Re: come on "constructionists"
on the lighter side
Quote:
"The GOOD OLD PARTY line" - Republicans create millions of job opportunities
WASHINGTON D.C. - (NEWSWIRE) - January 13, 2006 - Save your country and get paid to help your fellow Americans have their voice heard.
Millions of positions available for the Bush administration's new "Reach Out and Tap Someone" program. According to a white house spokesman "The key to having your view heard in America is now as simple as picking up the phone, calling any friend, and mention words like terror, Jihad, or Guantanamo.
Once the government begins listening in you can mention bringing the troops home from Iraq, medical care for our citizens, and protecting the Alaska wilderness."
If the more than half of our country that didn't vote for George W. Bush begin to take advantage of this exciting new method of utilizing the first amendment it will require thousands of listeners. Not since the introduction of phone sex operators has a business opportunity been introduced that allows US workers to sit at home, watch TV, and make a living on the couch. Make money, and make a difference.
Apparently this offer is not void where prohibited about law.
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I am uncomfortable with "known". By whom, some omniscient politician.
The Court is there to listen to the argument that the criminal / crime is "known" and to make a desion on whether or not the person making this judgement has reasonable grounds to do so.
By "known", I meant known in Pakistan and Afghanistan; on the "battlefield", as it were.
Should we seek domestically-issued warrants for foreign surveillance?
The "known" part is self-evident, stateside.
Reports indicate the desirability of warrantless surveillance was a factor, for tactical/technical/strategic reasons.
Sorry misunderstood, I thought you were talking about foreign calls into, or out off the US, being made by suspected terrorists.
I can fully understand why, in a war situation, you would not wish to go to the power you were against in order to obtain warrants. That would just be mental
What is your current position re Pakistan. Is the USA on poor diplomatic terms with them.
"The "known" part is self-evident, stateside.", that's OK then.
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
What is your current position re Pakistan. Is the USA on poor diplomatic terms with them.
I think we're basically OK with Pakistan; some of the calls originated there, we're told.
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
What is your current position re Pakistan. Is the USA on poor diplomatic terms with them.
I think we're basically OK with Pakistan; some of the calls originated there, we're told.
To Afghanistan presumably.
Any reason you chaps didn't feel the need to get warrants in Pakistan, as you were bugging in their country.
Anyway, how would the Constitution have anything to do with this, if it wasn't US citizens and it wasn't in the USA.
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Anyway, how would the Constitution have anything to do with this, if it wasn't US citizens and it wasn't in the USA.
Therein lies the irony.
The Dems are screaming about stateside warrantless surveillance on numbers derived from the overseas component, raving that this constitutes rampant domestic infringement on the privacy of your average U.S. citizen.
Bush begs to differ.
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
The Dems are screaming about stateside warrantless surveillance on numbers derived from the overseas component, raving that this constitutes rampant domestic infringement on the privacy of your average U.S. citizen.
Bush begs to differ.
Not just democrats. And who said the numbers are just those derived from overseas?...certainly not the whistleblower.
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
The Dems are screaming about stateside warrantless surveillance on numbers derived from the overseas component, raving that this constitutes rampant domestic infringement on the privacy of your average U.S. citizen.
Bush begs to differ.
Not just democrats. And who said the numbers are just those derived from overseas?...certainly not the whistleblower.
The whistleblower's name is Johnny-Come-Lately.
Time will tell, I guess.
Re: come on "constructionists"
I'm confused again. Have the US authorities been intercepting calls to/from the USA sans warrant.
Any chance of one of you chaps giving a yes/no answer on this. Or is it all just spin.
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I'm confused again. Have the US authorities been intercepting calls to/from the USA sans warrant.
Any chance of one of you chaps giving a yes/no answer on this. Or is it all just spin.
Yes they have. From 2001 at the very least.
Re: come on "constructionists"
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.
