Bush agrees to full NSA oversight by Congress (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

As the title says, President Bush has caved in and agreed to oversight on NSA spying by Congress. Jeez, wasnt spying on Americans originally subject to Congressional oversight?

Hmm, I have a neighbor who I cant stand, so how about I kill him, then afterwards tell the police they have permission to arrest me if I kill again? Oops, thats right. I would never get away with it. After all, I am not a King or a US President, am I?

Article is here.

 

[oldreliable67]

And from the article you cited, here is why:

A congressional aide who deals with intelligence matters said the change in policy on NSA oversight would also allow Hayden to speak about the program during the classified segment of his confirmation hearing before Roberts' committee.

The aide also predicted that broader congressional oversight could pave the way for bringing the NSA program under federal law, a proposal that Hayden has signaled his possible support for during private meetings with members of Congress.

[emphasis added]

It seems to me that the administration wants Haden at the CIA. There is a desperate need to rebuild, refocus and upgrade capabilities in the USIC, and the CIA needs to be revitalized as a core component. Haden is viewed as the guy that can do the job.

The administration seems to be saying that, if this is what it takes to get Haden confirmed at the CIA, then so be it.

Just my opinion. YMMV.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

While I don't trust the GWB Admin to handle it's powers responsibly or in a manner that's beneficial to the American electorate, I'm uncomfortable with this.
The separation of various powers among the branches of govt is generally a good thing. While there need to checks and balances, not every balance needs to be checked. The executive branch does need to be able to execute in ways that a deliberative body is incapable [or very rarely capable] of doing. That's why we have different branches.

But, as always in these sorts of things, the devil's in the details. So, w/o those, who's to say?

 

[jfuh]

While I don't trust the GWB Admin to handle it's powers responsibly or in a manner that's beneficial to the American electorate, I'm uncomfortable with this.
The separation of various powers among the branches of govt is generally a good thing. While there need to checks and balances, not every balance needs to be checked. The executive branch does need to be able to execute in ways that a deliberative body is incapable [or very rarely capable] of doing. That's why we have different branches.

But, as always in these sorts of things, the devil's in the details. So, w/o those, who's to say?

It's not just the Bush admin that I don't trust, it's any administration that I would not trust to have such power to say it can do what it wants when it wants without balance from one of the other branches, prefereably the judicial branch.

 

[Binary_Digit]

While there need to checks and balances, not every balance needs to be checked.

Then what's the point of checks and balances to begin with? Who gets to decide what needs to be checked and what doesn't?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Then what's the point of checks and balances to begin with? Who gets to decide what needs to be checked and what doesn't?

There's a reason why the chief executive is one person and why this single person is the CinC of the military. Somethings just don't work well with a deliberative body at the con. Other things should have slower deliberative process - like law making and funding.

 

[jfuh]

There's a reason why the chief executive is one person and why this single person is the CinC of the military. Somethings just don't work well with a deliberative body at the con. Other things should have slower deliberative process - like law making and funding.

THere's also a 3rd branch of government that has full absolute authority over issues of legality.

 

[danarhea]

THere's also a 3rd branch of government that has full absolute authority over issues of legality.

Ahh, yes. The judiciary, otherwise known as the courts. One of them is the FISA court, which Bush chose to unconstitutionally circumvent.

 

[oldreliable67]

Ahh, yes. The judiciary, otherwise known as the courts. One of them is the FISA court, which Bush chose to unconstitutionally circumvent.

Can't find the link just now, but I read a somewhere today that said that Bush had briefed two of the FISA judges in 2001 on this thing. Back with a link soon as I locate it.

...found it! From the AP via Yahoo:

Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said that at least two of the chief judges on the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had been informed since 2001 of the White House-approved National Security Agency operations.

"None raised any objections, as far as I know," said Hatch, an Intelligence Committee member who was chosen to a select panel to oversee the NSA's work.

Read the entire article here.

