No, my claim is that Yoo has written bullshit legal opinions before. Really, torture being legal? Anything and everything that the administration did based on Yoo's opinions needs to be reconsidered; that is my argument. It has nothing to do with whether or not I like him.
And that is ad hominem, and is a meaningless argument.
2) Whether it would have been approved or not does not change that it was not approved.
Sure it does. al-Haramain is going to have to prove that they were subject to unlawful surveillance that they would have not normally been subject to without the program. Considering the diplomatic standing of al-Haramain, that is going to be a tough sell.
3) Whether they're no longer applicable does not change that it was applicable when it occurred.
What damages could the ask for if the law has been changed?
So you're saying it's a complete waste of time to prosecute executive abuses in the past because Congress caved in the present?
No, I'm saying that it is a waste of time to pursue alleged abuses that Congress apparently agreed with enough to unambiguously grant to the Executive branch. Why should you prosecute "abuses" that the Legislature thinks are fine?
That's just it, we don't know if it's just for protection and defense. Nobody knows, there's no oversight! Geeze, what the hell is so bad about a little judicial oversight?
But there was oversight. Members of the Congressional Judiciary committees, which included members of both parties, were regularly briefed on the status and activities of the program from the beginning. They even gave they program their blessing.
Also, if the President is using the wiretapping powers to eavesdrop on political opponents, then all of America is being damaged.
That is a big "if" -- nobody, not even the Democratic leadership, have accused him of doing this, nor is there any evidence that this program was targeted at anything other than known terrorist contacts overseas communicating with people within our borders.
I do not agree with it even after the law was amended. Warrantless surveillance is illegal per the 4th amendment. Period. Congress can pass a law saying that it isn't, but I'm pretty sure the Constitution supersedes laws of Congress; therefore, the TSP is still clearly illegal. Yes, clearly. Like glass.
Then you are arguing against the US Supreme Court who has clearly ruled that warrantless searches are reasonable as long as the situation is extraordinary and the exceptions are clearly delineated.
We should really just drop this. Neither of us is getting anywhere. You're obviously a lost cause, or vice versa.
I certainly am not conceited enough to think that anybody who disagrees with me is a "lost cause". I sure hope you aren't either. I think that is one of the bigger problems with the political climate today is that too many people automatically dismiss what others are saying because either 1) They don't like who was saying it or 2) They might lose some political clout if they concede anything to their "opponents". There is far too much gray area in these matters for any side to claim a monopoly on truth and reason.
To call him a messenger of the argument is disingenuous - he is the author of the argument.
It is totally relevant to discuss the other arguments that an individual has made in order to call into question the credibility of the argument presented. If it can be shown that Yoo has had a pattern of shakey legal opinions not befitting the title of "expert", this would generally mean that you should be extra careful when considering any opinion he has written.
But you aren't considering the opinion at all. If you were arguing the opinion, it would sound something like "FISA cannot be superceded by other statutes because...", or "Intelligence gathering is not included in the powers and responsibilities given to the President in the AUMF because...", or "The AUMF is not an acceptable statute that can supercede FISA law because...", or "This intelligence gathering is not reasonable as required by the 4th amendment because...". Instead, you're whole claim seems to be resting on "I don't like the guy who wrote it, so it must be wrong." That is neither compelling or accurate, and does nothing to strengthen your argument.
Actually, I was referencing you calling me idiotic as an adhom. I do believe that fits your definition of "attacking the messenger".
No, I was calling what you said idiotic. That wasn't an attack on you -- it was an attack on what you wrote.
I thought the suit against al-Haramain was still around, because they actually have standing to file suit that they were spied upon illegally. Plus, I was not aware of the suits against AT&T going through U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's court having been stopped.
Actually, you are right. al-Haramain v. Bush is still kicking in the 9th circuit. Kindof a moot point though, because the case doesn't stand a snowballs chance. The plaintiffs are 1) Internationally recognized for their ties to terrorist organizations, 2) going to have to prove that the surveillance they were subject to would not have been approved by a FISA court, and 3) arguing arguing aspects of the program that are no longer applicable with the amendments made to the program and FISA statute. I don't see that happening, but then again with the 9th circuit you never know.
And the AT&T case won't decide on the legality of the program. It is a class action suit that will only have to prove injury, and that such injury would be redressed with a favorable verdict. The laws passed last week will likely reduce any case against AT&T because there is clearly now legal authority to compel the telecoms to help.
The amendments to FISA are not retroactive. It only makes it legal now, but it changes nothing about whether it was legal then.
But it does change a lot about any legal challenges to the program now. You can't argue for the program to stop because it is clearly legal now. You can't argue for punitive action against the administration for starting the program because no court has ruled that it was illegal before changes were made to the law. And no court is going to rule that it was illegal back then, but is legal now because the same justifications that were used when the program was started were used to amend the law. It would be a complete waste of time.
You're damn right I don't agree with government propaganda and a highly classified program that shits all over the rights of Americans in a way that makes Hollywood get a boner. Ignoring for a moment that massive surveillance of the kind being used doesn't even work and actually tends to cover up more leads than it opens by swamping the FBI with bogus tips...of course teh terrarists knew that we had massive surveillance going on before such information was released. Get real, do you think your mom didn't go searching through your shit when you were
No, I don't realize that. Yoo is the guy who wrote the legal opinion for the NSA wiretap program. If it can be shown that Yoo also writes legal opinions for other clearly illegal activities, then this is evidence that the justifications for the NSA wiretap program are likely to be shakey, as well.
That is called an ad hominem attack, and is a logical fallacy. You are disagreeing with the merits of an argument based on the messenger, and not the argument itself. That is an appeal to emotion rather than reason, and does nothing to strengthen your argument. That legal opinion could have been written by Bugs Bunny and that claim you are using against it would still have no merit.
You have to argue the legal fundamentals of the brief, not dismiss it because you don't like who wrote it.
