Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Senator silenced by old law

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
davidinalameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:18 AM
Original message
Senator silenced by old law
http://www.dailymail.com/news/News/2005122236/

Because of a clause in federal law, Democratic U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller could not bring to the Senate floor his concerns about President George W. Bush's executive authorization of a domestic spying program, his office said.

A section of the 1947 National Security Act says if the president determines information related to covert programs is particularly sensitive, the so-called "Gang of 8" are the only ones who can know about it.

Some have questioned the legality of the National Security Agency program, because warrants were not first obtained from a special federal court. The program monitored international telephone calls and e-mails of American citizens suspected of being associated with terrorism after September 11, 2001.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ShockediSay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
1. National Secret Police State
We're on our way

(actually we've been heading in that direction for quite a while, even before 9/11, like the secret meeting with the big oil contributors &c)

No wonder Putin looked like a soul mate - KGB to the core.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
2. This is wrong...
"Some have questioned the legality of the National Security Agency program, because warrants were not first obtained from a special federal court. "

No, we question that he got no warrants even after the fact, since it's allowable to get warrants after the tap...If he didn't bother getting the warrants afterward, that tells two things...HE DOSEN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE LAW APPLYING TO HIM, or HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET THE WARRANTS APPROVED BECAUSE THEY WERE ILLEGAL...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 11th 2024, 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC