Before I start, have you even read the 2002 FISA Court Review? It's available here:
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html
Conclusion
FISA’s general programmatic purpose, to protect the nation against terrorists and espionage threats directed by foreign powers, has from its outset been distinguishable from “ordinary crime control.” After the events of September 11, 2001, though, it is hard to imagine greater emergencies facing Americans than those experienced on that date.
We acknowledge, however,
that the constitutional question presented by this case–whether Congress’s disapproval of the primary purpose test is consistent with the Fourth Amendment–has no definitive jurisprudential answer. The Supreme Court’s special needs cases involve random stops (seizures) not electronic searches. In one sense, they can be thought of as a greater encroachment into personal privacy because they are not based on any particular suspicion. On the other hand, wiretapping is a good deal more intrusive than an automobile stop accompanied by questioning.
Although the Court in City of Indianapolis cautioned that the threat to society is not dispositive in determining whether a search or seizure is reasonable, it certainly remains a crucial factor. Our case may well involve the most serious threat our country faces. Even without taking into account the President’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance, we think the procedures and government showings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant standards, certainly come close.
We, therefore, believe firmly, applying the balancing test drawn from Keith, that FISA as amended is constitutional because the surveillances it authorizes are reasonable.
Accordingly, we reverse the FISA court’s orders in this case to the extent they imposed conditions on the grant of the government’s applications, vacate the FISA court’s Rule 11, and remand with instructions to grant the applications as submitted and proceed henceforth in accordance with this opinion.
Originally Posted by benjamin
I don't know what "review" you're referring to, but anything less than a warrant issued by a court doesn't give the government the power to execute a wiretap. I also don't know what FICA is; did you mean FISA?
...you know I meant FISA.
Let's go to the constitution, specifically the Bill or Rights:
"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."
How is wiretapping calls made to and from known or suspected terrorists overseas unreasonable?
In Katz v. United States,151 Justice White sought to preserve for a future case the possibility that in ''national security cases'' electronic surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney General could be permissible without prior judicial approval. The Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to ''bug'' in two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority on a theory of ''inherent'' presidential power and then in the Supreme Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a ''reasonable'' search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required.152 Whether or not a search was reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause; except in a few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, only those searches conducted pursuant to warrants were reasonable. The Government's duty to preserve the national security did not override the gurarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy.153 This protection was even more needed in ''national security cases'' than in cases of ''ordinary'' crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the Fourth.154 Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is required.155
From:
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/consti...ment04/05.html
That's the most recent SC case involving wiretapping. The decision was particularly vague and left a lot to the imagination. Even so, the FISA court upholds the warrant requirements.
I am not a drug dealer, child molester, or terrorist; I am an American and I value my rights.
What rights of yours have been specically affected? Please refer to the Bill of Rights.
The President has claimed on any number of occasions that it is imperative that freedom be defended and democracy protected. So why would he abridge freedom and ignore the rules of our own democracy, to say nothing of breaking the law?
Breaking
what law? I still don't get it. Nixon tried to wiretap without any sort of courts, warrants or reason to do so and he was unanimously stricken down by the SC for good reason. This is totally different.
You must think I'm just picking at anything that gives me a chance to criticize Bush, but that just isn't the case. I was a card-carrying member of the ACLU back in the 90s, long before President Bush started attacking my rights.
Um how is being involved in an organization like the ACLU anything to brag about or use to try to argue the probability that you're a liberal who just hates Bush?