Posted on 12/22/2005 12:03:18 PM PST by hipaatwo
writes to the Senate about the eavesdropping frenzy.
It's a PDF file
I haven't seen that bipartisan report with the 30 new safeguards, pbrown, but maybe someone will come along and answer your question.
I'm right there with ya. AlQaeda really has nothing on the left.
Do these people, or do they not, swear allegiance to the United States of America?
No, they don't.
They swear allegiance to the Democratic National Committee.
I have had enough 'death threats' from the left.
Every POS on the left who opens their mouth puts my life and our troops' lives at risk.
I love it. Rope-a-dope...LOL
I should have backed up my previous post that some attorneys and judges support the president's authority to conduct the NSA program and so I looked quickly and just grabbed this:
John Schmidt, who served as an assistant attorney general during the Clinton administration, weighs in with a Chicago Tribune op-ed on the wiretapping kerfuffle: President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents
RATS don't get 6 months to trump up new issues such as a FISA hearing.
No, I'm not misinformed. What I stated is exactly what I've read. The program has monitored communications between two points within the US. They contend it was accidental.
Won't the left just pretend these are not surveillances of Al Queda suspects, but of "American citizens" the same way they pretended Valerie Plame was a covert agent?
'Good idea' is not the issue. Allowed under the United States Constitution and applicable statutory law is the issue.
As far as the 'lots of attorneys,' none of them are as smart as Posner. But, then again, perhaps no one alive is.
IMHO what Hill said, in my mind, was a threat.
It's Christmas, a time to believe, to make your list and check it twice.
Well, quite a few attoreys and judges have determined that it IS Constitutional.
Read 168 & 169... I'm having a deja' vu.
"As far as the 'lots of attorneys,' none of them are as smart as Posner. But, then again, perhaps no one alive is."
Here is the Posner piece and he flat out states these programs are no danger to our civil liberties. I suggest you actually read it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122001053_pf.html
Fun to watch self-described conservatives cozying up to activist interpretations of law.
I believe it to be true.
I was baking a spice cake but I'm back.
You keep saying that about conservatives, but I think it's a false argument. Conservatives are, from what I gather, far more concerned with terrorism and jihadists than democrats. And most of us recognize that an effective tool is to listen to their communications. Since those groups are notoriously difficult to infiltrate.
Hah.
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.