Talking point for democrats

[whosinpower]

After reading Roberts insistance that Bush can spy domestically.....

Here is my frame - No body is saying that Bush cannot spy on those who wish to harm america.....But he must do it legally within the current frame of law - or else we must go back to the drawing board and rewrite the current law - but either way - the president must get warrents to legally spy.
That is what the FISA court is about. That is why it was created - out of the ashes of the Nixon debacle.....and that is what we are determined to uphold.

Thoughts anyone?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BuyingThyme]

2. You make a good case.

[flobee1]

3. He is?

So he IS getting a court order?

edit
sorry-responding to brainless freeper

[BuyingThyme]

5. He quickly moved on.

[stop the bleeding]

6. I see you learned the trick from the other day - good young grasshopper

What did they say I missed it.

[BuyingThyme]

9. Yeah, I guess that's one good use for profiles.

Never even looked at one before.

[stop the bleeding]

10. what did they say ?? n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. We have to have warrants

otherwise, it is wide open for abuse.

[BuyingThyme]

7. What Roberts writings are your referring to? Which Roberts? Link?

[Jara sang]

8. It's bullshit anyway. Bush is trying to frame as "terrortist surveillance"

They are spying on everybody, average citizens.

[Kierkegaard]

12. And no doubt, political opponents.

[Igel]

11. I've heard too many claims and counterclaims,

arguments built on air and suspicion, defenses based on silence.

Eventually somebody will find standing and take it to court, and the courts will have to decide if "US persons" were involved, and, if not, if domestic spying on non-US persons to obtain foreign intelligence is ok. The Constitution-based arguments will be thrashed out, and the 'war authorization' so-called will have to receive an authoritative interpretation. FISA's usually held to apply to surveillance of US persons for domestic law enforcement, by and large. Legal minds will have to dwell on the niceties of what the law actually says--not what the NYT's editorial page or Rawstory say it says--together with full access to the facts.

The executive's pronouncements of FISA, the Constitution, and the 2003 congressional action will be mostly to the side. The legislative's pronouncements of those three things will also be mostly to the side.

Given purported vagueness in the law, and a relative absence of actual facts ... No opinion worth the bandwidth.