Government spying

[fastpat]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Wrong, we are not conducting these taps in the pursuit of criminal charges as we would in a "War on Drugs", etc. This is for the direct life and death defense of our citizens via a foreign force. The comparison is not legitimate.

Wrong, it's precisely the kind of government power grab that the War on (some) Drugs entailed; which is a multi-billiion dollar boondoggle of the first order today.

The War on (some) Terrorism is the War on (some) Drugs writ large; killing more people and destroying more property.

Both are anathema to genuine Americans and Americanism; and are blatantly illegal via being unConstitutional.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by lendaddy
I said no such thing. The difference between the two is obvious to me, not to you?

I though you said that as long as there are no prosecutions, it's ok to tap phones. Just trying to point out that this is dangerous ground.

So they can tap my phone to find out about my health? Or my family issues? Or the place and time of the next protest?

I don't think so.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Rodeo
I though you said that as long as there are no prosecutions, it's ok to tap phones. Just trying to point out that this is dangerous ground.

So they can tap my phone to find out about my health? Or my family issues? Or the place and time of the next protest?

I don't think so.

No because you are not a, nor working with a terrorist trying to kill U.S. citizens. Pretty high bar I'd say.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by fastpat
Wrong, it's precisely the kind of government power grab that the War on (some) Drugs entailed; which is a multi-billiion dollar boondoggle of the first order today.

The War on (some) Terrorism is the War on (some) Drugs writ large; killing more people and destroying more property.

Both are anathema to genuine Americans and Americanism; and are blatantly illegal via being unConstitutional.

I can respect your strict Libertarian views, I imagine you and I would agree on much. And for the record, no I'm not a fan of "The War on Drugs" as it has been executed the last couple of decades.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by lendaddy
No because you are not a, nor working with a terrorist trying to kill U.S. citizens. Pretty high bar I'd say.

You are back where you started yesterday. Just say it and get it over with:

"As long as the president (secretly) declares me to be a threat, my 4th amendment rights may be violated and my private conversations monitored. No one but the president needs to be involved in this secret decision, there need be no judicial or other oversight of the president, and no one but the president makes the determination of which Americans should or should not be spied upon."

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Rodeo
You are back where you started yesterday. Just say it and get it over with:

"As long as the president (secretly) declares me to be a threat, my 4th amendment rights may be violated and my private conversations monitored. No one but the president needs to be involved in this secret decision, there need be no judicial or other oversight of the president, and no one but the president makes the determination of which Americans should or should not be spied upon."

If our intelligence departments identify you as a threat to national security then yes. The President isn't providing the names here (what would be his vehicle for knowing who?), they are being provided to him by the CIA,FBI, NSA, etc..

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by lendaddy
If our intelligence departments identify you as a threat to national security then yes. The President isn't providing the names here (what would be his vehicle for knowing who?), they are being provided to him by the CIA,FBI, NSA, etc..

Good luck to you ... that's not my country you are talking about.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Good luck to you ... that's not my country you are talking about.

Well since it's happening now, my advice to you is not to collaborate with and/or become a terrorist and you'll be just fine

Here is an example:

The NSA is tapping OBLs phone and he connects to an unknown US land line. You would have them shut off the tap! That's nuts.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by lendaddy
The NSA is tapping OBLs phone and he connects to an unknown US land line. You would have them shut off the tap! That's nuts.

No, I would have them get a secret FISA warrant.

Is it really possible that you are just completey unable to comprehend anything more complicated than black or white? Wow

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Rodeo
No, I would have them get a secret FISA warrant.

Is it really possible that you are just completely unable to comprehend anything more complicated than black or white? Wow

How does the retro active FISA warrant jibe with your obvious principle against warrantless searches of US citizens? Certainly that retro warrant program offends you equally as much, yes???

[Rodeo]

A retroactive judicial FISA warrant is fine. I understand the need for speed in certain circumstances.

Tapping phones without a warrant is illegal and unacceptable. Except in pre-invasion Iraq, and many other countries I don't particularly admire.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Rodeo
A retroactive judicial FISA warrant is fine. I understand the need for speed in certain circumstances.

No, retroactive warrants are illegal, not fine. It's like a bank robber getting the money, then applying for a loan to cover it, can't be legal under either circumstance.

Tapping phones without a warrant is illegal and unacceptable. Except in pre-invasion Iraq, and many other countries I don't particularly admire.

No, there can't be any exceptions. The invasion of Iraq was illegal, thus any operations connected with it was and is illegal.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by lendaddy
I can respect your strict Libertarian views, I imagine you and I would agree on much. And for the record, no I'm not a fan of "The War on Drugs" as it has been executed the last couple of decades.

"the way it's been prosecuted" has been the "way" for the whole time the Wo(S)D has existed.

Please, though, find the Constitutional authorization for the federal government to prohibit any "thing" grown or made by an American. I can save you some time, no such federal government power exists. Yet, we tolerate it everyday, "it's for the children".

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by fastpat
No, retroactive warrants are illegal, not fine. It's like a bank robber getting the money, then applying for a loan to cover it, can't be legal under either circumstance.

It's not a perfect solution, but I think it's the best option available. Mind, you I'm talking about FISA warrants, not law enforcement warrants.

