|
|
|
|
#1
12-17-2005, 01:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] He knowingly violated the 4th amendment and he certainly violated the requirement (Article II, sec. 3) that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." [/ QUOTE ] Constitutional interpretation must be really easy when you don't try to make arguments or consider anything counter to what you've already decided. This is not an open and shut case, by any stretch of the imagination. [/ QUOTE ] Then feel free to counter his argument. [/ QUOTE ] Which argument was that? Anyways, it's an intelligence service monitoring international communications of people suspected to be the agents of a foreign international terrorist organization. Imposing a warrant requirement would be a serious hindrance to the government in monitoring the activities of al-Qaeda. I don't know what the current law on this issue is, but there are yes and no answers on closely related questions. A matter for debate. And if there's no warrant requirement, it boils down to whether or not individual wiretaps were reasonable. volokh.com has an interesting bit on the subject. 
|
|
#2
12-17-2005, 08:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....
[ QUOTE ]
Imposing a warrant requirement would be a serious hindrance to the government in monitoring the activities of al-Qaeda. [/ QUOTE ] And where do you get this amazing bit of information from? "Serious hinderance"??? Please. [ QUOTE ] I don't know what the current law on this issue is, [/ QUOTE ] That's obvious. [ QUOTE ] but there are yes and no answers on closely related questions. A matter for debate. [/ QUOTE ] Please. Lawyers representing clients can always create "matters for debate". Lawyers -- and officials -- sworn to uphold the constitution have a greater duty. John Yoo should be disbarred; he certainly has been disgraced. As for impeachment, it is certainly more warranted here than it was in Clinton's case. But it is still a bad idea.
|
|
#3
12-17-2005, 09:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....
[ QUOTE ]
Quote: I don't know what the current law on this issue is, That's obvious. [/ QUOTE ] Dick. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Imposing a warrant requirement would be a serious hindrance to the government in monitoring the activities of al-Qaeda. [/ QUOTE ] And where do you get this amazing bit of information from? "Serious hinderance"??? Please. [/ QUOTE ] US v. Bin Laden, holding that similar wiretaps (and physical searches) of US citizens involved in terror organizations were subject to the 4th amendment, but that there was an exception to the warrant requirement because it would hinder intelligence-gathering. Also, one of the people at the Volokh Conspiracy, who is presumably less of a dick than you, feels that the subject is really murky.
|
|
#4
12-17-2005, 02:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Quote: I don't know what the current law on this issue is, That's obvious. [/ QUOTE ] Dick. [/ QUOTE ] LOL. Very eloquent. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Imposing a warrant requirement would be a serious hindrance to the government in monitoring the activities of al-Qaeda. [/ QUOTE ] And where do you get this amazing bit of information from? "Serious hinderance"??? Please. [/ QUOTE ] US v. Bin Laden, holding that similar wiretaps (and physical searches) of US citizens involved in terror organizations were subject to the 4th amendment, but that there was an exception to the warrant requirement because it would hinder intelligence-gathering. Also, one of the people at the Volokh Conspiracy, who is presumably less of a dick than you, feels that the subject is really murky. [/ QUOTE ] hahahahahahahahahahahaha If you don't know the difference between searches on foreign soil, at issue in <u>bin Laden</u>, and domestic searches, do your dignity a favor and stop posting on this topic. And if former prosecutor, vocal supporter of the Patriot Act, and general defender of government investigatory power Orin Kerr admits that it is "murky", you can be sure that there are no good arguments on your side. Have a good holiday. I hope someone buys you some history books.
|
|
#5
12-18-2005, 01:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....
[ QUOTE ]
If you don't know the difference between searches on foreign soil, at issue in bin Laden, and domestic searches, do your dignity a favor and stop posting on this topic. [/ QUOTE ] Go back under your bridge, troll. PoBoy asked for an argument suggesting that the wiretaps might be constitutional. I gave one. Obviously Bin Laden doesn't apply directly, but it's damn close, and in my two minutes of research I didn't find anything closer. So, at the very least, it demonstrates some of the possible arguments that could be used.
|
|
#6
12-18-2005, 10:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....
[ QUOTE ]
Go back under your bridge, troll. PoBoy asked for an argument suggesting that the wiretaps might be constitutional. I gave one. Obviously Bin Laden doesn't apply directly, but it's damn close, and in my two minutes of research I didn't find anything closer. So, at the very least, it demonstrates some of the possible arguments that could be used. [/ QUOTE ] Call me names all you want, but you are disgracing yourself with these types of ill-informed posts. <u>Bin Laden</u> is "damn close" and supports your argument??? Read it again. The Court in <u>Bin Laden</u> held that there was no need for a warrant for a PHYSICAL search on foreign soil conducted primarily for intelligence purposes. Got that? A PHYSICAL search. As to the electronic sulvellience -- the wiretaps -- at issue in <u>Bin Laden</u>, the Court held that the exception to the warant requirement DID NOT APPLY. To be sure, the Court did not exclude the evidence because it gave the Government the benefit of the doubt and said that its reliance on a lawyer's mistaken opinion of the law showed that it was acting in "good faith". Ironically, the existence of <u>Bin Laden</u> itself would deprive the government of even that argument this time around. But the Court was perfectly clear that a warrant -- i.e., judicial oversight -- was required. Put another way, <u>bin Laden</u> says pretty much the opposite of what you claim. And all the name calling in the world won't change that. The fact that PoBoy or anyone else asked you to make an argument doesn't give you a pass when you make as bad an argument as you have made here.
|
|
#7
12-18-2005, 01:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....
[ QUOTE ]
As to the electronic sulvellience -- the wiretaps -- at issue in Bin Laden, the Court held that the exception to the warant requirement DID NOT APPLY. [/ QUOTE ] Aren't you like a lawyer? If so, shouldn't you be better at reading cases? Some of the electronic surveillance was not covered because it wasn't authorized by the AG. But the surveillance that took place after the date of the AG's authorization was allowed in under the exception. Read pp.10-11 again: "[O]n April 4, 1997... the Attorney General gave her express authorization for the foreign intelligence collection techniques (including the post-April 4, 1997 electronic surveillance and the August 21, 1997 physical search) that were employed.... For these searches then, the exception to the warrant requirement for foreign intelligence surveillance is applicable and the government was not required to secure a warrant."
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
