CC, keep up with the conversation here please. We are not discussing how the FISA law applies to the NSA wiretap program.

We are discussing whether or not the President has the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence. I say yes and the FISA law itself says yes.

Rodeo apparently says no.

Nathans_dad, maybe you should keep up.

This is what Rodeo said:

To clarify, no court in America has ever held that the executive has to the authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps of Americans on American soil.

And in response, Ronin is the one who tried to claim that's not true, based on that FISA law we're now discussing.

This started with Rodeo's original statement that Ronin was trying to refute.

That was Rodeo's weak attempt at backtracking after he realized his error. Ronin never said he thought the President had domestic surveillance authority, he said he had foreign surveillance authority and posted quotes and laws to support his position.

Rodeo somehow still thinks that the President does not have foreign intelligence surveillance authority without a warrant despite evidence to the contrary.

From the Washington Post:

...the Supreme Court has never ruled that the president does not ultimately have the authority to collect foreign intelligence -- here and abroad -- as he sees fit. Even as federal courts have sought to balance Fourth Amendment rights with security imperatives, they have upheld a president's "inherent authority" under the Constitution to acquire necessary intelligence for national security purposes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121901027.html

No it wasn't "backpedaling", it was a clarification.

--------------------------------------------
Rodeo quoting RoninLB at 1:02
In 2002 the FISA review court itself held [in Sealed Case] that the president "did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."

Rodeo:
1:02

Another fabrication.

...

-------------------------------------------------------------

Rodeo:
1:05
To clarify, no court in America has ever held that the executive has to the authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps of Americans on American soil.

a 3 minute later clarification isn't "backpedaling" to me. He should've just edited his original post instead because now it's going to end up bickering over something stupid like accusations of "backpedaling" back and forth back and forth back and forth.....

---------------------------------------------------------------

Then why did Ronin continue discussing FISA in the context of Rodeo's statement when Rodeo clarified this:


To clarify, no court in America has ever held that the executive has to the authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps of Americans on American soil.



Not to mention, what's the topic of the post anyway? Warrantless wiretapping on American soil, no? Certianly not foreign soil, such as Germany, Italy, etc.....right?
Why would Ronin and others be talking about something else?





I can see this is going into the bickering blah blah blah, over a miscommunication so all I want to say is, I was keeping up and I think there is some misunderstanding here of what Rodeo's saying and I sure hope it gets back on track...

IMO, no one disputes that the president doesn't have the authority to collect foreign intelligence here or abroad.....as far as I understand the issue, it's "warrantlessly" here that's the issue.....

Secondly, this article is now dated, as a federal court has no longer upheld the president's "inherent right" under the constitution, as seen just this week (this week or last, can't rememeber now LOL) in Michigan. Which means.......as the government appeals, and if this upholds, and if the Supreme Court hears it, we very well may see a final ruling in a few years....

I agree, no one disputes that the President can collect foreign intelligence without warrants, except Rodeo:

Why he continues on this bizarre course I don't know.

Edit: Clarification of my position:

I agree, no one disputes that the President can collect foreign intelligence ABROAD without warrants,





Admittedly, worded as it is (the second time he worded it), it is either misleading, confusing, and is false. Rodeo, stated that way, you would be incorrect. Knowing you're a lawyer, I'm assuming you're not saying what you mean....

Actually, the person's physical location has no bearing according to the FISA law. The citizenship of the person is what matters. So, if a Chinese national is spying on the US from Washington D.C. that person is fair game.

So, the original statement still stands, the President has the authority to conduct foreign surveillance and intelligence gathering without warrants as he sees fit.

Actually it DOES make a difference under the codeof judicial ethics. Judges are hekd to a MUCH higher standard.....that of avoiding any semblance or perception of impropriety. If a former law partner of the judge was involved in a case, opposing cousel could move to have the judge recuse himself. Do you honestly think that the ACLU accidentaly files a lot of their cases in courts that are part of the 9th Circuit in San Fransisco? lol It is called forum shopping. As for my original question, I was not asking about what you thought was right or wrong, but what the LAW says, particularly in the case of E-mail. You may not like it, but the LAW de facto says that e-mail is not your property, but that of the ISP. Nobody commentedon the Customs analogy either. If they can search your person and luggage when you go out of the country, why can they search communications that go out of the country. They can ceratinly required you to open anything you send or recieve overseas (mail, etc) before you can take it home. Why arephone calls and e-mail different in this context?

The other issue is whether the government is using the info to prosecute people. That was one of the problems alleged with what litle info we had about the Hamburg cell. The DIA had some info, but I recall that there was some concern about using in a law enforcement operation because of how it was obtained.

So transactions, in order to be totally private, should be face-to-face in a soundproof, windowless room.

Sounds OK to me......

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1156479147.jpg

There doesn't need to be tall guy in a raincoat following you around anymore. Your phone/computer/car/etc.. will do it all automatically.

Can anyone actually claim that in the current gov/corporate trends, knowledge won't lead to bias won't lead to discrimination?
I heard the estimate that 10-15% of all stowed baggage is inspected- yet both ways on my last 2 flights, my items were opened(even cds) and I had my nuts grabbed by a screener comming back from Hawaii. My tax-bailouts at work.

That particular statement is indeed correct, with it's modifier "foreign" surveillance and intelligence gathering. The only problem is your statement above is NOT "the original statement," so there is nothing to "stand." Got it, finally?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by RoninLB [/b]
In 2002 the FISA review court itself held [in Sealed Case] that the president "did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."

I'll repeat ... no court in America has ever held that the president has the authority to spy on Americans without a warrant, whether the goal of the spying is to gather "foreign intelligence information" or for any other purpose. If the government wants to tap an American citizen's phone, it needs a warrant.

That's precisely what the federal district court just held. And thank God it did.

Thom...

Excellent!! Back to the "Cone of Silence" concept!!

"Get Smart" was WAY ahead of its time!!

See your post would make sense if Ronin ever said that the President had inherent authority to conduct surveillance on Americans. If you read his posts, he was talking about foreign intelligence the entire time. He never once mentioned Americans. Heck, even the quote from him you keep throwing up there SAYS FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE. Unfortunately you seem to have made the assumption that he was talking about eavesdropping on Americans which was not the case, at least in the discussion of the President's inherent authority.

Which part of the word FOREIGN do you not understand??

This really isn't rocket science. Ronin is simply correct in his statement and your statement is incorrect.

Oh well.

I hope you are not quite so casual with your diagnoses as you are with the English language.

Classic. When you are unable to effectively argue a point, you resort to ad hominem attack. I'll take that as a sign of defeat on your part.

LOL, and I hope as a lawyer you can actually READ and comprehend the word FOREIGN and the differences between that word and DOMESTIC.

As usual, you have no capability to admit when you are wrong. Precisely why arguing with you is like talking to a wall.

Now you get the official Rodeo waffle bunny again.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1156521958.jpg

I got your point ... as long as the word "foreign" appears somewhere in a sentence, that sentence means the same thing as any other sentence that includes the word "foreign."

It's the words that matter, not their particular composition in a sentence.

The bunny is good though.