I see SteveG1 has already noted that this is not a privacy case…but I’ll say anyway, I think the trash sifting is arguable. A case could be made (and was, apparently).
But there is no question about the expectation of privacy, with regards to the American government, in a phone call made from your own home.
If the only argument is that another government might not have that standard, then I call that a piss poor argument. And not in keeping in any way with our own 4th amendment.
Ok…so there is no precendent. Hopefully this will establish one, against the practise.
Yup. Nobody can cover all situations before they occur. Having someone challange it will force the issue. Still, if the White House conferred more with impartial legal experts, and the Supremes beforehand, they could avoid some serious problems. It would not be any different than a corporate head consulting his legla department before committing to a contract.
P.S.
Neat move there, with the already decided decisions - good way to check and see who is paying attention
Jesus what a lawyer you are!! The courts haven’t spoken on this yet. We’re here talking about whether it’s a good idea or not. Are we supposed to wait and let the court tell us what’s un-American and what isn’t? is that how you decide?
My point is that it’s NOT un-American. I’m trying to show you that things similarly intrusive are an accepted part of our jurisprudential culture, and other things similarly intrusive were accepted in the past. It may, as you say, be a bad idea. I certainly think a reasonable person could say, “This is a bad idea.” I may not agree, but I think it’s a tenable position to hold.
“It’s un-American!” is NOT a tenable position. See the difference?
It’s irrelevant in this case, because it is hardly intrusive to sift though junk which the suspect already had decided it was unimportant, and had tossed away. Bad move on his part. Sure there was indignation about “garbage searches” before that. But then the courts ruled and it was settled. A dope dealer forced the issue. He lost.
[Nelson] HAHA![/Nelson]
This Greenwood had been dealing. Apparently it was a poorly kept secret, and both neighbors and police had observed an established pattern of many people visiting at all hours of the day or night, and leaving soon after - just what is expected at a drug house. The pattern of activity was there. So, this was not a search based on some wide area “fishing expedition”. It was not a random investigation or search of nonsuspects.
This, to my way of thinking is a bit different from actually intruding into people’s private business - private mail, private phone converstaions, infrared scanning of the interior of the house, secret “sneak and peek” searches etc. when there is no valid reason to do so.
It hinges also on what Scalia himself would call a “reasonable expectation of privacy”. There is no reason to investigate people who have broken no law, and give no appearance of having broken any. There is no authority to go sifting through things that they could reasonably consider to be private without a valid reason. In short, to check someone out, you still have to have a reason. Simply invoking “terror” does not cut it legally or ethically.
Assuming that you have not long since stopped reading my posts, let me take a run at this. I am not sure what you mean by “Un-American” here. When I use that word, it implies some sort of a violation of the spirit under which this country was founded, but the way that you seem to be using it seems to almost be a synonym of “is it Legal”.
I guess that I would say that I really don’t give a sweet shit if the acts that you mention are legal or not. They are in violation of the basic presumption of innocence. In other words, as a tax paying and law abiding contributing member of society I believe that I have a reasonable expectation that my garbage not be pawed through, that I not get pulled over when I am doing nothing wrong, that I not have my private dwelling violated with high-tech surveillance and that I not have my telephone conversations bugged.
I know that you have this tendency to want to reduce just about every argument to “is it legal” and, while I do value that on many occasions, I think that you are also missing a point here. The reason that these sorts of things are problematic is that they are, for lack of a better word, cheating. If your case is so thin that you have to resort to this sort of trolling and can’t even get warrants from judges well, you kind of suck. It also pre supposes some sort of trust in Big Daddy State to do what is best for me with no oversight and I can’t think of anyone in the government that has earned that sort of trust
A private phone conversation in one’s own home is not equivlent to garbage left on the street. if this practice is so above-board and legal, why did the FISA judge–a judge in a secret court, mind you–refuse to allow the evidence gatherd by the NSA to be used as probable cause to obtain a warrant? Why did some NSA employees refuse to take part in the practice? What checks exist to prevent abuse of the power of secret warrantless surveilence? We have already seen a case of a lawmaker (Tom DeLay) using the intellegence apparatus of the Department of Homeland Security to track his political opponents (Texas Democrats trying to prevent redistrciting). Who is to say that sort of abuse isn’t already happening? Bricker, would you want President Hillary Clinton to have such powers at her disposal without any sort of judicial oversight?
