AT&T engineer says Bush Administration sought to implement domestic spying withi

[Decker]

The case I mentioned is ACLU v. NSA.  Yes, the case deals explicitly with the constitutionality of domestic warrantless wiretaps.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU_v._NSA  

I still question why the appellate court ran away from the underlying issue.  It is possible they didn't all agree.  

You don't have to try and convince me that domestic wiretaps require (or at least should require) a warrant.  What I've pointed out is there isn't a uniform opinion on FISA.  Discount the "brief list of apologists" all you want, but the fact remains that people with pretty good credentials have different opinions.  

Here's what you had originally typed:

He was unanimously overturned because the plaintiffs couldn't prove they had been subjected to warrantless wiretaps.

You didn't link any case.  Judging by what you typed I would conclude that the plaintiff did not have the evidence to withstand a motion to dismiss.

There is no uniform opinion on anything.  There are flat-earthers.  Just b/c you can find some scholar to say, "hey wait a minute, the president really is doing the right thing here" doesn't amount to much.

The plain language of the FISA statute is that if domestic spying is going to be done by our government, then it damn well better get a warrant.

The Appeals court said that it denied any holding on the legality of the program b/c the plaintiffs had no standing to sue.  Since the plaintiffs could not prove any grievance that could be addressed by the court, they had no business suing in court, thus the lawsuit ends there.  The court was not obligated to rule on the matter.

[the Pure Majestic]

Actually "Majestic" I hold a TS clearance for my current job...I've got two tours overseas in both Iraq and Afghanistan. While most of what I've seen would be available if u dug around or will end up in a book, some won't..plus u hear things while talking to guys. And while u might be able to handle whatever information is out there...ur not allowed to..like most of the American public. U should not have access to that information...I have 'been there'...its pretty boring but occasionally u get to hear some pretty cool stuff...but nothing that won't make a great book in 10 years. The stuff coming off those taps won't ever see the light of day, nor should it.

Both of my Grandparents were in the Military.  I know many Military men.  
Almost all 'secret' information is boring.  It's the desire of insecure men to keep it secret.  I will never be a fan of the "you can't handle the information" view.  I'm sure there are people that can't handle the information.  I am not one of them.  Most of the people that can't handle the information will never visit the sites where the information is disclosed anyway.

[headhuntersix]

If all this crap is true...then Bush should issue a national security finding or simply change the law to appease the leagal liberals.

[headhuntersix]

What we're talking about isn't normal military stuff. Should these taps actaully lead somewhere..it becomes actionable intelligence and somebody somewhere gets their door kicked in or a missile up their ass. Or even better saves the lives of ur family if they realy hit the jack pot. Its not a matter of handling it... I don't know what u do but u say u know things...it might be in the private sector and involve corprate secrets etc...i don't need to know..no big deal. U don't need to know because if u know, alot of other people will know and then we'll have a problem.

[Dos Equis]

Here's what you had originally typed:

You didn't link any case.  Judging by what you typed I would conclude that the plaintiff did not have the evidence to withstand a motion to dismiss.

There is no uniform opinion on anything.  There are flat-earthers.  Just b/c you can find some scholar to say, "hey wait a minute, the president really is doing the right thing here" doesn't amount to much.

The plain language of the FISA statute is that if domestic spying is going to be done by our government, then it damn well better get a warrant.

The Appeals court said that it denied any holding on the legality of the program b/c the plaintiffs had no standing to sue.  Since the plaintiffs could not prove any grievance that could be addressed by the court, they had no business suing in court, thus the lawsuit ends there.  The court was not obligated to rule on the matter.

Yes you can find people who believe in almost anything.  I also know your profession can find people to say whatever they are paid to say.  So-called "expert witnesses," or what some people call prostitutes (don't want to use the "w" word in mixed company.    Heck, there are people who post on this board who still believe we didn't land on the moon, for goodness sake.  (Names omitted to protect the innocent.    But the people I listed aren't nuts.  You simply disagree with them.  I do too, but the fact there are people with those kinds of credentials giving opinions about FISA tells me it isn't simply black and white.

I understand the appellate court didn't have to rule on the matter.  What I question is why they didn't at least discuss it in some fashion.  

  

[headhuntersix]

Change the law..stop the argument.

[Decker]

If all this crap is true...then Bush should issue a national security finding or simply change the law to appease the leagal liberals.

Our constitution governs the US.  We are a country of laws.  President Bush ignored the FISA law, he did not go to Congress to have the law changed or to have an exception to the law in secret, he simply ignored it.

That is dangerous in a constitutional republic.  It sets bad precedent. 

What if President Hillary started ignoring legal restrictions on the exercise of her power without consulting Congress?

That sounds like a dictatorship.

[headhuntersix]

When we're all glowing in the dark for a piece of paper remind me to feed u to the cockroaches

[Decker]

When we're all glowing in the dark for a piece of paper remind me to feed u to the cockroaches

So now I should suffer death b/c I don't care for a rogue presidency?

If Bush's spying predates Al Qaeda's attack (started just 2 weeks after taking office), how do you know who he was spying on?

You assume he was spying to protect the country.  How do you know?  You don't.  You're putting lipstick on a pig.

No accountability...even military guys like you with security clearance have to observe accountability to someone.

I don't like rogue presidents. 

Congress should have been consulted prior to the spying.

[headhuntersix]

How do we know he wasn't..we don't..i'll take my chances.

[Decker]

How do we know he wasn't..we don't..i'll take my chances.

I took my chances on 9/11 with Bush.

Not exactly a safe bet.