Posted on 02/28/2006 7:48:01 PM PST by RWR8189
That is a very well-written rebuttal to the liars who claim the President has broken the law.
Hence why liberals are always trying to come up with ways to change the constitution.. These pesky rules bother them.
Its always good to have efficent secret police, just ask
the benevolent capitalists at Google and Yahoo, the wonderful Chinese Secret Police are cooperating with their
capitalist "partners" Google and Yahoo to identify malignant elements in China(now offically a quasi-capatilist entity).
It's not American Citizens. It's foreign powers. American citizens might happen to be on the other end. There is no judicial authority to issue a warrant to tap foreign powers phones; further even when you do have a warrant, you get it for the person being investigated...not for a full list of those they might call or might call them.
The simple way around this? Quit taking calls from Al Queda.
During the cold war, did anyone consider getting a warrant to tap the Russian Embassy? Such would be silly.
FISA was established to give the government the easiest possible way to get a rubber stamp warrant to tap phones. Even after the fact. Right now, the government can't even be be bothered to get an after the fact warrant. No thanks. That's too much power. I don't trust democrats or republicans not to abuse that.
Maybe the liberals are a little too uncomfortable with the line in the oath of office commiting the President to defend the nation against enemies...foreign and DOMESTIC.
This monitoring isn't new. It's gone on since FDR, with every President since defending the authority. You NEVER had an immunity to foreign intelligence collection. FISA was set up for criminal cases.
"FISA was established to give the government the easiest possible way to get a rubber stamp warrant to tap phones. Even after the fact. Right now, the government can't even be be bothered to get an after the fact warrant. No thanks. That's too much power. I don't trust democrats or republicans not to abuse that."
Well said BUMP.
FISA unconstitutionally restricts powers that are inherent to the presidency.
Neither an act of Congress nor a court can restrict the POTUS from collecting foreign intelligence, especially in time of war.
Unless those enemies are American Congressmen...
If you look back in history, FISA was established as a reaction to abuses by Nixon and Johnson in the area of domestic spying (remember Johnson spying on Martin Luther King?). The FISA law was not to make domestic spying "Easy" it was to make it difficult.
You can knee-jerk all you want about the pervasive lie that this is about 'domestic wiretapping', but if it connects with an Al-Queda suspect in a middle eastern country, it isn't 'domestic', its foreign surveillance of an enemy power just like we did to the Japanese and the Germans in WWII.
Then the President should work to get the law overturned in court. He does not get to decide for himself which laws are constitutional. Also, since we do not have a declaration of war, and an undefined enemy, you're asking me to just "trust" the executive to unilaterally decide who is "the enemy". I don't trust ANY President that much. That's why he should get a warrant - it's a simple, easy way to get some checks on his power. If the current system is too onerous, then he should work to change it, not just disobey it.
More difficult than previously, perhaps, but FISC warrants are and have been damn easy to get, however. It is not adversarial at all--so it's pretty laughable to characterize a FISC-issued wiretap as "difficult" to obtain. Especially since a wiretap of someone aiding or abetting someone who may be a criminal is as easy to obtain as proving they delivered a pizza. And the Patriot Act made it easier, since now all the FISC has to see for a wiretap is a significant purpose behind the warrant.
"You can knee-jerk all you want about the pervasive lie that this is about 'domestic wiretapping', but if it connects with an Al-Queda suspect in a middle eastern country, it isn't 'domestic', its foreign surveillance of an enemy power just like we did to the Japanese and the Germans in WWII."
"If it connects with an Al-Qaeda suspect in a middle eastern country," or it doesn't, how would you know? The courts are secret. They always have been. And I'm all for wiretapping the hell out of foreigners, and restricting visas even more heavily, and profiling `em, too. I just want to be sure pizzaboys aren't getting their phones tapped, because the feds aren't limited by a warrant requiring them to show at least a rational basis for the tap, instead of just proving the tapped kid delivered a pizza to a possible spy or possible terrorist.
While I acknowledge your technical correction, I do not believe the Constitution is a suicide pact. Furthermore, liberals have proven fond of the Constitution only to the extent it can be used to achieve their goals...they have perverted the founding ideals of individual liberty into a balkanized amalgam of 'group rights'. Therefore my point remains the same whether we speak of the Constitution or the Nation.
Interestng logical loop...considering he's not rejected FISA, and his claim for authority for his actions is based upon power directly granted from the Constitution itself.
Again, what court has been given jurisdiction to authorize intelligence collection outside of the United States? None...not even remotely. Not even FISA courts. That the enemy powers choose to call people in the United States does not give them protection from surveillance.
The ONLY gray area here is if there is an attempt to prosecute based upon the intelligence gathering (in which case the courts apply a "good faith" type test), otherwise the operation falls under duties of Commander in Chief.
This whole thing is nothing new. What is new is the political opportunism and attempt to confuse people into thinking this is a newly claimed executive power, that it is about criminal law, and that it is domestic.
This is the same type of thing as the people that think we should have trials to hold POWs, when POWs are not held because they are being punished for crimes, but rather to keep them out of combat (Which is why, with certain specific exceptions they are all released when the war is over). We've not had a war which involved combatants on our soil for so long that only people over 80, or those rare people who have studied it specifically even have the right context. It's not a civil issue. It's a military and foreign policy one, and the courts have little to no role in either. Never have...and even the courts recognize that.
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.