Saying we don't wiretap American citizens in this country without a warrant.
Yep, that would be a lie.
The cons ution does not require a warrant. A warrant is a legal order for enforcement to act. The act it self only requires probable cause for the executive branch. Some actions by police and other enforcement activities also only require probable cause. The cons ution only protects from "UNREASONABLE" actions.
Oh please, that's why we have the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act..The cons ution does not require a warrant. A warrant is a legal order for enforcement to act. The act it self only requires probable cause for the executive branch. Some actions by police and other enforcement activities also only require probable cause. The cons ution only protects from "UNREASONABLE" actions.
The act was created to provide Judicial and congressional oversight of the government's covert surveillance activities of foreign en ies and individuals in the United States, while maintaining the secrecy needed to protect national security. It allowed warrant-less surveillance within the United States for up to one year unless the "surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party". If a United States person is involved, judicial authorization was required within 72 hours after surveillance begins....
WikipediaThe act created a court which meets in secret, and approves or denies requests for search warrants. Only the number of warrants applied for, issued and denied, is reported. In 1980 (the first full year after its inception), it approved 322 warrants.[2] This number has steadily grown to 2224 warrants[3] in 2006. In the period 1979-2006 a total of 22,990 applications for warrants were made to the Court of which 22,985 were approved (sometimes with modifications; or with the splitting up, or combining together, of warrants for legal purposes), and only 5 were definitively rejected.
I guess that was 5 to many for some conservatives?
Dan, what you posted is true to a point and concerning cases not under the executive branch. Legal decisions have expanded the protections under the fourth amendment, but such decisions cannot bind the executive branch as the president is the executor of law. They can only bind lower law enforcement activities not serving the interests of the Executor.
Read the fourth amendment carefully and note the "unreasonable" aspect of it. Now here are the definitions for "warrant":
Definition one is used on a regular basis to protect the police from liability. Definition 2 is as I said, an order to take such actions. Notice that no definition says a warrant is required to take action.1. An act, instrument, or obligation, by which one person authorizes another to do something which he has not otherwise a right to do; an act or instrument investing one with a right or authority, and thus securing him from loss or damage; authority; commission; sanction.
2. A legal instrument ordering a judicial act, such as an arrest, search, etc., to be executed by an officer of the court.
3. A writing that authorizes a person to receive money or other things; a license.
4. The certificate of appointment given to a noncommissioned officer or the Army or Navy.
5. A voucher; that which attests or proves; an attestation.
6. That which secures; security; guarantee, pledge; assurance given.
Again, look at the cons ution. It is written for plain folks to understand. However, words and phases are not used the same today. You must understand the definition s of then, not now. If such an action isn't unreasonable, then it is often reasonable and therefore legal without a warrant! Things like the FISA law allow less than reasonable su ion to be decided and acted upon by enforcement activities not immediately authorized under the president. There are large gray areas normally between reasonable and unreasonable, especially when dealing with different peoples experiences and values. Still, the law is needed so the president or his delegated appointee does not need to act individually on every case. This allows the FBI and other enforcement to act without disciplinary actions taken.
IT WASN'T A LIE!!!
Just think if you posted a video of every time Bush lied!
^
or Tpark's arteries.
Pavlov
You didn't even want to check-in as present for this one.
You really do think about him all day long, don't you?
As you think about Florida all day long.
+ you think about this as well as Florida::: Zogby Analytics 86 percent...chance the old man will get that xtra 4 years to pulverize your tight ass.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
