9 Responses to “Illegal Wiretapping, Blah, Blah, Blah”

• scott said on January 17th, 2009 at 10:39:
  

  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?
• scott said on January 19th, 2009 at 8:16:
  

  No?

  • Shoebox said on January 19th, 2009 at 8:57:
    

    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.
• scott said on January 20th, 2009 at 14:16:
  

  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.
• scott said on January 21st, 2009 at 8:41:
  

  Hello? Do I have it wrong?

  • Shoebox said on January 21st, 2009 at 15:20:
    

    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.
• scott said on January 21st, 2009 at 17:53:
  

  "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.

  • Shoebox said on January 21st, 2009 at 18:44:
    

    I think the court decision reads for its self. It doesn’t appear we’re changing each other’s mind…next topic.
• scott said on January 22nd, 2009 at 10:14:
  

  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.