huh?
I understand the argument. But in light of your detailed and, might I say, strained suppositions over what the courts “might” find if it were to go to trial; do you really think it was worth blowing the cover on a top secret NSA program?
Particularly when there are no apparent injured parties?
Who wants to prohibit the flexibility of the govt to engage in inbound intercepts of communications from known enemy operatives abroad? That's when I start to wonder about the sanity of some here. If the NSA taps somebody's call from Afghanistan to NYC, I'm not seeing the dire threat to our rights.
Some of you are letting politics make you forget what side you're on.
I abide by a basic principle in this discussion. The Cons ution and its protections should guide the actions of the United States government. If the government can simply ignore the precepts of the Cons ution at its whim upon developing some interim justification for doing so, then I'm left to wonder whether the ins ution of government truly respects that do ent and the principles it stands for. Ultimately, I think we fight any war to protect and preserve our way of life, which is largely defined by the liberties and freedoms that the Cons ution strives to protect. If we the government can ignore those liberties and freedoms in some willy-nilly fashion, then I'm not sure what good the war does. If, ultimately, Americans are asked to forfeit fundamental rights in the pursuit of war, then why not just acknowledge that the Cons ution only has temporal and cir stantial relevance? That's my point.
The ends will never justify the means to me, so long as the means intrude upon Cons utional liberties.
Whose liberties though? If Ali Baba, known al Qaeda operative calls up his brother, Mohammed Baba (non US citizen), in NYC from Afghanistan and the NSA intercepts the communication before it reaches the US, that doesn't seem like the end of our liberties. That seems quite prudent and frankly, a reasonable activity for the govt to be engaged in as part of its military operations.
You seemed to agree, in an earlier post, that there is some possibility this program could have been legal and cons utional. Given that, do you also think it's possible that to satisfy this question the government might have to seriously compromise any strategic benefit this program might have had?
Then, given that, is it ing worth all the screeching when you don't even know if there is anyone who was harmed by the intercepts? Except, of course, some terrorists and their American abettors?
What can't the president order tapped then?
Domestic communications that he has no reason to believe affect national security.
What about a call from Aunt Millie in Gary, Indiana to her nephew in Hamburg?
Also, what if the president has a political opponent whose domestic calls he believes would affect national security (*wink* *wink*)? What then?
If he's caught, he'd better be able to demonstrate reasonableness, as pertains to 4th amendment protections against unreasonable searches, to a court of competent jurisdiction.
In the case of the NSA program in question, at least one of the points between which communications is being conducted is known to be associated with al Qaeda or another terrorist organization. In the context of ongoing hostilities with such organizations, I'd say it's a reasonable search.
The bottom line on this whole question is this:
Neither I nor you know whether or not the President exceeded his Cons utional authority in ordering warrantless eavesdropping using this NSA Program. We will probably never know unless it is tried in a court of law. The people who now know can't say and the people who are demanding to know have no business asking unless they are 1) a harmed party or 2) a court adjudicating the relevant case.
I base my opinion on the legality of the Program based on what I've heard so far. The administration makes a determination on every surveillance whether or not to seek a FISA warrant or to refer it to the NSA Program. They claim this determination is based on the applicability of the FISA statute and the particular cir stance involved. General Hayden went on to say that the cases that are referred to the NSA Program do not lend themselves to the constraints of the FISA statute but that they do fall under the authority of the President as Commander in Chief pursuant to his article II powers.
Obviously, people who hate Bush want to believe the worst and are apparently willing to compromise any possible strategic benefit this program had in order to find out -- even when they can't show one single American that was harmed by the described program.
The FISC has already ruled, as have dozens of appelate courts, in other cases, that the President has article II powers to warrantless searches in various cir stances -- even those when the entire communication occurred in the United States.
I think the Bush-haters have taken us down a dangerous road for the sake of trying to, once again, hang President Bush.
Last edited by Yonivore; 01-28-2006 at 07:19 PM.
So perhaps GWB has broken the law?
I don't see how and no one has shown any evidence to indicate otherwise. See edit to previous post.
Well, how is the evidence supposed to come to light?
In court.
All we've heard are a bunch of teeth-gnashers saying the President may have broken the law. Find an actionable claim and file your case.
Otherwise, I say shut up and quit helping the enemy.
I meant how does the evidence even make it to that stage.
Someone develops it, just like any investigation.
The proper avenue would have been for the NSA leakers to file their complaint with the NSA Inspector General. However, as we've been informed by General Hayden, no such complaints were filed. And, once Risen's story (timed by the New York Times to coincide with the release of his book -- after holding the story for a year) was in print, the NSA specifically asked all employees involved with the program to report any allegations to the Inspector General. Still nothing.
That tells me the leakers were not in a position to even know the specifics of the program, even though the NYT claims they were current and former NSA employees.
I still think they need to be prosecuted for treason.
But any leak is supposedly a threat to national security.
Your point? Because this leak definitely was a threat.
But you don't have any details about the program. How do you know it was a "threat"? Because the administration said so?
I'm not en led to them.
Why don't you ask all 20 questions at once? You're starting to get tiring. If you have an argument to make, I suggest -- if you want my opinion, that is -- that you get to the point.
You're not en led to them? How are the people (via their representatives) not en led to knowing if their government is engaged in criminal activities due to simply claiming 'national security'? Nixon tried that defense once upon a time. Didn't work.
I'll post as I wish. Deal.
You said "details of the program." Sure we're en led to know if our President is breaking the law. What exactly has been exposed that suggests he has?
Look at it from another perspective. What if a partisan with an axe to grind is bringing a valuable intelligence asset to a halt just to harrass the President?
You're right. I was just warning you that if you wanted me to continue engaging in this dialog, your "20 questions" approach had about run its course.
The Devil is in the details. How is it determined who is the target of an intercept? Where does the intercept occur? Are all communications that are intercepted domestic or intl? And so on. These details could very well make such a program uncons utional.
I don't want an executive branch unfettered to spy domestically. Your recipe would allow for that.
Wouldn't you agree that to release those details, to the public (you and me), unnecessarily is a dangerous road to go down?
The President and General Hayden have both stated that Congress was briefed every 45 days on this program. Do you think those Congressional members didn't ask these questions? Have you heard any of them call for an end to the program?
Nor do I. But, no one with access and the ability to know has claimed this was "unfettered domestic spying." You're only hearing that from partisans. The same ones who, when asked point blank, don't know if the President broke the law and also do not specifically ask the program to be shut down.
Saying the President could be using his power to do wrong is different than making a specific allegation that he has. And, I would argue that to do the former in a partisan attack -- that results in damaging a vital intelligence asset during a time of conflict is unpardonable.
They've certainly raised questions about it. The administration has been scrambling to advance a defense for it.
So citizens are traitors for questioning their own government? I thought we Americans had done away with that mode of thought a couple of centuries ago.Nor do I. But, no one with access and the ability to know has claimed this was "unfettered domestic spying." You're only hearing that from partisans. The same ones who, when asked point blank, don't know if the President broke the law and also do not specifically ask the program to be shut down.
Saying the President could be using his power to do wrong is different than making a specific allegation that he has. And, I would argue that to do the former in a partisan attack -- that results in damaging a vital intelligence asset during a time of conflict is unpardonable.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
