Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., aptly creditedthe intelligence community Sunday on CBS’ "Face the Nation" with foiling the airliner bomb plot, singling out the British and Pakistanis for their involvement (see CBS photo). It seemed odd, though, to hear Roberts — a defender of the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping and other anti-terrorism tools of questionable legality — say "the British have better tools. If you want to get a warrant, all you have to do is call up a minister in regards to Great Britain. I’m not advocating that in the United States with the FISA court or anything else, but it seems to me that they have taken actions that would really speed that along." How can calling someone and securing a warrant be better and faster than engaging in surveillance without a warrant?
And somehow when Roberts talks about the need to "take politics out of this at least to a certain extent with national security," he increasingly sounds as if he’s the one engaging in political talk.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
9 Comments
Ok, I’m a bit unclear. In the US, if you want to get secret warrant, you can go to FISA court, and pretty likely be approved. That’s seems to be the similar case in regards to Great Britain, is it not? So, which is he promoting now, strengthening FISA court oversight, or increasing warrantless surveillance?
Also, if war has yet to be explicitly declared by Congress, doesn’t that mean GWB is NOT a war president?
“How can calling someone and securing a warrant be better and faster than engaging in surveillance without a warrant?”
Rhonda: Why don’t you do a little research and let us know what you find out? I understand that the Brits have far less legal restriction on what they can do in way of surveillance etc… Peter King (R New York- Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security) brought that up in an interview as an advantage they have in fighting terror over there.
You folks seem to forget that the U.S. has massive “listening stations” at strategic locations in the U.K. and Europe, at our military bases. They’ve been there operating since the cold war.Legal is not even a question.We do electronic surveilance all over the world without being bound by national and international laws, apparently.And as evidenced with the recent bust, IT’S WORKING.
Actually, Bush can eavesdrop first and get the FISA warrent afterwards.
Perhaps Roberts like the British method of actually capturing terrorists who may be able to level an attack of some merit. In Florida the Bush administration bragged about the capture of seven poverty stricken, barely literate fundamentalist Christians as a blow the the Islamic terror network.
Bush also bragged about this latest capture although he hampered British efforts. The British wanted to continue the survelliance to uncover more people in this plot. Since the people hadn’t even gotten their passports or tickets they weren’t going to carry the attacks out anytime soon. However the Bush administration was desperate for positive publicity and their politics were considered more important than our safety so they let a few people get away scot free.
Rhonda:”Reasonable suspicion” is all it takes in Brittain.”Probable Cause” is what it takes to get a warrant in the United States.The bar is set quite a bit lower in England, and it is much easier to get a warrant there.I commend you for using the term “questionable legality” regarding warrantless searches. For you, this must have been a very hard admission. Many people on these threads flatly claim that eavesdropping without a warrant is a “crime.”I strongly believe that the Constitution must be interpreted by historical precedent, and I also strongly believe that the President and Congress have a role in interpreting the Constitution and a duty to defend their Constitutional powers.Liberals are wrong when they claim the SCOtUS, somehow, is the highest and final and only authority on Constitutional issues.Congress can do nothing to expand or restrict Presidential Powers granted by the Constitution.FISA courts should probably be used when we wish to prosecute someone in court.When we are engaged in preventing a new attack, when we are trying to protect the country from future immediate peril, or when the targets of our surveillence are still unknown, spying without a warrant might be justified.When an act of war or a crime have already occured, maybe we use the FISA court system.Either way, this is the job of the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States.It is Bush’s call.Criticize his judgement all you want, but legally, a very large segment of the population thinks that Bush is on very solid legal ground.You dont need a warrant to fight a war.
Yeah Paul, Bush is on the same legal grounds as Nixon.
DougJFK wiretapped Martin Luther King.Lincoln spied on members of Congress, even having a Congressman arrested and deported.FDR wiretapped and spied and interned the Japanese.I am not defending all of these things, but you mentioning an illegal act of a previous President does NOT make what Bush is doing illegal.Bush has Constitutional powers as President.Nothing Nixon did changed the Constitution.
And if Bush does not have Constitutional powers he seem to do just fine at making them up.