Historians looking at Bush presidency may well wonder if Congress actually existed - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dc_dux · 01-23-2008, 11:14 AM

Host...I, too, was pissed that the House Democrats are backing down on the contempt citation....at least temporarily.

I will also be angry if Congress does not act on the WH's destruction of 500,000 emails in violation of the Presidential Records Act, particularly during critical times like the outing of Plame and the fabrication of statements to justify the invasion of Iraq.

aceventura3 · 01-23-2008, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

It is clear that neither party is committed to upholding the provisions of the constitution defining our rights we have clearly, for 208 years, not ceded to government authority.

Why is it then, that it is not obvious that a discussion of the appropriatness, and the probable pitfalls, of taking to arms, for the purpose of protecting our bill of rights, ourselves, is not now timely or appropriate?

In chronological order, a diary of ultimatums, postponements, excuses, and finally, accountability is "off the table", in the interests of "bi-partisanship":

Because the posturing was political gamesmanship from the beginning. Democrats were never serious about holding Bush accountable for his acts as President. They generally have support his acts as President.

dc_dux · 01-23-2008, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

It is clear that neither party is committed to upholding the provisions of the constitution defining our rights we have clearly, for 208 years, not ceded to government authority.

Why is it then, that it is not obvious that a discussion of the appropriatness, and the probable pitfalls, of taking to arms, for the purpose of protecting our bill of rights, ourselves, is not now timely or appropriate?

In chronological order, a diary of ultimatums, postponements, excuses, and finally, accountability is "off the table", in the interests of "bi-partisanship":

Host....I believe the bills I posted earlier as a result of numerous oversight hearings that were lacking for the first 6 years of Bush demonstrated an attempt by the Democrats to rectify some of the abuses of the Bush administration and provide for greater transparency and accountability. The Democrats have had only one year to correct six years of abuses.

These were not done as posturing or political gamesmanship, but I agree its not enough.

But Bush cannot be impeached for lying at press conferences...or for acts of subordinates..or without hard evidence (that has been destroyed by subordinates). Further, with the present numbers, Democrats have no control over Republican obstructionists in Congress who are unwilling to address the abuses of the last 6 years...and in any case, I just dont believe armed insurrection is the answer.

Women protested peacefully and lobbied aggressively to gain basic constitutional right in the 20s.....the labor movement did not take up arms to protect and expand workers rights in the 40s...African-Americans did not resort to violence to gain civil rights in the 60s.

They all "worked" the system and the system worked for them. Today, most Americans appear too apathetic to do even that much...forget an armed march on Washington.

host · 01-28-2008, 03:32 PM

I saw this on google news, just a few minutes ago:

Quote:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ta...nG=Search+News
FISA Cloture, FISA Fictions
Manufacturers' Blog, DC - 56 minutes ago
The Senate just failed to invoke cloture on the pending Intelligence Committee version of S. 2248, the FISA Amendments, by a vote of 48-45, not achieving ...

and, when you click on "FISA Cloture, FISA Fictions", it resolves to this, and the poster's comment in response to the anti-constitutional, establishhment propaganda, asks the question we are all yearning to read the answer to:

Quote:

http://blog.nam.org/archives/2008/01...tor_bond_h.php
Home » Communications & Media » ShopFloor.org
Don't stop here, read what others are reading:

« Congratulations, Secretary Schafer | Main | Don't Tase Me, Bro! I'll Sue! »
January 28, 2008
FISA Cloture, FISA Fictions

The Senate just failed to invoke cloture on the pending Intelligence Committee version of S. 2248, the FISA Amendments, by a vote of 48-45, not achieving the 60 votes necessary to end debate. (Lots of missing Senators, eh?)

As noted below, Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) held a conference call with bloggers today. He responded to an assertion we've seen made many times, including from a commenter below and on the Senate floor -- that the Administration had engaged in massive, reckless communications surveillance, spying on millions of Americans, and that the telecommunications companies went along with little regard to the legality of the monitoring.

Bond:

Obviously they don’t understand that these companies responded to lawful and appropriate orders from the U.S. government to assist them in the vital effort to keep our country safe. I can’t believe even the most rabid partisan populace would say that telecommunications companies or carriers who might have participated did anything that wasn’t in the national interest, wasn’t required by law, and wasn’t certainly designed for any minimal impact on legitimate rights, privacy rights of American citizens.

The only communications intercepted, the only time we listened in and read communications, was when they were to or from a terrorist abroad ….if it wasn’t under a domestic FISA court or FISC court order. If there were any incidental communications with ordinary American citizens, those were suppressed, they were not kept.

They only occurred in the context in targeting somebody like Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, or one of their leaders somewhere in the field. To say there were millions of innocent conversations intercepted is absolutely beyond the pale, without basis, and totally irresponsible.

The audio of Sen. Bond's call is available here.

UPDATE (5:30 p.m.): The Senate has also failed invoke cloture on a 30-day extension of the FISA authority by a vote of 48-45.

UPDATE (5:55 p.m.): Senator McConnell issues a statement, walking though the many delays that brought us to this point -- four days before the law expires.

Tagged: Christopher Dodd , FISA , Harry Reid , S. 2248

Posted by Carter Wood at January 28, 2008 4:59 PM

» Send to a Friend
Comments
Peter Platt — Jan. 28, 08 at 05:35 PM

thank god that there are senators in our government that don't swallow this kind of fascist propaganda that defenders of the indefensible like Senator Bond spew.

The actions of the Bush Administration and their co-conspirators in the Telecomms should be brought to justice.. THE RULE OF LAW still means something to some people in this country even if Senator Bond is not among them!!!
Karen — Jan. 28, 08 at 05:45 PM

<h2>If the requests were lawful, why do they need immunity?</h2>....

If there are any "Fisa reform, telecomm immunity" advocates out there, why would you trust this president and his administration with even more, checks and balances "proof", i.e. unaccountable authority, or the telecomms that broke the existing law, cooperating with government "requests" without the paper work legally required to do so, before they cooperated in giving up our private records and communications?

aceventura3 · 01-28-2008, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

If there are any "Fisa reform, telecomm immunity" advocates out there, why would you trust this president and his administration with even more, checks and balances "proof", i.e. unaccountable authority, or the telecomms that broke the existing law, cooperating with government "requests" without the paper work legally required to do so, before they cooperated in giving up our private records and communications?

The short answer is national security. Reasonable people don't want the records subject to discovery in open trial for trial attorneys to go on "fishing expeditions".

If specific people came forward with real damage claims I would support their actions to be indemnified for their damages and to receive punitive damages to the degree their was gross negligence or wanton violations of the law. I have not seen this and don't support subjecting telephone companies to millions of dollars spent defending pointless court cases.

host · 01-28-2008, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The short answer is national security. Reasonable people don't want the records subject to discovery in open trial for trial attorneys to go on "fishing expeditions".

If specific people came forward with real damage claims I would support their actions to be indemnified for their damages and to receive punitive damages to the degree their was gross negligence or wanton violations of the law. I have not seen this and don't support subjecting telephone companies to millions of dollars spent defending pointless court cases.

ace, unfortunately, your opinion is completely contrary to the facts...the following sez so, and so does the federal judge who has so far allowed the civil litigation against the telecomms to proceed, within the workable and functioning framework intended for litigation such as this.

I think you've been peruaded to "buy into" solving a problem that the telecoms allegedly face, but doesn't, in fact exist.

Why, if they have broken the law and violated our rights and protections, as their customers, and as residents of the US, ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THE COST OF THESE COMPANIES' LITIGATION? Your priorities seem a bit misplaced.....

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ler/index.html
Glenn Greenwald's Unclaimed Territory
I was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York.

Thursday January 24, 2008 07:33 EST
Jay Rockefeller's unintentionally revealing comments

....Telecoms already have immunity under existing FISA law where they acted pursuant to written government certification or where they prove they acted in good faith (see <a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002520----000-.html">18 USC 2520 (d)</a>). There is no reason that the federal courts presiding over these cases can't simply make that determiniation, as they do in countless other cases involving classified information.

Even Feinstein's "compromise" is a completely unnecessary gift to telecoms: to transfer the cases away from the federal judges who have ruled against them to the secret FISA court. But even that pro-telecom proposal is unacceptable to Rockefeller (and the administration), because that would still leave telecoms subject to the rule of law. Rockefeller's only goal is to bestow on his telecom supporters full and unconditional protection from having their conduct -- and, by effect, the administration's conduct -- subject to a court of law. Manifestly, that's the real agenda. That's why he's feeling "cocky."

It gets worse:

Rockefeller defended the actions of the telecom companies, arguing that the companies received explicit orders from the National Security Agency to cooperate with the super-secret surveillance effort. The West Virginia Democrat said the telecom companies were being "pushed by the government, compelled by the government, required by the government to do this. And I think in the end, we'll prevail."
Can someone please tell Jay Rockefeller that we don't actually live in a country where the President has the definitively dictatorial power to "compel" and "require" private actors to break the law by "ordering" them to do so? Like all other lawbreakers, telecoms broke the law because they chose to, and profited greatly as a result. That telecoms had an option is too obvious to require proof, but conclusive proof can be found in the fact that <a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/qwest-ceo-not-a.html">some telecoms did refuse to comply</a> on the grounds that doing so was against the law.

There is a branch of Government that does have the power to compel and require behavior by private actors. It's called "the American people," acting through their Congress, who democratically enact laws regulating that behavior. And the American people <a href="http://www.eff.org/files/nsa/statutes.pdf">enacted multiple laws making it illegal</a> (.pdf) for telecoms, in the absence of a warrant, to enable Government spying on their customers and to turn over private data. Rockefeller's claimed belief that we live in a country where private companies are "compelled" to obey orders to break the law is either indescribably authoritarian or disgustingly dishonest -- probably both.

Finally, we have this bit of pure mendacity:

Rockefeller added: "If people want to be mad, don't be mad at the telecommunications companies, who are restrained from saying anything at all under the State Secrets Act. And they really are. They can't say whether they were involved, they can't go to court, they can't do anything. They're just helpless. And the president was just having his way."
Rockefeller's claim that telecoms can't submit exculpatory evidence to the court is flat-out false, an absolute lie. There is no other accurate way to describe his statement.

Under FISA (<a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001806----000-.html">50 USC 1806(f)</a>), telecoms are explicitly permitted to present any evidence in support of their defenses in secret (in camera, ex parte) to the judge and let the judge decide the case based on it. That section of long-standing law could not be clearer, and leaves no doubt that Rockefeller is simply lying when he says that telecoms are unable to submit secret evidence to the court to defend themselves:

[W]henever any motion or request is made by an aggrieved person pursuant to any other statute or rule of the United States or any State before any court or other authority of the United States or any State to <h3>discover or obtain applications or orders or other materials relating to electronic surveillance</h3> or to discover, obtain, or suppress evidence or information obtained or derived from electronic surveillance under this chapter, the United States district court or, where the motion is made before another authority, <h3>the United States district court in the same district as the authority, shall</h3>, notwithstanding any other law, if the Attorney General files an affidavit under oath that disclosure or an adversary hearing would harm the national security of the United States, <h3>review in camera and ex parte the application, order, and such other materials relating to the surveillance as may be necessary to determine whether the surveillance of the aggrieved person was lawfully authorized and conducted.</h3>

How much clearer could that be? Directly contrary to Rockefeller's claims, <h2>federal courts are not only able, but required ("shall"), to review in secret any classified information -- including evidence over which a "states secrets privilege" has been asserted -- in order "to determine whether the surveillance of the aggrieved person was lawfully authorized and conducted."</h2> Federal courts already have exactly the power that Rockefeller dishonestly claims they lack.

Moreover, even if that provision didn't exist (and it does), and even if Rockefeller were telling the truth when claiming that telecoms were unable to submit exculpatory evidence to the court (and he isn't), then Congress could just easily fix that problem in one day. All they have to do is amend FISA to make clear that telecoms do have the right to submit such evidence to defend themselves notwithstanding the President's utterance of the all-powerful magic phrase "State Secrets." And then this oh-so-unfair problem would be instantly fixed.

If telecoms were really these poor, "helpless" victims unable to defend themselves, the solution isn't to bar anyone from suing them even when they break the law. The solution, if that were really the concern, is simply to add a provision to FISA enabling them to submit that evidence in secret, the way classified evidence is submitted to federal courts all the time. The reality is that 50 USC 1806(f) already says exactly that, but even if it didn't, Congress could just amend it to do so.

Rockefeller's claims also entail the core dishonesty among amnesty advocates. He implies that the real party that engaged in wrongdoing was the President, not telecoms, yet his bill does nothing to enable plaintiffs to overcome the numerous obstacles the administration has used to block themselves from being held accountable. If Rockefeller were being truthful about his belief that it's the administration that should be held accountable here, then his bill would at least provide mechanisms for ensuring that can happen. It doesn't, and thus results in nothing other than total protection for all lawbreakers -- including administration officials -- who committed felonies by spying on Americans for years without warrants....

aceventura3 · 01-29-2008, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace, unfortunately, your opinion is completely contrary to the facts...the following sez so, and so does the federal judge who has so far allowed the civil litigation against the telecomms to proceed, within the workable and functioning framework intended for litigation such as this.

What you posted did not directly respond to my opinion on this. Also, I don't get all 'weak in the knees' over a ruling by a Judge. Judges are people just like you and me, some have political agendas and rulings get overturned regularly by other Judges.

Quote:

I think you've been peruaded to "buy into" solving a problem that the telecoms allegedly face, but doesn't, in fact exist.

The bottom line on this issue for me is this: If the Bush administration willfully and without regard for the law violated the civil liberties of US citizens, the administration should be held accountable.

Congressional leaders with inside information should come to the American people and tell us if this issue is worthy of prosecution. If it is impeachment proceeding should start immediately.

On the other hand, if Bush acted in good faith protecting or national security and in doing so the administration slightly stepped over the legal line, then I say we acknowledge it, fix the problem, and move on.

There is no value to our nation in having hundreds if not thousands of trials on this issue.

Quote:

Why, if they have broken the law and violated our rights and protections, as their customers, and as residents of the US, ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THE COST OF THESE COMPANIES' LITIGATION? Your priorities seem a bit misplaced.....

I think our society is too litigious. I think our level of litigation has hurt or economy and has put our nation at a competitive disadvantage in the international market place. I have no problem with legitimate lawsuits, however, I do have a problem with excessive damage awards. In the end those costs come back to average working people. And generally a few trial attorneys walk away with a third or more of those judgments. That is wrong. I don't understand your lack of concern about that injustice.

dc_dux · 01-29-2008, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The bottom line on this issue for me is this: If the Bush administration willfully and without regard for the law violated the civil liberties of US citizens, the administration should be held accountable.

Congressional leaders with inside information should come to the American people and tell us if this issue is worthy of prosecution. If it is impeachment proceeding should start immediately.

On the other hand, if Bush acted in good faith protecting or national security and in doing so the administration slightly stepped over the legal line, then I say we acknowledge it, fix the problem, and move on.

There is no value to our nation in having hundreds if not thousands of trials on this issue.

Congress did not have inside information, because the White House withheld, and continues to withhold, the information from both Congress and the FISA court.

Congress is now in the process of compelling White House officials and others to testify on the so-called Terrorist Surveillence (warrantless wiretapping) Program in order to obtain such information as is its right and obligation as the oversight authority over the Executive branch.

Subpoenas have been issued and ignored.

Subpoena to Josh Bolton

Subpoena to Phillip Lago

Subpoena to David Addington

each served with Subpoena attachments

There are others, but I think these make the point.

The WH has not complied and the next step is to hold those persons in Contempt of Congress, which would require the DoJ to act if a contempt order is approved by either the House or Senate. Gonzales had said he would have refused to act to enforce a Congressional contempt order; its is uncertain if Mukasey will fulfill his legal obligation if/when it reaches his desk.

There is also an ongoing perjury investigation of Gonzales within the DoJ (Congress asked for a special investigator rather than allow the DoJ to investigate itself but Bush refused), for his testimony on the TSP.

Perhaps all of this fits your concern of "hundreds or thousands of trials" (or investigations) of a potential crime by persons in the Executive Branch.

In the interim, your suggestion of "slightly stepping over the line" is a novel legal concept.

aceventura3 · 01-30-2008, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

In the interim, your suggestion of "slightly stepping over the line" is a novel legal concept.

The novelty of legal concepts aside, if I were in Congress and I felt the President violated the civil liberties of American citizens and had a blatant disregard for the "rule of law", willfully and defiantly violated the law - I would not rest until he was removed from office and held accountable. But that is just me, the pit-bullish side of my personality.

On the other hand if I felt the letter of the law was broken in a manner that was immaterial to the spirit of the law, I would fix the problem and move on.

This is not a complicated issue in my view.

dc_dux · 01-30-2008, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The novelty of legal concepts aside, if I were in Congress and I felt the President violated the civil liberties of American citizens and had a blatant disregard for the "rule of law", willfully and defiantly violated the law - I would not rest until he was removed from office and held accountable. But that is just me, the pit-bullish side of my personality.

On the other hand if I felt the letter of the law was broken in a manner that was immaterial to the spirit of the law, I would fix the problem and move on.

This is not a complicated issue in my view.

If you are sincerely interested in the truth, I hope the pitbull in you will personally support the ongoing Congressional effort (blocked or stalled by the WH at every step) to get all the facts about the TSP and urge your Republican senators and congressmember to vote FOR the Contempt of Congress charge when it reaches the floor so that the WH is compelled to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" so that it can be determined in a congressional or judicial setting (as the Constitution provides) if the President's actions were a willful violation of the law and his Constitutional oath or just "slightly over the line."

Although I am still trying to understand how a president can slightly violate a citizen's constitutionally protected rights.

Unless you think of course, that it is just more Democratic political grandstanding as you have suggested about some of the recent Congressional oversight efforts in the past year.

loquitur · 01-30-2008, 05:09 PM

Pardon me, but I find all this posturing about law and the legal process to be highly amusing.

Repeat after me: "motion to dismiss" is different from "summary judgment" which in turn is different from "trial." Got that? The issue here is subjecting actors to litigation risk (not liability) for good faith actions; it has nothing to do with immunizing intentional invasions of constitutional rights. The issue is how far into the discovery stage a plaintiff can get, or, put another way, what the pleading rules are for establishing a litigable claim for relief. This isn't a substantive readjustment of rights, and it's not elimination of an existing claim nor creation of a substantive right. If you get fucked by the phone company you can still sue, but you have to show that indeed you were fucked, not just treated shabbily, which is what phone companies do. What you can't do is fish around and make a PIA of yourself in the hope of getting a settlement.

dc_dux · 01-30-2008, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Repeat after me: "motion to dismiss" is different from "summary judgment" which in turn is different from "trial." Got that? ........

loquitur: I would make a lawyer joke after reading that, but I am more concerned with the broader issue of the legality of the TSP - why it happened and how it happened, including the involvement of the telcomms - and ensuring that such actions by the Executive branch receive the proper checks and balances before being implemented in the future.

The DoJ's Office of Legal Counsel and the acting AG at the time advised Bush that parts of the TSP program were illegal. Bush chose to ignore the legal interpretation of the top law enforcement officials in the country and unilaterally determine that he had the right to spy on American citizens without a warrant.

In order to determine if Bush acted within or outside the law, there needs to be full disclosure to the appropriate oversight committees of Congress of the actions within the WH during the period 2001-2005.

As to the retroactive immunity for telecomms, Quest refused the WH request to assist in the TSP because they thought the program was illegal. Verizon and ATT acquiesced. There needs to be accountability here as well.

In any case, under the current law, telecom companies get immunity as long as they follow certain requirements spelled out clearly in the law.

aceventura3 · 01-31-2008, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Unless you think of course, that it is just more Democratic political grandstanding as you have suggested about some of the recent Congressional oversight efforts in the past year.

The above is what I think is going on with this issue. I have not read/heard/seen anything that would change my preconceived view on this.

I also think Democrats have been politically grandstanding on many other issues since the beginning of Bush's term. My test comes down to a basic question: What would I do if I believed what Democratic Party leaders say they believe? On most of the issues my actions would be far different than what Democratic leaders actually do. To a degree the difference may be more about the nature of all politicians (and I am certainly not a politician or diplomatic) and because I generally support Bush, the actions of Democrats stand out. But like I wrote in the past there are things the Republican Congress did during Clinton's administration that I did not support and felt was political grandstanding.

dc_dux · 01-31-2008, 01:37 PM

ace....its a no win catch-22 for the Democrats in your world.

You said earlier in this thread (#40) that "My position is that Congress has the responsibility to make sure the President does not abuse his power..."

But if a Democrat controlled Congress attempts to meet that responsibility (after seven years of Republication abrogation of that responsibility)...they are politically grandstanding.

aceventura3 · 02-01-2008, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....its a no win catch-22 for the Democrats in your world.

You said earlier in this thread (#40) that "My position is that Congress has the responsibility to make sure the President does not abuse his power..."

But if a Democrat controlled Congress attempts to meet that responsibility (after seven years of Republication abrogation of that responsibility)...they are politically grandstanding.

Your logic is flawed.

Honest disagreement on issues leads to real debate and often to real solutions that benefits both sides of an issue. I think I could have an honest disagreement and real debate with Dennis Kucinich, but I don't think I could with Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, Hilery Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, etc. On the Republican side I would put Mit Romney or even a guy like Rush Limbaugh in that category. Kucinich says what he believes and acts on it, the others are more about blowing hot air than being willing to take an unpopular stance or act on what they think is the right thing to do.

The 60 Minute interview with the FBI agent who spent months interviewing Saddam Husein was very interesting this past Sunday. He said that Husein never believe the US would invade Iraq. He thought the US would drop bombs like in the past but not invade. I guess nobody other than Bush, some in his administration and I would think that getting the authorization to use military force, and saying we would use military force, would lead to actually using military force. The war could have been avoided if he understood that Bush was not the typical Washington politician. That is really sad and truly depressing.

In my book there is no place for "grandstanding" - simply say what you believe and act on your beliefs.

dc_dux · 02-01-2008, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Your logic is flawed.

ace....its not my logic, its your statements.

Tell me how I misinterpreted what you said SPECIFICIALLY about Congressional oversight and even more specifically about the oversight of alleged FISA violations by the President which you characterized as political grandstanding.

"My position is that Congress has the responsibility to make sure the President does not abuse his power..."

"The above (Democratic political grandstanding) is what I think is going on with this issue (Congressional oversight of warrantless wiretaps)"

The rest of your post is a diversion from the issue of Congressional oversight.

How do you get to the truth to verify or contradict your "preconceived view"?

aceventura3 · 02-01-2008, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....its not my logic, its your statements.
Tell me how I misinterpreted what you said...SPECIFICIALLY about Congressional oversight and even more specifically about the oversight of alleged FISA violations by the President which you characterized as political grandstanding.

How do you get to the truth?

You said there was a catch 22. There is not a catch 22. Saying what one believes and acting on one's beliefs is what I expect. If Congress is exercising their Constitutional responsibility, I don't have a problem with that. I may disagree with their actions but the disagreement can lead to improved checks and balances. Clearly there is no catch 22.

On FISA - if Bush violated the law Congress can, ignore the violation, fix the law or they can impeach the President. Given Bush violated the law, what do Democrats want?

dc_dux · 02-01-2008, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

On FISA - if Bush violated the law Congress can, ignore the violation, fix the law or they can impeach the President. Given Bush violated the law, what do Democrats want?

Some want Bush impeached, others want to ensure that such alleged violations never happen again.

BUT first they all want to get to the truth that the WH continues to withhold....what exactly did Bush do (and authorize) ...when did he do it...and who was involved?

That is the Constitutional role of Congressional oversight that you characterize as political grandstanding.

aceventura3 · 02-01-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

BUT first they all want to get to the truth that the WH continues to withhold....what exactly did Bush do (and authorize) ...when did he do it...and who was involved?

Bush authorized the use of phone records to track and tap telephone activity between terrorists out side of the US with people within the US. He receive cooperation from some telephone companies.

The buck stops with Bush.

dc_dux · 02-01-2008, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Bush authorized the use of phone records to track and tap telephone activity between terrorists out side of the US with people within the US. He receive cooperation from some telephone companies.

