America... Spying on Americans

it does not mention the government at all

"Now in re-reading, he was probably talking about the president's insistence that the authorization to use force in response to 9/11 was authorization to spy."

Yes, that is what I was referring to.

Possibly here from the test of the authorization

"(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. "

Or a broad power from the Patriot Act.

woiyo wrote:

"Now in re-reading, he was probably talking about the president's insistence that the authorization to use force in response to 9/11 was authorization to spy."

Yes, that is what I was referring to.

"Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq"

Quote:

[snip] . . .

c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
[snip]

. . . If you believe either the Constitution or an authorization to use the United States Armed Forces (Military) Force against Iraq" includes implied authorization to violate the civil rights of Americans secured by the Constitution against governmental denials or deprivations, you are indeed one of Bush's useful idiots. . . .

Fine, Debra. Why are you quoting from that resolution, when woiyo was obviously talking about a different one?

Now analyze the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, which authorized Bush to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against those responsible for 9/11 in order to prevent further attacks.

Prove to me that woiyo was "obviously talking about a different" resolution.

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Rather than making unfounded accusations about my alleged inability to discern the obvious, why don't you provide me a with a link to the precise resolution that you want me to address to avoid future confusion on your part.

Debra

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

Ticomaya:

How dare you!!! Don't you know who you are questioning? Debra L A W!

Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches
Does anyone remember that?"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."

"It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."

Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of courtsection 1801 a (1), (2), or (3) of this title[/u]; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 a (1), (2), or (3) of this title

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

what definiton of "wiretap" are you using Tico?

dyslexia wrote:

what definiton of "wiretap" are you using Tico?

It's a secret, dys.

NO Mortgatos, I think what you just said was stupid. The statement "You can continue until someone makes you stop( LIKE THE VOTERS)" I made includes every president of my lifetime, To say that it's ok and legit because it's been done before is really stupid.

As Tico has informed us, the information needed to ascertain the legality is "secret" so how will the courts be able to determine the "constitutionality?"