Defiant Bush admits breaking law

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm not asking this to be a jerk, I seriously want to know why you (and others) think that there *has to be* evil intent by (almost) everything this administration does.

 

And let's not frame the whole "he lied about the war" argument.  Why would this administration be *that* evil to be 'up to something' with every single thing they do?

 

Honestly, Kap, I haven't seen anyone on this board showing indications of thinking that way. I really haven't. The screaming, frothing "leftist" who thinks everything Bush does is evil is, as far as I can tell, a caricature created by paranoid Bush supporters.

[kapkomet]

Honestly, Kap, I haven't seen anyone on this board showing indications of thinking that way.  I really haven't.  The screaming, frothing "leftist" who thinks everything Bush does is evil is, as far as I can tell, a caricature created by paranoid Bush supporters.

Oh no... you haven't been reading close enough then. (not trying to call you out, Flaxx... but it serves as an example)...

 

Look at his post that I quoted. And it's some guy saying that

the simplest and most obvious explanation is that they're up to no good.

 

It's this stuff that's cited and flamed around here all the time. And my question is why does everything have to have some evil ass intent behind it. Look at the Alito thread as well. Bush is trying to nominate (insert flame here). There's always some 'evil' at work when it comes to this man. Read the stuff that gets thrown around a lot.

 

I'll say this again, for your benefit, and maybe a few others here.

 

I really don't care for George W. Bush as president. I think he's done a lot of BS things. But I also get sick of the 'everything Bush does sucks big donkey turds' schtick that some seem to be intent on throwing out there like a fart in the wind, and it stinks, IMO.

 

I only "defend" some of this stuff because I think there's always a little more to the story then is out there for the 'common public consumption'... that most persons opposed to the current administration does not ever want to acknowledge or admit.

Edited January 24, 2006 by kapkomet

[jackie hayes]

Obviously you believe there is some other "simplest and most obvious explanation" -- why don't you just offer that instead of trying to sidetrack the discussion?

[NorthSideSox72]

Oh no... you haven't been reading close enough then.  (not trying to call you out, Flaxx... but it serves as an example)...

 

Look at his post that I quoted.  And it's some guy saying that

It's this stuff that's cited and flamed around here all the time.  And my question is why does everything have to have some evil ass intent behind it.  Look at the Alito thread as well.  Bush is trying to nominate (insert flame here).  There's always some 'evil' at work when it comes to this man.  Read the stuff that gets thrown around a lot.

 

I'll say this again, for your benefit, and maybe a few others here.

 

I really don't care for George W. Bush as president.  I think he's done a lot of BS things.  But I also get sick of the 'everything Bush does sucks big donkey turds' schtick that some seem to be intent on throwing out there like a fart in the wind, and it stinks, IMO.

 

I only "defend" some of this stuff because I think there's always a little more to the story then is out there for the 'common public consumption'... that most persons opposed to the current administration does not ever want to acknowledge or admit.

 

Well I must admit, that quote certainly does look silly. I have no idea of the context, of course. I guess I just don't see it that often. I am pretty sure, though, that I see people on the right side of the aisle in here complain A LOT about these occurances, though.

 

And honestly, I don't think Bush's intent is evil at all. Even on issues where I disagree strongly with him, such as the domestic spying thing, I think he was doing what he thought was best. I do think his idea of what's best is sometimes warped, and not grounded in what this country (as a whole, parties aside) stands for. He's arrogant, even by Presidential standards, not well-read on the law or subjects he chooses to lecture on (and certainly not well-spoken), and there is a bit of crusader in him (see Iraq) that scares me. But I am convinced that he is trying to what he sees as best the great majority of the time.

[kapkomet]

Obviously you believe there is some other "simplest and most obvious explanation" -- why don't you just offer that instead of trying to sidetrack the discussion?

and why don't you mind your own business? I'm asking what I think is a serious question.

[jackie hayes]

f*** no. I've taken part in this discussion, and I've been critical of Bush, and I think Flaxx's argument was pretty damn straightforward. So I can only conclude I'm included in your blanket statement.

 

Question the President -- 'Why do you hate George?'

Question the war -- 'Why do you want to help the terrorists?'

Question tax cuts -- 'Why do you want class warfare?'

Oppose id -- 'Why do you hate God?'

 

I'm tired of the bs strawmen set up by the right instead of addressing the ACTUAL f***ING ISSUES.

[FlaSoxxJim]

and why don't you mind your own business?  I'm asking what I think is a serious question.

Kap, I think Jackie's query as to what the "simplest and most obvious explanation" is completely on point. It is the heart of the Occam's Razor approach to logic. One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. More succinctly, the simplest explanation is usually the most correct explanation.

 

If the administration is not "up to something" in the domestic spying fiasco, then their best recourse would be to directly explain WHY the FISA protocol already in place was insufficiant. Marely saying it is "too cumbersome" is no explanation, because putting hundreds of FBI agents on more than a thousand blind leads each month as a result of the NSA information gathered is about as cumbersome and unwieldy as it gets.

 

FISA would have let them get warrants after the fact.

FISA allows for precisely the type of surveilance the administration has copped to.

FISA protects the Judicial checks on the Executive.

FISA is amenable to Congressional overhaul if the administration had tried to persuade Congress that such was needed in a post-9/11 world.

 

Until the administration directly responds to the question of where exactly FISA fell short, the simplest and most obvious explanation is that they are "up to no something."

 

Your turn, Kap. Tell me why the administration refuses to explain why it had to bypass the courts. Also, if you believe the AUMF granted some or all of the authority to request the spying, how can you believe that this was the intent of Congress when we know full well that Congress refused to grant the president these very powers just days earlier when the administration tried to slip last minute language in.

[YASNY]

The stance of the administration was that they were legally entitled to do exactly what they did. If, in their opinion, they were perfectly legal in bypassing the courts, why would they have to explain why they did so? The answer is obvious. There was no need explain anything.

[jackie hayes]

The stance of the administration was that they were legally entitled to do exactly what they did.  If, in their opinion, they were perfectly legal in bypassing the courts, why would they have to explain why they did so?  The answer is obvious.  There was no need explain anything.

They claim that they were entitled to bypass the courts by the "necessary and appropriate force" language of the 2001 resolution. But they haven't made it clear why their actions were "necessary", since they had recourse to the secret FISA courts anyway. That's what demands explanation.

[kapkomet]

YASNY went down the direction I was thinking, sort of.

 

I don't know all the answers. But if this really were as gross of a violation of the law as has been interpreted, Bush would already be impeached. That's the disconnect that I can't see. Congress WAS briefed about the program, contrary to early reports. No one raised a big stink about it until the NYSlimes went public with the story.

 

Furthermore, after people (ie FISA court) are briefed, all of a sudden, we don't hear from these people anymore about how wrong it is. Maybe it's because they were told to shut up until the facts are out, I don't know.

 

The whole point behind my entire argument here is all these 'suppositions' about how it all stinks might not be all they are cracked up to be. There's probably more to this story then we know.

[kapkomet]

They claim that they were entitled to bypass the courts by the "necessary and appropriate force" language of the 2001 resolution.  But they haven't made it clear why their actions were "necessary", since they had recourse to the secret FISA courts anyway.  That's what demands explanation.

Now that much I can agree with... and I think that there has to be some explanation of that.

[Rex Kickass]

And laws passed by Congress do NOT supercede the Constitution.

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.

 

Please illustrate an example in which it would be constitutional for the President to wiretap or participate in surveillance on US Citizens without a warrant, yet unconstitutional to follow the FISA laws.

 

Cause I'm confused. FISA facilitates 4th amendment rights protection. By openly flouting FISA, you are in essence flouting the 4th amendment.

 

The Fourth Amendment protects the US Citizen, not the US Government.

[kapkomet]

f*** no.  I've taken part in this discussion, and I've been critical of Bush, and I think Flaxx's argument was pretty damn straightforward.  So I can only conclude I'm included in your blanket statement.

 

Question the President -- 'Why do you hate George?'

Question the war -- 'Why do you want to help the terrorists?'

Question tax cuts -- 'Why do you want class warfare?'

Oppose id -- 'Why do you hate God?'

 

I'm tired of the bs strawmen set up by the right instead of addressing the ACTUAL f***ING ISSUES.

So, we're ruling by 'playing on your fears' (thanks Algore)?

 

Question the President. Ok. Fiscal policy sucks. Plays games with the budgeting process. Immagration and border problems are being ignored. It will bite us in the rear end.

 

Question the war. Well, I can't argue this one, because I think we have to support what we started. I also think the policy is bigger then 'Iraq'. But as long as we focus on 'no WMDs' we've lost sight of the bigger picture.

 

Question tax cuts. So, let's just tax the crap out of everything, have no free enterprise, and give everything we have to our government. I love socialism.

 

I'm not sure on your 'oppose id' what you're getting at.

 

I think our president is EXTREMELY misguided on the 'gay marriage amendment'. The government needs to stay out of our personal lives. He can be morally opposed to it, but not for an amendment to our constituion.

 

It's not the issues and the different spectrums I have an issue with. I have an issue with the constant whining, b****ing, pissing, and moaning about how the country is ran, and yet, there is nothing out there in terms of new ideas to make anything change.

 

If you're a Dem, stand up and say, we need to raise taxes in order to do x,y, and z. Stand up and say that you're not for military action and use 'diplomacy' with the 'terrorists'. Stand up and say that you're for government control of our healthcare system to ensure a 'level playing field'. CONVINCE America that these are the RIGHT THINGS TO DO, and all of a sudden, if they are wht America wants, you'll get elected and can run things how you all see fit again. But I don't see any Dem standing up and saying these things, because they can't get elected on these issues. So, it's 'anything but Bush'.

[Balta1701]

Ok...now this seems very odd, but it's well enough sourced that I have trouble disbelieving it...in 2002, a Republican Senator from Ohio introduced legislation which would have reduced the FISA standard for the acquisition of a warrant from probable cause to reasonable suspicion.

 

The Bush Administration's justice department opposed the bill as unnecessary with the Patriot act (and at least 1 person writing the DOJ response had some questions about its constitutionality). Congress rejected the bill, probably in part due to DOJ opposition.

 

This was many months after the administration had already started doing exactly that.

[YASNY]

Ok...now this seems very odd, but it's well enough sourced that I have trouble disbelieving it...in 2002, a Republican Senator from Ohio introduced legislation which would have reduced the FISA standard for the acquisition of a warrant from probable cause to reasonable suspicion.

 

The Bush Administration's justice department opposed the bill as unnecessary with the Patriot act (and at least 1 person writing the DOJ response had some questions about its constitutionality).  Congress rejected the bill, probably in part due to DOJ opposition.

 

This was many months after the administration had already started doing exactly that.

 

Doesn't it stand to follow that if the administration thought it was unnecessary due to the Patriot Act, that they belived the Patriot Act gave them the legal right?

[NorthSideSox72]

Doesn't it stand to follow that if the administration thought it was unnecessary due to the Patriot Act, that they belived the Patriot Act gave them the legal right?

 

Then why did they not bring that up as their defense in recent DOJ statements?

 

Sounds to me like the change from probable cause to reasonable suspicions had unconstitutional written all over it, and so did someone at DOJ.

[YASNY]

Please illustrate an example in which it would be constitutional for the President to wiretap or participate in surveillance on US Citizens without a warrant, yet unconstitutional to follow the FISA laws.

 

Cause I'm confused. FISA facilitates 4th amendment rights protection. By openly flouting FISA, you are in essence flouting the 4th amendment.

 

The Fourth Amendment protects the US Citizen, not the US Government.

 

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.

 

There's that word again. It's in the interpretation of reasonable, or in this case ' unreasonable'. As I said before, that explanation of the 4th amendment I post the link to had 'reasonable' or forms of the word sprinkled liberally throughout.

[Balta1701]

Doesn't it stand to follow that if the administration thought it was unnecessary due to the Patriot Act, that they belived the Patriot Act gave them the legal right?

I understand what you're saying, but I think that the 2 parts of the DOJ response cited in that blog post argue against that idea.

 

The practical concern involves an assessment of whether the current "probable cause" standard has hamstrung our ability to use FISA surveillance to protect our nation. We have been aggressive in seeking FISA warrants and, thanks to Congress's passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, we have been able to use our expanded FISA tools more effectively to combat terrorist activities. It may not be the case that the probable cause standard has caused any difficulties in our ability to seek the FISA warrants we require, and we will need to engage in a significant review to determine the effect a change in the standard would have on our ongoing operations. If the current standard has not posed an obstacle, then there may be little to gain from the lower standard and, as I previously stated, perhaps much to lose...

 

The Department's Office of Legal Counsel is analyzing relevant Supreme Court precedent to determine whether a "reasonable suspicion" standard for electronic surveillance and physical searches would, in the FISA context, pass constitutional muster. The issue is not clear cut, and the review process must be thorough because of what is at stake, namely, our ability to conduct investigations that are vital to protecting national security. If we err in our analysis and courts were ultimately to find a "reasonable suspicion" standard unconstitutional, we could potentially put at risk ongoing investigations and prosecutions.

First...they actually argue that it's unnecessary because they didn't have any problems getting the FISA warrants that they needed as far as the guy writing that response knew. The only reason why you would logically need to get warrants without going to FISA courts is if they weren't willing to give the warrants. And secondly...the DOJ itself seems to have had problems with the constitutionality of the idea, yet it still was already happening. That just seems to contradict the idea that they thought it was either necessary or ok.

[YASNY]

I understand what you're saying, but I think that the 2 parts of the DOJ response cited in that blog post argue against that idea.

 

First...they actually argue that it's unnecessary because they didn't have any problems getting the FISA warrants that they needed as far as the guy writing that response knew.  The only reason why you would logically need to get warrants without going to FISA courts is if they weren't willing to give the warrants.  And secondly...the DOJ itself seems to have had problems with the constitutionality of the idea, yet it still was already happening.  That just seems to contradict the idea that they thought it was either necessary or ok.

 

You're giving me a blog post as a response? ummmm okay

[NorthSideSox72]

There's that word again.  It's in the interpretation of reasonable, or in this case ' unreasonable'.  As I said before, that explanation of the 4th amendment I post the link to had 'reasonable' or forms of the word sprinkled liberally throughout.

 

The courts have accepted, time and again, that the the standard for reasonableness is probably cause. That's why its referred to so often. The Bush administration decided not to pursue this in 2002 because if they lost the battle on Constitutional grounds (which someone in their circle suggested), they'd be exposing themselves by continuing the actions. That's why they dropped it - so they could continue doing it based on some other, very vague legal grounds, which are defensible (in a shifty kind of way) should it be made public.

[Balta1701]

You're giving me a blog post as a response?  ummmm  okay

Read the citations if you don't beleive what they're saying. Come on man. Just because something's on a blog doesn't mean it's not right. If you think it's not right...then go check out the documents he's presenting, exactly as I hoped people would do when I said " it's well enough sourced that I have trouble disbelieving it"

[YASNY]

The courts have accepted, time and again, that the the standard for reasonableness is probably cause.  That's why its referred to so often.  The Bush administration decided not to pursue this in 2002 because if they lost the battle on Constitutional grounds (which someone in their circle suggested), they'd be exposing themselves by continuing the actions.  That's why they dropped it - so they could continue doing it based on some other, very vague legal grounds, which are defensible (in a shifty kind of way) should it be made public.

 

I'm listening. How did they lose in 2002?

[jackie hayes]

Question tax cuts.  So, let's just tax the crap out of everything, have no free enterprise, and give everything we have to our government.  I love socialism.

Let me just take this. Here's a good example of the absurd rhetoric used when Democrats do forward new ideas. Democratic idea -- 'Allow the tax cuts on the rich to lapse.' The response, 'Communists!', is demagoguery. Look through my whole history of posting here. There aren't many posters that are more pro-free market.

 

But there are many situations in which the free market should, in theory, be a BAD arrangement. First, just in terms of efficiency (pollution being the textbook example), and second, in terms of equity. Free markets could very well lead to some people being very rich, while others die of starvation.

 

So I could equallly well go to the extreme, like you did, and say, 'So, let's just cut all taxes to zero, have everything laissez faire, and have a completely unfunded government. I love anarchy and starving children.'

 

Or, I could reasonably point out that the tax cuts have led to massive deficits (nonpartisan estimates have shown that the tax cuts were an enormous contributor to the budget situation), causing the country to cut back on poverty programs and, critically, education. Education seems important -- partially because I think the government should ensure that poor children have a good chance of success. I'm pretty confident Americans agree with that sentiment -- which is why Republicans pay lip service to it with "No child left behind", and other worthless "initiatives".

