Comments on: ACLU Not Happy With Specter’s NSA Compromise http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/06/09/aclu-not-happy-with-specters-nsa-compromise/ Beating Them With Their Own Sickle And Hammer Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:12:34 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: kerwin_brown http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/06/09/aclu-not-happy-with-specters-nsa-compromise/comment-page-1/#comment-51818 kerwin_brown Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:55:28 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/06/09/aclu-not-happy-with-specters-nsa-compromise/#comment-51818 Jimmy, My argument is no matter where either end of the call is as long as the wiretapping is done outside of where our courts or our legislative have the right to rule, that the wiretapping is legal as far as our law goes. It may not be according to someone else’s law. Congress always has the right to legislate the internal workings of our government agencies no matter where they are and our courts can judge according to that legislation. Congress has in the past made themselves exempt from the laws they have passed. I have not heard anything about it lately but I assume it is still happening. It is constitutional since they need to be able to allow certain organizations, such as internet blogs, to be exempt from some legislation but it is I find it unethical to exempt themselves. I am not sure if they can constitutionally grant amnesty as I am pretty sure that is an executive power. Jimmy,

My argument is no matter where either end of the call is as long as the wiretapping is done outside of where our courts or our legislative have the right to rule, that the wiretapping is legal as far as our law goes. It may not be according to someone else’s law.

Congress always has the right to legislate the internal workings of our government agencies no matter where they are and our courts can judge according to that legislation.

Congress has in the past made themselves exempt from the laws they have passed. I have not heard anything about it lately but I assume it is still happening. It is constitutional since they need to be able to allow certain organizations, such as internet blogs, to be exempt from some legislation but it is I find it unethical to exempt themselves.

I am not sure if they can constitutionally grant amnesty as I am pretty sure that is an executive power.

]]> By: jimmy http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/06/09/aclu-not-happy-with-specters-nsa-compromise/comment-page-1/#comment-51819 jimmy Mon, 12 Jun 2006 03:46:19 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/06/09/aclu-not-happy-with-specters-nsa-compromise/#comment-51819 Kerwin_brown: Absolutely foreign only tapping is legal and I'm not sure there's any dispute about that. The issue here is foreign-domestic tapping which gives at least one party full constitutional protection. That is, can the FBI come into your house without a warrant because foreigners are over for a dinner party? Not perfect, but a fairly reasonable comparison. As for the domestic-domestic profiling, that's even more ambiguous. Every time a left-winger calls that wire tapping it boils my blood because it's a massive distortion as profiling is NOT tapping and all it does is make the argument look disingenuous. That said, profiling still very likely is ... of ambiguous legality and so there are still questions to be asked and ideally, answered. As for the congressional authority, I would imagine that the congress bestowed immunity may hold for members of the executive, but I seriously doubt that congress has the authority to grant itself immunity which is implied in the legislation. Think about the implications of congressmen being allowed to legislation themselves immunity. That's just terrifying. Jay (The First): I appreciate the sentiment. One of the most infuriating facets of politics today is the mindless mudslinging. I mean, I appreciate satirical hyperbole (and use it an awful lot myself) but we all know that isn't what people intend most of the time, on both sides of the "debate". I've been uber-busy with non political stuff and will be for the near future, but rest assured I'll be around in the future to be the very best thorn in everyone's side I can be. Jay (The Second): All I can say is that what happened was NOT an investigation. When not a single party is questioned under subpoena, and the most relevant parties haven't even answered questions outside of a subpoena, I have a really, really hard time calling the proceedings an 'investigation'. That's what we call kangaroo court. Kerwin_brown:
Absolutely foreign only tapping is legal and I’m not sure there’s any dispute about that. The issue here is foreign-domestic tapping which gives at least one party full constitutional protection. That is, can the FBI come into your house without a warrant because foreigners are over for a dinner party? Not perfect, but a fairly reasonable comparison. As for the domestic-domestic profiling, that’s even more ambiguous. Every time a left-winger calls that wire tapping it boils my blood because it’s a massive distortion as profiling is NOT tapping and all it does is make the argument look disingenuous. That said, profiling still very likely is … of ambiguous legality and so there are still questions to be asked and ideally, answered.

As for the congressional authority, I would imagine that the congress bestowed immunity may hold for members of the executive, but I seriously doubt that congress has the authority to grant itself immunity which is implied in the legislation. Think about the implications of congressmen being allowed to legislation themselves immunity. That’s just terrifying.

Jay (The First):
I appreciate the sentiment. One of the most infuriating facets of politics today is the mindless mudslinging. I mean, I appreciate satirical hyperbole (and use it an awful lot myself) but we all know that isn’t what people intend most of the time, on both sides of the “debate”. I’ve been uber-busy with non political stuff and will be for the near future, but rest assured I’ll be around in the future to be the very best thorn in everyone’s side I can be.

Jay (The Second):
All I can say is that what happened was NOT an investigation. When not a single party is questioned under subpoena, and the most relevant parties haven’t even answered questions outside of a subpoena, I have a really, really hard time calling the proceedings an ‘investigation’. That’s what we call kangaroo court.

]]> By: Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » Blog Archive » ACLU to the Rescue http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/06/09/aclu-not-happy-with-specters-nsa-compromise/comment-page-1/#comment-51820 Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » Blog Archive » ACLU to the Rescue Sat, 10 Jun 2006 21:17:16 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/06/09/aclu-not-happy-with-specters-nsa-compromise/#comment-51820 [...] Well, it turns out now that the ACLU hates it. [...] [...] Well, it turns out now that the ACLU hates it. [...]

]]> By: Jay http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/06/09/aclu-not-happy-with-specters-nsa-compromise/comment-page-1/#comment-51821 Jay Sat, 10 Jun 2006 12:47:30 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/06/09/aclu-not-happy-with-specters-nsa-compromise/#comment-51821 Jimmy, I have shown here many times that the ACLU have already condemned the NSA program as illegal before any kind of investigation. They called for an investigation into the "illegal actions" of the President. It isn't about disagreement, I just think its funny that they are the ones that screamed for an investigation and now they are crying it didn't come to the conclusion that they wished for. Jimmy, I have shown here many times that the ACLU have already condemned the NSA program as illegal before any kind of investigation. They called for an investigation into the “illegal actions” of the President. It isn’t about disagreement, I just think its funny that they are the ones that screamed for an investigation and now they are crying it didn’t come to the conclusion that they wished for.

]]> By: Jay http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/06/09/aclu-not-happy-with-specters-nsa-compromise/comment-page-1/#comment-51822 Jay Sat, 10 Jun 2006 12:43:33 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/06/09/aclu-not-happy-with-specters-nsa-compromise/#comment-51822 Hey Jimmy, thank you for actually bringing in real debate without a bunch of name calling. Perhaps you can stick around and lead a few of our moonbat commenters by example. Anyway I appreciate real debate. We have one here that the only thing they know how to do is insult, or call me a liar. It is refreshing that someone is offering debate without all the venom. Thanks, Jay Hey Jimmy, thank you for actually bringing in real debate without a bunch of name calling. Perhaps you can stick around and lead a few of our moonbat commenters by example. Anyway I appreciate real debate. We have one here that the only thing they know how to do is insult, or call me a liar. It is refreshing that someone is offering debate without all the venom. Thanks, Jay

]]> By: kerwin_brown http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/06/09/aclu-not-happy-with-specters-nsa-compromise/comment-page-1/#comment-51823 kerwin_brown Sat, 10 Jun 2006 07:35:35 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/06/09/aclu-not-happy-with-specters-nsa-compromise/#comment-51823 Some of the NSA wiretapping is constitutional as what the government does outside the jurisdiction of the United States is a foreign affairs issue and not a constitutional issue. If you are not an American citizen you have very few protections under the U.S. Constitution as it states clearly that is to insure the blessings of ourselves and our posterity. The only two I know of are equal protection under the law and due process of law and neither cover this situation unless you interpret them broadly. Congress does have the duty to regulate both the judicial and executive branch though they do not have the right to do the other branches unique job. All branches of government have the duty to balance our security against our liberties and I don’t have enough information to double guess them on this one. Some of the NSA wiretapping is constitutional as what the government does outside the jurisdiction of the United States is a foreign affairs issue and not a constitutional issue. If you are not an American citizen you have very few protections under the U.S. Constitution as it states clearly that is to insure the blessings of ourselves and our posterity. The only two I know of are equal protection under the law and due process of law and neither cover this situation unless you interpret them broadly.

Congress does have the duty to regulate both the judicial and executive branch though they do not have the right to do the other branches unique job.

All branches of government have the duty to balance our security against our liberties and I don’t have enough information to double guess them on this one.

]]> By: jimmy http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/06/09/aclu-not-happy-with-specters-nsa-compromise/comment-page-1/#comment-51824 jimmy Sat, 10 Jun 2006 04:33:00 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/06/09/aclu-not-happy-with-specters-nsa-compromise/#comment-51824 Oh come on. Disagreement is valid on many levels surrounding the constitutionality of the NSA program in question, and indeed debate should take place, but how can you possibly give criticism to resistance of this kind of brazen preemptive amnesty? Is it constitutional? I don't know. Is it illegal? I don't know. This legislation does nothing tangible to answer those important questions. What this legislation does is short-circuit the legitimate and proper judicial and congressional oversight of the executive branch. Something, by the way, that congress may not even have the authority to do. There's another legitimate debate to be had as to whether or not congress even has the authority to override judicial authority when and if an investigation ever takes place. Really, though, this legislation won't ultimately change that authority if it comes down to it, making the amnesty clause of this legislation most likely moot. That leaves us, in effect, with legislation which provides the "option" of consulting FISA to the executive, an option which was obviously already available since it occupies the core of the accusations against the executive to begin with. Having said nothing partisan there, what the heck is the point of the legislation to begin with? Why bother pointlessly posturing against the ACLU where both sides of the argument about this legislation are so obviously Kabuki? Oh come on. Disagreement is valid on many levels surrounding the constitutionality of the NSA program in question, and indeed debate should take place, but how can you possibly give criticism to resistance of this kind of brazen preemptive amnesty?

Is it constitutional? I don’t know. Is it illegal? I don’t know. This legislation does nothing tangible to answer those important questions. What this legislation does is short-circuit the legitimate and proper judicial and congressional oversight of the executive branch. Something, by the way, that congress may not even have the authority to do. There’s another legitimate debate to be had as to whether or not congress even has the authority to override judicial authority when and if an investigation ever takes place.

Really, though, this legislation won’t ultimately change that authority if it comes down to it, making the amnesty clause of this legislation most likely moot. That leaves us, in effect, with legislation which provides the “option” of consulting FISA to the executive, an option which was obviously already available since it occupies the core of the accusations against the executive to begin with.

Having said nothing partisan there, what the heck is the point of the legislation to begin with? Why bother pointlessly posturing against the ACLU where both sides of the argument about this legislation are so obviously Kabuki?

]]>