# The Bush Administration Trashes Civil Liberties of Americans **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 16, 2005, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856 "2005-12-16T03:02:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/181 "2005-12-18T08:24:46Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > So this is what I am after: I am asking you to explain, using your moral compass, how the level of force that the State can currently exert on me (again, a productive and law abiding member of society) more or less at whim is moral. I would also be interested to know what your “too much” point is. Sure, be happy to. But why will it be helpful, given our different moral compasses? The extant level of force the state can extert upon you is moral because nothing in it is immoral. There is no moral distinction between the government doing to you things that others could easily do to you. In other words, if I, your neighbor, can go pick up your garbage, take it away, and pick through it, then you’ve got to know that your garbage isn’t private. If your phone call to Iran can be monitored by the secret police in Iran, then you’ve got to know that your phone call isn’t private. There is no moral wrong in the government looking at things of yours that are already not private, just the same as a policeman strolling down the street and happening to glance in your open window. As long as he’s in the same position a member of the public could be, I don’t see any wrongness in it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/182 "2005-12-18T08:36:39Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Why don’t we stop the bullshit. Bush is breaking THE LAW. Any law that violates or defies the Constitution is unconstitutional, and I don’t give a flying fuck what Bush or his flunkies say. You know the law, go read the Constitution. > > \*Amendment I > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. \* > Amendment I says among other things, we can read whateve the fuck we want, even if Bush doesn’t like it. We can also say whatver the fuck we like. Fuck Bush. There. I said it. Now go call the secret police. You can’t say anything you like. If you say something defamatory towards me, I can sue you. If you threaten to kill me, it’s a crime. “Fighting words”, or inciting to riot, are all prohibited. The right of free speech is not absolute. That’s the law. > [@](#): > > \*Amendment IV > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. \* > Probable cause. Warrants. Unreasonable search and seizure. Got it wise guy? Any law that violates this is unconstitutional. I don’t give a good god damn what Bush says about his wartime god-mode powers. The government can search your car without a warrant. They can detain you and search you for weapons without probable cause. If you want to argue that the text alone of the Constitution should prevail, that’s FINE with me, chief. But the left is the proponent of the idea that there are emanations and penumbras. There’s no right to abortion in the Constitution. Case law puts it there. So don’t quote the text of the Constitution at me in this argument as though it’s the only authority. Case law interpreting the Constitution is just as important. And that case law says the Constitution forbids only unreasonable searches, where society is prepared to recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy. THAT is the rule. And in this case, society is NOT prepared to recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy in overseas phone calls. > [@](#): > > - > > Amendment VI > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. \* > Speedy and public trial. Gee, I guess secret tribunals, indefinite detainment, GITMO, that whole Padilla “thing” are unconstitutional. Holy shit. People are entitled to a trial and to legal representation against known charges. The Supreme Court has already spoken on this issue. They didn’t exactly agree with your sweeping statement, did they? > [@](#): > > \*Amendment VIII > Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. \* > We do not torture. Bwah ha ha ha ha. Yeah right. You have no idea what you’re talking about here, and it’s a hijack to this thread anyway. > [@](#): > > It looks like Bush broke the hell out of some laws that take serious prededence over the FISA and wiretap laws (which I say he broke anyway) > > And one last time, don’t tell me what the NSA/ASA /anyotherSA does, I was IN it for 4 years. I trained in Fort Devens Massachusetts, along with all the other ASA’ers. I know what they do and what they don’t do. We all followed the same rules and laws. THE LAW ABOVE ALL OTHERS was DON’T FUCK WITH US CITIZENS. > > Go ahead and invoke the Yoo Memo. Go ahead. That may have been the guideline that was drilled into your head, and I’m glad it was. But the law allows a bit more flexibility than that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/183 "2005-12-18T08:43:01Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > **Bricker** , if I understand you right you’re saying that in your opinion there’s nothing (A) illegal or (B) immoral about these wiretaps. But even if that’s so . . . don’t you think it’s a very bad precedent to have the President authorizing a violation of civil liberties that many in Congress considered to _already_ be illegal, and then attempt to keep it secret so that no one could object? I mean, who’s to say there wouldn’t already be a law _specifically_ prohibiting this if the members of Congress had any idea that the President considered it to be within his authority? > > Basically, the position of the Bush administration seems to be “We can infringe on civil liberties however we want, provided (A) we think it’s necessary to fight terror, and (B) _we_ don’t believe it violates any laws, and neither the Congress (who might wish to make it illegal) nor the courts (which might find that it already _is_ illegal) need to know about it.” You don’t see a pretty serious problem here? I think it’s tremendously poor public policy, highly unwise. And I agree with you: if Congress knew the President was doing this, they might well have explicitly forbidden it already. If THAT were the debate, I wouldn’t be debating. I oppose the position that Bush’s actions were: [ul] [li]Illegal[/li][li]Unconstitutional[/li][li]Immoral[/li][li]un-American[/li][li]Evil[/li][li]Realistic grounds for impeachment[/li][/ul] Do you see the distinction? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/184 "2005-12-18T08:48:40Z")
For those people that cannot, somehow, understand the distinction I’m making… Let’s assume that in a highly publicized move, Congress decides to place an embargo on the sale of all computer technology to North Korea, an act heretofore legal. Not so much as a calculator can be legally shipped, sold, or in any way given to North Korea. The news is in all the papers. The House and the Senate pass the bill unanimously. It’s rushed to the White House for the President to sign. Five minutes before he signs it, I complete a sale of computer equipment to North Korea, fully knowing of the impending legislation. Am I a criminal? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/185 "2005-12-18T08:53:07Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > The date of that resolution was Oct '02. The wiretaps started before that date. Et tu, **John**? The same rationale applies to the earlier resolution for use of force against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, and that resolution was passed in September 2001. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/186 "2005-12-18T14:44:56Z")
Yes, **Bricker**. Everybody here simply hates you. There of course is no possibility that you just might be thoroughly full of shit, that everyone else in this thread has been patiently pointing out exactly how, but that you’re no more capable of considering views you don’t already hold than your (non-paying) client, Mr. Bush, or for that matter, your apparent role model for your behavior here, **december**. Indulging your last hypothetical, no, you have not committed a criminal act, but you plainly \*have \* committed an \*immoral \* one. It’s a pity that you can’t distinguish between the concepts, as illustrated by your constant mixing of the terms. Just look at your previous post - you acknowledged that you wouldn’t be debating here if you (as the last holdout) were convinced Bush’s actions were actually illegal. But that doesn’t, in normal definitions, have any connection with your other topics, to wit “Immoral, un-American, Evil, Realistic grounds for impeachment”, does it? Not unless you don’t \*have \* a moral compass outside the narrow letter of the law _at all_, or even recognize that there is such a thing. To repeat, we have a great deal more to fear from the likes of you than from the likes of Bin Laden. ---
**Author:** ![Updike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@Updike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Updike)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/187 "2005-12-18T15:09:05Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Yes, **Bricker**.There of course is no possibility that you just might be thoroughly full of shit, that everyone else in this thread has been patiently pointing out exactly how, but that you’re no more capable of considering views you don’t already hold than your (non-paying) client, Mr. Bush, or for that matter, your apparent role model for your behavior here, **december**. What or who is this **december** of which you speak? ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/188 "2005-12-18T15:13:12Z")
> [@Updike](#): > > What or who is this **december** of which you speak? Search the user name and “banned”. ---
**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 18, 2005, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/189 "2005-12-18T15:24:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Et tu, **John**? > > The same rationale applies to the earlier resolution for use of force against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, and that resolution was passed in September 2001. But that’s not the law you cited in the post I quoted. And I’ve already noted that earlier resolution 🙂 : > [@John Mace](#): > > If Bush’s argument is that when Congress authorizes him to use force, that put us in a state of war, then he can fall back on Public Law No: 107-40, which was passed shortly after 9/11/01. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/190 "2005-12-18T15:55:42Z")
For a President who vowed the following: > [@GW Bush](#): > > Let me say a few words about important values we must demonstrate while all of us serve in government. First, we must always maintain the highest ethical standards. We must always ask ourselves not only what is legal, but what is right. There is no goal of government worth accomplishing if it cannot be accomplished with integrity. …it certainly seems odd that nearly everything he does comes down to some niggling argument by a minion of his as to what is the legal definition of this or the tortured interpretation of that. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/191 "2005-12-18T16:23:00Z")
Why does policy like this always have to turned into some Orwellian conspiracy rather than the government actually trying to protect us? Why must the potential for abuse assumed to be SOP? If you’re innocent you’ve got nothing to worry about. Fucking relax. ---
**Author:** ![Menocchio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de053/32.png) [@Menocchio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Menocchio)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/192 "2005-12-18T16:30:31Z")
> [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > Why does policy like this always have to turned into some Orwellian conspiracy rather than the government actually trying to protect us? Why must the potential for abuse assumed to be SOP? If you’re innocent you’ve got nothing to worry about. Fucking relax. You’re fucking kidding, right? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/193 "2005-12-18T16:33:24Z")
