If anything they're superior to the FBI because they're directly connected to the average copper working on the street, who notice and see far more than guys working in buildings hidden away from everything.
That isn't how the FBI works, but thanks for playing. Now, shall I tell you all of the things that are wrong with Scotland Yard? For one, you need that pipe smoking opium addict and his doctor buddy to solve all of your major crimes. Why can't the coppers handle it themselves?
Absolutely nothing at all. But that violates the "gov't is bad" groupthink. IMO, the librarians are the bad guys here. They absolutely could have cooperated with the FBI, but they chose not to. They weren't protecting anyone's privacy, because there's nothing (legally, morally, or otherwise) private on a public terminal. Quite simply, those in position of power at the library were thumbing their noses at "the man". In another article on the incident, the mayor was quoted as saying that staring down the FBI was their "finest hour". What a crock.
And you don't know who wrote the more persuasive brief until the judge rules, so if you wind up with someone who not only doesn't agree with your position, but who vehemently disagrees, you cut them loose.
Prior art doesn't necessarily invalidate a patent. You can patent a "better" mousetrap, and just because someone has already patented the mousetrap, it doesn't make your patent invalid. If the mousetrap patent is still active, you may have to pay royalties when you sell your "better" mousetrap, because it would overlap with the other patent.
Did you read that nonesense? We have our own extremist whackjobs, but we don't regularly see them on "news" programs. I supposed every time Jesse Jackson gives an interview, David Duke should get equal time, in the interest of "balance".
Yes, why would anyone dislike a media outlet with the courage to tell the truth about Bin Laden the hero of Islam, and those brothers of apes and pigs the American jews who were really responsible for 9/11.
You aren't law enforcement. You don't have any police powers. You don't have any form of official immunity. The President, the NSA, the FBI, your local sherrif's department all are and do. If you read your states wiretapping law and the federal law, you will find exceptions for law enforcement. If your local sherrif's office, or anyone else in the above list, knowingly and wilfully violates your civil rights, you can file suit against them. But if they acted in good faith, in an official capacity, you will lose, 100% of the time. Even if a court decides the evidence isn't admissible. So, yes, in most cases the only consequence to law enforcement illegally obtaining evidence is that it is inadmissible in court. I don't think it's unreasonable to use the "law enforcemen" qualifier, since no one is suggesting that the President or NSA agents were acting in anything other than an official capacity.
You're right... so you would have no problem with the next Democratic administration, whenever it occurs, listening in on your phone calls or reading your private correspondence?
I have no problem with law enforcement (which knows no political party) opening any correspondance into or out of this country, nor listening in to any international phone calls to or from endpoints known to be used by known or suspected terrorists. Is that clear enough?
one of which, as established by the 4th amendment and reinforced by countless court precedent over the years, is my right to privacy.
The so called right to privacy manifests itself in many ways. Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is one of those ways. However, beyond freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, the fourth amendment doesn't say much about your right to privacy.
What are the consequences to law enforcement for collecting evidence without a warrant? The evidence is inadmissible in court. In most cases that is the only consequence.
There is no point in obtaining a retroactive warrant if you don't plan on using the evidence gathered.
No, not all of the President's powers are delegated to him by Congress. That's truly absurd. Some obvious examples are the power to pardon (even for crimes created by Congress!) and his power as CIC of the armed forces. These powers are given to the President directly by Article II of the Constitution, and there's not a thing Congress can do about it. For a recent reference, please see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
You must be an absolute moron if you actually believe that the Bush administration knows of OBL's demise and isn't publicizing it. There's plenty of boogeymen out there, and if OBL was really dead, Bush could move on to the next one.
You do believe, then, that the President could simply round up the Democrats and execute them at his pleasure!
It depends, you haven't given enough facts to say either way. If he has some evidence that they are agents of a foreign government then the answer may be yes. He can order them held in a military prison, and if he likes, executed. Whether or not anyone would follow such an order probably depends on how rowdy the Democrats get. No laws will have been broken in this case. OTOH, if the President just went up to Capitol Hill with an UZI and opened fire, that would be a different story. But that wouldn't in any way be an official exercise of his Presidential authority.
Please see Article II of the Constitution and the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
Given the narrow (and probably fictional) scenario you outlined, none of my rights, or anyone else's, are being violated... which is why the administration should have no problem proving to me that they only recorded phone calls from/to known terrorists.
From the information that has come out from all sources, this is the type of spying that was taking place. The administration is under no obligation to prove anything to you. If you don't like Bush's administration, don't vote for him. You being satisfied has nothing to do with the legality or ilegality of the NSA's activities.
They could prove it by having some third party... I don't know.. some kind of court... say, the FISA court... verify that the calls they recorded were to/from known terrorists and were on the up and up.
Now, how would that prove anything to your, since you would never know about it? Citizen oversight just isn't possible wrt every single thing our government does. Your requests for proof are ludicrous given the context. If Bush had done exactly what you say he should have done, his actions would still have been secret. So, obviously you can't have a problem with the secrecy. Now, tell me, what harm results when a person's conversations are recorded in such a way that the person does not and will never know they were being recorded?
No.. I wouldn't know.. but another party, one not part of the administration, would have verified the appropriateness of the wiretapping. The check-and-balance would be there.
How would you know? You wouldn't. Just like the silly lawsuit from the ACLU will be dismissed, because none of the plaintiffs know whether or not they were "spied" on. If someone winds up being prosecuted based on information gathered without a warrant, that would be the appropriate time to "know" all of this.
However, that doesn't mean he can't be prosecuted once he's removed from office (either by impeachment or his term expires).
He's probably immune for any acts committed in good faith in the performance of his duties as President. That's what we're talking about here. Not Clinton sexually harrasing subordinates, or Nixon spying on his personal enemies, but official acts. Big difference. Huge.
Is commiting murder part of the President's executive authority? No. Can he order executions without alleging a violation of a law passed by Congress, and without the order of a court? Yes.
If Congress doesn't like the President's behavior, they can impeach him. He may or may not be subject to laws passed by Congress outside of the scope of his authority as President (it depends on the law, really), but they can't restrain him otherwise.
That does not make the President exempt from those laws.
Yes it does.
He is still liable for prosecution.
No he isn't.
Congress simply can't make any law that would affect the President's power to exercise his Constitutional authority. Can't do it. Any such law would be void. Congress can pass a law that says the President has to file a tax return, but not paying taxes isn't part of the President's executive powers. Congress could not pass a law that said the President has to ask their permission before giving pardons.
So don't communicate with your terrorist buddies, do it by mail. But you know what? Customs can examine every single article passing from outside the United States in. Even if it is destined to a US citizen. Without a warrant, or even probable cause. And it doesn't violate the Constitution, or your fourth amendment rights. Damn!
Slashdot Mirror
If anything they're superior to the FBI because they're directly connected to the average copper working on the street, who notice and see far more than guys working in buildings hidden away from everything.
That isn't how the FBI works, but thanks for playing. Now, shall I tell you all of the things that are wrong with Scotland Yard? For one, you need that pipe smoking opium addict and his doctor buddy to solve all of your major crimes. Why can't the coppers handle it themselves?
That's all true, but what did the FBI do wrong?
Absolutely nothing at all. But that violates the "gov't is bad" groupthink. IMO, the librarians are the bad guys here. They absolutely could have cooperated with the FBI, but they chose not to. They weren't protecting anyone's privacy, because there's nothing (legally, morally, or otherwise) private on a public terminal. Quite simply, those in position of power at the library were thumbing their noses at "the man". In another article on the incident, the mayor was quoted as saying that staring down the FBI was their "finest hour". What a crock.
And you don't know who wrote the more persuasive brief until the judge rules, so if you wind up with someone who not only doesn't agree with your position, but who vehemently disagrees, you cut them loose.
Wake me up when you can attach and detach tabs at will.
You mean like in Opera?
Have you ever watched CSPAN?
Google for "santorum" some time, and hit "I'm feeling lucky". Some people consider that a political statement, and some consider it a troll.
Someone thinks this is a political statement? Shocking!
Prior art doesn't necessarily invalidate a patent. You can patent a "better" mousetrap, and just because someone has already patented the mousetrap, it doesn't make your patent invalid. If the mousetrap patent is still active, you may have to pay royalties when you sell your "better" mousetrap, because it would overlap with the other patent.
Did you read that nonesense? We have our own extremist whackjobs, but we don't regularly see them on "news" programs. I supposed every time Jesse Jackson gives an interview, David Duke should get equal time, in the interest of "balance".
Yes, CNN has plenty of experience as a mouthpiece for propaganda.
Yeah, Fox News always edits out the stuff about Jews drinking the blood of Christian children on Passover. What's the matter with them?
Yes, why would anyone dislike a media outlet with the courage to tell the truth about Bin Laden the hero of Islam, and those brothers of apes and pigs the American jews who were really responsible for 9/11.
You aren't law enforcement. You don't have any police powers. You don't have any form of official immunity. The President, the NSA, the FBI, your local sherrif's department all are and do. If you read your states wiretapping law and the federal law, you will find exceptions for law enforcement. If your local sherrif's office, or anyone else in the above list, knowingly and wilfully violates your civil rights, you can file suit against them. But if they acted in good faith, in an official capacity, you will lose, 100% of the time. Even if a court decides the evidence isn't admissible. So, yes, in most cases the only consequence to law enforcement illegally obtaining evidence is that it is inadmissible in court. I don't think it's unreasonable to use the "law enforcemen" qualifier, since no one is suggesting that the President or NSA agents were acting in anything other than an official capacity.
Let's see it. There's no such thing alleged in their complaint, so I doubt it exists.
You're right... so you would have no problem with the next Democratic administration, whenever it occurs, listening in on your phone calls or reading your private correspondence?
I have no problem with law enforcement (which knows no political party) opening any correspondance into or out of this country, nor listening in to any international phone calls to or from endpoints known to be used by known or suspected terrorists. Is that clear enough?
one of which, as established by the 4th amendment and reinforced by countless court precedent over the years, is my right to privacy.
The so called right to privacy manifests itself in many ways. Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is one of those ways. However, beyond freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, the fourth amendment doesn't say much about your right to privacy.
What are the consequences to law enforcement for collecting evidence without a warrant? The evidence is inadmissible in court. In most cases that is the only consequence.
There is no point in obtaining a retroactive warrant if you don't plan on using the evidence gathered.
No, not all of the President's powers are delegated to him by Congress. That's truly absurd. Some obvious examples are the power to pardon (even for crimes created by Congress!) and his power as CIC of the armed forces. These powers are given to the President directly by Article II of the Constitution, and there's not a thing Congress can do about it. For a recent reference, please see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
OBL is dead?
Bush really is the greatest President ever!
You must be an absolute moron if you actually believe that the Bush administration knows of OBL's demise and isn't publicizing it. There's plenty of boogeymen out there, and if OBL was really dead, Bush could move on to the next one.
You do believe, then, that the President could simply round up the Democrats and execute them at his pleasure!
It depends, you haven't given enough facts to say either way. If he has some evidence that they are agents of a foreign government then the answer may be yes. He can order them held in a military prison, and if he likes, executed. Whether or not anyone would follow such an order probably depends on how rowdy the Democrats get. No laws will have been broken in this case. OTOH, if the President just went up to Capitol Hill with an UZI and opened fire, that would be a different story. But that wouldn't in any way be an official exercise of his Presidential authority.
Please see Article II of the Constitution and the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
Given the narrow (and probably fictional) scenario you outlined, none of my rights, or anyone else's, are being violated ... which is why the administration should have no problem proving to me that they only recorded phone calls from/to known terrorists.
From the information that has come out from all sources, this is the type of spying that was taking place. The administration is under no obligation to prove anything to you. If you don't like Bush's administration, don't vote for him. You being satisfied has nothing to do with the legality or ilegality of the NSA's activities.
They could prove it by having some third party... I don't know.. some kind of court... say, the FISA court... verify that the calls they recorded were to/from known terrorists and were on the up and up.
Now, how would that prove anything to your, since you would never know about it? Citizen oversight just isn't possible wrt every single thing our government does. Your requests for proof are ludicrous given the context. If Bush had done exactly what you say he should have done, his actions would still have been secret. So, obviously you can't have a problem with the secrecy. Now, tell me, what harm results when a person's conversations are recorded in such a way that the person does not and will never know they were being recorded?
No.. I wouldn't know.. but another party, one not part of the administration, would have verified the appropriateness of the wiretapping. The check-and-balance would be there.
How would you know? You wouldn't. Just like the silly lawsuit from the ACLU will be dismissed, because none of the plaintiffs know whether or not they were "spied" on. If someone winds up being prosecuted based on information gathered without a warrant, that would be the appropriate time to "know" all of this.
However, that doesn't mean he can't be prosecuted once he's removed from office (either by impeachment or his term expires).
He's probably immune for any acts committed in good faith in the performance of his duties as President. That's what we're talking about here. Not Clinton sexually harrasing subordinates, or Nixon spying on his personal enemies, but official acts. Big difference. Huge.
Is commiting murder part of the President's executive authority? No. Can he order executions without alleging a violation of a law passed by Congress, and without the order of a court? Yes.
If Congress doesn't like the President's behavior, they can impeach him. He may or may not be subject to laws passed by Congress outside of the scope of his authority as President (it depends on the law, really), but they can't restrain him otherwise.
That does not make the President exempt from those laws.
Yes it does.
He is still liable for prosecution.
No he isn't.
Congress simply can't make any law that would affect the President's power to exercise his Constitutional authority. Can't do it. Any such law would be void. Congress can pass a law that says the President has to file a tax return, but not paying taxes isn't part of the President's executive powers. Congress could not pass a law that said the President has to ask their permission before giving pardons.
Clue: The NY Times didn't release the story until James Risen's book was ready.
Clue: That book will be a number one bestseller.
Clue: You are being played.
So don't communicate with your terrorist buddies, do it by mail. But you know what? Customs can examine every single article passing from outside the United States in. Even if it is destined to a US citizen. Without a warrant, or even probable cause. And it doesn't violate the Constitution, or your fourth amendment rights. Damn!