Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 博客浏览安德鲁·纳波利塔诺(Andrew Napolitano)档案
唐纳德·特朗普与法治
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

Last week, The New York Times published a scathing critique of Donald Trump — the man and the president. The Times said the critique was written by a senior Trump administration official who insisted on remaining unnamed. This bitter and harsh editorial, which portrays the president as dangerous to the health of the republic and his White House as slouching toward dysfunctionality, has understandably infuriated him.

Trump first accused the Times and its unnamed writer of treason, and then he publicly asked for a Department of Justice investigation to find the writer. Then, to change the subject, he threatened to declassify documents submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in 2016 — before he was president — that he believes were used to commence the Robert Mueller-led investigation of his presidential campaign.

I am deeply disappointed that the president uttered the word “treason.” This is wrong under the law and a dangerous charge to make. The Times op-ed is protected political speech and personal opinion. Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution, thereby preventing Congress and the courts from changing its meaning. It consists only of either waging war against the United States or any of the states or providing aid and comfort to those who are waging such a war.

The president should know that it is nearly impossible to commit treason by expressing an opinion. Even calling for a Nazi victory over the U.S. during World War II — as hateful and harmful as such speech was — constituted protected speech and was hardly treasonous.

Preventing a repeat of the long, sordid, barbaric history of treason prosecutions by British monarchs for the expressions of political, personal or trivial opinions about the Crown or the government (Henry VIII once ordered that it was treasonous to make eye contact with him in public, absent his overt invitation) is the basis for its strict constitutional definition.

The DOJ investigates criminal acts, not workplace disputes or government leaks of unclassified materials. Had the unnamed Times writer revealed classified materials, there would be a basis for a DOJ investigation, but the president’s torment cannot form the basis for one. However, that does not bar the president’s lawyers from conducting their own investigation, as the president is surely entitled to senior administration officials who share his goals, confidence and secrets.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act needs more than exposure; it needs extinction. I have been arguing for 40 years that FISA is unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of everyone in the U.S., and it establishes firmly that personal privacy may be pierced by the government only when it has demonstrated to a judge the existence of probable cause of a crime.

Probable cause requires a demonstration under oath that piercing the privacy of a target would more likely than not produce evidence of a crime. And the search warrants signed by judges must “particularly describ(e) the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

FISA established a lesser standard for piercing personal privacy — probable cause of communicating with a foreign person (originally an agent of a foreign government, now just any foreign person). That standard — though unconstitutional — is obviously easier to achieve than probable cause of a crime.

立即订购

As well, FISA warrants, many of which permit the bearer to look at and seize vast data, unleash the bearer without particularly describing the places to be searched or the persons or things to be seized. One FISA warrant I saw authorized telephone surveillance of all Verizon customers — all 115 million of them — without naming any.

FISA is not only unconstitutional because of its defiance of the Fourth Amendment but also extraconstitutional, because it sets up governmental procedures and even a government court that operate outside the Constitution.

Because it is so much easier to get a FISA search warrant than it is to get a search warrant based on probable cause, many FBI agents cannot resist the temptation to portray their mission as an intelligence one rather than a law enforcement one and get a warrant from the FISA court instead of one from a federal court that follows the Fourth Amendment.

FISA court records are so secret that the judges on the court cannot access them. The judges surrender their mobile phones and all writing materials when they enter their courthouse in D.C. and are frisked when they leave. No transcripts of courtroom dialogue are kept.

I have criticized FISA court judges by characterizing them as clerks. Indeed, any court that grants 99.97 percent of warrant applications, that does not require probable cause of criminal activity as a basis for a warrant and that does not comply with the specificity requirements of the Fourth Amendment is not a court of thinking, liberty-protecting judges faithful to the Constitution. It is a gaggle of clerks.

Much of what the FISA court sees is raw intelligence — transcripts of conversations and personal data such as health, legal and financial records intercepted by intelligence agents. In some cases, the court sees boring nonsense. In some cases, it sees data that agents have risked their lives to obtain.

The president needs to know that the revelation of raw intelligence data — which would be portrayed in the media as being revealed for personal or political gain — would strike at the heart of the work of some in the intelligence community and that they might strike back.

The president also needs to be reminded of his oath to uphold the Constitution — which includes the rule of law. The United States is the freest and most prosperous country in history. But without the rule of law and its respect for constitutional fidelity, personal liberty, private property and legal norms, the U.S. would be just a beautiful piece of real estate.

