|
So A Question to Republicans: If Bush Broke the Law With FISA Should He be Impeached?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
Yup. Simple yes or no. As a follow up question you can try to tackle these:
Why did Bush personally try to stop the story from being leaked if he was confident on his executive authority over the legislature?
| quote: |
Bush’s Snoopgate
The president was so desperate to kill The New York Times’ eavesdropping story, he summoned the paper’s editor and publisher to the Oval Office. But it wasn’t just out of concern about national security.
WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY
By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek
Updated: 6:17 p.m. ET Dec. 19, 2005
Dec. 19, 2005 - Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate—he made it seem as if those who didn’t agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda—but it will not work. We’re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement
No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting,
but one can only imagine the president’s desperation.
The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists—in fact, all American Muslims, period—have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that “the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.” But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a “shameful act,” it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab.
No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.
What is especially perplexing about this story is that the 1978 law set up a special court to approve eavesdropping in hours, even minutes, if necessary. In fact, the law allows the government to eavesdrop on its own, then retroactively justify it to the court, essentially obtaining a warrant after the fact. Since 1979, the FISA court has approved tens of thousands of eavesdropping requests and rejected only four. There was no indication the existing system was slow—as the president seemed to claim in his press conference—or in any way required extra-constitutional action.
This will all play out eventually in congressional committees and in the United States Supreme Court. If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced. Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974.
In the meantime, it is unlikely that Bush will echo President Kennedy in 1961. After JFK managed to tone down a New York Times story by Tad Szulc on the Bay of Pigs invasion, he confided to Times editor Turner Catledge that he wished the paper had printed the whole story because it might have spared him such a stunning defeat in Cuba.
This time, the president knew publication would cause him great embarrassment and trouble for the rest of his presidency. It was for that reason—and less out of genuine concern about national security—that George W. Bush tried so hard to kill the New York Times story.
© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/
|
And if the FISA courts only felt the need to reject 4 out of 18,722 warrants since the 70's, why did he feel the need, in 2003, to override FISA, the constitution, and the legislature by using executive "priviledge" to proceed with intelligence gathering operations without warrants? Why didn't he go the democratic route by, you know, asking congress to pass new laws to grant him priviledge? Does this administration understand the concept of democracy, the seperation of powers, and the constitution? Or does that all fall by the wayside to partisans?
http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap...fisa_stats.html |
|
|
| stevieboy32808 |
Gosh darnett if I was a Republican...ahh what the heck I'll answer it: Yes to impeachment.
I am aware of a law that was passed back in the 70's which allows the President to engage in domestic spying, but there's one stipulation in which he violated. It's all a big blur to me, regardless, hiding the matter makes it worse.
The article would have been better if they called it Spygate. Meh, what are you gonna do. |
|
|
| occrider |
FYI, here is the law that was potentially broken:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Unless of course authorized by congress. Last I checked, however, FISA was explicit in its permissible guidelines.
Why do our founding fathers support the terrorists? |
|
|
| stevieboy32808 |
| quote: |
No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. |
Oops, I was referring to this law. But you're right on the money about that amendment though. I mixed this law and the amendment together. The stipulation is the amendment you pointed out that Bush has broken.
| quote: |
What is especially perplexing about this story is that the 1978 law set up a special court to approve eavesdropping in hours, even minutes, if necessary. In fact, the law allows the government to eavesdrop on its own... |
As much as I dislike Bush, this will work in his favor. Basically this gives him full authority on domestic spying. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by stevieboy32808
As much as I dislike Bush, this will work in his favor. Basically this gives him full authority on domestic spying. |
Quite the contrary, those provisions of FISA make it all the more difficult for Bush to justify his actions. When you need a wiretap, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows you to apply for one. When you need it post-haste, FISA allows you to place the tap immediately and retroactively clear it with a judge 72 hours later. There are additional provisions that allow greater latitude in the aftermath of an attack. Furthermore, if the FISA court rejects a warrant there’s a FISA appeals court that would immediately hear the case. If the appeals court rejects the warrant it would undergo immediate hearing by the supreme court of the United States. The government has a million chances to get a warrant and a 30 year history that illustrates that they can get warrants. The law strikes a balance between broad executive powers and substantive oversight. It's a check on totalitarianism. What Bush has done is unilaterally decide the oversight unnecessary. Given the shape and safeguards of FISA, there was no operational need to evade it. It was an exclusively ideological decision in service of unlimited executive powers and the expansion of government.
Here are the questions I want to know, given the fact that the FISA court has only rejected 4 warrants in the past 25 years, what kind of people is the bush administration spying on that they couldn’t secure warrants otherwise? Why are people in the NSA refusing to carry out these spy initiatives because they think it’s illegal? Who exactly are they spying on??? Given this administration’s already established database of “political enemies” this whole thing stinks to high heaven. |
|
|
| occrider |
Btw, how sleazy is this guy that he lies right to our faces:
President Bush, April 20th, 2004: "Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
-Remarks by the President in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
I think most Americans will content themselves that this is just about getting the terrorists and therefore leave it at that when Bush says "Trust Me" that is pretty scary actually because who knows where else this will migrate to. It is troubling that there is no oversight for any of these actions on the part of this administration at any level. Its only decades after a presidency that the true details usually emerge about such actions by an administration in power.
It doesn't even matter anymore anyway because the Democrats will just jump in line with this in the end and get nowhere with it as they bumble along with the likes of Joe Lieberman in cowtow. God I need to form a third party because these two are piss horrid. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| When you read things like this, and what was in the "FBI gone nuts and invading privacy (Patriot Act abused)" thread, then you are really confused why there are still any ppl whatsoever supporting this guy :conf: |
|
|
| Renegade |
On the one hand I find this whole scenario to be unthinkable, on the other hand I really can't think of anything this administration could do that would suprise me anymore. It seems like every week there's a new scandal brought to light with this government and the tragic irony is that this particular scandal - the only one that could significantly damage the GOP and the president, providing the Dems grow some teeth at some point over the next few months - is actually quite minor compared to the rest.
I mean, just in the past couple of weeks we've heard about them torturing hundreds of terror suspects in Europe (and refusing to legislate against such acts of torture), refusing to agree to any "binding" targets over the impending environmental crisis and refusing to reduce the (vast majority of) agricultural subsidies and tariffs that are keeping the third world mired in poverty. This is happening while the GOP's senate majority leader is being indicted for the misappropriation of campaign funds, the vice-president's chief-of-staff is facing charges of perjury and the president's senior advisor is facing charges over deliberately leaking the name of a covert CIA agent for political gain. Oh and this is to say nothing of the hundreds of foreign nationals still being incarcerated by the government on foreign soil without charges being laid (let alone proven), or the war that was capriciously waged against a sovereign nation in reliance of, shall we say, "questionable" evidence, which is to say nothing of all the UN protocol and international law they showed utter disdain for in the process. In all seriousness, if Bush can escape his second term having only been impeached for being too stupid to consult a court before willfully trampling all over the rights of his own citizens, then he can count himself lucky. His entire presidency has been a grotesque farce and he deserves to be made accountable for a great deal more than he ever will be. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| ^^ Very true :) I guess the difference is that now it seems like he is obviously breaking the law, but yeah sad it takes something like this... |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
^^ Very true :) I guess the difference is that now it seems like he is obviously breaking the law, but yeah sad it takes something like this... |
But that's just it. If they're going to get him at all, then it looks like they're going to get him on some relatively minor legal infraction (well, minor by this government's standards at least - I mean, it's nothing as serious as a blowjob, but illegally spying on your own citizens is still a pretty serious charge, would you believe), which means that the public most likely won't properly grasp the gravity of the charges ("Spying on terrorists? What's wrong with that?") and the rest of the he's done / doing is just going to get buried. In fact, that's been more or less the story of his secord term to date - one scandal taking another scandal off the front pages before the general public has really had the opportunity to grasp what's happening or to properly understand why they should be outraged. I mean what's happening with Libby, Rove and DeLay right now would almost be enough to bring about the collapse of an entire party in a democratic nation, but who has the time to focus on that when we have European torture camps and big-brother spying tactics going on at the same time?
So who wants to take bets on how long it will be before this scandal is forgotten as another emerges? Who wants to bet that Bush's approval rating will remain at 40%, regardless of how serious this scandal becomes? Who wants to give me odds on the likelihood of the same old Republican apologists ignoring this scandal - as they have every other scandal - based on a political rationale that truly only they will ever understand? I can only hope that I'm being unreasonably pesimistic here, but Bush has been let off too many times for me to believe that this issue will bring about a different result. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
So who wants to take bets on how long it will be before this scandal is forgotten as another emerges? Who wants to bet that Bush's approval rating will remain at 40%, regardless of how serious this scandal becomes? Who wants to give me odds on the likelihood of the same old Republican apologists ignoring this scandal - as they have every other scandal - based on a political rationale that truly only they will ever understand? I can only hope that I'm being unreasonably pesimistic here, but Bush has been let off too many times for me to believe that this issue will bring about a different result. |
Renegade I think you fail to grasp or appreciate the divergence of opinions in America, what people hear in Nashville, Birmingham, and many of the states in the center of this union is not exactly what is heard on the two Coasts and big cities in between. In this I mean that while the media is accessible if people are interested in other viewpoints, they don't care to access it.
So people may spend all day listening to conservative talk radio and the views it expresses or liberal programs and the views it expresses, drawing battle lines with no interest in rational thought or compromise in opinions expressed. I mean could you imagine Rush Limbaugh or that annoying Ann Coulter supporting a Democratic Party viewpoint or Michael Moore praising Bush, my point exactly.
The reality is that until there is more than the simple two party system in this nation with a strong viable third option this black and white viewpoint of issues will continue in this nation. I have grown tired of it and frankly tune out of politics in recent months, because its a broken record of farcical commentaries that have little reasoning any longer and lack profound objective criticisms. |
|
|
|
|
