I'm with Congress

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Eagler
it's just politics, the dems trying to tie bushs hands ... the ones that don't want it are the same group crying we didn't do enough to stop 9/11

We didnt doo enough to stop 9/11

We didnt enforce law that were already in place.

there wasnt any need for any new ones.
All we had to do was actually inforce existing laws

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Eagler
it's just politics, the dems trying to tie bushs hands ... the ones that don't want it are the same group crying we didn't do enough to stop 9/11

don't worry, the bro or the ho will fix it all after Nov

LOL

Nahhh cause the republicans will be doing the same thing to whatever democrat gets into office

[Shamus]

Originally posted by crockett
The best part is they already have a legal system in place that would allow them to get speedy wire taps in case of an emergancy. It's just too bothersom for the Bush admin..

Everything they need is already there, they just can't be bothered to do it.

Ya I know...but they still have to be able to justify it within 3 days, and there is a perjury penalty for misrepresentations on an affidavit as well as a paper trail.

I really do understand why some feel more comfortable without it.

shamus

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by Shamus
Ya I know...but they still have to be able to justify it within 3 days, and there is a perjury penalty for misrepresentations on an affidavit as well as a paper trail.

I really do understand why some feel more comfortable without it.

shamus

Yeah, Shamus, but it's that way for a reason.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Rich46yo
Weren't you the one that said History was littered with Democracies that turned into Fascist states? Im still waiting for you to tell me which ones did.

Roman republic turned into a dictatorship under Julius Caeser

Wiemar Republic became the Third Reich.


Just a couple that come to mind w/o any research

[Saxman]

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I think this pretty much covers it.

[AquaShrimp]

Lol, someone posted "maybe next time you'll be in the building the terrorists destroy".

I'm not the least bit afraid of terrorists.  Some things that do slightly unnerve me are : High taxes, a foundering economy, gargantuan amounts of Mexicans running across the border, polluted oceans, over-fishing, running out of oil, being overtaken economically by China, providing kids with a substandard education, rampant obeseity, losing my rights, not having privacy, and not developing bio-fuel.

[Holden McGroin]

Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act - (Sec. 2) Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to include as an "agent of a foreign power" under FISA a person who is reasonably expected to possess, control, transmit, or receive foreign intelligence information while in the United States, provided that the official making the certification deems such information significant.

An agent of a foreign power...

if the Attorney General (AG) certifies that: (1) the surveillance is directed at the acquisition of either communications of foreign powers or an agent thereof or technical intelligence from property or premises under the control of a foreign power;

Under the control of a foreign power...

There is some wiggle room, hence the controversy.  If it was cut and dried, the controversy would not exist.

[DieAz]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Roman republic turned into a dictatorship under Julius Caesar
 

funny thing about him, he only ruled 5 years and had such an impact on the history of the world.

[crockett]

Originally posted by Shamus
Ya I know...but they still have to be able to justify it within 3 days, and there is a perjury penalty for misrepresentations on an affidavit as well as a paper trail.

I really do understand why some feel more comfortable without it.

shamus

No.. I believe they have to justify it to "continue" the wire tap after 3 days. Under that existing provision.

The perjury part just keeps them from lying to get the warrant.. What is so bad about that? It doesn't mean if they find the guy is innocent that they face perjury for asking for the wiretap.

The only real difference is there is a record kept and they are held accountable. Bush and co don't like the being held accountable part nor the records.

[Fulmar]

Originally posted by DieAz
funny thing about him, he only ruled 5 years and had such an impact on the history of the world.

Pretty sure the next 300+ years were ruled by dictators....

[Fulmar]

Originally posted by Saxman
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I think this pretty much covers it.

Yup it sure does.

I mean, if we're so afraid from terrorists that we have to taken away basic rights given to us by the founding fathers...doesn't that mean the terrorists have won?

[Irwink!]

Funny, all this blabbering over another of Bush's smokescreen anti-terrorism tactics. Meanwhile this administration and congress (all of them) leave our southern border effectively wide open to all comers. But, who are we to question our elected officials? Who cares about the constitution? It's just a worthless piece of old scrap paper anymore when selected parts are found to be inconvenient by left or right.

[Shamus]

Originally posted by crockett
No.. I believe they have to justify it to "continue" the wire tap after 3 days. Under that existing provision.

The perjury part just keeps them from lying to get the warrant.. What is so bad about that? It doesn't mean if they find the guy is innocent that they face perjury for asking for the wiretap.

The only real difference is there is a record kept and they are held accountable. Bush and co don't like the being held accountable part nor the records.

The old FISA law requires them to produce an affidavit and obtain a warrant.

I will claim ignorance tho, but I would really be surprised if they get a "free 3 days" under that law, (oops nevermind we found nothing) .

You have to keep in mind that the entire purpose for requiring a warrant is based on common law, IE: being able to face your accuser..(the affidavit), and reinforced by statutory law, the 4th.

I don't want to see a perjury charge of someone lying  on a warrant affidavit based on a conviction of the target, they can perjure themselves even if the defendant is found guilty.

I think that anyone who perjures himself on an affidavit for a warrant should receive the same sentence as is possible for the target of the warrant.

shamus

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Saxman
"Those who desire security at the expense of liberty deserve NEITHER."

Not the exact wording, but more or less. This comes from a very smart man, maybe some of you have heard of him:

Benjamin Franklin

Exactly not the exact wording.....in fact that's not close to what Franklin said.  This is one of the most miss-quoted lines of the last decade.

The quote is

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety

the workds little....and temporary make a big difference in context....