GORE BLASTS BUSH FOR 'DANGEROUS BREACH' (Mr. Fun strikes again)

The Drudge Report ^ | Mon Jan 16 2006 12:40:14 ET | Drudge Report

[bray]

Was it Kindergarten Teacher Albore or Baptist Minister Gore? Either way I feel for the audience.

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters

[muawiyah]

They usually couch that in language that suggests we use deep introspection to figure out what it is we are doing that causes them to hate us so much.

It's still blame America stuff ~

[pillut48]

Maybe you are thinking of Lesley Gore, of
"It's my party and I'll cry if I want to..."

Whereas Al Gore's song is,
"It's my DNC party and I'll bloviate if I want to..."

[muawiyah]

The 4th Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Since when has AlQaida bothered with getting a warrant to mess with the people in this country?

BTW, you are "secure" against only UNREASONABLE searches, et al.

So, what's UNREASONABLE about chasing the enemy to ground in wartime?

I'd be more than happy to participate, gratis, and without even working as a government agent.

[muawiyah]

Now, regarding "liberties" that are given up, that hasn't happened. I do hope AlQaida and their running dog lackeys have given up their "liberties" and their lives as we defend ourselves against their attacks.

[muawiyah]

BTW, many find it quite reasonable for government owned STOP LIGHTS to be placed every now and then for the purpose of regulating people's travel rights.

Sometimes it's what you call something that makes all the difference.

[al_again]

There is nothing UNREASONABLE about chasing the enemy. There is something unreasonable (unconstitutional and against other passed laws as well) about monitoring my calls to foreign countries!

[muawiyah]

If the call you make is to an AlQaida agent, I'd off you myself in a second without involvement of the federal government (if that'd make you feel better about your privacy rights).

Deal?

[al_again]

BTW, many find it quite reasonable for government owned STOP LIGHTS to be placed every now and then for the purpose of regulating people's travel rights. Sometimes it's what you call something that makes all the difference.

You had a semi-reasonable, although incorrect, argument up to this point. However, this argument is patently ridiculous - there is nothing unconstitutional about stop lights.

Please - I think we all make good points but no need to wander into the absurd!

[al_again]

Now if only calls to known AlQaida agents were monitored, I'd be alright with the whole program. However, from what I understand, ALL international calls are monitored - this is unconstitutional and illegal.

[muawiyah]

What you "understand" and what I "understand" are speculation. No one has revealed everything. In any case, the "monitoring" is being done out of country. I think they were pointing to Mexico earlier today.

But, if you are really concerned about your privacy rights as you make or receive telephone calls to and from AlQaida agents and operatives, I really don't see the need for government involvement if there's a private option available.

It is available!

[harpu]

You're so full of crap fed to you by the media. Quote and source me the law, or whatever else you think gives you grounds for you claim. You can't - so don't waste the forum's time and bandwidth with BS that you CANNOT substantiate with FACT!

[skeptoid]

I,ve not gone farther than your post, but I must give your comment a hearty "amen". (and remember how close it was?)

[skeptoid]

And can you cite any 'controlling legal authority', a$$h@le?? (and I do mean ASS-HOLE)

[skeptoid]

And that's to Algore, not You. ... ....por favore...

[al_again]

You can't - so don't waste the forum's time and bandwidth with BS that you CANNOT substantiate with FACT!

I provided you the specific amendment number and the specific law. I'm sorry that this isn't specific enough for you. To further assist you - I've included a subsection of the specific law that defines what is allowable:

SEC. 105A.. [50 U.S.C. 403-5a] (a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE. - Subject to subsection (b), elements of the intelligence community may, upon the request of a United States law enforcement agency, collect information outside the United States about individuals who are not United States persons. Such elements may collect such information notwithstanding that the law enforcement agency intends to use the information collected for purposes of a law enforcement investigation or counterintelligence investigation.

Notice that it only gives authority where the persons are not United States persons and where it is outside the US.

Now, for more specificity, review the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that— (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at— (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or

You are free to agree or disagree with me - but I'm most certainly not full of BS.

[harpu]

So, as you claim in your post #14; "People need to realize that taking away liberties and disregarding existing law cannot be allowed.", you would gladly trade for [and concede] ANOTHER 9/11 to maintain your liberties and rights protected by existing law.

God Bless you...and may your wants and wishes go unheard!

[al_again]

you would gladly trade for [and concede] ANOTHER 9/11 to maintain your liberties and rights protected by existing law.

hmmm... I've reread my posts and I do not think I said anything of the sort.

Is it your position that the Executive Branch of the Federal Government has the right to disregard existing law in order to provide 'Protection'? If this is your position - think about it hard. What would Bill and Hillary do if they could disregard existing law whenever they felt it appropriate. The reason this nation is great is because we are a nation of laws. When the rule of law is disregarded, tyranny inevitably ensues.

[relee]

LoL.

[relee]

From what I have been able to put together, the government is monitoring all international calls for certain keywords...
...If this is true, I have to say that I agree - it is unconstitutional and needs to be stopped. There are very clear laws on the books to prevent this - it is not allowable without a warrant!

Would it be constitutional if the analysts were not Americans, and the analysis was provided to the US as foreign intelligence?