Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community
Page 5 of 10 1234 5 678910
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   Did the Bush admin break the law? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/98845-did-bush-admin-break-law.html)

pan6467 12-18-2005 08:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
After hearing all the news shows today it appears that with the FISA act of 78 and the PATRIOT ACT Bush had all the authority to order taps, but not without FISC warrants. If the hearings show that Bush broke the law, it will be interesting to see what happens.
Therein lies the problem.

How many Congressmen knew? And will they be to busy covering their own asses for allowing this to happen, thus letting Bush off.

Given the past events, unless there is a huge outcry, Congress will make a little noise and do nothing substantive. After all is not the game to protect your own ass? Screw the country, they have their Congressional pensions and lifelong benefits to worry about.

stevo 12-19-2005 07:35 AM
I guess while I was having a weekend this thread continued on. Thats good. I even missed a bannination, but from skimming over the poor guy was being attacked for his grammar, I didn't really think he was asking for it, but I don't really know the full story on him. Good luck to this week's rookie.

I've gone through and read from where I left off, and I've pretty much come to a conclusion. I feel the terrorists are more of a threat to me than my government. Others feel the government is more of a threat to them than terrorists. Then, others don't even believe terrorists exist. Then, others do, but his name is George Bush. I guess that sums it up, right?

pan6467 12-19-2005 07:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
I guess while I was having a weekend this thread continued on. Thats good. I even missed a bannination, but from skimming over the poor guy was being attacked for his grammar, I didn't really think he was asking for it, but I don't really know the full story on him. Good luck to this week's rookie.

I've gone through and read from where I left off, and I've pretty much come to a conclusion. I feel the terrorists are more of a threat to me than my government. Others feel the government is more of a threat to them than terrorists. Then, others don't even believe terrorists exist. Then, others do, but his name is George Bush. I guess that sums it up, right?
It's not that easy, noone here said terrorists do not exist..... you're trying to persuade your audience with false presumptions and innuendoes my friend.

Easiest thing in the world was for Bush to get warrants, they even have a secret court for the president to do so. It would have been legal and noone could have done a damned thing about it.

Instead, he put himself ABOVE the law, even members in his own party are saying it, and in doing so he broke the law.

Again, I ask what of the rest of those who were tapped? Why did he not get the warrants? If these suspects were truly all "terrorists" then he would have had no problem getting the taps.

So, the questions that need to be answered and have to be answered is "why did you put yourself above the law, why did you not file for the warrants, Mr. President?"

Until he answers those truthfully and shows just cause, he broke the law, and this was far more damaging than a BJ.

Another question one could ask is, why was he so stupid in telling anyone he broke the law? My guess is that he believed nothing would be done to him and he bragged about it.

Charlatan 12-19-2005 07:54 AM
Stevo... I'm not sure I see it as you do.

I think most here do feel the terrorists are a threat, however, they also feel that the rule of law must be obeyed. Given that there were steps to do what Bush did legally, why would he feel the need to break the law?

In this case it isn't a matter of feeling threaten by the governemnt rather it is holding the government up to the same laws by which all Americans must abide.


To add to this, clearly what we have here is a partisan issue for some. Many have felt that this Administration has been pushing the legal limits on many issues and changing laws to give themselves more power in other areas. Further, the Administration has stretched the truth in order to get into a war that the Administration really wanted.

People who view the government in this fashion have felt powerless for some time. The law has been on the Administration's side. The spin has been going the Administration's way and the media hasn't been asking any of the tough questions.

If the President broke the law, can you blame these people for grasping at the one crack in the Administration's armour that has presented itself?

In the end this is about more than Bush breaking the law just as it was more than Clinton just lying under oath.

Slansky 12-19-2005 08:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
It's not that easy, noone here said terrorists do not exist.....
AHEM:
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
the war on terror is a war on ghosts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by willunravelled
A man living alone, seperated from any society, is anarchy. He rules himself and is under no rule from another person.
No, a man living alone, sepArated from any society, is not 'anarchy', he's a hermit. And he goes to jail if he breaks the law.



"The worst moment for the atheist is when he is truly thankful and has nobody to thank."

Spelling Nazi BeGONE!

dksuddeth 12-19-2005 08:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
I've gone through and read from where I left off, and I've pretty much come to a conclusion. I feel the terrorists are more of a threat to me than my government. Others feel the government is more of a threat to them than terrorists. Then, others don't even believe terrorists exist. Then, others do, but his name is George Bush. I guess that sums it up, right?
Stevo, do you feel that the president is above the law when it comes to fighting a war on terror?

Willravel 12-19-2005 08:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slansky
No, a man living alone, sepArated from any society, is not 'anarchy', he's a hermit. And he goes to jail if he breaks the law.
If he doesn't live under the jurisdiction of a government (as I specifically stated in my hypothetical situation many times), who takes him and to what jail? Absence of any form of political authority is anarchy. If there is a place on the planet that has no governemnt (and there are such places) and a single man lives there completly alone, this is a real life example of anarchy. There is no authority. If you don't understand this, go start another thread about it and I'll explain it again. This thread is about whether or not the Bush administration broke the law.

Also Roachboy did not mean there are no terrorists when he referred to the war on terror as a war on ghosts. He meant that the war we are fighting is inproportionate to the threat by terrorism, and that people have exaggerated the threat terrorism poses.

roachboy 12-19-2005 09:20 AM
s/lansky:

anarchy/anarchism--not the same.

anarchism is a political movement geared toward instituting forms of collective self-organization.

anarchy is a state characterized by the absence of order.

the two terms are not interchangeable.
they resemble each other, but only superficially.

if you want to argue against what anarchists propose as an alternative form of self-regulation, then fine, but it would help your position if you got the basic terminology straight and gave at least some indication that you were actually informed before you did.


as for my post you quote out of context in a way that indicates to me that you did not read it carefully and so did not understand what the argument was---so in a manner i have come to expect from conservatives, you substitute what you want to see (we call that a straw man) and then go after that, kind of.

everyone has pet peeves.
one of mine is superficiality.
just saying.

pan6467 12-19-2005 09:22 AM
Ah now you gotta love Bush. When in hot water make sure you can blame, blame, blame.

It's a GOP congress, President Bush..... you're going to sacrifice seats now because you want scapegoats. That's right tell Congress you're vbreaking the law, threaten them and then claim they authorized you to.

So what if they did? Are you telling us you have no backbone to say, "Now wait a minute, we need warrants, my job is to protect the Constitution."

All you needed were the warrants sir...... you are not above the law, no matter how many tax breaks you give, no matter how nasty you get calling people "unpatriotic" "enemy sympathizers" and whatever. You are answerable to the people sir, and it is time you get punished for breaking the law.

Stop blaming Congress.... you are the one who ordered the laws to be broken.

Quote:
Gonzales says Congress authorized spying
12/19/2005, 10:15 a.m. ET
By PAULINE JELINEK
The Associated Press


WASHINGTON (AP) — Responding to a congressional uproar, the Bush administration said Monday that a secret domestic surveillance program had yielded intelligence results that would not have been available otherwise in the war on terror.

With Democrats and Republicans alike questioning whether President Bush had the legal authority to approve the program, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales argued that Congress had essentially given Bush broad powers to order the domestic surveillance after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

"Our position is that the authorization to use military force which was passed by the Congress shortly after Sept. 11 constitutes that authority," said Gonzales. He called the monitoring "probably the most classified program that exists in the United States government."

At a White House briefing and in a round of television appearances, Gonzales provided a more detailed legal rationale for Bush's decision authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on international phone calls and e-mails of people within the United States without seeking warrants from courts. He said Bush's authorization requires that at least one of the parties be outside the country and linked to al-Qaida or an affiliated organization.

But he refused to say how many Americans had been targeted and insisted the eavesdropping was "very limited, targeted" electronic surveillance. "This is not a situation of domestic spying," he said.

Gonzales defended Bush's decision not to seek warrants from the secretive Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, saying that "we don't have the speed and the agility that we need in all circumstances to deal with this new kind of enemy."

Gen. Michael Hayden, deputy national intelligence director who was head of the NSA when the program began in October 2001, said, "I can say unequivocally we have got information through this program that would not otherwise have been available."

In offering only a glimpse into the program, Hayden said the monitoring would take place for a shorter period of time and be less intrusive than what is normally authorized by the secret surveillance court. Yet he acknowledged that the program is more aggressive than other government monitoring.

The domestic spying revelations has created an uproar in Congress, with Democrats and Republicans calling for investigations.

"They talk about constitutional authority," said Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa. "There are limits as to what the president can do." He has said he'll hold hearings on the monitoring program early next year.

Gonzales would not say who in Congress was briefed or when, but said that more lawmakers have been told of the program in recent days, including Specter. "We're engaged now in a process of educating the American people ... and educating the American Congress," Gonzales said.

Monday's briefing was the most detailed legal explanation given by an administration officials since the New York Times reported Thursday night that Bush had authorized the NSA to conduct the surveillance after the 9/11 attacks.

"This is just an outrageous power grab," said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis. on NBC's "Today" show. "Nobody, nobody thought when we passed a resolution to invade Afghanistan and to fight the war on terror ... that this was an authorization to allow a wiretapping against the law of the United States."

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada also called for an investigation, and House Democratic leaders asked Speaker Dennis Hastert to create a bipartisan panel to do the same.

Bush acknowledged in his weekly radio address Saturday that he had authorized the spying, saying it was a necessary step in the war against terror.

The existence of the NSA program surfaced as Bush was fighting to save the expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the domestic anti-terrorism law enacted after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Renewal of the law has stalled over some its most contentious provisions, including powers granted law enforcement to gain secret access to library and medical records and other personal data during investigations of suspected terrorist activity.


Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
LINK: http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/w...ist=washington

Quote:
Hayden said the monitoring would take place for a shorter period of time and be less intrusive than what is normally authorized by the secret surveillance court.
If this is the case, Mr. President, then why did you NOT get the warrants????? Why did your break the law??????

dksuddeth 12-19-2005 09:28 AM
Quote:
Gonzales defended Bush's decision not to seek warrants from the secretive Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, saying that "we don't have the speed and the agility that we need in all circumstances to deal with this new kind of enemy."
then there must be no reason at all to renew the patriot act, since bush and the AG are going to ignore the 'ex parte' clause of it anyway.

Bush knows he broke the law. The PATRIOT ACT gave him the authority he needed to do these wiretaps and get the warrant after the fact, he just chose not to and therein lies the broken law.

samcol 12-19-2005 09:36 AM
Isn't this issue kind of like the question 'if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there, does it make a sound?'

If there are no warrants for these wire taps, doesn't that give them the ability to say they never really happened and there's no real way of tracking how many they are doing or who they are spying on.

dksuddeth 12-19-2005 09:43 AM
there may be no court documents, but there will be NSA docs as well as white house papers. Hell, even the program outline and the EO that Bush signed is evidence.

Ustwo 12-19-2005 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
then there must be no reason at all to renew the patriot act, since bush and the AG are going to ignore the 'ex parte' clause of it anyway.

Bush knows he broke the law. The PATRIOT ACT gave him the authority he needed to do these wiretaps and get the warrant after the fact, he just chose not to and therein lies the broken law.
Back to your first post...

Quote:
The Bush administration had briefed congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that handles national security issues.
So with the knowledge the legislative and judicial branches of government the president conducted an act deemed vital to national security. The lefts response to this would be farcical if I didn't know it was the usual 'lets try to get Bush from this angle' type of thing.

I would say it was madness if I didn't know so many put their ideology as a priority to the nation as a whole.

pan6467 12-19-2005 10:32 AM
Still no reason why you did not get the warrants, Mr. President. Why is that? Who exactly are you "spying" on?

Quote:
"There's a process that goes on inside the Justice Department about leaks. I presume that process is moving forward," Bush said. "My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war."
Ah, and the thinly veiled threats towards the leaker. What did you expect to break the law and have noone stand up and expose you?

A "shameful act", Mr. President, while what you have done is beyond contempt? You broke the law, sir, you should be impeached and jailed, perhaps in one of your own little "secret prisons".

Threatening, Mr. President? Are you sending messages that the leak will be made an example of? An example of what happens to people who come forward and show the illegalities you are committing as president, sir?

But by all means, Mr. President, keep this program going. Allow the people to see how egomaniacal and truly revolting you are.

LINK:http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051219/...E0BHNlYwN0bWE-

Quote:
Bush vows more eavesdropping


President George W. Bush vowed on Monday to authorize more eavesdropping on Americans suspected of ties to terrorists and said he believed a probe was underway into who committed "the shameful act" of revealing the covert program.

Bush, struggling with low approval ratings and wide public discontent with the rising U.S. death toll, also defended his decision to invade Iraq, saying "it wasn't a mistake."

At a year-end White House news conference he faced a barrage of questions about his decision to authorize eavesdropping on international telephone and other communication by Americans suspected of links to al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

"As president of the United States and commander in chief I have the constitutional responsibility and the constitutional authority to protect our country," he said.

Several Republican and Democratic lawmakers have backed plans by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, to hold a hearing on the issue. Many have questioned whether spying on Americans violates the U.S. Constitution.

The spying program, under which the National Security Agency was given the authority to intercept the communications without court approval, was first disclosed by the New York Times last Friday. A 1978 law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, makes it illegal to spy on U.S. citizens in the United States without court approval.


"There's a process that goes on inside the Justice Department about leaks. I presume that process is moving forward," Bush said. "My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war."

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said earlier on Monday the U.S. Congress' authorization of military force after the September 11, 2001, attacks also gave Bush the right to order the eavesdropping.

Bush said the program had been effective in disrupting terrorist acts, but gave no details.

"I've reauthorized this program more than 30 times since September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill our American citizens," he declared.

Bush noted that he had sworn to uphold the law. "Do I have the legal authority to do this? The answer is "absolutely"."

On Iraq, Bush pointed to the country's election last Thursday as a sign of progress in the war, which is costing taxpayers $6 billion a month and in which more than 2,100 U.S. troops have died.

"It wasn't a mistake to go into Iraq," he said. "It was the right decision to make. I think that there's going to be a lot of analysis done on the decisions made on the ground in Iraq ... History will judge."

GOTTA LOVE THIS!!!!!


Quote:
"I've reauthorized this program more than 30 times since September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill our American citizens," he declared.
Mr. President, sir, we will always have enemies that want to destroy the nation and kill us..... are you proposing that as long as you are in office this shall continue, even if we destroy Al Quida and capture Bin Laden (you know that man you seem to have forgotten about).

Are you telling us that you are above the law and need no stinking warrants?

And who meets your criteria Mr. President?

Are you spying on members of congress that speak out against you? Are you targeting individuals that publicly ridicule you?

You and your supporters have claimed that those who speak out against you, are "traitors", are "giving aid and comfort to the enemy", are "non-patriots" and "hate America".... so by the qualifications you give, sir, these poeple, who are exorcising their right to free speech, could be tapped????

If the taps are so important why do you not get the warrants, Mr. President?
Why? Answer the question.....

YOU are answerable to the people, sir, regardless of what you believe. It is time you answered the questions, and stopped threatening, attacking and became a man of responsibility and of honor?

Or are Honor and responsibility not covered in your job description?

pan6467 12-19-2005 10:36 AM
Wake up America, it's time to stop this man.

Quote:
"There's a process that goes on inside the Justice Department about leaks. I presume that process is moving forward," Bush said. "My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war."
He talks of "legal processes, and yet he cannot, will not and laughs about his refusal to go through legal processes for warrants??????

WTF........ and what is scarier even still there are people drinking his lemonade over all this. While senators in HIS OWN PARTY are saying he crossed the line.

Ustwo 12-19-2005 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
WTF........ and what is scarier even still there are people drinking his lemonade over all this. While senators in HIS OWN PARTY are saying he crossed the line.
Rather the lemonade than the cool aid of the left.

I hope its fresh squeezed lemonade, I also like it when you use sprite/7up to make it.

dksuddeth 12-19-2005 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
So with the knowledge the legislative and judicial branches of government the president conducted an act deemed vital to national security.
my question would be 'did you have warrants issued, whether ex parte or not, for these wiretaps'?. If he did, great. I've got no problem with it anymore because that would be completely within the law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
I would say it was madness if I didn't know so many put their ideology as a priority to the nation as a whole.
so many as in BOTH right and left?

stevo 12-19-2005 11:35 AM
This line keeps getting thrown around bolded and highlighted as if it was evidence of Bush's corruption.
Quote:
A 1978 law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, makes it illegal to spy on U.S. citizens in the United States without court approval.
I just spent some time reading the 1978 FISA http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h..._50_10_36.html and I don't see where bush broke any law. If anyone cares to point it out to me, that would be great.

dksuddeth 12-19-2005 11:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
This line keeps getting thrown around bolded and highlighted as if it was evidence of Bush's corruption.
I just spent some time reading the 1978 FISA http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h..._50_10_36.html and I don't see where bush broke any law. If anyone cares to point it out to me, that would be great.
I guess its going to come down to what kind of court approval. Did he need a warrant or is passing a piece of paper to the judge sufficient?

Ustwo 12-19-2005 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
my question would be 'did you have warrants issued, whether ex parte or not, for these wiretaps'?. If he did, great. I've got no problem with it anymore because that would be completely within the law.
Dunno, don't care is my take on it. What it seems you are asking is 'did the president break a technicality' and have no real great indignation over the concept.

Quote:
so many as in BOTH right and left?
Undoubtedly there are those on the right such as that, but they don't post here. I can honestly say that had Clinton or Carter, or had any other Democrat done this I would feel the same way. I would NOT be in here complaining about the loss of privacy (and isn't that what we are really talking about here?) of suspected terrorists.

I would be far more worried if we were only doing what we have been able to read about, because in that case we would be pretty screwed.

roachboy 12-19-2005 11:46 AM
see, this is why there is due process.
the bush squad will benefit from it---their guilt or innocence can be determined through formal procedures.

it is funny how, each time new revelations about the conduct of this administration points toward legal problems, that conservatives turn into miniature trial lawyers and the arguments along with them move toward pretend trials in the public sphere. this is funny because the administration they are defending has so little use for due process. but this is just another one of the many many---um---inconsistencies in rightwingland on this matter.

here is an analysis of the legal situation from the 17/12 ny times.
i dont take it as definitive, but it at least seperates the legal and political problems that the bush squad has created for itself.

Quote:
December 17, 2005
News Analysis
Behind Power, One Principle as Bush Pushes Prerogatives
By SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 - A single, fiercely debated legal principle lies behind nearly every major initiative in the Bush administration's war on terror, scholars say: the sweeping assertion of the powers of the presidency.

From the government's detention of Americans as "enemy combatants" to the just-disclosed eavesdropping in the United States without court warrants, the administration has relied on an unusually expansive interpretation of the president's authority. That stance has given the administration leeway for decisive action, but it has come under severe criticism from some scholars and the courts.

With the strong support of Vice President Dick Cheney, legal theorists in the White House and Justice Department have argued that previous presidents unjustifiably gave up some of the legitimate power of their office. The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, made it especially critical that the full power of the executive be restored and exercised, they said.

The administration's legal experts, including David S. Addington, the vice president's former counsel and now his chief of staff, and John C. Yoo, deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel of the Justice Department from 2001 to 2003, have pointed to several sources of presidential authority.

The bedrock source is Article 2 of the Constitution, which describes the "executive power" of the president, including his authority as commander in chief of the armed forces. Several landmark court decisions have elaborated the extent of the powers.

Another key recent document cited by the administration is the joint resolution passed by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, authorizing the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against those responsible for Sept. 11 in order to prevent further attacks.

Mr. Yoo, who is believed to have helped write a legal justification for the National Security Agency's secret domestic eavesdropping, first laid out the basis for the war on terror in a Sept. 25, 2001, memorandum that said no statute passed by Congress "can place any limits on the president's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing and nature of the response."

That became the underlying justification for numerous actions apart from the eavesdropping program, disclosed by The New York Times on Thursday night. Those include the order to try accused terrorists before military tribunals; the detention of so-called enemy combatants at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and in secret overseas jails operated by the Central Intelligence Agency; the holding of two Americans, Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi, as enemy combatants; and the use of severe interrogation techniques, including some banned by international agreements, on Al Qaeda figures.

Mr. Yoo, now a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, declined to comment for this article. But Bradford A. Berenson, who served as associate counsel to President Bush from 2001 to 2003, explained the logic behind the assertion of executive power.

"After 9/11 the president felt it was incumbent on him to use every ounce of authority available to him to protect the American people," Mr. Berenson said.

He said he was not familiar with the N.S.A. program, in which the intelligence agency, without warrants, has monitored international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of people inside the United States. He said that he could not comment on whether the program was justified, but that he believed intelligence gathering on an enemy was clearly part of the president's constitutional war powers.

"Any program like this would have been very carefully analyzed by administration lawyers," Mr. Berenson said. "It's easy, now that four years have passed without another attack, to forget the sense of urgency that pervaded the country when the ruins of the World Trade Center were still smoking."

But some legal experts outside the administration, including some who served previously in the intelligence agencies, said the administration had pushed the presidential-powers argument beyond what was legally justified or prudent. They say the N.S.A. domestic eavesdropping illustrates the flaws in Mr. Bush's assertion of his powers.

"Obviously we have to do things differently because of the terrorist threat," said Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, former general counsel of both N.S.A. and the Central Intelligence Agency, who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. "But to do it without the participation of the Congress and the courts is unwise in the extreme."

Even if the administration believes the president has the authority to direct warrantless eavesdropping, she said, ordering it without seeking Congressional approval was politically wrongheaded. "We're just relearning the lessons of Vietnam and Watergate," said Ms. Parker, now dean of the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law.

Jeffrey H. Smith, who served as C.I.A. general counsel in 1995 and 1996, said he was dismayed by the N.S.A. program, which he said was the latest instance of legal overreach by the administration.

"Clearly the president felt after 9/11 that he needed more powers than his predecessors had exercised," Mr. Smith said. "He chose to assert as much power as he thought he needed. Now the question is whether that was wise and consistent with our values."

William C. Banks, a widely respected authority on national security law at Syracuse University, said the N.S.A. revelation came as a shock, even given the administration's past assertions of presidential powers.

"I was frankly astonished by the story," he said. "My head is spinning."

Professor Banks said the president's power as commander in chief "is really limited to situations involving military force - anything needed to repel an attack. I don't think the commander in chief power allows" the warrantless eavesdropping, he said.

Mr. Berenson, the former White House associate counsel, said that in rare cases, the presidents' advisers may decide that an existing law violates the Constitution "by invading the president's executive powers as commander in chief."

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 typically requires warrants for the kind of eavesdropping carried out under the special N.S.A. program. Whether administration lawyers argued that that statute unconstitutionally infringed the president's powers is not known.

But Mr. Smith, formerly of the C.I.A., noted that when President Carter signed the act into law in 1978, he seemed to rule out any domestic eavesdropping without court approval.

"The bill requires, for the first time, a prior judicial warrant for all electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purposes in the United States" if an American's communications might be intercepted, President Carter said when he signed the act.

By asserting excessive powers, Mr. Smith said, President Bush may provoke a reaction from Congress and the courts that ultimately thwarts executive power.

"The president may wind up eroding the very powers he was seeking to exert," Mr. Smith said.
source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/17/politics/17legal.html

host 12-19-2005 11:50 AM
No need to even display the pretense of announcements of the suspension of the bill of rights, the rest of the provisions of the constitution, or the next session of congress. George W. Bush is now "the law".

Are you just going to sit back and watch as no articles of impeachment are drawn up in response to the coup d'etat of the executive branch?

It's finally over, folks. Constitutional, representative government, <b>lost!</b>
Quote:
http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...12/18bush.html
Bush: I approved domestic spying
Eavesdropping without warrants must continue, president says

By Ken Herman
WASHINGTON BUREAU
Sunday, December 18, 2005

........Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., said Saturday that it was absurd for Bush to claim that he had the authority to approve the NSA domestic wiretaps without judicial approval.

"If that's true, <b>he doesn't need the Patriot Act, because he can just make it up as he goes along," Feingold said</b>, echoing the sentiment of Senate leaders who said Friday that they would investigate the NSA program. "I tell you, he's President George Bush, not King George Bush. This is not the system of government we have and that we fought for."

He added: "The president does not get to pick and choose which laws he wants to follow."

Bush supporters fell in line behind the president. ..........
Quote:
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/17/smn.03.html
Aired December 17, 2005 - 10:00 ET

...FEINGOLD: Well, they relate in this sense, is that there's a pattern here of the president refusing to listen to arguments about protecting innocent Americans. In the Patriot Act, we have a couple of provisions that make sure they can't go after innocent Americans' library records and medical records and business records.

Every single member of the Senate, including all of the Republicans, voted for those provisions. The president says no, he'd rather let the law expire than have those protections in there. Now that relates to the other point which is that he apparently feels even if he doesn't have authority from Congress that he can go ahead and do all this stuff anyway under some inherent power.

So what that really means, if you take his argument all the way, is he doesn't even need the USA Patriot Act because he thinks he has some kind of an inherent authority to make up the law himself. And I'll tell you something, this president and no other president is above the law and that's exactly what he was just telling us he was.

HARRIS: <b>What am I missing here? It can't be as obvious and as blatant and as you paint it or I would imagine that this country might be in a bit more uproar......</b>
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0051219-2.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 19, 2005
Press Conference of the President
The East Room

..QUESTION: Getting back to the domestic spying issue for a moment, according to FISA's own rec..ords, <b>it's received nearly 19,000 requests for wiretaps</b> or search warrants since 1979, <b>rejected just five of them.</b> It also operates in secret, so security shouldn't be a concern. <b>And it can be applied retroactively.</b> Given such a powerful tool of law enforcement is at your disposal, sir, why did you see fit to sidetrack that process?

BUSH: We used the process to monitor. But also, this is a different era, different war. It's a war where people are changing phone numbers and phone calls, and they're moving quick. And we've got to be able to detect and prevent. I keep saying that. But this is -- it requires quick action.
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120900549.html
.........One strike against the administration is the people who leave (Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke) and then offer evidence of dishonesty of their former employer. Do some Bush loyalists, as an unnamed White House aide told journalist Ron Suskind, believe that reporters and others are members of the "reality-based community"? <b>("We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.")</b> Or do we have to wait for more memoirs to find out?............
Quote:
http://www.hereinstead.com/Suskind-WithoutaDoubt.htm
........In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, <b>we create our own reality.</b> And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. <b>We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'' ............</b>
So....what will it be....it seems that there isn't much time to decide? The house of representatives is about to adjourn for an extraordinary length of time....until January 31, 2006, to afford Tom Delay extra time to possibly get past his Texas criminal trial, in the hope that he can somehow be re-elected to his "leaderhip" post.

Do we wait 45 days...only to watch the new congress do nothing in the face of Bush's coup? I predict that we will! We've grown too soft and complacent to embrace the risks of taking the law back into our own hands, by any means necessary...the same way our president took it away from us......
<center><center><img src="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/image.php?u=53414&type=profile&dateline=1132035323">
Quote:
HARRIS: <b>What am I missing here? It can't be as obvious and as blatant and as you paint it or I would imagine that this country might be in a bit more uproar......</b>

roachboy 12-19-2005 11:54 AM
meanwhile, elswhere in bushworld:

Quote:
Pentagon's Intelligence Authority Widens
Fact Sheet Details Secretive Agency's Growth From Focus on Policy to Counterterrorism


By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 19, 2005; A10


The Pentagon's newest counterterrorism agency, charged with protecting military facilities and personnel wherever they are, is carrying out intelligence collection, analysis and operations within the United States and abroad, according to a Pentagon fact sheet on the Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA, provided to The Washington Post.

