Bush Authorized NSA To Spy Inside US

libertarian_knight · Jan 7, 2006

finally, hehe (haven't been able to post all day for some reason, and I was not being punished... iffy internet)

Anyway.

The Congressional Research Service has an excellent memo regarding this issue.

People have often talked about the President Inherent authority concerning foriegn affairs resulting from Article II of the US Constitution, however there is another inherent authority that must be taken into account, that of Congress in Artilce I "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; " and "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. "

Which has been understood that Congress has the authority even to, in part, make law concerning how the powers of other branches are executed.

For example, though the President is Commander and Chief of the Army and Navy, etc, the Congress CAN make rules on HOW the President can execute the role of Commander in Chief. See: War Powers Act. The President can engage us Armed services into Hostilities without support of congress or Declaration of War, however, the President, even as CiC can not engage in armed conflict indefinately without the express approval of congress to continue the action either periodically or until conclusion.

Though the President's primary doamin is foriegn affairs, and congress agrees Foriegn intelligence gathing a role of the President, they again, can set rules for the government and laws necessary and proper for execution of the government's powers.

It is my opinion at least (not that it really matters) that congress did just such a thing, using their consitutional authority, in creating FISA that, in part, limits the extent to which the President can gather intelligence information.

It is also the president that is bound to uphold the laws and the consitution.

Some clarity regarding this issue came from the 44 pages CRS memo from Jan 5, 2006. http://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf

it's an excellent read.

Scarecrow Akhbar · Jan 9, 2006

steen said:
Nope.
No, that would be Nixon, Reagan, and now Shrubbie Jr. All repugnicans, by the way.

Name the one president that's been fined by a court for committing a felony.

That's right, our dear Rapist president, Clinton, pleaded guilty to committing perjury and paid a $10,000 fine to the court, and was disbarred also.

And why did that person place the qualifier on his description of Clinton? Clinton is our most corrupt president, ever. Why drag poor Warren Harding into it? He's dead, anyway, and can't do us any more harm. Our little Rapist is hoping to move back into the White House as the next First Lady.

libertarian_knight · Jan 9, 2006

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Name the one president that's been fined by a court for committing a felony.

That's right, our dear Rapist president, Clinton, pleaded guilty to committing perjury and paid a $10,000 fine to the court, and was disbarred also.

And why did that person place the qualifier on his description of Clinton? Clinton is our most corrupt president, ever. Why drag poor Warren Harding into it? He's dead, anyway, and can't do us any more harm. Our little Rapist is hoping to move back into the White House as the next First Lady.

He wasn't actually disbarred, his Arkansas law licence was suspended for five years, which is now over. He can practice law again.

oldreliable67 · Jan 13, 2006

Caine said:
Got some way to prove he was doing this?
This is the first ive heard of it.

More on the Clinton admin monitoring:

Even as the Times defended Echelon as “a necessity” in 1999, evidence already existed that electronic surveillance had previously been misused by the Clinton Administration for political purposes. Intelligence officials told Insight Magazine in 1997 that a 1993 conference of Asian and Pacific world leaders hosted by Clinton in Seattle had been spied on by U.S. intelligence agencies. Further, the magazine reported that information obtained by the spying had been passed on to big Democrat corporate donors to use against their competitors. The Insight story added that the mis-use of the surveillance for political reasons caused the intelligence sources to reveal the operation.

“The only reason it has come to light is because of concerns raised by high-level sources within federal law-enforcement and intelligence circles that the operation was compromised by politicians—includingmid- and senior-level White House aides—either on behalf of or in support of President Clinton and major donor-friends who helped him and the Democratic National Committee, or DNC, raise money.”

So, during the Clinton Administration, evidence existed (all of the information used in this article was available at the time) that:

-an invasive, extensive domestic eavesdropping program was aimed at every U.S. citizen;

-intelligence agencies were using allies to circumvent constitutional restrictions;

-and the administration was selling at least some secret intelligence for political donations.

These revelations were met by the New York Times and others in the mainstream media by the sound of one hand clapping. Now, reports that the Bush Administration approved electronic eavesdropping, strictly limited to international communications, of a relative handful of suspected terrorists have created a media frenzy in the Times and elsewhere.

Source.

oldreliable67 · Jan 13, 2006

From the details of a speech that Al Gore is expected to give on Monday at Constitution Hall in DC:

“We are at a point of constitutional crisis,... The president who has violated the law is acting above the law. It’s a wakeup call for Congress, the American people and the courts. If we continue down this road we will have a different constitution.

According to the blogger, the aide that provided the details noted that Gore prepares the final editions of his speeches just before he delivers them, but that the tenor of the speech "would focus on what...[he] described as a President acting above the law".

Lets see, Gore was VP when? Oh, yeah, when the Clinton administration was doing what? For the answers, see the previous post...

Source.

steen · Jan 13, 2006

LOL. ANYTHING to not having to deal with shrubbie's corruption, even dragging Clinton up again. How lame.

KCConservative · Jan 14, 2006

steen said:
Nope.
No, that would be Nixon, Reagan, and now Shrubbie Jr. All repugnicans, by the way.

These guys were impeached? Nope, just Bill.

Billo_Really · Jan 16, 2006

Originally Posted by KCConservative
These guys were impeached? Nope, just Bill.

Have you heard of Resolution 635?

Bush Authorized NSA To Spy Inside US

Lie Detector

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency