you make up an argument then turn that into a rant that I'm Lying!

Did you learn that at Columbia or NYU LS?

Oh ... I thought you actually quoted a court saying that the president DID have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. I even thought you put your assertion in "quotes" to try to convince us those were the court's "actual words."

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RoninLB
In 2002 the FISA review court itself held [in Sealed Case] that the president "did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."

Rodeo, you sure you read that right? Take a look at the bolded section below:

Even without taking into account the President’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance, we think the procedures and government showings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant standards, certainly come close. We, therefore, believe firmly, applying the balancing test drawn from Keith, that FISA as amended is constitutional because the surveillances it authorizes are reasonable.


Even without taking into account the President's inherent constitutional authority....

That means they are saying he does have constitutional authority to conduct warrantless surveillance, however they are not taking that authority into account when deciding the constitutionality of FISA.

I'm not a lawyer, and I didn't even sleep at a Holiday Inn Express either...

Warrantless "foreign intelligence surveillance," not warrantless surveillance of domestically placed or received calls to and/or from Americans.

In a nutshell, spies don't have to follow the constitutional rules.

If you consider intercepting my email to my mother, which happens to be routed through India, "foreign intelligence surveillance," there is no limit to government authority over private citizens. Likewise my call to my Aunt in Italy.

In any event, the proposition is rock solid. No American court has ever held that the president may tap the phones of Americans without a warrant, notwithstanding RoninLB's claims to the contrary.

You want to secretly listen to an American's phone call? Get a warrant, either before or after you tap the line. It's really that simple.

This is your quote man. The court ruling you quoted says exactly what Ronin said it did. The President has inherent authority to conduct foreign intelligence without a warrant. Period.

Ronin is dead on correct. Go re-read his posts. Let us know how that crow tastes :p

Are you self-medicating?

Are you dodging the issue?

I can't help you with reading comprehension dude.

I don't always think the same way as Ron, but I most certainly don't pretend that he is ignorant. He is not.

These are Ronin's posts on the FISA ruling. Please tell me which part is false.

Are you going to own up to your mistake or waffle like you always do?

I'm not a lawyer, but what I'm reading is this: warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance does not meanwarrentless domestic surveillence.

You are correct CC, however, Ronin never talked about domestic surveillance.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
[B]These are Ronin's posts on the FISA ruling. Please tell me which part is false.
QUOTE]

This part:

"In 2002 the FISA review court itself held [in Sealed Case] that the president "did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."

And this part too, but he can't help but attack "the libs" so I gave him a pass on that one:

"Judge Taylor is a political hack like the other ACLU supporter around here."

Then what is he talking about? First off, lets make sure we're clear this is warrantless......

Of course it's ok to tap some phone line in Britian warrantlessly (foreign). But mine? Mine is domestic.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rodeo
[B] Ok, I'll give you the Judge Taylor comment, that is an opinion.

His statement regarding the President's ability to conduct foreign surveillance is 100% CORRECT.

CC: Yes, we are talking about the NSA program. The fact that the President can conduct warrantless foreign surveillance comes into play because the administration's position is that the fact that one end of the call is foreign makes it foreign surveillance, the ACLU disagrees.

The NSA ruling has nothing to do with the President's ability to conduct warrantless foreign surveillance, that fact has never been in question.

Rodeo just jumped off the deep end and stuck his foot in his mouth because he jumped to conclusions about what Ronin was actually saying.

I think he trots out his attacks against "the libs" and the ACLU, pretends that they could care less about the security of the country, and misrepresents both the positions of those he does not agree with and the law.

I would not call that ignorant either. I would call that rather sophisticated mudslinging.

Well then Rodeo you have the chance to be the bigger man and admit that you were wrong in your attack on Ronin's statement about the President's ability to conduct foreign surveillance....

The president does NOT "have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."

If you don't see the distinction between the above quote and the Court's statement, there is nothing I can do to help you.

Law isn't horseshoes. Just because some of the same words appear in two very different sentences does not mean they are "close enough."

The FISA law itself disagrees with you:

The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information [2a]; targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a)(1),(2),(3) [6] or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act


It appears your understanding of the law isn't as thorough as your thought it was, counselor.

Read on.....