That’s why we have law. So that clear lines may be established for what is, and is not, a reasonable expectation by you as a tax paying and law abiding contributing member of society. And society is NOT prepared to regard your curbside garbage as inviolate – it can be pawed through. You may feel that’s unwise, but when the country, through its duly appointed spokespeople, disagrees with you, how valid is your claim that you’re the reasonable one?
On the other hand, your view that you not be watched in your house with high-tech devices is a reasonable one, one that society is prepared to recognize.
Exactly. It has to be boiled down to what is law, and what isn’t. Whether we like a law or not, The Rule Of Law is what we as a country agreed long ago to live by. The alternatives are Rule By Decree, or even worse, Mob Rule. Good laws are upheld. Bad laws are struck down or rewritten to make sense. If the lawmakers (Congress) screw up, we get rid of them (elections), or the Court gets rid of the law (declares it unconstitutional).
Note 1) The NSA, or at least some NSA people, balked at eavesdropping on US citizens. They felt it was illegal. Even if legal, they felt it violated their charter.
Note 2) In Congress, the fight is on. The Patriot Act or at least portions of it, may be in jeopardy. It may be declared illegal and unconstitutional.
Here is what one blog had to say about it. It dovetails very nicely with Scalia’s concern for privacy, and also with O’Connor’s comment about war and blank checks…
I notice that the blog author does not identify specifically what law he feels Bush violated.
That’s a good move, because there is no such law.
That’s kind of my gripe about this. I’m not wild about this decision by the administration, but I absolutely cannot stand the hysterics, exaggeration, and outright lying that opponents are using. You think it’s a bad idea? Fine. Let’s debate that.
You think it’s evil, illegal, un-American? Come on. Don’t be ridiculous.
If this did not violate the 4th Amendment or the Wiretap Act or the laws governing the NSA, Bricker, why did Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly object to the program and bar information collected by the program from her court? You knew the President was vulnerable on this front because in your very first post in this thread you were already preparing a defense against the accusation.
So your standard of outrage is higher in this case than it was in say, March, 2003? Glad you’ve learned something from the Iraq debacle. You say you’re “not wild about this decision” but you hate to agree with us foaming at the mouth liberals. I urge you to listen to you conscience in this case and condem the President’s actions instead of preparing his legal defense. You don’t have to agree with us liberals. Agree with Patriot Act supporter Arlen Spector:
Be careful in stating there is no such law, there very well may be. Just because the blog owner does not know chapter and verse does not prove there isn’t one. The NSA (National Security Agency) is chartered to spy and eavesdrop overseas. It is not chartered to operate within the USA. Note, in all verbage relating to the NSA mission, the repeated and deliberate use of the word foreign. The NSA was a larger, civilian version of the “system” that I myself was in - the Army Security Agency. We were definitely NOT authorized to “do our thing” inside the US. We were also definitely NOT authorized to “do our thing” with any domestic signals or information.
The National Security Agency (NSA) is the nation’s cryptologic organization and as such, coordinates, directs, and performs highly specialized activities to produce foreign intelligence information and protect US information systems. A high-technology organization, NSA is on the frontiers of communications and information technology. NSA is also one of the most important centers of foreign language analysis and research within the US Government.
he Agency is completely dedicated to this business and therefore the entire organization is considered to be a Community member.
NSA’s Contribution to Intelligence
NSA has two strategic missions:
To exploit foreign signals for national foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes - a capability called signals intelligence or SIGINT.
To provide solutions, products and services, and conduct defensive information operations, to achieve information assurance for information infrastructures critical to US national security interests - a capability referred to as information assurance or IA.
