Wow. I love the tactics exposed here.
“It’s unconstitutional!”
“No, it’s not.”
“Well, it’s illegal!”
“No, it’s not.”
“Immoral! And un-American!”
“How is it immoral and un-American?”
“Because of the other bad stuff the Bushies did!”
Oh.
I disagree that this tactic is immoral. Merely repeating that it’s immoral does nothing to strengthen your argument.
…and neither does merely repeating that it’s not technically illegal strengthen yours/theirs.
Er. No. Not because of the “other bad stuff Bush did”. Because it’s possible to believe the 4th amendment makes a valid moral point about the realtionship the govenment should have with the governed. And that it’s a good “American” idea. And that what’s being done here violates that.
And I will continue to believe that even if it’s found legal. Silly me, I’ll go on believing slavery was immoral and un-American and we had that when we wrote the bloody constitution.
If it’s found to be illegal will you conclude it IS immoral??
It’s a bit of a stretch to flatly state that “there is no such law”. The administration’s interpretation is clearly hugely controversial, and may very well be struck down (assuming that the facts alleged in the New York Times article are true, and assuming any of this ever goes to court). Certainly a lot of Congressman–and not just Democrats–seem to be under the impression that they did not vote to put this country in a perpetual state of war.
If it’s found to be illegal, then I’ll believe that CONTINUING the conduct is immoral, because it will be settled that the will of the people, as expressed through their appointed representatives, forbids it. The conduct per se is not immoral; the immorality comes in defying the strictures they have promised to uphold.
What’s your source of morality, betenoir? What authority are you relying upon to declare that it’s immoral, no matter what the courts say, and why should I also be expected to for that morality? Aren’t you just imposing your morals on me, in the same way that Falwell, Robertson, and Swaggert sought to do?
It’s no stretch at all.
If the courts rule against it, THEN there will be a clear ruling, newly established and clear case law.
If Congress passes new law forbidding it, then there will newly established statutory authority.
Right now, there isn’t.
Vibrotronica.
Not that I disbelieve you, but is there any kind of cite for this? If so, this might be interesting material for GD.
Regards
Testy
But I did go over several reasons why I thought that it was un-American and you seem pretty happy to just write my points off whole cloth. Honestly, the only point that you have made that is resonating with me here is loving the tactics exposed, but it ain’t my side that I am finding wanting. At the end of the day, is there nothing that this administration will do that you take issue with?
You said, in response to my post about what expectations society is prepared to recognize as reasonable:
If that’s your side, then is IS wanting.
If we’re going to live in the same society, we have to have a method of agreeing on rules for our conduct. You’ve simply announced that your expectations are reasonable, period, no matter what the rest of society may say.
In fact, random spooks CAN dig through your trash. Your expectation is yours; it’s not one that this society of our is going to back.
Your only response to this is to stubbornly repeat that your expectation is reasonable. And I disagree. And the process we have all agreed to for resolving the dispute is on my side.
What, precisely, is improper about that?
There is plenty.
What I am objecting to here is the hysteria and exaggeration applied to the arguments against the administration’s actions. You (perhaps reasonably) infer that I wholeheartedly support the administration.
Not so.
But what they are doing is UNWISE, and POOR PUBLIC POLICY. That’s not support, I think you’ll agree.
It’s when the chorus of “evil,” “illegal,” “unconstitutional” and “un-American” ramps up that I step in to rebut those excreably silly characterizations.
This thread should get you started: Texas Democrats: you’ve gotta be fucking kiddin me
Also this post in Is deLay Going Down?.
Here, testy. Assuming, that is, that vibrotronica is referring to DeLay’s use of DHS aircraft to hunt down the Democratic legislators who had left Texas rather than allow the vote in favor of the partisan redistricting plan (in violation of the Voting Rights Act, btw) to occur.
Are you saying that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t and shouldn’t apply under certain circumstances? Where do you draw the line, and on what legal basis? Apparently your proposed carveout (against existing law btw; you brush that aside for your own argument but hammer on it when it’s applied to a position you disagree with) would permit it for whatever the Bush Administration decides might be potential terrorists, but what else? Would ordinary suspicion of a plan to murder be exempt as well? You want to draw a line, but where?
Yes, certainly, a government free to invade anyone’s privacy at any time without accountability could uncover all sorts of crimes, in passing. But we as a society, acting through our spokespersons (don’t get mad, that’s your argument) have decided that the benefit isn’t worth the cost of our accepting fascism as a way of life. That’s not only our morality but our law, as you must know, and it simply doesn’t matter that your loyalty to the Republican Party entails your claiming otherwise. If you’re sincere about your claims, not simply arguing for the fun of arguing once again, you’re also very scary. Our society and its foundations face a much greater threat from the likes of you than from the likes of Bin Laden.
Look, I am more than willing to see that in order for us to live together we have to in some way codify behavior and at times we (meaning me) get stuck with things that seem creepy and utterly fail a gut check (I mean, come on, setting matters of law to once side for a moment (assuming that you can) how can it possibly be seen as reasonable that my (a citizen presumably enjoying the presumption of innocence) garbage get pawed through because some cops want to go fishing?).
That being said, I am open minded (or at least I make a very sincere effort to be). You have stated here that my expectation that I should be able to go through the day, do my very best to obey the law and contribute to society and in exchange be presumed to be innocent of crime until there is probable cause to think otherwise (as in please leave my garbage and phones alone and don’t pull me over on a whim) is not one that is reasonable and that this logic shows that my side (whatever that is) is wanting.
So, educate me. What do I, as a law abiding citizen, have a reasonable expectation to? You say the process for agreeing for what is reasonable is on your side and, given what to me is the current dismal state of affairs, I can concede that. But help a poor Liberal out her. Break the code for me.
I get that, and again I am asking that you explain how what is happening here is not un-American. And by that I am talking about American in the sense of the lofty ideals that we were all taught is civics class, not “what happens to be legal in America right now” or “what happens to not currently be actually against the law, but boy are we waiting for a legal president because it looks like the weasels have tried to push things too far again and we need to explicitly prohibit whatever damn-fool thing they are doing”.
See, to me, I was told that the wonderful thing about this country was that we have these ideals of freedom, privacy, self-determination and the presumption of innocence. I was told these things, and may others growing up and I believed them. You seem to think that when I apply these values to every day events that I am being “excreably silly” (your words) or hysterical in some way. I find that sad.
The purpose of NSA, the reason for its existence, is to collect infornation about foreign govenments through electronic means. Intercept radio signals, telephone conversations, radar signatures, those sorts of things. One group of people collects the information. The next group translates it. A third group, the traffic analysts, looks at all this, organizes it, and tries to sort out the wheat from the chaff - what is important or useful vs what is not. Finally, reports and recommendations are made. Each of these groups operates on a need to know basis. Don’t think of James Bond, think more of “guys who love gadgets”. NSA does not conduct interrogations. NSA is the “listeners”. Further, they do not, or should not spy on American citizens - it is not their purpose. They spy on foreign activities, in foreign countries. Again, I was in the Army portion of this activity (the ASA), so I think I know what I’m talking about. The rules were very clear… no “fucking around” with domestic info.
One executive order can supercede another executive order. Directives and policies get superceded or revoked all the time. Executive orders are like policies or directives. They are not, in or of themselves, law.
I am going to grossly oversimplify. You are in the Army. The General can order you to do certain things. He has given you a directive or an order. However, he can not tell you to go next door and steal the Admiral’s staff car. He would be breaking the law. Just because he told you to do it, does not make it legal. It’s the same with presidents. Just because he says something, does not automatically make it legal.
However we have, among other laws, Wiretap Act, Intelligence Authorization Act, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and Executive Order (E.O.) 12333 and probably many others.
The EO can be superceded at any time by the president. However, the Wiretap Act, Intelligence Authorization Act and FISA can not. They have to be revoked by Congress, or rejected by the Supreme Court. The fourth amendment can not be ignored. No new amendments have ever been written, cancelling the fourth. Given the Supreme Courts past rulings (such as the infrared imaging case), the “sense” seems to be that in the case of “cutting edge technology” (which the NSA definitely has), the law should err in favor of privacy. No matter if it is infrared, wiretaps or “phone phreaking”, or internet surveillance, I think the Court would rule just as it did in Kyllo. Just because you have a really cool new technology, that does not invalidate the fourth amendment Reasonable expectation of privacy. Keep in mind also, that there is ample evidence that there must be Probable Cause, and someone has to approve it. Random or Roving wiretaps (for example) are a violation. They are, by definition, unwarranted and random. I would go so far as to say that even the Patriot Act requires you to get approval from someone. It may be a “secret” judge or a “secret” court, but there is someone who has to give approval.
So, the president can supercede executive orders, but he can not supercede or cancel laws. Only Congress can make or cancel a law.
I’m going to give an opinion (danger danger Will Robinson) and say, I think it already is illegal, and that is what the stink in Congress is all about.
A fair question.
The reason I brought out examples like the garbage search was to show you that your vision of the lofty ideals has never existed in reality.
It wasn’t until 1961 that evidence obtained without a search warrant was excluded from a state prosecution against you. Now I don’t know what specific “lofty goals” you’re referring to, but I’m willing to bet you picture them as much older than 44 years old.
The Fourth Amendment, and its associated case law, have always prohibited UNREASONABLE searches. There have always been exceptions. My sense is, without meaning to be offensive, that you were simply oblivious to those exceptions.
All our the ideals you mention: freedom, privacy, self-determination and the presumption of innocence - are availalble only insofar as they are balanced against security and order. You have freedom, of course – but your freedom is not unlimited. You have privacy - but it is not unlimited, either. You are presumed innocent, but when varying degrees of suspicion are developed against you, the presumption erodes. A police officer with nothing more than reasonable suspicion may briefly detain you. With probable cause he may arrest you and hold you until trial. And with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, the government may imprison you.
You seem to be unaware of these specifcs. You trot out the generalities of freedom, privacy, self-determination and the presumption of innocence, but you gloss over the reality that none of these things is unfettered, not one thign on that list comes without a balancing test of some kind.
Or if you ARE aware of the balancing tests required, you are proposing a line that - in my view, and with some objective evidence to back it up - is out of sync with the mood of your fellow citizens.
And there’s nothing wrong with that… you’re welcome to argue that the line should be drawn in a different place. But for crissakes, stop with the posture that asserts, as though it were gospel truth, that your view is the only possible correct one. Argue from a “It SHOULD be this way,” and I’m not going to disagree much, if at all. Argue that “It IS this way, and those that disagree are criminals,” and this is the result.