The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I am including a link to the article from a yupchagee approved news organization.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,208982,00.html

JSPB22 wrote:I am including a link to the article from a yupchagee approved news organization.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,208982,00.html

I wouldn't have questioned the fact that a judge issued this ruling. We'll have to wait & see what happens on appeal. The judge said it violated free speech & separation of powers. This seems a stretch to me. As I understand constitutional law, the NSA doesn't need a warrant to tap phones in other countries. If this is true, it seems that they can then listen to any call to or from this phone regardless of where that 2nd phone is located.

I also think that this is contrary to our security interests. The most important civil right is the right to live.

I'll quote Jimmy Cliff here:
"I'd rather be a free man in my grave, than living as a puppet or a slave."

We're talking about domestic wiretapping, not international, and the judge also said it was in violation of the FISA statute. She also ordered an immediate stop to the procedure. Do you think the Bush administration will honor that order?

I also think that this is contrary to our security interests. The most important civil right is the right to live.

I could care less if the government listens to my phone conversations. Especially if it has a chance to make our society a little safer. The only people that have anything to worry about are the ones who are doing something illegal. They are not going to care about everyday conversations.

I would rather be tried by 12 then carried by six.

BernieSki wrote:I could care less if the government listens to my phone conversations. Especially if it has a chance to make our society a little safer. The only people that have anything to worry about are the ones who are doing something illegal. They are not going to care about everyday conversations.

You probably mean that you couldn't care less, and I have no doubt that is true. I would argue that this makes our society less safe. The only ones doing something illegal here, are the ones doing the wiretapping. That is the lamest argument I can imagine in defense of this invasion of privacy. And yes, if your everyday conversation includes keywords, that the computers doing the listening are looking for, then they are going to care.

I could care less if the government listens to my phone conversations. Especially if it has a chance to make our society a little safer. The only people that have anything to worry about are the ones who are doing something illegal. They are not going to care about everyday conversations.

I would rather be tried by 12 then carried by six.

id rather be carried by six for protecting our inalianable rights

our forefathers fought the crown to procure our rights as humans. they fought the crown so you could walk down the street and not get searched by a man with a gun in the name of the king. now people are eager to throw away our rights so we can be searched by a man with a computer in the name of saftey.

it is the most american thing, the most patriotic act to question ones own government. What is an educated citizenry if not an independant check on those in power? we are required to protect our civil rights, those in power arnt going to to do it for you!

there will always be a reason to take away the rights of the people of this country. terrorists are always going to exist. people will always want to attack our country. always. it will never end. are we to give away our rights as free people for the duration? how can we knowingly give away our childrens rights before they are even born??

there are people in this country who love not the government, not the flag, not the men that are in the seats of power but instead they love what our nation stands for. these people believe the government reports to the people and the rule of law. no man is above the law! no group that takes hold of power in the halls of the capitol can throw out the rule of law. those laws that protect you and me are there to protect our way of life.

allowing the government to throw out our rights would be the end of a brief moment in history where freedom existed. 200 years only a blink of the eye in the timeline of human existance. 200 years of freedom would be gone because we gave it away. we cant let that happen even if we are scared. even if people want to blow us up. even if people destroy our capitol and our politicians.. its what we fight for, its why we are a nation, it is the exact reason people want to destroy our nation. and if we give up those rights then we have already been destroyed.

freedom is not an idea, it is a way of life, its what our military protects, its what our officials have sworn to protect, and its what the people need to protect when our leaders arnt doing there job.

yupchagee wrote:The judge said it violated free speech & separation of powers.

Uh.. You sure on that?

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy. (source)

cvillehog wrote:

yupchagee wrote:The judge said it violated free speech & separation of powers.

Uh.. You sure on that?

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy. (source)

Part of her opinion refers to the program being in violation of the FISA statute, thereby making it a separation of powers issue, so the yupster was correct on that point. This congress has totally abrogated its constitutional responsibility of oversight, and been a rubber stamp to the Bush administration's executive power grab.

BernieSki wrote:

I also think that this is contrary to our security interests. The most important civil right is the right to live.

I could care less if the government listens to my phone conversations. Especially if it has a chance to make our society a little safer. The only people that have anything to worry about are the ones who are doing something illegal. They are not going to care about everyday conversations.

I would rather be tried by 12 then carried by six.

Crazyhorse 1 replies.

Has it occured to you that wiretapping and othe monitoring activities carried out by a given government, unchecked by other authority, can result in a loss of freedom in all things by everybody. Try reading something relevant, like 1984 or Farenheit 451. Try reading about Hitler's Germany and Stalin's KGB.

The first thing fascist leadership does is destroy citizen's rights of privacy
as a means of exerting control over dissenters or political opponents. In modern times, this step has usually been taken using the exaggeration or invented threat of an enemy as a justification. Franco, Castro. Soviet Russia even after Stalin.

A government that can monitor phone and other conversations of its people has very little fear of losing elections. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the many reasons why.

JSPB22 wrote:I'll quote Jimmy Cliff here:
"I'd rather be a free man in my grave, than living as a puppet or a slave."

We're talking about domestic wiretapping, not international, and the judge also said it was in violation of the FISA statute. She also ordered an immediate stop to the procedure. Do you think the Bush administration will honor that order?

The way I read the article, it is about monitoring conversations where 1 end is in this country & 1 isn't. Reading the complaint, it wasn't obvious that the NSA had monitored the comunications of any of the plaintifs. I doubt this decision will have much effect on the NSA because it only applies in the district where that judge has jurisdiction. If the monitoring is on a phone or e-mail account anywhere else, it does not apply.

The only ones doing something illegal here, are the ones doing the wiretapping.

This is 1 of the most rediculous statements I have ever read. Are you saying that there are no crimes being committed? Have you been reading the papers? (Hint: It has something to do with airplanes & bombs.)

Last I checked, if there is reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed, then a warrant can be attained to perform this kind of wire tapping. What is happening here, that you refuse to acknowledge, is that the Bush administration thinks that it is above the law. It seems they find constitutional checks and balances to be passe, and they should be able to do whatever they please. Why not just crown him Decider for life?

JSPB22 wrote:Last I checked, if there is reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed, then a warrant can be attained to perform this kind of wire tapping. What is happening here, that you refuse to acknowledge, is that the Bush administration thinks that it is above the law. It seems they find constitutional checks and balances to be passe, and they should be able to do whatever they please. Why not just crown him Decider for life?

This is a challenge to the legality of a secret program (hereinafter “TSP”) undisputedly
inaugurated by the National Security Agency (hereinafter “NSA”) at least by 2002 and continuing
today, which intercepts without benefit of warrant or other judicial approval, prior or subsequent,
the international telephone and internet communications of numerous persons and organizationswithin this country. The TSP has been acknowledged by this Administration to have been
authorized by the President’s secret order during 2002 and reauthorized at least thirty times since.1
Plaintiffs are a group of persons and organizations who, according to their affidavits, are
defined by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (hereinafter “FISA”) as “U.S. persons.”2 They
conducted regular international telephone and internet communications for various uncontestedly
legitimate reasons including journalism, the practice of law, and scholarship. Many of their
communications are and have been with persons in the Middle East. Each Plaintiff has alleged a
“well founded belief” that he, she, or it, has been subjected to Defendants’ interceptions, and that
the TSP not only injures them specifically and directly, but that the TSP substantially chills and
impairs their constitutionally protected communications. Persons abroad who before the program

1) these are international calls.
2) the plaintifs THINK they have been monitored.

This case seems curious to me.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Jud ... pinion.pdf

If we outlawed guns completely, that could help the safety and security of the country. I don't see anyone lining up to abridge that constitutional right. Why is it ok to erode the rights of privacy and free speech (and, yes, separation of powers)?

(Note: I don't think guns should be outlawed, it is just an analogy.)

Staighten out your quotes and post it again, I don't understand what you are trying to say.

From the judges decision:

This is a challenge to the legality of a secret program (hereinafter “TSP”) undisputedly
inaugurated by the National Security Agency (hereinafter “NSA”) at least by 2002 and continuing
today, which intercepts without benefit of warrant or other judicial approval, prior or subsequent,
the international telephone and internet communications of numerous persons and organizationswithin this country. The TSP has been acknowledged by this Administration to have been
authorized by the President’s secret order during 2002 and reauthorized at least thirty times since.1
Plaintiffs are a group of persons and organizations who, according to their affidavits, are
defined by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (hereinafter “FISA”) as “U.S. persons.”2 They
conducted regular international telephone and internet communications for various uncontestedly
legitimate reasons including journalism, the practice of law, and scholarship. Many of their
communications are and have been with persons in the Middle East. Each Plaintiff has alleged a
“well founded belief” that he, she, or it, has been subjected to Defendants’ interceptions, and that
the TSP not only injures them specifically and directly, but that the TSP substantially chills and
impairs their constitutionally protected communications. Persons abroad who before the program

1) these are international calls.
2) the plaintifs THINK they have been monitored.

