• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bush-ordered wiretaps illegal, judge says

mpg said:
There's been a major shift in the media coverage. … they barely mentioned the fact that Obama is continuing the policy.
Click to expand...

So, where did you hear that Obama is continuing the policy? Media, yes?
 
Chappy said:
So, where did you hear that Obama is continuing the policy? Media, yes?
Click to expand...

Wel, . . . yes, . . .but don't let that destroy a good rant and serious misleading.


:lol:;)
 
Chappy said:
So, where did you hear that Obama is continuing the policy? Media, yes?
Click to expand...
The coverage was about 1% of what Bush got, even though they no longer had to worry about tipping off terrorists.
 
mpg said:
they no longer had to worry about tipping off terrorists.
Click to expand...

Has the media EVER concerned themselves with their stories tipping off anyone?
 
donsutherland1 said:
It is my understanding that the case in question concerned the narrower argument whether the Executive Department's compliance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's (FISA) provisions on electronic surveillance is mandatory. The court ruled that it is.

FWIW, the relevant provisions of FISA that address warrantless surveillance can be found at:

US CODE: Title 50,1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications;

IMO, FISA is sufficiently robust and flexible to deal with the terrorist threat in a timely fashion, while safeguarding the basic constitutional rights of Americans. Therefore, I agree with the Court's ruling that compliance with FISA is mandatory and do not believe that the ruling should have any significant adverse impact on national security. Indeed, if its effect is to prioritize efforts based on the existence of reasonable evidence (necessary to obtain a court order), the benefits of focusing where such evidence exists might be greater than those associated with simply laying out a broad "net" with the hope of discovering something.
Click to expand...

Well said, and let me add that the law allows for wiretaps to be placed immediately, if there is a sufficient need, as long as a court order is then obtained with a reasonable period of time. There is absolutely no excuse for wiretapping without a court order.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom