Justice Department letter explaining wiretaps

[MadisonProgressive]

http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/12%2022%2005%20NSA%20letter.pdf

[katejones]

1. Wiretap Letter

Hello! I am new!

Do you think that Justice will prosecute?

It looks as if they are gearing up to do just that.

[MadisonProgressive]

3. Bush controls the Justice Department

The letter is DEFENDING Bush.

Welcome to DU, Kate!

[Nutmegger]

4. Welcome katejones!

:toast: :hi:

[NanceGreggs]

9. Welcome aboard the good ship DU, matey!

You're about to embark on a great voyage, surrounded by truly smart and witty shipmates!

:hi:

[ProSense]

2. This is the letter Daschle responded to. n/t

[Nutmegger]

5. A question...

<snip>

This constitutional authority includes the authority to order warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance within the United States, as all federal appellate courts, including at least four circuits, to have addressed the issue have concluded.

Do we know if the wiretaps were inside or outside of the US?

[MadisonProgressive]

6. We don't know

[suigeneris]

10. Not sure I think they were of "US Persons" which

means either citizens or people here legitmately. The warrant requirement extends to US Persons here or overseas. The astonishing thing is the DOJ claim that the pres can order a warrantless search at all. I still don't believe it.

[MadisonProgressive]

7. A FREEPER interpretation

To: eyespysomething

Here's the bottom line of this memo.
Under Article 11 of the Constitution, including in his capacity as Commander in Chief, the President has the responsibility to protect the Nation from further attacks, and the Constitution gives him all necessary authority to fulfill that duty. See, e.g., Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635, 668 (1 863) (stressing that if the Nation is invaded, "the President is not only authorized but hound to resist by force . . . . without waiting for any special legislative authority");

"Force" means the application of military power, of which intelligence collection is one aspect. The following explains the scope of that mandate a little further.

The AUMF authorizes 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 11, 2001, . . . in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States." 5 2(a),

Okay, but isn't Al Qaida only in Afghanistan? How does that make it legal to go after them in America?

The AUMF cannot be read as limited to authorizing the use of force against Afghanistan, as some have argued. Indeed, those who directly "committed" the attacks of September 11 resided in the United States for months before those attacks. The reality of the September 11 plot demonstrates that the authorization of force covers activities both on foreign soil and in America.

That's basically it. Al Qaida personnel in America are considered agents of a foriegn power, and that foriegn power is in an open state of armed conflict with us. Simply put, they are not criminals, they are invaders.


33 posted on 12/22/2005 7:41:17 PM PST by Steel Wolf (* No sleep till Baghdad! *)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies >

[Kagemusha]

8. So the US is being invaded by... Americans.

And we are at war with them.

Sounds about right to me.

[TheGunslinger]

11. Explains why * wanted War Powers for use within the US!