[Rumor]

Rep. McKinney Files Articles of Impeachment

First off, I don't know if this is true or not. It someone can validate it, that would be great.

Second, I'm curious as to how far this gets if it is real.

Third, the points seem valid enough but I'm not sure if it would be enough to get an impeachment.

Besides Nixon, has there been a president impeached? This could be an interesting turn of events. It also calls upon removing Cheney and Rice from office.

Is this just a ploy to get Pelosi into the Oval Office?

[Dakar²]

Give. It. Up.

[Rumor]

I didn't say I sided with her.

At this point in time, I think it's a bit late for impeachment. The damage is already done.

[Millennium]

It won't go through. The case is basically groundless; the few things in the articles which are actual crimes can't be proven anyway.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

I didn't say I sided with her.

That wasn't directed at you. Sorry.

[Sky Captain]

I wish they'd just Move On.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Besides Nixon, has there been a president impeached?

Nixon wasn't impeached; he resigned from office before they could. The only presidents who have been impeached are Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.

[Dork.]

This is true, I remember reading about it a few days ago. She's introducing it now because she's on the way out the door. She knows it won't go anywhere. The article says as much.

[GSixZero]

Let's get over Bush and his cronies. He's a mess. He has no political credibility from his party, America, or the world anymore.

It's time for new leadership, republican and democrat alike.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

It won't go through. The case is basically groundless; the few things in the articles which are actual crimes can't be proven anyway.

It's about as slam-dunk of a case of this type as you can get. He broke the laws on domestic surveillance. The reason it won't go through is political: Democrats know that Bill Clinton in the middle of his impeachment was at the height of his popularity. Detaining American citizens (Jose Padilla) without trial or charge and torturing them should do it too. Again, the reason impeachment isn't happening is purely political.

[Kevin]

"He broke the laws on domestic surveillance." Just like Clinton Did.

Difference? Bush was spying on terrorists. Clinton on Princess Diana.

Priorities people.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

It's about as slam-dunk of a case of this type as you can get. … Again, the reason for filing for impeachment is purely political.

Fixed™

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

"He broke the laws on domestic surveillance." Just like Clinton Did.

I didn't realize Princess Di was domestic.

[Kevin]

Sorry I read that as domestic laws.

But that's just a semantics argument. They both did the same thing.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Sorry I read that as domestic laws.

But that's just a semantics argument. They both did the same thing.

Absolutely false. No one has or would assert that spying on foreign nationals outside the country is illegal. Yet even the Bush administration admits that they didn't follow our FISA laws in warrantless domestic eavesdropping. They just claim they don't have to follow the law.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Yet even the Bush administration admits that they didn't follow our FISA laws in warrantless domestic eavesdropping. They just claim they don't have to follow the law.

Cute smiley face. Link please? I'd like to see where the Bush Administration admitted that they didn't follow our FISA Laws in warrantless domestic eavesdropping and where they claim they don't have to follow the law. And saying "God told him to" without also providing the source of that information won't count either.

In 1977, President Carter and his attorney general, Griffin B. Bell, authorized warrantless electronic surveillance used in the conviction of two men for spying on behalf of Vietnam.
The men, Truong Dinh Hung and Ronald Louis Humphrey, challenged their espionage convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which unanimously ruled that the warrantless searches did not violate the men's rights.

As far as I know, the Bush Administration has made it clear that they have Constitutional Authority to perform surveillance without a warrant in the name of national security. They are in fact, attaining foreign intel, not unlike Carter prior. They, as well as many Dems have argued that the only way to hault this practice would be to amend the Constitution. When Mr. Bell testified in favor of FISA, he told Congress that while the measure doesn't explicitly acknowledge the "inherent power of the president to conduct electronic surveillance," it "does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution."

Jamie S. Gorelick, deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration, agreed. In 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Miss Gorelick said case law supports the presidential authority to conduct warrantless searches and electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes.

So, you're not concerned about privacy so much as whether or not there's an (R) after their name???

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Cute smiley face.

I'm told that a lot.

