Skip to comments.Leading Conservatives Call for Extensive Hearings on NSA Surveillance; Checks on Invasive Federal Po
Posted on 01/18/2006 8:10:29 AM PST by Perlstein
click here to read article
Of course, back in those days, anyone who said anything about Echelon was a "conspiracy kook". Only now that Bush has done the same thing has it become acceptable to talk about it, and only when using it to defend Bush.
By the time you read it, it will be waaay down on the blog. Scroll down until you find it.
You agree that, in order to tap the phones of US citizens who are NOT making or receiving calls to/from known terrorists and who do NOT have some "serious indicator that you belong to Al Qaeda" (your phrase), the US Government MUST obtain a warrant.
AND you agree that electronically monitoring, without a warrant, the phone calls of US citizens who do NOT fall within this category is ILLEGAL.
Is this correct?
Leading Conservatives? More like fruitcake hasbeens.
As long as there are Islamofascists with enough power and will to do another 9/11.
By the way, there were four other conservatives mentioned in the article: Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR); David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation; and Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. Feel free to impeach their credentials.
Just another way of saying forever. Perpetual peace through perpetual war.
If they want to monitor your calls for other reasons, namely they think you might be a criminal, then a court order is necessary.
Only if it has to do with national security would I condone warrantless taps. And then only when they have a reasonable cause, as determined by the CIC's orders.
That's pretty silly. Do you actually believe these people don't exist, and that we're in a pretend, manufactured war ala 1984? I want a real answer please.
"if it has to do with national security" is pretty broad. As is "reasonable cause as determined by the CIC's orders".
You may not be saying what I think you are saying, so I'm just going to ask:
If the Federal government wants to wiretap a US citizen who has not made phone calls to or from terrorists and does not have any "serious indicator of belonging to Al Qaeda", on the basis that the tap 'has to do with national security' based on reasonable cause determined solely by the President, are they required to seek and obtain a warrant?
I didn't think that was really what you are saying, because this would mean the government can tap anyone it wants to simply on the President's say-so, but I wanted to be sure.
Arianna Barr... nuff said!
2) I believe that the existence of people who want to harm us does not equate to a state of war. Even people with the intent to harm us does not equate to a state of war. War requires an enemy. An enemy must be definable. And, by its very nature, the enemy must not only have the intent to harm us, it must have the capability to do so and make efforts to do so. Them hating us and wanting to kill us does not create a 'war.'
If we define war your way, there is no such thing as war. We have always been at war, and will always be at war.
'Simply on the President's say-so' would not meet the definition of 'national security.'
I've been reading a pretty good essay on the subject here.
Exactly as I said in my first post. Making your argument with me pointless. There is a definable enemy, and we are fighting it. As to how we end it, I wish I knew.....but sticking our heads up our rear ends like we did before 9/10 is no longer an option. It seems you want to go back to 9/10, and simply sweep them under the rug as before.
LOL. I'm not sure we are as far apart on this as it seems.
Yes. To a point. I'll try to be clear. The President has the constitutional duty as commander and chief to protect this country from enemies both domestic and foreign. During wartime, it is not only acceptable, but required, that he make the determinations to fulfill that duty. And therefore, the president does have the authority to act on "reasonable" cause of threat to wiretap, have you followed or any other type of surveillance.
If the President decides that you buying a gun at Walmart or going to a eating at a Lebanese diner constitutes a reasonable "national security" threat, then he would need to be impeached, and fast.
The word Reasonable is not defined in the constitution. Neither are High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Therefore, it is up to the people and their elected representatives to determine if a president oversteps his authority. Some think he has already. I am not one.
If that decision is reviewable by no one, it effectively would.
Bob Barr is an idiot.
The check on Presidential power is always the Congress through the vehicle of impeachment. An abuse of Article II power would definitely be an impeachable offense.
Then please define it. All I've heard is that we are at war with a tactic. I guess that could be interpreted to mean that we are at war with those who most frequently use that tactic. Though I would think it would need to be used against us for us to be 'at war.'
Since I agreed to your request, please follow suit: be specific. 'Islamofascists' won't really cut it. Do you think we are 'at war' with Hamas? That'd be a strange opinion to hold, since we aren't doing anything to conduct that war. Are we 'at war' with Saudi Arabia? Are we 'at war' with Pakistan? Both of those nations are controlled by 'Islamofascists.' Tell me - who is the 'definable enemy'?