Ok, did alot of reading relative to the NSA's program of intercepting communications without warrants on behalf of the President. This is simple.
- The NSA obviously intercepts a lot of communications 'data', some of which makes it across the water to the US, or from here to there. That falls under Article II of the Constitution. The Executive Branch has the right ( and the requirement) to conduct this kind of 'warrantless' survellience against foreign entities, be they countries or terrorist organizations, outside and inside our borders.
- They may know who is sending or receiving the information (Al Qaeda operatives, etc.), but may not know initially who's on the other end, sending or receiving.
- If the initially unknown person winds up being a US person (citizen or resident alien), THEN we need to deal with the Fourth Amendment. If they're not a US person, all bets are off.
2 comments:
The fact is, Bush has not met the burden of proof that he was in fact spying on "terrorists." Until Bush Apologists, non-pulsed Americans, and neo-cons recognize this, they can not assert that in fact Bush was spying on terrorists. They only have his word.
So much for the rule of law Guitanguran. So much for the Constitution.
The fact is, Bush only needed to submit the proper paperwork within 72 hours of taking such action. We have no idea who he spied on, other than Quaker or Vegans (ie peace groups). This is a fact you can not equivocate out of, or assert beyond, as there is no PROOF that in fact, Bush was spying on Al Qaeda. Where the f*ck is the paperwork? Well? Republican Arlen Specter will not only force telecommunications CEO’s to testify according to Republican Russell Tice, the whistle blower of conscience that finally brought this to America’s attention, but to whatever knowledge they have of this un-Constitutional program.
Surrender your liberty if you must, liberals know that both can be maintained.
Your dichotomy is false bub. Doubt me? Good. I challenge you to define what is and when is an acceptable end to this "war on terror?" Please define it. Please. I will call you out on it now - you can not. How do I know that? Because this administration can not, or they will not. If they will not, then it is because they can not. Therefor, they can not.
Regardless, the burden of proof must be satiated, otherwise it is tyranny and wishful thinking that your argument stands on.
//Suspect Device
suspexdvce at yahoo
Well SD, there is your trouble from the beginning. Using a term like 'burden of proof', for example. The burden of proof is required of the prosecutor in convicting a criminal. It up to him to prove something wrong happened.
Under what circumstances does the 'defendant', Mr. Bush have to shoulder a burden of proof? Or, for that matter, try to prove a negative. For example, "Here, let me try to provide evidence of something I DIDN'T do." There's no logic in that.
Are we to disregard the fact that senior members of Congress had been informed on an ongoing basis? If they're so doggone smart, why didn't they go to the press and tell the world Bush was breaking the law? They had the information. It would have been a perfect political opportunity, provided there were actual laws being broken. Are you saying Democrats wouldn't have done so?
Look, unless an until you folks start looking at the folks that are trying kill us (you included)as the enemy, you're taking attention away from the real problems, but bless your heart, anyway and thanks for commenting.
Post a Comment