26 X World Champs said:
Not sure why you want me to repost again that Ames and all CIA employees sign a waiver that permits for them to be wire tapped, searched etc.? Did you forget this vital truth? If he signed it, then he was not searched illegally, was he?
Here is your first mention of this...
26 X World Champs said:
Oh, BTW - Don't waste our time with the CIA traitor Aldrich Aimes because he signed a release that permitted the government to tap his phones without a warrant, as does everyone who works for the CIA.
Now here is your second mention...
26 X World Champs said:
Not sure why you want me to repost again that Ames and all CIA employees sign a waiver that permits for them to be wire tapped, searched etc.?
Not sure why you mentioned ONLY "taps" in the first one, then revised your position to include "search etc"...
Also, your insistance of including anything FISA amended in
1995 becomes moot when Asst. Atty. General Jamie Gorelick TESTIFIED before the Intelligence Committe on
July 14th, 1994 with these EXACT words...
At the outset, let me emphasize two very important points. First, 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 has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General...
Second, the Administration and the Attorney General support, in principle, legislation establishing judicial warrant procedures under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for physical searches undertaken for intelligence purposes. However, whether specific legislation on this subject is desirable for the practical benefits it might add to intelligence collection, or undesirable as too much of a restriction on the President’s authority to collect intelligence necessary for the national security, depends on how the legislation is crafted...
...
In considering legislation of this type, however, it is important to understand that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the President in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities...
...The Department of Justice has consistently taken the position that the Fourth Amendment requires all searches to be reasonable, including those conducted for foreign intelligence purposes in the United States or against U.S. persons abroad. For the reasons I just mentioned, however, we believe that the warrant clause of the Fourth Amendment is inapplicable to such searches. We are satisfied, therefore, that Attorney General approval of foreign intelligence searches pursuant to the President’s delegation of authority in Executive order 12333 meets the requirements of the Constitution.
Now let's take a gander at
Executive order 12333, which was signed by Reagan in 1981...
(d) Physical surveillance of a United States person abroad to collect foreign intelligence, except to obtain significant information that cannot reasonably be acquired by other means.
2.5 Attorney General Approval. The Attorney General hereby is delegated the power to approve the use for intelligence purposes, within the United States or against a United States person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes, provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken unless the Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Electronic surveillance, as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be conducted in accordance with that Act, as well as this Order.
Now figure this out...
If Reagan signs an order that says it A-ok for the Atty. General to approve ANY TECHNIQUE for which a warrant would be required, he is CLEARLY indicating anything warrantless.
Now check out the last sentence..."Electronic surveillance, as defined in the FISA Act of 1978..."
That mentions HOW the surveillance is conducted...NOT how the surveillance was APPROVED...
The beginning already makes it clear the Atty. General is given the authority...
If it was the way you want it, that would mean that this Order was in direct violation of FISA, which means we've had an illigal Order on the books for 25 years...
Is that your claim?...:2wave:
26 X World Champs said:
I see it differently. I see it as Clinton saw that the law needed to be revised and went through the legislative channel to get it passed and put into law. Vito Bush has done no such thing, and hasn't proposed anything either. He just took the law into his own hands.
Then why did the President push for an amendment to show inherent authority which he already had????....Puzzling, ain't it?
26 X World Champs said:
Did you also forget that the topic of this thread is about Don Vito Bush? Seems to me that when someone cites previous presidents as precedent for what they perceive Bush is doing today legally or perhaps illegally it makes perfect sense to tie the various parts together, but that's just my humble opinion.
Crazy little thing called "precedent"...When Bush is out of office, start counting the number of times the new President says or does something and people start mentioning "Just like Bush" or "Not like Bush"....
Buy a calculator that can add really high numbers...
26 X World Champs said:
You seem to be suggesting that I'm not reading what you posted but I actually feel the same way, or that you're not comprehending what I posted? Here AGAIN, is the point I made in rebuttal to what you reposted above.
So what did Clinton sign exactly in February 1995?
You keep showing me the same thing from 1995...Yet it's already been established that he had the inherent authority BEFORE your amendment...
26 X World Champs said:
Shall I restate what I just posted? Clinton NEVER spied on anyone on American soil without a warrant, BUSH is doing it right this very minute, and that is the entire point of this thread.
Doesn't matter if he did it once or a million times...If Clinton had the authority to do it...which he did...he could've...
But that would involve defending National Security...something he wasn't too keen on...
With a war going on in Iraq and the continued presence of an organization that wants us all dead, it's perplexing why you WOULDN'T want your President to be doing this...
26 X World Champs said:
To recap, Clinton never spied or violated anyone's civil rights if they were on US soil but Josef Bush is violating countless people's civil rights every single day. That is the crux of this thread and my posts...
get a new crux...yours is broken...
And read the title pertaining to the "crux" of this thread...
Americans overwhelming support President Bush in wiretapping.
Funny...That doesn't SOUND like the crux of your posts...
BTW - No response to my "Drudge" discussion?...Convieniently left it out instead of explaining why you used him when responding to my post?
Here it is again...
D) What's with the hard-on for Drudge?...And why did you decide to throw it out while responding to one of my posts?...
I have no idea what Drudge thinks nor do I care...I've never mentioned him or his opinion when writing on this topic..For you to go on a Drudge diatribe is very confusing when there hasn't been any reference to him by me previously...
If you're gonna reach the conclusion that what I write is somehow equal to what he writes, you can go right ahead and do that...It's rediculous, but there's no law against it...
If someone says they believe in Jesus, will you say they must be followers of Pat Robertson?...
If someone says they own a gun, will you say they must be a big Charton Heston fan?...
Then what's this "cnredd said something Drudge has said, so he MUST be getting his thoughts from Drudge" bullshit?!?!?
What Drudge says is what Drudge says...what I say is what I say...I didn't take anything written or implied from him, and for you to make that insinuation is too far reaching to comprehend...
And your response would be???????...:2wave: