Bush Authorized NSA To Spy Inside US

[oldreliable67]

Well, we indited somebody for not wanting to reveal their sex life.

No, we didn't. Someone was indicted for lying under oath. Thats called perjury.

Ah, Steen, did you actually comprehend my post? Apologies if I was less than clear. I'll try again. I said that I hope that Congress actually does go through with the presently only contemplated hearings. If indictable offenses are surfaced as a result, then so be it. I said this in the belief that we need to obtain full disclosure on this matter.

More specifically, I'm expecting (and hoping) that the legal course that this inquiry takes will eventually find itself before the SC. There, rather than the contemplated initial congressional hearings, will we find the needed full examination of the law and the constitution.

Based on what I've read and heard thus far, I am of the opinion that the President has full authority for what has done in this regard. Nonetheless, these are very important questions that come at a time of continued threats of a nature never faced before in this country. Hence, I believe there are questions here on executive branch responses to foreign intelligence needs in a modern world that need to be addressed by the SC.

 

[Stace]

Based on what I've read and heard thus far, I am of the opinion that the President has full authority for what has done in this regard.

Could you elaborate on why you believe this? Inquiring minds want to know :mrgreen:

 

[oldreliable67]

Could you elaborate on why you believe this? Inquiring minds want to know :mrgreen:

First, it is important to note that I recognize that it is entirely possible for someone else to read the same material that I have read and come to a different conclusion. Here is one constitutional lawyer who is quite reasonable, IMO.

Charles Fried teaches constitutional law at Harvard Law School; in an article in the Boston Globe, he says, in part:

"The president claims that congressional authorization for military action against Al Qaeda, together with his inherent constitutional powers, make such action lawful. There is some plausibility to that claim but until tested in the courts it is impossible to give a definitive opinion about it.
...
The resolution of this dilemma to allow both the use of an important tool of national security and respect for the rule of law needs ingenuity, discretion, and a good faith search for sensible solutions. So far I have heard only alarmist and hyperbolic pronouncements calculated neither to illuminate nor resolve this problem."

Notice two things about his comments: (1) plausible legal grounds but not definitive until a court test, and (2) denunciation of the hyperbole and alarmist approach to consideration of the questions at hand. This guy makes a lot of sense, IMO.

His article is at:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...es/2005/12/30/
the_case_for_surveillance/

There are others, including an Asst AG under Clinton, that support Bush's legal position. For another, the legal position set forth in the AG's letter to selected congresspersons sets forth both precedents and authorities in a persuasive manner. I've posted several parts of my reasons for believing that Bush is on ok legal ground in other threads. I'll see if I can't gather them up in one place and put them up. But not right now...

 

[Stace]

First, it is important to note that I recognize that it is entirely possible for someone else to read the same material that I have read and come to a different conclusion. Here is one constitutional lawyer who is quite reasonable, IMO.

Charles Fried teaches constitutional law at Harvard Law School; in an article in the Boston Globe, he says, in part:

"The president claims that congressional authorization for military action against Al Qaeda, together with his inherent constitutional powers, make such action lawful. There is some plausibility to that claim but until tested in the courts it is impossible to give a definitive opinion about it.
...
The resolution of this dilemma to allow both the use of an important tool of national security and respect for the rule of law needs ingenuity, discretion, and a good faith search for sensible solutions. So far I have heard only alarmist and hyperbolic pronouncements calculated neither to illuminate nor resolve this problem."

Notice two things about his comments: (1) plausible legal grounds but not definitive until a court test, and (2) denunciation of the hyperbole and alarmist approach to consideration of the questions at hand. This guy makes a lot of sense, IMO.

His article is at:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...es/2005/12/30/
the_case_for_surveillance/

There are others, including an Asst AG under Clinton, that support Bush's legal position. For another, the legal position set forth in the AG's letter to selected congresspersons sets forth both precedents and authorities in a persuasive manner. I've posted several parts of my reasons for believing that Bush is on ok legal ground in other threads. I'll see if I can't gather them up in one place and put them up. But not right now...

Excellent.

I am most likely not as informed on this issue as some people. My reasoning for thinking that what Bush has done isn't right is very simple: Many people say that he acted within his Constitutional powers. I'm not a Constitutional scholar, so I won't debate that part, per se. But then they bring up how he has inherant powers during times of war to do anything necessary for national security, and that's where I have an issue - we are NOT at war, legally anyway. Congress is the power that declares our nation to be at war, and they have not declared us to be so at this time. THAT is the problem I have with this whole thing.

But, none of us knows the full story, so I too hope that Congress proceeds with hearings, if for no other reason than to have more of our citizens educated on what the President can and cannot do.

 

[steen]

Based on what I've read and heard thus far, I am of the opinion that the President has full authority for what has done in this regard.

So when the president, back when the unpatriotic "patriot act" was passed ASSURED us that warrants were needed, then he was lying? Is that what you are telling us? because certainly, back in 2002, that is exactly what he told us. When people were going to be spied on, warrantys were going to be used.

So now, when he did NOT use warrants, was it because (1) He broke the law because they were needed, or (2) because he lied to us back when pushing for the patriot act?

 

[aps]

So when the president, back when the unpatriotic "patriot act" was passed ASSURED us that warrants were needed, then he was lying? Is that what you are telling us? because certainly, back in 2002, that is exactly what he told us. When people were going to be spied on, warrantys were going to be used.

So now, when he did NOT use warrants, was it because (1) He broke the law because they were needed, or (2) because he lied to us back when pushing for the patriot act?

You know, steen, I cannot imagine what was going through his head when he made the statements regarding getting a court order prior to wiretapping. I don't see how divulging this fact is any different than divulging that wiretaps were being done without a court order. Those who are wiretapped have no idea that they are being wiretapped. If it was supposed to be such a huge secret, why did Bush even make that statement? It doesn't make sense.

Regardless, why did Bush go out of his way to state that a court order would be obtained prior to wiretapping someone? In the speech he made on April 20, 2004, he went out of his way to appease his listeners that court orders would be obtained PRIOR TO wiretapping anyone.

George Bush, April 20, 2004:

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution. [sure you value the Constitution :roll:]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

 

[TimmyBoy]

You know, steen, I cannot imagine what was going through his head when he made the statements regarding getting a court order prior to wiretapping. I don't see how divulging this fact is any different than divulging that wiretaps were being done without a court order. Those who are wiretapped have no idea that they are being wiretapped. If it was supposed to be such a huge secret, why did Bush even make that statement? It doesn't make sense.

Regardless, why did Bush go out of his way to state that a court order would be obtained prior to wiretapping someone? In the speech he made on April 20, 2004, he went out of his way to appease his listeners that court orders would be obtained PRIOR TO wiretapping anyone.

George Bush, April 20, 2004:

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution. [sure you value the Constitution :roll:]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

Politicans lie all the time when they go on TV. I watched as Pentagon spokesman Pete Williams stated "We see no evidence of a program to massively kill innocent civilians or people of a particular ethnic group." This program that Pete Williams talked about on TV was in fact in existance and was being carried out in Bosnia and Pete Williams knew this as well as Former President Clinton because US spy planes and sattellites had taken hundreds of pictures of the death camps that Bosnia's Muslims were hoarded into to be starved and executed like the Jews during World War II. The evidence was pouring into US embassies with testimonies and evidence of torture. Their was plenty of evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a program of genocide was going on. Clinton and Pete Williams knew full well what was going on but willfully and intentionally chose to come on TV and lie about it and cover it all up because they had no interest to help innocent victims of genocide. I guess Bosnia doesn't have much oil like Iraq eh? Yet Pete Williams and Clinton chose to sell their souls to the devil and to sell out the victims of genocide and most importantly, they chose to sell out the American people. They chose to betray our American principles. They chose to betray the victims of genocide. They chose to betray every American and their own country. Clinton and Pete Williams are traitors and should be put on trial for perjury and treason along with Bush. Because in the end, they are all crooks. But I guess they are politicans and all politicans, with a few rare exceptions like McCain, are the same. Just crooked liars who have no respect for the law, for freedom or for the people they are suppose to serve. But in all fairness, I will say their are rare exceptions. But I wouldn't trust hardly any politican as far as I could throw them. Bush is no different.

