"there is an exception to that - if the citizen is functioning as an enemy agent. But if any of these citizens were not enemy agents then there would be a problem . But we will never know because they can't release the intelligence. It's more of an election issue than anything else"
NO. There are no "exceptions" to the Bill of Rights just because the President says so. That's the whole purpose of a warrant, to provide a check on the executive by requiring some type of evidence that the "citizen is functioning as an enemy agent."
"NO. There are no "exceptions" to the Bill of Rights just because the President says so. That's the whole purpose of a warrant, to provide a check on the executive by requiring some type of evidence that the "citizen is functioning as an enemy agent."
Wiretapping is illegal under a specific Federal law, not the bill of rights. There is indeed an exception for enemy agents. But If any of the citizens was not an agent then it does appear to be illegal.
But then again, anybody who thinks international phone calls are private is is really misinformed to start with.
My concern in the current case is with Alberto Gonzalos' justification of the tapping - that the war powers act made it ok. That is absurd but following that logic then are all kinds of other laws that the President would no longer have to follow.
Oh boy. You just don't want to read the article still, do you?
Except "in time of war". Recall that FDR interned 110,000 Americans citizens of Japanese descent during WW II. Recall that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War.
Recall that, according to the Constitution itself, national security while in a state of war supersedes some elements of the Bill of Rights (e.g., 4th amendment).
"The United States Constitution is not a suicide pact", Abraham Lincoln, 1863.
None of the Constitutional amendments provides blanket protection, no ifs, ands, or buts. Please see the Kelo case, or CFR, as two obvious examples.
Welcome to FR, btw.