Originally Posted by 98CoupeV6
Bolding a few sentences at the end didn't stop me from going back to the beginning. This particular case had to do with FISA issuing restrictions on a wiretap along with authorization. The Supremes decided that FISA didn't have the authority to issue the restrictions. Thats pretty much it.
Originally Posted by 98CoupeV6
...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?
Our justice system relies upon warrants as part of due process. Warrants are actually mentioned right there in the fourth amendment. Thanks for posting it!
Due process is mentioned, as I'm sure you're aware, in the fifth amendment. Read 'em back to back and you get an idea of why spying without a warrant is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
Oh, I know, you went to the trouble of finding that whole thing with the bold text and all, but let me share a dirty little secret with you: none of it matters if it violates the constitution.
Originally Posted by 98CoupeV6
What rights of yours have been specically affected? Please refer to the Bill of Rights.
I live in NYC and ride the subway almost every day of my life. I can't remember the last time I was on the subway and didn't hear an announcement reminding me that NYPD can search me at any time they want without cause. (Unreasonable search; fourth amendment, United States Constitution.)
And that doesn't even get into the fascist bullshit the government can do under the PATRIOT Act.
Originally Posted by 98CoupeV6
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.
The President takes an oath of office to uphold the constitution. Wiretaps without warrants violate at least one amendment, and often more. It falls under "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Originally Posted by 98CoupeV6
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?
In fact, I am a liberal who hates Bush, but if President Clinton had tried this stuff I would be taking a big shit on his head too. For me, this is not about partisan politics; its about principle. If we are truly for freedom and democracy everywhere, why are we allowing Bush to corrupt and pervert democracy here?
FYI, that last bit you threw in about me being "a liberal who just hates Bush" is known as the straw man fallacy. Check it out:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
... and never use it again.