Posted on 01/07/2006 4:34:58 AM PST by balch3
Topeka — U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., on Friday said the Bush administration needed to answer questions about spying on Americans without court authorization.
And Brownback said he disagreed with the administration’s legal rationale, which he said could hamper future presidents during war.
“There are questions that should be examined at this point in time,” Brownback said during a news conference.
(Excerpt) Read more at 2.ljworld.com ...
Because he's running for President.
No spine. Wants the press to like him. You name it.
If Brownback has questions about whether this was followed, he is on the right track.
Do they really think turning on the President will get them elected? RINOs are fools.
Oh good, another backstabber. It would appear that the Republicans might well find themselves in the minority after the elections this fall. To be honest, I'm really not going to miss them very much. They are mushy, jellyfish and at times I am thinking we will be better off without this bad crop. We'll stage a comeback based on solid conservative values and just move on.
Brownback was a true gem in the rough: solid on terrorism and defense, strong on abortion, strong on Israel. Now he comes out with this crap? I know at least 6 people who gave him donations who would now never do so again. By joining with the traitors, Brownback can kiss his political future goodbye.
I know there aren't a ton of huge skyscrapers in Kansas that are targets of Al Qaeda. Nevertheless, we are all vulnerable to attacks by these Islamofacists....they'll kill our young men, rape our women, and cut the throats of our children all in the name of Allah. I have no problem with any President finding these jackholes among us and taking them out, okay??
And tell your fellow Republicans who're trying to join the NY Slimes bandwagon on how Bush is "abusing" the Constitution the same thing. "Connecting the dots" to prevent more terrorist attacks like 9/11 means doing whatever it takes. Period.
Yeah, he's been reading his own press clippings, like McCain he wants to become a media darling. Now Russert and the other mouthpieces of the DNC can have them on their program to explain why Bush is always wrong, wrong, wrong.
Just sickening the way these folks get used for a little TV time.
"The rights of people to keep radioactive materials in their homes and mosques to build weapons, and be free from detection by geiger counters used on public streets putside those homes, shall not be violated."
This actually sounds like a veiled threat. If congress were half as invested in cutting pork and taxes as they are trying to wrest power from the executive branch, we'd all be a lot better off. As it is, the damfools are likely to help get a lot of innocent people killed.
You're stepping in it Brownback. Better wipe the manure off your shoes before you leave a track of it that you won't be able to get rid of.
and this is BREAKING NEWS?!
CALLIING MODERATOR!!
Let him talk... talk his way right out'a my vote.
I prefer the Constitution, thank you.
Key word "unreasonable." Is it unreasonable to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent terrorist attacks by monitoring their communications into and out of this country?
The key words are also "but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation."
It is unreasonable if these accountability measures are not violated and government employees remain faithful to their oath to preserve and defend the Constitution, including defending individual liberties.
Fugetabout whether he is on or off the reservation. He comes across as a whiny, milquetoast speaker with a monotone voice. Can't be elected prez. imo
That's what I hear so few people say... first that the word "unreasonable" is subjective so there is nothing "clear cut". Secondly, is it not the case the the conditions of wiretap were a) at least one participant in the communication was an al queda name and b) at least one participant was on foreign soil?
Maybe he has Cowering Republican Senator syndrome wherein he runs to the microphone to distance himself from the President when Old Media is pushing some concocted scandal.
If the "search" is not deemed unreasonable, then how does the rest apply?
Go ahead. (moderatoer, sorry if this shouldn't have been in breaking news)
Another Frist we don't need.
The rest must apply when deemed reasonable, and to keep the searches reasonable.
How true.
I remember Trent (the "Peter Principle" has stopped his career in its tracks) as being that way also.
Too bad we don't have someone with the leadership ability of Newt Gingrich in the senate.
I think that is not the case. I think the net is cast more broadly. But we don't know for sure because none of the reports particularly describe the scope of the warrantless surveillance.
If the surveillance is in the scope of FISA, then it's a non-issue. The fact that it's an issue is an indicator that the surveillance is outside the scope of FISA. "Outside the scope of FISA" does not mean the surveillance is unconstitutional - but it takes particular facts (which we don't have) to reach a judgment on that.
This statement is positively stupid. It totally contradicts itself. I suspect this is another case of the "journalists" misreporting what Brownback said. I bet the actual quote doesn't say this at all. Notice the "Report" is TELLING us what Brownback said, NOT actually QUOTING Brownback. My guess is Brownback, being the good little careerist Senator he is, said things to try and be on BOTH sides of the issue at the same time.
Then, if elected, Brownback would not monitor phone conversations from abroad with suspected terrorists?
Ok. That is all I need to know about him.
Lets be fair here.Since the MSM isn't going to report it then we should..I am sick and tired of these dems and these RINOS..Please read this..
Clinton NSA Wiretapped Top Republican
During the 1990's under President Bill Clinton, the National Security Agency conducted random telecommunications surveillance of millions of phone calls daily under a top secret program known as Echelon.
But according to at least two people familiar with the spy operation at the time, some of the surveillance was far from indiscriminate.
