it is a little biased as far as which political stance the writer has but thought i was interesting:


On Friday, December 16, the New York Times published a major scoop by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau: They reported that Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans without warrants, ignoring the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

It was a long story loaded with astonishing information (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm) of lawbreaking at the White House. It reported that sometime in 2002, Bush issued an executive order authorizing NSA to track and intercept international telephone and/or email exchanges coming into, or out of, the U.S. - when one party was believed to have direct or indirect ties with al Qaeda.

Initially, Bush and the White House stonewalled (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051216-1.html), neither confirming nor denying the president had ignored the law. Bush refused to discuss it in his interview with Jim Lehrer (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_nsa).

Then, on Saturday, December 17, in his radio broadcast, Bush admitted that the New York Times was correct - and thus conceded he had committed an impeachable offense.

There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons.

These parallel violations underscore the continuing, disturbing parallels between this Administration and the Nixon Administration - parallels I also discussed in a prior column (http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean/20020510.html).

Indeed, here, Bush may have outdone Nixon: Nixon's illegal surveillance was limited; Bush's, it is developing, may be extraordinarily broad in scope. First reports indicated that NSA was only monitoring foreign calls, originating either in the USA or abroad, and that no more than 500 calls were being covered at any given time. But later reports have suggested that NSA is "data mining" literally millions of calls - and has been given access by the telecommunications companies to "switching" stations through which foreign communications traffic flows.

In sum, this is big-time, Big Brother electronic surveillance.

Given the national security implications of the story, the Times said they had been sitting on it for a year. And now that it has broken, Bush has ordered a criminal investigation into the source of the leak. He suggests that those who might have felt confidence they would not be spied on, now can have no such confidence, so they may find other methods of communicating. Other than encryption and code, it is difficult to envision how.

it is a little biased...

First understatement of the year.

I feel it would have been treasonious(sp) for Bush NOT to eves drop on "persons of interest". American citizens or not.....

Oh good lord. I mean, I can see the occasional need for this, but obviously a person of interest is "whomever we freaking feel like."

I think parts of the Patriot act are good. THis crap needs to be stopped.

I feel it would have been treasonious(sp) for Bush NOT to eves drop on "persons of interest". American citizens or not.....

When they can show how many per 1000 calls intercepted were "persons of interest", then we can debate the merits of the unwarranted wiretaps; at this point they have already shown that the process used by the NSA was waaaaaaaaay beyond what Bush is claiming in his weak defense of the order he gave.

He claims it is a matter of being able to act in a timely manner, yet FISA allows for that exact fast action. He screwed up, plain and simple, and Cheney is now working the media trying to spin the whole situation as Bush taking back the presidential powers that were lost after Nixon's debacle. No president has ever had the power to create laws as they see fit, or to violate those with which they disagree. This is a good example for the civics classes to use in discussing why we have three branches of government.

FISA was a rubber stamp, and that wasn't good enough...apparently.

I feel it would have been treasonious(sp) for Bush NOT to eves drop on "persons of interest". American citizens or not.....


Dont be a sheep it is not ok to give up our personal freedoms.

I have lost no personal freedoms.. How sheeple of me. Don't be a paranoid sheep of the left then.

Hmmm think you'd have to show me where YOU have lost personal freedom.

Fandros

You had a right to have phone conversations that cannot be taped without reason. You seem to have lost that right.

Edit - And, I might point out, you weren't informed that you had lost it, which is even worse.

You're just silly. They are not taping you. The Pres has every right to tape these Terrorists talking to there American links. If you think Georgie is taping YOU you're just being paranoid.

Ummmm for arguments sake where does it state that you have that right?

Oh, and news flash for ya folks...you talk on a cell phone, you give up that right by using public airwaves. Read that somewhere, not sure if it's valid.

Fandros

The Pres has every right to tape these Terrorists talking to there American links.

Oh, cool, you've got the list of people being taped. BUshie won't own up to that. Could you post a link?

Ummmm for arguments sake where does it state that you have that right?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe amendments 9 and 10 are generally interpreted as protecting privacy.

Also, though we seem to have forgotten that, these rights apply to you even if you're not a citizen.

these rights apply to you even if you're not a citizen.

You lose those rights when you talk to any foreign agent with whom we're at war with.

Seriously, lots of hang wringing going on. Buy some lotion.

Yea.. see.. As long as its for the "Good of the Country", as defined by George W. Bush, then its A-OK to simply remove peoples rights. Shit, inalienable rights arent that important anyway.
We dont need no stinking oversight.
Just Trust W.
You know.. the guy who has all that good intelligence about WMDs and how the insurgency was in its final throes... Stop thinking and trust...

You'd have to be unbelievably naive or willfully in denial to believe the wiretaps have anything to do with terrorism when that was already provided for legally by FISA, and that's why there is never going to be a list of those taps or the other mass interceptions currently being employed for data mining. Oddly I suspect many people would likely end up approving of the unwarranted and legally unjustified surveillance targets, but hey, the neocon modus operandi employs deception even when it isn't necessary. Practice makes perfect, I guess ... they sure need a lot more.

So would loss of rights be extended to those blackmailed by government agencies? Say like using the IRS to force votes etc etc?

I wonder how upset folks can remain when it's not just the right abusing govt powers.

Fandros

Yea.. see.. As long as its for the "Good of the Country", as defined by George W. Bush, then its A-OK to simply remove peoples rights. Shit, inalienable rights arent that important anyway.
We dont need no stinking oversight.

Here's how Risen defends his book...
"The checks and balances that normally keep American foreign policy and national security policy toward the center kind of broke down. You had more of a radicalization, in which the career professionals were not really given a chance to forge a consensus within the administration. The principals -- Rumsfeld, Cheney Tenet and Rice -- were meeting constantly, setting policy and never allowing the experts, the people who understand the region to have a say."
You know, the career professionals who were wrong about just about everything going into Iraq...

So here's the world in which you want live: When the career professionals and the NY Times want to sell a book, they can go ahead and break the law and define national security for you.

I don't want the NY Times deciding in wartime, just what information I "deserve to have" thank you very much. They are not elected, they are not accountable, and honestly I do not trust their politics.

Oh, but we have a Bushitler! on our hands you say. Can't trust those elected and in charge.

Here's a novel idea. Since we have a representative democracy, complete with institutional checks and balances and two parties, how about those Nanci Pelosies and Murtha's who have done alot of hand wringing on TV lately, when troubled by their consciences, why did they not take their troubles to a Congressional oversight committee? Like they were supposed to do?

I know why, because they couldn't score political points with our national security. That should be a nice book though. Gonna go get yours autographed?

You know, the career professionals who were wrong about just about everything going into Iraq...
"Osama determined to strike US."
"Six days, six weeks, I doubt six months."
"We'll be welcomed as liberators."
Yeah, the career professionals.
I don't want the NY Times deciding in wartime, just what information I "deserve to have" thank you very much. They are not elected, they are not accountable, and honestly I do not trust their politics.
Then don't read the paper. For those of us who are interested in whether Bush broke the law, so that he can be held accountable if that's the case, I like to be informed. NO administration wants the press to be poking its nose into its activities, whether it be IranContra, NSA/FISA, or a blowjob. But how are elected officials to be held accountable if we aren't aware of what they are up to? And how do you expect us to discover what ANY administration is up to, especially if they are breaking the law?

But no, let's trust the executive to tell us.
Here's a novel idea. Since we have a representative democracy, complete with institutional checks and balances and two parties, how about those Nanci Pelosies and Murtha's who have done alot of hand wringing on TV lately, when troubled by their consciences, why did they not take their troubles to a Congressional oversight committee? Like they were supposed to do?
Checks and balances, right. Only in the Bush administration, checks and balances amount to, "This is what we're doing, whether you like it or not" (e.g., Bush's signing statement on the defense bill vis the McCain torture amendment, and his response to the NSA/FISA issue).

And just what oversight has Congress brought to the Bush White House, not to mention their own scandals? If it weren't for Arlen Specter, we might not have any investigation at all. And even then, Bush is pressuring him to let the much more pliable Pat Roberts handle the hearings.

As a PS, since we're talking about checks & balances, here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060104-3.html) are yesterday's recess appointments. Note Julie L. Myers, of Kansas, to be Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement). Myers is wife of Michael Chertoff's chief of staff and niece of former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Richard Myers, and has no experience managing a large bureaucracy. Also of note, Tracy A. Henke, of Missouri, to be Executive Director of the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness at the Department of Homeland Security, who is a former Senate staffer.

About Myers, Michelle Malkin wrote (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003576.htm): Oh, give me a ^*&%$# break and a half! This nomination is a monumental political and policy blunder in the wake of the Michael Brown/FEMA fiasco. And I can tell you that contrary to the Miss Mary Sunshine White House spokeswoman's comments, rank-and-file DHS employees and immigration enforcement officials are absolutely livid about Myers' nomination.

But hey, it's only DHS, right? Nothing important.
You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie.

My biggest issue is, if these people that they are domestically spying on, have such links, ties, and whatnot, it should be EASY AS HELL to get a court order...

Why circumvent the system. You only do that if you think you're wrong.

Being that the FISA court is a retroactive ruber stamp, there is only one logical reason to subvert it. With FISA there is a record of who has been spyed on. Without FISA there is no record (no attainable record anyway). Why would he want to hide the records if he was only targetting legitimate national security threats and not political opponents (for example) ?

You two have summed up one of the big problems right there.

Why is it that people like akipt and osgillath are too retarded to open a history book?

When Hitler said it was for the good of the country to round up all the jewish citizens into concentration camps, would you have agreed with that too?

When it was decided that after Pearl Harbor every single person who had Asian ancestry must be a spy and locked away, would you have agreed with that too?

When crazed Zealots began locking away anyone they felt was communist, without proof, back in the cold war, would you have agreed with that too?

When in Boston the government decided that witches should be burnt at the stake (and here's a news flash for the ignorant, witches don't exist), would you have agreed with that too?

When Communish Russia decided enemies of the state should be taken away without trial, to protect the great Communist state, would you have agreed to that too?

Giving away freedoms, ANY freedoms, on the premise that its good for the state without factual backing is frankly too ignorant an idea to support. Please for the love of god, go back to school you guys :( And if that doesn't help maybe, just maybe, start to think for yourselves. Too many of our anscestors have fought and died for these freedoms you are willing to piss away, thats worse than pissing on their graves.

How's the weather in Paranoia land?

How's the weather in Paranoia land?

Funny...that quote was first heard in Germany 1933.

Myron Goldberg; I'm not so sure that this Hitler guy is good for Germany

William Von Scutzstaffel; Oh Myron Come on, How's the weather in paranoia land?

Hey Osgi, as one of the only supporters, how about throwing some actual thoughts in, instead of blanket paranoid statements. My 8 year old brother can do that.

For instance, give us reasons that the post above of Phel and the one above it of mine are paranoid?

Its simple facts....why circumvent a system. You only do that if you are hiding something, or know it wouldnt ge through.

Also, as far as your concerned, how far would Bush have to go before you would start to object....not a slam, give me the scenario in which Bush's Intelligence plans would go to far.

Let me throw one back at ya Grey.

How many deaths are tolerable before you feel that we need to tighten security?

3k?...yeah ya'll were all about the Patriot act then, but apparently that return diminishs over time.

So would 9k deaths have you wanting Uncle Sam to play hardball?

12K?

15K+?

That's my concern here, and something I knew was going to happen. The left became defense aware after 9/11 and I knew that would wane all too soon.

Perhaps the wire tapping deal is scary to ya'll. I'm not overly worried about anyone tapping into my phone calls. That's likely conditioning from receiving my first clearence tho. You never say anything on the phone that you don't want someone else to hear.

I find I'm less worried about phone tapping and more worried about misuse of the IRS to blackmail folks into doing their bidding....

But that's sealed and not to be discussed....hush hush...

Fandros

Why is it that people like akipt and osgillath are too retarded to open a history book? Grow up please. I have. That's why I'm not the one with a brown paper bag in his hand trying to catch his breath while calling other people retarded.

If you were so up on history Kel, you'd realize this is the same argument this country has gone over and over and over on since everyone wanted to crown Washington our first King.

Read up on the president's responsibility to wage war that Congress has explicitly required him to wage. And also note, if Bush wanted to be like Clinton or Nixon or some other shifty president abusing his powers, he would NOT have stamped his fucking name to it over thirty times. It would take 3 or 4 years of hearings and millions of dollars spent on special prosecutors to find him at the end of it. Instead, he owned up to it because it was his job to be doing this. Let the Dems continue to embarrass themselves and let the NY Times sell a book on it though, it really is a shame.

Grey what would be the point? Even if I found imperical evidence absolving the Bush Administration(as if they are guilty of anything anyways) of any wrong doings in the world you would still not believe it. You would find something else to bitch about. Maybe republicans caused your McDonalds coffee to be too hot? Not matter what Akipt, Fandros, my self ever post would not be good enough.

Osg, I am not hardset in my opinion, you show me facts stating otherwise to what i beleive to be the truth, and i will usually modify my opinion. (key word being facts). For the record I am not democrat as you seem to infer, i am in the middle i have some republican views and some democrat views. Also, still curious what your opinion of overstepping boundries is.

Fandros, I was against the patriot act from day one. I think it was a good concept but poorly executed. Please tighten security, but keep it within a balanced system with checks to ensure no misapprpiot behavior.



Please stop with the lame McDonald, Clinton, Dem bashing, it shows nothing but a clear lack of any supporting argument. Only Fandros is intelligently arguing. The rest are just regurgitating the same dribble, i even dare use the word propeganda.

You still have not and can not answer my question. If FISA is a retroactive rubber stamp, why was it subverted? There can only be one answer and I gave it to you already.

If Bush was so interested in increasing security why have so many items of the 9/11 commission not been addressed, when "secret wire taps" which was not even an item of the commission was enacted and you tout it as "increasing security". Lets get the borders secured. Lets get container cargo secured. Lets get the shipping ports secure. Lets get chemical and nuclear plants secure. Have you ever been to San Onofre in California? I have and a civilian can drive a vehicle to within 100 feet of the reactor and the only thing separating the two is a chain link fence. Secret wire taps is far more important than that.

Let me throw one back at ya Grey.

How many deaths are tolerable before you feel that we need to tighten security?

Sigh.

You mean like use existing laws? Or simply make better use of the data/intelligence we already have? Or, to take a liberal slant, read the daily security briefing provided to the president (ok ok had to throw that on in)?

We didn't need new laws to provide for better passenger checking at airports. We didn't need new laws to prevent someone taking a 4" knife onto a plane. We didn't need new laws to follow up on the idea of foreign nationals taking large jet pilot lessons. We already knew about ALL of that.

Again, I agree with parts of the Patriot act. But they've accomplished nothing (except to help keep Padilla in jail - WHEW!). We don't need new laws allowing governmental eavesdropping to tighten security in this country. These jackasses don't talk on landlines anyway. If they use cell phones, they're thrown away in a week.

I'm by no means a rubber stamp for the Patriot Act. Infact I was sure it was passed too quickly following 9/11. I think Phel has a good point and one I'd like answered by the powers that be.

Why not use FISA if it's so easy to use. Was it for times sake?

But I'll not lose sleep over someone listening to my phone conversations. Hell I don't even own a cell phone due to my dislike of talking on the damnable things.

Personally, if you're talking to known agents of enemy powers I think you give up every right as an American when it comes to finding out what the hell you're up to. Apply this heavily towards coorporations please...

Fandros

Sure, I agree, listen to my phone conversations all you want.

Except that it's against the law. This is literally impeachable if BUsh OK'd it. I mean, come on. There's no need for this idiot to break the freaking law. Except that he probably doesn't know what the applicable laws are.

Why not use FISA if it's so easy to use. Was it for times sake?

Actually, FISA was not easy to use and was not a rubber stamp. There are some indications FISA contributed to all of the intelligence failures surrounding 9/11 (FBI not communicating with CIA for fear of running afoul of FISA warrants). The Patriot Act tried to fix things, but caused a host of other problems.

Except that it's against the law.

What law?

Actually, FISA was not easy to use and was not a rubber stamp. There are some indications FISA contributed to all of the intelligence failures surrounding 9/11 (FBI not communicating with CIA for fear of running afoul of FISA warrants). The Patriot Act tried to fix things, but caused a host of other problems.

Thank you Jamie Gorelick.

What law?

Hahah. Quick, go to your TV. Somewhere on some channel there's a Law and Order episode playing. WAtch it. THat should help.

My biggest issue is, if these people that they are domestically spying on, have such links, ties, and whatnot, it should be EASY AS HELL to get a court order...

Why circumvent the system. You only do that if you think you're wrong.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

I get this image of that guy from south park constantly screaming "I AM ABOVE THE LAW!"

Here's a novel idea. Since we have a representative democracy, complete with institutional checks and balances and two parties, how about those Nanci Pelosies and Murtha's who have done alot of hand wringing on TV lately, when troubled by their consciences, why did they not take their troubles to a Congressional oversight committee? Like they were supposed to do?



Umm, you mean like when the republicans started changing the ethics rules after they got the majority to prevent the republican leaders from having to lose their power positions if indicted for any criminal acts, which the democrats were unable to affect without going to the media about the blatant unethical ethics changes?

Those committees?

Umm, you mean like when the republicans started changing the ethics rules after they got the majority to prevent the republican leaders from having to lose their power positions if indicted for any criminal acts, which the democrats were unable to affect without going to the media about the blatant unethical ethics changes?

Those committees?

Score!

Actually, FISA was not easy to use and was not a rubber stamp. There are some indications FISA contributed to all of the intelligence failures surrounding 9/11 (FBI not communicating with CIA for fear of running afoul of FISA warrants). The Patriot Act tried to fix things, but caused a host of other problems.

Then fix the Patriot Act. Fix FISA. Go to Congress and request changes in the legislation. Tell the FBI and CIA to play nice or the NSA will give them a spanking. I shudder to think what "some indications" might be indicating about the intelligence failures indicative of pre-9/11, but fix the problem and do it legally. Throw in some of those checks and balances. Have proper oversight.

But then, BushCo did talk to congressional leaders, was rebuffed by those congressional leaders, and went ahead with the program anyway.

"Hahah. Quick, go to your TV. Somewhere on some channel there's a Law and Order episode playing. WAtch it. THat should help."

Nice dodge. So, your answer is there isn't a law and I was just being a fucking dumbass?

It's not a dodge. Did you go watch the TV show? Did you learn about warrants and the need to get them from a judge? And the need to present valid reasoning/proof to that judge to get the warrant? And the general idea that "we can't get this guy's phone records/et. all without a warrant?"

TV. The great educator.

Please tell me that you're not getting your legal advice from a fictional drama on prime time TV.

What next, you going to take medical advice from House?

Look to solve crimes with CSI technology??

Ooo Ooo Oo.....go explore space because you seen it on Star Trek reruns?

I know I know!!! You'll become a top notch surgeon because you watch SCRUBS!!!

woOOoOot use fictional shows for factual basis...yup you smoked him!

I think he's actually asking for hard core law....not something dreamed up and spit out on prime time bud.

Fandros

none of us know the correct verbage, but everyone knows you need court order for wire tap....Tv,movie, Cops, news all tell us this.

Please tell me that you're not getting your legal advice from a fictional drama on prime time TV.

I don't mean to be insulting, but maybe you should declare your intentions. If you're smart enough to participate in a debate like this, one assumes you've had a class on the constitution in 8th grade or high school. That would have covered this in a basic reading of the 4th amendment. In spades. I'm assuming everyone in high school or better knows basic stuff like this.

If you're just trolling well then I've sorry to have wasted everyones time trying to correct you.

"everyone knows you need court order for wire tap....Tv,movie, Cops, news all tell us this"

Are you kidding me? You want to go around screaming Bush broke a law and you can't even cite the freaking law he broke? I'll make it easier for you -- exclude state laws (you know that whole Article VI supremacy crap). There aren't that many federal criminal statutes. Cite the one you allege he "clearly" broke.

"4th amendment"

Ahh so rather than a federal criminal law, the "illegality" of Bush's actions is a violation of the 4th amendment. Is that what you're alleging? I want to be clear on the law you say Bush broke.

We should start calling them the Padilla Laws.

"Well, we thought Furtivus was an enemy combatant so we taped is phone calls."
"Uh, did you prove that he was an enemy combatant?"
"Well of course not. We don't have to. We're in a time of war."
"Now wait a sec."

Score!

His argument was a non-sequitur, but you get your political score points. Bravo. Got your autographed Risen book yet?

Man, cut the guy some slack. Mentioned TV, did he? I bet we all saw someone get read their Miranda rights on television long before we heard about Miranda v Arizona in civics class.

You're busy playing a semantics game with someone that may have a valid point. You're busy attacking his credibilty instead of discussing the messge.

Shame, honestly.

Furtivus, I'm not sure why you're asking for laws Bush broke when you're entire defense of the wiretapping issue is that Bush doesn't have to follow the law. I mean, FISA 1809 says (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001809----000-.html):
(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or
(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.
Your other defense seems to be that FISA, the Patriot Act, the FBI and CIA aren't perfect, therefore shouldn't be bothered with vis the wiretapping anyway.

Swear to god lol, its like a shell game trying to say Bush commited something wrong. Tons of misdirection. Even in our own thread the truth/fiction behind Tv derailed our thread somehwhat.

Between his off session appointments and now the domestic surveilance, it seems he may be staying within the boundries (loosely staying) but do we really want a president who wants to use all the loopholes and workarounds to get his agenda done? Why not just use the system in place, OR go through the proper channels/procedures to get things changed so his agenda can be processed within legal confines.

To me it's a slap in the face, that one of the first reports after NYTimes reported the domestic surveilance, was a quick action to discover the source of the security leak. Not sure a president would want to keep his security plan "classified" you think you would want to publically say we are doing X Y and Z to stop terrorism, would serve as a "Cover My Ass" situation.

Makes ya wonder if his political advisors are getting drunk and banging their heads into the wall. Cause even if a president that i completely supported was in office, i would even be going.."FUCK MAN STOP!", which i was during the Clinton question "please define sex" questions.

His argument was a non-sequitur, but you get your political score points. Bravo. Got your autographed Risen book yet?

Specifically what part of his argument are you saying is absurd? Are you telling me that "some members" of Congress did not in fact change some ethics rules that allowed "some members" of Congress to still hold positions even after being indicted?

See, there "some members" = unbiased ;)

And afterall you're the one who brought up Murtha and Nancy and indicated that they are "wringing their hands" and that they should take their troubles to the oversight committee....which when you consider changing rules so that leaders can still hold positions after being indicted......well that sir is your non sequitur. But thanks for your comments.

