Posted on 02/11/2006 2:38:12 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
(CNSNews.com) -- Demanding that "the leaders of this country abide by the laws of this country," former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr lashed out Thursday at the Bush administration over the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program. Barr debated the legality of the surveillance with former U.S. Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh, who served in the administration of President George H. W. Bush.
In December, the country discovered that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to tap international telephone calls that included one party suspected of terrorist activity. Since that time the program has been heavily criticized and its legality has been called into question, with the Bush administration defending the program at every turn.
"If al Qaeda is calling the United States, or the United States is calling al Qaeda, I hope someone in our government is listening in," said Dinh, who is currently a professor at Georgetown Law School. "In my mind, it just makes common sense."
Dinh said the timing of the domestic surveillance proved that the measure was necessary.
"Conservatism has a healthy skepticism of governmental power. At times, unfortunately, that healthy skepticism needs to yield to threats that are facing our nation. That threat today is real. We all recall Osama Bin Laden's voice a couple of weeks ago on Al Jazeera. As you know there are people whose brutality and fatality cannot be doubted."
Dinh noted that it is reasonable to stop someone near the border, to stop drunk drivers and to test high school athletes for illegal drugs. "These are special circumstances that otherwise make a broad-based program of search reasonable," he said.
"It is by definition, therefore, that a targeted terrorist surveillance program at a time of national security threat and war is reasonable under the president's constitutional authority," Dinh added.
While Barr agreed that the surveillance program should be legal, he questioned whether President Bush had complied with the 1978 Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), requiring him to first receive a court order before ordering the spying.
"What we cannot ignore is a debate about the future of the Bill of Rights, the foundation of our civilization in this country. That cannot wait another day," said Barr.
"No one in this country, whether elected to public office or not, can take it upon themselves to ignore a law.
"There are remedies," Barr said, "if in fact, any administration believes the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not comport with proper constitutional standards as they see it, or because a law does not afford sufficient flexibility to address the specific needs that an administration faces."
Barr concluded by asking whether America is in danger of "putting allegiance to party ahead of allegiance to principle.
"We must demand that the leaders of this country abide by the laws of this country," he said.
Copyright © 1998-2005 CNSNews.com - Cybercast News Service
PING!
but for different reasons.
You can't kill the terrorists if you don't know where they are.
The terrorists are painting bullseyes on themselves.
Why are certain Americans so stupid?
I know why the terrorists are so stupid!
Bob Barr lost his conservative creds when he became a wh#re for the ACLU.
As repeatedly asserted by all Presidents from Carter to the present, and per judicial precedent on the issue, to the extent that FISA limits the President's constitutional powers as C-in-C, FISA is unconstitutional.
A lot of the terrorists are using disposable cell phones. Make 5 phone calls and throw it away. The courts cannot keep up with such authorizations. They cannot move quick enough. Anyhow the President can authorize such phone surveillance completely apart from the FISA court process. Clinton and others did it
Who says? I haven't seen this case made.
there is NO NEED for a warrant if one is doing intelligence on foreign enemies.
I think we are talking about tapping phones in America. We have a Constitution, and our Government is bound by it.
It's too slow.
It's too hard.
It requires someone who can write.
It's not easy to use against a political enemy.
It's not easy to use as a pick-up line.
It's no fun.
Many consider the Constitution to be a Living Document and subject to the whim of The Government.
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. We're talking intercepting international phone calls...not tapping phones of U.S. citizens. Constitution has never been held to prohibit interception of international communications. Been done (letters, telegraphs, etc.) since the days of President Washington.
There is nothing wrong with getting a warrant, in the right context. But when you are fighting a war, the need for quick action is essential and that is why this power is vested in the executive branch, the president.
There are some conservatives so called that have such distrust of the government they will turn the constitution into a suicide pact. Barr, in my opinion, has lost his bearings, and is not even thinking rationally.
US Code Title 50 Chapter 36 Subchapter I Sec 1802
US Code Title 50 Chapter 36 Subchapter I Sec 1801
I don't know why these sections are not being referred to.
Government is not tapping phones in the U.S. It is intercepting international communications using satellites and other neat gadgets. No one is showing up on the doorstep of a U.S. citizen's home and tapping his phone...or even tapping the line at the phone co. either. No need to.
Has the Executive Branch complied with this?
First off we are at war - You don't go around getting warrant's in war! (though plenty of JAGs are asking for just this in both Iraq and Stan to a large degree!..God help us).
Additionally....our CIC does not need to get a warrant with regard to gathering Intel on foreign enemies.
The reality is the FISA court itself is likely unconstitutional....in that it gave too much power to the Congress (of which of course the Congress does not want to give back....Those 435 members are all power hog putzes).
Furthermore you can't get a warrant for an event that hasn't taken place....nor do you know "to where" it will take place until after the fact. Nor once it does take place can we afford to make such information public with regard to "leaks" that will certainly come from such "after the fact FISA type warrants".
The proof of such leaks being that this NSA operation itself was leaked!
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.