AP falsely suggested that NSA can eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant
A December 17 Associated Press report falsely suggested that Congress would need to pass a law to prohibit the Bush administration from "eavesdrop[ping] on Americans' electronic communications" without a warrant. In fact, such a law already exists -- the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) -- and the Bush administration's apparent violation of FISA has given rise to bipartisan condemnation. The article, discussing what actions Congress could take in response to President Bush's warrantless domestic wiretapping program, stated that "[t]he president ... can veto legislation, including a law demanding the National Security Agency obtain warrants before monitoring communications."
The AP report also stated that "[w]hen the Republican-controlled Congress adjourned last week, it left the spying program unchecked" and that "[t]he next move falls to the Democrats who take control in January and are considering a proposal to demands [sic] Bush get warrants and others lengthening the time between surveillance and when a warrant must be obtained." But the article did not mention that FISA already "demands [that] Bush get warrants" and requires that "the National Security Agency obtain warrants before monitoring communications" of U.S. citizens and legal residents who are in the United States. As Media Matters for America has noted, The New York Times reported on December 16, 2005, that Bush authorized the National Security Agency to "eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying." Three days later, in a December 19, 2005, press conference, Bush acknowledged the warrantless wiretapping program's existence and said that since September 11, 2001, he had "reauthorized this program more than 30 times."
Indeed, it is FISA that specifies the amount of "time between surveillance and when a warrant must be obtained" in an emergency, which, as Media Matters for America has noted, is 72 hours. Proposals to "lengthen[]" this time would amend the existing law.
From the December 17 report by Associated Press writer David Kravets:
Federal agents continue to eavesdrop on Americans' electronic communications without warrants a year after President Bush confirmed the practice, and experts say a new Congress' efforts to limit the program could trigger a constitutional showdown.
High-ranking Democrats set to take control of both chambers are mulling ways to curb the program Bush secretly authorized a month after the Sept. 11 attacks. The White House argues the Constitution gives the president wartime powers to eavesdrop that he wouldn't have during times of peace.
"As a practical matter, the president can do whatever he wants as long as he has the capacity and executive branch officials to do it," said Carl Tobias, a legal scholar at the University of Richmond in Virginia.
Lawmakers could impeach or withhold funding, or quash judicial nominations, among other measures.
The president, however, can veto legislation, including a law demanding the National Security Agency obtain warrants before monitoring communications. Such a veto would force Congress to muster a two-thirds vote to override.
"He could take the position he doesn't have to comply with whatever a new Congress says," said Vikram Amar, a law professor at the University of California, Hastings, and a former Supreme Court clerk.
Douglas Kmiec, a former Justice Department official under former presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, speculated the younger Bush would assert executive authority to continue eavesdropping in the face of new legislation -- perhaps leaving the Supreme Court as the final arbiter.
"He has as much a constitutional obligation to assert himself, just as much as Congress does," Kmiec said. "We do need an arbitrator, an interpreter. That's what the courts, the third branch of government, was intended to be."
On Dec. 17, 2005, Bush publicly acknowledged for the first time he had authorized the NSA to monitor, without approval from a judge, phone calls and e-mails that come into or originate in the U.S. and involve people the government suspects of having terrorist links.
Bush said he had no intention of halting what he called a "vital tool" in the war on terror.
When the Republican-controlled Congress adjourned last week, it left the spying program unchecked.
The next move falls to the Democrats who take control in January and are considering a proposal to demands Bush get warrants and others lengthening the time between surveillance and when a warrant must be obtained.
HAR-humph this is all wasted time by MMFA none of it matters, all of you look OVER THERE and ignore that little dog!
This only shows how a RW 'news' outlet is trying to change the debate. Instead of stating facts it engages in spin to try to make the casual read believe something opposite of the reality. Sadly typical, and for some it works...
It's a violation of the law, but they can do it.
Whether or not anyone will be prosecuted, with Peeping W on the loose, is another story.
Like I wasn't sure if it was media spin,or resignation. This administration has been doing what it wants for so long, it might just be easier to report it that way than confusing their audience with all them annoying legalities.
