Yup.
Posted on 12/20/2005 7:55:51 AM PST by SueRae
Why didn't we impeach him for this? Seems like the GOP gave him a pass on an awful lot of stuff he did.
Has it been confirmed this was done on American citizens? On Fox this morning they were saying it had not yet been confirmed these were American citizens, just that they were phone calls coming in to and going out of the US.
Interesting point. That being said, do any one of us have the Constitutional right to have a private conversation with Bin Laden? Certainly FDR would not have tolerated phone calls from Adolf to say... Charles Lindberg. Would Jefferson have refrained from reading communications from the Barbary Pirates to American citizens? I don't know the answer but it's interesting to think about.
It seems clear to me that any branch of government that tried to usurp the President's powers to protect the country is flat wrong.
See Executive Order by William J. Clinton dated February 9, 1995.
I have to go to work..yeh..I'm behind royally.
I thought I heard Pelosi say that Rockefeller never actually sent the July 17 2003 letter to Cheney. I'll check when I come back...unless someone wants to be diligent for me. :-)
BUMP for later read and passing it along.
I wonder about that very thing every time the impeached one is mentioned. This is the first time I recall seeing it in print. Thank you.
OK, so this is 50 USC 1802.
Sorry folks, it was all legal.
Russ Feingold tried to get a bill passed that would exclude "American Citizens" from the "Foreign Powers" clause in FISA. It was tabled. Feingold must not be aware that Al Queda used citizenship as a cover. He is aggressivly stupid.
"THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW [Cliff May]
“The issue here is this: If you’re John McCain and you just got Congress to agree to limits on interrogation techniques, why would you think that limits anything if the executive branch can ignore can ignore it by asserting its inherent authority?”- Jamie Gorelick, former deputy attorney general under President Clinton, in today’s Washington Post, p. A10.
"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.
"It is important to understand, that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities." - Jamie Gorelick testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, as quoted by Byron today elsewhere on NRO.
Gorelick is making a simple point: The rules are different when there is a Democrat in the White House. What about that don’t you understand?
Posted at 10:30 AM"
http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_12_18_corner-archive.asp#085176
Yup.
Criminals get consistutional rights in criminal proceedings...
This is why you can't fight terrorism in the courts.
These wiretaps could never be used in a criminal court, however they are essential to prosecute a war.
Indeed, recognizing things as they are, you speak truth.
Looking at things as they should be, something else troubles me. Observing FReeper posts in general (not yours), it seems that many conservatives have the misconceptions that the Constitution does not apply to foreigners in the US, and that it does apply to Americans anywhere in the world.
Every DemocRAT who is opening his/her big fat mouth blathering about everything from abuse of power to impeachment...needs to shut up, sit down and READ the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978.
Good point. Out of curiosity, are there any articles from a conservative point of view, about what REALLY happened at Waco? So much of what I've heard about it has come through a liberal filter.
We covered it extensively here while it was happening.
I dunno, but it would be a great time for our side to demand the Barrett report be released.
Oops... actually it happened before FR. But we did go over it extensively here... look up keywords WACO, BRANCHDAVIDIAN, etc., you'll see plenty.
Thanks. I'll do a "search" a little later. I didn't know if FR was around at the time. The Clinton DOJ just had a grand ole time, didn't it? Waco, Elian, and a whole host of other things...
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.