This case seems curious to me.


http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Jud ... pinion.pdf

Is this better?

yupchagee wrote:From the judges decision:

This is a challenge to the legality of a secret program (hereinafter “TSP”) undisputedly
inaugurated by the National Security Agency (hereinafter “NSA”) at least by 2002 and continuing
today, which intercepts without benefit of warrant or other judicial approval, prior or subsequent,
the international telephone and internet communications of numerous persons and organizationswithin this country. The TSP has been acknowledged by this Administration to have been
authorized by the President’s secret order during 2002 and reauthorized at least thirty times since.1
Plaintiffs are a group of persons and organizations who, according to their affidavits, are
defined by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (hereinafter “FISA”) as “U.S. persons.”2 They
conducted regular international telephone and internet communications for various uncontestedly
legitimate reasons including journalism, the practice of law, and scholarship. Many of their
communications are and have been with persons in the Middle East. Each Plaintiff has alleged a
“well founded belief” that he, she, or it, has been subjected to Defendants’ interceptions, and that
the TSP not only injures them specifically and directly, but that the TSP substantially chills and
impairs their constitutionally protected communications. Persons abroad who before the program

1) these are international calls.
2) the plaintifs THINK they have been monitored.

This case seems curious to me.


http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Jud ... pinion.pdf

Is this better?

Whether or not the monitoring was national or internation and whether or not it was effective or not, the court has found montoring without warrants illegal and unconstitutional.

It is and was unconstitutional and illegal-- that is open and shut. The President wants the law changed (and the Constitution, probably) to absolve him of impeachable crimes (numerous counts). That can't work. The President's action can't be made legal retroactively. It was a violation of the law at a time when he was sworn to uphold the existing laws of the United States.

Constitutional expert, Republican Johnathon Turley, said on Christ Mathew's show last night that there is really no possible legal argument for the President. He also said the only real discussion in the legal community is what to do about the President's guilt.

He could be impeached, sentenced to a jail term, etc. (my comment). Turley said words to the effect that if the Republican congress lets the President get away with his law breaking, it will be the hugest whitewash job in the nation's history.

The idea that Bush wiretapped only for national security doesn't stand up.
NSA was easily capable of handling all warrants needed; warrants could be granted by the NSA even after the fact, so there was no reason to try to get around the NSA-- except perhaps an illegal one.

We know now he wasn't taping just international calls, but was also taping domestic calls. He was also taping people and groups in the US who aren't and weren't terrorist suspects or suspected supporters, such as anti-war groups and other political opponents.

Bush is a national disgace and the sooner we're free of him and his enablers the better off the country will be.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Constitutional expert, Republican Johnathon Turley, said on Christ Mathew's show last night.

He's not that good.
You also misspelled Jonathan

crazyhorse1 wrote:NSA was easily capable of handling all warrants needed; warrants could be granted by the NSA even after the fact, so there was no reason to try to get around the NSA-- except perhaps an illegal one.

I think you meant "FISA", not "NSA".

crazyhorse1 wrote:We know now he wasn't taping just international calls, but was also taping domestic calls. He was also taping people and groups in the US who aren't and weren't terrorist suspects or suspected supporters, such as anti-war groups and other political opponents.

They have collected credit and debit card transaction records, and also cell phone records from all the major carriers. These are all examples of warrantless domestic spying on US citizens. These cases have not yet been adjudicated.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Bush is a national disgrace and the sooner we're free of him and his enablers the better off the country will be.

I don't see anyone lining up to abridge that constitutional right.

You DON'T?????? Come on!

http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Issues_and_Causes/Firearms_Policy/Gun_Control/Organizations/

This is just a partial list. It seems that what "constitutes" an abridgement is all in the eye of the beholder, now, doesn't it?

The professor who can't spell wrote:

Bush is a national disgrace and the sooner we're free of him and his enablers the better off the country will be.

Just what, exactly, are you suggesting? Is this an example of the "free political discourse" you pretend to espouse?

Countertrey wrote:The professor who can't spell wrote:

Bush is a national disgrace and the sooner we're free of him and his enablers the better off the country will be.

Just what, exactly, are you suggesting? Is this an example of the "free political discourse" you pretend to espouse?

I think he is talking about the Congress. I hope he doesn't mean half of the country.

Countertrey wrote:

I don't see anyone lining up to abridge that constitutional right.

You DON'T?????? Come on!

http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Issues_and_Causes/Firearms_Policy/Gun_Control/Organizations/

This is just a partial list. It seems that what "constitutes" an abridgement is all in the eye of the beholder, now, doesn't it?

There are plenty of people who want to take away our right to bear arms. The 2nd amendment is the citizen's last line of defense against an oppressive government. The American experiment would have failed long ago without it.

crazyhorse1 wrote:

yupchagee wrote:From the judges decision:

This is a challenge to the legality of a secret program (hereinafter “TSP”) undisputedly
inaugurated by the National Security Agency (hereinafter “NSA”) at least by 2002 and continuing
today, which intercepts without benefit of warrant or other judicial approval, prior or subsequent,
the international telephone and internet communications of numerous persons and organizationswithin this country. The TSP has been acknowledged by this Administration to have been
authorized by the President’s secret order during 2002 and reauthorized at least thirty times since.1
Plaintiffs are a group of persons and organizations who, according to their affidavits, are
defined by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (hereinafter “FISA”) as “U.S. persons.”2 They
conducted regular international telephone and internet communications for various uncontestedly
legitimate reasons including journalism, the practice of law, and scholarship. Many of their
communications are and have been with persons in the Middle East. Each Plaintiff has alleged a
“well founded belief” that he, she, or it, has been subjected to Defendants’ interceptions, and that
the TSP not only injures them specifically and directly, but that the TSP substantially chills and
impairs their constitutionally protected communications. Persons abroad who before the program

1) these are international calls.
2) the plaintifs THINK they have been monitored.

This case seems curious to me.


http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Jud ... pinion.pdf

Is this better?

Whether or not the monitoring was national or internation and whether or not it was effective or not, the court has found montoring without warrants illegal and unconstitutional.

It is and was unconstitutional and illegal-- that is open and shut. The President wants the law changed (and the Constitution, probably) to absolve him of impeachable crimes (numerous counts). That can't work. The President's action can't be made legal retroactively. It was a violation of the law at a time when he was sworn to uphold the existing laws of the United States.

Constitutional expert, Republican Johnathon Turley, said on Christ Mathew's show last night that there is really no possible legal argument for the President. He also said the only real discussion in the legal community is what to do about the President's guilt.

He could be impeached, sentenced to a jail term, etc. (my comment). Turley said words to the effect that if the Republican congress lets the President get away with his law breaking, it will be the hugest whitewash job in the nation's history.

The idea that Bush wiretapped only for national security doesn't stand up.
NSA was easily capable of handling all warrants needed; warrants could be granted by the NSA even after the fact, so there was no reason to try to get around the NSA-- except perhaps an illegal one.

We know now he wasn't taping just international calls, but was also taping domestic calls. He was also taping people and groups in the US who aren't and weren't terrorist suspects or suspected supporters, such as anti-war groups and other political opponents.

Bush is a national disgace and the sooner we're free of him and his enablers the better off the country will be.

There are a lot of constitutional lawyers who would dispute your claim thatthis is an open & shut case. At least in this case, there was no mention of monitoring domestic comunication. Are you saying that the US constitution prevents us from spying on people in other countries? If so, he have to retroactively impeach every president since Washington.

If we can spy on those in other countries, than it should be obvious that we can record all conversations these people have, no matter where the other party is located.

As to the legality, we have to wait for the appeals process. This will certainly wind up before the Supreme Court. The claim that this violates free speech & assembly is absurd.

I realize that for some people, their pathological hatred of Bush is so overwhelming that they would rather the country fail than Bush succeed.

I'm willing to give our government a little leeway if it helps keep terrorists from blowing airplanes out of the sky.

"The constitution is not a suicide pact." Abraham Lincoln

yupchagee wrote:As to the legality, we have to wait for the appeals process. This will certainly wind up before the Supreme Court. The claim that this violates free speech & assembly is absurd.

No we don't. It has been ruled illegal. There may be a successful appeal sometime in the future, but as of now, the case is closed. Why is it absurd to say that warrantless wiretapping of US citizens talking to people overseas violates free speech and assembly? If the person abroad is under suspicion, a FISA warrant can easily be obtained to do this very kind of wiretapping. Why do you have so much trouble understanding the need for oversight? The constitution is rife with checks and balances on government powers, why should this be any different?

I think he is talking about the Congress. I hope he doesn't mean half of the country.

You are a very trusting soul. I'm willing to stand corrected, but I actually have little doubt... I think that's exactly what he meant. After all, who installed that Congress? I have see enough hateful "Deanesque" generalizations, from his pen, about both conservatives and Republicans, to convince me of that.

I am also cynically convinced that, were these the policies of a liberal administration, many liberals would be voicing vigorous defense of them. As those who truly and blindly follow this and any other president, one tends to trust those with whom you agree to "protect" your rights, and mistrusts the opposition.

Both parties have taken the same types of measures during war time, and both have restored the former status quo at the end of that war. I see this as no different... an unfortunate, but necessary measure, that responds to a real and unique threat to our national sovereignty and safety. I don't believe that this court's ruling will stand.u