Defiant Bush admits breaking law

[kapkomet]

Congress, nor the courts, have say so in the executive branch when it comes to conduct of war. Now I'll get the "war wasn't formally declared" cry. Baloney. By the use of force, if necessary, gives the President rights to conduct battlefield operations, and the intercepts of these communications ON THE BATTLEFIELD ("war on terror".) Congress, nor the courts, have ZERO right to stop this according to any said law. I think that's the heart of the argument that is being made.

 

If these people are talking to people in the US, that's an intercept of cumminications during wartime operations, as provided to the executive branch according to the Constitution.

 

Now, if they don't like it, Congress can stop funding of the military for these actions. I don't hear anything being said about that from the Dems.

[NorthSideSox72]

Congress, nor the courts, have say so in the executive branch when it comes to conduct of war.  Now I'll get the "war wasn't formally declared" cry.  Baloney.  By the use of force, if necessary, gives the President rights to conduct battlefield operations, and the intercepts of these communications ON THE BATTLEFIELD ("war on terror".)  Congress, nor the courts, have ZERO right to stop this according to any said law.  I think that's the heart of the argument that is being made.

 

If these people are talking to people in the US, that's an intercept of cumminications during wartime operations, as provided to the executive branch according to the Constitution.

 

Now, if they don't like it, Congress can stop funding of the military for these actions.  I don't hear anything being said about that from the Dems.

 

That is false. War or not, declared or not, all branches must follow all existing laws in their conduct. War does not except from this. And there is no "battlefield" in the US. The President would like to create that mentality in the public, it's just not reality. No force has invaded us. No foreign army is on our soil. 9/11 was a terrorist act.

 

If the President can say anytime a foreigner kills a US resident that we are at war, on our soil, then we are in deep s**t. That would mean that at pretty much ANY given time, the executive branch could apply battlefield rules like martial law and the redaction of due legal process whenever it chooses. That's not a slippery slope - it's a cliff wall.

 

And regarding your last pararaph, if you all remember, Kerry was burned at the stake by the GOP and even some Dems for voting against a funding package to make a point about the poorly-conducted war.

[kapkomet]

That is false.  War or not, declared or not, all branches must follow all existing laws in their conduct.  War does not except from this.  And there is no "battlefield" in the US.  The President would like to create that mentality in the public, it's just not reality.  No force has invaded us.  No foreign army is on our soil.  9/11 was a terrorist act.

 

If the President can say anytime a foreigner kills a US resident that we are at war, on our soil, then we are in deep s**t.  That would mean that at pretty much ANY given time, the executive branch could apply battlefield rules like martial law and the redaction of due legal process whenever it chooses.  That's not a slippery slope - it's a cliff wall.

 

And regarding your last pararaph, if you all remember, Kerry was burned at the stake by the GOP and even some Dems for voting against a funding package to make a point about the poorly-conducted war.

There is a war, and it began on OUR soil, at least our response did. If you don't think so, then everything else doesn't matter.

Edited January 25, 2006 by kapkomet

[NorthSideSox72]

There is a war.  If you don't think so, then everything else doesn't matter.

 

Please re-read my post.

 

There is a war in Iraq, and one in Afghanistan. One could also argue there is a "war" on terror globally, though I don't think its a war at all. It has all the hallmarks of a global law enforcement effort, in reality - much less so than a war. But even if it is, there is no war in any legal sense on US soil. That's what I said - no war on US soil.

[kapkomet]

Please re-read my post.

 

There is a war in Iraq, and one in Afghanistan.  One could also argue there is a "war" on terror globally, though I don't think its a war at all.  It has all the hallmarks of a global law enforcement effort, in reality - much less so than a war.  But even if it is, there is no war in any legal sense on US soil.  That's what I said - no war on US soil.

I edited my post. If there are terror cells in communications with folks here in America, then they (US people) deserve to be intercepted.

[NorthSideSox72]

I edited my post.  If there are terror cells in communications with folks here in America, then they (US people) deserve to be intercepted.

 

Agreed.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Agreed.

 

Now, if only we had some mechanism in place by which warrants could be obtained so that such intercepts could occur legally and with judicial oversight. . .

 

No, wait, we had that already.

[NorthSideSox72]

Now, if only we had some mechanism in place by which warrants could be obtained so that such intercepts could occur legally and with judicial oversight. . .

 

No, wait, we had that already.

 

Bingo! Also, agreed.

[Rex Kickass]

I edited my post.  If there are terror cells in communications with folks here in America, then they (US people) deserve to be intercepted.

Nobody debates that. I love how "The President should follow the law" turns into "wiretapping is wrong."

 

If you want to wiretap, fine. Get the damn warrant. They aren't that hard to get.

[kapkomet]

Now, if only we had some mechanism in place by which warrants could be obtained so that such intercepts could occur legally and with judicial oversight. . .

 

No, wait, we had that already.

And since when does the JUDICIAL branch have to approve how to run a war? Oh wait, they don't. FISA didn't matter. And that's the point.

[NorthSideSox72]

And since when does the JUDICIAL branch have to approve how to run a war?  Oh wait, they don't.  FISA didn't matter.  And that's the point.

 

Your logic is scary. You think that because we are in a war, we can do surveillance on our own citizens without a warrant? And that the war powers act somehow grants the executive the authority to break the law? That just doesn't make any sense. It would mean the executive branch could do whatever it wanted while at war, and further, since this isn't even a declared war, the executive could usurp all governmental power just by saying "we're at war". It's preposterous.

[Rex Kickass]

And since when does the JUDICIAL branch have to approve how to run a war?  Oh wait, they don't.  FISA didn't matter.  And that's the point.

When did the President ask for the legal authority of war? Oh wait, he didn't.

 

Saying you're in a war and formally declaring a war are two very different things.

[Cknolls]

Then take those 80% approval ratings in 2001-2002, the ones that got the Patriot Act passed 99-1, and use them to extend it from 72 hours to 2 weeks or whatever number would work better.

 

Why don't the Senators or Reps who oppose this program offer up legislation to

 

amend the problems they think it contains?

 

Perhaps, nobody is opposed or was oppsed until the N.Y. Slimes broke the law

 

and published a classified program.

[Rex Kickass]

Actually, they published the allegations of a whistle blower which is not against the law.

[Rex Kickass]

And since when does the JUDICIAL branch have to approve how to run a war?  Oh wait, they don't.  FISA didn't matter.  And that's the point.

 

The judicial branch doesn't have to approve how to run a war. But, there are rules that the US creates in order to maintain order during a war. And the President is bound by the constitution to follow those rules. Some people call them laws. He's said in public several times that any kind of domestic surveillance would only be done with a warrant.

 

FISA does matter. Absolutely. Because a US Citizen's rights, suspected of anything but not convicted, matter.

[kapkomet]

When did the President ask for the legal authority of war? Oh wait, he didn't.

 

Saying you're in a war and formally declaring a war are two very different things.

You keep going back to that... and IMO it doesn't hold water. How can you 'declare war' on fundalmentalism and not a sovereign (sp.) nation? 'By all use of military' on both the Afghanistan and Iraq laws passed by Congress gives the president authority to act on any information he deems credible gained by the NSA (a military institution).

[Cknolls]

Nobody debates that. I love how "The President should follow the law" turns into "wiretapping is wrong."

 

If you want to wiretap, fine. Get the damn warrant. They aren't that hard to get.

 

 

Once again I ask: How long does it take to build a probable cause case against

 

these people? It takes longer than 72 hrs or 15 days to build a solid case against

 

these people.

 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/?id=110007848

[Cknolls]

Actually, they published the allegations of a whistle blower which is not against the law.

 

"whistle blower " right. There is no such thing.

 

Intelligence agents are not covered under whistle blower laws. This asshole is a

 

traitor. The majority of America feels the same way.

Edited January 25, 2006 by Cknolls

[Rex Kickass]

And further to sit there and assume that terrorists would have no idea that they might be being wiretapped would be as silly as to assume that terrorism doesn't exist.

[kapkomet]

And further to sit there and assume that terrorists would have no idea that they might be being wiretapped would be as silly as to assume that terrorism doesn't exist.

They know. That's why they switch cell phones like we switch underwear. But if we intercept, good for us.

[Rex Kickass]

You keep going back to that... and IMO it doesn't hold water.  How can you 'declare war' on fundalmentalism and not a sovereign (sp.) nation?  'By all use of military' on both the Afghanistan and Iraq laws passed by Congress gives the president authority to act on any information he deems credible gained by the NSA (a military institution).

 

IMO it holds water completely. We have to declare war in order for the President to receive war powers. Period. There is no if, and or but about it.

 

By your explanation, you're arguing that LBJ had the inherent authority to wiretap to fight his war on poverty.

[kapkomet]

IMO it holds water completely. We have to declare war in order for the President to receive war powers. Period. There is no if, and or but about it.

 

By your explanation, you're arguing that LBJ had the inherent authority to wiretap to fight his war on poverty.

Congress authorized him to use military action (in the war on terror). NSA is a part of the military.

[NorthSideSox72]

Congress authorized him to use military action (in the war on terror).  NSA is a part of the military.

 

If NSA is part of the military for this purpose, then any wiretapping of any kind on US citizens is in per se violation of Comitatus.

[Rex Kickass]

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

 

There's the text of the law.

 

Now the question that nobody seems capable of answering.

 

Why is it necessary or appropriate to bypass a FISA court warrant when in the 28 year history of FISA, fewer than .1% of warrant requests have been rejected?

[kapkomet]

There's the text of the law.

 

Now the question that nobody seems capable of answering.

 

Why is it necessary or appropriate to bypass a FISA court warrant when in the 28 year history of FISA, fewer than .1% of warrant requests have been rejected?

When FISA really was a formality to the process (a step that really isn't needed in the first place).

 

I think if the FISA court was taken to the Supreme Court on constitutionality grounds, it would get dismantled. It's a nice thing to have, and it's a 'good thing' if you're trying to protect 'freedoms' (which again IMO is lost when you start talking to dirtbags anyway), but it's not necessary.

 

The law passed by Congress is pretty clear, IMO. EXTREMELY CLEAR.

 

authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001

 

I think that captures communications intercepts.