TranceAddict Forums Archive > Other > Political Discussion / Debate Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  So A Question to Republicans: If Bush Broke the Law With FISA Should He be Impeached? (pg. 4) View this Thread in Original format Shakka Today I see this, which references your clarification (which seemed to be highlighted by DailyKOS yesterday according to the blog being quoted). All blogs must be taken with at least a grain of salt--including this one. quote: Wrong Kos, Clinton DID order warrantless searches of Americans Since the revelation yesterday that both ex-presidents Clinton and Carter both signed orders reference to warrentless searches, the left has swapped to "debunk" mode trying to say that Apples don't compare to Oranges. Witness this from this from the premier moonbat site: "CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS Here's what Clinton signed: 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. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that Clinton allowed warrantless searches if and only if the AG followed section 302(a)(1). What does section 1822(a) require? * 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." Translation: You can't search American citizens. * and there is "no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." Translation: You can't search American citizens. Moreover, Clinton's warrant waiver consistent with FISA refers only to physical searches. "Physical searches," as defined by 1821(5), exclude electronic surveillance." Ah.....wrong. I was a law enforcement officer in the 90s, and I will tell you that it is unequivicolly wrong that this order precluded searches on American Citizens. IN fact, in actual practice it when way beyond it's original scope as this article produced in 1997 from the CATO Institute details, citing what would appear to be massive and questionable applications of Clinton's order, to the point of Deriliction of Duty. "The Clinton administration claims that it can bypass the warrant clause for "national security" purposes. In July 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." [51] According to Gorelick, the president (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place. The warrant clause was designed to give the American people greater security than that afforded by the mere words of politicians. It requires the attorney general, or others, to make a showing of "probable cause" to a magistrate. The proponents of national security searches are hard-pressed to find any support for their position in the text or history of the Constitution. That is why they argue from the "inherent authority" of the Oval Office--a patently circular argument. The scope of such "authority" is of course unbounded in principle. Yet the Clinton Justice Department has said that the warrant clause is fully applicable to murder suspects but not to persons suspected of violating the export control regulations of the federal government. [52] If the Framers had wanted to insert a national security exception to the warrant clause, they would have done so. They did not. The Clinton administration's national security exception to the warrant clause is nothing more, of course, than an unsupported assertion of power by executive branch officials. The Nixon administration relied on similar constitutional assertions in the 1970s to rationalize "black bag" break-ins to the quarters of its political opponents. [53] The Clinton White House--even after the Filegate scandal--assures Congress, the media, and the general public that it has no intention of abusing this power. Attorney General Reno has already signed off on the warrantless search of an American home on the basis of the dubious "inherent authority" theory. [54] The actual number of clandestine "national security" searches conducted since 1993 is known only to the White House and senior Justice Department officials." I was involved in several cases which specifically cited this law as the basis for warrantless searches of residences where suspected drug activity was taking place. By the way, the cases held up. As will any order/law, it is subjected to ongoing interpretation and "growth of application", and yes, sometimes it gets abused. "Warrantless Searches of Public Housing In the spring of 1994 the Chicago Public Housing Authority responded to gang violence by conducting warrantless "sweeps" of entire apartment buildings. Closets, desks, dressers, kitchen cabinets, and personal effects were examined regardless of whether the police had probable cause to suspect particular residents of any wrongdoing. Some apartments were searched when the residents were not home. Although such searches were supported by the Clinton administration, Federal District Judge Wayne Anderson declared the Chicago sweeps unconstitutional. [55] Judge Anderson found the government's claim of "exigent circumstances" to be exaggerated since all of the sweeps occurred days after the gang-related shootings. He also noted that even in emergency situations, housing officials needed probable cause in order to search specific apartments. Unlike many governmental officials who fear demagogic criticism for being "soft on crime," Judge Anderson stood up for the Fourth Amendment rights of the tenants, noting that he had "sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution" and that he would not "use the power of [his] office to override it, amend it or subvert it." [56] The White House response was swift. President Clinton publicly ordered Attorney General Reno and HUD secretary Henry Cisneros to find a way to circumvent Judge Anderson's ruling. One month later the president announced a "constitutionally effective way" of searching public housing units. The Clinton administration would now ask tenants to sign lease provisions that would give government agents the power to search their homes without warrants. The Clinton plan was roundly criticized by lawyers and columnists for giving short shrift to the constitutional rights of the tenants. [58] A New York Times editorial observed that the president had "missed the point" of Judge Anderson's ruling. [59] Harvard law professors Charles Ogletree and Abbe Smith rightly condemned the Clinton proposal as an open invitation to the police to "tear up" the homes of poor people. [60]" Again, application. Here we will remember the public outcry that came with these searches and the subsequent "redoubling the efforts" of the Clinton administration to find even more applications of the law such as warrentless drug testing in schools, wiretapping of US Citizens. "The Supreme Court has recognized that electronic surveillance, such as wiretapping and eavesdropping, impinges on the privacy rights of individuals and organizations and is therefore subject to the Fourth Amendment's warrant clause. [65] President Clinton, however, has asked Congress to pass legislation that would give the Federal Bureau of Investigation the power to use "roving wiretaps" without a court order. The president also fought for sweeping legislation that is forcing the telephone industry to make its network more easily accessible to law enforcement wiretaps. Those initiatives have led ACLU officials to describe the Clinton White House as "the most wiretap-friendly administration in history." Do read the rest of the CATO article as much of what it covers makes the so-called "Scandal" of the present Adminstration pale in comparison. In fact to the contrary, President Bush is shown to have gone out of his way to insure both the Country and the privacy of it's citizens were protected in the difficult process of defending this country against further attack. Nothing in the CATO article remotely comes to that kind of motivation. Here's the Cato article, though I haven't read the whole thing Now I'm not advocating that 2 wrongs would make a right (or 3 wrongs if we include Carter too). But this would certainly seem to narrow the divide between what Clinton purportedly did and what Dubya purportedly has done/is doing. MisterOpus1 quote: Originally posted by Shakka Today I see this, which references your clarification (which seemed to be highlighted by DailyKOS yesterday according to the blog being quoted). All blogs must be taken with at least a grain of salt--including this one. Here's the Cato article, though I haven't read the whole thing Now I'm not advocating that 2 wrongs would make a right (or 3 wrongs if we include Carter too). But this would certainly seem to narrow the divide between what Clinton purportedly did and what Dubya purportedly has done/is doing. I think this article is a bit misleading. Actually, it's way ing misleading. It stems from the debunking of a blogger at Daily Kos here: http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/21/8157/6595 In that debunking, georgia10 at DKos demonstrates what Clinton signed in 1995: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casec...1822_notes.html Keep that date in mind. The author of the Cato article opines further: quote: I was a law enforcement officer in the 90s, and I will tell you that it is unequivicolly wrong that this order precluded searches on American Citizens. IN fact, in actual practice it when way beyond it's original scope as this article produced in 1997 from the CATO Institute details, citing what would appear to be massive and questionable applications of Clinton's order, to the point of Deriliction of Duty. Now I admit that I'm unfamiliar with the CATO article in '97, and I don't have the time to google it and read it in detail, but the obvious question does come to mind- Where was the charges brought upon Clinton in '97 if, indeed, he was truly a derilict in his duty? I mean, the GOP had Congress AND the Senate, and they were wrapping his on the whole Lewinsky bull, so why couldn't they have come across with this supposed "bombshell"? Methinks it might have been a bit of fluff with little substance, but again I haven't read it in full. The CATO author continues: quote: "The Clinton administration claims that it can bypass the warrant clause for "national security" purposes. In July 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." [51] According to Gorelick, the president (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place. The warrant clause was designed to give the American people greater security than that afforded by the mere words of politicians. It requires the attorney general, or others, to make a showing of "probable cause" to a magistrate. The proponents of national security searches are hard-pressed to find any support for their position in the text or history of the Constitution. That is why they argue from the "inherent authority" of the Oval Office--a patently circular argument. The scope of such "authority" is of course unbounded in principle. Yet the Clinton Justice Department has said that the warrant clause is fully applicable to murder suspects but not to persons suspected of violating the export control regulations of the federal government. [52] If the Framers had wanted to insert a national security exception to the warrant clause, they would have done so. They did not...... Okay, the author goes further in detail about what was occurring in '94 with Clinton and the wiretapping stuff. That's fine and dandy with one minor exception: That was 1994. You see, in 1994 FISA did NOT cover physical searches. But the amended FISA law signed by none other than Clinton himself in 1995 DID include physical searches. Gorelick or any other person in the Clinton administration had EVER argued that the administration could ignore the law, either before or AFTER it was amended. But you see, the CATO author obfuscates this point quite nicely. In fact, he pulls a Drudge and nicely blends the two dates together, seemingly demonstrating that what he quotes as the law (which was actually from 1995) was something Clinton violated (which he did not because that part of the law was not included in 1994 yet). Now why do you suppose the CATO author would pull something like that? Does CATO have any evidence of Clinton breaking the FISA law AFTER 1995 when it was amended to include physical searches? If so, they should ing produce it and not deliberately become history revisionists. And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't CATO a libertarian outfit? I can understand them getting in a tiff when Clinton was doing this in '94, even though it wasn't against the law then, but shouldn't they be ing pissed off as at Bush for breaking civil liberties here in 2005? Or is their partisan ing bull just too deep to forget their original mantras? I could be getting them mixed up with Heritage. If so, disregard the last paragraph. Shakka An interesting Op-Ed piece today. I wouldn't be as apt to post it but the writer has some pretty good credentials (at least I am led to believe so). FISA vs. The Constitution quote: FISA vs. the Constitution By ROBERT F. TURNER December 28, 2005; Page A14 In the continuing saga of the surveillance "scandal," with some congressional Democrats denouncing President Bush as a lawbreaker and even suggesting that impeachment hearings may be in order, it is important to step back and put things in historical context. First of all, the Founding Fathers knew from experience that Congress could not keep secrets. In 1776, Benjamin Franklin and his four colleagues on the Committee of Secret Correspondence unanimously concluded that they could not tell the Continental Congress about covert assistance being provided by France to the American Revolution, because "we find by fatal experience that Congress consists of too many members to keep secrets." When the Constitution was being ratified, John Jay -- America's most experienced diplomat and George Washington's first choice to be secretary of state -- wrote in Federalist No. 64 that there would be cases in which "the most useful intelligence" may be obtained if foreign sources could be "relieved from apprehensions of discovery," and noted there were many "who would rely on the secrecy of the president, but who would not confide in that of the Senate." He then praised the new Constitution for so distributing foreign-affairs powers that the president would be able "to manage the business of intelligence in such manner as prudence may suggest." In 1790, when the first session of the First Congress appropriated money for foreign intercourse, the statute expressly required that the president "account specifically for all such expenditures of the said money as in his judgment may be made public, and also for the amount of such expenditures as he may think it advisable not to specify." They made no demand that President Washington share intelligence secrets with them. And in 1818, when a dispute arose over a reported diplomatic mission to South America, the legendary Henry Clay told his House colleagues that if the mission had been provided for from the president's contingent fund, it would not be "a proper subject for inquiry" by Congress. * * * For nearly 200 years it was understood by all three branches that intelligence collection -- especially in wartime -- was an exclusive presidential prerogative vested in the president by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, John Marshall and many others recognized that the grant of "executive power" to the president included control over intelligence gathering. It was not by chance that there was no provision for congressional oversight of intelligence matters in the National Security Act of 1947. Space does not permit a discussion here of the congressional lawbreaking that took place in the wake of the Vietnam War. It is enough to observe that the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and when Congress attempts to usurp powers granted to the president, its members betray their oath of office. In certain cases, such as the War Powers Resolution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, it might well have crossed that line. Keep in mind that while the Carter administration asked Congress to enact the FISA statute in 1978, Attorney General Griffin Bell emphasized that the law "does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution." And in 1994, when the Clinton administration invited Congress to expand FISA to cover physical as well as electronic searches, the associate attorney general testified: "Our seeking legislation in no way should suggest that we do not believe we have inherent authority" under the Constitution. "We do," she concluded. I'm not saying that what the president authorized was unquestionably lawful. The Supreme Court in the 1972 "Keith case" held that a warrant was required for national security wiretaps involving purely domestic targets, but expressly distinguished the case from one involving wiretapping "foreign powers" or their agents in this country. In the 1980 Truong case, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the warrantless surveillance of a foreign power, its agent or collaborators (including U.S. citizens) when the "primary purpose" of the intercepts was for "foreign intelligence" rather than law enforcement purposes. Every court of appeals that has considered the issue has upheld an inherent presidential power to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence searches; and in 2002 the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, created by the FISA statute, accepted that "the president does have that authority" and noted "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power." For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful. Section 1811 of the FISA statute recognizes that during a period of authorized war the president must have some authority to engage in electronic surveillance "without a court order." The question is whether Congress had the power to limit such authorizations to a 15-day period, which I think highly doubtful. It would be akin to Congress telling the president during wartime that he could attack a particular enemy stronghold for a maximum of 15 days. America is at war with a dangerous enemy. Since 9/11, the president, our intelligence services and our military forces have done a truly extraordinary job -- taking the war to our enemies and keeping them from conducting a single attack within this country (so far). But we are still very much at risk, and those who seek partisan political advantage by portraying efforts to monitor communications between suspected foreign terrorists and (often unknown) Americans as being akin to Nixon's "enemies lists" are serving neither their party nor their country. The leakers of this sensitive national security activity and their Capitol Hill supporters seem determined to guarantee al Qaeda a secure communications channel into this country so long as they remember to include one sympathetic permanent resident alien not previously identified by NSA or the FBI as a foreign agent on their distribution list. Ultimately, as the courts have noted, the test is whether the legitimate government interest involved -- in this instance, discovering and preventing new terrorist attacks that may endanger tens of thousands of American lives -- outweighs the privacy interests of individuals who are communicating with al Qaeda terrorists. And just as those of us who fly on airplanes have accepted intrusive government searches of our luggage and person without the slightest showing of probable cause, those of us who communicate (knowingly or otherwise) with foreign terrorists will have to accept the fact that Uncle Sam may be listening. Our Constitution is the supreme law, and it cannot be amended by a simple statute like the FISA law. Every modern president and every court of appeals that has considered this issue has upheld the independent power of the president to collect foreign intelligence without a warrant. The Supreme Court may ultimately clarify the competing claims; but until then, the president is right to continue monitoring the communications of our nation's declared enemies, even when they elect to communicate with people within our country. Mr. Turner, co-founder of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, served as counsel to the President's Intelligence Oversight Board, 1982-84. MisterOpus1 quote: Originally posted by Shakka An interesting Op-Ed piece today. I wouldn't be as apt to post it but the writer has some pretty good credentials (at least I am led to believe so). FISA vs. The Constitution I rarely trust anything coming from the WSJ op-eds anymore. They've towed the GOP party line more times than I can remember. Don't they have folks on their board who were former Admin. officials? I can't remember. Regardless, I'll keep my ad hominems at bay and look at the opinion in detail: quote: In the continuing saga of the surveillance "scandal," with some congressional Democrats denouncing President Bush as a lawbreaker and even suggesting that impeachment hearings may be in order, it is important to step back and put things in historical context. First of all, the Founding Fathers knew from experience that Congress could not keep secrets. In 1776, Benjamin Franklin and his four colleagues on the Committee of Secret Correspondence unanimously concluded that they could not tell the Continental Congress about covert assistance being provided by France to the American Revolution, because "we find by fatal experience that Congress consists of too many members to keep secrets." Wholly and totally irrelevant and a complete straw man. Not only does it matter not what members of Congress know in regards to this FISA controversy, even those who did know like Rockefeller were sworn to secrecy when they were told about it by Cheney. Regardless, again it's irrelevant who knows in Congress or anywhere in the world. It IS relevant, however, that the super secret FISA court be told about these wiretaps - and you get to tell them up to 72 hours after the fact. There is still no excuse for this. quote: When the Constitution was being ratified, John Jay -- America's most experienced diplomat and George Washington's first choice to be secretary of state -- wrote in Federalist No. 64 that there would be cases in which "the most useful intelligence" may be obtained if foreign sources could be "relieved from apprehensions of discovery," and noted there were many "who would rely on the secrecy of the president, but who would not confide in that of the Senate." He then praised the new Constitution for so distributing foreign-affairs powers that the president would be able "to manage the business of intelligence in such manner as prudence may suggest." In 1790, when the first session of the First Congress appropriated money for foreign intercourse, the statute expressly required that the president "account specifically for all such expenditures of the said money as in his judgment may be made public, and also for the amount of such expenditures as he may think it advisable not to specify." They made no demand that President Washington share intelligence secrets with them. And in 1818, when a dispute arose over a reported diplomatic mission to South America, the legendary Henry Clay told his House colleagues that if the mission had been provided for from the president's contingent fund, it would not be "a proper subject for inquiry" by Congress. Highly ing irrelevant. Why are they attempting to appeal to the Forefathers of our Constitution on this issue when the FISA laws were created in 1978? I don't give a ing rat's ass if the Forefathers felt this way or that in regards to secrecy. , many also felt it just grand to own slaves too, but times have certainly changed for the better in that regard have they not? Jesus, move the on, folks. quote: For nearly 200 years it was understood by all three branches that intelligence collection -- especially in wartime -- was an exclusive presidential prerogative vested in the president by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, John Marshall and many others recognized that the grant of "executive power" to the president included control over intelligence gathering. It was not by chance that there was no provision for congressional oversight of intelligence matters in the National Security Act of 1947. ing highly irrelevant straw man, once again. It was made crystal clear by not just the Democratic members of Congress, but Republican members of Congress that their bill to grant Bush war powers to invade either Afghanistan OR Iraq did NOT include such powers over Congress. Tom Daschle makes that abundantly clear: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5122201101.html But don't take Daschle's word, here's a few Repubs. with some sentiments of their own: 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] 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] It is quite clear this notion of Bush to illegally wiretap because he was given such broad sweeping powers from the War Resolutions is utter bull. Again, that completely undermines the nature of the FISA laws themselves, considering they are there for the specific purpose to be kept secret - no names are given and you have retroactive time to obtain a warrant. There is no excuse, period. quote: Space does not permit a discussion here of the congressional lawbreaking that took place in the wake of the Vietnam War. It is enough to observe that the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and when Congress attempts to usurp powers granted to the president, its members betray their oath of office. In certain cases, such as the War Powers Resolution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, it might well have crossed that line. I can't believe this asswipe said this. Now it's Congress' fault for the illegal wiretaps done by Bush? WTF, Shakka? quote: Keep in mind that while the Carter administration asked Congress to enact the FISA statute in 1978, Attorney General Griffin Bell emphasized that the law "does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution." And in 1994, when the Clinton administration invited Congress to expand FISA to cover physical as well as electronic searches, the associate attorney general testified: "Our seeking legislation in no way should suggest that we do not believe we have inherent authority" under the Constitution. "We do," she concluded. This idiot is attempting to spin this in a very silly way. Neither of these quotes were intended to strengthen the straw man argument that Congress is supposedly taking away the powers of the President. He does NOT carry the power under any priviledge to break FISA laws, and no War Powers granted to him gives him access to such activities, period. So far this opinion piece is pretty ing pathetic. quote: I'm not saying that what the president authorized was unquestionably lawful. The first logical thing I've seen written so far. quote: The Supreme Court in the 1972 "Keith case" held that a warrant was required for national security wiretaps involving purely domestic targets, but expressly distinguished the case from one involving wiretapping "foreign powers" or their agents in this country. In the 1980 Truong case, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the warrantless surveillance of a foreign power, its agent or collaborators (including U.S. citizens) when the "primary purpose" of the intercepts was for "foreign intelligence" rather than law enforcement purposes. Every court of appeals that has considered the issue has upheld an inherent presidential power to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence searches; and in 2002 the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, created by the FISA statute, accepted that "the president does have that authority" and noted "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power." First off, the Truong case did NOT deal with the FISA laws, and it was decided in 1978, not 1980 - the same year FISA was passed. As it was stated in that case: quote: “Truong dealt with a pre-FISA surveillance… it had no occasion to consider the application of the statute…” http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html This particular case dealt with presidental power IN THE ABSENCE of a Congressional statute. This is crucial to know because FISA specifically prohibits warrantless domestic searches that the President authorized. And the 2002 case statement again is irrelevant here - there is no statement thus far that clearly demonstrates Congress gave Bush overriding authority over FISA here with the War Powers. Bush knows it, this idiot op-ed writer knows it, and there hasn't been an argument supporting it thus far. quote: Section 1811 of the FISA statute recognizes that during a period of authorized war the president must have some authority to engage in electronic surveillance "without a court order." The question is whether Congress had the power to limit such authorizations to a 15-day period, which I think highly doubtful. It would be akin to Congress telling the president during wartime that he could attack a particular enemy stronghold for a maximum of 15 days. Complete and utter bull. This section in FISA gives Bush complete authorization to go unchecked for 15 days. After that point he can continue wireless taps, but he has to obtain a warrant within 72 hours after the fact. Why the is this so difficult? The history of FISA and Presidential requests to wiretap highly favors giving the President the warrants. There have been so very few cases of turning down by the FISA courts, but there have been some requests of modifications of warrants being asked by the FISA courts since 2003. This whole notion of stripping Bush his presidential powers, as well as the other ing stupid notion of this putting us at risk is getting ing insane. Bush and his minions can wiretap us all at any given point, but he has to have some logic in doing so. If he can't obtain that basic logic which overwhelmingly goes in the President's favor by the FISA courts, then something is wrong NOT WITH THE FISA COURTS, BUT WITH THE ING PRESIDENT'S REQUEST TO WIRETAP WHOEVER IN THE ING FIRST PLACE!!!!!!! There is no other conclusion that can be reached logically about the president's actions pertaining to this matter. The FISA court highly favors Presidential authority, and history has clearly demonstrated that. Give me a good ing reason why Bush clearly circumvented the current law. quote: America is at war with a dangerous enemy. Since 9/11, the president, our intelligence services and our military forces have done a truly extraordinary job -- taking the war to our enemies and keeping them from conducting a single attack within this country (so far). But we are still very much at risk, and those who seek partisan political advantage by portraying efforts to monitor communications between suspected foreign terrorists and (often unknown) Americans as being akin to Nixon's "enemies lists" are serving neither their party nor their country. This is coming from the same ******s who believe outing a covert CIA agent by this Administration who's sole job was to find WMD proliferation internationally during wartime is just a-ing-okay. No problem with treason here, I see. Spare me your ing hypocrisy. quote: The leakers of this sensitive national security activity and their Capitol Hill supporters seem determined to guarantee al Qaeda a secure communications channel into this country so long as they remember to include one sympathetic permanent resident alien not previously identified by NSA or the FBI as a foreign agent on their distribution list. YOU, YOU ING TREASONOUS TRAITORS. Yeah, attack the ing NYTimes who actually SAT on this story for over a year (which certainly does you s a favor) for actually demonstrating that our president is breaking the law. YOU. YOU AND DIE YOU ING UNAMERICAN S. The Bush-apology bull has got to stop. A difference of opinions is one thing - continually backing Bush at every stop, laws be damned is overboard. This isn't Communist Russia, you WSJ s. The media is here to keep our government and politicians in check. The media serves the people. It is NOT at the beck and call of the government. It is NOT government run and owned, so go yourselves if you don't like truth revealed. And it harms our security? In what way? What names were revealed? Demonstrate with absolute certainty, not speculation how revealing this illegal program authorized by our President somehow hurts our security. Be specific. And the reverse argument can be easily made. By creating such a program of illegal spying, guess what guilty terrorists are doing? Yep, their lawyers are now questioning whether or not they were being spied on illegally by Bush: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/28/politics/28legal.html You should be thanking Bush, NOT the NYTimes for that one. quote: Ultimately, as the courts have noted, the test is whether the legitimate government interest involved -- in this instance, discovering and preventing new terrorist attacks that may endanger tens of thousands of American lives -- outweighs the privacy interests of individuals who are communicating with al Qaeda terrorists. And just as those of us who fly on airplanes have accepted intrusive government searches of our luggage and person without the slightest showing of probable cause, those of us who communicate (knowingly or otherwise) with foreign terrorists will have to accept the fact that Uncle Sam may be listening. Does anyone feel statements like these are just one step away from KGB and Communist Russia? It honestly gives me a chill reading s like this who believe Bush has such King-like powers. It's just simply unreal. quote: Our Constitution is the supreme law, and it cannot be amended by a simple statute like the FISA law. What a ing moron. Yes, the Constitution is the supreme law, but courts decide and determine that law. And much to the chagrine of this asinine op-ed writer I'm sure, laws created AFTER the Constitution was written are not laws that undermine the Constitution itself. Until this idiot writer can prove otherwise (which he hasn't so far), nothing under FISA is unconstitutional. Really now, what exactly has this writer thus far demonstrated the unConstitutionality of FISA? This ing comment just came right out of the blue. Where exactly in his previous blather did he demonstrate the illegality of FISA? This is just silly. quote: Every modern president and every court of appeals that has considered this issue has upheld the independent power of the president to collect foreign intelligence without a warrant. The Supreme Court may ultimately clarify the competing claims; but until then, the president is right to continue monitoring the communications of our nation's declared enemies, even when they elect to communicate with people within our country. Much will be shown in January on this issue when we have hearings. The clinging to the idea that Bush was granted such overriding powers over FISA by the War Powers Resolution is not gonna hold water, IMO. It was pretty specific that Congress did NOT grant him this authority, and invading Iraq/Afghanistan had NOTHING to do with illegally wiretapping his own people. The President is not above the law. He took an oath to uphold it. And speaking of Constitutionality, I wonder what this author has to say about Bush's actions and the 4th Amendment? If FISA is obsolete, as we are led to believe by this douchebag, what about the 4th? quote: Mr. Turner, co-founder of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, served as counsel to the President's Intelligence Oversight Board, 1982-84. Well I can dig out a Reagonite as well. How's this guy?: quote: Bruce Fein, former Associate Deputy Attorney General under President Reagan: Bush is claiming “more power than King George III had at the time of the revolution, in asserting the theory that anything the president thinks is helpful to fighting the war against terrorism he can do.” http://www.wamu.org/audio/dr/05/12/r1051219-8075.ram Or how about an AEI scholar (very conservative group): quote: 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. http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholar...all/scholar.asp Or my favorite so far, Barron's - an extremely conservative journal: quote: “Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.” http://online.barrons.com/article/S...1760731012.html Or how about the Right-wing Federalist Society: quote: – The text of FISA §1809 is unambiguous: “A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally engages in electronic surveillance … except as authorized by statute.” – I know of no court case that has denied there is a reasonable expectation of privacy by U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens in the types of wire communications that are reportedly monitored by the NSA’s electronic surveillance program. – [I]n FISA §1811, Congress expressly contemplated warrantless wiretaps during wartime, and limited them to the first 15 days after war is declared. http://www.fed-soc.org/pdf/domesticsurveillance.pdf Or Arlen Specter: http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesun...ld/13428787.htm Lindsey Graham: quote: LINDSEY GRAHAM: If he has the authority to go around the FISA court, which is a court to accommodate the law of the war of terror, the FISA Act was–created a court set up by the chief justice of the United States to allow a rapid response to requests for surveillance activity in the war on terror. I don’t know of any legal basis to go around that. There may be some, but I’m not aware of it. And here’s the concern I have. We can’t become an outcome-based democracy. Even in a time of war, you have to follow the process, because that’s what a democracy is all about : a process. http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_121805.pdf George Will: http://townhall.com/opinion/columns.../20/179727.html All Conservative Republicans, and some of the harshest criticisms coming from them and NOT Democrats. Shakka quote: Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I rarely trust anything coming from the WSJ op-eds anymore. They've towed the GOP party line more times than I can remember. As far as right or left leaning periodicals go, WSJ has some of the least bias, most sensible writing with a minimal amount of distracting rhetoric. I recognize it's rightward leaning slant, but it's much better written than a lefty rag like the NY Times or the Washington Post. That said, if you don't read it, you'll also miss retorts from the readers who are certainly not all conservative. Certainly you'll enjoy what Russ Feingold had to say in response to the article: quote: The President and FISA's Wiretapping Limits You Dec. 20 editorial "Thank You for Wiretapping" ignores the law in order to support the president's decision to wiretap American citizens on U.S. soil without a warrant. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) specifically prohibits any wiretapping of Americans within the U.S. that is conducted without a court order either under FISA or the criminal wiretap statute. FISA appropriately permits the wiretapping of individuals working on behalf of any terrorist network, including al Qaeda, as long as the government first obtains a court order authorizing the surveillance. In an emergency, where the attorney general believes that surveillance must begin before a court order can be obtained, FISA permits the wiretap to be turned on immediately as long as the government goes to the court within 72 hours. The president has provided no evidence that FISA lacks the flexibility, speed or secrecy that terrorism investigations may require. Indeed, the administration has obtained thousands of warrants approved by the FISA court since 9/11, and it has hardly ever been turned down. If the president and the attorney general believed that further changes to FISA were needed, they should have come to Congress and requested them. The president wrongly argues that he has the inherent authority as commander in chief to authorize these wiretaps despite that prohibition, and that Congress gave him that authority when it passed the resolution authorizing the use of military force against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks. Members of Congress, even in the shadow of Sept. 11, did not think that the military force resolution was giving the president blanket authority to order warrantless wiretaps of American citizens on American soil. Congress has not granted the president that power, nor has he requested it. The assertion of inherent executive power, although a more serious argument, is also wrong. The editorial suggests that the theory has been confirmed by two court decisions. But those cases do not address the president's argument that his inherent authority trumps the clear language of FISA. Neither case decided whether or how FISA limits the president's power to order warrantless wiretaps. Rather, they address the limits that the Fourth Amendment places on warrantless wiretaps in the national security context. Here, regardless of what limits the Fourth Amendment places on the president -- an issue that has never been resolved by the Supreme Court -- there is a clear statutory prohibition that the president and attorney general have utterly ignored, but the courts will not. Astoundingly, the president asserts that periodic executive branch review provides an adequate check on the program. But Congress explicitly rejected this idea when it passed FISA. Everyone agrees that the government should wiretap terrorists, but a court should ensure that there is some evidence that the individuals being wiretapped are, in fact, terrorists. This is a fundamental protection for law-abiding Americans. It is also a classic example of the need for checks and balances that is the genius of our system of government. In addition, the president cannot plausibly argue that Congress acquiesced to this program. Although it remains unclear precisely what members of Congress were told about the program, informing a handful of congressional leaders who are prohibited from discussing what they have been told is not oversight, and congressional inaction under these extraordinary circumstances is not approval. Sen. Russ Feingold (D., Wis.) Washington quote: I'll keep my ad hominems at bay and look at the opinion in detail: Oh hell, I'm gonna call you on it anyway. You already threw out a little ad homenim only so you could "withdraw" it and look honorable! You bastard! quote: But don't take Daschle's word, here's a few Repubs. with some sentiments of their own: I would never take Tom Daschle's word, even if you paid me!;) quote: I can't believe this asswipe said this. Now it's Congress' fault for the illegal wiretaps done by Bush? WTF, Shakka? WTF, Opus?! quote: This is coming from the same ******s who believe outing a covert CIA agent by this Administration who's sole job was to find WMD proliferation internationally during wartime is just a-ing-okay. No problem with treason here, I see. Correction. Plame was a desk jockey. Wilson was supposed to find the WMD proof. Plame was outed, not Wilson. I think you put the cart before the horse on this one. quote: YOU, YOU ING TREASONOUS TRAITORS. And I say you to the treasonous traitors that want to publicly go on record saying our troops are in Iraq committing routine atrocities on a daily basis when they don't present any proof. Yeah, Kerry, I'm talking to you. Treasonous rag. The traitors are everywhere! All you have to do is spin it right and everyone is a Bennedict Arnold! quote: Yeah, attack the ing NYTimes who actually SAT on this story for over a year... Don't waste your time defending the Times as if they stand head-and-shoulders above any other shoddy journalists out there.;) quote: The media serves the people. It is NOT at the beck and call of the government. It is NOT government run and owned, so go yourselves if you don't like truth revealed. I agree somewhat. I've oft read that the media is the 4th branch of government, however the media serves itself, not the people. They realize how powerful a role they can play in shaping public opinion. Don't think for too long that your opinion shapes the media. quote: The President is not above the law. He took an oath to uphold it. And speaking of Constitutionality, I wonder what this author has to say about Bush's actions and the 4th Amendment? If FISA is obsolete, as we are led to believe by this douchebag, what about the 4th? I certainly agree. The fact that he had this whole 72 hour statute of limitations after the fact disturbs me. If you have a loophole, at least ing use it right. quote: Or my favorite so far, Barron's - an extremely conservative journal: I take it you don't read Barron's much. It's conservative in that it's purely a capitalistic/economic piece of literature. However, rarely do it's editors ever have much to say about the political realm (with the exception of an occasional blurb from Alan Abelson in his opening letter of each edition. I ing hate reading Barron's. MisterOpus1 quote: Originally posted by Shakka As far as right or left leaning periodicals go, WSJ has some of the least bias, most sensible writing with a minimal amount of distracting rhetoric.{/QUOTE] You can't be serious, Shakka. [QUOTE]I recognize it's rightward leaning slant, "Right-leaning"? , it doesn't lean to the Right, it jumps both feet into the ass of the President. Please tell me you're not being serious. That's like me saying how "balanced" Tom Paine or The Nation is, even though it might be a bit "Left-leaning". quote: but it's much better written than a lefty rag like the NY Times or the Washington Post. That said, if you don't read it, you'll also miss retorts from the readers who are certainly not all conservative. Certainly you'll enjoy what Russ Feingold had to say in response to the article: I do read it from time to time as much as I can. The thing I do credit WSJ for is their balanced and highly credible journalism, not their op-eds. But let's do an experiment - let's take a week out of any given month (starting today even), and let's see just how many op-eds lean left vs. right on any given subject. I'm willin to wager a six-pack of my favorite beer that the ratio is somewhere at least 3/1 in favor of the right. If indeed that is the case, that's hardly "leaning" - that's falling. quote: Oh hell, I'm gonna call you on it anyway. You already threw out a little ad homenim only so you could "withdraw" it and look honorable! You bastard! Well, at least I tried.:D quote: I would never take Tom Daschle's word, even if you paid me!;) I didn't like the guy much either, but for very different reasons - you should take his word. He kissed up to the GOP on so many ing different measures and bills. Christ, he's half the reason why the Dems. are being bent over right now in the Senate. He was weak as , and thought he could actually compromise with these GOP s in the Senate, so he gave into their needs all the time. The result was they turned around and ed him good. He not only underestimated the GOP, he actually thought he could be buddy-buddy with them. They don't make polls long enough to ram up asses like Daschle's. But you don't have to take his word for it - there's plenty of Republicans that don't agree with what Bush is doing that I listed. Here's another one from this weekend that, at the very least, feels it should definitely be investigated: quote: BLITZER: So you want hearings? You want hearings? LUGAR: I do. I think this is an appropriate time, without going back and should the president have ever tried to listen to a call coming from Afghanistan, probably of course. And in the first few weeks we made many concessions in the Congress because we were at war and we were under attack. We still have the possibility of that going on so we don’t want to obviate all of this, but I think we want to see what in the course of time really works best and the FISA Act has worked pretty well from the time of President Carter’s day to the current time. From CNN's Late edition with Wolf Blitzer Not to mention your good ol' buddy from the NYTimes, Bill Safire: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/01.html#a6539 This simply can't be ignored and written off as a "paranoid liberalism" as Bush ass-kisser Kristol writes: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte...06/534yxceu.asp There's plenty voices of concern on the Right as well, and rightfully so. quote: WTF, Opus?! WTF, Shakka? quote: Correction. Plame was a desk jockey. Wilson was supposed to find the WMD proof. Plame was outed, not Wilson. I think you put the cart before the horse on this one. Correction, Plame's work as a covert operative for the CIA was to create spy networks to find WMD proliferation internationally. You're right that Wilson went down to find whether or not the evidence given to the CIA about the Niger reports were authentic, and he came back up and mentioned they were not. But Plame herself was more than just a "desk jockey" Shakka - Fitzgerald clearly outlined her status in his news conference in busting Libby. Her sole purpose was to hunt down international WMD proliferation. You're talking to a Plamegate junky here, don't think I don't know the material on this topic, bub. quote: And I say you to the treasonous traitors that want to publicly go on record saying our troops are in Iraq committing routine atrocities on a daily basis when they don't present any proof. Yeah, Kerry, I'm talking to you. Treasonous rag. The traitors are everywhere! All you have to do is spin it right and everyone is a Bennedict Arnold! Well you can try to spin what Kerry had said, but it doesn't quite work in your favor. What did Kerry actually say?: quote: "there is no reason ... that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- the historical customs, religious customs." Then you had Limbaugh, Hannity, and every other GOP blowhard claiming Kerry called the U.S. troops "terrorists", even though what he said was ing dead on and categorized NO ONE as terrorists. Surely we know the word play and semantics between "terorrizing" and what we associate as "terrorists"? But does that stop the lying sack of s from the Right attempting to spin the out of things? What did the International Committee of the Red Cross say about this when it was leaked to the AP?: quote: "Arresting authorities entered houses usually after dark, breaking down doors, waking up residents roughly, yelling orders, forcing family members into one room under military guard while searching the rest of the house and further breaking doors, cabinets and other property," the report said. "Sometimes they arrested all adult males present in a house, including elderly, handicapped or sick people," it said. "Treatment often included pushing people around, insulting, taking aim with rifles, punching and kicking and striking with rifles." http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c...0712EDT0464.DTL Or how about the United States Institute of Peace?: quote: As attacks by the insurgency increased, coalition forces relied more and more on using speed and armor in their patrols, thereby reducing positive contacts with local citizens. More significantly, as U.S. combat troops were used to search homes, operate traffic checkpoints, and control public demonstrations, tensions increased, further reducing popular support for the CPA. Iraqis specifically complained that soldiers searched private areas without permission, entered homes without men present, and addressed wives and daughters directly, offensive acts in a conservative Muslim society. Further, the growing risk of insurgent attacks resulted in more frequent incidents of U.S. troops dealing harshly with and even firing on Iraqis. Human Rights Watch reported that U.S. military forces killed at least ninety-four Iraqi civilians at checkpoints and during house raids in Baghdad between June 1 and September 30, 2003. Since U.S. activity was concentrated mainly in Sunni areas, insults, abuse, and violations of local codes of honor only bolstered the number of those willing to join the insurgency, perpetuating the cycle of violence. http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr137.html Or how about this article from the WaPost last Jan?: quote: Often, soldiers on raids find illegal weapons, ringleaders and vital information that can prevent more attacks. But often, the raids turn up little and leave hard feelings among civilians who resent foreign soldiers bursting into their homes, breaking doors and gates and pointing guns at their heads. They resent these men catching their wives and daughters in their bedclothes. They resent them barking orders, telling them to get on the ground, invading their homes, emptying drawers and turning over mattresses. http://informationclearinghouse.info/article7801.htm These are American-led raids, Shakka, and you tell me exactly how Kerry's words were any ing different than what was described above. quote: Don't waste your time defending the Times as if they stand head-and-shoulders above any other shoddy journalists out there.;) To which I certainly agree to an extent, especially with Judy Miller's lovely coverage of Iraq's WMD and nuke capabilities. quote: I agree somewhat. I've oft read that the media is the 4th branch of government, however the media serves itself, not the people. They realize how powerful a role they can play in shaping public opinion. Don't think for too long that your opinion shapes the media. Well I guess I'm a bit of an optimist and still believe that our opinions still count. But I do have a side of realism and understand the media does tend to have a mind of its own as well. quote: I take it you don't read Barron's much. It's conservative in that it's purely a capitalistic/economic piece of literature. However, rarely do it's editors ever have much to say about the political realm (with the exception of an occasional blurb from Alan Abelson in his opening letter of each edition. I ing hate reading Barron's. Well you got me on that one - no I don't read Barron's. I skimmed through it once I saw that article though, and it seemed pretty Right-leaning on most issues, esp. economics (which really is seemingly the rule and not the exception nowadays). But there's more trouble afoot for Bush - that darned NYTimes just revealed that Bush may not have gotten the Justice Dept. approval on his tactics. IOW, the Justice Dept. questioned the legality of Bush's actions: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/politics/01spy.html He tried to get the signature of assistant Deputy AG because Ashcroft was recovering from surgery, but the guy said no dice so they ran to Ashcroft in the recovery room begging his signature: quote: WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 - A top Justice Department official objected in 2004 to aspects of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and refused to sign on to its continued use amid concerns about its legality and oversight, according to officials with knowledge of the tense internal debate. The concerns appear to have played a part in the temporary suspension of the secret program. The concerns prompted two of President Bush's most senior aides - Andrew H. Card Jr., his chief of staff, and Alberto R. Gonzales, then White House counsel and now attorney general - to make an emergency visit to a Washington hospital in March 2004 to discuss the program's future and try to win the needed approval from Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was hospitalized for gallbladder surgery, the officials said. The unusual meeting was prompted because Mr. Ashcroft's top deputy, James B. Comey, who was acting as attorney general in his absence, had indicated he was unwilling to give his approval to certifying central aspects of the program, as required under the White House procedures set up to oversee it. With Mr. Comey unwilling to sign off on the program, the White House went to Mr. Ashcroft - who had been in the intensive care unit at George Washington University Hospital with pancreatitis and was housed under unusually tight security - because "they needed him for certification," according to an official briefed on the episode. The official, like others who discussed the issue, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the program. Mr. Comey declined to comment, and Mr. Gonzales could not be reached. Accounts differed as to exactly what was said at the hospital meeting between Mr. Ashcroft and the White House advisers. But some officials said that Mr. Ashcroft, like his deputy, appeared reluctant to give Mr. Card and Mr. Gonzales his authorization to continue with aspects of the program in light of concerns among some senior government officials about whether the proper oversight was in place at the security agency and whether the president had the legal and constitutional authority to conduct such an operation. It is unclear whether the White House ultimately persuaded Mr. Ashcroft to give his approval to the program after the meeting or moved ahead without it. The White House and Mr. Ashcroft, through a spokeswoman, declined to comment Saturday on the hospital meeting. Why is that important?: quote: President Bush, in acknowledging the existence of the program in a televised appearance two weeks ago, said that tight controls had been imposed over the surveillance operation and that the program was reviewed every 45 days by top government officials, including at the Justice Department. "The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the attorney general and the counsel to the president," Mr. Bush said and quote: What is known is that in early 2004, about the time of the hospital visit, the White House suspended parts of the program for several months and moved ahead with more stringent requirements on the security agency on how the program was used, in part to guard against abuses. The concerns within the Justice Department appear to have led, at least in part, to the decision to suspend and revamp the program, officials said. The Justice Department then oversaw a secret audit of the surveillance program. Read the rest - it's an eye opener. This whole episode really is an eye opener, but it's part of Bush's attempts to supercede Congress and gain as much Executive power as possible - to which the Conservative Supreme Court has already struck down on multiple occasions. Shakka Some interesting historical perspective. quote: A Real Surveillance Scandal January 10, 2006; Page A14 Eternal vigilance, it's been rightly said, is the price of liberty. But Americans are not well served by politicians in Washington who keep crying wolf over imagined violations of their civil rights. The latest hysteria surrounds the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping of terror suspects. Congress is planning hearings, and even many usually sound legislators continue to question the White House. But it's become clear in the weeks since the story broke that Administrations of both parties as well as the courts have always held that warrants are not required for such intelligence gathering. We'd also have an easier time taking our solons seriously if they'd ever demonstrated they understand what the real abuse of surveillance powers looks like. A good place to start would be stripping J. Edgar Hoover's name from FBI headquarters. For at least 30 years, Congress has known full well that Hoover didn't serve nearly five decades as FBI director because he was indispensable, but because he'd amassed potentially embarrassing information on the elected leaders who might have wanted to remove him from his post. Hoover was also willing to use the FBI illegitimately to spy on the politically difficult likes of Martin Luther King Jr. It has even been suggested that Hoover engineered Lyndon Johnson's nomination for the Vice Presidency by threatening JFK with the revelation of his extramarital affairs. That Hoover's name continues to adorn FBI headquarters needlessly shames every one of the honest civil servants who report for work there on a daily basis. But don't just take our word about Hoover. Ask federal judge Laurence Silberman, who as acting Attorney General in the 1970s was one of the few Americans to examine Hoover's files after his death and who, having served as an appeals judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, knows a thing or two about the use and abuse of executive power. Judge Silberman has described Hoover as a "sewer" and "the worst public servant in our history." Last summer we published an op-ed in which the judge elaborated on what he'd seen in those files, though no one in Congress seemed to pick up on it. Contrast Hoover's abuses with the program the Bush Administration's critics have described. No one has found any evidence of any spying recently on anybody's domestic political enemies. Instead, the "controversial" NSA surveillance has been directed at people with unambiguous al Qaeda connections. Nor was it a secret in the sense of being hidden from other parts of government. Key members of the relevant Congressional oversight committees were informed at least 12 times. The chief judges of the FISA court knew about it. The process was routinely reviewed by Justice Department lawyers and by the Attorney General himself. And the President examined and reauthorized the program every 45 days or so. In short, if there were any real abuses going on here, there were plenty of people in the loop and able to blow the whistle. Instead, we've only heard from people who, for reasons of partisanship or ignorance of the President's Constitutional war-fighting powers, object to warrantless surveillance per se. Dressing up such a separation of powers dispute in the language of scandal, as is happening now, serves no one but our common enemies. After all, vigilance in defense of liberty means vigilance against foreign bad guys too. If Congress wants to demonstrate its concern about the potential misuse of surveillance power, it can rename the FBI building and put would-be lawbreakers on notice that they will not be remembered fondly. But Congress should also leave honest Presidents alone to perform their Constitutional duty to defend the homeland. Renegade So the fact that the head of the FBI abused his powers several decades ago justifies, a posteri, the Bush administration's usurpation of the legal process over the past couple of years? Is that really what this article is suggesting? That because there have been worse abuses of power in history, that we should overlook this one? Furthermore: quote: the "controversial" NSA surveillance has been directed at people with unambiguous al Qaeda connections. If the surveillance was uniformly directed towards those with "unambiguous" al Qaeda connections, then why did Bush feel the need to usurp the established legal process? I can think of only two reasons: There wasn't sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant to conduct the surveillance. The administration considered itself to be above the constraints of the US legal process. If you can think of any other reason why this surveillance might have been undertaken outside the boundaries of legality, then I would like to hear it. Given the historical permissiveness of the FISA court, I can honestly think of no other reasons why the Bush administration may have conducted itself in such a way. Either reason, incidentally, would surely constitute solid grounds for a thorough investigation and, potentially, impeachment. quote: Nor was it a secret in the sense of being hidden from other parts of government. Key members of the relevant Congressional oversight committees were informed at least 12 times. The chief judges of the FISA court knew about it. The process was routinely reviewed by Justice Department lawyers and by the Attorney General himself. And the President examined and reauthorized the program every 45 days or so. Presuming that this is true (I haven't been following the specifics of the case closely enough to know for sure - I'm thinking that Opus will give us his thoughts on the matter shortly, though ;)), I'm not sure how it changes anything. The fact that potentially dozens of people may have been involved in overseeing an illegal activity, does not change the fact that it was illegal to begin with. Those involved should be investigated for any potential wrongdoings. If there is an investigation that clears any hint of illegal activity, then fine - but there should be an innvestigation to establish this with certainty. As I'm sure you'll agree, those involved in breaking the law should be made accountable for it. quote: After all, vigilance in defense of liberty means vigilance against foreign bad guys too. The law doesn't prevent spying against bad guys, it prevents spying against people who might not be bad guys. The Bush administration will be (and has been) trying to spin this issue in terms of it trying to keep tabs on the "bad guys", but that really isn't the issue at all. No judge in the land will suggest for a second that the administration does not have the right to spy on those who it has reasonable cause to suspect are intent on inflicting harm on the citizens of the US. The issue is that the government does not have any right to spy on its citizens without valid cause: if the cause is there (that is, if - as Bush asserts - these people are actually demonstrably calling up al Qaeda from the US), then this should be demonstrated to the extremely permissive court that was set up to streamline the authorisation process on these sorts of matters. If you don't have a case to present to the court, then what possible cause do you have to spy on one of your own citizens? quote: But Congress should also leave honest Presidents alone to perform their Constitutional duty to defend the homeland. Holy ing . 1) President Bush is honest? 2) Presidents shouldn't be made accountable, to some degree, to the democratically elected congress or to the judiciary system? Is this a democracy with checks and balances, or is this a dictatorship with four year terms? If Bush did something illegal, then he should be made accountable for it. No amount of partisan spin can change that. Shakka I was actually more interested in the Hoover commentary and how it makes this current media "fiasco" look like more of a fiesta.;) And I personally think that Bush is much more honest than your average Joe Congressman. That doesn't mean he's flawless. Renegade quote: Originally posted by Shakka I was actually more interested in the Hoover commentary and how it makes this current media "fiasco" look like more of a fiesta.;) Like I said: quote: Originally posted by Renegade So the fact that the head of the FBI abused his powers several decades ago justifies, a posteri, the Bush administration's usurpation of the legal process over the past couple of years? Is that really what this article is suggesting? That because there have been worse abuses of power in history, that we should overlook this one? People have done ty things in the past. That doesn't excuse marginally less ty things in the present. quote: And I personally think that Bush is much more honest than your average Joe Congressman. That doesn't mean he's flawless. Given that half the Republicans in congress are currently associated with the funnelling of dirty money, I'm not sure that that's really saying much. occrider Allegations that plenty were involved on the wiretapping and thus it's "ok" have been rebutted. Those on the know in Congress voiced their opposition, however, were restrained from speaking of their concerns publically due to secrecy constraints. Congress's non-partisan research arm has investigated the issue and they seem to conclude that Bush broke the law. quote: Report Rebuts Bush on Spying Domestic Action's Legality Challenged By Carol D. Leonnig Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, January 7, 2006; Page A01 A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments. The Congressional Research Service's report rebuts the central assertions made recently by Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales about the president's authority to order secret intercepts of telephone and e-mail exchanges between people inside the United States and their contacts abroad. The findings, the first nonpartisan assessment of the program's legality to date, prompted Democratic lawmakers and civil liberties advocates to repeat calls yesterday for Congress to conduct hearings on the monitoring program and attempt to halt it. The 44-page report said that Bush probably cannot claim the broad presidential powers he has relied upon as authority to order the secret monitoring of calls made by U.S. citizens since the fall of 2001. Congress expressly intended for the government to seek warrants from a special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before engaging in such surveillance when it passed legislation creating the court in 1978, the CRS report said. The report also concluded that Bush's assertion that Congress authorized such eavesdropping to detect and fight terrorists does not appear to be supported by the special resolution that Congress approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which focused on authorizing the president to use military force. "It appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations here," the authors of the CRS report wrote. The administration's legal justification "does not seem to be . . . well-grounded," they said. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has pledged to hold hearings on the program, which was first revealed in news accounts last month, and the judges of the FISA court have demanded a classified briefing about the program, which is scheduled for Monday. "This report contradicts the president's claim that his spying on Americans was legal," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), one of the lawmakers who asked the CRS to research the issue. "It looks like the president's wiretapping was not only illegal, but also ensnared innocent Americans who did nothing more than place a phone call." Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the president and the administration believe the program is on firm legal footing. "The national security activities described by the president were conducted in accord with the law and provide a critical tool in the war on terror that saves lives and protects civil liberties at the same time," he said. A spokesman for the National Security Agency was not available for a comment yesterday. Other administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the CRS reached some erroneous legal conclusions, erring on the side of a narrow interpretation of what constitutes military force and when the president can exercise his war powers. Bush has said that he has broad powers in times of war and must exercise them to target not only "enemies across the world" but also "terrorists here at home." The administration has argued, starting in 2002 briefs to the FISA court, that the "war on terror" is global and indefinite, effectively removing the limits of wartime authority -- traditionally the times and places of imminent or actual battle. Some law professors have been skeptical of the president's assertions, and several said yesterday that the report's conclusions were expected. "Ultimately, the administration's position is not persuasive," said Carl W. Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor and an expert on constitutional law. "Congress has made it pretty clear it has legislated pretty comprehensively on this issue with FISA," he said, referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. "And there begins to be a pattern of unilateral executive decision making. Time and again, there's the executive acting alone without consulting the courts or Congress." Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the report makes it clear that Congress has exerted power over domestic surveillance. He urged Congress to address what he called the president's abuse of citizens' privacy rights and the larger issue of presidential power. "These are absolutely central questions in American government: What exactly are the authorities vested in the president, and is he complying with the law?" Rotenberg said. The report includes 1970s-era quotations from congressional committees that were then uncovering years of domestic spying abuses by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI against those suspected of communist sympathies, American Indians, Black Panthers and other activists. Lawmakers were very disturbed at how routinely FBI agents had listened in on U.S. citizens' phone calls without following any formal procedures. As they drafted FISA and created its court, the lawmakers warned then that only strong legislation, debated in public, could stop future administrations from eavesdropping. "This evidence alone should demonstrate the inappropriateness of relying solely on executive branch discretion to safeguard civil liberties," they wrote. The lawmakers noted that Congress's intelligence committees could provide some checks and balances to protect privacy rights but that their power was limited in the face of an administration arguing that intelligence decisions must remain top secret. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6010601772.html I mean christ, the defense of Bush on this issue not only breaks with conservative ideaology, but the arguments used in his defense are laughable at best. MisterOpus1 quote: Originally posted by Shakka Some interesting historical perspective. Shakka, again this article DOES NOT PERTAIN to the question at hand - did Bush violate FISA laws by wiretapping a suspect WITHOUT obtaining a search warrant either in advance or up to 72 hours after the fact? We pretty much know for certain he has done this, and his excuse which I dissected earlier as blatantly false is that he was given such sweeping powers under Article 2. He was NOT given those powers and he ing knows it. And by posting such arguments that do not pertain to this central core question, it seems the Conservative Bush backers unfortunately know it as well. Jesus, even by wingnut Senator Brownback doesn't buy into the notion anymore: http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/d...aises_concerns/ I mean, , the article starts off talking about just how much of an Hoover was, and how devious the ****** was. Well man, he and Nixon were the primary reasons WHY FISA was created in the ing first place! Then there's precious nuggets like this: quote: Instead, the "controversial" NSA surveillance has been directed at people with unambiguous al Qaeda connections. Nor was it a secret in the sense of being hidden from other parts of government. And we know that because, what, Bush says so? Because everything Bush has said about anything pertaining to national security is true, and we therefore trust everything he should say, right? I mean, why would he lie to us? But aside from that, this does not in any way grant him power to overlook FISA laws of obtaining a warrant on the bad guys up to 72 hours AFTER THE ING FACT! There is no lawful, legal means of Bush's rational of handwaving away the law like this. The only logical conclusion one can come up with is he either didn't have enough evidence to support the wiretap in the first place. This is interesting when you add some history behind FISA: quote: From 1979 through 2002 there were 15,264 surveillance warrants issued by the FISA court, clearly displaying that the process is quite favorable to the government seeking such wiretaps. Further supporting this is the amount of surveillance warrants which were rejected during that same 23 year period, ZERO. That is right; in a 23 year period not one request was denied. From 2002 until now, only four such requests were denied. http://www.opednews.com/articles/op..._3a_the_rul.htm Pure speculation on my part, but it seems to me that Bush didn't like being turned down, esp. considering no one ever got turned down prior to him. It makes one wonder - why did Bush get turned down? Then it further makes one wonder - could this be the reason why Bush said " you" to the FISA courts and decided to circumvent them in the first place? This wreaks of lack of evidence on Bush's part. quote: Key members of the relevant Congressional oversight committees were informed at least 12 times. Irrelevant, what matters is what the FISA courts saw (which was nothing). Furthermore, those select members of Congress who did see it were sworn to secrecy (meaning it was top secret and they couldn't say to no one, not even their staff members) on the whole matter. quote: The chief judges of the FISA court knew about it I want to see support for this statement. This is pure bull as far as I know. Show me a reference as to the FISA courts knowing that Bush was illegally circumventing their laws. And if I were to play devil's advocate for a minute, if any FISA judges saw this, does that negate the fact that Bush was still acting illegally by not obtaining a warrant in those courts up to 72 hours after the fact? quote: The chief judges of the FISA court knew about it. The process was routinely reviewed by Justice Department lawyers and by the Attorney General himself. And the President examined and reauthorized the program every 45 days or so. Well to the Justice Department's credit, they had their reservations on Bush's program as well, so the author is either blatantly obfuscating this or outright ing lying: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/p...2d92770&ei=5070 Notice how Bush stamped his feet when he couldn't get what he wanted from Justice Deputy, so he ing when to Ashcroft's SURGERY BED to get Ashcroft's signature on the deal, to which even Ashcroft didn't like it. Read that article, it's revealing as hell to the lengths this Administration went to. And the fact that Bush signed off on the program every 45 days somehow strengthens this douchebag's argument? Huh? Yeah, that's good, because the person breaking the law continues to sign off on his program that's breaking the law, therefore it's okay. quote: In short, if there were any real abuses going on here, there were plenty of people in the loop and able to blow the whistle. Instead, we've only heard from people who, for reasons of partisanship or ignorance of the President's Constitutional war-fighting powers, object to warrantless surveillance per se. Didn't I just list a load of Conservatives who objected to this action by Bush? Are they "partisan" as well you ing douchebag? (the author, not you). Is Brownback a partisan? Is he ignorant of the President's Constitutional war-fighting powers (which clearly do not define circumventing FISA laws and illegally wiretapping American citizens without a warrant up to 72 hours after the fact, BTW)? quote: Dressing up such a separation of powers dispute in the language of scandal, as is happening now, serves no one but our common enemies. You ing sack of . I'm so ing tired of you war-mongering chicken nutsacks who wrap yourselves up in the flag and call anyone else who doesn't agree with you "unAmerican", or "helping the enemies", or stupid along those lines. You are anything but patriotic and American. And if you support treasonous acts from slimy s like Rove, and if you support illegal activities that directly violate our personal rights and liberties, you do not stand for my country. You are nothing shy of a demented traitor. You don't even deserve to be on the same soil as the rest of us. These ing bastards make me sick to the ing core. But tell me, sir douchebag, in your ed up twisted logic, how is revealing the administration illegally spying on American citizens without obtaining warrants, instead of legally spying on people AFTER obtaining such warrants or in this particular instance obtaining a warrant 72 hours AFTER starting a wiretap, somehow and in any ing way damages national security. quote: But Congress should also leave honest Presidents alone to perform their Constitutional duty to defend the homeland. Yes, I'm sure the author would love to give the President absolute authority on the matter. I wonder if he would feel the same way if Gore was in power? Regardless, he must have misunderstand the fact that Congress does have a say in the matter of defending the homeland, and that the President's powers are not absolute by any sense of the word or Constitutionally. What a ing idiot. Finally, please reconcile this Bush statement in 2004: quote: April 20, 2004: "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." - George W. Bush, July 14, 2004: "A couple of things that are very important for you to understand about the Patriot Act. First of all, any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order. In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order." http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2005122...cksintelligence CLICK TO RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5

Privacy Statement