Saturday, February 11, 2006

Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy

First it was revealed that Bill Clinton ordered warrentless searches on American citizens, and the Left didn't care. Now it seems that Good Ol' Mr. Peanut himself ordered warrantless electronic surveillances on two men in 1977 who were later convicted of spying for Vietnam. And here's another kicker. The two men who's "rights were violated" challenged their convictions before the 4th Court of Appeals who ruled that the warrantless searches did not violate the men's rights, saying
"the executive branch has the 'inherent authority' to wiretap enemies such as terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when surveillance is 'conducted primarily for foreign intelligence reasons.' "
But I can hear the lefties now. "This case was before FISA". And? If the Constitution doesn't allow it now, it sure didn't allow it then. But, like Bush today, I support Carter doing it in 1977. If it saves lives, I'm for it. What good are rights if we're not alive to enjoy them. But I don't think this is a violation of any rights, so that logic doesn't apply here. But let's just see how many Democrats go after Carter for this. My guess, about as many that went after Clinton.
Mr. Peanut
Filed under Daft Liberals
Filed under War On Terror

13 comments:

loboinok said...

Roosevelt ordered wiretaps, Truman did, Carter and Clinton.

I have a post up at my site that explains pretty well, why Bush is so confident that what he ordered is legal.

http://loboslinks.blogspot.com/2006/02/listening-to-enemy-legal-ground-on.html

40 said...

Ask the Cubans about this:
"What good are rights if we're not alive to enjoy them."

You can say what you want, but the Americans who worry about this wiretapping breaking our 4th amendement righst to a warrant do so because of the slippery slope. It is not a path we should be going down. Wiretap now, knock down our door to our home later.

It is simply wrong. The President has FISA he can use. If it takes too much effort, hire more people to file the millions of papers you need to. It'll be good for the economy! But, protect our rights and leave a paper trail. Period.

Indian Chris said...

And you've totally missed and ignored the point of the post. When are you going to call Carter and Clinton criminals? Did Carter not break the law? Did Clinton not break the law? I'm waiting for just one Liberal to be honest and go after Democrats like they've went after Bush.

Crazy Politico said...

They won't go after them. However, the court's ruling is interesting. Because FISA didn't exist, it would mean that the power they spoke of was an inherent Constitutional one. Since we all know that the Constitution isn't overridden by statutes, that would mean Bush is in the clear.

You won't hear that from Howard Dean this week either.

Opinionnation said...

They don't do that Chris. They are content with calling Bush Nixon and ignoring history and facts. When they are wrong so many times they are left with no choice but to use contradictions in an attempt to mask their ignorance.

loboinok said...

"It is simply wrong. The President has FISA he can use. If it takes too much effort, hire more people to file the millions of papers you need to. It'll be good for the economy! But, protect our rights and leave a paper trail. Period."


Bush isn't concerned about effort, he is concerned with National Security.

Bush did all that you suggest here, UNTIL... people with security clearances, who happen to be Senators on the Intelligence Committee, started leaking classified information to foreign leaders and U.S. newspapers.

Why consult with people who are going to torpedoe you AND National Security?

Why not just issue a memo to the MSM?

Indian Chris said...

I'm with all those who say change the law. If you're going to be listening to a call between two people inside the United States then you should get a warrent, however, if the call's between someone in the country and a known terror suspect outside it, screw the warrent.

loboinok said...

Thats the way it is now Chris, but some are spinning this to say that Bush is wiretapping citizens or doing it for political reasons like Clinton did.

They point out that some citizens have been wiretapped without realizing or revealing that some of those 'citizens' have been Al Queda ops who have acquired citizenship for 'constitutional protection' and as cover.

It is these that are making calls overseas and being picked up by 'taps'.

Za said...

That ruling doesn't apply in the present case though. Note the specific people it says wiretapping is legal against:
enemies such as terror plotters

Around 5,000 people in the last 4 years have been wiretapped by the NSA, without warrants, and less than 10 a year are actual leads. In other words, 99.2% of all the people the NSA didn't have warrants for WEREN'T "enemies" let alone "terror plotters".

So sorry guys, but it was illegal in more than 99% of cases.

loboinok said...

"Around 5,000 people in the last 4 years have been wiretapped by the NSA, without warrants, and less than 10 a year are actual leads."

You are going to have to show me some sources for that.

Za said...

Washington Post - February 5th. Scroll up to the "Spying" post, I quote them there.

loboinok said...

That doesn't do it for me. You gave me a 'left-wing' news org. that is trying to sell you their spin, backed up by what? Nameless "Intelligence officers", nameless "current and former government officials and private-sector sources", alot of nameless sources there.

"Other officials, nearly all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not permitted to discuss the program,"

Officials who swore an oath to gain a position of trust and are now illegally violating both. The Washington Post would have me TRUST what they have to say? How ironic but sad that there are people who actually do.

Za said...

Washington Post is "leftwing news org" is it? Then why is its editorial page littered with such conservatives as Michael Kelly, George Will, Robert Novak and Charles Krauthammer? Why is its op-ed page similarly crammed with conservatives?

Oh, of course - that's right, because rather than the Bush administration making a hell of a lot of stupid mistakes, the Post just has an evil left-wing vendetta.

Tell me, do you trust Matt Drudge, who started his career by illegally going through people's trashcans?