Posted on 12/19/2005 1:53:38 PM PST by Cinnamon
Holdek reminds me of the Dems screaming in 2000 about the law in Florida saying "The law says MAY!" when the law that applied said Shall.
He would never think to work at the NYT because he thinks wiretaping an "association" does not include wiretaping the people working for said association.
Hence, he couldn't work for the NYT, as it is a corporation, and obviously does things without the benefit of human employees, just like his contruct of a self-automated association.
Your rudeness aside....
You can post insults. I will post the law.
(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that--
NOW, READ THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY. IN ORDER FOR THIS TO WORK, A, B AND C HAVE TO BE OPERATIVE. OTHERWISE IT IS ILLEGAL:
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at--
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(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
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
The fact that you stayed while some serious posters respond to your viewpoint provided a good educational thread, unlike the ones which are taken over by hair-triggered wannabe gatekeepers.
You cannot wiretap an association without a court warrant unless:
(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;
If this subclause is satisfied, easedrop away. Otherwise, it is ILLEGAL.
Maybe.
Unless it suits their purpose.
You rignorance aside, you have repeatedly ignored laws cited to you.
You have repeatedly ignored facts, and history.
You also seem to have neglected this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1542415/posts
Gotta knee jerk defend trolls!
Your mother's calling you to go back inside.
Friend of yours?
Thank you. I've tried to keep my posts civil. And ultimately the legality of the President's actions will be decided in court, I believe.
Yeah we went to boot camp together, why?
How, quaint!
Is that the best you got?
Bullpucky junior.
You ignored law cited to you.
Some of the serious posters are first rate, but there's a group of vipers waiting for someone to post comments which don't toe their party line. As this thread proves a civil dialogue can be informative. Hang in there, 90% of the folks here are worth engaging.
You know the saying, Birds of a feather.............
Most Freepers can read. This one can't seem to. Just wondering about your reading skills on FISA.
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(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
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
(2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General’s certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. (This has been done) The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title.
(3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the court established under section 1803 (a) of this title a copy of his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless—
Well, teach, mail me your test. In case you missed the comment, I read the posts and disagreed with the guy. What is your basic problem, brainstorm?
And there's always inside agent provocateurs defending trolls any chance they get.
Like you did here:
"It was a post worth discussing. For my money, we have a hair trigger around here."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1542277/posts?page=232#232
You're agreeing with the troll, in essencec saying that FR censors.
"I guess some of you are not smart enough to take him on on the issues. Meooooooooooooow!"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1542277/posts?page=262#262
How can one 'take him on on issues' if the troll isn't given free reign?
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.