Hey Gbaji, remember the FISA debate?Follow

FISA court warrants are not the only oversight on these wiretap programs. What you're not getting is that is a special requirement when the target of a wiretap is a US person. It is not the only method by which oversight is maintained.

It's latched onto as a political argument because the public is much more familiar with the idea of needing a warrant to conduct a search or surveillance. But declaring the taps illegal or overly subject to abuse purely because they can be conducted without a warrant is like saying that your skis are unsafe because they don't have brakes.




Sure. But I'm relatively comfortable with the NSA being legally required to be able to show that the people they are tapping are not US persons. At the end of the day, there is behavior which is illegal and you kinda have to accept that if someone is going to break that law, he's no less likely to if your law requires him to get a warrant. He'll just lie to get the warrant, wont he?




Given the amount of language surrounding this particular issue, I'd suggest that most of the "propaganda" has been going in the other direction. But whatever... I'm quite certain that most people will still criticize the government for failing to protect them from terrorist attacks, so it's not about absolutes.



Sure. But they are not given the "right" to do so. It's possible that a communication of yours might inadvertently be picked up as part of their program, but that's not the same as them being able to do so at a whim.

What part of "They're not allowed to do this by the rule of law" aren't you getting? There is a whole array of freedoms you posses which are only protected by the fact that it's illegal for the government to infringe them. Yet, I don't see you gnashing your teeth about the lack of judicial oversight in those cases. You have *extra* protection when it comes to your communications.


Again. In the grand scheme of things, this is a pretty silly thing to be upset about.

Of course they can. We don't wait for a trial before incarcerating someone. What do you think being under arrest is about? You get arrested *first*, and then they take you to a judge to see if your offense is small enough that you can be released on bail until the trial. Then you get a trial to see if you're guilty and must serve additional punishment.

The point is that the police absolutely get to incarcerate you first and then see if you're guilty. The system wouldn't work otherwise...


I'll also point out that at the federal level, the executive branch does not really fall under judicial oversight when it comes to foreign policy. Each branch of the government has different powers and they are much more distinct at that level. Congress has oversight on foreign policy with regard to treaties and whatnot. The Supreme Court has traditionally (and correctly) largely stayed out of foreign policy. It's only interest in this matter is to ensure that the rights of those living within the US are being upheld. It has no power to decide which foreign targets are legitimate targets of surveillance, only whether or not a given surveillance request against a domestic target is justified under national security needs.



I was responding to BD, so I'm not sure what you mean when you use "I" in that sentence. BD was arguing that all wiretaps conducted by the NSA should be subject to judicial oversight, which is *vastly* beyond the Judicial Branch's area of power *and* would constitute far more oversight on the NSA than we hold over those other things I listed.

You're holding this one thing up to a much higher standard than we hold other aspects of government power. For example: Do I get to insist that the judicial branch rule on whether it's constitutional for Obama and the Dems in Congress to spend so much of my tax dollars on social programs? Where's the "judicial oversight" to protect my right to my property?

So no. Those activities either do *not* require judicial oversight, or don't require nearly as much as you are arguing for. Hence, the flaw with your argument and why I responded the way I did.



Might try doing the same... As you said. It isn't that hard. Tell me where the judicial oversight on Congressional budgets are in the law and why I shouldn't insist as you are that they be there?


Let me be clear. I'm not arguing that the NSA does not need to get warrants. I'm only saying that they do not need to get a warrant unless the target of their tap is a US person. That's the entire intent of FISA. You're essentially arguing that a change to the letter of the law, which maintains the spirit of said law, is wrong because we'd lose judicial oversight over something we never had judicial oversight over before. The NSA was simply prohibited from physically locating their wiretaps on US soil, which made surveillance on foreign targets more difficult over time as technology changed.


The spirit is intact. The NSA has to get a warrant if the target of their tap is a US person. All of the words in FISA essentially boil down to that one thing. You're losing sight of the purpose of the law and sticking blindly to the words of the law.

I'm sure you can figure out the distinction on your own.



Yes. You do have some understanding of how warrants work, right? Ya. It also just works.




Yes, they do. We have laws about prisoners. They should be obeyed.




There are conditions which have to be met to issue a wiretap. To ensure these are met, they are reviewed judicially. We may or may not like the criteria, but if the law is followed, the warrant is allowed.

Similarly: to issue taxes, or spend money, congress must follow established procedures (such as taking votes, etc). We may or may not like these procedures, but if they are followed, the taxes and spending are allowed.

If they are not followed, you can challenge the legality of any taxes - or spending - in court.

With wiretaps, since we have no idea they are going on, it is essential to review the legal criteria ahead of time. There is no way for those survailed to challenge the legality in court - unless charges are brought against them in court. And the vast majority do not lead to court proceedings.



Yes of course the original FISA bill allows wiretaps without warrants. To the extent that you find my original post confusing I apologize. I just said, and I will quote: "I think they need a warrant. Every time. Yes, I'm sure it is time consuming. Civil rights are just that important. Perhaps they would need more funds to file all those warrants. That said, I think congress, in allowing ongoing warrentless wiretapping, is reflecting the majority opinion within the US."

I explicitly acknowledge: (1) warrantless wiretapping is allowed and (2) the majority of American's want that. It is pretty obvious when you write:

"You're[me, yossarian] essentially arguing that a change to the letter of the law, which maintains the spirit of said law, is wrong"

...that you are not following even that simple six sentence post. I try to keep things simple for you. Alas, even my simplest statements...ah well. This is the assylum after all. Feel free to act like we all belong here.

I'm saying the FISA court *could* handle these requests. For me, it is sufficient protection of civil liberties if the FISA court does so.

You, on the other hand, are more then willing to allow wiretaps without warrants. And, as I indicated before, and quoted here, you are within the majority of American opinion on this one.

I am not.

See above. I can make that no more clear.