In a February 2000 interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," NSA operator Margaret Newsham revealed that the agency's listening post in Great Britain was involved in monitoring the phone calls of at least one top Republican on Capitol Hill.
Questioned by "60 Minutes" interviewer Steve Kroft, Newsham recalled how she learned of the illegal surveillance:
"I walked into the office building and a friend said, 'Come over here and listen to--to this thing.' And he had headphones on, so I took the headphones and I listened to it, and I looked at him and said, 'That's an American.' . . .
Ms. Newsham remembered, "It was definitely an American voice, and it was a voice that was distinct. And I said, 'Well, who is that?'
"And he said it was Senator Strom Thurmond."
Until his retirement from the Senate in 2002, Thurmond was a frequent critic of the Clinton administration, who played a leading role in the 1998 impeachment drama - though there's no known connection to the decision to wiretap the South Carolina conservative.
During the same program, however, Kroft consulted with Mike Frost, who worked for Canada's version of the NSA for 20-years.
Asked if it was commonplace for the NSA to monitor the phone calls of top U.S. politicians, Frost told CBS: "Of course it goes on. Been going on for years. Of course it goes on. That's the way it works."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/6/111205.shtml
Kansas City and St. Louis come to mind. That and the fact there is at least one Al-Qaeda cell operating in Kansas.
Correction:
It is unreasonable if these accountability measures are violated or government employees violate to their oath to preserve and defend the Constitution.
I don't see anyone right now. Maybe Norm Coleman of Minnesota. Grassley, Lugar, Bond, etc are just putting in their time. Sad.
Yep. Technically, there was no "wiretap." It is "eavesdropping."
What gives the civil liberty-types diaper rash is that the voice recognition software used in "sweeping" the key words in phone calls might have overheard a sentence or two from two domestics talking about Momma's biscuit recipe. Of course, the NSA is not interested in Momma's biscuit recipe, and dropped the call immediately, but the constamatooshinalists think protecting Momma's biscuit recipe by making the executive branch jump through judicial hoops is the highest priority versus raising the odds that an al-Qaeda call might be intercepted and thereby protecting thousands of lives.
Again, nice you have feelings. Sorry your feelings are completely irrelevant. Please do us the courtesy of NOT stating emotive opinions as statements of fact. Your Opinions ARE NOT legal fact. They are NOTHING but your own partisan opinions. Just because YOU feel that is what law means is totally irreverent. You are not a Judge. Your legal opinions are meaningless. Sorry we are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. You do NOT get to vote on this, and if we DID, your opinions would STILL lose. You are irrelevant, learn to live with it.
"I do not agree ... that when the Congress gave the authorization to go to war that that gives sufficient legal basis for the surveillance," ... if the justification holds up, "you're going to have real trouble having future Congresses giving approval to presidents to go to war."
In other words, he's saying that if Congress perceives a president as stretching a resolution too far, it'll change Congress attitude about crafting and granting them. He's basically saying that he didn't have "extension of FISA" in mind when he signed on to the AUMF.
Brownback said he wasn't opposed to the administration conducting surveillance but that the legal basis had to be straightened out.
Is this an "off the reservation" attitude? The premise (which we don't have precise facts to gauge) was "Bush has confirmed that he approved allowing the National Security Agency to monitor Americans without seeking warrants."
Good gad. Really? Paging Nurse Ratched...
Oh, Senator....
My, what a leap. Where did you draw that conclusion from?
An "Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched" clearly identifies that the person is in a state of insurrection.
Is this statement irrelevant?
"Brownback said he wasn't opposed to the administration conducting surveillance but that the legal basis had to be straightened out. "
That's a key point.
Because that is essentially the justification you raise.
"Sorry we are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. "
Apology accepted.
I know Sam personally. He's a conservative, and not a RINO. Recently he has been moving to the center in public for political purposes, but he remains the conservative as always. The one area of concern I have is his position on immigration, and I have ripped him unmercifully on this point.
When did Bush exclusively wiretap Americans and use the IRS to intimidate foes?
These NSA measures were conducted within a very narrow range of criteria.
It is simply to ludicrous to insist that a judge sit in judgment of the president of the United States in matters of national security. That's what FISA does, and that's what, IMO, makes it unconstitutional.
Sounds pretty clear and straightforward to me too.
The FISA judges are concerned that a warrantless wiretap might be the sole basis for "probable cause" that justifies a warrant, which would amount to bootstrapping an possibly unconstitutional surveillance into a constitutional one. It's a valid concern, given SCOTUS precedent (See e.g., "Kieth").
The judges don't want perps going free on a technicality, and they also don't want to put their imprimatur on a process that violates the Constitution.
The solution is to get Congress on board with a stiffer surveillance law. That way, "we the people" will have signed up for the intrusion. Comparisons to WWII are approrpiate, I think. The powers granted by Congress there were sweeping, and included censoring of mail, etc.
Plese clarify. Do you believe the government has a right to use a geiger counter outside your home or mosque to detect radioactive materials? Do you consider that an "illegal search"?
Where did I say he did? Read what I posted, and paraphrase it in your own words. If that shows that you didn't get my point, I'll rephrase it for you.
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.