版权所有2018 Andrew P.Napolitano。

由Creators.com分发。

 
• 类别: 思想 •标签: 宪政理论, 唐纳德·特朗普, FISA 
隐藏9条评论发表评论
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
修剪评论?
    []
  1. anonymous[340]• 免责声明 说:

    “叛国罪是宪法中唯一定义的罪行,从而阻止国会和法院改变其含义。” 噗。 如果他们愿意,他们会的。

    纳波利塔诺先生对特朗普总统对“叛国罪”的无知滥用是正确的。 但他为什么要等到现在才上公民课? 他的一些真正的朋友在他可能听说过的赫尔辛基会议之后开始谈论这个词……直到总统在灯熄灭的令人毛骨悚然的新闻发布会上被迫撤回。

    说起来,“法官”什么时候会更新他关于圣穆勒十字军东征的“背景故事”? DOJ 和 FBI 的勇敢男女(tm)似乎有点脏,需要他们的下一次舌浴。 可能与煽动叛乱的底漆很相配……

    • 同意: Bubba
  2. 它只包括对美国或任何一个州发动战争,或者向发动这种战争的人提供援助和安慰。

    是否可以涵盖针对民选总统的政变? 向最高法院提出的好问题。 你的意见毫无意义安迪。 您可以阅读宪法并了解其内容。 我也可以。但地球上只有九个人知道这意味着什么。

  3. mb 说:

    没有提到谁 iirc 去了金融情报局法庭以获得监督反叛运动的许可。 偏多?

    • 回复: @Anonymous
  4. Anonymous[156]• 免责声明 说:

    对美国的叛国罪,只能在于对他们发动战争,或者坚持他们的敌人,给予他们援助和安慰。

    国土安全部员工利用业余时间宣传针对“白人”的种族战争
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/22/dhs-employee-spends-spare-time-promoting-race-war-against-whites.html

    有一场战争。 也习惯了就好。 而那些对遗产发动战争的人确实是在犯叛国罪。

  5. Anonymous[156]• 免责声明 说:
    @mb

    只有特朗普被要求遵守法律,而且信得过,明白吗?

  6. 从来没有特朗普的人一直在不公平地比赛,那么为什么应该期望特朗普公平地比赛。 当我想到那些愿意走高路的人时,他并不是排在首位的。

    此外,我希望看到双方在公开场合进行辩论。 这将是一个很好的方式让深州进一步暴露自己,这样我的无知的美国人可能会真正意识到它的存在。 或者他们可能认为深州是一支新的 NFL 球队。

  7. David JW 说:

    纳波利塔诺是小丑吗?

    没有人说这篇文章是叛国罪——它可能确实是言论自由。 但文章中提到的是白宫内部的阴谋,以阻止总统执行他所执行的计划。

    • 回复: @anonymous
  8. anonymous[340]• 免责声明 说:
    @David JW

    不,小丑很有趣。

    自去年 XNUMX 月以来,纳波利塔诺先生就将自己展示为建制派的工具,被视为宪法和自然权利的守护者,他在抽象或精心挑选的应用程序中捍卫这些权利。 阅读他在这里写的关于 RussiaGate 等的内容,根据我和其他人的批评性评论,你会看到滑溜溜、巧妙的语言。 另一件事是他对华盛顿的牧师(法律)阶层的谄媚。

    正如我在这个帖子中已经指出的那样,实际干预 FBI、司法部和环城公路其他地方的选举的词是“煽动叛乱”。 纳波利塔诺先生帮助阻止这些人; 他是一个腰带。

  9. gustafus21 说:

    这是富有的——来自那个感叹 FBI 和 CIA 不当行为的揭露对那些“受人尊敬的”机构来说是危险的人。

    看到这里,我不寒而栗。 他实际上认为,拯救这些腐败的机构——他们经常种植枪支和证据——对目标的朋友和家人提出隐晦的指控——以便诱捕和雇用他们……

    这是一个值得捍卫的机构吗? 纳波利塔诺没有感觉到他眼中的木头吗? 特朗普因赫尔辛基/普京峰会而被布伦南指控为叛国罪。 特朗普每天都被指控犯有叛国罪…… 然而这个小虫子……这个大便…… 这购买并支付了黑客...... 认为他有资格挑出我们出色的总统……进行谴责

    如何永远——这个人可以被认真对待为一个两党观察者或深思熟虑的仲裁者吗?

当前评论者
说:

发表评论-对超过两周的文章发表评论,将在质量和语气上进行更严格的判断


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
在翻译模式下禁用评论
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过RSS订阅所有Andrew Napolitano评论