Skip to comments.
President Bush Takes Questions on Secret Wiretaps
CNSN News.com ^
| December 19, 2005
| Susan Jones
Posted on 12/19/2005 10:30:55 AM PST by yoe
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 last
To: lugsoul
Wow. How did you get all that?
#1. The president said today they have applied for warrants through the FISA Act. Many times.
#2. He was quite clear that only people associating with AQ were targeted.
And let's not forget that Congress voted on this matter:
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004: Lone Wolf Amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
41
posted on
12/19/2005 2:30:25 PM PST
by
Peach
(The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
To: sissyjane
Napolitano is wacky if you ask me, but I'm a bit surprised by Jonathan Turley. I thought he was smarter than he currently appears.They both surprise me, to be quite honest. They both make a living on this legalese stuff. I Googled "wiretap 72 hours" and came up with lots of reading material.
To: Peach; lugsoul
To: Peach
#1 - I'm not talking about getting FISA warrants. That is obviously legal. I'm talking about deciding that he has the power to decide that he just doesn't need FISA warrants if he doesn't want to get them. That is obviously not. To anyone that has any familiarity with statutory rules of construction, anyway. #2 - I don't care what they say they are doing in an attempt to make it sound benign. If there is no one to review and verify that statement, it means nothing. When the VP says that Congressional Dims consort with AQ by making Murtha-esque comments, what the hell does 'associating with Al Qaeda' mean? Hell, I saw the President himself, holding hands with Al Qaeda down on the ranch. And I'm pretty sure we recently sold a bunch of f-16s to Al Qaeda, too. The thing about these law things is that the enforcer doesn't get to decide for himself what they mean. Finally - and I'm a bit disturbed by your duplicity on this one, Peach - you know good and well that the Lone Wolf Amendment applies only to non-US persons. On its face. Plainly and clearly. I'll say this loud: THERE IS NO LEGAL WIRETAPPING OF US CITIZENS WITHOUT A WARRANT UNDER FISA. None. It ain't there. And if the Administration 'program' has eavesdropped on communications of citizens or permanent residents, they have violated the law. Purposely. And have plainly stated their intent to continue doing so. They swore an oath to defend the Constitution. And there ain't no '9/11 exception' in the Constitution until the people, through their duly elected representatives, put one there - one that they are comfortable will not be abused by this President or any future one.
44
posted on
12/19/2005 2:43:44 PM PST
by
lugsoul
("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
To: BigSkyFreeper
The Lone Wolf Amendment does not apply to US Citizens or permanent residents. On its face. Period.
45
posted on
12/19/2005 2:44:33 PM PST
by
lugsoul
("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
To: lugsoul; Peach
THEY ARE NOT "SECRET WIRETAPS".
What the heck? Why are you buyng into the lies of the liberals to you via the liberal media????
To: sissyjane
"judge" is an idiot libertarian who is spooked when someone says anything having to do with intelligence.
To: lugsoul
The Lone Wolf Amendment does not apply to US Citizens or permanent residents. On its face. Period.Generally speaking no, specifically yes.
To: BigSkyFreeper
49
posted on
12/19/2005 3:47:24 PM PST
by
Peach
(The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
To: Peach
Yep, even though Russ Feingold is saying what President Bush is doing is, in his words, "illegal", even though it was Russ Feingold who voted for it.
To: bobsunshine
Be careful with that link:
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
To: MissMillie
Thanks for the heads-up. Here are my thoughts.
1. If the person is not a US person, which includes persons with temporary visas, then the NSA is within the law.
2. If the person is a US person but "provides material support" to a terrorist group, per the definitions in 1801(b), they are an "agent of a foreign power" and no longer a US person.
That's my logic. I'm sure there are other points regarding the 4th Amendment and the War Powers act.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson