Re: why spying on americans without a warrant is a crime


Marib wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>
> > Marib wrote:
> >
> >> Rita wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:19:07 -0500, Josh Rosenbluth
> >>> <jrosenbluth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Osama has just contacted one of his Americans that he has
> >>>>> recruited, to carry out future attacks. They are talking about
> >>>>> what the task of this Amercian should be, and how far along he is
> >>>>> in planning the attack, how his fellow co-cospirators are doing,
> >>>>> how well prepared are they.
> >>>>
> >>>> Under current law, Bush could eavesdrop without a warrant for up to
> >>>> 72 hours - and no court would refuse that warrant.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, why did Bush choose this policy?
> >>>
> >>> That is a good question. Probably because one has to have a bit more
> >>> than sheer suspicion to get a warrant? Something like probable cause?
> >>> Or perhaps Bush doesn't understand the system, or, just wants to push
> >>> the envelope as far as he can to usurp the power of the courts?
> >>>
> >>> Choose one or all of the above:)
> >>>
> >> Don't you think one needs considerably more than only 72 hours
> >> listening time for a call between Osama and someone stateside? Or
> >> between two of his terrorists that are already here?
> >
> >
> > 72 hours is the time you get to listen without a warrant, and gives
> > you plenty of time to get a warrant to extend your listening time.
>
> How do we know that no warrant was ever gotten?

If warrants were obtained, don't you think Bush would have said so by
now to end what would be a non-controversy? I am nearly 100% certain
no warrants were obtained - and this was the intentional policy of
Bush's executive order - yet I can't figure out why he would want such
a policy.

Josh Rosenbluth

.

Loading