Bush defends domestic eavesdropping.
- Thread starter Meekail
- Start date
M
miles
Guest
Don't any of you think it's just a litttle strange that the NY Times sat on this for a year?
Smells like another Democrat circle jerk to me.
Smells like another Democrat circle jerk to me.
busybody..
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Posts
- 149,503
you piece of shit anti EVERYTHING Pookie
You still didnt tell me what Carter and ClitMan were lookin into
and we both know why
You still didnt tell me what Carter and ClitMan were lookin into
and we both know why
Meekail
Sagittarius
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2005
- Posts
- 1,991
A US federal judge on a court that oversees intelligence cases has resigned to protest President George W. Bush's authorization of a domestic spying programme, The Washington Post said yesterday.
US District Judge James Robertson resigned late Monday from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) on which he served for 11 years and which he believes may have been tainted by Bush's 2002 authorization, two associates familiar with his decision told the daily.
The resignation is the latest fallout of Bush's weekend public admission that he authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) the country's super-secret electronic surveillance arm to eavesdrop on international telephone calls and electronic mail of US citizens suspected of having links with terrorist organizations including Al-Qaeda.
Bush's statement on the weekend that the secret programme did not require FISA court orders according to his reading of the Patriot Act passed after the September 11 attacks, has angered civil rights groups and lawmakers, some of whom have called for a congressional investigation.
The New York Times first revealed last week the secret NSA programme that officials said has likely involved eavesdropping on thousands of people in the United States. Bush said he expected the Justice Department to investigate the leak of such sensitive information.
Yesterday, The New York Times quoted US officials as saying that "a very small fraction" of those wiretaps and e-mail intercepts were of communications between people in the United States and were caused by technical glitches.
The revelation is likely to add fuel to the firestorm over the NSA spying programme.
Robertson's associates said the judge one of 11 on the FISA court in recent conversations said he was concerned that the information gained from warrantless NSA surveillance could have been used to obtain FISA warrants.
US District Judge James Robertson resigned late Monday from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) on which he served for 11 years and which he believes may have been tainted by Bush's 2002 authorization, two associates familiar with his decision told the daily.
The resignation is the latest fallout of Bush's weekend public admission that he authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) the country's super-secret electronic surveillance arm to eavesdrop on international telephone calls and electronic mail of US citizens suspected of having links with terrorist organizations including Al-Qaeda.
Bush's statement on the weekend that the secret programme did not require FISA court orders according to his reading of the Patriot Act passed after the September 11 attacks, has angered civil rights groups and lawmakers, some of whom have called for a congressional investigation.
The New York Times first revealed last week the secret NSA programme that officials said has likely involved eavesdropping on thousands of people in the United States. Bush said he expected the Justice Department to investigate the leak of such sensitive information.
Yesterday, The New York Times quoted US officials as saying that "a very small fraction" of those wiretaps and e-mail intercepts were of communications between people in the United States and were caused by technical glitches.
The revelation is likely to add fuel to the firestorm over the NSA spying programme.
Robertson's associates said the judge one of 11 on the FISA court in recent conversations said he was concerned that the information gained from warrantless NSA surveillance could have been used to obtain FISA warrants.
busybody..
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Posts
- 149,503
what a selfish bitch you arePookie said:
a fucking phone call?
you get pissed if someone listens?
the courts domt agree with you
High court of little help on spying
Whether the president has the power to listen in on Americans is left unaddressed
By ADAM LIPTAK
New York Times
The Supreme Court has never addressed the question of whether the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, is violated by electronic surveillance of people in the United States of the sort that President Bush authorized after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
When the Supreme Court extended the protections of the Fourth Amendment to electronic surveillance in 1967, it specifically declined to say whether its reasoning applied "in a situation involving the national security."
In 1972, the court ruled that a judge's permission was required to satisfy the Fourth Amendment in cases involving domestic intelligence surveillance. But there, too, the court put off an important question. for another day. Its ruling, Justice Lewis Powell Jr. wrote, "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."
Lower courts since then have given mixed answers to the question of whether the president has the power to spy on Americans in connection with their international contacts. In 2002, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review seemed to accept the administration's argument that the president has "inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance."
M
miles
Guest
I'm taking bets on when this disappears from the front page...I'm guessing 7-10 days, tops.
Pookie
Chop!! Chop!!
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2002
- Posts
- 58,778
Slowlane said:
Here is what Clinton signed:
Clinton allowed warrantless searches only if the Attoney General followed section 302(a)(1). And what does section 1822(a) require?
- the "physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers."
- and there is "no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person."
Bush's rules are not "basically the same rules" as Clinton's were, not even if you put a pretty xmas bow on it either. Bush's order allowed for warrantless searches of American citizens. Again, maybe you should do some reading, even if it isn't this thread.
Pookie
Chop!! Chop!!
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2002
- Posts
- 58,778
Slowlane said:
No, I don't believe they should, and if you'd read the thread you'd have known that. But you seem to like replying to threads that you haven't read. *shrugs*
And no, it's not the only thing in question. But maybe you'll figure it out some day. But then again, you seem to believe the President should be allowed to do something he "(thinks) he can do." At least, you didn't seem to have a problem with that idea when you asked your question earlier. I don't believe anyone in Government should be allowed to do what he "thinks" he can do, especially if it's outside the law ... which this clearly was. This is why I believe people like you are more dangerous to our freedoms and liberties than any terrorist ever will be. You'll trade them in for a warm cozy security blanket.
Similar threads
