Reply With Quote
Why can't they get a warrant?
Are they lazy?
When the people who built these tunnels call the people who forged those passports, will the left object if NSA listens without a warrant if one of them happens to be in the United States?
What say you?
Why can't they get a warrant?
Are they lazy?
They'd rather cast a wide net and hope they catch something. Can't get a warrant based on those facts--they're not lazy, just sneaky.
those tunnels kind of defeat the purpose of building one of those walls that wingnuts like Tom Tancredo want doesn't it?
Why should they have to? They're not investigating a crime they're attempting to detect and disrupt an enemy attack.
Didn't you realize that it was common for Mexicans to arm themselves and try to overthrow our gov't?
This is a repi ion of something I read in another thread. Where is your proof the NSA program "cast a wide net?" The Echelon Program, initiated by Clinton did that -- but, there's been no assertion (even by critics) that the NSA Program did so. All information provided, even by the traitorous leakers, says the NSA eavesdropped on specific communications between suspected al Qaeda (or terrorists) inside and outside the United States with others inside or outside the United States.
Please provide your source this was a "dragnet" operation.
It's pretty simple thinking to believe that those who would do us harm would only exploit one weakness at a time.
So, no, it doesn't defeat the purpose. Put of the wall and detect and destroy the tunnels.
In my mind, that kind of defeats the terrorists...
so they could have gotten a warrant. Way to fall into a trap
Didn't you realize Colombia is on the other side of Mexico and that the Mexican Government isn't known for it's strict enforcement of its own immigration laws?
I always see revolutionaries and Middle Eastern types when I'm down in the RGV.
This is the crux of the situation. The declaration of war is rather broad in this instance, and so even run-of-the-mill crime could, when viewing that declaration broadly, be construed to be an act of war.
Ramzi Yousef's attack in 1993 was similar to the acts of 9/11, but was prosecuted as a crime and not dealt with as an act of war. Certainly, under that rationale, the plotting of an attack like Yousef's or like the 9/11 attacks would be a crime and susceptible to investigation by the same means that other crimes are investigated, including all of the Cons utional prerequistes for such an investigation (such as necessary warrants).
So, in the end, the answer to your "Why should they have to" question is "The Cons ution." And the concerns for secrecy and other such nonsense are quite easily resolved by the nature of FISC proceedings. I don't see how the White House continues to believe that it can press an argument for the non-applicability of the Cons ution to any situation that arises in the United States. That argument suggests to me a belief that the President is above the Cons ution, which was obviously never the intention of the Framers.
Not necessarily.
The incidents that have been described is where a cell phone is recovered in a battle with al Qaeda, in Afghanistan or Iraq, and before those with whom the either dead or captured owner communicates realize the phone is in U.S. hands, they tap every number that has either called to or been called by that phone.
The value of the information, contained on the phone, is extremely perishable and usually becomes worthless as soon as it is learned the communications device has been compromised.
and there's an exception to the warrant first requirement already at the prez's disposal. Why not employ it?
Since October 2004, the Joint Terrorism Task Forces have kept track of arrested terrorist suspects who are in the U.S. illegally.
The JTTF do ent released to Tancredo shows 51 people were arrested who had "entered without inspection" into the U.S. from countries such as Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and Pakistan.
It only took 19 to bring down the World Trade Center.
and they came in through Mexico?
I disagree and, further, think that had the 93 attack been treated as an enemy attack we'd of avoided the 01 attack.
And, the White House never said the Cons ution didn't apply. On the contrary, they argue the Cons ution gives the President the power to conduct this program.
Likely.
If you accept the administration's stance on this issue, the President does not have any limits on what he can do in the interest of national security.
Oh, so the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to the President? There doesn't seem to be overwhelming support for that idea among legal commentators who make a living contemplating the scope and effect of the Cons ution.
The White House (supported largely by John Yoo, I suspect) is making an argument for why this program is Cons utional. That argument is certainly subject to criticism (and has, IMO, rightly received such criticism) when it runs afoul of well-established and amply-supported precepts. The White House argument attempts to distinguish existing authority to support a position, but in many cases -- particularly with regard to structural Cons utional arguments -- those distinctions create more problems than they solve. It's curious to me that the academic legal community has not come on board with the President's argument (and it's not as if the legal academic community is populated primarily by liberals like the undergraduate academic community) and has been rather strident in questioning the argument. It's not as if the White House's argument is infalliable -- until it's decided in a Court, it's nothing other than an argument.
That's not true.
If you can prove he was using the NSA program in a manner that was "unreasonable," it would be inconsistent with the Fourth amendment protections against unreasonable searches. But, since there's been no evidence presented the wiretappings were unreasonable - and, indeed, their have been at least four FISA court reviews that affirm such warrantless searches ARE reasonable - then the President has his article II powers on which to claim he is doing so in the interest of national security.
Produce an innocent American that was affected by this program and you'd have a point. But, as the President said, if you're talking to al Qaeda it is reasonable for us to want to know why.
Someone with standing is going to have to file a suit. And, to do so, they're going to have to know they were targeted by one of these warrantless searches. Then, hopefully, they'll have to explain why they're communicating with terrorists.
they'll know when their house is raided. Of course, it's gonna be hard to file a suit when you're locked away in a foreign country with no access to legal counsel or a hearing to let you know why you're being detained or when you'll be released.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
