As for letting Congress judge the merits of these charges - excellent idea. I'd like to point out that they have not yet done so, though you seem to have made up your own mind.
He didn't admit to warrantless wiretaps of U.S. residents. He admitted to authorizing a wiretap of a "suspected al Queda member". FISA's warrant requirements and the 4th amendment only apply when the person being tapped is legally in the country.
His statement is suggestive, I agree, but it doesn't rise to the level of hard evidence.
the truth - and the only thing I've found is people making hyperventilated claims with no substance behind them.
If these "anonymous NSA sources" decide to step up to the plate then we can actually judge the merits of their charges. If someone comes up with something more substantial than empty claims that the NSA was eavesdropping on Christopher Hitchens, I'll give them a listen.
Until then, I give this hysteria no more credence than any other conspiracy theory.
I notice that he did not say "I chose not to get a warrant."
Seeing how many FISA cases there have been since 9-11, he could argue that he was referring to a case where a warrant was acquired. In addition, if the person in question was not in the U.S. legally, then the FISA warrant requirement does not apply.
That admission - while suggestive - is not hard evidence.
The constitution gives the president control of the defense of the country, it doesn't give it to congress, or say that congress can limit his control.
Now, that does not mean there are no limits on executive power. In later court cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that the authority granted in Article 2 does not supercede the rights granted in Article 4; thus the restriction that he can wiretap foreigners all he wants, but that he needs a warrant to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil.
I can't make out Saturn's rings or the Veil nebula with my naked eye. A bit of magnification and improved light gathering is good to have when looking at the sky.
And since no one has any evidence that any kind of crime has been committed, why are we spending so much time discussing unsubstantiated rumors as if they are established fact?
When something crosses a national border, all bets about privacy are off - or at least greatly reduced. This is why Customs can search your bags, your FedEx deliveries and your mail when it crosses the U.S. border.
The way the FISA law is structured, if one of the persons in the call is a legal U.S. resident on U.S. soil then the 4th amendment applies and a warrant is required; but if the person is in the country illegally, or if the call starts and ends internationally, there is no 4th amendment protection and the president is free to act as he sees fit to defend the country (under article II).
IIRC, Europeans have, in recent years, tightened their laws to raise the level of privacy in international (or maybe just intra-EU) mail, I don't know about phone calls.
which has been mentioned several times in this forum.
The sky scout sells for about $400, but it's not even a telescope, just a sighting tube. Thus, it only "narrates" a few thousand naked-eye objects, mostly stars.
The device discussed in the *article* overlays stored images onto a real-time image of the object the scope is pointed at. Completely different level of tech.
Except for the bit that the 4th ammendment only applies to Americans, not to foreigners.
"international communications" are not protected by the 4th ammendment, nor by FISA, unless one of end of the call was a legal U.S. resident, on American soil.
1. The presumption of innocence does indeed extend to any defendant in a legal case, whether that defendant is a homeless man, Enron, or Bush.
2. The constitution divides the government into 3 equal branches. It does not give Congress automatic control over the president. It also explicitly says that congress has no control over how the president chooses to defend the country. The courts, including the FISA court, have repeatedly ruled that that is true.
3. You cannot "presume" that the President is in violation of anything, without evidence to support that "presumption".
4. There is a difference between asking "have you any evidence" and saying "Bush was right".
I mean, I could be wrong, IANAL, but I thought you had to show that you had been harmed and as for producing evidence - much like needing "probable cause" you can't use discovery to go fishing for evidence - you have to have some evidence a crime occurred before you sue.
Simple analogy: when it's dark, your pupil widens to let in more light, right? Well, the same principle applies to telescopes - the wider they are, the more light they can gather and focus on your retina or CCD.
The length of a scope, meanwhile, is a secondary characteristic usually tied to it's width, but is also related to the type of scope. a 10" Dobsonian and a 10" Schmidt-Cassegrain have similar light gathering capabilities, but the Dob will probably be over 4 feet long and the Schmidt-Cas will probably be half that.
They didn't just tap the phones of immigrants? but of US citizens who were communicating with people abroad. This includes noted journalists, politicians, and others. The taps invaded the privacy of thousands of people.
Please provide even a hint of evidence that any of these claims is true. Because I'm betting that you can't.
here's a hint: Just because you read it on the internet doesn't make it true.
Because the post man can't accidentally hook into the trunk line and eavesdrop on your phone calls.
On the other hand, if I was working on a problem with the e-mail server, and I find e-mails talking about dope shipments, I'm pretty sure I can turn those over to the police and they can use them as evidence.
We don't need to, Bush himself has said they were warrant-less wiretaps!
Please provide direct evidence that Bush has admitted to the warrantless wiretapping of Americans. Don't bother with admissions of warrantless wiretapping of overseas calls - because he doesn't need a warrant for those.
So obvious you don't even have to produce evidence that that is the case, right?
Quick question:
Please provide evidence that bush has actually spied on Americans and U.S. residents - because every link I've followed claims that he has, even claims that he has admitted it, but I can't find any transcripts or documentation of such.
Slashdot Mirror
Parents are liable for the behavior of their minor children. In your strawman case, the parents can, in fact, be sued for negligence.
you're too lazy to do it yourself.
As for letting Congress judge the merits of these charges - excellent idea. I'd like to point out that they have not yet done so, though you seem to have made up your own mind.
He didn't admit to warrantless wiretaps of U.S. residents. He admitted to authorizing a wiretap of a "suspected al Queda member". FISA's warrant requirements and the 4th amendment only apply when the person being tapped is legally in the country.
His statement is suggestive, I agree, but it doesn't rise to the level of hard evidence.
the truth - and the only thing I've found is people making hyperventilated claims with no substance behind them.
