Quote:
Originally Posted by keith4him
The facts about warrantless wiretaps:
Each application for one of these surveillance warrants (called a FISA warrant) is made before an individual judge of the court. Like a grand jury, FISC is not an adversarial court: the federal government is the only party to its proceedings. However, the court may allow third parties to submit briefs as amici curiae. When the Attorney General determines that an emergency exists he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance before obtaining the necessary authorization from the FISA court, after which the Attorney General or his designee must notify a judge of the court not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance.[2]
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by keith4him
I guess you don't like what I posted or possibly you missed my factoids on the Patriot Act and if the Government can listen in on your conversations without Court approval.
|
I saw your post Keith and I also understand that even when this "individual judge of the court" was the common procedure it had no concepts of an "adversarial court". Adversarial (defense/prosecution, plantiff/defendent) court proceedings are the very basis of our judicial system. If you don't have an adversarial court you have some other creature all together. In other words, the government could go into
their court with
their judge and make
their case and the U.S. citizen had no right to present his/her case. So this appointed, special grand poopaaa judge was the only decider on whether you could present your case or not on his whim.
That was of course before the new law was passed last year, which Tstew points too, that in fact makes
no warrant, not even from the special judge, necessary to tap my phone. Warrantless searches and seizures are unconstitutional and should be done away with.
I respect your opinion on the matter, but I have problems with constitutional rights being infringed upon.
Linear Mode
