For gunner

I think that may have more to do with a election coming up than with any trouble that GW may be in.

I'm going to be sorry I said this, but...

1) It was the New York Times editorial board, not Time. 2) It wasn't government secrets. It was information illegally being kept secret by the Executive branch. The legislative branch is up in arms about it, and the courts may yet be hearing criminal charges over it. 3) If you don't appreciate why violation of your Constitutional rights is a harm to you, you're living in the wrong country. 4) As for warning America's enemies, there is nothing the administration has been doing that it didn't have the legal means to do already -- if they had bothered to follow the law and the Constitution.

The Times is doing OK for a newspaper in the Internet age. As for the rubes, they weren't buying it or reading it, anyway.

-- Ed Huntress

The President of the United States has committed , and now admitted, the commission of multiple felonies. He has also publicly stated his intention to commit additional illegal acts. You or I would be in jail had we done the same. He should be as well.....

"America, Love it or Leave It." That's functionaly the same as: "The American Constitution, Obey it or Go To Jail."

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of lawbreakers.

Jim

You forgot the candy man, Mr. Abromoff.

He's gonna rat them all out.

Jim

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this is what happens: jim rozen writes on 18 Dec 2005

14:46:46 -0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :

Once again, the Times editorial board (et alia) are wanting to make sure that Dots are not collected, so that there will be no problem blaming the Government for not Connecting said uncollected Dots.

I wonder if the editors have groked the difference between wire taps for collecting evidence, and wire taps for collecting intelligence. Maybe they can show what sort of crimes the September 11th hijackers had committed prior to their boarding their flights. While we are at it, what legalistic reason would there have been to take note of the Oklahoma City bomber - who managed to only blow himself up.

-- pyotr filipivich TV NEWS: Yesterday's newspaper read to the illiterate.

Odd, I checked the fourth amendment. Those idiots who wrote the damn thing didn't understand that difference either.

Jim

4th 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, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Yep, I see it. It says right there that international phone calls to Al Qaida-connected people shall not be monitored in time of war (unless a court has taken the time to approve it, of course).

Show me where it says anything about being secure in your speech???

Ok, so maybe the 4th Amendment didn't really say that international phone calls to Al Qaida-connected people shall not be monitored but I'll bet some judge somewhere will say it did.

Sorry, G.W., but "to be secure in your person" means the government can't invade your privacy without cause -- including your phone calls.

It's a little bit like the way we apply the 2nd Amendment today. The FF's were talking about muzzle-loading, flintlock muskets only. But most people here would expand the defininition of "arms," much like we have expanded the defininition of "secure in your person." New technology requires us to consider how the *principle* applies to the new conditions.

As for "Al Qaeda-connected people," as a former administration lawyer explained yesterday, all they know in most cases is that somebody accused of being Al Qaeda had their phone number on a computer database -- or that somebody on the database had called them. There can be several degrees of separation. It could have been their manicurist when they visited the US, and the person whose phone is being tapped could turn out to be the manicurist's bookie.

-- Ed Huntress

The current adminstration *tried* to ask congress for the ability to do warrentless wiretapping on citizens in the US. They were not allowed to this. The answer was "NO."

It also doesn't say "GW's house cannot be searched without a warrant."

So your house can now be entered and searched by the police, at any time, without them having to obtain a warrant from a judge. Right?

You've just given up your rights under the fourth amendment, and you didn't even know it.

Jim

Our entire society ( American ) is based on the premise that we would rather let the guilty go free in a pinch rather than sacrifice the governments burden to prove guilt. That is where "beyond a reasonable doubt" comes in. THIS is what's wrong with things like the Patriot Act and warrantless searches. The presumption of innocence goes out the window in advance of any process. The Constitution either means something or it doesn't. It, and our laws, either applies equally or they don't. The term "Fighting for Our Freedoms" means Americans are willing to bear the associated burden, die even. It's worth the price of liberty to do so.

FULL STOP.

Our country is being altered in very fundamental ways and I can't believe it's going to fly. It probably is, I just can't believe it.

Well, of course nobody wants the government "spying" on them but I'd dare say that if we had another major Al Qaida attack and it was found that the government was purposely Not monitoring communication of overseas calls with Al Qaida suspects, there would be another round of calls for impeachment. Nobody is talking about breaking into anyone's house without a search warrant. I could be wrong but I thought it was all about communications to other countries with people suspected of having something to do with terrorists. I also thought that the information found could not be used in court, so if your French bookie called you there would be no worry. GW

I agree that letting a guilty person go free might be better than losing our freedom but what the uproar is all about is not that. It's about possibly missing a chance to stop a major attack which could result in a potential huge loss of life. Nobody is breaking into houses. The phone calls monitored are overseas with suspected terrorists or their friends. Maybe mistakes will be made but to not try could be worse. GW

It is the trade off that the Founding Fathers and their fellow citizens knowingly and purposefully chose to make. It isn't the goal to free the guilty, but to protect the innocent. Even if those innocent are hateful or disgusting. Disgusting isn't either illegal or actionable.

I guess this is where we part company. I would rather eliminate the root cause or at least resolve the situation to the point that our enemies either fear the repercussions or stop wanting to attack violently.

See "Sneak and Peak" and get back to me. My definition of "breaking in" is unauthorized entry or entry and search absent notification or a warrant, even if that entry is with a key.

What is in fact happening today is that the government is scooping it all across a broad spectrum and THEN deciding what to do. Point of isn't considered at all except that the collection is no longer limited in any way territorially or nationality wise.

Where we seem to differ is in the "what to try" department. I'd like to try the things that will remove the threat more permanently. Treat the disease, if you will, at gunpoint or not. Whatever works.

Your position, if you will think for a moment, is to condone treating the symptom while ignoring the disease.

I am not sure either of us is "right". In fact, I am not even sure there is a "right" answer. What I am sure of is that sacrificing what has been won at such tremendous cost would be, and is, wrong. Standing by our founding principals is the only thing to do regardless. What's left to defend if we don't?

Feeling contrary today, I'm going to agree with Robert Bork on this one and say that ALL legislation is legislation of morality. We make laws to distinguish what we think is right from wrong; morality is the distinction between right and wrong; all legislation is about morality.

I think what you're referring to here is primarily sexual behavior, maybe with some social behavior added in. We effectively legislate against many aspects of those things on which there is a large consensus. On others, the consensus breaks down, and the laws are largely or partially ignored.

-- Ed Huntress

Borking me are you! That's novel. How many people can say they've been Borked by Ed Huntress? LOL There is truth in that but the law flows from the constitution not the other way around. We are, after all, discussing the Federal interest here and not the State's.

Yes Ed, they are ignored. There is no fundamental principal involved. This is results in a lack of respect for the law and has lead to the enormous influence of small but influential groups of advocates of particular points of view beyond the broader consensus.

It is EXACTLY about that, sir.

If you eliminate the fourth amendment 'just when they really need to' then you have eliminated it for everyone, for all time.

You might as well just spool off the other 9 parts of the bill of rights and light them on fire too.

Jim