DLAW WHINES - "All the while he was conducting unconstitutional and unlawful warrantless electronic surveillance of the American people, he was LYING to our faces and PRETENDING to honor our constitutional values: "
American people sympathetic to the enemy who are in direct communication with non-american enemy sympathizers. LET"S DESCRIBE EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING ON HERE!
He lied? He BOLDLY communicated his actions with Senata leadership. Leadership in this country knew EXACTLY what he was doing and when he was doing it.
Why do you insist on omitting relavent facts?
The 4th Amendment -
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "
Is it unreasonable to "search" known enemy sympathizers regardless of their location?
Yes or NO?
I assume those calling for impeachment of the president will insist on the same for all those Democrats that were briefed...over and over...surely they must be "lying" as well
This isn't a Democrat versus Republican issue. There are plenty of Republicans shocked by this as well that are calling for hearings and saying it is illegal.
woiyo wrote:The 4th Amendment -
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "
You forgot to highlight "and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,"
How convenient.
woiyo wrote:ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!
YES or NO?
Calm, calm - or is this now your personal owned site?
First, you are assuming that "Known enemy sympathizers" are the only ones being searched without a warrant. We already know that is not the case.
Second, there is a process in place for securing a warrant, either before or after the search, that would prevent known enemy sympathizers from being freed on a technicality when it is discovered that the illegal wiretap was part of the governments case against them.
So, get the warrant. Do the eavesdropping.
squinney wrote:This isn't a Democrat versus Republican issue. There are plenty of Republicans shocked by this as well that are calling for hearings and saying it is illegal.
Plenty? I know only of Hagel and Snow. Any others?
woiyo wrote:The 4th Amendment -
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "
Is it unreasonable to "search" known enemy sympathizers regardless of their location?
Yes or NO?
Yes it IS unreasonable unless you have a DEFINITIVE definition of a "known enemy sympathizer." The simple fact that Coulter and several on this site refer to anyone that disagrees with the President as "traitors" and giving aid and comfort to the enemy PROVES the need for courts to prevent people with wide ranging definitions from searching any 'known enemy sympathizers.'
It was eight people who were briefed. We only know one objected because he showed proof of a letter of objection. They were not to tell anyone, they couldn't consult. However, I agree, if any in those eight disagreed strongly enough, they should have went public with it regardless of loss of career.
Also, this is more widespread than watching known suspects of terrorist.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7922.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10592932/
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/rock-cheney1.html
squinney wrote:First, you are assuming that "Known enemy sympathizers" are the only ones being searched without a warrant. We already know that is not the case.
Second, there is a process in place for securing a warrant, either before or after the search, that would prevent known enemy sympathizers from being freed on a technicality when it is discovered that the illegal wiretap was part of the governments case against them.
So, get the warrant. Do the eavesdropping.
Will you EVER answer a simple question??
One of the defenses being put forth by the administration is that the type of eavesdropping they are doing wouldn't qualify for a search warrant. They have also indicated that the 72 hours is not long enough to do the paperwork for an after the fact search warrant.
Now, the reason for that is that they have been doing "wide sweeps." That means they have been listening to (reportedly) up to 500 calls at one time. If they were to have to complete post-fact paperwork for listening to 500 phone calls at a time, yeah, I imagine that's a lot to do within 72 hours.
But, think about that. If they are eavesdropping on 500 phone calls at any one time, and those are all calls from "known enemy sympathizers" (according to woiyo) then at any given time over the past four years, there have been 500 known enemy sympathizers free amongst us to walk the streets and make phone calls and go about their lives.
Now, try calculating that out over 365 days times four years times 500 phone calls at any given time that are being listened to.
That's a heck of a lot of known enemy sympathizers! How many have been captured? Have you heard of any? Hamdi? Faris? Any others?
So, is it really very likely that, since they admit the sweeps wouldn't qualify for a warrant and hundreds of thousands of arrests aren't being made, that the eavesdropping is REALLY just on known terrorist sympathizers?
parados wrote:Quote:Sen. Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who chairs the Judiciary Committee, has called the program "inappropriate" and promised to hold hearings early next year. Republicans joining him include centrist Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and John Sununu of New Hampshire, along with limited-government types like Larry Craig of Idaho.
Ah. I guess it depends on one's definition of "plenty".
JustWonders wrote:parados wrote:Quote:Sen. Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who chairs the Judiciary Committee, has called the program "inappropriate" and promised to hold hearings early next year. Republicans joining him include centrist Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and John Sununu of New Hampshire, along with limited-government types like Larry Craig of Idaho.
Ah. I guess it depends on one's definition of "plenty".
5 isn't enough yet? The list is longer but that is only one news source. By the way. I can only find 3 Dems listed in the story. I wonder if there are only 3. Nah, I could do my own research on that one.
Until the USSC says what is being done is illegal,it isnt.
Thats the bottom line.
parados wrote:JustWonders wrote:parados wrote:Quote:Sen. Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who chairs the Judiciary Committee, has called the program "inappropriate" and promised to hold hearings early next year. Republicans joining him include centrist Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and John Sununu of New Hampshire, along with limited-government types like Larry Craig of Idaho.
Ah. I guess it depends on one's definition of "plenty".
5 isn't enough yet? The list is longer but that is only one news source. By the way. I can only find 3 Dems listed in the story. I wonder if there are only 3. Nah, I could do my own research on that one.
Two-thirds is a good round number
As in, nearly two-thirds of those Americans polled who think the NSA monitoring policy is okay.
Gee, until the USSC tells me that voting 3 times in an election is illegal I guess I can do that. Or until they tell me I can't intimidate Republican voters at a polling place with a shotgun that must be legal. Something isn't legal UNTIL the USSC says otherwise. Who would possibly think such a thing?
