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

To: Blzbba; sheltonmac; af_vet_rr
Those of us with knowledge of the Constitution see that president Bush's actions are the same as President Madison's actions in 1812 to obtain private conversations of American citizens with a foreign spy- without legal warrant.
These were reports of conversations that took place entirely domestically, and they were acquired in this country.

The distinction that conversations are protected by BOR limitations on search until they are in the possession of the foreign agent has been and still is effective for letters, but isn't of any use in the case of instantaneous electronic communications. Apparently the standard that such communications that originate in the US have BOR protections is what is evolving to replace the old standard. Personally, I'd keep Madison's precedent- though I see that it has it's faults now too.

American presidents have always had inherent constitutional war power to "repel sudden attacks" (and sole power to deal with foreign agents).

Of course it is a very dangerous power which could destroy all our freedoms. Nixon resigned before certain impeachment for apparently abusing it.

Any president who didn't use it to defend the country from a foreign attack would also face certain impeachment.
...Though the media would be able to lie enough to save a Dem president from a 2/3 Removal vote by the Senate.

101 posted on 12/16/2005 8:16:48 AM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]


To: mrsmith

Correction: I don't KNOW that ALL the papers were "acquired inside this country". The spy, John Henry, came to DC but some of the papers presumably were already in our possession as bona fides of what he was selling- for $50,000 BTW.


104 posted on 12/16/2005 8:26:25 AM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies ]

To: mrsmith
Of course it is a very dangerous power which could destroy all our freedoms. Nixon resigned before certain impeachment for apparently abusing it.

Because it is so dangerous, and because we are fighting something that has no end in sight, I'd rather not see it used, because the people will become used to it, and the politicians would become used to wielding it.

Any president who didn't use it to defend the country from a foreign attack would also face certain impeachment.

If President Bush was interested in defending the country, he would have done something about the borders after 9/11. How many years has it been since 9/11?
119 posted on 12/16/2005 11:24:29 AM PST by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | 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