Posted on 02/07/2006 8:15:53 AM PST by CyberAnt
What a great pix! It looks like the Breck Girl is thinking, "If that SOB caresses my face one more time, I'll, I'll, I'll...hey, I may really become vice President. Gosh, what a great many John eff'n is."
Is that why Sens. Brownback, Graham, DeWine, and Spector also questioned the program?
Forcing these standards to fit the fluid foreign/domestic situations we face today is national-suicide.
" Is that why Sens. Brownback, Graham, DeWine, and Spector also questioned the program?"
Many of the Dems were calling the Pres and AG liars and law-breakers (in a prelude to the desire for Impeachment proceedings). The Repubs understood that the legality is open to debate and they were not looking to "get Bush" but seeing if there is a way to have Congressional input/oversight of the program (even though a bi-partisian group of 8 Congressional leaders where repeatedly briefed already).
In addtion, none of the Repubs referred to the leakers as "whisleblowers". There is an appropriate way to voice concerns (e.g. Inspector General) and going to the press with a classified program is not the way to do it.
"You can start listening in on conversations and you have 72 hours AFTER you have started listening in to get the warrant."
AG Gonzales said that this (in fact) does not exist. He said it during the hearings yesterday, and Brit Hume played the statement last night on Fox.
LLS
Wrong again. Read the statute. FISA requires the Attorney General to certify IN ADVANCE that a warrant will be issued. That is why so few are turned down. The AG is not going to certify something that he knows will be rejected.
Quoting AG Gonzales..."Some have pointed to the provision in FISA that allows for so-called ‘emergency authorizations’ of surveillance for 72 hours without a court order. There’s a serious misconception about these emergency authorizations. People should know that we do not approve emergency authorizations without knowing that we will receive court approval within 72 hours. FISA requires the Attorney General to determine IN ADVANCE that a FISA application for that particular intercept will be fully supported and will be approved by the court before an emergency authorization may be granted."
That is completely WORTHLESS and you know it.
What happens the first time FISA comes back against a retroactive action, and DENIES the warrant?
Instant Democrat OUTRAGE and spin.
Also, the FISA group of judges never denied warrants UNTIL Bush started asking for them. They are a compromised, biased group, and Bush is wise to go around them when the need arises.
What you are saying is not true in a time of war when the President is using powers given to him in Article II of the Constitution. FISA does NOT trump the Constitution under ANY circumstances. The Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" (it even says so right in the document). Not only does Bush, or any President, have the authority under Article II, but FISA itself makes an exception if authorized by another statute. The Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by Congress shortly after 9/11 is clearly such a statute.
why are the dims upset?
they are trying to protect the mafia, counterfeiters and child porn organiations
their true constituents!
Senators (whether Republican or Democrat) with a limited understanding of the Constitution and case law is nothing new. Look no further than the Roberts hearings to see how little some Senators know.
"FISA requires the Attorney General to determine IN ADVANCE that a FISA application for that particular intercept will be fully supported and will be approved by the court before an emergency authorization may be granted."
You are absolutely right and Gonzalez continues to say:
"Thus, to initiate surveillance under a FISA emergency authorization, it is not enough to rely on the best judgment of our intelligence officers. Those intelligence officers would have to get the sign-off of lawyers at the NSA, and then lawyers in the Department of Justice would have to be satisfied that the statutory requirements for emergency authorization are met, and finally as Attorney General, I would have to be satisfied that the proposed surveillance meets the requirements of FISA."
This is clearly unwieldly and not feasible for our foreign surveillance needs. It is NOT as simple as go wiretap and then come back 72 hours later. Multiple lawyers from the NSA, DOJ, and finally the AG himself have to read and sign-off on a request FIRST and then and only then can the wiretap take place. Then, within 72 hours, the full-fledged application must be filed.
How many phone calls have you had that lasted 72 hours? Our security depends on action and action NOW...NOT 72 HOURS LATER. I'm glad they listen in on any phone calls. If they want to listen to mine, go ahead. I have nothing to hide. If you're not doing anything wrong why should you be concerned? Security should TRUMP the privacy. If you aren't safe, you have no privacy.
The last time an enemy marshaled a significant presence on US soil was during the war of 1812; needless to say, the letter and spirit of the Constitution were probably a lot more immediate in the minds of Americans. Do you think great objection would have been raised had American forces been able to intercept communiques between continental British Forces and the Crown without a warrant?
That's only an issue if you believe that Bush is going to ask for unjustified wiretaps. Do you?
But the FISA DOESN'T require warrants for all situations - nor does the Constitution. The issue is whether the wiretaps are either within FISA or beyond the scope of congress to legislate.
BTW, if the NSA nabbed 1 terrorist for every 1,000 people 'tapped, would this be a fair tradeoff, especially given that a single terrorist identified might provide a host of new leads? How about 10 terrorist? 100?
Actually, it isn't.
Biden went into a long rant about how he thought it was ridiculous for people to complain when the press points out that, say, our rail yards are not secure. After all, pointed out the Senator, don't people think Al Quaeda already knows that withou it being pointed out to them?
Then it hits me; he's trying to take the heat off of Rockefeller. He's belittling the leaks, making them seem trivial, like they can do no harm.
He has nothing to ask the AG about the NSA surveillance, he spends most of his time minimizing the leaks, which is certainly not the purpose of the hearings.
The problem is when your intercept indicates an international phone call with a known AQ asset overeseas. Many times, one cannot wait for approval from the FISA court and lives could be at stake.
Are you saying that the CinC does not have constitutional authority to order surveillance in those circumstances?
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
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.