I agree. It would be logical to take it to Congress were it not for the fact that it is a politically charged issue.
Times change and so has the art of information gathering. This is not 1950 when criminal activity was traced to a location (which never moved) and wire taps were something that could be done over time. In the age of lightspeed communication it is now possible to connect to anyone anywhere for pennies on the dollar. Disposable cell phones can be used for a single call and then thrown away. What is required now is real-time data-mining. It is the acquisition of the message (and not the messenger) that brings criminal activity to light. This is what programs like Echelon do successfully. It’s simply not feasible to track communications around the world (in real time) if 20 warrants are needed for each of 20 phone calls that take place in 10 minutes.
During a time of war, against an enemy that has no rules or physical location, it is critical that we keep up with the technology that is used against us. There are no Queensbury rules of terrorism so we are forced confront our enemies under the constraints of our own political system. The location of the court challenge makes me wonder who is fronting the ACLU challenge. It would not surprise me to find out that our enemies are using our own legal system against us.
You’re right, I was just kidding. I’m not surprised that some think the ruling would be overturned on appeal. I found the ruling to be OK on the issues of standing, but woefully inadequate in explaining the separation of powers arguments and the basis for the ruling. I also think the judge’s First Amendment analysis was off the mark.
Are you implying that the ACLU is funded by Al Qaeda? Wow. Just… wow.
Can I get a bit of action? And, if you can spare a second, do you think it should be overruled?
uh huh. We’re not a war. That would explain the public perception that Democrats are soft on defense.
You want a serious response you might actually consider providing some debate when posting under Great Debates. But in the meantime, have fun playing with your tiny thing.
Hmmm. I think she’s right on the standing issue, right on the data mining issue, and has an even-money chance of being reversed on the TSP validity claim.
I was originally going to offer even money that she’ll be reversed, either by the Sixth Circuit (possibly en banc) or by the Supremes on the application of state secrets to the TSP.
That seem a fair bet to you? You win if the Sixth Circuit affirms and SCOTUS denies cert, or if SCOTUS ultimately affirms. I win if the Sixth, either panel or en banc, reverses on TSP and SCOTUS denies cert, or if SCOTUS reverses.
I think she should be reversed. The government’s public disclosures with respect to TSP were not made voluntarily; they flowed from the unauthorized disclosure of the program. Such concessions should not be used to vitiate the state secrets privilege.
That makes no sense at all. First, I don’t believe this issue is any more “poltically charged” than most things Congress addresses. But even if it were, that’s more reason to solve the problem legislatively (or politically, if you will) rather than judicially.
Let’s agree that if the issue is mooted somehow–by subsequent legislation, perhaps–such that there is no final appellate review, then this is a push. Right? I mean, we’re betting on what the apellate chain will do, not the ultimate disposition of the issue by the legislature or the parties.
So only terrorists believe in the Bill of Rights? Dude, if you seriously take that position, then the “War” (which has never been declared) is over, and we lost. We either have a free society governed by the rule of law, or we all hide under the covers and hope Papa George will protect us from the Boogeyman.
The problem with the whole “War on Terror” is that the continued existence of this nation has never been at stake–well, at least not to the terrorists. They can crash a thousand airplanes into a thousand buildings, and the country will still be here. The freedoms we have are too precious to be surrendered just because some radical with a bomb might want to do something stupid. Yeah, you or I could die in the next terrorist attack. Or we could get run over by a bus, or drop dead of a heart attack. The world is a dangerous place. That is not a reason to throw away freedom.
I’m merely interested in the TSP issue, which, although her ruling is inadequate, I think she’ll be affirmed on that issue (if the Court gets to the merits.) I have no interest in whether or not she’ll be reversed on the standing or state secrets issue (although I found this order to be helpful in my limited understanding of the state secret issue.)
How about a nice bottle of wine, to be shipped to the winner, on only the TSP issue. If it’s reversed for standing or state secret, we’ll call it wash. Good enough?
My earlier cite helped me understand it a bit better. I think that when the President, the AG, and AT&T, and other “reliable” sources have confirmed the existance of the program, it’s kind of hard to call it a secret. Unlike the “rendition” program which was subject to the state secrets dismissal, the NSA wiretaps were subsequently acknowledged and discussed by the administration.
Where do you stand on the TSP issue? Was the judge right? If the case survives to get to the merits, SHOULD she be reversed?
I’d be in on that bet, The one other victory condition I’d add is if another case on the legality of the TSP got to the Supremes ahead of this one and the Supremes ruled the program illegal (or unconstitutional) in that case. (And I agree to the push condition I see on preview.) Also, to clarify, the bet should be on the TSP holding of this case only. I think that there is a good chance that the data mining issue could go either way upstairs.
I would prefer to put something more interesting on the line then mere bux. Any ideas? Maybe something New York City against something from your neck of the woods. (By the way, I’m heading away for the weekend, so I won’t be back to you on this until Sunday night/Monday.)
I think the core issue is who gets to weigh in on how we keep up with “the technology that is used against us.” The administration thinks it is the executive branch alone. The ruling says that the other branches get to shape the process, with Congress setting forth the rules for wiretapping and obtaining wiretapping warrants, and the courts approving the wiretapping warrants in appropriate circumstances.
The core of the ruling is that the executive has to follow the law and the Constitution. If the executive doesn’t like that, it needs to get the law (or the Constitution) changed.
All this betting, it really is contrary to the spirit of the board isn’t it? It encourages information concealment rather than information sharing. And that’s not very helpful is it now.
Don’t be so sure! I heard his sound-bite on the radio and shouted almost the exact same words so loudly that my car windows buzzed. For a man so intent on listening to American citizens, it seems strange that he hasn’t heard us yet. I think the problem is that neither of us was shouting into our tapped phones.
GOP: for the record, “Liberal” comes from the same root as “Liberty”; when a judge rules in favor of civil liberties, you may indeed call her “liberal”. But when you use the word as an insult, I assume that you hate my freedom. An unwarranted leap to conclusions? Maybe. But as a libertarian-leaning conservative who is sick of this Scare, Shoot, Spend, and Shrug government, I find it’s a handy way to identify my enemies and allies within the party. Since the RNC is using it as such in their publicity of this event, I guess I’ll be voting another anti-incumbent ticket this fall.