There really is no legal basis whatsoever for believing that the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program was legal.

The remedy for warrantless wiretapping is the same as for not mirandizing a suspect. The judge will throw out evidence gathered improperly and it cannot be used to prosecute the suspect. An arresting officer who forgets to give the miranda warning is not prosecuted.

Has evidence collected during the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping been used to convict anyone in a court of law? If not, then the remedy is working as designed.

Second, what gives any judge in this country the right to decide whether the NSA can listen to a conversation in Pakistan? It’s outside the jurisdiction of US judges. The constitution gives wide powers over foreign affairs to the President, not the courts.

Listening to calls of citizens is another matter. But, as I pointed out, the remedy is to throw out the evidence gathered improperly. I think that is how Obama’s longtime friends Ayers and Dorn avoided prosecution. A judge ruled that the FBI’s evidence was collected improperly and threw out the case. But the FBI officials involved were not prosecuted for the alledged abuses because that is not called for under the law.

I give up more details of my private life to the IRS every April 15 than the NSA could get from monitoring a lifetime of my phone calls.

by Die Hippie Die

You said it, DHD. what amazes the hell out of me about the left is that they view these aliens and islamiscists as if they have rights just like us when they show absolute derision for our way of life and Constitution.

What really still gets under my skin is how they view illegals, atheists,and islamiscists as having (more than) equal rights and validity to the rest of us who do play by the rules, but also how the left were also remarkably cold towards Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidian’s constitutional rights even neither of them committed-nor planned- any form of attack or assault prior to the ill-fated raids on both homes (which the MSM called “compounds”).

I say this even though I do not share their particular religious viewpoints.

I give up more details of my private life to the IRS every April 15 than the NSA could get from monitoring a lifetime of my phone calls.

Get a grip you Nancies.

On July 3rd, 2008 at 4:03 pm, frontierguy said:

All this said, if you care about saving American lives, would you have vetoed a bill (or effectively killed a bill by threatening to veto it) that granted the wiretap powers the government needs to spy on those trying to kill us, just because it didn’t grant telecom immunity? The bill has been lapsed 5 months now thanks to Bush’s stubbornness.

Would you effectively kill the bill by authoring one that tells businesses (telecoms) that you can cooperate and help the government, but you do so at your own peril. Help us, but be careful of the ACLU and CAIR…They are going to be gunning for you and will litigate you to death.

I am unclear as to how preventing immunity to the telcoms for doing what the government asks them to do, will save a single soldier’s life.

What it does is open the door to endless class action suits and ancillary litigation which will feed the lawyers that give so “liberally” to the Democrats each election.

What it does is make the telcoms justifiably apprehensive about doing what the government requests of them (which is not what we are arguing, according to your entries here), doubtlessly causing delays due to consultations with their lawyers etc., which will be far more likely to cost military or civilian lives than your scenario.

On July 3rd, 2008 at 4:25 pm, Ahh a Lion! said:

All this said, if you care about saving American lives, would you have vetoed a bill (or effectively killed a bill by threatening to veto it) that granted the wiretap powers the government needs to spy on those trying to kill us, just because it didn’t grant telecom immunity?

I think it’s clear that our government really doesn’t care about our security – if they did, in the least, the border would have been closed down long ago. The border issue really does destroy their credibility as protectors.

Now that is an superb point! If the Dems and Repubs cared enough to put the country first, and stipulated that the borders must be controlled in return for the ability to monitor these communications, I would be on board in a New York minute.

I won’t hold my breath…

txvet2 said:

On July 3rd, 2008 at 4:28 pm, Ahh a Lion! said:
A more important question : How did conservatives feel about the program when Clinton was the leader of this country?

We were far more concerned about the political use of hundreds of FBI files of leading conservatives/Republicans and the political use of the IRS to harass conservatives in the media and elsewhere.

True. And had Clinton been interested in keeping as “ear on” Islamic terrorists plotting on the fones it’s likely 9-11 and attacks on American interests (e.g. embassies, the Cole) could have been stopped while they were in the planning stage.

On July 3rd, 2008 at 4:28 pm, Ahh a Lion! said:

A more important question : How did conservatives feel about the program when Clinton was the leader of this country?

We were far more concerned about the political use of hundreds of FBI files of leading conservatives/Republicans and the political use of the IRS to harass conservatives in the media and elsewhere.

Of course – they can start with securing the borders.

Agree, both physical and electronic.

Ahh a Lion! said:
I guess I can rephrase my original point this way:
I feel betrayed because of the fact that a so called conservative president now has the power to do ________.

That’s not unreasonable, Lion. But applied to what we’re talking about here and what fills in the blank, quite specifically:

(SFGate)
“A federal judge in San Francisco dismissed a lawsuit Wednesday that sought to prove President Bush acted illegally in 2001 when he ordered the wiretapping of phone calls between Americans and suspected foreign terrorists without court approval.”

Especially considering the group, the “Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation”, is recognized even by the UN as a Taliban-associated group:

list of individuals belonging to or associated with the Taliban

As I said, I just don’t believe the Govt has a great driving desire, much less the time, to tap the billions of calls made each day to listen to Joe & Jane Schmucks debate on whether they should order pizza or Chinese for dinner.

Do you care that Google and Viacom are spying on you?

Absolutely.

don’t conservatives think national defense is truly one of the responsibilities of the Federal gov?

Of course – they can start with securing the borders.

are terms which indicate a conclusion based on feelings rather than fact

Well, to say that would imply that I am making my statement based solely on how I feel about the government’s actions. Now, feelings many times can be based on the facts of a situation. Such as a wife who decides to divorce her husband because of the fact he’s cheating on her. Her feelings regarding that situation led to her decision. I guess I can rephrase my original point this way:
I feel betrayed because of the fact that a so called conservative president now has the power to do ________.
I leave it blank because I’m guessing that this is where we differ. I believe the assorted Acts, Executive Orders, Signing Statements and growth of government are the facts supporting the “government power grab” statement. You think otherwise.

AlohaGuy said:
My point is not that the Gov should spy willy-nilly on US Citizens, but when an “interesting” overseas call leads to the US they should be able to follow the trail.

Yup – and I doubt the Gov’t had much interest in listening to Aunt Berta swap fruitcake recipes with her friends anyway.

Do you care that Google and Viacom are spying on you?

That’s actually much more scary than paranoia-inspired notions George Bush is spending his days listening to my phone calls. (Besides he’d be bored to tears after about 3 minutes, lol.)

Do you care that Google and Viacom are spying on you?

My point is not that the Gov should spy willy-nilly on US Citizens, but when an “interesting” overseas call leads to the US they should be able to follow the trail. The people who disagree (terrorists and their lackeys among others) would like the telcos to not cooperate and to force that they want to apply financial heat in the way of lawsuits. Giving them immunity is a common-sense measure.

As for the government getting bigger or more intrusive, don’t conservatives think national defense is truly one of the responsibilities of the Federal gov?

Ahh a Lion! said:
While liberals make decisions based on their “feelings”, conservatives rely on good ol’ fashioned common sense.
I agree with statement 100%. It’s too bad there are very few conservatives that actually make any decisions.

The question was not irrelevant however, a conservatives’ feelings toward government power grabs

A problem there – and I highlighted it, are terms which indicate a conclusion based on feelings rather than fact, Lion.

Common sense (the “ol’ fashioned kind”)depends on reasoned thinking and employs the old proverb “The beginning of wisdom is a definition of terms.”