Intelligence Court Rules Wiretapping Power Legal

[red states rule]

How many times did Dems whine that warrant less wiretaps used by the Bush Administration were completely against the Constitution?

7 years worth of illegality has now become legal just in time for Obama not to be called on it for the next 4 years.

Now Dems will cheer on his guy and forget all the BS they sprewed

The good part of theis is, Obama will NOT do away with the wiretaps or the Patriot Act. HE'S the one with the power now. He will carry on the same Bush polcies that Dems fought against for 7 years




WASHINGTON — A federal intelligence court, in a rare public opinion, issued a major ruling validating the power of the president and Congress to wiretap international phone calls and intercept e-mail messages without a specific court order, even when Americans’ private communications may be involved.


The court decision, made in August 2008 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, came in an unclassified, redacted form.

The decision marks the first time since the disclosure of the National Security Agency’s warrantless eavesdropping program three years ago that an appellate court has addressed the constitutionality of the federal government’s wiretapping powers. In validating the government’s wide authority to collect foreign intelligence, it may offer legal credence to the Bush administration’s repeated assertions that the president has the power to act without specific court approval in ordering national security eavesdropping that may involve Americans.

The Aug. 22 appeals court decision upheld a secret ruling issued last year by the intelligence court that it oversees, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, or FISA, court. In that initial opinion, the secret court found that Congress had acted within its authority in August 2007 when it passed a hotly debated law known as the Protect America Act, which gave the executive branch broad power to eavesdrop on international communications.

“The Department of Justice is pleased with this important ruling by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which upholds the constitutionality of foreign intelligence surveillance conducted under the Protect America Act of 2007,” a Justice Department statement said.

The court ruling grew out of a previously undisclosed challenge from a telecommunications provider, which questioned the constitutional authority of the executive branch in ordering it to capture and turn over international communications without court approval.

The telecommunications company, which was not identified, refused to comply and instead challenged its legal basis under the 2007 law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/washington/16fisa.html?_r=2&hp

[Little-Acorn]

From the article:

The FISA court rejected the telecommunication companies’ challenge. It found that the Protect America Act did not violate the Constitution because the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, contained an exception for the collection of foreign intelligence information.

HUH?????????????????

I just checked my copy of the Constitution. The 4th amendment written there, contains no such exception. It doesn't mention foreign vs. domestic, or any such language even close.

I'd like to look at the language of the ruling itself. Maybe I can figure out what on earth the article is talking about.

Right now, I'm sitting here scratching my head in wonderment.

Course, I've been wondering recently if my copy of the Constitution is out of date. People keep telling me it says things that I'm damned if I can find in it. From the 2nd amendment applying to militias only, or military weapons only, to the Welfare clause giving govt permission to do anything it wants, to any degree, if it helps people; to a Constitutional provision specifying a general right to privacy, and a further connection of that right to a right to have an abortion.

None of those things appear in my copy of the Constitution. But I've had this little booklet for a while, and it doesn't have a printing date in it. It contains the 26th amendment (voting age of 18), but not the 27th (no congressional pay raises till after an election). So my copy was printed sometime between those two ratification dates. Maybe it's missing a bunch of other amendments too, that put those other things into the Constitution when I wasn't looking?

Time to study up, I need to get up to date here. I wonder how many pages the latest version has?

[red states rule]

Gee, the courts are going to disagree with the libs opinion about what has been the President's power in matters of National Security all along.

In other words, Bush was right and within his constuitutional powers as Comander in Chief and the libs were wrong.

and Pres Obama will be able to continue with the Bush policy of tapping the phones of terrorists

[Noir]

The rights of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrents shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or thngs to be seized...NOT!...

I guess the main focus is on the words 'unreasonable' and 'probable cause'

[red states rule]

The rights of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrents shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or thngs to be seized...NOT!...

I guess the main focus is on the words 'unreasonable' and 'probable cause'


Sorry you are so borke up over the terrorists losing this one Noir

It will not take you long to see Obama will keep many of the policies of Pres Bush

I look forward to watching the stunned disbelief on the faces of libs

[Little-Acorn]

My guess: Focus is on "The rights of THE PEOPLE to be secure....."

"The people" is generally taken to mean either residents or citizens of the U.S.* Maybe this means that the 4th doesn't apply to people living in foreign countries, who aren't citizens of the U.S.?

