Obama's views on "warrantless wiretapping" [split]

[Doug]

DAR
I've told you what you need to do to get your case off the ground. What I have asked for is not unreasonable.

DOUG
I've cited evidence that Obama's admnistration currently engages in warrantless wiretaps. The HuffPo article makes clear reference to the use of warrantless wiretaps.
I've shown that Obama defends Bush's use of warrantless wiretaps.
I've shown that Obama's administration is saying that they will "reign in" this use.
There will be a top-secret review of their wiretap use.
I'm not using the cartoon as evidence, despite your apparent understanding that I am doing so.

You have provided NO evidence at all that Obama is not using warrantless wiretaps.

DAR
Your article is entitled "NSA Wiretapping: Justice Department Reining It In" not "NSA Warrentless Wiretapping: Justice Department Reining It."

DOUG
The title is not the evidence. The article is. This was the big fight last year regarding what the NSA can or can't do. We know what the NSA was doing and what it continues to do. There is no doubt that they are engaging in warrantless wiretapping. That's what Bush was fighting Congress about. It was all over the news. Bush kept the program going and Obama has not stopped the program.

DAR
If Congress provides approval for an action, this would seem to me to provide "warrant" for an action and would qualify for me as proper oversight. And I have no problem with the details of this being kept secret (I have my ACLU renewal form on my desk right now so my civil liberty credentials are intact and supported by action).

DOUG
Congress has provided very careful guidelines as to how these warrantless wiretaps can be used. Bush won that fight, unfortunately. So is it illegal? I say it is unconstitutional. But that is not the issue here. The issue we are discussing is whether warrantless wiretaps are being used by the Obma administration. They are. I've provided evidence, you have provided nothing.

Now Obama even wants to get cell phone records without a warrant.

Here's a May 12, 2009 article on how the ACLU wants to fight the "warrantless spying" on U.S. citizens.

Now at the top of the list for Obama’s First 100 Days, high on the [ACLU's] agenda is to fight the “warrantless spying” of “U.S. persons,” meaning American citizens and residents not being called on the phone or e-mailed by al Queda, like peace groups, environmental groups, and well, ACLU activists.

Surely you don't think the ACLU would get worked up about a program that is not currently in place.

When are you going to provide even the slightest bit of evidence that Obama ended Bush's warrantless wiretap policy? I provide evidence, and you don't. That's what makes me silly, I guess.

[Dardedar]

DAR
I've told you what you need to do to get your case off the ground. What I have asked for is not unreasonable.

DOUG
I've cited evidence that Obama's admnistration currently engages in warrantless wiretaps.

DAR
Well could you please re-cite this evidence. I must have missed it. I do remember something about "we don't know." Why did you say "we don't know" if in fact "we do know?"

DOUG
The HuffPo article makes clear reference to the use of warrantless wiretaps.

DAR
Excellent. Then you won't have any trouble quoting this "clear reference" in that article. I reserve the right to ask that you show the claim is also true. Not all claims in all articles can be shown to be true.

I've shown that Obama defends Bush's use of warrantless wiretaps.

DAR
How did I miss that? Please cut and paste that bit again.

I've shown that Obama's administration is saying that they will "reign in" this use.

DAR
Use of wiretaps. That's good. Wiretaps are legal, in certain circumstances. The rules have varied over time. Quite complicated I expect.

DOUG
There will be a top-secret review of their wiretap use.

DAR
Well that sounds like a good thing. I notice you didn't use the word "warrentless" here. Let me note again that the terms "warrentless" and "wiretaps" have become anachronistic. Technology has surpassed them. This is why congress struggles to balance privacy with security.

DOUG
I'm not using the cartoon as evidence, despite your apparent understanding that I am doing so.

DAR
I haven't said that nor do I believe it. You have decided to defend the claim in the cartoon, so you should provide evidence for it.

You have provided NO evidence at all that Obama is not using warrantless wiretaps.

DAR
Nor will I. You posted this claim and are defending it as true. The burden is upon you, obviously. I am quite please with "we don't know," since the claim in the cartoon still can not be confirmed if "we don't know."
I have been busy on the blogs today and in fact have written 3,000 words of fine roast (so far). Probably 4,000 counting this thread. Plus I had to deal with 23 tons of gravel in the driveway of a rental. So I'm not going to take any time to track down negative evidence for your assertion.

DOUG
When are you going to provide even the slightest bit of evidence that Obama ended Bush's warrantless wiretap policy?

DAR
Two answers:

a) as a goat farmer, my clearance doesn't go that high even if I had the interest (and I don't)
b) when Jesus returns.

It's not my claim. It's yours.

D.

ps. Even if you could show this, and as I think has become clear you probably cannot, I would still give Obama some time on this before it would give me trouble. Perhaps you think Obama should come into office and then immediately march down to the NSA and say: "Okay, everybody's fired, here's how we're going to do it." That would be dumb. Perhaps Nader would do something like. Hillary certainly wouldn't. But that's not how Obama rolls. There are thousands of people involved in such a billion dollar agency. Congress, as you say, has had great battles over the details of how to balance privacy with national security. It would be stupid to throw that work away. And it takes time to work with congress. Bush left quite a bit on Obama's plate if you haven't noticed.

But anyway, if you can support the claim that Obama believes: "warrantless wiretaps are necessary to fight terror" then post it below. His position on that pending case doesn't get it.

D.

[Doug]

I've cited evidence that Obama's admnistration currently engages in warrantless wiretaps.

Well could you please re-cite this evidence. I must have missed it.

DOUG
Here is that article on how the ACLU, in grading Obama's first 100 days in office, gives him good marks for some things, but they state that they will fight his "warrantless spying" and that this is not something that they like. If you think their attorneys and staff are so clueless that they don't know that they Obama administration doesn't do that sort of thing, take it up with them, not with me.

Plenty of liberals (and libertarians, and even some conservatives) hated Bush's warrantless wiretapping program. It was even a huge issue in court in 2008. If Obama had scrapped that program, evidence of this would not be hard to find online. Google it. Show me that Obama is not engaging in it. You won't, and you can't. I have provided evidence that Obama IS engaging in warrantless wiretapping. I keep providing evidence for my assertion, and not only do you not provide any to counter mine, you state that you won't provide any evidence. So we're done. You lose by default. The evidence for you claim would be all over the blogosphere if Obama eliminated the warrantless wiretapping program. But we don't find that, we only find evidence to the contrary.

[Dardedar]

DAR
Jesus returned! Not really. I had a little time this morning so I read the wiki on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warran ... ontroversy

It's huge, about 14,000 words, 70 pages or so. I did skim some! But I read most of it.

No surprises other than being reminded of what a big complicated deal this is. A couple bits.

***
The Senate Judiciary Committee articulated its view with respect to congressional power to tailor the President’s use of an inherent constitutional power:

* The basis for this legislation [FISA] is the understanding — concurred in by the Attorney General — that even if the President has an “inherent” constitutional power to authorize warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, Congress has the power to regulate the exercise of this authority by legislating a reasonable warrant procedure governing foreign intelligence surveillance
***

Okay, seems reasonable.

At the very end:

***
FISCR Ruling of August 2008

In August 2008, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR) affirmed the constitutionality of the Protect America Act of 2007 in a heavily redacted opinion released on January 15, 2009, which is only the second such public ruling since the enactment of the FISA Act.[153][154][155][156][157]
****

The rest is about what I expected. A big complicated deal.

This part is probably a little out of date and superseded by what was done in 2008 but it gives some background as to how congress struggled with this:

***
Nevertheless, competing legislative proposals to authorize the NSA program subject to Congressional or FISA court oversight have been proposed and have been the subject of Congressional hearings throughout the summer.[144]

On March 16, 2006, Senators Mike DeWine (R-OH), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) introduced the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 (S.2455),[145][146] under which the President would be given certain additional limited statutory authority to conduct electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists in the United States subject to enhanced Congressional oversight. Also on March 16, 2006, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced The National Security Surveillance Act of 2006 (S.2453),[147][148] which would amend FISA to grant retroactive amnesty[149] for warrantless surveillance conducted under presidential authority and provide FISA court (FISC) jurisdiction to review, authorize, and oversight "electronic surveillance programs." On May 24, 2006, Senator Specter and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act of 2006 (S.3001) asserting FISA as the exclusive means to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance.

On September 13, 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to approve all three mutually exclusive bills, thus, leaving it to the full Senate to resolve.[34]

On July 18, 2006, U.S. Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM) introduced the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act (H.R. 5825). Wilson's bill would give the President the authority to authorize electronic surveillance of international phone calls and e-mail linked specifically to identified terrorist groups immediately following or in anticipation of an armed or terrorist attack on the United States. Surveillance beyond the initial authorized period would require a FISA warrant or a presidential certification to Congress. On September 28, 2006 the House of Representatives passed Wilson's bill and it was referred to the Senate.[33]

Each of these bills would in some form broaden the statutory authorization for electronic surveillance, while still subjecting it to some restrictions. The Specter-Feinstein bill would extend the peacetime period for obtaining retroactive warrants to seven days and implement other changes to facilitate eavesdropping while maintaining FISA court oversight. The DeWine bill, the Specter bill, and the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act (already passed by the House) would all authorize some limited forms or periods of warrantless electronic surveillance subject to additional programmatic oversight by either the FISC (Specter bill) or Congress (DeWine and Wilson bills).
***

I got up early and tried reading this hoping it would put me back to sleep. It didn't.

D.