Please "HANG ON STEVENS."
[link to download10.rbn.com]
FISA does NOT prohibit data-mining and FISA does not have jurisdiction when communications originate outside the USA.
The AP article was absolutely correct in stating that if Congress tries to pass laws which restrict any of these programs Bush can tell them to cram it.
MMFA fails to mention that Bush uses FISA on cases where FISA is mandated. Instead, MMFA makes up powers that FISA does not have to falsely claim Bush has violated his constitutional powers.
in the MMFA article, then why don't you describe for everyone what powers the FISA laws do have?
Here is what the law says:
(f) Emergency orders
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, when the Attorney General reasonably determines that—
(1) an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained; and (2) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists;
he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance.
[link to www4.law.cornell.edu]
Hmmm. Why would FISA describe a procedure for emergency orders of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information if supposedly they have no jurisdiction over electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information?
Here are the limits of the jurisdiction of a judge under section 1803 which is referred to above:
The Chief Justice of the United States shall publicly designate 11 district court judges from seven of the United States judicial circuits of whom no fewer than 3 shall reside within 20 miles of the District of Columbia who shall constitute a court which shall have jurisdiction to hear applications for and grant orders approving electronic surveillance anywhere within the United States...
[link to www4.law.cornell.edu]
It says NOTHING about calls originating outside the USA being exempt. It specifically says "electronic surveillance anywhere within the United States." Where the surveillance occurs is the determinant factor not the origin of calls. If the operatives go to any other country and surveille calls coming to the USA from there, then that is outside the judges' jurisdiction.
Further to what Skiploader contributed, here's more from FISA:
"... the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;"
[link to www.law.cornell.edu]
In plain language, this means: warrantless surveillance is permitted if, and ONLY IF, the communications are between foreign powers; AND, those communications are unlikely to have an American involved.
In even plainer language - Bush has admitted he broke this law, and your assertions are flat wrong.
You want the Geneva Convention to apply to Terrorist then you have to recognize them as a foreign power. If you do that then that means Bush broke no laws by your statement. Which is it? Foreign power or not? You cannot have it both ways.
The Geneva convention makes clear that NO PRISONER is beyond humane and legal treatment PERIOD. It also says if there is a dispute that a tribunal will make the determination who is or isnt a POW the rest of your post just makes no sense at all.. Simply put, wiretapping US persons for ANY reason takes a warrant either a FISA warrant or a criminal warrant. Bush is not Pharoah he doesnt get to decide the fourth amendment and FISA do not apply to his supreme Gumpness.
The foreign terrorist are being tapped. It is the US citizens own fault for calling them.
YOU have no idea who is and isnt being tapped. You make baseless assertions you cannot possibly show evidence of and PRETEND your propaganda is true to suit the purposes of your argument,
Except for a few isolated incidents our 'Enemy Combatants' are treated very well. With full access to recreational needs, religious needs, food, and medical attention. They are just not protected under the Geneva Convention.
Thats why the FBI agent said what he saw at Guantanamo were TORTURE TECHNIQUES. That is why an AMERICAN SERVICEMAN got a brain injury while posing as a detainee during an excersice. Keep telling yourself that. I prefer some connection to reality.
If operatives are wiretapping Joe Blow's phone in Anytown, USA to see when the next Osama Bin Laden call from his cave occurs, where is the surveillance?
Answer: Joe Blow is being surveilled within the USA.
Let's us suppose for the sake of argument that "FISA does not have jurisdiction when communications originate outside the USA" as you said. Does that mean that operatives are only surveilling Joe Blow when he recieves or makes foreign calls or do they stop listening when Joe Blow makes a domestic call? As far as I know, surveillance can only be effective when it is done continuously. If you are correct, and Joe Blow recieves one three minute call from OBL in Afghanistan a year after surveillance begins, then his rights have been violated continuously UNTIL OBL called.
Just like you usually are. FISA is the venue for Intelligence wiretapping IF an American citizen is likely to be tapped. YOU do NOT know when Bush is using FISA and when he isnt. You are just talking from your usual Bush idolotry. AP is WRONG in that we already HAVE a law Bush is ignoring Congress doesnt have to pass a new law only subpeona people and relevant documents to PROVE if Bush is violating FISA, if he is impeach him and put him in JAIL. I get that you cant wait to clap on the chains and bring on a police state, you have made this clear but as of yet we STILL have a fourth amendment.
No one has ever said that Bush and NSA cannot monitor calls from overseas into U.S. That has never been an issue. What FISA forbids, still forbids, is monitoring of calls from inside the U.S. without obtaining a warrant. Congress has not, and now probably will not, allow that though they may revise the 1978 FISA law to assist in stopping terrorists. As it stands now, Bush, by law, must get that warrant.
It is not a "domestic wiretapping program" it is a program tapping into phone conversation to known terrorist and originating from known terrorist to the US. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Heck I think it is better the wider net casts by Echelon.
read just above
I wasn't talking legalities I was asking what is wrong with wiretapping terrorist period.
If we continually tie law enforcements hands we will just end up with thousands more dead again.
and you keep on digging. Freedom is not 'tying the hands' of anyone.
We have to do away with the entire Bill of Rights, Loki is shivering under his bed and freedom ties law enforcements hands. We cant have police or the government worrying about those pesky freedoms, get rid of them. Bring on the Police State because we cant tie their hands.
What I am saying is the Bill Of Rights does not extend to foreign terrorist. They are the ones being monitored.
Except you dont know this is true its just the argument you make. Without warrants and oversight you have no idea who is and isnt being wiretapped. This is a worthless argument to pretend ONLY the guilty are being effected you could use it to justify summary executions since only terrorists would be summarily executed. HOW DO WE KNOW? The bottom line is YOU DONT. Keep repeating it till the cows come home it WONT MAKE IT TRUE. You rightwingers really seem to believe if you repeat something often enough it magically becomes true, it doesnt. If it were true then what would be the problem with GETTING A WARRANT?
I was asking what is wrong with wiretapping terrorist period.
Absolutely nothing, with a warrant (if they are in the U.S.). Since we know they are terrorists it should be very easy to get one.
There is no actual right to privacy granted in the Constitution. It privilege we have received through court papers. In a World with a program like Echelon we cannot expect our telephone conversations to be If Americans are communicating with known Terroist I do not want our authorities hands tied or slowed down because of red tape. There should be some over site, yes but needless warrants waste time and cost lives. We are not tapping the conversation on the American side we are tapping it on the foreign terrorist side.
There are LOTS of rights not delineated in it, but at no place in it does it say we have ONLY those rights laid out and no others. Your pathetic attempts to rewrite our Founding Document only points out how much you hate America.
Does the Constitution say he replaces the 'Articles of Confederation' either. So does that mean any state has the right the right to secede.?
second, try parsing your 'question' and try again when you can get it to express some form of logic. As it is it is off-point and has no probative value in a coherent discussion. If you were interested in a real discussion you would not try so hard for a gotcha and would instead try to understand the issues.
I was merely responding the previous post about the Constitution.
There is no actual right to privacy granted in the Constitution.
The warrant requirement comes from the Fourth Amendment (which covers phone calls), not the right to privacy. The U.S. Constitution is not "red tape." It is not up to the president, or you, to decide that a whole class of warrants is "needless."
Refers to searches and seizures. Listening in is not a search. It is referencing entering someone's home and searching it, or the seizure of assets by the government.
It is YOUR opinion, the Supreme Court has consistantly ruled otherwise. Since THEY are the ones CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED to make such calls and YOU are not, what YOU think is moot.
As a US citizen what I think and feel are very important. That is the basis of this country. With my vote, with my voice, through my very actions I can change the way things are.
To what is and ISNT illegal in this context. YOUR opinion will never overrule the Supreme Court, and what THEY say about wiretaps is the LAW what you think is YOUR OPINION. YOU are arguing here that YOUR opinion is what the law is. It isnt. The SC has ruled you are flat out wrong.
SCOTUS as ruled that the evidence arguments presented to them in the past showed what they have ruled. That is not to say they could.will not change their minds.