Link please? I'd like to see where the Bush Administration admitted that they didn't follow our FISA Laws in warrantless domestic eavesdropping and where they claim they don't have to follow the law.

Why do you want a link, when you yourself make this same argument later in the same post:

As far as I know, the Bush Administration has made it clear that they have Constitutional Authority to perform surveillance without a warrant in the name of national security.

Yes they make that argument, that they don't have to follow FISA, but virtually everyone outside of the administration says they're full of it. But if you really want a link for your own argument, the very least you could do is look up the wikipedia entry on this issue. It's filled with numerous quotes from administration officials claiming that they didn't need to follow the law because he's the president and we're at war. Anyone who followed the controversy at all knows that was the argument the administration made.

So, you're not concerned about privacy so much as whether or not there's an (R) after their name???

The irony here is that you're the one criticizing Democrats for allegedly "doing the same thing," while defending Republicans. I'm absolutely willing to condemn any member of government, R or D, who breaks this law; you have shown no such inclination. I don't give a damn about Clinton, but there is no evidence they broke the FISA law, and they certainly didn't admit to doing it. I will say that I think it's shameful that Ds are too scared of being seen as soft on terra, so they refuse to deal with this issue appropriately for purely political reasons. See how different we are? I say screw Democrats who break the law. You people lay on hands and speak in tongues to cardboard cutouts of your politicians at your Jesus Camps:

http://media.lawrence.com/img/photos..._bw_2k_12-.jpg -- Image way too large.

[Chuckit]

Tooki, why have you forsaken us?

[BRussell]

Is it too big? (If I had a nickel for every time I asked that...)

[Big Mac]

That pig racist McKinney is a loser - she couldn't even win when the country was angry at the GOP. She's finished, and she's just looking for cheap press before she lines up for unemployment benefits.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I'm told that a lot.
Why do you want a link, when you yourself make this same argument later in the same post

The argument is whether or not law was broken.

Yes they make that argument, that they don't have to follow FISA, but virtually everyone outside of the administration says they're full of it. But if you really want a link for your own argument, the very least you could do is look up the wikipedia entry on this issue. It's filled with numerous quotes from administration officials claiming that they didn't need to follow the law because he's the president and we're at war. Anyone who followed the controversy at all knows that was the argument the administration made.

I'm well aware of the 18 month old "leak" that somehow made it to the headlines just prior to the elections. The arguments made in that article encompass the criteria for the law Einstein. If the Wiki article is literally littered with the quotes, why don't you provide one??? Allow me to answer for you; they never said any such thing. It's not as simple as an Administration official stating; "we don't have to follow FISA law" or "we don't have to follow the law", they simply never made either statement. Looks good on a bumper sticker though right under the one that says; "hate is not a family value" and to the left of the colorful dancing bears.

The irony here is that you're the one criticizing Democrats for allegedly "doing the same thing," while defending Republicans.

I don't have a problem with warrantless wiretapping for foreign intel. Follow? I've not criticized Democrats for anything other than the few screaming "It's illegal!!!" by virtue of whether or not the person in question has an (R) or a (D) after their name. What's wholly ironic here is that you apparently have a problem with warrantless wiretapping? I can't tell for sure. What I can tell is that you're willing to extrapolate any nefarious Bush Administration activity while failing to acknowledge any judicial precedent on the matter or any commentary in support of the activity made by prior Administration officials.

I'm absolutely willing to condemn any member of government, R or D, who breaks this law; you have shown no such inclination.

Because I don't believe any Administration (R) or (D) broke FISA law. I'm not criticizing Dems, I'm criticizing you.

I don't give a damn about Clinton, but there is no evidence they broke the FISA law, and they certainly didn't admit to doing it. I will say that I think it's shameful that Ds are too scared of being seen as soft on terra, so they refuse to deal with this issue appropriately for purely political reasons.

No, I've already given you the reasons "D's" don't oppose it. Most of the American public is for it for one thing so it is not politically expedient to stand up against something for which most of your constituency support. Secondly, it'd be too easy to bring up the hypocrisy of the sentiment given the numerous instances of defending warrantless searches given by Clinton officials and in fact used by the Carter Administration. The very Administration that achieved unanimous judicial support of the activity.

See how different we are?

Yeah I do. You espouse emotionally-charged, unsubstantiated rhetoric and top it off with digs on wholly irrelevant issues such as; "laying on hands" and "Jesus Camp" establishing that the bumper-sticker mentality simply cannot dedicate more than 2.5 minutes to anything other than tunnel-visioned intolerance and mind-numbingly stupid partisan talking points. Not to mention the self-indulgent and predictable behavior of one who simply has nothing to back his argument.

I don't mind people who are a little slow, it's the ones that are slow and belligerent that piss me off. Thanx for ruining my 5 minutes here.

[BRussell]

You're right ebuddy I was being a dick, and I apologize.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't have a problem with warrantless wiretapping for foreign intel.

I DO have a problem with that practice when the targets of the wire-tapping are on American soil. Whether the wire-tapping it is for foreign or domestic intelligence purposes, I want the government to be required to obtain a warrant before they conduct wire-tapping of persons on American soil.

I want legislation to be introduced to either explicitly allow this to happen or explicitly forbid it from happening. And before you start thinking I am being partisan, had I been a political knowledgable adult when Carter did it--I was only seven at the time--I would have been equally opposed to what he did as to what Bush did.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That pig racist McKinney is a loser - she couldn't even win when the country was angry at the GOP. She's finished, and she's just looking for cheap press before she lines up for unemployment benefits.

Actually she got replaced in the primary. A Democrat ran against her and took her seat. So even the Democrats don't support her these days.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I DO have a problem with that practice when the targets of the wire-tapping are on American soil. Whether the wire-tapping it is for foreign or domestic intelligence purposes, I want the government to be required to obtain a warrant before they conduct wire-tapping of persons on American soil.

I can appreciate your concern, but my thought is that this has been going on from the (enter Administration here), since the dawn of the technology. What's your "probable cause", the fact that he came here from Pakistan? That'll fly. Look, I don't like this any more than the next guy, but I have this sneaking suspicion that my conversation with gramma about what we're having for Christmas dinner is not really what they're listening for.

I want legislation to be introduced to either explicitly allow this to happen or explicitly forbid it from happening. And before you start thinking I am being partisan, had I been a political knowledgable adult when Carter did it--I was only seven at the time--I would have been equally opposed to what he did as to what Bush did.

It's either allow it now or allow it to be every Administration's dirt from here on out until no one even follows it anymore. We're arguing about the Federal government while your governor is potentially giving this authority to local police.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Absolutely false. No one has or would assert that spying on foreign nationals outside the country is illegal. Yet even the Bush administration admits that they didn't follow our FISA laws in warrantless domestic eavesdropping. They just claim they don't have to follow the law.

Wait, are you attempting to say what Clinton did was perfectly legal and ok?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The argument is whether or not law was broken.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Wait, are you attempting to say what Clinton did was perfectly legal and ok?

I know of no evidence that they broke the law. If they did, they should be nailed to the wall. But I've not even heard that argument made by anyone except posters here. Are you talking about the Princess Di thing? Here's a piece from the conservative National Review on that. Byron York dismisses it, the NSA denies it, and the documents from which the allegation originated don't confirm it. But if they had spied on Princess Di, I'd say they shouldn't have. Actually that was my first comment in another thread discussing this. I didn't defend it. It just turns out that it's not true. Bush on the other hand admits it and claims that he doesn't have to follow the law because he's a war president.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It's either allow it now or allow it to be every Administration's dirt from here on out until no one even follows it anymore. We're arguing about the Federal government while your governor is potentially giving this authority to local police.

No. If it is to be explicitly allowed it needs to be done so in the form of legislation. Congress needs to pass legislation authorizing the President to conduct warrant wire-tapping on US soil in times of national emergency (i.e.: war). If it is to be explicitly outlawed then I would expect all future Administrations to not engage in the practice. And for those Administrations that do engage in the practice in contravention of the law I expect there to be just as much hullabaloo then as there is/was now at their contravention of the law. Need I remind you, we are talking about warrantless wire-tapping. Every administration since the passage of the FISA act has had, and has used, the power of warranted wire-tapping.

