Done – although last time I tried to bet wine, we had some trouble shipping the bottle. We ended up having the winner buy the wine and let the loser know the cost. That saved on shipping costs and problems, but preserved the “wine, not cash” aspect of the wager.
No. On the merits, the plaintiffs should prevail. (I say this based on my understanding of what the factual record would contain if this went to trial, of course).
Done and done.
The ACLU wisely chose a court that has been sympathetic to challenges to wiretapping. Then they put together a crew of plaintiffs that could stand up to any challenge as to their standing in the case. Did a pretty good job, they did.
What’s Detroit got to do with this?
:dubious: WTF? The ACLU is the ACLE. They weren’t “pawns” of the Nazis back in '78.
I hate Illinois Nazis.
Has anyone found a decent independent analysis of the merits of this ruling? I swear, I have found nothing on the internets in the way of news or exegesis that has anything more insightful to say on the subject than “Democrats Go ‘Nyah!’, Republicans Say ‘This Blows!’” Commentary from our fearless leaders amounts to “This is a wonderful ruling! Civil liberties rock!” and “This is a horrible ruling! The terrorists will win!” WTF has this got to do with the constitutionality of anything?
I’d be grateful for any good cites. Thanks in advance.
Magiver is referring to the fact that Dearborn MI has a large (the largest in the US?) Arab-American population, and by extension, is home to lots of “our enemies”. He makes two leaps: one, that Arab-Americans and/or Muslims from Michigan are helping the ACLU defend this case (seems likely enough) and that those same people are in turn receiving their money from terrorist organizations (not sure if I buy that). I don’t care who they are, though; if they’re American citizens, and their rights are being infringed on the basis of Arab-American ethnicity, then statistics says they’re going to be from California, New Jersey, or Michigan.
I hate the “bad guys” that the ACLU sometimes represents, but the ACLU enforces The Rules. Given a choice between “bad guys” and a government that can ignore its constitution as it pleases, I’ll side with the bad guys every time. Hell, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution, but I never read where it said I had to support or defend the President’s opinions.
Jack Balkin a Constitutional Law Professor at Yale (and his guest bloggers) are a good resource and they generally avoid partisan hackery. It’s a good spot to start.
Thank You!
It’s perfectly logical for enemies of the United States to avail themselves of free representation by the ACLU. and “Papa George” goes away in 2 years, do you think the terrorists are going away?
I disagree. I think the continued existence of the United States is in danger. Not in the sense of a loss of land or people but in a way of life. 9/11 did a half trillion dollar damage to the economy with no cost to the combatants. The weapons used were our own aircraft and the tickets were purchased using credit cards. Do the math on what is possible with the level of terrorist training available.
Everything we do, EVERYTHING WE DO, relies on the uninterrupted flow of oil, gas, and electrical resources. Given the acts of terrorism that have occurred around the world there is a demonstrated history of what is possible. There is no limit to what a terrorist will do and there is no way to punish a suicide murderer. I’ve never disagreed with the need to keep a watch on personal freedoms but I also understand what is needed to fight terrorism. If you read my earlier post through you should acknowledge the logic behind the need for real-time spying.
Got any proof? If not, then you’re just making shit up.
So, how does the constitution fit into that outlook? As many of us have said, there is no reason the administration can’t go to Congress and get the authorization they need. Congressional Republicans and Democrats have practically begged him to do so. I see no indication that he’d have a problem getting changes to the laws that are necessary for the protection of the US. And it ain’t that hard to get a FISA warrant anyway.
Your whole argument is based on the erroneous assumption that the constitution and our laws are an impediment to our national security. They needn’t be, and in this case they aren’t.
Got proof of my opinion on what is logical? That’s my opinion. What is not logical about terrorists using free resources to slow down the process of stopping them?
A FISA warrant doesn’t mean anything if you can’t do it in real time. With programs like Echelon we’ve had the capacity to data-mine large numbers of communications. You’re treating it like it’s possible to tag one data stream, get a warrant, and proceed to follow it as a useful lead. It can’t be done that way because modern technology has advanced beyond that time frame. It would be like playing tennis and waiting on the line judge to determine if a 100 mph serve was in bounds before you hit it.
IMO, the only real solution is to do a post mortem evaluation of warrantable material. FISA should be able to do that know without a bunch of political BS interference.
Youre’ equating “possible” with “logical”. Yes, it’s possible that some of that may be happening, but it’s not logical at all. For it to be the logical reason, it would have to be most likely, which it isn’t. Surely you’re not going to say that only terrorists oppose this action.
Data mining is only part of it. But if the prez feels he needs to data mine, then get legilsation passed to allow him to do so. His own party controls both house of Congress, for Christ’s sake. And the Democrats haven’t been exactly throwing up barriers either. Bush just doesn’t want to be bothered with constraints. Now, I’m not the kind of Bushwhacker that’s going to say he’s doing that because he’s evil and secretly wants to spy on Americans. I don’t think that’s the case at all. I’m sure he thinks he’s doing what’s best for the country, in the name of national security. But that doesn’t change the fact that we are governed by the rule of law, not the opinions of the executive branch.
Sorry about the delay. When I tried to post ealier I got the old “this page is currently unavailable” message. That’s been happening a lot lately and if I were a barbeque pit fan I’d say something about it there.
That was probably the authorization I had in mind rather than the Iraq thing. In any case, I doubt that many members thought they were authorizing anything but the use of military force. Even in that case, the president is Commader in Chief only within the bounds set by Congress which has the authorty to “make rules for the government of the [armed] forces.” This should include the authority to make rules concerning the gathering of intelligence.
I’m surprised at that speculation about the 6th Court overturing the decision which seems based on the ideology of the court. I always thought an appeals court looked for errors in application of the law to the case at hand and stuff like that. I can’t comment on that through ignorance, but it does appear that the District Court thoroughly broke down the case and addressed all of the points raised.
Yes, it would certainly be a highly unusual departure from the norm for Congress to deal with a politically charged issue. :rolleyes:
And the court said that data mining was covered under the protection of official secrets doctrine. The thing that was ruled against was the wiretap of particular domestic telephones without a warrant when there is a regular, authorized pocedure on the books to get one.
I don’t believe that this is a war but rather a criminal activity and criminals have been hiding behind constitutional protections for a long time without the sky falling.
Look, the constant theme of GW is that I need these powers to protect you. I think this is disingenuous by giving the thoughtless the idea that they, personally, are protected.
If terrorism is a criminal activity as I maintain then the best we can expect is to keep it at an acceptable level as is the case with any crime. We expect a certain number of robberies, rapes, assaults and murders in any year and in return for maintaining our freedom from excessive official intrusion we accept that.
On the other hand, if this is really a war then we have to expect and accept a certain level of civilian casualties and damage to civilian property since those are the enemy’s targets. No politician dare say that so I don’t fault GW for not doing so. The problem that I see is that he claims emergency war powers in what he himself says will be a generation long struggle. You simply can’t maintain an emergency stance indefinitely and still have a constitutionally regulated US.
We have to make up our minds to either accept casualties or an all powerful executive. I’ll vote for the first alternative.
No, I’m equating logic with logic. Terrorists are funded by, and fronted by legitimate organizations. It is logical that they would use a free legal resource to their advantage. In fact, it fits the 9/11 MO of using the resources of the United States (airplanes) against it’s own citizens. And surely, I didn’t say anything to suggest that only terrorists oppose this action or I would be accusing you of being a terrorist. It would be like saying the passengers on the 9/11 aircraft were terrorists. I’m saying that terrorists are using our own resources against us.
I don’t think this discussion is directed toward the type of data mining in question. It’s not about predetermined queries on a particular person or persons. That kind of surfing can easily be handled through warrants. What is in question is the statistical mining of information to creat the leads needed to track information in real time. They are conceptually different and need to be treated as such.
Maybe I’m not making myself clear enough. I could give a rats ass about Bush’s role in this. He’s gone in 2 years and he gets to take a security detail with him. I’ll still be here with nothing but a pen knife in my pocket. I’m not worried about people listening in on my phone conversations. I don’t see it happening. I’m worried about terrorists attacking the infrastructure of my country. I WANT the NSA hunting terrorists to the best of its abilities. Just today on the news there was a story about 2 bombs planted on German trains in late July (why is it just now making the news?). They failed to go off. It would have been Spain all over again.
FISA allows exactly that! Do you even know anything at all about this subject? FISA specifically allows for the warrant to be filed for with 72 hours following the start of the tap. It’s old, it’s tired, but it’s still applicable:
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
The Founding Fathers weep…
We arguing two different things. It may very well be necessary to do all that stuff in order to protect the country. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether or not Bush has the authority to do it. He doesn’t. And so he needs to get authorization from Congress. Why is that so hard to understand? The idea that he can basically ignore any law because “we’re at war” is absurd. I’m not even bothered by saying “we’re at war”. It’s not technically true, but it’s close enough for government work. Problem is, this “war” has no end, so we’re not talking about temporary, extrordinary authority given to war-time president, we’re talking about trashing the laws and the constution forever. Nope. Not gonna do it. Wouldn’t be prudent.
John W. Dean’s book Conservatives Without Consience reporting on the sociological research findings on the Authorotative Follower might throw some light on this.
Yes, I’m familiar with the subject. I’m probably the only person in this discussion whose bothered to talk with people in the inteligence field. You’ll get an earful on the climate of politics if you do.
And I doubt the Founding Fathers debated the constitution while fighting the British.