Posted on 01/18/2006 8:10:29 AM PST by Perlstein
No I didn't ever agree to that, you made that up.....and as far as I am concerned, you're not worth the time, you're simply irrational.
See ya, don't bother posting, I won't answer, cause you're not worth the time.
Doesn't Congress have the power to declare / undeclare war?
Well, if congress was that bad, what are we to do?
It might be pretty to think that "The President took an oath to protect this country," but it's not factual or true.
Here's the oath the president took:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
"Irrational"? Yes. Irrationally posing questions that you are incapable of answering.
Yes, it's illegal to me if it is random. It is not illegal to me if it "reasonable". That is my criteria. That's why I gave the post Osama caller example. To show that there can be a reasonable cause even if tangental. Is it a fine line? Perhaps.
But the way you deal with a CIC who oversteps what is reasonable is to impeach him.
Yes and yes.
Looking to do another article on FReepers, eh?
I have my own copy of the Constitution, thank you.
You are just edging in the right direction. But you are still avoiding exactly what I'm asking you. I'm not talking about 'random'. I'm talking about being subject to surveillance by criteria that are far more broad that "calls to and from terrorists" or even "calls demonstrating a pattern of being connected to calls from terrorists." I'm talking about exactly the kind of '4 steps removed' things you said a minute ago were not okay.
So - NOT 'random' - Let's say '4 steps removed' since that's what you used earlier. Do you think it is 'reasonable' to conduct of warrantless wiretap of someone 4 steps removed? Illegal to do so?
Of course you are correct. But I want to see pissant's answer before I take the next step into where we differ.
The only thing worse than a Po is an Invasive Federal Po.
For example, if one assumes that a person being wiretapped is not an agent of a foreign power, huge chunks of the rationale fall completely apart.
You don't really believe that everyone who has been surveilled under this 'program' is an 'agent of a foreign power', do you?
I do not think 4 steps removed is legal to wiretap, warrant or not. And I can't see how they could get a warrant either.
Legal to look at their calling history to see if it has even more tangents to other shady numbers? Yes.
If that cursory check does not reveal any more reasonableness, then it is illegal in my mind and should be under the Justice Dept's governing code.
4 steps removed is awful close to random to me.
As noted on the NRO, The Corner, these are all Republicans, not conservatives, and have all been opposed to the war on terror on all levels. Bob Barr works for the ACLU, for Pete's sake.
Now, we come to where we likely disagree, and it is a point that neither of us knows. Do you believe that the NSA surveillance of US citizens includes only persons who call or are called by terrorists, or are suspiciously tied to them (like your pattern of calls after every Osama call)? Or do you believe it includes the type of '4 step-removed' people we've been discussing?
I disagree that this is awful.
I believe it may have been 10 steps removed right after 9-11. LOL.
Followed by the appropriate recalibration to what the President described in his press conference. I would and could not support a program that included the 4 steps removed standard.
Because - as is painfully obvious - I think those who believe that we are only tapping those "who call and are called by terrorists" (a) have no understanding of electronic eavesdropping and its power and (b) have no understanding of getting a FISA warrant. I believe we are obviously tapping people who fall well outside the 'call or be called' category, if for no other reason that we could snag a FISA warrant for such people if the person presenting the application was passed out drunk.
Now, you seem to be saying that you would find such '4-step removed' warrantless surveillance to be contrary to law. If it is revealed that such surveillance has been occurring - and not 'a couple of times by accident', but by design - would you think something needs to be done about it?
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.