We’re talking about domestic warrantless spying, as restricted by the Fourth Amendment.

Uhmmm… No. Despite the democratic party talking points constantly referring to ‘domestic warrantless spying’, the program under discussion involved at least one end of the communication being outside the country and therefor international not domestic.

In USA v Romm the 9th circuit ([irony on] that bastion of conservative jurisprudence [/irony off]) upheld that on crossing an international border even the data on your hard drive are not exempt from border search authority (ie search with neither warrant nor probably cause when crossing an international border)

On February 12th, 2008 at 5:40 pm, JHSII said:
Wile – Please explain why there has yet to be a criminal prosecution if, as you say, the White House violated those laws.

I can give you an explanation. Those laws were not violated because they do not apply to enemy combatants in time of war.

I’m glad you weren’t on our side during WWII. We’d now be speaking eiher German or Japanese.

I’m not arguing semantics here; I am arguing legal technicalities. We are not at war! Only Congress has the right to declare ware and that has not happened. We are engaged in what could best be called a “police action” in Iraq and Afghanistan. If there was a specific declaration of war by Congress, then your points would be valid.

The President cannot arbitrarily decide what laws the executive branch will ignore and not expect there to be some outcry. As far as why there has been no prosecution, all evidence has been deemed “National Security” and no one, not even a judge, has been allowed to review that evidence. Checks and balances are written in the constitution.

And, thanks for the personal attack. We were at war with both Japan and Germany during WWiI. Ergo, using that situation to bolster your argument for this case is moot.

Has anyone here that is worried about the government listening to millions of conversations considered the technical infrastructure that would be required to do so?

Yes. It’s quite impressive stuff, capable of splitting a percentage of the light traveling down an OC-X fiberoptic pipeline and then analyzing that incredible torrent of traffic looking for pre-programmed keywords.

There is precedent for intercepting communications into and out of the country in time of war that dates back to the revolution and before.

We’re talking about domestic warrantless spying, as restricted by the Fourth Amendment.

but that was hours ago, and the cloture vote wasn’t up when I was trying to find how he voted; hence my senior moment.

re: #2 Ragspierre:

How did Sen. McCain (M-Ariz.) vote…???

See HERE

people use words or phrases that flag their calls, which pass through a super-computer sieve that looks for certain key items…

or they are making calls to or from known bad guys or their support people overseas.

This leads to actual recording of their calls, mostly limited to and from people of interest.

IF that is the scenario, there is PROBABLE CAUSE all over that,

…but NATIONAL SECURITY interests don’t really require that level of showing before they can conduct surveillance…and they don’t require a warrant…even from a FISA court…

according to my very limited knowledge of such things.

In the article Alphonse posted:

And if the surveillance had been court ordered and lawful, King would have been obliged to dismiss the lawsuit. Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, targets of counter-intelligence or counter-terrorism surveillance can only sue the government when no warrant has been issued. Lawyers for Belew and Ghafoor seize on this point. “If there was a FISA warrant, the whole case would have crumbled on the first day,” Nelson says. “Its pretty obvious from the government’s conduct in the case, there was no warrant.”

As I was reading the article, I was looking for clear evidence that no warrant existed. I am not arguing either way, but the article did not present a factual position that this was ‘warrantless’, only the position of the lawyer representing the plaintiff (above).

I agree it is like proving a negative, I suppose, but it still seems like there is a lot more to this case.

Also from the end of the article:

Al-Buthi is now a “specially designated global terrorist,” according to the Treasury Department, and he’s under indictment in the United States for failing to declare $150,000 in travelers checks raised to help Chechnyan refugees when he last flew out of the country. He told Wired News that he had always declared money when entering the United States, but wasn’t aware he needed to do the same when leaving. He says he’s been interrogated twice by Saudi officials and cleared of any wrongdoing.

Story still seems suspect…

But is there any indication of whom the calls were to? Again, there may issues there that we do not see. Mind you, anyone who has seen my site or knows me understands full well how I think about this centralized form of government that has invaded our lives and eroded our rights. However, there is no indication of what the phone calls were about or whom they were with.

If it involved calls to countries in question, I would have to agree with the actions. Again, our sovereignty and the protection of these Independent but United States of America is one of the very few rights or responsibilities that the federal government does actually have.

Again, as is the case with me, there are law-abiding citizens whose calls and actions need to be monitored even when they have done nothing wrong. Just living in the same house with my Mother when I was growing up, I know I learned about many things I should not have known about.

What if? What if I happened to enjoy too much of a refreshing adult beverage one night (The beer in the Philippines is very good and cheap too) and I was speaking to one of my friends who happens to be Muslim? A very innocent conversation could reveal things that should not be known.

While my actions may have been completely innocent, what if some of my friends had other friends or connections which were not so innocent? I am not saying that I hold any state secrets in my head. To suggest that would be ludicrous. However, if anything were revealed that could potentially cost the lives of thousands of Americans, wouldn’t you want the people “protecting” (Government Protection sounds like an oxymoron coming from me but … there are always exceptions) you and your family to know about it before any disaster befell you or the ones you love?

Should I force my wife to quit doing business in order to satisfy that same government? Should I attempt to get the government here to kowtow to meet my needs the way many foreign invaders do in America? (I doubt it would be so successful here though)

There have always been abuses of power within the government. I could start with the current administration and count back to Lincoln and list abuse that has taken place, often at the cost of innocent lives and our money. I am no supporter of the federal government as it stands.

What I do expect is that they leave We The People to live our own lives and take care of the VERY FEW Constitutional responsibilities they do have. When abuse is discovered, that too should be brought to the attention of We the People and those fattened bureaucrats should be held fully accountable to the law. That is just one of the many things that are currently lacking in our (illegal) centralized government.

Hold them to account yes, but let them (Make them?) do their damn jobs on ALL of our borders, cyber or otherwise.

You would never believe it, but I moved here to become politically apathetic … sorry for another long post!

Never thought the day would come when I’d hear Americans dissing freedom.

I do so miss my freedom to make unmonitored phone calls to my Al Qaeda buddies. Boo hoo hoo.

But seriously…the telecoms are not facing civil lawsuits because of any criminal wrongdoing. Criminal acts are prosecuted in the criminal court system. Torts are pursued in civil suits.

If I slip and fall on the sidewalk in front of scooter’s trailer, I can hire John Edwards to sue scooter even though scooter broke no law.

So give it up scooter. It’s a trick question. The telecoms are exposed in the civil court system even though they broke no laws.