Comments Posted By 2000bg
Displaying 1 To 3 Of 3 Comments
The other small problem with your defense is that Bush himself said the 180-degree opposite about warrantless searches at the same time he was doing it. Suck on it, losers.
President Bush -- April 19, 2004:
For years, law enforcement used so-called roving wire taps to investigate organized crime. You see, what that meant is if you got a wire tap by court order -- and, by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example.
President Bush -- April 20, 2004:
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
President Bush -- June 9, 2005:
One tool that has been especially important to law enforcement is called a roving wiretap. Roving wiretaps allow investigators to follow suspects who frequently change their means of communications. These wiretaps must be approved by a judge, and they have been used for years to catch drug dealers and other criminals. Yet, before the Patriot Act, agents investigating terrorists had to get a separate authorization for each phone they wanted to tap. That means terrorists could elude law enforcement by simply purchasing a new cell phone. The Patriot Act fixed the problem by allowing terrorism investigators to use the same wiretaps that were already being using against drug kingpins and mob bosses.
White House fact sheet - June 9, 2005:
The Patriot Act extended the use of roving wiretaps, which were already permitted against drug kingpins and mob bosses, to international terrorism investigations. They must be approved by a judge. Without roving wiretaps, terrorists could elude law enforcement by simply purchasing a new cell phone.
President Bush -- July 20, 2005:
The Patriot Act helps us defeat our enemies while safeguarding civil liberties for all Americans. The judicial branch has a strong oversight role in the application of the Patriot Act. Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, or to track his calls, or to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of the tools we're talking about. And they are fully consistent with the Constitution of the United States.
White House fact sheet -- July 20, 2005:
The judicial branch has a strong oversight role in the application of the Patriot Act. Law enforcement officers must seek a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, track his calls, or search his property. These strict standards are fully consistent with the Constitution. Congress also oversees the application of the Patriot Act, and in more than three years there has not been a single verified abuse.
President Bush -- December 10, 2005:
The Patriot Act is helping America defeat our enemies while safeguarding civil liberties for all our people. The judicial branch has a strong oversight role in the application of the Patriot Act. Under the act, law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone or search his property. Congress also oversees our use of the Patriot Act. Attorney General Gonzales delivers regular reports on the Patriot Act to the House and the Senate.
Comment Posted By 2000bg On 20.12.2005 @ 16:55
Conservatives will trot out the 1994 thing about "Clinton did the same thing." That seems to be a conservative rationale for a lot of stuff Bush is doing. That's funny, I thought you guys didn't like Clinton, and yet you point to his doing stuff as some kind of proof that it must be okay. Confusing.
Oh, and if you care about the truth, that 1994 canard won't hold water. From Think Progress:
The Gorelick Myth
In the National Review, Byron York has an article called “Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches.†In it, he cites then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick’s July 14, 1994 testimony where she argues “the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes.†(This afternoon, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) quoted her testimony on the Senate floor.)Here is what York obscures: at the time of Gorelick’s testimony, physical searches weren’t covered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). It’s not surprising that, in 1994, Gorelick argued that physical searches weren’t covered by FISA. They weren’t. With Clinton’s backing, the law was amended in 1995 to include physical searches.
York claims that, after the law was amended, “the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.†That’s false. Neither Gorelick or the Clinton administration ever argued that president’s inherent “authority†allowed him to ignore FISA. (We’ve posted the full text of Gorelick’s testimony here).
Comment Posted By 2000bg On 20.12.2005 @ 16:52
Apparently he's "connecting the dots" by spying on lesbians, vegans and environmentalists. What's he trying to prevent, exactly? Another Woodstock?
I think there may be a limit to the extent a Bush supporter can shove his head up his own ass. But y'all keep outdoing yourselves. Long live the empire.
****
Rich Donohue Says:
Comment Posted By 2000bg On 20.12.2005 @ 16:47
December 20th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
One might harken back to Executive Order 12333, issued by Ronald Reagan in 1981, and used by Clinton in 1994 as his basis for warrantless searches; to find the Presidential authority for GWB’s actions. In addition, lest we forget, The United States of America is presently at war – the Administration is not simply searching around for disgruntled protestors; rather, it is attempting to “connect the dots.â€
