Federal Judge Orders End to Warrantless Wiretapping

[Mr. Intenseone]

Personally,  I don't want anyone wire taping me with out the judicial system.

that's why we have a judicial system as part of our "checks and balances"

And i'm not a terrorist or do anything illegal. 

FEAR is not a good enough motivator for me to give up my rights as an American citizen.

Who ever says i should do that can go pound salt.

Clinton did it, how come he never caught any flack from it, and correct me if I'm wrong, he signed the original order for it!

[BayGBM]

What do you think the chances of Impeachment are?

Even if the Democrats gain control of the House and the Senate in the midterm elections, I think impeachment (over wiretaps) is unlikely.  Personally, I would not call for impeachment over the wiretaps.  I do, however, think the President should receive an official Censure over them.  Doing so would lay down an important historical marker.

All these people out there (and on this board) who think that any executive branch can undertake such actions without judicial oversight are underscoring the depth of their ignorance.  I’m content to leave them to it; every 1L in this country understands why judicial oversight can never--ever--be suspended.  Wiretap all you want, but do it with judicial oversight and approval.

If the Democrats regain control of Congress I think there should be lots of committee investigations into things like war profiteering, the many no bid contracts, and contracts given to companies like Halliburton whom overcharge the government for lots of things to the tune of tens of millions of $ and still get to keep their contracts.

Look at who has and will continue to benefit from this war and it’s clear why checks and balances are necessary.

[Dos Equis]

And we all know how effective the never-ending partisan committee hearings and special prosecutors have been over the past 20 years. 

[240 is Back]

And we all know how effective the never-ending partisan committee hearings and special prosecutors have been over the past 20 years. 

not very.  But, they keep the politicians from going too far.

I voted for Bush twice, but he seriously seems to be doing some shady stuff.

[Dos Equis]

Clinton did it, how come he never caught any flack from it, and correct me if I'm wrong, he signed the original order for it!

You mean Democrats make mistakes too?  I'm shocked. 

[OzmO]

Clinton did it, how come he never caught any flack from it, and correct me if I'm wrong, he signed the original order for it!

Unlike yourself i'm not willingly chained to a political ideology.

I don't give a shit who did it.  IT's WRONG.

[Dos Equis]

not very.  But, they keep the politicians from going too far.

I voted for Bush twice, but he seriously seems to be doing some shady stuff.

I voted for him twice too, but I don't think he's doing anything shady.  He isn't trying to put money in his pocket, because he was wealthy before he took office.  He isn't trying to get re-elected, because he is a lame duck.  He isn't engaged in some sinister plot to destroy America.  He's doing what he thinks is in the best interests of the country.  Some agree with him, some disagree.  It will always be that way, regardless of who is in office.  Republicans demonized Clinton.  Whichever Republican wins the 2008 will be just as hated as Clinton and Bush.    

[Mr. Intenseone]

Unlike yourself i'm not willingly chained to a political ideology.

I don't give a shit who did it.  IT's WRONG.

My point being is that no one gave Clinton shit, but since it's Bush it's now an issue.......I promise, if were a Democrat in office with the exact same circumstances, non of this political bullshit and bashing would be going on!

[240 is Back]

I voted for him twice too, but I don't think he's doing anything shady.  He isn't trying to put money in his pocket, because he was wealthy before he took office.  He isn't trying to get re-elected, because he is a lame duck.  He isn't engaged in some sinister plot to destroy America.  He's doing what he thinks is in the best interests of the country.  Some agree with him, some disagree.  It will always be that way, regardless of who is in office.  Republicans demonized Clinton.  Whichever Republican wins the 2008 will be just as hated as Clinton and Bush.    

Actually, he is putting money in his pocket.  He was barely rich before going into office (Cheney made 36M in 1999, Bush made 3M) and thanks to the saudi oil ties, he'll be worth an insane amount when he leaves office.

The shadiness I refer to, is his insistence on not telling the judicial system about the FISA taps he uses.  They'll give him blanket premission - they just want to ensure that a record exists in case any are used illegally or unethically.  Bush wants to use them, and not have to allow judicial to see them.

you don't see a problem there?

[OzmO]

My point being is that no one gave Clinton shit, but since it's Bush it's now an issue.......I promise, if were a Democrat in office with the exact same circumstances, non of this political bullshit and bashing would be going on!

What difference does it make who gets shit or not?  The issue here is our rights are being taken away RIGHT NOW.  Don't you think that's more important than being dem or rep?

[OzmO]

and if i remember it right he was getting shit for it.

[Dos Equis]

Actually, he is putting money in his pocket.  He was barely rich before going into office (Cheney made 36M in 1999, Bush made 3M) and thanks to the saudi oil ties, he'll be worth an insane amount when he leaves office.

The shadiness I refer to, is his insistence on not telling the judicial system about the FISA taps he uses.  They'll give him blanket premission - they just want to ensure that a record exists in case any are used illegally or unethically.  Bush wants to use them, and not have to allow judicial to see them.

you don't see a problem there?

I guess we have different definitions of "rich."    I think anyone with a net worth in the millions is wealthy, and I'm pretty sure that was Dubya's situation before he took office.  

Do I see a problem with warrantless wiretaps?  Yes.  Do I think Bush is being "shady"?  No.  Whether you agree with him or not, he's doing what he thinks is in the best interests of the country.  "Shady" would be willfully violating a court order, unless national security is at stake.  He's going to appeal the judge's ruling.  Nothing wrong with that.    

[Colossus_500]

I'm going on record to predict that this decision will be reversed.  There's nothing illegal about this measure. 

[240 is Back]

What difference does it make who gets shit or not?  The issue here is our rights are being taken away RIGHT NOW.  Don't you think that's more important than being dem or rep?

Party affiliation means nothing in this.  I would care equally if a Dem was in office doing this.

Bottom line, is that if the judicial branch is able to keep an eye on what taps the executive branch is using, everyone stays honest.

If you give ANY branch the ability to tap/search anyone at any time for any reason with no oversight, you invite trouble by tempting people who might not have strong integrity.

hell, who wouldn't want to secretly bug Warren buffet's office (on an anonymous tip of course!) and see where to put my money?   See how there is going to be temptation for corruption if no one is able to check who is being tapped and why?

[240 is Back]

I'm going on record to predict that this decision will be reversed.  There's nothing illegal about this measure. 

it gives the Exec branch the ability to secretly follow, tap, search any american at any time for any reason.... and they never have to answer for it.

You're incredibly stupid if you don't see danger in this.  no offense, but you have some pretty naive beliefs about people if you think this won't be abused.

Fact is, sharing info with Judicial does not hurt investigations or help terrorists.  It just makes sure that there is a record of what is being done, so that people can be held accountable IF anything shady is done.

I don't see why you're so willing to put your fate in the hands of others.  What is wrong with checks adn balances?

[OzmO]

it gives the Exec branch the ability to secretly follow, tap, search any american at any time for any reason.... and they never have to answer for it.

You're incredibly stupid if you don't see danger in this.  no offense, but you have some pretty naive beliefs about people if you think this won't be abused.

Fact is, sharing info with Judicial does not hurt investigations or help terrorists.  It just makes sure that there is a record of what is being done, so that people can be held accountable IF anything shady is done.

I don't see why you're so willing to put your fate in the hands of others.  What is wrong with checks adn balances?

YEP!

[Colossus_500]

it gives the Exec branch the ability to secretly follow, tap, search any american at any time for any reason.... and they never have to answer for it.

You're incredibly stupid if you don't see danger in this.  no offense, but you have some pretty naive beliefs about people if you think this won't be abused.

Fact is, sharing info with Judicial does not hurt investigations or help terrorists.  It just makes sure that there is a record of what is being done, so that people can be held accountable IF anything shady is done.

I don't see why you're so willing to put your fate in the hands of others.  What is wrong with checks adn balances?

I'm incredibly stupid then.   

[240 is Back]

I'm incredibly stupid then.  

sorry, that was rude of me.

I meant that there is a huge potential for corruption.  As these guys in suits sit in their offices, with unlimited searching power, a lot can happen.

They might have the bright idea that planting a bug *here* might give them info they can use for stock market purchaes. 

They might find that placing a bug *there* might give them job security (tapping the other party => get strategy info => win election => keep job.)

Hell, I'm sure there are a lot of people who would pay some good money to have a search or bug of certain places. 

See how this can be abused?  of course we elect people we believe will do the right thing... but if you were in their shoes... 55 years old, govt paycheck, mortgage, health probs, kids in college... and an opportunity arose to earn a cool $10M cash for one wiretap, and you knew you wouldn't be caught... would you do it?  many people would.

[Dos Equis]

I'm incredibly stupid then.   

No you're not.  On balance, I agree the government should get a warrant.  I don't think it's that difficult to meet with a judge privately to show whatever evidence the government has to justify spying on people.  

On the other hand, the people attacking you are only going through half of the analysis.  People have short memories.  We just had a number of "normal" looking men who lived among us and then murdered thousands of innocent civilians.  Americans are vulnerable.  What the prez is trying to do is track enemies living among us.  Does anyone really think there aren't more terrorists living in our midst waiting to strike again?  That would be pretty naive IMO.  You can't ignore the extreme danger we face in the country.  
 

[240 is Back]

On the other hand, the people attacking you are only going through half of the analysis.  People have short memories.  We just had a number of "normal" looking men who lived among us and then murdered thousands of innocent civilians.  Americans are vulnerable.  What the prez is trying to do is track enemies living among us.  Does anyone really think there aren't more terrorists living in our midst waiting to strike again?  That would be pretty naive IMO.  You can't ignore the extreme danger we face in the country.  
 

I agree completely there!!

Get as many taps/searches as they think they need.  nothing at all wrong with that.

All i want, is for a nice record to be sent over to judicial so that a neutral party can read over it, and ensure that things are done in accordance with the law.  Basically, it just keeps those doing the searches, honest.

[OzmO]

I agree completely there!!

Get as many taps/searches as they think they need.  nothing at all wrong with that.

All i want, is for a nice record to be sent over to judicial so that a neutral party can read over it, and ensure that things are done in accordance with the law.  Basically, it just keeps those doing the searches, honest.

Well since we are all in agreement here let's notify a Judge and start a club. 

[Colossus_500]

sorry, that was rude of me.

I meant that there is a huge potential for corruption.  As these guys in suits sit in their offices, with unlimited searching power, a lot can happen.

They might have the bright idea that planting a bug *here* might give them info they can use for stock market purchaes. 

They might find that placing a bug *there* might give them job security (tapping the other party => get strategy info => win election => keep job.)

Hell, I'm sure there are a lot of people who would pay some good money to have a search or bug of certain places. 

See how this can be abused?  of course we elect people we believe will do the right thing... but if you were in their shoes... 55 years old, govt paycheck, mortgage, health probs, kids in college... and an opportunity arose to earn a cool $10M cash for one wiretap, and you knew you wouldn't be caught... would you do it?  many people would.

When you say that the government has the potential to be corrupt, you DO realize that judges need to be included in that picture too, am I correct?  A judge could decide not to issue a warrant based on his political convictions, which could help or hurt us in a situation like this.   Agreed?

[Al-Gebra]

I'm going on record to predict that this decision will be reversed.  There's nothing illegal about this measure. 

i don't think it will . . . although roberts recused himself the last time the supreme court heard a similar case, if this reaches the supreme court, they will--as they are supposed to--uphold the lower court's decision and send it to congress w either a 5-4 or a 5-3 majority.

[OzmO]

When you say that the government has the potential to be corrupt, you DO realize that judges need to be included in that picture too, am I correct?  A judge could decide not to issue a warrant based on his political convictions, which could help or hurt us in a situation like this.   Agreed?

I do agree there are currupt Judges but i don;t agree that they won't ok a wire tap based on political affiliations.  The wire taps are for finding and convicting terrorists.  what they are looking for is reasonable cause.  Are you suggesting a certain political party isn't interested in finding an apprehending terrorists and that they would like terrorists to run amuck in our country?

I'm sure we are not that infected with propaganda are we?

The point is checks and balnaces that prevent people from abusing their power now and in the future.

Go back to the constitution...  we set up a government based on checks and balances to aviod tyranny. 

[Eyeball Chambers]

I think impeachment (over wiretaps) is unlikely.  Personally, I would not call for impeachment over the wiretaps.

I would call for Impeachment over all the other illegal things he has done.