Posted on 01/18/2006 8:10:29 AM PST by Perlstein
Now what that has to do with what we were talking about, only you know.
A little light in the loafers......yes.
Yeah.
AH.
So Gitmo itself is legal.
Now, what about the wiretaps?
Intel gathered from wiretaps?
Intel gathered from listening to UNDECLARED combatants?
According to the article I referred you to earlier, the administration has acknowledged that it has bypassed FISA, which makes its actions illegal. The post-9/11 AOF doesn't negate FISA.
FISA only applies if the people beig looked at are US citizens.
Doesn't apply to foreign undeclared combatants.
Besides, it's been acknowledged that FISA was bypassed, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
I'm pretty sure that what you are saying here, is the same thing Lindsey Graham was implying during the Alito hearings.
By both its bare language as well as intent, the Fourth Amendment is not a guarantee to be fee from "warrantless" searches and seizures, only "unreasonable" searches and seizures. While the courts have held that almost always that means a warrant is required, their are constitutional exceptions to that requirement and warrantless foreign intelligence intercepts are one those exceptions. You do not have an unimpeded right to communicate with foreign terrorists.
"However, because of the President's constitutional duty to act for the United States in the field of foreign relations, and his inherent power to protect national security in the context of foreign affairs, we reaffirm what we held in United States v. Clay, supra, that the President may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence."
|
"We agree with the district court that the Executive Branch need not always obtain a warrant for foreign intelligence surveillance."
|
"Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment."
|
"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent [constitutional] authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."
|
"We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the Presidents constitutional power."
|
:-)
I am outtahere.
Have you read about Russell Tice - the guy from the NSA who is wants to testify to Congress about domestic surveillance? I saw just a few minutes of him on tv last week, and read a brief article that had a letter from him to Congress, but don't know much else. He is apparently one of the sources for the NY Times article.
I tend to agree with you and have always heard that the NSA folks are very honest and well trained on what's legal and what's not. The thing is, are these leakers/whistleblowers from the NSA?
I'm in the technology field and the one thing that always made me feel somewhat safe from "eavesdropping" is the sheer volume of calls and internet messages that are out there at any given moment, and the fact that that volume grows every day.
These are goonies -- all.
Don't look now, but the last post was from me, and I'm awaiting his response. I'd quote you the number, but I know how much you hate that, so you'll just have to take my word for it.
My gut feeling on Tice is that he is a former disgruntled employee with an Axe to grind. He tried and couldn't destroy a fellow analyst's career within the DIA, who was probably innocent, and he had a meltdown.
Whistle blowers have avenues within the NSA and DOD that will protect them. His Whistle blower story is pure crap. I doubt he tried to use the IG/Complaint channels within the agencies at all.
I wouldn't trust him when it came to being discrete with vital information. He is likely one of the leaker's and probably a facilitator for the person who leaked most of the story to the NY Times.
Since he turned his coat, Bob Barr can be called a lot of things but I do not believe that coservative is one of them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/28/AR2005122801588.html?sub=new
The Fast Rise and Steep Fall of Jack Abramoff
How a Well-Connected Lobbyist Became the Center of a Far-Reaching Corruption Scandal
By Susan Schmidt and James V. Grimaldi
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, December 29, 2005; Page A01
A quarter of a century ago, Abramoff and anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist were fellow Young Turks of the Reagan revolution. They organized Massachusetts college campuses in the 1980 election -- Abramoff while he was an undergraduate at Brandeis and Norquist at Harvard Business School -- to help Ronald Reagan pull an upset in the state.
They moved to Washington, maneuvered to take over the College Republicans -- at the time a sleepy establishment organization -- and transformed it into a right-wing activist group. They were joined by Ralph Reed, an ambitious Georgian whose later Christian conversion would fuel his rise to national political prominence.
Soon they made headlines with such tactics as demolishing a mock Berlin Wall in Lafayette Park, where they also burned a Soviet leader in effigy. "We want to shock them," Abramoff told The Post at the time. - snip
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.