Mission Statement: The ability to understand the secret communications of our foreign adversaries while protecting our own communications – a capability in which the United States leads the world – gives our nation a unique advantage.
http://cryptome.org/nsa-4th.htm
In contrast to the CIA, one has to search far and wide to find someone who has ever heard of the NSA. This is peculiar, because the National Security Agency is an immense installation. In its task of collecting intelligence by intercepting foreign communications, the NSA employs thousands of people and operates with an enormous budget.
No statute establishes the NSA or defines the permissible scope of its responsibilities. Rather, Executive directives make up the sole “charter” for the Agency. Furthermore. these directives fail to define precisely what constitutes the “technical and intelligence information” which the NSA is authorized to collect. …
We are tasked, by Senate Resolution 21, to investigate “illegal, improper, or unethical activities” engaged in by intelligence agencies, and to decide on the “need for specific legislative authority to govern operations of * * * the National Security Agency.” …
Indeed, as our hearing into the Huston plan demonstrated, **a previous administration and a former NSA Director favored using this potential against certain U.S. citizens for domestic intelligence purposes. While the Huston plan was never fully put into effect, our investigation has revealed that the NSA had in fact been intentionally monitoring the overseas communications of certain U.S. citizens long before the Huston plan was proposed-and continued to do so after it was revoked. … **
Even if the risks were minimal – and I do not believe they are minimal – the NSA is the wrong target. The real quarry is not largely mechanical response of military organizations to orders. The real issues of who told them to take actions now alleged to be questionable should be addressed to the policy level. It is more important to know why names were placed on a watch list than to know what the NSA did after being ordered to do so. …
Under the authority of the President, the Secretary of Defense has been delegated responsibility for both providing security of U.S. governmental communications and seeking intelligence from foreign electrical communications. Both functions are executed for the Secretary of Defense by the Director, National Security Agency, through a complex national system which includes the NSA as its nucleus. …
This mission of NSA is directed to foreign intelligence, obtained from foreign electrical communications and also from other foreign signals such as radars. Signals are intercepted by many techniques and processed, sorted and analyzed by procedures which reject inappropriate or unnecessary signals. The foreign intelligence derived from these signals is then reported to various agencies of the Government in response to their approved requirements for foreign intelligence. …
Title 18 U.S.C. 2511(3) provides as follows:
Nothing contained in this chapter or in Section 605 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 605, shall limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the nation against actual or potential attack; or other hostile acts of a foreign power, to obtain foreign intelligence information deemed essential to the security of the United States or to protect national security information against foreign intelligence activities.
http://jya.com/nsa102452.htm
b. The COMINT mission of the National Security Agency (NSA) shall be to provide an effective, unified organization and control of he communications intelligence activities of the United States conducted against foreign governments, to provide for integrated operational policies and procedures pertaining thereto. As used in this directive, the terms “communications intelligence” or “COMINT” shall be construed to mean all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications other than foreign press and propaganda broadcasts and the
obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients,* but shall exclude censorship and the production and dissemination of finished intelligence.
I guess I’m not too riled up in the sense that it wouldn’t affect me. Do I go to the Al Jazeera site for alternative views of the news? Fuck ya. And if the government has a big fat file on me for doing so, fuck them. Ya hear that fuckers? Bite me!?
What gets me about this is that a lot of educated and wise people chose to ignore the laws of the United States. And that group reaches the highest echelons of the US government. THAT, in my opinion, is the most fucked up part about all this. When a group of people feels immune to established laws and practices, history has shown us over and over again, that they tend to fuck things up; abuse the power for personal use; lose vision of the reason they moved that way in the first place, and ultimately reach a level of paranoia that they break other laws as well to protect their position.
It reminds me of that fatefull question to Dukakis, that he ultimately fucked up. It was asked if he would kill someone if he caught them raping his wife. He said no. What a fuckin’ sissy. I would kill, mame, and advertise the death of anyone who did that. The purpose of government is to establish laws that aim hire than individuals. Would I kill the rapist? Hell ya. Would I write a law saying I could? Fuck no. The purpose of laws is to make our society a better place. And if it is left to the individual, abuse is sure to take place.
