Vote to Censure Bush to be Introduced in Senate

[Gill]

And the FISA law IS clearly defined

You are correct. The FISA court had the following opinion in 2002 in Re: Sealed Case. The 2002 opinion states:

"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."

and...

"that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Censure Bush for what? Listening to telephone conversations originating inside CONUS and ending in terrorist controlled lands? What's so "wrong" about that?

Or is it just wrong because no convictions have come about as a result of this?

Whatever. If they were going to do something as useless as censuring a president (and censuring is a meaningless process even when the Senate or House members are the target - how much more so is it when it's a different branch of government not subject to the House and Senate rules?), why not do it for setting a record on the number of vetos used?

 

[Navy Pride]

Senator Russ Feingold has announced, that on Monday, he is going to introduce a measure to censure President Bush for his authorization of illegal wiretapping on American citizens.

Before anyone goes off on a tangent and claims that this is a partisan move, then take note of this: During Clinton's impeachment, Democratic Senators attempted to get the charges dismissed. Feingold was the only Democrat who, against his party's wishes, voted for the impeachment to go ahead.

This clearly is a bipartisan issue. Wiretapping was wrong. You can talk all day about how you feel the law should be changed, but until it is, nobody, not even the President of the United States, is above the law. This is a chance to show the president that Americans do not condone breaking the law.

This is not a bad move. Bush will just get a slap on the wrist, then he and Congress can get back to the work that needs to be done in order to combat terrorism, and we can all then put this issue behind us.

Feingold interview on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos is here.

They should censure that showboat Feingold.........Everyone knows that phoney is just running for prez.........

 

[Navy Pride]

My boy Feingold is sure raising a stink these days. I hope he doesn't become the next Howard Dean. He shows so much promise.

Promise for what? All he is doing is cow towing to the far left wing base of the dem party and trying to position himself with them as the candidate for preez in 2008..........He is so phoney....Anyone can tell what he is doing........

 

[danarhea]

Not attempting to do so, I assure you. I have not read FISA - have better things to do, actually. I guess the meat of the legal debate is in Bush's claim that when congress gave him a 'blank check' to protect America after 9-11, this is, in part where HE got HIS authority to run his wire-tapping program.

If THAT is the case, then what is Carter and Clinton's reasoning of their own use of such programs in their past administrations? I don't recall Congress giving them any such authority. Honest question, not trying to switch the focus back on past Presidents. (Simply would like to know their justification - REALLY.)

Although I have no problem with wire-tapping suspected terrorists or anyone suspected of having such dealings, I understand the RISK of such valid arguments/reasons being broken/bent and thus the program being used for reasons other than simply protecting this country from terrorists. In the end, if, as I said, a legal decision is made saying Bush brioke the law, then I will be right on the bandwagon with those calling for his censure/punishment.

I would rather not 'take down' a President during a time of war for running a Secret program designed to hunt down terrorists, though. I would not agree to Impeachment for such a 'crime' during war time but would rather see the program immediately halted, as per the law, and a Censure (Mush like our/the military's 'Letter of Reprimand', from what I understand) handed down.

BTW, so how is that investigation to see who leaked this secret program going? :roll:

Bingo. We are not far apart on this at all. I agree with you that censure would be appropriate, and at this time, I am still against impeachment. That is the last thing we need. However, censure would pretty much be a statement that the civil liberties of Americans, according to the Constitution, trumps what the executive branch would like to do. We would also see the program not dismantled, but made to comply with existing laws. That is all I am looking for. Wiretap? Yes, but within the law.

 

[danarhea]

You are correct. The FISA court had the following opinion in 2002 in Re: Sealed Case. The 2002 opinion states:

and...

Once again, no links to back up what you are saying. However, I DO have a link to the text of the FISA law, which is at the Cornell University Law Archives:

US Code Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter 1, Section 1802:

§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court
Release date: 2005-03-17
(a) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that— (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at— (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

(2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General’s certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title.
(3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the court established under section 1803 (a) of this title a copy of his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless— (A) an application for a court order with respect to the surveillance is made under sections 1801 (h)(4) and 1804 of this title; or
(B) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the surveillance under section 1806 (f) of this title.

(4) With respect to electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection, the Attorney General may direct a specified communication common carrier to— (A) furnish all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish the electronic surveillance in such a manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier is providing its customers; and
(B) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence any records concerning the surveillance or the aid furnished which such carrier wishes to retain.
The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, such carrier for furnishing such aid.


(b) Applications for a court order under this subchapter are authorized if the President has, by written authorization, empowered the Attorney General to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title, and a judge to whom an application is made may, notwithstanding any other law, grant an order, in conformity with section 1805 of this title, approving electronic surveillance of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information, except that the court shall not have jurisdiction to grant any order approving electronic surveillance directed solely as described in paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section unless such surveillance may involve the acquisition of communications of any United States person.

Search this title:


Notes
Updates
Parallel authorities (CFR)
Your comments

The law is quite clear on this. Your posting from either a partisan think tank, or what you would like to believe (I cant tell which because you have not posted any link), is not.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Senator Russ Feingold has announced, that on Monday, he is going to introduce a measure to censure President Bush for his authorization of illegal wiretapping on American citizens.

Before anyone goes off on a tangent and claims that this is a partisan move, then take note of this: During Clinton's impeachment, Democratic Senators attempted to get the charges dismissed. Feingold was the only Democrat who, against his party's wishes, voted for the impeachment to go ahead.

This clearly is a bipartisan issue. Wiretapping was wrong. You can talk all day about how you feel the law should be changed, but until it is, nobody, not even the President of the United States, is above the law. This is a chance to show the president that Americans do not condone breaking the law.

This is not a bad move. Bush will just get a slap on the wrist, then he and Congress can get back to the work that needs to be done in order to combat terrorism, and we can all then put this issue behind us.

Feingold interview on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos is here.

I love Feingold! During the Nixon era, Republican in Congress thought the President should adhere to the law. What a concept.

 

[Navy Pride]

Political grandstanding by Feingold, no more no less.......Don't hold your breath for a censure vote.It ain't gonna happen.........

 

[Navy Pride]

Republicans call for vote for censure pn President Bush in the Senate today but gutless democratic senators leave Finegold out to dry and decline to vote........

How do you spell COWARDS?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/13/feingold.censure/index.html

Democratic leaders objected to an immediate vote, saying Feingold's resolution deserved more time for consideration.

"To try to limit debate on this most important matter that Senator Feingold is going to put before the Senate is inappropriate," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat who supports the Iraq war, said he does not buy the Bush administration's argument that it had the legal authority to enact the program.

But, he said, "I'd prefer to see us solve the problem."

Cheney challenges Democrats
Meanwhile, at a Republican campaign event in Feingold's home state, Vice President Dick Cheney challenged Democrats to take a stand on the Feingold resolution.

 

[Carl]

Republicans call for vote for censure pn President Bush in the Senate today but gutless democratic senators leave Finegold out to dry and decline to vote........

Standard tactics. They realize there will be zero support, but they wish to milk it for as long as possible in the media. Guaranteed to increase political contributions from the MoveOn.org and DemocratUndergound grassroots leading into the mid-terms.

I predict Senator McCain will soon be coming out hard in defense of President Bush on this issue, with some serious criticisms of Feingold and those sympathetic to the censure bill. He's working hard to move right in preparation for the 2008 elections. This will be a great opportunity for him.

 

[KCConservative]

I love Feingold!

Given the latest development, looks like you're the only one. :lol:

 

[easyt65]

Bingo. We are not far apart on this at all. -- Wiretap? Yes, but within the law.

Yes, but my point is that it (currently) IS within the law! No Censure!

