Isnt it illege for the govenrment to violate ones privace without a warent? - is it elligle to have a platypus
See the discussion IDIA Bush terrorists for inclusion in telephone conversations siol America) by the American ceitizen (inside and outside the country, is your plan was to attack the accused Amendment 4 Why not presented with this Act elligle Bush
HE ISN do things that are not illegal WHY IMPEACH Republicans are so stupid (at least those who support them)
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Is It Elligle To Have A Platypus Isnt It Illege For The Govenrment To Violate Ones Privace Without A Warent?
15 comments:
Bush does not understand the word illegal when applied to him or his friends.
Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, he has.
It is against the law for the interception of international calls to the United States by terrorists. They have done this 50 years long.
If it's not the terrorists use the spelling like yours, then catch the NSA in the situation.
Bu $ h considers himself above the law of the country. Impeachment is a real test. The real problem is not yet come to light.
The White House has refused to give the list to Congress. It is the contempt of Congress. "If Congress has the courage, they will appoint another special prosecutor Ken like stars. There are 200 students of constitutional law that failed to say" Bu $ h and not against the law. "You know more than me on the right side
Please go to an English course
I think it does not draw that conclusion on their own, and you've heard somewhere.
Is in the discussion ... Some say it's illegal, some say, it is legal deffinitely.
I tend to think that it is legal.
It has been confirmed in court that may be replaced by the interstate commerce of Christmas, the government ordered all things are resolved, provided that cross the lines of the state. This is similar, in my opinion, the wiretaps. While one end of this agreement is in another state, regulate the government ... So in this case, if a party in another country, then allows for eavesdropping.
Right to my right Negga
Right to my right Negga
It's not just phone calls, the e-mail.
Until this question is the Supreme Court, which is as it sees fit.
The defense of this argument is that in wartime the President certain powers that can not normally be able to exercise to do so. It has never been a formal declaration of war granted, but because it would be empowered by Congress to use military force (some say this is the same, the only semantically) with the power to intercept communications to and from suspected terrorists.
Those who are satisfied with the Council, said: "Well, if you are not a terrorist, what do you care?"
The "war on terrorism" has no end. There will always be terrorists in the world.So we give our unqualified right to privacy? (Rhetorical question)
If you do this to the Supreme Court can not, however, how many would consider dissidents and U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that "the majority of the Supreme Court concluded that the AUMF authorized the President, use" fundamental and accepted "incidents of military force in our armed conflict with Al Qaeda.The use of signals intelligence - intercepting enemy communications - is a fundemental incident of waging war. "
This question must be submitted to the Court USSupreme to resolve causes some vertebrae.
Have a nice day!
It is difficult to someone for something when you have your own questions and statements full of spelling errors, for example, criticize. You talk like an idiot.
Bush is operating legally. A lawyer asked him, and a lawyer to speak on the topic.
The fact is that the law is malleable.
Is that correct?
I do not feel like it is, but what matters is who.
In addition to national security, because no one in the responses, for example, knows the details of the interception "
The government needs to be done, but what they want: (
I think it should be illegal. We must do everything to fight against crime to have been as high. People use mobile phones every day and almost everyone can listen to your coversation with them, and not as slow sales, what's the big thing. If you do not want to hear someone say, then, that in person.
Not many presidents have done. He should be impeached, but not why.
Incidentally, the grammar of Nice.
It should be illegal after each change of 6 or 7, but George Bush has found a way, and it is a situation in which the violation of privacy is necessary. People (not only follow if they consider a reasonable excuse) to everything confidential and not that they are fun, their secrets.
The gov't has our phone calls listened to, instant messaging and other forms of electronic communication for over 30 years. Never heard of Echelon? No Americans were hurt by him.
Post a Comment