If these "anonymous NSA sources" decide to step up to the plate then we can actually judge the merits of their charges. If someone comes up with something more substantial than empty claims that the NSA was eavesdropping on Christopher Hitchens, I'll give them a listen.
Until then, I give this hysteria no more credence than any other conspiracy theory.
I notice that he did not say "I chose not to get a warrant."
Seeing how many FISA cases there have been since 9-11, he could argue that he was referring to a case where a warrant was acquired. In addition, if the person in question was not in the U.S. legally, then the FISA warrant requirement does not apply.
That admission - while suggestive - is not hard evidence.
The constitution gives the president control of the defense of the country, it doesn't give it to congress, or say that congress can limit his control.
Now, that does not mean there are no limits on executive power. In later court cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that the authority granted in Article 2 does not supercede the rights granted in Article 4; thus the restriction that he can wiretap foreigners all he wants, but that he needs a warrant to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil.
I can't make out Saturn's rings or the Veil nebula with my naked eye. A bit of magnification and improved light gathering is good to have when looking at the sky.
And since no one has any evidence that any kind of crime has been committed, why are we spending so much time discussing unsubstantiated rumors as if they are established fact?
This is my understanding; and it may be wrong:
When something crosses a national border, all bets about privacy are off - or at least greatly reduced. This is why Customs can search your bags, your FedEx deliveries and your mail when it crosses the U.S. border.
The way the FISA law is structured, if one of the persons in the call is a legal U.S. resident on U.S. soil then the 4th amendment applies and a warrant is required; but if the person is in the country illegally, or if the call starts and ends internationally, there is no 4th amendment protection and the president is free to act as he sees fit to defend the country (under article II).
IIRC, Europeans have, in recent years, tightened their laws to raise the level of privacy in international (or maybe just intra-EU) mail, I don't know about phone calls.
On the other hand, an augmented scope which is slaved to a remotely operated scope is of some interest for those of us stuck in light polluted areas.
Do you know about SLOOH? I've been strongly tempted to join, but haven't made the leap yet...
to use averted vision; or to wait in line for 30 or 40 minutes and then spend 2 or 3 trying to learn to use averted vision.
which has been mentioned several times in this forum.
The sky scout sells for about $400, but it's not even a telescope, just a sighting tube. Thus, it only "narrates" a few thousand naked-eye objects, mostly stars.
The device discussed in the *article* overlays stored images onto a real-time image of the object the scope is pointed at. Completely different level of tech.
either.
I didn't realize they were selling HUDs for scopes.
1. You offer no evidence that the article in the NYT is linked to warrantless wiretaps.
2. Read your own links. Hitchens never claims he was personally wiretapped.
3. Please provide any evidence, any evidence at all, that Amanpour was wiretapped.
The only evidence you've presented is evidence that you lack reading comprehension.
Please show me where that quote says anything about warrants?!?
It says that the AG can authorize wiretaps! And guess what! That's exactly what people claim was going on!
So, if Bush was asking the AG to approve of the wiretaps, he wasn't breaking the law!
Except for the bit that the 4th ammendment only applies to Americans, not to foreigners.
"international communications" are not protected by the 4th ammendment, nor by FISA, unless one of end of the call was a legal U.S. resident, on American soil.
1. The presumption of innocence does indeed extend to any defendant in a legal case, whether that defendant is a homeless man, Enron, or Bush.
2. The constitution divides the government into 3 equal branches. It does not give Congress automatic control over the president. It also explicitly says that congress has no control over how the president chooses to defend the country. The courts, including the FISA court, have repeatedly ruled that that is true.
3. You cannot "presume" that the President is in violation of anything, without evidence to support that "presumption".
4. There is a difference between asking "have you any evidence" and saying "Bush was right".
Basic logic is lost on some people.
I mean, I could be wrong, IANAL, but I thought you had to show that you had been harmed and as for producing evidence - much like needing "probable cause" you can't use discovery to go fishing for evidence - you have to have some evidence a crime occurred before you sue.
Simple analogy: when it's dark, your pupil widens to let in more light, right? Well, the same principle applies to telescopes - the wider they are, the more light they can gather and focus on your retina or CCD.
The length of a scope, meanwhile, is a secondary characteristic usually tied to it's width, but is also related to the type of scope. a 10" Dobsonian and a 10" Schmidt-Cassegrain have similar light gathering capabilities, but the Dob will probably be over 4 feet long and the Schmidt-Cas will probably be half that.
to the subject under discussion?
DoD != NSA, monitoring activists != warrantless wiretaps.
Your comments == FUD.
They didn't just tap the phones of immigrants? but of US citizens who were communicating with people abroad. This includes noted journalists, politicians, and others. The taps invaded the privacy of thousands of people.
Please provide even a hint of evidence that any of these claims is true. Because I'm betting that you can't.
here's a hint: Just because you read it on the internet doesn't make it true.
Because the post man can't accidentally hook into the trunk line and eavesdrop on your phone calls.
On the other hand, if I was working on a problem with the e-mail server, and I find e-mails talking about dope shipments, I'm pretty sure I can turn those over to the police and they can use them as evidence.
We don't need to, Bush himself has said they were warrant-less wiretaps!
Please provide direct evidence that Bush has admitted to the warrantless wiretapping of Americans. Don't bother with admissions of warrantless wiretapping of overseas calls - because he doesn't need a warrant for those.
So obvious you don't even have to produce evidence that that is the case, right?
Quick question:
Please provide evidence that bush has actually spied on Americans and U.S. residents - because every link I've followed claims that he has, even claims that he has admitted it, but I can't find any transcripts or documentation of such.