They are, as are you.
You may need a new keyboard. Your CAPS LOCK key may be broken.
This is a ch__ch. What's missing?
Posted on 01/18/2006 8:10:29 AM PST by Perlstein
Leading Conservatives Call for Extensive Hearings on NSA Surveillance; Checks on Invasive Federal Powers Essential
1/17/2006 6:36:00 PM
To: National Desk
Contact: Laura Brinker, 202-715-1540, for Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances, laura.brinker@dittus.com
WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances (PRCB) today called upon Congress to hold open, substantive oversight hearings examining the President's authorization of the National Security Agency (NSA) to violate domestic surveillance requirements outlined in the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, chairman of PRCB, was joined by fellow conservatives Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR); David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation and Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, in urging lawmakers to use NSA hearings to establish a solid foundation for restoring much needed constitutional checks and balances to intelligence law.
"When the Patriot Act was passed shortly after 9-11, the federal government was granted expanded access to Americans' private information," said Barr. "However, federal law still clearly states that intelligence agents must have a court order to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans on these shores. Yet the federal government overstepped the protections of the Constitution and the plain language of FISA to eavesdrop on Americans' private communication without any judicial checks and without proof that they are involved in terrorism."
The following can be attributed to PRCB members:
"I believe that our executive branch cannot continue to operate without the checks of the other branches. However, I stand behind the President in encouraging Congress to operate cautiously during the hearings so that sensitive government intelligence is not given to our enemies." -- Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO, Free Congress Foundation
"Public hearings on this issue are essential to addressing the serious concerns raised by alarming revelations of NSA electronic eavesdropping." -- Grover Norquist, president, Americans for Tax Reform
"The need to reform surveillance laws and practices adopted since 9/11 is more apparent now than ever. No one would deny the government the power it needs to protect us all, but when that power poses a threat to the basic rights that make our nation unique, its exercise must be carefully monitored by Congress and the courts. This is not a partisan issue; it is an issue of safeguarding the fundamental freedoms of all Americans so that future administrations do not interpret our laws in ways that pose constitutional concerns." -- David Keene, chairman, American Conservative Union
"If the law is not reformed, ordinary Americans' personal information could be swept into all-encompassing federal databases encroaching upon every aspect of their private lives. This is of particular concern to gun owners, whose rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment are currently being infringed upon under the Patriot Act's controversial record search provisions." -- Alan Gottlieb, founder, Second Amendment Foundation
Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances is an organization dedicated to protecting Americans' fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment and ensuring that all provisions of the Patriot Act are in line with the Constitution. For more information, visit the Web site at http://www.checksbalances.org.
http://www.usnewswire.com/
-0-
/© 2006 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
SOFT SALES FOR BOOK FROM NYT REPORTER WHO BROKE NSA/ EAVESDROPPING : ONLY 20,915 COPIES OF JAMES RISEN 'STATE OF WAR' HAVE SOLD SINCE MUCH BALLYHOOED RELEASE...
Yeah, 20,915 books were mostly likely purchased by the terrorists themselves! Nail the SOB'S *ss to the wall!!
Saddam did what you favor - wiretapped people in his own country without court permission. We can fight terrorists and still comply with FISA, and the constitution. FISA allows retroactive judicial approval. If Bush won't even seek that kind of permission, he's endangering our freedoms by creating dangerous precedents. It's sad that there are a lot of freepers, such as you, who care so little about the rule of law.
Bob Barr moved to Linder's district and ran agaist him best I remember.
It was not the Dems that lost the election for him.
Whoops. Sorry. Never mind.
But Barr won't be complaining when or if it happens anymore than the NY Times will be upset about past or future Clinton spying on their enemies, i.e., conservatives, right wingers, political enemies as defined by the Clintons, meaning any Republican, because Barr will not be drawing a paycheck anymore if he does. It's real simple even if many of you are unable to grasp the facts - the Clintons were doing this before the Patriot Act, before Bush was elected, and they will do it again if given the chance and to hell with the constitution or any law passed or not passed by congress because NONE OF IT APPLIES TO DEMOCRATS or in those immortal words of Al Gore, "There is no controlling legal authority."
apples and oranges
That is most definitely what is at issue. The calls originated from foreign shores and were placed by suspected (or known) terrorist. The only U.S. citizens whose calls were listened in on were individuals who were called by the terrorists.
"It's wiretaps on calls to or from the US."
That's news to me. Do you have a reliable source on that?
Please don't even bother pointing me to some article from the MSM or some wildly libertine website. I'd like a truly reliable source. Thanks.
http://www.hughhewitt.com/
Read all the links, then comment.
Posted by Justanobody to henry_thefirst
On News/Activism 01/09/2006 3:08:11 PM PST · 48 of 55
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-12-21-bush-spying-edit-yes_x.htm
In addition to constitutional authority, Congress has authorized the use of force in the Joint Resolution of Congress passed in the aftermath of 9/11. That resolution charged the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to "prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States." These wiretaps follow logically from this resolution.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703
...Feingold wants to be President, and that's fair enough.
But until you run nationwide and win, Senators, please stop stripping the Presidency of its Constitutional authority to defend America.
There is no evidence that these wiretaps violate the law. But there is lots of evidence that the Senators are "illegally" usurping Presidential power--and endangering the country in the process.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1545787/posts
ASST. ATTY. GEN'S. LETTER TO SENATE INTEL. COMM. -
Under Article II of the Constitution, including in his capacity as Commander in Chief, the President has the responsibility to protect the Nation from further attacks, and the Constitution gives him all necessary authority to fulfill that duty.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/05.html
With the invention of the microphone, the telephone, and the dictograph recorder, it became possible to ''eavesdrop'' with much greater secrecy and expediency. Inevitably, the use of electronic devices in law enforcement was challenged, and in 1928 the Court reviewed convictions obtained on the basis of evidence gained through taps on telephone wires ...
Starting with this: What if I don't? What if I don't call Zarqawi - or any other known terrorist - and they don't call me? Do you believe a warrant is required to tap my phone?
If not, what allows my phone to be tapped without a warrant?
Is it ILLEGAL to tap the phones of US citizens who are NOT making calls to or receiving calls from known terrorists without first obtaining a warrant?
They are, as are you.
You may need a new keyboard. Your CAPS LOCK key may be broken.
This is a ch__ch. What's missing?
So these people have joined forces with the likes of the spawn of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg.
Thanks. I'll have to read it later. Have work to do this morning.
Nor am I.
And I’m pretty astounded by the number of conservatives who are willing to surrender unlimited power to whoever happens to sit in the oval office for the duration of a possibly endless war (can you imagine a time when there is no one who wishes the US harm?)
My wife's desk is in the Sears Tower - now the tallest building in the country, and presumably short listed by possible terrorists – so I’ve though about this a lot. And my conclusion that in terms of what really matters long term ultimately she's safer there – at least as long as this is a country where there are judicial checks on the legal powers of the executive branch - than in a country where the Maximum Leader makes whatever rules she or she prefers as tribal War-Lord.
At the moment, it’s often hard to get this point across – some people are willing go to just about any length to avoid facing the question of possible abuse of such power.
But IMO when you see people such as Paul Weyrich being derided as liberal lap-dogs, you know the argument is off the rails - the problem with this sort of approach is that you have dismiss the opinions of ever larger numbers of thoughtful conservative commentators; if they are elected they are RINOs, if unelected, “who do they represent?”, if current members of government they are said to be “disloyal”, if they have left government service they are attacked as “traitors”, and so on.
Still, at the moment I’m in the minority, and can only hope that a majority of voters come to their senses before such power is vested in someone really inimical to our traditional freedoms.
Thanks, I agree 100%
a) If you are not calling enemies or vice versa, then there is no justification for tapping your phone.....UNLESS your name and info appears in said terroist's rolodex or some other serious indicator that you belong to Al Quaeda.
The bottom line is this. If the feds know the numbers of the terrorists, then they should be able to mine the incoming and outgoing calls from that #. And if you or I are calling or recieving from that #, I believe it is neither unjust nor unreasonable for the feds to monitor those calls. Just because typical domestic surveillance requires a court order, does not mean that atypical wartime overseas communications fall under court purvue.
The CIC has lotsa constitutional power to conduct war as he deems necessary. It has been that way since the founding of the Republic.
And what will the dems do if it turns out this stuff was started under Clinton? And with much less provocation?
How long does this 'time of war' last?
Bob Barr just spoke with Gore against this. "Conservative" yeah right!
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.