Defiant Bush admits breaking law

[Balta1701]

I think that captures communications intercepts.

But the questions in reply are...does that law give the President the right to override any existing law based on his judgement that someone "aided" the terrorists, and how does one define "aiding" the terrorists?

 

Let's take this to the extreme in the hopes of proving something...if a terrorist were living next door to you, and you helped him unpack his car when he moved in, you may well have aided him. You helped him move in, maybe even carried bomb-making material, and then you didn't report him to the government (cause man, the stuff was in a box and you can't see through cardboard.) Can the President bypass the laws and just have you killed? If you're willing to apply such a wide standard that you say that the law in question allows the President to override existing laws to go after anyone he says aided the terrorists, what is stopping that circumstance beyond the hope that the President's office wouldn't do that?

 

Clearly, I think that at some point, someone has to be willing to draw a line somewhere defining what the President's powers are based on that resolution when there is other settled law on the matter, and similarly, there must be some sort of definition of "Aided" applied, because otherwise there is nothing to stop the obscene example I gave above.

[NorthSideSox72]

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.

I think that captures communications intercepts.

 

It includes LEGAL intercepts, using the current system in place for such. This says they will support and fund the executive in the LEGAL use of all resources. That "LEGAL" part is implicit in all directives from the legislative branch by law and necessity.

 

Seriously. The FISA provides a judge 24/7 for warrants, grants them 99.9% of the time, and if all that isn't good enough, they even allow for you to get the warrant 72 hours AFTER the fact.

[kapkomet]

It includes LEGAL intercepts, using the current system in place for such.  This says they will support and fund the executive in the LEGAL use of all resources.  That "LEGAL" part is implicit in all directives from the legislative branch by law and necessity.

 

Seriously.  The FISA provides a judge 24/7 for warrants, grants them 99.9% of the time, and if all that isn't good enough, they even allow for you to get the warrant 72 hours AFTER the fact.

And you all keep using "legal" as the basis of the argument, when you don't know for sure what's "legal". It's faulty logic.

[NorthSideSox72]

And you all keep using "legal" as the basis of the argument, when you don't know for sure what's "legal".  It's faulty logic.

"legal" meaning making use of the FISA or other courts to obtain a warrant. It's pretty straight-forward. I see no fault or any grey area.

[FlaSoxxJim]

"legal" meaning making use of the FISA or other courts to obtain a warrant.  It's pretty straight-forward.  I see no fault or any grey area.

That's just because you don't work for the administration or DOJ and so the reality distortion field doesn't affect you, silly.

[Rex Kickass]

Knight Ridder is reporting that the Justice Department argued in 2002 that FISA was necessary and working well.

 

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington...90/13712090.htm

 

A July 2002 Justice Department statement to a Senate committee appears to contradict several key arguments that the Bush administration is making to defend its eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without court warrants.

 

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the law governing such operations, was working well, the department said in 2002. A "significant review" would be needed to determine whether FISA's legal requirements for obtaining warrants should be loosened because they hampered counterterrorism efforts, the department said then.

 

President Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other top officials now argue that warrantless eavesdropping is necessary in part because complying with the FISA law is too burdensome and impedes the government's ability to rapidly track communications between suspected terrorists.

 

In its 2002 statement, the Justice Department said it opposed a legislative proposal to change FISA to make it easier to obtain warrants that would allow the super-secret National Security Agency to listen in on communications involving non-U.S. citizens inside the United States.

 

Today, senior U.S. officials complain that FISA prevents them from doing that.

[YASNY]

Since it's become apparent that some of us think Bush is in violation of the law, and others diagree and those opinions are not going to change based on what we now right now, let me ask this question. Are any of the Democratic leaders do anything to stop this? If so, who's doing it and what are they doing?

[kapkomet]

Since it's become apparent that some of us think Bush is in violation of the law, and others diagree and those opinions are not going to change based on what we now right now, let me ask this question.  Are any of the Democratic leaders do anything to stop this?  If so, who's doing it and what are they doing?

