Wiretaps and the Fourth Amendment

[Luke T.]

He doesn’t want the judicial branch to know who he is spying on. I thought that was obvious.

That is not obvious, and that explanation doesn't make sense.

The only thing that is obvious is that the spying is being done without the intention of prosecution of people in the U.S., since any information collected without a warrant cannot be used as evidence.

All I can guess is that the information is being collected for covert action against the people outside the U.S. Locating them, dragging them out of their houses, and killing them on the grounds, etc.

 

[Cylinder]

This strikes me as being unconstitutional. "All" necessary and appropriate force? "He" determines?

What is to prevent the president from having Cylinder dragged out of his house and killed on the grounds that he (the president) determined that Cylinder was an AQ September 11 accomplice?

The scope of the President's power as CINC is necessarily wide - but not limitless. Dragging me out of my house and having me shot without an Article 5 hearing would be forbidden. Dragging me out of my house, placing me in front of a military tribunal and having me shot is clearly within the President's power. Ordering me killed because I happen to be flying on a hijacked commercial aircraft that is intended to be used as a weapon is also pretty clearly within the President's power as commander-in-chief.

This clause appears to leave the president answerable to no one.

The President is accountable to those who elect him and to Congress in the case of high crimes and misdemeanors - whatever the hell that means.

 

[Cylinder]

The mystery to me which as yet to be solved, is why Bush just doesn't follow the FISA guidelines and get ex post facto warrants.

• The number of FISA warrants asked for by the government and issued by the FISA court is public information.
  
  
• The information gleaned during a FISA warrant can be released to a criminal defendant on the sole order of a single FISA judge.
  
  
• The rules that govern FISA applications are public information.
  
  
• The judiciary is neither equipped nor empowered to make strategic and tactical military decision - such as which types of signals to intercept as an incident to an ongoing military effort.
  
  
• Congress gave the President the power to conduct SIGINT against al Qaeda when it passed the AUMF.
  
  
• The President possesses the plenary authority to conduct signals intelligence against foreign powers as granted in Article II of the US Constitution.

 

[Cylinder]

Of course, the fact that it was _rejected_ is a pretty good indication that the AUMF was certainly NOT intended to give Bush the authorization to do what he did.

Which neccessary and appropriate uses of force were authorized by the AUMF?

 

[Elind]

My point of view is this: forget FISA, war powers, Constitutional authority and all that rubbish. Go straight to the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

It seems to me that, regardless of whatever laws Congress may have passed, and regardless of whatever innate authority the office of the President claims to have, that warrantless wiretaps blatantly violate this right.

What's your point?

The quote says unreasonable. You say warrantless.

 

[fishbob]

Do you feel that the government does not have a legitimate interest in collecting signals intelligence against al Qaeda?

Let me drop that into my Bushcopologist Translatorizer . . . .

Ah yes:

Why do you hate America so much?

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, oganizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Which US citizen is:

a nation that has planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11?
None

an organization that . . . .
None

person that . . .
As far as we know, none.

So who is getting wiretapped?

Also, how does force get translated to mean wiretapping? Let me drop that into my Bushcopologist Translatorizer . . . .

Why do you hate America so much?

 

[drkitten]

The President cannot have Cylinder killed.

The Justice Department disagrees.

From this MSN article:

In the latest twist in the debate over presidential powers, a Justice Department official suggested that in certain circumstances, the president might have the power to order the killing of terrorist suspects inside the United States.

California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked Bradbury questions about the extent of presidential powers to fight Al Qaeda; could Bush, for instance, order the killing of a Qaeda suspect known to be on U.S. soil? Bradbury replied that he believed Bush could indeed do this.

 

[drkitten]

Dragging me out of my house and having me shot without an Article 5 hearing would be forbidden. .

See previous post. The official position of the Justice Department, as expressed in Senate testimony, is that it would not be forbidden.

 

[Luke T.]

I assume Cylinder is a US citizen?

Then, no. Bush cannot have him killed. Read the story again.

 

[Luke T.]

Also this:

On the other hand, Sunstein says, the president would be on less solid legal ground were he to order the killing of a terror suspect in the United States who was not actively preparing an attack.

 

[Luke T.]

Hmm. More leaking of confidential information:

Steven Bradbury, acting head of the department's Office of Legal Counsel, went to a closed-door Senate intelligence committee meeting last week to defend President George W. Bush's surveillance program. During the briefing, said administration and Capitol Hill officials (who declined to be identified because the session was private),

 

[fishbob]

I assume Cylinder is a US citizen?

Then, no. Bush cannot have him killed. Read the story again.

Padilla is a US citizen.

I don't want to be the test subject involved with figuring out what Bush can do vs what he will do.

 

[BPSCG]

What gets me - or one of the things that gets me - about all this is that congressional Democrats are saying they don't have any problem with warrentless wiretaps in principle, just that for now, they are illegal; they go on to say they wish the president would request the authority, and they would write the law. I'm paraphrasing here, and probably oversimplifying, again, from ignorance.

Question: If congress is willing to enact the necessary statutes to give the president the powers he claims he already has, why don't they do it? Why do they require an invitation?

 

[Cylinder]

See previous post. The official position of the Justice Department, as expressed in Senate testimony, is that it would not be forbidden.

The President could legally have me killed on his order under a variety of circumstances. The hypothetical presented earlier in this thread did not describe one of them.

Do you think that the shoot-down order executed by the President on Sept. 11, 2001 was illegal?

 

[Cylinder]

I don't want to be the test subject involved with figuring out what Bush can do vs what he will do.

Me niether.

The U.S. government wants an Iraqi court to prosecute an American citizen who is being held in Iraq on suspicion that he is a senior operative of insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Dear Mother,

I wanna come home....

 

[Luke T.]

I don't want to be the test subject involved with figuring out what Bush can do vs what he will do.

Don't worry. You won't be.

 

[Luke T.]

God help us and our civil liberties should another terrorist attack occur on American soil. Then all bets are off.

 

[jj]

Do you feel that the government does not have a legitimate interest in collecting signals intelligence against al Qaeda?

Do you feel that the government has the right to violate the constitution at will?

 

[WildCat]

Do you feel that the government has the right to violate the constitution at will?

Nobody has ever claimed that on this thread or others, nice try at putting words in people's mouths.

 

[WildCat]

Why do so many people act like Bush is assuming powers unprecedented in time of war? What he is doing is mild compared to what FDR did in WWII, Lincoln in the Civil War, and even Kennedy during peace time.