Re: OT - Bush the Constitutionalist President (part 2)


"Calif Bill" <bmckeespam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:xJcCf.6305$rH5.5757@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Bruce" <bruce.snell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:43sgspF1mctabU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> "Calif Bill" <bmckeespam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:5x%Bf.546$Nv2.105@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> "Bruce" <bruce.snell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:43q3hfF1nt17iU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>> "Calif Bill" <bmckeespam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>> news:RhQBf.6369$vU2.981@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>
>>>>> "Gus Weber" <gusweber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>> news:43D7B096.5070007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> wingnut wrote:
>>>>>>> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
>>>>>>> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
>>>>>>> shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
>>>>>>> probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
>>>>>>> describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
>>>>>>> seized.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gee whiz! And in listening to the TV news and reading the
>>>>>> newspapers, I thought it applied to foreign radio transmissions,
>>>>>> especially those of known terrorists!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gus Weber
>>>>>
>>>>> If they are known, then why are not in jail?
>>>>
>>>> Because the known bad guys are overseas. All the NSA is doing is
>>>> monitoring transmissions to and from known terrorists overseas. It is
>>>> part of the war effrort and just as legal as tappinng the lines for
>>>> known spies and sympathizers was in previous wars. Study probable
>>>> cause and warrants and find out why warrants can never be issued in
>>>> such cases.
>>>>
>>>> Bruce
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> They can be issued, just like the law states. Up to 72 hours after the
>>> fact.
>>
>> I knew you wouldn't look up warrants and probable cause before you
>> answered, so let me try to condense several hours of constitutional law
>> instruction to a few short sentences.
>>
>> First; all warrants require probable cause before the warrant is issued.
>> (probable cause = more than a hunch, less than a certainty). To verify
>> this re-read the 4th ammendment.
>>
>> Second; you must have probable cause before the search (or in this case
>> wiretap/interception of the conversation) EVEN IF the warrant is issued
>> after the search. In other words, you must have had sufficient probable
>> cause to get a warrant first even if time forces you to search first and
>> get the warrant later.
>>
>> Third; probable cause is independent of the search - that is finding
>> something does not prove probable cause and not finding something does
>> not disprove probable cause.
>>
>> Forth; merely knowing that one of the people involved in the call is a
>> criminal/terrorist does not provide probable cause that THIS call will
>> provide proof of a crime or fruits of a crime (acceptable reasons for a
>> search).
>>
>> Finally, (trying to put it all together for you) when you are monitoring
>> calls from know terrorists, to people in this country, you do not know at
>> the time the call is placed if the reason for the call is to discuss
>> terrorist activity, or just to keep in touch (could be "Hey Abdul, how's
>> your mom" as easily as "Hey Abdul, place the bomb in the 12:45 plane"),
>> so you do not have probable cause before the call is intercepted.
>> Because the contents of the call cannot be used as probable cause,
>> finding out that they really are terrorists, discussing terrorist
>> activities, does not provide probable cause to start listening in the
>> first place. Finally, because there was no probable cause before
>> listening, no warrant can ever issue.
>>
>> Now, If you have independent information, that terrorist A in Pakistan
>> will call terrorist B in New York today to discuss how and when to use
>> the nerve gas, then you have probable cause and can get the warrant,
>> whether you listen first, or do the paperwork first.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>>
>>
>
> Under FISA the government can get a warrant after the fact. 72 hours
> after the fact. This is different than domestic wire tap for RICO, etc.

Did you bother reading what I wrote? In order to get a warrant, whether it
is before the search or after the search, you need to have probable cause
BEFORE conducting the search. Merely listening in on a conversation and
finding out that it contains information about criminal activity (terrorist
activity) DOES NOT provide probable cause. You had to have the probable
cause before you listened to the conversation. That is just as true in a
FISA case as a run of the mill police drug raid. And you do not know,
without specific prior knowledge, what the terrorist and his contact on this
end will talk about, so you do not have probable cause before the call. All
the FISA act does is let you conduct the investigation in the order of
1...2...4...3 rather than 1...2...3...4 all the same rules apply.

Go back and re-read what I wrote. It was primarily for your benefit.

Bruce



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
    ... the NSA, CIA, FBI or Homeland Security to get a warrant? ... against US citizens are unsubstantiated. ... Now it *is* reasonable to believe that terrorists outside the US might be ... If a US citizen is communicating with terrorists, ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • Democrats pretend to be serious about intelligence.
    ... restrict US further from listening to foreign terrorists! ... Democrats pretend to be serious about intelligence. ... the wiretap program in 2005. ... foreign-to-foreign calls to be tapped without a warrant. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Why We Dont Trust You With National Security
    ... adults - has been secretly tapping Arab terrorists without warrants. ... Perhaps they can call Democratic senators as expert witnesses to testify that it was illegal for the Bush administration to eavesdrop on their completely private calls to al-Zarqawi. ... warrant requests and rejected or "deferred" six warrant requests outright. ... terrorist attack, I'm sure a New York Times reporter could explain to the victims' families that, after all, the killer's ties to al-Qaeda were merely "dubious" and the FISA court had a very good reason for denying the warrant request. ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: OT - Bush the Constitutionalist President (part 2)
    ... > call to the bookie. ... > enough to get a warrant. ... we are listening to a terrorist and no one speaking to a terrorist can have ... In the case of terrorists, ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • WHY WE DONT TRUST YOU WITH NATIONAL SECURITY
    ... adults - has been secretly tapping Arab terrorists without warrants. ... Bush administration to eavesdrop on their completely private calls to ... The Treason Times reported FISA virtually rubber-stamps warrant ... turned out that the FISA court had been denying warrant requests from ...
    (soc.retirement)
Loading