So the ACLU case challenging the warrantless wiretapping got throw out

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by thomez

but the government has admitted they are conducting them, and won't release the information about their targets... so everyone should be upset because it is a shit program with no oversight and massive potential for abuse

They admitted that they had monitored overseas calls to known al qaeda operatives. I have zero problem with that.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

They admitted that they had monitored overseas calls to known al qaeda operatives. I have zero problem with that.

your personal feelings have little to do with the legality of the issue

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

They admitted that they had monitored overseas calls to known al qaeda operatives. I have zero problem with that.

It's a rather short sighted stand on the issue. How do you know that is what they are doing? Since there is no oversight, and no warrants, and no approval needed, they could theoretically tell us anything, and we would have no choice but to believe them. They could be monitoring Nancy Pelosi's calls to Hillary Clinton, or any other political adversary, ala watergate... and without oversight, no one would know, and since the records are deemed "classified" no one can ever know. I'm not OK with that. I want these wiretaps to be put on record, I want them to have to go to the FISA court to lay out thier probable cause, even if it's after the fact. There is no reason for them to be circumventing FISA, since FISA provides for retroactive warrants, already giving them the ability to do what they say they needed to circumvent FISA to do. Would you trust Bill Clinton with this authority to wiretap without oversight? OR Hillary Clinton? You might trust Bush with this authority, but you also have to trust any potential future administration, as this case sets precedance.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by thomez

your personal feelings have little to do with the legality of the issue

x 10000

[Galactic Gigolo]

Originally Posted by thomez

your personal feelings have little to do with the legality of the issue

But it feels right.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by thomez

your personal feelings have little to do with the legality of the issue

Are wiretaps involving international affairs illegal, or just domestic?

[Publius]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Are wiretaps involving international affairs illegal, or just domestic?

Any warrantless wiretap that can be reasonably assumed to involve one or more American citizen is illegal, they make no differentiation between domestic or international under the law.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Publius

Any warrantless wiretap that can be reasonably assumed to involve one or more American citizen is illegal, they make no differentiation between domestic or international under the law.

Additionally, in order for them to wiretap anyone at all, it must be done domestically unless they're breaking laws in foreign countries (I don't think another country would be too happy if America swooped in and started wiretapping people willy nilly). So, ANY wiretap is guaranteed to be done on someone in America. If they're in America, then they need a warrant.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Additionally, in order for them to wiretap anyone at all, it must be done domestically unless they're breaking laws in foreign countries (I don't think another country would be too happy if America swooped in and started wiretapping people willy nilly). So, ANY wiretap is guaranteed to be done on someone in America. If they're in America, then they need a warrant.

because it can be reasonably assumed that there is a definite possibility that an American citizen will be recorded by the wiretap.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Publius

Any warrantless wiretap that can be reasonably assumed to involve one or more American citizen is illegal, they make no differentiation between domestic or international under the law.

An American citizen? Rest assured, the majority of people in contact with international terrorists are NOT citizens.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

An American citizen? Rest assured, the majority of people in contact with international terrorists are NOT citizens.

you have no way of knowing that, nor do they when they tap a line.

[thomez]

I don't even think FISA says "citizen", I think it says "person"

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by thomez

I don't even think FISA says "citizen", I think it says "person"

copy/paste

The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information [5]; targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a)(1),(2),(3) [6] or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.[7]
The Attorney General is required to make a certification of these conditions under seal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court[8], and report on their compliance to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. [9]
Since 50 U.S.C § 1802 (a)(1)(A) of this act specifically limits warrantless surveillance to foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (1),(2), (3) and omits the definitions contained in 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (4),(5),(6) the act does not authorize the use of warrantless surveillance on: groups engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore; foreign-based political organizations, not substantially composed of United States persons; or entities that are directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments. [10] Under the FISA act, anyone who engages in electronic surveillance except as authorized by statute is subject to both criminal penalties [11] and civil liabilities. [12]

[7th Ninjai]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

An American citizen? Rest assured, the majority of people in contact with international terrorists are NOT citizens.

Your logical fallacy is believing what the President has told you - with no oversight. We do know that they are tapping the phones of American citizens - but we don't know who or to what extent. Hell, my phone could be tapped for all I know because my wife makes international phone calls weekly to her parents in Seoul.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Publius

you have no way of knowing that, nor do they when they tap a line.

I know just as much as everyone else who accuses them of tapping a citizen's line

Realize we're all working with the same amount of proof here, which is next to nothing. My theories are just as valid as yours.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by 7th Ninjai

Your logical fallacy is believing what the President has told you - with no oversight. We do know that they are tapping the phones of American citizens - but we don't know who or to what extent. Hell, my phone could be tapped for all I know because my wife makes international phone calls weekly to her parents in Seoul.

Seoul? Aw shit, you've been tapped

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I know just as much as everyone else who accuses them of tapping a citizen's line

Realize we're all working with the same amount of proof here, which is next to nothing. My theories are just as valid as yours.

The difference is you don't seem to think they should have to justify their actions, and are happy to take at face value they are working in the best interests of the US, whereas as other people are not.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I know just as much as everyone else who accuses them of tapping a citizen's line

Realize we're all working with the same amount of proof here, which is next to nothing. My theories are just as valid as yours.

If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.