Seems like a pretty simple question, right? Seems like someone should be able to give a simple one or two sentence answer to this simple question.

"We could have gotten warrants after the fact, but we did not because ...."

But the American people won't get an answer. And some, if this board is any guide, won't care one bit that the president won't answer this quesiton.

No matter how much you like or respect a particular politician, no matter how much you agree with his or her policies, no matter how much you admire his or her honesty and integrity, do not place that person above the law. It is a dangerous, reckless, and unnecessary assault on our liberty.

You might not like or admire the next politician so much. And the guy after that, you probably won't like at all, but you'll be powerless to do anything about it.

The above mentioned whackos need to be delt with, but their targets are well defined, and usually they try to cause property damage only.

That is vastly different from someone who wants to eliminate as many innocent people as possible.

I honestly cannot see how you call monitoring radiation levels or international phone calls "warrantless searches." Our country has done both for many years under Presidents from both parties.

I think it was clear that warrants...FISA or otherwise..were not required by the law and previous precedent. The current debate is just more of the usual smear campaign...designed more to do political damage than to protect some sort of nebulous, undefined, imagined "right" to not have certain electronic spectrums monitored. Certain groups in this country are apparently more concerned with petty politics than the security of their nation. The same folks that prevented us from reviewing the contents of the 911 suspect's laptop that was captured before 911...that was replete with info that would have exposed/prevented the attack.

That one is simple.
"We could have gotten warrants after the fact, but we did not because ...."it was not required.

There are far more emanations to monitor than resources to do so. If the agencies had to apply for warrants before...or even afterward, the millions of pieces of paper would require thousands of more personnel and billions of dollars to staff. Clearly we would have to reduce our efforts and the nation would be much less secure....and...of course, the law did not require it.

I am curious which of your liberties you are claiming were unnecessarily assaulted. Are you worried that monitoring radiation levels in the US will somehow prevent your "constitutional right" to build nuclear weapons? ...or your phone calls to Osama might become public?

Wrong. I hope you are a better soldier than you are a legal analyst.

When an American picks up a phone inside this country, that citizen has a right to privacy. A right protected by the constitution and by the criminal laws of this country.

It make no difference whatsoever whether they are calling down the street or across the border (with in some areas, may in fact be down the street.). tapping a phone is a criminal offense, and a warrantless tap is not only criminal, but a violation of the 4th amendment.

Emails are even worse. When I send an email to my mother 3 miles away, it may in fact bounce around several countries before it gets there. Makes not a bit of a difference.

Why don't you answer the question the president won't, Mr. Fint:

The administration could have gotten retroactive warrants but did not because ..."

Bad answer, but at least you tried. If it is not required, how do you explain the thousands of warrants that are sought and granted by the FISA every year? What sets those apart?

Whim, apparently.

Or something perhaps more significant ...

.

1. Since there is no RECORD OF ANY KIND of these warrantless taps, we don't know for certain they were overseas call only. Not a good plan for a democracy, to rely upon the honesty of whomever is in office. Not a good plan at all.

2. I actually call overseas quite often, and have never spoken with "Osama" (you on a first name basis with him?). I expect that my conversations with friends, family, and business contacts overseas are private. I have a right to have my lawful conversations private. And there is no legitimate reason they should not be.

Quote:

I honestly cannot see how you call monitoring radiation levels or international phone calls "warrantless searches."

Because without a warrant that is what they are called. I'm not saying that I don't support the president on this one, because I do. There are no limitations and all that is required is an appearance before the court, before or after the fact, to obtain a warrant. Surely, this is something you can agree with. If not you are failing to uphold the Constitution and the laws of this country...a requirement for every soldier by the way.

I am both an analyst and in the Reserve...and am considered quite good at both. Is there anything you are good at?

There is no "right" to privacy anywhere in the US Constitution. Do you make this stuff up as you go along?

Go back to the 4th Amendment and quote the portion you are referring to. It does not exist.

Wrong again. I already have.

I imagine that most are used for routine law enforcement as it was designed. It seems that phone monitoring works quite well against drug traffickers.

How did they slide in "after the fact"?

Honestly, I don't understand why it's such a big deal to get the warrant first.

Of course there are records of everything the government does. They are just not posted on the move-on, etc where you get your information. Obviously if there are no records, and the agencies were not honest as you imply...then they would just be denying the whole thing.

If you are phoning people overseas that have been identified and are targeted as probable terrorists...you should certainly expect to be monitored by both the US and the country they are located in. The legitimate reason is obvious.

Duh, I guess that if you could break into the call and ask the drug dealer, terrorist, or spy to hold for 24 to 48 hours while the warrant was approved...you could indeed wait.

Either you are more intellectually challenged than even I imagined, or you are attempting to spread disinformation.

"They" have no need to break into a call and ask anyone to wait. "They" can begin monitoring immediately, in secret, and then apply to a secret court up to 3 days later. for retroactive approval.

Jut trying to keep the amount of lies to a minimum. Difficult to do with some here.

FISA is not used for "routine law enforcement."

So again, I ask you why the administration used the FISA warrant process for literally thousands of warrants, but overrode the process in selected cases. Why didn't it just comply with the law all the time, instead of 90% of the time?

You are such a moron. Read the post in context.

Please attempt to prove that.

Let's see what I have to "prove" for fint:

1. The Constitution contains a right to privacy (this has been settled law for 40 years)

2. The Fourth Amendment protects against warrantless electronic monitoring (this has been settled law since the advent of the telephone, indeed wiretaps are criminal acts)

3. The secret FISA Court is not used for "routine law enforcement" (duh)

4. Iraq did not possess WMDs

5. Saddam had no ties to Al Queda

6. Sen Joe McCarthy was not the most honorable statesman of the 20th century.

I think I'll pass, Mr. fint.

Let me know when you find the WMDs, maybe I'll reconsider the rest.

What I find fascinating is how the leak isn't the major scandal. This leak is jeopardizing our national security. What was leaked was not news to the Senate Democrats, but it was news to al qaeda and other terrorists. For the Democrats to act shocked and the media to allow that perception to filter down to the public is criminal. The only intent, worse than the leak itself, is to undermine the war-on-terror which gives aid-and-comfort to the enemy.

I will never forget when Jay Rockefeller's memo, describing how to undermine the war effort (2003), was released. The Senate Democrats and the media were quick to run when the Democrat spin. The Democrat spin was the scandal of who leaked the memo. In that case there was no scandal, other than Jay Rockefeller strategizing how to undermine the war. In the present case the leak of how we acquire information on our enemies was leaked not for the good of the country, but the good of the Democrat party...So you see, in both cases, these leak cases had a common virtuous motive--to undermine and impugn Bush during wartime...According to the Democrats and their media friends the Democrats had the high-ground on both instances...The opposite was and is true.