Change their mind about slavery too. Or Jim Crow. That is not only completly irrelevant its a dumb argument. They MIGHT change their minds about anything. Until they DO the law is what it IS. And there isnt any disputing that wiretaps without warrants on Americans is considered a fourth amendment violation NONE WHATSOEVER.
Wiretaps are encompassed by the Fourth Amendment. If you don't believe me, which apparently you don't, maybe you'll believe the U.S. Supreme Court: [link to caselaw.lp.findlaw.com]
You are utterly, totally and completely wrong. If NSA was only wiretapping foreign calls coming in, there would be no controversy as there is no law against that. But the law that prevents tapping calls within U.S. is not to be found in the Bill of Rights. It is an explicit law passed in 1978, after the abuses by the Nixon administration, to make sure that the basic rights of Americans were protected. That FISA law spelled out what those rights are.
With protection of US citizens' rights. I do not believe it is a violation of those rights that in the process of surveillance and tapping a terrorist they get recorded communicating with the enemy.
FIRST of all you do not know that is the only thing happening and second of all what you THINK really isnt relevant to what the LAW is. When Americans are being subject to a wiretap the fourth amendement and FISA say a warrant is neccesary. IF it is only a matter of listening to the enemy why would there be any problem GETTING A WARRANT?
that I don't know where to start. I'm going to walk you through this through redundant logical baby steps so you are no longer confused.
"There is no actual right to privacy granted in the Constitution. It privilege we have received through court papers. " -insaneloki
Actually it IS in the Constitution. The 4th Amendment says:
"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."
It describes our rights to privacy. It describes our rights in detail istead of just calling it privacy. I shouldn't have to tell you the following but, ALL 26 Amendments to the Constitution are part of the Constitution. If they weren't literally PART of the Constitution, then slavery would still be legal. The rights described in the 4th Amendment are UPHELD and interpreted by the courts and not given by the courts.
"In a World with a program like Echelon we cannot expect our telephone conversations to be If Americans are communicating with known Terroist I do not want our authorities hands tied or slowed down because of red tape."
How does sending a lawyer to go get a warrant AFTER constant surveillance has begun impeed the surveillance? Unless the lawyer and the surveillance operative are the same guy, there is no impediment.
"There should be some over site, yes but needless warrants waste time and cost lives."
WARRANTS ARE THE OVERSIGHT! Warrants are the check the judicial branch has on the executive branch regarding the executive power to conduct oversight. It is only throught the warrant process that the courts even know what the hell is going on. The oversight that you seem to accept is oversight by Congress. But you don't seem to realize is that each branch of government MUST be checked by BOTH other branches.
"We are not tapping the conversation on the American side we are tapping it on the foreign terrorist side."
This fact is just plain wrong. From the NYTimes article that broke the story and that even Bush has acknowledged was true but said it was a crime to leak.
"President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials."
[link to www.nytimes.com]
I said:
"Warrants are the check the judicial branch has on the executive branch regarding the executive power to conduct oversight."
I should have said:
Warrants are the check the judicial branch has on the executive branch regarding the executive power to conduct surveillance.
there is a difference, and it seems you cannot tell one from the other.
The question was an inferred one.
then yes, that seems to describe all of your posts
Get into a grammar discussion.
Terrorists are being wiretapped? Oh it doesnt exist? Imagine my suprise. One of the obvious reasons to skip FISA is that it eliminates the paper trail, now we have no idea WHO was wiretapped, no warrant, no judge, no oversight. The question you should ask yourself is what is the problem with getting a warrant? It can be gotten up to 72 hrs after the wiretap so necessary speed isnt the problem, YOU say they are only wiretapping KNOWN TERRORISTS obviously no judge in the world would turn down such a wiretap. So why arent they getting warrants if only to, you know, COMPLY WITH THE LAW AND CONSTITTUION.
We are just having a friendly debate.
Again I reiterate there is no point in getting a warrant because foreign terrorist are not protected by the Constitution.
If you want a paper trail, talk with your elected representative. Congress was kept in the loop every step of the way.
No, Congress was not kept informed. A few members of the Intelligence Committee were informed but were forbidden to tell other congressional members about it under fear of prosecution. How do you like those apples?
They could not have been forbidden for inquiring more about the program. They could not have been forbidden to hold the administration accountable. They could not have been forbidden from disclosing the program if it was truly illegal because then the Classified declaration would not stand. They obviously felt there was no issue on legality of the program.
Congressmen CANNOT disclose classified information. Prove that their ASSUMPTION of illegality means they CAN disclose classified information.
It has already been SHOWN you that this program is taking place IN the US. You cannot possibly show that only terrorists are the subjects of this wiretapping. Without a paper trail there is no way to know this. The congressmen DID complain as soon as the program was known. Since Republicans didnt want the issue public and controlled congress nothing was done. I expect something to be done when Dems take over in Jan. Nice try at deflection BUSH did it but somehow its Congresses fault.
Once again you show that you have no idea what you are talking about. IF only known terrorists were being wiretapped exactly what would be the problem with getting a warrant, especially since that warrant can be had 72hrs AFTER they begin surviellance? That is just the lie that you WISH we would believe because it is necessary for propaganda purposes
Like I have said before oversight is necessary. But to the point where it ties the hands of law enforcement in protecting us from those who want to hurt us it becomes ridiculous.
No one seems to have a problem with Echelon, why would you have a problem with a more targeted approach to combat terrorism. It is not they are tapping Aunt B to get her secret Apple Pie recipe. I still contend the surveillance is on the terrorist not on the American side. The terrorist is not protected by the Constitution (unless of course they are US citizens). So no rights are being violated.
Why keep extending Constitutional rights on foreigners who only want to hurt us? They have no rights under our law. If you are none US citizen the Constitution does not apply to you.
No one is doing what you claim. The argument is that SINCE US CITIZENS are being heard, and since the LAW is that this needs a warrant. Bush should follow the law. IF no US person were involved then there would be no argument.
The argument could be made that since they are monitoring the terrorist it is the US citizens own fault for associating with the terrorist. Everyone is arguing these peoples' rights, which they should, but most people fail to mention they are communicating with the enemy.
Of showing the baseless assertion you keep making is true. Without the administration having to get warrants you have NO POSSIBLE WAY OF KNOWING who they are wiretapping. You may THINK that if you repeat this mantra enough times it will magically become true but it doesnt work that way.
YOU DONT. Its an old and dumb tactic to pretend that government powers are limited to use against criminals. Actually you are wrong about the protection. The bill of rights is NOT limited to citizens it never was the language used in the constitution says PERSONS not citizens. The lets not tie thier hands argument can justify ANY governmental intrusion and can justfy ridding us of ALL our rights. I guess a jury trial would be tying their hands, or the right to be secure in our homes or to not be tortured or so on and so on. You say oversight is necessary but that is the point, with Bush's program there IS NO OVERSIGHT, that is what the warrant is for it provides oversight and a record of WHO was wiretapped. Illegal wiretapping by the way was one of the articles of impeachement against Nixon. Since the law allows 72hrs AFTER the wiretap has been put in to get the warrant I see little if any real problem with GETTING A DARN WARRANT. Especially IF as you keep saying only known terrorists are being wiretapped. This trust you have that government power will not be abused is touching, niave but touching. For me I prefer we keep an eye on them and that reqires that they go ahead and comply with the law and Constitution.
Members of Congress were kept fully in the loop on the program, Republican and Democrat alike. There is your oversight. They ensured that only terrorist were tapped.
Show me in the Constitution where it says that it extends to non-citizens. Constitutional protection is something we enjoy as US citizens. Someone who is not a US citizen does not enjoy such protections. Since it is not the US citizen being tapped but the foreign person then there is no protection. There would be no point in getting a warrant since the protection of warrants do not extend to non citizens.
Either you arent very bright or you are being intentionally obtuse. SOME congressmen were told vaguely about the nature of the wiretaps, and it was demanded that they NOT divulge anything so they couldnt even complain the idea they had ANY input into or knowlege of specifically who was being wiretapped is ludicrous NO ONE HAS EVER MADE THAT CLAIM.
Try reading the constitution. I have. I have a copy. The only place it speaks of citizens is where it talks about holding office and when talking about voting everywhere else, it says PERSONS not citizens. Did you think the world conformed to the fantasies you make up in your head? That you THINK things ought to be this way so there is no need to actually FIND OUT what the facts are? Or are you just being obtuse just to annoy people?
The Constitution is the foundation document of the United States. It prescribes legal protections and lays out our form of government. It is made for US citizens.
If what you say is true why is no one faulting the Congressman that were informed on the program and did not nothing to find out more? Why are they not being faulted for not publicly declaring, what some consider, to be illegal? They are your elected officials put into office to keep checks on the Executive and Judicial branches and they failed you. They are just as, if not more so, culpable. If what you say is true.
Solon is right. Some constitutional protections apply to non-citizens as long as they are inside the U.S. It is false to say flat-out that "the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens." That's just not true.
For helping me with my point. These wire taps are on calls originating form known terrorist outside our borders and to them. Since they are not in our borders they have no protection.
While I still believe even if they are in our borders they do not have those protections.
on the other end of the phone who are INSIDE our borders are protected by the Fourth. If both parties to the call are outside the U.S. there's no Fourth Amendment problem, but when one party is inside the U.S. there is.
That f the US is monitoring a terrorist outside of the US and they either make a call into or someone form the US calls them the government should not be expected to drop everything and get a warrant. It is the US citizens own fault for having communication with the enemy. A way the citizen can protect themselves is to not associate with the enemy which in itself is illegal.
have to "drop everything and get a warrant." They can eavesdrop, then get a warrant later. FISA allows that. It's not even hard to do.
Know that is true. You can only make the claim in hopes repeating it MAKES it come true. IF the calls are from KNOWN terrorists then what is the problem with getting a warrant?
That it is an unnecessary since they are not governed by US law.
Add one amendment to my argument. IF the government chooses to continue monitoring the US citizen after their communication with the terrorist they do need to get a warrant.
If US citizens are subject to the wiretap. YOU dont get to make that call Congress did with the FISA law and the Constitution did with the fourth amendment. Besides the fact that he IS wiretapping US citizens INSIDE THE US as skiploaders link to the NYTimes story makes clear. You can keep repeating the lies, it wont make them true
If a US citizens calls a terrorist under surveillance why do we doe we need a warrant to listen to that conversation. That is backwards and hopefully get bounced out soon.
You have no way of knowing it is restricted to KNOWN terrorists. THIS is counterintuitive since if it were warrants would be easy to get. You just keep repeating it. I have pointed out several times that you are just parrotting propganda and have no ability to KNOW any such thing. Either cough up some evidence that this is so, which you CANNOT do or stop pretending that it in ANY way represents reality.
That Congress can find out they just are not.
What exactly could Congressmen do. The program was secret they DID ask for more information and the administration refused to provide it. Even if they WERE derilict that would be irrelevant to what we are talking about. THEY dont know who is being wiretapped NO ONE DOES. AND no people who know about but dont break the law and divulge a secret program are NOT as culpable as those who CREATE AND MAINTAIN a secret program. The constitution applies to US persons, that is because the limitation is on government power not individual freedom that is a simple fact come to terms with it.
They are just as culpable in this matter, that is if you believe wrongdoing occurred. Illegal activities are not protected by classification. If they are found out by Congress they can be disclosed publicly with no recourse. It is the same principle as if a member of the military was given and illegal order they have the right, the duty, to refused to obey it. They could have pushed to know more, they didn't. They could have made it public, they did not. Obviously the legal issues did not scare them or are non-existent.
They were informed that Bush was wiretapping without warrants. It was a secret program. They asked for more information and the administration stonewalled them. They cant know exactly WHO is being wiretapped. Even IF your criticism of congress were true, what do I care criticise them all you want, I mean its dumb to pretend somone that KNOWS a person robbed a bank and doesnt turn them in is JUST as culpable as the bankrobber but whatever. Its the program I am talking about. The AP story was wrong its already illegal, Bush doesnt get to declare the constittution and laws dont apply to him. He is NOT Pharoah.
Your telling me to follow the law and your not. A person failing to report the commission of the crime can be tried as an accessory after the fact. They are just a culpable. Same with Congress. IF they were stonewalled they could have outed the program before the NYT. They chose not to. No laws were broken.
That is false. It is against the law. Yes you can be charged with a crime under those circumstances its known as accessory AFTER the fact, it is NOT prosecuted at the same level as the original crime. So the law does NOT see the culpability as the same. The point is that we dont KNOW who is being wiretapped. At least one of the Congressmen DID raise objections once the program was outed. Again I dont care if you criticise Congress it is in no way relevant to the FACT that Congress doesnt need to pass a law to stop the President from doing what the Fourth amendment and FISA already say he cannot do.
If it was illegal, as is claimed, then Classified or not Congress can out the program to the public.
Cough up your evidence that if something is illegal then its classified status doesnt apply. Besides they couldnt KNOW who was being wiretapped. Without that information they might not have a smoking gun. Since the BUSH justice dept cant really be trusted to go after Bush, it is not clear that they could PROVE their case. On the face of it, it looks illegal. That doesnt rise to the level of proof. They could NOT leak classified information.
IS oversight. To protect the system of Checks and Balances. They could have pushed harder they could have found out. They cow towed and it is their fault that if anything illegal occurred that it continued to occurr.
Protect US citizens. Not persons outside this country. It is the US citizens fault for collaborating with the enemy if their calls get recorded. IF the government wants to try and continue surveillance on the US citizen after the phone call then yes they would need a warrant.
then you wonder why people make fun of you? LOL!
The only reason people make fun of me is because they do not believe their argument will stand on it's own merit. So they resort to childish name calling teasing.
for your assertions. you drop talking points and when challenged you pratte about the Constitution not allowing this or that, when if you had ever READ it you would know it only tells the GOVERNMENT what not to do, not the people.
In no where does it say that the government has any responsibility toward non-citizens.
You just continue to ingore facts that you dont like. Reality is your enemy. It has already been shown to you that the tapping IS taking place inside the country ON americans, whether they are citizens or not is irrelevant whether you like it or not. NO evidence is shown of colaboration with an enemy. How in the world can you show that these wiretaps are confined to those collaborating with anyone? YOU CANT. You have no idea who is being wiretapped other than A) it is happening IN the US and B) the FBI ran down thousands of leads and found NOTHING. All this has been gone over before on this site. All this is well known to anyone paying attention. YOU just wont hear what wont fit your delusional fantasies and keep repeating things as if they were facts you cannot POSSIBLY show to be true. Without warrants there is NO oversight. Bush could be wiretapping reporters he doesnt like or political opponents like Nixon did, Nixon by the way used the same National Security excuse and people back then were giving basically the same reasons to support him doing so YOU are, this ended up being one of the articles of his impeachment. Bush could be doing this or could decide to at anytime and we would NEVER know because without warrants there is no official oversight.
Congress is the oversight. If they dropped the ball that is their fault and up to us to hold them accountable. There is no evidence to support what you say. That he is willy-nilly tapping anyone. Non-citizens do not have rights or protections prescribed by any American law or the Constitution. Why we keep giving it to them is beyond me. Constitutional protection is reserved for those of us that are US citizens.
There is a cost for Freedom and it is about darn time we start learning that lesson.
Incorrect. Non-citizens have several (though fewer) rights. These are guaranteed by the US Constitution, multiple conventions of International Law and Instruments of Protection. For a thoughtful exploration of the issues involved you could read the essay Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? by Kal Raustiala. At very least you should see that the Constitution is the Law of the Land for citizens and non-citizens alike. The only thing in question is the connection between law and geography. What is the reach of the US Constitution? This is a thorny question, and your confident declaration the non-citizens do not have right prescribed by any American Law or the Constitution is at very best--well--overly confident.
leaning heavily on the dumb side...
I do not get what you mean.
we know ...
Say what you mean.