|
So A Question to Republicans: If Bush Broke the Law With FISA Should He be Impeached? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Btw, the parts of the editorial I agreed with/liked or at least thought were interesting points to ponder:
| quote: |
There is no evidence that these wiretaps violate the law. |
|
What law grants the President authority to do what he did? FISA didn’t allow it. The Patriot Act didn’t allow it. Since the President went outside of the law and violated the constitution, specifically the 4th amendment, he broke the law.
| 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."
|
FISA allows warrantless searches (in the sense that the government needn’t show probable cause) so long as the primary purpose is to obtain foreign intelligence information and assuming the Bush administration actually goes through a FISA court. In this instance, Bush completely sidesteps the FISA court and thus has absolutely NO checks whatsoever.
| quote: |
The mere Constitution aside, the evidence is also abundant that the Administration was scrupulous in limiting the FISA exceptions.
|
What? How so? The evidence that I showed clearly demonstrated that there was no need for FISA exceptions in the first place.
| quote: |
| 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. 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. |
|
Well guess what. Those congressman are coming forward and releasing their own private documents highlighting their recommendations to NOT go forth with this activity:
Senator Rockefeller's Hand-Written Letter to Vice President Cheney (.pdf)
July 17, 2003
Dear Mr. Vice President,
I am writing to reiterate my concern regarding the sensitive intelligence issues we discussed today with the DCI, DIRNSA, and Chairman Roberts and our House Intelligence Committee counterparts.
Clearly the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues. As you know, I am neither a technician or an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities.
As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter's TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveiliance.
Without more information and the ability to draw on any independent legal or techical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received.
I am retaining a copy of this letter in a sealed envelope in the secure spaces of the Senate Intelligence Committee to ensure that I have a record of this communication.
I appreciate your consideration of my views.
Most respectfully,
Jay Rockefeller
http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v00...ellerletter.pdf
“Gotcha” |
|
|
| occrider |
Btw, in case you're wondering why the Bush administration felt the need to sidestep FISA here is one possible insight:
| quote: |
Secret Court Rebuffs Ashcroft.
Justice Dept. Chided On Misinformation
Dan Eggen and Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 23, 2002; Page A01
The secretive federal court that approves spying on terror suspects in the United States has refused to give the Justice Department broad new powers, saying the government had misused the law and misled the court dozens of times, according to an extraordinary legal ruling released yesterday.
A May 17 opinion by the court that oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) alleges that Justice Department and FBI officials supplied erroneous information to the court in more than 75 applications for search warrants and wiretaps, including one signed by then-FBI Director Louis J. Freeh.
Authorities also improperly shared intelligence information with agents and prosecutors handling criminal cases in New York on at least four occasions, the judges said.
The department discovered the misrepresentations and reported them to the FISA court beginning in 2000.
Given such problems, the court found that new procedures proposed by Attorney General John D. Ashcroft in March would have given prosecutors too much control over counterintelligence investigations and would have effectively allowed the government to misuse intelligence information for criminal cases, according to the ruling.
The dispute between the Justice Department and the FISA court, which has raged behind closed doors until yesterday, strikes at the heart of Ashcroft's attempts since Sept. 11 to allow investigators in terrorism and espionage to share more information with criminal investigators.
Generally, the Justice Department must seek the FISA court's permission to give prosecutors of criminal cases any information gathered by the FBI in an intelligence investigation. Ashcroft had proposed that criminal-case prosecutors be given routine access to such intelligence information, and that they be allowed to direct intelligence investigations as well as criminal investigations.
The FISA court agreed with other proposed rule changes. But Ashcroft filed an appeal yesterday over the rejected procedures that would constitute the first formal challenge to the FISA court in its 23-year history, officials said.
"We believe the court's action unnecessarily narrowed the Patriot Act and limited our ability to fully utilize the authority Congress gave us," the Justice Department said in a statement.
The documents released yesterday also provide a rare glimpse into the workings of the almost entirely secret FISA court, composed of a rotating panel of federal judges from around the United States and, until yesterday, had never jointly approved the release of one of its opinions. Ironically, the Justice Department itself had opposed the release.
Stewart Baker, former general counsel of the National Security Agency, called the opinion a "a public rebuke.
"The message is you need better quality control," Baker said. "The judges want to ensure they have information they can rely on implicitly."
A senior Justice Department official said that the FISA court has not curtailed any investigations that involved misrepresented or erroneous information, nor has any court suppressed evidence in any related criminal case. He said that many of the misrepresentations were simply repetitions of earlier errors, because wiretap warrants must be renewed every 90 days. The FISA court approves about 1,000 warrants a year.
Enacted in the wake of the domestic spying scandals of the Nixon era, the FISA statute created a secret process and secret court to review requests to wiretap phones and conduct searches aimed at spies, terrorists and other U.S. enemies.
FISA warrants have been primarily aimed at intelligence-gathering rather than investigating crimes. But Bush administration officials and many leading lawmakers have complained since Sept. 11 that such limits hampered the ability of officials to investigate suspected terrorists, including alleged hijacking conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui.
The law requires agents to be able to show probable cause that the subject of the search is an agent of a foreign government or terrorist group, and authorizes strict limits on distribution of information because the standards for obtaining FISA warrants are much lower than for traditional criminal warrants.
In Moussaoui's case, the FBI did not seek an FISA warrant to search his laptop computer and other belongings in the weeks prior to the Sept. 11 attacks because some officials believed that they could not adequately show the court Moussaoui's connection to a foreign terrorist group.
The USA Patriot Act, a set of anti-terrorism measures passed last fall, softened the standards for obtaining intelligence warrants, requiring that foreign intelligence be a significant, rather than primary, purpose of the investigation. The FISA court said in its ruling that the new law was not relevant to its decision.
Despite its rebuke, the court left the door open for a possible solution, noting that its decision was based on the existing FISA statute and that lawmakers were free to update the law if they wished.
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have indicated their willingness to enact such reforms but have complained about resistance from Ashcroft. Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said yesterday's release was a "ray of sunshine" compared to a "lack of cooperation" from the Bush administration.
Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), another committee member, said the legal opinion will "help us determine what's wrong with the FISA process, including what went wrong in the Zacarias Moussaoui case. The stakes couldn't be higher for our national security at home and abroad."
The ruling, signed by the court's previous chief, U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, was released by the new presiding judge, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.
FBI and Justice Department officials have said that the fear of being rejected by the FISA court, complicated by disputes such as those revealed yesterday, has at times caused both FBI and Justice officials to take a cautious approach to intelligence warrants.
Until the current dispute, the FISA court had approved all but one application sought by the government since the court's inception. Civil libertarians claim that record shows that the court is a rubber stamp for the government; proponents of stronger law enforcement say the record reveals a timid bureaucracy only willing to seek warrants on sure winners.
The opinion itself -- and the court's unprecedented decision to release it -- suggest that relations between the court and officials at the Justice Department and the FBI have frayed badly.
FISA applications are voluminous documents, containing boilerplate language as well as details specific to each circumstance. The judges did not say the misrepresentations were intended to mislead the court, but said that in addition to erroneous statements, important facts have been omitted from some FISA applications.
In one case, the FISA judges were so angered by inaccuracies in affidavits submitted by FBI agent Michael Resnick that they barred him from ever appearing before the court, according to the ruling and government sources.
Referring to "the troubling number of inaccurate FBI affidavits in so many FISA applications," the court said in its opinion: "In virtually every instance, the government's misstatements and omissions in FISA applications and violations of the Court's orders involved information sharing and unauthorized disseminations to criminal investigators and prosecutors."
The judges were also clearly perturbed at a lack of answers about the problems from the Justice Department, which is still conducting an internal investigation into the lapses.
"How these misrepresentations occurred remains unexplained to the court," the opinion said.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
|
When the judiciary gets in your way, what do you do? You bypass it by exceeding your legislative authority. This is ing insane. Absolutely no goddamned respect for the seperation of powers. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| Occ I'm all but ready to pack up and move to the mountains of Idaho or Montana already, with my shotgun in hand.:) Time to become a survivalist. When I hear Americans commenting that theyr'e ready to give up their privacy for security, yikes. Its the old if it doesn't affect me why should I be concerned syndrome. My question is where does the spying stop, no one knows and that's the issue with no oversight. Washington has gone stir crazy and nothing it seems can stop them. Northwest states here I come. :) |
|
|
| Shakka |
Look, Occ, I appreciate your insight and I yield to your supperior information gathering ability. I certainly don't purport to be a lawyer and I don't believe that you are one either. If it's so much of a slam-dunk, then why hasn't anyone filed suit? And why didn't anyone see that letter from Rockafeller or some other schlub when it was actually published? I certainly don't remember him or anyone else making a lot of noise about it. Alls I'm sayin' is, when I see this thing play out, It seems a lot more gray to me, and that's where public opinion and perception gets more important. I guess we'll see what happens with this one. Wow. You think history could abide by 2 impeached presidents in a row? Our society is on the cusp of an Impeachment Bubble, I tell ya.
And to NYTF, I agree with you that there's the whole issue of security for privacy and that people tend to support it as long as they don't view it as a direct threat to themselves. Since we're now all pretty much waist deep in it, one would hope that there's a quick win in the War on Terra that culminates with the execution of Saddam Hussein and the capture of Osama bin Laden and maybe the Zwahiri and Zarqawi guys too. Then hopefully the global temperament will calm down and some of the more invasive of current tactics will be repealed or rolled back. Then Oceana and Eurasia can go back to fighting Eastasia again. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength! It's happening.
And in a different context, I think a lot of what we're seeing would be completely unreasonable. But right now, there is still a very real danger out there. I can deal with a little less privacy in the short-run, if that's what it takes to end all of this. I just won't be accepting any collect calls from good ole Osama and the crew. ;) |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Look, Occ, I appreciate your insight and I yield to your supperior information gathering ability. I certainly don't purport to be a lawyer and I don't believe that you are one either. If it's so much of a slam-dunk, then why hasn't anyone filed suit? And why didn't anyone see that letter from Rockafeller or some other schlub when it was actually published? I certainly don't remember him or anyone else making a lot of noise about it. Alls I'm sayin' is, when I see this thing play out, It seems a lot more gray to me, and that's where public opinion and perception gets more important. I guess we'll see what happens with this one. Wow. You think history could abide by 2 impeached presidents in a row? Our society is on the cusp of an Impeachment Bubble, I tell ya. |
I agree that we should see this one out, which answers your question as to why no-one has filed suit. Actually I'm not so sure that works in that manner. Here's what I've gathered from listening to NPR and reading about it elsewhere-
In order to file suit, there needs to be a defendant(s), right? Well guess what? The list of potential defendents, i.e. the people who's wires are tapped, are held in secret. That's right, they don't even know they are potential defendants because their names are classified by executive order.
No defendants, no lawsuit. Neat, huh?
But what else can be done? Welp, Congress can hold hearings and demand their own investigation. If, indeed they find that the President violated his authority and the Constitution, which by any stretch of initial imagination it looks fairly obvious, they tell him to ing quit it. Do they impeach him right away? Well they could, but do you honestly expect this GOP Congress and my Senator Roberts (who already defended Bush on this) to actually go that far yet?
Hell no. But they'll tell him to quit it. If Bush turns around and says go yourselves to Congress (which he really has been doing for the past 5 years anyway), then they can begin drawing up articles of impeachment.
Two more things-
1. In regards to Rockefeller, he had sealed a letter to Cheney himself explicitly stating his disapproval and skepticism after he was told about this program. But here's the catch - he was essentially sworn to secrecy about it - IOW, Cheney made sure he couldn't tell a ing soul, not even his staff members about the meeting. So Rockefeller wrote up a letter that he couldn't even let his secretary type out because she would see it, and sealed it up as his little Ace in the hole just in case Bush and Cheney tried to pin it on him and other Dems. who supposedly knew about it beforehand.
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/19/rockefeller-letter/
So that story about Rockefeller knowing ahead of time and didn't say about it earlier is blown right out of the ing water.
But even moreso, it is wholly irrelevant whom the President tells about his illegal wiretaps. He could tell every Democrat in Congress, and it still makes his actions illegal if he didn't obtain a warrant under the FISA Law within 72 hours RETROACTIVELY (meaning he could get a wiretap and ask for a warrant up to 3 days AFTER the tap if he chooses to).
2. The argument that Bush received these incredible powers to wiretap without notice via the authorization of the use of force in Afghanistan is pure and utter bull.
Bush says this:
Mmkay. Gonzales tries to divulge further:
| quote: | Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20051219-1.html |
Is that really the case, amigo?
no:
| quote: | Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK):
Some people say that is a broad change in authorization to the Commander in Chief of this country. It is not. It is a very limited concept of giving him the authority to pursue those who have brought this terrible destruction to our country and to pursue those who have harbored them or assisted them and conspired with them in any way. [Congressional Record, 9/14/01]
Rep. James McGovern (D-MA):
The body of this resolution is appropriately limited to those entities involved in the attacks that occurred on September 11th…It reiterates the existing constitutional powers of the President to take action to defend the United States, but provides no new or additional grant of powers to the President. [Congressional Record, 9/14/01]
More below:
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE):
In extending this broad authority to cover those ‘planning, authorizing, committing, or aiding the attacks’ it should go without saying, however, that the resolution is directed only at using force abroad to combat acts of international terrorism. [Congressional Record, 9/14/01]
Rep. Christopher Smith (R-NJ):
The resolution is not a blank check. We do this with our eyes open and in fervent prayer, especially the prayer that President Bush and his national security team will be lavished with wisdom from God above to use only that force which is truly necessary and only that force which is truly appropriate. [Congressional Record, 9/14/01]
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX):
The tension that we face tonight is to provide the President with enough authority to eradicate wrongdoing without wronging the carefully crafted systems of checks and balances so essential to our democracy. … As we vote for this important resolution with the lives of so many at stake in this important endeavor against terrorism, we cannot let the executive branch become the exclusive branch. [Congressional Record, 9/14/01] |
There is no defense for this civil liberty violation that I've seen so far, but I am willing to see it through like you and find out exactly what gave him the ultimate power to wiretap without a warrant. |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
But what else can be done? Welp, Congress can hold hearings and demand their own investigation. If, indeed they find that the President violated his authority and the Constitution, which by any stretch of initial imagination it looks fairly obvious, they tell him to ing quit it. Do they impeach him right away? Well they could, but do you honestly expect this GOP Congress and my Senator Roberts (who already defended Bush on this) to actually go that far yet?
Hell no. But they'll tell him to quit it. If Bush turns around and says go yourselves to Congress (which he really has been doing for the past 5 years anyway), then they can begin drawing up articles of impeachment.
|
That sounds about right.
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20...achable-offense
| quote: |
Conservative Scholars Argue Bush’s Wiretapping Is An Impeachable Offense
Conservative scholars Bruce Fein and Norm Ornstein argued yesterday on The Diane Rehm show that, should Bush remain defiant in defending his constitutionally-abusive wire-tapping of Americans (as he has indicated he will), Congress should consider impeaching him.
QUESTION: Is spying on the American people as impeachable an offense as lying about having sex with an intern?
BRUCE FEIN, constitutional scholar and former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration: I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want – I don’t need to consult any other branches – that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that … would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.
NORM ORNSTEIN, AEI scholar: I think if we’re going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed. |
|
|
|
| occrider |
This is mint. Here are the remarks House Republicans were making during the Clinton impeachment:
| quote: |
Rep. Marge Roukema (R-N.J.):
And we all share in the emotional trauma getting back to our subject of this constitutional crisis in which we are ensnared. But this cup cannot pass us by, we can't avoid it, we took an oath of office, Mr. Speaker, to uphold the Constitution under our democratic system of government, separation of powers, and checks and balances.
And we must fulfill that oath and send the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a trial. Now I say personally, and all of you who know me, and a lot of you do, I've been around a long time; I bear no personal animosity towards the president. But we in the House did not seek this constitutional confrontation.
Rep. J.C. Watts (R-Okla.):
How can we expect a Boy Scout to honor his oath if elected officials don't honor theirs? How can we expect a business executive to honor a promise when the chief executive abandons his or hers?
Rep. Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.):
How did this great nation of the 1990s come to be? It all happened Mr. Speaker, because freedom works. . . . But freedom, Mr. Speaker, freedom depends upon something. The rule of law. And that's why this solemn occasion is so important. For today we are here to defend the rule of law. According to the evidence presented by our fine Judiciary Committee, the president of the United States has committed serious transgressions.
Among other things, he took an oath to God, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And then he failed to do so. Not once, but several times. If we ignore this evidence, I believe we undermine the rule of law that is so important that all America is. Mr. Speaker, a nation of laws cannot be ruled by a person who breaks the law. Otherwise, it would be as if we had one set of rules for the leaders and another for the governed. We would have one standard for the powerful, the popular and the wealthy, and another for everyone else.
This would belie our ideal that we have equal justice under the law. That would weaken the rule of law and leave our children and grandchildren with a very poor legacy. I don't know what challenges they will face in their time, but I do know they need to face those challenges with the greatest constitutional security and the soundest rule of fair and equal law available in the history of the world. And I don't want us to risk their losing that....
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI):
The framers of the Constitution devised an elaborate system of checks and balances to ensure our liberty by making sure that no person, institution or branch of government became so powerful that a tyranny could be established in the United States of America. Impeachment is one of the checks the framers gave the Congress to prevent the executive or judicial branches from becoming corrupt or tyrannical.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas):
When someone is elected president, they receive the greatest gift possible from the American people, their trust. To violate that trust is to raise questions about fitness for office. My constituents often remind me that if anyone else in a position of authority -- for example, a business executive, a military officer of a professional educator -- had acted as the evidence indicates the president did, their career would be over. The rules under which President Nixon would have been tried for impeachment had he not resigned contain this statement: "The office of the president is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United States."
Rep. Charles Canady (R-Fla.):
Many have asked why we are even here in these impeachment proceedings. They have asked why we can't just rebuke the president and move on. That's a reasonable question. And I certainly understand the emotions behind that question. I want to move on. Every member of this committee wants to move on. We all agree with that.
But the critical question is this: Do we move on under the Constitution, or do we move on by turning aside from the Constitution? Do we move on in faithfulness to our own oath to support and defend the Constitution, or do we go outside the Constitution because it seems more convenient and expedient?
...
Why are we here? We are here because we have a system of government based on the rule of law, a system of government in which no one -- no one -- is above the law. We are here because we have a constitution.
A constitution is often a most inconvenient thing. A constitution limits us when we would not be limited. It compels us to act when we would not act. But our Constitution, as all of us in this room acknowledge, is the heart and soul of the American experiment. It is the glory of the political world. And we are here today because the Constitution requires that we be here. We are here because the Constitution grants the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment. We are here because the impeachment power is the sole constitutional means granted to Congress to deal with the misconduct of the chief executive of the United States.
In many other countries, a matter such as this involving the head of government would have been quietly swept under the rug. There would, of course, be some advantages to that approach. We would all be spared embarrassment, indignity and discomfort. But there would be a high cost if we followed that course of action. Something would be lost. Respect for the law would be subverted, and the foundation of our Constitution would be eroded.
The impeachment power is designed to deal with exactly such threats to our system of government. Conduct which undermines the integrity of the president's office, conduct by the chief executive which sets a pernicious example of lawlessness and corruption is exactly the sort of conduct that should subject a president to the impeachment power.
Rep. Bob Ingliss (R-S.C.):
I think is important to point out here is that we have a constitutional obligation, a constitutional obligation to act. And there are lots of folks who would counsel, Listen, let's just move along. It's sort of the Clinton so-what defense. So what? I committed perjury. So what? I broke the law. Let's just move along. I believe we've got a constitutional obligation to act.
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.):
Mr. Chairman, this is a somber occasion. I am here because it is my constitutional duty, as it is the constitutional duty of every member of this committee, to follow the truth wherever it may lead. Our Founding Fathers established this nation on a fundamental yet at the time untested idea that a nation should be governed not by the whims of any man but by the rule of law. Implicit in that idea is the principle that no one is above the law, including the chief executive
Since it is the rule of law that guides us, we must ask ourselves what happens to our nation if the rule of law is ignored, cheapened or violated, especially at the highest level of government. Consider the words of former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who was particularly insightful on this point. "In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. If government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law. It invites every man to become a law unto himself."
Mr. Chairman, we must ask ourselves what our failure to uphold the rule of law will say to the nation, and most especially to our children, who must trust us to leave them a civilized nation where justice is respected.
Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.):
You know, there are people out all across America every day that help define the nation's character, and they exercise common-sense virtues, whether it's honesty, integrity, promise-keeping, loyalty, respect, accountability, they pursue excellence, they exercise self-discipline. There is honor in a hard day's work. There's duty to country. Those are things that we take very seriously.
So those are things that the founders also took seriously. Yet every time I reflect upon the wisdom of the founding fathers, I think their wisdom was truly amazing. They pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to escape the tyranny of a king. They understood the nature of the human heart struggles between good and evil.
So the founders created a system of checks and balances and accountability. If corruption invaded the political system, a means was available to address it. The founders felt impeachment was so important it was included in six different places in the Constitution. The founders set the standard for impeachment of the president and other civil officers as treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.
The House of Representatives must use this standard in circumstances and facts of the president's conduct to determine if the occupant of the Oval Office is fit to continue holding the highest executive office of this great country.
Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.):
In the next few days I will cast some of the most important votes of my career. Some believe these votes could result in a backlash and have serious political repercussions. They may be right. But I will leave the analysis to others. My preeminent concern is that the Constitution be followed and that all Americans, regardless of their position in society, receive equal and unbiased treatment in our courts of law. The fate of no president, no political party, and no member of Congress merits a slow unraveling of the fabric of our constitutional structure. As John Adams said, we are a nation of laws, not of men.
Our nation has survived the failings of its leaders before, but it cannot survive exceptions to the rule of law in our system of equal justice for all. There will always be differences between the powerful and the powerless. But imagine a country where a Congress agrees the strong are treated differently than the weak, where mercy is the only refuge for the powerless, where the power of our positions govern all of our decisions. Such a country cannot long endure. God help us to do what is right, not just for today, but for the future of this nation and for those generations that must succeed us.
Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.):
I suggest impeachment is like beauty: apparently in the eye of the beholder. But I hold a different view. And it's not a vengeful one, it's not vindictive, and it's not craven. It's just a concern for the Constitution and a high respect for the rule of law. ... as a lawyer and a legislator for most of my very long life, I have a particular reverence for our legal system. It protects the innocent, it punishes the guilty, it defends the powerless, it guards freedom, it summons the noblest instincts of the human spirit.
The rule of law protects you and it protects me from the midnight fire on our roof or the 3 a.m. knock on our door. It challenges abuse of authority. It's a shame "Darkness at Noon" is forgotten, or "The Gulag Archipelago," but there is such a thing lurking out in the world called abuse of authority, and the rule of law is what protects you from it. And so it's a matter of considerable concern to me when our legal system is assaulted by our nation's chief law enforcement officer, the only person obliged to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.
Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.):
I believe that this nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law.
Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us, when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth.
Shall we follow the rule of law and do our constitutional duty no matter unpleasant, or shall we follow the path of least resistance, close our eyes to the potential lawbreaking, forgive and forget, move on and tear an unfixable hole in our legal system? No man is above the law, and no man is below the law. That's the principle that we all hold very dear in this country.
|
It's time for Republicans in congress to man up. It's too bad that most of them are partisan hacks that lack the courage to stand behind their "principles" if they even have any. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
It's too bad that most of them are partisan hacks that lack the courage to stand behind their "principles" if they even have any. |
Congress and Principles in the same sentence Occ, cmon you know better than that:D The only time they aren't partisan hacks is when they are getting ready to leave town for the Holidays and every bill is passed with pork and all. Congress is about the only place that can manage to have lower poll ratings than Dick Cheney that shoud say it all. |
|
|
| Shakka |
What are we to make of this precedent that just appeared on Drudge? And what is it with Jaime Gorelick?!
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm
| quote: | FLASHBACK: CLINTON, CARTER SEARCH 'N SURVEILLANCE WITHOUT COURT ORDER
Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval
Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"
WASH POST, July 15, 1994, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches": Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."
Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.
Government officials decided in the Ames case that no warrant was required because the searches were conducted for "foreign intelligence purposes."
Government lawyers have used this principle to justify other secret searches by U.S. authorities.
"The number of such secret searches conducted each year is classified..."
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."
END
|
:nervous: |
|
|
| occrider |
Yea unfortunately drudge is an idiot. This is what Clinton actually signed:
| quote: |
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm
|
The section requires the Attorney General to certify that the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.
The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, it allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.
You can read about it in Cornell's law center:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/...22----000-.html
Screw it, I'll just post it:
| quote: |
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President, acting through the Attorney General, may authorize physical searches without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if—
A) the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(i) the physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers (as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title);
(ii) there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person; and
(iii) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such physical search meet the definition of minimization procedures under paragraphs (1) through (4) [1] of section 1821 (4) of this title; and
etc., etc.,
|
|
|
|
| Shakka |
| So then the question goes to John Ashcroft for clarification? That guy is a stone wall! |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
So then the question goes to John Ashcroft for clarification? That guy is a stone wall! |
Well, it would if Bush asserted that he never gave orders for the NSA to spy on US citizens. Then it would be Ashcroft's ass. But Bush seems to fully acknowledge that he gave the NSA orders to spy on US citizens and is indignant that people are questioning his authority. |
|
|
|
|