Actually Grey, it's like a shell game trying to stick it to the leaders of either side here. It's nothing new, same shit goes on for the left's greats....in their eyes their all made of teflon and we're loony to question it and vice versa...

Think it's funny to see the panties wadded up and indignation floating about as tho they didn't play their cards the same way the right is playing theirs now.

And actually Mir? Bud I know what law is being eluded to, but I'm curious if you're only indignant due to fictional television or because you were told to be upset. It's a big difference to argue with L2 or Thor or to argue with the likes of you...They give hard links that I click on and spend time reading, and lately you spout prime time logic or better yet spoonfed college prof logic.

So please Professor CBS, get on the soapbox with info derived from other than Law and Order. That logic is part and parcel why I watch what my son watches on TV. I'd prefer he didn't get his political/logical thinking from some directors personal agenda.

Hell I'm a big fan of StarGate, but you won't find me eluding to them in a discussion involving wormholes. I'll go refer to Stephen Hawking for that....capishe'?

Fandros

"I'm not sure why you're asking for laws Bush broke"

Because someone else said he broke a law. I'm not the one giving a defense (I actually think the question will be open until ruled on by the Supreme Court); y'all are the ones alleging it is obviously illegal because we "saw it on TV." I was asking (what should have been elementary question) for a cite to the law that was allegedly broken.

Mirdorr indicates Bush broke the 4th amendment "law". You're now saying he violated FISA. I'll ignore Mirdorr even though he made the allegation because it's obvious his understanding of the 4th amendment is sophomoric. Hell FISA may not even comply with the 4th amendment (a point most people here simply ignore when asking why Bush didn't get FISA approval).

How does 1809 comport with 1802 and 1811? Does 1809 unconstitutionally restrict Presidential authority against foreign powers during a time of war? Has 1809 been excepted by other Congressional authorizations? Have 1802 and 1811 been extended by Congress through their authorizations? I assume you have cites to these answers since you're alleging it's so obviously "illegal". What did the FISA court itself have to say about unconstitutional restrictions on the President authority to issue warrantless searches of foreign powers during a time of war?

If you're going to make a accusation that certain conduct is illegal, be prepared to show it's illegal. Otherwise shut up.

Stephen Hawking's voice scares me...

and so does this...

How does 1809 comport with 1802 and 1811? Does 1809 unconstitutionally restrict Presidential authority against foreign powers during a time of war? Has 1809 been excepted by other Congressional authorizations? Have 1802 and 1811 been extended by Congress through their authorizations? I assume you have cites to these answers since you're alleging it's so obviously "illegal". What did the FISA court itself have to say about unconstitutional restrictions on the President authority to issue warrantless searches of foreign powers during a time of war?

If you're going to make a accusation that certain conduct is illegal, be prepared to show it's illegal. Otherwise shut up.

What did you just say??

"absurd"

Non-sequitur does not mean absurd. Look it up.

Oh? There are multiple meanings from what I know, funny how words are like that...you know used in all sorts of contexts. And considering this is a TEXT forum it's hard to truly know what one means. Does someone mean the literal meaning or some colloquial meaning? Hard to tell, so we take it how we take it. I found more spite and spark in implying he meant it as absurd. Which to my joy you trounced all over it, thanks for that ;)

If you're going to make a accusation that certain conduct is illegal, be prepared to show it's illegal. Otherwise shut up.

Shouldn't you be equally as responsible to prove to the "nonbelievers" that he is in fact staying within the boundries of the law? Show us the proof that he is doing right, and that he hasnt done what we all claim he has. Prove us wrong.


(btw this is where you back peddle sling an insult and then disappear from the thread like Osg did :P)

...but I'm curious if you're only indignant due to fictional television or because you were told to be upset

Sigh.

Yeah. I'm on a maillist. Let's see, it'd be a Dem list, so it's not "she's enabling freedom fighters" O'Reilly. Kerry? Or maybe Dean? I forget whose list it is.

How does 1809 comport with 1802 and 1811? Does 1809 unconstitutionally restrict Presidential authority against foreign powers during a time of war?
1802 applies when "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 1811 applies for 15 days following a declaration of war by Congress. But Congress hasn't declared war, and the policy has proceeded beyond the 15 days following the AUMF, so this is unimportant. There may be internal collision between aspects of FISA, but they don't appear to be relevant to the current issue.
Has 1809 been excepted by other Congressional authorizations? Have 1802 and 1811 been extended by Congress through their authorizations? I assume you have cites to these answers since you're alleging it's so obviously "illegal".
Well, you know what happens when you assume things. By all means, feel free to answer your own questions and relate how they apply to the warrantless wiretaps issue. Dangling verbiage before our eyes may look neat on the screen and dazzle shanno, but it's not very conducive to presenting an argument. Prima facie, 1809 considers warrantless searches illegal except under certain circumstances that already appear inapplicable, but I'm open to being shown why that isn't the case.

And it's worth noting again the defenses being used by Bush/Gonzales.
What did the FISA court itself have to say about unconstitutional restrictions on the President authority to issue warrantless searches of foreign powers during a time of war?
That they're...unconstitutional? Crazy guess, I know, but the question wasn't suggestive or anything. :rolleyes:

Quick question. If it's legal, why hasn't Bush bothered to mention a law that says this is legal? He just says "it's necessary to FIGHT THE WAR ON TERROR" then tries to hunt down the leak.

Because you don't need a law for something to be legal. Do you really think there's a "law" for every legal action you could take?
Is that more of your TV law?

Like I said from the get-go, I think the question is open. I tend to agree with every court that has ruled on this issue (including the FISA appellate court) that it is within the President's constitutional power. No backpedalling at all. If you're looking for support that the President has the power to wage war, look no further than Article 2, Section 2.

It's "obvious" from what you've presented that you haven't done your homework and this case isn't such a cut and paste illegality. Hell you can't necessarily agree on the laws that were allegedly broken. Bush's actions very well could be completely legal. Shocking.

I know the president can declare war for short periods of time without congressional declaration, but where in Article 2 Section 2 is that stated? I took the liberty of posting the section for ya.

Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

I just assumed that by saying what you said, it owuld be painfully obvious.

Wage war; not declare it. The power to declare war is found in Article 1, Section 8.

The power to wage war is stated in the first sentence of Article 2, Section 2, "The President shall be the Commander in Chief"

I also understand authority is found in an executive order issued by the President. Anyone have the text of the executive order? Has the executive order been adjudicated?

It's not. He's avoiding the issue by changing the question. Note he has posted nothing that says wiretapping the phone lines of American citizens on American soil in time of war IS legal.

The power to wage war is stated in the first sentence of Article 2, Section 2, "The President shall be the Commander in Chief"

Ok, but there is checks and balances to control this. The War Powers Resolution (US Code Title 50, Chapter 33, Sections 1541-1548)

In Section 1543 , its states that president has to report estimated scope and duration of conflicts. We all know the duration is indetermineable due to fact we are not declaring a war on a country, we are declaring a war on a broad term, "Terrorists"

But alas, we digress again from original topic...

"Note he has posted nothing that says wiretapping the phone lines of American citizens on American soil in time of war IS legal."

If you can find the text of the Executive Order, you may find the source of your so desired "legality". I haven't seen it so can't opine on it.

You may also want to consider Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus and Truman's actions in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.

Greystone, I may have misinterpreted your post. The President does not have any authority to issue a formal declaration of war even for a short period of time. If you're talking about a President's ability to use troops without Congressional declaration, start by looking at the Prize cases in the mid 1800s regarding Lincoln's blockading of southern ports.

This appeal to executive order seems tautological: "The President's actions are legal because the President ordered these actions."

Like I said, I haven't seen the text of the Executive Order or any court (really the Court) ruling the executive order unconstitutional.

In 1967 the Supreme Court ruled that electronic surveillance was covered by the 4th amendment (Berger vs Katz). Also the Supreme Court condemned "lenthy, continuous or indiscriminate surveillances." The court did allow for short focused surveillance on interception of conversations was consititional IF APPROVED BY A JUDGE IN ADVANCE AND BASED ON A SPECIAL SHOWING OF NEED.

In Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, some of the things it said concerning wiretaps were "it would be authorized only as a last resort, when other investigative techniques would not work."

Then in 1978 FISA was born, which states that any U.S. citizen to be surveilled had to have probable cause and get approval from panel of judges.

In 1986, Electronic Communications Privacy Act , made it a crime to knowingly intercept wireless communications and e-mail, but authorized to do so with a WARRANT ISSUED on probable cause.

Bush did not get warrants to do what he wanted...thus breaking the law.

You might want to add a "but see" U.S. v. U.S. District Court after your Berger v. Katz cite since it essentially nullifies that argument.

You might also want to add a "but see" In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001 after your FISA decision since it contradicts that line of argument.

The 1986 law is a new one to me. I'll take a look at it since it's your only remaining point of illegality.

Wait.. Wait..

