Skip to comments.
Bush won't reauthorize eavesdropping program
BREITBART.COM ^
Posted on 01/17/2007 11:21:09 AM PST by Sub-Driver
Bush won't reauthorize eavesdropping program Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:10 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush has decided not to reauthorize the controversial domestic warrantless surveillance program for terrorism suspects and to put it under the authority of a secret special court, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Wednesday.
"The president has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program
(Excerpt) Read more at today.reuters.com ...
TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bigbrother; bushcaves; govwatch; privacy; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180, 181-182 last
To: fschmieg
My point is not that you are ever going to find out, my point was more to the effect that it appears that it will be a secret panel of "judges". Maybe I misunderstood, but if that is the case, perhaps you might consider the possibility that you will never be truly informed about the entire process.
Let me put it this way. NO matter what the case is, don't you see that we are merely substituting the authority of unelected officials, for the judgment of elected officials.
When congress passes a law, and the president executes it, please tell me who you would want to oversee a constitutionally appointed authority?
181
posted on
01/18/2007 10:29:55 AM PST
by
street_lawyer
(Conservative Defender of the Faith)
To: PSYCHO-FREEP
I did not miss your post about the kneejerkers. The point is well taken as it may apply to a few; however, I was referring to those of you who have a brain. Those of you who are able to understand that a constitutionally appointed body like Congress and the Executive should not be "overseen" by a secret panel of unelected officials. No matter how qualified you might expect this body to be, they are going to determine the constitutional rights of enemy combatants. I for one do not see how that arraignment is constitutional, or desirable.
Now post your picture of the knee-jerk.
182
posted on
01/18/2007 10:39:10 AM PST
by
street_lawyer
(Conservative Defender of the Faith)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180, 181-182 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson