Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p="
Um...actually that is not true.
|
Who in this thread (or really anywhere else for that matter) is saying that terrorists shouldn't be monitored? The point we are making is that they should be watched within the constraints of the law.
Quote:
|
We have that. Congress could override Bush if they wanted to. Warrants dont work becuase of the time involved, and the scale of the surveillance.
|
This is an awfully short and off-hand dismissal of warrants, a very basic check against government intrusion. To just casually toss that out as an explanation is evidence that you aren't taking this issue as seriously as it needs to be.
First problem you stated: the time involved. In extenuating circumstances a warrant can be gotten
after surveillance has begun. Seriously. If for whatever reason you absolutely have to begin wiretapping before a court order can be granted, then you have up to 3 days after in which to do it. More than enough time. How is this not sufficient?
Second issue brought up: the scale of the surveillance. What you are trying to say is that the government is trying to tap so many many Americans, that they simply can't keep up with it. That doesn't seem ridiculous to you? How many terrorists are in this country? How many new ones are being wiretapped each day? There would have to be such an utterly colossal amount for this argument to make sense that the country would either have been destroyed three times over by now, or we would be locking up people day in and out.
If there is a large demand of warrants (which I image there might be, but not unmanageably so) then why not increase the scale of FISC? Surely its not too much to ask that a few more lawyers or judges be set on this task before we remove the right to a warrant?
Quote:
|
In this case it is necessary.
|
A simple sentence about the scale and time constraints of obtaining warrants is not sufficient to convince me of that. Is our government so horribly incompetent that writing up a simple document laying out reasonable suspicion and the boundaries of the surveillance and presenting it to a judge is too much to ask for?
Quote:
|
You do not get the final say on that. Sorry.
|
Who does? You are advocating trying to change a long standing and very crucial part of the Bill of Rights. The burden of proof is on
your side to show why such a basic right is not needed anymore. So far your smarmy bulldozing of the facts haven't come close to that.
Quote:
|
Your opinion alone that there is "one heck of a good chance" is insufficient.
|
Who said anything about only my opinion in this matter?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020600931.html
http://forums.somethingawful.com/sho...readid=2715507
I was also pleased that when I spoke with Obama, he definitely agreed with me on this one.
Quote:
|
To avoid the risk that people like you will find a loophole. Such a precedent would make it far more difficult to obtain information in the future that the government would need to defend this nation.
|
A "loophole?" We're talking about American's fundamental rights to an expectation of privacy from government intrusion, and you're worried about loopholes. If the telecoms and the NSA have a rock solid case here, they shouldn't be stressed about taken to court. Either you are allowed to operate wiretaps on citizens without warrants, or you are not. What hypothetical loopholes are you worried about?
Quote:
|
You have failed to convince me that your understanding of that concept is superior to mine.
|
I don't think a Harvard Law degree would convince you, frankly.
Quote:
|
How does that change what I just said?
|
Because it seems that much of Congress is in cahoots with the Executive branch, and rubber stamps anything set before them. If you think that Congress is really putting the Administration under serious scrutiny, you must be reading different news than I am
Also, feel free to answer the questions posed to Billy, too.