Posted on 01/15/2009 9:51:26 AM PST by fremont_steve
WASHINGTON — A federal intelligence court, in a rare public opinion, is expected to issue a major ruling validating the power of the president and Congress to wiretap international phone calls and intercept e-mail messages without a court order, even when Americans’ private communications may be involved, according to a person with knowledge of the opinion.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
This gives obama an “out”....now he can wiretap and say he is against it.
All you have to do is redefine “terrorist”, and voila!
Homeschooling Christian families & churches, etc, instantly “enemies of the state”.
That’s what we were telling the libs for years.
However, like I said, I dread that before long, “terrorist group” WILL be redefined to include everyone that opposes democrats.
The left were paranoid about that, with hardly 1/1000th of the reason that we should, indeed, be paranoid about it.
But I just heard last night on NPR that it not only is illegal, it’s unconstitutional and immoral and impacts women and minorities the hardest.
Unbelievable. After all the Bushitler crap, Bush was right on this AND he was right on the surge. Please point me to DUmmie thread as soon as they find out about this. It should be hilarious!
There should be restrictions on warrantless wiretapping, such as a restriction on only international calls.
I’d like to see the details, though. I’m fine with it being on terrorists and worded for that...but I don’t want it to be blanketed.
Well, already Obama’s regime is happily being endorsed.
I hope they’re the first ones to get the brunt of it.
Do you think the Obama administration should be able to tap your phones without a warrant just to make sure there isn't anything untoward going on that would justify further investigation?
What about the power of arrest and interrogation? Should the Obama administration be able grab anyone off the street and question them without probable cause or an arrest warrant just to make sure that there isn't any threat of terrorism?
Yes, this power must be used very carefully and be constantly reviewed for abuses. Any individual abusing it needs to go to prison.
You’re not following the discussion, are you?
Why is that such a difficult concept for so many people to understand?!?
Calling it "Domestic Spying" was one of the most dishonest uses of rhetoric ever. The media consistently used it and let politicians get away with using it unchallenged. The program's owner pointed out he had never gotten on a "domestic" flight and arrived in Pakistan or Afghanistan. It's like calling milk an "alcoholic beverage" so you can restrict its sales to minors.
From all of the reading I’ve done, there are precisely these kinds of restrictions in place now. In a summary, I believe I heard on Rush, they only monitor calls to and from certain regions of the world and international calls to and from certain suspects within the US. This is more restrictive than merely all international calls. So libtards in US calling their libtard friends in the US are not monitored (and neither are the rest of us), and libtards in the US calling their libtard friends in Bolivia are not monitored either (well, perhaps by the DEA maybe).
From their perspective power is routinely abused for selfish ends; be it cooking up crooked deals or directing the NSA to listen in on them.
So an appellate court upholds what was Bush policy, denounced by the Left and printed all over the NYT. Do you think Sgt. Schultz is going to have his ACLU pals take it to the SCOTUS? Heck no, they’ve been blessed by the decision and can use it “Clinton”style and have an out. Now that it is BHO ‘s tool rather than Bush’s policy, the rancor will evaporate.
I’ve followed it well enough to see that you seem to have no problem giving the government an effectively unchecked power of surveillance over citizens—I was merely curious how consistently you were willing to apply that principle.
Can you answer my previous questions?
"... A federal intelligence court, in a rare public opinion, is expected to issue a major ruling"
Federal Intelligence Court?
Um, what?
Someone better hip me to the jive in this new Federal lingo, because I have never heard of 'Federal Intelligence Court' before. Sounds like something you don't want to get dragged in front of. What's this all about? Is this something I missed in the Patriot Act?
No, because they don’t apply to the issue at hand.
This is surveillance of FOREIGN terrorists and suspected terrorists on foreign soil. If they are talking with people in the U. S., then those people are monitored during those communications at the same time.
If those communications lead intelligence officers to believe U. S. citizens are involved in terrorism, then they can apply for a warrant for further surveillance, with one caveat: if the evidence from the surveillance indicates that an event is being put into motion that is likely to happen sooner than the time is would take to get a warrant from a FISA judge, then intelligence officers can gather and act on the evidence and pursue a warrant separately.
At least, that was the law during much of Bush’s presidency.
There is no authorization in any FISA regulations for surveillance of U. S. citizens separate from those specific circumstances.
So, stop the drama. It ain’t happening.
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.