Posted on 12/19/2005 1:53:38 PM PST by Cinnamon
No, obviously you cannot read black and white text.
That is what the text said.
Go back and read it.
Yes, and that is the controversy, that it was United States persons, citizens, who were spied on without a warant...which is ILLEGAL.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1425390/posts
Illegal?
Stopped the guys mentioned above.
"Now you are making the law up as you go along."
Yes, I hacked Findlaw and added the "but for" part of the definition of "US Person," which is a term of art in the statute.
I changed the WHOLE US Code in my efforts. Snuck in to every lawyers' office in the whole world and changed the USCA pocket parts, too.
I'm like a Freeper Santa Claus!
Posted by Cboldt to you, + others.....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1543521/posts?page=99#99
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1542415/posts
Here's another..
Yes, that is what I am citing.
It seems people have given up, realizing that
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
Means what they think it means. That is what happens when you argue without doing the research first. :)
Really? Who?
I still don't think they'd get it.
If those US Citizens were part of an "association" (as defined), such as Al Quada, the law makes it clear that they could be wire-taped.
This works just like the RICO (racketering) wiretaps that have been used for 30 years, signed by JohnFKennedy.
Just like you don't have to get a warrant for individual mobster; you don't have to get a warrant for every terrorists group member.
Period.
ping to post 166. It's the story I was looking for.
No, it doesn't. As much as you would like to believe it, a person does not stop being a US person because they are part of an association. Read this part carefully:
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication TO WHICH A UNITED STATES PERSON IS A PARTY; and
If a United States person is a party, at all, it means you cannot get a warentless wiretap. That is the LAW. I have cited it repeatedly. There is no part of the law that reads "Except in cases when that person is part of an association." If there is, please post it.
You powers of self-delusion and deception are amazing.
No wonder you are a dimocrat.
I have to go eat. Good bye.
Don't hurry back. Indeed, use the time to do some research.
Alas, Section 1801, (the portion of the statute that defines "United States Person") disagrees with you.
You need to do some research troll.
Tell me, how's that New York Times job coming?
http://www.gunstuff.com/america-attacked.html
Dedicated to the men, women and children who lost their lives;
all those who sacrificed their lives;
And to all the Heroes that responded to the emergency 11 September 2001
THIS is what our Nation is responding to.
Please remember that in the difficult times ahead.
You mean like your heroes the NY Slimes don't do? Dan? Is that you? Or is it Mary? Jaysun Blair? You really need to read slowly and then go back to DU.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.