Jump to content

Photo

Finally, An Honest Liberal


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#21 SueNJ97

SueNJ97

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,814 posts

Posted 06 February 2006 - 04:01 PM

Commander-In-Chief



Just because he is the Commander in Chief does not give him unlimited power to do anything he wants. I know they keep harkening back to Lincoln and the suspension of Habeus Corpus, but (1) Lincoln didn't try to hide it and (2) eventually the Supreme Court told him NO.

The people elected Bush. Actually, 51% of the people who voted elected him. He isn't King and I thought we didn't believe in that here.
  • 0
NJDevs.com Keeper of Lou Lamoriello (until he finds out & kills me that is)

Now that we are going to have a season, I can post these...
2004-2005 NJDevs.com winner of the Brodeur, Lamoriello and Howe awards, thanks guys, I appreciate the hat trick.

#22 PeteyNice

PeteyNice

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,121 posts

Posted 06 February 2006 - 04:03 PM

Not my commander in chief. Last time I checked I was not in the military.

The FISA law is clear 731. The power grab is appalling. It would not matter who was doing it.
Sue, the way this hearing has gone I gather that Gonzales believes Bush has unchecked power, that makes him a King.

Edited by PeteyNice, 06 February 2006 - 04:08 PM.

  • 0
"Yo moms so fat, Russia can see her from THEIR house." -Anil Dash

Palin 2012

"Demand for Portland" -- Consumerist.com

"The New York football Giants marched into Little D and made 'America's Team' their prison bitch....[and next week the G-Men] will push the Packers up and down the frozen tundra like their own private zamboni!" -- Carl from Adult Swim

(No longer) Gotta check this every day

Living in constant fear of Fox Security

A proud member of the Reality Based Community

Official Nemesis of Triumph

"The player is fine." -- Brian Cashman

"[PeteyNice] f off!" --LOULAM1

"Petey, you're MY NEW HERO!!!" -- CRASHER

"bow chica bow wow" - RoughDraft

"I did it with panache and style, that's how I did it" - Mad Sweeney

#23 SueNJ97

SueNJ97

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,814 posts

Posted 06 February 2006 - 04:08 PM

Not my commander in chief. Last time I checked I was not in the military.



According to some of the people on here, he should be able to do whatever he wants to you and you should say "Thank you, Mr. Commander In Chief, may I have another, because of course, I have nothing to hide".

Whatever happened to the right to question what your government does???? Or has that gone away???
  • 0
NJDevs.com Keeper of Lou Lamoriello (until he finds out & kills me that is)

Now that we are going to have a season, I can post these...
2004-2005 NJDevs.com winner of the Brodeur, Lamoriello and Howe awards, thanks guys, I appreciate the hat trick.

#24 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,466 posts

Posted 06 February 2006 - 04:14 PM

http://justice.gov/a...ech_060206.html

A typical FISA application involves a substantial process in its own right: The work of several lawyers; the preparation of an application and related legal papers; the approval of a designated Cabinet-level officer; a certification from a designated Senate-confirmed officer; and, finally, of course, the approval of an Article III judge who sits on the FISA Court. See 50 U.S.C. § 1804. Needless to say, even under the very best of circumstances, this process consumes valuable resources and results in significant delay. We all agree that there should be appropriate checks and balances on the Branches of our Government. The FISA process makes perfect sense in almost all cases of foreign intelligence monitoring in the United States. Although technology has changed dramatically since FISA was enacted, FISA remains a vital tool in the War on Terror, and one that we are using to its fullest and will continue to use against al Qaeda and other foreign threats. But as the President has explained, the terrorist surveillance program operated by the NSA requires the maximum in speed and agility, since even a very short delay may make the difference between success and failure in preventing the next attack. And we cannot afford to fail. Finally, the NSA’s terrorist surveillance program fully complies with the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment has never been understood to require warrants in all circumstances. The Supreme Court has upheld warrentless searches at the border and has allowed warrantless sobriety checkpoints. See, e.g., Michigan v. Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990); see also Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 44 (2000) (stating that “the Fourth Amendment would almost certainly permit an appropriately tailored roadblock set up to thwart an imminent terrorist attack”). Those searches do not violate the Fourth Amendment because they involve “special needs” beyond routine law enforcement. Vernonia Sch. Dist. v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 653 (1995). To fall within the “special needs” exception to the warrant requirement, the purpose of the search must be distinguishable from ordinary general crime control. See, e.g., Ferguson v. Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (2001); City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 41 (2000).

The terrorist surveillance program fits within this “special needs” category. This conclusion is by no means novel. During the Clinton Administration, Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before Congress in 1994 that the President has inherent authority under the Constitution to conduct foreign intelligence searches of the private homes of U.S. citizens in the United States without a warrant, and that such warrantless searches are permissible under the Fourth Amendment. See Amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Hearings Before the House Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence, 103d Cong. 2d Sess. 61, 64 (1994) (statement of Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick). See also In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d at 745-46.



----------

The critical advantage offered by the terrorist surveillance program compared to FISA is who makes the probable cause determination and how many layers of review must occur before surveillance begins. Some have pointed to the provision in FISA that allows for so-called “emergency authorizations” of surveillance for 72 hours without a court order. There is a serious misconception about these emergency authorizations. We do not and cannot approve emergency surveillance under FISA without knowing that we meet FISA’s normal requirements. In order to authorize emergency surveillance under FISA, the Attorney General must personally “determine[] that . . . the factual basis for issuance of an order under [FISA] to approve such surveillance exists.” 50 U.S.C. § 1805(f). FISA requires the Attorney General to determine in advance that this condition is satisfied. That review process can, of necessity, take precious time. And that same process takes the decision away from the officers best situated to make it during an armed conflict. Thus, to initiate surveillance under a FISA emergency authorization, it is not enough to rely on the best judgment of our intelligence officers. Those intelligence officers would have to get the sign-off of lawyers at the NSA, and then lawyers in the Department of Justice would have to be satisfied that the statutory requirements for emergency authorization are met, and finally as Attorney General, I would have to be satisfied that the proposed surveillance meets the requirements of FISA. Finally, the emergency application must be filed “as soon as practicable,” but within 72 hours.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#25 SueNJ97

SueNJ97

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,814 posts

Posted 06 February 2006 - 04:14 PM

Not my commander in chief. Last time I checked I was not in the military.

The FISA law is clear 731. The power grab is appalling. It would not matter who was doing it.
Sue, the way this hearing has gone I gather that Gonzales believes Bush has unchecked power, that makes him a King.



I didn't like this frigging argument when Gorelick tried to make it for Clinton. And that argument was why they tightened up some of the LOOPHOLES in FISA to stop Presidents from MAKING this argument in 1995.

Didn't work for me with Clinton, and it doesn't work now. And it especially doesn't work when Bush LIED when he said that no American citizen was under surveilance without a warrent. He's only on TAPE saying it. But apparently nobody CARES when they are outright lied to about what their own government is doing to them. Because they always think it is being done to someone ELSE. Forget that. When another's rights are violated, EVERYONE's rights are violated. Becaue you make it obvious that you don't care about your own rights, which makes it possible for them to violate them.

Edited by SueNJ97, 06 February 2006 - 04:19 PM.

  • 0
NJDevs.com Keeper of Lou Lamoriello (until he finds out & kills me that is)

Now that we are going to have a season, I can post these...
2004-2005 NJDevs.com winner of the Brodeur, Lamoriello and Howe awards, thanks guys, I appreciate the hat trick.

#26 SueNJ97

SueNJ97

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,814 posts

Posted 06 February 2006 - 04:17 PM

http://justice.gov/a...ech_060206.html


----------

The critical advantage offered by the terrorist surveillance program compared to FISA is who makes the probable cause determination and how many layers of review must occur before surveillance begins. Some have pointed to the provision in FISA that allows for so-called "emergency authorizations" of surveillance for 72 hours without a court order. There is a serious misconception about these emergency authorizations. We do not and cannot approve emergency surveillance under FISA without knowing that we meet FISA's normal requirements. In order to authorize emergency surveillance under FISA, the Attorney General must personally "determine[] that . . . the factual basis for issuance of an order under [FISA] to approve such surveillance exists." 50 U.S.C. § 1805(f). FISA requires the Attorney General to determine in advance that this condition is satisfied. That review process can, of necessity, take precious time. And that same process takes the decision away from the officers best situated to make it during an armed conflict. Thus, to initiate surveillance under a FISA emergency authorization, it is not enough to rely on the best judgment of our intelligence officers. Those intelligence officers would have to get the sign-off of lawyers at the NSA, and then lawyers in the Department of Justice would have to be satisfied that the statutory requirements for emergency authorization are met, and finally as Attorney General, I would have to be satisfied that the proposed surveillance meets the requirements of FISA. Finally, the emergency application must be filed "as soon as practicable," but within 72 hours.



Basically what they are saying is they cannot establish probable cause after 72 hours but they want to continue to wiretap someone. That doesn't send your hair standing on end???? Someday this may be you, simply because they don't like your politics or they make a mistake. And you don't care???
  • 0
NJDevs.com Keeper of Lou Lamoriello (until he finds out & kills me that is)

Now that we are going to have a season, I can post these...
2004-2005 NJDevs.com winner of the Brodeur, Lamoriello and Howe awards, thanks guys, I appreciate the hat trick.

#27 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,466 posts

Posted 06 February 2006 - 04:20 PM

No, they are saying they can't use the 72 hour case because you have to follow certain guidelines which may take too long to go through.......It looks to me like you can't use that process after the fact unless you initiate the process at the start, which they feel can take too long....(notice cool use of way too many punctuations)
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#28 SueNJ97

SueNJ97

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,814 posts

Posted 06 February 2006 - 04:23 PM

No, they are saying they can't use the 72 hour case because you have to follow certain guidelines which may take too long to go through.......It looks to me like you can't use that process after the fact unless you initiate the process at the start, which they feel can take too long....(notice cool use of way too many punctuations)



It's not just the process, they are pretty clear that they don't like that part about actually having to establish the probable cause.
  • 0
NJDevs.com Keeper of Lou Lamoriello (until he finds out & kills me that is)

Now that we are going to have a season, I can post these...
2004-2005 NJDevs.com winner of the Brodeur, Lamoriello and Howe awards, thanks guys, I appreciate the hat trick.

#29 HelenaHandbasket

HelenaHandbasket

    Albany Devil

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 213 posts

Posted 06 February 2006 - 04:25 PM

No, they are saying they can't use the 72 hour case because you have to follow certain guidelines which may take too long to go through.......It looks to me like you can't use that process after the fact unless you initiate the process at the start, which they feel can take too long....(notice cool use of way too many punctuations)

But then why didn't they try to revise the law? Why weren't they candid with Congress about what they were up to? If what they were doing was so reasonable, why did they have to hide?
  • 0

#30 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,466 posts

Posted 06 February 2006 - 04:27 PM

They didn't have to revise the law because the law already provided the means to allow them to do the intelligence gathering as they needed. You don't go and discuss with a police officer if you're allowed to go when the light turns green because you know you are allowed, same case here.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#31 SueNJ97

SueNJ97

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,814 posts

Posted 06 February 2006 - 04:30 PM

They didn't have to revise the law because the law already provided the means to allow them to do the intelligence gathering as they needed. You don't go and discuss with a police officer if you're allowed to go when the light turns green because you know you are allowed, same case here.



Only if you think the President can do anything he wants because, well, he's the President.

Seriously, do you really think they are only listening to international calls and that they are only listening for people talking to known AQ suspects????

They know how to use data mining, it's a vast data mining operation, they can fish for ANYTHING.
  • 0
NJDevs.com Keeper of Lou Lamoriello (until he finds out & kills me that is)

Now that we are going to have a season, I can post these...
2004-2005 NJDevs.com winner of the Brodeur, Lamoriello and Howe awards, thanks guys, I appreciate the hat trick.

#32 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,466 posts

Posted 06 February 2006 - 04:34 PM

Where did I say the President can do anything he wants because he is the president? Someone else already tried to make this into "well if they can do this what else can they do" arguement when the arguement should only be can he do this. I seriously do think almost all of the surveillance has to do with protecting this country. Will there be mistakes? Yes there will, but there are mistakes made at banks and I still keep my money there.(darn, forgot to add all the extra punctuations this time)
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#33 PeteyNice

PeteyNice

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,121 posts

Posted 06 February 2006 - 04:39 PM

If a bank makes a mistake, I know about it and have recourse. If they make a mistake noone ever knows.

You have much more faith in our government than I do. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and without any oversight at all that is what we have here.

Whether every call involved an Al Queda person or not is immaterial. It was still illegal.
  • 0
"Yo moms so fat, Russia can see her from THEIR house." -Anil Dash

Palin 2012

"Demand for Portland" -- Consumerist.com

"The New York football Giants marched into Little D and made 'America's Team' their prison bitch....[and next week the G-Men] will push the Packers up and down the frozen tundra like their own private zamboni!" -- Carl from Adult Swim

(No longer) Gotta check this every day

Living in constant fear of Fox Security

A proud member of the Reality Based Community

Official Nemesis of Triumph

"The player is fine." -- Brian Cashman

"[PeteyNice] f off!" --LOULAM1

"Petey, you're MY NEW HERO!!!" -- CRASHER

"bow chica bow wow" - RoughDraft

"I did it with panache and style, that's how I did it" - Mad Sweeney

#34 SueNJ97

SueNJ97

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,814 posts

Posted 06 February 2006 - 04:44 PM

Where did I say the President can do anything he wants because he is the president? Someone else already tried to make this into "well if they can do this what else can they do" arguement when the arguement should only be can he do this. I seriously do think almost all of the surveillance has to do with protecting this country. Will there be mistakes? Yes there will, but there are mistakes made at banks and I still keep my money there.(darn, forgot to add all the extra punctuations this time)



You said they didn't revise the law because the law already allows them to do the intelligence gathering as needed. But they say FISA doesn't allow them to do it, and you posted a very long explaination as to why. And the reason they give for why he do what the HELL he wants and not tell anyone about it is, he's the President. He said he consulted his Personal lawyer and his Attorney General, both of whom will tell him ANYTHING he wants to hear, and you KNOW it.

Well, that may be a bit unfair to the AG. He might not tell Bush that abortion is unconstitutional. But that is the ONLY thing he would tell Bush that he wouldn't want to hear.

So please explain to me again why your reasoning isn't that he can just do anything he wants because he is the President. Because that's exactly what this is turning into.

If a bank makes a mistake, I know about it and have recourse. If they make a mistake noone ever knows.

You have much more faith in our government than I do. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and without any oversight at all that is what we have here.

Whether every call involved an Al Queda person or not is immaterial. It was still illegal.



Well, actually, if every call involved an AQ person on the other end they would have had a good case for probable cause and the FISA warrent would have been a slam dunk. So the only excuse for this would have been incredible sloth on the part of the Administration.

Edited by SueNJ97, 06 February 2006 - 04:41 PM.

  • 0
NJDevs.com Keeper of Lou Lamoriello (until he finds out & kills me that is)

Now that we are going to have a season, I can post these...
2004-2005 NJDevs.com winner of the Brodeur, Lamoriello and Howe awards, thanks guys, I appreciate the hat trick.

#35 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,466 posts

Posted 06 February 2006 - 04:46 PM

The law provides the legal reason they were allowed not to go through FISA is what it explains.

Go ahead and read all this like I did:

http://justice.gov/a...ech_060206.html

I'm done on this topic because it is starting to go in a circle now and I don't like discussing things where people act as if everything is completely ridiculous. You don't really want my opinion or answers on these topics, you just want to state how stupid and ridiculous it is that anyone couldn't agree with you.(shoot, I didn't get words in all caps or extra punctuations)

Well, actually, if every call involved an AQ person on the other end they would have had a good case for probable cause and the FISA warrent would have been a slam dunk. So the only excuse for this would have been incredible sloth on the part of the Administration.


One last thing since I read this before I left: Even with an AQ person on the other end they couldn't go through FISA since they want to start the surveillance before getting the AG approval etc. which you read before. Once they don't do that step then they can't use the 72 hour FISA process.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#36 PeteyNice

PeteyNice

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,121 posts

Posted 06 February 2006 - 04:48 PM

If you don't like FISA, change it! I mean after 9/11 congress would have given Bush anything he wanted, but they didn't. They instead chose to simply ignore the law.
  • 0
"Yo moms so fat, Russia can see her from THEIR house." -Anil Dash

Palin 2012

"Demand for Portland" -- Consumerist.com

"The New York football Giants marched into Little D and made 'America's Team' their prison bitch....[and next week the G-Men] will push the Packers up and down the frozen tundra like their own private zamboni!" -- Carl from Adult Swim

(No longer) Gotta check this every day

Living in constant fear of Fox Security

A proud member of the Reality Based Community

Official Nemesis of Triumph

"The player is fine." -- Brian Cashman

"[PeteyNice] f off!" --LOULAM1

"Petey, you're MY NEW HERO!!!" -- CRASHER

"bow chica bow wow" - RoughDraft

"I did it with panache and style, that's how I did it" - Mad Sweeney

#37 HelenaHandbasket

HelenaHandbasket

    Albany Devil

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 213 posts

Posted 06 February 2006 - 04:50 PM

The law provides the legal reason they were allowed not to go through FISA is what it explains.

Go ahead and read all this like I did:

http://justice.gov/a...ech_060206.html

I'm done on this topic because it is starting to go in a circle now and I don't like discussing things where people act as if everything is completely ridiculous. You don't really want my opinion or answers on these topics, you just want to state how stupid and ridiculous it is that anyone couldn't agree with you.(shoot, I didn't get words in all caps or extra punctuations)
One last thing since I read this before I left: Even with an AQ person on the other end they couldn't go through FISA since they want to start the surveillance before getting the AG approval etc. which you read before. Once they don't do that step then they can't use the 72 hour FISA process.

You are relying exclusively on arguments from the people who are probably breaking the law, which is problematic.

Before you leave, can you answer one thing for me, pretty please, since you ignored it before? If this all well and good, why weren't they candid with Congress about what was going on? Why did they have to hide?
  • 0

#38 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,466 posts

Posted 06 February 2006 - 04:52 PM

You are relying exclusively on arguments from the people who are probably breaking the law, which is problematic.

Before you leave, can you answer one thing for me, pretty please, since you ignored it before? If this all well and good, why weren't they candid with Congress about what was going on? Why did they have to hide?


I actually did address it. They weren't doing anything that needed approval from congress so they didn't go and get the approval from congress. The was my point about you not asking a police officer if you can go when the light turn greens.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#39 SueNJ97

SueNJ97

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,814 posts

Posted 06 February 2006 - 04:58 PM

The law provides the legal reason they were allowed not to go through FISA is what it explains.

Go ahead and read all this like I did:

http://justice.gov/a...ech_060206.html

I'm done on this topic because it is starting to go in a circle now and I don't like discussing things where people act as if everything is completely ridiculous. You don't really want my opinion or answers on these topics, you just want to state how stupid and ridiculous it is that anyone couldn't agree with you.(shoot, I didn't get words in all caps or extra punctuations)



One last thing since I read this before I left: Even with an AQ person on the other end they couldn't go through FISA since they want to start the surveillance before getting the AG approval etc. which you read before. Once they don't do that step then they can't use the 72 hour FISA process.



I looked at it and I told you before, I didn't agree with Gorelick either. If you are going to point to something Gonzalez raises using her argument as the standard, I'm still not going to agree with you. But I could be much more sensitive to all of this because I've got a parent who's lived through being declared an enemy of the state for no reason, who's had his family hunted down for no reason, who's seen what it means to have the entire power of a state used against you for no reason. And in the beginning, everyone said they had no reason to fear if they didn't do anything wrong. Sound familiar??? So no, I don't automatically trust any government when they tell me they are doing things for my good. And I'll never give up my right to question what my government does.


So now even contact with an AQ member isn't enough probable cause to get the AG to approve the process and get a FISA warrent??? Are these people just to lazy to do their work??? Or are they too busy going through the data mining results???
  • 0
NJDevs.com Keeper of Lou Lamoriello (until he finds out & kills me that is)

Now that we are going to have a season, I can post these...
2004-2005 NJDevs.com winner of the Brodeur, Lamoriello and Howe awards, thanks guys, I appreciate the hat trick.

#40 HelenaHandbasket

HelenaHandbasket

    Albany Devil

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 213 posts

Posted 06 February 2006 - 05:02 PM

I actually did address it. They weren't doing anything that needed approval from congress so they didn't go and get the approval from congress. The was my point about you not asking a police officer if you can go when the light turn greens.

Did I say get Congressional approval? No, I did not. I asked, if you buy the administration's arguments about how all this is fine, why not be candid with Congress about it? Gonzalez had the opportunity to be at his confirmation hearing:

In a letter to the attorney general yesterday, Feingold demanded to know why Gonzales dismissed the senator's question about warrantless eavesdropping as a "hypothetical situation" during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in January 2005. At the hearing, Feingold asked Gonzales where the president's authority ends and whether Gonzales believed the president could, for example, act in contravention of existing criminal laws and spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant.

Gonzales said that it was impossible to answer such a hypothetical question but that it was "not the policy or the agenda of this president" to authorize actions that conflict with existing law. He added that he would hope to alert Congress if the president ever chose to authorize warrantless surveillance, according to a transcript of the hearing.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users