NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional

[ElvisFan42]

Of course! Mr. Gonzales gets paid to defend his boss.

Mr Gonsalves get's paid to defend the United States.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Mr Gonsalves get's paid to defend the United States.

Then he's doing a shoddy job of it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Of course! Mr. Gonzales gets paid to defend his boss.

Hope he gets paid overtime.

 

[steelerguy99]

Then he's doing a shoddy job of it.

He is doing a good job thus far

 

[pantsman52]

No wait guys, it's lawful, we just can't tell you why it's lawful! State secrets you know. Now give me your pants, state secret.

 

[Ave Maria]

Thank God! Now hopefully the government will actually stop this unconstitutional spying but knowing our luck, they'll keep it up behind the scenes.

 

[JPPT1974]

Thank God! Now hopefully the government will actually stop this unconstitutional spying but knowing our luck, they'll keep it up behind the scenes.

We can only hope and pray my friend!

 

[mwb]

If a warrant takes 48 hours & the government finds out via the internet that a major attack will occur in 24 hours, I'm against this ruling.

Otherwise I'm all for protecting the Constitution. After the lives of people, that is.

 

[ElvisFan42]

If a warrant takes 48 hours & the government finds out via the internet that a major attack will occur in 24 hours, I'm against this ruling.

Otherwise I'm all for protecting the Constitution. After the lives of people, that is.

You can get warrants retroactively.

 

[blueapplepaste]

You can get warrants retroactively.

Exactly. There is not one sound and logical reason for this program.

 

[mwb]

Retroactively??

If the government finds out Saturday that an attack will occur Sunday, does retroactively mean the government can get a warrant the previous Thursday in time to stop the attack on Sunday?

The reasoning Bush gave is that with today's technology: cellphones, internet(s) (ha ha), etc., the lead time to preventing attacks is reduced significantly thus the need for the government to move faster.

Despite all the political posturing by opponents of the president both on the internet & in real life, no one has explained why his reasoning is not accurate.

 

[mwb]

For example, the 8/6/01 memo the president's opponents love to reference. It would be very difficult to unravel the entire plot of 9/11/01 in that small amount of time.

What if there were emails & phone calls by the terrorists on 9/10 where they say "ok, tomorrow's the day". Should we wait for a few days so Constitutional rights are not violated??

 

[trunks2k]

Retroactively??

If the government finds out Saturday that an attack will occur Sunday, does retroactively mean the government can get a warrant the previous Thursday in time to stop the attack on Sunday?

No, it means if right now, we have evidence to believe that John Doe is going to make a call tonight about planning an attack we can listen in on said conversation. But after the fact, the gov't must go and get a warrant which works retroactively, allowing for the wire tap that has already occured. This is to help ensure that the gov't is not abusing it's power to listen in on calls.

The need to get a warrant AFTER they've already listened in on the call does not slow down their ability to listen in on the call.

 

[mwb]

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I especially enjoyed Judge Taylor's remark in the decision:

"We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no power not created by the Constitution."

Let's hope George "It's just a [censored] piece of paper!" Bush remembers this.

 

[Ave Maria]

You know, I don't really care what reasoning the government gives to defend their unlawful spying. I don't care how logical their argument is. I don't want to be spied on and in this nation where a majority of people agree with me, democracy should rule here and we should not be spied on!

 

[steelerguy99]

I especially enjoyed Judge Taylor's remark in the decision:

"We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no power not created by the Constitution."

Let's hope George "It's just a [censored] piece of paper!" Bush remembers this.

I find it laughable, and the ruling will be overturned. It's a poorly written decision.

 

[steelerguy99]

You know, I don't really care what reasoning the government gives to defend their unlawful spying. I don't care how logical their argument is. I don't want to be spied on and in this nation where a majority of people agree with me, democracy should rule here and we should not be spied on!

Unless you had a connection with Al Qaeda, you weren't being spied on. The government doesn't have the time, people, or moneyto waste it on spying on individuals that aren't linked to terrorism.

 

[ElvisFan42]

Unless you had a connection with Al Qaeda, you weren't being spied on. The government doesn't have the time, people, or moneyto waste it on spying on individuals that aren't linked to terrorism.

That's not true at all, the government has stated they are taking random samplings. It's irrelevant to the conversation just the same, the point is if wiretapping without a warrant is unconstitutional. If it isn't, it should be.

 

[steelerguy99]

That's not true at all, the government has stated they are taking random samplings. It's irrelevant to the conversation just the same, the point is if wiretapping without a warrant is unconstitutional. If it isn't, it should be.

Sorry, what you are saying is not true. The NSA program targeted specific individuals. The standard for such a recording was that at least one party in the conversation has ties with Al Qaeda. The decision whether or not to tape a specific conversation was not made by anyone within the White House, but career analysts within the NSA, actually the senior most people.