Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Why doesn't he get a warrant?
Scottie the Inept Lying Mouthpiece dances around the question of why Dear Leader doesn't simply get search warrants through the FISA secret court for the folks he wants to spy on.
Since Scottie won't answer the question, I'll answer the question for him. Bushie baby and His holy appointed snoops don't seek a warrant because they're spying on Halliburton protesters, Quakers, grannies, and journalists , where they knows they couldn't get a FISA warrant. I mean, doh. What do you think this is, a democracy or somethin?! Dear Preznit must be allowed to spy on the Grannies, Reporters, and Pacifists of Mass Destruction at will or we'll ALL DIE!
- Badtux the Snarky Penguin
Posted by: BadTux / 1/25/2006 10:03:00 PM
Unfortunately, some of my on-line friends feel very strongly that the pres should do anything and everything to protect the US from the bad guys. They really don't care if the NSA is finding out if they're gossiping about their next door neighbor. They say that since we are a nation at war, everything must be done to win the war, including wiretapping suspected terrorists. But, they don't get that the NSA is probably not just tapping into suspected terrorists, but probably anyone that 'they' deem to be an emeny of their will and ideology. Then they continue to spout that since Carter and Clinton did wiretapping then why can't Bush??? I don't see where 2 wrongs make a right.
What's next in protecting US citizens?? Checkpoints???
# posted by : 26/1/06 11:49 AM
Thing is, it's quite legal to wire-tap suspected terrorists. All you have to do is get a warrant from the FISA secret court. There hasn't been a single FISA warrant turned down since 9/11. You don't even need to have the warrant before you start wire-tapping the suspected terrorist. If you're listening to a terrorist's phone and he calls someone else who might even hypothetically be a terrorist, you can start wire-tapping that other person's phone immediately and apply for a FISA warrant later.
So why aren't the Bushies getting a FISA warrant?
The Bushies refuse to answer that question, other than to occasionally lie about the FISA law.
As for the "But Clinton did it!" defense, my reply to that one is simple. "Clinton was evil. It sounds to me like you're saying Bush is evil too." Thus far no Bushbot has managed anything other than sputtering and gasping at that, because the notion that anybody who disliked Bush could have *also* disliked Clinton blows their feeble little minds. (For the record, I spent most of the Clinton administration as part of the cyber-libertarian movement fighting his plans to turn the Internet into a vast wire-tapping spy network... we won, too. Temporarily).
- Badtux the Libertarian Penguin
# posted by BadTux : 26/1/06 12:30 PM
Yeah, funny how we come to find out now just how Clinton betrayed his base. The rotten "triangulator". It's why I'll never vote for his wife either!
# posted by SB Gypsy : 26/1/06 1:30 PM
Yeah, I know they just had to go up the street to FISA judge and get permission after the fact. The conservatives I know, know that too. But, they keep telling me that this is of the utmost urgency that there's no time to consult with a judge. They keep ignoring getting permission after the fact. And they also say.. well, we may be able to tap for 72 hours on a suspect, but what if they don't say something incriminating during that 72 hours and therefore can't get permission to continue..... Please....
(For the record, I spent most of the Clinton administration as part of the cyber-libertarian movement fighting his plans to turn the Internet into a vast wire-tapping spy network... we won, too. Temporarily).
Yep temporarily is the key word. The FCC is making many institutions put 'back doors' into their networks to allow the FBI 'easier' access. It was on the local news early in December here. I can't remember all the detail, but would like more info on it. The story was in relation to one of the State Universities and them having to shell out thousands of dollars to comply. Not sure, why they have to comply though. The institutions all have to pay for the 'upgrade' themselves and within the next year. Now, tell me that's not trying to control information??? It was done with an executive order and policy statement by the FCC, IIRC.
# posted by : 26/1/06 2:07 PM
The current FISA laws, passed during the Clinton Administration after the Oklahoma City bombing, require that the judges law enforcement officer that he believes that a person may have information relevant to ongoing terrorism investigations. If a law enforcement officer makes that statement, the FISA court is *required* to issue the warrant. No other evidence is needed. There is no requirement in current law that incriminating facts be discussed before a warrant is issued. Simply receiving a phone call from someone considered a possible terrorism suspect is all the probable cause needed in order to get a FISA warrant.
Really, they just rubber-stamp the things (FISA warrants). Like I said, they haven't turne done down since 9/11. I cannot think of any instance mentioned by the right wingnuts which would have any difficulty getting a FISA warrant.
So why not get the warrant? Huh?
Unless... unless the people the Busheviks want to spy on are not, in fact, terror suspects. Unless the people they want to spy on are political opponents, and they can't find law enforcement officers willing to perjure themselves in court and say that said opponents may have information relevant to an ongoing terrorism investigation. But no, that couldn't be it, no way, no how!
- Badtux the Snarky Penguin
# posted by BadTux : 26/1/06 2:36 PM
- Name: BadTux
- Location: Some iceberg, South Pacific, Antarctica
I am a black and white and yellow multicolored penguin making his way as best he can in a world of monochromic monkeys.
View my complete profile
April 2004 / December 2004 / January 2005 / February 2005 / March 2005 / April 2005 / May 2005 / June 2005 / July 2005 / August 2005 / September 2005 / October 2005 / November 2005 / December 2005 / January 2006 / February 2006 / March 2006 / April 2006 / May 2006 / June 2006 / July 2006 / August 2006 / September 2006 / October 2006 / November 2006 / December 2006 / January 2007 / February 2007 / March 2007 / April 2007 / May 2007 / June 2007 / July 2007 / August 2007 /
Bill Richardson: Because what America needs is a competent fat man with bad hair as President (haven't we had enough incompetent pretty faces?)
Cost of the War in Iraq