 

[jfuh]

Ahh, yes. The judiciary, otherwise known as the courts. One of them is the FISA court, which Bush chose to unconstitutionally circumvent.

Which btw is ILLEGAL. Shesh, why don't ppl get that.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Can't find the link just now, but I read a somewhere today that said that Bush had briefed two of the FISA judges in 2001 on this thing. Back with a link soon as I locate it.

...found it! From the AP via Yahoo:

Read the entire article here.

Good point, but I don't think he was talking about "this thing" because:

"He later suggested he was speaking broadly of the administration's terror-related monitoring."

That's not an official ruling anyway. If I'm reading this right, they didn't ask for the judges' opinions on whether or not it would be legal, they just "informed" them. Now I would expect the judges to raise any legal concerns they might have, and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, says "as far as I know" there were no objections. But was Orrin Hatch one of the members present at the meeting when the judges were "informed"? The article doesn't say...

 

[jfuh]

Can't find the link just now, but I read a somewhere today that said that Bush had briefed two of the FISA judges in 2001 on this thing. Back with a link soon as I locate it.

...found it! From the AP via Yahoo:



Read the entire article here.

You missed a key part here:

When asked if the judges somehow approved the operations, Hatch said, "That is not their position, but they were informed."

Further:

President Bush insisted Tuesday that the United States does not listen in on domestic telephone conversations among ordinary Americans. But he declined to specifically discuss the government's alleged compiling of phone records, or whether it would amount to an invasion of privacy. "We do not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval," Bush said in a White House news conference with Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

Technically that is correct as it so seems, as from what has been released the administration is not listening in on the conversation but only collecting who is calling whom, when, and for how long.
However, such collection of information is in violation of section 222 of the Federal Communications Act of 1934 revised in 1996.

Seems Bush instead of learning and practicing the excellent leadership of Nixon, has instead decided to learn and practice what got Nixxon to resign, only to a much more severe and criminal scale.

 

[oldreliable67]

BD and jfuh,

I posted that article re: Bush informing the FISA court in response to the following:

Ahh, yes. The judiciary, otherwise known as the courts. One of them is the FISA court, which Bush chose to unconstitutionally circumvent.

Note that I took no position on it at the time, merely provided info that, contrary to danarhea's assertion, the FISA court had been nothing else if not informed. But I will take a position now:

Which btw is ILLEGAL. Shesh, why don't ppl get that.

The reason "ppl [don't] get that" is that your assertion is still unproven. It is still an opinion. But you're not alone. Various legal scholars have opined both negatively and positively on the various NSA surveillance programs. There is still no definitive answer. Interestingly, with the increasing number of briefings of Congress, the kerfuffle seems to be on the wane. Perhaps suggestive, perhaps not.

Nonetheless, there are still a couple of lawsuits in the offing on certain of the NSA programs. If nothing else, hopefully some legal opinions will move this toward resolution, one way or the other.

 

[jfuh]

BD and jfuh,

I posted that article re: Bush informing the FISA court in response to the following:



Note that I took no position on it at the time, merely provided info that, contrary to danarhea's assertion, the FISA court had been nothing else if not informed. But I will take a position now:



The reason "ppl [don't] get that" is that your assertion is still unproven. It is still an opinion. But you're not alone. Various legal scholars have opined both negatively and positively on the various NSA surveillance programs. There is still no definitive answer. Interestingly, with the increasing number of briefings of Congress, the kerfuffle seems to be on the wane. Perhaps suggestive, perhaps not.

Nonetheless, there are still a couple of lawsuits in the offing on certain of the NSA programs. If nothing else, hopefully some legal opinions will move this toward resolution, one way or the other.

You must have missed post #12

 

[Stinger]

Which btw is ILLEGAL. Shesh, why don't ppl get that.

Why do you STILL not get they did nothing illegal and every court that has ruled on it has said so. Cite me one court decission that says what they are doing is illegal to rebut the ones that have that say otherwise. Leaders of both parties and leaders of the intelligence committeds were all briefed, the proper branch of the judicary was briefed. NO ONE raised an issue of legality.

So where is the basis, once and for all, for your claims otherwise.

 

[Stinger]

Congress, as have the courts, has been briefed from the get-go once again you post false statements.

 

[jfuh]

Why do you STILL not get they did nothing illegal and every court that has ruled on it has said so. Cite me one court decission that says what they are doing is illegal to rebut the ones that have that say otherwise. Leaders of both parties and leaders of the intelligence committeds were all briefed, the proper branch of the judicary was briefed. NO ONE raised an issue of legality.

So where is the basis, once and for all, for your claims otherwise.

I'll do one better. Cite me one court decisdion that authorized the wiretaps. Cite me any congressional vote approving the taps. No?
Being briefed and approving are quite different matters.
No one raised issue of legality, but neither did anyone approve of such action as is Required by FISA and Section 222 of the Telecommunications act of 1934.

 

[oldreliable67]

You must have missed post #12

Nope, didn't miss it. My comment stands.

 

[Stinger]

I'll do one better. Cite me one court decisdion that authorized the wiretaps.

I've already cited you court decissions that a court authorization wasn't necessary and could not usurp the Presidents inhient counstiutional authority.

Cite me any congressional vote approving the taps. No?

Congress has no say in approving or disapproving wire taps unless they attempt to amend the constitution and take over that power.

Being briefed and approving are quite different matters.

So what's your point? If they disprove they can go directly to the President first. Did they? Nope. They can request additional rulings by the Justice Department. Did they? Nope. They can file with FISA. Did they? Nope. They can even go public, not with details, but with the fact their is a conflict and demand hearings, even if in private, and even sue. But not ONE voiced any formal protest or had the judical branch give them an opnion. Only Rockerfella wrote a meaningless CYA letter just in case he needed it. And the courts in fact did approve through their rulings.

No one raised issue of legality,

That's right, and they could have if they thought it was an issue.

but neither did anyone approve of such action as is Required by FISA and Section 222 of the Telecommunications act of 1934.

The courts did and that has been cited to you over and over and over. And the Clinton administration passed the Telecommunications act of 1996 which gave the government the authority to do what they did.


[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif] Surveillance-on-Demand [/FONT]


The FBI wiretap plan is a symptom. The disease is called the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act.
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif] By David L. Sobel [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Power-hungry thought police are demolishing our freedom and privacy. Under threat of US$10,000-per-day penalties, US phone companies are being forced to install wiretap surveillance circuits throughout the nation's communications networks at a cost to taxpayers of at least $500 million. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]This national wiretap system is mandated by HR 4922, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, a miserable piece of legislation co-authored in 1994 by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and now-retired Representative Don Edwards (D-California). [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]With FBI Director Louis Freeh leading the charge, the Clinton administration lobbied hard for HR 4922, and Democrats rammed it through Congress in less than two months - without substantive hearings.

http://www.wired.com/wired/4.02/cyber.rights.html?topic=&topic_set=

THAT's where the authority comes from, from the Democrats. So spare me the complaints from Democrats about what the Bush administration is doing. The very same people who now try to regain political power with thier phoney claims that the Bush adminsitration is doing something illegal are the ones who authorized it without even holding substantial hearings about it. And people on the left just you fall for it.
[/FONT]

 

[jfuh]

I've already cited you court decissions that a court authorization wasn't necessary and could not usurp the Presidents inhient counstiutional authority.

Nope that's not true at all.

Congress has no say in approving or disapproving wire taps unless they attempt to amend the constitution and take over that power.

You brought up the red herring of congressional members, not I.

So what's your point? If they disprove they can go directly to the President first. Did they? Nope. They can request additional rulings by the Justice Department. Did they? Nope. They can file with FISA. Did they? Nope. They can even go public, not with details, but with the fact their is a conflict and demand hearings, even if in private, and even sue. But not ONE voiced any formal protest or had the judical branch give them an opnion. Only Rockerfella wrote a meaningless CYA letter just in case he needed it. And the courts in fact did approve through their rulings.

Hey I'm going to do a new spy program - you've been briefed. Or I can go to a friend that sides with me closely, ie Pat Buchanan and obviously he's not going to "rat me out". Briefing does not equal an approval. No court till this date has approved of the NSA wiretaps. You're just shouting out red-herrings and spining the facts.

That's right, and they could have if they thought it was an issue.

No one has approved neither.

The courts did and that has been cited to you over and over and over. And the Clinton administration passed the Telecommunications act of 1996 which gave the government the authority to do what they did.

The telecommunications act of 1934 is the same act which Clinton approved in 1996, to which amendments were made to the same act.
Sect 222 remains.

[FONT=verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]THAT's where the authority comes from, from the Democrats. So spare me the complaints from Democrats about what the Bush administration is doing. The very same people who now try to regain political power with thier phoney claims that the Bush adminsitration is doing something illegal are the ones who authorized it without even holding substantial hearings about it. And people on the left just you fall for it.
[/FONT]

This would be valid except nevertheless, you are still missing the crucial authorization and warrent. Sorry, but I see through the muck that you continue to stumble upon. I'm not blinded by partisanship as you are.
Proof of your partisanship to the far right? Where're those WMD's that you claimed existed only not so long ago as well as claimed to have proof of?

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
I've already cited you court decissions that a court authorization wasn't necessary and could not usurp the Presidents inhient counstiutional authority.

Nope that's not true at all.

Yes it's true at all

You brought up the red herring of congressional members, not I.

Nope read the title of the thread.

No one has approved neither.

It's not for congress to approve.

The telecommunications act of 1934 is the same act which Clinton approved in 1996, to which amendments were made to the same act.
Sect 222 remains.

And it authorized the current activities and the courts have said it's constitutional. So far you haven't a leg to stand on.

This would be valid except nevertheless, you are still missing the crucial authorization and warrent.

Cite the court ruling that says one is required.

Sorry, but I see through the muck that you continue to stumble upon. I'm not blinded by partisanship as you are.
Proof of your partisanship to the far right? Where're those WMD's that you claimed existed only not so long ago as well as claimed to have proof of?

And now that the arguement is lost comes the hyperbole.

 

[jfuh]

Nope read the title of the thread.

You said congressional members and judges were already briefed on the issue. A red herring argument with respects to the topic.

It's not for congress to approve.

Only congress can make laws, not the white house.

And it authorized the current activities and the courts have said it's constitutional. So far you haven't a leg to stand on.

Which court has stated that NSA wiretaps are legal/constitutional? None
Telecom act of 1934 amended in 1996 section 222 states quite clearly of the neccesity for a warrent in order to gather any form of data from telecom companies.

Cite the court ruling that says one is required.

THEre has been no such court ruling on the matter. However there is quite specifically section 222 that requires a court authorization.

And now that the arguement is lost comes the hyperbole.

Very true

 

[Stinger]

You said congressional members and judges were already briefed on the issue. A red herring argument with respects to the topic.

Only congress can make laws, not the white house.

Which court has stated that NSA wiretaps are legal/constitutional? None
Telecom act of 1934 amended in 1996 section 222 states quite clearly of the neccesity for a warrent in order to gather any form of data from telecom companies.

THEre has been no such court ruling on the matter. However there is quite specifically section 222 that requires a court authorization.

Very true

The court decissions have been cited to you in several threads and remain unrebutted. The president has the inherient authority under the consitution and the congress cannot legislate that away. The congress and the courts have been kept fully informed as to what is being done and how it is being done in a legal manner. Not one on the congressional leaders has voiced and object and the courts have agreed with the justice department that this is being done in a legal manner. This has all been cited to you in other threads. INcluding the amending of the Communications act which you failed to address.

You on the other hand have provided nothing to support you claim that the administration is engaged in anything illegal or outside it's constitutional authority.

I await you to do exactly that citing an authoritative source.