Posted on 12/19/2005 6:12:52 PM PST by Sam Hill
"Now that the media has had a couple days to calm down and actually LOOK AT THE LAW, they are coming up with this BS about "certifications not met". Originally, they were saying that it was altogether illegal!"
You're exactly right.
If this was the problem, we would have heard about it via Gonzalez. But we didn't. Gonzalez is on board with Bush.
In fact the law allows the certificates to be ex post facto.
The whole gravitas was that the courts were ignored, and as you say, that has not been necessary since the changes in the law in 2001.
And as Jimmy showed, even before then.
The intent of my comment was to point out why Carter's E.O. is irrelevant to the matter at hand. I have no idea what you're going on about.
HypocRATs?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1543806/posts
Thank You for Wiretapping (WSJ Editorial - Nails It)
Opinion Journal ^
Don't forget about the mad, (possibly alien), attack rabbit!
Nam Vet
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703
Thank You for Wiretapping
Why the Founders made presidents dominant on national security.
snip
The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But no Administration then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President's power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it. FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed.
The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
snip
http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-12_20_05_JKE.html
snip
Many of the taps were conducted without first obtaining warrants from the special court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act because there wasn't time to obtain them.
This was lawful, under both an exception in the FISA act, and in
Congress' authorization of the use of force after 9/11, and
congressional leaders were informed of the taps, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez said Monday.
If Democrats think they can make political hay by expressing more concern for the "rights" of the enemy than for the safety of Americans, they're mistaken, said John McIntyre of RealClearPolitics: "Democrats have still not fully grasped that the public has profound and long standing concerns about their ability to defend the nation," he said.
Jack Kelly is national security columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Blade of Toledo, Ohio.
We were all too busy waiting in lines to buy gasoline to remember.
#126 and 127
What are you talking about? Section 1802, which authorizes the electronic surveillance without a court order if the AG makes the required certifications, is the same now as it was in 1978. It wasn't changed in 2001.
#126
You don't know what you are talking about and I doubt it's worth the time to try to explain it to you.
Read up on the subject.
The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But no Administration then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President's power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it. FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed.The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
You said that the law changed in 2001. Obviously you're not talking about section 1802, so what section are you talking about? That's all I'm asking. I don't need or want a long explanation.
That's not the least bit true. Lack of prior court approval is not what this "scandal" is about at all.
Snooping on communications of U.S. persons--*That's* what's supposedly illegal here.
Thanks for another great find. Please send your findings to the RNC.
The paradox of Jimmy Carter while he approved of spying on Americans, he was gutting the CIA of any remaining good people.
The Compost and Slimes got the names of real agents not the phoney Plames and would print their names and the embassy they were covertly assigned to. This placed these agents and their families in immediate and grave danger, and these disclosures probably led to the death of any contacts these agents had in the country where they were operating in.
Instead of screaming about the danger of the exposure of an agent, the Compost and Slimes just continued to post the names and countries of effective agents.
Then. Carter and his CIA henchmen filled the agency with their operatives, and many are still there or serve as so called consultants and are the real sources of so many leaks we read about and hear about in the MSM.
Listening to Fox this morning, and they reported that the top people over at NYTimes had a meeting with 'the WH' as late as Dec 9th over the release of this information. They were, once again, asked not to print, but waited, what, a week to do so. And, imo, perfectly timed with elections and patriot act.
Well, he is still among the living. He's had several bouts with cancer, but he's still alive & kicking.
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.