|
So A Question to Republicans: If Bush Broke the Law With FISA Should He be Impeached? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
Renegade I think you fail to grasp or appreciate the divergence of opinions in America, what people hear in Nashville, Birmingham, and many of the states in the center of this union is not exactly what is heard on the two Coasts and big cities in between. In this I mean that while the media is accessible if people are interested in other viewpoints, they don't care to access it. |
But you summed it up with that last sentence. If there are still people who believe that the GOP are worth voting for after everything that they've already done, then this story won't make the slightest bit of difference. If 40% of people are willing to seal their ears and ignore all the scandals that have already passed, why should we believe that a relatively technical - albeit undeniably serious - legal infraction is going to change their minds?
I recognise the diversity of opinion in the US, but the problem is the same is it has probably always has been in democratic societies across the world - those who need to listen the most are also those who are most unlikely to.
| quote: | So people may spend all day listening to conservative talk radio and the views it expresses or liberal programs and the views it expresses, drawing battle lines with no interest in rational thought or compromise in opinions expressed. I mean could you imagine Rush Limbaugh or that annoying Ann Coulter supporting a Democratic Party viewpoint or Michael Moore praising Bush, my point exactly.
The reality is that until there is more than the simple two party system in this nation with a strong viable third option this black and white viewpoint of issues will continue in this nation. I have grown tired of it and frankly tune out of politics in recent months, because its a broken record of farcical commentaries that have little reasoning any longer and lack profound objective criticisms. |
Believe me, I know the pain of a two-party system. While there are provisions in the Australian electoral system that make it easier for minor parties to be represented in the senate here than in the US, most people are still blinded by the two-party philosophy. Generally, in a two party system, one party is guilty by virtue of its action, the other is guilty by virtue of its inaction. Which is worse? What do we gain by electing the lesser of two evils? Don't people realise that we can do better than this?
(Sorry for the derail. I'm on a bit of a high-horse at the moment.) |
|
|
| josh4 |
The administration does a great job with being able to tell which of its tactics work and which do not. In this case the tactic that seems to work well is Bush's unrelenting desire to 'stay the course.' You hardly ever get anything new with Bush. This is very true when he is defending the actions of the administration for whatever reason.
If you want to go against the administration for anything then you will most certainly need to 'bring it.' They will throw everything at you including the kitchen sink and make it as difficult as possible even for the smallest issue. So far in all the scandals Patrick Fitzgerald is the only person able to get close to touching the administration and all that did was oust the assistant to the Vice President. Big whoop, save the champagne.
Ironic but not unbelievable that Bush's saving grace is the war. Impeachment is too often thrown out very loosely without much thought. Only twice in the United States has it been done and never has it resulted in the removal of a President. Nixon resigned at the last minute, I'm not so sure Bush would. In a time of war and considering other things going on right now you'd be hard pressed to find many lawmakers willing to go through such a battle. The evidence would have to be so compelling it could not be ignored. Such evidence strong enough has not come to the attention of the public. Not only would you need such evidence you'd need a heck of a lot of people willing to go through such a battle with this administration. Theres a big difference between disagreeing with the policies and willing to take an active stance against them. (PDDs talk the talk but how many actually walk the walk?)
No doubt there will be hearings on this but we'll have to see where it goes. This administration learns from its mistakes and they've had a lot of experience in this department. I think a big reason these scandals keep coming up is because the methods the administration uses to control it's own are backfiring. They're a very tight nit group and you're either with them or against them. From what we've heard on the inner workings of the white house Bush does not like dissent. In such an environment the only choice left is to leak the information, which is exactly what happened here. Its not a good sign when the people around you who are supposed to make up your circle of trust are doing these things behind your back. I figure any effort to go against this administration would most certainly be an up hill climb. But once we reach the peak where its obvious Bush isn't going to make it out the rest will be down hill as his circle of trust crumbles around him.
Of course this is all assuming things continue to go the way they are. Most of these scandals are the result of Bush refusing to compromise. That is all most of the lawmakers are asking for, especially the Republicans. It happened with McCain's bill on torture only because he was pushed in a corner. But it shows that he will compromise if he has to. If staying the course turns to a tactic that won't work any longer we could see Bush start to work with more people outside the white house to come to mutual agreements on issues. That might be all he needs. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
But you summed it up with that last sentence. If there are still people who believe that the GOP are worth voting for after everything that they've already done, then this story won't make the slightest bit of difference. If 40% of people are willing to seal their ears and ignore all the scandals that have already passed, why should we believe that a relatively technical - albeit undeniably serious - legal infraction is going to change their minds?
I recognise the diversity of opinion in the US, but the problem is the same is it has probably always has been in democratic societies across the world - those who need to listen the most are also those who are most unlikely to.
Believe me, I know the pain of a two-party system. While there are provisions in the Australian electoral system that make it easier for minor parties to be represented in the senate here than in the US, most people are still blinded by the two-party philosophy. Generally, in a two party system, one party is guilty by virtue of its action, the other is guilty by virtue of its inaction. Which is worse? What do we gain by electing the lesser of two evils? Don't people realise that we can do better than this?
(Sorry for the derail. I'm on a bit of a high-horse at the moment.) |
The whole political atmosphere has become very poisonous that people don't seem to acknowledge right and wrong anymore in critic of one's parties shortcomings, instead it is usually played off against the other party and it becomes a those right wing nuts, or those left wing communists, etc. I keep hearing the majority of Americans are moderate in thinking on most issues, I hope this is indeed true.
Also its not the diversity of opinions, but the divergence of opinions :), that is the problem, things are very simplified either you hold a Democratic viewpoint or a Republican viewpoint and that's that. A diversity of opinions would be for the better that sadly does not exist today in the political arena.
I detest a two party system especially when both parties are as patheic as these two are right now. The Democrats have no clear platform or strategy despite Bush's ups and Republicans well the less stated the better. I used to be such a fervent Republican, yet i can't vote Democrat because they present nothing better in dealing with the issues as a party. Like you stated the lesser of two evils option is enough to cringe, how many ways can you spell disillusioned |
|
|
| Shakka |
http://online.wsj.com/article_print...4784326861.html
| quote: | Thank You for Wiretapping
December 20, 2005; Page A14
Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold wants to be President, and that's fair enough. By all means go for it in 2008. The same applies to Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who's always on the Sunday shows fretting about the latest criticism of the Bush Administration's prosecution of the war on terror. But until you run nationwide and win, Senators, please stop stripping the Presidency of its Constitutional authority to defend America.
That is the real issue raised by the Beltway furor over last week's leak of National Security Agency wiretaps on international phone calls involving al Qaeda suspects. The usual assortment of Senators and media potentates is howling that the wiretaps are "illegal," done "in total secret," and threaten to bring us a long, dark night of fascism. "I believe it does violate the law," averred Mr. Feingold on CNN Sunday.
The truth is closer to the opposite. What we really have here is a perfect illustration of why America's Founders gave the executive branch the largest measure of Constitutional authority on national security. They recognized that a committee of 535 talking heads couldn't be trusted with such grave responsibility. There is no evidence that these wiretaps violate the law. But there is lots of evidence that the Senators are "illegally" usurping Presidential power -- and endangering the country in the process.
* * *
The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But no Administration then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President's power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it. FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed.
The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that, "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
On Sunday Mr. Graham opined that "I don't know of any legal basis to go around" FISA -- which suggests that next time he should do his homework before he implies on national TV that a President is acting like a dictator. (Mr. Graham made his admission of ignorance on CBS's "Face the Nation," where he was representing the Republican point of view. Democrat Joe Biden was certain that laws had been broken, while the two journalists asking questions clearly had no idea what they were talking about. So much for enlightening television.)
The mere Constitution aside, the evidence is also abundant that the Administration was scrupulous in limiting the FISA exceptions. They applied only to calls involving al Qaeda suspects or those with terrorist ties. Far from being "secret," key Members of Congress were informed about them at least 12 times, President Bush said yesterday. The two district court judges who have presided over the FISA court since 9/11 also knew about them.
Inside the executive branch, the process allowing the wiretaps was routinely reviewed by Justice Department lawyers, by the Attorney General personally, and with the President himself reauthorizing the process every 45 days. In short, the implication that this is some LBJ-J. Edgar Hoover operation designed to skirt the law to spy on domestic political enemies is nothing less than a political smear.
All the more so because there are sound and essential security reasons for allowing such wiretaps. The FISA process was designed for wiretaps on suspected foreign agents operating in this country during the Cold War. In that context, we had the luxury of time to go to the FISA court for a warrant to spy on, say, the economic counselor at the Soviet embassy.
In the war on terror, the communications between terrorists in Frankfurt and agents in Florida are harder to track, and when we gather a lead the response often has to be immediate. As we learned on 9/11, acting with dispatch can be a matter of life and death. The information gathered in these wiretaps is not for criminal prosecution but solely to detect and deter future attacks. This is precisely the kind of contingency for which Presidential power and responsibility is designed.
What the critics in Congress seem to be proposing -- to the extent they've even thought much about it -- is the establishment of a new intelligence "wall" that would allow the NSA only to tap phones overseas while the FBI would tap them here. Terrorists aren't about to honor such a distinction. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," before 9/11 "Our intelligence agencies looked out; our law enforcement agencies looked in. And people could -- terrorists could -- exploit the seam between them." The wiretaps are designed to close the seam.
* * *
As for power without responsibility, nobody beats Congress. Mr. Bush has publicly acknowledged and defended his decisions. But the Members of Congress who were informed about this all along are now either silent or claim they didn't get the full story. This is why these columns have long opposed requiring the disclosure of classified operations to the Congressional Intelligence Committees. Congress wants to be aware of everything the executive branch does, but without being accountable for anything at all. If Democrats want to continue this game of intelligence and wiretap "gotcha," the White House should release the names of every Congressman who received such a briefing.
Which brings us to this national security leak, which Mr. Bush yesterday called "a shameful act." We won't second guess the New York Times decision to publish. But everyone should note the irony that both the Times and Washington Post claimed to be outraged by, and demanded a special counsel to investigate, the leak of Valerie Plame's identity, which did zero national security damage.
By contrast, the Times's NSA leak last week, and an earlier leak in the Washington Post on "secret" prisons for al Qaeda detainees in Europe, are likely to do genuine harm by alerting terrorists to our defenses. If more reporters from these newspapers now face the choice of revealing their sources or ending up in jail, those two papers will share the Plame blame.
The NSA wiretap uproar is one of those episodes, alas far too common, that makes us wonder if Washington is still a serious place. Too many in the media and on Capitol Hill have forgotten that terrorism in the age of WMD poses an existential threat to our free society. We're glad Mr. Bush and his team are forcefully defending their entirely legal and necessary authority to wiretap enemies seeking to kill innocent Americans.
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113503784784326861.html
|
|
|
|
| josh4 |
| quote: |
There is no evidence that these wiretaps violate the law. |
|
|
|
| St_Andrew |
Now I'm obviously not an expert in US law, but that article seems flawed. They are missing the whole point, if the President really had reason to wiretap, then he could as well have gone by FISA. The argument that it would take too much time is easily proven wrong by occrider earlier, a warrant can be given "within minutes" or even retroactively!
And why did your president himself say that wiretaps do require a court order:
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
President Bush, April 20th, 2004: "Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
-Remarks by the President in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act |
Also did you not see all the threads about this administation missusing its powers spying on ppl who's only fault is that they disagree with the president? Guess they are a national security threat as well... :rolleyes:
Edit:
That they tried to stop the NYT from publishing this article in the first place (due to whatever reason), would be enough to make any government fall in my country, but apperntly it takes a hell of a lot more in the US (since that doesn't even seem to be a minor issue here). |
|
|
| Renegade |
Jesus Christ Shakka, don't you claim to be a libertarian? You honestly think that what the article claims - that power is often better vested in one man than in 535, that exposing illegal acts of the government "endanger[s] the country", that "essential security reasons" (whatever that means) necessarily trump any concerns over civil liberties, that those in the know should be condemned for releasing information to the public about a government over-reaching its bounds, or that those in the media should be condemned for publishing such information - is in any way consistent with the principles of a small-government political philosophy, or - more to the point - in any way justifies a government, without any public knowledge, spying on its own citizens? Are you a libertarian, or are you just another GOP apologist?
If no-one has taken this article apart by the time I've slept and gone to work (give me 16 hours) I'm volunteering to do it myself.
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
That they tried to stop the NYT from publishing this article in the first place (due to whatever reason), would be enough to make any government fall in my country, but apperntly it takes a hell of a lot more in the US (since that doesn't even seem to be a minor issue here). |
This is what I was talking about earlier. You want to know what the front page story has been down here in the national paper for the past couple of days? The treasurer - soon to be prime-minister, by all accounts - kept hidden a report that was midly critical of what he'd been saying about the recent Industrial Relations legislation that's been passed through parliament over the past couple of months. It was eventually released and he's since been taking it from all angles for keeping it secret and for taking five weeks to disclose it when it was requested under the Freedom of Information Act. The report was mainly critical about his insistance that minimum wages would increase at a higher rate under the new laws (they won't), which - when all is said and done - is a very small part of the legislation and a very small part of the treasurer's claims about the benefits of the legislation.
The fall-out? The opposition believes he should resign. The story will probably remain the major story over the Christmas break and this could have significant repurcussions for his future aspirations to lead this country. This is a man who has overseen the Australian economy for ten years, who has managed at least a balanced budget in every one of them (mainly surpluses actually) and who saved the nation from a recession that crippled our main trading partners in the late 90s (SE Asia). Yet here he is - crucified for not releasing a report that he was under no obligation to release (until the journalist requested it under the FOA), that was mildly skeptical about the claims he had made months before.
My point? Seemingly minor issues can destroy a politician's career in most democratic countries. The public should never allow their government to get away with anything that they rightfully shouldn't, regardless of their own, personal political orientations. As St_Andrew said, governments have been overthrown for far less than what Bush has done in this particular case and this is a small scandal in the context of his presidency. If the 40% weren't going to listen before, then they probably won't listen now (isn't that right, Shakka?) and that, frankly, is ed. |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
not that i'm nearly as capable as renegade to pick apart that dizzying spin posted shakka, but one thing did stick out.
| quote: | | The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that, "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power." |
i think that this is another limbaughnian attempt to create an arguement by taking quotes out of context and applying thim to passify bush's base.
this isn't about spying on the enemies of americans, it's about spying on americans. as occ pointed out, while bush was authorizing these taps, he was denying participating, because:
| quote: | | When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. |
|
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Jesus Christ Shakka, don't you claim to be a libertarian? You honestly think that what the article claims - that power is often better vested in one man than in 535, that exposing illegal acts of the government "endanger[s] the country", that "essential security reasons" (whatever that means) necessarily trump any concerns over civil liberties, that those in the know should be condemned for releasing information to the public about a government over-reaching its bounds, or that those in the media should be condemned for publishing such information - is in any way consistent with the principles of a small-government political philosophy, or - more to the point - in any way justifies a government, without any public knowledge, spying on its own citizens? Are you a libertarian, or are you just another GOP apologist?
If no-one has taken this article apart by the time I've slept and gone to work (give me 16 hours) I'm volunteering to do it myself. |
Sorry--I should've clarified. I didn't post any editorial comment of my own when I posted the article, rather I just posted the article. I didn't mean for it to be interpreted as my exact personal thoughts, rather just posted it to try and pull some divergent opinions into the matter. I know you hate nothing more than a self-serving circle-jerk.
If you want my own personal opinion, if someone is found to have broken a law, then there should always be consequences. Part of what makes our country great is the rule of law itself, as well as the belief that no man (not even a standing President) is above the law. So there you are.
