What did Chris Christie have to say?
"There was no policy in place that said to us you have to get a search warrant. Chris Christie wasn’t sitting around wondering where everyone was."
Well, yeah---there is a 'policy in place'!
It's called the US Constitution. Brought to you by the fine folks at the 1787 convention. Here's the link to it online. And you can check it out in Washington, too----now that Bush-Cheney-Rove et all are out of there, and it's back in style.
And I think it's funny that Christie referred to himself in the third person, like the 'Jimmy' character on Seinfeld....
Posts
9 comments:
Joey, unfortunately you are a bit misleading. For the 79 cases cited Christie DID receive a warrant.
Here is a copy of what the ACLU received from the US Justice Department: http://blog.nj.com/ledgerupdates_impact/2009/04/aclu%20cell%20phone.pdf
Second paragraph states: "However, after canvassing the Criminal Division Assistant U.S. Attorneys, the USAO DNJ identified seventy-nine (79) cases, on or after September 12, 2001, in which the Court granted the government's application to permit it to obtain mobile phone location information without making a judicial finding of probable cause."
You see the problem here Joey is that Christie DID receive court approval for a warrant.
It seems that if ANYONE is at fault it is the courts, not Christie, don't you agree?
And you also extracted out only PART of Christie's statement.
From http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/aclu_says_chris_christie_autho.html
"Every time that technology was used, it was with court authorization," Christie said.
This is obviously a smear job and I am sad to see that you are such a willing participant.
Yeah... Obama's administration is sooo much better.
From http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/04/24/aclu-chris-christie-tracker-of-cell-phones-is-big-brother/"Two years ago DOJ began recommending to its prosecutors to first obtain search warrants before acquiring location information for cell phones. But the Obama DOJ appears to be continuing the Bush DOJ’s position that getting data without a warrant doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment, though there are ongoing legal challenges to that notion in courts across the country."
I suppose if you tell a lie enough times people will start to believe it...
Another question is why is the ACLU, allegedly a non-partisan organization, coming out with this smear crap?
Oh... because the ACLU is an extension of the Democrat party.
Why don't we just dispense with Capitalism and go right to Socialism? After all... it is what the Democrat party wants.
tracking the where-abouts of those suspected of a crime would -and should rise to the level of 'probable cause'. However, ordinary citizens are being trailed in the same manor, and there is no 'probable cause', and only court approval is sought---the key constitutional problem is that the 'ordinary citizens' have no one representing their interests in this transaction---something the conservative founding framers would have wanted required so there is an appropriate 'check' on the courts----to keep them from abusing their power. Now can any conservative be opposed to a constitutional check on governmental power?
You said "'ordinary citizens' have no one representing their interests in this transaction-"
You and I agree 100%. The government should not be tracking people without probable cause. It's a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
But there are other issues here. Why won't the Obama administration STOP this practice (see WSJ link above)? Apparently Obama feels that what the COURTS allowed Christie to do is perfect fine.
Why isn't the ACLU all over Obama but instead target Christie?
Oh... we know why. And the blogger Joey knows why too. The ACLU no longer cares about real civil liberties... unless it makes Republicans look bad.
The Democrats and Republicans should be in UNISON in telling Obama to stop this practice at the DOJ level.
But you see... most people have given up their true beliefs for "The Party". It is all about winning elections.
We shall all rot in hell for it.
The ACLU of New Jersey certainly is second to none in its non-partisanship. They have called on the carpet both Democrats and Republicans in equal measure---with one criteria only: whether or not civil liberties are impacted. Whether it's the Newark police in the Democratic administration of Mayor Booker or erstwhile Republican gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie, they cite where citing needs to be done based on violations of civil liberties. As far as the ACLU-NJ taking on President Obama---the national ACLU is in a much better position to do that than the ACLU of NJ.
With all due respect I receive the ACLU-NJ's solicitation for money in the mail. You cannot tell me for a moment that the ACLU gives Democrats and Republicans equal treatment.
where in their solicitations for funding does the aclu mention partisan politics?
Well every letter I get begins with lambasting the Bush administration. Over and over and over again. Even now with Bush out of office.
Der Speigel has an interesting op-ed on Obama and how 'little' change Obama is making http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,622682,00.htmlWill I receive a letter from the ACLU that ostracizes Obama? No... that won't happen at all.
Next thing you will try and tell me is that MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews are not 'partisan'.
Must be my imagination huh?
Post a Comment