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 : FREE AMERICA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (5755)	5/11/2006 6:30:12 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14758

As the Fourth Amendment provides (emphasis added), <<< The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. >>> On its face, the amendment only provides for protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, while it later provides that no warrant shall issue without “probable cause.” Message 22437229

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (5755)	5/11/2006 6:33:05 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14758

Ahem! The #1 priority of the Prez is national security. The Founding Fathers contemplated that & allowed wide latitude to the President to accomplish that goal. The Prez has the power to engage in warrantless searches when it is a national security matter. Every time it has gone before the courts, they have ruled in favor of the Prez - including warrantless searches while we were not at war. And recently, former FISA judges, whom the NSA goes to to get warrants when necessary, also publicly stated that the NSA intercepts were within the inherent powers of the Prez. "(A)ll the other courts to have decided the issue held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information . . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power." http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=22139776 "If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?" President Bush today speaking about the warrantless wiretaps. It's Legal John Schmidt, associate attorney general of the United States in the Clinton administration, superbly explains why the NSA intercept program is legal under all authorities and precedents: http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=21995718 FISA judges say Bush within law http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=22306779 The DoJ Defends The Administration On Intercepts Message 22083051 "SHARING TITLE III ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE MATERIAL WITH THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY." Message 22134049 On the Legality of the NSA Electronic Intercept Program Message 21999532 More on the legality of the NSA program Message 22001814 Gonzales Crushes Arguments Against NSA's International Surveillance Message 22096108 Bush Defends NSA Program Message 22023660 FISA vs. the Constitution Congress can't usurp the president's power to spy on America's enemies. Message 22009244 FISA Fallacies Bush’s unconstitutional critics. Message 22024263 THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THE FISA COURT, AND NSA SURVEILLANCE Message 22306470 FDR's domestic surveillance Message 22432425 Spies and Lying Editorialists Message 22119122 All the news that's fit to ignore Message 22004639 IS THE PRESIDENT “ABOVE THE LAW”? I GUESS IT DEPENDS ON WHO THE PRESIDENT IS Message 22134031 Congress Told Of Expanded NSA Efforts In 2001 Message 22026249 Disorder in the Court Message 22017350 Ben Franklin understood the need for secrecy in matters of national security. Message 22070284 Hayden Delivers Impassioned Defense of NSA Message 22092568 General Hayden’s reading of the Fourth Amendment is correct, and his critics are mistaken. Message 22437229 The Wisdom in Wiretaps Bush critics seek war-powers loopholes to benefit terrorists. Message 22043521 The Terrorist Surveillance Program, Explained Message 22294367 A Colloquy With the Times Message 21995726 Let's Send These Guys to Jail Message 22001800 The Soviets Had the KGB -- Al Qaeda Has the NYT Message 22023048 Timesspeak: Specialists at work Now why would [the New York Times] overlook such a critical piece of information even when reporting on the opening of a criminal investigation of the leaks? http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=22024019 Did the New York Times break the law with its wire-tapping story? Message 22094637 The Times and the law Since the New York Times published the Risen/Lichtblau NSA story on December 16, we have cited the federal law that makes the disclosures on which the story is based a crime. The federal law is 18 U.S.C. § 798, a law that precisely prohibits leaks of the type of classified information disclosed in the story. http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=22034887 Hype Over Old News Tim Graham The Corner The networks cranked up the hype machine this morning. ABC began: “NSA bombshell!” NBC found a “shocking new report!” CBS called it a “stunning report.” All three were responding to the new USA Today story that the government has collected a database of the nation’s phone records since 9/11. One problem: the New York Times reported this last Christmas eve. Clearly to the three DNC-TV networks, newness is overrated, but “shocking” new details of Bush supposedly violating your civil liberties just never lose their appeal. MRC’s Rich Noyes wondered: “Given that another government agency — the IRS — maintains information on American citizens’ employment, banking, investments, mortgages, charitable contributions and even any declared medical expenses, this hardly seems like a major assault on personal liberty.” Ooh! Shocking new report! The IRS has a database with your personal information in it! That story is just waiting to be discovered. corner.nationalreview.com newsbusters.org

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (5755)	5/11/2006 6:48:08 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14758

[I]n 1977, [President] Carter and his attorney general, Griffin B. Bell, authorized warrantless electronic surveillance used in the conviction of two men for spying on behalf of Vietnam. The men, Truong Dinh Hung and Ronald Louis Humphrey, challenged their espionage convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which unanimously ruled that the warrantless searches did not violate the men's rights. In its opinion, the court said the executive branch has the "inherent authority" to wiretap enemies such as terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when surveillance is "conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons." http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=22157511