CIA chief says warrants ill-suited for al Qaeda hunt - Page 2

ballz2wallz · 07-26-2006, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

according to the laws of FISA, they can already get retro-active warrants. That means that they can wire tap as soon as they need to. right away.. provided that they go afterwards and lay out thier case and get the approval.

So I guess instantly isn't fast enough huh?

does that also mean they didn't break the law?

thewise1 · 07-26-2006, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

i guess when the judge, and not motivez, says they've broken the law, then due diligence will be given.

IB you complain about an activist judge then

willis · 07-26-2006, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

does that also mean they didn't break the law?

no, because they never went and got the warrants..

if they had, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

motivez · 07-26-2006, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

i guess when the judge, and not motivez, says they've broken the law, then due diligence will be given.

My opinion is based on the vast majority of legal and constitutional scholars, as well as such esteemed organizations as the American Bar Assosciation.

thewise1 · 07-26-2006, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

does that also mean they didn't break the law?

No. They have a time limit still, they can't just go get the warrants 20 years from now.

Face it - the following is true:

1. They almost certainly broke the law by executing searches (wiretaps) without warrants. Just because the President says it's legal does not make it actually legal - this will have to be tested in court, though.
2. They are probably eavesdropping on every phone call and internet transmission originating in the United States, whether it's outgoing or not.
3. The technology exists to automate the filtering process to find the interesting stuff.

ballz2wallz · 07-26-2006, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

IB you complain about an activist judge then

motivez · 07-26-2006, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

does that also mean they didn't break the law?

No, because there's a specific provision in FISA that allows them to go ahead and wiretap PROVIDED they still seek a warrant retroactively.. so in cases of National Security (ie: tracking Al Qaeda movements), they don't have to wait and are able to do what they need to protect us, while still allowing our system of checks and balances to work by providing judicial review to ensure there are no abuses.

Currently, that's not what's being done. They're not taking it to the secret court to have judicial oversight as is required by law, and the Administration has admitted as much in testimony before the Judiciary committee.

You haven't heard this aspect of it before?

ballz2wallz · 07-26-2006, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

No, because there's a specific provision in FISA that allows them to go ahead and wiretap PROVIDED they still seek a warrant retroactively.. so incases of National Security, they don't have to wait and are able to do what they need to protect us, while still allowing our system of checks and balances to work.

You haven't heard this aspect of it before?

no i hadn't heard this. you forget i was away for a LOOOONG time.

what's stopping them from getting them now?

ballz2wallz · 07-26-2006, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

My opinion is based on the vast majority of legal and constitutional scholars, as well as such esteemed organizations as the American Bar Assosciation.

opinions often change; i take them lightly

willis · 07-26-2006, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

no i hadn't heard this. you forget i was away for a LOOOONG time.

what's stopping them from getting them now?

i might be wrong, but I think it's a relatively short time span after the wiretap that they have to retroactively go get the warrant..

regardless, what's stopping them now is a spectacular question..

is it general laziness?
just not wanting to follow the law?
or is there just not the evidence there to satisfy a secret basically rubber stamp court??

thewise1 · 07-26-2006, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

no i hadn't heard this. you forget i was away for a LOOOONG time.

what's stopping them from getting them now?

I'd be willing to put a lot of money on the theory that a judge would tell them to gtfo if they presented some of their wiretap requests for wiretaps that they've done.

motivez · 07-26-2006, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

no i hadn't heard this. you forget i was away for a LOOOONG time.

what's stopping them from getting them now?

Nothing. I edited my post.

They have simply decided they don't want to do it, and that's why I (and most other people on the board) have a problem with it.

ballz2wallz · 07-26-2006, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

2. They are probably eavesdropping on every phone call and internet transmission originating in the United States, whether it's outgoing or not.
3. The technology exists to automate the filtering process to find the interesting stuff.

this has been going on for years. as to the laws regarding this i don't know much.

thewise1 · 07-26-2006, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by willis

i might be wrong, but I think it's a relatively short time span after the wiretap that they have to retroactively go get the warrant..

regardless, what's stopping them now is a spectacular question..

is it general laziness?
just not wanting to follow the law?
or is there just not the evidence there to satisfy a secret basically rubber stamp court??

I think it's 72 hours, but my memory may not be correct on this particular factoid

ballz2wallz · 07-26-2006, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

I'd be willing to put a lot of money on the theory that a judge would tell them to gtfo if they presented some of their wiretap requests for wiretaps that they've done.

not if it's legal

ballz2wallz · 07-26-2006, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Nothing. I edited my post.

They have simply decided they don't want to do it, and that's why I (and most other people on the board) have a problem with it.

and so a court could just as easily say 'get them now and you'll be fine' and you'd be fine with it?

willis · 07-26-2006, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

I think it's 72 hours, but my memory may not be correct on this particular factoid

I thought 48, so it's somewhere around there..

motivez · 07-26-2006, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

not if it's legal

The judge would be looking at the merits of the wiretap, not the legality of it. It would be legal if they followed FISA procedure already.

willis · 07-26-2006, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

and so a court could just as easily say 'get them now and you'll be fine' and you'd be fine with it?

sure.. if they went back and followed what fisa says to do with retroactive warrants, and it was shown there was no abuse, where would the problem be??

if you want, there's a whole other debate on whether something like fisa that allows secret court retroactive warrants should be around in the first place, but it doesn't really fit in this thread

motivez · 07-26-2006, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

and so a court could just as easily say 'get them now and you'll be fine' and you'd be fine with it?

The problem I have is that there is no judicial oversight, review, etc. The system of checks and balances that our government is founded on is being ignored by the President and the NSA under his direction.

If they went to the court that is set up now, which is secret, and presented evidence that showed why they wanted to (or had already under the retroactive provision) wiretap an individual, then yes. I would have no problem with that.

That's how it's supposed to work.