52% want Bush Impeached

[Gill]

And if the law is outdated, why haven't you asked Congress to update it?

It would have been nice if he answered that question.

In any case, the General only addressed the 72-hour emergency provision, which I don't think this NSA spy program would fall under, would it? I don't know much about the 72-hour emergency provision, but I hear there are some problems. But as far as getting warrants via the regular FISA court, if there is enough suspicion to wire tap an American citizen in the first place, then why couldn't they convince the FISA court to give them a warrant?

It's not his job to ask Congress to change laws.

There is not enough time to get all the required paperwork together in 72 hours AND in many cases they do not know enough about the person of interest in the US to present a case that would meet FISA's requirements. All they know at this point is that a known al qaeda terrorists is calling someone in the US. They don't know if this person is a terrorist, but the only way to find out is to monitor the telephone calls.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

In other words, the AG requires the same justification for issuing a warrant as does the actual FISA court. Seems reasonable to me. I assume the emergency provision is not in place to make it easier to get warrants, but only to speed up the process.


If I'm not mistaken, that is being disputed.



It would have been nice if he answered that question.

In any case, the General only addressed the 72-hour emergency provision, which I don't think this NSA spy program would fall under, would it? I don't know much about the 72-hour emergency provision, but I hear there are some problems. But as far as getting warrants via the regular FISA court, if there is enough suspicion to wire tap an American citizen in the first place, then why couldn't they convince the FISA court to give them a warrant?

So let me get this right. A call comes in from a known terrorist overseas to the US. There has been ongoing chatter that someone is preparing to strike against the US in a VERY short period of time and is finalizing plans for an impending attack. If we can't get the fisa warrant in sufficient time. Exactly what do we tell the family of the dead? "we could have stopped him but we thought it better to to waste time getting a warrant so we didn't step on a terrorists civili rights". "Maybe next time they will wait for us to go through our entire process of law before they plan and implement a terrorist attack"

 

[Binary_Digit]

It's not his job to ask Congress to change laws.

Of course it isn't. So rephrase the question: why hasn't the administration asked Congress to change the outdated law?

There is not enough time to get all the required paperwork together in 72 hours

Then why hasn't the administration asked Congress to change the outdated law?

AND in many cases they do not know enough about the person of interest in the US to present a case that would meet FISA's requirements.

Then maybe there's not enough reasonable suspicion to justify wiretapping on that individual. If the FISA court requires too much, why hasn't the administration asked Congress to change the outdated law?

All they know at this point is that a known al qaeda terrorists is calling someone in the US. They don't know if this person is a terrorist, but the only way to find out is to monitor the telephone calls.

If recieving phone calls from al'Qaeda terrorists is not enough for FISA to issue a warrant, then something is definately wrong and the administration should ask Congress to change the outdated law.

I think I've been consistent. The President is not above the law any more than you and I are. If the President feels the need to do something that is against the law, he needs to work with Congress to have the law updated. Under no circumstances should he take the law into his own hands.

If evidence against an American citizen is gathered illegally, then it is not admissable in court, and they'll have to dismiss the charge.

 

[Binary_Digit]

So let me get this right. A call comes in from a known terrorist overseas to the US. There has been ongoing chatter that someone is preparing to strike against the US in a VERY short period of time and is finalizing plans for an impending attack. If we can't get the fisa warrant in sufficient time. Exactly what do we tell the family of the dead? "we could have stopped him but we thought it better to to waste time getting a warrant so we didn't step on a terrorists civili rights". "Maybe next time they will wait for us to go through our entire process of law before they plan and implement a terrorist attack"

Once again, if the provisions under current laws are insufficient, then the President needs to work with Congress to have them updated, but he should not take the law into his own hands. That's why we have things like martial law, if the situation is so dire that the President needs more power.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Once again, if the provisions under current laws are insufficient, then the President needs to work with Congress to have them updated, but he should not take the law into his own hands. That's why we have things like martial law, if the situation is so dire that the President needs more power.

