Jump to content

More Loony Left Outrages


Guest Buschbacher

Recommended Posts

I'll take that one.

Because the NSA program in question constitutes a reasonable search.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

Now you tell me why the NSA program doesn't constitute a reasonable search. :)

There is no "reason" in funneling ALL Internet activity by ALL customers of an ISP into a splitter for archival, for example. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/index.html)

It's also not reasonable to surveil without probable cause. And if there IS probable cause, what's the problem with getting the warrant shortly after surveillance begins? I believe that is allowed under the current system, when it comes to urgency in requiring surveillance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Warrantless ''National Security'' Electronic Surveillance .--In Katz v. United States, 151 Justice White sought to preserve for a future case the possibility that in ''national security cases'' electronic surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney General could be permissible without prior judicial approval. The Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to ''bug'' in two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority on a theory of ''inherent'' presidential power and then in the Supreme Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a ''reasonable'' search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required. 152 Whether or not a search was reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause; except in a few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, only those searches conducted pursuant to warrants were reasonable. The Government's duty to preserve the national security did not override the gurarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy. 153 This protection was even more needed in ''national security cases'' than in cases of ''ordinary'' crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the Fourth. 154 Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is required. 155

The question of the scope of the President's constitutional powers, if any, remains judicially unsettled. 156 Congress has acted, however, providing for a special court to hear requests for warrants for electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence situations, and permitting the President to authorize warrantless surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information provided that the communications to be monitored are exclusively between or among foreign powers and there is no substantial likelihood any ''United States person'' will be overheard. 157

I got this gem right from your little link there, skippy! So, what were you defending again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest *Autonomous*
The previous post wasn't mine, apparently someone is enamored by me. But Autonomous is wrong

as usual. The "Protect America Bill" Bush wants has a provision that protects telecoms from lawsuits

stemming from privacy issues. Without the threat of a lawsuit, there's no reason to not cooperate

with the government. The Loony Left bloggers are not a reliable source of info, watch Fox instead.

Reading the neocon posts you'd think people couldn't just read the bill for themselves. Of course there are provisions to protect the telecoms-because the bill forces them to comply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...