NSA scandal demands impeachment and arrest!

[AlbqOwl]

Not without telling Congress first. All Clinton did was reiterate the law as it stands..that the president has the power, after Congress declares war and provided that the Attorney General reports to those two committees, to order the Attorney General to monitor calls without a warrent. All Bush had to do was tell Congress what was going on and this wouldn't be a problem. It would also have helped if Congress had acctually declared war. Unfortunatley for Mr. Bush neither of those two things happened. The Supreme Court ruled against just this sort of thing when Nixon was president.

The President does not have to advise Congress of anything to sign an executive order. And there is all kinds of precedence already on the books re the legality of survellance of overseas communications. Here's one from the NY Times archives:

COURT SAYS U.S. SPY AGENCY CAN TAP OVERSEAS MESSAGES
By DAVID BURNHAM, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
(NYT) 1051 words Published: November 7, 1982

A Federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency may lawfully intercept messages between United States citizens and people overseas, even if there is no cause to believe the Americans are foreign agents, and then provide summaries of these messages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Because the National Security Agency is among the largest and most secretive intelligence agencies and because millions of electronic messages enter and leave the United States each day, lawyers familiar with the intelligence agency consider the decision to mark a significant increase in the legal authority of the Government to keep track of its citizens.

Reverses 1979 Ruling

The Oct. 21 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit involves the Government's surveillance of a Michiganborn lawyer, Abdeen Jabara, who for many years has represented Arab-American citizens and alien residents in court. Some of his clients had been investigated by the F.B.I.

Mr. Jabara sued the F.B.I, and the National Security Agency, and in 1979 Federal District Judge Ralph M. Freeman ruled that the agency's acquisition of several of Mr. Jabara's overseas messages violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free of ''unreasonable searches and seizures.'' Last month's decision reverses that ruling.

In earlier court proceedings, the F.B.I. acknowledged that it then disseminated the information to 17 other law-enforcement or intelligence agencies and three foreign governments.

The opinion of the three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals held, ''The simple fact remains that the N.S.A. lawfully acquired Jabara's messages.''

The court ruled further that the lawyer's Fourth Amendment rights ''were not violated when summaries of his overseas telegraphic messages'' were furnished to the investigative bureau ''irrespective of whether there was reasonable cause to believe that he was a foreign agent.''

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

As long as the Attorney General reported to House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 30 days before surveillance began and/or if immediate surveillance was required he/she still reported to those two committees first and explain what he/she is doing and why immediate action is needed (as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 dictates) then it was legal. HOWEVER that can still only be done following a declaration of war from Congress and within 15 days. Bush did neither. The Attorney General did not report to either of those comittees in fact it's apparent that no one in Congress knew that he was doing this let alone those two committees. Thats why it's illegal.

the president has been reporting to the senate intelligence committee on the issue haven't you heard about senator Rockefeller's letter on the issue.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, said he believes Bush's action violated the law.

"FISA law says it's the exclusive law to authorize wiretaps," he said. "This administration is playing fast and loose with the law in national security. The issue here is whether the president of the United States is putting himself above the law, and I believe he has done so."

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, however, said Feingold "is rushing to judgment."

"The president did notify key members of Congress," he said, but he added that the matters of how much those members of Congress were told -- and what they should have done about it -- were unsettled.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/18/bush.nsa/

All of this doesn't matter anyways because as I've said many times this issue falls under the inherent war powers of the president to secure the nation.