If the NSA comes across actionable intelligence, we should not make them suspend activities while they look for a judge. They can begin monitoring, and have 3 days toget a warrant. This serves two purposes:

1. They will know that there will be oversight of their decision, so the temptation to do something illegal will be tempered, and

2. There will actually be some oversight. As opposed to what we have now -- unlimited, unfettered executive power to override the Constitution

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Rodeo
A retroactive judicial FISA warrant is fine. I understand the need for speed in certain circumstances.

Tapping phones without a warrant is illegal and unacceptable. Except in pre-invasion Iraq, and many other countries I don't particularly admire.

So you have no problem with retroactive warrants in drug cases? Say you get a call from a suspected dealer in Amsterdam, you're fine with you being recorded as long as they try for a warrant later?

Edit: Just read your second post where you say it's not fine in criminal investigations. Yet you said they were the same earlier in this thread???? Is the War on Terror a real war to you now?

[Rodeo]

No, retroactive warrants are not ok in criminal cases, and do not exist. There are numerous exceptions to the warrant requirement for law enforcement. Crime in progress, imminent threat, possibility of destruction of evidence, etc. etc. All these things allow searches without warrants. Law enforcement officials are fully armed without retroactive warrants.

FISA warrants, where we are dealing with foreign powers, are a whole different animal. And the FISA warrant structure works very well in that context. As long as it's followed.

[Mulhollanddose]

..."the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Seems obvious that Bush is taking this extraordinary power quite seriously. Thank God it is Bush at the helm and not some neo-socialist. These are powers that, during wartime, do not threaten our well-being, in fact they do just the opposite. If you are dead or in terror you are not free at all. If you are dead your body will be used as a leftist device to call for larger more intrusive government with socialists at the helm because Bush did such an incompetent job.

Once again, if you could eliminate Democrat politicization from the equation, and allowed terrorists to slither under the radar, for the sake of our civil liberties, I would be on board. I would be a fool. It would allow the cancer of foreign infiltration to fester and we would have to deal with the problem later, with a neo-fascist liberal steering the ship...No thanks. This dirty type of job I would rather entrust to the current socialist-lite Republicans, than to the neo-communist Democrat party.

Democrats crying foul for this perceived violation of civil rights is simple rhetoric. They never have cared for civil rights and they never will, unless it is convenient to pushing forth their big-brother government, demonizing the rich, enabling the poor and controlling every aspect of American life.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
..."the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Seems obvious that Bush is taking this extraordinary power quite seriously. Thank God it is Bush at the helm and not some neo-socialist.

Bush IS a socialist, young man. Proof? Largest expansion of government in recent history, largest increase in social programs in 40 years, encouragement of unrestricted immigration, wide spread encouragement of pork barrel programs, and on and on.

These are powers that, during wartime, do not threaten our well-being, in fact they do just the opposite. If you are dead or in terror you are not free at all. If you are dead your body will be used as a leftist device to call for larger more intrusive government with socialists at the helm because Bush did such an incompetent job.

No one I know is being threatened by anyone in America except by the federal government, and to a more limited extent by state and local governments. Those are the only credible threats to Americans today.

Once again, if you could eliminate Democrat politicization from the equation,

That's what agents of the government do, they politicize everything, that's why we call them polititicans or didn't you understand that? That's the way it's always been, and will always be. And, that's why it's important to minimize the power of politicians to the extent we can, primarily by choking of the life-blood of government, tax money.

and allowed terrorists to slither under the radar, for the sake of our civil liberties, I would be on board. I would be a fool. It would allow the cancer of foreign infiltration to fester and we would have to deal with the problem later, with a neo-fascist liberal steering the ship...No thanks. This dirty type of job I would rather entrust to the current socialist-lite Republicans, than to the neo-communist Democrat party.

That's a risky position that I cannot allow you, adn those like you, to take in as much as I can stop your stripping away at my freedom, via fora such as this, and other lawful means, I shall take them. Every thug dictator around the globe depends on guys just like you, that are willing to grant them the power to do anything to foster the perception of safety.

Democrats crying foul for this perceived violation of civil rights is simple rhetoric. They never have cared for civil rights and they never will, unless it is convenient to pushing forth their big-brother government, demonizing the rich, enabling the poor and controlling every aspect of American life.

Of course Democrats in government don't care for rights, the only current politician in the federal government that does is Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, other than him no Republican cares one whit for rights either, remember Republicans were the original socialists in America, or didn't you know that either?

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by fastpat
[B]Bush IS a socialist, young man. Proof? Largest expansion of government in recent history, largest increase in social programs in 40 years, encouragement of unrestricted immigration, wide spread encouragement of pork barrel programs, and on and on.

It pains me to agree with you, Pat. I agree with you. Unfortunately Bush was the lesser of two evils. To sell the philosophical package that you are offering, however, would certainly speed up the process of a neo-communist state and surrender of our national security to the UN. We have slowly moved left and we must slowly move back to the right. Tax cuts are a start. We offer smaller government but get beat over the head with it, and cave. Immigration certainly gets more attention from Republicans than Democrats. All we can do is keep pushing, slowly.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by fastpat
Every thug dictator around the globe depends on guys just like you, that are willing to grant them the power to do anything to foster the perception of safety.

Mul, agree with him on this one as well. In my short time on this board, you have gone from denouncing every totalitarian regime on the face of the earth to promoting a totalitarian regime in America. All because you like Bush. Or hate Democrats. Of both.

Wake up. Granting more power to this president, and necessarily the next president and the one after and the one after, etc. etc. is a tragically bad idea.