Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Why doesn't he get a warrant?

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

Comments:

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  

BT,
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.

ncr
# posted by Anonymous : 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  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Archives

Bill Richardson: Because what America needs is a competent fat man with bad hair as President (haven't we had enough incompetent pretty faces?)

Links

• MY EMAIL
• Hotmail
• National Weather Service
• Google

• Mockingbird's Medley
• Never Asked Questions
• A novel by yours truly

Honor Roll

Technorati embed?

Liberated Iraqis

• Children celebrate liberation of parents
• More pics of children celebrating
• Liberated baby
• Liberated women and children
• More liberation, yessiree
• More to follow, after I finish cursing SOB chickenhawks and get my breath back...