Reply With Quote
How many times does that idiot say "court order?" I guess it never sunk into that thick skull of his.
-- President Bush, April 20, 2004, remarks on USA Patriot Act"(T)here are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, cons utional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Cons ution.
But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligent drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.
The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies."
White House.gov
How many times does that idiot say "court order?" I guess it never sunk into that thick skull of his.
how many times will idiots be proven wrong by history.....
'Warrantless' searches not unprecedented
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 22, 2005
Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence.
"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 and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps.
More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."
Such warrantless searches have been at the center of a political fight in Washington after the New York Times reported Friday that the Bush administration had a program to intercept communications between al Qaeda suspects and persons in this country, a story whose publication coincided with the congressional debate over reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act.
In a 2002 opinion about the cons utionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the USA Patriot Act, the court wrote: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's cons utional power."
Indeed, previous administrations have used that same authority.
One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants.
In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.
Previous administrations also asserted the authority of the president to conduct searches in the interest of national security.
In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government.
That same year, Congress approved and Mr. Carter signed FISA, which created the secret court and required federal agents to get approval to conduct electronic surveillance in most foreign intelligence cases.
So you're saying that Bush was FOR the Cons ution, before he was AGAINST it? What a flip-flopper.
It's just a god-damn piece of paper, right?
Hey, if you're gonna steal an election, invade an independent nation w/out provocation or cause, might as well throw a little illegal spying in as well
..And to think it only took a few illegal wire-taps and a break-in to the DNC office in Washington to get Nixon impeached.
But..But....But clinton did it. That's all the repubs can say? So no one is saying the fact that clinton may have supported the same imperical powers bush does makes it all right. If thats the case then the hole thing is wrong, who the cares. but i also challenge any republican to give an instance of clinton excersing this roving wire tap on american citizens.
No just pointing out that your main man was guilty of the same you accuse
Bush of. And I care, because no one on this forum who is attacking Bush
for his actions said do diddle squat about what the liar did. No one thought
it was wrong that the President of the United States of America got a
blow job even while talking on the phone. No one worried that he lied to a
grand jury, took money from foreign sources for campaigns. What a bunch of
worthless hypocrites we have on this forum.
yet you don't care when the current prez manufactures reasons for invading an independent nation or when his admin leaks info about CIA agents or wiretaps people? but you're not a hypocrite because you have King George and God on your side.
blue dress!!!!
He, like your idols: the dimm-o-craps, used the same intel that he was
given. About what CIA agent, you mean the lady and her dumb ass husband,
who even the investigator has not found a violation of law in her case, oh,
don't give me the crap about the one dumb ass indictment. I hope Fitz gets
the task of seeing who is leaking all the real secrets from NSA. Oh, how I
long for an investigation of that. I think the millionaire Senator
Rockefeller maybe looking for a hole to hide in and a few other dimm-o-craps
hunting for cover. Your idols have never learned the old adage, when you
find yourself in a hole, quit digging. OG, you got to learn something. We all know how to read and the NYT and other big media ant the only game in
town anymore.
Xray=teh coolness
Okay, you stumped me. teh? coolness? Another show?
Bush lie? Flip Flop? No way.......
No forum.
This compilation of videos by Hardball nails the WH over it's dynamic policy toward domestic survellience. MSNBC's David Shuster has emerged as a genuine investigative journalist.
W promises to play by FISA rules
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