Just a guess.......
_______________________________

* Except by 2nd-amendment haters, who insist it means "the militia".

[red states rule]

Just a guess on how the libs and liberal media will spin this defeat

"Oh, but Pres Obama NEEDS those powers, and he would NEVER abuse them!"

It's only wrong when Republicans do it.

[Noir]

Sorry you are so borke up over the terrorists losing this one Noir

It will not take you long to see Obama will keep many of the policies of Pres Bush

I look forward to watching the stunned disbelief on the faces of libs

I don't want terrorists to win, I want freedom to win. And international wire-tapping and e-mail reading ain't freedom.

Tap your own people as much as you want, but stay away from me.

[red states rule]

I don't want terrorists to win, I want freedom to win. And international wire-tapping and e-mail reading ain't freedom.

Tap your own people as much as you want, but stay away from me.

Nobody is tapping your phone or listening to your calls Noir

Only those calls in the US coming from or going to terrorist countries are montored by a computer. The computer listens for key words - only then does someone listen to the call

Do you have any idea the manpower needed to listen to all calls as the kook libs have alleged?

[Kathianne]

I don't want terrorists to win, I want freedom to win. And international wire-tapping and e-mail reading ain't freedom.

Tap your own people as much as you want, but stay away from me.

You do know your being silly, considering what is and has been going on in Europe, including UK?

http://www.slate.com/id/2136147/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/07/wiretap_trends_ss8/

[Noir]

You do know your being silly, considering what is and has been going on in Europe, including UK?

http://www.slate.com/id/2136147/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/07/wiretap_trends_ss8/

Oh don't worry kathi dear, I know of, and detest, what our governent does, labour has been a party that has eroded civil liberties no end, but through the haze of the war on terror, they have got away with it.

@RSR

They only moniter calls from terrorist countries? So are you sati g thy would not moniter calls from the UK? Even though you guys go to great lenths to describe how Islam is spreading in the UK.

Why should some guy have the right to listen to my private phone call, without my knowledge, just cue I say a word or phrase they don't like? One more step along the road to big brother you go, and due to the haze of terror it will go by unnoticed.

If the obama supporters now change their tune over tapping then they are not being libeals, they are being liberal democrats

[DragonStryk72]

How many times did Dems whine that warrant less wiretaps used by the Bush Administration were completely against the Constitution?

7 years worth of illegality has now become legal just in time for Obama not to be called on it for the next 4 years.

Now Dems will cheer on his guy and forget all the BS they sprewed

The good part of theis is, Obama will NOT do away with the wiretaps or the Patriot Act. HE'S the one with the power now. He will carry on the same Bush polcies that Dems fought against for 7 years




WASHINGTON — A federal intelligence court, in a rare public opinion, issued a major ruling validating the power of the president and Congress to wiretap international phone calls and intercept e-mail messages without a specific court order, even when Americans’ private communications may be involved.


The court decision, made in August 2008 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, came in an unclassified, redacted form.

The decision marks the first time since the disclosure of the National Security Agency’s warrantless eavesdropping program three years ago that an appellate court has addressed the constitutionality of the federal government’s wiretapping powers. In validating the government’s wide authority to collect foreign intelligence, it may offer legal credence to the Bush administration’s repeated assertions that the president has the power to act without specific court approval in ordering national security eavesdropping that may involve Americans.

The Aug. 22 appeals court decision upheld a secret ruling issued last year by the intelligence court that it oversees, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, or FISA, court. In that initial opinion, the secret court found that Congress had acted within its authority in August 2007 when it passed a hotly debated law known as the Protect America Act, which gave the executive branch broad power to eavesdrop on international communications.

“The Department of Justice is pleased with this important ruling by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which upholds the constitutionality of foreign intelligence surveillance conducted under the Protect America Act of 2007,” a Justice Department statement said.

The court ruling grew out of a previously undisclosed challenge from a telecommunications provider, which questioned the constitutional authority of the executive branch in ordering it to capture and turn over international communications without court approval.

The telecommunications company, which was not identified, refused to comply and instead challenged its legal basis under the 2007 law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/washington/16fisa.html?_r=2&hp

And so continues the death of conservatism in america.

[red states rule]

And so continues the death of conservatism in america.

More foiled terror plots will continue - while some moan about the rights of terrorists being violated

[Kathianne]

I think it a good ruling for the times. I fully expect there WILL come a time, where it's abused and brought to light. That is when the courts will step in.

