WT? Is this what we pay these democrats for! (idiots)

[jAZ]

What part am I misreading? Or are you arguing that wiretapping is more intrusive than entering one's home?

The part where this is a baldface lie?

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1994_rpt/ssci_ames.htm
"Under applicable Attorney General guidelines, this meant that the FBI was able to seek authority under pertinent laws and Justice Department guidelines to employ a full array of investigative techniques against Ames. For instance, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court issued orders authorizing electronic surveillance of Ames's office and residence."

 

[Annie]

The part where this is a baldface lie?

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1994_rpt/ssci_ames.htm
"Under applicable Attorney General guidelines, this meant that the FBI was able to seek authority under pertinent laws and Justice Department guidelines to employ a full array of investigative techniques against Ames. For instance, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court issued orders authorizing electronic surveillance of Ames's office and residence."

Ok, and the rest? (I can't find anything to back up the Times on Ames, so address the rest).

 

[jAZ]

Ok, and the rest? (I can't find anything to back up the Times on Ames, so address the rest).

Well, the Gorelick thing is more smoke and mirrors... a deliberate political deception by the Times.

At the time (1994) FISA courts didn't cover physical searches. It wasn't until 1995 when Bill Clinton expanded FISA to to include physical searches. Gorelick's testimony was merely a statement of the state of the law at the time.

 

[jAZ]

Actually, they're wiretapping foreign nationals who happen to be talking to U.S. citizens.

Unfortunately, that's exactly the kind of duplicitous manipulation they are trying to pull off here.

 

[Avatar4321]

You are joking, of course.

Right?

Seperate and equal by it's very structure forces oversight. The division of power is the underpinning of democracy. I can't believe you would sincerely question the existance of an oversight role of any of the branches of government over the other.

If you really aren't joking, start here for a general overview...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States#Legislative_branch

The Congress has the responsibility to monitor and influence aspects of the executive branch. Congressional oversight prevents waste and fraud, protects civil liberties and individual rights, ensures executive compliance with the law, gathers information for making laws and educating the public, and evaluates executive performance. It applies to cabinet departments, executive agencies, regulatory commissions, and the presidency. Congress's oversight function takes many forms:

Committee inquiries and hearings;

• Formal consultations with and reports from the President;
• Senate advice and consent for presidential nominations and for treaties;
• House impeachment proceedings and subsequent Senate trials;
• House and Senate proceedings under the 25th Amendment in the event that the President becomes disabled, or the office of the Vice President falls vacant;
• Informal meetings between legislators and executive officials;
• Congressional membership on governmental commissions;
• Studies by congressional committees and support agencies such as the
• Congressional Budget Office, and the Government Accountability Office, both of which are arms of Congress.

Also read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary-and-proper_clause

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.​

And:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
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.​

Actually I am not joking. The Fourth Amendment doesnt give Congress authority to oversee the Executive Branch. For one there is no mention of oversight in the amendment. And assuming it gives oversight through the Warrant Process, Warrants come from the judicial branch. The Legislature has nothing to do with it.

Besides which I think most people using common sense would consider wire tapping a suspected terrorist pretty reasonable.

Also, Article I's Necessary and proper clause gives Congress authority to create laws neccessary to fulfill its obligations delegated under Article I Section 8. Note that no where in Article one or in fact anywhere in the Constitution is there any authority given to Congress for oversight. The executive branch is a separate entity. Congress has two Constitutional methods in checking the executive. 1)A 3/4ths Supermajority can overturn a Presidential Veto. 2)Congress can Impeach.

The President would be free to disregard any advice a so called Congressional Oversight committee would give him. Congress could change the laws involve. Or they could impeach him. But considering the executive power is vested in the President, they have no authority to oversee how the President uses his executive authority.

Gathering Military intelligence is clearly within the perview of the executive power. The executive branch is authorized to reasonably search or seize any information they need. As stated before, wire tapping terrorist suspects is reasonable.

Which leads me back to the original question. Where does the Constitution authorize Congressional oversight of the Executive branch?

And how has anyones civil rights been violated when the Constitution clearly permits reasonable searches?

 

[jAZ]

2)Congress can Impeach.

The uber-trumpcard in the non-existant oversight authority, huh?