# IS IT IMPEACHMAS YET?Surveillance reserved for overseas?This bug's for you... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 16, 2005, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882 "2005-12-16T07:24:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/321 "2005-12-23T21:18:31Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > I think, with decent debates happening in both this thread and a pit thread, and with this thread being an Alaricthegoth title special, it’s an easy mistake to make. While suffused with a warm glow at your encomium, I have to acknowledge that the present title doesn’t come close to “jew balls too small” for verve and flair. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/322 "2005-12-23T21:26:49Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > ( Behold the approaching petard…prepare to be hoisted…) > > Might the exchange of notes cited by Daschle be germane to your prior proposed mitigation of presidential culpability based upon his subjective belief that he was acting within the powers granted him? No. As goofy as it sounds, Congressional intent is not divined by asking Congressman what their intent was. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/323 "2005-12-23T21:28:07Z")
[http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2005/12/the\_curious\_sec.html](http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2005/12/the_curious_sec.html) William Arkin has a take on this issue that sounds about right–and it goes way further than “oh my, 'sama has phoned a number on Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, shucks–we’d better listen in…” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/324 "2005-12-23T21:28:47Z")
Here’s a thought experiment to drive the point home: Do you think the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause mandates state recognition of same-sex marriage? How can it? The intent of the people that drafted those words was CERTAINLY not to permit same-sex marriage by the words they wrote. Right? ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/325 "2005-12-23T21:30:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. > > As goofy as it sounds, Congressional intent is not divined by asking Congressman what their intent was. I was specifically excluding legislative intent as the object of inquiry.I meant to direct your attention to the state of mind of the criminal. Having asked permission and been refused, may he still blink in confusion and claim to have been (honestly) mislead? ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/326 "2005-12-23T21:46:43Z")
herewith (in full, because I have no index to the reliability of the poster) is a response to Arkin’s post which has some interesting tidbits: The name of the program is still T I A run by D A R P A. It was never disbanded just “b lack b agged” deep inside the Pent agon. In fact here is the address of the building it is run from: 3701 Fairfax Drive Arlington, Virginia Go there and you will see the 24/7 Cantwell security guards. Go to a restaraunt near the site at lunch you’ll see the folks with the D A R P A badges eating sandwiches. Not only do they track EVERY bank transaction, including ATM, credit, check and check cards, but it is done in real time. THEY KNOW WHERE YOU ARE HOW YOU TRAVEL WHAT YOU BUY. THEY TRACK YOUR CELL PHONE CALLS AND MONITOR THEM FOR KEY WORDS. THEY TRACK YOUR PAY PER VIEW MOVIE PURCHASES (S PICE C HANNEL ANYONE, ONLY IF YOU WANT TO BE MONITORED BY THE JUSTICE DEPT’S PORN TASKFORCE) AND TIVO RECORDINGS. REMEMBER WHAT THE P A TRIOT ACT SAYS WE ARE ALL TERROISTS. WELCOME TO THE POLICE STATE Posted by: orwell | Dec 23, 2005 3:45:18 PM | Per ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/327 "2005-12-23T21:48:34Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > I was specifically excluding legislative intent as the object of inquiry.I meant to direct your attention to the state of mind of the criminal. Having asked permission and been refused, may he still blink in confusion and claim to have been (honestly) mislead? No, he may not. He may still claim, legitimately, that the intent of the WORDS Congress passed permits him to do something that the Congress-critters themselves didn’t plan on his being able to do. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/328 "2005-12-23T21:50:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Do you think the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause mandates state recognition of same-sex marriage? There’s no way to avoid that conclusion. > [@](#): > > How can it? The intent of the people that drafted those words was CERTAINLY not to permit same-sex marriage by the words they wrote. > > Right? Wrong, and not particularly difficult to say why. Their intent was to establish broad principles which had certain necessary consequences. The act of Congress upon which your entire sandcastle rests did not establish broad principles, but only authorized certain specific actions. Allowing the President unchecked power to do whatever the he wants to whomever he wants as long as he can label it “war” or “defense” or “anti-terrorism” was \*not \* a necessary consequence of it, or even a reasonable one, any more than your creative (and similarly entirely unsupported) redefinition of the words “fifteen calendar days” is a necessary or even reasonable consequence of it. “Words have meaning”, you’ve enjoyed saying here - but is that only the Queen of Hearts’ meaning of “meaning”? You’ve been asked many times to show that, to support your assertion, and all you can say amounts to “Yes it did _too_ (stamp of foot)”. Can you \*finally \* cite any law, any precedent, any line of reasoning held by anyone other than yourself that that is the case, or will you \*finally \* admit you are just making up some result-driven shit and calling it “law”? Hint: Does the total lack of support you’re getting from anyone including the other lawyers here make any kind of impression on you? Here’s a precedent for you - the line of “reasoning” (to be kind) you’ve used here to support Bush’s un-American arrogation of power is pretty much the same one that Napoleon used in interpreting the Directory’s commission. It meant the end of the Republic. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/329 "2005-12-23T22:42:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > the intent of the WORDS Congress passed I don’t know what bizarro-world the law has turned into, but in the REAL world, **things** do not have intent. In order to have intent, you have to have things like consciousness and volition, neither of which is a property of vocabulary. Words have meaning, and legislators may have given evidence of intent which may help judges interpret the meaning of words. But unless your profession has gone right through the looking-glass, the words of legislation do not themselves have intent. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/330 "2005-12-23T23:21:52Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Words have meaning, and legislators may have given evidence of intent which may help judges interpret the meaning of words. But unless your profession has gone right through the looking-glass, the words of legislation do not themselves have intent. And you are aware, of course, that there are plenty of Republicans who will say it was there intent to give the prez exactly the powers that he claimes to have. So, where does that leave us? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/331 "2005-12-23T23:33:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Here’s a thought experiment to drive the point home: > > Do you think the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause mandates state recognition of same-sex marriage? > > How can it? The intent of the people that drafted those words was CERTAINLY not to permit same-sex marriage by the words they wrote. > > Right? My rejoinder to this, which you’ve presumably seen several times but never to my knowledge reacted to, is that the Constitution includes a lot of broad phrasings and generalized authorizations. I feel relatively confident that the FF did not contemplate a New Deal-era wheat farmer when they authorized the regulation of “interstate commerce.” I am absolutely certain that they never intended the creation of an Air Force. But each is constitutional under the idea that broad permissions and prohibitions may well encompass something not overtly contemplated by the framers, so long as it is logically within the meaning of the text or a reasonable nexus thereto. The Fourteenth Amendment **says** that the states shall not “deny to any [individual]… the equal protection of the law.” They did not specify what they meant by this; it’s broad language. They did not say “on the basis of race” for example. They simply said that everyone is entitled to “equal protection.” That means that **it’s up to the courts to determine whether something constitutes “equal protection” or not.** I find it strangely hard to make the point that we do not have an all-powerful state which can do anything it chooses except those few things that are spelled out as prohibitions. I managed to get that information clear in eighth grade. One would think the clear language of the Tenth Amendment would make that point: if it’s not delegated to the Federal government, and it’s prohibited to the states, then who retains the power? There’s a principle of interpretation worth mentioning here which has nothing to do with constitutional jurisprudence, but a great deal to do with the point at hand, and it has to do with gnats and camels. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/332 "2005-12-23T23:44:09Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I don’t know what bizarro-world the law has turned into, but in the REAL world, **things** do not have intent. In order to have intent, you have to have things like consciousness and volition, neither of which is a property of vocabulary. > > Words have meaning, and legislators may have given evidence of intent which may help judges interpret the meaning of words. But unless your profession has gone right through the looking-glass, the words of legislation do not themselves have intent. Even in bizarro law world, words do not intend, as you succinctly (and with somewhat more patience than I was willing to muster in the endeavor…) point out. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/333 "2005-12-23T23:57:03Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > My rejoinder to this, which you’ve presumably seen several times but never to my knowledge reacted to, is that the Constitution includes a lot of broad phrasings and generalized authorizations. I feel relatively confident that the FF did not contemplate a New Deal-era wheat farmer when they authorized the regulation of “interstate commerce.” I am absolutely certain that they never intended the creation of an Air Force. But each is constitutional under the idea that broad permissions and prohibitions may well encompass something not overtly contemplated by the framers, so long as it is logically within the meaning of the text or a reasonable nexus thereto. > > The Fourteenth Amendment **says** that the states shall not “deny to any [individual]… the equal protection of the law.” They did not specify what they meant by this; it’s broad language. They did not say “on the basis of race” for example. They simply said that everyone is entitled to “equal protection.” > > That means that **it’s up to the courts to determine whether something constitutes “equal protection” or not.** > > I find it strangely hard to make the point that we do not have an all-powerful state which can do anything it chooses except those few things that are spelled out as prohibitions. I managed to get that information clear in eighth grade. One would think the clear language of the Tenth Amendment would make that point: if it’s not delegated to the Federal government, and it’s prohibited to the states, then who retains the power? > > There’s a principle of interpretation worth mentioning here which has nothing to do with constitutional jurisprudence, but a great deal to do with the point at hand, and it has to do with gnats and camels. Disclaimer:I’ve been into the Nyquil again… That said, when one contemplates Jurisprudence by Bricker, it is as if a great amnesia has settled across the common law. The Barons never broke John at Runnymede The Great Writ is toilet paper. Star Chamber courts (which is what we have here) are just peachy keen. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2005, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/334 "2005-12-24T00:05:33Z")
I am trying to enunciate (through the nyquil haze–I think it’s purple–) that there were really good reasons why we have Habeas Corpus and we insist on open courts, and stuff like that. And 9/11 did NOT change the propensity for the executive to want all the power all the time and the necessity to place that option beyond the reach of any individual. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2005, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/335 "2005-12-24T00:11:22Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Right church, wrong pew. The administration is trying to dodge a SCOTUS ruling on whether it can hold citizens w/o charges\*, not whether they can be tried in a military court. Remember, Bush doesn’t want Padilla tried **anywhere**. In fact he didn’t even want to bring charges against him-- just detain him “indefintely”. > > \*IE, declare him an illegal enemy combatant even though he is a US citizen, arrested on US soil I’ll take you word for it although that wasn’t the gist of the explanation given by an attorney on MSNBC. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2005, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/336 "2005-12-24T02:38:11Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > I’ll take you word for it although that wasn’t the gist of the explanation given by an attorney on MSNBC. you are both right. the confusion arises from the posture of the case as it left Luttig. At that point, padilla was seeking ANY sort of due process, and the goverement, with Luttig’s agreement, was denying it to him. That’s the case that will go up on Padilla’s now resurrected appeal of luttigs order that luttig refused to vacate. On the other side, the government maintained that because they were moving him to the civil system, their original denial of ANY due process (which Luttig signed off on, may his name be stricken from the book of judges)could not be appealed ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2005, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/337 "2005-12-24T03:08:24Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > And you are aware, of course, that there are plenty of Republicans who will say it was there intent to give the prez exactly the powers that he claimes to have. So, where does that leave us? With you providing cites. Which names of those “plenty of Republicans” do you have? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2005, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/338 "2005-12-24T03:48:38Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > And you are aware, of course, that there are plenty of Republicans who will say it was there intent to give the prez exactly the powers that he claimes to have. So, where does that leave us? With more proof of the stupidity of originalists. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2005, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/339 "2005-12-24T06:14:02Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > you are both right. the confusion arises from the posture of the case as it left Luttig. At that point, padilla was seeking ANY sort of due process, and the goverement, with Luttig’s agreement, was denying it to him. That’s the case that will go up on Padilla’s now resurrected appeal of luttigs order that luttig refused to vacate. > > On the other side, the government maintained that because they were moving him to the civil system, their original denial of ANY due process (which Luttig signed off on, may his name be stricken from the book of judges)could not be appealed The explanation was along the lines that the government had gone to great lengths and taken up a lot of the court’s time to convince Luttig and the court of appeals that it was really important that Padilla’s status of having recourse through the courts was vital to national security. Then when it looked like the Surpreme Court might just possibly take notice, the DOJ said, “OH, never mind. We want to put this in civil court anyway.” That apparently pissed the court of appeals off because it gave the appearance that the government was not leveling with them as to the real reasons behind its argument. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2005, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/340 "2005-12-24T06:18:15Z")
> **[Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report (Published 2005)](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/politics/spy-agency-mined-vast-data-trove-officials-report.html)** > > The National Security Agency has traced and analyzed large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States as part of the eavesdropping program that President Bush approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks... We are so much further along than “if you talk to Sama, you talk to (Uncle) Sam” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882.md?page=18)