Very much like the 'Red Squads' that went out of control in Chicago during the 70's.

[DragonStryk72]

More foiled terror plots will continue - while some moan about the rights of terrorists being violated

The terrorists can't beat us, save in getting us to react just as we have, so yeah, keep applauding, this way they'll keep going.

"He who would sacrifice essential liberties for temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

[red states rule]

The terrorists can't beat us, save in getting us to react just as we have, so yeah, keep applauding, this way they'll keep going.

"He who would sacrifice essential liberties for temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

The terrorists can beat us with help from people like you who are more worried about protecting their rights then defeating them

Seems most of the policies Obama campaigned against are now his policies. That is what happens when one enters the real world

[Yurt]

And so continues the death of conservatism in america.

uh, obama voted FOR it....

[red states rule]

uh, obama voted FOR it....

Didn't Obama vote for it despite the fact he promised to lead a fillibuster in the Senate, Yurt?

[bullypulpit]

This is but a single ruling by the FISA court. It should be taken all the way to the SCOTUS, if necessary.

[red states rule]

This is but a single ruling by the FISA court. It should be taken all the way to the SCOTUS, if necessary.

But Pres Obama will support the law - how will that play with the left? :laugh2:

[April15]

The rights of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrents shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or thngs to be seized...NOT!...

I guess the main focus is on the words 'unreasonable' and 'probable cause'I was hoping to get my phone untapped. Guess that won't happen.

[red states rule]

I was hoping to get my phone untapped. Guess that won't happen.

But I thought you said Obama would bring change :laugh2:

Who would want to listen to your calls? Unless they wanted to cure their insomnia

[Yurt]

Didn't Obama vote for it despite the fact he promised to lead a fillibuster in the Senate, Yurt?

no way, obama has never broken a promise, now way


This is but a single ruling by the FISA court. It should be taken all the way to the SCOTUS, if necessary.

:lol: obama voted it after promising not too

[bullypulpit]

But Pres Obama will support the law - how will that play with the left? :laugh2:

Given that the FISA court is, in and of itself, likely unconstitutional, given that it was established as a means of circumventing the Fourth Amendment, one would hope his Attorney General would take the decision to the SCOTUS, if necessary.

This ruling is, after all, from a court which isn't even a part of the Circuit courts, and the challenges that are sure to follow will likely lead to it being overturned in those federal circuit courts.

Of course, if the Obama administration upholds the laws as he is supposed, Bush, cheney, et al will soon be in the dock for committing war crimes. How will THAT play with the Right?:laugh2:

[darin]

Of course, if the Obama administration upholds the laws as he is supposed, Bush, cheney, et al will soon be in the dock for committing war crimes. How will THAT play with the Right?:laugh2:

I just have to say, BP...I really DO like you. After all these years on boards, I get you. You remind me of myself when I was young & foolish.

[Immanuel]

I don't know RSR. I'm not a lib, but I was against this from the very start. I stated it from the beginning that regardless of how President Bush would use it, the door was open for a future President to abuse it. Bush opened the door and for now, at least, WE have to live with it. May God Protect the good citizens of the United States.

Hopefully a future court will slam this door shut.

Immie

PS I am not by any means insinuating the President Obama will abuse this power. For now, we will have to wait and see.

[Immanuel]

And so continues the death of conservatism in america.

Amen as well as the death of freedom. In the meantime, conservatives are asleep to the fact that our freedoms are being eaten away.

Wanna bet they wake up the first time Obama speaks about National Security and something the President needs to do to protect us?

Immie

[darin]

See - the thing for me is this - I absolutely don't care. I think there are too many other areas where the Gov't is sticking it's nose into our lives with much more severe consequences. Wire Tapping Foriegn conversations to gain intel on possible attacks? Not a huge concern of mine. Speed Cameras? Big Concern. Gun laws? Bigger.

[PostmodernProphet]

This is but a single ruling by the FISA court. It should be taken all the way to the SCOTUS, if necessary.

??...it was....back in the Nixon years....that's why we all know it's legal......

[avatar4321]

The terrorists can't beat us, save in getting us to react just as we have, so yeah, keep applauding, this way they'll keep going.

"He who would sacrifice essential liberties for temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

Not really seeing how liberty is sacrificed by listening to foreign phone calls.

[PostmodernProphet]

some of you apparently aren't aware of this, but if you call your favorite pizza place, which is being legally wiretapped in an investigation of a bookie operation, the goverment is going to be aware that you prefer anchovies.....

[Yurt]

some of you apparently aren't aware of this, but if you call your favorite pizza place, which is being legally wiretapped in an investigation of a bookie operation, the goverment is going to be aware that you prefer anchovies.....

key term....

the issue, as i see it, is: REASONABLE expectation of privacy

what is it?

is it the simple opposite of "unreasonable"?

[bullypulpit]

??...it was....back in the Nixon years....that's why we all know it's legal......

Sorry, but the ruling had nothing what-so-ever to do with with whether or not the warrantless eavesdropping Bush ordered between 2001 and 2006 was a felony under FISA. The decision was much narrower in scope...Dealing with whether or not the warrantless wiretaps authorized under the 2007 Protect America Act was barred under the Fourth Amendment. The only ones spinning it as a vindication for Bush are the right-wing apologists and, of course, their dupes...Like yourself.

[red states rule]

Sorry, but the ruling had nothing what-so-ever to do with with whether or not the warrantless eavesdropping Bush ordered between 2001 and 2006 was a felony under FISA. The decision was much narrower in scope...Dealing with whether or not the warrantless wiretaps authorized under the 2007 Protect America Act was barred under the Fourth Amendment. The only ones spinning it as a vindication for Bush are the right-wing apologists and, of course, their dupes...Like yourself.

Yet you will probably have no issue with Pres Obama when he keeps this, and other Bush policies, when dealing with the terror threat

[PostmodernProphet]

Sorry, but the ruling had nothing what-so-ever to do with with whether or not the warrantless eavesdropping Bush ordered between 2001 and 2006 was a felony under FISA. The decision was much narrower in scope...Dealing with whether or not the warrantless wiretaps authorized under the 2007 Protect America Act was barred under the Fourth Amendment. The only ones spinning it as a vindication for Bush are the right-wing apologists and, of course, their dupes...Like yourself.

and yet apparently, according to the Supreme Court, I'm right and your wrong.....so I guess we apologists and dupes will just continue on being right and you left wing accusers will simply look.....wrong.....

[5stringJeff]

Just a guess on how the libs and liberal media will spin this defeat

"Oh, but Pres Obama NEEDS those powers, and he would NEVER abuse them!"

It's only wrong when Republicans do it.

It's wrong no matter who is in power. Bully's assessment of this ruling is correct. It's from a FISA court, for goodness' sake. If theFISA court had ruled these wiretaps unconstitutional, it would have been ruling itself out of a job!! Of course that court will find FISA legal!

The Patriot Act and the wiretaps on AMERICANS in the name of "fighting terrorism" must end. So must American's irrational fear of terrorism. The best protection against terrorists is an armed population.

[red states rule]

It's wrong no matter who is in power. Bully's assessment of this ruling is correct. It's from a FISA court, for goodness' sake. If theFISA court had ruled these wiretaps unconstitutional, it would have been ruling itself out of a job!! Of course that court will find FISA legal!

The Patriot Act and the wiretaps on AMERICANS in the name of "fighting terrorism" must end. So must American's irrational fear of terrorism. The best protection against terrorists is an armed population.

Americans are not being wiretapped Jeff. That fact keeps escaping the debate from those who are more worried about the rigths of terrorists then defeating them

[5stringJeff]

Americans are not being wiretapped Jeff. That fact keeps escaping the debate from those who are more worried about the rigths of terrorists then defeating them

Americans may be tapped, if their communications begin or end in a foreign country. And it's not so much that they can be tapped, but that they can be tapped without probable cause or a warrant from a court - strictly on the order of a Justice Department official.

[red states rule]

Americans may be tapped, if their communications begin or end in a foreign country. And it's not so much that they can be tapped, but that they can be tapped without probable cause or a warrant from a court - strictly on the order of a Justice Department official.

Here is a little something for you Jeff

The liberal media blew this up to undermine Pres Bush and his attempts to stop further attacks


WASHINGTON: The National Security Agency has not conducted wiretapping without warrants on the phones of any Americans since at least February, the top U.S. intelligence officer told Congress.

Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, told the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday that since he took office that month, the government has conducted electronic surveillance only after seeking court-approved warrants.

