If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....

bobman0330 · #1 12-17-2005, 09:47 AM

[ 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.

#2 12-17-2005, 02:20 PM

[ 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 bin Laden, 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.

bobman0330 · #3 12-18-2005, 01:43 AM

[ 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.

#4 12-18-2005, 10:08 AM

[ 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.

Bin Laden is "damn close" and supports your argument??? Read it again. The Court in Bin Laden 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 Bin Laden, 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 Bin Laden 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, bin Laden 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.

bobman0330 · #5 12-18-2005, 01:52 PM

[ 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."

#6 12-19-2005, 08:14 PM

[ 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."

[/ QUOTE ]

Congratulations on getting through an entire post without name calling. Now, I will teach you another lesson:

You are correct, I missed that the Court made a distinction between wiretaps. Thus, the Court's holding, as I originally thought (and should have stuck with) depended on the fact that the searches took place on foreign soil. Note the absence of any excuses about "two minutes of research" or any rationalization seeking to avoid confession of error. Not that I expect you to take the lesson, but, you never know.

I am sure you read with interest Orin Kerr's volokh post analyzing the legality of this scheme. He concludes that the wiretaps may be constitutional (although he allows that his is a strained analysis -- a very significant concession considering the source), but concedes that they are likely illegal.

What say you now?

bobman0330 · #7 12-20-2005, 06:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am sure you read with interest Orin Kerr's volokh post analyzing the legality of this scheme. He concludes that the wiretaps may be constitutional (although he allows that his is a strained analysis -- a very significant concession considering the source), but concedes that they are likely illegal.

What say you now?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea. I'm still plowing through some of the VC comments on Orin's post. Lot of complicated issues. My evidence prof was on Fox last night talking about the subject. He felt that it was OK, but he's really more of an evidence guy than a con law guy, so who knows. My current feeling is that it depends a lot on the specific facts of the program. For example, if we had NSA posts in the Sudan picking up US-bound cell phone calls in the Sudan, then I'd feel better about it, from a legal perspective, than vice versa. But then again, that's kind of a trivial thing to worry about in the middle of a war, so who knows?