 

[cnredd]

You know, steen, I cannot imagine what was going through his head when he made the statements regarding getting a court order prior to wiretapping. I don't see how divulging this fact is any different than divulging that wiretaps were being done without a court order. Those who are wiretapped have no idea that they are being wiretapped. If it was supposed to be such a huge secret, why did Bush even make that statement? It doesn't make sense.

Regardless, why did Bush go out of his way to state that a court order would be obtained prior to wiretapping someone? In the speech he made on April 20, 2004, he went out of his way to appease his listeners that court orders would be obtained PRIOR TO wiretapping anyone.

George Bush, April 20, 2004:

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution. [sure you value the Constitution :roll:]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

Did you stop reading when it got to what you want or did you simply neglect to point out how your paragraph is taken out of context when compared with the paragraph immdiately following that one?...

But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.

 

[TimmyBoy]

Did you stop reading when it got to what you want or did you simply neglect to point out how your paragraph is taken out of context when compared with the paragraph immdiately following that one?...

But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.

Cnredd, don't take this personal dude, their can be no justification of warrantless spying. Their was a court set up to handle these things and Bush chose to ignore the law. End of story.

 

[Hoot]

Cnredd, don't take this personal dude, their can be no justification of warrantless spying. Their was a court set up to handle these things and Bush chose to ignore the law. End of story.

I agree completely...C-Span just noted that in 2004, over 1750 secret warrants were applied for, and not a single one was denied.

The argument isn't whether Bush was justified in these wiretaps, but that Bush chose to ignore the law as expressively provided by FISA and Congress.

Bush is not President to protect the American people, but to preserve and defend the Constitution...there is a difference.

As Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales should recluse himself from any comments regarding this wiretapping, as the 'conflict of interest' is obvious.

We need a special independent prosecutor to investigate this. We do not need a deflection of issues by having an investigation into the sources of the New York Times.

 

[cnredd]

Cnredd, don't take this personal dude, their can be no justification of warrantless spying. Their was a court set up to handle these things and Bush chose to ignore the law. End of story.

No offense taken (other than my name isn't capitalized)...

If what you said was true, then your gonna have to explain the Senate Intelligence Committee's 2+ year knowledge of this and their reluctance to not do anything about it...

I'll refer what you've written to a previous post...

The AG has set out the admin's legal foundation for the NSA surveillance program in question. This legal foundation refers to several precedents and cites the authorization to use force as well as the Constitution. Clearly, the admin believes itself to be on solid legal ground.

Nonetheless, there are those who disagree. Here we find those who disagree with the validity of the precedents and the interpretation of the authorization to use force. They also believe that the Constitution is being misinterpreted.

Around the fringes of the argument, we find yet a third group: those who seek to gain partisan advantage by siding with one or the other viewpoints. The declamations of opinions and assertions as facts are prevalent in this group. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't seem to apply with these folks. Quick to form an opinion based on political persuasion rather than facts, here we find rhetoric instead of investigation, 'slam at all cost' instead of knowledge-seeking and 'don't bother me with facts, he is a Repub' instead of pragmatism.

All in all, its business as usual.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=184565&postcount=46

 

[aps]

Did you stop reading when it got to what you want or did you simply neglect to point out how your paragraph is taken out of context when compared with the paragraph immdiately following that one?...

But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.

No I did not stop reading. How does what he says in the above paragraph somehow take away what he said prior to that--that a court order would be obtained prior to wiretapping? Did I miss something? All I see is his further explaining why wiretapping is necessary. I don't see him saying that under certain circumstances a court order is not needed.

 

[steen]

Did you stop reading when it got to what you want ...

Did YOU? Bush claimed that warrants always would be needed, then he gous on to full-scale spy without wararnts.

