[abe]

When Bush does it it's bad, but when you respond to advances in technology it's OK?

I've been saying that when advances in technology are taken advantage of by the bad guys to target us it's only natural and right that the government would do what's needed to even the playing field.

Here, we have the same idea but instead of the government, we have the American public whose expectation of privacy, or at least an expectation of SOME kind of separation of worlds, is being used against it, them, you, us by colleges and employers.

And what are we, you, they, it being advised to do?

Respond to the changes in technology to keep from being victimized by those who might take unfair advantage.

Isn't that what the government is doing with the wiretaps? Responding to changes in technology in order to keep from being victimized by those terrorists who might take unfair advantage?

And if it's wrong for the government to do it, then why should you be able to do it?

I may not be saying this well, but hopefully you'll understand better after reading the article.


http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Careers/st...1729525&page=1

Tory Johnson: Dusting Your Digital Dirt
Your Online Web Pages Could Cost You a Chance at a Job

By TORY JOHNSON
March 16, 2006 — - Do you or your kids have digital dirt? If so, it might be time to start sweeping it up.

Digital dirt is the information about you -- your hobbies, your photos, your rants and raves -- that's available on the Internet through personal Web sites, profiles on popular social-networking sites, and comments on blogs. What you -- and certainly your teenagers -- might not realize is that employers are reading what's out there and in many cases these things can derail your job prospects even before you're called for an interview.

This all started with Google. The popular search engine enabled all of us to become private eyes -- we can look up anyone and anything on the Internet with the simple click of the mouse. This is a great tool for job-seekers. They can Google an interviewer to learn something about that person in hopes of using it to establish a rapport during the interview.

But there's a flip side: those same employers check out prospective hires. With basic online searches, they're finding risqué photos posted on personal Web sites and social networks. They're reading brags about excessive drinking and promiscuity, and plenty more …

Pay Attention, Parents

With the high costs of recruiting, training and retaining top talent -- from entry level to senior executives -- employers must be cautious about who they hire. As a recruiter, if I'm considering two college seniors for the same position and I come across an online profile for one of them that brags about rowdy parties and drunken escapades, I might think twice about that person. And I will likely lean more toward the candidate who has a clean online profile -- or none at all.

Clean Up Online Profiles

Why would anyone want the contents of a silly social site to be held against him when looking for a job? The safest, smartest option is to clean up online profiles. Instead of ordering your teens to remove their profiles, which won't likely go over too well with them, you can encourage them to have fun expressing themselves -- within reason. Nobody has to lose all her personality and creativity, but you should suggest that she remove questionable material so she doesn't jeopardize potential employment opportunities.

Several college career service offices have begun aggressively warning students that recruiters monitor their online stuff. In a competitive job market, students need all the ammunition they can get. And a heads-up on this growing trend has allowed many students to start pre-emptively dusting their own dirt.

(Incidentally, many college admissions offices now review the online profiles of high school seniors when determining their eligibility for admittance. Ask your son and daughter if they would want to miss out on the college of their dreams because they're boasting about skipping class and underage drinking.)

Prepare a Response

Some teens and 20-somethings hesitate to sanitize their online profiles. Many I spoke with say, "No employer owns me 24/7 -- I'm entitled to have a social life. Just because I like to party, that doesn't mean I'm a lousy worker."

For those who refuse to budge on the racy photos or salacious profiles, my best advice is to prepare to address profile contents if asked.

An interviewer might say, "So I saw your MySpace profile and you certainly like to have fun, don't you?" Instead of saying, "Hey -- that's none of your beeswax," you'll want to take a less defensive approach. "Yes, I enjoy being with my friends. I'm also a great student and I've worked very hard to maintain a strong GPA. I believe that it's OK to relax and have fun, too. That's never affected my performance on the job, nor will it."

But again, keep in mind that you might not have the chance to defend yourself because someone might nix you from the running without even asking you to explain the online profile.
Implement Safety Controls

Many of the popular social-networking sites allow users to post comments about fellow members. This means that friends and strangers can comment on you, your photos and other content. To avoid having such comments from working against you, especially if they're off-color, activate the features that block such comments. You can also manually delete anything you find objectionable.

A senior executive at a top company shared with me a recent example of how such comments spiraled out of control for one new employee. She had photos of herself in a bikini during spring break posted on her online profile. What she didn't realize -- because she didn't check her profile frequently -- was that visitors to her Web page had posted the equivalent of lewd catcalls. That proved embarrassing to this young woman among her new co-workers.

She could have prevented this by implementing comment blocks or by frequenting her profile and deleting such comments.

Not Limited to the College Crowd

All of us -- regardless of age or position -- are subject to online searches by current and prospective employers. I know many companies that have ruled out candidates -- and even rescinded offers -- because of what they found online. Digital dirt included misstated academic qualifications, radical political views, objectionable jokes posted on personal Web pages and even negative comments about former employers submitted to blogs.

Narcisurf Today

Do some narcisurfing! It's a term that's cropping up relating to Internet searches that we conduct on ourselves. Not only can you Google yourself, but you should go to dogpile.com, too. Dogpile retrieves information from multiple search engines and gives different results than Google or Yahoo! does.

If you have an online profile on any of the social networks, carefully review its contents to see if there's anything that would make an employer wince. If there's information on your personal Web page that you wouldn't want your current or future boss to see, then change it. If the objectionable information about you is on another site, you can contact the webmaster about having it changed or removed. And if that's not possible, you'll have to be ready to explain it if asked.

Consider Professional, Not Social Networks.

Since there are indeed great advantages to online networks -- including promoting your professional strengths and personal interests as well as connecting with like-minded people -- consider creating a free account on a site like LinkedIn. Unlike the social networks like MySpace, Facebook and Friendster, this service, which has 5 million registered users, focuses much more on the professional than the personal.

To connect directly with Tory Johnson or for other information on career advancement, visit www.womenforhire.com

Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Careers/st...1729525&page=1

[Saad]

So we should scrap FISA, and allow the NSA to use profiling (tracking phone numbers to identify people) to monitor American citizens? Supposedly, the technique can be very accurate, but why can't they get a warrant? Why should we have to take the president's word that they only track terrorists. The constitution does not call for trust, it calls for oversight. If it takes too long, would more judges help?

Synopsis on possible techniques (a computer scientist explained possible techniques better on NPR, but I can't find the article):
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspyi...s20060131.html

EDIT

Found it:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5399270

[itistoday]

NOOOOOOO!!! Why'd you respond, this thread was almost completely dead!

[abe]

Originally Posted by itistoday

NOOOOOOO!!! Why'd you respond, this thread was almost completely dead!

Didn't the Clinton fiasco cure you of this head-in-the-sand-itis long ago, itistoday?

OOOOH, I GET IT!

Your name and your POV is a tacit statement that all of this country's FORMER MISTAKES remain true TODAY!

ITISTODAY!

[abe]

Originally Posted by Saad

So we should scrap FISA, and allow the NSA to use profiling (tracking phone numbers to identify people) to monitor American citizens? Supposedly, the technique can be very accurate, but why can't they get a warrant? Why should we have to take the president's word that they only track terrorists. The constitution does not call for trust, it calls for oversight. If it takes too long, would more judges help?

Synopsis on possible techniques (a computer scientist explained possible techniques better on NPR, but I can't find the article):
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspyi...s20060131.html

EDIT

Found it:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5399270

You can't be blamed for misunderstanding the situation. Most of the country backed off when they realized the truth of the matter. Truths that have been presented here on these pages for many weeks.

Basically it's this.

The wiretapping program was well structured, tightly run, subject to Congressional oversight and completely legal.

The Congresspeople who were privvy to the details or even the existence of the program was limited to just a few and because of the sensitive nature of the program the number of people had to kept to a minimum. In fact, it can be argued that the reason the program was leaked was because too many people were entrusted with it's knowledge.

Anyway, when the news came out and not ALL of the Congress and/or Senate members knew about it these members who were kept in the dark naturally believed that NO ONE IN CONGRESS KNEW.

This was not the case.

A select few members WERE informed and they did provide oversight on the program.

The ones who are now throwing hissy fits about the program are just angry because THEY weren't among the ones chosen to know about it.

The program was doing a job for America but once news of it's existence was made known the terrorists and supporters were able to find other ways of communicating.

Anyway, the program was well within Constitutional limits of legality.

So is the data mining of call logs.

You and others might suspect the President of having sinister, ulterior motives like establishing a Big Brother state. And I believe that is far from the truth.

The President wants to keep America and Americans safe and he is doing his best to perform this job despite the efforts of Americans and others who oppose him and/or the US. He is committed to UPHOLDING the Constitution, not getting around it.

If you want an example of a President who skirted the law for his own gain try this guy.

[besson3c]

Go Kansas City Royals!

Thank you, Messiah of Truth™. For now on, I'll be happy that my phone is being wiretapped.

[Dork.]

Whether or not these surveillance programs that are under discussion are legal or not, it is certain that they contain more information than a google search. So your comparison is rather irrelevant.

[Saad]

So we should scrap FISA? Court oversight is obsolete? The FISA court's most senior judge resigned as a result of the program. I don't know why they couldn't have gotten warrants (they haven't explained yet, either), since then they would avoid a debate about executive power.

So when the president does it, it's not illegal?

[abe]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Go Kansas City Royals!

Thank you, Messiah of Truth™. For now on, I'll be happy that my phone is being wiretapped.

No, it's not to be happy about. It's your doing your part in enduring the necessities of war.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dork.

Whether or not these surveillance programs that are under discussion are legal or not, it is certain that they contain more information than a google search. So your comparison is rather irrelevant.

It's our doing our part in enduring the necessities of war.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by abe

The Congresspeople who were privvy to the details or even the existence of the program was limited to just a few and because of the sensitive nature of the program the number of people had to kept to a minimum. In fact, it can be argued that the reason the program was leaked was because too many people were entrusted with it's knowledge.

Anyway, when the news came out and not ALL of the Congress and/or Senate members knew about it these members who were kept in the dark naturally believed that NO ONE IN CONGRESS KNEW.

This was not the case.

A select few members WERE informed and they did provide oversight on the program.

The ones who are now throwing hissy fits about the program are just angry because THEY weren't among the ones chosen to know about it.

I'll grant you this point. Although I'll contend that the people who were briefed on these projects in Congress (AFAIK, the house and senate leaders and the Intelligence Comittee chairmen from either party) are just as complicit in any law-breaking that might have occured as the President is. They stood aside while the President claimed broad powers for his office which would not stand up to anyone else's rational interpretation of the Constitution, but which would never be examined by anyone else unless the secrecy of these programs was broken.

You homework for today, abe, is to use that advanced technology of ours to look up "Unitary Executive"", "Signing Statements", and "Separation of Powers". In 500 words or less, tell us what GWB's opinion on these concepts are, and how they differ from his predecessors, and from what is written in the constitution. Extra credit if you find out why some Democrats saw this coming when they opposed Sam Alito's nomination. If I knew then what I know now, I would have supported stopping that nomination.

(If you say "Clinton used signing statements too, so they must be OK!", you fail, and must go to detention.)

[abe]

Originally Posted by Saad

So we should scrap FISA? Court oversight is obsolete? The FISA court's most senior judge resigned as a result of the program. I don't know why they couldn't have gotten warrants (they haven't explained yet, either), since then they would avoid a debate about executive power.

So when the president does it, it's not illegal?

Ok, Saad. This usually stops all the FUD.

Show me where there is no court oversight in the wiretapping program.

Show me where anyone besides the uninformed or those in the business of propagandizing (lying) to demonize the President's efforts to protect America, are suggesting scrapping FISA.

If they wanted to avoid this debate they WOULD have used FISA more than they have. (And yes, they HAVE used FISA as well as the 'secret' wiretap program.) But since they haven't that would suggest they have reasons. Reasons you don't know about. And if they told you it would be like telling the terrorists.

So, you are left to wonder.

And if that causes you to whine or throw a fit, then that's too bad.

See, it's not JUST the POTUS who is keeping info from you. YOUR ELECTED Senators and Congress people and your Governor and other OFFICIALS AND REPRESENTATIVES know more about our national security than you do. So why not go and whine at their offices in your town or county and ask them to divulge national defense secrets to you and see how far it gets you.

[Saad]

They don't get a warrant to wiretap Americans calling people abroad, and they did not get a warrant for the phone records from the Baby Bells.

Somebody leaked info about the program, conceivably a congressman or senator told us about the program.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dork.

I'll grant you this point. Although I'll contend that the people who were briefed on these projects in Congress (AFAIK, the house and senate leaders and the Intelligence Comittee chairmen from either party) are just as complicit in any law-breaking that might have occured as the President is. They stood aside while the President claimed broad powers for his office which would not stand up to anyone else's rational interpretation of the Constitution, but which would never be examined by anyone else unless the secrecy of these programs was broken.

You homework for today, abe, is to use that advanced technology of ours to look up "Unitary Executive"", "Signing Statements", and "Separation of Powers". In 500 words or less, tell us what GWB's opinion on these concepts are, and how they differ from his predecessors, and from what is written in the constitution. Extra credit if you find out why some Democrats saw this coming when they opposed Sam Alito's nomination. If I knew then what I know now, I would have supported stopping that nomination.

(If you say "Clinton used signing statements too, so they must be OK!", you fail, and must go to detention.)

Dork.!!! There is PRECEDENT for a POTUS to use this same kind of power. So, get down off your high horse.

And you don't even have to google it. It's in the pages here in the P/L.

Seeing as how you missed it the first and second and third times around you can use the search function.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Saad

They don't get a warrant to wiretap Americans calling people abroad, and they did not get a warrant for the phone records from the Baby Bells.

Somebody leaked info about the program, conceivably a congressman or senator told us about the program.

I refuse to discuss the matter with you until you become better informed of the way this matter now exists in regard to it's legality.

You'll keep telling me why YOU think it's not legal.

What I will do is save us BOTH lots of keystrokes by not responding to you any further until you find out why the President, the Attorney General, the new CIA Chief, and members of Congress all maintain that the program is legal.

Until then you'll just waste both of our time.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by abe

Dork.!!! There is PRECEDENT for a POTUS to use this same kind of power. So, get down off your high horse.

And you don't even have to google it. It's in the pages here in the P/L.

Seeing as how you missed it the first and second and third times around you can use the search function.

Which type of power are you talking about? Because if your point is "lots of Presidents have used signing statements", then you fail, and need detention!

But if your point is that "Lots of Presidents have reserved the right to interpret the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress independant of the judiciary for the agencies that fall under the executive branch, including the military", please provide proof, because I can't find any. You might want to have a look at the signing statement Bush filed when he signed Sen. McCain's torture bill into law.

Links to threads on the 'NN are acceptable, I've been too busy lately trying to buy charlespsu's 12" Powerbook to read every PL thread....

Plus, now I'm really behind on work today (I'll be a typical liberal and blame you for my problems ) , so don't expect your new grade until this evening.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dork.

Which type of power are you talking about? Because if your point is "lots of Presidents have used signing statements", then you fail, and need detention!

But if your point is that "Lots of Presidents have reserved the right to interpret the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress independant of the judiciary for the agencies that fall under the executive branch, including the military", please provide proof, because I can't find any. You might want to have a look at the signing statement Bush filed when he signed Sen. McCain's torture bill into law.

Links to threads on the 'NN are acceptable, I've been too busy lately trying to buy charlespsu's 12" Powerbook to read every PL thread....

Plus, now I'm really behind on work today (I'll be a typical liberal and blame you for my problems ) , so don't expect your new grade until this evening.

So, is this the new fad of yours? The schoolteacher and student thing?

I was just starting to like the "why do you hate America?" bit.

[Saad]

What's wrong with seeking court warrants? What legal precedent is there for gathering every American's complete calling records? What is there to garranty that the President will use that information strictly for the WOTR? Will he turn over that information to prosecutors of law enforcement? What would stop him from investigating ideological opponents?

Just answer the questions. They're not flamebait or stupid. Arlen Spector seems to think the program is illegal.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Saad

What's wrong with seeking court warrants?

Ask the President.

Originally Posted by Saad

What legal precedent is there for gathering every American's complete calling records? What is there to garranty that the President will use that information strictly for the WOTR? Will he turn over that information to prosecutors of law enforcement? What would stop him from investigating ideological opponents?

Just answer the questions. They're not flamebait or stupid. Arlen Spector seems to think the program is illegal.

Article 2 of the Constitution and the Forces Resolution are not the only possible mechanisms which may authorize legal search.

All searches DO NOT require a warrant.

There is within the Supreme Court's jurisprudence a special needs exception to the normal warrant requirement recognized for many many years by the Supreme Court.

If you're talking about activities outside of normal law enforcement, in the national security area, where speed and agility is critically important, that special needs do provide an exception for the normal warrant requirements. So they believe the activities directed by the POTUS is fully consistent with long standing presidential practice and fully consistent with the special needs jurisprudence of the Supreme Court.

And because it is limited in terms of authorization in time, every 45 days it is renewed, it is based on the continuing threat posed by al qaeda, it is reviewed periodically by the NSA Inspector General, there is oversight by the General Counsel's office, because we have provided periodic briefings to leaders in Congress, we believe the combination of all those factors make these searches reasonable under the Supreme Court jurisprudence...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...3ACharlie_Rose

[Millennium]

If a government has become so poor at finding criminals that they can no longer do so through ethical means, then it deserves to die out, because in truth, it's already dead. All that remains is an empty tyrrany clothing itself in the trappings of honor without understanding what it means.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Millennium

If a government has become so poor at finding criminals that they can no longer do so through ethical means, then it deserves to die out, because in truth, it's already dead. All that remains is an empty tyrrany clothing itself in the trappings of honor without understanding what it means.

In the opening post of this thread I pasted an article which cautioned you and I and the average person on how not to be taken advantage of by advances in technology.

For you to deny the government the expectation to remain up to date in an ever advancing technological age is unrealistic and dangerous.

Criminals and terrorists are making use of technology to plan and commit crimes that are beyond the usual methods of detecting. The bad guys were taking advantage of changes in technology but the government was not keeping up with these changes.

In the early history of the FBI agents were unarmed. As criminals increasingly took advantage of the Constitutionally protected right to bear arms would you have wanted the agents to remain defenseless?

Janet Reno recognized the problem.

GT: You have discussed the need to help meet the 21st century with a criminal-justice structure that not only tackles the new challenges presented by technology but also ensures that "people control the technology and technology does not control the people." Can you elaborate?

Reno: When I speak about the technology issues confronting us, I always point out that there are no easy answers. However, I am convinced that we in government can deal with them if we make sure that we put people first. Technology should serve society, not rule it. Technology should promote public safety, not defeat it. We have to take steps to ensure that technological advances do not control us and that those who would do us harm are not given greater opportunities because of their access to sophisticated technology.

In the context of law enforcement, "people controlling technology" means that we need to develop at the federal, state and local level the ability to use high-technology to combat high-tech crimes. We have to stay on top of new developments. We must ensure that law enforcement at all levels develops the capacity to protect the American people, our businesses and our law-enforcement personnel against those who would use technology to harm us.

http://www.govtech.net/magazine/visi.../reno/reno.php

[abe]

Originally Posted by Millennium

If a government has become so poor at finding criminals that they can no longer do so through ethical means, then it deserves to die out, because in truth, it's already dead. All that remains is an empty tyrrany clothing itself in the trappings of honor without understanding what it means.

Furthermore, let's not speak in terms of ethics. This is a nation of laws. (Seems I've read that statement from YOUR posts in the not so recent past.) And everything the President has done is lawful.

Show us where it isn't or hasn't been and I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by abe

Furthermore, let's not speak in terms of ethics. This is a nation of laws.

I really should stop being surprised by some of the things that come out of your posts.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dakar

I really should stop being surprised by some of the things that come out of your posts.

Actually, I was hoping to spare us all the dead horse beating of Bill Clinton who beat more than a horse to death in the White House. He beat down the idea of what constitutes ethical Presidential behavior.

Ethics CHANGE with the fashions of the day. Who ever thought the American public would defend anyone getting a BJ at work, (unless it was a male hooker)? The fact that it was the POTUS getting the bj ranks with a change in ethics of monica-mental proportions, I'd say!

No, let's stay with the semi-rigidity of laws rather than ethics.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by abe

Actually, I was hoping to spare us all the dead horse beating of Bill Clinton who beat more than a horse to death in the White House. He beat down the idea of what constitutes ethical Presidential behavior.

Ethics CHANGE with the fashions of the day. Who ever thought the American public would defend anyone getting a BJ at work, (unless it was a male hooker)? The fact that it was the POTUS getting the bj ranks with a change in ethics of monica-mental proportions, I'd say!

Yup, Clinton certainly had his unethical moments. I suppose the argument you don't want to get into is when people start complaining that they'd much rather survive an unethical president who gets blowjobs rather than one who may infringe on rights to privacy.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by abe

Article 2 of the Constitution and the Forces Resolution are not the only possible mechanisms which may authorize legal search.

All searches DO NOT require a warrant.

There is within the Supreme Court's jurisprudence a special needs exception to the normal warrant requirement recognized for many many years by the Supreme Court.

If you're talking about activities outside of normal law enforcement, in the national security area, where speed and agility is critically important, that special needs do provide an exception for the normal warrant requirements. So they believe the activities directed by the POTUS is fully consistent with long standing presidential practice and fully consistent with the special needs jurisprudence of the Supreme Court.

And because it is limited in terms of authorization in time, every 45 days it is renewed, it is based on the continuing threat posed by al qaeda, it is reviewed periodically by the NSA Inspector General, there is oversight by the General Counsel's office, because we have provided periodic briefings to leaders in Congress, we believe the combination of all those factors make these searches reasonable under the Supreme Court jurisprudence...

Has the Supreme Court weighed in on this administrations use of warrantless wire-taps and said it is OK? that it falls within "the special needs jurisprudence of the Supreme Court"?

This is a serious question. I can't recall any mentions in the press surrounding the issue of warrantless wire-taps where the current US Supreme Court has agreed that the actions of the Bush Administration are within the bounds of law.

[Y3a]

IT WAS NEVER THE "BJ" !!! It was the LYING UNDER OATH. Why was he disbarred? He LIED UNDER OATH! Liberal Clinton lovers can't use the words EVEN TODAY! LOL

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Y3a

IT WAS NEVER THE "BJ" !!! It was the LYING UNDER OATH. Why was he disbarred? He LIED UNDER OATH! Liberal Clinton lovers can't use the words EVEN TODAY! LOL

I said getting the BJ was unethical (ya know, cos he was married and such). I didn't mention anything about the entire impeachment saga.

Edit: You may put your knee down now.

[abe]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Has the Supreme Court weighed in on this administrations use of warrantless wire-taps and said it is OK? that it falls within "the special needs jurisprudence of the Supreme Court"?

This is a serious question. I can't recall any mentions in the press surrounding the issue of warrantless wire-taps where the current US Supreme Court has agreed that the actions of the Bush Administration are within the bounds of law.

Not all searches require a warrant.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dakar

I said getting the BJ was unethical (ya know, cos he was married and such). I didn't mention anything about the entire impeachment saga.

Edit: You may put your knee down now.

Let's not get all excited by our favorite topic*, here all of you/us! OK? PLEASE?


*Clinton, BJ, impeachment and etc.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by abe

Not all searches require a warrant.

I didn't ask that, Abe. I asked if the current Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue of warrantless wire-taps, confirming that what the current Administration is doing does fall within the "the special needs jurisprudence of the Supreme Court"?

That is the underlying debate in all these arguments. The Bush Administrationsays we don't need to get permission because of this allowance provided by the Supreme Court and there are some citizens who say that the warrantless wire-taps currently being conducted by the government do NOT fall under the special allowance provided by the Supreme Court.

So, I am asking, has the Supreme Court decided in any fashion the issue surrounding this debate. Has the Supreme Court said that the warrantless wire-taps being performed by the current administration do in fact fall under the special allowance granted by them? The point being that, just because the Administration says it does qualify doesn't mean the Supreme Court says it does. So, I want to know if the Supreme Court has agreed with the Bush Administrations claims. So, has it?

[abe]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

I didn't ask that, Abe. I asked if the current Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue of warrantless wire-taps, confirming that what the current Administration is doing does fall within the "the special needs jurisprudence of the Supreme Court"?

That is the underlying debate in all these arguments. The Bush Administrationsays we don't need to get permission because of this allowance provided by the Supreme Court and there are some citizens who say that the warrantless wire-taps currently being conducted by the government do NOT fall under the special allowance provided by the Supreme Court.

So, I am asking, has the Supreme Court decided in any fashion the issue surrounding this debate. Has the Supreme Court said that the warrantless wire-taps being performed by the current administration do in fact fall under the special allowance granted by them? The point being that, just because the Administration says it does qualify doesn't mean the Supreme Court says it does. So, I want to know if the Supreme Court has agreed with the Bush Administrations claims. So, has it?

I didn't even know that it was supposed to be presented to the Supremes.

As far as I was concerned it was legal and the people who didn't think it was were just flopping about in the town square of public opinion making of themselves complete spectacles.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by abe

I didn't even know that it was supposed to be presented to the Supremes.

As far as I was concerned it was legal and the people who didn't think it was were just flopping about in the town square of public opinion make of themselves complete spectacles.

So, the answer then would be "No". The current Supreme Court has NOT weighed in, either agreeing or disagreeing with the Bush Administration's claims to already have the right to conduct warrantless wire-taps. I for one would like to see the Supreme Court (note: the Supremes were a late 60s female singing group) hand down a decision confirming the Bush Administration is correct in their interpretation of this "special jurisprudence" law. While I would still not like the warrantless wiretaps I would feel better knowing the best legal minds in the country have looked into the matter and passed judgment on it one way or another.

[abe]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

So, the answer then would be "No". The current Supreme Court has NOT weighed in, either agreeing or disagreeing with the Bush Administration's claims to already have the right to conduct warrantless wire-taps. I for one would like to see the Supreme Court (note: the Supremes were a late 60s female singing group) hand down a decision confirming the Bush Administration is correct in their interpretation of this "special jurisprudence" law. While I would still not like the warrantless wiretaps I would feel better knowing the best legal minds in the country have looked into the matter and passed judgment on it one way or another.

Well, seeing as how you are actually there, maybe a call to the right people might...

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by abe

Let's not get all excited by our favorite topic*, here all of you/us! OK? PLEASE?


*Clinton, BJ, impeachment and etc.

You don't see me typing with lots of caps and exclamation points.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by abe

Well, seeing as how you are actually there, maybe a call to the right people might...

I don't know any of the "right people" but thanks for the vote of confidence. I think Simey is the only one on here who could even be considered to know some of the "right people", both those in power and those to the right who are in power.

I will continue to complain loudly and vocally about this issue of warrantless wire-taps until the practice stops or the Supreme Court decided on the issue one way or another.

(For me the issue is two-fold: The conducting of warrantless wire-taps and the the Executive branch's assumption of judicial review powers normally vested in the Judiciary--They are deciding for themselves whether or not their actions are legal. If the Supreme Court were to hand down a decision on these wire-taps approving of them, I would still be opposed to them in principle but be accepting of them in practice because then the balance of power within the government is being respected by the Executive branch.)

[abe]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

I don't know any of the "right people" but thanks for the vote of confidence. I think Simey is the only one on here who could even be considered to know some of the "right people", both those in power and those to the right who are in power.

I will continue to complain loudly and vocally about this issue of warrantless wire-taps until the practice stops or the Supreme Court decided on the issue one way or another.

(For me the issue is two-fold: The conducting of warrantless wire-taps and the the Executive branches assumption of judicial review powers normally vested in the Judiciary. If the Supreme Court were to hand downa decisions on these wire-taps approving of them, I would still be opposed to them but be accepting of the fact that at least the balance of power within the government is being respected by the Executive branch.)

I gotta bug out. But you all know that there is a war going on and with advances in technology enjoyed by the bad guys how do you expect the gummint to do it's job of protecting us without using ALL of the powers the Constitution and the courts grant it.

If, for example, there were divisions of enemy troops fighting in the cities and towns of America you would certainly give the President the powers he needed to combat the enemy, right?

Then why can't you allow that he has the duty to use what's Constitutionally within his powers already, to KEEP the fighting away from our shores?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by abe

I gotta bug out. But you all know that there is a war going on and with advances in technology enjoyed by the bad guys how do you expect the gummint to do it's job of protecting us without using ALL of the powers the Constitution and the courts grant it.

That is the whole point. I question whether the power the Bush Administration says it has to conduct warrantless wire-taps is something that it does have. That is why I woud like to have the Supreme Court weigh in on the matter.

If, for example, there were divisions of enemy troops fighting in the cities and towns of America you would certainly give the President the powers he needed to combat the enemy, right?

Even with enemy troops in the street I would never advocate giving a President power to selectively ignore parts of the Constitution. A President swears to uphold and defend the whole Constitution, not parts of it. I would rather see the US lose a battle or an entire war (for its sovereignty) rather than have the President be allowed to put aside the Constitution and assume imperial powers. If we violate the Constitution in order to save it we have made it something not worth saving.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Even with enemy troops in the street I would never advocate giving a President power to selectively ignore parts of the Constitution. A President swears to uphold and defend the whole Constitution, not parts of it. I would rather see the US lose a battle or an entire war (for its sovereignty) rather than have the President be allowed to put aside the Constitution and assume imperial powers. If we violate the Constitution in order to save it we have made it something not worth saving.

Back into the fray for one quick point:

abe would probably say that there have been instances in wartime where the sitting President has assumed greater powers during a time of war, even taking actions which were later deemed to be strictly unconstitutional, but understandable under the wartime footing. He would equate the current situation, with terrorist cells around the globe actively plotting against US interests, directly to the situation where there was fighting in the streets of the US, and say that even if there is a question of what powers the President has, he would need to be given the widest latitude since we are at war.

And I would say that those measures were temporary measures, enacted during wars that has set geographical and political limits. When exactly does the Global War on Terror end?

If you say "When all the terrorists are dead", then I require an additional essay on how you propose we get there.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Dork.

Back into the fray for one quick point:

abe would probably say that there have been instances in wartime where the sitting President has assumed greater powers during a time of war, even taking actions which were later deemed to be strictly unconstitutional, but understandable under the wartime footing. He would equate the current situation, with terrorist cells around the globe actively plotting against US interests, directly to the situation where there was fighting in the streets of the US, and say that even if there is a question of what powers the President has, he would need to be given the widest latitude since we are at war.

And I would say that those measures were temporary measures, enacted during wars that has set geographical and political limits. When exactly does the Global War on Terror end?

I agree completely with both your prediction of abe's reply and your own assessment of his predicted response. And it IS the fact that the War on Terror has been promoted as a general (fighting an ideology, not a government) and global (no geographic limits) battle that has me so worried.

If we allow the President to circumvent the Constitutional limits of his power for an indeterminate period of time and in broad-ranging contexts then we have relinquished our right to expect the Constitution to be the highest authority in the land. I am NEVER willing to relinquish that right.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork.

Back into the fray for one quick point:

abe would probably say that there have been instances in wartime where the sitting President has assumed greater powers during a time of war, even taking actions which were later deemed to be strictly unconstitutional, but understandable under the wartime footing. He would equate the current situation, with terrorist cells around the globe actively plotting against US interests, directly to the situation where there was fighting in the streets of the US, and say that even if there is a question of what powers the President has, he would need to be given the widest latitude since we are at war.

And I would say that those measures were temporary measures, enacted during wars that has set geographical and political limits. When exactly does the Global War on Terror end?

If you say "When all the terrorists are dead", then I require an additional essay on how you propose we get there.

Great question... "when does it end?" is a question that is not being discussed as much as it should be.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Great question... "when does it end?" is a question that is not being discussed as much as it should be.

Actually I thought that was the main point behind the opposition to these wiretappings. When and where does it end? What else am I supposed to give up for the "fight on terror"? When will this fight be over? I can tell you it won't ever be over if people like Bush are in office, they will only escalate hatred towards America and create more terrorists, it's pretty obvious that this has been happening ever since the war on Iraq started. abe doesn't seem to comprehend that.

[Saad]

So Abe, you think FISA is obsolete? There are only two ways to answer the question, unless you choose not to answer at all. There's a precedent of the NSA abusing trust.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Saad

So Abe, you think FISA is obsolete? There are only two ways to answer the question, unless you choose not to answer at all. There's a precedent of the NSA abusing trust.

I've said it before and homework will bear it out, that the administration uses FISA as well as other law enforcement procedures.

No, I don't think it's obsolete. If the President and Attorney General said it was obsolete then I'd examine the pro's and con's of that issue.

[Saad]

If it's not obsolete, why not utilize the secret courts to get warrants?

You're style's alot like Tokencon, but less combative.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Saad

If it's not obsolete, why not utilize the secret courts to get warrants?

You're style's alot like Tokencon, but less combative.

Ask the President. Ask the Attorney General. Sometimes they use FISA, sometimes they don't. They have their reasons. Maybe they use one and/or the other at random just because it keeps would-be terrorists guessing.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by abe

Ask the President. Ask the Attorney General. Sometimes they use FISA, sometimes they don't. They have their reasons. Maybe they use one and/or the other at random just because it keeps would-be terrorists guessing.

Yeah, gotta keep them terrorists on their toes.

[Saad]

So FISA is obsolete? Telling someone to go research your opinon is not really conducive to discussion.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Saad

So FISA is obsolete? Telling someone to go research your opinon is not really conducive to discussion.

I've said it before and homework will bear it out, that the administration uses FISA as well as other law enforcement procedures.

No, I don't think it's obsolete. If the President and Attorney General said it was obsolete then I'd examine the pro's and con's of that issue.

Lovely dance.

[Saad]

So you think the administration got warrants for the phone conversations of Americans in accordance with FISA? Make your own thesis, don't tell us to wait for the president.