This guy in the story is a traitor and should be shot, ... NOW.
I agree he’s a TRAITOR. If he thinks the government doesn’t have the right to wiretap people who could be involved in terrorism in time of war, he’s sadly mistaken. During wartime, the President has widely expanded powers.
You said — “I agree he’s a TRAITOR. If he thinks the government doesn’t have the right to wiretap people who could be involved in terrorism in time of war, he’s sadly mistaken. During wartime, the President has widely expanded powers.”
Well, either the government *does* — or — it *does not* have the right to wiretap people who could be involved in terrorism.”
Now, thinking this through — if they do, without judicial review, then there’s really nothing to tell. In other words, if the government can proceed without this judicial review (that we’re talking about here), how can one “rat out” the government. If they’re doing it right, you can’t rat them out... LOL..
It’s only in the event that the government is not getting the proper judicial review that causes the problem, and if they weren’t doing that — then — there is a problem.
Even someone “inside the program” said that it was probably illegal. He had to say “probably” because what they were doing was not vetted properly. If it had been, then that guy could say, “No, they’ve run it through the courts and the judges and they say it’s all legal.” They hadn’t and that’s the problem.
The government needs to do the proper thing, regardless of what side someone is on. You can’t accuse the “other side” of illegal actions, and then proceed to do them “yourself”... LOL...
The article said the FISA law was created in 1978. I immediately thought of Frank Church, the late Senator from Idaho. I always suspected he leaned pretty far to the left.