Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MikeA
The judges, however, said Mr. Bush's choice to ignore established law regarding foreign intelligence gathering was made "at his own peril," because ultimately he will have to answer to Congress and the Supreme Court if the surveillance was found not to be in the best interests of national security.
Pretty much the thrust of my comments on the subject. The surveillance may well be within Constitutional parmeters, even if outside the structure of FISA, but there is no way to tell except on a case by case basis, as the cases come into the courts.

One of my concerns is bad guys getting off because of a violation of the 4th amendment.

12 posted on 03/29/2006 9:35:53 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Cboldt
One of my concerns is bad guys getting off because of a violation of the 4th amendment.

I'm sure that the defense attorneys will use that reasoning, as they should, but I just don't see it going anywhere post-Patriot Act.
16 posted on 03/29/2006 9:41:18 AM PST by P-40 (http://www.590klbj.com/forum/index.php?referrerid=1854)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt

Beggingthe question about the constititionality of FISA.


36 posted on 03/29/2006 10:03:32 AM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt

Ah, yes, but he has gone to the heads of the intelligence committees on the incidents. That should more than take care of oversight.


44 posted on 03/29/2006 10:13:07 AM PST by McGavin999 (The US media is afflicted with Attention Deficit Disorder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson