Most Dangerous in Western Hemisphere

[jezic]

well in that case, the enemy won a long long time ago (before the foundation of our own country)

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Feb 6 2006, 12:58 PM']No

No

Emphatically no!

This is not an issue of trust.  It is not an issue of corruption.  It is not an issue of "Bush hating" .  It is an issue of constitutional rights and this flies in the face of them. 

If our enemy does not play by the rules and we abandon the rules to fight the enemy, the enemy has won.
[right][snapback]877410[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ok COMPLETELY DISMISS my point of view then! Why not? I'd rather know precisely where you're coming from, though.

Bush HAS a DUTY under the constitution to defend our LIVES for crying out loud!

What constitutional rights are being violated by Bush's "domestic eavesdropping program?"

Our right to privacy? Are you telling me that if I'm getting calls from a person outside this country who has an internationally known terrorist RECORD, I have a right to engage in a conversation with this person without worrying about government agents tapping in to it?

Is that particular right explicitly gauranteed by our Constitution or Bill of Rights?

[Sojourner]

Due process. The right to due process.

Not saying Bush can't tap wires. Just not without a warrant. That's the issue.

That's the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, by the way.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Feb 6 2006, 01:30 PM']Due process. The right to due process.

Not saying Bush can't tap wires. Just not without a warrant. That's the issue.
[right][snapback]877441[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Agreed. One question:

Does a non-citizen have the same right to due process in the same scenario I have given? Personally I don't think so, but I don't know the law that well.
(hmm... really a question for a lawyer I suppose)

One point:

I think the President has the power under the constitution to disregard due process in such a scenario, if he sees a need to do so. I'm no scholar but I'm pretty sure that this is a power that has been exercised during war by SEVERAL presidents in our nation's short history. The Constitution is the highest written law of the country and can overrule ALL other laws. That's a widely known fact.

Of course the next question is: are we really at war? Who determines THAT? I don't think it's up to a court. I'm pretty sure it's up to Congress, and I'm also pretty sure that Congress had a vote on this very question and the vote was in favor of a "yes" answer to it...

edited to add: I might be wrong of course...

Edited February 6, 2006 by Desert Walker

[Jaime]

How in the world am I dismissing your point of view? I'm simply disagreeing with what you're asserting!

I know Abby's writing well enough to read that this isn't simply a "here's another thing to Bash Bush about"

The current regulations of FISA allow for wiretapping prior to asking for warrants. The problem that Gonzalez has is that while the procedure is completely confidential, he's afraid that someone will spill the beans. Hence he doesn't want to bother with procedure.

The stripping of rights is a slippery slope. And we are heading in the wrong direction.

BTW here's an interesting point. Kerry totally backs Bush on this one

[Aloysius]

the only phones being tapped were phones where the person on the other end, outside of the country, was a known member of Al Quaida. Those people have no civil rights by the American Constitution. The civil rights you're trying to defend are the civil rights of the people inside of the country who are talking to members of Al Quaida. You're defending the right of an American citizen to have a conversation with a known member of Al Quaida without being listened in on by the government.

I'm sorry, but I'm not all that concerned about that right.

The court was not acting fast enough, but Bush does have the authority to wire-tap these calls in the sense of listening in on an enemy phone line, just the same as all military and intelligence service wiretaps go around the world. The controversy is that one end of the phone line happens to be in the United States. He acted quickly allowing those phone calls to be tapped because even though one end was in the US, the other end was a KNOWN Al Quaida terrorist.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Feb 6 2006, 03:43 PM']Agreed.  One question:

Does a non-citizen have the same right to due process in the same scenario I have given?  Personally I don't think so, but I don't know the law that well.
(hmm... really a question for a lawyer I suppose)

One point:

I think the President has the power under the constitution to disregard due process in such a scenario, if he sees a need to do so.  I'm no scholar but I'm pretty sure that this is a power that has been exercised during war by SEVERAL presidents in our nation's short history.  The Constitution is the highest written law of the country and can overrule ALL other laws.  That's a widely known fact.
[right][snapback]877459[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
We're not talking about non-citizens. That was the whole reason for the upheaval.