That's LYING! In case you didn't know?:roll:

 

[cnredd]

Did YOU? Bush claimed that warrants always would be needed, then he gous on to full-scale spy without wararnts.

That's LYING! In case you didn't know?:roll:

Enough with the big-ass fonts...It's annoying...

If it was lying than there wouldn't be a hint of an investigation...of which Sen. Spector has already said there may be one starting in February....

Investigations are meant to SEE if something was done; not to CONCLUDE that something was done...

Since you, among others, have already made the conclusion, I suggest you save the taxpayer some cash and immediately inform the good Senator that any investigation would not be needed, since you have all of the answers...

 

[steen]

Enough with the big-ass fonts...It's annoying...

Really? It is an option in the menu?

Since you, among others, have already made the conclusion, I suggest you save the taxpayer some cash and immediately inform the good Senator that any investigation would not be needed, since you have all of the answers...

That would be a good idea. Just indict him and get him out of there before he compounds the enormous damage he has already done to America.

 

[Gill]

Did YOU? Bush claimed that warrants always would be needed, then he gous on to full-scale spy without wararnts.

That's LYING! In case you didn't know?

The 2004 quote was referring to roving wire taps under the Patriot Act, NOT the NSA surveilance!

 

[Caine]

The 2004 quote was referring to roving wire taps under the Patriot Act, NOT the NSA surveilance!

Umm... whats the difference el genio?
Explain it.

 

[Gill]

The difference is that in 2004 he was talking about roving wire taps under the Patriot Act.
duh!

Research the subject.

Among the provisions the House proposes to extend is one allowing the FBI, with a court order, to place wiretaps on every phone a suspect uses -- a procedure called a roving wiretap -- and another permitting the agency to obtain personal records, including medical documents and library activity.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/14/patriot.act/

 

[Caine]

The difference is that in 2004 he was talking about roving wire taps under the Patriot Act.
duh!

Research the subject.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/14/patriot.act/

This explains nothing.

 

[Gill]

Sorry, but I don't have time to teach you reading comprehension.

 

[Caine]

Sorry, but I don't have time to teach you reading comprehension.

Ummm.. I can read and comprehend just fine.

This article explains nothing.

 

[Achilles2012]

Here is why you don't ever trust the government or politicans and why you want to limit the scope and size of government. Allow the government to become to large and they will try to destroy freedom:



Secrecy is a means of preventing accountability, honesty and of allowing tyranny to develop:

The Patriot Act was designed to protect the root freedoms of the people of the United states. However their are people in this world that think Freedom is free. Freedom is never free, get over it, ask the current soldiers and past veterans of foreign wars, that many of their freinds have even lost limbs to protect your ability to stab them in the back. Since President Bush is the Commander in Chief, technically he is also taking part in the war on terror. Being President of the United States is not a job that consists of 8 hour shifts, its a 24/7/365/4 or sometimes 8 years. He doesnt have time to sit down and tell the NSA to wiretap your phone. The NSA search's for these type of things themselves, not the President. Even if the President did had this ability he wouldnt have the time, nor the fact should you be afraid he looks into what your doing because your not supposed to be doing anything wrong anyways.The fact of the matter is, if your a Terrorist you should be worried, and if you arent, you shouldnt, simply put. And also regarding the statement of Tyranny by the post in which im replying: Tyranny doesnt develope by its self, it takes the people to conform----willingly. Which takes time on its own and I dont think President Bush could take over the United States in 8 years. Look at past-Nazi Germany, the people ELECTED Adolf Hitler because he was telling them what they wanted to hear, and didnt cry about it till we found the Concentration camps. The people of Germany were at fault, because they allowed the Nazi Vermon to fester in the stomach of Europe.

 

[steen]

So you protect freedom by destroying it. Uhum, sure. Perhaps by conservative logic, that makes sense.:roll:

 

[oldreliable67]

So you protect freedom by destroying it. Uhum, sure.

Reductio ad absurdum.

 

[steen]

hey, it is YOUR argument, I am just commenting on it.:2razz: