Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This particular right, given to American citizens by our founding fathers, has been under attack for a few years. The march of technology has given government agencies greater ability to keep watch on people. A recent ruling by the US Supreme Court had curbed some of the more sophisticated searches by police agencies. However, the government of the US has consistently attempted greater and greater intrusion into the personal communication of its citizens.
The pattern of any organization is to use any new capability. Rowing teams will use a new technology once it becomes available, looking for an edge. The military puts into use anything that will give an advantage on the battlefield for good reason; the purpose of the military is to be as lethal as possible. The government is in a different position: the law enforcement agencies of the government must show a judge probable cause before a search warrant can be issued.
The reason for the 4th amendment was to limit the government's ability to invade the privacy of the citizen. Government would not get the power to search any citizen without cause, "fishing" for evidence of any wrongdoing. As the founders knew, anything a person (or government) goes looking for will usually be found. Constant monitoring of the citizen, as foreseen in Orwell's 1984, has become nearly possible. The computing power available to the National Security Agency has reached a point where all email on the internet can be monitored and catalogued.
Why is this a bad thing? The argument has always been "I'm not doing anything wrong, so I don't have anything to worry about." What happens when you decide the government is doing something you don't like? Would you like to know that your anti-war emails are being intercepted, databased and filed for future use? Finally, what is to stop the government (or those who control it) from deciding it doesn't like something about you, then using the capabilities of modern technology to examine your life, for no cause other than your beliefs?
The simple fact here is that I shouldn't feel the need to research and justify a part of the Bill of Rights. That's what I would call basic American law.
So how can it be in any way acceptable for a sitting American president to order and proudly defend breaking the 4th amendment? Even during the Cold War or World War II, times our country stood under the greatest threat, the Constitution was not abrogated in such a fashion. The law was crafted to allow wiretaps before getting a warrant from a judge, as long as the judge was consulted within 72 hours. Any argument that somehow justifies this behavior merely attempts to cloud what seems a fact: the Chief Executive of the United States broke existing law as well as the 4th Admendment of the Constitution. That same President has stated in the public record that he will continue this behavior. How do we as citizens bring this Executive to heel within the law?
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about oral sex in a civil lawsuit. If knowingly breaking the Constitution and continuing that behavior doesn't rise to the same level of William Clinton, then our political system is in deep, deep trouble. Those who agreed with Clinton's impeachment but justify Bush's actions are worse than lying hypocrites. They are traitors, actively working to undermine the basic governing law of the United States of America.
Categories: Politics
38 comments:
Jay-
I agree, in tapping 300 some civilian phone lines, Bush brought himself to a civilian level. By not following the proper procedure to take such actions, he made it as if I were to tap 300 lines and why shouldn't there be reprocussions. Without a warrant, the person on the receiving end MUST be notified that the call is being recorded. I think he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent(even looking past my loathing for the man). Sadly, I doubt a republican congress will try to impeach good ol' GW.
Clinton was impeached for perjury, not just lying. Perjury is a crime because it's lying under oath in court. Just a clarification.
Any party that controls the presidency and Congress is obviously not going to impeach their own president.
...and please watch who you go around calling traitors. Seriously. I'm not kidding.
"Finally, what is to stop the government (or those who control it) from deciding it doesn't like something about you, then using the capabilities of modern technology to examine your life, for no cause other than your beliefs?"
Um, we do have elections in this country, right? Oh wait, let me guess, they are fradulent, right? When the secret neo-nazi fascist police break down your door, arrest you in your sleep, send you to an remote dentention center and torture you as they have done for hundreds of others across that have done nothing but privately oppose this administration, let me know.
Foxbat,
You are missing the point entirely, especially if you have libertarian principles and leanings, which I thought you did.
That is exactly what Jay is saying. Given that W has stated through his actions that the 4th ammendment is irrelevant and that he is above it as president, what is next? The Bill of Rights is what keeps, "the secret neo-nazi fascist police" from deciding to "break down your door, arrest you in your sleep, send you to an remote dentention center and torture you as they have done for hundreds of others across that have done nothing but privately oppose this administration." What keeps these things from happening to us here?The Bill of Rights, which is in place to keep the government in check. What rights will be next?
The irony of course, is that we have 138,000 troops this holiday season fighting to give Iraq democracy and similar rights.
Clinton was impeached for engaging in a morally reprehensible act that the Republican party disliked, the perjury was the charged used. (Inrestingly, Clinton's approval rating was at 72% at the time of impeachment.) It was a political move that had little relevance to true crimes. Impeachment is not a tool to be used lightly. And yes, not being truthful about a blow job is pretty light as far as I'm concerned.
Impeachment is a tool Congress has been charged with using in the context of "bribery, treaon, and high crimes and misdeamors." I think it is rather debatable whether Clinton's crimes are that severe-- the public at the time did not support the impeachment, neither did the Senate.
Given that W swore 2 times, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," it seems to me that he is failing to fulfill his most basic obligation, protecting the country's rights and liberties as granted to us under the constitution.
Foxbat:
Jose Padilla. Remember the "dirty bomber?" Well, the dirty bomber was found to be held for 3 years by mistake. Yes, by mistake. One of W's possible choices for the Supreme court delivered a legal spanking to the govnernment a few days ago for this.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/22/enemy.combatant/index.html
Here's a hypothetical. I would like somebody to answer this, because I've asked this on other conservative talk blogs and not one person has possessed the stones to answer.
If the president can go around the 4th amendment in the name of security, then can't the president also go around other amendments? The 2nd, 20th or 22nd?
*rwmqpukh* --some of the guys make that sound on 12x500m days.
Well Jay, Johnny seems to think that the 22nd amendment can be pushed to the way side. That question is sadly possible, in an united government, the president can pretty much get away with murder. Case and point, the wire taps. I agree with Drew when he said that Bush is creating an autocracy, there isn't a check on him b/c congress is too afraid to stray from the GOP. I think America really needs to watch out b/c if things stay on this course, the bill of rights could fade into distant memory.
As a reply to foxbat, why shouldn't a party empeach their own president? Don't you think it'd be for the best to get rid of the 'weakest links' in the party? It seems like the Republican party is now getting a bad image with respect to things like honesty, integrity etc... These were also things that won elections for the majority of Republicans in 2004. The Republican Party knows that it's primary backers are "Christian Conservatives" and people who call themselves patriots (these are the people who will throw flags all over their cars, yet still flip off our homeless veterans who ask them for spare change). If the Republican party is looking to survive the elections of 2006 and 2008, they need to rid the party of the weakest links like Delay, Bush and Cheney. With regard to wire tapping, it has always been my opinion that "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
I wonder how many times I'm going to have to type "Let's try to kill the president" into an IM box before someone shows up at my door. It's not unheard of.
Sorry to keep hogging the blog, but Jay, our constitution extends its rights not just to citizens but to 'persons' within the United States. This is why we keep our military prisons outside of the US. It makes it much easier to violate the rights that hundreds of thousands have died to protect. Why not extend the US' constitutional rights to all persons of the world? If our constitution was written under the premise that all men were created equal, why not extend our civil liberties and rights to the 'citizens of the world'? Why? Because if you don't live in America, you're not a person...
Love,
Rob
Last post today, I promise!
I don't agree with violating the fourth amendment. Whatever happened needs to be fully investigated. And if laws have indeed been broken, something needs to be done.
"I wonder how many times I'm going to have to type "Let's try to kill the president" into an IM box before someone shows up at my door. It's not unheard of."
Conspiring to kill the President of the United States is a crime. Just thought I'd point out that that is illegal, whereas opposition to government policy/actions is not.
Rob, it's true. If you don't live in America, you aren't a person. You're an alien. (the word "person" in relation to the subject we are talking about is defined as "a citizen of the United States" if you read the actual transcripts).
I've read on numerous news reports that GW had briefed members of congress on the wire-tappings. Whether thorough or not, he still told some of them about it.
Did anyone ever think that GW had issued an Executive Order for these wire-tappings? I guarantee that you can't name the last two Executive Orders without looking them up. GW could have issued the wire-taps under an Exec. Order, in which case it stands until it is challenge by congress, or citizens in a law suit. It might not have been constitutional, but if no one takes the action to challenge it to the supreme court, or challenge it in congress, there is nothing you can do about it.
Merry Christmas Everyone!
So to answer your question, Jay...
"If the president can go around the 4th amendment in the name of security, then can't the president also go around other amendments? The 2nd, 20th or 22nd?"
