"At the president's peril"
The New York Times has a very interesting article that peels off the veil of secrecy from the infamous FISA court, established by congress to oversee intelligence gathering efforts in America. According to the judges ...
Hmm. Now, when are we going to get around to ENFORCING those laws? I'm thinking ... next year. January or so. After Democrats sweep the Federal Elections. That sounds like a reasonable timeline. Republicans in the Senate just keep trying to change the laws or quash debate on the floor. How productive. The fearless leader knowingly broke a law which carries a penalty of five years behind bars, and his enablers do nothing but put up a smokescreen.
Why aren't the details of Bush's wiretapping being disclosed to the court established to oversee such a thing? This illegal spy program is not for catching terrorists, it is for blackmailing detractors and political dissidents.
And we still don't have ex-CIA asset Osama bin Laden. I wonder why that is.
If a law like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is duly enacted by Congress and considered constitutional, Judge Baker said, "the president ignores it at the president's peril."The rest of the story.
Hmm. Now, when are we going to get around to ENFORCING those laws? I'm thinking ... next year. January or so. After Democrats sweep the Federal Elections. That sounds like a reasonable timeline. Republicans in the Senate just keep trying to change the laws or quash debate on the floor. How productive. The fearless leader knowingly broke a law which carries a penalty of five years behind bars, and his enablers do nothing but put up a smokescreen.
Why aren't the details of Bush's wiretapping being disclosed to the court established to oversee such a thing? This illegal spy program is not for catching terrorists, it is for blackmailing detractors and political dissidents.
And we still don't have ex-CIA asset Osama bin Laden. I wonder why that is.
