Originally Posted by benjamin
Do you see it now? The question was whether or not FISA was allowed to authorize part of an application and not all of it.
..."The court’s decision from which the government appeals imposed certain requirements and limitations accompanying an order authorizing electronic surveillance of an “agent of a foreign power” as defined in FISA. There is no disagreement between the government and the FISA court as to the propriety of the electronic surveillance; the court found that the government had shown probable cause to believe that the target is an agent of a foreign power and otherwise met the basic requirements of FISA."
In other words, the government is appealing here a decision that imposed limitations on the wiretapping program. How is this not a relevant court case?
The justice system talks about a search being reasonable based on the presence or absence of "just cause." Absent just cause, like the smell of cordite on me, or things less extreme, NYPD has no cause to search me. Hence the search is unreasonable. (Now that I've put words in bold, is it easier for you to understand?)
I think it's reasonable. The FISC, United States Congress, House of Representatives and Supreme Court all seem to think it's reasonable. Not a single member of the House or Congress has actually said that the government should stop the wiretaps; after Feingold delivered his rant he promptly left the senate and didn't debate it. When Frist asked Reid if he'd like to debate the subject into the night, he refused. Noone has any problem with the wiretaps themselves aside from left extremists. A few in Congress, from both sides, have known about these from the beginning...
Search without just cause = unreasonable. The constitution requires just cause. Clear enough?
Cause:
Cause:
It is unreasonable if they have no cause to search me, as with the NYPD searches. Every announcement I hear reminds me that the searches may be "random." I put the word in double-quotes not for emphasis, but because that is the word they always use.
That's personal opinion. I and many other New Yorkers have no problem with it at all. If a 15 second delay means a suicide bomber might be stopped, so be it.
Thats right, being a good liberal and a good American I tend to examine the big picture and not narrow my focus to the point where any meaningful debate becomes impossible.
You've narrowed your focus to everything besides facts. I don't see any in here, besides the facts of how you
feel and
think. Maybe you should start using public opinion polls too...
This is a valid point. My fourth amendment rights have not yet been violated by the NYPD. The idea that I should wait until they do to say something about it is dumb. How many times have I heard that liberty must be guarded vigilantly? Why should I sit back and wait for them to come when I have no rights left?
More personal opinion. I think my 2nd amendment rights have been violated by anti-gun legislation, but it's widely supported. IMO the 2nd amendment is the final check and balance on the government and was meant to be that way by the founding fathers...and it amazes me that people let the government take that power away.
The fact that I'm a liberal who hates Bush has no relevence to this argument because you could change my underlying beliefs and the argument would still be valid and true.
No, your personal beliefs would still be true. I respect them but you have yet to tell me how this is illegal besides by bending the definition of 'unreasonable'. I think it means one thing, you think it means another. Is that really what this is about?
To wit:
1. The Constitution requires a warrant (fourth amendment) and due process(fifth amendment) when the government wants to implement wiretaps.
Please use court precedents and judicial fact in supporting your points, which seem to be made purely of opinion. You can't just bend the definition of the word 'unreasonable' to fit your personal beliefs.
2. President Bush intentionally and repeatedly ignored the Constitution.
See above.
3. President Bush's actions were unconstitutional.
:lmao: See above.
If Laura Bush presented this argument, it would still be true. That is why my personal beliefs are irrelevent to the validity and truth of the argument. If you really still don't see it, PM me and we can talk about syllogistic logic.
But all your argument consists of is your personal belief about what 'unreasonable' means to you
Show me a SC case. Show me some sort of judicial review that supports your points.
OOohhhh, a smiley face. You're really bringing it now. How will I ever defend my ideas against that kind of bulletproof argument?
With personal beliefs, of course!
