In article <1147739023.522186.97950@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> ray wrote:
> > In article <1147729641.743992.110440@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> > > ray wrote:
> > > [..]
> > > > Now if push comes to shove, this case won't take five or six
years; it
> > > > will take perhaps one or two. But what are you going to say if
the S.C.
> > > > rules that wiretapping is Constitutional?
> > >
> > > The question before us, WRT wiretapping, is not whether it is
> > > constitutional, but whether it is ILLEGAL. Under some cir***stances,
> > > wiretapping is legal because the process of obtaining a warrant
> > > satisfies constitutionality. Under other cir***stances, such as
those
> > > perpetrated by the Bush administration, wiretapping is illegal,
because
> > > those taps violated the due process which would have satisfied
> > > constitutionality.
> > >
> > > There are laws on the books which allow wiretapping to be performed
> > > while maintaining some degree of civil rights assurance. If you
believe
> > > that the administration should be allowed to break these laws then
you,
> > > yourself, are unconstitutional. You would have to hold great disdain
> > > for the constitution to devalue it in that way.
> >
> > Last I read, there is nothing in the Constitution about wiretapping,
> > surveillance or spying for that matter.
>
> Oh, you're one of THOSE. First you take a very strict literalist
> position, and then you say:
What I say is truth.....that is unless, you can point out any of these
words in the Constitution.
> > Any law written or even
> > discussed in the past is passe for the current enemy we are fighting.
>
> ...And you say it without any hint of irony. You're not even aware how
> stupid you look. And you have to do all this ideological contortionism
> because of your blind loyalty to Bush. You're a monarchist.
Monarchist, police state, geeze you have a wild imagination.
> > You can't get a warrant for somebody whom you don't know or can't
> > identify.
>
> But you can get a warrant from a FISA court retroactively.
Yes, if you do so 48 hours after you begin collecting evidence. In most
of these cases, it takes weeks before they even put together the
communications to form something.
> > Many of these signals intercepted are anonymous to the
> > agencies involved and they are only interested in learning plans about
> > those wanting to attack this country or our military overseas.
>
> Please provide a concrete example of the signals being intercepted.
> *Then,* once you've done that, you can start talking about what is or
> isn't being done with the information.
Well here's an interesting interview where the matter is discussed:
http://www.alternet.org/rights/29825/
Now, we don't know what is being done with this information, but what we
do know is that nobody has been charged or arrested with this
information collected. It's impossible to say what they are doing with
this information because it is (or supposed to be) secret.
--
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
|
