Senator: Bush's spying raises concerns (Brownback-RINO?)

Lawrence Journal-World ^ | December 24, 2005 | Scott Rothschild

[Cboldt]

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 4th amendment and national security are in tension. The term of art where the president has the most leeway for warrantless surveillance is not "national security purposes," but "Foreign intelligence information."

The only time a warrant is required is if a criminal prosecution is the goal.

There are exceptions to a requirement for a warrant there too, but in general I agree - there is tension between criminal prosecution and warrantless surveillance.

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.

I think the original function of FISA as a whole was to provide various degrees of oversight and separation "between" foreign intelligence and domestic law enforcement. The FISA review court's opinion in In Re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, 310 F.3d 717 (Foreign Int. Surv. Ct. Rev. 2002) provides a good history of how it sees the interplay between inherent powers of the executive, FISA statutes, and barriers to sharing information between various agents within the executive branch of government.

[F16Fighter]

"More evidence that you don't know what you are talking about. Republican In Name Only.

NOT CONSERVATIVE IN NAME ONLY! Sheesh."

Tell me why the President chooses weak do-nothing "leaders" in both Houses?? (Hastaert, Frist)...Coincidence?

Tell me why the President didn't veto CFR??

Tell me why despite 9/11 and opposition to illegal immigration he still ignores enforcing American sovereignty at the Mexican Border?

Tell me why he supported Arlen (Democrat in Sheep's clothing) Specter over Pat Toomey for Senator?? (That's the crucial Judiciary Chair position we're talking about.)

Tell me why the traditional Republican Platform based on conservative principle is being compromised by considering pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-gay "Republicans" like Guiliani for President??

"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."

"Build the Party"?? Into what?? A shell of it's former self? A safe haven for more RINOs who can't be trusted to do the right thing?? A House of Cards where he's got to look behind his back to see who's stabbing him?? A Party more intent on Party over Principle??

The President has SQUANDERED the bully-pulpit; not vetoed ONE POS legislation that's slid across his desk; and wasted Republican dominance of both Houses, thus blowing a mandate to stomp on years of liberalism run amok.

THAT's his legacy as a RINO President. Trying to be everything to everyone -- a compassion conservatism that accomplishes zippo for conservatism (the former Republicanism.)

[leadpenny]

I meant Bad as in 'funny and creative.'

[Mercat]

I do trust Bush with this power but Hillary? that's a different matter... remember her and her enemies list... basement of the Whitehouse, etc.

[inquest]

Now, what does this have to do with response #4 to which you are supposedly replying?

He's very fond of that number. As has been made perfectly obvious by now, it's his IQ.

[inquest]

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.

Although it's not exactly certain what the NSA was doing, I think it's generally acknowledged on all sides that FISA was bypassed.

[jla]

just know it has been violated in every war since our founding.

And even before. (see especially pg. 63, last paragraph)

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

Because he's running for President.

And this is supposed to help him? He has to get a nomination first.

[Prost1]

The rules of engagement with the enemy in Time of War are simple:

1.) Find the Enemy
2.) Kill the Enemy
3.) Capture the Enemy if he surrenders

There is nothing in the Rules of War or Engagement which impose the 4th Amendment.

[bad company]

What moron wrote this story?

“I do not agree with the legal basis on which they are basing their surveillance — that when the Congress gave the authorization to go to war that that gives sufficient legal basis for the surveillance,” he said.

This is what Brownback was talking about. He doesn't, at least in this article, have any reservations about the intercepts. He is disagreeing with some of the rationale that has been put out there to justify them. The authority for the NSA to perform those intercepts comes from existing law, not a use of force resolution.

[inquest]

From your text: Madison then gloated that the clergyman, "finding his protection not so much in the law as the favor of the people...."

So here Madison is freely acknowledging that he went outside the law. Far more honest than pretending the law sanctifies one's behavior.