Why is it though that the members of the Bush administration want to sidestep an established court order process for performing these wiretaps. From what I’ve read (and tell me if I’m wrong), the laws as written allow for both secret issuance of court orders and for court orders “after the fact” if it’s deemed necessary to perform a wiretap in a timely manner.

Allowing a goverment to do something completely in secret, may sound good if the initial goals are agreed upon. However, the old saying goes that absolute power corrupts absolutely. If these acts can be used against bona-fide suspected terrorists, what’s to stop someone in position of power in the government from using these against his/her own enemies, perceived or real? Let’s not forget Nixon….his downfall stemmed from the fact that he used what he thought was the power of the presidency to work secretly against his “enemies”.

More so than liberals are aware of the origin of the “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” cliche.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/a/146858.htm

That is possible only if GP doesn’t read his own links.

The Constitution prohbits unreasonable searches and seizures. Apparently, the ACLU feels it unreasonable to listen in on phone calls between Al Qaeda and their operatives in the USA.

Actually, you don’t have to suspect anything. Go to http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/17/aclu.nsa/ and the ACLU home page at http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/index.html

The ACLU suit, as far as I can tell, doesn’t challenge the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with its grant of a 72 hour sliding window for warrantless searches. What the ACLU’s suit does challenge is the GWBush’s administration’s contention that it can ignore the 72 hour limitation, contrary to statute. “Rule of law” don’t you know?

Yes, it has long been held that searches can be held without a warrant. Indeed, most of the early searches in the OJ Simpson case were conducted without a warrant. The reasonableness of the searches depends upon the facts and circumstances. The FISA law defines the facts and circumstances, and provides a reasonable compromise between civil liberties and national security. And that is why FISA was enacted in the 1970s.

The ACLU’s suit: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/17/aclu.nsa/

BTW, I do not know whether or not you are gay, but, just to let you know, it was not unusual for law enforcement to infiltrate gay rights groups in at least the 1950s and 1960s (and probably earlier) to “take names,” probably for blackmail purposes. They certainly wiretapped MLK to try to dig up dirt on him for blackmail purposes. All of that was without a warrant. If you really want unlimited warrantless searches, be careflul about what you wish for.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030107_fletcher.html

Ironically the dissenter, Justice Jackson, had been the chief Allied prosecutor against the Nazis at the Nuernberg trials. (I use the German spelling) Of course, the Nazis opposed free speech, too.

The overarching problem is that FISA, written in 1978, is technologically antediluvian. It was drafted by legislators who had no concept of how terrorists could communicate in the 21st century or the technology that would be invented to intercept those communications. The rules regulating the acquisition of foreign intelligence communications were drafted when the targets to be monitored had one telephone number per residence and all the phones were plugged into the wall. Critics like Al Gore and especially critics in Congress, rather than carp, should address the gaps created by a law that governs peacetime communications-monitoring but does not address computers, cell phones or fiber optics in the midst of war.

Democrats who believe that Texas ANG units had Microsoft Word in 1972 understandably have difficulty understanding technological continuity.

The overarching problem is that FISA, written in 1978, is technologically antediluvian. It was drafted by legislators who had no concept of how terrorists could communicate in the 21st century or the technology that would be invented to intercept those communications. The rules regulating the acquisition of foreign intelligence communications were drafted when the targets to be monitored had one telephone number per residence and all the phones were plugged into the wall. Critics like Al Gore and especially critics in Congress, rather than carp, should address the gaps created by a law that governs peacetime communications-monitoring but does not address computers, cell phones or fiber optics in the midst of war.

Democrats who believe that Texas ANG units had Microsoft Word in 1972 understandably have difficulty understanding technological continuity.

The ACLU doesn’t want to connect ANY dots. They clearly want the USA obliterated. They’re of the same mind as the rest of the leftist in that we deserve every bit of 9/11 and more.

Uhmmmmm…..Because they didn’t have to. DUH!!

In spite of everyone’s statement to the contrary, we are not a nation at war according to the constitution unless Congress met, passed a declaration, and both the main stream media and the blogosphere somehow missed it all this time.

Clearly the liberal blogosphere and media are blinded by so much hate that they have no idea what’s going on. Not only did we have a declaration, but we also had the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 which directed the POTUS to change the regime in Iraq.
After the “Democrat” president ignored it, because he would have had to actually do something, but when a Republican president actully fulfilled it, liberals go apeshit, claim it’s illegal, and deny their previous concerns about WMD and imminent threat.

Long story short, why the hell should we believe, vote for & put liberals into power?

It’s entirely possible that the Bush Administration should not have sought FISA warrants because the FISA court lacked jurisdiction. For example, the NSA monitoring facility was outside U.S. premises and so was one end of the call. FISA wouldn’t have (or be allowed) jurisdiction under those conditions.

There is much about the programs we just don’t know. (And shouldn’t!)

Moreover, Presidents of both parties have asserted the government’s right to monitor for authentic intelligence gathering purposes, without warrants. There is a vast different between merely trying to “collect the dots” for intelligence purposes, vs. a criminal investigation (attaching criminal jeopardy). The latter is where U.S. law mainly requires warrants.

So Angry Fag, stop spreading your canards that have already been thoroughly refuted, OK?

Go figure. I was hoping for NYT, Boston Globe, any MSM electronic outlet, WaPost, or even HowieDean’s PR machine.

But nope. All we got were some fringe radical Democrat-based hateblogs.

I think your blogsite needs a name change to AngryDemocratFag.

Are you a September 10th American? Just curious.

This is more lying and disingenuousness on the part of liberal moonbats.

ND30: You guys need to stop using that word. It’s getting old, is rather childish, and according to the Wikipedia you’re not even using it right.

As for the sources for the American groups being spied on, you’ll have to Google it. Last time I posted a list of links here the spam filter got triggered.

V the K:

And under the constituion, any charges brought against domestic groups being spied on would be dropped because without a warrant any evidence gained through or as a result of wiretaps is inadmissable.

Perhaps to better suit you the NSA and CIA should merge and change their initials to KGB.

And as I pointed out yesterday, the Holy Land Foundation was allegedly a “pacifist” and “human rights” group.

This is more lying and disingenuousness on the part of liberal moonbats. What they don’t admit is just who these groups were inviting to their rallies and meetings, like “Free Palestine” groups and International A.N.S.W.E.R., whose avowed goals are supporting terrorism and anti-US actions — just so they could get more people to the event.

In short, you lay with dogs, don’t be surprised when you’re checked for fleas.

On the other hand, I don’t think sending agents to check out anti-war groups is entirely unreasonable. (Remember the “We Support Our Troops When They Shoot Their Officers” and “I Like NYC Better Without the WTC” banners at the Anti-War Demos?) If you want to catch people who are burning black churches, Klan meetings are probably one place you want to watch.

What is your source?
How would you know this to be true?
Can you provide corroboration?
Do you have an insider in the Federal government?
If so, to what extend were these groups “spied” on?
Why are you convinced that examination of these groups is without merit?
How would you know?

Frankly your allegation smells like political propaganda.