kuvasz wrote:Ticomaya wrote:kuvasz wrote:tico, you really should go back to the original sources instead of relying on the selective cherry picking of propagandists like York.
<snip>
gorelick was talking about warrantless searches conducted on foreign powers. As cited earlier, an even more clear distinction was made under FISA as to what "Foreign Power" was defined as, and still further which target definition was included as acceptable for warrantless electronic surveillance authorization.
Al Qaeda is a "foreign power." I would certainly argue it is a "group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor." Do you disagree?
Your argument is with the Congress of the United States. They wrote the FISA law. and while the definition of a "foreign power" under 1801 included "a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore" they also specifically did not include such enties as subject to warrantless surveillance legally under the section 1802.
so just what are you trying to accomplish here with that question? the statutes already answered that question. just because you don't like the answer you ask it again?
What I'm trying to accomplish, kuvasz, is make some sense out of your prior post where you complained about my posting Byron York's article about Jamie Gorelick's July 14, 1994 testimony before Congress.
In that post -- right after you pompously instructed me to go read the source -- you highlighted that Gorelick was referring to warrantless searches of "foreign powers" or their agents. You seemed to be drawing a distinction between what Gorelick was advocating, and what the Bush Administration is done. At least that's what I interpreted you last sentence to mean:
"
York is stating that since Gorelick maintained that Clinton had the authority to conduct warrantless searches on foreign powers and their agents, then Bush had a right to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance on Americans on American soil suspected of terrorism, even thought FISA specifically stated otherwise."
If you were trying to make such a distinction, I would point out that the focus of the eavesdropping under the NSA secret program is on suspected al Qaeda targets -- which certainly do qualify as a "foreign power" (as defined) or an agent therefor. Thus, it seems clear that Jamie Gorelick, at least in 1994, was advocating that the President had the inherent authority to authorize warrantless searches on al Qaeda operatives for intelligence gathering purposes. Your argument is with Jamie Gorelick.
Now, if you weren't trying to distinguish the warrantless searches under Bush, with the circumstances under which Gorelick was arguing the President had authority to conduct warrantless searches, you probably need to explain the meaning of your above quote. What was your point in highlighting the fact that Gorelick was referring to "foreign powers" in her testimony?
kuv wrote:Tico wrote:kuvasz wrote:<snip>
York is stating that since Gorelick maintained that Clinton had the authority to conduct warrantless searches on foreign powers and their agents, then Bush had a right to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance on Americans on American soil suspected of terrorism, even thought FISA specifically stated otherwise.
Did York state that? Really? I didn't see Bush's name mentioned in his article.
haha, cute. I note that you didn't disagree with that assessment did you?
york wrote that article without any context of current events. imagine that. all on his own he went back and reviewed "obscure" testimony for an article with no relationship to the daily news.
York's Article
You said York stated that because Gorelick made the argument she did in 1994, that Bush had a right to conduct warrantless searches of Americans on American soil. That was untrue. The readers of the piece are free to draw their own conclusions from the article -- even incorrect conclusions such as the one you drew.