By the way, http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/13/D8GB0M1O0.html
The Democrats abandoned Feingold on the floor, along with his interest/hopes of winning the Dem's '08 nomination for Pres! They knew this would be seen as a Partisan attack, sour-grapes, Clinton Impeachment Vendetta, especially after Feingold made the mistake of not onlybringing up the Clinton impeachment but also saying that he thought Bush's actions (which are currently LEGAL) are worse than Clinton's conviction of felonies - crimes! Man, invoking that comparison just screams 'Revenge for Clinton' when uttered in the same discussion of Censuring Bush! The Dems did everything they could to avoid a debate and vote on the issue, and Feingold was left committing political suicide by himself!

I just LOVE watching Dems implode and shoot themselves in the foot! :rofl

 

[Gill]

Once again, no links to back up what you are saying. However, I DO have a link to the text of the FISA law, which is at the Cornell University Law Archives:
<snip>
The law is quite clear on this. Your posting from either a partisan think tank, or what you would like to believe (I cant tell which because you have not posted any link), is not.

This information, along with the links, has been posted so many times that I didn't think it necessary to post again. You obviously, whether on purpose or not, must have missed the links.

For your pleasure, here you go:
http://files.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/fisa111802opn.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

No partisan think tanks are necessary. Of course you could have easily found the information yourself with a quick google search.

 

[easyt65]

Once again, no links to back up what you are saying. However, I DO have a link to the text of the FISA law, which is at the Cornell University Law Archives:

US Code Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter 1, Section 1802:

The law is quite clear on this. Your posting from either a partisan think tank, or what you would like to believe (I cant tell which because you have not posted any link), is not.

MY question is why are the Democrats so rabid about nailing Bush on this since THEY were part of the group that gave him carte blanch authority to do it after 9-11. At first the stiry was that none of them had heard anything about the program, then several came forward to admit they were part of the committee/group Bush went to in order to get the authority to defend the nation, the authority which was given at that time. Not one of them is talking about WHAT powers the President asked for and/or what powers they agreed to give the President. The talk is about FISA now. FISA may not apply/may be 'moot', depending on what authority the body gave Bush at that time. I am just wondering why no one has brought up the specifics about THAT discussion yet. (Maybe somone has, but I am not aware!) Knowing the Democrats, it may have been left in the dark because it is a blow to this latest witch hunt.

I can comfortably say 'witch hunt' for now because it is currently a perfectly legal program, and feingold just introduced legislation yesterday to censure the President during a time of war for running a LEGAL program designed to combat terrorism. Even his fellow Democrats backed away from that one! If the Democrats had a firm stand, real hope of getting a decision that would define the program as ILLEGAL, 100% of the Dems would have been there with feingold! Instead, they walked while he committed political Hari kari!

 

[danarhea]

The move to censure Bush has made it to the Republican dominated Judiciary Committee. Still a long shot, but it is still alive. Specter has scheduled the hearing for 31 March, which is next Friday.

Article is here.

 

[hipsterdufus]

The move to censure Bush has made it to the Republican dominated Judiciary Committee. Still a long shot, but it is still alive. Specter has scheduled the hearing for 31 March, which is next Friday.

Article is here.

A hearing was Feingold's goal all along. That's good news.

 

[Navy Pride]

The Liberals want to censure the president.The problem is the American people back what the President is doing when it comes to wiretapping....


The democrats and Liberals are on the wrong side of the issue again......What else is newe.........:roll:

 

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

There isn't a need for the wiretapping program. Sure it may be legal, but there isn't a need. If there isn't need for it, then I don't want to give up my rights to have it. Its just being invasive.

 

[AndrewC]

I think the problem with both the movement to censure and the wiretapping program is that we don't really know what the program is about. How can you say it is illegal if you don't know the full extent of the program? How can you a support something if you are not sure what is involved and who it affects?

 

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

I think the problem with both the movement to censure and the wiretapping program is that we don't really know what the program is about. How can you say it is illegal if you don't know the full extent of the program? How can you a support something if you are not sure what is involved and who it affects?

Thats why there have a hearing, if they already new everything about the program there would be no need for a hearing. It would just be labeled "illegal" and bush impeached. Thats why I support having a hearing, all the facts will come out.

 

[danarhea]

Thats why there have a hearing, if they already new everything about the program there would be no need for a hearing. It would just be labeled "illegal" and bush impeached. Thats why I support having a hearing, all the facts will come out.

You might not like those facts, when they do come out. Let me ask you a question: Please state at length why you feel the wiretapping is legal. I will take the other side of the argument, and lets see where this leads.

 

[hipsterdufus]

The Liberals want to censure the president.The problem is the American people back what the President is doing when it comes to wiretapping....


The democrats and Liberals are on the wrong side of the issue again......What else is newe.........:roll:

Too many powerful Dems are afraid to censure the president right now. They are too worried about potential fallout from actually showing a spine on this issue.

Cowards!

NP, the polls show that 42% of Americans think if Bush violated the law, he should be censured.

Sen. Russ Feingold recently called for Congress to censure -- or formally reprimand -- Bush for his warrantless wiretapping program. While Feingold's measure does not enjoy much support among his Senate colleagues, a significant percentage of those polled like the idea -- 42 percent of Americans say they would support a congressional censure of Bush while 50 percent would not.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060318/nysa014.html?.v=29

I don't think that's the test either way - whether the public is for or against censure.

It's crystal clear to me that Bush violated the law on numerous occasions. So what do we do - let it slide? Give the same lattitude to President (insert hated liberal here) ?

We are a nation of laws, and no one can is above the law when they feel it is justified, even if it's the President.

"The problem here is that we're trying to just gloss this over. Almost every member of Congress is saying, well, yeah, he broke that law but let's see if we can fix the law. If we had that kind of system, if we don't answer the president now with a censure then we're not going to get back on track, we're not going to get back to a system where congress makes the law and the president signs the law, he doesn't get to make up the laws by himself," said Feingold.

http://www.areavoices.com/commonsense/?blog=1865

 

[Navy Pride]

Too many powerful Dems are afraid to censure the president right now. They are too worried about potential fallout from actually showing a spine on this issue.

Cowards!

NP, the polls show that 42% of Americans think if Bush violated the law, he should be censured.



http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060318/nysa014.html?.v=29

I don't think that's the test either way - whether the public is for or against censure.

It's crystal clear to me that Bush violated the law on numerous occasions. So what do we do - let it slide? Give the same lattitude to President (insert hated liberal here) ?

We are a nation of laws, and no one can is above the law when they feel it is justified, even if it's the President.


http://www.areavoices.com/commonsense/?blog=1865

hips they have no courage for their convictions.....They know the American people want to wire tap terrorists making telephone calls to this country and are not really concerned that they get permission first.......They know that leaders in the intelligence committee are kept informed........

Its just another case of the dems afraid to put their money where their mouth is.........Ain't gonna happen my friend...........

 

[danarhea]

hips they have no courage for their convictions.....They know the American people want to wire tap terrorists making telephone calls to this country and are not really concerned that they get permission first.......They know that leaders in the intelligence committee are kept informed........

Its just another case of the dems afraid to put their money where their mouth is.........Ain't gonna happen my friend...........

Yes, it is all about those nasty Democrats, especially that Democrat head of the Judiciary Committee, who put the censure measure on the docket. Now what was that evil Democrat's name?.......

That's right, Arlen Specter. :rofl

Give it a rest.

 

[Navy Pride]

Yes, it is all about those nasty Democrats, especially that Democrat head of the Judiciary Committee, who put the censure measure on the docket. Now what was that evil Democrat's name?.......

That's right, Arlen Specter. :rofl

Give it a rest.

Of course he put it on the docket....That is his job.........Has a censure vote been taken my left wing buddy?:roll:

You give it a rest.....Never mind..........