Can read about it here (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/23/nsa.strategy/index.html)

I thought we had identified a few of them before 9/11. Like that army program and the reports of these guys taking flying lessons with no concern about landing? And also wasn't there a report that was given to Bush titled something like OSAMA BIN LADEN AL QUEADA TO CRASH PLANES INTO BUILDINGS IN US?

So forgive me for not understanding but it seems that it wasn't so much of an issue as lack of intelligence on the part of those working on counter terrorism programs before 9/11 but a clear lack of intelligence of people in the Bush administration.

Can read about it here (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/23/nsa.strategy/index.html)

I thought we had identified a few of them before 9/11. Like that army program and the reports of these guys taking flying lessons with no concern about landing? And also wasn't there a report that was given to Bush titled something like OSAMA BIN LADEN AL QUEADA TO CRASH PLANES INTO BUILDINGS IN US?

So forgive me for not understanding but it seems that it wasn't so much of an issue as lack of intelligence on the part of those working on counter terrorism programs before 9/11 but a clear lack of intelligence of people in the Bush administration.

Only because you're twitching so much....but it's been proven that the warnings for 9/11 came long before ole Dubya came into power.

See, the problem I have with this type of mongering is you are one of the same type of folks that would go apeshit if we had gotten really agressive prior to 9/11 based solely on intelligence from abroad.

You can't cast doubt on his decisions and then show that you would hate either way eh?

Personally I'd have gone after Bin Laden and crew hardcore for years prior to 9/11.....

Fandros

Only because you're twitching so much....but it's been proven that the warnings for 9/11 came long before ole Dubya came into power.

See, the problem I have with this type of mongering is you are one of the same type of folks that would go apeshit if we had gotten really agressive prior to 9/11 based solely on intelligence from abroad.

You can't cast doubt on his decisions and then show that you would hate either way eh?

Personally I'd have gone after Bin Laden and crew hardcore for years prior to 9/11.....

Fandros


It all depends on what type of agressive we would have gotten. Now if you mean that we would have been tracking his phone calls or tracking HIS and his CRONIES movements I would agree with you. However, if it involves tracking citicens of the US with warrantless wiretaps etc.. I would say yeah I would have been pissed.

Don't forget, we trained Bin Laden and the others when they fought the Soviets. I can't say that traing Bin Laden in that fight was wrong, it was the times we were in. But honestly I will not give up my liberties for this or any fight.

Aren't we really talking about wire taps of domestics in conversations with known enemies of the US?

Are those phone calls out of bounds? From what I understand that's the stance being taken by Bush and Co. If that's the only calls being tapped then I'm firmly behind them.

If it's twixt two domestics with no ties to terrorism then I understand the concerns of the opposition.

Fandros

Personally I'd have gone after Bin Laden and crew hardcore for years prior to 9/11.....



While it did not change the ultimate outcome of the war, assassination was used to a high degree of success in Viet Nam, saving countless lives.

I would have had no qualms then, or now, when it comes to a highly trained marksman removing people like Bin Laden, or Zarkowi (yeah, I know it is misspelled), or any of those that wish to create chaos for others. As for Assad and the freak now running Iran, something more subtle would be required but it would be hard for me to argue against the merit of said actions. Yes, this goes against many of our priniciples, but our principles will not provide much of a security blanket for our grandchildren against those who are willing to blow themselves up if they can take out some of us heathens at the same time.

Now with the above statement taken into account, I still think King George and Duke Dick need to be investigated for their actions, and for any profit gained by the role Cheney and Halliburton may have played in the construction and development of the Iran Nuclear Program.

I tossed in the last paragraph for those that were thinking I was wavering.:p

Fandros, it's to known Al Qaeda suspects from outside the U.S. making calls into the U.S. (to citizens or others). Warrants are still sought for purely domestic calls. I don't know why you bother responding to Rover. He's an idiot.

"Known suspects"...as useful a phrase as "possibly true." Anyway, if it was as simple as people in the US talking to these "known suspects," why couldn't the administration just get the damn warrant? It might help if those administrating the program understood the Fourth (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001883620) Amendment (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/23/politics/23cnd-wiretap.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1138078800&en=f1a26c18881a59c4&ei=5094&partner=homepage).
QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I'd like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use --

GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But the --

GEN. HAYDEN: That's what it says.

QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.

GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But does it not say probable --

GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --

QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --

GEN. HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure. For General Hayden, "probable cause" is some lower court standard.

Given the various defenses the administration has raised in trying to justify the program, I think we have probable cause to believe they are doing things they simply shouldn't be doing.

Given the various defenses the administration has raised in trying to justify the program, I think we have probable cause to believe they are doing things they simply shouldn't be doing.

Seems that some Republican members of the Senate might think so to. Read it here (http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/impeachment.htm)
With all of the various scandals going on in Washington, 2006 should be a great year in politics, kind of like the world series of pointing out what someone else has done to get the heat off of themselves.

The Bush administration is bracing for impeachment hearings in Congress. If you think Bush is worried about impreachment, you're a moron. They're praying to see this NSA thing dragged on all year until the elections, where once again with national security issues front and center, the limp wristed Democrats will lose their asses.

If there is some way to make sure they arent tapping anyone other then known Al Qaeda people then I am all for it.

Bush isn't worried about impeachment. I don't think the issue will be a high point for the admin as akipt seems to, but it wouldn't surprise me if his prophesized limp reaction by the Dems comes to pass. Even when their umbrage rightly surfaces, they generally lack the political sense to take advantage of these situations. Getting their message across effectively isn't their forte`, though Harry Reid has some good moments.

Getting their message across effectively isn't their forte They're message is loud and clear... They'd rather make the war on Al quida out to be the next episode of Law and Order, what with being more worried about "probable cause" and getting warrants to protect our enemy's rights than securing the nation.

Or, rather, they disagree with the bedwetter view that the President must have unlimited power, Constitution be damned, in order to protect us from the scary terrorists. Checks and balances? Fourth amendment? Transparency? Nonsense! Don't give me liberty, I'm scared to death!

Bullshit Thormir. I don't give a damn what party the president is, I want them tracking people who call known Al quida people abroad.

If the NSA surveillance was such a bad thing, your esteemed congress people would be demanding the NSA wiretaping be stopped. Are they? From what I've seen, nope. It's so transparent. They only whip the public up into an Orwellian frenzy by repeatedly and disenguously calling this "domestic spying" and then discussing impeachment.

Checks and balances? Fourth amendment? Transparency? Nonsense! Don't give me liberty, I'm scared to death!

I'd be more than happy to have the new Alito/Scalia/Roberts court review the constitutionality of the NSA wiretapping. You?

If you think Bush is worried about impreachment, you're a moron. They're praying to see this NSA thing dragged on all year until the elections, where once again with national security issues front and center, the limp wristed Democrats will lose their asses.

Actually the point of the post was showing that a conservative republican publication was talking about impeachment as a possibility.

I'm certain as you are that the Rove controlled spin of the Bushies will most definately be on national security...something also tells me that the first minute ANY democrat or independent starts to take the spotlight off of the Bush agenda we will suddenly see terror alerts and the resurfacing of Bin Laden.

Washington DC - Reuters: Today in an unprecedented meeting of anti-terror experts and Democratic Whitehouse hopeful...TERROR ALERT - TERROR ALERT - TERROR ALERT ... hopefully bringing an end to the war.

Funny how those always happen JUST when ya need one.

I want them tracking al-Qaeda as well, within the law. If all these people being tracked are known al-Qaeda, then BushCo/NSA wouldn't have any trouble getting warrants. Would it matter to Bush if congresspeople -- who *have*, as previously shown, protested the warrantless surveillance -- told him to end the program? Obviously not, since Congress rebuffed him and he went along with it anyway (per Gonzoles).

But you and yours forswear holding Bush and his program accountable, incurious and unconcerned with just who might really be on the receiving end of the wiretapping, preferring instead to whip up a frenzy of your own, a plastic sheeting and duct tape frenzy that will justify anything to protect us from this era's boogeymen. Too terrified to ask "Who?" and "Why?", what else will you give up in the name of clean sheets?

I want them tracking people who call known Al quida people abroad.

Sure, that'd be great. If only we knew that's what they were doing. Like, if they produced, I dunno, facts to back up their actions.

Fourth Amendment... there are hundreds of instances where authorities can conduct a warrantless search of an America citizen. Here's a small sample:

Conduct a warrantless search of the person of an American citizen who has been detained, with or without a warrant;
Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained;
Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;
Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's car anytime there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or any evidence of a crime;
Conduct a warrantless search of any closed container inside the car of an American citizen if there is probable cause to search the car — regardless of whether there is probable cause to search the container itself;
Conduct a warrantless search of any property of an American citizen that has lawfully been seized in order to create an inventory and protect police from potential hazards or civil claims;
Conduct a warrantless search — including a strip search — at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;
Conduct a warrantless search at the border of the baggage and other property of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;
Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;
Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens and their vessels on the high seas;
Conduct warrantless monitoring of any telephone call or conversation of an American citizen as long as one participant in the conversation has consented to the monitoring;
Conduct warrantless searches of junkyards maintained by American citizens;
Conduct warrantless searches of docks maintained by American citizens;
Conduct warrantless searches of bars or nightclubs owned by American citizens to police underage drinking;
Conduct warrantless searches of auto-repair shops operated by American citizens;
Conduct warrantless searches of the books of American gem dealers in order to discourage traffic in stolen goods;
Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school officials;
Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school students;
Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens who are on bail, probation or parole.

Where in the world did Bush get the audacity to conduct these warrantless wiretaps? Happens all the time because the American people accept it. I don't know what you think, but those gem dealers are a real threat to our security.

I'm certain as you are that the Rove controlled spin of the Bushies will most definately be on national security...something also tells me that the first minute ANY democrat or independent starts to take the spotlight off of the Bush agenda we will suddenly see terror alerts and the resurfacing of Bin Laden.

We let him escape Tora Bora for a reason you dolt.

Easy solution, get serious about national security and bin Laden would stop appealing to the american people to elect you.

And there are rulings or qualifications to all of those instances. If you look in the list, you'll even see things like "probable cause" mentioned, or conducting the search while awaiting the warrant. There are laws and rulings adjudicating these rules, just like there's a law adjudicating the warrantless searches allowed by FISA (which allows 72 hours to get a warrant for such a search).

But Bush wishes to ignore that law and conduct searches that even the FISA court won't rubberstamp, without transparency nor accountability. Not to mention, locking up a US citizen without charges or trial indefinitely (or until the case manages to near pre-Alito SCOTUS review). Under circumstances such as these, security is an illusion.

But Bush wishes to ignore that law and conduct searches that even the FISA court won't rubberstamp, without transparency nor accountability.

You say "even the FISA court" but that requires something you'd go to court with to convict someone, correct? You're playing Law and Order drama with national security, congratulations.. make Dick Wolf jealous you are.

If you read Hayden's remarks carefully, he pretty much stated doing the 100% FISA warranted taps would not have prevented 9/11. They would have needed the NSA doing what it does now to prevent it. /shrug You're hand wringing call is a losing hand. Like I said, bring it to the Supreme Court.

They would have needed the NSA doing what it does now to prevent it.

What, we can just make up stuff now?

What, we can just make up stuff now?

hense the ...

/shrug that you managed to whack off. Take it with a grain of salt if you want.

What, we can just make up stuff now?

Or blame Clinton.

For the life of me I don't understand how a report titled Bin Laden to Crash Planes into buildings can be any more clear as to what Al Qeada's intentions were. I also, still to this day, do not understand why ignoring reports of arabic speaking (lets not forget non US citizen) muslim student pilots that had absofuckinglutely NO desire to learn how to land a plane did not warrant even the slightest raise of an eye brow by the Bush administration...go figure.

Nothing you've stated warrants probable cause that they would do that. Come back after you have more evidence.

For the life of me I don't understand how a report titled Bin Laden to Crash Planes into buildings can be any more clear

To be fair, how much good does that report do? We don't know how well substantiated it was. We don't know what buildings. It could be tomorrow or 5 years from now. Changing hte airport rules before 9/11 could have helped, but it would have created a public uproar.

[/quote]
did not warrant even the slightest raise of an eye brow by the Bush administration
[/quote]
Perhaps because it was never brought to the attention of the Bush administration. I don't believe that information made it past the manager of the man who wrote the report.

Perhaps because it was never brought to the attention of the Bush administration. I don't believe that information made it past the manager of the man who wrote the report.



That is EXACTLY my point. It wasn't a lack of intelligence from reliable sources it was the fact that what was known or what was deemed to be questionable was not acted upon.

The constant rhetoric that is spewed by supporters of Bush that we need to have warrantless wiretapping and should just throw due process out of the window (which if I remember correctly was one of the things that made people like Saddam and countries like the Soviet Union the bad guys) is not what the real issue was in why the hijackers were succesful. It seems it was more or less an ineptitude of the powers that be.

Read the fucking 9/11 Commission report (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/) Rover instead of sticking your head up DailyKos's ass to get your news.

Very few folks have read that report Akipt. And of those from the left they take from it only the following.

It's all Bush's fault and there are no terrorists in Iraq.

Nevermind that bin Laden himself has crowed about how it was years in the making. How the earlier attempted bombing of the World Trade centers was way before Bush and yet somehow it'll still be Bush's and Halliburtons ( for you Byl ;P) fault.

Fandros

Uh, the info about the FBI stuff is IN the 911 Commission Report.

Uh, the info about the FBI stuff is IN the 911 Commission Report.

yeah..it is...by george I thinkread it there. If anyone did actually read it they would most certainly realize that the 911 Commission report didn't do any favors for Bush.

Very few folks have read that report Akipt. And of those from the left they take from it only the following.

It's all Bush's fault and there are no terrorists in Iraq.

Nevermind that bin Laden himself has crowed about how it was years in the making. How the earlier attempted bombing of the World Trade centers was way before Bush and yet somehow it'll still be Bush's and Halliburtons ( for you Byl ;P) fault.

Fandros

No, I don't recall anyone blaming Bush for the '93 WTC bombing. But just for shits 'n giggles lets place a Rovian spin on it.

Clinton succeeeds in stopping the total destruction of the World Trade Center. Thats it...we can re-write history Bush/Cheney/Rove style. We all know it was the policies that Clinton had in place that caused that bombing to fail.

But on a more serious note: Take Haliburton, so they get the contract to do everything in Iraq from rebuilding to supplying toilet paper to the troops. Were they a big company that could handle it? Well, our troops can wipe their asses. Rebuilding? Jury is still out. I know, I know theres that little matter of an insurgency that was overlooked. But one can say...How could we have known this would happen?

We couldn't have EXACTLY known, but then again the very high probability of it had much to do with our NOT choosing to occupy Iraq in '91.

Just the other day I was watching "Three Kings" and a line in that movie caught my attention. It was when George Clooneys character was asking the Colonel what we were supposed to have accomplished and the Colonel said...Do you want this to be another Vietnam?

So Bush might not have had the foresight, but seems not only did his father have it...John Ridley and David O Russell had it.

The scary thing is neither Bush nor Cheney seem to have the foresight to be known as good leaders whether it be from ignorance or arrogance will surely be the saving grace or condemnation of their legacy.

Nevermind that bin Laden himself has crowed about how it was years in the making. How the earlier attempted bombing of the World Trade centers was way before Bush and yet somehow it'll still be Bush's and Halliburtons ( for you Byl ;P)

Ahh, Fandros, I have never said anything about Halliburton with regard to the attacks on our home soil. What I have said is that King George stood up after the 9/11 attacks, pounding his chest and trying to look presidential, and claimed that we as a nation would go after these criminals, and anyone who supported them or assisted them financially; and, he named Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the Axis of Evil that we must consider as enemies.

So, why has he never raised the issue that his own choice for vice president, in his lust for profits, skirted US and UN sanctions to do business with Iran while he was CEO of Halliburton, or asked questions regarding the involvement of the Cheney-Halliburton Iran group regarding their involvement in Iran's Nuclear Program, which is now such a topic of debate. After all, Halliburton is a leading expert on construction, as we saw in the New Orleans debacle.

Cheney portrays himself as this big pseudo-patriot, but he is loyal to the dollar more than the flag and country, and I will not consider him worthy of respect regardless of his office until I know he did not have a hand in Iran becoming a nuclear nation just to line his pockets and those of his associates.

"For General Hayden, "probable cause" is some lower court standard."

No, General Hayden is applying the right standard to some clueless fucking reporter.

The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Probable cause (within the 4th amendment) applies to getting a warrant. Some searches can be entirely valid (i.e. reasonable) under the 4th amendment without probable cause and without a warrant.

Again. For like the 10th time. If this is the case, why not come out and explain it? If there's nothing to hide, why not present the classified data to the House and Senate select committees on Intelligence? I mean, if a bunch of representatives and senators were to come out of a meeting and say "well damn, they've got good data and they're not just spying on random people" I think the whole issue would just go away.

Bush/Cheney/Rove know the absence of data looks bad, so they either feel they don't need to justify it (which is wrong) or they have no way to justify it.

Actually Mir, according to a few polls I've seen a majority of folks think this is a nonissue.

Fandros

I mean, if a bunch of representatives and senators were to come out of a meeting and say "well damn, they've got good data and they're not just spying on random people" I think the whole issue would just go away.

Actually this already happened (though you didn't see it on the 6 o'clock news), but for political points the NYTimes decided to commit a felony to make a profit from a book.

Link, plz.

Not overwhelming, but of note none the less.


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/19/124752.shtml

Of course I can find polls that say the opposite. One of the reasons I dislike pollsters.

Fandros

General Hayden stated yesterday that the "probable cause" condition of getting a warrant was too problematic, that it limited necessary flexibility and interfered with the administration's ability to investigate terrorism. Instead, the administration is acting on "reasonable suspicion" in warranted and warrantless applications of the program.

It's worth noting that in 2002 Senator DeWine (R-OH) submitted an amendment (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s2659.html) to FISA that would have "modif the standard of proof for issuance of orders regarding non-United States persons from probable cause to reasonable suspicion..." for non-US persons. Had this amendment become law, it would have removed this hurdle that Gen. Hayden now claims necessitated the use of warrantless wiretaps.

Congress requested a statement on this proposal from the administration, and one was given (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/073102baker.html) by James Baker who, "[a]s Counsel for Intelligence Policy in the Department of Justice, [runs]the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review that prepares and presents all applications for electronic surveillance and physical search under the Act to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court or Court)."

Baker prefaced his statement by praising the Patriot Act, how it "provided the Administration with important new tools that it has used regularly, and effectively, in its war on terrorism." He mentions the 72 hour window:
One simple but important change that Congress made was to lengthen the time period for us to bring to court applications in support of Attorney General-authorized emergency FISAs. This modification has allowed us to make full and effective use of FISA's pre-existing emergency provisions to ensure that the government acts swiftly to respond to terrorist threats. Again, we are grateful for the tools Congress provided us last fall for the fight against terrorism. Thank you.
Baker doesn't suggest any current (in 2002) problem with the program, and he finds the DeWine proposal not only problematic but attempting to fix a problem that isn't there:
The Department of Justice has been studying Sen. DeWine's proposed legislation. Because the proposed change raises both significant legal and practical issues, the Administration at this time is not prepared to support it.

The Department's Office of Legal Counsel is analyzing relevant Supreme Court precedent to determine whether a "reasonable suspicion" standard for electronic surveillance and physical searches would, in the FISA context, pass constitutional muster. The issue is not clear cut, and the review process must be thorough because of what is at stake, namely, our ability to conduct investigations that are vital to protecting national security. If we err in our analysis and courts were ultimately to find a "reasonable suspicion" standard unconstitutional, we could potentially put at risk ongoing investigations and prosecutions.

The practical concern involves an assessment of whether the current "probable cause" standard has hamstrung our ability to use FISA surveillance to protect our nation. We have been aggressive in seeking FISA warrants and, thanks to Congress's passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, we have been able to use our expanded FISA tools more effectively to combat terrorist activities. It may not be the case that the probable cause standard has caused any difficulties in our ability to seek the FISA warrants we require, and we will need to engage in a significant review to determine the effect a change in the standard would have on our ongoing operations. If the current standard has not posed an obstacle, then there may be little to gain from the lower standard and, as I previously stated, perhaps much to lose.
The administration's FISA bypass program was already in use at this point, professedly (per Hayden) because FISA's limitations interfered with warrant acquisition. Yet the fellow in charge of presenting the applications for warrants wasn't aware of any such problems. And the DOJ was expressing doubts about the constitutionality of this lower standard even as the administration was engaging in such a program.

Congress did not enact this amendment, yet the administration is claiming they tacitly approved of such a change, despite their not voting such a measure into law when they had the chance. Also, DeWine's amendment would have changed the law only regarding "non-US persons" and not eliminated judicial oversight. Thus, Congress did not enact a [i]less expansive measure, yet the administration claims they gave tacit approval of a more expansive measure (that the DOJ refused to endorse).

To recap, the admin's current claim that "probable cause" was a restricting factor seems counter to their opinion in 2002 that FISA provided appropriate and necessary tools to deal with the problem. The admin's claim that Congress knew and approved (explicitly or implicitly) of the FISA bypass seems countered by the fact that Congress debated and rejected a similar, but less expansive, amendment to FISA. And all along, the program has been in place.

That's nice Thormir.

Why haven't the Dems submitted legislation restricting Bush's "domestic spying" program yet?

Do you need legislation to restrict something already illegal?

something already illegalDid I miss a court decision you're not sharing with us?

Why haven't the Dems submitted legislation restricting Bush's "domestic spying" program yet?

???
1. And what would that legislation restrict? If you don't know exactly what the NSA is doing, it's difficult to restrict it.

2. Why would one write a law to restrict what is already restricted? Isn't that what the court system is for?

Well, you're half right. Congress can't pass a law saying the president can't do what the Constitution and all the precedents before him says he can do already.

Did I miss a court decision you're not sharing with us?
If the program is in fact illegal (and per FISA, it is), then there doesn't need to be further legislation reinforcing that illegality. If the program is constitutional, then I don't know what legislation could be enacted. Or maybe the Dems just don't want to jump the gun and wish to hold hearings.

Any legislation that ended up being signed into law by Bush would invariably get a signing statement attached similar to that added to the McCain anti-torture amendment saying, in essence, that the President has the option of ignoring the law if he wants to.

Congress can't pass a law saying the president can't do what the Constitution and all the precedents before him says he can do already.

Obviously, you're better informed than the rest of us. Please let us know exactly what the President is doing, how he's doing it, and to whom he's doing it.

That's nice Thormir.

Why haven't the Dems submitted legislation restricting Bush's "domestic spying" program yet?

Because the legislation would be shot down by a Republican majority as would almost any legislation the Democrats would introduce.

Unless of course it was legislation that was in favor placing government control of what we could listen to on the radio, watch on TV, look at on the Internet or read in books.

Because the legislation would be shot down by a Republican majority as would almost any legislation the Democrats would introduce. Win some fucking elections then... oh sorry, you can't because you keep pissing on national security.

Win some fucking elections then... oh sorry, you can't because you keep pissing on national security.

We could if the Diebold voting machines would quit recording every vote for a Democrat as 5 for Bush :(

But I do believe we did win one...it was back in 2000 and probably did in Ohio in 2004.

Ya'll lost both Rover, electoral college > than casting aspirations in a general Gore like emote.


Fandros

The issue of legislation and majorities/minorities is moot based on mirdorr and I's posts (and Diebolds and elections' past irrelevant in this thread).

But I do believe we did win one...it was back in 2000 and probably did in Ohio in 2004.

Rover, if you want to be taken seriously (admittedly an assumption on my part that you care) then refrain from the tin foil hat stuff.

The issue of legislation and majorities/minorities is moot based on mirdorr and I's posts Moot? Congress gave Bush authorization to wage war on a very specific enemy. Pass a resolution to defund it... or pass a law to defund the NSA's program. Easy enough.

Can't get your laws passed? Go to the Supreme Court. What are you waiting on? Since it's so fucking clear to you that Bush is the next Stalin, you'll have no problem Xeroxing everything Gen. Hayden and AG Gonzales have said the past few days to fit in the cute little petition before the Supreme Court. By hell, it's so fucking apparent we got a lunatic at the helm of the second coming of Hitler, even John Roberts in his easter colored polyester suit will hold the door open for you as you walk up the steps.

All speculation aside as to whether he committed an illegal act by orderng these wiretaps, he did:

1) Lie to the American people when he said that wiretaps would be done through FISA, all the while knowing he had already given an order to conduct wiretaps without FISA warrants; and,

2) He lied to the American people when he said he had briefed Congress, when in fact he had merely informed a handful of Committee chairs and members who were unable to discuss the information due to it being classified; and,

3) He blatantly demonstrated his contempt for Congress, the American people, and the laws enacted by our elected officials via his signing statements that basically say he will do as he pleases, regardless of the laws he signs into effect.

Unfortunately, he is a man of the times, and the times are not good; there are too many in this country too far removed from the sacrifices made to give them their rights, and too willing to give up those rights as long as they can be comfortable and secure in their imagined status quo.

Damn. I keep asking for the l33t inf0 on what Bush is doing, 'cause obviously people who aren't me have it. But no one ever posts a link.

or pass a law to defund the NSA's program. Easy enough.

Program name, please. Unless you mean "don't fund the NSA at all."

Can't get your laws passed? Go to the Supreme Court. What are you waiting on? Since it's so fucking clear to you that Bush is the next Stalin.../posture
Easy there, Captain Hyperbole, one step at a time. Is it even possible to defund the warrantless wiretapping program without defunding the rest of the NSA programming (assuming this stuff even shows up in a congressionally reviewed budget report) that no one wants to touch?

Congress plans to hold hearings. Maybe the McCains and Specters who question the whole thing will take it seriously and some bipartisanship can be shown in keeping the executive checked and balanced.

And I'll thank you not to demean Dear Leader with these Stalin and Hitler references. :rolleyes:

I heard a very interesting question. "Would you still have faith in the unitary executive power" if it were president hillary in power at the moment? I am pretty sure the answer would be no because hillary cant be trusted, but bush can be. It is pretty difficult for anyone to say their faith in these presidential powers is non partisan.

Damn. I keep asking for the l33t inf0 on what Bush is doing, 'cause obviously people who aren't me have it. But no one ever posts a link.


You can go here to read quite a few interesting articles and blogs (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/).

1) Lie to the American people when he said that wiretaps would be done through FISA, all the while knowing he had already given an order to conduct wiretaps without FISA warrants; and,

2) He lied to the American people when he said he had briefed Congress, when in fact he had merely informed a handful of Committee chairs and members who were unable to discuss the information due to it being classified; and,

It's called the National Security Act, you should read it some time. Actually, some report alleged that Bush informed more people of Congress than he should have, in violation of this Act... but that I suppose was not the game plan of the day for Dems so I haven't heard it mentioned since then. Can't get in the way of the Bushitler meme can they?

3) He blatantly demonstrated his contempt for Congress, the American people, and the laws enacted by our elected officials via his signing statements that basically say he will do as he pleases, regardless of the laws he signs into effect.

I don't like McCain's politics, but I have to admit he's one helluva policitian. Doesn't matter though, he can pass all the laws he wants, but if he's trying to restrict the Commander in Chief's war time constitutional authority, the pres damned well ignore it.

I swear I didn't understand that post at all.

Akipt seems to be saying that there might be a report that says that Bush told too many congresspeople about the program (and that this might be relevant in some way), and that the President can do anything he wants anyway because he's the CIC, and we're at war.

"If the program is constitutional, then I don't know what legislation could be enacted."

If you go with the conclusion that every court to consider the matter has reached (that is it within the President's constitutional powers), Democrats could easily introduce legislation defundinding the entire NSA and prevent the program. Congress holds the purse strings and this Presidential power requires money to implement.

You saw many Democrats take the same kind of stand when they voted against funding the troops in Iraq. Of course you saw where that got them.... I suspect Democrats feel they will get more "political mileage" from complaining about the program rather than taking steps to stop it.

Akipt seems to be saying that there might be a report that says that Bush told too many congresspeople about the program (and that this might be relevant in some way), and that the President can do anything he wants anyway because he's the CIC, and we're at war.

And it seems Thormir is fully content with the judiciary stampeding their will over the executive branch of the government, embracing way more power than the constitution grants them.

Like I've said, take the case to the judiciary. It's the best 2 out of 3.

If you go with the conclusion that every court to consider the matter has reached (that is it within the President's constitutional powers), Democrats could easily introduce legislation defundinding the entire NSA and prevent the program.
This was brought up before but is clearly unfeasible. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
And it seems Thormir is fully content with the judiciary stampeding their will over the executive branch of the government, embracing way more power than the constitution grants them.
Maybe you mean legislature instead of judiciary, since you then recommend taking the case to the judiciary. I don't see enacting laws and expecting them to be followed as "stampeding their will over the executive." Quite the other way around. The administration's contempt for the law, contempt for accountability, contempt for transparency, and willingness to deceive us all represents the more dire threat.

Yes legislature.

The administration's contempt for the law, contempt for accountability, contempt for transparency, and willingness to deceive us all represents the more dire threat.And we finally get to the nuts and bolts of it, Bush is the most dire threat facing this country. Thanks.

Not what I said (was it really that hard to understand?), but he's doing his best to catch up to the terrible scourge of gays as the greatest threat (http://www.washingtonblade.com/2004/11-5/news/national/antigay.cfm) to freedom.

Not what I said (was it really that hard to understand?), but he's doing his best to catch up to the terrible scourge of gays as the greatest threat (http://www.washingtonblade.com/2004/11-5/news/national/antigay.cfm) to freedom.

You mean their not?

If you go with the conclusion that every court to consider the matter has reached (that is it within the President's constitutional powers),

I find it hilarious that you keep bringing this up.

"We don't now what Bush has done, but we do know that in previous cases that may or may not be related, the Supreme Court has said the President can do things that may or may be similar to the things that we don't know whether or not he did in this case."

Not what I said (was it really that hard to understand?)I just returned the favor. Not nice is it?

It's neither nice nor not nice, but simply vapid dodging via gradeschool flashback. /shrug

And we finally get to the nuts and bolts of it, Bush is the most dire threat facing this country. Thanks.

America was founded on a revolutionary new form of government, whereby there was representative government with three branches; people elected those to represent them with whom they most closely identified or trusted or who had paid them off. The Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the varied articles and amendments and statutes that have been enacted have been so by representative government; we are a nation of laws that everyone can have some impact upon by taking part in the democratic process and voting for their candidates.

This is the foundation of what has made this such a great country, and why so many want to leave their countries of dictatorships, demagogues, communism, police states, etc. People want to live in a country that they can feel part of, and have a sense of ownership.

Bush and Cheney are attempting to reinstate a monarchy, where King George can do as he pleases regardless of the laws passed by the representative government, and he is using the "war" as justification for his actions. Sadly, we have always been at war, to some degree or another, since the era of Lincoln. Bush's declaration of "war on terrorism" is a nice open-ended campaign that allows him the opportunity to attempt to usurp the powers of the other branches of government under the guise of being the Commander in Chief.

Clinton lied about infidelity, and there was no cost in lives, and only some embarrassment. Bush has lied to the American people and the heads of state of allies, there has been a disgraceful loss of life since his pep rally declaring mission accomplished, rights are being abused and/or ignored, and the nation of laws and representative government is now threatened as much as result of his actions as by those of the enemies that want us destroyed.

The Islamic fanatics that want to see America and western culture destroyed must be jumping with glee every time they see someone saying they will give up rights so that Bush can have his way, knowing it is a step closer to the demise of the free and open society too many have taken for granted for too long.

Yes, Bush is a dire threat, Akipt.

Quick observation for you folks.

This is being labeled as domestic spying by the left and it's media cronies.

What's really being done is tapping of INTERNATIONAL phonecalls with known enemies of our Nation.

Big difference there, don't spin this anymore than you have to.

Not like their listening in on you getting cyber from your latest aquisition.

Fandros

Bush and Cheney are attempting to reinstate a monarchy, where King George can do as he pleases regardless of the laws passed by the representative government, and he is using the "war" as justification for his actions. Sadly, we have always been at war, to some degree or another, since the era of Lincoln. I gave up on Rover, but I really did have hope that you could manage an intelligent conversation about this. Apparently the tin foil hat brigade is just too enticing.

Oh and btw, we've been at war "to some degree or another" since Washington. Bush's declaration of "war on terrorism" is a nice open-ended campaign that allows him the opportunity to attempt to usurp the powers of the other branches of government under the guise of being the Commander in Chief. And this concludes the lesson on your cluelessness for today. Daily kos serving grape Koolaid today? You got some on your lip.

So then the fact that Bush has said he needs wartime like powers coupled with his previous statements that this "war on Terror" will last for the better part of our lifetimes gives you no concern over the massive expansion of the powers the president, throwing it so out of whack that it makes a mockery of our checks and balances?

How come I have the distinct feeling that this "war" will be very quickly over if a Democrat wins the White House in 2008?

I wish Akipt could have gone to school with me, so that he would have had the opportunity to take the same civics and history classes I was able to, and learn something more about our country and it's founders and it's spirit of cooperation; learn about the formation of our government and freedoms and the sacrifices made to preserve them; and, learn something other than the same old blah-blah-blah he is obviously getting from the talk radio folks.

Come on Akipt, your last post quoting me said nothing at all. You can argue your points better than that, I know. I was an old-school republican in the Goldwater sense, but was so disgusted by the parties behavior during the Clinton years I have turned Independent; and, seeing what Bush and Cheney and Delay and Lott andFrist have done to the party, I know I was right. Please do not lump me in with Rover; althoough he does come up with good debate material from time to time, he and I are on opposing ends of the spectrum more often than not.

My position is that Bush is indeed a threat to America and what America is all about. Debate that, don't just say silly stuff about kool aid and tin hats; you have more to offer than that, unless you harbor some doubt in your convictions, knowing I may be right.

And by the way, did you read the paper today about the 2002 Justice Department opinion regarding wiretaps and FISA? Interesting stuff.

Quick observation for you folks.

This is being labeled as domestic spying by the left and it's media cronies.

What's really being done is tapping of INTERNATIONAL phonecalls with known enemies of our Nation.

Big difference there, don't spin this anymore than you have to.

Again, if you could just provide a source for this, please...... Otherwise you appear to simply be making this up.

Also - I've already asked this once - if you could provide a list of the "known enemies of our nation."

So then the fact that Bush has said he needs wartime like powers... Cuz we're at like war n stuff.
... coupled with his previous statements that this "war on Terror" will last for the better part of our lifetimes gives you no concern... Didn't you get the memo? We're a war mongering nation.. been doing it since the "times of Lincoln" I'm told. It's a biproduct of capitalism. Gotta kill the heathens and commies to feed the "war machine" as you've called it in the past. When we kill all of them, we invent a new enemy to scare the population into submission. We can only hope a Democrat is in office though, otherwise there's a threat of monarchy.

...over the massive expansion of the powers the president throwing it so out of whack that it makes a mockery of our checks and balances? It's like you're channeling Al Gore.

How come I have the distinct feeling that this "war" will be very quickly over if a Democrat wins the White House in 2008?Whatever you're inferring by this statement aside, I thought our checks and balances were a mockery? Oh I get it... since the Congress isn't doing what YOU want it to do, their powers are being stampeded on and our entire form of government is at risk of falling into monarchy.

What's really being done is tapping of INTERNATIONAL phonecalls with known enemies of our Nation.
International calls...meaning someone here and someone over there. Possibly (even probably) citizens and some other person. And not "known enemies" but rather, at best, those targeted under the grounds of "reasonable suspicion." Which, given there is zero oversight or accountability here, could mean anything. Recently, two journalists won a lawsuit against the government after being detained (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/24/AR2006012402007.html) while attempting to fly. They are unremarkable other than being peace activists critical of Bush, but they are listed on the no-fly list for suspected terrorists. Are they also being wiretapped? Who knows? But it should give you pause before making claims that our anti-terror efforts are directed at "known enemies of our Nation."

"if you could just provide a source for this"

Does everything have to be spoon fed to you?

It was in the original NYTimes article as well as every explanation given afterwards.

"if you could provide a list of the "known enemies of our nation."

Here's a start...

http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/fugitives.htm

"if you could just provide a source for this"

Does everything have to be spoon fed to you?

It was in the original NYTimes article as well as every explanation given afterwards.

"if you could provide a list of the "known enemies of our nation."

Here's a start...

http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/fugitives.htm

You left out Cat Stevens!

I will quote you AGAIN and ask you to provide a source.

This is being labeled as domestic spying by the left and it's media cronies.

What's really being done is tapping of INTERNATIONAL phonecalls with known enemies of our Nation.

Domestic spying is spying on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. The NYT article CLEARLY says the NSA is doing that, and that their sources are multiple people inside the NSA. They even provide an example concerning an Ohio trucker who was "planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch."

The NSA does not need and has never needed a warrant to listen in on international calls involving 2 people, US citizen or not, outside our country. Before 9/11, FISA, etc. they normally went through the FBI to get a warrant to listen to a call that originated internationally but was placed to a US citizen on US soil.

The list of people you linked to are not US citizens. Officials in the NSA have said the NSA is listening to about 500 US citizens.

At this point, it's relatively clear you are just repeating what you're read on some blog. I do not believe you've read the article. I think if you had, you'd have linked to it and quoted it by now.

Here is the first paragraph of the article; I'll try to help clear things up for you.

Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

You don't need to clear anything up for me Mir. I understand the initial accusation.

Spying on international means exactly that....follow the bouncing ball.

It involves land and cell phone lines twixt our homeland and other countries and generally those of known agents of bin Ladens lil group.

Spying on domestic means exactly that....wow does anyone else feel like Mir's being intentionally daft? Tapping phone calls that are entirely US in nature.

No, I won't provide links. It's too goddamn clear to most folks the distinction between international and domestic.

Ask yourself a question, why aren't there any voices in the Senate saying stop this now? Instead we see smoke and mirrors and loud accusations.

Burden of proof is upon those of the noisy left and it's cronies to prove out he's doing wrong. I don't have to prove he's doing right.

Show me, Mir, where it says they have been tapping phone calls between two American Citizens....oh, wait you can't can you...

Fandros

Btw Mir, in your usual dense fashion you have confused Furv and myself. You quoted me and spat against him.


tsk tsk

Fandros

Show me, Mir, where it says they have been tapping phone calls between two American Citizens....oh, wait you can't can you...

1. I will again point out that, when wiretapping calls between a US citizen on US soil and an international caller, you need a warrant. Whether that warrant is through usual channels or through accelerated channels like FISA.

2. I will again point out that the NYT article, which you have not read, says sources in the NSA say that the NSA has been listening in on calls between US citizens on US soil.

3. Voices in the senate are speaking out against this. If you don't read the news, that's really not my problem.

Ahhhh Mir, victim of the media. Yes they are speaking out, to gain political traction. But no they are not saying in a formal manner to stop.

Do ya sense the difference here?

Fandros

And ummmm I don't take the NY Times at it's word anymore than you do Foxnews.

Garbage in and garbage out.

Fandros

Ok, so on the first page, your answer was "Aren't we really talking about wire taps of domestics in conversations with known enemies of the US?"

Then, you changed your answer to "You people don't understand, these are INTERNATIONAL calls" even though the article clearly states that 500 of the people being wiretapped aren't outside the U.S.

Now your tactic is, what? That it never happened because it was the New York Times? So, what, Valerie Plame wasn't outed as a spy, either?

Here, let me help you. I went to Fox News and did a search on "nsa wiretap"

Ooooh, Justice Department probe into the leak! It must've happened!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180190,00.html

Whoa, whoa. An influential REPUBLICAN with a law degree on the Judicial committee who questions the legality? WTF?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181731,00.html

How am *I* a victim of the media when I'm the one who actually knows what's going on? If you want to say they're legal, that's cool. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't do you much good.

Fandros, your constant claims that others are bamboozled by the oh so liberal (heh) media while you remain pure and impartial from nefarious external influences is neither convincing nor germane unless you can back up the assertion with something solid. Claiming that your political opponents only say what they say for political reasons is equally specious, not even rising to the level of the usual sound bites and talking points trotted out in defense of the latest administrative debacle.

It's one thing to present arguments to support your points, and you often do; but all the rest amounts to name calling and hot air. While it's natural for the Dems to try to take political advantage of the situation (that's what all politicians do, after all), there are sound reasons why both Dems and Repubs (and others) find this issue disturbing and trying to discover more about what is actually going on.

"I will again point out that, when wiretapping calls between a US citizen on US soil and an international caller, you need a warrant."

And I will again point out that the Circuit Courts and FISA have held that when wiretapping calls between a US citizen on US soil and an international enemy caller, the President does not need a warrant. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the specific question.

when wiretapping calls between a US citizen on US soil and an international enemy caller

I think this is at the heart of the matter; it seems the burden of proof is not being assumed by those claiming the people being tapped are enemies, and so it is alarming to many that anyone outside the US being called by someone inside the US may be considered an enemy, for the purpose of monitoring the call.

When looking at the high degree of incompetence already demonstrated by our Intelligence community (the numerous examples of people on the no-fly lists is only one example) how can we trust that they "know" who the Bin Laden buddies are? And, are there really as many getting phone calls as the number of calls being monitored? We just now are finding out that they have had the wrong picture on their web sites of a high level Al Queda operative for the last 1 - 1 1/2 years, so how are we to know that their lists of "known" Osama wannabes is worth the paper it is printed on?

when wiretapping calls between a US citizen on US soil and an international enemy caller,

So who are these people and are these people the list that NSA is adhering to?

So who are these people and are these people the list that NSA is adhering to?

I'll have to answer this as plainly as I can bud.

Do you have the security clearence or the need to know or are actively involved in seeking out these folks?

Oh...no no and no.

Seeing making the list public is surely the dumbest request I've ever heard.

Hey bin Bobaben, just read the local paper and it says you should be careful because Uncle Sam is tapping your calls.....

/chuckle

Fandros

Thats almost as good as ...

"We need a timeline!"

Yeah lets tell the enemy exactly when we'll be gone

And I will again point out that the Circuit Courts and FISA have held that when wiretapping calls between a US citizen on US soil and an international enemy caller, the President does not need a warrant. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the specific question.

Hush now Furtivus, facts get in the way of hysterical hand-wringing anti-Bush orgies.

Hush now Furtivus, facts get in the way of hysterical hand-wringing anti-Bush orgies.

I wonder what Republican Chuck Hagel thinks (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/01/29/hagel-bush-cant-unilat_n_14670.html)?

I wonder what Republican Chuck Hagel thinks (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/01/29/hagel-bush-cant-unilat_n_14670.html)?Why don't you try to figure out the issue for yourself instead of relying on your puffingtonpost to tell you what to think?

Seeing making the list public is surely the dumbest request I've ever heard.

That's not what I"m asking. Of course, you know that.

People on the project inside the NSA are saying illegal stuff is going on. The NYT reports it. ANd you just keep repeating "It's all legal. I swear" with zero data to back up your assertion.


Hush now Furtivus, facts get in the way of hysterical hand-wringing anti-Bush orgies.

As for you. What facts? Point out the facts that say everything going on there is legal.

I understand the "Oh you hate Bush" thing, even though I probably voted Repub for years before you ever voted at all. But I just don't get the "I'm sure everything is OK, I don't wanna know what's going on" thing.

Why don't you try to figure out the issue for yourself instead of relying on your puffingtonpost to tell you what to think?

Not sure what you missed but I think if you read my posts you'll surely see that I have most definately figured it out for myself.

People on the project inside the NSA are saying illegal stuff is going on. The NYT reports it.The only thing illegal was their reporting of National Security secrets. All reporters and previous NSA employees who have supposedly reported these acts are felons, guilty of treason. At the very least they should be taken out into a public square somewhere and tar and feathered.

These people are not whistleblowers in the heroic sense. They acted like the people on this board are accusing Bush of acting, like a king. They were judge, jury, and executioner of their own biased will, irregardless of the laws of this land. They bipassed all the internal processes to report "illegal" activities and went straight to the press, who subsequently wrote a book about it to try and make money. How fucking pathetic.

ANd you just keep repeating "It's all legal. I swear" with zero data to back up your assertion...As for you. What facts? Point out the facts that say everything going on there is legal.I've got at least 5 Federal Appeals Court rulings telling me if the traitorous NYT reported everything, then what Bush has done was under his Constitutional authority (and obligation) to do so. What have you got? Nothing.

I understand the "Oh you hate Bush" thing, even though I probably voted Repub for years before you ever voted at all.You're right. If I had voted for any president from Wilson to Clinton, I would be suspicious too. Pretty much every one of those presidents deserved a crown for their own egomaniacal use of power. I just don't see that with this president, sorry. No spying on Martin Luther King Jr., no spying on other political parties, no using FBI files for scores, no using of the IRS to cover up wrongdoing, no lots of things that other presidents have done in the past that were often easily forgiven for one reason or another.

Not sure what you missed but I think if you read my posts you'll surely see that I have most definately figured it out for myself.Right, and Diebold stole your vote and Gore really won the 2000 election. I look forward to your next indepth analysis Rover.

I've got at least 5 Federal Appeals Court rulings telling me if the traitorous NYT reported everything, then what Bush has done was under his Constitutional authority (and obligation) to do so. What have you got? Nothing.

This is my point. You say this as if you have data. These court rulings mean nothing if you don't have data to put them against.

Jesus. So you'd just as soon have whistleblowers taken out and shot, rather than, I don't know, check out the veracity of their statements? Then again, maybe you're right. We should have prosecuted Deep Throat.


Pretty much every one of those presidents deserved a crown for their own egomaniacal use of power. I just don't see that with this president, sorry.

Wow. THat statement boggles my mind. Really, it does.

These people are not whistleblowers in the heroic sense. They acted like the people on this board are accusing Bush of acting, like a king. They were judge, jury, and executioner of their own biased will, irregardless of the laws of this land. They bipassed all the internal processes to report "illegal" activities and went straight to the press, who subsequently wrote a book about it to try and make money. How fucking pathetic.

Given administration treatment of whistleblowers thus far, who can blame them if they don't want to be publicly smeared by the right-wing? And it's ironic that you speak of "judge, jury and executioner," when this entire warrantless program (not to mention other aspects of the president's anti-terror program) amounts to the same thing. Who is the enemy? Whoever the president says is the enemy. What can be done with this enemy? They can be locked up without charges for as long as the president wants them to be (or at least until the case gets too close to a SCOTUS hearing). What constraints does the president have in carrying out his never-ending war? None. Laws do not apply, and the PATRIOT ACT and FISA just play an "advisory role."
What have you got? Nothing.
Because the framers of the Constitution would clearly approve of a program allowing the spying on US citizens without any congressional or judicial oversight. Checks and balances are for commies, right?
Pretty much every one of those presidents deserved a crown for their own egomaniacal use of power. I just don't see that with this president, sorry. No spying on Martin Luther King Jr., no spying on other political parties, no using FBI files for scores, no using of the IRS to cover up wrongdoing, no lots of things that other presidents have done in the past that were often easily forgiven for one reason or another.
Peace activists have been spied on. As for the rest, no on knows who is getting tapped. No oversight, no accountability. You don't know, and neither do we (more specifically, neither do the other branches of government), and that is the problem.

The only thing illegal was their reporting of National Security secrets. All reporters and previous NSA employees who have supposedly reported these acts are felons, guilty of treason. At the very least they should be taken out into a public square somewhere and tar and feathered.

These people are not whistleblowers in the heroic sense. They acted like the people on this board are accusing Bush of acting, like a king. They were judge, jury, and executioner of their own biased will, irregardless of the laws of this land. They bipassed all the internal processes to report "illegal" activities and went straight to the press, who subsequently wrote a book about it to try and make money. How fucking pathetic.

I've got at least 5 Federal Appeals Court rulings telling me if the traitorous NYT reported everything, then what Bush has done was under his Constitutional authority (and obligation) to do so. What have you got? Nothing.

You're right. If I had voted for any president from Wilson to Clinton, I would be suspicious too. Pretty much every one of those presidents deserved a crown for their own egomaniacal use of power. I just don't see that with this president, sorry. No spying on Martin Luther King Jr., no spying on other political parties, no using FBI files for scores, no using of the IRS to cover up wrongdoing, no lots of things that other presidents have done in the past that were often easily forgiven for one reason or another.

Right, and Diebold stole your vote and Gore really won the 2000 election. I look forward to your next indepth analysis Rover.

This from the poster child of the unbiased reporting of Fox News.

I dont think Diebold stole my vote. I'm certain mine was recorded correctly, I'm in PA and the state went to Kerry. What I do think is that the comments made by the Diebold CEO, along the lines of he would make sure that Bush won, warrant at least a second look.


As for the 2000 election my feelings are this: Bush was appointed by the supreme court.

As far as the issue of wiretapping US citizens: Why can't Bush and CO. use the current FISA law? Seems like it gives them the powers they need. As far as their saying "had they been able to do warrantless wiretapping before 9/11 then the whole thing could have been prevented" I say Bullshit. All things, including the 9/11 commission report point to the facts that the Bush administration simply ignored all of the warnings and as far as I know never even made one single attempt to wiretap or intercept any communications of the hijackers by going through the FISA court. So its not a case that they tried and the court rejected the request for a wiretap, its a case that they didnt even try to wiretap any of them.

But lets not forget there was a guy named Richard Clark (he was pretty much a non-partisan guy that worked for I believe 3 republican presidents) who was basically ignored by Bush/Cheney when he tried to explain to them that there was a very serious threat from Bin Laden.

Lets look at Afghanistan and Iraq. I have no issue with the US going into Afghanistan, it was absolutely the correct thing to do and anybody who was there and got their ass kicked by us most definately deserved it.

Now for Iraq, well I think its pretty clear from my posts what I think about the reasons given for our invasion. On a side note, it is quite interesting to see how the invasion of Iraq became a cohesive glue for the Moslem fundamentalists and this one single action was able to turn Al Qeada from a small group of jihadists into a world wide movement and way of thinking.

My views on the Bush administration as a whole are pretty simple. There is a level of arrogance that this administration has which has not been seen in many years. Their lack of foresight and perpetual denial of the most basic of common sense tenets in areas such as global warming, democratization of the middle east, the economy, health care reform, social security, separation of religion and government...the list is long. The arrogant rantings by this administration that anyone who disagrees with their policies at the least lacks patriotism, love of country and at the worst makes us direct supporters of terrorism can only be directed at the most ignorant of Americans, for who else would believe such crap. This has been proven time and again by such examples as the swift boating of John Kerry, Jack Murtha and even John McCain. I find it sad that people actually will listen to rhetoric that belittles and disrespects the sacrifices those men made for this country, all the while being perpetrated by men who felt they had better things to do in life than join the military and defend this country.

I guess its your willingness to buy into such things that has me a bit miffed. You seem quite intelligent which is why I can't for the life of me understand the ignorance of your posts.

This is my point. You say this as if you have data. These court rulings mean nothing if you don't have data to put them against. WTF Mirr. These court rulings say nothing like what you're asking for. They don't say "the President has this authority unless he does this .... and this ...." The only qualification required is that it's for foreign intelligence purposes.

Sorry, that scares the willies out of you. It's not like he's pulling this power from out of his ass. We're at war and the courts have ruled on this exact thing, and congress has authorized him to do it. And they didn't tell him he had to do what you're asking of him. Yeah, it boggles my mind too.

What constraints does the president have in carrying out his never-ending war? None.Feigned clueless paranoia again. You just finished a long hand wringing rant about just exactly how he has been constrained by the Supreme Court. You're not doing Rover any favors with the power mongering King George rants.

What congress gives, congress can take away. But since they're not doing what you want them to do, you shout and stamp your foot like a two year old not getting what he wants.

Feigned clueless paranoia again. You just finished a long hand wringing rant about just exactly how he has been constrained by the Supreme Court. You're not doing Rover any favors with the power mongering King George rants.

What congress gives, congress can take away. But since they're not doing what you want them to do, you shout and stamp your foot like a two year old not getting what he wants.
What are you going on about? The entire point of Furtivus' long examination of the courts and warrantless wiretapping, which you apparently agree with, is that Congress can't take away Bush's ability to use this program because (so the claim goes) it falls under his CIC powers in Article 2. Bush can ignore McCain's anti-torture amendment for the same reason. Bush can imprison those he declares enemy combatants for the same reason. And the best response you can muster is juvenilia.

And Congress is, at present, doing what I want them to do, which is examine the program and its legality. It may not amount to much, but at least there are a few Republicans out there willing to question the president's activities rather than simply deny everything and genuflect upon command.

The only qualification required is that it's for foreign intelligence purposes.

Dude, how many times to I have to make the same point before it sinks in. I mean, 100 times? 200 times?

If you do not know who the NSA listening to -and you do not - then you have zero factual basis to say what he's doing is for foreign intelligence purposes and therefore legal. Zero. I'll repeat that. Zero. I'll say it once more: Zero.

So, AGAIN. The only thing we KNOW is that people inside the NSA say that it's not all legal.

So now we can add "whistleblowers are idiots and should be taken out and shot" to the "putting your head in the sand and saying nothing is happening" argument against this.

WTF Mirr. These court rulings say nothing like what you're asking for. They don't say "the President has this authority unless he does this .... and this ...." The only qualification required is that it's for foreign intelligence purposes.

Sorry, that scares the willies out of you. It's not like he's pulling this power from out of his ass. We're at war and the courts have ruled on this exact thing, and congress has authorized him to do it. And they didn't tell him he had to do what you're asking of him. Yeah, it boggles my mind too.

Feigned clueless paranoia again. You just finished a long hand wringing rant about just exactly how he has been constrained by the Supreme Court. You're not doing Rover any favors with the power mongering King George rants.

What congress gives, congress can take away. But since they're not doing what you want them to do, you shout and stamp your foot like a two year old not getting what he wants.


Why make such long posts. You could save time by simply stating: During a time of war the President can do what he wants to whoever he wants. There is no need for a Congress or Senate because the President can do what he wants.

Maybe thats what the State of the Union speech will bring out.

Economic reform by removing the Congress and Senate because they arent needed and I can do what I want, this will be a huge savings to the American people and will help fund the war in Iraq by no longer needing to pay the salaries of Congress and the Senate or their staffers. We won't need to spend any money on the capitol building because no one will be inside. We can also maybe lease out the space to private industry to gain revenue.

We could also save money by removing the burdensome FISA court, after all we don't need it.

I'll have to wash my hands of proving to ya'll that it's nothing but handwringing and soapboxing by those that like such things.

Let's see how this comes out in the wash. Let's see if it's taken to court. Let's see if anything is ever done.

If not, guess ya'll are just up in the night twisting your knickers in a bind just because it's Bush and co.

It's only the right that's crooked, so hate on ...hate on blindly.

Fandros

If not, guess ya'll are just up in the night twisting your knickers in a bind just because it's Bush and co.
Has nothing to do with it and is just more disappointingly empty rhetoric along the same lines of "It's the librul media's fault!" and "You're all just brainwashed!" and "It doesn't matter it doesn't matter la la la la la."
I see the Barrett report didn't come up from any of the Bush haters....
It hasn't come up from any of the Bush-fellaters either, probably because that egregious waste of time and money has nothing to do with anything of actual importance going on in this particular century.

Did you make a conscious decision to become a troll, Fanny, or is it all you have left to work with? Disappointing.

Nah Thor, I didn't make a concious decision. Anymore than you made up your mind to become a mindless ostrich with all the political accumen of a 1st year poli sci student.

You're blind hatred has made it pointless to argue with you man. My only route to disprove anything ya'll say is to magically come up with classified info. A list of folks that are actually being spied upon. Wow, fun for your ilk to argue something unprovable. Anything short of that has proven to fall on deaf ears. It doesn't seem to matter to you and the others that not one fucking person has stood up and filed charges. Not one person is willing to take that step simply because one thing stands in their way. They know it won't stick.

So fuck your challenge of trollish behavior Thor. You yourself have dropped this thread into pointless discussion in itself proof of an inner troll you are fighting.

Well done bud, well done indeed.

Fandros

It's only the right that's crooked, so hate on ...hate on blindly.

YEAH! SO THERE! I MEAN, IF US IDIOTS WOULD GET OFF OUR BUTTS AND DO SOMETHING TO SHOW WE'RE NOT REPUBLICAN HATRS LIKE IMPEACH A DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT OR SOMETHING!!!1!!1!!1!11!!

oh waitasec.....

(...)with all the political accumen of a 1st year poli sci student.Which is more acumen than 95% of the population of any country. ;)

Nah Thor, I didn't make a concious decision. Anymore than you made up your mind to become a mindless ostrich with all the political accumen of a 1st year poli sci student.

You're blind hatred has made it pointless to argue with you man. My only route to disprove anything ya'll say is to magically come up with classified info. A list of folks that are actually being spied upon.

But you don't point out where this blind hatred I allegedly possess is manifested. A couple days ago I wrote a post revealing the DeWine amendment of 2002 that even akipt had little response to other than going on about what Democrats should do. I make no claims to political acumen, but your only responses are of a sort like I mentioned before. We're all brainwashed by that crazy liberal media, but your thoughts are pure and serene or something. I doubt that even you believe your characterization of me -- whatever you think of my opinion on these matters -- but even if I did "blindly hate" Bush, that has nothing to do with the content of my posts, which you've not substantively responded to. It's also ironic that you call me a "mindless ostrich" when I'm the one asking questions and pushing for an end to ignorance (that is, ignorance of the nature of this program).

Even in the above snippet of invective you miss/dodge the point: We as citizens don't need to know who is being spied on, but someone should outside of those doing the spying. There's nothing subtle or mysterious about this point, and it fits entirely within the vision of checks and balances placed in the Constitution.

What do you find so unbearable or unnecessary about accountability and oversight of a program the constitutionality of which the administration (via the DOJ) itself questioned in 2002?

To be honest, even as big of a hermit as I am, and as little as I enjoy social groups and add that to my overall dislike of the govertment involving itself in my life, I still don't find this to be something to be worried about.

It makes me laugh to see ya'll turn this into something much bigger than it really is. I work for the government and have had constant battles with the IRS and given that I'm more likely to have my phone tapped than most of you. Still I don't worry about it, I don't feel lessened and I certainly don't feel invaded.

But you go on and worry and fret and bite your toenails in a state of paranoia.

It makes you feel involved in the greater world I guess. If that's what it takes by all means have at it.

Fandros

Apparently one doesn't need to be a so called "liberal" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11079547/site/newsweek/) to realize how wrong some of the things going on are.

I'm guessing the next argument from Bush will be that if he had been able to use warrantless wiretapping before he appointed these guys...

But you don't point out where this blind hatred I allegedly possess is manifested. A couple days ago I wrote a post revealing the DeWine amendment of 2002 that even akipt had little response to other than going on about what Democrats should do. I make no claims to political acumen, but your only responses are of a sort like I mentioned before. We're all brainwashed by that crazy liberal media, but your thoughts are pure and serene or something. I doubt that even you believe your characterization of me -- whatever you think of my opinion on these matters -- but even if I did "blindly hate" Bush, that has nothing to do with the content of my posts, which you've not substantively responded to. It's also ironic that you call me a "mindless ostrich" when I'm the one asking questions and pushing for an end to ignorance (that is, ignorance of the nature of this program).

Even in the above snippet of invective you miss/dodge the point: We as citizens don't need to know who is being spied on, but someone should outside of those doing the spying. There's nothing subtle or mysterious about this point, and it fits entirely within the vision of checks and balances placed in the Constitution.

What do you find so unbearable or unnecessary about accountability and oversight of a program the constitutionality of which the administration (via the DOJ) itself questioned in 2002?

Bold and Italics for this part.....And you should be made aware of the exact people that's doing just that? Or would just knowing it's happening be okay with you? Where do you draw the line at being comfy with what's being done?

Fandros

Fandros, I understand that you aren't concerned with this issue and feel that we're (me, other posters on this forum, the Dems, some Repubs) blowing this out of proportion. Forgetting for the moment that the real paranoia is among the bedwetters who will allow anything so long as the Daddy State saves them from the skeery terrorists, I'm very interested in your answer to the question I posed above:
What do you find so unbearable or unnecessary about accountability and oversight of a program the constitutionality of which the administration (via the DOJ) itself questioned in 2002?

EDIT (Fandros posted just before I did): I'd be satisfied knowing that all warrants were going through the FISA court. Given that they're all but a rubberstamp, I'd be somewhat uncomfortable, but it would be within the bounds of FISA and I recognize that this sort of surveillance is necessary. I'd also like the members of the Congressional Intel committees to be more aware of the nature of the program (tho' presumably they are aware of the warranted aspects of NSA's surveillance).

No spying on Martin Luther King Jr., no spying on other political parties, no using FBI files for scores, no using of the IRS to cover up wrongdoing, no lots of things that other presidents have done in the past that were often easily forgiven for one reason or another.




Other than spying on Martin Luther King, which I agree would be difficult at this time, could you provide some data proving none of the other acts have taken place under this President and his administration?

I am not saying that they have, but since you seem adamant that they have not, you must obviously be in the know or have access to some information.

I am glad you did not include no lying about political opponents, since that would have burst your balloon and brought you back to earth. It is common knowledge that Bush and his campaign folks blatantly lied about John McCain in the southern states to tarnish his appearance with the rebel-flag waving crowd.

Bush is not anywhere near the saint you seem to want to believe him to be, I am afraid.

(edit: spelling sux when on coffee breaks)

What do you find so unbearable or unnecessary about accountability and oversight of a program the constitutionality of which the administration (via the DOJ) itself questioned in 2002? <--Thors question to me.

I don't find any of it unbearable or unnecessary Thor. What I'm questioning and wondering about is why. I also wonder at the feeling of happiness you'd get by having a FISA rubber stamp something. How is that any better than what's going on now.

I've a gut feeling that it's not being abused to the extremes that so many are being told it is.

And I'll restate what I've said before in regards to our fight against terror domestically.

If John Public was made aware of all the plots and cells stopped since 9/11 it's likely paranoia would die down. But that's not the slant being taken and I think it's dead wrong. I think the American people could handle the truth and would be sated in knowing that the actions they fear are infact accomplishing what they are set out to accomplish.

Fandros

There's some pretty good information to be gleaned from this paper, http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=boaltwp, on why the Constitution did not establish a check and balance on the President's CIC powers.

"Given that they're all but a rubberstamp, I'd be somewhat uncomfortable, but it would be within the bounds of FISA and I recognize that this sort of surveillance is necessary."

This boggles my mind. Why would you be more comfortable with a process that, as you admit, has no positive protection against your civil liberties, but as almost everyone associated with the program acknowledges, puts a severe restraint on our ability to defend against enemy attacks?

If you're going to hamper the government's efforts to wage war and protect the country, at least make it have a real positive effect on civil liberty protections.

I don't find any of it unbearable or unnecessary Thor. What I'm questioning and wondering about is why. I also wonder at the feeling of happiness you'd get by having a FISA rubber stamp something. How is that any better than what's going on now.
As to why, I think the question answers itself. Without oversight and accountability how do we avoid a Big Brother situation? While I'd not be happy with the FISA court system, I'd be satisfied that there's at least some oversight and a papertrail that'd be accessible to Congress (which, take note, I'd also like to be involved in the process, at least in an observer role).
I've a gut feeling that it's not being abused to the extremes that so many are being told it is.
Given that Bush lied about the program in 2004 (stating that warrants were involved in all wiretaps), that the justifications given by the administration are clearly specious (Congress did not give tacit approval), that they circumvented the essentially rubberstamp FISA court, the matter of the DeWine amendment I brought up previously and related factors, I simply don't share your confidence. Their behavior is not that of people following the rules.
If John Public was made aware of all the plots and cells stopped since 9/11 it's likely paranoia would die down. But that's not the slant being taken and I think it's dead wrong. I think the American people could handle the truth and would be sated in knowing that the actions they fear are infact accomplishing what they are set out to accomplish.
It might be worth asking the same question asked in regard to the Weekly Standard piece on alleged data supporting Iraq-terrorist ties: If this information is so favorable to the Bush view, why not share it? Though in this case I could see it being rightly classified. But then, with proper Congressional oversight perhaps our representatives could at least say, "This program is working (or [url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060117/pl_afp/uspoliticsintelligence]not/url] working).

This boggles my mind.
Your mind might be less boggled if you read the entire paragraph. This reading comprehension problem is really spreading!
I'd also like the members of the Congressional Intel committees to be more aware of the nature of the program (tho' presumably they are aware of the warranted aspects of NSA's surveillance).
EDIT: But thanks for the link, though legal analysis from John "torture is the American way" Yoo doesn't thrill me.

I did read your entire post; I didn't feel the need to requote it in its entirety. My question still stands.

It might not thrill you, but unlike the posts around here and MSM, he cites sources to back up his conclusions. If you read that report as well as most of the sources cited in his report (including the Supreme Court cases on Presidential powers under the Constitution), it would go a long way to clearing up your misunderstandings.

Since the answer wasn't as obvious as I thought, I'll restate, with further insight: FISA seems to be a rubberstamp. However, FISA was also circumvented by the administration, which suggests that there were surveillances of which the admin feels the court would not approve. It may be that the admin avoided the court in these cases, and that the court is not, in fact, as inclined to provide a warrant as one might think looking at the data. If one factors in real congressional oversight (as opposed to the current level of congressional looking the other way), I'm as comfortable as I'm likely to be under the circumstances.

I won't for a moment pretend that I have the legal expertise to examine John "crushing a baby's testicles is the American way" Yoo's writing, though I can say it's been a subject of debate even within the administration (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11079547/site/newsweek/).

ok, that MSNBC article is pretty interesting.

Man there's so much information out there to read and so little time to read it.

It's written in English with clear cites if you would bother to take the time to read them. There's no more legal expertise required than is required for you to throw out your baseless opinions. But as usual, rather than study it on your own and present arguments, you'd rather use cute "quotes" and name-calling.

"which suggests that there were surveillances of which the admin feels the court would not approve"

Please cite a source where the administration said they didn't get FISA approval because the court would have rejected it.

1. Bush circumvented the FISA program and ordered the NSA to conduct wiretaps.

2. Members of the NSA conducting said wiretaps are questioning the legality of some of the actions.

3. Bush, when questioned about FISA, stated that wiretaps required a warrant and that they would get warrants before conducting them. This was an outright lie, and he did not have to say it. He could just as easily have said we do not discuss intelligence matters related to war time intelligence gathering. He CHOSE to LIE.

4. Members of the Republican party are calling for hearings into Bush's program of wiretaps.

5. Bush has done everything he can to avoid leaving a paper trail which can come back to haunt him, which in itself gives the appearance that he knows his order was questionable.

There needs to be oversight, whether it be the Senate Foreign relations Committee, Intelligence Committee, whatever. Someone other than the President and NSA needs to be involved at least to keep track of what is being done (FISA's role, which he is disdaining), so that the rule of law is maintained. Remember the rule of law? Our entire system of government is based on respect for that. Unfortunately, Bush and Cheney consistently demonstrate their disregard for that principle.

Please cite a source where the administration said they didn't get FISA approval because the court would have rejected it.
Heh, please cite a source regarding the details of any of the warrantless wiretaps, why no warrant was sought, and why the president chose to lie about it all.

As for the article, I'll read it later. 30 pages is a lot to digest while at work.
But as usual, rather than study it on your own and present arguments, you'd rather use cute "quotes" and name-calling.
Name-calling like calling Rover an "idiot?" Or comparing me to Mengele?

Here's a question for you in the meantime:
Do you believe that the Executive has the power, legally, to eavesdrop on a U.S. citizen inside the U.S. without a warrant, detain that citizen with no trial or charges being brought, interrogate that citizen using even those methods outlawed by the McCain Amendment, and imprison that citizen indefinitely – and that it can do all of those things even if Congress enacts laws prohibiting those activities?

A second question: Why is the administration providing testimony, advice, and pushing for the renewal of the Patriot Act if the administration has the power to ignore any provisions and restrictions implicit in that act (and FISA)? Shouldn't the administration simply inform Congress that it has the sole power to make and enact decisions in support of its war on terror and request that the Legislature spend its time and energy on other matters?

