Posted on 12/27/2005 10:47:23 AM PST by Pragmatic_View
The cops don't need a warrant if they believe a crime is in progress. If they come to your door without a warrant and you answer with blood on your hands, they will come in and a judge will say it was OK.
Moreover, even if a judge says the search wasn't OK, it just means that the evidence (and its fruit) cannot be accepted in court.
You're misreading the Constitution as badly as those who claim it has a "separation of Church and State."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512240002
The MediaMatters is a liberal organization, if you read the article to which you posted the link (I reposted it above), it's nothing but Bush bashing.
FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
Did he fail to fill out his 'DA-412/R.3 Official Declaration of War' memo as required by the Constitution? Wait a minute, what's the correct format, as required by the Constitution? It seems to have slipped my mind...
At any rate, an Authorization for the Use of Military Force is a de facto declaration of war. As someone who's been shot at under the auspices of such a document, I assure you that the paperwork isn't what makes a war a war.
You could make the arguement that we've spent the last 60 years not being at war, and somehow killed a lot of people in the process. I don't know that many people would find that terribly persuasive. Especially among the ones that got dead along the way.
I know that, sorry, I was posting what they are saying.
My fault, I should have clarified.
The Liberals are saying all that crap because all they have is words with no case laws to support their argument.
"The Fourth Amendment governs not only the seizure of tangible items but extends as well to the recording of oral statements."
From Katz v U.S.
As do I. The problem is that without oversight or reporting, we are taking their word for it.
The oversight, as reported in the press, apparently included select members of Congress. We can assume that they saw the reports from this program as well. Given their quiet responses so far, it's clear that they didn't think anything illegal was going on, and still don't. They do realize that it LOOKS bad, but they are politicians, and that's how they see the world.
Seriously, if this was illegal, why would Nancy Pelosi cover for the President? Why would Senator Rockefeller take part in such a crime, when exposing it would have made him a hero? And why, after all this time, has no one stepped up and called for this program to be stopped? Even the ones that have called for President Bush's impeachment haven't stood up and said, 'Cease this wiretapping immediately'. Why is that?
It sure looks like political opportunism to me. They know that the program isn't going to stop, but they think they can make the President look bad in the meantime. It's really no more complicated than that.
In Hamdi vs Rumsfeld the Supreme Court was quite clear that an AUMF is just a "nuanced" Declaration of War. It is the same thing. Tommy Daschle doesn't get a "Do over".
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;"
For anyone but a feeble minded Democrat, this should be enough to prove that back in 2002 Congress did not want to appear to interfere with the President's ability to thwart another terrorist attack on the U.S. The President successfully used the power of the Executive Branch, and no terrorist was able to penetrate our defenses, much to the chagrin of the Democrats.
At this point Moses himself could come down from Mount Suribachi with President Bush's presidential authority engraved in stone and the Democrats would still whine about it. In other words, this is just the Democrat's weekly whine, and the President is correct in ignoring them.
From Katz v U.S.
I have to study this further. I know police don't need a warrant when they find a crime in progress, because it is "reasonable" to stop the crime instead of running to the judge. By the same token, it seems that a warrant may not be needed for a "reasonable" search of Al Queda operatives if they are caught in the act of communicating enemy "signals."
Here is another good article making the point that what President Bush did was totally legal.
Unwarranted complaints
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/27/opinion/edcasey.php
Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, President George W. Bush ordered surveillance of international telephone communications by suspected members of Al Qaeda overseas, even if such calls also involved individuals within the United States. This program was adopted by direct presidential order and was subject to review every 45 days. Judicial warrants for this surveillance were neither sought nor obtained, although key members of Congress were evidently informed. The program's existence has now become public, and howls of outrage have ensued. But in fact, the only thing outrageous about this policy is the outrage itself.
The U.S. president has the constitutional authority to acquire foreign intelligence without a warrant or any other type of judicial blessing. The courts have acknowledged this authority, and numerous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have espoused the same view. The purpose here is not to detect crime, or to build criminal prosecutions - areas where the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements are applicable - but to identify and prevent armed attacks on American interests at home and abroad. The attempt, by Democrats and Republicans alike, to dismantle the president's core constitutional power in wartime is wrongheaded and should be vigorously resisted by the administration.
Always know what the opposition is saying and doing.
Here is a good rebuttal from the NY Post
WARRANT HYPOCRISY
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/60368.htm
Excerpt:
THOSE desperate to undercut a wartime president think they have a real "gotcha" moment with regard to President Bush's decision to allow the National Security Agency to monitor international communications without a warrant. Yet two past presidents allowed warrentless physical searches in domestic situations.
In 1993, the CIA did warrentless searches of the home and office of Aldrich H. Ames — who later pleaded guilty of spying for the old USSR. In 1994, reports the Washington Times, President Clinton authorized warrantless searches to fight crime in public housing projects.
In 1978, President Jimmy Carter's attorney general, Griffin Bell, testified about warrantless searches he and Carter had OK'd against two men suspected of spying for Vietnam.
"Even if Congress had intended to restrict the president's ability to obtain intelligence in such circumstances, it could not have constitutionally done so. The Constitution designates the president as commander in chief, and Congress can no more direct his exercise of that authority than he can direct Congress in the execution of its constitutional duties. As the FISA court itself noted in 2002, the president has "inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance."
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.