User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:18:41 PM EDT
[#1]
They have a nasty habbit of putting their foot in their mouths.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:20:10 PM EDT
[#2]
becasue 40 percent of the coutry is ignorant, clueless, and helpless sheep who dont have the mental capacity to think on their own and feel that their representives are truly looking out for their best interest
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:24:08 PM EDT
[#3]
i like the ability of tapping conversations, but i believe a Warrant is in order.
If you have probable cause, then you get a warrant to tap. Other than that fuck it! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:25:42 PM EDT
[#4]
Democrats arent the only ones bitching. I bitch about it too, it is a violation of our constitution. I dont support any govt intrusion into my life.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:25:56 PM EDT
[#5]
Missing the point. These are enemies of the country in wartime. You don't have time to get a warrant. Furthermore, even if you disagree with it for some reason, it doesn't matter - it's legal. I'm complaining that the democrats are claiming that it is illegal. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:28:29 PM EDT
[#6]
Ever read the fine print in your cell/land line contracts. They can allow what ever and you agree to it. You have the right to not be "bugged" in your home but international phone converstations are not covered. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:28:35 PM EDT
[#7]
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:29:11 PM EDT
[#8]
While it may be a lot of political posturing they are (as am I) worried about freedoms being violated. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:30:16 PM EDT
[#9]
because they're desperate, and they're looking for something that will finally stick
when this fails, they'll turn the next revelation into the crime of the century, and this will become ancient history. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:30:44 PM EDT
[#10]
It is constitutional, is it not? If it isn't, correct me, I am not a constitutional scholar. But if it is, which I have been told it is, are you picking and choosing parts of the constitution to throw out just as we accuse the anti-gunners of doing? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:33:59 PM EDT
[#11]
It appears thes involve the communications of Al-Quedia operatives communication between each other overseas and with fifth columnists in country from overseas. I am not the least worried about Al-Quedias freedoms being violated, in fact I like it. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:34:47 PM EDT
[#12]
I understand it falls under the border-crossing exception, among other arguments. If not, you're still tapping a call made to a known al-quaeda number. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:37:42 PM EDT
[#13]
And it's not being used for gathering evidence in a trial, it's being used as pre-emptive intelligence gathering in an ongoing war. Not a fake 'war on poverty' or a ridiculous 'war on drugs' - but a real, live war where a bunch of nutjobs want to take any chance they can to kill hundreds or thousands - maybe even millions - of americans at a time. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:38:36 PM EDT
[#14]
It is not Constitutional. He avoided going to a court system that was set up specifically for this. There was no reason for it. He can tap for three days w/o a warrant as long as he goes to the court before three days are up. He is a liar, like all of them. Just like Clinton, just like Nixon... |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:39:44 PM EDT
[#15]
Fine, then you have Probable cause, and a warrant.
I say again, other than that, Fuck it. It is more intrusion on your right to just be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:40:25 PM EDT
[#16]
Show me where in the Constitution it gives the President the power to monitor the communications of citizens w/o a warrant.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:42:34 PM EDT
[#17]
You clearly do not understand what is happening with the wiretaps. They are not being made towards citizens, or random people. They are on the enemy of our country, the enemy that our boys overseas are fighting right now. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:42:42 PM EDT
[#18]
just like people who tell everybody we're running out of oil... |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:43:47 PM EDT
[#19]
Yup, Im speaking about home phone lines. I dont have one because I dont want to be illegally wiretapped. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:44:58 PM EDT
[#20]
please illustrate how wiring tapping communications between an overseas terrorist and a suspected domestic terrorst is an intrusion on 'your right to just be'. If you want to include a colorful graph, knock yourself out. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:47:10 PM EDT
[#21]
FISA is not set up to deal with foreign intelligence intercepts in wartime. The presidents authority to do this is articulated in Article II of the Constution and the use of force resolution issued post september 11. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:50:08 PM EDT
[#22]
Show me where the Constution it prohibits the President from conducting intelligence gathering operations on foreign enemies in Wartime? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:50:24 PM EDT
[#23]
You clearly have way more trust in the government than I do. As has been pointed out by others, if these people are clearly criminals/terrorists communicating with other criminals/terrorists it shouldn't be too difficult to get a warrant either before or 3 days AFTER the wiretap. So whats going to stop them from monitoring a citizen now? Who will even know they're doing it? I don't want one man to have this kind of power. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:50:54 PM EDT
[#24]
why wont they shut up?
its the only tambourine that those retards have to bang on right now darrr darr darr dar darr darr |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:52:59 PM EDT
[#25]
You don't need the NSA or FISA to intercept international communications. This is for domestic spying on Americans. The FBI can do what you're talking about. I'm outta here for the night, see ya |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:53:02 PM EDT
[#26]
Don't want to be wiretapped like that? Then don't take a call from Mohammed from Iran when he calls. Pretty simple.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:53:06 PM EDT
[#27]
Because they smell blood in the water. They're just too stupid to realize that it's their own. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:53:58 PM EDT
[#28]
It is the same reason the President did not have to get an arrest warrant to take Saddam into custody. I'll bet Saddam did not get his miranda rights read to him eihter. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:54:40 PM EDT
[#29]
Yea, King George II ought to know better. Next time, just bust into their house, hog tie them and torture them to get the info out. I'm sick and tired of all this civil liberties crap. Hell, I can't wait to live in a police state. In fact, I'd trade in my liberty today for all the sensitivity and safety I can get.
Wait a minute..................Those who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety..Benjamin Franklin. .......nevermind......... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:55:08 PM EDT
[#30]
I see a complete lack of logic here. Because the President is exercising his constitutional right to spy on the enemy in wartime, this somehow means that he's also going to break the law by spying on US citizens? What makes you arrive at that conclusion? Do you know how long people have been spying on enemies during wartime? Since the beginning of Man. But now that George Bush is here, we can't trust the government to spy on our enemy. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:55:30 PM EDT
[#31]
And all of the wiretaps have included foreign parties so what is the problem? These are not intercepts of domestic to domestic conversations. |
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:57:53 PM EDT
[#32]
These wiretaps are considered to be on international communications. Only one end is in the US. The other is foreign, hence *international*. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:58:46 PM EDT
[#33]
If they're obvious criminals and terrorists the government has no problem getting warrants. I ask again, why not bother with the warrant? Here's another one: if they know who these people are and they AREN'T citizens and are terrorist suspects WHAT ARE THEY STILL DOING IN THIS COUNTRY? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:59:02 PM EDT
[#34]
What's to stop them even if they weren't "allowed" to do it by some sort of new law? Just like we always say "criminals break laws", a corrupt administration would break whatever new law is passed anyway. The only thing to stop them is their integrity. And no one has demonstrated even remotely that any wire taps have been conducted against targets not related to the issue at hand. That's why they have the review procees. But you're wrong - they are operating under their constitutional authority. Again, this is NOT evidence gathering for trial. They're not gathering evidence without a warrant to put guido the mob boss away for racketeering. They're using it under the powers granted to the president and the executive branch under the constitution to gather intelligence to PREVENT an attack before it happens. It's one of the most basic powers and duties of the executive branch. Do you understand the distinction there? |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:59:47 PM EDT
[#35]
Wow, your cluelessness doesn't end at peak oil theory,does it? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 8:00:50 PM EDT
[#36]
If they're obvious criminals and terrorists the government has no problem getting warrants. I ask again, why not bother with the warrant?
I'm sure I don't know, but I do know that if it were me, and I didn't HAVE to get a warrent, I wouldn't bother with it. As president, I would have more important things to do, trying to run a war and gather intelligence to better fight the war. Here's another one: if they know who these people are and they AREN'T citizens and are terrorist suspects WHAT ARE THEY STILL DOING IN THIS COUNTRY? I'm sure I don't know that either, but I would guess that sometimes, to know what your enemies are up to, you have to listen to them talk. When you capture them it's over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 8:03:25 PM EDT
[#37]
The president has the same constitutional rights as every other citizen. I don't yet know enough about the wiretapping issue to be sure of my opinion, but I am sure that what the president is granted in the constitution is a set of limited powers, not rights. Jim |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 8:05:15 PM EDT
[#38]
Wow. Okay. A. Sometimes, they let smaller fish stay free so they can catch bigger fish. B.Or they suspects are under surveillence but they don't have enough information about a suspected attack, and won't have it unless they continue to do surveillance on the subject. Do you want to deport the money man as soon as you discover him, or do you want to keep him under surveillence until he leads you to the bomb maker and suicide squad? Sometimes people get so wrapped up in their outrage they lose sight of the obvious. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 8:13:33 PM EDT
[#39]
IF that is the case, it woudl be NO PROBLEM to obtain a warrant. Keep in mind that the FISA secret court that issues these warrants almost never denies a warrant request. Also, the argument that "we don't have time" is bullshit, because the FISA law clearly allows for wiretaps without warrants if there is a hurry, but the warrant must still be obtained later, when there is time. The argument presented by the administration is somwhat confusing and fishy. They keep saying stuff like "communications between Al Qaeda members and people in the U.S." - but if that were true, it would be EASY to obtain a warrant from the FISA court, even after the fact - and still be perfectly within existing law. So that argument really doesn't make sense, because it that is all they are doing, they wouldn't have to step outside existing law to do so. My guess is that they are "fishing" - just collecting vast amounts of data without any clear suspicion, and then sifting through it hoping to find suspicous stuff. That's a GREAT IDEA for national secutiry reasons, but if that is what they want to do, they should go to Congress and get them to pass a new law, or amend the FISA system to allow it. Personally, these wiretaps don't really bother me at all - it's a necessary tool in the fight. But I can understand why people are "watchdogs" for civil rights are worked up about it, and personally I think that they SHOULD change the law to allow it. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 8:16:58 PM EDT
[#40]
One of them has, Rockefeller! Since it was brought up that he's the one who blabbed to the NY Times and was quoted in thier breaking story. HA HA HA OOPS!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 8:18:06 PM EDT
[#41]
No legal obligation to obtain one either. FISA was never ment to hamstring wartime intelligence efforts. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 8:18:49 PM EDT
[#42]
I am glad it caught a few. But I am more afraid of what the Dems will do when they get back into power. Give it enough time and it will end up being used against us one day. Count on it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 8:19:01 PM EDT
[#43]
I say again: Why should they go through the trouble of getting a warrant when they legally do not need one? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 8:20:13 PM EDT
[#44]
Only if they break the law. If they follow the law, they can only do what the president is doing now. If they do break the law, it won't have anything to do with the powers granted by the constitution. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 8:22:49 PM EDT
[#45]
FISA was set up to specifically define EXACTLY when it was permitted to wiretap U.S. citizens in the U.S.. To suggest that there is no legal obligation to get a warrant to wiretap a U.S. citizen who is physically in the U.S. - depending on where the call is going is legalistic gobbledygook, worthy of people like Bill Clinton, IMO. To my understanding, there is clearly a legal obligation to obtain one, which is exactly why the administration is going to such length to try to justify it under the vague umbrella of Congress' act to give powers to fight terrorism, or to claim it under executive power. The mere fact that various administration officials are over and over again trying to explain WHY it is so incredibly important that they be allowed to do this - INSTEAD of actually ever speaking to the legality of it speaks volumes in itself. They keep trying to explain the necessity of the act, but never want to talk about the legality of it. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 8:24:38 PM EDT
[#46]
Democrats have become the human equivalant of the "yap dog".
No matter how many times they get smacked around for yapping at their owners, their own reflections, or at little rocks laying on the ground, they'll continue to yap until someone actually stomps on them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 8:24:57 PM EDT
[#47]
Because your understanding of the FISA law is very superficial and flawed? They are wiretapping U.S. citizens, located inside the U.S. - the question of WHO the U.S. citizen is speaking to on the phone,a nd where that other person happens to be located is completely irrelevant. FISA clearly states the conditions under which wiretapping is allowed, and it REQUIRES a warrant for the FISA court (either before or after the act). I agree 100% that what they are doing is NECESSARY, and it doesn't bother me - but I do not believe it is technically within the law. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 9:19:21 PM EDT
[#48]
No, they're not. That's the point. They are wiretapping enemy targets outside the U.S, and making the decision not to turn the recorders off when the person on the other end of the conversation is in the U.S. Big difference. Here is a good article to read on the subject: www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/006/535efsaf.asp |
|||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
