I do not believe that's what he meant. This is: "You wouldn't need a warrant to do the initial interception, but afterwards, once you're targeting the American citizen, then you need that warrant," said Bruce Fein, a former official in the Reagan Justice Department and a fierce critic of the Bush' administration's terror surveillance.
On 1/26/06, Larry C. Lyons wrote: > 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 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:194586 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