I've asked that three times or commented about it in this thread. No one wants to answer that. All I hear is this flame-throwing rhetoric, yet it's not being stopped, nor has it been asked to be stopped.

 

Look, the president may very well be wrong in this case. Or, he may not be. As *ALL* the facts come out, that will become clearer. But many have formed opinions already based on what they THINK the laws are, etc.

[FlaSoxxJim]

YAS and Kap, I don't know that anybody is intentionally avoiding your questions as to what is going to happen to address it because I don't think anybody knows.

 

Here's my understanding of it, and I welcome corrections, clarifications, and additions.

 

The Dem informal hearings on Friday were useful because they got a number of constitutional scholars to voice their opinions and got congresspersons and citizens to be able to voice opinions as well. As has been pointed out, not of that is entered into the Congressional record so that certainly tempers its political value.

 

February 6th is when the Senate hearings on the matter are supposed to begin. Although it has strong bipartisan support, the administration, the NSA, and Justice have indicated they do not plan on being particularly helpful. The NSA has gone so far as to threaten Russell Tice over testifying, saying the full Congress does not have security clearance enough to hear what he has to say about the NSA (not necessarily exlusively about the domestic spying issue which he did not work directly on).

 

The big concern, of course, is that Specter is going to go through the motions, but will not really look to get to the bottom of any of it. As has been lamented here before, until the Dems have a majority somewhere so that they have sobpoena powers, they are dependent on the GOP majority to do the right thing and take the hearings seriously and then call for a full investigation if the findings of the hearing warrant it.

[kapkomet]

YAS and Kap,  I don't know that anybody is intentionally avoiding your questions as to what is going to happen to address it because I don't think anybody knows.

 

Here's my understanding of it, and I welcome corrections, clarifications, and additions.

 

The Dem informal hearings on Friday were useful because they got a number of constitutional scholars to voice their opinions and got congresspersons and citizens to be able to voice opinions as well.  As has been pointed out, not of that is entered into the Congressional record so that certainly tempers its political value.

 

February 6th is when the Senate hearings on the matter are supposed to begin.  Although it has strong bipartisan support, the administration, the NSA, and Justice have indicated they do not plan on being particularly helpful.  The NSA has gone so far as to threaten Russell Tice over testifying, saying the full Congress does not have security clearance enough to hear what he has to say about the NSA (not necessarily exlusively about the domestic spying issue which he did not work directly on).

 

The big concern, of course, is that Specter is going to go through the motions, but will not really look to get to the bottom of any of it.  As has been lamented here before, until the Dems have a majority somewhere so that they have sobpoena powers, they are dependent on the GOP majority to do the right thing and take the hearings seriously and then call for a full investigation if the findings of the hearing warrant it.

For all my points about this program, it's a troubling issue. I just keep throwing out there that we don't know all the facts, and we should watch our conclusions.

 

I will also say that I'm troubled by token gestures by Specter. If you're going to get an answer, GET AN ANSWER, let's not play games.

 

I want to know the right answer here, not guess on a bunch of rhetoric and speculation.

[YASNY]

For all my points about this program, it's a troubling issue.  I just keep throwing out there that we don't know all the facts, and we should watch our conclusions.

 

I will also say that I'm troubled by token gestures by Specter.  If you're going to get an answer, GET AN ANSWER, let's not play games.

 

I want to know the right answer here, not guess on a bunch of rhetoric and speculation.

 

Exactly. I also want to know if any of the Democrats that are accusing Bush of breaking the law have stepped up to podium and said "Let's get this stopped!" ... Don't try and tell me their hands are tied. They're not. There is no way in hell that if the president is in violation of the constitution that John Kerry or Hillary Clinton or whoever could not do something about it.

[kapkomet]

Exactly.  I also want to know if any of the Democrats that are accusing Bush of breaking the law have stepped up to podium and said "Let's get this stopped!" ... Don't try and tell me their hands are tied.  They're not.  There is no way in hell that if the president is in violation of the constitution that John Kerry or Hillary Clinton or whoever could not do something about it.

Bring the ACTUAL CASE to the American people, let's not spew the rhetoric.

 

So far, I've seen nothing that can rise to the level that he's "broke the law" other then a bunch of speculation as to what people THINK the program is doing.

[YASNY]

Bring the ACTUAL CASE to the American people, let's not spew the rhetoric.

 

So far, I've seen nothing that can rise to the level that he's "broke the law" other then a bunch of speculation as to what people THINK the program is doing.

 

If Bush is in violation of the law or the constitution, all these people that have been throwing these accusactions around here should be extremely PISSED at the Democratic leadership for not throwing down the gauntlet. Until one of them finds the gonads to do so, this is nothing more than rhetoric. Pure political rhetoric.

[Balta1701]

My question in response would be...what exactly can the Democrats do? They can't launch an investigation anywhere because they control zero houses of Congress and therefore have no subpoena power. They can't get Congress to sue the President for violation of separation of powers, for the same reason - the Repubicans control Congress. About the only thing which can be done is having a private organization, like the ACLU, file a lawsuit on the matter, which they already have done, and try to push to get a fair investigation in a committee, which they're trying to convince Specter to do.

 

Beyond that...I'm not sure what else they can do. This isn't a matter that's being brought up for a vote...so they can't exactly filibuster or shut down the Senate in response.

[NorthSideSox72]

If Bush is in violation of the law or the constitution, all these people that have been throwing these accusactions around here should be extremely PISSED at the Democratic leadership for not throwing down the gauntlet.  Until one of them finds the gonads to do so, this is nothing more than rhetoric.  Pure political rhetoric.

 

Funny how you turned the President's questionable (I'd say illegal) actions into somehow being the fault of Democrats. We've slid off into the partisan BS again.

[Balta1701]

Funny how you turned the President's questionable (I'd say illegal) actions into somehow being the fault of Democrats.  We've slid off into the partisan BS again.

I'm still sitting here actually feeling a little guilty on that one...simply because I can't figure out a good way to answer it. The President at least has a legal defense (albiet a flimsy one), which means that the Democrats in the Congress are in no position to declare it illegal - the Congress makes laws, the judicial branch interprets laws. But I still don't see a damn thing they could do to actually put an end to it or even enforce oversight on it.

[kapkomet]

Funny how you turned the President's questionable (I'd say illegal) actions into somehow being the fault of Democrats.  We've slid off into the partisan BS again.

And it's YOUR OPINION that it's illegal. WE DO NOT KNOW all of the facts. I'm not blaming the Democrats, but if it *IS* illegal, then they can do some things that they are not doing besides standing up in SCOTUS hearings screaming bloody murder.

 

This schtick "The Dems are powerless"... isn't exactly true.

[YASNY]

Funny how you turned the President's questionable (I'd say illegal) actions into somehow being the fault of Democrats.  We've slid off into the partisan BS again.

 

Not at all. If he's in violation of the constitution, the Dems should put up or shut up. I'm not blaming them for anything. I am calling their asses out though.

[YASNY]

I'm still sitting here actually feeling a little guilty on that one...simply because I can't figure out a good way to answer it.  The President at least has a legal defense (albiet a flimsy one), which means that the Democrats in the Congress are in no position to declare it illegal - the Congress makes laws, the judicial branch interprets laws.  But I still don't see a damn thing they could do to actually put an end to it or even enforce oversight on it.

 

What's the problem with going to the people with it. They convince the people, the rest of the dominos will fall.

[Balta1701]

What's the problem with going to the people with it.  They convince the people, the rest of the dominos will fall.

Isn't that what they're doing?

[YASNY]

Isn't that what they're doing?

 

Who? Who's doing it? Who's leading the charge and saying let's stop this?

[Rex Kickass]

Who?  Who's doing it?  Who's leading the charge and saying let's stop this?

 

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases...classified.html

 

October 11, 2001

 

Lieutenant General Michael V. Hayden, USAF

Director

National Security Agency

Fort George G. Mead, Maryland 20755

Washington, D.C. 20340-1001

 

Dear General Hayden:

 

During your appearance before the committee on October 1, you indicated that you had been operating since the September 11 attacks with an expansive view of your authorities with respect to the conduct of electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and related statutes, orders, regulations, and guidelines. You seemed to be inviting expressions of concern from us, if there were any, and, after the briefing was over and I had a chance to reflect on what you said, I instructed staff to get more information on this matter for me. For several reasons, including what I consider to be an overly broad interpretation of President Bush’s directive of October 5 on sharing with Congress “classified or sensitive law enforcement information” it has not been possible to get answers to my questions.

 

Without those answers, the concerns I have about what you said on the 1st can not be resolved, and I wanted to bring them to your attention directly. You indicated that you were treating as a matter of first impression, [redacted ] being of foreign intelligence interest. As a result, you were forwarding the intercepts, and any information [redacted ] without first receiving a request for that identifying information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Although I may be persuaded by the strength of your analysis [redacted ] I believe you have a much more difficult case to make [redacted ] Therefore, I am concerned whether, and to what extent, the National Security Agency has received specific presidential authorization for the operations you are conducting. Until I understand better the legal analysis regarding the sufficiency of the authority which underlies your decision on the appropriate way to proceed on this matter, I will continue to be concerned.

 

Sincerely,

 

NANCY PELOSI

Ranking Democrat

 

http://boxer.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=249975

 

On December 16, along with the rest of America, I learned that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. President Bush underscored his support for this action in his press conference today.

 

On Sunday, December 18, former White House Counsel John Dean and I participated in a public discussion that covered many issues, including this surveillance. Mr. Dean, who was President Nixon’s counsel at the time of Watergate, said that President Bush is “the first President to admit to an impeachable offense.” Today, Mr. Dean confirmed his statement.

 

This startling assertion by Mr. Dean is especially poignant because he experienced first hand the executive abuse of power and a presidential scandal arising from the surveillance of American citizens.

 

Given your constitutional expertise, particularly in the area of presidential impeachment, I am writing to ask for your comments and thoughts on Mr. Dean’s statement.

 

Unchecked surveillance of American citizens is troubling to both me and many of my constituents. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible.

 

Sincerely,

 

Barbara Boxer

 

United States Senator

 

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...EWS07/601210321

 

WASHINGTON -- A Democratic congressman, a prominent legal scholar and a self-described target of government surveillance urged Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee on Friday to consider impeaching President George W. Bush for his domestic surveillance program.

 

The recommendation by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., law scholar Jonathan Turley and Florida-based political activist Richard Hersh emerged at an unofficial Judiciary Committee hearing staged entirely by Democrats.

 

The proceedings on Capitol Hill were conducted with no legal authority after the committee chairman, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., rejected Democrats' requests for an inquiry into the spying program.

 

Hey look! Democrats actually doing things!

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm still sitting here actually feeling a little guilty on that one...simply because I can't figure out a good way to answer it.  The President at least has a legal defense (albiet a flimsy one), which means that the Democrats in the Congress are in no position to declare it illegal - the Congress makes laws, the judicial branch interprets laws.  But I still don't see a damn thing they could do to actually put an end to it or even enforce oversight on it.

 

I think the reason the Dems are not more hot under the collar on this is that they are afraid to make any kind of noise that even hints at their disagreement with the war on terror. They can criticize Iraq because a bulk of the country is smart enough to know that Iraq is only part of the war on terror because they made it such. But when it comes to security issues, they are scared s**tless to beat the drums too hard. Their worst fear is to look soft.

 

It bothers me. I wish they'd have the guts to stand up to it.

[YASNY]

Rex Kickass. All I see are the Dems questioning things. Not 'doing' anything. Same ol' same ol'.

 

NorthSideSox ... That's exactly what I'm talking about. They don't have any backbone for fear of political backlash. If this was such a slam dunk issue, they'd be swarming like bees to honey.

[Rex Kickass]

YAS,

 

What the hell can they do then? Short of lead a popular uprising and attempting a coup, what on earth do they have the rights to do?