Finally, what state governor has the power to authorize warrantless wire-tapping on American citizens? Seriously. I did not think this was a power that would fall under the "reserved for the states" rubric within the Constitution. If it is a power state governors can use, I would like to know about it and know which state governors have authorized this practice. Thanks!

[tie]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

I wish they'd just Move On.

Americans are still dying because of Bush's incompetence. If he refuses to resign, he should be impeached.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I know of no evidence that they broke the law. If they did, they should be nailed to the wall. But I've not even heard that argument made by anyone except posters here.

I wish some people would study and pursue other presidents in the past as much as they do Bush.

Originally Posted by tie 

Americans are still dying because of Bush's incompetence. If he refuses to resign, he should be impeached.

Come honestly. Do you expect to be taken seriously when you make hyperbolic statements like this?

[tie]

Sorry? What was the hyperbole?

[Kevin]

[tie]

Oh, I see -- it was a huge exaggeration to say that Americans are dying in Iraq. Sorry, I'll be more careful in the future.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I know of no evidence that they broke the law. If they did, they should be nailed to the wall. But I've not even heard that argument made by anyone except posters here.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I wish some people would study and pursue other presidents in the past as much as they do Bush.

Well, as BRussell said, in the one case where the Clinton Administration was charged with conducting warrant-less wire-taps, the claims were proven to be false, by the very government agencies charged with conducting those sorts of wire-taps.

Do you have other examples of previous President's accused of using warrant-less wiretaps? If so, we should investigate those claims to see if any merit can be found in them. I would like to know as well for history's sake. It would help in how one judges a President's time in office.

<edited to add>
Of course, the thing with the Bush Administration is that it is happening now and we know about it now, not at some distant time after he has left office. And I feel, as a citizen, that I have duty to let the President know that I think he should not violate our laws even in time of war. I think we need to adhere to the laws that undergird this country strongly in a time of war to justify any and all claims we might make to moral superiority in the war. It's difficult to defend as honorable the actions of a country at war overseas when their actions at home are less than honorable.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Well, as BRussell said, in the one case where the Clinton Administration was charged with conducting warrant-less wire-taps, the claims were proven to be false, by the very government agencies charged with conducting those sorts of wire-taps.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

No. If it is to be explicitly allowed it needs to be done so in the form of legislation. Congress needs to pass legislation authorizing the President to conduct warrant wire-tapping on US soil in times of national emergency (i.e.: war).

They have. Congress by statute has confirmed and supplemented the President’s recognized authority under Article II of the Constitution to conduct such warrantless surveillance to prevent further catastrophic attacks on the homeland. In its first legislative response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, Congress authorized the President to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks” of September 11th in order to prevent “any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.” Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224, 224 (Sept. 18, 2001) (reported as a note to 50 U.S.C.A. § 1541) (“AUMF”).

See, we forgot that. Remember all holding hands and singing "God Bless America?" with their US flag lapel pins on? How quickly we forget during election cycles.

The AUMF places the President at the zenith of his powers in authorizing the NSA activities. Under the tripartite framework set forth by Justice Jackson in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-38 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring), Presidential authority is analyzed to determine whether the President is acting in accordance with congressional authorization (category I), whether he acts in the absence of a grant or denial of authority by Congress (category II), or whether he uses his own authority under the Constitution to take actions incompatible with congressional measures (category III). Because of the broad authorization provided in the AUMF, the President’s action here falls within category I of Justice Jackson’s framework. Accordingly, the President’s power in authorizing the NSA activities is at its height because he acted “pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress,” and his power “includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.” Id. at 635.
Boring I know. It's not the kind of thing people want to really dig through, but it is the truth. Bush had the authorization to issue NSA wiretaps as granted him in fact by Congress wanting to ensure there'd be no other 9/11.

Some history;

On September 14, 2001, the President declared a national emergency “by reason of the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, and the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.” Proclamation No. 7463, 66 Fed. Reg. 48,199 (Sept. 14, 2001). The same day, Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing the President “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks” of September 11th, which the President signed on September 18th. AUMF § 2(a). Congress also expressly acknowledged that the attacks rendered it “necessary and appropriate” for the United States to exercise its right “to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad,” and in particular recognized that “the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.” Id. pmbl. Congress emphasized that the attacks “continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”

I can't imagine where any President acting on behalf of protecting the American people, would not have used warrantless wiretapping. After all, we have to at least be half as smart as the ones aiming for the Pentagon. A direct act of war and the overall cost in American lives that day the single worst. People get their panties in a bunch over NSA wiretapping and in the same breath called for Bush to subvert State's rights by sending in the national guard during Katrina. Kills me, it really does. We're sweatin' the small stuff here.

warrant-less wiretapping since Roosevelt in 1940;
In reliance on these principles, a consistent understanding has developed that the President has inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches and surveillance within the United States for foreign intelligence purposes. Wiretaps for such purposes thus have been authorized by Presidents at least since the administration of Franklin Roosevelt in 1940. See, e.g., United States v. United States District Court, 444 F.2d 651, 669-71 (6th Cir. 1971) (reproducing as an appendix memoranda from Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, and Johnson).

detailed here; Presidents' Roosevelt, Truman, and Johnson. There's more precedent on this issue than anyone cares to admit, but it is more politically entertaining to scream about violations now.

If it is to be explicitly outlawed then I would expect all future Administrations to not engage in the practice.

Well then that's another thing which is contradictory to what I thought was your initial argument. The question was whether or not Bush broke FISA law and in fact he has not. If you'd like to amend the FISA law to include more "explicit" provisions, then we'll have to see how that goes.

Finally, what state governor has the power to authorize warrantless wire-tapping on American citizens? Seriously. I did not think this was a power that would fall under the "reserved for the states" rubric within the Constitution. If it is a power state governors can use, I would like to know about it and know which state governors have authorized this practice. Thanks!

Prop 21 in California seeks to do this. Mitt Romney suggests wiretapping Mosques. New Jersey candidate for governor in 2001 calls for augmented police authority to wiretap. Cases currently under way in Boston for wiretapping performed by local police.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Snipped all the quotes.

Nice. Where in all those quotes that "support" warrant-less wire-tapping was reference to the specific legislation authorizing the President to actually conduct warrant-less wire-tapping? See, that's the thing. I have said I want to see specific legislation from Congress "authorizing the President to conduct warrant-less wire-tapping on US soil in times of national emergency (i.e.: war)".

Do you not know what the word specific means? Specific means the Senate taking up H.R. 5825 and passing it as is or creating their own bill that then goes to conference. Until that happens I will still be insisting that the President needs "specific" authorization to do what has been done already.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Prop 21 in California seeks to do this. Mitt Romney suggests wiretapping Mosques. New Jersey candidate for governor in 2001 calls for augmented police authority to wiretap. Cases currently under way in Boston for wiretapping performed by local police.

Again, do you have specifics as to where/when/how US governors have been granted powers to conduct warrant-less wiretapping. All these vague notes show no specific information as to governors being allowed to authorize warrant-less wire-taps.

Also, where in the text for Prop 21, AKA the "Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act of 1998", does it mention authorizing warrant-less wiretapping? The only section of the legislation I can find referencing wire-taps says a judge can authorize a wire-tap, nothing about the governor authorizing warrant-less wiretapping.

SEC. 13. Section 629.52 of the Penal Code is amended to read:

629.52. Upon application made under Section 629.50, the judge may enter an ex parte order, as requested or modified, authorizing interception of wire, electronic digital pager, or electronic cellular telephone communications initially intercepted within the territorial jurisdiction of the court in which the judge is sitting, if the judge determines, on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant, all of the following:

(a) There is probable cause to believe that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit, one of the following offenses:

(1) Importation, possession for sale, transportation, manufacture, or sale of controlled substances in violation of Section 11351, 11351.5, 11352, 11370.6, 11378, 11378.5, 11379, 11379.5, or 11379.6 of the Health and Safety Code with respect to a substance containing heroin, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamine, or their analogs where the substance exceeds 10 gallons by liquid volume or three pounds of solid substance by weight.

(2) Murder, solicitation to commit murder, the commission of a crime involving the bombing of public or private property, or aggravated kidnapping, as specified in Section 209.

(3) Any felony violation of Section 186.22.

(4) Conspiracy to commit any of the above-mentioned crimes.

(b) There is probable cause to believe that particular communications concerning the illegal activities will be obtained through that interception, including, but not limited to, communications that may be utilized for locating or rescuing a kidnap victim.

(c) There is probable cause to believe that the facilities from which, or the place where, the wire, electronic digital pager, or electronic cellular telephone communications are to be intercepted are being used, or are about to be used, in connection with the commission of the offense, or are leased to, listed in the name of, or commonly used by the person whose communications are to be intercepted.

(d) Normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear either to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous.

[Macrobat]

This sort of moronic moonbattery is going to cost the Democrats big time. McKinney is a dipsh!t of the first order.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

This sort of moronic moonbattery is going to cost the Democrats big time. McKinney is a dipsh!t of the first order.

This particular moronic moonbat won't be in office come January, though....

[Macrobat]

It's a wide brush she's painting with, however. Anyone with [D] after their name should be running away from this nutbar (since it will be that aforementioned [D] people will remember, long after she's gone). She is a dyed-in-the-wool moron, her politcal leanings completely aside.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Nice. Where in all those quotes that "support" warrant-less wire-tapping was reference to the specific legislation authorizing the President to actually conduct warrant-less wire-tapping? See, that's the thing. I have said I want to see specific legislation from Congress "authorizing the President to conduct warrant-less wire-tapping on US soil in times of national emergency (i.e.: war)".

You can request specificity until you're blue in the face. There's already a consistent application of Judicial discernment on the matter. There's already precedent. Go ahead, get the clarification if you want. Good luck on that.

Do you not know what the word specific means? Specific means the Senate taking up H.R. 5825 and passing it as is or creating their own bill that then goes to conference. Until that happens I will still be insisting that the President needs "specific" authorization to do what has been done already.

I'm well aware of what specific means. First of all, your specific link was dead as a doorknob. Secondly, there were 4 versions of HR5825. Care to indicate which clearly drafted law you're referring to? Thirdly, HR 5825, the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act passed late September of this year by the House in a 232-191 vote and allows warrantless wiretapping. Chances of it going any other direction are minute.

Again, do you have specifics as to where/when/how US governors have been granted powers to conduct warrant-less wiretapping. All these vague notes show no specific information as to governors being allowed to authorize warrant-less wire-taps.

I apologize for the poor wording here. Governors are pushing for potential warrantless wiretapping by your local police in several states. They are signing off on documentation seeking to augment the powers and freedoms to conduct tapping. Of course you'll say... BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT WARRANTLESS TAPPING!!! To which I'll say, pursuant to judicial precedent on the matter and in conjunction with warrantless interception being the norm, not the exception since the Roosevelt Administration; there are hundreds of ways around seeking a warrant and in many cases the liberal act of granting them regardless of case merit. My point has been, this is not new. It likely occurs in your own state and has been for decades. The below are augmentations as to the criteria for filing for warrants, but give them a read-you'll find it means nothing more than an enhanced host of ways around warrants and in communications interception in general.

Arizona S.B. 1427
5/15/02 Signed by Governor - Chapter 219
Conforms Arizona law to the USA PATRIOT Act, creates new crimes related to terrorism and modifies existing crimes. Also updates the interception of wire, electronic or oral communications statute.California A.B. 74
9/17/02 Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 605, Statutes of 2002
Adds weapons of mass destruction and destructive devices, as well as large quantity drug precursor cases, to offenses that permit a court to order the interception of wire or electronic communications. Expands the definitions of the type of communications that can be intercepted pursuant to court order to include wire and pager communications.
S.B. 1980
Chaptered by Secretary of State 9/25/02, Chapter No. 864
Details state procedures, similar to those in federal law, for a the government to gather specified records, not including the contents of stored communications, from a provider of electronic communication service or a remote computing service by search warrant. No notice need be given to a subscriber or customer receiving records pursuant to these procedures.

