Warrantless Wiretapping. Call for defense of Bush's actions.?

Hi! Here we are again! Good to see you.

I believe that the first link you give says this:

"Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through 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 - under 1801: group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;

So the President can do it as long as he can prove that it was due to international terrorism and the evidence is not used in a Criminal Proceeding (which pretty much ixnays your next link).

Also there is a case (or more than one actually) after the creation of FISA that indicates the President has authority to warentless wiretaps for foreign intelligence purposes:

United States v. Truong Dinh Hung

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/092502sup.h...

Of course, this was ultimately changed in Detroit, but considering that judge didn't even bother to mention precedent, that will soon be overturned in the 6th Circuit.

Additionally, the current FISA law you discuss does require notification of the Attorney General and the FISA Judge before proceeding.

That does take time. If hours are what they are counting.

I think I"m misundersting your edit. I believe Troung was an American Citizen.

Additionaly Section b of the Section you state does say it cannot listen to a US person, but there's a definition of US person as follows:

(i) "United States person" means a citizen of the United States,...but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2),

or (3) of this section.

1

You already know there is no constitutional defense of this administrations actions on wire tapping. This is only one example of the United States move against civil liberties.

The problem is that at least 90% of the people don't care. They are happy to allow this because they are only looking for someone to tell them what to think. They are under the misconception that these political atrocities are targeted at "the bad guys".

Even if you dumbed down the info and made it easy to read, most people would refuse because to question is to "be a terrorist". Or so Mr. Bush has so eloquently stated.

The unfortunate fact is, for the most part they are right. Even in the most oppressive regimes we've seen in the past century, the vast majority of the people can go about their lives in relative peace. Sheep follow, politicians lie and dictators dictate.

How do you make people see? I don't think you can.

I think he is guilty, yet somehow GWB is still on the streets. Why? Let's be inductive here for a moment.

As nefarious as are the crimes, their being official acts by El Presidente means that the legal process, if any, would take the form of impeachment and conviction. A majority of representatives apparently don't feel that these naughties rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Case closed. Wait--here's an amendment to the man-law: the Republicans lose the House in November--case reopened!

If you don't like that messy, but constitutional scenario, how about this one: the acts were absent of malice, because the good guys were listening only to the foreign side of the conversation (kind of like Bill Clinton saying he didn't inhale, only scarier). That rationale prima facie "curing" the appearance of impropriety, any incidental harm will not be uncovered because the actual data are protected by executive privilege. Case closed.

I am no lawyer, so I wouldn't presume to attempt to answer the question !

Just an observation :

- Laws were conceived to control the masses ( the public ) not the rulers !

- There have been many illegal activities in history, some never reveald, some were justified, because enough people got fooled into accepting the justification.

and most importantly :

- some people, support others blindly ! without a logical reason,

one can never reason with them !

you may prove your point, in a public court of law, but you will achieve NOTHING!

The public is already polarised!

those who don't want to know! will never listen .........

Sorry, I can't help you argue that he is not a criminal. George seems to have forgotten these:

1. Regarding illegal search of people's communications:

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.

Regarding holding uncharged suspected terrorists:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

No, person, or group of persons should be above the law and the constitution for any reason. If there is wrong doing or there isn't should be determined in a court of law where the participants can argue both sides and a jury of their peers can decide what is right and what is wrong. That is the system here, and it should be adhered to, in this case especially so that it will set a president for future leaders of the country, that they must adhere to the law or be accountable for their decisions. The war in Iraq should also be questioned. Not in the media but in the court system to try to find out the truth about whether Bush lied or was just given wrong intelligence.

ME personally...

I've always said that Bush is breaking the laws of the USA, I'm wondering why he's still in office...

What type of citizens are we to keep promoting this kind of criminality?!?

yes, it has gone too far.

everyone is blaming the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

your friends' son would still be alive if it wasn't for that clownmonkey Bush. it was Bush's decision to send troops into Iraq and soon enough, more young son's of America will die there because they are fighting a war that cannot be won by conventional weapons.

you are fighting an enemy who does not fight fair and does not care about innocent children. they will kill all who get in their way.

Bush is going to call upon more young men in America to fight for this war that is truely meaningless. Why do I say that?

because it will help nobody but his own buddies. All the contracts to rebuild Iraq will go to his golfing buddies and friends of Dick Cheney.

All your friend's mother will get for her son's death is a letter from Donald Rumsfeld saying how great her son was and it won't even be signed by him..it's a copy of his signature!!!

what an insult!

seriously, Bush is the problem.

those protesters are wrong for slamming the military..the military are just doing their job.

Bush is the problem because he's telling the military to go fight for something that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

and what's worse is what's still to come.

Bush will draft more young men to fight in Iran in the next month or so when that war will begin.

he just doesn't care about the rights of his people. why couldn't he at least make the effort to get the warrants?