Gods help us...

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

It is a conspiracy and you don't need a tin foil hat to appreciate it

Why don't you take yours off to check that out?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[RichardM1]

John, which wire tapping are you talking about? Are you talking about tapping international IP packets that happened to come through the US at some point? Are you talking about tapping a number, in another country, that belonged to a known or believed ter, and a US citizen called that number? Are you talking about targeted taps of numbers known to belong to US citizens w/o an warrant as a general policy? Are you talking about FISA taps were they did not wait for a warrant? I'm asking to find out, I apologize if the ordering or wording of the questions seems leading.

Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.

[Oakman]

Any wiretapping done by the government, of citizens of the U.S. without a warrant, is illegal. Since the president does not have the power to suspend or ignore laws because they are inconvenient, doing it under his authority is illegal and unconstitutional.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[RichardM1]

Any intentional wiretapping of US citizens by the US government without a warrant is not admissible in court. "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." I may be vague on my definitions, but an attack on CONUS might, from certain points of view, be seem as, maybe, an invasion, right? You know, with foreign terrorists enemy combatants soldiers missionaries friends entering our nation with intent to kill do harm convert show us a good time. Oh. Ok. I see where this is going. Writ of Habeas Corpus being specifically protected in the constitution, and an exclusion given allowing it to be suspended, doesn't that tell you that other, lesser protections, might be suspendable? Or is wire tap a Privacy Clause (which article is that in again?) issue, like abortion? Unreasonable search and seizure does not mean that if you walk into the middle of an investigation scene, carrying a pound of coke in a plastic bag, the government can't prosecute you, but the argument you give is that it can't even look at you. Does it mean that if the government is tapping my phone line, and you call me, they have to turn the tap off, if the warrant does not name you directly? Don't they at least have to figure out it's you, before they can turn it off? By your argument(statement, you don't give any argument), the gov should not be allowed to tap internet traffic in South West Indobania, since there is some chance that any particular packet may have crossed US soil at some point. Or Iranian or Russian military comms, since there could be a US citizen who decided to work for them, and they might actually use that comms channel. To take the extreme argument, I don't believe the government has the right to use the military against US citizens, so I think that in any combat situation, the military should have to check the citizenship of all the other people on the battlefield before using violence. Of course, letting the military ask me for my papers probably is using them against me, so they shouldn't have the right to ask me for my papers. So I guess any use of military force is right out, since a US citizen might get acted upon by the military, and that is not allowed. Piss Off. That is the argument against wiretaps outside the US, and it is BS. The law allows, without warrant, tapping when "the

[Oakman]

RichardM1 wrote:

I may be vague on my definitions, but an attack on CONUS might, from certain points of view, be seem as, maybe, an invasion, right?

I might claim that 20 million illegals pouring across our border is an invasion, but unless the Congress proclaims it so, it isn't. However, Habeas Corpus is a power given to one branch of government to use against another branch of government. It has little to do with rights granted to citizens by prohibiting actions to abrogate those rights. Most of those can be found in the first ten amendments, added to the document at the insistence of the libertarian-types like Jefferson. Most of your arguments have nothing to do with my main point since they all suggest that the government had placed a wiretap on someone else legally, and that their conversation with me would make the tap illegal. I never claimed that and I don't believe that. However, my understand is that the government could not prosecute me using any evidence they obtained - however I'm not a lwayer, even though I've played one on TV. Sorry to otherwise ignore your polemic.

RichardM1 wrote:

The US government can't keep a secret to save it's life.

There's always agreement to be found. I wonder how long it will take before some nut jobs are trying to kill the AIG Executive's kids, not that Cuomo has the list.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[RichardM1]

Oakman wrote:

I might claim that 20 million illegals pouring across our border is an invasion, but unless the Congress proclaims it so, it isn't.

LOL - whether or not Congress proclaims it so, it is so, but I understand your point, even if it clearly makes us both racists.

Oakman wrote:

Most of your arguments have nothing to do with my main point since they all suggest that the government had placed a wiretap on someone else legally, and that their conversation with me would make the tap illegal.

:confused: That was YOUR point: that any tap that catches a US person is illegal w/o a warrant. I was showing you that that is not a legal, or logical, viewpoint. SCOTUS has stated that Bush had war time powers, triggered by congress see Hamdan v. Rumsfeld[^].

Oakman wrote:

Habeas Corpus is a power given to one branch of government to use against another branch

No, it gives us the right to curtail gov power. That it gets applied through the judicial system does not make it a gov power. It also gives congress the power to wave it (but not the exec branch). THAT is giving the gov power.

Oakman wrote:

I'm not a lwayer, even though I've played one on TV.

Cool (koull?) - what show? :laugh: I'm not an actor - but I have seen one on TV. :-\ As far as AIG - there are waayyy too many stupid sheeple in this country.

Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.