Federal Judge Strikes Down Use of Warrantless Wiretaps

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Constitution does not say the government cannot evesdrop.
Click to expand...

It doesn't necessarily nor explicitly state that you have the right to interstate travel without a document check, either. But do you really think that's the intent of the framers? Do you really want to institute every possible policy that isn't explicitly prohibited in the constitution?

Mr. Humphrey, I have tremendous respect for your input on this forum and often look to your posts for quality opinions and information.

But your dead wrong on this one, sir.
 
Sorry, Mr Roberts. Scanning too fast and didn't read it fully. Went back and changed it. I agree wth you.
BT
 
The "War on Terror", which incidently makes no sense ("terror" is a TACTIC of extreme Islam), is being used as an excuse to erode the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I am proud of my Country,the Constituton and Bill of Rights,the Flag and our military personnel,past and present (myself included).
I am NOT proud of the torture and humiliation of prisioners,secret prisons, holding "suspects" indefinately without any sort of hearing (if proof exists ,lock them up for life) and who knows what else we don't know about.
If winning the "War on Extreme Islam" means I have to give up my rights "to be safe", FORGET IT!!! I'll take my chances.
This war WILL be won without sinking to the low level of our enemies and eroding The Bill of Rights.
IF YOU WANT TO WIRETAP... FOLLOW EXISTING LAW AND GET A WARRANT!.....and if protecting my rights is "too cumbersome" for you... TOO BAD!!!... CHANGE THE LAW IF THAT'S THE CASE.
 
The funniest thing about this decision and all it represents is that at the same time everyone complains about the Constitution being eroded and the gov't acting without restraint, the gov't is being restrained by the institutions set up in the Constitution. People don't like what's happening, they go to court and get it stopped and/or get redress for wrongs, or get told that the activity is legal.

Never before has a gov't dealing with a real national security crisis and two shooting wars been forced to go to court and defend itself so regularly. And never before has a gov't in this kind of situation been told to stop doing something, complain about the decision, yet complied with the orders.
 
“I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”

~Roger Baldwin,
Founder, ACLU
Click to expand...
If you wanted to be honest and complete you'd mention these were views he held as a young man, later recanted and swung far in the opposite direction, and in the 1940's drove communists from the ACLU. The man's also been dead for 25 years. It really has nothing to do with the ACLU today and attempts to imply it does are misleading as a statistics from the brady bunch.
 
Never before has a gov't dealing with a real national security crisis and two shooting wars been forced to go to court and defend itself so regularly. And never before has a gov't in this kind of situation been told to stop doing something, complain about the decision, yet complied with the orders.
Click to expand...

You should replace "gov't" with "administration". There are many "gov't's" in the world that excercise such control over their populaces on a daily basis. Our "gov't", though, does not have that right, unless we allow it.

To the best of my knowledge, no administration has gone so far outside the bounds of the Constitution as this one, nor has any other administration needed to be reminded what it's job is so often. And to the best of my knowledge, this administration has not yet halted this wiretapping program.

I fervently hope the electorate takes more care in who it hires next time around. Assuming, that is, that the choice actually remains with the electorate.
 
This whole charade is just a national-level replay of the old Black Panthers wire tap case in New Haven, CT, back in the 60's. It was the exact same situation -- a boat load of very scummy people who in all probability SHOULD have been wire tapped ... but the New Haven police department didn't think they should have to go through the exercise of getting warrants to do so.

It's that pesky Constitution thing again. I don't know why you people keep defending it. Can't you see what an impediment it is to our protectors and saviours?
 
Buzz Knox said:
Never before has a gov't dealing with a real national security crisis and two shooting wars been forced to go to court and defend itself so regularly. And never before has a gov't in this kind of situation been told to stop doing something, complain about the decision, yet complied with the orders.
Click to expand...
If you actually believe they goverment is complying with the decision, you are a LOT more trusting than I am. I don't believe for a nanosecond they are complying. Don't ever forget that the President makes no bones about his belief that laws he doesn't like don't apply to him and his administration. Do you really believe he's going to shut down the whole system for one judge?
 
To the best of my knowledge, no administration has gone so far outside the bounds of the Constitution as this one
Click to expand...

Note that I am fine with the decision requiring warrants, and I do think the line has to be drawn somewhere, and that there are ways other than warrantless wiretaps to do the job.

That said, I'm ROTFLMAO at what you wrote.

On the other hand, I guess that FDR's stacked SCOTUS did rule that locking up people with Japanese names, and taking their land, homes, farms and businesses was somehow okay.

And don't give me ANY BS about it. I can see where some of the farms had been from my bedroom window. It was VERY REAL. Made some WASPs some fat profits when they developed beach houses on that land.

Then there was Lincoln, who suspended Habeas Corpus in order to arrest his political opponents. He had the military go around and round them up. 13,000 people were ARRESTED. http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm

He did this in 1861 and 1862, so spare me the BS about freeing the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued later, and it only covered slaves in the Confederacy. Slaves in the US were NOT set free. Priorities, you know.:uhoh:

Does that make any Constitutional violation okay? Hell no. But don't fall for the partisan BS about the Bush Administration. They're not even contenders yet.
 
Never before has a gov't dealing with a real national security crisis and two shooting wars been forced to go to court and defend itself so regularly. And never before has a gov't in this kind of situation been told to stop doing something, complain about the decision, yet complied with the orders.
Click to expand...
And never before has this country been as litigious as it and seen activists use the courts, with their liberal spread of socialist jurists, to enact political agendas they couldn't otherwise accomplish through the political process.
To the best of my knowledge, no administration has gone so far outside the bounds of the Constitution as this one
Click to expand...
You mean other than revoking habeas corpus and the Japanese internment???:evil:

edited to add: armedbear - you beat me to it!
 
ceetee said:
To the best of my knowledge, no administration has gone so far outside the bounds of the Constitution as this one
Click to expand...

You might look up the Alien and Sedition Acts as well while you are looking for Administrations who have gone far outside the bounds set by this one.
 
I had to post this

A letter to the editor by my 21yo daughter...

I like the Bill of Rights

Good for Judge Taylor to stand up and declare the NSA wiretaps unconstitutional. It’s about time someone did.

Don’t mistake me. I understand the vital importance of protecting American citizens—all citizens, for that matter—from terrorist attack. The right to life is one of the most basic and essential ones we possess. We also possess, however, the right to liberty, the right to free speech, the right to secure our persons against unreasonable searches. There is a reason warrants and probable cause are required for searches and wiretaps: to protect the innocent.

Benjamin Franklin once said, “They who can give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Old Ben might not have been the nicest guy to trod the earth, but he had some pretty good ideas.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top