Quote:
Originally posted by Phasad1913
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060125/...e/gonzales_nsa
This is the most concrete of explanations I have heard so far attemting to provide a legal basis for Bush's wire tapping program. As a student currently studying Criminal Procedure, I agree with the professors at Georgetown Law, and totally disagree with the Atty. General. The main reason I will not longer give any credence to his argument is that he sat up there and said that the standard for acquiring a person's phone conversations is "reasonable basis", and that that standard is the same as that for probable cause. That's just not true. Furthermore, the whole point of Fourth Amendment guarantee's is that an objective magistrate or judge determine what is and is not reasonable, not a police officer in the general course of criminal investigating, and not the Executive in the course of executing his duties as president.
|
Some law professors are so far up the ass of liberal Dems that they cannot approve of anything our President does.
I do not know if this applies to the Georgetown bunch.
I wish we could find out if any voted for Bush, if any are registered Republicans, and if any contributed to either party.
Basically, he's the President in time of war, and intercepting communications from the enemy during war is a pretty good idea.
Some call it "acquiring a person's phone conversations". I call it A-OK if one of the "persons" involved is an enemy with a record of using secret cells inside our country to topple the WTC on 9/11/01, killing 3,000+.