The President Is Not Above the Law

Ok. I will try.

Joseph Botwinick

 

The law is set up so that this wouldn't happen. The president can wiretap and monitor any terrorist suspect who is not a US citizen without a warrant, even the millions of illegals that he has welcomed into the country.

When a US citizen is involved he is required to get a warrant, if the issue is so time sensitive that he can't wait for the special court that is in place in Washington open 24/7 soley for warrants in relation to federal monitoring, then the law allows him to do the wiretapping and monitoring and then get the warrant after the fact within so many days. That is fine, as long as the warrant is attained at some point during the process as the law specifies.

If he has done this in every case involving any US citizens, then the Times article that started all of this is just allot of hot air, but if he has wiretapped or monitored US citizens without a warrant either before or after the fact, then he has ignored the law. Members of Congress from both sides have called for an investigation, we will know the truth in the end.

 

"The president can wiretap and monitor any terrorist suspect who is not a US citizen"----------------------------------------------------

And there is the rub. Some terrorist are citizens and many legal organizations in the us have been shown to be giving moral and financial support. And they have also said the time it takes for the court to grant the warrant is not the problem. They said it is all the paperwork that the court requires. The prep time can be weeks.

 

The law is set up so that this wouldn't happen. The president can wiretap and monitor any terrorist suspect who is not a US citizen without a warrant, even the millions of illegals that he has welcomed into the country.

When a US citizen is involved he is required to get a warrant, if the issue is so time sensitive that he can't wait for the special court that is in place in Washington open 24/7 soley for warrants in relation to federal monitoring, then the law allows him to do the wiretapping and monitoring and then get the warrant after the fact within so many days. That is fine, as long as the warrant is attained at some point during the process as the law specifies.

</font>[/QUOTE]You are mistaken.

Enhanced Surveillance Provisions Affecting Library Confidentiality
Section 215: Access to Records Under Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA)
Amends the business records provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to allow FBI agents to obtain "any tangible thing," which includes books, records, papers, floppy disks, data tapes, computers and their hard drives, and any type of record in any format. Prior to the PATRIOT Act, FISA only permitted agents to obtain car rental records, hotel records, storage locker records, and common carrier records for a foreign agent.
Allows FBI agents to ask the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to issue an ex parte, secret court order to obtain any kind of record or tangible thing when the record sought is for an investigation into terrorism or foreign espionage.
Lowers the legal standard for obtaining a court order under FISA. Under the new FISA, the agent need only "specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation" in order to obtain a warrant from the special FISA court. Prior to the PATRIOT Act, the agent needed to demonstrate "probable cause" that the target of the investigation was an agent for a foreign power.
Allows investigations to target U.S. citizens, as long as the investigation is not based solely upon activities protected by the First Amendment. (Note that this does not exclude investigations into acts and behavior that may include First Amendment protected activities.) Prior to the PATRIOT Act, FISA could only be used when pursuing non-citizen foreign agents. Prohibits the library from notifying the patron under suspicion, the press, or anyone else that a warrant has been served upon the library, or that records have been surrendered.
Under the rules of the FISA Court, only FBI agents or authorized U.S. attorneys can appear before the FISA court, eliminating any possibility of challenging the order.

 

Who has said? They don't have to go down to the local court house and wait in line. They have a special court that is set up that opperates 24/7 just for this purpose, these judges hear no other cases. I saw one of these judges on television the other day, he said that while he served, he would issue many of these warrants at 2 and 3 in the morning. They wiretaps and monitoring of these citizens who are terrorist suspects can begin many weeks before the warrant is obtained, so the time involved should not be an issue.

 

Ken, I have not heard anything like that. But that would be a warrantless search, which you are currently raving about,

 

Ken, do you just hate President Bush? It's okay to admit it.

James

 

I'm just wondering, do you think this is the first time the government has "supposedly" (and I mean supposedly) done something illegal, or do you agree that this has been going on for almost 60 years?

Also, why are you so worried about it? The government is wiretapping people who are supposedly terrorist, not the average joe. So what does this have to do with the average American giving up freedoms?

James

 

Ken: The defender of pencil pusher beaurocratic red tape that protects nobodies right to privacy.

Who'da thunk it?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Ken, the issue is that the year is over and he would have to go to the courts again, so this does not apply to the current situation.

 

George W. Bush will not always be the one sitting in the Oval Office. </font>[/QUOTE]But you speak of GW as if he's some kind of menace to society, and that he wants to have a dictatorship in the US. While he MAY (which is yet to be determined) have done something wrong, I highly doubt that he cares to wiretap the average Americans phonecalls. These are terrorist! Not Uncle Bill down the road! You have to put everything in perspective.

James

 

But nobody has proven he is a menace to society. While we THINK we don't KNOW. You have to stop jumping to conclusions.

I know this is off-topic, but I can't imagine what the U.S would be like with Peroutka (constitutional party) as President. Could you? The terrorist would have free reign in America. It's not all about privacy. And again, what freedoms have you lost to this? Personally!

James