CingularDuality

So?


I'm not the one spinning things. What was the context? If he was talking about US Citizens being the subject of investigations, then no foul. If he was talking about foreign terror investigations with Americans as collaterals, then I'll concede that he was incorrect, misinformed or being untruthful.

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Zebra

That's a very kind way of saying he was lying through his teeth.

Beatnik

Bringing back an oldie but a goodie thread...

Federal Judge Orders End to Warrantless Wiretapping, or Activist Judges and the ACLU are Aiding the Enemy.

__________________

leejo

Karnac The Magnificent sees an appeal in the near future, followed by a fast stay.

Meanwhile, another Jimmy Carter gift that keeps on giving.

Diceman

I'd like to see Karnac's sources.

__________________

[drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1]
[ma-c2][taw-c1]

leejo

Ah but that you cannot do. If you could, then Karnac would not be magnificent, no?

Diceman

heh heh - in that case, 99% of what is said here is pretty magnificient!

__________________

[drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1]
[ma-c2][taw-c1]

leejo

No. 99% is bs. Only Karnac knows the Truth. Only Karnac sees the future.

But Karnac cannot spell. Here's a pic of Karnac trying to remember how to spell his name:



Ah yes...it's becoming clear....Carnac!

USN_Squid

It hasn't been appealed yet of course, but here's a hint:

FISA judges say Bush within law - Nation/Politics - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).

The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president’s constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.

“If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now,” said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. “I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute.”

__________________

Steeler

Uh-huh. Sure. There was the FISA court judge who resigned in protest of this whole affair. Plus this article is from March, and the details of the case have advanced a bit in the intervening months.

__________________

Switchcraft

So does the tantrum-throwing judge you cite have any more credibility than the other judges who have expressed their opinion? Or is it safe to say that there is at least some room to debate this issue among reasonable people?

This ruling will almost certainly be overturned on appeal. It's poorly written, with more rhetoric than analysis.

It even makes incorrect factual claims about the program, including claiming that it has "undisputedly been continued for at least five years," which of course it has not. It also claims the program is "obviously in violation of the Fourth Amendment," which, considering that was one of the issues the court was supposed to rule on, doesn't really explain anything.

Unless, of course, you take her seriously when she says that the 4th Amendment "requires prior warrants for any reasonable search, based upon prior-existing probable cause, as well as particularity as to persons, places, and things, and the interposition of a neutral magistrate between Executive branch enforcement officers and citizens."

That claim, of course, is obviously false. There are many exceptions to the warrant requirement, and she addresses NONE OF THEM.

However, Steeler, she does manage to both agree with you and make it impossible to do many of the things you wanted the government to do (as stated by you earlier in the thread).

She claims that not only would the government need a warrant to conduct a wiretap, but that the government would also have to know the name of the person being monitored. This of course would make a majority of the wiretap program moot. Our people on the ground in Afghanistan often find stashes of paperwork that include lists of telephone numbers used by the enemy. If this judge had her way, we would not be able to listen in on calls to those numbers unless we knew the name of the person who was going to answer.