And that the president (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place?
2007-01-26 04:11:54 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Hint: Told to the House Select Committee on Intelligence in July 1994.
2007-01-26 04:50:46 · update #1
I'll end the suspense. It was none other than Clinton administration Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick.
2007-01-26 05:57:18 · update #2
As I understand it, Alberto Gonzales said this at the Senate hearings last week. I don't agree with his interpretation of Amendment 4 of the Bill of Rights, which states:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The FICA courts are there to make sure there is probable cause -the judiciary is the check on the power of the Executive.
For those who may say they have nothing to hide, or that they trust Bush, they should kindly remember two things: Bush will not always be President and sweeping powers like those he argues he has could be used to eavesdrop not on terrorists but people who simply disagree with whoever is the Chief Executive. For the sake of argument, suppose we get a man in power who decides he wishes to take all the guns away from citizens. He could use his power to search houses and listen to phone conversations to find out who has guns and then send in troops to confiscate them. Far fetched? Not so if we allow the Executive Branch to abuse the Fourth Amendment by ignoring judicial oversight.
2007-01-26 05:11:31 · answer #1 · answered by KCBA 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you or i have nothing to hide why worry? At first i had a very hard time with this particula policy but...... in time understand it much better. If that is what it takes to keep all of us a little safer then thats ok by me. Only the ones that have something to hide are irrate with this policy.
2007-01-26 12:24:01 · answer #2 · answered by lostlifehard 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Dems are you there? That would be our highly moral ex-president William Jefferson Clinton.
2007-01-26 12:48:34 · answer #3 · answered by Jedi 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He said it. He's our little dictator and can do whatever he pleases.
2007-01-26 12:20:42 · answer #4 · answered by Lou 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