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

[Bjorn]

I think it's obvious what was said, you're really trying to split hairs on that one.

The original statement was that "surveilance was only used against al Queda suspects", now with the added "related" terrorist organazations. Do you trust them to define what is related?

But the Pentagon considered their inaugural 2004 meeting a "threat," according to a classified database of information obtained by NBC News that lists information about suspicious people and activity inside the United States.
The Truth Project meeting, held at the Quaker Meetinghouse, was one of nearly four dozen antiwar meetings or protests listed on the 400-page document generated by an obscure Pentagon agency that analyzes intelligence reports on suspicious domestic activity, according to the report aired Tuesday on NBC's Nightly News.

The Pentagon released a statement Wednesday that implied — but did not explicitly acknowledge — that some information on the database had been handled improperly.

I don't.

 

[Mycroft]

On the top bar of the thread there's something called "Thread Tools" and one of the options is to subscribe to this thread.

Cool, thanks!

It's also good to know I can download the entire thread, though why I'd want to is the mystery.

 

[username]

As I understand it (could be way wrong) there is no spying on US citizens without a warrant going on in the sense that any one individual is being targetted. Am I mistaken here?

As I understand it, communications are being monitored for tid bits that some computer software deems worthy of bringing to some analyst's attention. To pursue it further requires a warrant.

The whole thing seems to me to be like picking up my portable phone and hearing my neighbor's converstation on their portable phone. Only difference is the US government is cracking the encryption on these over the airwaves or internet communications.

Am I misunderstanding?

If so, please educate me.

If not, I see no real trouble here, the government isn't doing anything that any Joe Shmo with a little knowledge and equipment couldn't do. It is an automated listening to general chatter. If this chatter turns up anything interesting that the powers that be wish to turn into an investigation on an individual, it still requires a court approved warrant.

But, I could be wrong.

 

[Bjorn]

As I understand it (could be way wrong) there is no spying on US citizens without a warrant going on in the sense that any one individual is being targetted. Am I mistaken here?

As I understand it, communications are being monitored for tid bits that some computer software deems worthy of bringing to some analyst's attention. To pursue it further requires a warrant.

The whole thing seems to me to be like picking up my portable phone and hearing my neighbor's converstation on their portable phone. Only difference is the US government is cracking the encryption on these over the airwaves or internet communications.

Am I misunderstanding?

How do we know? They don't ask for court orders anymore, so the checks and balances aren't there.

 

[Mycroft]

As I understand it (could be way wrong) there is no spying on US citizens without a warrant going on in the sense that any one individual is being targetted. Am I mistaken here?

As I understand it, communications are being monitored for tid bits that some computer software deems worthy of bringing to some analyst's attention. To pursue it further requires a warrant.

My understanding is this:

We spy on whoever we want to outside our borders; no warrant asked for or needed.

Inside our borders, spying on people is done by the FBI, and wiretaps, etcetera require a warrant. There is a special court for warrants involving national security that is both fast and unlikely to say no.

The issue here is a gray area between these two realms; phone calls made from within the USA to known terrorists outside the USA. GWB has issued an order saying these don’t need a warrant.

 

[username]

My understanding is this:

The issue here is a gray area between these two realms; phone calls made from within the USA to known terrorists outside the USA. GWB has issued an order saying these don’t need a warrant.

Hmmmm... I hadn't heard this.

If this is the case it seems rather pathetic. If we *know* that someone is a terrorist (we can provide probable cause type logic) then it seems that we should be able to obtain a court warrant to monitor the communications of anyone calling them.

I would be OK with this, but not OK with listening to any individual US citizen without a warrant. I would even be OK with an after the fact type warrant subject to periodic congressional review if time was of the essense.

I am not OK with no warrant, no review, no checks and balances of any kind. The threat is real and I am willing to make allowances to deal with the threat, but I am not willing to give a blank check to government to do whatever it wants.

If this really is spying on an individual citizen without probable cause being determined by the judicial branch then I say poopy on it.

 

[peptoabysmal]

How sad... another failed coup attempt by the Bush haters.

Barry Steinhardt, privacy law specialist with the American Civil Liberties Union in New York City, says he and his colleagues have been "trying to work through" a way to challenge what he called a "policy that makes no sense."

"So far, nothing has come to mind," Steinhardt says.

Steinhardt notes that that law permits authorities to tap without a warrant if seeking one would take too much time. In that case, the warrant can be sought up to 72 hours later.

"There's a naked assertion here that the president can do anything he wants, including violating U.S. law domestically," Steinhardt says. "That's an argument not even a second-year law student would make up on an exam."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-21-wiretap-cases_x.htm

 

[Bjorn]

How sad... another failed coup attempt by the Bush haters.

I think you misunderstood Mr. Steinhardt - you quote him saying this:

Steinhardt notes that that law permits authorities to tap without a warrant if seeking one would take too much time. In that case, the warrant can be sought up to 72 hours later.

"There's a naked assertion here that the president can do anything he wants, including violating U.S. law domestically," Steinhardt says. "That's an argument not even a second-year law student would make up on an exam."

As far as I can see, the context from your source is this:

Some specialists in surveillance law think the administration's defense of its program rests on a shaky foundation.

Steinhardt notes that that law permits authorities to tap without a warrant if seeking one would take too much time. In that case, the warrant can be sought up to 72 hours later.

"There's a naked assertion here that the president can do anything he wants, including violating U.S. law domestically," Steinhardt says. "That's an argument not even a second-year law student would make up on an exam."

I cannot see how he in any way defends Bush.

 

[Mark]

How sad... another failed coup attempt by the Bush haters.

As far as I can tell, the whole "Bush Hater" thing was started by Rush Limbaugh in a childish attempt to imply that anyone who opposes Bush's policies only does so because of irrational hatred for the man.

It's transparent and lame.

I, for one, am fully capable of opposing a pointless war, massive deficits, and the attempted shredding of the U.S. Constitution without even bothering with hating the man. But then, I love my country, not my party.

 

[peptoabysmal]

I think you misunderstood Mr. Steinhardt - you quote him saying this:

As far as I can see, the context from your source is this:

I cannot see how he in any way defends Bush.

Steinhart works for the ACLU and is trying like heck to come up come up with a legal angle to attack the policy. So far, he's got nothing. Steinhart is not one of those "Some specialists" who shall remain nameless for now. I'm not saying he is defending Bush, quite the opposite.

I think this is the way it's going to go. Past presidents have used similar policies, so there is legal precedent established. I don't think Steinhart or anyone else will come up with anything worthy of a day in court unless there is a case that comes up where the policy actually leads to prosecution or persecution of an innocent civilian.

 

[peptoabysmal]

As far as I can tell, the whole "Bush Hater" thing was started by Rush Limbaugh in a childish attempt to imply that anyone who opposes Bush's policies only does so because of irrational hatred for the man.

It's transparent and lame.

I, for one, am fully capable of opposing a pointless war, massive deficits, and the attempted shredding of the U.S. Constitution without even bothering with hating the man. But then, I love my country, not my party.

You can say with a straight face that there aren't people who hate the man and would do anything they could to ensure his defeat?

 

[Random]

Steinhart works for the ACLU and is trying like heck to come up come up with a legal angle to attack the policy. So far, he's got nothing. Steinhart is not one of those "Some specialists" who shall remain nameless for now. I'm not saying he is defending Bush, quite the opposite.

I think this is the way it's going to go. Past presidents have used similar policies, so there is legal precedent established. I don't think Steinhart or anyone else will come up with anything worthy of a day in court unless there is a case that comes up where the policy actually leads to prosecution or persecution of an innocent civilian.

I don't think that Steinhardt is saying that the law is constitutional, or that it would survive a court case. He is saying that he is having a hard time getting into court due to a lack of standing. Take a look at the first three paragraphs of the article you linked to:

Are warrantless wiretaps of domestic targets suspected of terrorist activity legal if the surveillance is approved by the president?

That question, raised by the disclosure of a secret National Security Agency program to eavesdrop on the phone calls and e-mails of terrorism suspects in the USA, is unlikely to be answered in a court of law, according to lawyers, legal scholars and security specialists.

The reason: The surveillance is so secret that its targets are unlikely to know they were wiretapped and thus are unlikely to raise a court challenge. That leaves the legal underpinnings of the program to be debated in Senate hearings expected to begin in early 2006.

In other words, he needs one of the victims to come forward and state that their civil rights were violated, but those people probably don't know that their rights have been violated.

It's like finding a drunk guy on the street with a bloody knife and a sack full of money. Something illegal has probably happened, but if the drunk guy isn't talking and no victim is found, the law can't really do anything. Steinhardt is more than willing to fight for the victims here, and he might have a really good court case, but he doesn't know who the victims are, and so he can't fight for them.

 

[Almo]

You can say with a straight face that there aren't people who hate the man and would do anything they could to ensure his defeat?

I would not say that. BUT, to assume that most people who disagree with Bush do so out of personal hatred is silly.

 

[rikzilla]

A very worrying post. This sort of suggestion needs to be stepped on quickly as the last thing JREF needs is trouble at TAM from people who think they can chest thump on forums.

Well my old friend....I suppose I could have reported him, but since he expressly said he wished I could stop by and inferred that he would make a burnt offering of me I merely thought that it might be convienient for him to come to TAM as I will be available to him there.

Sadly people do feel free to speak to each other over the internet in crude and rude fashion. I believe that these same people would never dare to say such a thing in close proximity to their target. Do you suppose for instance that JK would have called your baby those vile things had you been there to
*ahem* "have sorted the matter out in a rather basic manner."?

Still think these things should be stomped on? Well personally I think that if someone refers to my beloved child as a "frankenbaby" they should be the ones stomped on. Similary if someone wishes to see me burnt on an altar to an ancient god...well they'll at least know I'm not hiding from them. I'll be in the West Tower at the Stardust enjoying TAM with my civil and decent skeptic friends. I just hope some of them are worse at poker than I am.

-z

 

[punchdrunk]

Is there a security reason, a legal reason, or even a practical reason why we shouldn't obtain warrants (delayed warrants in secret courts even) for US citizens? What exactly are we gaining by bypassing the warrants and the checks/balances?

I do believe Bush believes he's doing what's in the best interest of the US; I don't think this is part of some nefarious plan of his to undermine the Constitution. That doesn't mean, however, that the effect of this program won't do just that. Seems to me, if we're going start manhandling the spirit, if not the word, of the supreme law of our land, there should at the very least be a justifiable reason for it.

I just don't understand, why not get the warrants and avoid the bad press and questions of constitutionality?

 

[Random]

There are only two reasons for doing it. Bush does not want the court system to know what he is doing, or Bush just wanted to give the courts the finger. I have a hard time thinking up any other reason.

 

[hammegk]

Well my old friend....I suppose I could have reported him, but since he expressly said he wished I could stop by and inferred that he would make a burnt offering of me I merely thought that it might be convienient for him to come to TAM as I will be available to him there.

Sadly people do feel free to speak to each other over the internet in crude and rude fashion. I believe that these same people would never dare to say such a thing in close proximity to their target. Do you suppose for instance that JK would have called your baby those vile things had you been there to
*ahem* "have sorted the matter out in a rather basic manner."?

Still think these things should be stomped on? Well personally I think that if someone refers to my beloved child as a "frankenbaby" they should be the ones stomped on. Similary if someone wishes to see me burnt on an altar to an ancient god...well they'll at least know I'm not hiding from them. I'll be in the West Tower at the Stardust enjoying TAM with my civil and decent skeptic friends. I just hope some of them are worse at poker than I am.
-z

Nicely said.

 

[Bjorn]

Is there a security reason, a legal reason, or even a practical reason why we shouldn't obtain warrants (delayed warrants in secret courts even) for US citizens? What exactly are we gaining by bypassing the warrants and the checks/balances?

I do believe Bush believes he's doing what's in the best interest of the US; I don't think this is part of some nefarious plan of his to undermine the Constitution. That doesn't mean, however, that the effect of this program won't do just that. Seems to me, if we're going start manhandling the spirit, if not the word, of the supreme law of our land, there should at the very least be a justifiable reason for it.

I just don't understand, why not get the warrants and avoid the bad press and questions of constitutionality?

One obvious reason to avoid checks and balances would be if you wanted to "spy" on someone and didn't think the court would accept the reasons you gave to do so. There's nobody there to stop you if you make your own rules as you go - at least not as long as we don't even know it's happening.

 

[DavidJames]

I do believe Bush believes he's doing what's in the best interest of the US

I agree

; I don't think this is part of some nefarious plan of his to undermine the Constitution. That doesn't mean, however, that the effect of this program won't do just that....I just don't understand, why not get the warrants and avoid the bad press and questions of constitutionality?

Why? I think the Bush administration feels they have the right to do whatever they feel is best and the laws, if impeding that belief, simply don't apply to them.

 

[Mark]

You can say with a straight face that there aren't people who hate the man and would do anything they could to ensure his defeat?

You very strongly implied that anyone who opposes Bush's policies is a Bush Hater. That is a transparent and lame tactic. It is also untrue.

Are there people who hate him? No doubt. Nowhere near the number that hate Hillary Clinton...and certainly not with as much irrational venom.