Mmm, adhoms. Anyway, you're right, I cannot ultimately decide the legality of the program.
Actually, no. If you'll read the definition above, that wasn't an "adhom". Pointing out the certain fact that you are not a justice on the US Supreme Court isn't an attack on you, it is an attack on your argument that your position has any legal merit on the actual legality of the program. It doesn't, and you've even admitted that yourself.
I know, though, that if it weren't for the NSA leaker^W whistleblower, there would be no chance for a judge to weigh in on this.
Actually, there will be probably no chance for a judge to weigh in on this. The appeals have been stopped, and the FISA statutes amended to allow for the program to continue without any other legal justification. So the only thing that was accomplished through the leaking of this classified program was that our enemies who are sworn to kill as many of us as possible are now aware of it, and our ability to gather intelligence against them has been damaged. Personally, I don't think that is much to celebrate about.
Are you honestly admitting that you have no idea about Armitage's role in the leak? It was in the news, you know.
The only black eye in the face of justice that I can discover is Libby's sentence being commuted. Amazing how that works out to the benefit of the V.P. and the WH, does it not?
Interesting concept of justice. So your idea of justice would be anything that worked out to the detriment of the V.P. and WH? So much for it being "blind", I guess.
My concept of justice is a little different, and may seem a bit radical to you. When the law is broken, I'm in favor of holding those who broke the law accountable. Not some third party who didn't break the law, but also couldn't remember the minute details of conversations held years prior. Not some sacrificial lamb who has to be charged because after three years of investigating the prosecutor realizes that no laws were actually broken, but has to think up something so people don't think he was wasting his time. And especially not some political figure who's only crime happens to be his affiliation with a political party that you disagree with. That, to me, is a prime example of injustice.
You do realize that the individual who wrote the legal opinion for legal warrantless surveillance also wrote legal opinions for using torture.
You do realize that this has nothing to do with the legality of the NSA wiretap program. Don't you?
Actually, I didn't read the DOJ paper itself, but I am familiar with that argument. Sure, it muddies the waters a bit.
So which is it? Clear or muddy? Or is it clearly muddy?
But, I still hold that the President is in clear violation of the law.
And unless you are a justice on the United States Supreme Court, whatever you "hold" has absolutely nothing to do with the actual legality of the program, so claiming that it is "clearly" illegal is idiotic.
As you say, Scooter leaked nothing, but he was charged for the cover-up.
Cover-up of what? How can you cover-up something that you didn't do? How can you be charged with obstruction of justice when there was no justice to obstruct?
The only reason that Libby was charged and convicted was because his recollection of events differed from Tim Russert's. He wasn't charged because he had committed a crime, and he wasn't charged for leaking classified information. He was charged because his recollection of year old events about a crime that the prosecutor knew he didn't commit differed from the recollection of year old events from a TV news reporter.
That would be like the prosecutor asking you what you ate for lunch last week, and then charging with a crime because the lady in the cafeteria remembered differently.
Oh, yes, John Yoo wrote a legal opinion saying that warrantless surveillance is perfectly legal. John Yoo also wrote legal opinions that torture is illegal. I believe Congress has been trying to get their hands on the Yoo opinion in order to verify the judgment used.
Oh, and it's not just the President's political enemies. Ashcroft - not exactly famous for defending civil liberties - wouldn't sign off on the legality of the program. Nor would Comey. And whole bunches of senior DoJ officials were preparing resignations. I'm sure you've heard of the Hospital Showdown in March 04.
Thank you for proving my point. There is nothing clear about this. There are valid arguments for and against the legality of the program, and no court has issued a ruling either way. So not only is it contrived to claim that the issue is settled and "clear" -- it's completely wrong.
Oh, and if you think it's not illegal, please see 50 U.S.C. 1809 section a.1.B
Again, you cannot ignore the Administrations claims to legality without any court opinion on the matter. The DOJ Whitepaper on this subject clearly lays out the Administrations legal claims on the program. I would be willing to bet that you haven't bothered to read it. FISA clearly gave Congress the ability to revise or supercede the statute with new legislation, which they did when they passed the AUMF on September 18th, 2001 which gave the President authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent future attacks. The Administration claims that intelligence gathering targeted at the enemy is fundamentally incident of the use of force. The validity of this claim can only be decided in a court of law, and that simply hasn't happened.
So no, unless a court decides otherwise, the NSA wiretap program is not "clearly illegal".
President is in clear violation of the laws of Congress (specifically, FISA and the 4th Amendment). There isn't anything "clear" about this. The President and his legal advisers claim that it is legal, and the President's political enemies and opposition claim that it is illegal. This matter can only be decided in court, and so far the only case against it was dismissed by the 6th court of appeals.
Contrary to what you may think, "I don't like that program" does not mean "That program is illegal", even if you issue the claim in bold text on an internet message board.
Wrong. The prosecutor knew within the first week of the investigation that the source of the leak was Armitage in the State Department, not the White House. He could not prove that the White House had anything do to with the leak because, well, the White House didn't have anything to do with the leak.
As for the charges and conviction against Libby, thankfully that black eye on the face of justice has been remedied.
No, the UN inspectors had already been in and had found that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance - not even today - of the disarmament, which was demanded of it", and they issued this 175-page Unresolved Disarmament Issues Report in March 2003.
What these FBI guys are doing is unforgivable. They are literally endangering the lives of all of us. By abusing the PATRIOT Act, they are risking having it taken away from those agents who would use it legally to prevent some sort of terrorist attack from happening again.
That was your original argument. The chances of a person dying in America of some terrorist attack in the last 5-6 years has been exponentially lower than the number of people burdened by losing their rights and freedoms in a "post 9/11 America".
Huh? That was not my original argument. You didn't bother to look at who the author of the comments you just copied and pasted from was? My argument was 1) against the claim that Scooter Libby, or somebody "higher in the administration" had "outed an undercover CIA agent" (something that was unequivocally proven false when Armitage came forward and admitted that he was the source of the leak), and 2) the claim that we don't do anything about the 40,000 people who die in traffic accidents every year, which is also false. We voluntarily give up a lot of freedoms in an effort to mitigate the risk of dying in a traffic accident.
So you may hide cowering under the bed and beg the government agents to keep removing the rights and freedoms of Americans so that you may feel safer (although in small increments). You have a perfect right to do so. However, any American who really values those rights and freedoms, will work to protect those rights and freedoms from anyone, include the government, who tries to take them away.
Now you are slipping into silly ad hominims. I don't suppose you claim that Al Gore is hiding under his bed cowering in fear whenever he talks about removing our rights and freedoms to protect us from climate change, do you?
I don't argue that we should remove rights and freedoms so that we can feel safer, I'm arguing that we routinely give up rights and freedoms so that we can be safer, and that the Patriot Act, and the so-called "War or Terror", are no different. Any claim otherwise is made in ignorance. This isn't fear - it's reality. You don't see any rational people claiming that driving on the right side of the road and stopping at red lights is an act of cowardice, do you?
You may want to see convicted criminals like Scooter Libby set free because they are "fighting the terrorists", but Americans who are proud that our country is a "nation of laws and not of men" want any member of government who breaks the laws to be punished, just like any ordinary American would be.
No, I want to see people like Scooter Libby set free because his conviction is an unsightly black eye on the face of justice. It doesn't have anything to do with him "fighting the terrorists" - it has everything to do with the fact that he didn't do anything wrong and just got caught in the middle of a childish and obvious political witch hunt aimed at more powerful political enemies than him.
Regardless of all that, you just ignore every shred of evidence I present as if it were worthless
Ignore? Nope. Disagree with? Absolutely. Your argument is a classic non Sequitur fallacy. You are trying to make a sweeping claim that George Bush is stealing your liberties based on tiny slivers of data, while dismissing anything that may point to the contrary. I freely concede that we are giving up some liberty in the fight against terrorism, just as I freely concede that we have always given up liberties in exchange for protection or safety.
This is an excellent example of why I am wasting my time. There are US Citizens on a no-fly list that they cannot look at, nor is there any way to get off the list -- it's all secret. You said that we have the right to freely travel, and I have proved that by the fact that there exists a secret no-fly list, that we do not. I know how many names were on it at one point because a journalist obtained it from an airport employee, but you cannot go down to the airport and look at the list -- it's "secret".
And this is a perfect example of your use of fallacious arguments. Your claim is that the Bush Administration "took away" the right to freely travel with the use of a no-fly list, but completely ignore the fact that
1) The Federal Government has maintained a "No-Fly" list long before the Bush Administration took office so it's ridiculous to "blame" it on them
2) The US isn't the only free country to maintain such a list and 3) The proportion of "false positives" on the list is so minute compared to the size of the traveling public that it is laughable to conclude that we have a wholesale reduction of freedom. Even with your (very debatable) claim of 500,000 names on the list,and they were all US citizens, that would leave a chance of one tenth of one percent that you would have the possibility of having your freedom to travel restricted.
In fact, The Washington Post had claimed that the No-Fly list peaked at only 30,000 names worldwide (from about 3,000 names in 2000). The National Counterterrorism Center list of potential terrorists worldwide has only 200,000 people and 325,000 names, and the vast majority of those are not US citizens. So the reality is that less than.005% of the world's population will potentially have an issue with a terrorism list maintained by the federal government - 5 people out of every 100,000 that board a plane.
So if you look at your argument in context, it's pretty easy to disagree with (or "dismiss with the wave of a hand", as you call it).
How exactly do you "reach understanding" with a group that considers you the Great Satan, lower than the filthiest animals on the earth, and that they gain exultation when they martyr themselves while in the act of killing as many innocent people as possible? Do you bow down to Mecca three times per day just to make sure that the mean men won't hurt you?
Why in the world should transfering any amount of money be against the law? If I earn $10,000 or $1,000,000 I should be able to do whatever I want with it. The only thing that should matter is that I don't harm, or cause harm to, another. If I do charge me with that harm, not for doing whatever I want with my money.
You can do whatever you want with your own money, you just have to inform the Government what you are doing under certain circumstances.
Do you recognize I'm a sovereign person? Especially in the USA, it's supposed to be By the People, For the People. The government is supposed to work for the people not the people work for the government.
Huh? You aren't making sense. "Personal" sovereignty doesn't mean you are exempt from the laws established by the representatives who were elected by the people. You may choose to ignore the demarcated borders of this country, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.
Of course! Why didn't anybody think of this before? All we have to do is get everybody on the face of the earth to agree with each other and be nice to each other and then we won't have to worry about defending ourselves ever again.
The requirement to report a finacial transaction of $10,000 or more was in the law books before the PATRIOT Act ever existed. It was one of those laws meant to fight money laundering.
As I said, the only way you could get a conviction before the Patriot Act was to prove that the subject had actively evaded the reporting procedure. All the Patriot Act did was make the act of transferring the currency against the law, instead of just evading the reports.
No it was a response to the argument you brought up when you said "Increased border security provisions to help stop illegal aliens from entering the country, with added provisions for the Canadian border." I neither consider any of the Founding Fathers, nor any Mexican crossing the USA border an "illegal alien". And many of those Mexicans have ancesters who were here before the first Europeans settled in the Americas, the Mayans. There are even tribes living on both the Canadian and Mexican borders with the USA who have the right to live and work on either side of the border, such as the Tohono O'odham Nation in AZ.
I have no clue where you are going with this. Do you recognize the sovereignty of this nation? Do you respect the right of a sovereign nation to demarcate borders, and to regulate who is allowed to cross those borders? If not, this is a much more fundamental discussion than the proportionality of the Patriot Act provisions.
As for "border security" there wouldn't much if any concern for terrorists crossing the border if, one the US didn't act like a big bully or support dictators, and two the US didn't create or support terrorists to being with.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you just gave the diplomatic equivalent accusation of "That girl lead me on and was just asking to be raped".
I don't claim that we have had a perfect diplomatic history, and acknowledge that, just as every other nation has, we have made some pretty big mistakes. But I would strongly disagree with and fight against anybody who claims the right to murder our innocent civilians because of those mistakes or imperfections.
Our Constitution protects our privacy. The difference is that the Government is not allowed to monitor the phone calls and internet activities of ordinary citizens on the off chance of them somehow conspiring to be terrorists, any more than the Government is not allowed to put a police officer in the passenger seat of your car on the off chance that you might commit a traffic violation.
Bad example. Police officers can hide behind bushes in unmarked cars to enforce traffic laws. Cities can put up sophisticated cameras that issue tickets for speeding and running red lights. Judges can even order DUI offenders to install a breath test engine lock, effectively putting a police officer in the front seat to enforce the law.
Our privacy is still protected. Law enforcement still doesn't have the authority (nor the inclination or resources) to randomly monitor the activities of ordinary citizens. They still have to go through the proper legal channels for judicial review, and the legislative branch still has oversight of such programs.
You can't even bring a bottle of water with you to the plane, or toothpaste or shampoo. If this were a reasonable safety precaution the European countries would do it too, but they don't. So either the US has ridiculously repressive travel laws as a part of "security theatre", or European countries do not care about your safety at all. Here's a hint -- no European airline has been brought down by a "water bomb".
I'm not sure when the last time you flew was, but you are wrong. You can bring toothpaste, shampoo, and water on a flight. If you want to bring your own stuff from home, there might be some size restrictions, and you may have to put it in a plastic bag, or you can buy as big a bottle of water as you want inside the airport and take it on the plane without a single person thinking a thing about it.
No you don't, not any more. Bush and Cheney took it away. If you're on a secret "no-fly list", you cannot get on a plane and go to California. Sure you could drive, but at that point the "freely" travel is seriously in doubt. Furthermore, the Government also requires you to have a driver's license to get on a plane. What if you don't drive? Well too bad. You might be a terrorist, so they won't let you on a plane. Think you can "freely" travel to another country at that point? I don't think so. Right now 500,000 plus names are on that list, but the Government won't publish it. Do you really think that all of those names on that list are "terrorists"?
Interesting. There is a "top secret" list that the Government refuses to publish, but you somehow know how many names are on the list. Either you are a 1) High ranking Government official with security clearance to know about this list who just happens to post on Slashdot as an AC, or 2) You don't know what you are talking about and are easily motivated by hysterical and unwarranted hyperbole.
I'm usually not a betting man, but I'm pretty sure I could win big putting some money down on that bet.
That's like a theatre deciding to not let you in to see any movies because you might yell fire. Then the movie theatre won't tell about the "no-movie" list because of "security" reasons, or tell you how and why you got on it, or how to get off. It doesn't have anything to do with actually yelling fire, because you haven't done any of that and are not going to, but your freedoms are restricted just the same. That's the difference between a free country that will just arrest you if you yell fire in a crowded theater, and one that listens to you all the time to find out if you are possibly planning to yell "fire". That's not protection, that's harassment.
Our right to privacy is being violated by the current government secretly monitoring US citizens. Our right of redress by the courts or "habeas corpus" is removed, because the Government has passed a law
Libby was convicted of two separate counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice, and one count of lying to the FBI. The jury proved that he was told of Valerie Plame's identity nine separate times . A person who truly has that bad a memory if they can't remember a thing after being told 9 times would be unable to function in our society, let alone be "Cheney's Cheney".
Libby never denied that he had learned of Plame's identity. All of the charges stem around his recollection that he first learned it from Tim Russert, and Russert's testimony that he didn't recall that happening. But Russert also told the FBI that he couldn't "completely rule out the possibility that he had such an exchange" with Libby because it had happened so long ago and he talks to so many people. What is simply amazing is that this comment didn't create enough "reasonable doubt" to get Fitzgerald to drop the bogus charges, or for a jury to acquit.
Why is is suddenly unreasonable for the Government to restrict our freedom and enforce laws to protect us from terrorism? I don't know why "conservatives" are rushing to give away the freedoms our country used to be known for.
What specific freedoms would you be referring to? Our freedoms have always been restricted for the sake of safety. We have the freedom of speech, but you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. We have the right to bear arms, but you can't go around shooting at anything you want. We have the right to freely travel, but you can't ignore traffic laws. We have the right to buy the kind of car we want, live in the kind of house we want, and live the kind of lifestyle we want, but people like Al Gore want to restrict those freedoms to "protect" us from "global warming".
Like it or not, there is no Constitutionally guaranteed "right" to secretly conspire to kill as many people as possible in a terror attack without the Government trying to stop you.
Roving wiretaps were already allowed before the PATROIT Act. They were allowed as late as 1988.
Right. But prior to the Patriot Act, such wiretaps were severely limited. All the Patriot Act did was expand the ability to get a warrant if the subject was the target of a terrorist investigation and they were likely to thwart identification.
The Patriot Act also amended the FISA statute to remove the perceived "wall" between a criminal investigation and intelligence gathering activities, and allowed classified intelligence obtained through surveillance to be shared with a grand jury.
What, warrants couldn't of been used before the act?
Not for certain things that would assist in intelligence gathering and preventing terror attacks. The seizure of medical or library records, for one. It should be noted that the Patriot Act requires both a court order, and a written order by the director of the FBI to retrieve such records.
Like need more laws making things illegal.
Sure we did. For example, Congress found that money laundering using traditional financial institutions and accounts was significantly reduced by the existing Bank Secrecy Act. But transferring bulk currency without reporting it was not illegal -- it was only illegal if it was found that the subject actively evaded the reporting proceedures. The Patriot Act made it illegal to transfer bulk currency (over $10,000) without reporting it. That's pretty much a no-brainer. That would be like having a law against covering up a murder, but no laws against murder itself.
HAHA!!! Like RICO couldn't have been used for this? If they can use it to pull over someone driving because they fit a profile then confiscate any money found then it should be usable for terrorism as well.
Actually, no. The scope of RICO was severely limited to criminal investigations, and had a very limited list of federal and state statutes that qualified. The Patriot Act simply expanded this to include the newly created terror act statutes. Again, a no-brainer.
You're talking to wrong person about so called "illegal aliens". If you do want to talk about them then what Native American Indian tribe are you from? If you're not Indian then you're an illegal alien. Those wanting to make it illegal to immigrate are no better than the Know Nothings who wanted to exclude the Irish from immigrating to the USA, or those who supported the Chinese Exclusion Act.
Is that seriously supposed to be an argument against the Patriot Act? Do you really consider the founding fathers "illegal aliens"?
Such as searching book store and library records? What of sneak and peek search warrants? The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 was specifically setup so the president could get warrants after Nixon abused his office.
Right. And everything that required a warrant from FISA still requires a warrant. The Patriot Act only expands the the things that law enforcement can ask a judge to issue a warrant for. This article proves that law enforcement is still held to the same standards, and abuse of the law and overreaching by law enforcement is still subject to penalties.
Blanket statements like the Patriot Act is "not needed", and that we already had "all the power needed" to reduce terror attacks leads me to believe that you have never actually read the Patriot Act, and actually have no clue what the Patriot Act actually does. So tell me, what about these specific provisions in the Patriot Act do you think are "not needed".
- Strengthening roving wiretaps that Bill Clinton created in 1996 if the court finds that the target of the surveillance is likely to thwart identification. Previously, if the target of a wiretap changed phone lines or got a new phone, a new court-issued warrant was required. Roving wiretaps allows a judge to issue a warrant that covers any phone the target may be using if the target is a suspected terrorist and they have tried to thwart previous wiretaps.
- Expanding the warrants that can be issued by a judge to include targets more specific to terrorism.
- Created new crimes related to money laundering and financing terrorism, and creating several new new anti-money laundering tools, including increased identification requirements for financial accounts, modified guidelines for generating suspicious activity reports (SAR's), and due diligence measures for certain types of financial accounts held by certain foreign nationals
- Created new crime classifications for terror attacks, including WMD attacks, attacks on mass transit systems, use of biological weapons, etc.
- Permits the confiscation of the property of those convicted of participating in or planning a terror attack
- Increased border security provisions to help stop illegal aliens from entering the country, with added provisions for the Canadian border. These provisions only apply to aliens trying to enter the country, and not to US citizens.
That's it. That's all the Patriot Act does. If you really want to argue that the Patriot Act is "not needed", you need to specifically address which of these provisions you don't like, and why you don't think it is relevant to preventing or reducing terror attacks, and why existing laws would have been sufficient.
That's ridiculous, and a lie in itself. Outing an undercover CIA agent endangers the lives of everyone else abroad who ever associated with that CIA agent or other undercover agents working for the same front company and their associates too. People are routinely killed for being "spies".
If Scooter didn't do it himself, he lied knowing he would go to jail for it to protect those who did do it. Probably because they were higher in the administration than he was and would have gone to jail themselves for doing it. Libby was convicted of one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury, and one count of lying to the FBI about how he learned Plame's identity. One count of perjury sent Martha Stewart to jail, got Clinton disbarred and nearly cost him his Presidency, but you are fine with Scooter getting off "scot free" for far more serious stuff.
You need to keep up. The source of the leak was Armitage in the State Department, not somebody "higher in the administration", and Fitzgerald knew this within days of starting his investigation. Libby had no reason to lie to protect the administration because the administration had done nothing wrong.
What Libby got convicted for was telling investigators that he thought he learned of Plame's identity from Tim Russert, but Tim Russert told investigators that he never remembered having that conversation. What boggles my mind is that Russert admitted on the stand that he couldn't completely rule out that the conversation did take place because it was so long ago and he talks to so many people, but that apparently wasn't enough "reasonable doubt" to prevent a conviction.
As far as the Patriot act is concerned, more people die of lightning strikes or bee stings every year than die in terrorist attacks. Traffic accidents kill 40,000 people a year, but you don't see us quivering in fear every time we are about to get behind the wheel.
Bad example. 40,000 people die in traffic accidents every year, so we have countless laws that restrict our "freedom" when we drive. We can't drive on the wrong side of the road, we have to obey traffic signals and signs, we can't drive too fast, we have to get our cars inspected for safety, we can't drive while intoxicated, car makers have to implement a growing list of required safety features on cars. These laws restrict our freedom and are strictly enforced to help protect us.
Why is is suddenly unreasonable for the Government to restrict our freedom and enforce laws to protect us from terrorism?
Slashdot Mirror
And that is ad hominem, and is a meaningless argument.
Sure it does. al-Haramain is going to have to prove that they were subject to unlawful surveillance that they would have not normally been subject to without the program. Considering the diplomatic standing of al-Haramain, that is going to be a tough sell.
What damages could the ask for if the law has been changed?
No, I'm saying that it is a waste of time to pursue alleged abuses that Congress apparently agreed with enough to unambiguously grant to the Executive branch. Why should you prosecute "abuses" that the Legislature thinks are fine?
But there was oversight. Members of the Congressional Judiciary committees, which included members of both parties, were regularly briefed on the status and activities of the program from the beginning. They even gave they program their blessing.
That is a big "if" -- nobody, not even the Democratic leadership, have accused him of doing this, nor is there any evidence that this program was targeted at anything other than known terrorist contacts overseas communicating with people within our borders.
Then you are arguing against the US Supreme Court who has clearly ruled that warrantless searches are reasonable as long as the situation is extraordinary and the exceptions are clearly delineated.
I certainly am not conceited enough to think that anybody who disagrees with me is a "lost cause". I sure hope you aren't either. I think that is one of the bigger problems with the political climate today is that too many people automatically dismiss what others are saying because either 1) They don't like who was saying it or 2) They might lose some political clout if they concede anything to their "opponents". There is far too much gray area in these matters for any side to claim a monopoly on truth and reason.
But you aren't considering the opinion at all. If you were arguing the opinion, it would sound something like "FISA cannot be superceded by other statutes because ...", or "Intelligence gathering is not included in the powers and responsibilities given to the President in the AUMF because ...", or "The AUMF is not an acceptable statute that can supercede FISA law because ...", or "This intelligence gathering is not reasonable as required by the 4th amendment because...". Instead, you're whole claim seems to be resting on "I don't like the guy who wrote it, so it must be wrong." That is neither compelling or accurate, and does nothing to strengthen your argument.
No, I was calling what you said idiotic. That wasn't an attack on you -- it was an attack on what you wrote.
Actually, you are right. al-Haramain v. Bush is still kicking in the 9th circuit. Kindof a moot point though, because the case doesn't stand a snowballs chance. The plaintiffs are 1) Internationally recognized for their ties to terrorist organizations, 2) going to have to prove that the surveillance they were subject to would not have been approved by a FISA court, and 3) arguing arguing aspects of the program that are no longer applicable with the amendments made to the program and FISA statute. I don't see that happening, but then again with the 9th circuit you never know.
And the AT&T case won't decide on the legality of the program. It is a class action suit that will only have to prove injury, and that such injury would be redressed with a favorable verdict. The laws passed last week will likely reduce any case against AT&T because there is clearly now legal authority to compel the telecoms to help.
But it does change a lot about any legal challenges to the program now. You can't argue for the program to stop because it is clearly legal now. You can't argue for punitive action against the administration for starting the program because no court has ruled that it was illegal before changes were made to the law. And no court is going to rule that it was illegal back then, but is legal now because the same justifications that were used when the program was started were used to amend the law. It would be a complete waste of time.
That is called an ad hominem attack, and is a logical fallacy. You are disagreeing with the merits of an argument based on the messenger, and not the argument itself. That is an appeal to emotion rather than reason, and does nothing to strengthen your argument. That legal opinion could have been written by Bugs Bunny and that claim you are using against it would still have no merit.
You have to argue the legal fundamentals of the brief, not dismiss it because you don't like who wrote it.
Actually, no. If you'll read the definition above, that wasn't an "adhom". Pointing out the certain fact that you are not a justice on the US Supreme Court isn't an attack on you, it is an attack on your argument that your position has any legal merit on the actual legality of the program. It doesn't, and you've even admitted that yourself.
Actually, there will be probably no chance for a judge to weigh in on this. The appeals have been stopped, and the FISA statutes amended to allow for the program to continue without any other legal justification. So the only thing that was accomplished through the leaking of this classified program was that our enemies who are sworn to kill as many of us as possible are now aware of it, and our ability to gather intelligence against them has been damaged. Personally, I don't think that is much to celebrate about.
I guess you disagree.
Interesting concept of justice. So your idea of justice would be anything that worked out to the detriment of the V.P. and WH? So much for it being "blind", I guess.
My concept of justice is a little different, and may seem a bit radical to you. When the law is broken, I'm in favor of holding those who broke the law accountable. Not some third party who didn't break the law, but also couldn't remember the minute details of conversations held years prior. Not some sacrificial lamb who has to be charged because after three years of investigating the prosecutor realizes that no laws were actually broken, but has to think up something so people don't think he was wasting his time. And especially not some political figure who's only crime happens to be his affiliation with a political party that you disagree with. That, to me, is a prime example of injustice.
You do realize that this has nothing to do with the legality of the NSA wiretap program. Don't you?
So which is it? Clear or muddy? Or is it clearly muddy?
And unless you are a justice on the United States Supreme Court, whatever you "hold" has absolutely nothing to do with the actual legality of the program, so claiming that it is "clearly" illegal is idiotic.
Cover-up of what? How can you cover-up something that you didn't do? How can you be charged with obstruction of justice when there was no justice to obstruct?
The only reason that Libby was charged and convicted was because his recollection of events differed from Tim Russert's. He wasn't charged because he had committed a crime, and he wasn't charged for leaking classified information. He was charged because his recollection of year old events about a crime that the prosecutor knew he didn't commit differed from the recollection of year old events from a TV news reporter.
That would be like the prosecutor asking you what you ate for lunch last week, and then charging with a crime because the lady in the cafeteria remembered differently.
Thank you for proving my point. There is nothing clear about this. There are valid arguments for and against the legality of the program, and no court has issued a ruling either way. So not only is it contrived to claim that the issue is settled and "clear" -- it's completely wrong.
Again, you cannot ignore the Administrations claims to legality without any court opinion on the matter. The DOJ Whitepaper on this subject clearly lays out the Administrations legal claims on the program. I would be willing to bet that you haven't bothered to read it. FISA clearly gave Congress the ability to revise or supercede the statute with new legislation, which they did when they passed the AUMF on September 18th, 2001 which gave the President authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent future attacks. The Administration claims that intelligence gathering targeted at the enemy is fundamentally incident of the use of force. The validity of this claim can only be decided in a court of law, and that simply hasn't happened.
So no, unless a court decides otherwise, the NSA wiretap program is not "clearly illegal".
President is in clear violation of the laws of Congress (specifically, FISA and the 4th Amendment).
There isn't anything "clear" about this. The President and his legal advisers claim that it is legal, and the President's political enemies and opposition claim that it is illegal. This matter can only be decided in court, and so far the only case against it was dismissed by the 6th court of appeals.
Contrary to what you may think, "I don't like that program" does not mean "That program is illegal", even if you issue the claim in bold text on an internet message board.
