- This topic has 4 voices and 14 replies.
-
Posts
-
A judge recently found the NSA warrantless surveillance program to be unconstitutional. If you want some background on the story, you can read it here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversyApparently we are going to be hearing more about the legality of the program in the future, as the judge's recent ruling is hardly the last word.Do you think that the program is legal or illegal? If you think it is illegal, do you nevertheless think that it is necessary to fight the War on Terror? Why or why not?
Question about the New York Times revealing this.? Haven't most already heard and knew about this program before they published their story?? ?Not that I'm defending them, but most of the classified information “leaked” was already known, was it not?Now as far as what this program actually does, do we REALLY know everything about it?? It is my understanding that much of how this operates is highly classified (and still is).? Authorization for Use of Military Force
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States
Doesn't this alone make it legal?? Why or why not?
Skiguy, where is that from that you quoted? I think that critics of the program would say that the President is still subject to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which trumps all other laws and regulations. Therefore, it wouldn't necessarily be constitutional even if Congress had given the President this power through another law.I think that it is without question that the parties involved have a privacy interest in their phone conversations. However, what this will likely come down to is whether there is an exception within the warrant requirement that allows the NSA to tap phones. This will turn on the facts in the case - from what I understand, one of the parties has to be a terrorist group or affiliated with terrorism, it has to be an international phone call, etc.
Phid, that's from the Authorization for use of military force that Congress passed right after 9-11. http://web.archive.org/web/20120429135227/http://news.findlaw.com:80/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.htmlPerhaps it's me who is confused here. I was under the impression that foreign to domestic (or vice versa) calls are fine without a warrant and that this whole argument is about domestic calls only.Perhaps there has to be something put into writing as to what defines terrorism? As far as the date mining goes, aren't they just looking for key words or phrases and then they intercept it once there's a pattern established?
A judge recently found the NSA warrantless surveillance program to be unconstitutional.? If you want some background on the story, you can read it here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversyApparently we are going to be hearing more about the legality of the program in the future, as the judge's recent ruling is hardly the last word.Do you think that the program is legal or illegal?? If you think it is illegal, do you nevertheless think that it is necessary to fight the War on Terror?? Why or why not?
I can see both sides of the issue. But what worries me is how these things tend to snowball (which they usually do) We've seen it to many times in history, start with the small things and it just gets worse from there. If it truly violates the forth amendment, then no, it is not legal and it will be interesting to see where this goes. But on the other hand when you let everybody in to the country who wants to get in, how do you fight an enemy with in your borders with out infringing on those rights?
Skiguy, I checked with Wikipedia and one of the parties does have to be overseas, so this isn't about domestic-only phone calls. Here's an excerpt:
The complete details of this authorization are not known, but it is believed to cover telephone calls involving a person suspected of having links to terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda or its affiliates and with one party to the call outside the United States. The legality and extent of this authorization is the core of the controversy. That the NSA maintained electronic surveillance on communications between persons in the United States and suspected terrorists outside the United States without obtaining a warrant was affirmed by President Bush after it was revealed in the press.
Stumpfoot, I agree that things can snowball over time, but this plan seems to be fairly clear in what it does and does not allow. The only area that would be somewhat unclear is how they define a "suspected terrorist"....and as skiguy touched on, the definition of this term is probably defined somewhere. Likely this is included in the statute itself.
Thanks, Phid. After reading about it the last couple of days I realized I was incorrect about the calls. But doesn't the TSP also cover domestic-to-domestic?Here's 2 articles I found that are quite interesting concerning this judges decision.http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWVlOGNiZmIyMmZkYTg2OGFiYzM3ZGU4Nzc0MjFjNzQ=
More worrisome still are the judge?s breathtaking mistakes in analyzing the Fourth and First Amendments?errors that would earn our first-year law student an ?F.? Here?s one of several examples: The judge asserts that the Fourth Amendment, in all cases, ?requires prior warrants for any reasonable search, based upon prior-existing probable cause.? She cites no legal authority whatsoever for this colossal misstatement of the law, because none exists. Instead, there are numerous situations where our courts have found no prior warrant is required, so long as a search is ?reasonable.? Fatal to her position is the very Supreme Court case she herself cites. This landmark 1972 electronic-surveillance decision, the Keith case, makes clear that, though it establishes a warrant requirement for purely domestic security cases (decidedly not what the TSP is, raising the alarming possibility the judge may think the TSP is a ?domestic? program), the Fourth Amendment does not always require a prior warrant for government searches. Rather, the need for warrants depends on a balancing of the government?s legitimate needs, such as protecting us from attack, against other constitutional interests.
I had heard that the judge's opinion was rather erroneous and that it appeared to be based on ideology (an example for the “judicial activism” thread?). Historically, the courts have come to view the Fourth Amendment as not requiring a warrant in certain cases (such as when there are exigent circumstances). I think that the last sentence of what you quoted is key here. There is a balancing act that the courts play when considering the Fourth Amendment, and the case can be made that in times of war/terrorism, the government legitimate need to protect its people is given more weight than the individual's expectation ofn privacy.
I think that what is “unreasonable” really depend on the circumstances of a case. This issue has been a hot one in criminal procedure law especially since the 1960s. The answer to your question differs depending where a person or property is searched or seized, why the search or seizure was conducted, etc. For example, your car can be searched by a cop who pulls you over without a warrant. However, your car cannot be searched without a warrant if it's parked on the driveway at your house. Another example – a “Terry stop” (stop and frisk without a warrant) done to you by a cop is reasonable if he's got a reasonable suspicion that you're armed and dangerous and that you're engaged in criminal activities. However, a cop can't bring you into the station based on this same reasonable suspicion.There are a lot of fine lines and distinctions, so the word "unreasonable" really hangs on the facts.
I There are a lot of fine lines and distinctions, so the word "unreasonable" really hangs on the facts.
The word unreasonable can be defined a hundred differant ways by a hundred different people. And then you throw in the mix any number of situations where it might apply and even how states themselves sometimes will go above and beyond what the constitution or courts have ruled in the past and no wonder it's such a hotly debated topic.
Well from past case law I think that “unreasonable” generally entails an absence of exigent circumstances. That is, an “invasion of privacy” is more reasonable when there is an emergency on the line, so the government has more authority to act without a warrant in such cases. I think in the case of the wire tapping. it may come down to whether there is sufficient exigency to bypass the need for a judge to issue the warrant to conduct the tap. Normally a judge would be needed to issue a warrant so that a detached, neutral magistrate can decide, based on the facts, whether such a warrant is justified. This is normally good because you don't want the government unilaterally listening in to your phone calls or issuing themselves search warrants for your house! On the other hand, you don't want a cop to need to get a search warrant if an armed and dangerous criminal is fleeing from police and takes refuge in your house. So there's a balancing act to be played.
I found this link which helps to give a better background on the issue.? It's a question as to whether the FISA statute or Article II (which defines Executive powers) is of pre-eminance.? I would always think that Article II would be, but the blog suggests that it isn't so clear cut.
I cant get very technical on this but the supreme court allows the drug testing(bodily fluids) of transportation workers;i.e., commercial piolots,trainengineers,bus and truck drivers for the SAFETY of the general public. So why not the listning to phone conversations of suspected terroists?
I cant get very technical on this but the supreme court allows the drug testing(bodily fluids) of transportation workers;i.e., commercial piolots,trainengineers,bus and truck drivers for the SAFETY of the general public. So why not the listning to phone conversations of suspected terroists?
Good point. Unfortunately not everyone shares the same common sense as you. Welcome to the board. 🙂
