Bush Flip-Flops on Warrantless Wiretaps (Trees And Things)

charlies: Re: Bush Flip-Flops on Warrantless Wiretaps

Fri, 26 Jan 2007 03:34:08 EST

The original idea was that there might be a problem with a spy needing to make immediate contact with his control.

Did you see the PBS version of [I]Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy[/I]? Remember when the "mole" was under surveilance and called for a crash

rEvolution inAction: Re: Bush Flip-Flops on Warrantless Wiretaps

Tue, 23 Jan 2007 02:10:09 EST

retroactive warrants? In what cases? It's not jsut a case of B&E is it? They go in check the place out.. if they were wrong.. well you'll probably just think it was a robbery.. if they were right.. oh all of a sudden it's legally obtained evidence.. &n

charlies: Re: Bush Flip-Flops on Warrantless Wiretaps

Sat, 20 Jan 2007 02:49:16 EST

I think the Administration is practicing deceit at a deeper level. At various times Bush and Gonzales have asserted a "national security" power allowing them to tap any phone, any time, anywhere. By "conceding" that a FISA warrant is necessary, Bush is try

Thalia: Re: Question: Why would the ACLU suit be moot?

Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:59:48 EST

The lawsuit was about the constitutionality of the Bush Administration's assertion that they had the executive power to do this. Since the ACLU doesn't actually have a party of interest (i.e. they have no documentation about who has been harmed by su

wetkarma: Question: Why would the ACLU suit be moot?

Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:41:19 EST

I'm not acquainted with the full details of the ACLU suit, but presumably they are suing on the basis of a violation of the 1st and 4th amendment. If the government has now promised to stop the (alleged) violations, how does that make the suit moot?

Wou