This is necessarily long, and there may be rambling (sue me, there are other things I'd rather be doing, like tracking Cindy Sheehan's every move and reading the mind of her dead son). This is a mixture of my review of the piece linked to by Furtivus and his disputation of my point that the Framers of the Constitution would reject Bush's interpretation of himself as Unitary Executive. A sampler: on page 4, the writers note that the president is "further vested with all of "the executive Power" and the duty to execute laws." But the writers are proposing that the President can ignore any laws he considers an impediment to his actions in the "war on terror." This strikes me as paradoxical and nonsensical (and an instance of the fox guarding the henhouse). The President is charged to execute laws but may also ignore them? Unaccountably? I find it unlikely that the Framers envisioned the office in this way. More on that as I progress.

My favorite line thus far, on page 6:
"Some commentors have read the constitutional text differently. They argue that Congress has the sole authority to decide whether to make war. This view, however, misinterprets the constitutional text and misunderstands the nature of war declaration. Declaring war is not tantamount to making war; indeed, the Constitutional Convention specifically amended the working draft of the Constitution that had given Congress the power to "make" war...Finally, the Framer's generation also understood that declarations of war were becoming obsolete."
So, Congress' ability to declare war is, essentially, meaningless: "a declaration of war was only necessary to "perfect" a conflict under international law." This strains credulity to the breaking point. It's notable that his regular citations of this or that Federalist paper are missing in the context of this pronouncement. However, the Federalist papers do broach this topic. In #69, Alexander Hamilton writes (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa69.htm) (emphasis mine):The President is to be the "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....to take care that the laws be faithfully executed...In most of these particulars, the power of the President will resemble equally that of the king of Great Britain and of the governor of New York. The most material points of difference are these: -- First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor. Second. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies -- all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.Later, Hamilton restates this view :The one [the US President] would be amenable to personal punishment and disgrace; the person of the other [the British monarch] is sacred and inviolable. The one would have a qualified negative upon the acts of the legislative body; the other has an absolute negative. The one would have a right to command the military and naval forces of the nation; the other, in addition to this right, possesses that of declaring war, and of raising and regulating fleets and armies by his own authority.
On page 9 the writers further contradict their claims, as they argue that the Executive's vested powers include unenumerated powers based on semantics. In justifying this point of view, they claim that the King's ability to "declare war" was given to Congress; yet they've stated that this declaration is essentially ceremonial. This reinforces my perception that they are reaching to achieve their conclusions, and page 9 strikes me as special pleading. With but two examples (neither of which really bolster their case), the writers multiply the Executive's vested power. Honestly, if the Framers wanted such a potent executive, they simply could have added, "All other executive powers are enumerated to the President."

Fortunately, Hamilton specifically addressed the difference between the US President and the English King and their respective powers in the declaration of war. The writers' equivocation of "declaring" war vs. "making" war doesn't hold up. Ain't talkin' 'bout love here, people.
Also pertinent to this discussion is Scalia's dissent in Hamdi v Rumsfeld (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=03-6696) (emphasis mine):The proposition that the Executive lacks indefinite wartime detention authority over citizens is consistent with the Founders' general mistrust of military power permanently at the Executive's disposal. In the Founders' view, the "blessings of liberty" were threatened by "those military establishments which must gradually poison its very fountain." The Federalist No. 45, p. 238 (J. Madison). No fewer than 10 issues of the Federalist were devoted in whole or part to allaying fears of oppression from the proposed Constitution's authorization of standing armies in peacetime. Many safeguards in the Constitution reflect these concerns. Congress's authority "[t]o raise and support Armies" was hedged with the proviso that "no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." U. S. Const., Art. 1, §8, cl. 12. Except for the actual command of military forces, all authorization for their maintenance and all explicit authorization for their use is placed in the control of Congress under Article I, rather than the President under Article II. As Hamilton explained, the President's military authority would be "much inferior" to that of the British King:"It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy: while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which, by the constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." The Federalist No. 69, p. 357.A view of the Constitution that gives the Executive authority to use military force rather than the force of law against citizens on American soil flies in the face of the mistrust that engendered these provisions.

Moving on from page 9 to 10, it's clear that the writers are conflating the executive's responsibility to handle foreign affairs with the role of President as CIC. The military, in the writers' view, is simply an extension of foreign policy, which the President can use at his whim. Thus, Bush could declare war on Iran tomorrow and send in the troops without input from Congress, according to this view (which, based on the above, again seems quite invalid). There is precedent for this behavior of course (e.g., Korea), but I strongly believe that Congress has -- to its fault -- largely abdicated its role in the declaration of war, in large part due to political considerations that have little to do with affairs of state. In any case, more pertinent to the wiretap issue is the writers' belief that the President's ability to declare an emergency removes what few constitutional restrictions they might confess apply to the President.

This more relevant writing begins on p20, wherein they begin the discussion of terrorists with Clinton's missile strikes in retaliation for the embassy bombings of 1998. On page 26, the writers cite the War Powers Resolution as follows (emphasis theirs):"The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

While stating that the WPR is in no way binding on the President's ability to direct troops, the writers' interpretation is that, in the case of an attack on the US (i.e., 9/11), the President has the authority to determine if there's a national emergency and to decide what levels and types of force are appropriate in response. Further, on p27, the writers determine that there are no limits on this authority, no cut off dates, and no restrictions that Congress can mandate. This strikes me as reasonable in the instance of an attack, as the President must have the flexibility to respond appropriately and immediately. However, long term, planned military excursions seem to defy this purpose and Congress' constitutional role (however arrogated by presidents past) to declare war. At question here is, "At what point does an emergency become status quo, and how does this affect the President's wartime authority?"

The piece ends with what I consider to be a significant footnote:"We of course understand that terrorist organizations and their state sponsors operate by secrecy and concealment, and that it is correspondingly difficult to establish, by the standards of criminal law or even lower legal standards, that particular individuals or groups have been or may be implicated in attacks on the United States. Moreover, even when evidence sufficient to establish involvement is available to the President, it may be impossible for him to disclose that evidence without compromising classified methods and sources, and so damaging the security of the Untied States.... But we do not think that the difficulty or impossibility of establishing proof to a criminal law standard (or of making evidence public) bars the President from taking such military measures as, in his best judgment, he thinks necessary or appropriate to defend the United States from terrorist attacks. In the exercise of his plenary power to use military force, the President’s decisions are for him alone and are unreviewable."Thus, the President can at any time, for reasons that may remain secret to him, launch a war (or, it would seem, take any action not obviously contrary to other articles of the Constitution) on the pretext of national security without regard to international law or, presumably, treaty. And this cannot be challenged by anyone.

As stated in my now distant preamble, the original point I raised, and which Furtivus responded to by linking to this paper, is that the Framers would object to the kind of unitary executive theory Bush and Yoo propose. I'll let the Framers speak on this matter and readers (assuming any made it this far) can decide for themselves:

Madison, in Federalist 48 (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/fed/federa48.htm):It is agreed on all sides, that the powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments. It is equally evident, that none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers. It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it. And while 51 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm) is worth reading in its entirety, a couple passages stand out:But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?
...
But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.Hamilton echoes this last in Federalist 73 [emphasis mine] (http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/federalist/feder73.html):[b]The superior weight and influence of the legislative body in a free government, and the hazard to the Executive in a trial of strength with that body, afford a satisfactory security that the negative would generally be employed with great caution; and there would oftener be room for a charge of timidity than of rashness in the exercise of it.Lastly, in Federalist 70 (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/fed/federa70.htm) (a treatise on the need for a single executive from which the writers cite other passages), Hamilton contrasts the US President with the English king, "In England, the king is a perpetual magistrate; and it is a maxim which has obtained for the sake of the pub lic peace, that he is unaccountable for his administration, and his person sacred." Emphasis mine.

Accountability, of course, has been a primary (but not sole) issue for me in all this. And again, I suggest that the Framers would disagree with Bush's flouting of the law in the name of his constitutional prerogative to go it alone without judicial or legislative oversight. I found this question elsewhere and will close with it here: Are there any limitations at all on what the President can do under the guise of national security and, if so, what are they? And, given this theory of the "wartime" President who can violate the laws of Congress and who can ignore the courts in areas of national security, what legal foundation could exist to argue for any such limitations?

/chuckle

Hardly tracking down Cindy Sheehan nor reading her dead son's mind boyo. It's on the National news atm, thought it was worth discussing.

See, my mother is anti military, ( she had two brothers come back from Nam definately twisted) so much so that she threatened to put a bullet in my ass after she found out about I had enlisted. I might have a clue as to what Cindy Sheehan is feeling. Annnddd I might have an inkling what it is her son might feel.

Now, if you'll step off your obsession with Bush once in awhile and loosen up on your self righteous hatred of anything you don't support you might realize that there are other things going on in this country worth discussing.

Or should we ask your mighty Highness what is worthy? Interesting choice of a crown I might add. Who'd have thunked it, a crown shaped like your own posterior.

Oh, wait let's continue to run this topic of potential domestic spying into the ground. It's clearly hard to defend without being inside the agencies themselves. And the only thing you and your ilk will respond to ( on this topic only, other topics we have to listen to your grandious excuses for your opinions) are pure hard links.

You've turned into a miniThug Thor. Either agree with you or kowtow to you ....or you'll debase and name call.

You're a disgrace to the moderator title.....not the Thor we used to all know and enjoy reading.

Btw....Pres Bush is innocent until proven guilty...and first he has to be brought up on said charges. Well, of course that rule of law doesn't apply to the fucking kangaroo court you seem to be holding...

But do press on boyo...do press on.

Fandros

So, you've got no relevant facts or findings to dispute anything he says?


Pres Bush is innocent until proven guilty...and first he has to be brought up on said charges

Quick note. If I break the law, I don't have a ton of lawyers working for me to hide it, or create legal briefs saying that what I did was ok.

I'm no legal beagle as Furv is. He's given plenty of solid reading, as has the opposition. I'm speaking my opinions here and made that painfully clear.

I'm not a rabid fan of Bush and CO. Personally I think they play their hands far too close to their collective vests.

I'm already turning an eye to the 2008 elections. Thinking of throwing my weight behind McCain if he can hold his own.

Fandros

Thinking of throwing my weight behind McCain


A most excellent choice weedhopper...

I really think Bush's attacks on McCain during the election campaign soured him on the idea of running for president.

Actually Mir, I caught two recent interviews with Mccain....he's running.


Fandros

I hadn't heard that. I wonder what the over/under is on Jeb being the v.p. nominee to get the Florida vote.

Either agree with you or kowtow to you ....or you'll debase and name call.

Now come on Fandros, Furtivus, Akipt, and to a point you, are exactly the same way.

edit to correct a grammar error

Btw....Pres Bush is innocent until proven guilty...of course that rule of law doesn't apply to the fucking kangaroo court you seem to be holding...



GODDAMMIT, why couldn't I have come up with such a gem to say when the Republican party was spending hundreds of millions trying to find something to lynch Clinton with?:rolleyes:

The tactic used by the Bush campaign of calling southern voters (I believe South Carolina was the targetted state initially) and asking if they thought it was a good idea to have a President with a black baby (McCain and his wife adopted a baby I believe from India) has been described by many on both sides of the aisle as one of the most despicable acts in a modern day campaign that they have seen.

Hopefully McCain will indeed run again, as he is one of the few I personally consider having integrity still serving in the Senate.

Or should we ask your mighty Highness what is worthy? Interesting choice of a crown I might add. Who'd have thunked it, a crown shaped like your own posterior.Oh relax, it was tongue in cheek (tho' I can see how it didn't come out that way -- was about the last thing I tossed in). And what crown are you talking about? And if you think this is being beat into the ground, why are you posting on this thread? Remember, Furt asked me to read his link and comment, and so I did. And for the last time, I don't hate Bush. It's hard to hate someone who's made you laugh so often. It's clearly hard to defend without being inside the agencies themselves. And the only thing you and your ilk will respond to ( on this topic only, other topics we have to listen to your grandious excuses for your opinions) are pure hard links.Actually, I'll/we'll respond to pure, hard arguments. As opposed to the accusations of being brainwashed, or media slaves, or appeals to motive or pure juvenilia that you (and your "ilk" I suppose) toss around.You've turned into a miniThug Thor. Either agree with you or kowtow to you ....or you'll debase and name call.Nah, if I was a thug I'd edit or delete posts that I didn't agree with and whatnot (I was tempted to edit that line in place of your "Thor's a thug" line for humor's sake, but gosh, I won't even do that -- what a disgraceful moderator I am!). What's truly disappointing about your post, though, is that after ~3 hours of work I put in reading Furt's link and throwing it all together (as good or bad as it may be), the Sheehan thing is all you took from it, and all you'd comment on. But at least you didn't debase or name call My Thuggish Highness. At least you didn't go there.

I cannot believe you guys are still going at this.

Yeah, it's turning into "This one is for LS." Yet I want to mention one more thing, since it's current and pertains. Feingold has written (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/30/AR2006013001318.html) AG Gonzales demanding...
...to know why Gonzales dismissed the senator's question about warrantless eavesdropping as a "hypothetical situation" during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in January 2005. At the hearing, Feingold asked Gonzales where the president's authority ends and whether Gonzales believed the president could, for example, act in contravention of existing criminal laws and spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant.

Gonzales said that it was impossible to answer such a hypothetical question but that it was "not the policy or the agenda of this president" to authorize actions that conflict with existing law. He added that he would hope to alert Congress if the president ever chose to authorize warrantless surveillance, according to a transcript of the hearing.
Gonzales is set to testify on the program's legality on Monday. Here's the relevant bit of transcript:


Sen. Feingold: And I also would like you to answer this: does the president, in your opinion, have the authority acting as commander in chief to authorize warrantless searches of Americans' homes and wiretaps of their conversations in violation of the criminal and foreign intelligence surveillance statutes of this country?MR. GONZALES: Senator, the August 30th memo has been withdrawn. It has been rejected, including that section regarding the commander in chief authority to ignore the criminal statutes. So it's been rejected by the executive branch. I categorically reject it. And in addition to that, as I've said repeatedly today, this administration does not engage in torture and will not condone torture. And so, what you really are -- what we're really discussing is a hypothetical situation that --


SEN. FEINGOLD: I -- Judge Gonzales, let me ask a broader question. I'm asking you whether in general the president has the constitutional authority, does he at least in theory have the authority to authorize violations of the criminal law under duly enacted statutes simply because he's commander in chief? Does he -- does he have that power?

MR. GONZALES: Senator, I -- you -- in my judgment, you phrase it sort of a hypothetical situation. I would have to know what -- what is the -- what is the national interest that the president may have to consider. What I'm saying is, it is impossible to me, based upon the question as you've presented it to me, to answer that question. I can say, is that there is a presumption of constitutionality with respect to any statute passed by Congress. I will take an oath to defend the statutes. And to the extent that there is a decision made to ignore a statute, I consider that a very significant decision, and one that I would personally be involved with, I commit to you on that, and one we will take with a great deal of care and seriousness.

SEN. FEINGOLD: Well, that sounds to me like the president still remains above the law.

MR. GONZALES: No, sir.

SEN. FEINGOLD: Again, you know, if this is something where -- where it -- you take a good look at it, you give a presumption that the president ought to follow the law, that -- you know, that's -- to me, that's not good enough under our system of government.

MR. GONZALES: Senator, if I might respond to that, the president is not above the law. Of course he's not above the law. But he has an obligation, too. He takes an oath as well. And if Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, there is a practice and a tradition recognized by presidents of both parties that he may elect to decide not to enforce that law. Now, I think that that would be --

SEN. FEINGOLD: I recognize that, and I tried to make that distinction, Judge, between electing not to enforce as opposed to affirmatively telling people they can do certain things in contravention of the law.

MR. GONZALES: Senator, this president is not -- I -- it is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.

SEN. FEINGOLD: Finally, will you commit to notify Congress if the president makes this type of decision and not wait two years until a memo is leaked about it?

MR. GONZALES: I will to advise the Congress as soon as I reasonably can, yes, sir.

SEN. FEINGOLD: Well, I hope that would be a very brief period of time. And I thank you, again, Judge Gonzales.

MR. GONZALES: Thank you, Senator.

Nice reply Thormir. Thanks.

However, let me point out a few things.

First, I believe Federalist 51 and its references to self-defense is essentially an explanation of the veto power of the Executive and Congress's ability to override a veto. When Madison refers to "self-defense" he is not talking about self-defense of our country, but self-defense of each branch. For example, he states:

As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified. An absolute negative on the legislature appears, at first view, to be the natural defense with which the executive magistrate should be armed. But perhaps it would be neither altogether safe nor alone sufficient. On ordinary occasions it might not be exerted with the requisite firmness, and on extraordinary occasions it might be perfidiously abused. May not this defect of an absolute negative be supplied by some qualified connection between this weaker department and the weaker branch of the stronger department, by which the latter may be led to support the constitutional rights of the former, without being too much detached from the rights of its own department?

Rather than give an absolute veto by the President, they decided to give a "qualified connection" so that 2/3 vote can override a veto. So, I'm not entirely convinced 51 is on point to the topic of discussion.

Going back to your first point, I believe you are confusing the difference between making war and declaring war. Note the authors use of "making" war as being similar to "engaging" in war. You later dispute the difference between the terms, but it is key -- making/engaging in war is not declaring war. Your quote to 69 is entirely on point if we were discussing declarations of war. However, the topic of warrantless wireteaps, troop movements, military plans, etc., deals with engaging in war and that has been a province of the President as CIC.

Although you argue its semantics, I believe the Constitution is clear that the framework for making war is "the President may use his commander-in-chief and executive powers to use military force to protect the nation, subject to congressional appropriation and control over domestic legislation." Going back to a point made earlier in this thread, Congress holds the purse strings and can defund the NSA if it dislikes the wiretapping, defund the military if it disagrees with the war, etc.

Your statement that it "cannot be challenged by anyone" falls on deaf ears. The power is not "unitary". It can be challenged by Congress given the tools supplied them by the Constitution. As you quote from 48, "[i]t is equally evident, that none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers." That quote applies to Congress as well. Your argument gives Congress plenary power. They can't have that. They have to be subject to the limits allowed by the Constitution.

In particular, I think the paragraphs on page 27, highlights a few of the points I have made previously (particularly that the President's powers derive more from the Constitution rather than the War Powers Resolution and that Congress does not have plenary power in time of war). I'll quote the pertinent points:

Given the President's constitutional powers to respond to national emergencies caused by attacks on the United States, and given also that WPR section 2(c)(3) does not attempt to define those powers, we think that provision must be construed simply as a recognition of the President's pre-existing constitutional authority. Moreover, as we read the WPR, action taken by the President pursuant to constitutional authority recognized in section 2(c)(3) cannot be subject to the substantive requirements of the WPR....Insofar as the Constitution vests the pwoer in the President to take military action in the emergency cirucmstances described in section 2(c)(3), we do not think it can be restricted by Congress through, e.g., a requirement that the President either obtain congressional authorization for the action within a sepcific timeframe or else discontinue the action.

First, I believe Federalist 51 and its references to self-defense is essentially an explanation of the veto power of the Executive and Congress's ability to override a veto. When Madison refers to "self-defense" he is not talking about self-defense of our country, but self-defense of each branch.
Entirely correct, and I understood it in that context. It's the basis of our checks and balances system. However, I wished to highlight (and I'll reduce the quote further):
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?
...
But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.
In my view, the writers' (and president's) expansive view of presidential power represents just the sort of ambition warned against above and therefore warrants the cursory gaze of the citizenry and its (predominate) legislature. Hamilton spent much time differentiating the US President from the English king; if the distinctions blur too much in the present then we are clearly straying from the Vision.
Going back to your first point, I believe you are confusing the difference between making war and declaring war...However, the topic of warrantless wireteaps, troop movements, military plans, etc., deals with engaging in war and that has been a province of the President as CIC.
I understand what the authors are saying (which point you echo above), but this seems to render the declaration of war power meaningless. I consider the authors' view of congressional declaration making the war more "perfect" in some sense grasping at straws. Note again Hamilton in Fed 69:
The one [US President] would have a right to command the military and naval forces of the nation; the other [the English king], in addition to this right, possesses that of declaring war, and of raising and regulating fleets and armies by his own authority. /quote]
The point of Hamilton's writing here is to emphasize that the king's power of declaring war is not vested in the Presidency. To quote (roughly) Judge Alito in his confirmation hearing, "The phrase must have some meaning." I take the Founders to have invested greater meaning to this congressional power than simply signing off on the dictates of the Executive.
[quote]Although you argue its semantics, I believe the Constitution is clear that the framework for making war is "the President may use his commander-in-chief and executive powers to use military force to protect the nation, subject to congressional appropriation and control over domestic legislation." Going back to a point made earlier in this thread, Congress holds the purse strings and can defund the NSA if it dislikes the wiretapping, defund the military if it disagrees with the war, etc
This is well noted and discussed somewhat earlier. But is this practicable? (I realize that that question may be irrelevent in context here, but bear with me.) It's already been noted that Congress should not simply defund the NSA. Is it even possible to defund one aspect of a certain program (the budget of which may not even be seen by Congress?). If Congress demands review of this budget, can the President cite national security concerns and deny them access? We're straying somewhat afield here, but I think the situation provokes some deep questions (stuff to at least think about, not necessarily to go on for another 3 pages).
That quote applies to Congress as well. Your argument gives Congress plenary power. They can't have that. They have to be subject to the limits allowed by the Constitution.
I agree -- all branches are limited by the Constitution. I don't think I'm ascribing plenary power to the Congress and would not wish to do so, but nor do I wish the President to have unchecked powers to pursue any course he wishes in the guise of national security. Note that the President seems free to engage in any such activity under a current budget. Thus, Congress can only react to a president's actions, and (to focus on the current issue) can only react if they are aware of what the president is up to.

Thus my desire for proper oversight and accountability, that the President not become (in Hamilton's words) "unaccountable for his administration" like the English king. How can Congress react if kept in the dark?
In particular, I think the paragraphs on page 27, highlights a few of the points I have made previously (particularly that the President's powers derive more from the Constitution rather than the War Powers Resolution and that Congress does not have plenary power in time of war
I think it clear and understood that Congress does not have plenary powers over military force in or out of war; they have what Article 1, Section 8 gives them (as an aside, how does "make rules concerning captures on land and water" interplay with detainees and interrogation/torture?).

But the reverse, with respect to presidential power and warrantless wiretapping (for example), should also hold true. Back to my original point. Based on the writings of the Framers, it seems they would not approve of the president engaging in secret programs without congressional knowledge or oversight under the guise of national security interests.

Further, any secret program (that is, a program that Congress remains unaware of and budgets for in ignorance) would seem to strain the limits of constitutional authority (and the Framers' vision), moreso one that conflicts with the Fourth Amendment in the absence of judicial oversight.

It may be that warrantless wiretapping more directly under the budgetary thumb of Congress would be legal, but I'm not sure how this could even be challenged in court. It seems that the Judiciary has no role in limiting the decisions of a president operating under the guise of national security, leaving the citizenry at the mercy of a reactive Congress possibly unaware or unable to account for those presidential decisions.

This strikes me as cause for concern. Thanks for the response -- very useful in examining all this (and it's been far too long since I've looked over the Federalist papers).

Well, glad to see the discussion matured. Must be because I was too busy :D and I come back to 5 pages to read... too much for me to do any time soon.

Anyway Thormir, you might appreciate this article.. from some people who lean your direction. Sorry, registration required, and I don't have time to check bugmenot if it works...

Basically answers why the administration probably wanted to work around, not necessary violate FISA:

http://www.tnr.com/user/nregi.mhtml?i=w060130&s=heymannposner013106

According to the administration, the only communications intercepted outside the framework of FISA are calls to and from the United States in which the overseas party is suspected of terrorist connections, though the suspicion does not rise to the probable-cause level that would be required for obtaining a FISA warrant. It seems to me vital to our national security to be able to intercept such communications--and more. Suppose a phone number in the United States is discovered on a rolodex in an Al Qaeda hideout in Yemen. Wouldn't you want the NSA to intercept all calls, especially international, to or from that U.S. number and scrutinize them for suspicious content? Yet the mere fact that a suspected or even a known terrorist has a U.S. phone number in his possession would not create probable cause to believe the owner of that phone also a terrorist; probably most phone conversations of terrorists are not with other terrorists. The government can't get a FISA warrant just to find out whether someone is a terrorist, though that's what it most needs to know. Nor can it obtain a warrant to intercept communications between two persons both of whom are in the United States, even if they are suspected of being members of a terrorist sleeper cell. These are crippling limitations.

Last thing I was going to answer before I got busy the other day, you asked how Congress can limit Bush if (from what I and others here are arguing) Congress can't limit his powers in this area. I believe that's what you and Furt are hashing out, but I just want to point out Bush's defense (led by Gonzales) is currently relying HEAVILY on the AUMF (Authorization to Use Military Force) passed by Congress.

No time to find it in non pdf... http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/12%2022%2005%20NSA%20letter.pdf

I'm not entirely sure he has to do that, though I would be willing to bet its the politically safest way to go about it. Karl Rove at his best.

Suppose a phone number in the United States is discovered on a rolodex in an Al Qaeda hideout in Yemen.

Dude. That'd have to be one of the easiest warrants you could ever get.

The whole paragraphs seems to be "well, what if we just don't want a warrant?"

"Yet the mere fact that a suspected or even a known terrorist has a U.S. phone number in his possession would not create probable cause to believe the owner of that phone also a terrorist.."

Is that portion true or not?

"Yet the mere fact that a suspected or even a known terrorist has a U.S. phone number in his possession would not create probable cause to believe the owner of that phone also a terrorist.."

Is that portion true or not?

Probable cause to believe the owner of that phone is also a terrorist would not be necessarily the issue, but the fact that the "known terrorist" was in communication with someone within the U.S. would most likely in the current state of affairs result in most any court issuing a warrant if requested by the government. It is possible there would be some limitation placed on the warrant, such as only specific calls being authorized for monitoring; however, I do not see any courts in a time of "war" being shy at giving some latitude to monitor such an individual.

Lots of common sense assumptions in both of your statements... but Richard Posner has some very good creds...

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/posner-r/

From the TNR article akipt posted:

The government can't get a FISA warrant just to find out whether someone is a terrorist, though that's what it most needs to know. Nor can it obtain a warrant to intercept communications between two persons both of whom are in the United States, even if they are suspected of being members of a terrorist sleeper cell. These are crippling limitations.
Yet James Baker, in his 2002 testimony did not cite any such problems with the program. Surely this would be as much a "crippling "problem then as now, were it a problem at all, and thus worth mentioning before Congress when asked.

I believe that's what you and Furt are hashing out, but I just want to point out Bush's defense (led by Gonzales) is currently relying HEAVILY on the AUMF (Authorization to Use Military Force) passed by Congress.

Quite true, but I think previous posts on the matter dispel this defense. To recap, Gonzales claims that Congress authorized all this via the AUMF, but then stated that the administration didn't approach Congress about giving legislative approval for the program because they had reason to believe Congress wouldn't grant it."Yet the mere fact that a suspected or even a known terrorist has a U.S. phone number in his possession would not create probable cause to believe the owner of that phone also a terrorist.."

Is that portion true or not?I don't know, and it may depend on the judge. However, if US citizens or persons within the States have been caught up in the wiretapping process, it seems reasonable (to me, anyway) that this situation may have come before FISA, and FISA has rarely turned down requests for warrants. It may also be that these situations prompted warrantless searches...we just don't know.

Watched this interview myself and thought it might be worth linking for folks to read.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183844,00.html

Also heard on the raidio today that folks at the NY Times are to be investigated under violations to espionage acts. Time will tell...

Fandros

An interesting op-ed that has mirrored many of the pro-comments in this thread.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/62988.htm

It requires a free login -- I used one from bugmenot:

pohtzpwamm@mailinator.com, PW: qwerty

A letter (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18650) to Congress from various constitutional scholars and former government officials.

Gonzales went before the Senate Judiciary Committee today. Specter refused to swear him in, unfortunately.

A letter (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18650) to Congress from various constitutional scholars and former government officials.

That is a very comprehensive letter setting forth arguments and legal precedents which should be published in every major newspaper in the country. Bush desperately wants to believe himself to be omnipotent, and his behavior has consistently shown that.

When he cancels the '08 elections to ensure continuity in pressing the war against "our enemies", it will be because the authority to do so was implicitly given to him in the AUMF.

I think Gonz actually did testify.

Fandros

Yes, he did testify; he just wasn't sworn in. Given that during his confirmation hearings he was less than truthful (to be extremely kind), and given the topic under review, he should have taken the oath.

"less than truthful"

Based on what do you make this judgement? I have yet to read the testimony to be honest, just curious what insider info you have that would validate this statement.

Fandros

On page 15 of this thread I quoted Gonzales' testimony at his confirmation hearing -- specifically, Q&A between Gonzales and Feingold. You might read the whole excerpt, but I'll repost one answer here:MR. GONZALES: Senator, this president is not -- I -- it is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.
It's now known, of course, that Bush authorized actions in violation of FISA, and that that authorization preceded this testimony.

It's wildly known by critics of Bush and co.

The actual points in law are to be decided by experts. Many of which are judging contrary to what you claim.

Did you watch the good Generals interview this last Sunday? Thought it was very interesting. Brought out points that are being misstated by the NY Times and other media outlets.

Myself, I'll wait till real facts are in. Not ones contrived to fit an arguement, thank you very much.

Fandros

Did anyone catch Meet the Press this Sunday?

Tim played a clip of Bush at some speech he was giving in NY a while back where he stated that getting a wire tap required a warrant and as far as he knew that's how things were supposed to be. It was absolutely ..... priceless.

The actual points in law are to be decided by experts. Many of which are judging contrary to what you claim.

I'm not sure who this "many" are. It's not the administration: They're defense is "FISA was slowing us down so we had to ignore it." It doesn't seem to be the Yoo/Delahunty/Furtivus group: They're defense is, "FISA unconstitutionally restricts the president." Fortunately for you, I posted a letter by actual experts. Perhaps they're just not the experts whose facts you wish to hear.

Ah, almost forgot, here's another defense of the program by Gonzales, from yesterday's testimony:
Gonzales: President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale.
I hear Washington also opposed Napster. Hopefully someone asks Gonzales. He's the expert, after all.

Defense I'm hearing says getting warrants from FISA can take weeks.

Defense I'm also reading says that it's not huge nets cast over domestics. Instead it targets a preproscribed list of possible folks with international ties.

See, not sure FISA holds sway here. But I'm sure it wouldn't matter either way to the witch hunters of today. I'm also reading that it's been going on since the 1970's and that a more recent Administration used it more in a manner akin to Watergate.

Either way, I'll wait till the real facts are out. Not the ones I've been given on a spoon premeasured for my consumption.

One thing I'm certain on is the NY Times gave us a skewed version, and someone there is likely to see jail time for reasons outlined under the various espionage acts.

Fandros

Defense I'm hearing says getting warrants from FISA can take weeks.

Defense I'm also reading says that it's not huge nets cast over domestics. Instead it targets a preproscribed list of possible folks with international ties.
In 2002 James Baker testified (as I've cited in this thread) that FISA gave the administration all the tools it needed to do its job. He cited no need to move from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion" as a metric and noted that it may be unconstitutional to do so. Surely, if it was taking "weeks" to get a warrant, he would have noted that or any other impediment in his testimony to Congress. And if there were problems more recently, the administration could request the Judiciary to appoint more FISA judges to help with this alleged backlog, and/or they could ask Congress to alter FISA to suit their needs.

No reason has been presented for circumventing FISA that holds up to even casual scrutiny. I'm honestly not sure about the wide net/single target facet of the program. It's been obliquely alluded (e.g., Rockefeller's letter to Cheney, among other spots) that some version of the Total Information Awareness program has been instituted, but given the secrecy of such a program it's unlikely even at present that we'd hear much about it. Either way, I'll wait till the real facts are out. Not the ones I've been given on a spoon premeasured for my consumption.

One thing I'm certain on is the NY Times gave us a skewed version, and someone there is likely to see jail time for reasons outlined under the various espionage acts.I'm curious what source you'd accept for these "real facts." I'm also curious what aspect of the NY Times story was "skewed."

Surely, if it was taking "weeks" to get a warrant, he would have noted that or any other impediment in his testimony to Congress.

Assumption is a mean bastard in normal relationships let alone dealing with the backsliders and double dealers we have in Washington. I know you're savy enough to see this as a fact so I have to assume it's a mental blindspot for your own argument.

Gen Hayden himself said the stories being represented by the Times and others are misleading. I linked the interview already.

Real fact ....hmmm ones not given to me by a source I suckle at inorder to be given my political opinions.

A neutral source, we'll see how this turns out Thor.

Perhaps my confidence on this is knowing that it's a valuable tool in dealing with these thugs. Perhaps it's merely because I'm not some paranoid citizen hell bent on thinking Uncle Sam is out to listen to lil ole me to steal my lil ole cookie recipee.

Fandros

Assumption is a mean bastard in normal relationships let alone dealing with the backsliders and double dealers we have in Washington. I know you're savy enough to see this as a fact so I have to assume it's a mental blindspot for your own argument.
This is simply a dodge to disguise your lack of a response to simple logic. Why hasn't the administration requested a change in FISA if the statutes provided by Congress did not suffice? It's a legitimate question, and citing human nature is insufficient to avoid it.

What is a neutral source? Does the Congressional (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/AR2006011802158.html) Research (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf) Service (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/cassel/20060112.html) count?

Thor, it's not a dodge to want to take exception to you building your case on assumptions. You can never debate a man who'll take an assumption and turn it into a personal belief. It's why I pointed it out.

I think you'll see it all come out in the wash.

Fandros

Fanny, it's just absurd to assume that if the program wasn't working due to FISA restrictions, and the administration wished to follow statute, that they wouldn't request changes in FISA. After all, FISA had already been changed post 9/11, adjusted through the Patriot Act. There is no assumption here at all -- there is precedent.

Also, there is a contradiction implicit in your previous post. Your reply to the logical point I expand on above is that the "men in Washington" are "backsliders and double dealers." Yet, you're quickly willing to assume that they are not taking advantage of the lack of oversight to bend or break the 4th Amendment to the Constitution (let alone FISA). You also seem to assume that no one in the future would do so -- certainly, you've not admitted a need for oversight of this program.

I'm still interested in what you consider a "neutral source." The only source you've cited thus far is Gen. Hayden, who -- as former head of the NSA and a 4th Amendment challenged* spokesperson for the administration -- isn't exactly neutral in this matter. He may also qualify as a "backslider and double dealer."

*per a previous post

Oh, I think they're all crooks Thor. It's only left to me to judge who's a lesser crook at this point. All shades of dirty grey to me.

I'll go on record saying this. Right or wrong this is a program that's needed.

Fandros

Interesting Article: Republican Who Oversees N.S.A. Calls for Wiretap Inquiry (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08nsa.html)


The thing I find the scariest is that no matter what the issue Cheney always chimes in with "a public debate over changes in the law could alert Al Qaeda to tactics used by American intelligence officials."

It seems he has a similiar line no matter what the issue is with this administration. Basically he is saying: Do Not Question anything we do...

The fact is Al Qaeda realized many years ago that we were tapping into their communications, its no secret. To say that debating the issue endangers us is ludicrous.

http://www.normantranscript.com/feeds/apcontent/apstories/apstorysection/D8FL8N7O0.xml.txt/resources_apstoryview
At least one Democrat left the four-hour House session saying he had a better understanding of legal and operational aspects of the anti-terrorist surveillance program, being conducted without warrants. But he said he still had a number of questions.

"It's a different program than I was beginning to let myself believe," said Alabama Rep. Bud Cramer, the senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee's oversight subcommittee.

"This may be a valuable program," Cramer said, adding that he didn't know if it was legal. "My direction of thinking was changed tremendously."

Displeased FISA judges (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/08/AR2006020802511.html).
Twice in the past four years, a top Justice Department lawyer warned the presiding judge of a secret surveillance court that information overheard in President Bush's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to obtain wiretap warrants in the court, according to two sources with knowledge of those events.
The revelations infuriated U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly -- who, like her predecessor, Royce C. Lamberth, had expressed serious doubts about whether the warrantless monitoring of phone calls and e-mails ordered by Bush was legal. Both judges had insisted that no information obtained this way be used to gain warrants from their court, according to government sources, and both had been assured by administration officials it would never happen.
...

hahahahahahhahahaha

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a27337612f5.htm


fucking hypocrits

It gets even better (http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_02_12-2006_02_18.shtml#1139771776), L2. (John Yoo being one of the authors of the paper Furtivus linked to justifying expansive presidential power).

What foreign relationship area of the "imperial presidency" did Clinton screw up Thormir? Do you have a link to the full article? Would be a lot more meaningful if so. It doesn't seem to be addressing warrantless wiretaps, but perhaps your reading is different....

What it is addressing is not especially relevant. The point of the excerpt in the link to Volokh is that here, Yoo accuses Clinton of exerting a "cost [on] the Constitution and American Legal System" and undermining "notions of democratic accountability and respect for the rule of law." Yet in the paper you linked to, Yoo justifies a program that ignores democratic accountability, proclaims the law irrelevant and essentially supports the "imperial presidency" he denounced with Clinton.

What he was addressing is entirely relevant. The paper I linked to was a discussion on inherent Presidential constitutional powers regardless of the particular President. The link to Volokh may have related to a discussion of Clinton's perjury. Apples and oranges to compare perjury to constitutional powers.

Show me a link to the complete article (as I provided) and you can make a comparison. Until then, you're just out of context quoting which is meaningless.

The link to Volokh may have related to a discussion of Clinton's perjury.
The linked graf very clearly references "the imperial presidency," "dealings with foreign nations," "international relations matters," "war, international institutions, and treaties," and "disturbing trends in foreign policy." How you extrapolate even the possibility that Clinton's perjury might be the topic is beyond me.

A summation at the CATO bookstore (http://catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=cats&scid=31&pid=144181) states that Yoo's essay, "discusses the imperial president abroad, showing how Clinton has abused constitutional restraints on his foreign power while ceding the authority of the federal government itself to international institutions." Were the article online I'd have provided a link; as it stands, you may have to ask Orin Kerr for more. Or buy the book.

My point stands. Yoo stating that Clinton "undermine[d] notions of democratic accountability and respect for the rule of law" in light of his willing support for the warrantless wiretap program outside FISA strikes me as hypocritical. His view of inherent powers would seem to depend very much on the particular President.

"His view of inherent powers would seem to depend very much on the particular President."

How do you get this? What does the Volokh link state regarding Yoo's opinion on inherent constitutional power for warrantless wiretaps? From your limited summations it seems more likely that his views of inherent powers depends on the Constitution and the powers you're talking about.

Based on the additional summation, his article more than likely deals with Clinton's handling of the Kyoto treaty and the international military court -- "ceding the authority of the federal government itself to international institutions." How you leap from an article on those powers to arguing Yoo is taking a contrary position regarding warrantless wiretaps is curious. Again, providing a copy of the actual paper rather than 3rd party summations would actually support your argument that he is being hypocritical regarding his interpretation of the constitution on warrantless wiretaps.

Oh please.

If it was Clinton doing the wiretapping every single person here, including you, knows what your stance would be. You shift your legal analysis so it coincides with your political ideology. Drop the charade.

Oh please.

If it was Clinton doing the wiretapping every single person here, including you, knows what your stance would be. You shift your legal analysis so it coincides with your political ideology. Drop the charade.And you base this flip flopping on an old juvenile freeper post? Oh please, yourself.

"If it was Clinton doing the wiretapping every single person here, including you, knows what your stance would be. You shift your legal analysis so it coincides with your political ideology. Drop the charade."

No it would not, but your statement demonstrates a lot about the bias behind your position. Good to know.

"If it was Clinton doing the wiretapping every single person here, including you, knows what your stance would be. You shift your legal analysis so it coincides with your political ideology. Drop the charade."

No it would not


/boggle

I am unable to make sense of this.......

On a side note, yet it shows the inherant danger of the current paranoia of governments.

US rocker and writer Henry Rollins was reported to the National Security hotline during his recent Australian tour because of a book he was reading on flight to Brisbane.
A furious Rollins was informed he was "nominated as a possible threat" for reading Jihad: The Rise Of Militant Islam In Central Asia.
The incident happened on a flight from Auckland on the recent Big Day Out tour.
Rollins told Australian fans during his tour that he received a letter from a "nice woman" who worked "in one of those government areas that deals with anti-terrorism matters."
He posted the letter on his website.

"Please tell your Government and everyone in your office to go f... themselves. Baghdad's safer than my hometown and your PM is a sissy," he wrote.


I found it here (http://entertainment.news.com.au/story/0,10221,18160231-7484,00.html)

If I was sitting next to some angry looking Henry Rollins look-a-like on a plane and he was reading a book about Jihad, I'd call someone too :p

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185551,00.html

Serious business...

Fandros

I'll wait for convictions before I cheer (indictments get trumpted, but mean little), but it's an interesting case. That a Muslim figured into the apprehending of these individuals is of key importance. If the evidence proves the accusations, then a job well done.

Aye, I'm not jumping through any hoops for this one just yet. I did note that they used FISA taps at the end of the article tho with all the proper warrants attached.

Fandros

Indeed, looks like they employed a lot of investigative tools in all this. Definitely inspires more confidence than previous indictments.