Connecticut H.B. 5759
6/3/02 Signed by Govenor - Public Act No. 02-97
Allows state's attorneys to apply for a judicial order authorizing interception of wire communication in investigations that have evidence of terrorist acts.Florida H.B. 1439
4/22/02 Signed by Governor - Chapter No. 2002-72
Revises various laws on the interception of communications by law enforcement. Allows law enforcement to intercept wire or electronic communications of a computer trespasser, and authorizes the Department of Law Enforcement to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications for purposes of investigation acts of terrorism.
S.B. 1774
Substituted H.B. 1439
4/22/02 Signed by Goveror - Chapter No. 2002-72
Revises various laws governing the interception of communication by investigative or law enforcement agencies; defines foreign intelligence information, protected computer, and computer trespasser; authorizes interception of wire or electronic communications of a computer trespasser. Permits a state judge having felony jurisdiction to authorize initial and ongoing interception of communications anywhere in the state.

Georgia S.B. 320
5/16/02 Signed by Governor
Enacts Georgia's Homeland Defense Act, which includes revising provisions relating to interception of electronic or oral communications for law enforcement purposes.
S.B. 459
5/16/02 Signed by Governor
Enacts Georgia's War on Terrorism Act of 2002, revising wiretapping, eavesdropping, surveillance, and related offenses.

Idaho S.B. 1349
3/22/02 Signed by Governor, Session Law Chapter 223
Updates Idaho's statutes relating to communications security. Defines electronic communications and provides that the unlawful interception of electronic communications is a felony. Makes it a felony to disclose information obtained through a lawful interception, where the disclosure is made with the intent of obstructing an investigation.Illinois H.B. 4074
Governor accepts certification 1/3/02, Public Act 92-0863
Defines "electronic criminal surveillance officer" to include a retired law enforcement officer who is certified by the Department of State Police to intercept private oral communications.Louisiana H.B. 53
4/23/02 - Signed by Governor, Act No. 128.
Enacts the Louisiana Anti-terrorism Act, which includes expanding the use of electronic surveillance.Maryland S.B. 20
4/25/02 Signed by the Governor - Chapter 107
Permits a law enforcement officer to intercept oral communications after lawfully detaining a vehicle during a criminal investigation.
video cameras or other electronic monitoring devices.
H.B. 1036
4/25/02 Signed by the Governor -Chapter 100
Maryland Security Protection Act of 2002 that allows a judge to authorize the interception of wire, oral, and electronic communications outside the judge's jurisdiction under specified circumstances.

New Jersey A.B. 911
6/18/02 - Signed by Governor, P.L.2002, c.26.
Received in Assembly Second Reading for Concurrence
Establishes the September 11th, 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act, which creates the offenses of terrorism, producing or possessing chemical weapons, biological agents or nuclear radiological devices, harboring or providing aid to terrorists, and providing material support to terrorists. Also expands wiretapping statutes.New York S.B. 6137
Signed by Governor 7/25/02
Makes the seizure of unauthorized recordings permissive upon the arrest of a defendant for an offense related to unauthorized recording.Ohio
S.B. 184
5/15/02 Signed by Governor
Expands communications interception law to also include terrorism offenses.
Oklahoma S.B. 1642
5/08/02 Signed by byGovernor
Provides for court orders for pen registers and trace devices; stating court's jurisdiction.Pennsylvania H.B. 976
12/9/02 Signed by Governor, Act No. 162
Defines suspected criminal activity for the purposes of wiretapping and electronic surveillance. Also provides for certain exceptions, for order authorizing interception of wire, electronic or oral communications, and application for order.
H.B. 1933
6/11/02 Signed by Governor, Act No. 53
Deals with retention of intercepted recordings and oral communications.

S.B. 1109
6/22/02 Signed byGovernor, Act No. 82
Provides for, among other things, orders authorizing interception of wire, electronic or oral communications

Rhode Island S.B. 2672
Public Law No.
allow Rhode Island judges to issue search warrants for Internet companies located out of Rhode Island. Many are located in California, which has a law specifically providing for the honoring of such warrants. This addition is important in maintaining the ability to keep up with the technological changes that are used to commit crimesSouth Carolina H.B. 4416
7/2/02 Signed by Governor.
South Carolina's homeland defense bill, which, among other things, grants the State Law Enforcement Division power to tap suspected terrorists' or criminals' telephone calls, e-mail and other communications through new wire-tapping authority.Virginia H.B. 41
3/04/02 Signed by Governor-Chapter 91
Permits officers from a town police department to observe or monitor an interception if that police department originated the investigation leading to the wiretap application.
H.B. 1120
4/08/02 Signed by Governor - Chapter 588
SB 514
4/06/02 Signed by Governor - Chapter 623
Broadens Virginia's capabilities to respond to terrorism. Includes granting the Attorney General or his designee the authority to seek a wire-tap for suspected terrorists, expands the applicability of pen registers and trap and trace devices, changes the definitions of "pen register" and "trap and trace" devices, removes physical location and geographic boundary requirements from wire-tap applications, and adds to the definition of "electronic communication system."

At the end of the day, how do you know who to tap? By tapping.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You can request specificity until you're blue in the face. There's already a consistent application of Judicial discernment on the matter. There's already precedent. Go ahead, get the clarification if you want. Good luck on that.

No need to wait until I am "blue in the face". H.R. 5825 will provide that specificity I have been requesting when it gets passed by Senate.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm well aware of what specific means. First of all, your specific link was dead as a doorknob. Secondly, there were 4 versions of HR5825. Care to indicate which clearly drafted law you're referring to? Thirdly, HR 5825, the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act passed late September of this year by the House in a 232-191 vote and allows warrantless wiretapping. Chances of it going any other direction are minute.

Sorry about the dead link. I was referring to the version labeled RFS listed on Thomas™. And that was my whole point. I already KNOW there is legislation in the works to specifically authorize the President to conduct warrantless wire-tapping. I already KNOW it is likely to pass. But, I am NOT going to stop complaining about the practice being an illegal abuse of power until the legislation is passed.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I apologize for the poor wording here. Governors are pushing for potential warrantless wiretapping by your local police in several states. They are signing off on documentation seeking to augment the powers and freedoms to conduct tapping. Of course you'll say... BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT WARRANTLESS TAPPING!!! To which I'll say, pursuant to judicial precedent on the matter and in conjunction with warrantless interception being the norm, not the exception since the Roosevelt Administration; there are hundreds of ways around seeking a warrant and in many cases the liberal act of granting them regardless of case merit. My point has been, this is not new. It likely occurs in your own state and has been for decades. The below are augmentations as to the criteria for filing for warrants, but give them a read-you'll find it means nothing more than an enhanced host of ways around warrants and in communications interception in general.

I still reject your claim that the practice of warrantless wire-tapping has been the norm, not the exception. Granted, it has been done since the Roosevelt Administration but that does NOT mean it is the normative way of conducting wire-taps. You are going to have to try harder to convince me that the practice of conducting warrantless wire-tapping, or any kind of signals interception, occurs more often than the practice of warranted wire-tapping. If something is the norm (or normative) its frequency of occurrence will be higher than any other form of said practice. Have you got any statistical evidence to show that the practice of warrantless wire-tapping has been the norm, not the exception, since the Roosevelt Administration? That government agencies that conduct wire-taps more often than not have done so without a warrant than with a warrant? I certainly do know it is common but if you want to call it the norm, as if requiring a warrant was the exception, you'll need to provide evidence to back that assertion.

[BRussell]

I don't mind warrantless wiretapping as long as there's a law approving it and it is not unconstitutional. Well, I might mind it, but at least we'd know we could try to change the law through the democratic process. We can't change the theory of the almighty executive by the democratic process.

[glideslope]

I sometimes here clicking on my telephone, and see black cars drive by my home weekly. Could I be a victim?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

I sometimes here clicking on my telephone, and see black cars drive by my home weekly. Could I be a victim?

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

I sometimes hear clicking on my telephone, and see black cars drive by my home weekly. Could I be a victim?

do you have anything to hide, comrade?