In January, the Bush administration announced that it had agreed to allow a secret intelligence court to oversee the National Security Agency's eavesdropping program, and that it would comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 30-year-old law that regulates the government's domestic spying activities. The administration's decision appeared to end the basis for the warrantless wiretapping program secretly begun by President George W. Bush just after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

McConnell's testimony Tuesday marked the first time he had publicly said that the warrantless wiretapping of Americans had actually been ended.

It came just as the Democratic-controlled Congress is preparing for yet another legislative battle over how to update the foremost U.S. surveillance law.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/19/america/spy.php

[5stringJeff]

Here is a little something for you Jeff

The liberal media blew this up to undermine Pres Bush and his attempts to stop further attacks

Did they "blow it up" for that reason? Or did they address it because warrantless wiretapping is a gross violation of executive power?

[red states rule]

Did they "blow it up" for that reason? Or did they address it because warrantless wiretapping is a gross violation of executive power?

They blew it up to undermine Pres bush and the war on terror

It is the same reason the NY Times and other liberal segments of the liberal media published other classified documnets on how the US was tracking terrorists

OBL said he would use our laws against us, and there are enough people here that will help him make that perdiction come true

[5stringJeff]

They blew it up to undermine Pres bush and the war on terror

It is the same reason the NY Times and other liberal segments of the liberal media published other classified documnets on how the US was tracking terrorists

OBL said he would use our laws against us, and there are enough people here that will help him make that perdiction come true

The laws that protect civil liberties are to protect us, not to hurt us. The only people upset with such laws are those who want a heavy-handed government to control our lives.

[red states rule]

The laws that protect civil liberties are to protect us, not to hurt us. The only people upset with such laws are those who want a heavy-handed government to control our lives.

They protect us Jeff - not the TERRORISTS

I want to see the same outrage from the left and liberal media if Obama keeps these same polcies

Somehow I think we will not hear a word - since they work

[bullypulpit]

Yet you will probably have no issue with Pres Obama when he keeps this, and other Bush policies, when dealing with the terror threat

Uhhh...Yeah, I will take issue with it.

[bullypulpit]

and yet apparently, according to the Supreme Court, I'm right and your wrong.....so I guess we apologists and dupes will just continue on being right and you left wing accusers will simply look.....wrong.....

Please cite the Supreme court ruling you are discusing.

[red states rule]

Uhhh...Yeah, I will take issue with it.

Tell me BP, if you do speak out against the Chosen One will it be above a whisper so all us will hear it :laugh2:

[bullypulpit]

Tell me BP, if you do speak out against the Chosen One will it be above a whisper so all us will hear it :laugh2:

Yep.

[red states rule]

Yep.

Where have you been on other Obama flip flops?

No tax increases

Not closing GITMO

Not pulling out of Iraq right away

No wind fall profit tax on oil companies

How about wanting a tax cheat to head up the IRS and US Treasury?

[Yurt]

The laws that protect civil liberties are to protect us, not to hurt us. The only people upset with such laws are those who want a heavy-handed government to control our lives.

do you disapprove of martial law?

[stephanie]

Tell me BP, if you do speak out against the Chosen One will it be above a whisper so all us will hear it :laugh2:

that will be a day I will faint..never have in my entire life..:coffee:

[red states rule]

that will be a day I will faint..never have in my entire life..:coffee:

BP will say Obama needs these powers since Pre Bush pissed off so many freedom fighters in the ME

[5stringJeff]

do you disapprove of martial law?

In general, yes. Specifically, I believe that only Congress can suspend habeus corpus, and not the President unilaterally.

[bullypulpit]

BP will say Obama needs these powers since Pre Bush pissed off so many freedom fighters in the ME

Ummm...No, I won't. Unlike you, I think for myself. If the Obama and/or his DOJ fail to pursue charges against current, former and soon to be former, members of the Bush administration who violated US and international law by authorizing and conducting torture, they will have betrayed their duty to uphold and defend the Constitution and the rule of law. They will be as unworthy to hold their offices as Bush and his merry band have been.

[bullypulpit]

They blew it up to undermine Pres bush and the war on terror

It is the same reason the NY Times and other liberal segments of the liberal media published other classified documnets on how the US was tracking terrorists

OBL said he would use our laws against us, and there are enough people here that will help him make that perdiction come true

Now, just where did he say that? Bin Laden said his goal was to "bankrupt" America, a goal with which the Bush administration has co-operated most readily.

What gives bin Laden, and the rest of his ilk, credibility is for the US government to abandon its laws in pursuit of these terrorists. They can then say that the US hypocritically abandons its ideals...its rules...its laws...in the face of a threat. Again, the Bush administration has readily co-operated in this arena as well. The war is won, in battling a terrorist threat, by taking, and holding the moral high ground. Failing to do so simply serves as a rallying cry to the terrorists, as we have seen under Bush administration policy.

But you're not a big picture guy Red. You prefer the visceral, and immediate, satisfaction of seeing someone, anyone...even if its the wrong person, go under the ax for their crimes...even if they didn't actually commit them. I imagine that, in an earlier time, you would have been one of the first to join a lynch mob, becoming a law unto itself, impatient and unwilling to let the rule of law work its course.

[PostmodernProphet]

Please cite the Supreme court ruling you are discusing.

the one which stated that tapping foreign telephone conversations under FISA was not unconstitutional......

[red states rule]

Ummm...No, I won't. Unlike you, I think for myself. If the Obama and/or his DOJ fail to pursue charges against current, former and soon to be former, members of the Bush administration who violated US and international law by authorizing and conducting torture, they will have betrayed their duty to uphold and defend the Constitution and the rule of law. They will be as unworthy to hold their offices as Bush and his merry band have been.

Dispite all the whining from the left, Pres Bush has been proven right once again

He did everything in his power to keep the country safe - even you BP. Despite zero cooperation from the left, and the constant undermining from the liberal media


http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/richedit/upload/2k0332b8d10d.jpg

[bullypulpit]

the one which stated that tapping foreign telephone conversations under FISA was not unconstitutional......

...With a WARRANT from the FISA court. Even under FISA, Bush's WARRANTLESS wiretaps were illegal and unconstitutional.

[bullypulpit]

Dispite all the whining from the left, Pres Bush has been proven right once again

He did everything in his power to keep the country safe - even you BP. Despite zero cooperation from the left, and the constant undermining from the liberal media


http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/richedit/upload/2k0332b8d10d.jpg

"24" is a work of fiction...Much like Bush claims of success in Iraq, making America safer and having a generally successful administration. Oh, and doing the "right" thing doesn't mean forswearing his oath to "Support and defend the Constitution" by using the Constitution as toilet paper.

[5stringJeff]

"24" is a work of fiction...Much like Bush claims of success in Iraq, making America safer and having a generally successful administration. Oh, and doing the "right" thing doesn't mean forswearing his oath to "Support and defend the Constitution" by using the Constitution as toilet paper.

Indeed, by conducting warrantless wiretaps, Bush absolutely did the WRONG thing.

[PostmodernProphet]

...With a WARRANT from the FISA court. Even under FISA, Bush's WARRANTLESS wiretaps were illegal and unconstitutional.

no.....sorry, you're wrong......the court held there were no constitutional protections involved in tapping phones overseas under FISA....thus, warrant or no warrant, they weren't illegal.....typical liberal.....if they keep repeating their lies long enough they actually start thinking it's the truth......

[bullypulpit]

no.....sorry, you're wrong......the court held there were no constitutional protections involved in tapping phones overseas under FISA....thus, warrant or no warrant, they weren't illegal.....typical liberal.....if they keep repeating their lies long enough they actually start thinking it's the truth......

While there is no constitutional issue in tapping overseas telecommunications, The tapping of the telecommunications of US citizens originating stateside and regardless of their destination, prior to August 2007 at any rate, required a warrant from the FISA court, which means the court had to be presented probable cause to issue said warrant. Bush admitted that he ignored the FISA court in his wiretapping program...He never had that option, and in doing so, he violated the law.

[PostmodernProphet]

While there is no constitutional issue in tapping overseas telecommunications, The tapping of the telecommunications of US citizens originating stateside and regardless of their destination, prior to August 2007 at any rate, required a warrant from the FISA court, which means the court had to be presented probable cause to issue said warrant. Bush admitted that he ignored the FISA court in his wiretapping program...He never had that option, and in doing so, he violated the law.

a pity for your argument that the courts disagree with you......

[5stringJeff]

a pity for your argument that the courts disagree with you......

And a pity that the Constitution disagrees with the court.

[PostmodernProphet]

And a pity that the Constitution disagrees with the court.

don't be ridiculous.....the odd man out is you, not the Constitution.....