A non-citizen does typically have the right to due process for crimes committed on American soil, unless he's classified as an enemy combatant. For example, if an undocumented Mexican immigrant commits robbery in the U.S., he would be afforded all the rights of due process that a citizen gets -- right to remain silent, right to an attorney, due process, etc. He'd get jailed here, and then on his release would be deported. The enemy combatant thing changes things significantly, although not for an American citizen committing (or suspected of committing) a crime on American soil.

And no, the President does not have the power to "disregard due process" whenever he wants to. That's not one of the privileges of the executive branch.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Feb 6 2006, 03:46 PM']the only phones being tapped were phones where the person on the other end, outside of the country, was a known member of Al Quaida.  Those people have no civil rights by the American Constitution.  The civil rights you're trying to defend are the civil rights of the people inside of the country who are talking to members of Al Quaida.  You're defending the right of an American citizen to have a conversation with a known member of Al Quaida without being listened in on by the government.

I'm sorry, but I'm not all that concerned about that right.

The court was not acting fast enough, but Bush does have the authority to wire-tap these calls in the sense of listening in on an enemy phone line, just the same as all military and intelligence service wiretaps go around the world.  The controversy is that one end of the phone line happens to be in the United States.  He acted quickly allowing those phone calls to be tapped because even though one end was in the US, the other end was a KNOWN Al Quaida terrorist.
[right][snapback]877465[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
We're talking about maintaining a baseline constitutional rule of law.

There are a number of constitutional grounds on which this could be argued. I think this is the most basic, most direct -- it's a violation of due process. If we're going to be a country based on a Constitution, we can't throw it out the window in order to do whatever suits our fancy in a given moment.

There are ways we go about doing things. This was not one of them.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Feb 6 2006, 01:43 PM']How in the world am I dismissing your point of view?  I'm simply disagreeing with what you're asserting!

I know Abby's writing well enough to read that this isn't simply a "here's another thing to Bash Bush about" 

The current regulations of FISA allow for wiretapping prior to asking for warrants.  The problem that Gonzalez has is that while the procedure is completely confidential, he's afraid that someone will spill the beans.  Hence he doesn't want to bother with procedure.

The stripping of rights is a slippery slope.  And we are heading in the wrong direction.

BTW here's an interesting point.  Kerry totally backs Bush on this one
[right][snapback]877462[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Sorry. I reacted to your emphatic disagreement with the assumption that you were completely dismissing me. I apologize. I think I also loaded my initial post with "jabs" at the "other side" which made it seem like I was make the accusation of "Bush bashing." My intention was to make a thoughtful point (seriously : ). And I wasn't actually responding, with those "jabs," to anything anybody had written HERE. That stuff is in my post because I got emotional while writing. It happens.

Anyway, Gonzalez's fear about somebody spilling the beans is a very legitimate fear because it has happened. I wouldn't trust the members of the House or Senate with ANYTHING I wanted to keep confidential, let alone information which might get somebody killed or save their life. Maybe that makes what he's doing morally right. I think he's sincere.

Agree that we could be going down a slippery slope, but perhaps you underestimate the power that we have over our own government? If they start going down THAT slope they will have a revolution on their hands which might involve the use of firearms. I'm serious.

John Kerry...? You think I care if John Kerry supports Bush on anything? The only reason I voted for Bush was that I became convinced that John Kerry would actually consider selling his soul to the Devil if he had good reason to believe half the world would shout a cheer of approval!

