With the appropriate warrents. That's what this whole issue is about, not that the Shrubbery cannot do these wiretaps and other surveillance. They need a FISA court warrant. This court has bent over backwards to give the government permission to do the surveillance in the past, denying less than 1/10th of 1% of the government applications for the warrents. There's even a mechanism to get a warrant 3 days after they start the surveillance.
So why the fuck does Bush think he can do this shit without the warrant? What about the 4th amendment to the constitution. The SCOTUS back in 1972 squashed the idea of the president having inherent powers in this area. Bush is not above the law. The 4th amendment is very clear about the illegality of unreasonable search. larry On 1/26/06, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "NSA can go ahead and do that now under the law" > This means it is legal. > So please explain using monosyllables if that helps. > > > On 1/26/06, Larry C. Lyons wrote: > > The critical phrase is Under the Law. What part of Under the Law do > > you not understand? > > > > Do I have to put things in easily understandable monosyllables? > > > > By not getting a warrent, even a very slack retroactive FISA warrent, > > what the NSA under the Bush administration has done is violate the 4th > > admendment. The SCOTUS has been very firm about that. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:194578 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=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
