Hey Law Talking Guy,
I have some questions for you.
1) Is it true that if we immediately scrapped the Patriot Act today, that law enforcement agencies would be prevented from ever investigating credit card purchases or library records of suspects?
2) Is it true that under pre-2001 law, domestic surveillance required a lengthy legal approval process before surveillance could begin?
3) More currently...what is the significance of the latest ruling in the Padilla case?
Thanks.
1 comment:
1. No. The Patriot Act permits the FBI to send 'national security letters' to demand credit card or libary info without warrants, even barring those who receive them from revealing that they have received them. Warrants may always be obtained.
2. Simply put: no. Anyone who thinks the government was ever powerless is just not paying attention. The problem with pre-9/11 was not failing to spy on enough people, it was failing to deal with the overwhelming amount of data they already had.
3. It turns out that Judge Luttig dearly wants the SC to uphold his opinion. He ruled that the president can throw anyone, even a citizen, in a military jail and keep them indefinitely, without trial or charge, without any legal rights. He fears that his opinion is now regarded as moot or overreaching, and that Bush had Padilla charged criminally because was afraid of testing this power by the SC. He is especially irked that Bush has now failed even to charge Padilla with the alleged dirty bomb plot after jailing him for 3 years on it. This sets up an epic SC battle over the issue of whether there are any limits on presidential power. Republicans say there is none.
4. Bush said in a news conference Monday that internal communications were not part of the secret program. "I want to stress, and that is, is that these calls are not intercepted within the country," he said. "If you're calling from Houston to L.A., that - that call is not monitored."
We can safely assume he is lying.
Bush must be impeached.
// posted by LTG
Post a Comment