Posted on 01/07/2006 4:34:58 AM PST by balch3
An "Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched" clearly identifies that the person is in a state of insurrection.
Is this statement irrelevant?
"Brownback said he wasn't opposed to the administration conducting surveillance but that the legal basis had to be straightened out. "
That's a key point.
Because that is essentially the justification you raise.
"Sorry we are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. "
Apology accepted.
I know Sam personally. He's a conservative, and not a RINO. Recently he has been moving to the center in public for political purposes, but he remains the conservative as always. The one area of concern I have is his position on immigration, and I have ripped him unmercifully on this point.
When did Bush exclusively wiretap Americans and use the IRS to intimidate foes?
These NSA measures were conducted within a very narrow range of criteria.
It is simply to ludicrous to insist that a judge sit in judgment of the president of the United States in matters of national security. That's what FISA does, and that's what, IMO, makes it unconstitutional.
Sounds pretty clear and straightforward to me too.
The FISA judges are concerned that a warrantless wiretap might be the sole basis for "probable cause" that justifies a warrant, which would amount to bootstrapping an possibly unconstitutional surveillance into a constitutional one. It's a valid concern, given SCOTUS precedent (See e.g., "Kieth").
The judges don't want perps going free on a technicality, and they also don't want to put their imprimatur on a process that violates the Constitution.
The solution is to get Congress on board with a stiffer surveillance law. That way, "we the people" will have signed up for the intrusion. Comparisons to WWII are approrpiate, I think. The powers granted by Congress there were sweeping, and included censoring of mail, etc.
Plese clarify. Do you believe the government has a right to use a geiger counter outside your home or mosque to detect radioactive materials? Do you consider that an "illegal search"?
Where did I say he did? Read what I posted, and paraphrase it in your own words. If that shows that you didn't get my point, I'll rephrase it for you.
Where does the Constitution say that?
Let's say you're in a position to stop 9/11 by agressively spying on Al Qaeda prior to the attack.
Let's say you're aware that Al Qaeda has sleeper cells planted in the US. They send these people in here to live amongst us, to blend in, and then at some future point, to come together, board a series of passenger jets, highjack those flights, and use those jets full of people as bombs with which to attack America, killing thousands in the process.
You would choose to allow that to happen so as not to infringe on the scum's "civil rights," their right to plan an attack on America in private?
Disgusting.
Well said fellow Patriot!
LLS
More of the same from the lame senate BUMP!
It's crystal clear, to me, that you equated Bush's conduct with Clinton's, or did a new definition of "the same" spring up overnight?
Reporters have a way of asking questions designed to get the answer they are looking for. Then, they report it in ways that create a false impression. I seriously doubt Senator Brownback has this position, or will once he clarifies what he was talking about.
The key word in the 4th Amendment is "unreasonable." Is it unreasonalble to search for information concerning a possible terrorist sympathizer who is willing to kill Americans, even if that person is a US citizen? Just a thought.
My statement was in the form of a question. It was intended to illustrate that the poster's comment boiled down to "people should not be upset, see, for example, Clinton wiretapped Thurmond without a warrant, that's just the way it is."
My point was that the poster's example didn't help justify good conduct, because all it provided were examples of bad conduct.
You come short in reasoned debate because you don't bother to independently develop simple and minor substitution when the literally parsed statemtent is "off." A minor subsitution here (and I agree with it) would erase the entire faux issue from the debate. To wit ...
So, you are saying, since Clinton wiretapped Americans, used the IRS to intimidate political foes, etc., thatit'sit would be okay for President Bush to engage in the same conduct?
Typical shallow argument style, worked to an art form right here at Free Republic.
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.