mr. "Constitutional Absolutist." What is your opinion on the 2nd and 10th Amendments?

"That's a pathetic bit of reasoning."
"You pretend objectivity, but you turn out to be a hysterical apologist for criminal behavior"
"You need to calm down...instead of blubbering...crying"
"Maybe you are ready to shred the Constitution..."

and then we flip over the record.....

"That's a neat trick to belittle an opposing viewpoint, especially when it isn't true, by calling the person "hysterical" and thereby avoiding dealing with all manner of argument."

Ortho, no kidding.

Hey DBK! Pot? Kettle? Hello? Earth to Mirror? Hello?

I'd like to address the main accusation, that the Bush administration is spying on Americans. The National Security Agency has been monitoring foriegn supsects with ties to terror's phone calls, when they call the United States should the NSA hang up? If a suspected terrorist calls the U.S. I think it best we listen in.

Oh, that's okay as long as we have judicial review from a FISA court? Are you sure that's enough? I mean we all know that that tyrant Bush can intimidate the judges to give him his warrants. Well okay let's say we do require this kind of review, what happens when we are listening to a known terrorist that calls the U.S.? Go to the FISA Court of course, how silly of me. But uh oh there's a problem: no probable cause. After all, this guy could just be calling his poor mother whose Civil Liberties are protected by the U.S. Constitution no matter what! Oh well it probably wasn't important. It's not like we face a global terrist threat or anything.

"In case anyone else has forgotten, we aren't discussing spying on foreigners for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence. This is about spying on Americans without a warrant." (DBK)

The current controversy is over the NSA tapping correspondences between American citizens and targeted points abroad. In each case, a foreign national was involved in the exchange.

There has never been a warrant required to conduct surveillance on foreign nationals and any correspondance between an American citizen and a foreign national is considered "gathering foreign intel."

It doesn't matter whether the communication was initiated by the foreign national or the American, it only matters that one side of the exchange was a foreign national - THAT makes it "foreign intel."

This is the bottomline, there is NO EXPECTATION of privacy with overseas transmissions. If you’re unaware that correspondences to foreign nationals can come under scrutiny by various Intelligence agencies (CIA , NSA, etc) investigating any number of perceived “threats against America,” than you are acting under a misguided premise.

Any correspondence that involves a foreign national on either side, that is either a contact by a foreign national to an American citizen, or from an American citizen to a foreign national rightly and necessarily falls under the heading of “foreign intelligence.”

Even the Supreme Court agrees, ”In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.”

And so do the federal courts, “Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

“In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority." “

“Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

You know what would be a good thing, if Liberals would simply stop inserting their own phrases and wordings into the Constitution.

Nowhere in the Constitution does the word “privacy,” nor the phrase “privacy rights” appear. The 4th Amendment doesn’t guarantee any “right to privacy,” it merely protects citizens form “unreasonable search and seizure,” and the definition of what is "unreasonable" changes from generation to generation.

It’s like the inane phrase “Separation of Church and State,” which also exists nowhere within the Constitution. The First Amendment only bars the government from establishing a State religion, like the Church of England. It was never meant to be interpreted as barring any and all spirituality, nor the acknowledgement of religion from the public square.

The FBI wants, and I think a majority of Americans would support, the widespread and increased use of surveillance cameras all over America, on roadways, along residential streets, in offices and workplaces. We demand increasing transparency in government, why shouldn’t law enforcement be able to require the citizens they need to protect to operate in a more transparent way themselves.

On a recent police blog from a small upstate NY town of less than 30,000 there was a woman stopped after “appearing lost, upon making a U-turn near a Park & Ride site.” She was stopped and arrested for DUI and possession of a small amount of marijuana.

Years ago Civil Libertarians would’ve been up in arms over that perceived intrusion into that woman’s non-threatening and completely legal behavior. She merely “appeared lost,” and made a U-turn, NOT an illegal U-turn and still was stopped, checked for DUI and her car searched.

That is merely the world we live in today. No one was harmed by that action and no innocent person was damaged because of it. The woman obviously was DUI and had a controlled substance on her person.

The life or lives that may have been saved by getting this impaired driver off the streets are unknown, as they weren't victimized by this person's poor judgment. The overall good is often hidden in such cases, while the intrusion is all too apparent.

In that same small town, another cop stopped a woman for switching lanes without a signal (improper lane change) and arrested her for possession of a controlled substance after searching her car.

Again, 25 or 30 years ago, these stops might have been considered “unreasonable” even by many supposedly "level-headed" courts, but today they aren’t even challenged by Civil activists. Now that's an indication of how much the concept of “privacy” has changed over the past generation.

I think such cases make the case for more surveillance of “average citizens” not less, because, “you never know.”

That is, you never know, until you stop and check, anyway. Most illegal activity harms all of us, as it costs all of us more in taxes (for police and jail space) and in higher prices for the goods we buy, so we all have a stake in crimping illegal activity wherever it goes on.

But despite privacy's constantly evolving definition, one thing has remained constant, as evidenced by the 1972 SC decision (The Kieth Decision) referenced above, and that is that the tapping of Communiqués between American citizens and foreign nationals require no warrants, as they fall under the purview of “collecting foreign intelligence.”

Again, there is no/zero expectation of “privacy” (whatever that means now-a-days) when making contact with a foreign point of origin.

What's so hard to understand, or accept about that?!