Domestic Spying (1 Viewer)

[python416]

Here is the new MoveOn add:

https://political.moveon.org/donate/notillegal-QT.html

IANAL, but this NSA program seems to be a total overstep of presidental authority.

The FISA court has a provision that allows court approval to be obtained after the fact. This invalidates the "need for speed" argument. The main reasons, that I can think of, for not using FISA are:

* FISA leaves records of activity and the administration does not want to be held to account for their actions

* there is a standard of probable cause that the administration does not feel it can meet



Either of these motives is an indication of the Bush administration
feeling that they need to operate outside the law.

If they really believe in the rule of law, they should move change the
law to fit the times. If not, they are just showing their contempt
for the rule of law.

 

[KCConservative]

Maybe this thread could be merged with one of the other threads on the same topic. There are many to choose from.

 

[oldreliable67]

python,

You might (or might not) change your opinion if you would base it on a little more research than moveon.org alone. Try to get at least one unbiased opinion.

 

[KCConservative]

python,

You might (or might not) change your opinion if you would base it on a little more research than moveon.org alone. Try to get at least one unbiased opinion.

It matches his opinion, so there was no need to look further.

 

[python416]

python,

You might (or might not) change your opinion if you would base it on a little more research than moveon.org alone. Try to get at least one unbiased opinion.

My opinion of the legality has been there a long time before the ad. It is based on a decent understanding of the US legal system and the Constitution.

Why don't you give it a read and tell me where these powers Bush is claiming are detailed? http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst.html

Or maybe give the FISA a look over? http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL30465.pdf

The administration is on shakey ground, and law makers on both sides of the asile know it.

 

[python416]

It matches his opinion, so there was no need to look further.

???

Whatever.

 

[oldreliable67]

Why don't you give it a read and tell me where these powers Bush is claiming are detailed?

You're way behind in this discussion. There are several threads and in most all of them you will find my impressions and conclusions from the reading that I have done on this matter. Here are links to just a couple of the threads...

another darned wiretapping thread

wiretapping and national security

There are a couple more, but these should catch you up.

 

[aps]

Here is the new MoveOn add:

https://political.moveon.org/donate/notillegal-QT.html

IANAL, but this NSA program seems to be a total overstep of presidental authority.

The FISA court has a provision that allows court approval to be obtained after the fact. This invalidates the "need for speed" argument. The main reasons, that I can think of, for not using FISA are:

* FISA leaves records of activity and the administration does not want to be held to account for their actions

* there is a standard of probable cause that the administration does not feel it can meet



Either of these motives is an indication of the Bush administration
feeling that they need to operate outside the law.

If they really believe in the rule of law, they should move change the
law to fit the times. If not, they are just showing their contempt
for the rule of law.

python, you are absolutely correct. Check out this website, which will only further support your opinion. Don't worry about oldreliable. He doesn't like the conclusion you have reached. I have read both the government's letters justifying this program and, frankly, they suck compared to the document below.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/DOJ.Response.AUMF.final.pdf

 

[Stinger]

Either of these motives is an indication of the Bush administration
feeling that they need to operate outside the law.

Wrong, they clearly believe they are operating within the law and that congress is trying to usurp the constitution. If they believe they were breaking the law why would the have the Inspectors Genrals office in on it, why would they let career DOJ attorney's in on it, why would they let the congressional Intelligence committees in on it. This is one of the more shameful aspects of the politizing of this that the Dems and the left are engaging in. The adminsistration believes the law is ON THEIR SIDE. Why do you have a comprehension problem on this point.

If they really believe in the rule of law, they should move change the
law to fit the times. If not, they are just showing their contempt
for the rule of law.

Because their position is that the law is set and doesn't need to be changed. It is congress trying to act against the law. If the congress wants to change the law so that the presidents constitutional authority is changed then they should pass an amendment and send it to the states.

 

[Stinger]

My opinion of the legality has been there a long time before the ad. It is based on a decent understanding of the US legal system and the Constitution.

Why don't you give it a read and tell me where these powers Bush is claiming are detailed? http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst.html

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst.html

Article 2 Sec 2

Or maybe give the FISA a look over? http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL30465.pdf

The administration is on shakey ground, and law makers on both sides of the asile know it.

FISA cannot restrict the Presidents authority.

From the Deputy AG

"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes, and that the president may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the attorney general.

"It is important to understand," explained the official, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."


Furthermore, said the deputy AG, the requirements for sending wiretapping requests to a special court under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (known as FISA) were not objectionable, provided that the provision "does not restrict the president's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security."

And as the WSJ stated

"The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power.""

 

[oldreliable67]

aps & python,

Here is a really simple question for y'all: if the Dems disagree with the administration's understanding of what the AUMF authorizes, why don't they present clarifying legislation telling the administration that its interpretation is incorrect? This would enable the Senate to vote on whether it thinks listening to calls from al Qaeda to the US is a necessary and proper measure to prevent another attack.

The FISA court has a provision that allows court approval to be obtained after the fact. This invalidates the "need for speed" argument

No, it doesn't. Your statement is explicit proof that you are not sufficiently familiar with the issues. Please catch up by reading some of the other threads noted above, then try again.

 

[easyt65]

I was listening to Roberto Gonzales being grilled by Congress, and i found it funny. Here was Senator Leahy, who has already been thrown off one committee, BTW, for leaking information,telling Gonzales that he wanted to know if anyone in the White House had planned to use wiretaps at any time prior to Sept. 18th, when Congress gave bush the authority 'to do whatever he had to do against Al Qaeda' (Not MY words - Leahy's!).

The 1st thing I found funny was that Senator Leahy was grilling Gonzales about something he thought might be inappropriate or criminal. As I mentioned, Leahy had already been kicked off a committee once before in the past for leaking confidential/classified information. :roll:

The 2nd thing I find funny is that Leahy himself stated in his question that Congress had approved Bush to do whatever he had to do against Al Qaeda on Sept 18th! So, Bush had the approval of Congress to do whatever he so saw fit to do, what was required, to combat Al Qaeda and protect this country!

3rd thing I found funny was that Leahy demanded to know if Bush began his wire taps, or even had been discussing them, prior to Sept 18th, inferring that the power conduct these Wire Taps was a power the President had to receive from Congress, that it was a power Congress even HAD in order to give to the President! :doh

The power that George Bush has invoked is mandated in/by the Constitution and has been used by numerous presidents throughout history.

Brief history Lesson:

George Washington authorized/directed that correspondence/letters/couriers be intercepted to discern information about British Plans during the Revolution.

Abraham Lincoln directed wire tapping of telegrapgh lines in order to learn enemy/Rebel plans.

FDR ordered that all in-coming calls from out of the country be tapped/listened to during his time of war to find out what the spies within our borders knew and/or were planning.

Bill Clinton not only ordered wire taps, but he authorized the entry, searchm and seisure of private property - all without a warrant and NOT during a time of war. (Of course we won't go into all those illegal FBI files he had on all the GOP and his opponents for his personal use!)

War is not run by committee but by the Commander in Chief. The constitution empowers the President, just as it empowered the Presidents listed above, to act in a time of war. This is not some knew revelation to those who are holding this witch hunt against Bush. No, Leahy's claim to power not afforded him in the Constitution is just an attempt for Congress to gain more power, to weaken the powers given to the President by the Constitution, and therefore, IMHO, to say to the President they could not defeat in the last 2 elections that THEY still have the power, even though they are a minority party.

Some Democrat and/or reporter leaked this classified program - a tool in the war against terror, and now that tool has pretty much been redered useless - this country made even less safe now, all because the Democrats are trying to do anything they can to bring down the President of the United States during a time of war for no other reason than because he is a Republican - 'Party 1st, American 2nd'. This alone is a borderline act of treason as, in their efforts to take down George Buh they have made this country less safe by exposing one of our primary tools with which to combat terrorists who we already know have cells inside our borders! This is aiding and abetting the enemy. Who would have thought that one of the 2 main parties in our nation would be assisting the enemy eliminate the only President who has stood up to them and who has acted to defend American lives in the last 13 years!?

Where is the rabid demand for the head of the person who leaked the existence and practice of this program to the media? Where is the outrage and the demnand for punishment for the reporter(s) who ran this story, exposing a classified project, therebyreigning in a media out of control who thinks they have the right to run any story even if it jeopardizes this country's security?!

 

[NYStateofMind]

Personally, I think it is silly to continue to call this a partisan issue, when there are Republicans who are uncomfortable with what the Bush admin. is doing, and there are Democrats who are supporting it. It is a conflict between the Executive and Legislative branches, and needs to be reviewed by the Judicial branch.

If both sides are so confident that they are on firm legal ground, neither should have a problem going to the court. It is an important issue, and it needs to be decided.

 

[Stinger]

How about the tapping of the underwater cables of the Soviet Union. We sent subs out during the cold war to tap into them. And I am sure that some of the calls that came and went over them involved someone in the United States. Do you think we had to get a search warrant to do that? Of course not.

The whole problem with this is the overblown hyped up rhetoric that the NYT started with, claiming without evidence that this involved thousands of domestic calls. These are FOREIGN intercepts and they are very limited as to ones coming into or out of the US.

This is war, this is foriegn intelligence, anyone talking to someone in the middle east better be sure they are not associated with a terrorist group or just resign themselves to the fact that the call will probably, will hopefully be monitored.

 

[aps]

aps & python,

Here is a really simple question for y'all: if the Dems disagree with the administration's understanding of what the AUMF authorizes, why don't they present clarifying legislation telling the administration that its interpretation is incorrect?

Well, with the Judiciary Committee holding hearings right now, I would say that it would not be the appropriate time to present clarifying legislation.

This would enable the Senate to vote on whether it thinks listening to calls from al Qaeda to the US is a necessary and proper measure to prevent another attack.

Come on, oldreliable. Don't do the usual republican spin game--accuse the democrats of not wanting anyone to listen to al Qaeda as it makes its next plan to attack us. What a disappointment.

The issue isn't about whether the US should listen to calls from al Qadea--the issue relates solely to whether warrantless surveillance is appropriate in this circumstance.

 

[easyt65]

Personally, I think it is silly to continue to call this a partisan issue, when there are Republicans who are uncomfortable with what the Bush admin. is doing, and there are Democrats who are supporting it. It is a conflict between the Executive and Legislative branches, and needs to be reviewed by the Judicial branch.

If both sides are so confident that they are on firm legal ground, neither should have a problem going to the court. It is an important issue, and it needs to be decided.

This whole issue began as a/the latest Partisan Ambush on Bush. The only person who needs to be in jail right now is the person who leaked this classified progam and the reporter(s) who printed it/reported it!

Just because politicians are 'uncomfortable' with a power afforded to the President by the Consitution, a power exercised/used by Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and Clinton to name only a few, does not give ANYONE the right to report the classified program, thereby weakening our own ability to fight Terrorism and defend ourselves, or try to use it as a political weapon to take down the President in a time of war, making that a very biased issue. Don;t try to sound like you do not believe that there isn't even 1 politician out there that sees this as an opportunity to 'take down'/Impeach bush!

If the politicians want to turn down the rhetoric, stop attacking Bush like its some kind of inquisition, and address the program/power rather than attack Bush, I am all for it. As I mentioned in my last post, power-hungry morons like Leahy want to seize control of that power afforded to the Presidents, past and present, for their very own, shackling future Presidents from having the ability and power required to protect the country!

 

[easyt65]

The issue isn't about whether the US should listen to calls from al Qadea--the issue relates solely to whether warrantless surveillance is appropriate in this circumstance.

I would agree with you in part. This is about the congress wanting to lay claim to the powere afforded to the President of the United States by the Constitution, a power (as I have mentioned) exercised by numerous past Presidents, not all during a time of war.

It is also another witch hunt, for some, another opportunity to tryto take down Bush, something many of the Democrats have been solely focussed on since the last Presidential defeat, instead of concentrating on what is best for this country! Before you respond back that I am crazy, try saying out loud that Pelosi, Dean, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry would love nothing more than to see George bush Impeached over this (thereby weakening this country during a time of war - not the main thing they want to accomplish - discrediting Bush is...but they are sparing no effort or opportunity to attack him - our president - during a time of war!) without laughing. Bet you can't do it with a straight face!

 

[NYStateofMind]

This whole issue began as a/the latest Partisan Ambush on Bush. The only person who needs to be in jail right now is the person who leaked this classified progam and the reporter(s) who printed it/reported it!

Huh? Where did I suggest that ANYONE should be in jail?

Just because politicians are 'uncomfortable' with a power afforded to the President by the Consitution, a power exercised/used by Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and Clinton to name only a few, does not give ANYONE the right to report the classified program, thereby weakening our own ability to fight Terrorism and defend ourselves, or try to use it as a political weapon to take down the President in a time of war, making that a very biased issue. Don;t try to sound like you do not believe that there isn't even 1 politician out there that sees this as an opportunity to 'take down'/Impeach bush!

Where did I say that I thought anyone had the right to expose a classified program? Or that I think no one wants to impeach Bush? Are you sure you are responding to MY post?

If the politicians want to turn down the rhetoric, stop attacking Bush like its some kind of inquisition, and address the program/power rather than attack Bush, I am all for it. As I mentioned in my last post, power-hungry morons like Leahy want to seize control of that power afforded to the Presidents, past and present, for their very own, shackling future Presidents from having the ability and power required to protect the country!

Hmmmm....sounds pretty partisan to me.

Now that you got all of that garbage out of your system, would you like to respond to my post, regarding sending the question of the program's legality to the court for review?

 

[easyt65]

Relax, NY - I wasn't trying to suggest that YOU said any of that. I was just sharing my belief that I think this did start out, at least in part, and remains, in part, a politically motivated issue.

I have no problem with swnding this issue before the Supreme Court for Interprestation. I do not think any new legislation is required because, as I have posted, the Constitution already provides the power we are discussing to the President. this is not Easy's belief alone nor Bush's. Washington, lincoln, FDR, and even the 'great' Bill Clinton believed this and interpreted the Constituional as doing so.

I do not believe, however, that you can shackle the hands of the leader of our nation and then charge him with protecting and defending this nation. I believe the congress seeks to seize control of that power for themselves, taking another step forward towards making the office of President a moot position relegated to that of 'figurehead' and sort of 'PR Man'/spokesman for the all-powerful Congress/Senate.

 

[oldreliable67]

Well, with the Judiciary Committee holding hearings right now, I would say that it would not be the appropriate time to present clarifying legislation.

Baloney. What better time? The issue is in forefront of voter's minds and presents the dems with an opportunity to gain partisan advantage. The only reason that I can think of for not doing so is that they know they might not get enough crossover votes and the legislation might fail, thereby strengthening the hated Bush administration's position.

Or is it that they know, but won't publicly admit, that the administration is doing the right thing? There is no partisan advantage to gained in doing that, is there?

Come on, oldreliable. Don't do the usual republican spin game--accuse the democrats of not wanting anyone to listen to al Qaeda as it makes its next plan to attack us. What a disappointment.

Disappointing is right - for the Dems. The Dem rhetoric yesterday just confirmed that the Dems don't have a leg to stand on.

The issue isn't about whether the US should listen to calls from al Qadea--the issue relates solely to whether warrantless surveillance is appropriate in this circumstance.

I hate to repeat myself, but...baloney. If the Dems disagree with the administration's understanding of what the AUMF authorizes, why don't they present clarifying legislation telling the administration that its interpretation is incorrect?

 

[Gill]

Or is it that they know, but won't publicly admit, that the administration is doing the right thing? There is no partisan advantage to gained in doing that, is there?

BINGO!!! You get the kewpie doll. The Dems would rather die than vote on this issue. They know the American public would never forgive them if a terrorist attack happened that this program could have stopped. Remember the vote on the immediate pullout from Iraq? They all screamed to pull out but when it came to time to vote, they backed off.

I have one question....does anyone know of a single democrat that has called for the IMMEDIATE halt to the NSA wiretapping program? I sure haven't heard of any.

 

[hipsterdufus]

This hearing was a charade. Why didn't Alberto Gonzales get sworn in? We can swear in baseball players but not big oil execs and the AG. :roll: Then Al can spin the soap opera anyway he wants, without running the risk of perjury.

I would have walked out if AG wasn't sworn in. It's a disgrace.

 

[aps]

This hearing was a charade. Why didn't Alberto Gonzales get sworn in? We can swear in baseball players but not big oil execs and the AG. :roll: Then Al can spin the soap opera anyway he wants, without running the risk of perjury.

I would have walked out if AG wasn't sworn in. It's a disgrace.

That whole chaos at the beginning of the hearing was just nuts. I was shocked that Specter decided that he NOT be sworn in. What the hell? I was so proud of Feingold when he asked for proof of the proxies. It was embarrassing for Specter.

 

[aps]

Baloney. What better time? The issue is in forefront of voter's minds and presents the dems with an opportunity to gain partisan advantage. The only reason that I can think of for not doing so is that they know they might not get enough crossover votes and the legislation might fail, thereby strengthening the hated Bush administration's position.

Or is it that they know, but won't publicly admit, that the administration is doing the right thing? There is no partisan advantage to gained in doing that, is there?

Disappointing is right - for the Dems. The Dem rhetoric yesterday just confirmed that the Dems don't have a leg to stand on.

I hate to repeat myself, but...baloney. If the Dems disagree with the administration's understanding of what the AUMF authorizes, why don't they present clarifying legislation telling the administration that its interpretation is incorrect?

The only rhetoric I see is coming from you. Sorry, but I am done with this discussion with you.

 

[Deegan]

This hearing was a charade. Why didn't Alberto Gonzales get sworn in? We can swear in baseball players but not big oil execs and the AG. :roll: Then Al can spin the soap opera anyway he wants, without running the risk of perjury.

I would have walked out if AG wasn't sworn in. It's a disgrace.

I can't speak to the oil execs, but I know why the Attorney General can not be sworn in, because he may be asked a question he can not answer. He has sworn another conflicting oath, to secrecy. I agree with the oil execs though, who are they to not have to be sworn in, that was the biggest waste of time I have seen in a long while in Washington, and that's saying something!:roll: