Posted on 12/19/2005 2:19:50 PM PST by YourAdHere
Gee it's nice to have someone point out about domestic vs international. However our friend Wyatt just can't figure out what it's all about. He should line up so the bad guys could certify him to be "Dead Right" as he protects his rights and is shot in the back of the head or perhaps has his head served to his loved ones on a platter!!
freeped
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
YES.
More spying please!
Put a secret camera rightup Michael moore's fat arse!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks for the visual, now I'm blind...
Votes Percentage of 3373 Votes
Yes 1767 52%
No 1606 48%
It is legal, and sensible, but I want it to be rare and thoroughly documented when it is done.
I wonder, though, why they don't have a judge sign off on a legal search warrant. I know that this NSA stuff is supposed to be super secret, but surely a trustworthy federal judge can be found somewhere in Washington.
It would been only by accident that you would have learned that it was only international call that were monitored.The MSM never mentioned it until much later, by accident no doubt.
Freeped.
I want spying and large fries please.
Another classic example that anything that can be said will be said no matter how non-sensical.
There were 19 terrorists on 911, who killed almost 3000 American residents.
Where were they? Were they in the US? If they were, the terrorism was domestic. QED.
Don't you just love imbeciles who go to college, maybe even to law school, learn latin words even, and have the common sense of an anvil?
Ding ding ding!! We have a winner. Thanks for a factual and informed response to the hysterics. Kneejerk reactions to logical investigative/intelligence tools are a diversion from the facts.
By now you should realize that Clinton could wage war, drop bombs, fight crime, commit crime, work with criminals, get paid by criminals and basically have citizens killed without any concern from the majority of journalists.
" If one side of the conversation was in the US, and the wiretap was in the US, then the taps were domestic."
The calls were instigated outside of the U.S. That is NOT domestic and if you can't understand the logic of this, compare it to a package delivered to me in Chicago from Germany. Is this a domestic delivery or an international one?
Yes 49%
No 51%
They said nothing and ran no polls when Clinton did the very same thing only worse.
Jurisdiction lies at both ends. If one person in the conversation is in Iran, and the other person is in Arizona, then the person in Arizona is domestic. Apparently you've got your bushbot blinders on as tight as they can go.
They used satellites (in space, it was in all the papers) or possibly taps into communications cables on the ocean floor (those cables are in international waters).
Whether it is satellite surveilance, a cable tap, a phone tap, a parabolic mic, or whatever, it is still classified as a wiretap. If you are listening in on a conversation, the conversation takes place in both places. You don't know squat. You are quite adept at mimicking the words of others, however. Kind of like a parrot.
He intended to extend it to completely domestic wiretaps.
Not the same thing. That was a military assault on the United States of America. If you can't distinguish between that and a phone call, you're even dumber than I think. That's pretty dumb.
Don't you just love imbeciles who go to college, maybe even to law school, learn latin words even, and have the common sense of an anvil?
Can't stand them, actually. Most of them are cheer leading this nonsense.
Found this little piece moments ago. Seems to apply .....
From:
http://www.slate.com/id/117041/
(snip) --
In time, Congress grew concerned about the FBI's power, and after Prohibition's repeal it outlawed all non-consensual wiretapping (but not bugging) as part of the 1934 Communications Act. In 1939, the Supreme Court upheld that law, ruling that since taps were illegal, evidence obtained from using them was inadmissible in court.
Even so, executive officials kept using wiretaps. In particular, Franklin Roosevelt sought to carve out a large exception to the statutory ban. In 1940, he wrote his attorney general, Robert Jackson, that while he accepted the court rulings that upheld the 1934 law, he didn't think those prohibitions applied to "grave matters involving the defense of the nation"—an increasingly high priority as world war loomed. On the contrary, Roosevelt ordered Jackson to proceed with the secret use of "listening devices" (taps or bugs) to monitor "persons suspected of subversive activities … including suspected spies."
Concerned about a German "fifth column" in the United States, Roosevelt specified that his order applied to espionage by foreign agents. But when Harry Truman succeeded FDR in 1945, America's enemies list was changing fast. The next year, as the Iron Curtain fell and the Red Scare flared, Truman's attorney general, Tom Clark, expanded FDR's national security order to permit the surveillance of "domestic subversives." Clark and Truman endorsed wiretapping whenever matters of "domestic security" were at stake, allowing taps to be placed on someone simply because he held radical views.
BEAUTIFUL, and a brilliant and very intelligent interviewer too!
;-)
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.