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

[Upchurch]

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.

I think that's optimistic. The last week or so aside, the administration seems to go out of its way to avoid telling anything to the press, even if it would be useful to them. I wouldn't be surprised if they still didn't try to pull this one out as a (seemingly) post hoc justification.

 

[bob_kark]

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?)

I think you could make a link between "papers" and a conversation as being an exchange of information. I can't really see the connection of persons, houses, or effects to a conversation.

 

[Upchurch]

I can't really see the connection of persons, houses, or effects to a conversation.

Because their thoughts, and thus private conversations, are part of their persons, maybe?

 

[Anti_Hypeman]

Why do you hate America?

 

[Ziggurat]

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?)

I cannot imagine how you could consider it a seizure, since there's nothing for you to lose possession of. As for the unreasonable search, well, that's rather the heart of the matter: what exactly did the supreme court rule? Certainly listening in on public conversations cannot be considered a "search" in this sense. Where did they draw the line? Do you know the relevant case(s)?

 

[Melendwyr]

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.

"Since I don't think my privacy would be infringed upon, I don't care if others' privacy is violated, especially if they're dangerous terrorists/Islamic/Communist/hippies/Jews."

This position is not one that, if widely adopted, can lead to a free and healthy society. What it heads to is Fascism in the Mussolini style.

For the record, rikzilla: you have just admitted that, all rhetoric aside, you really do hate freedom.

 

[Upchurch]

I cannot imagine how you could consider it a seizure, since there's nothing for you to lose possession of.

I work for a company that designs and delivers training for other companies. We work in intellectual property. Trust me, you can lose possession of intellectual property. There is no end of hoops we have to jump through with some clients to make sure that they don't lose their intellectual property.

It isn't about who has it, it is about who doesn't have it that determines possession.

Do you know the relevant case(s)?

No. We did not get into the specifics at the Law & Order School of Law and Law Enforcement.

 

[jj]

Spying on American citizens without a warrant is hardly a "non-story."

Typical youngsters, not recalling Nixon and COINTELPRO.

You think they've got provacateurs in yet, trying to whip things up so they can arrest the "leaders" for "inciting free speech"?

 

[jj]

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?

Have you ever read "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", by any chance?

 

[Upchurch]

Typical youngsters, not recalling Nixon and COINTELPRO.

Who are you calling old?!? (my Christmas avatar not withstanding.)

 

[Ziggurat]

I work for a company that designs and delivers training for other companies. We work in intellectual property. Trust me, you can lose possession of intellectual property. There is no end of hoops we have to jump through with some clients to make sure that they don't lose their intellectual property.

But a conversation is not automatically intellectual property, and nobody is trying to make the argument that it's intellectual property which is being stolen. And it is not the fact that intellectual property is exposed to others which makes you "lose" it, it is when others start *reproducing* it for distribution that you are considered to have lost it. That is not the concern here, is it?

Furthermore, copyrights, patents, etc. are rather specifically LESS than physical property rights in the constitution. Congress is given authority to establish laws which provide intellectual property protections (which, BTW, are never referred to as "property" by the constitution), but there is NO requirement as to what the minimum protection must be. Therefore, if congress wants to pass laws which give you very little intellectual property rights, or even none at all with respect to the government, that's within their constitutional power. So I fail to see how a constitutional problem can arise from an intellectual property rights basis.

No. We did not get into the specifics at the Law & Order School of Law and Law Enforcement.

Then that's what this debate needs. The constitution protects against unreasonable searches, not all searches, and not even all warrantless searches. So where exactly is the line for something like a phone conversation, which isn't quite a public conversation but (since you're using a public utility) isn't quite your own property either? I don't know, but I'm not convinced yet that this really is unconstitutional.

 

[Manny]

Then that's what this debate needs. The constitution protects against unreasonable searches, not all searches, and not even all warrantless searches. So where exactly is the line for something like a phone conversation, which isn't quite a public conversation but (since you're using a public utility) isn't quite your own property either? I don't know, but I'm not convinced yet that this really is unconstitutional.

Well, whjle youse guys were yammering, I was studying.

Looks like SCOTUS has not specifically addressed this issue, but that Circuit courts have all found that there is a blanket exception to the requirement to obtain a warrant in cases of foreign powers and their agents, even when the agent is in the United States. Looks like the best precedent will be United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 913 (4th Cir.1980). But I've got more work to do. Back later.

 

[Upchurch]

I don't know, but I'm not convinced yet that this really is unconstitutional.

Well, the point is that the SCOTUS is (or was) convinced that phone taps require warrents.

Wikipedia says

In the United States, federal agencies may be authorized to engage in wiretaps by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a court with secret proceedings, in certain circumstances.

Nope. That doesn't make it any clearer. Not to me, at least.

 

[Upchurch]

Looks like SCOTUS has not specifically addressed this issue,

Shows what I know. I'll be quiet now.

 

[IllegalArgument]

NPR's piece this morning talked about the fact that the NSA could start tapping and then go to the special intelligence court and request the warrent. That court has rejected a whopping 10 or so requests out of 15,000+ in it's history. There is a even another secret appeals court, if the first court rejects the request for warrent, SCOTUS can be appealed to after that.

At this point, Bush seems to be ignoring proper checks and balances. Unless Bush can produce a solid reason for bypassing the court, I find this unsettling.

 

[Kopji]

Bush is not making any claim that he needed to follow the constraints of the FISA.

The legal justification for the wiretaps is being derived from a one line resolution passed by Congress the week after 911.

The resolution authorizes the president to use any military action needed against terrorists.

Since wiretaps are a form of signal intelligence, Bush feels that the resolution gave him the authority to bypass the requirements of existing law.

Rizkilla, can we take your earlier post as saying that the racial based internment of Americans into camps during ww2 was a good idea, and that Bush is obligated to do whatever it takes to protect us now in a similar way?

 

[ManfredVonRichthoffen]

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

Maybe you should post pictures of what the people who were wiretapped look like, so that I feel more at ease.

 

[Kopji]

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blsjres23.htm

Authorizing Use of Force 09-14-01

Complete Text of bill S. J. Res 23
SJ 23 ES


107th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. J. RES. 23
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Passed the Senate September 14, 2001.

Attest:

Secretary.

I guess I was expecting a defense of ignoring the FISA to be a secret agreement with Congress, or maybe a complex legal argument that could be intrepreted several ways.

But this is it. This document is the legal foundation.

Doesn't it sound a little bit of a stretch? I mean, what couldn't be intrepreted as 'force', if wiretapping is under this?

 

[Random]

I guess I was expecting a defense of ignoring the FISA to be a secret agreement with Congress, or maybe a complex legal argument that could be intrepreted several ways.

But this is it. This document is the legal foundation.

Doesn't it sound a little bit of a stretch? I mean, what couldn't be intrepreted as 'force', if wiretapping is under this?

There are so many questions raised by this “defense” that it is laughable. What portions of the Government constitute the “armed forces”? What is “necessary and appropriate” force? Did all of the monitored individuals or groups fit into one of these categories? Is there anything in here which states that individual actions can be taken against the will of congress? Why is the Bush administration trying to cross the Atlantic in this leaky rowboat, when they could have had the luxury liner of FISA approval?

 

[rikzilla]

For the record, rikzilla: you have just admitted that, all rhetoric aside, you really do hate freedom.

For the record you have just blatantly mischaracterized my words into a grotesque strawman that you can now gleefully burn on the altar of your politically liberal god.

Congratulations on bringing yourself off mentally. Hope you didn't getanyonya.

-z