Youngstown actually HURTS Bush's case ircc.
Doesnt Youngstown define the power of the President at low ebb when acting in contrary to the Congress.. Truman was prevented from spying on Americans during the Korean War and I think Justice Jackson makes the strongest case vs. warrentless searches by the executive branch AND more so, deals a significant blow to your arguement that congress cannot limit the executive branch as it has done with FISA in its statement:
(g) Even if it be true that other Presidents have taken possession of private business enterprises without congressional authority in order to settle labor disputes, Congress has not thereby lost its exclusive constitutional authority to make the laws necessary and proper to carry out all powers vested by the Constitution "in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof." Pp. 588-589.

Additionally.. although the Youngstown case dealt with the seizure of property (specifically Steel Mills), later cases have established that conversations and communications can and should be considered private property cannot be arbitrarily seized by the government.

I am baffled why you would even bring the Youngstown case up, as it is the most severe blow to the weak case you present.

I haven't seen it so can't opine on it.

So you're opining that it's legal, but you have no basis in fact for that.

I do agree with Furtivus that the courts will have to decide this. Given Bush's push to place judge's favoring executive power (Roberts, Alito) on the SCOTUS, I can imagine the ultimate rulings going his way.

However, defense lawyers are also gearing up to appeal rulings against their clients (some of whom might be actual terrorists or something), using the questionable legality of warrantless wiretapping as a pretext for review. In particular, some allege that illegal wiretapping of their clients may have led to criminal charges unrelated to terrorism, or may be exculpatory.

Thus, we could see criminals go free because BushCo didn't want to bother with warrants and oversight. Or, at the very least, the courts may be glutted with cases that should not be vulnerable to appeal.

But yeah, the courts must decide at some point if the President's power during a time of undeclared war is fettered.

"I am baffled why you would even bring the Youngstown case up, as it is the most severe blow to the weak case you present."
I brought it up because it shows the President acting in a time of war pursuant to an executive order and the Supreme Court later ruling that action unconstitutional. Same reason I brought up the Lincoln suspension of habeus corpus. I could have brought up the FDR case where he issued an executive order during time of war setting up the internment camps and that was later ruled constitutional. As an aside, I am not entirely convinced the Court would rule the same way today as it did in Youngstown (although the facts are completely different -- Youngstown dealt with the President encroaching on an area exclusively reserved for Congress that's where the President ran into trouble).

At this point we only have the President issuing an executive order and acting. We do not have clear guidance on the backend and it is premature in my opinion to automatically assume the action illegal.

Where I have opined that the executive order is legal? Like I said, I haven't even seen it. Usually executive orders set forth the grounds with which they are justified. It will be interesting to see what ground Bush used in the executive order and whether anyone will challenge it in court as unconstitutional.

Brief article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/politics/06cnd-nsa.html?hp&ex=1136610000&en=00780be4858f8682&ei=5094&partner=homepage) in the NYT regarding the newly released report (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf) from the Congressional Research Service (pdf). Final paragraph (of 44 pages):
From the foregoing analysis, it appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations here under discussion, and it would likewise appear that, to the extent that those surveillances fall within the definition of “electronic surveillance” within the meaning of FISA or any activity regulated under Title III, Congress intended to cover the entire field with these statutes. To the extent that the NSA activity is not permitted by some reading of Title III or FISA, it may represent an exercise of presidential power at its lowest ebb, in which case exclusive presidential control is sustainable only by “disabling Congress from acting upon the subject.”141 While courts have generally accepted that the President has the power to conduct domestic electronic surveillance within the United States inside the constraints of the Fourth Amendment, no court has held squarely that the Constitution disables the Congress from endeavoring to set limits on that power. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has stated that Congress does indeed have power to regulate domestic surveillance,142 and has not ruled on the extent to which Congress can act with respect to electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information. Given such uncertainty, the Administration’s legal justification, as presented in the summary analysis from the Office of Legislative Affairs, does not seem to be as well-grounded as the tenor of that letter suggests.
In related news, crazed liberal Sam Brownback (R-KS) disagrees (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/24/senator_bushs_spying_raises_concerns/?city_local) with the admin's legal rationale.

Expect to see both sides scrambling this week to plead/re-enforce their cases. If Democrats want action they're going to have to take it now.

"Court cases evaluating the legality of warrantless wiretaps for foreign intelligence purposes provide some support for the assertion that the President possesses inherent authority to conduct such surveillance."

Wow, looks like what I've been writing all along. How surprising...

Although the Congressional report is written in favor of Congressional power (obviously), it's well reasoned. Certainly makes it hard to support any claim that Bush's conduct was "obviously illegal" and an "impeachable offense".
I hope it gets to the Supreme Court. It would be interesting to see how the Roberts court handles separation of powers and whether (or how) the Youngstown case is modified.