But with regard to the "535 vs. 1" comment--having dealt with many a different beaurocracy in my day, I can say with confidence that 535 talking heads will almost never get anything done (much like our wonderful, constantly gridlocked congress). That doesn't mean I think it gives one singular person the authority to usurp the rules when he or she deems it necessary. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Sorry--I should've clarified. I didn't post any editorial comment of my own when I posted the article, rather I just posted the article. I didn't mean for it to be interpreted as my exact personal thoughts, rather just posted it to try and pull some divergent opinions into the matter. |
But I'm presuming that you must have at least agreed with it to an extent - or at least figured that it raised some valid points - to have posted it in the first place? Tell you what - tell me which parts of the article you disagree with and you'll save me some time tomorrow... ;)
| quote: | | I know you hate nothing more than a self-serving circle-jerk. |
Haha, well... thanks for looking out for me.
| quote: | | If you want my own personal opinion, if someone is found to have broken a law, then there should always be consequences. Part of what makes our country great is the rule of law itself, as well as the belief that no man (not even a standing President) is above the law. So there you are. |
So, to rerail occrider's thread, if the president is found guilty of breaking a law here, you're saying that you believe he should be impeached?
| quote: | | But with regard to the "535 vs. 1" comment--having dealt with many a different beaurocracy in my day, I can say with confidence that 535 talking heads will almost never get anything done (much like our wonderful, constantly gridlocked congress). That doesn't mean I think it gives one singular person the authority to usurp the rules when he or she deems it necessary. |
Well executive / legislative efficiency is clearly the benefit of a dictatorship, but having seen the consequences of dictatorships elsewhere around the world, I'm sure you can understand why it is always preferable for power to be vested in a large, inefficient beaurocracy than in just one man? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
So, to rerail occrider's thread, if the president is found guilty of breaking a law here, you're saying that you believe he should be impeached? |
I'm saying there should be consequences for the action. If impeachment is the appropriate course of action, then so be it. Just because you like someone doesn't mean they are above the law. Back when I served on the honor council in college, we expelled a lot of otherwise great kids for blatantly abusing their professors' confidence.
| quote: | | Well executive / legislative efficiency is clearly the benefit of a dictatorship, but having seen the consequences of dictatorships elsewhere around the world, I'm sure you can understand why it is always preferable for power to be vested in a large, inefficient beaurocracy than in just one man? |
Yes I certainly can, though I like to see ideas and direction coming from the top down.
Trying to put all partisanship to the side, I'm curious how many on the left side of the aisle are still pissed off that Bubba was impeached and are to this day have retribution on their minds. Quite a few, I'm sure.;)
Btw, the parts of the editorial I agreed with/liked or at least thought were interesting points to ponder:
| quote: | | The truth is closer to the opposite. What we really have here is a perfect illustration of why America's Founders gave the executive branch the largest measure of Constitutional authority on national security. They recognized that a committee of 535 talking heads couldn't be trusted with such grave responsibility. There is no evidence that these wiretaps violate the law. But there is lots of evidence that the Senators are "illegally" usurping Presidential power -- and endangering the country in the process. |
| quote: | | In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that, "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power." |
| quote: | | The mere Constitution aside, the evidence is also abundant that the Administration was scrupulous in limiting the FISA exceptions. |
| quote: | | In short, the implication that this is some LBJ-J. Edgar Hoover operation designed to skirt the law to spy on domestic political enemies is nothing less than a political smear. |
| quote: | | As for power without responsibility, nobody beats Congress. Mr. Bush has publicly acknowledged and defended his decisions. But the Members of Congress who were informed about this all along are now either silent or claim they didn't get the full story. |
Much like the current war in Iraq. Thanks Harry Reid, et al.
| quote: | | Congress wants to be aware of everything the executive branch does, but without being accountable for anything at all. If Democrats want to continue this game of intelligence and wiretap "gotcha," the White House should release the names of every Congressman who received such a briefing. |
A-ing-men. |
|
|
| stevieboy32808 |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
The administration does a great job with being unable to tell which of its tactics work and which do not. |
Fixed.
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
What Bush has done is unilaterally decide the oversight unnecessary. Given the shape and safeguards of FISA, there was no operational need to evade it. It was an exclusively ideological decision in service of unlimited executive powers and the expansion of government. |
So what you're saying is that Bush avoided all the red tape involved with the warrants 'business' and went on a spying frenzy illegaly. I understand now, but if I'm wrong give me a more thorough explanation. |
|
|
|
|
