Posted on 12/19/2005 1:53:38 PM PST by Cinnamon
Namecalling? For what reason? Aren't you cute.
Stick around and you'll learn who's serious and there's a lot of information to be considered. It's a real education. There some real constitutional scholars.
§ 1801. Definitions ...(i) "United States person" means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.
Thank you.
You're welcome. It was a good story. :)
Yeah, I should stick to other forms of insults like questioning reading level. I can learn a lot from your subtelty.
Where is the cite that this wiretap was warrantless?
Holdek keep saying it was warrantless.
LOL...that's great.
Very first sentence of the article also says:
" The government spied on him and hundreds of other Americans without warrants. "
And correction, Holdek says it was illegal.
I asked how you read FISA. You come on the thread trashing people in defense of a troll. And then name call. I Ddid not call you names. I asked " Just wondering about your reading skills on FISA." The troll can't seem to read law.
I was trasshing the idiots who didn't realize there was a serious exchange going on. Why don't you spend some time correcting the people who critized your "troll" for leaving when he hadn't left.
How serious can the exchange be when the guy is purposefully ignoring law cited to him.
Yes, and this is the problem. I have no doubt that the Attorney General made the certifications. But if he said under oath that "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 there is proof otherwise (and there seems to be, according to sources at the New York Times) then that is illegal. If they are not doing anything illegal, they can just come out and say "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;" But if the New York Times is able to find out that hundres of American citizens have been spied on without a warrant, then there is cause for concern, and we'll need hearings (even if they are secret) by Congress to get to the bottom of this.
"Duh" on my part. Similar comment later on in the article too. Contemporaneous accounts of the bust refer to interception of communications, and the perp plead guilty, so the admissibility of this evidence was never tested.
Boy talk about no knowledge of the past, you're now really showing your ignorance....ck out the yrs of the 'toons' administration...we were all listened to/spied on by those thugs.
Don't worry about it.
There was the attack on that mall thwarted by eavesdropping, but I only found the article that says it was thwarted, but not how or why.
When adults are having a serious discussion one of the issues is to see how someone will respond when confronted with "evidence" and to watch the responses. An interested reader can also learn something by reading both sides. Either you are blessed with omniscience or you're just a disrupter. If it's the former, then be quiet while us lesser beings learn. If its the latter and you don't understand what was going on, then have fun with your cats and lightening bolts.
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.