CIFA is a three-year-old agency whose size and budget remain secret. It has grown from an agency that coordinated policy and oversaw the counterintelligence activities of units within the military services and Pentagon agencies to an analytic and operational organization with nine directorates and ever-widening authority.

Its Directorate of Field Activities (DX) "assists in preserving the most critical defense assets, disrupting adversaries and helping control the intelligence domain," the fact sheet said. Those roles can range from running roving patrols around military bases and facilities to surveillance of potentially threatening people or organizations inside the United States. The DX also provides "on-site, real time . . . support in hostile areas worldwide to protect both U.S. and host nation personnel from a variety of threats," the fact sheet said.

This is just one illustration of the growth of Pentagon activities in the United States and abroad as part of the terrorism fight. Last week, news accounts revealed that President Bush authorized secret eavesdropping on Americans with suspected ties to terrorist groups.

Another CIFA directorate, the Counterintelligence and Law Enforcement Center, "identifies and assesses threats" to Defense personnel, operations and infrastructure from "insider threats, foreign intelligence services, terrorists, and other clandestine or covert entities," according to the Pentagon.

CIFA manages the Pentagon database that includes Talon reports, consisting of raw, unverified information picked up by the military services on suspicious activities that could involve terrorist threats. The Pentagon acknowledged last week that the Talon database contained reports on peaceful civilian protests and demonstrations that should have been purged long ago under Defense Department regulations.

A third CIFA directorate, Behavioral Sciences, "has 20 psychologists and a multimillion-dollar budget," and supports both "offensive and defensive counterintelligence efforts," according to a government biography of its director, S. Scott Shumate. Shumate was the chief operational psychologist for the CIA's counterterrorism center until 2003. His group has also provided a "team of renowned forensic psychologists [who] are engaged in risk assessments of the Guantanamo Bay detainees," according to his biography.

A Pentagon official said none of Shumate's team members questions detainees as part of helping produce threat reports, though they may relay questions to the interrogators.

A former senior Pentagon intelligence official, familiar with CIFA, said yesterday, "They started with force protection from terrorists, but when you go down that road, you soon are into everything . . . where terrorists get their money, who they see, who they deal with."

He added, noting that there had been no congressional oversight of CIFA, that the Defense Department is "too big, too rich an organization and should not be left unfettered. They rush in where there is a vacuum."

A former senior counterterrorism official, also familiar with CIFA, said, "What you are seeing is the militarization of counterterrorism."

CIFA's authority is still growing. In a new move to centralize all counterterrorism intelligence collection inside the United States, the Defense Department this month gave CIFA authority to task domestic investigations and operations by the counterintelligence units of the military services.

The tasking authority allows CIFA to assign Defense counterintelligence organizations "to execute a specific mission or conduct a function falling within that organization's charter," according to a Dec. 1 memo signed by Robert W. Rogalski, acting deputy undersecretary of Defense for counterintelligence and security, that was provided to The Post.

CIFA's new authority will give the agency the ability to propose missions to Army, Navy and Air Force units, which combined have about 4,000 trained active, reserve and civilian investigators in the United States and abroad. For example, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) has 1,935 "federally credentialed special agents," according to its Web site. The military service agents investigate crime and terrorism.

By comparison, the FBI recently disclosed it has about 11,000 special agents overall, about 4,929 of whom are assigned to terrorism investigation. Of those, the FBI has 103 assigned to its Joint Terrorism Task Force. The Navy Criminal Investigation Service has reported that it has 34 of its operational people assigned to joint terrorism units.

The Air Force OSI special agents work on felony crimes and drug use, but threat detection has increasingly become a focus. "AFOSI manages offensive and defensive activities to detect, counter and destroy the effectiveness of hostile intelligence services and terrorist groups that target the Air Force," according to an official service Web site.

Anti-terrorism teams have been created "to meet the increasing challenges presented by worldwide terrorism," the service said. These groups "provide anti-terrorism, counterterrorism information collections and investigative services to Air Force personnel and units."
source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121801006.html

it appears that walt kelly kinda anticipated this one: " i have seen the enemy and he is us."

pan6467 12-19-2005 11:56 AM
Taken from Stevo's link.........

Quote:
(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;

So NOT one of the people tapped were American citizens, or legal alien? These taps were all done on foreign owned property? All these people, who were not US Citizens (or legal aliens), all lived in housing owned by Al Quida?

The law is wishy-washy, granted, but it makes clear that this provision for non warrant surveillence only applies to non-US "persons" (not just citizens). Therefore, even if 1 just 1 US citizen (or legal alien) was tapped, it is illegal.

stevo 12-19-2005 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
So NOT one of the people tapped were American citizens, or legal alien? These taps were all done on foreign owned property? All these people, who were not US Citizens (or legal aliens), all lived in housing owned by Al Quida?

The law is wishy-washy, granted, but it makes clear that this provision for non warrant surveillence only applies to non-US "persons" (not just citizens). Therefore, even if 1 just 1 US citizen (or legal alien) was tapped, it is illegal.
But thats not the whole thing...what's this mean to you, maybe we're both interpreting it differently...
Quote:
(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.

pan6467 12-19-2005 01:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
But thats not the whole thing...what's this mean to you, maybe we're both interpreting it differently...
From what I see, it means that if the person is of the US (citizen or legal alien) that a warrant would have to be applied for.

It is very murky, but from how I read it and it looks very clear, the non-warrant surveillence cannot be applied to "US persons" which, I would assume means citizens (of course), and legal aliens.

If this were not the case, again, I argue they could have done this to Columbian drug lords, Mafiosa, or basically anyone. So I think that is why they made it clear no "US person". Everything else appears murky and is open to court interpretation, but then again, I am not a lawyer.

From your part, I believe it is saying that the "secret court" has no jurisdiction over "US persons" and therefore the warrants would have to be applied for.

Interesting points Stevo.

Grey2000 12-19-2005 09:31 PM
From Leon H.....


Quote:
I've had a little time throughout the day to sit down with my good friend WestLaw and do some research on the issue today, and corresponded with a number of folks far more knowledgeable with this area of the law than I am, and have gotten some firmer answers to a number of questions that seem to keep cropping up in the course of this particular discussion.


Question number one that I have gotten most frequently during the course of the day has been, "If the FISA authorizes this kind of activity, why isn't the President or the AG referring to the FISA in their defense?"

The answer to that question is that the FISA is generally not seen as an authorizing statute, but rather as a limiting statute. In other words, prior to FISA, it was generally held (by circuit courts that had addressed the issue) that so long as a wiretap was sought for the gathering of foreign intelligence, a fourth-amendment warrant was not necessary. The President does have "inherent power" under Article II to do this sort of thing, absent a Congressional provision to the contrary.

