somebody got to help me out

[MrDale]

anybody have a good answer for this. ive posted this within a couple threads already. this is an area im not real knowledgeable on.

this is from a necon during NSA debates. ive thrown up much of the links and stuff that are already here to claim that clinton and carter werent acting illegally and seemed to shut him up until i got this....


that i recieved...


your continued allegations of law-breaking rests solely on the fact that the president authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

there has been on president then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President\\\'s power to make exceptions to FISA, i.e. HE DOESNT NEED THE WARRANT FROM THE COURT if national security required it.

FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed.

The courts have all agree, most recently in a Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion,

the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal \\\"court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue

[BR_Parkway]

1. Tell them to read the law - they can even go to court 72 hours

after they start - but they have to go to court, that's the law.

[MrDale]

4. i tried this one

we'll see what the response is, but i agree that more about this will be coming in out in the enxt few days, especially legal analysts discussing this.

[MrModerate]

2. I ain't no expert, but . . .

Lots of other legal experts have popped up recently saying this IS illegal. Watch the 'net for the next few days.

[NMDemDist2]

3. check this out.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x180023

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrDale]

6. seriously

im not a goper or neo con...i have my own message board. it's actually a musicians message forum in the city of pittsburgh. i have a discussion section with numerous topics like sports, religion, POLITICS, dissing etc... the politics thread gets pretty crowded. before i started this message forum there was another one in town ran by this right wing radical idiot. he chased away alot of dems with crap like changing their posts, locking threads after he got the last word in etc... so i grabbed all of the dems and brought them to my site once i got it thrown up. now he comes over under an alias and start with his neo-con crap. he dugs up some good stuff, that looks half decent at first, but we all knows it crap. hes the type that you have to give him more than the "simple" answer or he doesnt shut his mouth, thats why i check out stuff around and ask for help...to shut him up.

[Sparkly]

8. Could you point us to your message board?

Maybe some people here would drop by and discuss the matter with your local neocon.

[MrDale]

9. sure

mine is - http://www.pittsburghrockpress.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/yaBB.pl

you dont have to log in to read at the above link, but you have to register in order to post. there's no rules and i dont censor anything.

his is - http://www.pghmusicads.com

you do have to register in order to read or post on his site. he is the Adminstrator on this site.

keep in mind they are both musicians sites with Politics sections.

[Sparkly]

11. check your link...

I'm getting a "Not Found."

[Roland99]

12. First link results in an Error 404 page.

[MrDale]

18. links

http://www.pittsburghrockpress.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/yaBB.pl - my site

http://www.pghmusicads.com - neocon site

[No Exit]

7. It would be helpful if this "neocon" would write in English

What (I assume) you quoted from him is some of the most poorly written stuff I've seen on a forum. This person is not worthy of your time. He is clearly undereducated and as such probably wouldn't understand the NSA spying problem even if you explained it to him in the most crystal-clear of terms.

[MrDale]

10. what do you expect...

you cant expect them to be too literate, afterall, they pray to GW and nobodu is considering him to be a genius with his 2nd grade intelligence!

[lostnfound]

13. Welcome to DU. A couple of facts that might help..

1.Bush himself said that wiretaps require court orders, just last year.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5644904

and this one, from the same thread:

Let me -- that's a great question. A couple of things that are very important for you to understand about the Patriot Act. First of all, any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order. In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order.

Now, we've used things like roving wiretaps on drug dealers before. Roving wiretaps mean you change your cell phone. And yet, we weren't able to use roving wiretaps on terrorists. And so what the Patriot Act said is let's give our law enforcement the tools necessary, without abridging the Constitution of the United States, the tools necessary to defend America.

President's Remarks at Ask President Bush Event, July 14, 2004

2. Clinton did not order warrantless searches, in case they happen to bring that up. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5655488


Doesn't it amaze you that people seem so ready to accept totalitarianism? I mean, how is this different from Soviet Russia, with the wiretaps, and secret detentions without charges being brought against people, and torture, etc.?

[MrDale]

14. thanks

to everyone..not a word. ive been tempting the ugly beast out of his cave, but not a response..lol

it is amazing (to answer the last poster to this thread) what actually makes people support what they do. blind ambition? pure stupidity? i can quite grasp why people go to such great lengths to try and find anything possible to defend crooks and criminals when they know they are wrong, all in an attempt to save their own asses from losing ny sort of credibility. this is why the o'reilly's and limbaugh's will continueto search for garbage and continue to lie and distort facts. their credibility is on the line. for these types, it's their ratings and sponsors that are affected. for the normal neocon, it is just plain credibility that would be lost, humiliation and the feel of rejection that they don't want to deal with.

[MrDale]

15. here's the latest reesponse...

this is the latest neocon response i recieved early this morning....



you continue to blather on, not surprisingly, about a \'law\' requiring them to \'go to court\' after 72 hours...can you please site that precedent and why the following court cases dont mention it in their decisions regarding warrentless searches?

The jurisprudence involving wiretaps dates to 1928. The Supreme Court case of Olmstead v. United States (217 U.S. 438), a criminal case, resulted with the Court stating the use of warrantless wiretaps was not unconstitutional, because the Fourth Amendment\'s warrant requirement did not include conversations. The Court ruled, \"The reasonable view is that one who installs in his house a telephone instrument with connecting wires intends to project his voice to those quite outside, and that the wires beyond his house, and messages while passing over them, are not within the protection of the Fourth Amendment.\"

Subsequently, the 1974 Third Circuit Court’s opinion in U.S. v. Butenko was, \"foreign intelligence gathering activity…may be conducted through warrantless electronic surveillance.\" The Court stipulated \"s Commander-in-Chief, the President must guard the country from foreign aggression, sabotage, and espionage.\"

The Fifth Circuit 1974 case of Ivanov v. United States (419 U.S. 881), stated that \"warrantless electronic surveillance (is) permitted so long as the primary purpose was to obtain foreign intelligence.\"

Finally, the opinion of the DC District Court in the 1980 case of Chagnon v. Bell confirms presidential authority to conduct warrantless surveillance. It said:

Examination of presidential practice in this area lends further support to the District Court\'s finding that the Truong tap violated no \"clearly established\" law. As we suggested earlier, every President since Franklin D. Roosevelt has claimed the \"inherent\" constitutional power to authorize warrantless surveillance in cases vitally affecting the national security. Furthermore, all Presidents to hold office since Katz was decided have advocated a broad exception to the warrant requirement for surveillance targeted at agents of foreign governments. Indeed, public and congressional recognition of the consistency of such assertions of presidential power.

NOTE, NONE OF THEM MENTION ANY 72 HOUR RULE, and the fact the warrantless searches by law enforcement are not uncommon and legal - would indicate that Bush’s assertion of authority is correct. The Judicial Branch and the Legislative Branch of the federal government have always acknowledged that the Executive Branch has authority to act in the interest of national security – especially when foreign threats are involved.

[MrDale]

17. anyone got a good reply to this to shut this guy up?

links with info or whatever. i cant let him think he pulled a quick one over on this liberal!

[rhett o rick]

16. There is an important point here. The rule of law applies to everyone

but the rich republicans. They honestly believe that. God gave them the money and power to rule. And the end's justify the means, therefore they can do anything they want. I hope it isn't too late to stop this rush to tyranny. Where are our Demo leaders? How long will they wait? Help us now.