 

[AlbqOwl]

The President is not an attorney, but he is surrounded by damn good ones who would certainly have steered him away from doing anything that cannot be justified both by law and by precedent. On the other hand, there are people in government who have an unreasonable hatred of the President and who certainly would like to see him ousted and somebody more favorable to themselves installed in that position. These are the people who leaked information about surveillance to the press, and these are the people who broke the law in my opinion and, because national security is at stake, what they have done is very close to treason. They are the ones who should be receiving the anger and accusations from reasonable people and who should be the focus of investigations in process.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Following that logic, the Supreme Court has never ruled that the president does not ultimately have the authority to collect foreign intelligence -- here and abroad -- as he sees fit. Even as federal courts have sought to balance Fourth Amendment rights with security imperatives, they have upheld a president's "inherent authority" under the Constitution to acquire necessary intelligence for national security purposes. (Using such information for criminal investigations is different, since a citizen's life and liberty are potentially at stake.) So Bush seems to have behaved as one would expect and want a president to behave. A key reason the Articles of Confederation were dumped in favor of the Constitution in 1787 was because the new Constitution -- our Constitution -- created a unitary chief executive. That chief executive could, in times of war or emergency, act with the decisiveness, dispatch and, yes, secrecy, needed to protect the country and its citizens.

That is why the president uniquely swears an oath -- prescribed in the Constitution -- to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Implicit in that oath is the Founders' recognition that, no matter how much we might wish it to be case, Congress cannot legislate for every contingency, and judges cannot supervise many national security decisions. This will be especially true in times of war.

This is not an argument for an unfettered executive prerogative. Under our system of separated powers, Congress has the right and the ability to judge whether President Bush has in fact used his executive discretion soundly, and to hold him responsible if he hasn't. But to engage in demagogic rhetoric about "imperial" presidents and "monarchic" pretensions, with no evidence that the president has abused his discretion, is foolish and irresponsible.

William Kristol is editor of the Weekly Standard. Gary Schmitt is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121901027.html

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

The President is not an attorney, but he is surrounded by damn good ones who would certainly have steered him away from doing anything that cannot be justified both by law and by precedent.

I disagree. The Constitution clearly calls for oversight of the executive branch by Congress at all times..there are no exceptions to that in the Constitution. How can there be oversight if Congress doesn't know whats going on?

On the other hand, there are people in government who have an unreasonable hatred of the President and who certainly would like to see him ousted and somebody more favorable to themselves installed in that position.

I agree. I however do not want to see the president impeached or booted from office. It's bad politics..especially in times of conflict. However, a message must be sent and an example must be made of the president that the executive branch cannot do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, however it wants. What Bush is doing sends a bad message to our future presidents ie that its acceptable to go over the head of Congress and make up your own rules.

These are the people who leaked information about surveillance to the press, and these are the people who broke the law in my opinion and, because national security is at stake, what they have done is very close to treason. They are the ones who should be receiving the anger and accusations from reasonable people and who should be the focus of investigations in process.

I disagree. They leaked the information because they were concerned about the legality of the executive order. Just because the president issue an order doesn't mean that the order is legal. The sad fact is that the executive branch has managed to isolate itself from the rest of the government so leaks are the only form of information we have to conduct oversight. Unfortunatley they only come after the fact.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I disagree. They leaked the information because they were concerned about the legality of the executive order. Just because the president issue an order doesn't mean that the order is legal. The sad fact is that the executive branch has managed to isolate itself from the rest of the government so leaks are the only form of information we have to conduct oversight. Unfortunatley they only come after the fact.

Baloney. If that was the case this would have been 'outed' back in 2001 when it first came up. But when was it 'outed'? It hit the front pages on the very same day of the incredible and wonderful Iraqi election.

You may believe that this was not politically motivated. Nobody short of God himself will convince me this was not a pure, calculated, and intentional effort to dilute any good news and smear the president.

 

[oldreliable67]

But when was it 'outed'?

You gotta admit, the timing of the NYT article is self-serving. Was it intentionally self-serving or accidentally self-serving? Is it merely coincidental that it was published the same day that the NYT's book came out? Or not?

Given the NYT's recent history, don't you have to lean toward 'not coincidental'?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Baloney. If that was the case this would have been 'outed' back in 2001 when it first came up. But when was it 'outed'? It hit the front pages on the very same day of the incredible and wonderful Iraqi election.

People were already talking about this in 2001. It didn't get big headlines because the president said in a whitehouse speech that he was seeking and obtaining warrents before doing this and because there were bigger stories to be printed so no one made a big to do out of it until we found out that he wasn't getting warrents or even asking for them.

 

[AlbqOwl]

People were already talking about this in 2001. It didn't get big headlines because the president said in a whitehouse speech that he was seeking and obtaining warrents before doing this and because there were bigger stories to be printed so no one made a big to do out of it until we found out that he wasn't getting warrents or even asking for them.

No the President wasn't talking about this in 2001. This was intended to be a highly classified SECRET operation. Our President may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but he's plenty smart enough to know that you don't telegraph to terrorists that you have them under surveillance. The anti-American subersives who leaked the information, however, did just that and they should be held accountable for that. The timing of this, the way it went down, there is no way in hell that it was coincidental. It was deliberate d carefully orchestrated in an attempt to do as much damage as possible to a sitting president including blunting any good news that was happening at the same time.

Outing this information in the way it was done was evil. It was wrong. And I think the majority of Americans are smart enought to know it.

 

[oldreliable67]

Where is the outrage at the revealing of highly classified programs?

From Max Boot at the LA Times:

"It seems like only yesterday that every high-minded politician, pundit and professional activist was in high dudgeon about the threat posed to national security by the revelation that Valerie Plame was a spook. For daring to reveal a CIA operative's name — in wartime, no less! — they wanted someone frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs, preferably headed for the gallows.

Since then there have been some considerably more serious security breaches. Major media organs have broken news about secret prisons run by the CIA, the interrogation techniques employed therein, and the use of "renditions" to capture suspects, right down to the tail numbers of covert CIA aircraft. They have also reported on a secret National Security Agency program to monitor calls and e-mails from people in the U.S. to suspected terrorists abroad, and about the Pentagon's Counterintelligence Field Activity designed to protect military bases worldwide.

Most of these are highly classified programs whose revelation could provide real aid to our enemies — far more aid than revealing the name of a CIA officer who worked more or less openly at Langley, Va. We don't know what damage the latest leaks may have done, but we do know that past leaks about U.S. successes in tracking cellphones led Al Qaeda leaders to shun those devices.

So I eagerly await the righteous indignation from the Plame Platoon about the spilling of secrets in wartime and its impassioned calls for an independent counsel to prosecute the leakers. And wait … And wait ...

I suspect it'll be a long wait because the rule of thumb seems to be that although it's treasonous for pro-Bush partisans to spill secrets that might embarrass an administration critic, it's a public service for anti-Bush partisans to spill secrets that might embarrass the administration. The determination of which secrets are OK to reveal is, of course, to be made not by officials charged with protecting our nation but by journalists charged with selling newspapers."

The NYT noted in its article on the NSA that "some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted." Forgive me if I'm not reassured by the implication that other information that might be useful to terrorists had not been omitted.

 

[oldreliable67]

There seem to be many that think the NSA surveillance program represents a departure from prior standards. That seems hard to maintain -- in many ways, Bush's policies are a continuation of those under Clinton, only with somewhat more vigor post 9/11. Many seem to want to look back on the Clinton admin as some sort of civil liberties golden age. But it ain't really so.

John Schmidt served under Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as associate attorney general. He is now a lawyer in Chicago. Writing in the Chicago Tribune, he said that the Pres had inherent authority to wiretap suspected terrorists for national security reasons:

"President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents."

Timothy Lynch wrote a piece for the Cato Institute that examined the constitutional record of the Clinton era:

"The Clinton administration claims that it can bypass the warrant clause for "national security" purposes. In July 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." [51] According to Gorelick, the president (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place...

It is unclear why the president made warrantless roving wiretaps a priority matter since judges routinely approve wiretap applications by federal prosecutors. According to a 1995 report by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, it had been years since a federal district court turned down a prosecutor's request for a wiretap order. [68] President Clinton is apparently seeking to free his administration from any potential judicial interference with its wiretapping plans. There is a problem, of course, with the power that the president desires: it is precisely the sort of unchecked power that the Fourth Amendment's warrant clause was designed to curb. As the Supreme Court noted in Katz v. United States (1967), the judicial procedure of antecedent justification before a neutral magistrate is a "constitutional precondition," not only to the search of a home, but also to eavesdropping on private conversations within the home.

