Bush refuses to answer questions about spying on Americans....

Warrantless Searches of Americans? That’s Shocking!
Except when it happens every day.

Andrew McCarthy

Dec. 20, 2005

When not cavalierly talking "impeachment," here's the Left's talking point of the day:

What makes this president think he can invade the privacy of Americans without a warrant?

I don't know. Could it be the powers, long recognized by federal law, to:

Detain American citizens for investigative purposes without a warrant;

Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the person of an American citizen who has been detained, with or without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained;

Conduct a warrantless search of, and seize, items belonging to American citizens that are displayed in plain view and that are obviously criminal or dangerous in nature;

Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's home and belongings if another person, who has apparent authority over the premises, consents;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's car anytime there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or any evidence of a crime;

Conduct a warrantless search of any closed container inside the car of an American citizen if there is probable cause to search the car — regardless of whether there is probable cause to search the container itself;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property apparently abandoned by an American citizen;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property of an American citizen that has lawfully been seized in order to create an inventory and protect police from potential hazards or civil claims;

Conduct a warrantless search — including a strip search — at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search at the border of the baggage and other property of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;

Conduct a warrantless search of random Americans at police checkpoints established for public-safety purposes (such as to detect and discourage drunk driving);

Conduct warrantless monitoring of common areas frequented by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens and their vessels on the high seas;

Conduct warrantless monitoring of any telephone call or conversation of an American citizen as long as one participant in the conversation has consented to the monitoring;

Conduct warrantless searches of junkyards maintained by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of docks maintained by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of bars or nightclubs owned by American citizens to police underage drinking;

Conduct warrantless searches of auto-repair shops operated by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of the books of American gem dealers in order to discourage traffic in stolen goods;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens working in government, emergency services, the transportation industry, and nuclear plants;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school officials;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school students;

Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens who are on bail, probation or parole.

These could conceivably be some of the things that the president is thinking about, though certainly not all. I neglected, after all, to mention the long-established "inherent authority" of the president to "conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information," recognized by federal appeals courts and assumed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review in 2002.

Where does this president get such crazy ideas? Obviously, he should be impeached.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200512201735.asp

 

Wow, you people really do believe everthing is a vast right wing conspiracy. Thats the only thing that bothers me. Thanks to the right wingers using the necessary tools that keep us safer. If the moon-bats think that they're "being watched"... let them. If youre not doing anything to intentionally hurt or conspire to hurt Americans, you have nothing to worry about... really! Let Freedom ring. Merry Christmas all! To those offended, Happy Holidays.

 

Would building concentration camps and putting people in it for the duration of a War be an infringement of the "rights" of a people or a particular group of people in those camps?

Well, guess what, not advocating that be done, but this is exactly what happened with Japanese Americans during World War II, they were interned in the California Desert, for the entire War.

So, where was the outrage then?

My point is Presidents do things in War that they are empowered to do.

What made FDR's internment of Japanese Americans Legal?

I don't know the answer but my guess is that he:

Notified Congress and briefed Senators and Representatives, and got advice from the Justice Department Lawyers.

The current President has been very restrained in his actions compared to other Presidents.

Lincoln suspended the Maryland Legislature for the Civil War, and closed Newspapers.

The NSA has existed for years under several Presidents and their mission is the same, make intercepts, and listen to foreign calls.

 

Here is the Administration's first response and defense of its electronic surveillance program of American citizens without a warrant thru Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella:

"Moschella said the president's constitutional authority also includes power to order warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance inside the United States. He said that power has been affirmed by federal courts, including the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court. The FISA court was created in 1978 after public outcry over government spying on anti-war and civil rights protesters.

The administration deliberately bypassed the FISA court, which requires the government to provide evidence that a terrorism or espionage suspect is "an agent of a foreign power." The foreign intelligence law makes it a crime for anyone who "intentionally intercepts" a communication without a warrant.

Moschella said Bush's action was legal because the foreign intelligence law provides a "broad" exception if the spying is authorized by another statute. In this case, he said, Congress' authorization provided such authority.

The resolution didn't limit the president to going after al-Qaida only in Afghanistan, Moschella wrote."

Associated Press, Toni Locy

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051222/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/domestic_spying

 

Later in that article:

Moschella also maintained the NSA program is "consistent" with the Fourth Amendment — which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures — and civil liberties.

For searches to be reasonable under law, a warrant is needed, Moschella said. But, outside criminal investigations, he said, the Supreme Court has created exceptions where warrants are not needed, finding that the "reasonableness of a search" depends on "the totality of the circumstances."

"Foreign intelligence collection, especially in the midst of an armed conflict in which the adversary has already launched catastrophic attacks within the United States, fits squarely within the 'special needs' exception to the warrant requirement," Moschella wrote.

"Intercepting communications into and out of the United States of persons linked to al-Qaida in order to detect and prevent a catastrophic attack is clearly reasonable."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone disagree that it is not "clearly reasonable"?

 

And if you belonged to that group would you still find it OK?
A president should not go arround the law, I do not care for what reason.
Any ways I thought GW said war was over, or is it that the war against terrorist is never over so I guess since we are in time of war he could psotpon election indefinitly. He did test these waters in the last elections, remember?

 

How has he gone "around the law"?

 

Spying on American citizen for one, lying to congress to start a War under false pretense, list goes on and on.
Or am I totally wrong on this ?

 

What I would like you to do is explain why FDR got no impeachment threats for what he did with the Japanese Americans?

Can you explain that?

And I do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about reference the elections.

 

Red herring fallacy, in the straw man hall of fame.

What FDR did is not relevant to whether or not Bush broke the law.