So the argument boils down to one thing … the governmen can do anything it wants, at any time. They do not have to support the ethics or legality of it. They make it legal and constitutional simply by doing it. Isn’t that the same argument Nixon tried to use? Isn’t that the argument in the “Yoo doctrine”? If that IS the case, then we don’t need any laws on the books. We don’t need a Congress to fight over and write laws because, again, everything the government chooses to do is legal. We don’t need a Supreme Court, because the Constitution is just a piece of paper, and anything the government does is legal, again by the “Nixon definition” and the “Yoo doctrine”. Just let the government do whatever. After all, if they do it, then by definition it is legal. I have issues with that. Big isues. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/194 "2005-12-18T16:40:34Z")
> [@Menocchio](#): > > You’re fucking kidding, right? Nope. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/195 "2005-12-18T16:41:57Z")
> [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > Why does policy like this always have to turned into some Orwellian conspiracy rather than the government actually trying to protect us? Why must the potential for abuse assumed to be SOP? If you’re innocent you’ve got nothing to worry about. Fucking relax. As conservatives here are so wont to do, let me give you some electoral advice: Please encourage the Republicans to run on this platform. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/196 "2005-12-18T16:59:00Z")
> [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > Why does policy like this always have to turned into some Orwellian conspiracy rather than the government actually trying to protect us? Why must the potential for abuse assumed to be SOP? If you’re innocent you’ve got nothing to worry about. Fucking relax. Why? Why should we fucking relax? People think oppression shows up in dramatically, suddenly, in full-fledged regalia so that all can recognize it for what it is. Actually, it develops slowly and incrementally, through legal precedent. Excused by hand-waving rationalizations and juvenile eye-rolling. If Bush is given a pass on this, then it will become SOP. Maybe Bush really is on the up-and-up and wouldn’t take advantage. But what about the next guy who comes along? The guy after that? We have, under this Adminstration, been made aware of secret prisons. American citizens have been held without evidence, indefinitely, with no access to lawyers, in undisclosed locations. We now know about FBI-compiled watch lists that include pacifist groups like the Quakers and community anti-war groups. And now espionage on American soil, potentially on American citizens. I’m not a paranoid person and I’m doubtful of most conspiracies. However, this is all very unsettling for me. Bush says the spying has only been done on international calls, but that sounds very convenient. Like a lie to muddy the waters a bit, to confuse the whole legality question. How do I know that my phone calls–the ones I make to my leftwing, uber-radical mother on Sunday nights–were not tapped? How do I know that _I_ won’t be someday whisked away and taken to a secret location, tortured, and denied trial, lawyer, and presumption of innocence? The precedents have already been set. There would be nothing I could do to save myself. I haven’t done anything wrong, but it wouldn’t matter. People like you would assume I was guilty simply because the government said I was. The same government that said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The same government who said that the Iraqis would embrace us as liberators and saviors. How do you know that _you_ are protected? Do we really want to revert back the days of McCarthy? To the days of Salem, Massachusetts? The soup _de jour_ is terrorism. Tomorrow it may be another -ism. _You_ might just be the target. And it will be too late for you to cry “unfair!!” People will tell you that depriving the “guilty” of rights has always been the American way. So why don’t you fucking get angry and stop being such a sheep! ---
**Author:** ![Menocchio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de053/32.png) [@Menocchio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Menocchio)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/197 "2005-12-18T16:59:22Z")
> [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > Nope. Then you’re a fucking moron. Here’s a clue: If the government can do it to suspected terrorists then they can do it to _you_. And if they’re allowed to get away with it, they _will_, sooner or later. Perhaps not this administration, but someday. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/198 "2005-12-18T17:08:42Z")
Hmph. They do it all the time. Nixon ran on law & order twice, second time got hisself re-elected in a landslide. 'Cause, you know, if you were innocent, you had nothing to fear from him. Nothing at all. It’s kind of entertaining to see a lawyer attempting to come up with a rationale for unlimited dictatorship within the law of the land, btw. This kind of sophism is the inevitable result of having a President with a big military and not a lot of places to use it. There have been and always will be people around who crave absolutism, and having a large military sitting around is the perfect way to give them what they want. Get rid of that, and you get rid of a lot of this problem. Leave it, and you’ll be dealing with this BS forever. Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/199 "2005-12-18T17:10:07Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > So why don’t you fucking get angry and stop being such a sheep! He’s no sheep. Jeff Jackson explains the attitude [here](http://www.thelandofthefree.net/anationoflaws.html): > [@](#): > > We are a nation of laws. True there are some that prefer that not to be true. They would prefer that whatever group has the biggest stick and the power to use that stick control the nation. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/200 "2005-12-18T17:17:27Z")
> [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > Why does policy like this always have to turned into some Orwellian conspiracy rather than the government actually trying to protect us? Why must the potential for abuse assumed to be SOP? If you’re innocent you’ve got nothing to worry about. Fucking relax. Some of us don’t need or want this sort of protection. Some of us don’t want “secret” agencies spying on us. “If you’re innocent”??? Yeah right. That is a ridiculous argument. **We are all presumed innocent until proven guilty**. That is the law. So is any argument that any policeman can search me or property or my effects at any time, without a **reasonable suspicion** , **probable cause** , or **search warrant**. He can’t do a single thing, just cuz he feels like itThere are still laws against **Unreasonable search and seizure**. This is not a police state. The police and the government have to follow laws. They can not do whatever they please. From the NY Times: > [@Times](#): > > Culture of Caution and Rules > The N.S.A. domestic spying operation has stirred such controversy among some national security officials in part because of the agency’s cautious culture and longstanding rules. > Widespread abuses including\*\* eavesdropping on Vietnam War protesters and civil rights activists by American intelligence agencie\*\*s became public in the 1970’s and led to passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which imposed **strict limits on intelligence gathering on American soil**. Among other things, the **law required search warrants** , approved by the secret F.I.S.A. court, for wiretaps in national security cases. The agency, deeply scarred by the scandals, adopted additional rules that all but ended domestic spying on its part. … Several senior government officials say that when the special operation first began, **there were few controls on it and little formal oversight outside the N.S.A.** The agency can choose its eavesdropping targets and **does not have to seek approval** from Justice Department or other Bush administration officials. **Some agency officials wanted nothing to do with the program, apparently fearful of participating in an illegal operation** , a former senior Bush administration official said. Before the 2004 election, the official said, some N.S.A. personnel **worried that the program might come under scrutiny by Congressional or criminal investigators** if Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, was elected president. … The legal opinions that support the N.S.A. operation remain classified, but they appear to have followed private discussions among senior administration lawyers and other officials about the need to pursue aggressive strategies that once **may have been seen as crossing a legal line, according to senior officials** who participated in the discussions. … The decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which sided with the administration in dismantling a bureaucratic “wall” limiting cooperation between prosecutors and intelligence officers, noted “the president’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance.” > But the same court suggested that national security interests **should not be grounds “to jettison the Fourth Amendment requirements” protecting the rights of Americans against undue searches**. So, we already know the “system” will be abused, just from past history. From this article, we can gather that there is still the worry inside the government, that all this may very well be illegal. Read FISA. [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc\_sup\_01\_50\_10\_36.html](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html) Note what it allows the President to do, with and without FISA warrants, and what it does not. Pay particular attention to **section 1802** and the definition of “United States person” in **1801**. Now, read section **1809** , providing for **criminal liability for violating FISA**. While the President may have some inherent powers to gather **foreign intelligence** , **FISA limits those powers as applied domestically**. The President authorized electronic surveillance of United States persons within the United States **without FISA warrants**. As I have been saying, a warrant is required. The president never bothered to get those warrants. > [@Katz](#): > > Warrantless “National Security” Electronic Surveillance.—In Katz v. United States,151 Justice White sought to preserve for a future case the possibility that in “national security cases” electronic surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney General could be permissible without prior judicial approval. The Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to “bug” in two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority on a theory of **“inherent” presidential power** and then in the Supreme Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a “reasonable” search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that **at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required**.152 Whether or not a search was[p.1256]reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause; except in a few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, **only those searches conducted pursuant to warrants were reasonable**. The Government’s duty to preserve the national security did not override the guarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it **must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy**.153 This protection was even more needed in “national security cases” than in cases of “ordinary” crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the **First Amendment as well as by the Fourth**.154 Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is required.155 Again, the requirement to get a warrant was upheld. It revolved around the Fourth Amendment, just like I already said, further up in the thread. **The Fourth DOES apply**. I don’t feel like getting into any moral or ethical “thing” right now, except to say that both morally and ethically it is wrong. Meanwhile, I wonder… Friday, Bush would neither confirm or deny all this spying. He said it would compromise security or get us terrorixzed (or something). Then Saturday, he blabs the whole thing. What made it less “security dangerous” over night? Why was it super special double secret one day and not the next? He also blasted the news for “leaking” it. while he is gabbing and gabbing about it. Never mind that the Times had sat on the story for at least a year, at the request of the White House. Never mind that the worst security leaks have come repeatedly FROM the White House. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856.md?page=11)