Posted on 12/20/2005 11:40:16 AM PST by JustAnotherOkie
And while we're at it, let's have every document made public, and hold public hearings.
And maybe we should send a copy to Osama.
Meanwhile, the enemy is adjusting and adapting to our stupidity.
I hope they find who leaked the info and bring them up on charges.
And hung for treason.
Thanks Lady!
I tend to think of these clowns as cast more in the Lord Haw Haw mold.
(William Joyce, Lord Haw Haw, was born in Brooklyn, moved to England and there became a fascist, went to Germany, and broadcast propaganda for Hitler through the war. Seems to fit better.)
But I would like to see some substantiation for the claims made by the WSJ editors. I mean, the cat's out of the bag at this point...if they are going to claim judicial oversight for the program up to this point, than prove it. And they won't have to expose any more state secrets to do so, either. At least it'll help to get the idiot lib-tards off W's back so he can go back to doing his job (e.g. protecting the country).
Press Briefing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael Hayden (NSA)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1544183/posts
I only know that because I read it on the internet recently - I think it was on Rush's site.
They're still trying to operate under the assumption they have control of information to the public! ROTFLMAO!
My, aren't we optimistic tonight?!! LOL!
Check out this from Mark Levin at NRO's The Corner:
I am curious about something. Jay Rockefeller has released a letter in which he complains about the NSA program on which he'd been briefed. He said the July 17, 2003 letter had been sealed and secured in the offices of the Senate Intelligence Committee. So, he goes to great lengths concealing his views for to voice them might reveal classified information. In his letter he expresses frustration that he can't even consult with staff or counsel, and he can't draw on independent legal or technical expertise. Dianne Feinstein said last night that she has not discussed this matter with Rockefeller because she's not on the Senate Intelligence Committee and it would be inappropriate for her to do so. Fine so far. But if Rockefeller went to such lengths to conceal his views, and if even Feinstein (a fellow senator) insists that she can't discuss this with Rockefeller (presumably, then, Rockefeller can't discuss it with her and other colleagues who weren't briefed), then from where might the New York Times have reported this tidbit in its original story:Lie detectors for everyone! Bush CAN NOT let this leak go unadressed. It's gotten out of hand and he's got to get a lasso on the bureaucracy."According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee ..."I can't imagine this trail would be difficult for leak investigators to follow. Who knew that Rockefeller had reservations? Maybe they should start with, say, Rockefeller?
Every time I come home to the states from a trip overseas I am searched absent a warrant at the border and on US Territory. For the record, I'm a citizen.
This is not something new. I'm 54 and well traveled as they say.:-}
Torie, is there some legal theory that covers warrantless searches at the border that could be applies to electronic searches at that same border absent a warrant? Evidently there are no 4th Amendment problems since this has been going on for as long as I've been traveling.
"In 1861, during the Civil War, Congress adjourned sine die. That term means forever, never to return. The Republic was under Martial Law and President Lincoln appointed representatives for the southern states and forced the legislature to again sit. The 13th Article of Amendment pertaining to Nobility was removed from the Constitution and replaced with a new Article of Amendment that prohibited slavery. That Article was ratified on December 6, 1865. In 1868 the rump legislature incorporated the District as a private municipal corporation. The charter was revised slightly in 1871. Following the incorporation of that government, the legislature adopted the 14th Amendment and promulgated a Civil Rights Act to give privileges to it's new inferior class of U.S. citizens. The results of these Acts were the end of the Republic and the beginning of the Democracy - and they were Constitutional for the Federal Zone They changed the form of our government. The 14th Amendnt made U.S. citizens? out of American Citizens and also made them subject to the legislature. A government of 'we, for, and of the people' came to an end. The corporate Democracy has its own Constitution (Constitution of the United States}. The Articles of Amendments from 12 upward are of the Democracy and not the Republic. The Organic Constitution only had 12 Amendments and the Democracy has added many. Now we have two United States with different Constitutions."
Come again?
Here the seizure of respondent took place at the international border. Since the founding of our Republic, Congress has granted the Executive plenary authority to conduct routine searches and seizures at the border, without probable cause or a warrant, in order to regulate the collection of duties and to prevent the introduction of contraband into this country. See United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616 -617 (1977), citing Act of July 31, 1789, ch. 5, 1 Stat. 29. This Court has long recognized Congress' power to police entrants at the border. See Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 623 (1886). As we stated recently:
"`Import restrictions and searches of persons or packages at the national border rest on different considerations and different rules of constitutional law from domestic regulations. The Constitution gives Congress broad comprehensive powers "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations," Art. I, 8, cl. 3. Historically such broad powers have been necessary to prevent smuggling and to prevent prohibited articles from [473 U.S. 531, 538] entry.'" Ramsey, supra, at 618-619, quoting United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Film, 413 U.S. 123, 125 (1973).Consistently, therefore, with Congress' power to protect the Nation by stopping and examining persons entering this country, the Fourth Amendment's balance of reasonableness is qualitatively different at the international border than in the interior. Routine searches of the persons and effects of entrants are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or warrant, and first-class mail may be opened without a warrant on less than probable cause, Ramsey, supra. Automotive travelers may be stopped at fixed checkpoints near the border without individualized suspicion even if the stop is based largely on ethnicity, United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 562 -563 (1976), and boats on inland waters with ready access to the sea may be hailed and boarded with no suspicion whatever. United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, supra.
I guess the government has a right to search to control what enters the country. The electronic "searches" are not at the border, unless you are referring to something I missed.
I think what makes searches legal at the border is that you're told that you have to submit to a search as a condition for entry. For the analogy to apply to telecommunications, I would imagine that there would have to be some notification of the party making the incoming call that the call may not proceed until he agrees to allow monitoring of the call.
As an addendum, I think it comes down to an expectation of privacy thingie. One has no expectation of privacy at borders.
So if I drive up to the border, and they want to search my car, I can say, well I changed my mind, and do not desire to enter at this time, eh? Cool. :)
From the case quoted at #74, United States vs Montoya de Hernandez:
"During those 16 hours she was given the option of returning to Colombia on the next available flight, agreeing to an x ray, or remaining in detention until she produced a monitored bowel movement."
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.