Posted on 02/07/2006 6:45:47 AM PST by dson7_ck1249
How do you get a warrant issued on an unknown person/number? From what HAS been leaked about the program (thank you NYT), only calls to or from a know or suspected AQ member overseas have been monitored. So if he calls a contact in the US that we aren't aware of, how do you get a warrant to monitor that conversation? We don't NEED one for the overseas AQ suspect/target.
"Pakistan"
I think he was using Pakistan as an example of a "terrorist country", if you'll pardon the crude phrase.
If he had done it against American phone conversations with known al Qaeda members, yes.
However, there also is a KEY difference between Clinton and Bush. Clinton demonstratably abused the process for political purposes - the FBI files being exhibit A. I have never seen any evidence of the Bush Admin doing such. Clinton poisoned the well early in his term regarding trusting him with such powers. Bush hasn't.
But I do think appropriate oversight of this process needs to be crafted to bring FISA into compliance with both separation of powers and with modern technology. Just to help make sure this cannot be abused.
Uh, my opinion on presidential power changed a few months later - at 9:03 AM EDT on Septebmer 11th, when the second tower was hit and it became clear we had been attacked by terrorists and were at war.
And what also subsequently became clear that Bush's predecessor never treated al Qaeda as a military problem but as a law enforcement problem. So with that viewpoint, he would be quite comfortable choosing to operate within the constraints of FISA.
And we also have seen just how ineffective the law-enforcement approach ended up being. Whereas Bush's military approach has chased al Qaeda to the corners of the globe. But they are still capable of calling from those remote regions to potential terror cells in this country. And they continually adapt their techniques to avoid survelliance, such as using prepaid cell phones.
Do you think it would be a wise use of antiterrorism resources to fill out FISA warrant applications for an endless stream of prepaid cell phones? Or should we sic the NSA survelliance apparatatus to run down plots discussed on those phones?
You're right, but the Constitution doesn't allow you to selectively enforce it. That's why our nation has survived this long. The rules apply to everyone.
Right now, it seems to me that the White House, and the Senate are talking past each other. The WH is saying, look you guys gave me the authority with the War Powers Act, and the Constitution gives me this authority. I also didn't bypass you, because I spoke to select members of the Senate.
The Senate (Democrats, anyways) seems to be saying "LIAR, ILLEGAL, IMPEACH HIM", yet no one has yet determined by any reasonable standard what is legal or not. From what I understand, the few times SCOTUS has decided any case even remotely like this one, they have decided on the side of the President (any President, not the current administration only).
I am also sick of the pandering on the left, screaming the illegality of an issue, that seems far from determined.
At a minimum, it seems to me (as a lay person), that even if in the end SCOTUS would determine this to be unconstitutional (which I doubt), they would also find that President Bush did use due diligence when determining his opinion, that he does have the Constitutional right to intercept communications with possible terror suspects.
Court decisions to date have tended to side with Bush's position here - that intelligence is an executive function and the Legislative has limited power to intrude on that function.
The key recourse for the Legislative would be to impeach and remove a president who abused these powers for political purposes - they have little say in regulating the use of the powers.
Clinton should have been impeached and removed for the FBI Files.
I have seen nothing, however, that shows Bush has abused his powers.
But the Constitution did not change.
Do you think it would be a wise use of antiterrorism resources to fill out FISA warrant applications for an endless stream of prepaid cell phones? Or should we sic the NSA survelliance apparatatus to run down plots discussed on those phones?
The CIA's been tracking cell phones with no problem. Bush just got lazy and decided the Fourth Amendment didn't apply to him, and Republicans would rather wipe their rear with the Constitution than bruise another Republican's ego by reminding him this is a nation of laws.
I'm sure there is, but that doesn't involve TV face time.
The Constitution does not allow Congress to pawn off its powers onto other branches.
The Constitution itself recognizes that things are different in wartime - habeas corpus, for example, can be suspended during times of war or insurrection. And long-standing and recent court decisions typically defer to executive powers in times of war.
The CIA's been tracking cell phones with no problem. Bush just got lazy and decided the Fourth Amendment didn't apply to him, and Republicans would rather wipe their rear with the Constitution than bruise another Republican's ego by reminding him this is a nation of laws.
Once again, it isn't about tracking cell phones. It's about getting to the content of the calls between terror groups and people in this country.
And I find your insinuation about using the Constitution as TP in this matter to be highly ignorant. The Constitutional considerations are far more complex than your simplistic concepts can begin to grasp.
And the courts have ruled that Congress also cannot regulate enumerated Executive Branch powers with FISA.
Nice Constitutional double standard there, from someone who says the Bush Admin has been using the Constitution as TP.
I see you and I and others see this one way while others see it differently.
Just in case you haven't already, check out,
http://donnyferguson.blogspot.com and you will see why
"NOCOUNTYINCOMETAX" doesn't like the Constitution as it is.
President Bush is saying he has the legal and Constitutional authority to use this program, Senate Dems are saying it's illegal. Since the President is not asking the Senate to make up a new law (which would be within their powers), it truly is the SCOTUS's job now. SCOTUS has the Constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution, Senate has the job of making the laws that they "think" are Constitutional. What am I missing? These hearings are not about making up a new law (although I am pretty sure that will be the end result), they are about finding out the Constitutionality of exsisting laws, and if the President within his rights.
What am I missing, or where you intentionally being snarky?
And where in Article II is the President granted the authority to spy on Americans without a warrant? Keep in mind that anything you grant to a Republican can also be used by a Democrat.
Just remember, all of you who demand (DEMAND!) the President be given the authority to spy on Americans when troops are engaged...
...someday there will be a Democrat in the White House, you know, the same Democrats who claim terrorists go to gun shows to get their weapons and manuals, and that gun owners need to be looked at too.
What a surprise (not). Thanks for the link.
I love the Constitution as it is, which is why I'm skeptical of a President who decides the Fourth Amendment is too troublesome to comply with and is expanding unconstitutional welfare spending faster than Clinton ever even proposed doing.
There are many court decisions regarding this. Maybe you should look them up so you can discuss this from an informed perspective. And I notice you completely sidestepped the wartime aspect of the discussion. I wonder why?
Keep in mind that anything you grant to a Republican can also be used by a Democrat.
I am quite aware of that. But that still does not change the fact that Congress has limited ability to intrude on executive powers. You want Congressional powers to be sacrosanct but have no problem curbing the executive. Quite frankly, Congress has done FAR more to infringe rights than the Executive.
Congress has a remedy - impeachment and removal of a president who abuses executive powers. But its legislative remedies are limited.
Yep, the same courts who once ruled black people were property and still say the same of the pre-born. I'll go with the original text before some liberal judge's interpretation of it. Quite frankly, Congress has done FAR more to infringe rights than the Executive.
You're right. If they had done this they'd be the one I'm dumping on. Our Constitution was written at a time when the threat of espionage, invasion and attacks on civilians was even greater than today, and our Founding Fathers didn't grant sweeping spy powers to the President.
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.