Wrong. The prosecutor knew within the first week of the investigation that the source of the leak was Armitage in the State Department, not the White House. He could not prove that the White House had anything do to with the leak because, well, the White House didn't have anything to do with the leak.
As for the charges and conviction against Libby, thankfully that black eye on the face of justice has been remedied.
Why would they raid the Oval Office when the prosecutor knew that the White House didn't have anything to do with the leak?
No, the UN inspectors had already been in and had found that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance - not even today - of the disarmament, which was demanded of it", and they issued this 175-page Unresolved Disarmament Issues Report in March 2003.
The point is to prevent people from getting credible weaponized stocks, not wait around until they have them before deciding to do something about it.
Thankfully, because we took action in 2003, we can now rule Iraq out as a possible source for weaponized BW.
Huh? That was not my original argument. You didn't bother to look at who the author of the comments you just copied and pasted from was? My argument was 1) against the claim that Scooter Libby, or somebody "higher in the administration" had "outed an undercover CIA agent" (something that was unequivocally proven false when Armitage came forward and admitted that he was the source of the leak), and 2) the claim that we don't do anything about the 40,000 people who die in traffic accidents every year, which is also false. We voluntarily give up a lot of freedoms in an effort to mitigate the risk of dying in a traffic accident.
Now you are slipping into silly ad hominims. I don't suppose you claim that Al Gore is hiding under his bed cowering in fear whenever he talks about removing our rights and freedoms to protect us from climate change, do you?
I don't argue that we should remove rights and freedoms so that we can feel safer, I'm arguing that we routinely give up rights and freedoms so that we can be safer, and that the Patriot Act, and the so-called "War or Terror", are no different. Any claim otherwise is made in ignorance. This isn't fear - it's reality. You don't see any rational people claiming that driving on the right side of the road and stopping at red lights is an act of cowardice, do you?
No, I want to see people like Scooter Libby set free because his conviction is an unsightly black eye on the face of justice. It doesn't have anything to do with him "fighting the terrorists" - it has everything to do with the fact that he didn't do anything wrong and just got caught in the middle of a childish and obvious political witch hunt aimed at more powerful political enemies than him.
Ignore? Nope. Disagree with? Absolutely. Your argument is a classic non Sequitur fallacy. You are trying to make a sweeping claim that George Bush is stealing your liberties based on tiny slivers of data, while dismissing anything that may point to the contrary. I freely concede that we are giving up some liberty in the fight against terrorism, just as I freely concede that we have always given up liberties in exchange for protection or safety.
And this is a perfect example of your use of fallacious arguments. Your claim is that the Bush Administration "took away" the right to freely travel with the use of a no-fly list, but completely ignore the fact that
1) The Federal Government has maintained a "No-Fly" list long before the Bush Administration took office so it's ridiculous to "blame" it on them
2) The US isn't the only free country to maintain such a list
and 3) The proportion of "false positives" on the list is so minute compared to the size of the traveling public that it is laughable to conclude that we have a wholesale reduction of freedom. Even with your (very debatable) claim of 500,000 names on the list,and they were all US citizens, that would leave a chance of one tenth of one percent that you would have the possibility of having your freedom to travel restricted.
In fact, The Washington Post had claimed that the No-Fly list peaked at only 30,000 names worldwide (from about 3,000 names in 2000). The National Counterterrorism Center list of potential terrorists worldwide has only 200,000 people and 325,000 names, and the vast majority of those are not US citizens. So the reality is that less than
So if you look at your argument in context, it's pretty easy to disagree with (or "dismiss with the wave of a hand", as you call it).
Unfortunately, it takes more than just "us" from trying. "They" have to try as well.
How exactly do you "reach understanding" with a group that considers you the Great Satan, lower than the filthiest animals on the earth, and that they gain exultation when they martyr themselves while in the act of killing as many innocent people as possible? Do you bow down to Mecca three times per day just to make sure that the mean men won't hurt you?
You can do whatever you want with your own money, you just have to inform the Government what you are doing under certain circumstances.
Huh? You aren't making sense. "Personal" sovereignty doesn't mean you are exempt from the laws established by the representatives who were elected by the people. You may choose to ignore the demarcated borders of this country, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.
It makes perfect sense. Disarming yourself only makes you a more attractive target to those who refuse to disarm.
Of course! Why didn't anybody think of this before? All we have to do is get everybody on the face of the earth to agree with each other and be nice to each other and then we won't have to worry about defending ourselves ever again.
Brilliant!
As I said, the only way you could get a conviction before the Patriot Act was to prove that the subject had actively evaded the reporting procedure. All the Patriot Act did was make the act of transferring the currency against the law, instead of just evading the reports.
I have no clue where you are going with this. Do you recognize the sovereignty of this nation? Do you respect the right of a sovereign nation to demarcate borders, and to regulate who is allowed to cross those borders? If not, this is a much more fundamental discussion than the proportionality of the Patriot Act provisions.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you just gave the diplomatic equivalent accusation of "That girl lead me on and was just asking to be raped".
I don't claim that we have had a perfect diplomatic history, and acknowledge that, just as every other nation has, we have made some pretty big mistakes. But I would strongly disagree with and fight against anybody who claims the right to murder our innocent civilians because of those mistakes or imperfections.
Bad example. Police officers can hide behind bushes in unmarked cars to enforce traffic laws. Cities can put up sophisticated cameras that issue tickets for speeding and running red lights. Judges can even order DUI offenders to install a breath test engine lock, effectively putting a police officer in the front seat to enforce the law.
Our privacy is still protected. Law enforcement still doesn't have the authority (nor the inclination or resources) to randomly monitor the activities of ordinary citizens. They still have to go through the proper legal channels for judicial review, and the legislative branch still has oversight of such programs.
I'm not sure when the last time you flew was, but you are wrong. You can bring toothpaste, shampoo, and water on a flight. If you want to bring your own stuff from home, there might be some size restrictions, and you may have to put it in a plastic bag, or you can buy as big a bottle of water as you want inside the airport and take it on the plane without a single person thinking a thing about it.
Interesting. There is a "top secret" list that the Government refuses to publish, but you somehow know how many names are on the list. Either you are a 1) High ranking Government official with security clearance to know about this list who just happens to post on Slashdot as an AC, or 2) You don't know what you are talking about and are easily motivated by hysterical and unwarranted hyperbole.
I'm usually not a betting man, but I'm pretty sure I could win big putting some money down on that bet.
Libby never denied that he had learned of Plame's identity. All of the charges stem around his recollection that he first learned it from Tim Russert, and Russert's testimony that he didn't recall that happening. But Russert also told the FBI that he couldn't "completely rule out the possibility that he had such an exchange" with Libby because it had happened so long ago and he talks to so many people. What is simply amazing is that this comment didn't create enough "reasonable doubt" to get Fitzgerald to drop the bogus charges, or for a jury to acquit.
What specific freedoms would you be referring to? Our freedoms have always been restricted for the sake of safety. We have the freedom of speech, but you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. We have the right to bear arms, but you can't go around shooting at anything you want. We have the right to freely travel, but you can't ignore traffic laws. We have the right to buy the kind of car we want, live in the kind of house we want, and live the kind of lifestyle we want, but people like Al Gore want to restrict those freedoms to "protect" us from "global warming".
Like it or not, there is no Constitutionally guaranteed "right" to secretly conspire to kill as many people as possible in a terror attack without the Government trying to stop you.
Right. But prior to the Patriot Act, such wiretaps were severely limited. All the Patriot Act did was expand the ability to get a warrant if the subject was the target of a terrorist investigation and they were likely to thwart identification.
The Patriot Act also amended the FISA statute to remove the perceived "wall" between a criminal investigation and intelligence gathering activities, and allowed classified intelligence obtained through surveillance to be shared with a grand jury.
Not for certain things that would assist in intelligence gathering and preventing terror attacks. The seizure of medical or library records, for one. It should be noted that the Patriot Act requires both a court order, and a written order by the director of the FBI to retrieve such records.
Sure we did. For example, Congress found that money laundering using traditional financial institutions and accounts was significantly reduced by the existing Bank Secrecy Act. But transferring bulk currency without reporting it was not illegal -- it was only illegal if it was found that the subject actively evaded the reporting proceedures. The Patriot Act made it illegal to transfer bulk currency (over $10,000) without reporting it. That's pretty much a no-brainer. That would be like having a law against covering up a murder, but no laws against murder itself.
Actually, no. The scope of RICO was severely limited to criminal investigations, and had a very limited list of federal and state statutes that qualified. The Patriot Act simply expanded this to include the newly created terror act statutes. Again, a no-brainer.
Is that seriously supposed to be an argument against the Patriot Act? Do you really consider the founding fathers "illegal aliens"?
Right. And everything that required a warrant from FISA still requires a warrant. The Patriot Act only expands the the things that law enforcement can ask a judge to issue a warrant for. This article proves that law enforcement is still held to the same standards, and abuse of the law and overreaching by law enforcement is still subject to penalties.
Blanket statements like the Patriot Act is "not needed", and that we already had "all the power needed" to reduce terror attacks leads me to believe that you have never actually read the Patriot Act, and actually have no clue what the Patriot Act actually does. So tell me, what about these specific provisions in the Patriot Act do you think are "not needed".
- Strengthening roving wiretaps that Bill Clinton created in 1996 if the court finds that the target of the surveillance is likely to thwart identification. Previously, if the target of a wiretap changed phone lines or got a new phone, a new court-issued warrant was required. Roving wiretaps allows a judge to issue a warrant that covers any phone the target may be using if the target is a suspected terrorist and they have tried to thwart previous wiretaps.
- Expanding the warrants that can be issued by a judge to include targets more specific to terrorism.
- Created new crimes related to money laundering and financing terrorism, and creating several new new anti-money laundering tools, including increased identification requirements for financial accounts, modified guidelines for generating suspicious activity reports (SAR's), and due diligence measures for certain types of financial accounts held by certain foreign nationals
- Created new crime classifications for terror attacks, including WMD attacks, attacks on mass transit systems, use of biological weapons, etc.
- Permits the confiscation of the property of those convicted of participating in or planning a terror attack
- Increased border security provisions to help stop illegal aliens from entering the country, with added provisions for the Canadian border. These provisions only apply to aliens trying to enter the country, and not to US citizens.
That's it. That's all the Patriot Act does. If you really want to argue that the Patriot Act is "not needed", you need to specifically address which of these provisions you don't like, and why you don't think it is relevant to preventing or reducing terror attacks, and why existing laws would have been sufficient.
You need to keep up. The source of the leak was Armitage in the State Department, not somebody "higher in the administration", and Fitzgerald knew this within days of starting his investigation. Libby had no reason to lie to protect the administration because the administration had done nothing wrong.
What Libby got convicted for was telling investigators that he thought he learned of Plame's identity from Tim Russert, but Tim Russert told investigators that he never remembered having that conversation. What boggles my mind is that Russert admitted on the stand that he couldn't completely rule out that the conversation did take place because it was so long ago and he talks to so many people, but that apparently wasn't enough "reasonable doubt" to prevent a conviction.
Bad example. 40,000 people die in traffic accidents every year, so we have countless laws that restrict our "freedom" when we drive. We can't drive on the wrong side of the road, we have to obey traffic signals and signs, we can't drive too fast, we have to get our cars inspected for safety, we can't drive while intoxicated, car makers have to implement a growing list of required safety features on cars. These laws restrict our freedom and are strictly enforced to help protect us.
Why is is suddenly unreasonable for the Government to restrict our freedom and enforce laws to protect us from terrorism?