Unless you have access to information withheld from Congress, you (me and every other citizen and member of Congress) have no idea exactly what Bush did and the extent to which he did it.

It does not need to be made public if it would compromise national security, but Congress has the right to know (in closed session).

Thats why I hope you will support the Contempt of Congress charges if the WH does not comply.....to get to the facts and the truth!

aceventura3 · 02-01-2008, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Unless you have access to information withheld from Congress, you (me and every other citizen and member of Congress) have no idea exactly what Bush did and the extent to which he did it.

It does not need to be made public if it would compromise national security, but Congress has the right to know (in closed session).

Thats why I hope you will support the Contempt of Congress charges if the WH does not comply.....to get to the facts and the truth!

Are you suggesting that you don't know if Bush violated the FISA law?

Or do you need to know what color tie he was wearing on the day he authorized breaking the law or what he had for lunch on the day he asked to read transcripts on all the phone calls a certain person who frequents TFP and goes by the moniker of dc-dux made in 2007?

I think this is the Executive Order issued by the President to bypass the FISA law:

Quote:

§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court

(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
(2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General’s certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title.
(3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the court established under section 1803 (a) of this title a copy of his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless—
(A) an application for a court order with respect to the surveillance is made under sections 1801 (h)(4) and 1804 of this title; or
(B) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the surveillance under section 1806 (f) of this title.
(4) With respect to electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection, the Attorney General may direct a specified communication common carrier to—
(A) furnish all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish the electronic surveillance in such a manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier is providing its customers; and
(B) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence any records concerning the surveillance or the aid furnished which such carrier wishes to retain.
The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, such carrier for furnishing such aid.
(b) Applications for a court order under this subchapter are authorized if the President has, by written authorization, empowered the Attorney General to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title, and a judge to whom an application is made may, notwithstanding any other law, grant an order, in conformity with section 1805 of this title, approving electronic surveillance of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information, except that the court shall not have jurisdiction to grant any order approving electronic surveillance directed solely as described in paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section unless such surveillance may involve the acquisition of communications of any United States person.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/1802.html

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Bush violated the law:

Quote:

Wiretapping in the United States requires a court order. According to a 2005 decision in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:

[1] When Congress enacted the wiretapping provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, 18 U.S.C.§§ 2510-2522, it intended to “make doubly sure that the statutory authority [for wiretaps] be used with restraint and only where the circumstances warrant the surreptitious interception of wire and oral communications.” United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505, 515 (1974). Narrow construction of the wiretapping provisions furthers Congress’ dual purposes for the act of “ ‘(1) protecting the privacy of wire and oral communications, and (2) delineating on a uniform basis the circumstances and conditions under which the interception of wire and oral communications may be authorized.’ ” Gelbard v. United States, 408 U.S. 41, 48 (1972) (quoting S. Rep. No. 90-1097, at 66 (1968), reprinted in 1968 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2122, 2153).

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2005/1...-are-legal.htm

Without being too presumptuous, let me interpret:

Bush is saying - yea, I broke the law. I think I had good reason. F-you guys in Congress.

Now, what is Congress going to do?

dc_dux · 02-01-2008, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I think this is the Executive Order issued by the President to bypass the FISA law:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/1802.html

ummm...NO.

That is the codified language of the temporary FISA extension that was enacted last summer and that is currently under deliberation to be made permanent.

And my preconceived view is that Bush probably likes bolo ties.

aceventura3 · 02-01-2008, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ummm...NO.

That is the codified language of the temporary FISA extension that was enacted last summer and that is currently under deliberation to be made permanent.

And my preconceived view is that Bush probably likes bolo ties.

I hate reading Executive Orders, do you know which one it is? regardless, the point is the same.

dc_dux · 02-01-2008, 12:32 PM

There was no Executive Order.

As I understand it, Gonzales made the case that Bush had the authority to bypass FISA as a result of the Resolution passed by Congress a week after 9/11...something about the whereas clause "the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism " even though the Resolution clearly applies to military force, not domestic surveillance:

Quote:

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]

107th CONGRESS

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Approved September 18, 2001.
http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terr...jres23.es.html

What the House and Senate Oversight Committees are trying to do is get to the facts...all the facts.

aceventura3 · 02-01-2008, 01:37 PM

I like one of the arguments made by Gonzales stating that the administration did not seek revision of FISA because they knew Congress would not support the changes they sought.

So, not only did Bush break the law, he knew he was breaking the law, and he had discussion about why he was going to break the law. I guess I will sit and watch as the folks in Congress investigate this some more. Or, perhaps they will just revise the FISA law on a Friday before a long weekend and let the issue just kinda fade awwwwaaaaay. Bush broke the law and we know it.

Quote:

Third, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has admitted that the administration did not seek to amend FISA to authorize the NSA spying program because it was advised that Congress would reject such an amendment. The administration cannot argue on the one hand that Congress authorized the NSA program in the AUMF, and at the same time that it did not ask Congress for such authorization because it feared Congress would say no.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffr...-_b_13522.html

The above is a good link laying out several legal arguments about Bush's violation of the law.

aceventura3 · 02-12-2008, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace, unfortunately, your opinion is completely contrary to the facts...the following sez so, and so does the federal judge who has so far allowed the civil litigation against the telecomms to proceed, within the workable and functioning framework intended for litigation such as this.

I think you've been peruaded to "buy into" solving a problem that the telecoms allegedly face, but doesn't, in fact exist.

Why, if they have broken the law and violated our rights and protections, as their customers, and as residents of the US, ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THE COST OF THESE COMPANIES' LITIGATION? Your priorities seem a bit misplaced.....

Host,

The Senate took a vote today on this issue it looks like the majority favor immunity for telecoms. It seems about 18 Democrats voted with Republicans on this issue.

Quote:

WASHINGTON -- The Senate voted Tuesday to shield from lawsuits telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on their customers without court permission after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

After nearly two months of stops and starts, the Senate rejected by a vote of 31 to 67 a move to strip away a grant of retroactive legal immunity for the companies.

President Bush has promised to veto any new surveillance bill that does not protect the companies that helped the government in its warrantless wiretapping program, arguing that it is essential if the private sector is to give the government the help it needs.

About 40 lawsuits have been filed against telecom companies by people alleging violations of wiretapping and privacy laws.

The Senate also rejected two amendments that sought to water down the immunity provision.

One, co-sponsored by Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, would have substituted the government for the telecoms in lawsuits, allowing the court cases to go forward but shifting the cost and burden of defending the program.

The other, pushed by California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, would have given a secret court that oversees government surveillance inside the U.S. the power to dismiss lawsuits if it found that the companies acted in good faith and on the request of the president or attorney general.

Full telecom immunity must still be approved by the House; its version of the surveillance bill does not provide immunity.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1202..._us_whats_news

Do you think these Senators are all wrong the same way you think I am?

And perhaps DC can explain how this vote is not a purely political posturing given the level of rhetoric from Democratic Party leadership on this issue and their continued desire to investigate what really happened. seems like today many in the Senate know enough to support immunity for the telecoms.

dc_dux · 02-12-2008, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Host,

The Senate took a vote today on this issue it looks like the majority favor immunity for telecoms. It seems about 18 Democrats voted with Republicans on this issue.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1202..._us_whats_news

Do you think these Senators are all wrong the same way you think I am?

And perhaps DC can explain how this vote is not a purely political posturing given the level of rhetoric from Democratic Party leadership on this issue and their continued desire to investigate what really happened. seems like today many in the Senate know enough to support immunity for the telecoms.

Ace....which Democrats are posturing...the 18 who voted for the immunity or the 31 who voted against? or do all Democrats in the Senate posture on every issue?

Are the overwhelming majority of Democrats in the House posturing..their bill does not include retroactive immunity for the telcomms?

Of course, the Congressional investigation into the 5 years of unlawful surveillance activities by the Administration should go forward. Not necessarily for punitive purposes, but to fully understand how the processes in place failed to provide for proper oversight, allowed the executive branch to interpret its Constitutional powers without consulting the other co-equal branches, and failed to protect the rights of citizens.

