Is this accurate? by AnthonyT

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Is this accurate?

POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 3, 2006 11:33
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4512
PAGE 2 of 2

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 9:30 AM

hmmmmmmmm. Good question. I think there should be a distinction, but I also think that the intelligence gathering should be subjected to the same sort of due process.

I don't think there should be wholesale wiretapping in the hopes we catch someone planning a crime/terrorist attack. etc.

If we suspect a certain individual or individuals of, say being in a cell for instance , we should be able to provide sufficient evidence for a court order.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 10:21 AM

RAZZA

Ms Fillion,

You said of Mr. Ames,

Quote:
"...Said employee was fully knowledgeable of the lenghts they would go, and in singing the paperwork giving him his position, he consented to such an investigation."

You mention this as somehow giving the Clinton administration cart blanche to investigate and prosecute him by any means they saw fit. I again go back to the article I originally posted. And I quote,

Quote:
"But government officials decided in the Ames case that no warrant was required because the searches were conducted for "foreign intelligence purposes," a goal of such vital national security interest that they said it justified extraordinary police powers."

If they had unfettered power to pursue him then why did they use (in their words, not mine) "extraordinary police powers"?

Clearly, we are back to talking about apples and apples, and this example cannot be so easily dismissed.

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 11:33 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Razza

I never said they had carte blanche.

I said that he was well aware of the fact that he would be under what could be constant survelliance, that he had signed documents that, in doing so, gave his consent to that investigation and that you can not compare his case to the case currently in question. The one currently in question is the US government targetting thousands of individuals with unlawful wiretapping without probable cause and without a court order. His consent makes his "rights" moot.

As for them going into his home and searching the contents, that is where the "extraordinary police powers comes in". They had no need of a warrant because they KNEW what he had done, because of the survellience. This comes into play with the whole, you are a spy - here is your clearance- what you do is a matter of National Security, etc..etc.. You also have to remember that Aldrich Ames himself had headed some investigations into his own people, again pointing to the fact that he knew what he was dealing with.

What I am saying in a long winded way, is that they are indeed 2 different cases.

Mr Civilian on the street has a right to expect his privacy will not be invaded.

Aldrich Ames gave up that right when he took the job that he had, and when he broke the rules of confidentiality and committed treason. He lost those rights with his own full knowledge and consent.

Bush or his administration deciding that a whole segment of the population is a risk and wiretapping indiscrimenantly, does not allow Mr. Civilian his rights under the law.

In the case of Ames, they didn't need a court order to put him under survellience, because they already had his implied consent. In the case of the Mr's Civilian, they didn't have a court order, because they didn't have justifiable probable cause - that is an infringement of the constitution and the bill of rights.

Thats why it is apples and oranges.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE