Posted on 07/23/2006 10:05:09 PM PDT by neverdem
President Bush's electronic surveillance program has been a festering sore on our body politic since it was publicly disclosed last December. Civil libertarians, myself included, have insisted that the program must be subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with the Fourth Amendment.
The president has insisted that he was acting lawfully within his constitutional responsibilities. On its face, the program seems contrary to the plain text of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which regulates domestic national security wiretapping. The president argues, however, that his inherent constitutional powers supersede the statute. Without knowing the exact contours of the program, it's impossible to say whether he is right or wrong. But three federal appeals court decisions suggest the president may be right.
The integrity of our nation's adherence to the rule of law requires an answer to the question of whether this program is legal. The protection of our nation's security and individual rights requires a modification of the program if it is not lawful as currently fashioned. The challenge, which I have been trying to meet legislatively, is to structure a procedure under which the courts can adjudicate the lawfulness of this highly sensitive program while maintaining the secrecy the president contends is so important.
My bill, the result of months of negotiation with the administration, accomplishes this goal by authorizing consideration of the program by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), the court created under FISA to consider warrant applications. The FISC has the expertise to handle this question. Its closed proceedings and unblemished record for not leaking would make full consideration both possible and secure. Not only would the bill permit a determination of the program's legality but if it were found unlawful in whole or in part, a framework would exist for modifying the program...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Takes one to know one.
A cliche, sure, but Specter deserves no more.
TRANSLATION: "According to 'my' considered opinion, this program lacks 'my' personal oversight and 'my' stamp of approval, thus it is 'my' duty to raise these objections, less any of 'my' personal power as an ever so important and potentate US Senator, is lessened and my nemesis and adversary (President Bush)gains in his."
The president argues, however, that his inherent constitutional powers supersede the statute. Without knowing the exact contours of the program, it's impossible to say whether he is right or wrong. But three federal appeals court decisions suggest the president may be right.
TRANSALTION: "Even though the President has stated over and over that he has this authority (and even IF the Constitution so bestows said authority) without being able to stick 'my' nose and two cents into each and every corner of this Administration's policies it galls me to admit W is on solid ground.
"The fact that THREE federal appeals court have upheld the President's inherent right herein, does not placate me or justify its legality, because those decisions were by mere Federal Judges, and 'I' an exalted US Senator and Chairman of the Judiciary Committee (along with my close friend and colleague, Senator Leahy) know more about the law than anyone in the Country/World and what 'I' think and what 'I' believe, should control.
The integrity of our nation's adherence to the rule of law requires an answer to the question of whether this program is legal.
TRANSLATION: "If 'I' don't get a handle on this in the near future, there are some who will begin questioning 'my' authority and sagacity (and perhaps even, my/our relevance) to decide what is best for the country--not what the law provides for and allows."
What a hypocritical, senile, demented, self-serving, (RINO of the highest magnitude) p*ss pour excuse for a United States Senator.
Not wanting to pile on or say "na-na-na-na-na-na," or "told you so" to W (like so many of us predicted and were appalled) for his supporting the re-election of this Freekin idiot back in 04.
Remember, Confucius say: "He who lie down with junk yard dogs, mongrels or other despicable creatures (such as RINO's) get bit over and over again, by fleas."
Okay, okay. But who knows, he might have said this? lol
is shot to hell and has no meaning whatsoever. Why all the bluster over something that actually follows the "rule of law" instead of going after the many things going on that are illegal?
Specter can shove it. There's my intellectual contribution to this thread. ;-)
This is the guy Bush supported in the last election cycle.
What a back stabbing ahole this freak has turned out to be!
What a smug arrogant c__ksucker.
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.