No “meatbrain,” that’s not why.

85.225.170.99
85.214.73.63
204.13.236.244
80.237.173.67
8.7.49.235
24.209.207.154

Want to try again?

Meaningless. The President may not violate the law, no matter what anyone else has (allegedly) done.

“Especially since it has been shown by several sources, that he can.”

There is no law in existence that permits the President to violate laws at will.

“So unless you are using profanity, there is no reason you could not post what you posted off site, here.”

Wrong. The spam filter rejected my last post — several times.

“The conversation originated here and it will stay here. Any further links to comments concerning this thread, will be deleted.”

loboinok now threatens to delete comments because he cannot make sensible counterarguments.

“Done all the time and with increasing frequency.”

Still false. Letters from an attorney general do not have the force of law, and cannot empower the President to violate laws at will. FISA does not permit the requirement for warrants to be ignored or bypassed in any way. Period. No amount of kicking and screaming by loboinok or anyone else can change that fact.

I provided a link. The reading and comprehending is your responsibility.

The search of Aldrich Ames home occurred in 1993. It did not violate FISA.

As I stated above and you continue to ignore…

Who made claims that “earlier administrations” violated the law?

Irrelevant. FISA does not allow for wiretaps to be placed without a warrant, regardless of who suspect whom of what.

What’s irrelevent is your obvious acceptence that libs can violate National Security and the law by divulging and disseminating classified information, but insist that the President, who can declare Martial law and suspend the Constitution, is not able to counter that move to honor his oath. Especially since it has been shown by several sources, that he can.

(posted here as the spam filter on StopTheACLU.com no longer permits me to post a response of any useful length)

A check of the filter does not show you in it. You are not yet blacklisted and your IP has not been banned. So unless you are using profanity, there is no reason you could not post what you posted off site, here.

The conversation originated here and it will stay here. Any further links to comments concerning this thread, will be deleted.

If you are going to ignore provided links and disregard sources, there is no reason to waste my time.

Warrants are a requirement. Period. The law does not permit anyone to override that requirement. Period.

Done all the time and with increasing frequency.
_____________________________________________

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/roberts020306.pdf

http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/doj011906.pdf

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf

Here’s one that supports your position…
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/doj-response.pdf

The illegal wiretaps that were revealed by the NYT were, in fact, communications to which a United States person was a party. Those wiretaps were between United States persons and individuals outside the US. That is what made them illegal. Perhaps loboinok should read more than just the headings of the law.

CNN.COM

Those wiretaps were between United States persons and individuals outside the US.

” Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;”

“Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;”

whitehouse.gov

Faris entered this country with intent… Faris obtained citizenship to secure constitutional protection… Faris planned terrorist attacks on the U.S. …technically, Faris, as a “citizen” would be covered by the above law…
any reasonnably intelligent person knows that the constitution would not support a law that would endanger the country or it’s citizens.
Perhaps vlees hersenen should read more than just the letter of the law.

Faris’ “oath” to obtain citizenship was fraudulent and would have taken longer to negate, in court, than the government could allow, given the circumstances.

Are you suggesting that once the NSA determined that Faris was a US Citizen, all intercepted communications be ignored?

“The requirement to obtain court-orders for wiretaps of U.S. persons did not prevent NSA from intercepting the communications of Americans when the intercept was the result of targeting a non-U.S. person at a communications node outside of the United States – an activity whose legality survived a challenge before the Supreme Court.”

gwu.edu

_______________________________________________________

“Clinton used it for personal reasons and not national security, and no one squawked about it.

Carter used it and no one squawked.”

loboinok provides no context nor evidence for his accusations. Are we supposed to just take his word for this? I think not.

“In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.”

“Previous administrations also asserted the authority of the president to conduct searches in the interest of national security.
In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government.”

washtimes.com

_______________________________________________________

Further: There is no provision of the law that permits any administration to ignore its provisions simply because claims that been made that an earlier administration violated the law. Law does not work that way. Perhaps loboinok was unaware of this rather basic principle.

Who made claims that “earlier administrations” violated the law?

I said they danced around § 1802. (b), and used warrantless wiretaps.
________________________________________________________

“Any information requesting warrants, require the AG to submit the request and report to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.(Rockefeller, Leahy)>”

Irrelevant. The committees do not provide the warrants. The FISA court does that — and the Bush administration simply ignored that requirement.

1. The committees provide oversight.
2. Classified information is provided to these committees for oversight.
3. There are members of these committees, who are suspected of divulging classified information to the media.

IF Bush ignored that requirement, he did so in the interests of National Security.

I know it probably breaks your heart that Bush is frustrating the medias’ ability to supply information to terrorists but that’s just too damned bad.
________________________________________________________

Warrants are a requirement. Period.

The Bush Administration’s authority to conduct warrentless wiretaps has already been approved and confirmed by; The War Powers Resolution, White House lawyers, Justice Dept., two US Attorneys General and the NSA’s legal and ethics Div.

And THAT you can Google yourself.

The illegal wiretaps that were revealed by the NYT were, in fact, communications to which a United States person was a party. Those wiretaps were between United States persons and individuals outside the US. That is what made them illegal. Perhaps loboinok should read more than just the headings of the law.

“Clinton used it for personal reasons and not national security, and no one squawked about it.

Carter used it and no one squawked.”

loboinok provides no context nor evidence for his accusations. Are we supposed to just take his word for this? I think not.

Further: There is no provision of the law that permits any administration to ignore its provisions simply because claims that been made that an earlier administration violated the law. Law does not work that way. Perhaps loboinok was unaware of this rather basic principle.

“Any information requesting warrants, require the AG to submit the request and report to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.(Rockefeller, Leahy)>”

Irrelevant. The committees do not provide the warrants. The FISA court does that — and the Bush administration simply ignored that requirement.

“I’ll refer to my previous statement above”

Repeating a false justification does not make it true. The law requires that the administration get warrants. There is no provision of the law that permits the acquisition of warrants to be skipped simply because somebody somewhere might leak the information. Warrants are a requirement. Period.

“Nov-2004″

Irrelevant. (Also unreferenced. loboinok likes to post random information without any indication of its source.) The warrantless wiretaps began long before November of 2002. And again: There is no provision of the law that permits the acquisition of warrants to be skipped simply because somebody somewhere might leak the information. Warrants are a requirement. Period.

§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court

US CODE

Granted…(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.
…is an impediment, but not one that every President that has used it, hasn’t danced around.

Clinton used it for personal reasons and not national security, and no one squawked about it.

Carter used it and no one squawked.

Now that Bush has used it, for reasons of national security, the libs are squawking.

The NYT revealed that the wiretaps were being done without the warrants required by FISA.

Any information requesting warrants, require the AG to submit the request and report to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.(Rockefeller, Leahy)>
[I'll refer to my previous statement above]> Knowing that, and the fact that people in the CIA, House and Senate are handing out classified information to newspapers like the NYT,on an on-going basis, it would be safer and more prudent to keep it under wraps.

Are you understanding now?

There is no credible evidence that the substance of wiretaps authorized under FISA were being leaked by anyone at the time the Bush administration began ordering wiretaps without requesting warrants from the FISA court.

Nov-2004
a Turkish [FBI] linguist in Washington, failed to translate transcripts of recorded conversations involving people she knew, steered co-workers away from certain recordings and leaked wiretap information to acquaintances.

Thats a peon in the chain.

The NYT did not expose the fact that the wiretapping was being done. That was already well known, thanks in no small part to the words of George W. Bush himself. The NYT revealed that the wiretaps were being done without the warrants required by FISA.

“Knowing that, and the fact that people in the CIA, House and Senate are handing out classified information to newspapers like the NYT, on an on-going basis, it would be safer and more prudent to keep it under wraps.”

FISA gives the President no leeway to order wiretaps without obtaining a warrant. The warrant can in certain instance be acquired retroactively, but a warrant must be obtained.

There is no credible evidence that the substance of wiretaps authorized under FISA were being leaked by anyone at the time the Bush administration began ordering wiretaps without requesting warrants from the FISA court.

“The only news here was that they were/are ignoring the constitution unnecessarily, if such a thing is ever necessary.”

What you stated is inaccurate since at long as one end of the conversation was outside of the jurisdiction of the United States then the U.S. Constitution did not apply. It also does not apply if a person on either end is an Alien as Aliens are not protected by the U.S. Constitution as is specifically states it is to “secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity”.

In all appearances the wiretapping violated a law passed by Congress that mandated the use of the FICA courts. If another law later gave the executive branch permission then the wiretapping was legal.