Comments on: Federal Court Rules Protecting America is Unconstitutional

By: loboinok

loboinok — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 21:41:55 +0000

Your link does not work.

“Please resubmit your search”

“Search results are only retained for a limited amount of time.Your search results have either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new information.”

By: camanintx

camanintx — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 20:45:03 +0000

The Patriot Act made no such changes. Read it for yourself here

By: kerwin_brown

kerwin_brown — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 07:31:46 +0000

Do you know if the patriot act made an amendment to the law in question? I have not heard that it did and a direct Amendment and not administration interpretation would be necessary for Bush to disregard a law. Bush should have brought the issue before Congress for them legislate on it. If I remember right he did consult a number of members and they failed to inform him that he needed to amend existing code. I wonder what their excuse is.

By: loboinok

loboinok — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 01:25:32 +0000

camanintx, "The US Code reference you give allows for warrantless monitoring only if “there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” Since the TSP in question targets communications where one party is clearly within the US, it fails this test and therefore requires a warrant." The Patriot Act, I believe, changed that. FISA Court of Review

By: planck's constant

planck's constant — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 23:57:21 +0000

Give this Liberal a condom: NSA Defeated
I can’t believe I snagged this exclusive interview with Howard Dean to get his views on the federal NSA ruling from that idiot U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor.

By: camanintx

camanintx — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 23:49:06 +0000

Of course wiretapping should be allowed when citizens of the US are suspected of treasonous acts. That’s called probable cause and is generally all you need to get a warrant. A better question is, if you allow the government to monitor domestic communications without a warrant, do you trust them to use this power appropriately?

By: Fore Left!

Fore Left! — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 23:44:20 +0000

A defeat for defeating threats
..the same hypocritical goofs now applauding the judge’s strict contructionist interpretation have argued in the past that it should be interpreted as a ‘living document’ when it comes to gun control.

By: badbeans

badbeans — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:11:12 +0000

BTW, I’ll admit that in retrospect my thoughts on the 5th amendment were did not have a real bearing on this discussion, and thus I should have probably left them out.

By: badbeans

badbeans — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:08:23 +0000

Camanintx,

Please answer the following questions:

1. Are Constitutional rights afforded to non-citizens? If so, do you believe that they should be?

2. Should the obtaining of a warrant preclude any wiretapping of international communications of citizens of the U.S. suspected of treasonous acts? Or should wiretapping be allowed, with the understanding that any evidence presented at a treason trial would have to have a warrant issued by FISA in order for that evidence not to be thrown out?

By: New Trommetter Times

New Trommetter Times — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:07:24 +0000

Did they have grounds to sue?
Just like the Newdow case, SCOTUS should throw out the NSA wiretap case because the plaintiffs had no grounds to file suit.

…