Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>The President will have to find a way around the Court.<< It is statements like that that make me worry about the future of the Republic.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Court oversight means not all wiretaps will get approved, thus we are back to where the problem originated. The President will have to find a way around the Court." So you want the President to give the finger to the Constitution? Nice. Good thing it's going to be the other way around.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder That damn checks and balances thing. Where were those Framers thinking, anyway?
Originally Posted By woody I think there should be a new type of warrant. It allow monitoring with court or congressional oversight. Only if intelligence objectives are not met or abuses are found, that portion of the wiretaps can be stopped. Warrants should not impede a pending investigation as in a criminal investigation. Fighting terrorists should be handled with new rules as well as when an individual case moves from a war scenario to a subsequent detention and court tribunal. The court is currently outdated in these matters and I don't think the court system and congress can ever keep up with the changes. They are deadlocked.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Warrants should not impede a pending investigation as in a criminal investigation. Fighting terrorists should be handled with new rules as well as when an individual case moves from a war scenario to a subsequent detention and court tribunal. The court is currently outdated in these matters and I don't think the court system and congress can ever keep up with the changes. They are deadlocked." Woody, seriously, man, you really need to take a step back and think for a minute before you post stuff like this.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<<If it didn't apply, why bother to argue its cumbersomeness? They changed their tune when they had to - but apparently love is deaf as well.>> <They've said FISA didn't apply from the beginning. They argued about FISA cumbersomeness because some critics kept asserting, uncorrectly, that getting warrants are easy and quick.> Boy, the revision of history happened quick this time.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>Doesn't follow. Defunding the program would defund both the legitimate taps AND the (one hopes, limited number of) illegitimate taps<< <Don't ask me how they would do it. It would be an option they could take.> Okay - but it's not an option anyone's discussing seriously. >>The problem is taking on faith that all targets (targeted by this, or ANY adminstration) ARE legitimate without court oversight.<< <How can be ever be sure that all the wiretaps are legally permissible with a warrant? You really can't.> By definition, a tap that obtained a warrant is legally permissible. <Court oversight means not all wiretaps will get approved, thus we are back to where the problem originated. The President will have to find a way around the Court.> Oh man... others got to that one before I could. Yikes.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Boy, the revision of history happened quick this time.> Yes. Luckily I'm here to state the truth.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Yes. Luckily I'm here to state the truth." Don't forget your sword, Sporky.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan <a href="http://www.theadventuresource.com/istar.asp?a=6&id=UNS215" target="_blank">http://www.theadventuresource. com/istar.asp?a=6&id=UNS215</a>!EQUIN
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Yes. Luckily I'm here to state the truth.<< <a href="http://www.bluetights.net/gallery/albums/cast/brandon/superman.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.bluetights.net/gall ery/albums/cast/brandon/superman.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By woody >>Oh man... others got to that one before I could. Yikes.<< The law hasn't be changed yet. STATUS QUO.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Boy, the revision of history happened quick this time.>> <Yes. Luckily I'm here to state the truth.> Thanks for the laugh.
