Federal Judge rules warrantless wiretapping unconstitutional. Your thoughts?

Question

I think a majority of Americans believe it's true, but for the sake of the war...

Answer 1

I think the wars were forged to make us swallow Patriot Act,

and National ID

Answer 2

Amendment IV promises: 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.

This amendent was originally directed at police type searches, and the NSA is in the business of national security, not arresting people for other illegal acts. And even if someone were caught doing something illegal unrelated to terrorism, it would not be acted upon, because 1) the NSA would rather catch them trying to commit an act of terror, and 2) the NSA would rather the not have the fact that they were wiretapping made public. This seriously deminshes the programs effectiveness.

Obviously, the Constitutions does not exclude the NSA or anything like it, so the above paragraph is easily argued against. However, the president is charged with the defense of our nation as Commander in Chief. Warrants take time to obtain and even the special court set up to issue such warrants may not be quick enough. Wiretaps on terrorist suspects is not an "unreasonable" search, and the constitution makes no specific law stating that warrants MUST be obtained, just that the search not be unreasonable.

All electronic communication, including phone calls, cell phone calls, and emails all leave the suspect's house. If you want something to be secure, then don't send it out of your house. The amendment says that you have the right to be "secure in your home."

Also, something to keep in mind: the terror plot that was stopped in the UK was stopped because of an intercepted phone conversation. In terms of deaths, another 9/11 was prevented due to that surviellence regardless of whether they had a warrant or not.

Because of all this, I agree with the warrantless wiretapping and I believe that the ruling will be overturned on appeal.

Answer 3

For the most part all of the previous post are accurate. With the exception of all of the cons who are crying on their pillows right now about carter this and clinton that. The idea to begin w/ was highly unethical and unconstitutional. But so goes the executive branch this time around. It will be overturned because make no mistake about it, the cheneys and roves are busy w/ their own jihad and no 2 bit nobody judge will get in their way.
Ask yourself why would it be so hard to utilize the secret NSA judges to get warrants anyway? Thats what they are there for right?

Answer 4

It is clearly unconstitutional. The warantless program is a violation of the Constitution's requirement for warrants in searches. The FISA Act was Congress' way of providing a secure means for obtaining a warrant in sensitive cases. The Executive ignored the warrant requirement and the FISA Act. Thus, it is unconstitutional on a seperation-of-powers perspective as well as violating the Fourth Amendment (searches). I am talking about any search or wiretapping in which a US person is involved. The fact that one end of the conversation is outside the country doesn't negate the fact that one end is inside the country.

Answer 5

It will be appealed, and re-appealed.
Question is: will the Supreme Court hear it, or not?

It depends if the SCOTUS wants to draw clear line around the 3 and equal branches of gov't, or they want to go along with the imperial presidency.

I don't know how they make up their mind whether to accept the case, or reject it. I'm sure there is a vote among the justices, but there are lot of conservatives on the bench, and while some have independent minds, others just march lock-step with the White House. We'll get to find out.

Answer 6

It's stupid. The National Surveillance Agency (NSA) needs to conduct warrantless wiretapping in order to catch terrorists easily. Getting a warrant for every wiretap is a huge waste of time, it only hurts the war on terror and gives terrorists more time. 650 Al Qaeda suspects have been caught using the warrantless wiretapping system. Those are terrorists we're talking about, potential killers on US soil. Let me remind you, we haven't had a single terrorist attack since 9/11. It's simple. Also, why should people be afraid of the government listening to their conversations? Why would you care if they knew what you were saying, they don't know you personally and they aren't going to use anything against you unless the words you say leads them to believe that you are connected with Al Qaeda.
Let me ask all of you, would you rather be dead (terrorist attacks) or have the government listen to your conversations? Those are the two choices here.

Answer 7

The rulling is faulty and will be overturned. The Plaintiffs had no real standing in the case. This is a Intellgence matter involving a rather narrow focus. We routinely intercepted messages between foreign embassies and parties overseas in war. The program is doing the same thing here with terrorists routing calls through the US. The Judge was wrong to declare this unconstitutional.

Answer 8

It is without any doubt UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The president has no excuse whatsoever for not getting a warrant from a secret court that was setup just for this SPECIFIC reason.

Our constitution DEMANDS oversight of the president by the courts, We have seen far too many times what can happen when any president isn't being watched.

Nixon tried to use the same argument for spying saying it was a war powers thing, And we found out it wasn't foreign soldiers or terrorists he was wiretapping, It was ordinary Americans that he didn't like.

Answer 9

FISA, as applied to the NSA surveillance program, will be found unconstitutional. Yes, the district court found the program unconstitutional, but this is the likely final analysis after appeals are over:

1) The program is 'illegal' because it violates FISA
2) BUT, FISA, insofar as it reaches this program is unconstitutional as an infringement on the executive's express powers as commander-in-chief
3) Therefore the program is proper and constitutional

Answer 10

What would the founding fathers have done?
We used to believe doing the right thing was important.
Now we are being herded like sheep to the slaughter for fictitious "security"

Ben Franlin said it best when he commented "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

Answer 11

ConScum? Is that code for, "is this the commencing up of the tip of the stable ol boys conflict video games? i'm hoping it is genuine that the Federal decide ruled it became into unconsituttion? only Bush's Gonzalez would have the middle to arugue that this examining of the regulation became into suited. So, whilst does the Bush administration's habit exchange?