So what was the justification for the interceptions sans warrant.
So what was the justification for the interceptions sans warrant.
Originally Posted by vidcc
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.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
No I blame Bush, i repeat he could spy on terrorist without any restraint under the system in place.Originally Posted by j2k4
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
I seem to be agreeing with vidcc here, 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.Originally Posted by JPaul
It's quite simple.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Thanks for clearing that up. Very much appreciated.Originally Posted by j2k4
I thought for a moment that your Government may have ridden roughshod over your constitution.
Heaven forfend.
..Originally Posted by vidcc
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
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.Originally Posted by JPaul
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
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.Originally Posted by vidcc
This is surely an enormous scandal.
Bookmarks