Skip to main content

View Diary: NYT: Court to Rule Wiretapping Power Legal (88 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The key word: "unreasonable" (0+ / 0-)

    The issue is whether warrentless surveillance of suspected foreign agents is "unreasonable."

    •  But was the Bush era spying (0+ / 0-)

      which was amnestied limited to suspected foreign agents? Or did it include "suspected foreign agents?"

      There's reason to suspect they sucked up at least call records from everyone. While these records, as "3d party' records don't require warrants under accepted 4th Amendment rulings, they do require an Atotorney General certification under the Wiretap Act. As I connect the dots, it was this certification which was NOT renewed in the Ashcroft/Comey hospital caper.

      This makes Martch 4th the key date for any prosecution, due to the 4 year Statute of Limitations in the Wiretap Act.

      This is a Test of the Emergency Free Speech System. This is only a Test. In an actual Free Speech Emergency, I'll be locked up.

      by ben masel on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 11:10:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, but... (0+ / 0-)

      ...the article is (intentionally) misleading in that it mentions the standard of reasonableness, but that goes on to claim a specific exception for "the collection of foreign intelligence information" which is not there.

      Sloppy reporting that relies on the general ignorance of what the Constitution actually says.

      "That which I am writing about so tediously may be obvious to someone whose mind is less decrepit." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

      by Mad Dog Rackham on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 11:13:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site