TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Slamdunk, anyone?
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag or did your drunk ass mean Ashcroft?

yes.

quote:

the program as signed was the program as designed, which had to do with inclusion of the judicial branch.

i agree.

quote:

as your president is concerned, he doesn't need anyone's approval, being the decider and all.

agreed. as far as this program is concerned, however to a point. he had limited himself to a 45 day restriction pending DOJ approval.

he was bound by law to inform Congress (8 members of the Senate Intel Com.) on a regular basis on scope and progress of the program.

quote:

this administration... fire or ignore all countering advisers. the advise still stands, and when it's based on the law, portraying ignorance is not bliss.

no one was fired. no one was ignored. Bush looked at Comey's concerns and addressed them within 48 hours. Comey was satified.

quote:

how does it feel supporting a crook? or has it not sunk in yet? your arguments sound more and more based on denial of the charges, not as viable explanations for the events as transposed. they say that denial is the first step.

thats all you got right? "he's a crook" in the absence of any indictments or pending prosecution i'm afraid, little man (or woman whatever), you will remain the one in denial. i'm just looking at the facts.

quote:

aww, how cute. the bottom line is that it's chuck shumer's fault. go back to the drawing board on this one, sparky. i hear some of the die hard nixon supporters took over five years to finally accept they were defending a criminal... how long will it take you?

im not going anywhere. Nixon has nothing to do with this.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 There were no reasons of top secrecy, unless you're submitting that Comey's public testimony is somehow "top secrecy". And while it's true that Ashcroft had signed off on the program for that period of time between 2001 and 2004, what was also true was that under a serious investigation into the program, it came to their attention that this program had some serious legality questions (i.e. it was illegal). From Comey's testimony:

what i'm saying is that Comey found a problem with some aspect of it. he couldn't get into it publicly but he had serious concerns.

whetever the concern was it obviously didn't pre-date the previous re-authorization. and once the concern was addressed it didn't preclude any of the further re-authorizations, obviously

what part of those FACTS do YOU not understand?

quote:

Circumventing FISA laws, laws enacted to keep the Executive office from spying illegally on its citizens has nothing to do with lefties. It's a very simple problem of illegality by this Administration.

sorry but you are going to have to prove that it was not legal. otherwise you're just another lefty pissing up a tree.

quote:

And finally, let's again remember how Gonzales specifically blocked Comey's testimony for over a year while the complicit GOP-led Congress did nothing: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10663996/site/newsweek/

never read that in your link. maybe i missed it.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo agreed. as far as this program is concerned, however to a point. he had limited himself to a 45 day restriction pending DOJ approval. he was bound by law to inform Congress (8 members of the Senate Intel Com.) on a regular basis on scope and progress of the program.

well, here starts a slippery slope.. just because he informed them, doesn't mean that he heard voiced concerns about it's legality. besides, it's quaint that he voiced to the intel committee, knowing that 1. they couldn't mention it to anyone. and 2. the members of said committee aren't knowledgeable in the law. they just had to take his assurances that the DOJ approves of what is happening. the problem continues that there was NO JUDICIAL REVIEW!!!![period] please quit sidestepping this. i see how you have good points if you could convince me how after 9/11, fourth amendment rights were thrown out the window.

quote:

no one was fired. no one was ignored. Bush looked at Comey's concerns and addressed them within 48 hours. Comey was satified.

but no changes were made concerning the FISA court's participation (or lack thereof in this case). looking at this "program", too red flags would be raised. 1. the selection process of who should be bugged and 2. lack of judicial oversight for forcing the NSA to justify the bugs.

agreed?

quote:

thats all you got right? "he's a crook" in the absence of any indictments or pending prosecution i'm afraid, little man (or woman whatever), you will remain the one in denial. i'm just looking at the facts. im not going anywhere. Nixon has nothing to do with this.

it's a little man, btw. again, please convince me how the unitary executive theory allows the president to be higher than constitutional authority even during a period of heightened security when there has been provisions enacted into law to allow for the need of said wiretaps (FISA review). if you cannot, i'll assume to not be the one in denial.

here's a start.

from youngstown sheet & tube v. saywer

quote:

�When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter.�

the supreme court owned your boy bush's argument over 50 years ago. if he desired changes in the law to allow for updates from the FISA "law", he clearly was not in his place to make them himself as he is not a law maker.

being as we can not be sure as to what concerns the DOJ had, what changes were made, and if bush even followed said changes after the fact (if he's above congress, i'm sure he thinks himself higher than people under him), we will have to rely solely on the "facts". This testimony simply pulls the ignorance rug out from under the administration, and now leaves them open for prosecution. whether or not the dems have the balls to do it is another matter.

edit: this ruling is also being applied by a few constitutional lawyers with regards to your president's use of signing statements. but that's for another day.

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag well, here starts a slippery slope.. just because he informed them, doesn't mean that he heard voiced concerns about it's legality. besides, it's quaint that he voiced to the intel committee, knowing that 1. they couldn't mention it to anyone. and 2. the members of said committee aren't knowledgeable in the law. they just had to take his assurances that the DOJ approves of what is happening. the problem continues that there was NO JUDICIAL REVIEW!!!![period] please quit sidestepping this. i see how you have good points if you could convince me how after 9/11, fourth amendment rights were thrown out the window. but no changes were made concerning the FISA court's participation (or lack thereof in this case). looking at this "program", too red flags would be raised. 1. the selection process of who should be bugged and 2. lack of judicial oversight for forcing the NSA to justify the bugs. agreed?

no. first, the "slippery slope" argument is irrelevant to this and the facts regarding the NSA program.

i don't understand what you mean by "no judicial review" and i'm not being sarcastic. if you are talking about FISA in general then you'd be wrong. if you are talking about the NSA program, it does not require Judicial review in a civil sense nor does FISA allow it do to the classified nature of it. besides, the scope of FISA statutes include: "The Attorney General is required to make a certification of these conditions under seal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court[8], and report on their compliance to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence." <--from wiki.

quote:

again, please convince me how the unitary executive theory allows the president to be higher than constitutional authority even during a period of heightened security when there has been provisions enacted into law to allow for the need of said wiretaps (FISA review). if you cannot, i'll assume to not be the one in denial.

sure. it's called war.

i realize that it's not your war but you are gonna have to remain in denial because of it. i'll let you know when you no longer have to be there.

quote:

the supreme court owned your boy bush's argument over 50 years ago. if he desired changes in the law to allow for updates from the FISA "law", he clearly was not in his place to make them himself as he is not a law maker.

you let the SCOTUS own your argument seeing as how Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer has absolutely nothing to do with intercepting foreign entities communications. wtf?

quote:

(if he's above congress, i'm sure he thinks himself higher than people under him)

i sure as hell hope he does.

ps. he's not above Congress, nor is Congress above him

quote:

we will have to rely solely on the "facts". This testimony simply pulls the ignorance rug out from under the administration, and now leaves them open for prosecution. whether or not the dems have the balls to do it is another matter.

so you haven't maybe misunderstood anything thats gone on here?

you don't thing the Donks wouldn't prosecute Bush if they had the faintest chance!...over anything!

either you don't know American politics or you are making a joke, either way thats hilarious

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo no. first, the "slippery slope" argument is irrelevant to this and the facts regarding the NSA program. i don't understand what you mean by "no judicial review" and i'm not being sarcastic. if you are talking about FISA in general then you'd be wrong. if you are talking about the NSA program, it does not require Judicial review in a civil sense nor does FISA allow it do to the classified nature of it. besides, the scope of FISA statutes include: "The Attorney General is required to make a certification of these conditions under seal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court[8], and report on their compliance to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence." <--from wiki.

Yes, you are half-correct concerning the FISA program. you stray off course when you state that there is no provisions made for review of classified material. Enter the illegality of the NSA program. and the relevance of Youngstown.

quote:

sure. it's called war. i realize that it's not your war but you are gonna have to remain in denial because of it. i'll let you know when you no longer have to be there. you let the SCOTUS own your argument seeing as how Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer has absolutely nothing to do with intercepting foreign entities communications. wtf?

well gee, if you put it that way... oh wait, Youngstown Sheet and tube v. Sawyer has everything to do with this NSA program, as the ruling states that the constitution was made to be followed in good times and bad. if you want to view the rulings of the supreme court to only apply to the exact situation to which the ruling was made, then we'll have to call this discussion unfinishable.

If you choose to accept that there is precedence established not just for seizure of property, rather acknowledgment that the scope of the presidency is at it's lowest ebb when regarding domestic matters requiring legislation even in a time of war... well, i don't see that day coming.

please keep in mind that Specter was willing to pass legislation after the fact to make this program legal, after acknowledging that there had been no provisions enacted in the patriot act to allow for infringing the rights of US citizens in the manner exercised by this administration. psst, big hint to the legality of the program right there.

and i just found you a good read here. please don't cut it from your next response.

again, this testimony only shows that the president was not as ignorant as he said he was regarding the legality of his actions in this matter.

and please don't bring in the tired argument that the president could not ask for amendments in the FISA law because "it would let the terrorists know what we were doing". jesus, do you think that they would cease communicating through phones/internet in favor of passenger pigeons?

quote:

ps. he's not above Congress, nor is Congress above him

thanks for the clarification, i've been rather confused on this matter for the past six years.

quote:

so you haven't maybe misunderstood anything thats gone on here? you don't thing the Donks wouldn't prosecute Bush if they had the faintest chance!...over anything!

just mentioning his lack of constitutional authority in this matter. And the donks have had their faintest chance since january, and yet...

quote:

either you don't know American politics or you are making a joke, either way thats hilarious

latinlover is better at comments like that.


p.s. i still want to know what a BDM is. it makes me sad that you won't tell me. i assume it's not bad-ass dance musician.

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag and i just found you a good read here. please don't cut it from your next response.

gladly, it's a great Q&A. it copmpletely supports my argument and shuts down yours. like at the very end as an example:

quote:

Q5. Levy: President Bush, much like President Truman when he attempted to seize the steel mills, is asserting a power to act in a manner explicitly forbidden by Congress. Under those circumstances, said Justice Jackson in his Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer concurrence, presidential "power is at its lowest." To uphold the president's NSA program would thus require finding that either (a) Congress has no authority at all to regulate domestic wiretaps of Americans, or (b) Article II's Commander-in-Chief Clause makes Congress's enactment in this area inoperative. Do you support either or both of those notions? Rivkin: Because, in my view, the 2001 Congressional authorization to use force squarely buttresses and supports the President's use of Commander-inChief powers, the current situation involves the use of Presidential powers at the zenith. However, even if one assumes that Congress has done something to prevent the President from using warrantless electronic surveillance techniques to gather intelligence about Al Qaeda and affiliated entities, such an effort would trench upon the President's core constitutional authority and would, therefore, be null and void.

quote:

again, this testimony only shows that the president was not as ignorant as he said he was regarding the legality of his actions in this matter. and please don't bring in the tired argument that the president could not ask for amendments in the FISA law because "it would let the terrorists know what we were doing".

he did ask for Amendments to FISA. there are three versions in the Senate waiting for cloture. i'll glady discuss them with you to the best of my abilities.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo gladly, it's a great Q&A. it copmpletely supports my argument and shuts down yours. like at the very end as an example: he did ask for Amendments to FISA. there are three versions in the Senate waiting for cloture. i'll glady discuss them with you to the best of my abilities.

glad you read the last half.. it's actually a Q&A between opposing sides on this issue. the first half is pretty damn good as well, and draws more from prior court rulings. but yes, the second person (rivkin) has some valid points as well. seems as though we could run in circles as the people out there who really know the law are as well. i of course can't speak on your behalf, but i'm no legal expert, i just call thinks as i see them.. judging by your posts, you're more or less the same, just on the other side of the fence.

but no, the Q&A far from shuts down either side of the story, as implied law does not include the use of signing statements and therefore should be left to the interpretation of the lawmakers. hate to have to quote feingold, but i'm in a hurry.

quote:

"He's trying to claim somehow that the authorization for the Afghanistan attack after 9/11 permitted this, and that's just absurd," Feingold said. "There's not a single senator or member of Congress who thought we were authorizing wiretaps." He added that the law clearly lays out how to obtain permission for wiretaps. "If he needs a wiretap, the authority is already there -- the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act," Feingold said. "They can ask for a warrant to do that, and even if there's an emergency situation, they can go for 72 hours as long as they give notice at the end of 72 hours."

source

being as the 72 hour review rule was an amendment to the FISA act, bush's power was at it's lowest especially to develop a secret domestic spy program through the NSA just because he had a hard time legally justifying previous wiretaps through FISA.

and the circle continues....

but as far as the on-the-table amendments to FISA, i honestly haven't had a chance to look into it.. if he can get congressional approval, will this be retroactive to 2002?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo what i'm saying is that Comey found a problem with some aspect of it. he couldn't get into it publicly but he had serious concerns. whetever the concern was it obviously didn't pre-date the previous re-authorization.

Wait, which re-authorization are you talking about - the one before Ashcroft went into the hospital or after? Because if you're referring to the one before, I agree, but as Comey makes crystal clear, he and Ashcroft had a meeting discussing the legalities of the program, and had both concluded that they were not going to sign off onto it, and THEN Ashcroft went ill. But the conclusion about signing off on the program was already made just prior to Ashcroft falling ill, which Comey makes explicitly clear. So by that account the hospital visit and re-authorization by Bush does indeed follow Comey and Ashcroft's conclusions about the program, and their steadfast refusal to sign off on it.

Again, unless you can demonstrate otherwise, please point out in his testimony where you can conclude anything else. Please use quotes.

quote:

and once the concern was addressed it didn't preclude any of the further re-authorizations, obviously what part of those FACTS do YOU not understand?

Again, how the hell are you drawing these conclusions? How can the concern that Comey and Ashcroft addressed some how NOT preclude the next Bush reauthorization if Bush somehow did it WITHOUT the DOJ authorization (i.e. signing off on it by Comey or Ashcroft)? And why on earth would Comey and Ashcroft threaten a major DOJ revolt via mass resignations in the DOJ dept. if Bush continues further with his authorizations without DOJ approval?

Again, please point out in Comey's testimony WITH QUOTES that somehow supports your argument.

quote:

sorry but you are going to have to prove that it was not legal. otherwise you're just another lefty pissing up a tree.

I don't have to - both the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6010601772.html

as well as a federal court judge back in August:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6081700650.html

have done that for me. What's also interesting is the Administration is appealing that federal judge's decision with the argument based ENTIRELY on the priviledge of state secrets, and NOT on one solid damn point of contention as to WHY it is legal (i.e. they're not addressing one damn point that the prosecution successfully won on).

We can also draw upon the conclusions of Hamdan v Rumsfeld that the 2001 AUMF did NOT give Bush additional authority beyond existing statutes, and that even during wartime the President may act only within the limits Congress has properly placed on his military authority:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opini...184.pdf#page=37

And it was made abundantly clear from our previous debates on this topic (to which I posted above) that both Republican and Democratic Congressmen alike did NOT have their AUMF bill manipulated to give Bush broad range authority in the manner of spying domestically WITHOUT FISA approval.

This was also made abundantly clear by one of YOUR favorite sources, the National Review:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?...jc4OTZkMmY2MTI=


But if memory serves, we have had discussions on this in the past:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...&highlight=FISA

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...d=&pagenumber=1

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...d=&pagenumber=1

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...d=&pagenumber=1

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...&highlight=FISA

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...&highlight=FISA

In each of those cases you were either absent in the argument or bowed out and failed to disprove any of what I, Occ, Renegade, or anyone else who demonstrated the illegality of the program.

quote:

never read that in your link. maybe i missed it.

My mistake. Here's the link:

quote:

The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility has opened an internal investigation into the department's role in approving the Bush administration's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program, officials said yesterday. In addition, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales signaled in an interview with The Washington Post yesterday that the administration will sharply limit the testimony of former attorney general John D. Ashcroft and former deputy attorney general James B. Comey, both of whom have been asked to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the program. "Clearly, there are privilege issues that have to be considered," Gonzales said. "As a general matter, we would not be disclosing internal deliberations, internal recommendations. That's not something we'd do as a general matter, whether or not you're a current member of the administration or a former member of the administration." "You have to wonder what could Messrs. Comey and Ashcroft add to the discussion," Gonzales added. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6021502446.html

Apparently Comey's added quite a lot to the discussion already. This was also stated by Assistant Attorney General William Moschella:

quote:

"we do not believe that Messrs. Ashcroft and Comey would be in a position to provide any new information to the committee." http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/...esdropping.html

And subsequently kept them from talking - until the Democratic majority took over. Dang that stinkin' oversight.......

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Wait, which re-authorization are you talking about - the one before Ashcroft went into the hospital or after? Because if you're referring to the one before, I agree, but as Comey makes crystal clear, he and Ashcroft had a meeting discussing the legalities of the program, and had both concluded that they were not going to sign off onto it, and THEN Ashcroft went ill. But the conclusion about signing off on the program was already made just prior to Ashcroft falling ill, which Comey makes explicitly clear. So by that account the hospital visit and re-authorization by Bush does indeed follow Comey and Ashcroft's conclusions about the program, and their steadfast refusal to sign off on it. Again, unless you can demonstrate otherwise, please point out in his testimony where you can conclude anything else. Please use quotes.

i know they agreed not to sign off on it and as i understand it, it was within 24 hrs. of Ashcroft becoming ill.

Comey then states that 48hrs after the hospital incident he was to give the President his daily briefing and thats when he communicated his concerns to Bush in a private meeting. Comey lays it on the line to Bush about his concerns with the program in a "full exchange". he and Bush then go to Mueller and Bush tells them both to do what "they believe is right" and here it is...wait for it..."AT THE PRESIDENTS DIRECTION, TO DO WHAT WE BELIEVE [JUSTICE DEPT.] WAS NECESSARY TO PUT THIS MATTER ON A FOOTING TO WHERE WE COULD CERTIFY TO IT'S LEGALITY. AND SO WE THEN SET OUT TO DO THAT. AND WE DID THAT."

quote:

Again, how the hell are you drawing these conclusions? How can the concern that Comey and Ashcroft addressed some how NOT preclude the next Bush reauthorization if Bush somehow did it WITHOUT the DOJ authorization (i.e. signing off on it by Comey or Ashcroft)? And why on earth would Comey and Ashcroft threaten a major DOJ revolt via mass resignations in the DOJ dept. if Bush continues further with his authorizations without DOJ approval?

thats easy. by law, by FISA statute, the President must seek re-authorization every 45 days. he cannot sidestep that. he has, pursuant to Executive order, the right to go a few days without and thats exactly what happened in March 2004 but he can't just waive it away. Comey was satisfied as to whatever aspect of the program he found was now fixed. the program went on and was re-authorized repeatedly up until Jan 17, 2007 when Gonzalez said he will not seek further re-authorizations.

remember this was all before Gonzalez made the program public in Dec 2005, before the OPR investigation.

quote:

Again, please point out in Comey's testimony WITH QUOTES that somehow supports your argument.

..."AT THE PRESIDENTS DIRECTION, TO DO WHAT WE BELIEVE [JUSTICE DEPT.] WAS NECESSARY TO PUT THIS MATTER ON A FOOTING TO WHERE WE COULD CERTIFY TO IT'S LEGALITY. AND SO WE THEN SET OUT TO DO THAT. AND WE DID THAT."

quote:

I don't have to - both the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6010601772.html

that does not say it's illegal. it says it needs to be re-freshed and may no loger be as strong legaly as it was in 2001. i agree. Congress agrees. the President agrees. you should agree.

quote:

as well as a federal court judge back in August: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6081700650.html

remember what i said about lefties pissing up a tree? we'll see in Apeallate court.

quote:

We can also draw upon the conclusions of Hamdan v Rumsfeld that the 2001 AUMF did NOT give Bush additional authority beyond existing statutes, and that even during wartime the President may act only within the limits Congress has properly placed on his military authority: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opini...184.pdf#page=37

Hamdan stated the 2001 AUMF did not give Bush authority to establish military commissions in violation of the UCMJ. (something that i've been held accountable to a few times) not some blanket "beyond existing statutes" like you say. gimme a break dude

quote:

This was also made abundantly clear by one of YOUR favorite sources, the National Review: http://article.nationalreview.com/?...jc4OTZkMmY2MTI=

great article. almost posted here once...ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SUBJECT!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

But if memory serves, we have had discussions on this in the past: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...&highlight=FISA http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...d=&pagenumber=1 http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...d=&pagenumber=1 http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...d=&pagenumber=1 http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...&highlight=FISA http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...&highlight=FISA In each of those cases you were either absent in the argument or bowed out and failed to disprove any of what I, Occ, Renegade, or anyone else who demonstrated the illegality of the program.

thats great. i know you, Occ, and Renegade are the liberal big shots here and all but not once (with the exception of you i believe) mention the 2001 AUMF or Art.II of the Constitution. it's just a bunch of alarmist democratic talking points and typical PDD incoherent rabble.

quote:

And subsequently kept them from talking - until the Democratic majority took over. Dang that stinkin' oversight.......

OMG dude the Democratic majority had nothing to do with what you are trying to assert with that article. attorney firings ring a bell?

it was a different investigation that had to do with Comey coming in to testify to the Senate as to the legality of the NSA program. which he did come in and do! Gonzalez was not going to let him talk about certain specifics of classified shit because he wasn't cleared for that and didn't need to be. he was already gone from the DOJ and a civilian.

quote:

i know they agreed not to sign off on it and as i understand it, it was within 24 hrs. of Ashcroft becoming ill. [QUOTE]i know they agreed not to sign off on it and as i understand it, it was within 24 hrs. of Ashcroft becoming ill. Comey then states that 48hrs after the hospital incident he was to give the President his daily briefing and thats when he communicated his concerns to Bush in a private meeting. Comey lays it on the line to Bush about his concerns with the program in a "full exchange". he and Bush then go to Mueller and Bush tells them both to do what "they believe is right" and here it is...wait for it..."AT THE PRESIDENTS DIRECTION, TO DO WHAT WE BELIEVE [JUSTICE DEPT.] WAS NECESSARY TO PUT THIS MATTER ON A FOOTING TO WHERE WE COULD CERTIFY TO IT'S LEGALITY. AND SO WE THEN SET OUT TO DO THAT. AND WE DID THAT."

I don't contend this. However, what's worth noting is that the details that Comey and Mueller were working out for a legal justification didn't happen right there on the spot now, did it? Instead, it took a couple of weeks for them to iron out their legal justification (which I would contend is still illegal, but I'll save that for later). In the meantime, there was no indication that the DOJ signed off on anything after the President's meeting until the legal justification was ironed out between Comey/Ashcroft and Mueller.

So again, the President still went ahead and signed off without DOJ signatures, thereby very likely continuing further with the illegal act of wiretapping without FISA approval. The quote you gave does not detail in any manner nor does it justify the action of Bush overriding and continuing without DOJ signature (until the DOJ and FBI worked out the justification later). Try again.

quote:

thats easy. by law, by FISA statute, the President must seek re-authorization every 45 days. he cannot sidestep that. he has, pursuant to Executive order, the right to go a few days without and thats exactly what happened in March 2004 but he can't just waive it away. Comey was satisfied as to whatever aspect of the program he found was now fixed. the program went on and was re-authorized repeatedly up until Jan 17, 2007 when Gonzalez said he will not seek further re-authorizations.

What Executive Order? Please give a citation, if you have it.

quote:

remember this was all before Gonzalez made the program public in Dec 2005, before the OPR investigation.

Gonzales didn't make the program public - the NYTimes did. Gonzales only confirmed the existence. I think that's what you meant, but I just want to clarify just in case.

quote:

that does not say it's illegal. it says it needs to be re-freshed and may no loger be as strong legaly as it was in 2001. i agree. Congress agrees. the President agrees. you should agree.

You're parsing words here. The report states that the legal justification that Bush is using for his argument (i.e. Article II) with his broad presidential powers do not hold legal water. Saying it's not "as strong legally as it was in 2001" is misleading at best. It wasn't UNTIL 2001 when Bush started utilizing that justification in the first place. Therefore the onus of proof lies upon Bush and Bush ONLY, not on any other prior legal justifications as you imply, to come up with a logical justification in the first place. The report outlines that Bush does not have this justification - therefore if the justification is erroneous the only logical conclusion is the action itself is illegal.

What other logical conclusion can be drawn from this?

quote:

remember what i said about lefties pissing up a tree? we'll see in Apeallate court.

Which as I said the arguments being used in appeal by Bush are pathetic at best - relying solely on the "State Secrets" argument and completely avoiding the argument on whether or not the program is legal or constitutional.

And BTW, that's not the only legal battle on this issue for Bush. Judge Walker in the Northern District of California ruled against the DOJ's case to dismiss the trial on these wiretaps last July:

http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/NSA_Motion_Denied.pdf

And Judge Garr King in Oregon last September:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1157685909292000.xml&coll=7

http://howappealing.law.com/AHIFvsBush.pdf

That last court case is very notable because the plaintiffs actually obtained the wiretaps by the NSA, and were able to prove that they were being wiretapped. The DOJ, once they realized that the plaintiffs had those papers demanded they give them up to the FBI for safekeeping, to which the judge steadfastly refused (considering the FBI are within the defendent party itself).

quote:

Hamdan stated the 2001 AUMF did not give Bush authority to establish military commissions in violation of the UCMJ. (something that i've been held accountable to a few times) not some blanket "beyond existing statutes" like you say. gimme a break dude

My mistake (again). Confusing Hamdi with Hamdan. So with Hamdi, here's an example of what else it states, in the case with Judge Walker mentioned above:

quote:

"Even the state secrets privilege has its limit. While the court recognizes and respects the executive's constitutional duty to protect the nation from threats, the court also takes seriously its constitutional duty to adjudicate the disputes that come before it. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 US 507, 536 (2004) (plurality opinion) ("Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake").

Let's make sure we have that part down from Hamdi:

quote:

"Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake."

That pretty much blows Yoo's theory of the Unitary Executive out of the water. In fact, take a look at Scalia's dissent in Hamdi:

quote:

Many safeguards in the Constitution reflect these concerns. Congress's authority "[t]o raise and support Armies" was hedged with the proviso that "no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." U. S. Const., Art. 1, �8, cl. 12. Except for the actual command of military forces, all authorization for their maintenance and all explicit authorization for their use is placed in the control of Congress under Article I, rather than the President under Article II. As Hamilton explained, the President's military authority would be "much inferior" to that of the British King: "It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy: while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which, by the constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." The Federalist No. 69, p. 357. A view of the Constitution that gives the Executive authority to use military force rather than the force of law against citizens on American soil flies in the face of the mistrust that engendered these provisions. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=03-6696

Huh, who woulda thunk it?

quote:

great article. almost posted here once...ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SUBJECT!!!!!!!!!!!!

Funny how you seemingly overlooked the second paragraph:

quote:

Hamdan is a disaster because it sounds the death knell for the National Security Agency�s Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP), the early-warning system developed by the Bush administration to ward off a reprise of 9/11 by penetrating the enemy�s wartime communications

As well as the rest of the entire article to which McCarthy is stating that in accordance to the ruling in Hamdan, it sounds the "death knell" for the illegal wiretapping program.

quote:

thats great. i know you, Occ, and Renegade are the liberal big shots here and all but not once (with the exception of you i believe) mention the 2001 AUMF or Art.II of the Constitution. it's just a bunch of alarmist democratic talking points and typical PDD incoherent rabble.

Ahh yes, what a terrific excuse for your all-too predictable withdrawal on those debates. Good one.

quote:

OMG dude the Democratic majority had nothing to do with what you are trying to assert with that article. attorney firings ring a bell? it was a different investigation that had to do with Comey coming in to testify to the Senate as to the legality of the NSA program. which he did come in and do! Gonzalez was not going to let him talk about certain specifics of classified shit because he wasn't cleared for that and didn't need to be. he was already gone from the DOJ and a civilian.

I'm sorry but the GOP having the majority had everything to do with the fact that they couldn't get testimony from Comey on this matter. Again from the WaPost article quoted:

quote:

The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility has opened an internal investigation into the department's role in approving the Bush administration's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program, officials said yesterday. In addition, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales signaled in an interview with The Washington Post yesterday that the administration will sharply limit the testimony of former attorney general John D. Ashcroft and former deputy attorney general James B. Comey, both of whom have been asked to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the program. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/15/AR2006021502446.html

Both that article and the San Diego Union Tribune articles make it patently clear that Gonzales and this Administration were trying to limit the testimony of these two, to which the GOP Congress certainly didn't mind at all. It was only when the Democratic majority came in with subpoena power did Comey testify. This is not a point of contention. I'm not sure how you could really argue otherwise.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.