Posts
3198
Joined
8/1/2006
Location
Fayettenam, AR, USA
Edited Date/Time
1/21/2012 9:39am
http://washingtonindependent.com/60611/al-franken-reads-the-4th-amendme…
By Daphne Eviatar 9/23/09 12:16 PM
Just in case he wasn’t familiar with it, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) decided to read the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution to David Kris, assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, who was testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee today to urge reauthorization of expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act.
Franken, who opened by acknowledging that unlike most of his colleagues in the Senate, he’s not a lawyer, but according to his research “most Americans aren’t lawyers” either, said he’d also done research on the Patriot Act and in particular, the “roving wiretap” provision that allows the FBI to get a warrant to wiretap a an unnamed target and his or her various and changing cell phones, computers and other communication devices.
Noting that he received a copy of the Constitution when he was sworn in as a senator, he proceeded to read it to Kris, emphasizing this part: “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.”
“That’s pretty explicit language,” noted Franken, asking Kris how the “roving wiretap” provision of the Patriot Act can meet that requirement if it doesn’t require the government to name its target.
Kris looked flustered and mumbled that “this is surreal,” apparently referring to having to respond to Franken’s question. “I would defer to the other branch of government,” he said, referring to the courts, prompting Franken to interject: “I know what that is.”
Kris explained that the courts have held that the law’s requirements that the person be described, though not named, is sufficient to meet the demands of the Constitution. That did not appear to completely satisfy Franken’s concerns.
Today’s Judiciary Committee hearing has so far proceeded much the way yesterday’s House Judiciary Committee subcommittee hearing did, with Democrats (except the Justice Department witness) expressing skepticism that the current law adequately protects Americans’ civil liberties and Republicans emphasizing the need to have all possible tools for law enforcement available because another major terrorist attack could occur at any time.
By Daphne Eviatar 9/23/09 12:16 PM
Just in case he wasn’t familiar with it, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) decided to read the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution to David Kris, assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, who was testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee today to urge reauthorization of expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act.
Franken, who opened by acknowledging that unlike most of his colleagues in the Senate, he’s not a lawyer, but according to his research “most Americans aren’t lawyers” either, said he’d also done research on the Patriot Act and in particular, the “roving wiretap” provision that allows the FBI to get a warrant to wiretap a an unnamed target and his or her various and changing cell phones, computers and other communication devices.
Noting that he received a copy of the Constitution when he was sworn in as a senator, he proceeded to read it to Kris, emphasizing this part: “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.”
“That’s pretty explicit language,” noted Franken, asking Kris how the “roving wiretap” provision of the Patriot Act can meet that requirement if it doesn’t require the government to name its target.
Kris looked flustered and mumbled that “this is surreal,” apparently referring to having to respond to Franken’s question. “I would defer to the other branch of government,” he said, referring to the courts, prompting Franken to interject: “I know what that is.”
Kris explained that the courts have held that the law’s requirements that the person be described, though not named, is sufficient to meet the demands of the Constitution. That did not appear to completely satisfy Franken’s concerns.
Today’s Judiciary Committee hearing has so far proceeded much the way yesterday’s House Judiciary Committee subcommittee hearing did, with Democrats (except the Justice Department witness) expressing skepticism that the current law adequately protects Americans’ civil liberties and Republicans emphasizing the need to have all possible tools for law enforcement available because another major terrorist attack could occur at any time.
`ol Ger
At least, last time I saw him.
Thanks!
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
However, the "Roving Wiretaps" provision is one part I do not have an issue with.
Cell phones are now a dime a dozen with disposable ones available at every Quickee Mart.
This means bad guy can be using one phone and talk to the bad guys, drive to the store, drop that phone in trash and buy a new phone and dial the bad guys back....literally change phones in lieu of charging, and each new phone is a new number and SIM.
With today's technology, a wiretap should be allowed to follow the person and not the line/number. If you have a wiretap warrant on a bad guy, whatever phone he is on becomes subject to that warrant.
I have no problem with that.
My only issue with this provision is the lack of having to directly, by name, identify the suspect to obtain the warrant.
during the campaign, didn't he say he was against it ?
He was never against it as a whole, but believed parts were essential for security and were constitutionally legal
I find this part weird too, but I wonder if they added that verbiage because we may not really know the true identity of the potential foreign bad guys.
Do we need to pass every thought we have into law and jam the courts with really stupid issues just to see if they will get shot down?
It started on one site (liberal anti-Bush site) and was picked up by more and more sites as fact, but reality is that I have found no credible news agency or source showing Bush ever actually said that.
You'll find billions of sites saying he did, but all their sources trace back to that one site
He never said it
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/print_did_president_bush_call_the…
Looks like he did.
It's just like the quote his dad made about how atheists shouldn't even be considered citizens. That was reported by the reporter whom he told it to. Just because there was no actual tape of him saying it doesn't mean he didn't say it.
http://www.factcheck.org/..._constitution_a.html
Factcheck.org says it isn't
and if you read all the stories, they're similar in nature as they're all sourced from the same unreliable site, Capitolhillblue.com
Pit Row
But I have done quite a bit of research on this one and all sources trace back to this one unreliable source and was never picked up by any legitimate news agency, not even the liberal Bush hating news organizations.
He never said it and you cannot find one legitimate source showing he did, and while Snopes itself is a fairly reliable source, Snopes' message board is not as it is open to everyone, including the extremists on either side
Post a reply to: Like him or hate him, Al Franken makes a good point....