According to the above story and Gen Hayden under the FISA statute, NSA cannot put someone on coverage and go ahead and play for 72 hours while it gets a note saying it was okay. All right? The attorney general is the one who approves emergency FISA coverage, and the attorney general's standard for approving FISA coverage is a body of evidence equal to that which he would present to the court. So it's not like you can throw it on for 72 hours.


So the requirments for the emergency warrant is the same. So the question is still valid

 

[MSgt]

No personal offense BUT: There are some people today who actually believe that masturbation causes "blindness", & that Bush "might" have created 9/11, & even had the levees blown up in New Orleans !:smile:

I have no doubt that the liberal democrats would LOVE to have Americans actually believe that poll, ..as for me, it is nothing but laughable & I simply do not really believe many of Zogby's polls, ..among other polls as well!!

This isn't true...my vision is perfect.

 

[oldreliable67]

Dude, FISA has a system set up for that. The President can do the wiretap and then get approval later through FISA, so that doomsday situation doesn't justify it.

No, he can't. Not in sufficient time. Thats the whole point of the "Presidential authorization" mechanism. When using the 72 hour provision, the AG still has to certify and sign off on the wiretap before it can begin. In operational terms, that means the request for a wiretap has to travel up the military chain of command thru NSA to the AG, who must then execute a bunch of paperwork. All before the 72-hour 'emergency' provision operation can start. Once the AG has executed the necessary certifications, the NSA can begin the wiretap under the emergency provision, but not before.

Under the "Presidential authorization", the NSA has the authority - under certain specified conditions, as noted above: at least one party to the call is outside the US and a reasonable suspicion that one caller belongs to al Qaeda - to initiate the operation without the AG's certification and subsequent FISA application.

At least, thats how I understand it.

 

[aps]

As I have stated numerous times, FISA allows the president to order warrantless wiretapping in the first 15 days of war. The legislative history indicates that Congress chose that amount of time because that was the estimate of how long it would take to pass legislation appropriate during a wartime emergency--7 days for the amendment to be reported with recommendations and 7 days for each house to vote on the amendment.

When looking at a statute, Courts rely heavily on the legislative history because they need to determine Congress's intent in passing the legislation. The legislative history shows that Congress considered that during a war, the President might need to seek to amend FISA. If it wanted to give him warrantless wartime wiretapping, it would not have limited it to the first 15 days of a time of war.

 

[oldreliable67]

AG Gonzales participated in a debate at Georgetown U. here in DC today. Here is his comment on the 72 hour provision in FISA...

Some have pointed to the provision in FISA that allows for so-called “emergency authorizations” of surveillance for 72 hours without a court order. There’s a serious misconception about these emergency authorizations. People should know that we do not approve emergency authorizations without knowing that we will receive court approval within 72 hours. FISA requires the Attorney General to determine IN ADVANCE that a FISA application for that particular intercept will be fully supported and will be approved by the court before an emergency authorization may be granted. That review process can take precious time.

Thus, to initiate surveillance under a FISA emergency authorization, it is not enough to rely on the best judgment of our intelligence officers alone. Those intelligence officers would have to get the sign-off of lawyers at the NSA that all provisions of FISA have been satisfied, then lawyers in the Department of Justice would have to be similarly satisfied, and finally as Attorney General, I would have to be satisfied that the search meets the requirements of FISA. And we would have to be prepared to follow up with a full FISA application within the 72 hours. [emphasis added]

A typical FISA application involves a substantial process in its own right: The work of several lawyers; the preparation of a legal brief and supporting declarations; the approval of a Cabinet-level officer; a certification from the National Security Adviser, the Director of the FBI, or another designated Senate-confirmed officer; and, finally, of course, the approval of an Article III judge.

So you can't just initiate a listening op then start the paperwork. All the paperwork - and there is a lot of it - has to be done before the op can start.

Some will no doubt ask, "Why not change the law so that less paperwork is required? Or hire more paper-pushers?" The answer to the first part is that, that is the essence of what the presidential authority has done. It has put in a time-saving short cut that can be used under certain conditions which maintain the reasonableness requirement of the Constitution to expedite an op. The answer to the second part is that just hiring more paper pushers might cut down the time frame some, but still not enough - multiple lawyers working on various bits of paper is likely to be more counterproductive than the other way round.

 

[oldreliable67]

Re: the 15 day period following a declaration of war.

AG Gonzales, in his participation in a debate at Georgetown Univ. here in DC today, had this to say about the 15 day period following a declaration of war:

You may have heard about the provision of FISA that allows the President to conduct warrantless surveillance for 15 days following a declaration of war. That provision shows that Congress knew that warrantless surveillance would be essential in wartime. But no one could reasonably suggest that all such critical military surveillance in a time of war would end after only 15 days.

Instead, the legislative history of this provision makes it clear that Congress elected NOT TO DECIDE how surveillance might need to be conducted in the event of a particular armed conflict. Congress expected that it would revisit the issue in light of events and likely would enact a special authorization during that 15-day period. That is exactly what happened three days after the attacks of 9/11, when Congress passed the Force Resolution, permitting the President to exercise “all necessary and appropriate” incidents of military force.

Thus, it is simply not the case that Congress in 1978 anticipated all the ways that the President might need to act in times of armed conflict to protect the United States. FISA, by its own terms, was not intended to be the last word on these critical issues.

Thus, Gonzales makes the argument that the AUMF constitutes an "authorization by statute" that makes the current NSA program an exception to FISA.

 

[oldreliable67]

Paraphrasing a good question asked by a blogger:

Here is a question for you: why did no real inquiry regarding the NSA surveillance program occur when the administration first advised congressional leaders about it? Is it that few adults in their right minds would want to inhibit or encumber the gov'ts right to listen to al Qaeda's conversations with people in the U.S., and only a politician suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome would want to make the government's right to do so a political issue?

And the corollary: why did the landscape change when the NYT reported the program?

Source.

 

[Stinger]

Showing that most people don't know what Bush did, what the law says, and what the courts have said about it.

 

[oldreliable67]

Showing that most people don't know what Bush did, what the law says, and what the courts have said about it.

That sums it up pretty nicely!

 

[aps]

Re: the 15 day period following a declaration of war.

AG Gonzales, in his participation in a debate at Georgetown Univ. here in DC today, had this to say about the 15 day period following a declaration of war:



Thus, Gonzales makes the argument that the AUMF constitutes an "authorization by statute" that makes the current NSA program an exception to FISA.

It doesn't work that way. I don't believe that the Supreme Court would find that the AUMF allowed the president to conduct warrantless surveillance. I pointed out what Scalia (a strict constructionist) said about the AUMF and the Handi case. He dissented, and he said it was because the AUMF did not indicate that Congress had suspended the writ of habeas corpus. Thus, he said that the president had to either charge Hamdi with a crime or release him. The holding in Hamdi determined that the president had the power to detain Hamdi, and I actually agree with that. Detaining someone suspected of terrorism who has been captured is reasonably construed as using "force" against the enemy. I do not see the Supreme Court interpreting that the AUMF allowed warrantless wiretapping of people suspected of terrorism.

Tsk tsk

 

[aps]

Paraphrasing a good question asked by a blogger:

Here is a question for you: why did no real inquiry regarding the NSA surveillance program occur when the administration first advised congressional leaders about it? Is it that few adults in their right minds would want to inhibit or encumber the gov'ts right to listen to al Qaeda's conversations with people in the U.S., and only a politician suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome would want to make the government's right to do so a political issue?

I believe that the rules given to the Congressional leaders was that they couldn't talk to anybody about this issue--not their employees, not their spouses, and not each other (those who were also briefed).

And the corollary: why did the landscape change when the NYT reported the program?

First, because the program was no longer classified. Thus, then Rockefeller could talk about his concerns and other members of Congress had just learned of it. He got clearance to publish the letter before he actually allowed it to be published.

Second, the same could be said of this Administration. The NYT contacted Bush when they learned of the program, which was about a year before the article was published. Thus, at that time, the Bush Administration was on notice that someone had leaked classified information. They asked the NYT to withhold publishing the article for one year, which it did. However, only NOW does the Attorney General order an investigation into the leaking of the program, when it knew one year prior that the leak had occurred. Why now? Hmmmmm.

 

[oldreliable67]

aps,

Rightly or wrongly - and this will be settled by the courts, I hope - the administration's position, as articulated by the AG, is that Hamdi confirmed the AUMF as a de facto 'statute' authorizing the President to engage in the acts 'incidential' to the use of force, which includes the collection of signals intelligence.

BTW, Scalia dissented. He lost.

 

[aps]

aps,

Rightly or wrongly - and this will be settled by the courts, I hope - the administration's position, as articulated by the AG, is that Hamdi confirmed the AUMF as a de facto 'statute' authorizing the President to engage in the acts 'incidential' to the use of force, which includes the collection of signals intelligence.

BTW, Scalia dissented. He lost.

I would like this to be settled in the courts as well. Yes, I am aware that Scalia lost, but it is interesting that one of the Justices that Bush has indicated favoritism for is Scalia and Scalia ruled against him. I would be surprised if the collection of signals intelligence falls under the authorization Congress gave under the AUMF. I don't see it happening, particularly when the Supreme Court limited its finding regarding what was authorized under AUMF.

 

[oldreliable67]

I believe that the rules given to the Congressional leaders was that they couldn't talk to anybody about this issue

There is probably an element of truth to that. The program was an "SAP" program, meaning that very, very few people were to be briefed on it. But, nonetheless, I don't buy that argument in total. If the briefed political leaders thought for a minute that this program exceeded the bounds of propriety (and offered some way to gain partisan advantage), they would have been frothing at the mouth, most likely using the time-honored method of the well planted leak by a staffer to start the ball rolling.

because the program was no longer classified

No, the operational details of the program is most certainly still classified, as Gen. Hayden mentioned several times today. Its existence, though, is no longer a secret. Big difference.

only NOW does the Attorney General order an investigation into the leaking of the program, when it knew one year prior that the leak had occurred. Why now? Hmmmmm.

Simple. Doing so would have revealed the existence of the program a year ago. By persuading the NYT to hold off on publication, we gained the opportunity to gather more intel in the interim.

 

[aps]

There is probably an element of truth to that. The program was an "SAP" program, meaning that very, very few people were to be briefed on it. But, nonetheless, I don't buy that argument in total. If the briefed political leaders thought for a minute that this program exceeded the bounds of propriety (and offered some way to gain partisan advantage), they would have been frothing at the mouth, most likely using the time-honored method of the well planted leak by a staffer to start the ball rolling.

The Washington Post said this in an article:

John D. Rockefeller IV, a wealthy man representing a poor state, had been the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee for six months when he sat down to a secret briefing on July 17, 2003. What he heard alarmed him so much that immediately afterward he wrote two identical letters, by hand, expressing his concerns. . . .

Rockefeller's unease suffused the short letter. "Clearly, the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues," he wrote. Laws governing classified information barred him from sharing the information with lawyers, aides or other experts who might have helped him evaluate the information, he told Cheney.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121901641.html

Now, why didn't he follow up on that letter? I do not know. If he felt that strongly by it, he could have written another letter to Cheney.

No, the operational details of the program is most certainly still classified, as Gen. Hayden mentioned several times today. Its existence, though, is no longer a secret. Big difference.

Okay, okay. You know what I meant, you weenie!

Simple. Doing so would have revealed the existence of the program a year ago. By persuading the NYT to hold off on publication, we gained the opportunity to gather more intel in the interim.

Hmmm, you may have a point, but does the White House have to inform the public if it starts an investigation on a possible crime?

 

[Paladin]

Have a nice day, ted.

Thank-you. I doubt that you are serious, but I'll take it as well-wishing. :2wave:
I'm a middle school teacher and don't have time for this during the day. And the schools filters won't allow me to go to this site. I'm confused about that.
Anyway, I'm late getting back to this so I'm only addressing this.

Interesting. How so? When you're able to refute the staement below, get back to me.

Q. What is the role of the House of Representatives in impeachment under the Constitution?
A. Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution specifies that "the House of Representatives...shall have the sole power of impeachment." This means that it has the power to bring charges against an official.

OK. from the part I quoted.

Q. How many impeachment proceedings have there been in our history? How many involved a president?
A. The serious nature of impeachment is reflected in the fact that the House of Representatives has only moved seriously to impeach 18 officials in the more than 200 years since the Constitution was ratified, including two presidents, one cabinet member, one senator, and 13 judges. Andrew Johnson, who was impeached in 1868, was not convicted by the Senate (by a margin of one vote) and Richard Nixon resigned before the House voted on the articles of impeachment recommended by the Judiciary Committee.

The Senate did not remove Clinton from office, but the House still impeached him.

As I read it Johnson and Nixon were impeached. Not Clinton. And from a strict definition point, I'm not wrong either, since any accusation is an impeachment.

 

[Paul]

Has anyone ever noticed presidential power increases during a time of war?

If you guys want Bush impeached you would have wanted two of the greatest presidents ever impeached.

Before the civil war when people were voting in each state whether they wanted to be a free or slave state, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus for those he knew were going to vote for their state to be a slave state. Was that overstepping their civil liberties? Yes but it was for a good cause.

FDR during WW2 put all Japanese Americans in camps, which was a violation of their civil liberties as well. But it was ruled constitutional by the supreme court case Korematsu vs US in 1944.

What do both of these things have in common? They kept the US safe, they were politically incorrect and if they were done today all hell would break loose. Imagine if Bush threw all Muslims in jail. It would probably reduce the terrorist threat level, but is very politically incorrect and thousands of innocent Muslims would wrongfully be detained. Bush is just listening on phone calls trying to keep another 9/11 from happening. How can anyone get on him for doing the right thing. The ends justify the means if you ask me. There have been no more terror attacks. But we as Americans need to stay vigilant, because there is always danger (Iran)

 

[debate_junkie]

Clinton was impeached for having sex in the White House, er, BJ's in the White House. Is that ( BJ's) considered "sex"?

LMAO You can't impeach a president for having sex in the white house.. otherwise... almost every president in history should have been or should be impeached. Clinton was impeached for lying UNDER OATH, ya know that thing people do in a courtroom.. put their hands on a bible, and SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. Hmmmm if Clinton were only impeached for having sex, why is he only NOW eligible to get his law license back in Arkansas? Are Arkansas attorney's not allowed to have sex? Things that make you go hmmm.

 

[debate_junkie]

Thank-you. I doubt that you are serious, but I'll take it as well-wishing. :2wave:
I'm a middle school teacher and don't have time for this during the day. And the schools filters won't allow me to go to this site. I'm confused about that.
Anyway, I'm late getting back to this so I'm only addressing this.



OK. from the part I quoted.





As I read it Johnson and Nixon were impeached. Not Clinton. And from a strict definition point, I'm not wrong either, since any accusation is an impeachment.

Congress regards impeachment as a power to be used only in extreme cases; the House has initiated impeachment proceedings 62 times since 1789 (most recently Bill Clinton) and only 16 federal officers have been impeached:

Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1804
President Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998 by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228-206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221-212 vote). Two other articles of impeachment failed — a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205-229 vote), and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148-285 vote). Was acquitted by the Senate.
President Andrew Johnson in 1868. Was acquitted by a single vote in the Senate.
one cabinet officer
one Senator
eleven other federal judges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#United_States

See above.. Clinton was impeached, by the House of Representatives, and acquitted by the Senate.

Below is the process in which The House of Rep's draws up and votes on the Articles of Impeachment, and the Senate then tries the accused.

In the United States, impeachment can occur both at the federal and state level. At the federal level, both the executive branch and the judiciary may be impeached, though different standards apply. For the executive branch, only those who have allegedly committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" may be impeached. Although treason and bribery are obvious, the Constitution is silent on what constitutes a "high crime." Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes an impeachable offense.

The standard for impeachment among the judiciary is much broader. Article III of the Constitution states that judges remain in office "during good behavior," implying that Congress may remove a judge for bad behavior.

Members of Congress themselves are not subject to impeachment. However, the House of Representatives and the Senate have the authority to discipline and expel their own members.

The procedure is in two steps. The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority. The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached."

Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a President, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. Otherwise, the Vice President, in his capacity of President of the Senate, or the President pro tempore of the Senate presides. This would include the impeachment of the Vice President him- or herself. In order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required.

Following conviction, the Senate may vote to punish the individual only by removing him from office, or by barring him from holding future office, or both. Alternatively, it may impose no punishment. However in the case of executive officers, removal follows automatically upon conviction. The defendant remains liable to criminal prosecution. It is possible to impeach someone even after the accused has vacated his office in order to disqualify the person from such emoluments of office as a pension.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#United_States

So, how much plainer must it read for you to finally admit you are indeed incorrect, and Bill Clinton WAS impeached by the House of Representatives?

 

[debate_junkie]

And just to add to my previous post, Richard Nixon was never impeached. See the highlighted below.



The House Judiciary Committee opened formal and public impeachment hearings against Nixon on May 9, 1974. Despite his efforts, one of the secret recordings, known as the "smoking gun" tape, was released on August 5, 1974 and revealed that Nixon authorized hush money to Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt, and also revealed that Nixon arranged for the blackmailing of the CIA into telling the FBI to stop investigating certain topics because of "the Bay of Pigs thing." Several of the Watergate burglars were involved in the Bay of Pigs operation. Haldeman would later claim that when Nixon used the phrase "the Bay of Pigs thing," he was actually referring to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. In light of his loss of political support and the near certainty of both his impeachment by the House of Representatives and his conviction by the Senate, he resigned on August 9, 1974, after addressing the nation on television the previous evening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_M._Nixon#Watergate

Please note the words "near certainty" Nixon didn't stick around once all the information began to be revealed. He got out of dodge, before he could wear the stigma of, at the time, the 2nd President in US History to get impeached. Instead, Clinton got that title. I believe Andrew Johnson was the first to be impeached.

 

[Stinger]

Clinton was impeached because he broke the law. Bush should not be impeached if he didn't break any laws. IMO

This shows the recklessness of the Democrat argument and their true objective. In no way does the Bush adminsitration believe they were breaking the law. They believe they are on solid footing. I happen to agree but that is for another post, for now the salient point is that they believe they are correct. Now THAT can be a point of debate and a point of discuss. There are merits to both sides and each side should present it's case.

But the Democrats come to this straight at the throat. Claims that Bush is a diabolical criminal knowingly abusing his power to throw out this big net to listen in on us all. They are screaming IMPEACHMENT and criminal charges. Hysterical comparisons to the Soviet Unions spying on it's citizens and on and on. They don't want to discuss the merits of each side they are clearly after nothing more than their own political gain. And it sends the message to the world that we are a divided country, that that we are weak in the face of the terrorist and that there is a chance that the weakest of us will gain power. And that hurts our cause. That endangers our national security.