Posted on 12/19/2005 1:53:38 PM PST by Cinnamon
Apparently not. Specify exactly what qualifies as "overboard."
and is probably in violation of the law.
In other words, you have absolutely no idea whether the government was in violation of the law or not.
See we have a Bill of Rights that precludes spying on citizens without a warrant.
Specify where you found this in the Bill of Rights, if you can- it might help back up your opinion.
I suggest you read this before replying to these discussions.
50 USC 1802 Permits Warrantless Surveillance
Excerpt from linked article:
***************************
1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court
(a) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
"(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or"
But again , that is gonna mean the law was violated if any of the American citizens was not an agent of a foreign power.
Oh how I love FreeRepublic and the vast reservoir of knowledge the members contribute. I knew that sooner or later, someone would either confirm or deny the legality of this whole affair and site some black-and-white to support it.
Now THAT'S funny! Especially considering the left is sounding seditious AND getting away with it.
Has Bush "sicced" the IRS on anyone? How many FBI files are in the WH do you think? Forget the past and join us in the present. ;)
Back over to DU, troll. It's either that, or lurk, or begone.
Don't make me have to use the facts on you again! You'll get mad and cry and then get hungry and buy stuff at Wal-Mart as you curse the demise of Unions, and how all our jobs went to the Chinese.
"What if" Bush flew the planes into the World Trade Center himself?
"What if" Saddam Hussein loved Kurds and was just giving them free baby milk from his baby milk factory?
"What if" Cheney is really a robot? And controls the weather? And planted bombs in the N.O. levy as part of a Freemason conspiracy?
In reality, the only evidence before us shows that the wiretapping was done to and among people in the US who were comminicating with terrorists.
Don't believe the "what if" scenarios. They're a waste of time and reality.
Respect for Clark??????????????
You are on the wrong site.
Specify where, exactly, the individual you addressed said Saddam Hussein should not have an attorney?
That's about as smart as saying that defense attorneys in the U.S. love crime.
No, it would be more like saying that a person widely known to despise his country is a person who despises his country. Calling a spade a spade, so to speak.
If that American citizen was IN CONTACT with a foreign agent, not an agent of a foreign power.
"Don't believe the "what if" scenarios. They're a waste of time and reality."
I didn't know "reality" could be wasted...but anyway, the Bill of Rights was written precisely to protect against the "what ifs." That's the point of having a "right."
I'm just asking a valid question and I think it does need to be pointed out. No one on here has the list of people who were watched and I highly doubt we will ever find out.
I may trust GWB but like many people I don't trust the government 100% of the time. This is a big deal to me personally because it tests that trust and that bond with the POTUS. I know that my opinion means squat but I'm entitled to question.
Do I think that the actions taken were wrong? I don't think so because they (by all accounts) were made to protect the United States. Do I have concerns... yes.
I think if I blindly followed anyone without questioning every once in a while I'd be a pretty sad individual (and I stress the individual part)
I clearly said I am not fan of Clark, I respect his actions in THIS instance.
See my reply #70. I was FReeping last night and found these facts and linked to a word document.
"Clark's defense strategy is the business of himself, the rest of his legal team, and his client."
What a distraction from the real point.
Clark is doing it to hurt the US efforts in Iraq. You know that. I know that.
I am not disputing Clark's right to do what he is doing, only his motivation.
And his motivation is anti-Americanism.
It doesn't really matter. Citizenship and the rights inherent in it are paramount, and the Constititution is the supreme law of the land. Not to mention that it would be a stretch to call someone cooperating with a foreign power an agent of that power, but that's neither here nor there.
That's nice. Now go read the Bill of Rights. The one that exists in reality.
And the one that has been interpreted by several courts of appeals to have no problem with FISA 1802.
There have been cites listed on FR. One was a mall in Ohio that was targeted and stopped because of the NSA. Another thread was a few days ago but I can't find it. It was a muslim that was arrested for terrorism. The guys name was Imram or some such. (nuts!)
That is because citizens of the United States have not been spied on before (at least to our knowledge) in a legal context. Hence the controversy!
"It doesn't really matter. Citizenship and the rights inherent in it are paramount, and the Constititution is the supreme law of the land. Not to mention that it would be a stretch to call someone cooperating with a foreign power an agent of that power, but that's neither here nor there."
The constitution is part of the supreme law of the land, treaties ratified by congress are port of the supreme law also. But I doubt you would be able to find a court that would rule that the right to privacy outweighs the right to do surveilence on enemy agents.
My concern about the program is the lack of checks to make sure that only enemy agents were tapped.
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.