Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Well what's all the talk about "tactical/technical/strategic reasons" and applying for domestic warrants for foreign intercepts. The warrants would be applied for in the US Courts, for intercepts in the US.
Is there some tactical/technical/strategic reason for not applying to your own Courts.
Initially calls were made to the U.S. to numbers which in turn were surveilled.
It is from these taps the complaint derives.
Precisely why warrants for these taps were not pursued immediately has been claimed to be Executive prerogative by reasons of tactical/technical/strategic necessity; this prerogative is also indicated rather strongly by pending investigation of the Justice Dept. and the revelations of (to date) approximately nine "whistleblowers".
One wonders why, if there are nine to choose from, they've chosen to reveal the identity of the primary leaker, whose name ironically escapes me at the moment.
Is he the one who's associated with James Risen of the NYT and his abominable book?
Can't remember...
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Precisely why warrants for these taps were not pursued immediately has been claimed to be Executive prerogative by reasons of tactical/technical/strategic necessity; this prerogative is also indicated rather strongly by pending investigation of the Justice Dept. and the revelations of (to date) approximately nine "whistleblowers".
On the flip side you omit the questionable nature of the "Executive prerogative" as indicated by congressional hearings. :rolleyes:
BTW his name is Russell Tice
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Precisely why warrants for these taps were not pursued immediately has been claimed to be Executive prerogative by reasons of tactical/technical/strategic necessity
Sounds like bunkum to me.
On the assumption that you can make application for warrant ex-parte what reason is there to preclude Judges from the process. I can think of only two.
1. You suspect your Judges to be in league with the subject of the warrant.
2. You really want the warrants, but don't think you have enough evidence to convince a Judge that you should get them.
The latter appears the more likely. It boils down to this, "We, your Government, will stick to the rule of law, unless it becomes inconvenient".
The fact that previous Governments have also done this is irrelevant.
It wouldn't happen here.
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Precisely why warrants for these taps were not pursued immediately has been claimed to be Executive prerogative by reasons of tactical/technical/strategic necessity; this prerogative is also indicated rather strongly by pending investigation of the Justice Dept. and the revelations of (to date) approximately nine "whistleblowers".
On the flip side you omit the questionable nature of the "Executive prerogative" as indicated by congressional hearings. :rolleyes:
BTW his name is Russell Tice
I have noted previously just why the opposing Republican voices are making noise, and it should certainly be no mystery as to why the Dems are screeching.
The Congressional hearings?
Pay close attention to their timing and rhetoric relative to the Justice investigtion of the leak; it should be highly instructional.
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
It boils down to this, "We, your Government, will stick to the rule of law, unless it becomes inconvenient".
Bush has taken to using signing statements when signing bills into law with the effect that he reserves the right to ignore such laws. He did it with the torture ban
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I have noted previously just why the opposing Republican voices are making noise, and it should certainly be no mystery as to why the Dems are screeching.
The Congressional hearings?
Pay close attention to their timing and rhetoric relative to the Justice investigtion of the leak; it should be highly instructional.
I take it you hold the impeachment of clinton by congress with the same "lack of importance" :rolleyes:
As to the timing well the story broke just before the holidays and the investigations were announced almost immediately. The story was "held down" because of the elections already. Should the hearings be delayed untill next year?
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Precisely why warrants for these taps were not pursued immediately has been claimed to be Executive prerogative by reasons of tactical/technical/strategic necessity
Sounds like bunkum to me.
On the assumption that you can make application for warrant ex-parte what reason is there to preclude Judges from the process. I can think of only two.
1. You suspect your Judges to be in league with the subject of the warrant.
2. You really want the warrants, but don't think you have enough evidence to convince a Judge that you should get them.
The latter appears the more likely. It boils down to this, "We, your Government, will stick to the rule of law, unless it becomes inconvenient".
The fact that previous Governments have also done this is irrelevant.
It wouldn't happen here.
So , then, to distill the situation to it's salient factors:
Foreign surveillance should be practiced only to the extent the host country's legal system will sanction it, OR-
If you choose to ignore the native legalisms in order to optimize the quality of the intelligence you are gathering, and the intelligence leads you inside your own borders to factions who are part of, or sympathetic to, those who are based overseas, THEN-
You must grant the interlopers the protections afforded average, non-combatant, bonafide U.S. citizens, thus affording them stealth status and rendering them impervious to any exceptional methods of deterrence.
Is that about right?
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I have noted previously just why the opposing Republican voices are making noise, and it should certainly be no mystery as to why the Dems are screeching.
The Congressional hearings?
Pay close attention to their timing and rhetoric relative to the Justice investigtion of the leak; it should be highly instructional.
I take it you hold the impeachment of clinton by congress with the same "lack of importance" :rolleyes:
What are you on about now?
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I take it you hold the impeachment of clinton by congress with the same "lack of importance" :rolleyes:
What are you on about now?
You seem to think that the hearings are purely about elections and nothing to do with the possibility that Bush could have broken the law. If this is the case then you must surely agree then that the clinton impeachment was about politics and nothing to do with purgery.
Glad you are with us on that.
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Sounds like bunkum to me.
On the assumption that you can make application for warrant ex-parte what reason is there to preclude Judges from the process. I can think of only two.
1. You suspect your Judges to be in league with the subject of the warrant.
2. You really want the warrants, but don't think you have enough evidence to convince a Judge that you should get them.
The latter appears the more likely. It boils down to this, "We, your Government, will stick to the rule of law, unless it becomes inconvenient".
The fact that previous Governments have also done this is irrelevant.
It wouldn't happen here.
So , then, to distill the situation to it's salient factors:
Foreign surveillance should be practiced only to the extent the host country's legal system will sanction it, OR-
If you choose to ignore the native legalisms in order to optimize the quality of the intelligence you are gathering, and the intelligence leads you inside your own borders to factions who are part of, or sympathetic to, those who are based overseas, THEN-
You must grant the interlopers the protections afforded average, non-combatant, bonafide U.S. citizens, thus affording them stealth status and rendering them impervious to any exceptional methods of deterrence.
Is that about right?
Are you suggesting that the secret court set up to deal precisely with this would refuse to allow tapping of those you described?
