"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 13:23:07 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 04:08:34 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

They didnt reveal themselves..someone else did. Thats why they call
it
a secret operation. Governments do that. Most of them are quite
legal.

Legitimate ogvernments do that under the law. This administration --
not
the
government, but one branch that has become a loose cannon -- just
violated
the law, flatly, and admittedly.

Got cites?

Oh, cripes, Gunner, they're all over the newswires and the Internet:

==============================

By JENNIFER LOVEN
Associated Press Writer
Dec 17 10:40 AM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday he personally has authorized a
secret eavesdropping program in the U.S. more than 30 times since the
Sept.
11 attacks

===============================

The administration has admitted that they did not seek court warrants as
required under the law. I doubt if there is anyone in North America who
does
not know this now.

So, he broke the law. He says the law is overridden by other
authorizations
by Congress to use "all appropriate means." Most scholars seem to agree
this
does not extend to violating the Constitution, nor did Congress intend
that
it should.

But there are further issues. First, the administration may argue that
the
law does not apply. It may also claim authority to violate the
Constitution
under some theory of executive authority in time of "war."

These are other arguments, however. The primary one is that neither the
president nor Congress is authorized to violate the 4th Amendment.

The administration has admitted to violating the law by not seeking court
warrants. That's step one. Step two is deciding if he had the authority
to
do so, laws or no laws. That's one for the federal courts to decide, not
the
executive branch.

I already know what he did. Now back up your claim

"just violated the law, flatly, and admittedly."

I'm going to avoid the obvious question about reading comprehension. g
What part of "secret eavesdropping program" (with admission that court
warrants weren't sought) is not coming through?

Is it the law that's the problem? Should we get it out and reprint it here?
Is it a problem with taking Bush's statement in one hand, and the law in the
other, and seeing what he just admitted to?

Let us know. I'm sure we can accomodate.


According to the cite you provided..Bush says it was all quite legal...

Oh, that's a sure thing, all right. g

and a good many scholars agree with him.

And who would that be, in addition to the usual administration lackeys and
apologists?

And no..the administration
has NOT admitted to violating the law..they did admit to not getting
warrants, which in the cases they submitted, claimed to not need.

That's an admission they broke the law. What they did is say the law doesn't
say what it says. 'Want to see the law?

--
Ed Huntress