I get where you’re coming from.
Sometimes I feel like I’m from Wyoming. I haven’t seen anything to suggest I’m giving up anything. I’m watching for it, and I’m aware of the potential. What I do see is terrorism on a planetary scale. That I understand.
Well, I worked with intelligence people off and on for a long time. Like police, they need to have, and so have a slightly paranoid outlook on their work. They also feel that their work is so vital that any restrain at all is resented.
So, you’re not concerned with whether or not what the prez is doing is legal or not? I agree that most people are probably not going to be affected by this in any real way. But then most people in the US aren’t Muslim or Arab or Persian and most people don’t spend any time on the phone calling Muslim or Arab countries. Those that are and those that do could easily be wrongly incriminated. I think the key thing people worry about is the lack of oversight. Just having Bush say that he’s got his people making sure everything is on the up-and-up isn’t enough to make me feel comfortable. We have 3 branches of government for a reason, and they’re supposed to provide a system of checks and balances. This is a situation where there aren’t any checks and balances.
I think this is one of the finest statements of the problem, without hand waving on either side, that I’ve seen, and I’d like to associate myself with what John says here.
I mean, what if we got some scoundrel for a President, who might exploit his power in order to exert his will? Or worse still, a self-righteous dullard who mistakes himself a Leader of Men.
Wouldn’t we be in a pretty pickle then?
An appellate court accepts the factual findings of the court below with great deference, but reviews any conclusions of law de novo - that is, anew, with no particular deference.
I have to agree, though, that in light of *Hamdan *it’s hard to imagine the SCOTUS overturning this decsion. We’re 5 years into this “War on Terror”, not 5 weeks. Bush can’t claim to have special war-time powers forever.
I’d bet with you on that one, John, but I don’t want to win.
Why not?
Probably not, considering the constitution was signed in 1789, and the revolutionary war ended in 1783.
Or did you mean the war of 1812, when most of our founding fathers were dead?
Moderator’s Warning: Magiver, personal insults like this are against the rules in Great Debates. Don’t do that again.
If you are aware that FISA allows for warrants to be obtained retroactively, then why were you spouting off about how the need to obtain a warrant gets in the way of real-time wiretapping?
Have you read the decision in Hamdan? The central argument in that ruling was that the president needed authorization from Congress before settling on the details of how the tribunals would be structured. This is very much along the same lines.
feel free to actually read what I was responding to. and pound salt.
Sorry, I didn’t make it clear that I was “answering” your other point…
I should have bolded the part of his address yesterday that I was bringing up.
I call bullshit. Back when I was in the Air Force, I worked an intelligence assignment. I still keep up with my co-workers, and each and every one of them has answered my questions about the wiretapping case with the same answer: “Nobody from work is talking about that.” As close as I live to DC, I run into NSA employees pretty often; some of my close friends work at Ft. Meade. Each of them has also answered the same thing – the office policy is that nobody talks about work, or work-related news, and especially not national politics relating to work, outside of work.
I’m not saying it doesn’t happen; I’m sure there are loudmouths and showoffs in every field who will be happy to beat your ear with the “secrets” they know. But you’re not the only one here who has talked to folks in the community.
As for your other assertion:
…you’re pretty much completely wrong here. FISA permits retroactive warrants, so if the intel community finds something interesting, they can follow the thread for up to 72 hours before getting a warrant. To follow your analogy, it’s like a line judge allowing play to continue for three strokes before ruling on whether a ball was in or out. To say that “modern technology has advanced beyond that time frame” when the time frame is retroactive is simply ridiculous.
I’ll open a challenge to Magiver and anyone else on that side of the argument: please present one example of a US-to-overseas that FISA prevents us from intercepting and deriving intelligence from. Having provided that example, please explain why you prefer to let the executive do an end-run around the law rather than allowing the legislature to rewrite the law.
Well, that’s his opinion. I’m not arguing about witholding “tools” that he thinks he needs, it’s just he has to be given those tools by Congress-- he can’t just take them. He wants us to think that Congress is getting in the way, when most Congresscritters are falling over themsleves to be helpful. Congress hasn’t given him the authority he needs because he hasn’t asked, not because they are being obstructionist.
And while I think the courts are often sympathetic to the executive in the early stages of a war (if we assume that “was” is the proper reference frame here), they take a dimmer view of expansive executive power as the war matures. We are well into the “maturity phase” of this war, despite what President Bush says.
“was” = “war”. if “war” is the proper reference frame.
Which is why I don’t understand what the actual problem is (using a real example). As I’ve pointed out earlier, data queries can fall into different categories. The only scenario I could come up with needing retro approval were statistical queries that looked for patterns of activity. If it uncovers something that’s happening in real time then a retro warrant should work. Nobody has giving an example of what the President is authorizing and why it isn’t being reviewed after-the-fact.
It’s logical to keep an eye on government spying and I’m not dismissing attempts to do it (outright).