Yes. But why would George NRA Bush go around the second amendment? If any President were to try to change any of those amendments, he or SHE (because a women is way more likely to try some stunt like this) would immediately be politically dismembered, and surely members of his or her own party would impeach such a president. Our government is designed so that the branches all check on each other. If we need to complain about something right now, it needs to be about how we as citizens are not doing our civic duty to end this unconstitutional act, or to be about how the other two branches of government are sitting back and doing nothing.
I think that it isn't that big of a deal to change the date the President is sworn in on, honestly. And I believe that nulling the 22nd amendment would be a good thing. It would make Presidents try harder while they're in office, there would always be that incentive to do things to make life better for the American people.
There is an interesting perspective on this issue in a recent Wall Street Journal piece:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703
Yes, plotting to assassinate the president is a crime, however, the government should not have access to my 'private' conversations. There needs to be a barrier between the government and its people for it to govern effectively, however, the proper form for this barrier is a gray area. We have guidelines, like the first ten Ammendments to the Constitution, that try to make that gray area a little less vague. The constitution does protect all persons presiding in the United States, whether they are citizens or not, provided they are here legally. This is a known fact and if you read "Constitutional Choices" by Lawrence Tribe, who is considered to be one of America's foremost constitutional scholars, you'll understand why. In a nutshell, the United States was created with a mindset that all men were created equal. That is not even debatable. Their intent with the Bill of Rights was to provide protection to all persons that it could legally protect under its jurisdiction, and since the United States doesn't rule the world just yet, that means out laws are only valid on US territory.
'our' laws... Also, another question to look at, is me simply typing into an IM box 'let's try and kill the president' significant enough evidence that i'm going to legitimately try? How would the government know that I'm sending this unless they already had access to my conversations to begin with. It's no secret that all of our AIM conversations and e-mails are available for the government's personal enjoyment. Basically they use a filter where certain phrases are marked as 'questionable'. (Anyone else see this on like 60 minutes a couple of years ago) If a certain person types in a lot of 'questionable' phrases, a red light goes off and that person is marked as a possible threat. The government doesn't need to individually 'tap' things that happen through the internet because truthfully, our government has just as much control over our internet as China's does. The only difference? Our internet doesn't shut down when we type phrases showing dissention and dissatisfaction with our government like China's does. They just log our searches as 'questionable' and put it to the side. It seems like you people are scared to be scared of your government, a little William Cooper might do you all some good.
Love as always,
Rob
PS I'm not as big of an idiot as I always appear to be on blogs...
From Michael Barone's column on Townhall.com this morning, 12/26 (emphasis added):
"Let's put the issue very simply. The president has the power as commander in chief under the Constitution to intercept and monitor the communications of America's enemies. Indeed, it would be a very weird interpretation of the Constitution to say that the commander in chief could order U.S. forces to kill America's enemies but not to wiretap -- or, more likely these days, electronically intercept -- their communications. Presidents have asserted and exercised this power repeatedly and consistently over the last quarter-century.
"To be sure, federal courts have ruled that the Fourth Amendment's bar of 'unreasonable' searches and seizures limits the president's power to intercept communications without obtaining a warrant. But that doesn't apply to foreign intercepts, as the Supreme Court made clear in a 1972 case, writing, 'The instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the president's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country.' The federal courts of appeals for the 5th, 3rd, 9th and 4th Circuits, in cases decided in 1970, 1974, 1977 and 1980, took the same view. In 2002, the special federal court superintending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act wrote, 'The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power.'
"Warrantless intercepts of the communications of foreign powers were undertaken as long ago as 1979, by the Carter administration. In 1994, Bill Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, testified to Congress, 'The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes.'
"In the Dec. 15 Chicago Tribune, John Schmidt, associate attorney general in the Clinton administration, laid it out cold: 'President Bush's post-Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.'"
I don't know about you guys, but I'm still ticked off about the bureaucratic quagmire that prevented federal agents from searching Zacarias Moussaoui's computer before 9/11. Let the president do his job and maybe prevent another attack--if it were Bill Clinton or John Kerry doing this, I doubt people would be in such a snit about it (at least the NY Times certainly wouldn't!)
Anon:
There are a large number of factual errors (or at least purposeful omissions) in that piece cited. I don't have complete time to go through them all, as we are about to go to the park. Here are a couple:
1)"Warrantless interceptions of foreign powers..." or even foreign entities are not at issue here. Bush and the NSA were tapping into domestic conversations and transmissions which are a violation of FISA, and the 4th ammendment, and inherently go against what
2) "In 1994, Bill Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, testified to Congress, 'The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes.'" This is true, but we are not talking about tapping any form of communication, rather we are talking about physical searches, which are more restricted than searching all forms of electronic communication.
Further, at the time (1994) this was LEGAL under the 1978 FISA act. In fact, this is what led Clinton's administration request to change the 1978 law in 1995 to make such searches illegal. Rather than throwing the law out the window, the Clinton's administration make the law more restrictive .
3) Thirdly, I would like to follow up on the Clinton and say WHO CARES!!! if Clinton or Reagan or Carter or Bush Sr. or anyone else did it. What kind of a hollow excuse is that?! I would hope that the conservatives in America would have a better line of reasoning than the "He did it first!" that my 3-year-old uses. If that line of reasoning works in trials, then our Justice system is doomed! Can't you see all of the rapists and murderers out there saying, "Well so-and-so killed someone first, so I figured it was okay for me to kill someone too."
4) If Clinton (or Carter or anyone else) broke the law and tried to usurp extra powers not granted by the Constitution, I certainly would be scared and alarmed. And I would still want extensive congressional investigations.
5) As to the NYT being part of the so-called "Liberal Mainstream Media." The paper had this article ready for print in Oct/Nov 2004 , right at the time of the election. By request of the Bush adminstration, they delayed release by over a year. Makes me wonder how liberal that paper is because it could have swayed the election (don't know how much as most people seem to know very little about the particulars of FISA).
Finally, this reminds me of working with families who have severe substance problems or similiar issues: "What is the final straw? Is there one?" For example, with someone with a drinking problem, I might ask, "Would killing someone while driving under the influence convince you that I'm not exaggerating?" What is the bottom line to convince some conservatives that this just isn't okay? As my father said about all of this, he hates how these types of things have come to stand for the Republican party. There has to be a bottom line for everyone, and it is frightening to me that some people would rather align themselves with this kind of filth than say that on some issue the liberal party might have it right! (Hey, I'm a liberal, and there are number of issues I agree with Republicans on.) I guess the Cognitive Dissonance is just too overwhelming.
The argument that "others did it first" is relevant, not because it justifies doing wrong, but because the alleged wrongdoing over which people are so outraged isn't actually wrong--it's a perfectly legal tool in the president's arsenal for which there are significant precedents. Since past presidents have done the same thing, why was no one outraged then?
This is foreign surveillance. If an American citizen is talking to an al-Qaeda agent overseas, the government needs to hear what is going on. The surveillance of the al-Qaeda agent makes it foreign intelligence.
See http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/27/opinion/27casey.html?th&emc=th, an editorial in today's New York Times.
Look, I'm sorry, I'm not buying. The VP himself admitted that this program included domestic calls within the US.
Cold War spys were caught using FISA, the FBI and constitutional proceedures. Yet somehow a bunch of terrorists are a greater threat and justify breaking the 4th amendment.
Please somebody tell me how this program was allowed under the Constitution. Don't tell me how many lives were saved, that is conjecture. Don't post links to the Justice Department, that is the administration's talking points. Don't tell me other presidents did this, that is irrelevant. USE YOUR BRAINS and READ THE CONSTITUTION. Then tell me how the government is allowed to search the private communications of an American citizen without a warrant, because that is what happened.
"Give me liberty or give me death."
--P Henry
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
--B Franklin
"Cold War spys were caught using FISA, the FBI and constitutional proceedures. Yet somehow a bunch of terrorists are a greater threat and justify breaking the 4th amendment."
Did 2,000+ Americans die during the Cold War?
No.
I think spying on three hundred is perfectly fine to help prevent the loss of 2,000. Maybe if he would have done the tapping before 9/11, some people would still have their fathers, brothers, mothers, sisters, wives, husbands, children...
Steve,
Far more than 3000 were killed in the Cold War. Korea and Vietnam come to mind.
This country was under far greater threat from 1952 to 1988 than what we face today. Upon Reagan's ascession to the Presidency in 1981, the KGB started project RYAN, examining the intentions of the US leadership for what they ASSUMED would be a first strike against the USSR. Soviet ICBM and bomber regiments stood at high alert for weeks.
Cuban Missle crisis. The button was damn close to being pushed.
9/11 was horrible. But 9/11 is not a justification to stop being America. If there is any way for terrorists to "win," I submit ignoring our own law might be one.
Finally, I would like to know where the 300 number came from. I haven't seen it anywhere. Additionally, what would that number have to become before it becomes wrong? 500? 1000? 10000? Put a number on it. If something is wrong for 10000 then it is wrong for one.
Again, I ask for somebody to justify this in Constitutional terms. Read.
*bsuxhaiq*
Jay,
I already did. The President has the power of executive order. Executive Orders stand until congress changes them, or until they are declared unconstitutional in the supreme court.
And even so, there seems to be a "clear and present danger." And in such a circumstance, the supreme court has ruled (Korematsu v. US) that national security comes first, civil liberties come second.
*mqsntit*
I got into Northeastern!!!
Jay,
Certainly some of the calls were domestic calls. Mohammed Atta and co. were living in the US prior to 9/11, weren't they--and presumably contacting each other in some way? That wouldn't have made watching them a domestic rather than a foreign matter, would it? And if US citizens are involved in an al-Qaeda plot, it's still a foreign plot.
Steve,
What was the number on the executive orders in this case? I've been looking through a list of President Bush's executive orders, which can be found here, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/orders/, and I don't see any that were used to enact wire taps on american citizens, maybe you can find them for me. They go back the entire way through his presidency. He didn't even think to use an executive order to enact these wire taps, which, you're right, would have made them legal until overturned by congress or a supreme court ruling... Unless it was a super duper secret executive order.
"Some might believe liberty should give way to security in times of national crises," Scalia wrote, but "that view has no place in the interpretation and application of a Constitution designed precisely to confront war and, in a manner that accords with democratic principles, to accommodate it."
The ruling in this case overturned the precedent set forth in (Korematsu v. US). In fact, the only dissenter on this case was the always spectacular Clarence Thomas, who has a record of being wrong about basically everything. Not sure the title of the case, but if you type in Pedilla and Guantanamo Bay in a search engine, you'll find it... I'd do it myself if I wasn't so busy.
As Thomas Hobbes pointed out nearly four centuries ago, when humans fear for their security, they often sacrifice liberty. We have seen this in American history when Abraham Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and Franklin Roosevelt unjustly interned Japanese-Americans. Thus it is not surprising that in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, we would expect some shift in the balance between security and liberty that we enjoyed in more peaceful times. The USA Patriot Act helped to improve the capacity of the FBI and CIA to communicate to head off terroist threats. Some steps may have gone too far and need to be amended by Congress in the new year, but those of us who care deeply about our liberties have to realize that we would face even greater threats to civil liberties in the aftermath of another 9/11.
I can even understand why President Bush would want to authorize NSA to intercept phone calls between the United States and Afghanistan. But what is inexplicable is why he decided to ignore the 1978 FISA law which set up a special court to authorize such acts in time of emergency. As Colin Powell recently stated, the president could easily have achieved his objective within the law. The FISA court has rarely turned down requests, and when an action is urgent, the executive can act and then turn to the court. And as former Senator Daschle has written, neither he nor others in Congress approved of by-passing the FISA court when the Administration raised the subject in 2001. If, as news accounts suggest, the action was part of Vice President Cheney's campaign to strengthen the executive against the legislature, it is not a warranted adjustment in the balancing of liberty and security, but an act arrogance that the administrationcan ill afford when it needs the support of moderates in perilous times.
Anon. Why aren't you using your name? It can get kinda confusing, are all theses posts from you? I'm not quite sure how to read all your posts. Could you please use your name, or at least an alias. If your on Pitt or FC Crew, were not going to hate you, and neiter is Jay.
But maybe Emily ;)
To "anonymous" :
If you look on that link you sent me... On November 13th the President issued a "Military Order." In this military order, it states that in Section 2 that an "individual subject to this order" is not a U.S. Citizen, " (1) there is reason to believe that such individual, at the relevant times,
(i) is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaida
(ii) has engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit,
acts of international terrorism, or acts in preparation therefor, that have caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy; or
(iii) has knowingly harbored one or more individuals described in
subparagraphs (i) or (ii) of subsection 2(a)(1) of this order;
and
(2) it is in the interest of the United States that such individual
be subject to this order."
After this it goes on to state that, "Secretary of Defense shall take all necessary measures to ensure that any individual subject to this order is detained."
Maybe the Secretary of Defense got Bush to authorize the tappings on U.S. Citizens to capture "individuals subject to this order."
All necessary measures...
Sorry if that sounded pompous, arrogant, or stubborn.
It's just an idea of where the justification could come from.
Brother x,
I think there are at least two of us posting anonymously. And we're obviously on different sides of the fence. Though Anon #2 makes some very good points.
Anon #1
thank you.
Dear Steve,
Congrats on getting into Northeastern... Don't make the same mistake I made by not going there. In one of your earlier entries, you cite the case of Korematsu vs the United States as setting legal precedent for the supremacy of security over civil liberties. You would be correct in your citation... If this was 1945. Also, the question asked in that case was, did the President and Congress go beyond their war powers by implementing exclusion and restricting the rights of Americans of Japanese descent. We have since apoligized to the Japanese-Americans for their treatment post Pearl Harbor and distanced ourself from that split decision ruling. Know that in the years to follow, there were more specific rulings dealing with electronic spying, for example Katz vs. the Good Ol' US of A. This ruling took place over 20 years after the Korematsu case. In this case, the Supreme Court decided that electronic surveillance is a violation of the 4th Ammendment, except in cases involving national security. After that, there were a buttload of conflicting court rulings over the next ten years that created confusion over just what legal authority the government had to conduct wiretaps and bug phone lines and that kind of stuff, particularly with respect to foreign intelligence gathering. That's why they created FISA in 1978 (you know you've been rowing too long when you confuse the two FISAs), which governs these kinds of surveillance operations. It was meant to clear up these legal difficulties and establish a sound process for intelligence gathering. 'FISA' requires that in order to conduct electronic surveillance on any party and by surveillance i mean tapping phones, reading emails, searching computers, etc... there must be probable cause that someone has committed a crime or is planning to commit one. When paranoia kicked in post September 11, the awful Patriot act ammended FISA to include 'terrorism' as one of the crimes. As we all know, fISA also sets up a real secret court to grant warrants to government officials seeking to spy on these groups such as the President in this case. FISA and the secret court were meant to be a check on presidential power. You should read 'The Puzzle Palace' by James Bamford. Once again, in a nutshell, there's a section where you will find the exact words of Griffin Bell, the Attorney General at the time, during his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee for FISA's passage, "... The current bill recognizes no inherent power of the Presidnet to conduct electronic surveillance. This bill specifically states that the procedures in the bill are the EXCLUSIVE means by which electronic surveillance may be conducted." This means warrants MUST be issued, right? Steve, think of it this way... Would you want to give Hillary Clinton the power to spy on whoever she wanted should she become President? I apoligize if people are getting mad that I row for neith FC nor Pitt. If you'd rather I didn't post, let me know. Jay, when are you and I going to create the 'Radical Moderate' party? I hope this all made sense, because as I was typing, I was watching Dawson's Creek. Great show. Good luck at Northeastern if you choose to go there, Stevie-Mac. Didn't mean to pick on you, broseph.
Love,
Rob
Rob and Anons:
This blog has never been exclusive for athletes I coach. Anyone and everyone is welcome to post at any time.
I think that I put these "political" posts up because they get the most comment action, and it always fun to watch people think.
Even so, Roberto, could it be the Secretary of Defense's fault that FISA was not involved in the tappings? Since the Secretary of Defense was given the power to take "all necessary measures," wouldn't it then be his job to go through the FISA process before going to the President? Maybe he just skipped the FISA and pulled a fast one on the Pres and America.
Well Steve-O you could be right, but that doesn't explain why Bush has come out in such strong support for going around the court and not using warrants. I wouldn't put anything past Rumsfeld, but the fact remains that the President is now aware that laws pertaining to our civil liberties are being violated and he's doing nothing but supporting those who are breaking them.
Love,
Rob
Yeah, I'm just trying to find something in support of the Pres.
If Saddam gets someone to defend him, why shouldn't the President?
That's why I love you Steve... That's why I love you.
Post a Comment