State of the Union (rant)

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Bosh


Just like the legislation that came from Bush's pledges to give umpteen billion to Africa I expect and increase funding to firemen and whatnot.

I was thinking more along the line of an R&D tax credit to big oil.

[Edan]

Transcript

Two comments:

Since the 9/11 hijackers weren't US citizens, warrents weren't needed to wiretap them - So the presidents program to circumvent the law wouldn't have been required to prevent 9/11.

And if

It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it

Couldn't they just get warrants on all known Al Qaeda agents?

Or are they affraid the court that can't say no will turn them down?

[Arrian]

They just don't want to bother (the court's a freakin' rubber stamp anyway!) with anything resembling due process.

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

Since the 9/11 hijackers weren't US citizens, warrents weren't needed to wiretap them

Uh...no.

[Edan]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Since the 9/11 hijackers weren't US citizens, warrents weren't needed to wiretap them

Uh...no.

Fisa only requires warrants when there's a significant likelyhood of one party being a us citizen. The hijackers weren't citizens, and I'm guessing it's very unlikely that their Al Qaeda handlers in Afghanistan were.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by PLATO


I was thinking more along the line of an R&D tax credit to big oil.

Aaaah, now that's more like it!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Edan




Fisa only requires warrants when there's a significant likelyhood of one party being a us citizen

No, FISA requires a FISC warrant in all cases.

[Edan]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


No, FISA requires a FISC warrant in all cases.

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and

if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html

(There are other exceptions as well. eg, The President can conduct warrantless searchs in the 15 days following the start of a war.)

[Japher]

DO NOT BORE US WITH YOUR SILLY FACTS!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Edan

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html

(There are other exceptions as well. eg, The President can conduct warrantless searchs in the 15 days following the start of a war.)

He needs to get retroactive approval, though.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Japher
DO NOT BORE US WITH YOUR SILLY FACTS!

Facts? Facts can be used to prove anything that's even remotely true. Facts, schmacts.

[Edan]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


He needs to get retroactive approval, though.

No he doesn't. Retroactive approval (within 72 hours) is only required of those wiretaps that require a court order, in which a warrant wasn't initially obtained.

Wiretaps within the first 15 days of a war do not require a court order.

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001811----000-.html

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
LINE ITEM VETO WAS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, JACKASS!

Not for long. We got Roberts and Alito now!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Not for long. We got Roberts and Alito now!

Clinton v. City of New York was a 6-3 opinion, with the majority being Stevens, Rehnquist, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg. The minority was Beyer, Scalia, and O'Conner.

Roberts will probably vote as Rehnquist did and if Alito votes against, it doesn't matter because O'Conner did as well.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Clinton v. City of New York was a 6-3 opinion, with the majority being Stevens, Rehnquist, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg. The minority was Beyer, Scalia, and O'Conner.

Roberts will probably vote as Rehnquist did and if Alito votes against, it doesn't matter because O'Conner did as well.

If the unconstitutionality of the line item veto is upheld, it would be a shame in my opinion because I don't think it is unconstitutional and I think it would really help our government get things done better.