That, along with a better FISA bill (like the House version) is the best way to ensure that future administrations will not take such liberty with the Constitution.

loquitur · 02-12-2008, 03:34 PM

dc-dux, all politicians posture on every issue. It's what they do, part of their job description. The party differences dictate whom they posture for and what language they use.

Sometimes the posturing is even sincere, or a tool to get to a sincerely desired goal. Doesn't mean there is no posturing, though.

aceventura3 · 02-12-2008, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Ace....which Democrats are posturing...the 18 who voted for the immunity or the 31 who voted against? or do all Democrats in the Senate posture on every issue?

I don't know. But it looks like Fienstein, assume she voted her convictions, is headed for some trouble from some Democrats. The thought that she might agree with Bush on an issue?!? My goodness, what next?

It is easy for me to think that some in the Senate would vote their convictions on this issue while others may vote based on what may serve a political purpose, such as covering their a$$ or some other purpose than doing what is best for the nation.

Quote:

One day after voting to elevate a divisive conservative judge to the federal appeals court in New Orleans, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein was the president's guest aboard Air Force One. She had been invited to survey the damage from the recent spate of Southern California wildfires.

The senator later remarked privately that she found her conversation with Bush aboard Air Force One "illuminating," a source close to Feinstein told the Huffington Post.

Two weeks later, Feinstein was one of two Democrats on the Senate judiciary committee to vote to send Michael Mukasey's nomination to be the new attorney general to the full Senate. Her support helped turn the tide in favor of a nomination that faced an uncertain future after Mukasey refused to say whether waterboarding was torture.

When the full Senate voted, Feinstein was one of only six Democrats to vote in favor of confirming Mukasey.

Now, a coalition of progressive Democrats upset with Feinstein's controversial votes will ask the California Democratic Party to censure her at its executive board meeting this weekend, the Huffington Post has learned.

The move comes as Feinstein again finds herself under fire for saying Thursday that she now supports granting legal immunity to telecom companies that shared customer email and phone messages with the federal government as part of the warrantless surveillance program.

"Dianne Feinstein does not listen to the people of California," said Rick Jacobs, president of the Courage Campaign, a progressive organization in California. "She supports George Bush's agenda time after time."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/1...u_n_72342.html

Personally, I think it has been very clear that the rhetoric on the FISA issue has been "over the top". As the issue fades from the headlines, it seems Congress will do the right thing in spite of all the empty rhetoric.

Also, you think there should be more investigation into this issue, but I don't know what else you need to know and for what purpose - given a non-punitive goal. Seems like they would want to conclude investigative efforts before making law on this issue.

dc_dux · 02-12-2008, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Personally, I think it has been very clear that the rhetoric on the FISA issue has been "over the top". As the issue fades from the headlines, it seems Congress will do the right thing in spite of all the empty rhetoric.

Also, you think there should be more investigation into this issue, but I don't know what else you need to know and for what purpose - given a non-punitive goal. Seems like they would want to conclude investigative efforts before making law on this issue.

ace....you and I obviously place a different level of importance on Congressional oversight. You have said repeatedly in this and other threads that you think its political grandstanding and a waste of time and money. IMO, it is a critical responsibility of Congress equal to enacting legislation.

And IMO, this oversight investigation has a much broader reach and potential impact than just the FISA law. It goes to the issue of a president unilaterally determining his own powers under the Constitution and withholding that decision from the legislative and judicial branches.

What else do we need to know?

Most importantly, how about a detailed explanation from the WH on its legal basis or justification for determining that the 2001 "use of force" resolution gave Bush the power to conduct surveillance on American citizens without a judicial warrant. Did the WH ever plan to inform Congress or keep it secret until they got caught?

Other unanswered questions?

How about determining if there was a "quid pro quo" between the WH and the telcomms.....multi-million$ federal contracts in exchange for "voluntarily" assisting in a potentially illegal activity? or was their coercion by the WH?

How about the criteria used to determine which citizens' rights were worth violating the law? Was there "reasonable cause" or was it a "witch hunt"?

But I guess those are just "over the top" questions of little relevance.

host · 02-13-2008, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I don't know. But it looks like Fienstein, assume she voted her convictions, is headed for some trouble from some Democrats. The thought that she might agree with Bush on an issue?!? My goodness, what next?

It is easy for me to think that some in the Senate would vote their convictions on this issue while others may vote based on what may serve a political purpose, such as covering their a$$ or some other purpose than doing what is best for the nation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/1...u_n_72342.html

Personally, I think it has been very clear that the rhetoric on the FISA issue has been "over the top". As the issue fades from the headlines, it seems Congress will do the right thing in spite of all the empty rhetoric.

Also, you think there should be more investigation into this issue, but I don't know what else you need to know and for what purpose - given a non-punitive goal. Seems like they would want to conclude investigative efforts before making law on this issue.

Got a challenge for you, ace....point out example(s) that you believe are inaccurate in this description of what has "gone down", since the NY Times first published the reporting, in December, 2005, of illegal federal government wiretapping and datamining of US residents, and WHY it is inaccurate, and I'll "stand down" if the information you post justifies it, or I'll post my supported opinion why I disagree with you.

IMO, the title of the thread is even truer today than when I posted it....

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...day/print.html

<h2>Amnesty Day for Bush and lawbreaking telecoms</h2>


The Senate's actions today in permanently protecting Bush officials from clear lawbreaking illustrate how far we've tumbled from the Church Committee of the post-Watergate era.


Glenn Greenwald

Feb. 12, 2008 | (<a href="#postid-updateS1">Updated below</a> - <a href="#postid-updateS2">Update II</a> - <a href="#postid-updateS3">Update III</a> - <a href="#postid-updateS4">Update IV</a> - <a href="#postid-updateS5">Update V</a>) 

The Senate today -- led by Jay Rockefeller, enabled by Harry Reid, and with the active support of at least 12 (and probably more) Democrats, in conjunction with an <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/30/bipartisanship/">as-always lockstep GOP caucus</a> -- will vote to legalize warrantless spying on the telephone calls and emails of Americans, and will also provide full retroactive amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms, thus forever putting an end to any efforts to investigate and obtain a judicial ruling regarding the Bush administration's years-long illegal spying programs aimed at Americans. The long, hard efforts by AT&T, Verizon and their all-star, bipartisan cast of lobbyists to grease the wheels of the Senate -- <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/22/telecom_immunity/">led by</a> former Bush 41 Attorney General William Barr and former Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick -- are about to pay huge dividends, as such noble efforts invariably do with our political establishment. 

 It's worth taking a step back and recalling that all of this is the result of the December, 2005 story by the New York Times which first reported that the Bush administration was illegally spying on Americans for many years without warrants of any kind. <h3>All sorts of "controversy" erupted from that story. Democrats everywhere expressed dramatic, unbridled outrage, vowing that this would not stand. James Risen and Eric Lichtblau were awarded Pulitzer Prizes for exposing this serious lawbreaking. All sorts of Committees were formed, papers written, speeches given, conferences convened, and editorials published to denounce this extreme abuse of presidential power. This was illegality and corruption at the highest level of government, on the grandest scale, and of the most transparent strain. 

 What was the outcome of all of that sturm und drang? What were the consequences for the President for having broken the law so deliberately and transparently? Absolutely nothing.</h3> To the contrary, the Senate is about to enact a bill which has two simple purposes: (1) to render retroactively legal the President's illegal spying program by legalizing its crux: warrantless eavesdropping on Americans, and (2) to stifle forever the sole remaining avenue for finding out what the Government did and obtaining a judicial ruling as to its legality: namely, the lawsuits brought against the co-conspiring telecoms. In other words, the only steps taken by our political class upon exposure by the NYT of this profound lawbreaking is to endorse it all and then suppress any and all efforts to investigate it and subject it to the rule of law. 

 To be sure, achieving this took some time. When Bill Frist was running the Senate and Pat Roberts was in charge of the Intelligence Committee, Bush and Cheney couldn't get this done (the same FISA and amnesty bill that the Senate will pass today stalled in the 2006 Senate). They had to wait until the Senate belonged (nominally) to Harry Reid and, more importantly, Jay Rockefeller was installed as Committee Chairman, and then -- and only then -- were they able to push the Senate to bequeath to them and their lawbreaking allies full-scale protection from investigation and immunity from the consequences of their lawbreaking. 

 That's really the most extraordinary aspect of all of this, if one really thinks about it -- it isn't merely that the Democratic Senate failed to investigate or bring about accountability for the clearest and more brazen acts of lawbreaking in the Bush administration, although that is true. Far beyond that, once in power, they are eagerly and aggressively taking affirmative steps -- extraordinary steps -- to protect Bush officials. While still knowing virtually nothing about what they did, they are acting to legalize Bush's illegal spying programs and put an end to all pending investigations and efforts to uncover what happened. 

 How far we've come -- really: disgracefully tumbled -- from the days of the Church Committee, which aggressively uncovered surveillance abuses and then drafted legislation to outlaw them and prevent them from ever occurring again. It is, of course, precisely those post-Watergate laws which the Bush administration and their telecom conspirators purposely violated, and for which they are about to receive permanent, lawless protection. 

What Harry Reid's Senate is about to do today would be tantamount to the Church Committee -- after discovering the decades of abuses of eavesdropping powers by various administrations -- proceeding in response to write legislation to legalize unchecked surveillance, bar any subjects of the illegal eavesdropping from obtaining remedies in court, and then pass a bill with no purpose other than to provide retroactive immunity for the surveillance lawbreakers. That would be an absurd and incomparably corrupt nonsequitur, but that is precisely what Harry Reid's Senate -- in response to the NYT's 2005 revelations of clear surveillance lawbreaking by the administration -- is going to do today. 

 Analogously, in 1973, The Washington Post won the Pulitzer Prize for its work in uncovering the Watergate abuses, and that led to what would have been the <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/11/26/gop74/">imminent bipartisan impeachment</a> of the President until he was forced to resign in disgrace. <h3>By stark and depressing contrast, in 2006, Jim Risen, Eric Lichtblau and the NYT won Pulitzer Prizes for their work in uncovering illegal spying on Americans at the highest levels of the Government, and that led to bipartisan legislation to legalize the illegal spying programs and provide full-scale retroactive amnesty for the lawbreakers. That's the difference between a country operating under the rule of law and one that is governed by lawlessness and lawbreaking license for the politically powerful and well-connected. </h3>

 Chris Dodd went to the Senate floor last night and gave another eloquent and impassioned speech, warning of the consequences for our country from telecom amnesty. He specifically focused on the permanently and comprehensively suppressive effect it will have on efforts to investigate what the Bush administration did in illegally spying on Americans. 

At around 2:25, Sen. Dodd quoted from this blog (from <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/31/mukasey/">this post specifically</a> regarding last week's testimony of Michael Mukasey) concerning the consequences for our country from ensuring, as the Senate is about to do, that such blatant and deliberate governmental lawbreaking is protected and goes forever unpunished (h/t selise): <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nAdj9aACgmM&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nAdj9aACgmM&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> From Frank Church and the bipartisan oversight protections of the post-Watergate abuses in the mid-1970s to Jay Rockefeller, Dick Cheney, legalized warrantless eavesdropping and retroactive telecom amnesty in 2008 -- that vivid collapse into the sewer illustrates as potently as anything could what has happened to this country over the last eight years. <a id="postid-updateS1">UPDATE</a>: The Dodd/Feingold amendment to remove telecom immunity from the bill just failed by a whopping vote of 31-67 -- 20 votes shy of the 50 needed for a passage. A total of 18 Democrats joined all Republicans in voting for immunity: Bayh, Inouye, Johnson, Landrieu, McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Stabenow, Feinstein, Kohl, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar, Carper, Mikulski, Conrad, Webb, and Lincoln. Obama voted against immunity, and Hillary Clinton was the only Senator not voting. Thus, the breakdown on the vote was similar to what it always is: 

 Democrats -- 31-18 

Republicans -- 0-49 

As always, when it comes to the most radical Bush policies, the GOP lines up lock-step behind them, and the Democrats split, always with more than enough to join the Republicans to ensure passage. That's the process that is called "bipartisanship" in the Beltway. 

Perhaps even more repugnantly, even Dianne Feinstein's amendment merely to provide that the FISA bill they are about to pass would be the "exclusive means" for presidential eavesdropping failed by a vote of 57-41 (it fell 3 votes shy of the 60 votes needed for passage, under the agreement which requires that every amendment attract the number of votes it cannot get). As <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/12/11136/6768/433/455177">Kagro at Kos says</a>: <blockquote>In rejecting the Feinstein "exclusivity" amendment to the FISA revision considered on the Senate floor today -- an amendment that failed by a vote of 57 Ayes to 41 Noes, thanks to another "painless filibuster" of precisely the type we were promised would not be tolerated on this bill -- the Senate has voted to say that although they were passing a law governing surveillance, it was OK if the President decided that he really didn't like the law very much and wished to make up his own instead. 

 Exclusivity -- the purpose of the amendment that "failed" -- meant simply this: that the law they were passing was the law, and it was the governing authority for how surveillance could be conducted in America. 

 The Senate just rejected it, so that means that they're passing a law, but if a president decides later on that he thinks there's really some other controlling authority besides the law, that's OK.</blockquote>So not only is the Senate enacting a bill granting vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers to the President, they are unwilling even to declare that it is the law of the land and that he is required to abide by it (Matt Browner Hamlin has the equally reprehensible vote tallies on the <a href="http://holdfastblog.com/2008/02/12/fisa-vote-tallies-part-ii/">other amendments here</a>). <a id="postid-updateS2">UPDATE II</a>: FDL has a <a href="http://action.firedoglake.com/page/petition/RestoreFISA">petition, jointly sponsored by me, directed at House members,</a> demanding that they reject this lawless, authoritarian Senate bill and defend their own, previously passed bill (the RESTORE Act). I encourage everyone to sign it. You can do so <a href="http://action.firedoglake.com/page/petition/RestoreFISA">here</a>. <a id="postid-updateS3">UPDATE III</a>: Atrios <a href="http://atrios.blogspot.com/2008_02_10_archive.html#3472928617036355183">makes a point</a> always worth highlighting:<blockquote>While one can't discount <strike>legalized bribery</strike> campaign dollars entirely, I do think too often we assume they're the reason lawmakers do the "wrong thing" when the simpler explanation that they believe the wrong thing is in fact the right thing is the answer. 

 <h3>Too many Democrats simply don't have the values we imagine they do, and it lets them off the hook too much to assume they're simply craven people who need to get re-elected instead of bad people who don't share our values.</h3></blockquote>There's a temptation, particularly on days like today, to talk about what motivates "Democrats" -- as though they're a monolith acting collectively with the same drives. They're not. Some do what they do because their only concern is a craven desire to be re-elected. Others believe in one thing but are afraid to vote that way (because they'll be called Soft on Terror, Liberal, etc.), while others still are influenced by Beltway money and other cultural pressures. Some are motivated by a combination of those motives. 

But a large number of elected Democrats vote in favor of the radical Bush agenda for a very simple reason: they believe in it. Despite the glorious "D" after their name, their views are materially indistinguishable from the defining ones of the Bush faction on the key issues. A huge portion of Congressional Democrats are members of the corrupt, bipartisan Beltway political establishment first, and everything only follows that, and they thus embrace and support the values of that establishment. 

That's why Bush has won and -- even with "Democrats in control of Congress" -- continues to win most key votes. The fault lines in the Beltway aren't primarily between Republican and Democrat but between those who support the core values of our political establishment (as reflected by the Bush administration) and those who don't. Through a bulging coalition of both Democrats and Republicans, the pro-establishment forces have a strong, clear and easy majority, and that's why the most radical Bush measures continue not only to prevail, but -- as today -- do so easily. <a id="postid-updateS4">UPDATE IV</a>: Here is the first paragraph from Eric Lichtblau's <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/washington/12cnd-fisa.html?ei=5088&en=b684a98fd798aad6&ex=1360558800&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1202850322-SC34WCipOlw2ivTdOIqxXA">NYT article this afternoon</a>:<blockquote>After more than a year of heated political wrangling, the Senate handed the White House a major victory Tuesday by voting to broaden the government's spy powers and to give legal protection to phone companies that cooperated in President Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program.</blockquote>To conserve resources, newspapers should just create a macro of that phrase -- "the Senate handed the White House a major victory today" -- and then just program it to be automatically inserted into every article reporting on anything done by the Senate. That system would be foolproof. 

On a related note, The Washington Post's <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/02/12/BL2008021201228_3.html?hpid=opinionsbox1">Dan Froomkin cites the primary justification</a> for telecom amnesty -- that these companies were just doing what they were told by the Government -- and then asks rhetorically: <h2>"isn't that the very definition of a police state: that companies should do whatever the government asks, even if they know it's illegal?"</h2> I used to think that amnesty supporters held their position because they didn't understand this extremely simple point, but now I think that most of them have their position precisely because they do understand it. A lawless "police state" -- and that's the only term that can be used to describe what this bill creates -- is exactly what our political establishment desires. <a id="postid-updateS5">UPDATE V</a>: Final passage in the Senate of the Cheney/Rockefeller bill was 68-29. 19 Democrats joined all Republicans to vote in favor of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty: Conrad, Rockefeller, Baucus, Webb, Kohl, Whitehouse, Bayh, Johnson, Bill Nelson, Mikulski, McCaskill, Lincoln, Casey, Salazar, Inouye, Ben Nelson, Pryor, Carper, and Landrieu. Neither Obama nor Clinton voted on final passage.





 -- Glenn Greenwald

aceventura3 · 02-13-2008, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....you and I obviously place a different level of importance on Congressional oversight.

I place a high level of importance on the role of Congressional oversight. I believe if a President is unchecked, he/she would ultimately try to assume total control of government. The role of Congress is the key to making sure that does not happen.

In this case:

I think we know what happened and why.
I think we know the legal arguments used by the Administration.
I think we know the Administration knew they were breaking the original FISA law.
I think we know the Administration wanted to keep the issue secret.
I think we know the Administration made a decision not to approach Congress to change the law.
I think we know the Administration got caught in this abuse of executive power issue.

And given all of the above, to me the question is: What is next? I think we fix the FISA law and move on. I know others have a different opinion, and that is o.k. with me. If the majority want to hold the Administration accountable, we should proceed with that. Bush is responsible and I am sure he would attempt to clearly communicate what he did and why in the proper setting at the proper time and take full responsibility. To me the key is that Congress needs to act, do something and stop talking about this.

I have written the above in different ways, but my points have been consistent. I think I am clear, but you don't seem to understand. Probably a failing on my part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Got a challenge for you, ace....point out example(s) that you believe are inaccurate in this description of what has "gone down", since the NY Times first published the reporting, in December, 2005, of illegal federal government wiretapping and datamining of US residents, and WHY it is inaccurate, and I'll "stand down" if the information you post justifies it, or I'll post my supported opinion why I disagree with you.

IMO, the title of the thread is even truer today than when I posted it....

I have no issue with the factual information. However, some of the rhetoric is "over the top" in my opinion. For example: I don't believe I live in a "police state", do you?

dc_dux · 02-14-2008, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I think we know what happened and why.
I think we know the legal arguments used by the Administration.
I think we know the Administration wanted to keep the issue secret

ace.....if you know what happened, then you know more than Congress.

So tell me how many US citizens were illegally wiretapped and what test of "reasonble cause" was used to justify such action (FISA requires that this information be provided to Congress on a quarterly or semi-annual basis)

Tell me...what is the legal basis for keeping it secret?

And tell me the specific legal argument used by the Administration that gives the president the unilateral power to bypass existing laws...and not just that the 2001 Use of Force Resolution provided the legal authorization (there must be some language in that resolution that the WH believed provided this extraordinary presidential power).

And the most important question of all:

Since the passage of the 2001 Use of Force resolution by Congress, has Bush invoked this alleged presidential authority under the resolution in order to undertake or authorize any other activities beyond warrantless wiretapping of American citizens.

ace....do you know the answer to this question? Do you think Congress has the right to know if the WH is conducting other illegal activities based on its own interpretation of presidential powers?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

... Bush is responsible and I am sure he would attempt to clearly communicate what he did and why in the proper setting at the proper time and take full responsibility.

Now that is a real leap of faith!

Based on what, I cant imagine....particularly in light of the WH destruction of millions of e-mails, Bush's EO to effectively nullify the Presidential Records Act, unprecedented claims of Executive Privilege in conversations/documents not directly involving the Pres, WH blocking DoJ internal investigations by denying security clearances to DoJ investigators, etc.

Tully Mars · 02-14-2008, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace.....if you know what happened, then you know more than Congress.

I beleive he stated he "thinks we know" not "I know." Quite a bit of difference there.

But, yes I see no reason to think or believe Bush Jr. has any reason to come clean on this issue or any other issue. Maybe 80 to 100 years from now there'll be a ton of highly redacted documents released that answer no one's questions. Other then that I don't foresee any info coming from this Admin. But I could always be wrong.

dc_dux · 02-14-2008, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

I beleive he stated he "thinks we know" not "I know." Quite a bit of difference there....

I stand corrected, but that sounds like Rumsfeld speak

"...but as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

aceventura3 · 02-14-2008, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace.....if you know what happened, then you know more than Congress.

I don't believe I have made any claims on this subject that are not public knowledge and have been documented and discussed openly. If I have please correct me. There may be some who still have the belief that the Administration did not violate FISA or abuse his executive power. But I think most people understand what happened and why - if they agree with they why is a different question but we do know the stated explanation.

Quote:

So tell me how many US citizens were illegally wiretapped and what test of "reasonble cause" was used to justify such action (FISA requires that this information be provided to Congress on a quarterly or semi-annual basis)

I don't know the number. I don't want to know the number because I don't want the information made public. I still believe it is a national security issue.

Agree or not, the reasonable cause in my opinion is "communications with known terrorists". I think it reasonable to "spy" on people who are communicating with known terrorists. In my view Bush should not have given authorization for this kind of "spying" unilaterally. However, I may have done the same as he did given the circumstances. Hindsight is 20/20.

Quote:

Tell me...what is the legal basis for keeping it secret?

It is no longer secret, I am not sure how the illegal "spying" was made public.
The motivation to keep the program secret was to make known terrorists think they could freely communicate.

I think the media played an important role in brining this to light.

Quote:

And tell me the specific legal argument used by the Administration that gives the president the unilateral power to bypass existing laws...and not just that the 2001 Use of Force Resolution provided the legal authorization (there must be some language in that resolution that the WH believed provided this extraordinary presidential power).

The President has no such authority. I have stated that I think the President broke the FISA law. Again the question facing us now is what do we do about it? In my view, we fix the law and move on. Some believe punitive action should be taken, I respect that view, I just don't agree with it.

But more directly answering your question, One of the links pointed out the legal arguments used by the Bush administration. I thought those arguments were pretty weak.

Quote:

And the most important question of all:

Since the passage of the 2001 Use of Force resolution by Congress, has Bush invoked this alleged presidential authority under the resolution in order to undertake or authorize any other activities beyond warrantless wiretapping of American citizens.

ace....do you know the answer to this question?

No. If Congress wants to investigate that question, they should. But you do realize it is a different question, don't you?

Quote:

Do you think Congress has the right to know if the WH is conducting other illegal activities based on its own interpretation of presidential powers?

Yes.

Quote:

Now that is a real leap of faith!

Based on what, I cant imagine....particularly in light of the WH destruction of millions of e-mails, Bush's EO to effectively nullify the Presidential Records Act, unprecedented claims of Executive Privilege in conversations/documents not directly involving the Pres, WH blocking DoJ internal investigations by denying security clearances to DoJ investigators, etc.

Perhaps the Presidential Records act is un-Contitutional, I don't know. But if I believed it was, and I were President, I would destroy records as much as I wanted until I was challenged on the issue.

Checks and balances is not a passive activity. Perhaps Congress should investigate things like this rather than what was in the needle of what a trainer may of or may not of stuck in someone's a$$ - don't you agree?

dc_dux · 02-14-2008, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I don't know the number. I don't want to know the number because I don't want the information made public. I still believe it is a national security issue.

Agree or not, the reasonable cause in my opinion is "communications with known terrorists". I think it reasonable to "spy" on people who are communicating with known terrorists. In my view Bush should not have given authorization for this kind of "spying" unilaterally. However, I may have done the same as he did given the circumstances. Hindsight is 20/20.