[Aloysius]

The President can disregard due process in regards to non-citizens (specifically those that are considered enemies of the United States, that is a different class than a mexican illegal immigrant)

This program was aimed directly at the non-citizens on the other end of the line. There was someone in America, possibly an American citizen, on one end of the line; and then someone on the terrorist list on the other end. The listening in on these conversations was specifically aimed at listening in on the non-citizen enemy of the country. Any citizen on the other end whose conversation happened to be listened to was, basically, the governmental constitutional equivalent of a double effect, an unintended effect.

any evidence gathered about a united states citizen in the course of these wiretaps, because that was not the aim, is completely inadmissable in any court of law. due process for citizens of the united states has been preserved. the only thing that happened was the government inadvertantly heard what those citizens were saying to known terrorists. that information could be used to stop those citizens from committing a terrorist act, I suppose (oh no, their right to commit terrorist acts has been comprimised), but it cannot in and of itself stand in any court of law.

I ask you, what is the danger to civil liberties here? It is a well designed strategy that does not infringe upon the constitution but allows us to quickly track enemies of the united states where previously we erroneously thought the constitution wouldn't let us.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Feb 6 2006, 04:02 PM']The President can disregard due process in regards to non-citizens (specifically those that are considered enemies of the United States, that is a different class than a mexican illegal immigrant)

This program was aimed directly at the non-citizens on the other end of the line.  There was someone in America, possibly an American citizen, on one end of the line; and then someone on the terrorist list on the other end.  The listening in on these conversations was specifically aimed at listening in on the non-citizen enemy of the country.  Any citizen on the other end whose conversation happened to be listened to was, basically, the governmental constitutional equivalent of a double effect, an unintended effect.

any evidence gathered about a united states citizen in the course of these wiretaps, because that was not the aim, is completely inadmissable in any court of law.  due process for citizens of the united states has been preserved.  the only thing that happened was the government inadvertantly heard what those citizens were saying to known terrorists.  that information could be used to stop those citizens from committing a terrorist act, I suppose (oh no, their right to commit terrorist acts has been comprimised), but it cannot in and of itself stand in any court of law.

I ask you, what is the danger to civil liberties here?  It is a well designed strategy that does not infringe upon the constitution but allows us to quickly track enemies of the united states where previously we erroneously thought the constitution wouldn't let us.
[right][snapback]877491[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The danger is allowing unwarranted wiretapping.

There are no grounds for it Constitutionally. There are no grounds for it through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

We wrote these rules. We should be able to live by them. If we can't, if we can throw them out the window when the going gets tough, what's the point of having a Constitution?

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Feb 6 2006, 01:54 PM']And no, the President does not have the power to "disregard due process" whenever he wants to. That's not one of the privileges of the executive branch.
[right][snapback]877475[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ya know... I didn't say he has the power to disregard due process "whenever he wants to." I said he has the power to "disregard due process in such a scenario, if he sees a need to do so." I'm NOT talking about "whenever," I'm talking about "in a time of war."

But that was part of my WHOLE post...

Edited February 6, 2006 by Desert Walker

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Feb 6 2006, 02:09 PM']The danger is allowing unwarranted wiretapping.

There are no grounds for it Constitutionally. There are no grounds for it through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

We wrote these rules. We should be able to live by them. If we can't, if we can throw them out the window when the going gets tough, what's the point of having a Constitution?
[right][snapback]877497[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Why the heck do you think anybody's throwing out rules? The President does have this power! There is precedent for it!

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Feb 6 2006, 04:10 PM']Ya know... I didn't say he has the power to disregard due process "whenever he wants to."  I said he has the power to "disregard due process in such a scenario, if he sees a need to do so."  I'm NOT talking about "whenever," I'm talking about "in a time of war."

But that was in my WHOLE post...
[right][snapback]877499[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
My point was to say that there's no time in which the President is not bound by the Constitution. Wartime, peacetime, doesn't matter. I just got a little broader in my answer than you were in your question. No need to get snarky.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Feb 6 2006, 02:13 PM']My point was to say that there's no time in which the President is not bound by the Constitution. Wartime, peacetime, doesn't matter. I just got a little broader in my answer than you were in your question. No need to get snarky.
[right][snapback]877502[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ok, ok, I'll try not to get snarky. funny word btw, I've never heard it in my life

Yes, I agree with that point. Wouldn't you agree that if the Constitution gives a President power to do something when it's necessary that he should do that something?