Rove Defends Warrantless Surveillance

AP via The Guardian ^ | 08/24/2006 | Unknown

[oxcart]

TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) - Presidential adviser Karl Rove criticized a federal judge's order for an immediate end to the government's warrantless surveillance program, saying Wednesday such a program might have prevented the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Rove said the government should be free to listen if al-Qaida is calling someone within the U.S.

``Imagine if we could have done that before 9/11. It might have been a different outcome,'' he said.

[oxcart]

"About 50 protesters stood outside the country club where the fundraiser was held, some with signs that said ``Impeach Bush.''

[RustMartialis]

Well, there was nothing stopping them from doing it before 9/11, since nothing has been done to authorize it anyhow since 9/11. Either it's ok under Article II presidential powers (in which case they could have done it any time prior to 9/11), or it's not (in which case they're breaking the law).

--R.

[Thickman]

Instead of hiring silly cartoon character-types to follow dumbocrat candidates around on their campaign trails, the Pubbies should contract with people to make sure that "Impeach Bush" signs are everywhere and seen on every newscast and in every newspaper until November.

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

Rove Defends Warrantless Surveillance-AP

AP Fires Headline Writer-AP

Poor guy, didn't he know that the official MSM description for this is "The Bush Administration's Domestic Eavesdropping Program"?

[holden]

Hopefully, voting fence-sitters will realize how destructive such an ungrounded, senseless, vindictive act as putting for a process to impeach President Bush would be, and as a result throw critical votes toward Republicans just to keep such nonsense from hamstringing government for the next year.

Unfortunately, feminazis that feel fighting tooth-and-nail in their divorce proceedings kept them from becoming bag ladies and in the manner to which they'd grown accustomed, they convert the innocent and ignorant sisters and foment more sinister, family-destroying behaviors.

HF

[xcamel]

[Logical me]

Well, there was nothing stopping them from doing it before 9/11, since nothing has been done to authorize it anyhow since 9/11. Either it's ok under Article II presidential powers (in which case they could have done it any time prior to 9/11), or it's not (in which case they're breaking the law).

The wire tap provision has been in place for at least 25 years or more. This is the same provision that was extensively used for drug enforcement. It was even used during the Clintoon years. All evidence shows that this Administration was following the FISA guide lines and the appropriate Senate committee was informed. The failure was the road blocks between the federal agencies to share information that was the direct cause of 9/11, thanks to a few Democrats. What the RATS set up did not lead to any reason for the Bush Administration to change since the attacks in the US apparently seem not sever enough to detect the problem until 911 and the RATS were trying to get Bush. Things happen every day in the US and we sit on our a@@ until the crap hits the fan. Then everyone screams.

[NixterJ]

That's WARRANTLESS wiretaps. That's why this cartoon is a distortion. It's simply not reasonable to believe that an American judge does not want terrorists to be put under surveillance.
A simple question:
Some people trust this administration to do the right thing and not spy on political opponents (i.e. Democrats), but would those same people trust say a president Feingold or Clinton in the same situation. Doubtful.

[azhenfud]

Would it be okay to listen in on a few "discreet" conversations Rove has had and will have?





Didn't think so....

[Jacquerie]

The Beast and her tribe of marxists have proved they will do whatever it takes to win, the law is irrelevant.

In time of war I believe the President has the duty to data mine incoming calls from possible terrorists. To not do so would be a dereliction of his duty.

[Jacquerie]

BTW the 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, not all searches without a warrant. For instance, Scotus has found certain warrantless searches of homes by police to be reasonable. Somehow the whackjob detroit judge missed that part of the Constitution.

[Eagles Talon IV]

But we already KNOW the Clinton's illegally got 900 FBI files on their "enemies", don't we? We already KNOW the Clinton's sic'd the IRS on some of their "enemies", don't we? We already KNOW that a conversation by a Republican was taped, illegally by a Democrat in Fla. and turned over to the DNC for political purposes, don't we? To further show the trust worthiness of the Clinton's, billy boy sold secret missile technology to the Chinese against the wishes of the CIA, NSA, Pentagon, State Dept,and FBI. Because he could get NO ONE to sign off on the sale, which was to be made by his BIGGEST CAMPAIGN contributer, Bernie Schwartz, owner of LORAL SPACE, he had the authority for this transfer sent over to the Commerce Dept where he found some poor bastard to sign off on it.

BTW, when it all came out, LORAL SPACE had to pay a 14 MILLION dollar fine. The worst part is that the experts all agree that the technology billy boy allowed to be sold to the CHICOMS advanced their missile program from 15-25 years by increasing both the missiles accuracy and throw weight.

I noticed you are brand new here. Why not slink on back to the dark side with the rest of the DUmmies before you have no ass left to speak out of.

[NixterJ]

WARRANTLESS wiretapping is explicitly against the law. Does one abide by the law or not. It's that simple. And any sins that Clinton committed do not excuse lawbreaking by future government officials (or any citizen for that matter.) If the administration wants to look for terrorists in the phone system then it is REQUIRED by statute to get a warrant. FISA is the will of the people enacted by it's elected representatives in congress. The only people who break laws are by definition criminals. All of this begs the question: Why not get a warrant?

[half-cajun]

"WARRANTLESS wiretapping is explicitly against the law."

But that begs the question, doesn't it. I don't know if it's against the law or not, but even if a law was written that made it illegal, that does not mean the president doesn't have inherent constitutional powers to do it. In other words, Congress can not make something the President does illegal if he has the authority to do it under the Constitution. What we really needed in this case was a serious discussion of the balance between civil liberties and security. Unfortunately, all we got was a partisan hack throwing out bumber sticker statements.

[Dan(9698)]

WARRANTLESS wiretapping is explicitly against the law.

That is a false assertion. The FISA Court of Appeals stated that it is legal.

The ACLU asked the Supreme Court to review. They declined.

[federal]

You don't know know the first thing about intelligence gathering during a time of war.

My suggestion is to learn who has the Constitutional responsibility for gathering intelligence on a enemy, not only when they are located in a foreign country but when they are inside the USA.

Nothing you said is even relevant, I suspect you are just a troll.

[Tokra]

"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Clinton's Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testifing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994.

[Eagles Talon IV]

"WARRANTLESS wiretapping is explicitly against the law."

LOL, I see you still have your head firmly and apparently irretrievably inserted up your as*. Give me an example of this Administration indulging in warrant less DOMESTIC wiretapping. This time try to reroute the response so it doesn't come out of your butt, like this one did.