Re: come on "constructionists"
So what was the justification for the interceptions sans warrant.
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Ok kev you have basically trotted out this "we are at war so we need to compromise" spin.
Why are you so enamored of that word?
You don't care for the Patriot Act (neither do I, but for entirely different reasons than you) because it's intrusive.
Perhaps you'll recount for us it's impact on your own life.
Your paranoia over phone taps isn't justified; if you all of a sudden hear the Government is hiring 100,000 news transcriptionists to handle phone taps, then maybe, but until then...:dry:
I give you a do over.
You mean a do over, and over, and over, and over, and over...you want to argue, and I do not.
I've said my piece, and, barring further developments, have no more justification to offer.
I know it's been dead in here lately, but this is so intuitively sensible (given the circumstances) I am loathe to question it.
Prior to 9/11 the U.S. was "invincible".
After 9/11, we see we have reason to be paranoid, as our vulnerability has been demonstrated.
If you wish to blame someone for Bush's actions, try Al Qaeda and UBL, because if not for them, we're not having this discussion, and you know it.
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
You mean a do over, and over, and over, and over, and over...you want to argue, and I do not.
I've said my piece, and, barring further developments, have no more justification to offer.
I know it's been dead in here lately, but this is so intuitively sensible (given the circumstances) I am loathe to question it.
Nobody is arguing that tapping terrorist calls isn't "sensible" i stated i am for it. What i don't get is why the 4th is being ignored when it doesn't have to be.
Prior to 9/11 the U.S. was "invincible".
After 9/11, we see we have reason to be paranoid, as our vulnerability has been demonstrated.
If you wish to blame someone for Bush's actions, try Al Qaeda and UBL, because if not for them, we're not having this discussion, and you know it.
No I blame Bush, i repeat he could spy on terrorist without any restraint under the system in place.
Re: come on "constructionists"
I seem to be agreeing with vidcc here, why not get warrants.
Unless there is some time related issue.
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
...why not get warrants.
Unless there is some time related issue.
There is that, but Bush's Attorney General's parsing of relevant law did not demand it, and, I gather, the nature of the logistic factuals (cell phones, etc., and the attendant variables/variants) dictated he err on the side of what he determined was caution.
It's quite simple.
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
...why not get warrants.
Unless there is some time related issue.
There is that, but Bush's Attorney General's parsing of relevant law did not demand it, and, I gather, the nature of the logistic factuals (cell phones, etc., and the attendant variables/variants) dictated he err on the side of what he determined was caution.
It's quite simple.
Thanks for clearing that up. Very much appreciated.
I thought for a moment that your Government may have ridden roughshod over your constitution.
Heaven forfend.
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
If we know that U.S. persons are communicating with al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates, the surveillance would be approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. (Remember, doing so would not slow the process down because you can obtain the approval up to 72-hours after the surveillance has begun.) Evidence obtained with a warrant from the FISA court, in most cases, can be used to charge and prosecute a suspect. In fact, Section 218 of the Patriot Act amended FISA to make it easier to introduce evidence obtained with a FISA warrant to prosecute people.
..
Re: come on "constructionists"
So have your chaps done the interception thing without getting the proper warrant.
If so what was the justification for the breach of the Constitution.
Or is this all hypothetical.
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
So have your chaps done the interception thing without getting the proper warrant.
If so what was the justification for the breach of the Constitution.
Or is this all hypothetical.
It has been going of for about 4 years. The paper that broke the story recently knew before the last election but didn't print it after Bush asked them not to.
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
So have your chaps done the interception thing without getting the proper warrant.
If so what was the justification for the breach of the Constitution.
Or is this all hypothetical.
It has been going of for about 4 years. The paper that broke the story recently knew before the last election but didn't print it after Bush asked them not to.
Has there been any official attempt to justifying what, prima facie, is a breach of the Constitution by the US Government or it's agencies.
This is surely an enormous scandal.
