Skip to comments.Senator: Bush's spying raises concerns (Brownback-RINO?)
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 administrations 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 ...
He also backed Arlen.
Grrrrrr, you are right! These idiotic RINO'S and these no gut Republicans are going to be their own un-doing. When Dubya started pushing his agenda to the people via the television media, didn't his poll numbers go up? Don't they see that that's what most voters want? To show the Demonrats for what they really are, and to stand up for what is right regardless of what the "MEDIA" thinks about them?
The evidence suggests the President himself is (drumroll please) a RINO!
The paragraph that will be stunning to litigators and honorable federal judges (who, fortunately, constitute the vast majority of the bench) is the following:The above comment from the judges does not identify any particular case, not does it divulge any "alleged wrong." All it shows is a concern that some wiretapping may be found unconstitutional. The judges are expressing a legal principle, and the ramifications if the legal principle is not adhered to.
Some judges who spoke on the condition of anonymity yesterday said they want to know whether warrants they signed were tainted by the NSA program. Depending on the answers, the judges said they could demand some proof that wiretap applications were not improperly obtained. Defense attorneys could have a valid argument to suppress evidence against their clients, some judges said, if information about them was gained through warrantless eavesdropping that was not revealed to the defense.
First of all, judges speaking to the press regarding matters that may end up in litigation is always a major impropriety, regardless of what kind of matters are involved.
I'm not sure how McCarthy expects this to be construed. Is it a violation of ethics for a judge to discuss the contents of Gunther's "Constitutional Law," or the principles of Blackstone? After all, these expositions describe matters that have been in litigation in the past, and will be litigated in the future; at least in the general sense that there will always be balance of powers battles.
The boundaries of FISA and the boundaries between FISA and the Constitution (4th amendment, AUMF, etc.) can be discussed without impinging on the specific fact pattern in a pending case.
To find federal FISA court judges leaking to the Washington Post about an upcoming closed meeting with administration officials about the highest classified matters of national security in the middle of a war is simply shocking.
If the leak is, as you agree with McCarthy "shocking," and even "should be impeached," then your recourse is through Congress. A simple majority in the House is enough, under the Constitution, to impeach the vile leakers.
I'll be on the sidelines, laughing at the silliness of impeaching a judge for pronouncing general concern about having a respectable trail that indicates adherence to the Constitution.
"We are impeaching these judges because they want to know whether warrants they signed were tainted by the NSA program, and they disclosed that the administration was going to meet with them and share details, in private, to assuage their concerns." Bwahahahahahaha.
I'm no Clinton defender. I just think that saying "Clinton did it, so don't complain if Bush does" doesn't advance a defense of Bush's NSA program.
He certainly spends like one.
You are the one who wants them impeached. Show me what they aid that warrants it, and I may agree with you. I was ciriticising McCarty's article, and he offered a specific statement to support his opinion.
More evidence that you don't know what you are talking about.
Republican In Name Only.
NOT CONSERVATIVE IN NAME ONLY! Sheesh.
Call the President a RINO, which he clearly is not as he has aggressively worked to build the PARTY, and you display yourself as ignorant about the meaning of the term RINO.
There are, at most, nine Senators that are responsible about the WOT.
Compare the names of those that voted against McCain's Al Quida Bill of Rights, and voted against the Warner Amendment. Cross out the Liberals that voted against for obvious reasons. And you have the small total that actually deserve to be in the U.S. Senate. Brownback doesn't make the cut. Therefore no one should be surprised.
We, the public, need to get all the RINOs we can OUT of office this coming Nov. What good is it to send a Republican to DC, if he is going to represent the RAT party? Might as well elect a RAT to start with. The only thing we get by having RINOs in DC is control of the chamber and majority chairmanship positions - but when it comes to voting we loose more than gain.
You have given us many reasons that you need to research the facts before contradicting them.
Sorry the fact that these people went from being members of, to enemies of, our society is so utterly difficult for you in the closet Democrats to grasp. Just because YOU say something "is illegal" does not make it so. Guess you are just practising the old Commie tactic of screaming a lie over and over and over in the hope SOMEONE will believe your lie true?
Now you are not only dealing with unfounded opinions, you are stating outright falsehoods.
"YOU do not have any standing in the matter."
USC Amendment 1 says otherwise
"YOU personally object to our defending ourselves!"
This is false.
"Sorry the fact that these people went from being members of, to enemies of, our society is so utterly difficult for you in the closet Democrats to grasp."
I am neither a Democrat nor "in the closet Democrats."
"Guess you are just practising the old Commie tactic of screaming a lie over and over and over in the hope SOMEONE will believe your lie true?"
The answer to that is no.
Now, what does this have to do with response #4 to which you are supposedly replying?
This has never been a 4th amendment issue, but a national security issue. The courts have consistently supported the President's right to collect intelligence for national security purposes without a warrant. The only time a warrant is required is if a criminal prosecution is the goal. The FISA court was set up as a mechanism to allow information gathered through intelligence resources to be shared with law enforcment by setting up a "secure" method of obtaining a warrant.
Are you volunteering American rights to Al Qaeda ?
No. Why do you ask?
I think Brownback is trying to determine if any Fourth Amendment issues were violated. If he is then he's on the right track.
Is that "Bad Man" in that you agree or disagree?
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.