Warrant, warrant warrant! Why wont they ask the RIGHT question?

Yes all agree the government needs to track calls, but, they must have a warrant, oversight. Why wont the pundits ask why this is done without a warrant? Is anyone watching Neut G. on Meet the Press? Russert is not asking the warrant question and it distorts the reality of Bush's illegal surveillance.

benefit of doubt and fuck us. We can keep him $3,000 dollars suits while he asks puff questions. Bush can.

this whole issue is so simple.... they just need to follow
the law and get a warrant... anything else is just more
republican noise, obfuscation and outright lies

it would be hard for him to do it if they simply asked that question. Question: "What's wrong with getting warrants? I mean, you can get them retroactively, so it doesn't cost any time; and you will protect our democracy."

is when the media is talking about Bush listening to our phone calls and they (including some dems) say that Bush needs to listen to our phone calls without a warrant because we are fighting the bad guys. But the damn FISA laws allows Bush to listen to our phone calls without a warrant. Bush only needs to get a warrant after he listens to the calls. Bush is not even doing this. This is because he obviously has something to hide and the media does not give a damn about it (including Dems).

Pure domestic.. well, read my other post. That's the FBI's thing.

For good reason.

when one of the callers is from overseas and the other caller is in the USA, FISA must be followed. Bush is violating FISA (and theConstitution for that matter).

They're spooks under the Department of Defense. Posse comitatus and stuff.

Even WITH a warrant they're not supposed to be touching pure domestic calls. That's for the FBI.

And I'll keep pounding this point until someone listens, damnit.

of this as it is their job to inform the public. This just makes me more disgusted.

It's not like they independently know a lot of stuff about this so when people are spouting RW talking points that "law enforcement has been able to do this for years" and "what's wrong with the NSA just buying the data" well, they just don't have a BS detector working in this area outside their area of expertise (because, uh, it's unprecedented, actually).

And incidentally the reason the NSA buying the data is wrong is because the telecom corps aren't permitted to sell that data to anyone. Even the government or any parts thereof. Frankly, it can't possibly be true. The NSA sure could have offered quid pro quo in the form of classified contracts and I believe this is what was done but, it's illegal to sell that data, period. It's also illegal to give it away except in response to a lawful request (like a subpoena, warrant..) unless they wanna cite an emergency clause in the relevant telecom laws and um, that's for records for a single number, individually asserted to be necessary for some purpose. There's nothing in the law that suggests there is any emergency big enough to give every record for every person or business' calls in the United States of America to the government.

And even if there was, it doesn't even freaking matter because the NSA is not authorized to engage in law enforcement. If there's no direct tie to foreign intelligence they should not be touching it at all. And if it does touch foreign intelligence, they damn well should have gone through the FISA court because this involves American citizens who are not "enemy". Or at least not acknowledged to be treated as enemy by their own government (though in reality that's how they are being treated).

both charters say that both organizations cannot operate domestically, only the FBI, ATF, and other LAW enforcement agencies may work domestically. Neither the CIA(active spy agency), nor the NSA(passive spy agency) may work to enforce domestic laws.

Bush's lawyers claim Patriot act and the inherent powers of the unitary dictator, er, executive make the warrants unnecessary.

Whether there IS such a thing is the REAL question that needs to be explored.