Defiant Bush admits breaking law

[FlaSoxxJim]

That might be true because the precedence had already been set, if you know what I mean.  I think this has been done for 20 years or more, and was just now blown out of the water because Bush is the man they want to take down.  JMO, of course.

You do understand that the documents show that the NSA began its new policy of holding onto the names and numbers of US citizens they tapped shortly AFTER Bush took office, right? And if so, I'm confused as to what precident for bypassing

judicial review to conduct warranrless spying ypu are referring to.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181462,00.html

 

 

58% of Americans according to a poll believe the President should have the authority to authorize wiretaps without a warrant against terror suspects.

 

 

So there.

[Rex Kickass]

72% of Americans feel that a President should wiretap American citizens with a warrant only.

 

So there.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

72% of Americans feel that a President should wiretap American citizens with a warrant only.

 

So there.

 

 

 

Did you read what the article said? 58% of Americans believe that we should be able to wiretap TERROR SUSPECTS without a warrant. To wiretap ordinary people for no reason is wrong and your little poll question is a loaded question if I ever heard one.

Edited January 14, 2006 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[jackie hayes]

Hmm...

 

"Do you think the president should or should not have the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the United States?"

 

2 things. First, "suspected terrorists" seems misleading -- for me, it's not good enough that they're suspected by just anyone in the WH. The whole point of requiring a warrant is to confirm that a suspicion is reasonable. Only after that vetting do I consider the person a "suspect" in any official sense. Second, I think the Pres should be able to wiretap w/o already having a warrant, as long as he follows the law and acquires one after the fact. But not without any getting of warrants, ever. The question does say that no warrant need ever be got, but I wasn't sure which was meant after reading it once, and I imagine some people might have thought it just meant 'no warrant before'.

[Rex Kickass]

By the way, the NSA - from what I understand isn't necessarily wiretapping suspects - but people that may or may not have a connection to someone who might be suspected of possibly being involved in terrorism.

 

And, opinion polls are still bulls***. The law is the law is the law. And it ought to be respected. If this story had come out about what Bill Clinton was doing in 1998, how do you think the Republicans would have reacted. Would the DEMS have circled the wagons around Clinton? Maybe. Maybe not. I know, at least, I wouldn't have.

[YASNY]

By the way, the NSA - from what I understand isn't necessarily wiretapping suspects - but people that may or may not have a connection to someone who might be suspected of possibly being involved in terrorism.

 

And, opinion polls are still bulls***. The law is the law is the law. And it ought to be respected. If this story had come out about what Bill Clinton was doing in 1998, how do you think the Republicans would have reacted. Would the DEMS have circled the wagons around Clinton? Maybe. Maybe not. I know, at least, I wouldn't have.

 

I never joined the circle. But, I'm willing to see how all this plays out before I just state that our president broke the law. I'm certain the legality of this was discussed in great detail before any action was taken. Now it's a matter of interpretation of the law. We'll see what happens.

[kapkomet]

I never joined the circle.  But, I'm willing to see how all this plays out before I just state that our president broke the law.  I'm certain the legality of this was discussed in great detail before any action was taken.  Now it's a matter of interpretation of the law.  We'll see what happens.

That's my stance too. And waaaaaaaaay too many want this to be something that they can hang GWB for so bad, they can taste it. That's the part that gets me mad.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

That's my stance too.  And waaaaaaaaay too many want this to be something that they can hang GWB for so bad, they can taste it.  That's the part that gets me mad.

 

 

I like that though because the leftists always overplay their hand and it ends up hurting them more than Bush.

[NorthSideSox72]

I like that though because the leftists always overplay their hand and it ends up hurting them more than Bush.

 

As much as I despise whiners and complainers, I'd have to say that the attacks on Bush during the last year actually HAVE helped the Dems. Bush's approval ratings being mired in the 40's are, in part, a testament to that. So is the fact that Congress was unable to do a lot of things the GOP wanted them to do, until very recently, partly because they were more willing to split with Bush on some things.

 

But it is definitely true that the Dems cannot continue to rely just on that negative media rush if they want any real success in the 2006 midterms and the 2008 Presidential campaign. There has to be the perception among independents and moderates that the Dems have some sort of plan, some positive ideas, and a real theme to their march. Right now, the GOP is still perceived by the middle as having a plan, some common themes and a strong internal structure (reality or not). Not all moderates like the ideas and plans, but for some people, the fact that they have them at all is enough to support Bush and his party.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont:

 

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: This warrant-less eavesdropping program is not authorized by the PATRIOT Act, it's not authorized by any act of Congress, and it's not overseen by any court. According to the reports it’s being conducted under a secret presidential order, based on secret legal opinions by the same Justice Department, lawyers, the same ones who argued secretly that the President could order the use of torture. Mr. President, it is time to have some checks and balances in this country. We are a democracy. We are a democracy. Let's have checks and balances, not secret orders and secret courts and secret torture, and on and on.

 

Meanwhile, in an absolutely stunning surprise, the Justice Dept. is going to release a 40-page document tonight that concludes the warrant-less eavesdropping program is legal. A leaked copy of the report is available for download at rawstory.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 14, 2006 -> 03:09 PM)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181462,00.html

58% of Americans according to a poll believe the President should have the authority to authorize wiretaps without a warrant against terror suspects.

So there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow! That's almost half!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[southsideirish]

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 19, 2005 -> 06:06 AM)

Ah yes, the great debate.

 

Bush is a prick/Democrats are pricks.

 

Everyone knows where I stand with our President. I voted for other candidates in both elections, and worked actively to defeat him last year. I think that he has generally been a disaster. And before you tell me that I'm biased because I'm a democrat, I also think that JFK was a disaster. And that Bill Clinton sold me out in 1996. (I didn't vote for him either)

 

But I will say this. The law is pretty damn clear and pretty damn accomodating to make sure that surveillance in absolute time of necessity is taken care of. You need to get a warrant within 72 hours from a secret court which almost always agrees to the warrant.

 

I don't know why Bush decided to circumvent this seemingly easy process. I'd like to hear his justifications for it. I don't know why he'd need to circumvent this process. I will say this. Any president who apparently wipes his ass with the constitution like Bush may well have done for three years deserves to not have his job. Give me a legitimate reason for why he did what he did, and I'll give our President the benefit of the doubt. But, given that the law in this matter bends over backwards already - I don't know how I can.

 

This is an inexcusable abuse of power, if what I understand about this story is true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It is clear what the reasoning is. It is called arrogance.

[southsideirish]

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 14, 2006 -> 08:09 PM)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181462,00.html

58% of Americans according to a poll believe the President should have the authority to authorize wiretaps without a warrant against terror suspects.

So there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Which 900 Americans were polled? It seems like a low number to me to choose to represent the entire country. This is not a good thing to base your argument on at all.

Edited January 19, 2006 by southsideirish

[southsideirish]

Why can't people just look at the facts. Who cares if you are a republican or democrat. The fact is that Bush purposely disobeyed the law. He did not have to.

 

In the event of an emergency, a wiretap can be obtained without a warrant, as long as the Attorney General applies for a FISA warrant within 72 hours of the tap. There is no reason that violating the FISA would be important to our security.

 

As Balta stated:

 

There is no rational or logical reason why the President cannot follow this law. It gives the Attorney General incredibly wide latitude, including the ability to obtain wiretaps without immediately seeking a warrant in emergency situations. The time taken up by the courts is no excuse. The only justification for this sort of behavior is that the President has decided that he does not need to follow the law.

 

Just forget the fact that you are a Republican or a Democrat and look at that fact.

 

Now please try to debate why he would have to purposely disobey that law. I would love to hear the reasoning behind that.

[Balta1701]

Which 900 Americans were polled? It seems like a low number to me to choose to represent the entire country. This is not a good thing to base your argument on at all.

Actually, given statistics, that's a pretty decent sample size, should get a margin of error of +/- 4% at the 95% confidence level, +/- 1-2% at the 1 sigma 68 % confidence level.

 

Once you get above like 500 you start getting samples that are representative, and just adding people won't change much. Most places do about 11-1200 because it gets the 95% CL down to about 3%.

 

Edit: Oh, and on the poll people are pointing at there...note that the particular poll is not actually asking about the program in question. It asks if they should be allowed to obtain warrantless searches against terror suspects. First of all, that is almost a push-poll question, because it implies that the people being surveilled are guaranteed to be terror suspects. But even more importantly, it doesn't specificy whether or not they are U.S. citizens or not.

Edited January 19, 2006 by Balta1701

[Rex Kickass]

Why can't people just look at the facts. Who cares if you are a republican or democrat. The fact is that Bush purposely disobeyed the law. He did not have to.