During the Nixon era, paranoia over this issue reached a level where the people demanded that Congress do something, and thus the FISA was passed, which was intended to limit the circumstances in which the Executive branch could execute a warrantless wiretap. Thus, the key question for someone in the Justice Department would not be whether the FISA granted such a power, but rather whether FISA prohibited it. Thus, you had AGAG saying the following:

Quote:
Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides -- requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on Saturday, unless there is somehow -- there is -- unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires.
See there? He's concerned about what FISA prohibits him from doing, not what it allows him to do. And, as you will notice in the opening remarks of 50 U.S.C. 1802, the Statute contains an "unless otherwise provided by statute" provision, which AGAG made reference to next:

Quote:
Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence.

Now, it is important to realize, as Carl Levin (D-MI) is apparently incapable of doing, that this was not the authorization to use force in Iraq. This was the authorization to use force to pursue Al Qaeda, passed in the wake of 9/11. That resolution of force authorized the President, in part, to:

Quote:
use all necessary 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.
In other words, the President was authorized to use all necessary force against Al Qaeda in the wake of 9/11, it would seem rather strange that the use of wiretaps against known Al Qaeda agents would not fall under "all necessary force." As AGAG pointed out in the presser, the SCOTUS has already construed that authorization of force very broadly, to the point that they read it to imply powers not explicitly contained in the authorization even when such a construction directly violated another Federal Statute, 18 U.S.C. 4001(a). (See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507). If the SCOTUS authorized the detention of a United States Citizen in direct contravention to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 4001, they would certainly authorize the use of wiretaps in the gathering of foreign intelligence, when such authorization might questionably violate 50 U.S.C. 1802.

The court's opinion in Hamdi declared that even though the authorization of force did not explicitly authorize detention, detention was a fundamental incident of waging war. Certainly, AGAG has a colorable argument when he says that the gathering of intelligence is a fundamental incident of waging war. However, I must concede that an argument can at least be made in the other direction, which reinforces what I said in my first post on the matter - that this is a very sticky and delicate issue, and that a clear decision on point is simply not to be found. I believe that the administrations construction of the authorization to use force was at the very least justifiable and in accordance with the available precedent at the time. Not only this, but given that FISA was intended to be a Congressional check on executive power, they took the additional step of ongoing consultation with Congress over the issue. I think most courts would take the position that Congress is in the best position to interpret their own statute - that they may have been incorrect is always a possibility - that is why we have a SCOTUS to decide these sorts of things.

Several folks have also asked why the President would take such measures, when a procedure of review by a FISA judge was so easily available. The answer seems clear enough to me - if a terrorist can trigger an operation with a 30 second phone call, that will cause damage later that day, it would be ineffective policy indeed that would force the President to wait 72 hours to get a FISA judge to approve the tap - which they wouldn't be able to authorize since they'd never have the information in the first place.

A couple of other brief remarks are in order. References to the case of United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan are making their way around the internet. Supposedly, this case establishes that the President has the constitutional power, carte blanche to conduct warrantless searches when national security is at stake - and that therefore, since the President has such authority Constitutionally, the FISA cannot take it away from him.

The only problem with this analysis is that the SCOTUS actually rejected it in the very case that Hugh Hewitt (and numerous others) have cited. I know it's boring to read the procedural posture, but here it really is a killer - the Government made the argument that the President had such power, but the District court rejected that argument, and the Circuit Court affirmed the District Court, and the SCOTUS affirmed the Circuit Court. Thus, even though the argument is contained in the opinion, it loses.

The bottom line is that, sooner or later, this practice is surely going to find its way back up to the SCOTUS. I simply can't find a way to harmonize overturning this practice as unconstitutional with the court's decision in Hamdi, or distinguish it on the facts. However, there will be two new justices on the Court by then, and I could well be wrong. Then again, so could the countless hysterics on the left, and their sycophants in the press-Democrat. There is much to be sorted out, here, and those afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome would do well to consider whether they really want to have this practice end.

Do they really desire to end a program which intercepts the phone calls of known Al Qaeda affiliates (not random and indiscriminate Americans), and possibly prevents terrorist attacks? Are they willing to provide notice to the terrorists of the tactics we are using to track them in a callow effort to score political points? It seems as though they are.

Let's have them make that case to the American people for what it is, then. And let's also have them explain how it is that they were apparently fine with Clinton using Echelon to eavesdrop on Americans, and on foreign companies for economic benefit, so that we can see once and for all what is more important to them - the protection of "big business," or the protection of the citizens of this country from terrorist attacks? The American people deserve to know.

pan6467 12-20-2005 06:30 AM
To me it's still illegal. When they can only point to 1 case, the FISA law prohibits ANY wiretaps on US persons without a warrant.

IF they are using the Patriot Act as defense saying that allows illegal wiretaps as a "defense", then I would argue that part of the Patriot act is illegal in and of itself and should never be renewed.

Now, if this "30 second phone call" is being used also, I would argue that you obviously are already tapping and therefore could have filed the warrant as the tap happens, or as argued above even AFTER the fact. But Bush refused to get any warrants at all, which leads me to question why?

Sorry, I just can't drink Bush's piss and pretend it's lemonade...... some on the Right can but I tend to believe it is their blind hatred for the Left rather than their love for Bush that allows them to do so.

This was obviously written by someone defending Bush, so it is just as biased as though attacking him. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth and we should find it, and if he is guilty we should prosecute to the fullest extent..... IF he didn't then we need to look at the loopholes he used and make sure they are extremely narrow and cannot be abused.

(Something the Bush supporters seem to totally ignore, if Bush goes this far and sets a precedent, the next President, may decide to take it further and so on. When we give ANYONE a power such as this (if in fact we have given it) then we must make a priority of making sure it can never be abused.)


P.S. When posting an article you're supposed to add your thoughts to it and show the link. Not trying to be a prick, just letting you know the rules.

ratbastid 12-20-2005 06:49 AM
It's a good thing the president is immune from prosecution while in office, because he just admitted to a crime that carries a sentence of up to five years in prison.

I'm SO sick of the "9/11 changed everything" justification. Fine, make your goddamn illegal wiretaps. Don't listen to the advice of the 9/11 Commission, who just FLUNKED your ass on actually taking steps to make our country safe, but make illegal wiretaps so the people you catch will have to be let go.

It would have been trivially simple for him to get a legal groundwork for this action. But His Imperial Highness doesn't need to do that. Laws schmaws. We're post-9/11 here!

Ustwo 12-20-2005 07:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
It's a good thing the president is immune from prosecution while in office, because he just admitted to a crime that carries a sentence of up to five years in prison.

I'm SO sick of the "9/11 changed everything" justification. Fine, make your goddamn illegal wiretaps. Don't listen to the advice of the 9/11 Commission, who just FLUNKED your ass on actually taking steps to make our country safe, but make illegal wiretaps so the people you catch will have to be let go.

It would have been trivially simple for him to get a legal groundwork for this action. But His Imperial Highness doesn't need to do that. Laws schmaws. We're post-9/11 here!
You didn't hear/read the Q and A session did you. One thing the pesident pointed out was they were legally only able to monitor calls that were sent out of or into the USA, not inside the USA itself. They could monitor calls to France but not calls from NY to LA. For someone so blatently breaking the law, why would they follow this policy? Perhaps, again, no laws were in fact broken.

Really rasbastid whats your beef here, if it was a simple technicality why bitch and moan like its the end of the world? You don't seem like a moonbat so I'm wondering why the blind hate?

pattycakes 12-20-2005 07:29 AM
wow its 2005 and people are still stuck on this terrorism thing... i gues bushes plan worked. we have always had terrorism, and always will.

the guy should be let free, because his rights were violated. pretty soon theywill be able to watch me shit for the frear that i might kill someone with my toxic ass.

this post is indeed very childish, but thinking we can fight terror is childish also... i did not know that sadam was a terrorist to the usa.

the us is like an empire.. and every empire fails.

stevo 12-20-2005 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pattycakes
wow its 2005 and people are still stuck on this terrorism thing... i gues bushes plan worked. we have always had terrorism, and always will.

the guy should be let free, because his rights were violated. pretty soon theywill be able to watch me shit for the frear that i might kill someone with my toxic ass.
+1 to free the terrorist

But this doesn't fit neatly into my assesment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
I feel the terrorists are more of a threat to me than my government. Others feel the government is more of a threat to them than terrorists. Then, others don't even believe terrorists exist. Then, others do, but his name is George Bush.
Perhaps number 2? obviously not 3 since pcakes clearly states we have always had terrorism. maybe number 4, but thats a stretch.

Duck and Cover. Duck. and. Cover.

Ustwo 12-20-2005 07:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
Duck and Cover. Duck. and. Cover.
Quick its a bomb!

roachboy 12-20-2005 08:00 AM
Quote:
F.B.I. Watched Activist Groups, New Files Show
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 - Counterterrorism agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted numerous surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations that involved, at least indirectly, groups active in causes as diverse as the environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief, newly disclosed agency records show.

F.B.I. officials said Monday that their investigators had no interest in monitoring political or social activities and that any investigations that touched on advocacy groups were driven by evidence of criminal or violent activity at public protests and in other settings.

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, John Ashcroft, who was then attorney general, loosened restrictions on the F.B.I.'s investigative powers, giving the bureau greater ability to visit and monitor Web sites, mosques and other public entities in developing terrorism leads. The bureau has used that authority to investigate not only groups with suspected ties to foreign terrorists, but also protest groups suspected of having links to violent or disruptive activities.

But the documents, coming after the Bush administration's confirmation that President Bush had authorized some spying without warrants in fighting terrorism, prompted charges from civil rights advocates that the government had improperly blurred the line between terrorism and acts of civil disobedience and lawful protest.

One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

The documents, provided to The New York Times over the past week, came as part of a series of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. For more than a year, the A.C.L.U. has been seeking access to information in F.B.I. files on about 150 protest and social groups that it says may have been improperly monitored.

The F.B.I. had previously turned over a small number of documents on antiwar groups, showing the agency's interest in investigating possible anarchist or violent links in connection with antiwar protests and demonstrations in advance of the 2004 political conventions. And earlier this month, the A.C.L.U.'s Colorado chapter released similar documents involving, among other things, people protesting logging practices at a lumber industry gathering in 2002.

The latest batch of documents, parts of which the A.C.L.U. plans to release publicly on Tuesday, totals more than 2,300 pages and centers on references in internal files to a handful of groups, including PETA, the environmental group Greenpeace and the Catholic Workers group, which promotes antipoverty efforts and social causes.

Many of the investigative documents turned over by the bureau are heavily edited, making it difficult or impossible to determine the full context of the references and why the F.B.I. may have been discussing events like a PETA protest. F.B.I. officials say many of the references may be much more benign than they seem to civil rights advocates, adding that the documents offer an incomplete and sometimes misleading snapshot of the bureau's activities.

"Just being referenced in an F.B.I. file is not tantamount to being the subject of an investigation," said John Miller, a spokesman for the bureau.

"The F.B.I. does not target individuals or organizations for investigation based on their political beliefs," Mr. Miller said. "Everything we do is carefully promulgated by federal law, Justice Department guidelines and the F.B.I.'s own rules."

A.C.L.U officials said the latest batch of documents released by the F.B.I. indicated the agency's interest in a broader array of activist and protest groups than they had previously thought. In light of other recent disclosures about domestic surveillance activities by the National Security Agency and military intelligence units, the A.C.L.U. said the documents reflected a pattern of overreaching by the Bush administration.

"It's clear that this administration has engaged every possible agency, from the Pentagon to N.S.A. to the F.B.I., to engage in spying on Americans," said Ann Beeson, associate legal director for the A.C.L.U.

"You look at these documents," Ms. Beeson said, "and you think, wow, we have really returned to the days of J. Edgar Hoover, when you see in F.B.I. files that they're talking about a group like the Catholic Workers league as having a communist ideology."

The documents indicate that in some cases, the F.B.I. has used employees, interns and other confidential informants within groups like PETA and Greenpeace to develop leads on potential criminal activity and has downloaded material from the groups' Web sites, in addition to monitoring their protests.

In the case of Greenpeace, which is known for highly publicized acts of civil disobedience like the boarding of cargo ships to unfurl protest banners, the files indicate that the F.B.I. investigated possible financial ties between its members and militant groups like the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front.

These networks, which have no declared leaders and are only loosely organized, have been described by the F.B.I. in Congressional testimony as "extremist special interest groups" whose cells engage in violent or other illegal acts, making them "a serious domestic terrorist threat."

In testimony last year, John E. Lewis, deputy assistant director of the counterterrorism division, said the F.B.I. estimated that in the past 10 years such groups had engaged in more than 1,000 criminal acts causing more than $100 million in damage.

When the F.B.I. investigates evidence of possible violence or criminal disruptions at protests and other events, those investigations are routinely handled by agents within the bureau's counterterrorism division.

But the groups mentioned in the newly disclosed F.B.I. files questioned both the propriety of characterizing such investigations as related to "terrorism" and the necessity of diverting counterterrorism personnel from more pressing investigations.

"The fact that we're even mentioned in the F.B.I. files in connection with terrorism is really troubling," said Tom Wetterer, general counsel for Greenpeace. "There's no property damage or physical injury caused in our activities, and under any definition of terrorism, we'd take issue with that."

Jeff Kerr, general counsel for PETA, rejected the suggestion in some F.B.I. files that the animal rights group had financial ties to militant groups, and said he, too, was troubled by his group's inclusion in the files.

"It's shocking and it's outrageous," Mr. Kerr said. "And to me, it's an abuse of power by the F.B.I. when groups like Greenpeace and PETA are basically being punished for their social activism."
source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/po...rtner=homepage

interesting.
the fbi in this case, not the nsa---but you know how it goes in conservativeland--everyone who opposes your politics in an enemy, a traitor, a "defeatist" (a fine leninist terminology)...i expect that for some of the more thoughtful folk on the right this would be a problem---even as i expect fully that the lumpenconservative set will assume that statements from the administration resolve this problem as well. particularly given the track record this administration has created for itself relative to telling the public the truth.
o yes there is every reason to trust them.
no concerns at all about abuse of power under the guise of the "war on terror"---once again, anything goes for the right so long as it's their boy at the helm.

on the other hand, it is not inconcievable that the far right would be able to extend its concern to militant groups beyond its fringes--after all, limbaugh et al made martyrs of the militia folk involved with ruby ridge, the fundy whackjobs involved with waco, etc.
so it appears that in the case of neofascist organizations and christian fundamentalists, the right is most concerned about civil liberties--but only when a democrat is in power.
more often than not you get a kind of bland libertarian social ideology espoused when you squeeze something coherent from a conservative on the topic of political mobilization.
from that you would expect a concern with the right to dissent.
--but not if a republican is in power.

if a republican is in power, anything goes.
everything is justified.
critique is disloyalty.
this kind of position really seems to hobble otherwise intelligent folk, just as it does ustwo. from the conservatives above, the working assumption seems to be that it is inconcievable that a republican administration can do anything wrong.
so this is what the Heroic Individuals of conservative economic and social ideology are really like--total party loyalists who like to pretend their loyalty is connected with rugged individualism.
strange stuff indeed.

Poppinjay 12-20-2005 08:40 AM
I'm amazed at how many continue to "drink the lemonade" and proclaim it fine, better than the alternative. So, fast forward a coupld of years, we have a known terrorist in custody, then we're letting him go. Why? Illegal eavesdropping.

Sure, we could have done it right. Why bother though?

The fact that this administration must KNOW that every questionable wiretap could likely lead to a terrorist being let free when we know he's guilty is as bad as unlocking the doors. And it really makes me think that they're really much more concerned with gathering information on political enemies rather than catching terrorists.

ratbastid 12-20-2005 08:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
You didn't hear/read the Q and A session did you. One thing the pesident pointed out was they were legally only able to monitor calls that were sent out of or into the USA, not inside the USA itself.
That's what he said. He's the only one saying that. Every other interpretation of the law seems to be clear that warrantless wiretapping of US citizens is illegal no matter where the destination or source of the calls. Forgive me, but I'm not real inclined to go with the accused's interpretation of the law.

Quote:
Really rasbastid whats your beef here, if it was a simple technicality why bitch and moan like its the end of the world? You don't seem like a moonbat so I'm wondering why the blind hate?
Good, good, turn it toward me again. Maybe you should start a thread about all the blind hate you keep seeing around here. You know, get it out of your system so you can stick to discussing the issues?

This is totally off-topic, but since we're talking about my blind hate, I'm sort of interested in what Bush COULD do to lose your blind, puppy-like affection? From where I'm sitting, the guy has crossed SO many lines... It honestly seems to me like any reasonable, thinking person would HAVE to see through it all by now. But you and others like you seem to just open wide and swallow whatever hand-waving he offers about his infractions. So what would it take? Would he actually have to strangle an Iraqi baby on live TV for you to have any change of opinion about him?

pan6467 12-20-2005 08:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
+1 to free the terrorist

But this doesn't fit neatly into my assesment. Perhaps number 2? obviously not 3 since pcakes clearly states we have always had terrorism. maybe number 4, but thats a stretch.

Duck and Cover. Duck. and. Cover.
I really don't believe anyone on here believes there are no terrorists. The problem existing is the fact we have a president who puts himself above the law and in every action claims he does it because he's fighting terrorists.

I think some of us don't buy into that reasoning. Get the warrants, keep the bad guys in prison. Do it the right way.

Breaking the laws we hold as what sets us apart from all other nations, the laws we have had men fight and die for, the laws we hold as sacred, is wrong and erodes away the rights we have and hold so dear.

It's like in '04 when they would raise the alerts for the sole purpose to scare people. It's wrong.

Wiretapping illegally is wrong. The President has many many tools in his possession to do it legal and in the right ways. Yet this president refuses to.

The question shouldn't be whether or not he can..... the question should be why is he not using the LEGAL means, why is he doing this and subverting the laws that are in place?

Ustwo 12-20-2005 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
This is totally off-topic, but since we're talking about my blind hate, I'm sort of interested in what Bush COULD do to lose your blind, puppy-like affection? From where I'm sitting, the guy has crossed SO many lines... It honestly seems to me like any reasonable, thinking person would HAVE to see through it all by now. But you and others like you seem to just open wide and swallow whatever hand-waving he offers about his infractions. So what would it take? Would he actually have to strangle an Iraqi baby on live TV for you to have any change of opinion about him?
He doesn't have my puppy like affection. I think he is blowing it domesticly by not pushing for REAL budget cuts to bloated programs. The house would approve it, the senate would block it, so its a lost battle, but such needs to get into the public eye before we can change a few more senators, he has just made this aspect worse with the 'compasionate conservative'. I THOUGHT that was an election year lie, I HOPED it was just fluff, but it seems he is in fact a man of his word, which I both admire and in this case regret. I am upset with the republican party as a whole as they backed off of the tough talk after the 1994 'revolution' (thanks Bill) and have done very little meaningful reduction in government.

I do think he is handling the war on terror quite well, I think the whines about losing civil liberties is a bunch of B.S. No one here is really outraged it just a new angle for the left to work on hoping it will 'stick'. Its been a constant stream of attacks to the point its just noise.

I find it amusing how Bush is called an idiot and later the same people claim he is able to pull of moves that would make Machiavelli proud. Its been hysteria on the left since they lost power and lost control of the debate and while I'm glad they have been exposed to the American people for what they are at last, I am sad that the facade of civilitiy and in some cases sanity is gone. Perhaps it is just a symptom of society becoming more impolite, or perhaps its a deeper and dangerous divide, time will tell.

stevo 12-20-2005 10:32 AM
Quote:
use all necessary 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
This line has been quoted before and it is the authorization of force congress gave the president. Thats all he really needs to spy on agents of international terrorism. Conversations between suspected al-qaida agents in the US and their overseas counterpart were spied on, and you people are upset? I don't care if they were US citizens or british royalty, he didn't need a warrent.

ScottKuma 12-20-2005 10:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tecoyah
I will now support Impeachment proceedings.....and this saddens me more than I can say. A line has been crossed in my mind, which I have consistently moved to avoid this conclusion, perhaps I have been fooling myself , or I may just be afraid of the implications. By signing off on this action, the President of the United States has broken the oath of office, and this is unacceptable in my mind, as I see the constitution as law. If not the only law right now that keeps the federal branch in check. If we allow this action to go unchallenged.......we are handing a blank check to an administration that has a history of removing civil liberties......Not a good Idea in my opinion.
Agreed, whole-heartedly.

I have been against the actions of the Bush administration on this front since USA PATRIOT was pushed through Congress after 9/11/2001.

What has happened to American citizens' civil liberties in the past 20 years - through administrations on both sides of the aisle - has been absolutely unconscionable. At least in most of those cases those losses have been at the hands of Congress - whom we can hold responsible. When the losses are at the hands of the Commander In Chief, and are done through seemingly-illegal Presidental Orders, then I think there's only one action to be undertaken: impeachment.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:33 PM.
Page 5 of 10 1234 5 678910
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360