Home | Community | Message Board

MushroomMan Mycology
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: The betrayal of America [Re: Skeptikos]
    #5370471 - 03/06/06 11:11 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Skeptikos writes:

Quote:

Translation: When lies have been repeated enough, after a certain point they should be believed.




No lies, I just tire of having to repeat the same arguments already thoroughly presented in previous threads in this forum. I understand from your registration date that these threads may have appeared before you showed up here. This doesn't alter the fact that they exist. Do a forum search using something like NSA legality to confirm this. **edit** Well, well, well. I decided to save you some effort and searched and bumped a relevant thread for you. Imagine my surprise when I saw that I had already bumped it for you back in January! Perhaps you missed it the first time I bumped it -- you were after all a newcomer at the time and may not have realized it was bumped for your benefit. To make things easier for you, you can click on this link -- http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/5104313#Post5104313 -- to jump straight to my post in the middle of the bumped thread. **end edit**

Quote:

The courts have not ruled on these searches.




So sorry, but you are uninformed. There are roughly two dozen situations in which searches may be performed without obtaining a warrant from a judge. A link to these cases appears in one of the threads I mentioned. **edit** In case you might miss the link in the bumped thread, let me provide it for you here as well. http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200512201735.asp **end edit**

Quote:

You are arguing from a position of ignorance, having no facts to back up your assertions, precisely because the full scope and nature of these searches has NOT been revealed.




Pot. Kettle. Black. There are indeed many situations in which no warrant is required. I suggest you inform yourself further before making your next post on the topic.

Quote:

Again, there has been no judicial review.




So sorry, but again you are uninformed on this. ALL appellate court rulings -- without exception -- have reaffirmed the constitutional power of the Executive to intercept enemy communications in time of war. Including the FISA review court itself, by the way.

Quote:

Because you say so? More unsubstantiated sycophantic nonsense.




No, because the AUMF passed by Congress meets the definition of "statute" and the FISA text specifically states "except as authorized by statute".

Quote:

Another lie. Congress persons have already publicly stated that they do not want warrantless searches to continue.




So sorry, but another truth. My statement is that none of them has stated they want the NSA program stopped. If you can find a quote from a member of Congress calling for a halt to the program, now's the time to do it.

Finally, you misread the Fourth Amendment. It has been decided by the courts long ago that the Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant for every search. That's why there are almost two dozen existing situations -- described in detail by the appellate courts -- in which warrantless searches are permitted by law in the United States.

Your own idosyncratic and overly restrictive interpretation of the Fourth Amendment isn't what matters here. What matters is what the appellate courts charged with applying that Amendment to specific situations have ruled. They have ruled there are many situations in which a warrant is not required. So sorry if that fact raises your blood pressure, but I suggest you vent your apoplexy at the courts rather than myself.

The fact of the matter is that Bush's authorization of the NSA surveillance program is neither contrary to common sense, nor to existing case law, nor to the Constitution.



Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHarmonic_Order
Nshudimasupatogata
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/13/06
Posts: 412
Loc: Out on the Street
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
Re: The betrayal of America [Re: Phred]
    #5371392 - 03/06/06 04:04 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

I don't think the President should have the right to tap telecommunication without a warrant. Not having to answer to anyone in the judiciary gives him too much power. The President should have to answer to someone else in all cases, otherwise he may do something really horrible. I consider that unchecked power dangerous and un-American.

I found the following at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5061834

"1978: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Passes

Spurred by the abuses reported by the Church Committee, Congress passes new, more stringent restrictions on wiretapping, creating a legal review process to ensure wiretaps are focused narrowly on obtaining information essential for protecting national security. Under the law, a special court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, is created to authorize wiretaps against "agents of a foreign power," even if they aren't suspected of a crime. Even though the law is meant to rein in abuse, it is viewed with great suspicion by civil libertarians, who argue that it undermines Americans' Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

. . .

2001: Congress Passes Patriot Act

In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress approves the U.S.A. Patriot Act to improve the government's ability to stop future terrorist attacks. It includes provisions to help streamline the process of obtaining the necessary warrants to conduct eavesdropping."

Doesn't that mean that, even though the PA streamlined the process, the President still needed to get a warrant? It does say they created the FISA specifically for that purpose

H_O


--------------------
.oOo. Are you high? .oOo.
.oOo. You look like you're on some kind of drug .oOo.


Edited by Harmonic_Order (03/06/06 04:06 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHarmonic_Order
Nshudimasupatogata
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/13/06
Posts: 412
Loc: Out on the Street
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
Re: The betrayal of America [Re: Phred]
    #5371437 - 03/06/06 04:16 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Besides, this page makes it clear that the NSA had already started that surveillance program before President Bush authorized it. This comes from a declassified document posted there in compressed format.

A Quote: More than a dozen legal scholars dispute Moschella's legal analysis, saying in a letter just sent to Congress that the White House failed to identify "any plausible legal authority for such surveillance."

"The program appears on its face to violate existing law," wrote the scholars of constitutional law, some of whom worked in various senior capacities in Republican and Democratic administrations, in an extraordinary letter to Congress that laid out, point by point, why the president is unauthorized to permit the NSA to spy on Americans and how he broke the law by approving it.

"Even conceding that the President in his role as Commander in Chief may generally collect 'signals intelligence' on the enemy abroad, Congress indisputably has authority to regulate electronic surveillance within the United States, as it has done in FISA," the letter states. "Where Congress has so regulated, the President can act in contravention of statute only if his authority is exclusive, that is, not subject to the check of statutory regulation. The DOJ letter pointedly does not make that extraordinary claim. The Supreme Court has never upheld warrantless wiretapping within the United States."

That seems to contradict what you said, Phred.

H_O


--------------------
.oOo. Are you high? .oOo.
.oOo. You look like you're on some kind of drug .oOo.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: The betrayal of America [Re: Harmonic_Order]
    #5371470 - 03/06/06 04:21 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Why, I ask, would you be willing to allow an unelected and unremovable justice to be able to trump the authority of an elected representative of the people? Why would you possibly think that your insights into how a government should best protect its people are even the least bit up to the reasoning of 2 centuries of studied jurisprudence by some of the smartest people who ever inhabited this nation and which have brought this nation to the pinnacle of civilization not here to for seen on this planet?


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHarmonic_Order
Nshudimasupatogata
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/13/06
Posts: 412
Loc: Out on the Street
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
Re: The betrayal of America [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5371519 - 03/06/06 04:32 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Why, I ask, would you be willing to allow an unelected and unremovable justice to be able to trump the authority of an elected representative of the people?  Why would you possibly think that your insights into how a government should best protect its people are even the least bit up to the reasoning of 2 centuries of studied jurisprudence by some of the smartest people who ever inhabited this nation and which have brought this nation to the pinnacle of civilization not here to for seen on this planet?




A person who really loved his father's fondest ideals wouldn't even *want* to ask that question. The urge, no doubt, comes from your *ahem*  :rolleyes: condition, which we all know about (given your numerous posts here). And believe me, you shouldn't worry about it one bit. Lots of people your age have that.

H_O


--------------------
.oOo. Are you high? .oOo.
.oOo. You look like you're on some kind of drug .oOo.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: The betrayal of America [Re: Harmonic_Order]
    #5371703 - 03/06/06 05:21 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

I have no idea what you're talking about. My father? My condition? My age? Are you referring to wisdom?


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHarmonic_Order
Nshudimasupatogata
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/13/06
Posts: 412
Loc: Out on the Street
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
Re: The betrayal of America [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5371770 - 03/06/06 05:41 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

It is apparent that the subject of your condition puzzles you.

Nobody has responded to the fact that the NSA had already started the warrentless wiretapping without authorization. Lying is not the issue. President Bush misled the American public when he claimed to have ordered that surveillance. Misleading the public constitutes a breach of trust. That has happened more than once in this administration.
It is obvious that the President weaseled around the necessity for a warrent. It is obvious that he did so because it is down on paper, and now revealed to the public, that he does not have legal precedent.

H_O


--------------------
.oOo. Are you high? .oOo.
.oOo. You look like you're on some kind of drug .oOo.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: The betrayal of America [Re: Harmonic_Order]
    #5371969 - 03/06/06 06:57 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Thank you for your clear and concise answers to my questions, asked in the sincerest curiosity. I have an additional question now. Did he weasel around the law and order the taps or did he lie when he said he ordered the taps? Do you realize that you are coming off as a complete buffoon? And do you think you can discipline a woman with sperm????????


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSkeptikos
GeneticallyEngineeredBonobo

Registered: 01/15/06
Posts: 145
Loc: Rome, west side
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
Re: The betrayal of America [Re: Phred]
    #5372197 - 03/06/06 08:16 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

The courts have not ruled on these searches.




So sorry, but you are uninformed.



Having trouble with comprehension? We are talking about warrantless searches WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY ANY JUDGE AND REMAIN SECRETE. Get it? These searches go BEYOND previous FISA rulings, get it? Again, you are taking a position from IGNORANCE. If these cases are secrete and have never seen the light of day, you and everyone else who is not privy to the information have no way in hell of knowing the nature or the legality of the searches in question.


Quote:

There are roughly two dozen situations in which searches may be performed without obtaining a warrant from a judge.



Mr. McCarthy's list does not apply to the current situation. Further, prior violations of the fourth amendment (as some of those are) are not an argument for more violations. Would you likewise argue for 100% confiscation of a person's income, since the income tax already confiscates a lesser percent? If a peeping Tom has previously taken pictures of you and your lady making love, does that then authorize him to take more pictures?

Quote:

There are indeed many situations in which no warrant is required. I suggest you inform yourself further before making your next post on the topic.



I am quite well informed about searches, more so than you as I am a former peace officer from the state of California and likely have performed more searches in a single day than you have in your entire lifetime. I have been trained in following the fourth Amendment and have taken an oath to uphold both the laws of my state and my country. Have you?

Quote:

Quote:

Again, there has been no judicial review.




So sorry, but again you are uninformed on this. ALL appellate court rulings -- without exception -- have reaffirmed the constitutional power of the Executive to intercept enemy communications in time of war. Including the FISA review court itself, by the way.



What? In the cases IN QUESTION, there have been NO warrants and no judicial review. That is the whole point of this. It is irrational to cite OTHER cases and say that since those OTHER cases were reviewed, that somehow these different cases which have never even been brought to the attention of a judge are somehow subject to the same review! This is complete and utter nonsense on your part.

Quote:

No, because the AUMF passed by Congress meets the definition of "statute" and the FISA text specifically states "except as authorized by statute".



We are talking about warrantless spying outside the scope of FISA. The AUMF has NOT been established as authorizing warrantless spying on American citizens. Merely repeating administration lies does not make them truths.

Quote:

My statement is that none of them has stated they want the NSA program stopped.



So if they say that they do not want any more NSA warrantless searches performed, that would not meet your standard? I guess, there's no convincing one so deeply entrenched in Orwellian thought as you.

Quote:

If you can find a quote from a member of Congress calling for a halt to the program, now's the time to do it.



You tell me, does Rep Jerrold Nadler want the warrantless searches to stop (link)? Does congressman John Olver oppose warrrantless spying on Americans (link)?

Quote:

Finally, you misread the Fourth Amendment. It has been decided by the courts long ago that the Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant for every search. That's why there are almost two dozen existing situations -- described in detail by the appellate courts -- in which warrantless searches are permitted by law in the United States.



I have not misread the fourth amendment. On the contrary, I am well versed in the letter and spirit of the constitution. I am well aware of such things as 'hot pursuit' and of searches as a condition of licensing as well as the idea that things IN PLAIN SITE do not fall under the fourth amendment. These situation do not apply. The argue otherwise is disingenuous. Unlike you, I believe that we should have a government of laws, not the arbitrary whims of men.

Quote:

The fact of the matter is that Bush's authorization of the NSA surveillance program is neither contrary to common sense, nor to existing case law, nor to the Constitution.



The fact of the matter is, you are wrong, and this has yet to be taken to court. As long as the searches in question have been performed without judicial review, you and everyone else who does not have the facts have no way of knowing. If in fact, the searches are warranted, there should be no reason to avoid judicial review. The fact that the administration insists on keeping things secrete, tells any reasonable person, that they have something to hide which may place them in a compromising position in relation to the legality and cause of their actions.


--------------------
Sincerely,

Skeptikos


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: The betrayal of America [Re: Skeptikos]
    #5372243 - 03/06/06 08:31 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

What? In the cases IN QUESTION




re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002)

?[A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information . . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President?s constitutional power.?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSkeptikos
GeneticallyEngineeredBonobo

Registered: 01/15/06
Posts: 145
Loc: Rome, west side
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
Re: The betrayal of America [Re: Catalysis]
    #5372462 - 03/06/06 09:34 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

FISA provides for warrantless searches as long as warrants are obtained after the fact. What we have with the current situation, is an administration which refuses to subject it's searches for review even to a secrete FISA court after the fact.

How can help assure that in fact the warrantless searches were done to obtain foreign intelligence information if there is no judicial review? How can you have any assurance that the searches involve international communications only if there is absolutely no review? How can you assume they are legal if there is absolutely no review? Answer: YOU CAN'T.

What is the term for a regime which which ignores constitutional checks and balances, which is unchallenged by the legislative or the judiciary, which unilaterally decides even after signing a law that it will ignore the law as it sees fit? It is not a government of laws, it is not a republic, it is not accountable, it is a government by the whims of men, it is A DICTATORSHIP. It is a government of traitors to the spirit and the letter of the constitution.


--------------------
Sincerely,

Skeptikos


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: The betrayal of America [Re: Skeptikos]
    #5372476 - 03/06/06 09:38 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

You're my hero.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: The betrayal of America [Re: Skeptikos]
    #5373345 - 03/07/06 05:06 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

We are talking about warrantless searches WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY ANY JUDGE AND REMAIN SECRETE. Get it? These searches go BEYOND previous FISA rulings, get it? Again, you are taking a position from IGNORANCE. If these cases are secrete and have never seen the light of day, you and everyone else who is not privy to the information have no way in hell of knowing the nature or the legality of the searches in question.




To point out the obvious, if this is the case then you -- Skeptikos -- don't know the nature or the legality of the intercepts in question either. Yet you vigorously assert that Bush has broken his oath of office and has violated the Constitution.

Quote:

Mr. McCarthy's list does not apply to the current situation.




I provided the list to debunk the insistence of the many who post here that the Fourth Amendment places an absolute prohibition on warrantless searches. Clearly, the appellate courts have ruled that it does not. The courts have ruled -- repeatedly -- that the applicable standard is not a piece of paper signed by a judge, but whether or not the search is reasonable. People with common sense recognize that monitoring the conversations of enemy operatives during wartime meets the definition of reasonable.

Quote:

I am quite well informed about searches, more so than you as I am a former peace officer from the state of California and likely have performed more searches in a single day than you have in your entire lifetime.




This might explain your refusal to examine the situation in its proper context -- what acts must a president take in order to fulfill his oath of office in time of war. You (no doubt through force of habit rather than through dispassionate reflection) judge that the same restrictions placed on the activities of law enforcement officers also apply to military intelligence agencies. This is the Bill Clinton/John Kerry approach to things. Fortunately, the appellate courts recognize the distinction you refuse to. The NSA is not a law enforcement organization and is not part of the criminal justice system. The NSA does not report to the Attorney General, but directly to the Executive branch. It is a military organization. It is standard procedure in time of war for the military to monitor enemy communications.

Quote:

In the cases IN QUESTION, there have been NO warrants and no judicial review.




And this is relevant how, exactly? I point out again that the gathering of military intelligence is not within the purview of police departments or prosecuting attorneys, but of the military.

Quote:

It is irrational to cite OTHER cases and say that since those OTHER cases were reviewed, that somehow these different cases which have never even been brought to the attention of a judge are somehow subject to the same review! This is complete and utter nonsense on your part.




The reason some of the cases cited make a point of mentioning that their rulings do not apply to the power of the Executive to monitor enemy communications is that the appellate courts making those rulings understand the Constitution better than you do. Once again, this is not a question of applying the criminal code to a criminal prosecution, but of military intelligence gathering.

Quote:

The AUMF has NOT been established as authorizing warrantless spying on American citizens.




That's because the AUMF is not required in order for the military to collect intelligence. I mention the AUMF only to show that the "as established by statute" exception to FISA has been met. As for the "American citizen" argument, the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdi is directly applicable.

Quote:

I have not misread the fourth amendment. On the contrary, I am well versed in the letter and spirit of the constitution. I am well aware of such things as 'hot pursuit' and of searches as a condition of licensing as well as the idea that things IN PLAIN SITE do not fall under the fourth amendment.




Then you are of course aware that the Fourth Amendment does not require warrants for every search. That puts you ahead of many who post here. Congratulations.

However, you assert with no backup that (for example) a military agency quickly throwing a tap onto a newly discovered cell phone of a known Al Qaeda operative is not analagous to the civilian equivalent of "hot pursuit". Why is that?

Quote:

The fact that the administration insists on keeping things secrete, tells any reasonable person, that they have something to hide which may place them in a compromising position in relation to the legality and cause of their actions.




No, it tells any reasonable person the administration is justifiably concerned the hostile American press would have no scruples about once again releasing classified information to the world and continuing to sabotage the efforts of the military, thus placing American citizens in harm's way.


Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: The betrayal of America [Re: Skeptikos]
    #5373351 - 03/07/06 05:30 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Skeptikos writes:

Quote:

FISA provides for warrantless searches as long as warrants are obtained after the fact. What we have with the current situation, is an administration which refuses to subject it's searches for review even to a secrete FISA court after the fact.




And the FISA court of review is fine with that. See the excerpt of the court's ruling provided by Catalysis.

Quote:

How can help assure that in fact the warrantless searches were done to obtain foreign intelligence information if there is no judicial review? How can you have any assurance that the searches involve international communications only if there is absolutely no review? How can you assume they are legal if there is absolutely no review? Answer: YOU CAN'T.




Who would you trust to perform that review?

Look, the administration has explained the circumstances under which the surveillance is being carried out. If it is as they describe, no reasonable person would have a problem with it. You apparently believe the administration is lying to you and would like to have a third party provide reassurance that they are not. Which third party would you trust to do an investigation, then report to you "Yep. It's all exactly as the administration described. You may rest easy" ?

Quote:

What is the term for a regime which which ignores constitutional checks and balances, which is unchallenged by the legislative or the judiciary, which unilaterally decides even after signing a law that it will ignore the law as it sees fit?




It seems you are the one with a difficult time grasping the concept of constitutional checks and balances -- specifically the separation of powers. Congress can no more usurp the power granted to the Executive by the Constitution than can the Executive usurp the power granted to Congress by that same Constitution.

The laughable part is that we see here a partisan fraction of Congress pretending to want to usurp Executive power. I deliberately use the word pretending because in fact they do not want their constituents to think they want to stop the NSA program. They just want to score political points. This is also why -- after their initial outcry -- they quickly dropped the issue. Their polling showed them it was a complete no-win with the voters.



Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* A Material Breach of the Constitution Ellis Dee 1,106 7 02/19/03 05:44 PM
by BowlKiller
* America a nazi police state
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 3,605 28 02/12/03 01:06 PM
by pattern
* America = Police State BowlKiller 1,474 15 02/14/03 01:31 PM
by RandalFlagg
* The Bush Betrayal ekomstop 876 17 09/19/04 08:15 PM
by Divided_Sky
* The Betrayal of Afghanistan Xochitl 1,924 12 09/24/03 02:18 PM
by JonnyOnTheSpot
* Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 biblical law in america mabus 1,392 13 03/15/04 07:25 PM
by Phred
* Bush to America..."unemployment will help the economy"
( 1 2 all )
carbonhoots 5,446 38 02/12/04 08:41 PM
by Phred
* An Open Letter to the Corporations of America PsiloKitten 1,719 17 10/30/03 03:53 AM
by luvdemshrooms

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,201 topic views. 2 members, 2 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.018 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 14 queries.