Comments on: Illegal Wiretapping, Blah, Blah, Blah http://norunnyeggs.com/2009/01/illegal-wiretapping-blah-blah-blah/ The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:40:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: scott http://norunnyeggs.com/2009/01/illegal-wiretapping-blah-blah-blah/comment-page-1/#comment-36976 scott Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:14:22 +0000 http://norunnyeggs.com/?p=4431#comment-36976 It appears to me that the distinction between what this decision means and what Bush apologists would like it to mean is just confusing enough for the dishonest to try to pass it off as something it's not. Especially in the age of the soundbyte corporate media. Glenn Greenwald has a nice article discussing it at salon: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/15/fisa/ You're wrong, and I challenge you to either admit it or explain to me what I'm missing here. It appears to me that the distinction between what this decision means and what Bush apologists would like it to mean is just confusing enough for the dishonest to try to pass it off as something it’s not. Especially in the age of the soundbyte corporate media.

Glenn Greenwald has a nice article discussing it at salon:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/15/fisa/

You’re wrong, and I challenge you to either admit it or explain to me what I’m missing here.

]]> By: Shoebox http://norunnyeggs.com/2009/01/illegal-wiretapping-blah-blah-blah/comment-page-1/#comment-36971 Shoebox Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:44:15 +0000 http://norunnyeggs.com/?p=4431#comment-36971 I think the court decision reads for its self. It doesn't appear we're changing each other's mind...next topic. I think the court decision reads for its self. It doesn’t appear we’re changing each other’s mind…next topic.

]]> By: scott http://norunnyeggs.com/2009/01/illegal-wiretapping-blah-blah-blah/comment-page-1/#comment-36969 scott Wed, 21 Jan 2009 23:53:48 +0000 http://norunnyeggs.com/?p=4431#comment-36969 <i>"Foreign intelligence" qualified as a "special exception" and was not subject to the 4th amendmen"¦.the sticking point on all of the wiretap issues</i> No. The sticking point is the FISA law in which congress very specifically made illegal the very thing Bush was doing in those years after 9/11. "Foreign intelligence" qualified as a "special exception" and was not subject to the 4th amendmen"¦.the sticking point on all of the wiretap issues

No. The sticking point is the FISA law in which congress very specifically made illegal the very thing Bush was doing in those years after 9/11.

]]> By: Shoebox http://norunnyeggs.com/2009/01/illegal-wiretapping-blah-blah-blah/comment-page-1/#comment-36966 Shoebox Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:20:39 +0000 http://norunnyeggs.com/?p=4431#comment-36966 Yes and no. You are correct that the FISA ruling says it is to the 2007 act. The reason for that is because of the way the suit was constructed...it was specific to that act. However, if you read the decision it is clear that their rationale was based on the fact that "Foreign intelligence" qualified as a "special exception" and was not subject to the 4th amendment....the sticking point on all of the wiretap issues. "For these reasons, we hold that a foreign intelligence exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirment exists when surveillance is conducted to obtain foreign intelligence for national security purposes and is directed against foreign powers or agents of foreign powers reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States." This finding is not specific to this act i.e. it is an interpretation of the Constitutional provision and would apply to all laws/acts so, barring an overriding decision, it is the interpretation that any attorney would rely on for cases involving warrantless wiretaps on a conversation that involved at least 1 person related to a foreign power. Yes and no. You are correct that the FISA ruling says it is to the 2007 act. The reason for that is because of the way the suit was constructed…it was specific to that act. However, if you read the decision it is clear that their rationale was based on the fact that “Foreign intelligence” qualified as a “special exception” and was not subject to the 4th amendment….the sticking point on all of the wiretap issues. “For these reasons, we hold that a foreign intelligence exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirment exists when surveillance is conducted to obtain foreign intelligence for national security purposes and is directed against foreign powers or agents of foreign powers reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States.” This finding is not specific to this act i.e. it is an interpretation of the Constitutional provision and would apply to all laws/acts so, barring an overriding decision, it is the interpretation that any attorney would rely on for cases involving warrantless wiretaps on a conversation that involved at least 1 person related to a foreign power.

]]> By: scott http://norunnyeggs.com/2009/01/illegal-wiretapping-blah-blah-blah/comment-page-1/#comment-36964 scott Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:41:24 +0000 http://norunnyeggs.com/?p=4431#comment-36964 Hello? Do I have it wrong? Hello? Do I have it wrong?

]]> By: scott http://norunnyeggs.com/2009/01/illegal-wiretapping-blah-blah-blah/comment-page-1/#comment-36954 scott Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:16:49 +0000 http://norunnyeggs.com/?p=4431#comment-36954 The decision discussed in the article only applies to whether the 2007 Protect America Act (in which congress specifically authorized warrantless eavesdropping) violated the constitutions warrant requirement. They said it didn't. None of this has anything to do with whether Bush's 2001-2006 wiretapping program--a program which was expressly made illegal by congress. The decision discussed in the article only applies to whether the 2007 Protect America Act (in which congress specifically authorized warrantless eavesdropping) violated the constitutions warrant requirement. They said it didn’t.

None of this has anything to do with whether Bush’s 2001-2006 wiretapping program–a program which was expressly made illegal by congress.

]]> By: Shoebox http://norunnyeggs.com/2009/01/illegal-wiretapping-blah-blah-blah/comment-page-1/#comment-36945 Shoebox Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:57:02 +0000 http://norunnyeggs.com/?p=4431#comment-36945 I read the NY times and some of the others that put their "it only means the company has to comply" spin on the thing. Here's what I will do...It should be easy to find a court case that supercedes this given all the people who had their rights trampled. Give me the cite on that case and we'll discuss it. I read the NY times and some of the others that put their “it only means the company has to comply” spin on the thing. Here’s what I will do…It should be easy to find a court case that supercedes this given all the people who had their rights trampled. Give me the cite on that case and we’ll discuss it.

]]> By: scott http://norunnyeggs.com/2009/01/illegal-wiretapping-blah-blah-blah/comment-page-1/#comment-36944 scott Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:16:25 +0000 http://norunnyeggs.com/?p=4431#comment-36944 No? No?

]]> By: scott http://norunnyeggs.com/2009/01/illegal-wiretapping-blah-blah-blah/comment-page-1/#comment-36940 scott Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:39:50 +0000 http://norunnyeggs.com/?p=4431#comment-36940 So if I can clearly demonstrate that this decision isn't in any way a vindication of Bush's program will you post a new blog entry indicating that you were wrong? So if I can clearly demonstrate that this decision isn’t in any way a vindication of Bush’s program will you post a new blog entry indicating that you were wrong?

]]>