That's targeting Americans they thought were terrorist. Totally different then targeting known terrorist calls that ends in the US.
On 1/22/06, Larry C. Lyons wrote: > in 1972, in a case before the supreme court, John Mitchell, the > attorney general at the time argued that the government didn't need a > warrant to tap the phone of any political dissenter it thought was a > threat to national security. Sound familiar, the Shubbery are making > the same arguments. Unfortunately for them (in their little minds) the > Supreme Court ruled 9-0 against that belief. Justice Lewis Powell, a > Nixon appointee, wrote for the unanimous court that the Fourth > Amendment to the Constitution protects Americans from "unreasonable > searches and seizures" and that that freedom "cannot be properly > guaranteed if domestic security surveillances are conducted solely at > the discretion of the executive branch." > > So these so called expanded surveillance powers are clearly unconstitutional. > > The judicial constraints were put in place for a reason. They are > pretty lax too. The government has up to 72 hours before applying to a > FISA court for a wiretap warrent. Moreover the court has rejected less > than one half of one percent of all the warrents since the court was > set up. > > larry ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:193748 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
