I've been listening to the hearings on NPR or watching them on C-Span as I've been working to today and I have to say that Alberto Gonzales can "bob and weave" like nobodies business. The problem that I have about his arguments is very simple. Whatever any law, statute or FISA document says, he's still butting his head against this:
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 fourth ammendmant doesn't really offer any wiggle room about doing anything without a warrant. If you're in the US, this doesn't not cover you if you're talking to someone not covered by the Constitution.
I don't know, it seems as though a bi-partisan consensus agrees that FISA should have covered this. It seems as though a bi-partisan consensus agrees that Bush has "most likely" broken the law here.
No comments:
Post a Comment