 

Democrats have ideas, but they don't appear unified (since they aren't directed by the WH, as Republicans are), and they don't get traction (since they are a minority in the Congress). It's just that they get shouted down.

 

Meanwhile, this WH claims that it doesn't have to be evaluated on anything. 'Okay, we were wrong about WMD, but that's in the past...' Everything's 50 years ago to them. In the 6th year of this administration, we still have no improvement in schools, massive security holes at home, a booming deficit, increasing inequality, and uncertainty in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's an abysmal record for a party that has control of both the legislative and executive branches, and the only response is, 'Oh, well, the Dems aren't doing anything.' What?! The GOP controls the whole legislative process, accept the goddamned responsibility already.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm listening. How did they lose in 2002?

 

A law was proposed to change the test from probable cause to reasonable suspicion (a large leap, by the way) for FISA warrants:

 

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s2659.html

 

Bush's administration declines to pursue it further, after Mr. Baker of the DOJ finds legal problems with it:

 

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/073102baker.html

 

And the NSA continues its wiretaps. They didn't LOSE per se, they took the smart route for their own interests. If they had pursued the law, and it was exposed in Congress for its possible problems or worse, was found Unconstitutional by a court of law, then they'd have to stop the taps. But, since they let it die off, they could continue their work, and hope no one noticed. Or if they did notice, then they would point to something vague (like the ridiculous connection to the 9/11 use of force statement), and say things are grey, and generally try to dodge the issue.

 

They did the thing that was smart for them, but frankly, I find it deceptive and evasive.

Edited January 24, 2006 by NorthSideSox72

[YASNY]

Let me just take this.  Here's a good example of the absurd rhetoric used when Democrats do forward new ideas.  Democratic idea -- 'Allow the tax cuts on the rich to lapse.'  The response, 'Communists!', is demagoguery.  Look through my whole history of posting here.  There aren't many posters that are more pro-free market.

 

But there are many situations in which the free market should, in theory, be a BAD arrangement.  First, just in terms of efficiency (pollution being the textbook example), and second, in terms of equity.  Free markets could very well lead to some people being very rich, while others die of starvation.

 

So I could equallly well go to the extreme, like you did, and say, 'So, let's just cut all taxes to zero, have everything laissez faire, and have a completely unfunded government.  I love anarchy and starving children.'

 

Or, I could reasonably point out that the tax cuts have led to massive deficits (nonpartisan estimates have shown that the tax cuts were an enormous contributor to the budget situation), causing the country to cut back on poverty programs and, critically, education.  Education seems important -- partially because I think the government should ensure that poor children have a good chance of success.  I'm pretty confident Americans agree with that sentiment -- which is why Republicans pay lip service to it with "No child left behind", and other worthless "initiatives".

 

Democrats have ideas, but they don't appear unified (since they aren't directed by the WH, as Republicans are), and they don't get traction (since they are a minority in the Congress).  It's just that they get shouted down.

 

Meanwhile, this WH claims that it doesn't have to be evaluated on anything.  'Okay, we were wrong about WMD, but that's in the past...'  Everything's 50 years ago to them.  In the 6th year of this administration, we still have no improvement in schools, massive security holes at home, a booming deficit, increasing inequality, and uncertainty in Afghanistan and Iraq.  It's an abysmal record for a party that has control of both the legislative and executive branches, and the only response is, 'Oh, well, the Dems aren't doing anything.'  What?!  The GOP controls the whole legislative process, accept the goddamned responsibility already.

 

I'll agree with you on the deficit. That's the one area that most conversaatives have issues with Bush. Not due to too much taxation, but due to too much spending.

 

But this:

 

Democrats have ideas, but they don't appear unified (since they aren't directed by the WH, as Republicans are), and they don't get traction (since they are a minority in the Congress). It's just that they get shouted down.

 

The Democrats, IF they have ideas should be taking them to the voters. IF they have something substantial to say, say it to the people. All I hear is Bush did this or Bush said that. Those aren't ideas. That's just b****ing and whining.