Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 13 Jun '13 11:41
    This past week we learned of the alleged surveillance activities of the NSA and CIA. Reports that I have heard are not totally specific as to the nature of eavesdropping with regards to phone usage other than that of cell/wireless phones. It is something that I have wondered for years; are the rules that apply for land line phones the same as cell/wireless phone? What I mean is... can and/do entities have the same ability to listen in on land lines as they do with wireless? Back in the day, court orders were necessary to 'wire tap', is it still this way, are cell/wireless considered public domain; I know you can by scanners to pick up these calls.

    I have spoken to several different people on the subject, nobody seems to know. Any thoughts?
  2. 13 Jun '13 12:14 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by kd2acz
    This past week we learned of the alleged surveillance activities of the NSA and CIA. Reports that I have heard are not totally specific as to the nature of eavesdropping with regards to phone usage other than that of cell/wireless phones. It is something that I have wondered for years; are the rules that apply for land line phones the same as cell/wireless I have spoken to several different people on the subject, nobody seems to know. Any thoughts?
    They have the ability to listen in on any medium, even ones that you THINK are turned off. And everywhere you go there seems to be a camera.

    The next step I think are implants so they can monitor our every move. Then again, as dedicated as people are to their cell phones, it does seem redundant.
  3. 13 Jun '13 12:22
    Originally posted by whodey
    They have the ability to listen in on any medium, even ones that you THINK are turned off. And everywhere you go there seems to be a camera.

    The next step I think are implants so they can monitor our every move. Then again, as dedicated as people are to their cell phones, it does seem redundant.
    The need for surveillance on all americans is just smoke and mirrors in order to facilitate assasination of political enemies of the NWO.
  4. 13 Jun '13 20:43
    Originally posted by kd2acz
    This past week we learned of the alleged surveillance activities of the NSA and CIA. Reports that I have heard are not totally specific as to the nature of eavesdropping with regards to phone usage other than that of cell/wireless phones. It is something that I have wondered for years; are the rules that apply for land line phones the same as cell/wireless ...[text shortened]... I have spoken to several different people on the subject, nobody seems to know. Any thoughts?
    These are comments by Joe Klein of TIME magazine.

    First of all, we pretty much knew everything that has “broken” in the past week. The NSA has been involved in a legal data-mining operation for almost a decade. . . . It has been described, incorrectly, as electronic eavesdropping. What is really happening is that phone and Internet records are being scanned for patterns that might illuminate terrorist networks. If there is a need to actually eavesdrop, the government has to go to the FISA court for permission.


    http://swampland.time.com/2013/06/10/the-civil-liberties-freakout/#ixzz2W8BEGCsM
  5. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    13 Jun '13 21:13
    Originally posted by moon1969
    These are comments by Joe Klein of TIME magazine.

    First of all, we pretty much knew everything that has “broken” in the past week. The NSA has been involved in a legal data-mining operation for almost a decade. . . . It has been described, incorrectly, as electronic eavesdropping. What is really happening is that phone and Internet records ...[text shortened]... ion.


    http://swampland.time.com/2013/06/10/the-civil-liberties-freakout/#ixzz2W8BEGCsM
    Joe Klein is smarter than this, or at least I thought he was. People need to stop referring to the FISA Court in the context of legitimate judicial review. The FISA Court has reviewed over 30,000 warrants and disapproved one. People also need to stop calling warrantless surveillance 'legal'. It's never been truly challenged and I can see no unbiased evaluation of the tools and process used in the context of the Fourth Amendment which finds these collection activities against Americans 'legal'. Further, the process and methods have never been permitted to undergo the type of rigorous legal review on constitutional grounds that would settle the issue, draw the necessary lines between our founding documents, or at least in a very general sense the intent of the Founders (who may very well have said, "We built a document you can change; we're going for a beer, it's your turn now) and publish the rationale for finding each aspect of the program consistent, in a constitutional sense, with our founding and ancient values.
  6. 13 Jun '13 23:33
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Joe Klein is smarter than this, or at least I thought he was. People need to stop referring to the FISA Court in the context of legitimate judicial review. The FISA Court has reviewed over 30,000 warrants and disapproved one. People also need to stop calling warrantless surveillance 'legal'. It's never been truly challenged and I can see no unbiased ...[text shortened]... the program consistent, in a constitutional sense, with our founding and ancient values.
    The legislative and executive branches disagree with you. Both have repeatedly said that the law is constitutional.

    Congress enacted the law, and the President signed it (both Bush and Obama). The federal courts including the Supreme Court have refused to hear challenges until someone can show standing.

    As for the 5-4 decision by the Court to refuse to hear the case, asserting that the "plaintiffs" had no standing (labeled "respondents" by the Court), joining Alito in the majority were Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

    In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said standing should have been granted. He said that the spying, “Indeed it is a s likely to take place as are most future events that commonsense inference and ordinary knowledge of human nature tell us will happen.” Signing the dissent were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1025_ihdj.pdf


    Keep voting Republican to pack the Court with justices who continue to erode the 4th Amendment.
  7. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    13 Jun '13 23:40 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by moon1969
    The legislative and executive branches disagree with you. Both have repeatedly said that the law is constitutional.

    Congress enacted the law, and the President signed it (both Bush and Obama). The federal courts including the Supreme Court have refused to hear challenges until someone can show standing.

    As for the 5-4 decision by the Court to refuse ting Republican to pack the Court with justices who continue to erode the 4th Amendment.
    [/b]
    Then on this issue I side with Bader Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer. So be it. They will be shown to be on the right side of history.

    Judging the constitutionality of laws is not the job of either the legislative or the executive branches. You should know that.

    The legislative branch has abdicated its oversight duty since September 11, 2001 at the earliest. Probably earlier. The Framers understood that each branch would try to expand their power, and so set up checks and balances. The executive branch has been doing what the Framers expected it to do. I cannot make the same argument for the legislative branch.
  8. 14 Jun '13 00:12 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Judging the constitutionality of laws is not the job of either the legislative or the executive branches.
    To the contrary, not only is it their job, but they have a constitutional obligation to judge the constitutionality of laws. While the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter and has the final say, that does not relieve the other two branches of their obligation.

    By the way, the massive majority of laws are never subjected to judicial review, and it is Congress and the President (Justice Department) deciding that those laws are constitutional.

    Moreover, Chief Justice Roberts recently indicated (in the DOMA case oral arguments) that if the executive found a law unconstitutional, it was inconsistent for the executive to enforce that law.

    Indeed, in the DOMA case, the executive (President) judged a provision of the DOMA as unconstitutional and refused to defend the provision, but continued to enforce the provision until the Court decided. Roberts chastised the executive for continuing to enforce a law the executive found unconstitutional.
  9. 14 Jun '13 00:29
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Joe Klein is smarter than this, or at least I thought he was. People need to stop referring to the FISA Court in the context of legitimate judicial review. The FISA Court has reviewed over 30,000 warrants and disapproved one. People also need to stop calling warrantless surveillance 'legal'. It's never been truly challenged and I can see no unbiased ...[text shortened]... the program consistent, in a constitutional sense, with our founding and ancient values.
    If the 4th Amendment is your sole issue, and you are against NSA surveillance and believe that Snowden is a brave hero, etc., then you are definitely voting against your interest by voting Republican.
  10. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    14 Jun '13 01:32 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by moon1969
    To the contrary, not only is it their job, but they have a constitutional obligation to judge the constitutionality of laws. While the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter and has the final say, that does not relieve the other two branches of their obligation.

    By the way, the massive majority of laws are never subjected to judicial review, and it is ...[text shortened]... s chastised the executive for continuing to enforce a law the executive found unconstitutional.
    Interesting. I wonder what John Marshall would have to say about that.

    Don't give me your half-assed legal analysis. Provide cites or just stop.
  11. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    14 Jun '13 01:51
    Originally posted by moon1969
    If the 4th Amendment is your sole issue, and you are against NSA surveillance and believe that Snowden is a brave hero, etc., then you are definitely voting against your interest by voting Republican.
    Unfortunately for you, the Fourth Amendment is not my sole issue. The Second Amendment matters as well, precisely because of this nonsense that Obama is pulling.

    Saw a great t-shirt today. "I plead the Second". If you don't love that you're just not an American.
  12. 15 Jun '13 15:31
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Interesting. I wonder what John Marshall would have to say about that.

    Don't give me your half-assed legal analysis. Provide cites or just stop.
    Shows your ignorance. Find your own cites. Basic constitutional law. All three branches are constitutionally obligated to make constitutional assessments of laws. By the way, John Marshall completely agreed that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter (not the sole arbiter) of the Constitution.
  13. 15 Jun '13 15:35 / 2 edits
    As noted by marauder in a thread earlier this year:
    During the oral argument concerning the Defense of Marriage Act, Chief Justice Roberts and several other members of the right wing of the court expressed irritation that the Obama administration was still enforcing the DOMA though it believes it unconstitutional:

    He expressed irritation that the case was before the court, saying President Obama’s approach — to enforce the law but not defend it — was a contradiction.

    “I don’t see why he doesn’t have the courage of his convictions,” the chief justice said. He said Mr. Obama should have stopped enforcing a statute he viewed as unconstitutional “rather than saying, ‘Oh, we’ll wait till the Supreme Court tells us we have no choice.’ ”


    The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court never said that the President had no right to make a determination of constitutionality. Of course, the Court can force the executive to enforce laws even though the executive makes it's own determination that the law is unconstitutional. Yet, it is entirely appropriate and expected for the executive to make such an assessment
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    15 Jun '13 15:44
    Originally posted by moon1969
    As noted by marauder in a thread earlier this year:
    [quote]During the oral argument concerning the Defense of Marriage Act, Chief Justice Roberts and several other members of the right wing of the court expressed irritation that the Obama administration was still enforcing the DOMA though it believes it unconstitutional:

    He expressed irritation that th ...[text shortened]... nal. Yet, it is entirely appropriate and expected for the executive to make such an assessment
    Of course, you leave out the part where I say those statements by Roberts and other right wing judges are contrary to established practice and settled precedent ...............................................
  15. 15 Jun '13 15:50 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Of course, you leave out the part where I say those statements by Roberts and other right wing judges are contrary to established practice and settled precedent ...............................................
    The statements your refer are in regard to enforcement, and never say or indicate that the President does not have a right (or obligation) to make a constitutional determination.

    I never addressed the issue of enforcement, but only that all three branches of government make constitutional assessments of laws.

    Nevertheless, you are wrong to suggest that the enforcement issue is settled precedent. By the way, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has something to say about what is and what will be settled precedent.