The number of wiretaps (not the names) with a FISA warrant are made public and provided to Congress on an annual (not quarterly or semi-annual as I noted in an earlier post) basis....including the years, 2002-2005, when nearly all FISA requests were granted (LINK), yet Bush still went outside the law to authorize additional wiretaps of US citizens without a warrant. The new FISA law requires annual reporting as well.

So why shouldnt the number of citizens who were subject to warrantless wiretaps under Bush's illegal TSP program be held to the same standard and shared with Congress as well? What does the administration have to hide?

Quote:

It is no longer secret, I am not sure how the illegal "spying" was made public.
The motivation to keep the program secret was to make known terrorists think they could freely communicate.

I think the media played an important role in brining this to light.

It was made public, through the media, by an NSA employee who had serious and justifiable concerns that the program violated the Constitutional rights of citizens.

Quote:

But more directly answering your question, One of the links pointed out the legal arguments used by the Bush administration. I thought those arguments were pretty weak.

And the most important question of all:

Since the passage of the 2001 Use of Force resolution by Congress, has Bush invoked this alleged presidential authority under the resolution in order to undertake or authorize any other activities beyond warrantless wiretapping of American citizens.

...If Congress wants to investigate that question, they should. But you do realize it is a different question, don't you?

The links you provided offered the opinion of legal scholars on what they assumed were the legal arguments of the Bush administration.

The Bush administration should provide a detailed legal justification describing in detail how the 2001 resolution provided this new extraordinary power for the president to ignore existing law. We should not have to rely on outside legal scholars to suggest what they "think" was the legal justification offered by Bush/Gonzales.

Because...the question of whether the Bush administration used the same rationale for other potentially illegal activities is NOT a separate question but gets to the heart of the issue of how Bush used the resolution to circumvent existing law and certainly is within the pervue of the Judiciary Committees.

Quote:

Perhaps the Presidential Records act is un-Contitutional, I don't know. But if I believed it was, and I were President, I would destroy records as much as I wanted until I was challenged on the issue.

If Bush believes the Presidental Records Act is unconstitutional, he should have the Solicitor General of the US file a case with the Federal district court or ask for a fasttrack for USSC review.

Until such time, destroying records is an unlawful act and should be investigated by Congress.

Quote:

Perhaps Congress should investigate things like this rather than what was in the needle of what a trainer may of or may not of stuck in someone's a$$ - don't you agree?

I agree with you on this last hearing.

But if you recall, the hearings on this subject initially also focused on the pervasiveness of steroids and HGH in non-professional sports (ie high school and college) and if there needed to be a stronger federal education and enforcement role in response to the growing use of such "performance enhancing" drugs by kids.

aceventura3 · 02-14-2008, 04:11 PM

Here is my bottom line:

1) What was done was done. The best we can do going forward, in my opinion, is to make sure the President and Congress work together to make sure we have a system in place that accomplishes the goals on both sides of the issue.

2) On the issue of immunity - We will not be served if through litigation certain things related to this are made public. For example: If you have a neighbor (US citizen in the USA) who was innocently, in regular contact by phone with a known terrorist overseas and the administration tracked that activity but took no action - what happens if that is made public? How are we going to benefit? What is going to happen to your neighbor? In my view nobody wins, telecoms spend millions in defense costs, we are not made safer, and your neighbor's life may be ruined. Congress needs to put this issue to rest.

dc_dux · 02-14-2008, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Here is my bottom line:

1) What was done was done. The best we can do going forward, in my opinion, is to make sure the President and Congress work together to make sure we have a system in place that accomplishes the goals on both sides of the issue.

2) On the issue of immunity - We will not be served if through litigation certain things related to this are made public. For example: If you have a neighbor (US citizen in the USA) who was innocently, in regular contact by phone with a known terrorist overseas and the administration tracked that activity but took no action - what happens if that is made public? How are we going to benefit? What is going to happen to your neighbor? In my view nobody wins, telecoms spend millions in defense costs, we are not made safer, and your neighbor's life may be ruined. Congress needs to put this issue to rest.

Thats cool....we clearly have different bottom lines.

It is evident by the fact that you have stated on several occasions that if you were president, you would willfully violate the law and your oath of office and spy on American citizens without a warrant or shred White House documents if you thought you knew better than Congress and the Judiciary or if you could get away with it. I would not.

(I have visions of the Ace Administration....the resurrection of J Edgar Hoover or channeling Nixon or perhaps a kitchen cabinet of Bush/Chaney as advisers on how to circumvent the laws of the land).

aceventura3 · 02-15-2008, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Thats cool....we clearly have different bottom lines.

It is evident by the fact that you have stated on several occasions that if you were president, you would willfully violate the law and your oath of office and spy on American citizens without a warrant or shred White House documents if you thought you knew better than Congress and the Judiciary or if you could get away with it. I would not.

(I have visions of the Ace Administration....the resurrection of J Edgar Hoover or channeling Nixon or perhaps a kitchen cabinet of Bush/Chaney as advisers on how to circumvent the laws of the land).

Again you seem to suggest that there would be no circumstance under which you could conceive of violating a law. "Bad laws", need to be broken, they need to be challenged. My first rule in life is to always do what I think is right. If I happen to break a law doing what is the right thing to do, I will accept the consequences but I will always be able to hold my head up high. If I were President and felt I needed to break an outdated FISA law, I would.

View Poll Results: Can you ever envision a scenario where you'd consider violent anti goverment protest
No	5	27.78%
Yes	11	61.11%
If you answered yes, would passage of FISA without objection by Clinton and Obama be a time?	2	11.11%
Voters: 18. You may not vote on this poll

01-23-2008, 11:14 AM	#41 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Host...I, too, was pissed that the House Democrats are backing down on the contempt citation....at least temporarily. I will also be angry if Congress does not act on the WH's destruction of 500,000 emails in violation of the Presidential Records Act, particularly during critical times like the outing of Plame and the fabrication of statements to justify the invasion of Iraq. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

01-31-2008, 01:37 PM	#54 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace....its a no win catch-22 for the Democrats in your world. You said earlier in this thread (#40) that "My position is that Congress has the responsibility to make sure the President does not abuse his power..." But if a Democrat controlled Congress attempts to meet that responsibility (after seven years of Republication abrogation of that responsibility)...they are politically grandstanding. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 01-31-2008 at 01:41 PM..

02-14-2008, 04:11 PM	#78 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Here is my bottom line: 1) What was done was done. The best we can do going forward, in my opinion, is to make sure the President and Congress work together to make sure we have a system in place that accomplishes the goals on both sides of the issue. 2) On the issue of immunity - We will not be served if through litigation certain things related to this are made public. For example: If you have a neighbor (US citizen in the USA) who was innocently, in regular contact by phone with a known terrorist overseas and the administration tracked that activity but took no action - what happens if that is made public? How are we going to benefit? What is going to happen to your neighbor? In my view nobody wins, telecoms spend millions in defense costs, we are not made safer, and your neighbor's life may be ruined. Congress needs to put this issue to rest. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

01-30-2008, 05:09 PM	#51 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Pardon me, but I find all this posturing about law and the legal process to be highly amusing. Repeat after me: "motion to dismiss" is different from "summary judgment" which in turn is different from "trial." Got that? The issue here is subjecting actors to litigation risk (not liability) for good faith actions; it has nothing to do with immunizing intentional invasions of constitutional rights. The issue is how far into the discovery stage a plaintiff can get, or, put another way, what the pleading rules are for establishing a litigable claim for relief. This isn't a substantive readjustment of rights, and it's not elimination of an existing claim nor creation of a substantive right. If you get fucked by the phone company you can still sue, but you have to show that indeed you were fucked, not just treated shabbily, which is what phone companies do. What you can't do is fish around and make a PIA of yourself in the hope of getting a settlement.

02-12-2008, 03:34 PM	#68 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	dc-dux, all politicians posture on every issue. It's what they do, part of their job description. The party differences dictate whom they posture for and what language they use. Sometimes the posturing is even sincere, or a tool to get to a sincerely desired goal. Doesn't mean there is no posturing, though.