by all accounts, there is a mechanism in place, under the FISA, to allow the government to eavesdrop on any US citizen, at a moment's notice, without a warrant. the stipulation is that the government is required to, within a set time period, go back to a judge and justify the wiretap or the results get thrown out. as albed points out above, wiretaps are approved 99.999% of the time. so what is the President's problem with obeying the law and getting the warrant, when he was almost certain to be able to do so?
Quote:
Bush said the program had been effective in disrupting terrorist acts, but gave no details.
"I've reauthorized this program more than 30 times since September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill our American citizens," he declared.
Bush noted that he had sworn to uphold the law. "Do I have the legal authority to do this? The answer is "absolutely"."....
|
he has given a variety of sweeping statements like the one above but he idoesn't ever address the legal question with anything more than the equivalent of "because i'm the Prez and i say so". could it be that the Prez was ordering eavesdropping on people that he was unable to legally justify - and therefore didn't try? or does he really just feel he has the authority to circumvent the law as he wishes?
Quote:
|
He railed against the person, or people, who leaked the information. "It was a shameful act ... it tells our enemy exactly what we are doing and they adjust."
|
gee, he didn't get too worked up when his top advisors leaked a CIA officer's identity to the media - guess it depends on who is doing the leaking.
