• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

So What else in the US Constitution Doesn't Apply During a Self-Declared War?

joe1347

Critical Thinker
joe1347
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
381
****************************
Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

*****************************
*****************************

Since the 4th Amendment (from the Bill of Rights) seems to not apply during the Presidents self-declared war - what other parts of the US Constitution are also irrelvant to the Current Bush Admin? How about Amendment XXII - Presidential term limits? Am I the only one on this forum getting really spooked or is it time for my tin foil helmet?

http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/

******************************
 
joe1347 said:
****************************
Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

*****************************
*****************************

Since the 4th Amendment (from the Bill of Rights) seems to not apply during the Presidents self-declared war - what other parts of the US Constitution are also irrelvant to the Current Bush Admin? How about Amendment XXII - Presidential term limits? Am I the only one on this forum getting really spooked or is it time for my tin foil helmet?

http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/

******************************
Click to expand...

Wear the centurion
centurion.JPG


it's da bomb!

-z
 
Not to rain on anyone's parade in the latest "Bush is evil" non-story (by the way, did you notice how the media, all hysterical about the "outing" of the fact that Plame worked for the CIA, seems to have no problem at all "outing" quite a bit of secret material when it makes Bush looks bad?), but it is not at all clear that either the NSA, or Bush, or anybody else, did anything illegal:

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200512190859.asp

Perhaps the law Robbins mentions, which seems at least on his reading to authorize exactly what the NSA did, give the president too much power. But it was Congress who wrote it, not the president. Perhaps it will be declared unconstitutional on 4th amendment grounds if it is challanged in court; but that is something quite different than Bush or the NSA breaking the law.

Now, IF it is declared unconstitutional AND the NSA continued its activities, that would be one thing. But apparently this is not the case. Also, IF one could show that the president and/or NSA did this AND did not, as the law also requires, inform the Senate Committee on Intelligence of what it was doing, then you have a real story.

But how much do you want to bet that the source of this story is not Bush or the NSA talking to reporters, but some senator's staff member after the sanators were informed of it, as they should have been? I'd say that the very fact the story became public at all is good reason to suppose Bush & the NSA are complying with the law.
 
Cleon said:
Spying on American citizens without a warrant is hardly a "non-story."
Click to expand...

Hardly. The law had been on the books for years, and was authorized by Congress, and was--legally and illegally--been done by virtually all intelligence services at one time or another.
 
joe1347 said:
Am I the only one on this forum getting really spooked or is it time for my tin foil helmet?
Click to expand...
Hey, why is it that I've had the theme to the Empire Strikes Back stuck in my head since we first started talking about shifting from Afghanistan to Iraq?
 
Cleon said:
Spying on American citizens without a warrant is hardly a "non-story."
Click to expand...

I sincerely doubt that my phone conversations with grandma are of any interest to NSA. I also am a skeptic with regard to the actionable intelligence garnered from the recorded conversations of Quakers, Librarians, or even the rambunctious and self righteous legions of moonbattery.

Most of the "Americans" NSA has been listening to are the ones making daily calls to the sheet-wearing nations of the world. This would be a very small and even tiny percentage of "Americans".

We're at war. You folks may not believe it but it's still true. The POTUS has a responsibility to protect the nation. If another successful 9/11 attack had been perpetuated and the POTUS had not done all he could (including this wiretap stuff) he'd sure be in for alot of political trouble. As has happened in the past during wartime certain civil liberties are curtailed in favor of the larger goal of national security. It's not right...it just is. Like the interned Japanese-Americans perhaps we'll erect a monument in 2050 or so to the unjustly spied on Arab-American community...but in the meantime we must do all that's possible to keep from seeing more Americans butchered.

After all, one of the lives saved may be your own.

-z
 
*********************************************
WHAT IS THE NSA UP TO?....So what's the nature of the secret NSA bugging program? Why did the Bush administration feel like they couldn't continue to seek warrants via the usual FISA procedures? . . . .It seems clear that there's something involved here that goes far beyond ordinary wiretaps, regardless of the technology used. Perhaps some kind of massive data mining, which makes it impossible to get individual warrants? Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Lots of people have suggested that the NSA program has something to do with Echelon, a massive project that vacuums up communications of all kinds from all over the globe. The problem is that Echelon has been around for a long time and no one has ever complained about it before — so whatever this new program is, it's something more than vanilla Echelon. What's more, it's something disturbing enough that a few weeks after 9/11 the administration apparently felt that even Republicans in Congress wouldn't approve of it. What kind of program is so intrusive that even Republicans, even with 9/11 still freshly in mind, wouldn't have supported it?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007812.php

********************************************
 
rikzilla said:
I sincerely doubt that my phone conversations with grandma are of any interest to NSA. I also am a skeptic with regard to the actionable intelligence garnered from the recorded conversations of Quakers, Librarians, or even the rambunctious and self righteous legions of moonbattery.

Most of the "Americans" NSA has been listening to are the ones making daily calls to the sheet-wearing nations of the world. This would be a very small and even tiny percentage of "Americans".

We're at war. You folks may not believe it but it's still true. The POTUS has a responsibility to protect the nation. If another successful 9/11 attack had been perpetuated and the POTUS had not done all he could (including this wiretap stuff) he'd sure be in for alot of political trouble. As has happened in the past during wartime certain civil liberties are curtailed in favor of the larger goal of national security. It's not right...it just is. Like the interned Japanese-Americans perhaps we'll erect a monument in 2050 or so to the unjustly spied on Arab-American community...but in the meantime we must do all that's possible to keep from seeing more Americans butchered.

After all, one of the lives saved may be your own.

-z
Click to expand...

And I'm sure you fantasize that "God Bless America" is playing in the background when you post crap like that.

So tell us, Rik, what other parts of the Constitution should be discarded during a self-declared war?
 
joe1347 said:
****************************
Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1
Click to expand...

Let me see if I understand this correctly. This amendment seems to cover only the following:

1) persons
2) houses
3) papers
4) effects

If I understand correctly, Bush is being blasted for electronic eavesdropping of phone conversations. I do not know if this is illegal or not. But I don't really see how phone conversations really fit into any of the above. If this was unconstitutional (as opposed to illegal - a distinction I hope is quite obvious), which of the 4 above categories is supposed to protect phone conversations, and why? Maybe I'm just missing something, but it's really not obvious to me what the argument is supposed to be for why this was unconstitutional.
 
rikzilla said:
I sincerely doubt that my phone conversations with grandma are of any interest to NSA. I also am a skeptic with regard to the actionable intelligence garnered from the recorded conversations of Quakers, Librarians, or even the rambunctious and self righteous legions of moonbattery.

Most of the "Americans" NSA has been listening to are the ones making daily calls to the sheet-wearing nations of the world. This would be a very small and even tiny percentage of "Americans".

We're at war. {snip}
Click to expand...
We were at war in Vietnam when Nixon was wire-tapping his political enemies looking for dirt. What safeguards are there to insure that the NSA is only looking for call concerning the War on Terror when the administration isn't even retroactively getting court approval?
 
Upchurch said:
Hey, why is it that I've had the theme to the Empire Strikes Back stuck in my head since we first started talking about shifting from Afghanistan to Iraq?
Click to expand...

Me too, Upchurch, but I think it's the theme from, "The Empire Strikes First."

(edited to add) As someone else mentioned in another thread, I wonder how loudly the GOP is going to scream when the next Democratic President starts using all these "tools against terrorism?" But certainly they will be claiming that these "tools" were only used to safeguard the security of our country (and to find WMD in Iraq) - it will be fun to watch them squirm!
 
Last edited:
"War" is a red-herring. POTUS has a constitutional duty to defend and protect, and where the Cold-War logic of FISA fits problems of today is murky at best.

None of us will ever be privy to the facts in these cases, and more worrisome is that no one may ever be. Was it a false alarm, or did someone take (er, tape) the correct action.
 
hammegk said:
"War" is a red-herring. POTUS has a constitutional duty to defend and protect, and where the Cold-War logic of FISA fits problems of today is murky at best.
Click to expand...
I think you mean "...has a constitutional duty to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America."

More specifically, the President swears the following oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Click to expand...

eta: Specifically defying the Constitution seems hardly appropriate, especially since there are legal methods for achieving the same legitimate actions.
 
Upchurch said:
Specifically defying the Constitution seems hardly appropriate,
Click to expand...

Which is what my question was about: what really is the basis for the argument that this evesdropping is unconstitutional? Because it really isn't obvious to me.
 
Skeptic said:
Not to rain on anyone's parade in the latest "Bush is evil" non-story (by the way, did you notice how the media, all hysterical about the "outing" of the fact that Plame worked for the CIA, seems to have no problem at all "outing" quite a bit of secret material when it makes Bush looks bad?), but it is not at all clear that either the NSA, or Bush, or anybody else, did anything illegal:

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200512190859.asp

Perhaps the law Robbins mentions, which seems at least on his reading to authorize exactly what the NSA did, give the president too much power. But it was Congress who wrote it, not the president. Perhaps it will be declared unconstitutional on 4th amendment grounds if it is challanged in court; but that is something quite different than Bush or the NSA breaking the law.

Now, IF it is declared unconstitutional AND the NSA continued its activities, that would be one thing. But apparently this is not the case. Also, IF one could show that the president and/or NSA did this AND did not, as the law also requires, inform the Senate Committee on Intelligence of what it was doing, then you have a real story.

But how much do you want to bet that the source of this story is not Bush or the NSA talking to reporters, but some senator's staff member after the sanators were informed of it, as they should have been? I'd say that the very fact the story became public at all is good reason to suppose Bush & the NSA are complying with the law.
Click to expand...
Wow, Mr. Robbins did manage to write up a pretty good sounding legal argument for a warrantless wiretap. Of, course without actually mentioning whether or not Bush was in compliance with the law he is quoting, this article is just a bunch of legal gibberish. It’s kinda like writing that a man running up and down a runway flapping his arms and screaming that he can fly might not be crazy, then following up with a long, detailed description of a 747.

This law does set up a legal procedure for a wiretap without a warrant, but there is no indication that Bush has complied with the conditions of this law. If there was, you could be sure that administration officials would have mentioned this chunk of legislation in one of their press conferences over the weekend. They didn't.
 
Ziggurat said:
Which is what my question was about: what really is the basis for the argument that this evesdropping is unconstitutional? Because it really isn't obvious to me.
Click to expand...

joe1347 said:
****************************
Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

*****************************
Click to expand...
Evesdropping/wiretapping is unconstitutional because the SCOTUS has decided that it falls under the category of unreasonable searches. (Out of curiosity, would taping a wiretapped conversation count as a seizure?)
 
Cleon said:
Spying on American citizens without a warrant is hardly a "non-story."
Click to expand...

It is when it is a Republican doing it.

When did Americans become such quivering cowards that we are willing to sacrifice our own freedom for the illusion of safety?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom