Here is something I can agree with the President on, and I am glad to see him take this step. I imagine once the political implications have passed on this program (from the campaign), the President saw that it really is a vital tool in the war on terror. Not to mention the program has been authorized by Congress.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Obama supports Bush on Terrorist Surveillance Secrecy
- Thread starter BigRob
- Start date
Here is something I can agree with the President on, and I am glad to see him take this step. I imagine once the political implications have passed on this program (from the campaign), the President saw that it really is a vital tool in the war on terror. Not to mention the program has been authorized by Congress.
Werbung:
Pandora
Well-Known Member
Its just funny that he was so against it while runnig for the job.
Air America has their panties all in a bunch over this one. They are already talking third party in 2012
Air America has their panties all in a bunch over this one. They are already talking third party in 2012
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
I think the issue is, they Bush Co should not have done it, but he is going against the view that the companies should be sued for doing what hte government said.
Andy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2008
- Messages
- 3,497
So Bush should not have done it... but Congress approved it... and Obama is passing it.... but Bush should not have done it... But it's ok for Obama to do it... and ok for Congress to support it.... But Bush should not have.
So when Bush does it, it's bad.... but when Congress approves it, it's good.... and when Obama signs it, it's fine.... but when Bush did it, it was bad....
Ok, Pocket... explain your logic again? Whatever it was, I missed it.
It was wrong when Bush did it, and it's still wrong when Obama does it. Putting the Bill of Rights in jeopardy in the name of fighting terrorists is wrong regardless of who is in power.
I don't agree that it violates the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is intended to protect US citizens, and I think that the case made in support of the NSA program was legitimate, and does not violate any rights of citizens.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
I said it was wrong to sue the companies for doing it...Not that I support doing it in the first place. as normal, you missed a lot...mainly the whole thing.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
you don't think you have the right to not have your calls and such watched by the government without cause against you?
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
The ignorance of the facts surrounding FISA and the NSA are not surprising. It doesn't seem to matter how many times people are shown the truth, they return to the talking points as if it never happened.
Here it is again:
§ 1802.(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;
SOURCE: Cornell University Law School
All cases where there IS a likelihood of a US person being the target of surveillance, a warrant is required.
Here it is again:
§ 1802.(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;
SOURCE: Cornell University Law School
All cases where there IS a likelihood of a US person being the target of surveillance, a warrant is required.
The protection of "private conversations" has been held to apply only to conversations where the participants have not merely a desire but a reasonable expectation that the conversation is indeed private to themselves and that no party whatsoever is listening in. In the absence of such a reasonable expectation, the Fourth Amendment does not apply, and surveillance without warrant does not violate it. Privacy is clearly not a reasonable expectation in communications to persons in the many countries whose governments openly intercept electronic communications, and is of dubious reasonability in countries against which the United States is waging war.
Not if I am on the phone with someone in Pakistan, for example.
Yes, but FISA spells out pretty clearly that an act of Congress or a statute will supercede its authority. The AUMF was a pretty clear statute in my view, therefore complying with the laws of FISA that warrants would not be needed.
As seen in Morrison V. Olson, a statute may not “impede the President’s ability to perform his constitutional duty,” particularly not the President’s most solemn constitutional obligation—the defense of the Nation.
And you trust the federal government to abide by that? I'm beginning to doubt your Libertarian credentials.
Werbung:
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Your consistant reactions to disagreements with fellow Libertarians is why the Libertarian Party has never gone anywhere: "You must believe as I do or I don't think you're really a libertarian..."
Now, you said 'opinions are opinions and facts are facts'
Fact is, FISA and the NSA are legal bound to respect the rights of American citizens within the confines of the constitution.
My opinoin is that they probably do violate the rights of American citizens on occasion but I have no Facts to offer as proof of this being the rule rather than the exception, and thus far, neither do you.
George H W Bush and Clinton both routinely allowed the violation of American citizens rights through the ECHELON program but it was done totally in secret, so nobody in the public complained.
I prefer the FISA laws and Patriot Act, the evil I can see, to the ECHELON program, the evil I don't know exists. Its far less likely our rights are being violated under a program that is public knowledge with multiple levels of oversight than under a secret program uknown to the public and unaccountable to any level of oversight.
Do I trust the Federal Government? Hell no... and I'm all about dismantling the statist machine so that we can get back to the kind of limited federal government envisioned by our founders and set forth in the constitution. Opening up previously secret government programs to public scrutiny and oversight is a step in the right direction... Its not where I want us to be, we have a lot farther to go, but its better than continuing the other direction without knowing we're being taken for a ride.
