"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in message

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:36:53 -0500, default
wrote:

[snip]
...the administration
will spin it that way in order to justify taking away the bill of
rights). This is hardly more than civil disobedience with a little
bit of property damage.


For those of you slow of wit, I have posted the original FISA...

I case you haven't been keeping track of the news living out there in
the desert, FISA is pretty much a non issue as far as the
administration is concerned.

Until recently, they have been free to bug as they saw fit and, at the
suggestion by (the Democratic) congress that they simply comply with
FISA and get the requisite warrants, Bush had a hissy fit.

Because they aren't domestic calls, and in many cases both parties are
outside the country and the calls are routed through our network, so FISA
isn't supposed to apply, and was never meant to apply to such cases by the
pre-packet-network lawmakers who wrote it.

You don't need a warrant to physically search somebody physically crossing
the border. It's stupid to think a phone call is entitled to more rights
than a physical person.

And warrants usually take longer to get than the duration of a phone call,
BTW.

We already saw the results of the legalistic methods of the Clinton
administration. Bush's opposition pretends we don't have experience with
that approach. It's really dishonest how they avoid acknowledging that,
instead of at least making a futile effort to argue that it was a success.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add another
zero, and remove the last word.