Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (272842)	2/8/2006 9:33:13 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575761

Interesting. But the your counter argument post's wording is too vague to hold up in court. The president's assertion that Congress by resolution implicitly granted him license to order domestic eavesdropping was countered in a disclosure by former Sen. Tom Daschle (D, South Dakota) that the administration, two weeks before Bush's order, had sought such authority, but was rebuffed. Moreover, the resolution makes no reference to surveillance or the president's intelligence-gathering powers. It's possible Bush requested the right for blanket domestic eavesdropping, was denied it, but still thought he had the right to eavesdrop on communications where one party is in the US and the other party is both outside the US and is expected to have ties to Al Qaeda. Nevertheless, it warrants more investigation I would say. I thought Gonzalez's statement to congress that "this program may prevent another attack similar to 9/11" was pathetic legalese. Running over some pedestrian in the street may prevent another attack similar to 9/11. Then again, it may not....