Comments on: Illegal Wiretapping, Blah, Blah, Blah

By: scott

scott — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:14:22 +0000

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

Shoebox — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:44:15 +0000

In reply to scott. I think the court decision reads for its self. It doesn't appear we're changing each other's mind...next topic.

By: scott

scott — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 23:53:48 +0000

"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

Shoebox — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:20:39 +0000

In reply to scott.

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

scott — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:41:24 +0000

Hello? Do I have it wrong?

By: scott

scott — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:16:49 +0000

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

Shoebox — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:57:02 +0000

In reply to scott.

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

scott — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:16:25 +0000

No?

By: scott

scott — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:39:50 +0000

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?