Chalk another one up for the bad guys!

[MrSilver]

Originally Posted by BadBob

You might want to try reading them for yourself sometime instead of letting a lefty faculty member from Whittier interpert them for you.

I love when people resort to personal attacks.

[pawarrant]

Mr. Silver, can you show us where in the Constitution does it grant protection to non-citizens who made calls from a foreign nation? The plaintiff in the case in question were foreign nationals who could not even prove that their call was monitored. They should not have even had standing to file the suit.

[MrSilver]

Originally Posted by pawarrant

Mr. Silver, can you show us where in the Constitution does it grant protection to non-citizens who made calls from a foreign nation? The plaintiff in the case in question were foreign nationals who could not even prove that their call was monitored. They should not have even had standing to file the suit.

See pages 15-24 of 44.

[pawarrant]

Originally Posted by MrSilver

See pages 15-24 of 44.

That's the judges opinion, not what I asked.

[MrSilver]

Question: Where does the Constitution grant protection to non-citizens who made calls from a foreign nation?

Short Answer:

In the United States people have a reasonable expectation to privacy that is protected by the 4th Amendment. The 4th explicitly provides for:

"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."

So if the Government wants to tap phones, there is a legal mechanism for them to do so... it is called a warrant.

Otherwise any information they derive from an unlawful search and seizure will be fruit of the poisonous tree and will be inadmissible at trial as per the Exclusionary Rule.

I don't have a problem with the U.S. government wiretapping calls that are taking place outside of our borders. It is called spying.

But if they want to tap calls originating from inside the United States, they had better damn well have a warrant to do so.

>.<

[NFS]

Originally Posted by pawarrant

To all of you who think the judge made the correct ruling...do you think if the U.S. obtained information using this method about an impending terrorist attack against lets say your kids school that it should not be used and the attack should go ahead as planned? wtf

You've missed the point.

The question in the US is the same as the one in the UK - should secret recordings be admissible in a court of law.

The UK security forces actually wish this NOT to be the case, because they don't want their methods to be controlled or revealed in any way.

Don't have any doubt, phone calls, emails and letters are being intercepted and read in both of our countries. If they warn about terrorist attacks those warnings will be heeded. It's just that the illegally obtained evidence will not be admissible in court.

Originally Posted by MrSilver

The Judge made the correct ruling.

This so called "correct ruling" will be thrown out on it's face in the U.S. Supreme Court. Mark my words.

[pawarrant]

Originally Posted by needforspeed

You've missed the point.

The question in the US is the same as the one in the UK - should secret recordings be admissible in a court of law.

The UK security forces actually wish this NOT to be the case, because they don't want their methods to be controlled or revealed in any way.

Don't have any doubt, phone calls, emails and letters are being intercepted and read in both of our countries. If they warn about terrorist attacks those warnings will be heeded. It's just that the illegally obtained evidence will not be admissible in court.

Actually YOU missed the point of this case. The case in question has put an immediate stop to our terrorist surveillance program. The lawsuit filed by the ACLU was not filed on the behalf of anyone in custody or facing criminal charges. It was filed on the behalf of a foreign national who isn't even sure if their calls were ever monitored. So you are wrong, the ACLU got a ruling to have the program stopped, not to have evidence suppressed in a criminal prosecution. I agree, any evidence not obtained pursuant to the U.S. Constitution should not be admissible in a U.S. criminal court. That's why these terrorists should be killed on the battlefield or rot in a military prison, not be tried as a criminal.

[pawarrant]

Originally Posted by CMD

This so called "correct ruling" will be thrown out on it's face in the U.S. Supreme Court. Mark my words.

Agreed, lets just hope it gets ruled upon quickly.

[pawarrant]

Originally Posted by MrSilver

Question: Where does the Constitution grant protection to non-citizens who made calls from a foreign nation?

Short Answer:

In the United States people have a reasonable expectation to privacy that is protected by the 4th Amendment. The 4th explicitly provides for:

"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."

So if the Government wants to tap phones, there is a legal mechanism for them to do so... it is called a warrant.

Otherwise any information they derive from an unlawful search and seizure will be fruit of the poisonous tree and will be inadmissible at trial as per the Exclusionary Rule.

I don't have a problem with the U.S. government wiretapping calls that are taking place outside of our borders. It is called spying.

But if they want to tap calls originating from inside the United States, they had better damn well have a warrant to do so.

>.<

So what, the NSA and CIA do not file criminal prosecutions against anyone! We don't care about evidence being admissible in criminal court. We care about our intelligence agencies monitoring foreign nationals. Why do we need a warrant if we have no intention on filing criminal charges against someone. Its a war, not a criminal matter.

[RBBMWE46M3]

tastes great....

[RBBMWE46M3]

less filling....

Originally Posted by BadBob

Here is a picture of the judge.

She a bleeder.

[Hunter399]

Originally Posted by tl_boy

Good news. Again, there are other ways to know about terrorist attacks without invading the privacy of our homes. Again, we were warned about specific threats from Phillipine intelligence prior to 9/11 but failed to act. Again, the hijackers were on student visas, but never showed upto classes... these are red flags that should have been considered, and were not. What good would wire tappings do? My sister is liberal, I'm moderate. We argue about terrorism and other world events on the phone all the time. I'd hate for the government to arrest me, or one of us if they were tapping our lines and thinking wer'e up to something. Its a waste of tax payer dollars. Send moles into Mosques, milita groups, etc. that's what we should be doing.

If we have nothing to hide, why do you care of someone listens in?

[tl_boy]

What if I'm talkin to one of my hoe's, and its personal? Then?



j/k

I just dont like the idea of anyone listening to my conversations, no matter what they are about. Its just uncomfortable and an invasion of my privacy. I'm kind of a private person man, maybe not with you guys, but I am otherwise.

Originally Posted by hunter399

If we have nothing to hide, why do you care of someone listens in?

[ages944]

Originally Posted by pawarrant

Thank you p.o.s. ACLU and Democrats for helping the terrorists again.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060817/D8JI9A281.html

yeah, sure, who needs civil liberties? Overrated anyway... oh wait! That stupid Constitution thing's still around, ain't it? Damn, and I thought Ashcroft had managed to tear it to shreds already...

[dmitri]

I think alot of democrats are putting our lives as Americans in danger. Democracy is power of the majority, so why not work in our best interest, instead of questioning it????

If you go to Europe, there are guards with assault rifles at airports. Fuck all this "racism" nonsense. Every Muslim is not a terrorist, but why is every terrorist a Muslim??
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[a_moux]

Originally Posted by MrSilver

Do you know anything about Constitutional law?

When Constitution was written, America didn't face terrorism. As this world changes day by day we might wanna think what is the best way to protect the citizens of this nation and if that means altering some parts of the Constitution, then let it be.

[shragon]

[ages944]

Originally Posted by a_moux

When Constitution was written, America didn't face terrorism. As this world changes day by day we might wanna think what is the best way to protect the citizens of this nation and if that means altering some parts of the Constitution, then let it be.

The Romans probably considered the Huns 'terrorists'

[NFS]

Originally Posted by pawarrant

Actually YOU missed the point of this case. The case in question has put an immediate stop to our terrorist surveillance program. The lawsuit filed by the ACLU was not filed on the behalf of anyone in custody or facing criminal charges. It was filed on the behalf of a foreign national who isn't even sure if their calls were ever monitored. So you are wrong, the ACLU got a ruling to have the program stopped, not to have evidence suppressed in a criminal prosecution. I agree, any evidence not obtained pursuant to the U.S. Constitution should not be admissible in a U.S. criminal court. That's why these terrorists should be killed on the battlefield or rot in a military prison, not be tried as a criminal.

No court ruling will stop terrorist surveilance.

I am quite sure that security agencies in the US and the UK operate outside the law on a frequent basis. The question is if it should be legal for police and other agencies to intercept individuals phone calls and use them in evidence without a 'warrant' - the judge in this case has ruled no which I kind of agree with.

As I said in my post the security agencies in the UK prefer it this way, because if wiretaps were a routine part of a police investigation, phone calls would be more guarded and if they were admissible in court, then their methods would become more widely known.

The recent terrorist arrests were brought forward because an uncoded message triggering the attacks was intercepted.

[darter1979]

Originally Posted by MrSilver

I'm a Federal Litigator.

I would hope so.

I highly doubt that. If you really know the Constitution, you will see that there are no guarentees written to protect a person's privacy. The closest clause you can infer is the 4th Amend, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures". Wiretapping is hardly a search or seizure activity, rather it's a survaillance activity and the Constitution does not prohibits that.

It is via Common Law, not Constutional Law that the privacy laws in this country are based, and are used to prevent evidence obtained from unwarrented survaillance from being used in prosecutions. Since Common Law rulings are largely derive from past precedences as well as unique circumstances of each case, privacy laws are no where near as indispensable as real Consitutional laws. Since in this case, the federal government is using wiretapping for crime prevention, rather than prosecution, and the target of survaillance are foreign nationals, I see no legal basis for this ruling. I expect the higher courts to quickly overturn this left-wing activist judge's decision.