 

In the event of an emergency, a wiretap can be obtained without a warrant, as long as the Attorney General applies for a FISA warrant within 72 hours of the tap. There is no reason that violating the FISA would be important to our security.

 

As Balta stated:

Just forget the fact that you are a Republican or a Democrat and look at that fact.

 

Now please try to debate why he would have to purposely disobey that law. I would love to hear the reasoning behind that.

 

Thank you.

[kapkomet]

Why can't people just look at the facts. Who cares if you are a republican or democrat. The fact is that Bush purposely disobeyed the law. He did not have to.

 

In the event of an emergency, a wiretap can be obtained without a warrant, as long as the Attorney General applies for a FISA warrant within 72 hours of the tap. There is no reason that violating the FISA would be important to our security.

 

As Balta stated:

Just forget the fact that you are a Republican or a Democrat and look at that fact.

 

Now please try to debate why he would have to purposely disobey that law. I would love to hear the reasoning behind that.

It is YOUR OPINION he broke the law. It is not that clear cut.

 

It sounds good for 'the agenda' of people with an axe to grind that he 'broke the law'.

[Rex Kickass]

I'd love to hear a legitimate reason why this isn't a violation of the law. So far the only attempts at a defnse that I've heard is the defense of the four year old - you know - "They all did it too!" even though that isn't even true, and it was implicitly authorized by a resolution in Congress advocating necessary military force, even though the language used to justify it wasn't even in the actionable piece of the legislation. Which is like using the preamble of the constitution as your main piece of evidence to back up a specific right. Flimsy. Especially since there seems to be evidence that this program began before the legislation was even introduced.

[YASNY]

I'd love to hear a legitimate reason why this isn't a violation of the law. So far the only attempts at a defnse that I've heard is the defense of the four year old - you know - "They all did it too!" even though that isn't even true, and it was implicitly authorized by a resolution in Congress advocating necessary military force, even though the language used to justify it wasn't even in the actionable piece of the legislation. Which is like using the preamble of the constitution as your main piece of evidence to back up a specific right. Flimsy. Especially since there seems to be evidence that this program began before the legislation was even introduced.

 

It's all a matter of legal opinions at point. It will be sorted out. Let's let the courts figure this out before we slander the POTUS.

[kapkomet]

It's all a matter of legal opinions at point.  It will be sorted out.  Let's let the courts figure this out before we slander the POTUS.

That's more or less what I'm trying to say. A lot of LEFTISTS (hehe) are running around saying HE BROKE THE LAW, when in fact it's conjecture whether or not he did.

 

As I've said before, the thing that bothers me most is that we will probably not really ever know because it won't get that far in the court system. I hope it does, for all of our sakes.

[YASNY]

That's more or less what I'm trying to say.  A lot of LEFTISTS (hehe) are running around saying HE BROKE THE LAW, when in fact it's conjecture whether or not he did.

 

As I've said before, the thing that bothers me most is that we will probably not really ever know because it won't get that far in the court system.  I hope it does, for all of our sakes.

 

[Balta1701]

That's more or less what I'm trying to say.  A lot of LEFTISTS (hehe) are running around saying HE BROKE THE LAW, when in fact it's conjecture whether or not he did.

 

As I've said before, the thing that bothers me most is that we will probably not really ever know because it won't get that far in the court system.  I hope it does, for all of our sakes.

Would it be fitting for this leftist to say that in his opinion Mr. Bush broke the law? I hope also it winds up being decided in a court, as a court can dole out punishment which I can't, but why does that stop us nasty leftists from giving our opinion as to why the facts of this case suggest strongly that the President is in violation of the law?

[YASNY]

Because you all sound like Chicken Little.

[kapkomet]

Would it be fitting for this leftist to say that in his opinion Mr. Bush broke the law?  I hope also it winds up being decided in a court, as a court can dole out punishment which I can't, but why does that stop us nasty leftists from giving our opinion as to why the facts of this case suggest strongly that the President is in violation of the law?

Not only do you all sound like Chicken Little (thanks, YAS) but you all WANT to catch Bush on something like this so you can hang him by his toenails. That's the reality of it all... you 'nasty leftists' want to get him so bad, on ANYTHING, that you'll take points of view that support your hatred and feed the fire of "anything but Bush".