President Clinton also lobbied for and signed the Orwellian Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which is forcing every telephone company in America to retrofit its phone lines and networks so that they will be more accessible to police wiretaps."

Repeating my comment from an earlier post - precedent is a big thing in legal circles. The impression given by many in the press is that the NSA surveillance program breaks new (il)legal ground may be incorrect.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

No the President wasn't talking about this in 2001. This was intended to be a highly classified SECRET operation. Our President may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but he's plenty smart enough to know that you don't telegraph to terrorists that you have them under surveillance. The anti-American subersives who leaked the information, however, did just that and they should be held accountable for that. The timing of this, the way it went down, there is no way in hell that it was coincidental. It was deliberate d carefully orchestrated in an attempt to do as much damage as possible to a sitting president including blunting any good news that was happening at the same time.

Well this is what the President said in 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."

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

 

[AlbqOwl]

Well this is what the President said in 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."

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

It makes for a much more credible report if you quote the president accurately and in context:

Here's what he said:

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.

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.

The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies.

That provides a far different picture than the one your incomplete quote painted. The President has court authority via the Patriot Act and otherwise--this has already been posted on this thread I believe--to use the roving wiretaps. An unscrupulous media, however, extrapolates the fact that a court order isn't obtained for each instance to be that the administration is spying on citizens without court authority. That simply is not the case, and it is dishonest to say that it is.

 

[Gill]

It appears that the investigation into the leaks to the NYT have begun in earnest.

The Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into whether Democratic Senators Dick Durbin, Jay Rockefeller and Ron Wyden leaked details about a secret "black ops" CIA satellite program last December in a move that may have seriously compromised national security, former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Jed Babbin said on Saturday.

"The CIA made a request to the Justice Department to investigate and possibly bring criminal charges against these three [senators]," Babbin told WABC Radio host Monica Crowley. "My information is that investigation is ongoing."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/23/131312.shtml

If this investigation turns out to have legs, the Dems will be so busy covering up their own problems that they won't have time to worry about Bush.

 

[AlbqOwl]

It appears that the investigation into the leaks to the NYT have begun in earnest.



http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/23/131312.shtml

If this investigation turns out to have legs, the Dems will be so busy covering up their own problems that they won't have time to worry about Bush.

We can only hope. I get so tired of the dirty tricks and hypocrisy and anti-Americanism in hopes of scoring political points that I would like to think that it is still possible for truth and justice to win out.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

We can only hope. I get so tired of the dirty tricks and hypocrisy and anti-Americanism in hopes of scoring political points that I would like to think that it is still possible for truth and justice to win out.

You'll get your truth and justice when the hearings are over..that is if they don't turn into another 9/11 commission style boondoggle.

 

[hecovalot]

This is my first post, folks, so go easy on me, please...

The fact still remains that the president broke the law (a little fact that this thread has gotten away from...). There is no justification for that from either side of the equation- con OR lib.

The simple truth about all of this is that terrorists KNOW that they're being spied upon. If someone really wanted to get secret information to another source, the technology is available to do it through encoding and CD transfers. The airwaves are a particularly antiquated way to do this nowadays, and the people who are hurt by illegal wire tapping are the random Americans who have had their basic 4th Amendment rights violated.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

This is my first post, folks, so go easy on me, please...

The fact still remains that the president broke the law (a little fact that this thread has gotten away from...). There is no justification for that from either side of the equation- con OR lib.

The simple truth about all of this is that terrorists KNOW that they're being spied upon. If someone really wanted to get secret information to another source, the technology is available to do it through encoding and CD transfers. The airwaves are a particularly antiquated way to do this nowadays, and the people who are hurt by illegal wire tapping are the random Americans who have had their basic 4th Amendment rights violated.

Actually the truth of the matter is the president didn't break the law but since this is your first time I'll go easy on you and not prove it (mainly cuz I've done it like 20 times already and I'm sick of it) contradict this post though and it's on.

 

[Caine]

It makes for a much more credible report if you quote the president accurately and in context:

Here's what he said:


That provides a far different picture than the one your incomplete quote painted. The President has court authority via the Patriot Act and otherwise--this has already been posted on this thread I believe--to use the roving wiretaps. An unscrupulous media, however, extrapolates the fact that a court order isn't obtained for each instance to be that the administration is spying on citizens without court authority.

Lets take another look at that "what he said" thing you put up there.

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.

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.

The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies.

Okay, now, What's the difference? How does this prove that he has the authority to do it without a court order?
Check out my bolded emphasis above, He stated that nothing has changed in the fact that the courts are needed to be involved. So, what happened between 2004 and Dec 2005??? Did something change? If so, What?
Nobody gives a damn that the wiretaps are happening. I notice you conservatives like to focus on that one. Its the fact that the courts are required to be involved, and they aren't being involved, that is the problem.
Now, where he says "The Patriot Act changed that." He means, the patriot act allowed for wiretapping in the case of Terrorists. Its clearly stated. So nothing in the rest of his comments can prove that he didn't lie. Either in 2004, or in Dec 2005, somewhere, he lied. Now, if his lie was in 2004, then he is just dishonest. If he lied in 2005, he has broken the law. The Senate hearings will determine this.

That simply is not the case, and it is dishonest to say that it is.

Prove that it is not the case. Show me what happened between 2004 and 2005.

 

[Conflict]

Actually the truth of the matter is the president didn't break the law but since this is your first time I'll go easy on you and not prove it (mainly cuz I've done it like 20 times already and I'm sick of it) contradict this post though and it's on.

I know several people well versed in constitutional law.... a handful of them from ivy league institutions and many of them from your run of the mill academically esteemed institutions. They all claim that Bush is the one who broke the jurisprudence of law.... not that the citizens (we, the people) should be the scapegoat of their misgivings and abuse of power.

Don't take it easy on me mr Annuit Coeptis.

Prove it.

I anticipate greatly to point out your fallible tactic of cognitive hacking and your "think-tank" style of obfuscation. Let's here what the gentlemen has to say.

 

[teacher]

I know several people well versed in constitutional law....

And I've a basement full of monkeys. Same difference. If he broke the law he will pay. Conjecture at this point. Not looking good for your POV so far...read the law for yourself. At least monkeys don't have an agenda above "more bananas."

 

[Conflict]

And I've a basement full of monkeys. Same difference. If he broke the law he will pay. Conjecture at this point. Not looking good for your POV so far...read the law for yourself. At least monkeys don't have an agenda above "more bananas."

Whatever you say bub. Did you have anything else to say or did you only want to attack me? Thanks for your contribution. You call yourself teacher but you provide no education. How ironic!

 

[AlbqOwl]

Lets take another look at that "what he said" thing you put up there.



Okay, now, What's the difference? How does this prove that he has the authority to do it without a court order?
Check out my bolded emphasis above, He stated that nothing has changed in the fact that the courts are needed to be involved. So, what happened between 2004 and Dec 2005??? Did something change? If so, What?
Nobody gives a damn that the wiretaps are happening. I notice you conservatives like to focus on that one. Its the fact that the courts are required to be involved, and they aren't being involved, that is the problem.
Now, where he says "The Patriot Act changed that." He means, the patriot act allowed for wiretapping in the case of Terrorists. Its clearly stated. So nothing in the rest of his comments can prove that he didn't lie. Either in 2004, or in Dec 2005, somewhere, he lied. Now, if his lie was in 2004, then he is just dishonest. If he lied in 2005, he has broken the law. The Senate hearings will determine this.

Prove that it is not the case. Show me what happened between 2004 and 2005.

I doubt much of anything happened between 2004 and 2005. But every president in this century has had private citizens under surveillance for some reason or another and have done so without court authority. A recent poll shows that almost 70% of Americans have no problem with tapping conversations between Americans and suspected or known terrorists or Al Qaida operatives which is what was being done after 9/11. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that such taps would be impossible should the consent of a judge be needed for each one individually. And most thinking people agree that it isn't a good idea to inform those you have under surveillance that they are under surveillance. It sort of defeats the purpose.

The President takes an oath of office to defend the Constitution and that Constitution requires that the government provide the national defense. This is the president's authority and so far there has not been one credible instance or credible shred of proof that the president has overstepped his jurisdiction at any time or gone snooping around on your gossip or anybody else's conversations that were not reasonably included in the process of national defense.

The investigation should be directed toward those who 'outed' the process as this may very clearly have been an illegal act at least so far as policy goes. It's just peachy to give the edge to those who would like to blow up trains or bridges or shopping malls. I certainly hope that Justice is taking that into consideration.

If you will go back earlier in this thread you will see that both Carter and Clinton utilized the same authority that President Bush is utilizing and there was not one murmer of dissent from anybody about it.

 

[Conflict]

I doubt much of anything happened between 2004 and 2005. But every president in this century has had private citizens under surveillance for some reason or another and have done so without court authority. A recent poll shows that almost 70% of Americans have no problem with tapping conversations between Americans and suspected or known terrorists or Al Qaida operatives which is what was being done after 9/11. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that such taps would be impossible should the consent of a judge be needed for each one individually. And most thinking people agree that it isn't a good idea to inform those you have under surveillance that they are under surveillance. It sort of defeats the purpose.

The President takes an oath of office to defend the Constitution and that Constitution requires that the government provide the national defense. This is the president's authority and so far there has not been one credible instance or credible shred of proof that the president has overstepped his jurisdiction at any time or gone snooping around on your gossip or anybody else's conversations that were not reasonably included in the process of national defense.

The investigation should be directed toward those who 'outed' the process as this may very clearly have been an illegal act at least so far as policy goes. It's just peachy to give the edge to those who would like to blow up trains or bridges or shopping malls. I certainly hope that Justice is taking that into consideration.

If you will go back earlier in this thread you will see that both Carter and Clinton utilized the same authority that President Bush is utilizing and there was not one murmer of dissent from anybody about it.

A democracy does not make a constitution.

A constitution makes a democracy.

Wether or not most people may think it's okay for our liberty to be ignored... that is a moot point in terms of jurisprudence and understanding of constitutional law. This is a very neo-con approach that you are taking. Perhaps you hold no value in the conservation of our constitution.

Just because Bush has been caught red handed and admitted to his violations does not mean that anyone else is any different. The fact is that Bush was not only caught, he admitted his abuse.

It's all good politics. It's your game buddy. I don't like politics. I don't like Clinton. I don't like Bush. And I don't like you.

 

[AlbqOwl]

A democracy does not make a constitution.

A constitution makes a democracy.

Wether or not most people may think it's okay for our liberty to be ignored... that is a moot point in terms of jurisprudence and understanding of constitutional law. This is a very neo-con approach that you are taking. Perhaps you hold no value in the conservation of our constitution.

Just because Bush has been caught red handed and admitted to his violations does not mean that anyone else is any different. The fact is that Bush was not only caught, he admitted his abuse.

It's all good politics. It's your game buddy. I don't like politics. I don't like Clinton. I don't like Bush. And I don't like you.

Oh good. I was so afraid you would like me and I would have to hurt your feelings by telling you how very wrong you are. Bush admitted to no wrong doing--quite the contrary. And he will be found of no wrong doing on this issue no matter how much the anti-Bush crowd wishes to hang him up to dry. To do so will require them to admit that they turned a blind eye when every other president has utilized the same methods in the interest of national security. There is only so much ammunition they can afford to hand over to their opponents for use in ads in the next campaign.