Did the Bush admin break the law? - Page 6 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Poppinjay · 12-20-2005, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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.

I would hardly consider this ham fisted approach to law enforcement as Machiavellian. More like Nixonian. Clumsy. Stupid. Dangerous.

alpha phi · 12-20-2005, 11:45 AM

So how is domestic spying dangerous to you?
.........Your children?
.........This will prevent terrorism?

Wal-Mart Turns in Student’s Anti-Bush Photo, Secret Service Investigates Him

Federal agents visited a college senior two months ago because he requested a book written by Mao Tse-Tung.

Colorado Band Singing Dylan Song Seen as Threatening President Bush

High school student grilled by US Secret Service over artwork

Secret Service Questions Student for Anti-Bush T-Shirt

Secret Service agents visited Oakland High and interrogated two 16 year-old male students in connection with comments they had allegedly made during a classroom discussion concerning President Bush and the U.S. Government's role in Iraq.

Nah!.......nothing wrong with this picture......their just protecting us
Yea.....that's the ticket
Squash that dissent early.......that'll show them foreign terrorists
And it's all nice and legal.....the lawmakers said so!
Morality? what's that got to do with anything?

trickyy · 12-20-2005, 11:47 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. 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.

hmm, they should build that aspect into a law instead of just doing it. is there a case where legislators were told that they needed to enact such a provision and refused? was it even suggested?

another argument i heard was relating to the urgent nature of the searches/taps. as already mentioned, the law allows for retroactive warrants. the approval is basically a rubber stamp, even moreso for the doomsday scenarios used to justify these secret procedures.

i don't think vague language about doing "anything necessary" legally trumps all specific laws that stand in the way. if no laws are being broken, i would hope either 1) they aren't doing what has been alleged or 2) they have a better justification. gonzales has demonstrated his flawed legal understanding before...as a result our country has had to deal with many problems concerning torture.

stevo · 12-20-2005, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trickyy

i don't think vague language about doing "anything necessary" legally trumps all specific laws that stand in the way. if no laws are being broken, i would hope either 1) they aren't doing what has been alleged or 2) they have a better justification. gonzales has demonstrated his flawed legal understanding before...as a result our country has had to deal with many problems concerning torture.

how is "anything necessary" vague? Its pretty clear to me. A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G necessary. What congress gave the president following 9/11 was tantamount to a declaration of war. He was given the powers to do whatever he needed to catch people involved in 9/11 and al-qaeda and to prevent any future terrorist attacts. Since they gave him this power "he" can spy on people suspected of having terrorist ties. Not just ordinary americans, but people with suspected ties. You have a problem with our government listening in on calls between suspected al-qaeda in the US and agents outside the US?

alpha phi · 12-20-2005, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

how is "anything necessary" vague? Its pretty clear to me. A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G necessary. What congress gave the president following 9/11 was tantamount to a declaration of war. He was given the powers to do whatever he needed to catch people involved in 9/11 and al-qaeda and to prevent any future terrorist attacts. Since they gave him this power "he" can spy on people suspected of having terrorist ties. Not just ordinary americans, but people with suspected ties. You have a problem with our government listening in on calls between suspected al-qaeda in the US and agents outside the US?

spying on and harassing ordinary americans is what they are doing.
see my above post for just a few examples
also add anti-war groups
also add envirmentalists
also add political enemies
This is where they have crossed the line

trickyy · 12-20-2005, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

how is "anything necessary" vague? Its pretty clear to me. A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G necessary. What congress gave the president following 9/11 was tantamount to a declaration of war. He was given the powers to do whatever he needed to catch people involved in 9/11 and al-qaeda and to prevent any future terrorist attacts. Since they gave him this power "he" can spy on people suspected of having terrorist ties. Not just ordinary americans, but people with suspected ties. You have a problem with our government listening in on calls between suspected al-qaeda in the US and agents outside the US?

it is vague in application. if this statement is to be streched as far as possible, you can indeed apply it to anything. in that case, why enumerate various powers through legislation? this phrase holds more weight than much more specific laws on the books (FISA) or any law anywhere...! there has been a lot of debate over the mechanics of the patriot act in the last month. yet this short phrase renders volumes of material superfluous? the president actually possesses unbounded power and priviledge to do whatever he wants, even something blatantly unconstitutional or illegal (even torture, assassination, etc.), provided it can be said to prevent terrorism?

that is ridiculous. this statement can not give the president power to do anything under the sun. there must be limits. in my opinion, these limits can be found in better established laws.

i don't "have a problem" with the gov't protecting us from terrorists. surely if they are doing this, the FISA court will grant them permission...just as it has thousands of times before. i don't understand why they wish to bypass this simple procedure.

stevo · 12-20-2005, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha phi

spying on and harassing ordinary americans is what they are doing.
see my above post for just a few examples
also add anti-war groups
also add envirmentalists
also add political enemies
This is where they have crossed the line

This thread doesn't have anything to do with that. we have 5 previous pages on this thread about how bush broke the law by authorizing wiretaps. I've read the links you posted before. We've discussed them before. When the secret service is called because someone has a suspicion they have to check it out. Thats their job. If you notice, the only instance where the secret service came without being notified by another party beforehand was the library case. Book's on a list, person's background is suspicious, so they check it out. No one was beaten or thrown in prison. And none of that has anything to do with bush authorizing wiretaps.

stevo · 12-20-2005, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trickyy

it is vague in application. if this statement is to be streched as far as possible, you can indeed apply it to anything. in that case, why enumerate various powers through legislation? this phrase holds more weight than much more specific laws on the books (FISA) or any law anywhere...! there has been a lot of debate over the mechanics of the patriot act in the last month. yet this short phrase renders volumes of material superfluous? the president actually possesses unbounded power and priviledge to do whatever he wants, even something blatantly unconstitutional or illegal (even torture, assassination, etc.), provided it can be said to prevent terrorism?

that is ridiculous. this statement can not give the president power to do anything under the sun. there must be limits. in my opinion, these limits can be found in better established laws.

i don't "have a problem" with the gov't protecting us from terrorists. surely if they are doing this, the FISA court will grant them permission...just as it has thousands of times before. i don't understand why they wish to bypass this simple procedure.

Yes, and by receiving the authorization from congress to do anything necessary FISA allows the president much lattitude in what surveillance to undertake.

pan6467 · 12-20-2005, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Yes, and by receiving the authorization from congress to do anything necessary FISA allows the president much lattitude in what surveillance to undertake.

Except to have unwarranted taps on US "persons".

pan6467 · 12-20-2005, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

This thread doesn't have anything to do with that. we have 5 previous pages on this thread about how bush broke the law by authorizing wiretaps. I've read the links you posted before. We've discussed them before. When the secret service is called because someone has a suspicion they have to check it out. Thats their job. If you notice, the only instance where the secret service came without being notified by another party beforehand was the library case. Book's on a list, person's background is suspicious, so they check it out. No one was beaten or thrown in prison. And none of that has anything to do with bush authorizing wiretaps.

I disagree, I think it sets a disturbing pattern, especially the one you point out about the book and library..... and there were a few on there that were news to me, so if they were debated here I missed them.

Anytime we have "books" on any freaking list that makes the government take notice, becomes a time when government has become too powerful and too "big brother-ish".

It is apparent reading these, the taps and other items that have been posted in the past..... that Bush is using whatever powers he has not just to combat terrorism but for his own gains and at his own whims.

These are interesting times indeed, they are scary, intriguing and yet overall the same as any other, yet we make them to be bigger than they are, because we wish to be a part of history. The problem with making them bigger than they are..... is that sometimes they become self fulfilling prophecies, sometimes they are bigger than we make them, because we focus on something else and sometimes things are truly as bad and as big as we make them, yet seem too outlandish and too big to believe.

Bush's Administration, I fear falls into all of the above scenarios, with a heavy dose of the latter scenario.

alpha phi · 12-20-2005, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

This thread doesn't have anything to do with that. we have 5 previous pages on this thread about how bush broke the law by authorizing wiretaps. I've read the links you posted before. We've discussed them before. When the secret service is called because someone has a suspicion they have to check it out. Thats their job. If you notice, the only instance where the secret service came without being notified by another party beforehand was the library case. Book's on a list, person's background is suspicious, so they check it out. No one was beaten or thrown in prison. And none of that has anything to do with bush authorizing wiretaps.

It has everything to do with this administrations criminal activity.
The thread title is: Did the Bush admin break the law?
The wire taps are being done to anti-war groups,
enviromentalists,animal rights groups,students, and political enemies
It goes to show the environment of overreaching
dissent squashing, fear mongering, criminal activity
Perpretrated by this current adminstration.
But it gets worse.....
Ever stop to think about the future?
If this precident is allowed to stand
The next adminstration maybe opposed
to your viewpoint.....

dksuddeth · 12-20-2005, 01:43 PM

is 'anything necessary' a free ticket to violate standing precedents and laws?

shakran · 12-20-2005, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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.

That's because your party is being run by people who do not believe in what your party claims to, and used to, believe in - namely fiscal conservatism. That's really not a bad concept, but unfortunately, somehow the leaders of your party have redefined it to mean "shift funding from what we don't like to what we do, and call it budget cuts, and then lower taxes so we end up with a net loss."

The old republican party would never have endorsed that approach.

Quote:

I do think he is handling the war on terror quite well

I'm curious as to your reasoning there - how can you think that when the terrorist who attacked us is still running loose and we're making little to no effort to catch him - and in fact we're spending much more energy in Iraq, who didn't attack us, than we are going after bin Laden, who did.

Quote:

, 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.

Sorry, I am outraged. Any time you take the constitution and say "we must not deviate from the instructions of this document unless we REALLY feel like it" you are making a mockery of the founding philosophies of this country.

Stripping people of thier civil rights is NOT defending America because it is changing America into something that its founders, and its citizens, would never want.

Quote:

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.

Why? With Rove as the puppeteer a goat could pull off shenanigans like that. Bush IS dumb. Either that, or he's a damn good actor. But you don't need a smart person when that person is the figurehead who is being controlled by people sitting in the wings, namely, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al.

Quote:

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.

This is an example of the hypocracy your party is famous for. I've never noticed any republicans giving a democrat a break when he's in power. Don't whine when the democrats do the same thing to you. I also find it interesting that right after you accuse the democrats of whining you whine that they're being mean to your president.

Elphaba · 12-20-2005, 06:07 PM

I don't believe this is a complete list, so I will ask for additions. How has the perception of the United States changed since 2001?

- We torture prisoners
- We have suspended habeus corpus
- We kidnap "suspected" terrorists on foreign territory
- We have acquiesed to FBI, CIA, Pentagon and NSA spying on US citizens
- We have corrupted the press with paid propaganda and the threat of exclusion
- We engage in "preemptive" war (the worst oxymoron)

The corruption of this administration is simply a symptom of a larger cause.

The sheeple continue to graze on sparse grass, content in their ideology.

Rekna · 12-20-2005, 06:13 PM

This quote sums up my feelings.

Quote:

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.

Benjamin Franklin

samcol · 12-20-2005, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

This quote sums up my feelings.

It doesn't get anymore cut and dry than that, and Elphaba's list is everything America used to be 100% against.

maximusveritas · 12-20-2005, 08:42 PM

Pretty much every nonpartisan expert on these issues has come down hard on President Bush for this. At the very least, he mistakenly overstepped his authority. Alternatively, he intentionally broke the law while lying to the American people about it. The White House's explanation of this revelation has been so weak and defensive that I'm betting this is only going to get worse for the President the deeper we look.

pan6467 · 12-20-2005, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

The sheeple continue to graze on sparse grass, content in their ideology.

I agreed with everything till that right there.

I am the eternal optimist, I believe in the PEOPLE (we, none of us are sheeple). We are a nation that has proven time and again when the need arises we stand up.

This administration preyed on people's fears after 9/11 to get all they wanted, and now the truth comes out and they are no able to contain it. Change does not happen overnight, the case will be built and we will have justice, it just takes time.

The people will take notice and do something. It takes time for the people to get riled up enough before they demand justice.... and the time is now at hand. The administration is totally losing control and their pathetic excuses are no longer holding water.

Grey2000 · 12-20-2005, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

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.

Serious question ..

Do you see terrorism as a criminal threat or a military threat ?

shakran · 12-20-2005, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I agreed with everything till that right there.

I am the eternal optimist, I believe in the PEOPLE (we, none of us are sheeple). We are a nation that has proven time and again when the need arises we stand up.

Yes, but we are also a nation that has proven time and again that we will sit around and refuse to educate ourselves about the problem until it is a ridiculously large one. The situation we're in right now wasn't hard to predict. I called it LONG before Iraq was invaded. It was obvious to anyone who bothered to look that they had NO justifiable evidence for WMD's, which of course meant they had NO justifiable reason for the war (and you didn't even have to look that hard to see how shaky the WMD fairytale was - just watch Colin Powell's bullshit speech to the UN on the subject to see how flimsy their case was).

And then last year, even though we were chest deep in manure already, the American people (probably) elected the guy again. (I say probably because there ARE some issues revolving around the Diebold voting machines that will probably never be investigated and therefore the '04 election will ALWAYS be questionable) I'm the first one to say Kerry wasn't great, but good grief - Bush was a KNOWN failure, yet he waltzed right back into office. And as I predicted back then, 3 months later people started waking up.

The people always wake up too late, and that frankly frustrates the hell out of me.

So yeah, I'd say "sheeple" is often an apt term.

Grey2000 · 12-20-2005, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I don't believe this is a complete list, so I will ask for additions. How has the perception of the United States changed since 2001?

As you say, perception. And what shapes perception ?

Who's opinions mean something to Joe Average ?

Mainstream news media, stand-up comics, celebrities and cartoonists.
Sounds simplistic, but its true.

Ooohh, and wait, what side do they lean to I wonder ?

Also, I live in South Africa and my perception hasn't changed. I believe in what America stands for and believe in her intentions for the middle-east and the world.

Nixon used to refer to the 'silent majority' - myself and millions others worldwide form part of that group.

Because its a socially-established meme (through repetition) that bush=hitler its actually socially unacceptable to support the Bush administration, which means that polls won't tell the whole story, because people are reluctant to admit their support.

America's worldwide support would be just fine if her own citizens could look past their utopian ideologies and face the harsh realties of the modern world.
An America united behind president Bush ('we support the troops' doesn't cut it) would have seen the Iraq well on its way to peace and prosperity already.

The fact that liberals are so commited to ideology above reality that they would actively undermine their own armed forces is reprehensible to me.

Thank God liberalism didn't have such a shrill voice in the 40's.

host · 12-20-2005, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

how is "anything necessary" vague? Its pretty clear to me. A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G necessary. What congress gave the president following 9/11 was tantamount to a declaration of war. He was given the powers to do whatever he needed to catch people involved in 9/11 and al-qaeda and to prevent any future terrorist attacts. Since they gave him this power "he" can spy on people suspected of having terrorist ties. Not just ordinary americans, but people with suspected ties. You have a problem with our government listening in on calls between suspected al-qaeda in the US and agents outside the US?

stevo, this is a sequence, in chronological order, of what I "know" about the possibility that Bush has "broken the law". It appears that Bush, himself, in an April 20, 2004 speech where he tried to persuade his audience that the Patriot Act should be strengthened and renewed, and his Atty General nominee, Alberto Gonzales, in his sworn senate commitee testimony on Jan. 6, 2005, while answering questions put to him by Senator Feingold, were both untruthful about ongoing wire-tap policies that they had authorized, and implemented.

Please read these excerpts, or the whole linked pages, and comment about what you disagree with in the excerpts, as well as in my comments above, and why. I want to gain a sense on how far apart our views on this issue actually are, before I post questions about what your comments here. Maybe you have read different reports than I have, and maybe there are things that I am citing here that are new to you.....

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040420-2.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 20, 2004

President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security
Remarks by the President in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act
Kleinshans Music Hall
Buffalo, New York

........ So the first thing I want you to think about is, when you hear Patriot Act, is that we changed the law and the

bureaucratic mind-set to allow for the sharing of information. It's vital. And others will describe what that means.

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking

about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about

chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to

understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to

protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a

phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone,

particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types

to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were

available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any

sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to

happen.

The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which

will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies.

Thirdly, to give you an example of what we're talking about, there's something called delayed notification warrants. Those

are very important. I see some people, first responders nodding their heads about what they mean. These are a common tool

used to catch mobsters. In other words, it allows people to collect data before everybody is aware of what's going on. It

requires a court order. It requires protection under the law. We couldn't use these against terrorists, but we could use

against gangs.........

Quote:

http://www.senate.gov/~feingold/stat...005127955.html
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on the Nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be U.S. Attorney General
January 6, 2005

SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE

SUBJECT: NOMINATION OF ALBERTO GONZALES TO BE U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL

FEINGOLD:

.....So what I want to do is press you on that, because I think, perhaps, you've misunderstood the question. And it's an

important one. It goes to a very basic principle of the country, that no one, not even the president of the United States, is

above the law.......

.....The question here is: What is your view regarding the president's constitutional authority to authorize violations of

the criminal law, duly enacted statutes that may have been on the books for many years, when acting as commander in chief?

Does he have such authority? The question you have been asked is not about a hypothetical statute in the future that the

president might think is unconstitutional; it's about our laws and international treaty obligations concerning torture. The

torture memo answered that question in the affirmative. And my colleagues and I would like your answer on that today.

And I also would like you to answer this: Does the president, in your opinion, have the authority, acting as commander in

chief, to authorize warrantless searches of Americans' homes and wiretaps of their conversations in violation of the criminal

and foreign intelligence surveillance statutes of this country?

GONZALES:

Senator, the August 30th memo has been withdrawn. It has been rejected, including that section regarding the commander in

chief authority to ignore the criminal statutes. So it's been rejected by the executive branch. I categorically reject it.

And in addition to that, as I've said repeatedly today, this administration does not engage in torture and will not condone

torture. And so what we're really discussing is a hypothetical situation that...

FEINGOLD:

Judge Gonzales, I've asked a broader question. I'm asking whether, in general, the president has constitutional authority --

does he at least in theory have the authority to authorize violations of the criminal law when there are duly enacted

statutes, simply because he's commander in chief?

FEINGOLD:

Does he have that power?

GONZALES:

Senator, in my judgment, you phrase it as sort of a hypothetical situation. I would have to know what is the national

interest that the president may have to consider.

What I'm saying is, it is impossible to me, based upon the question as you've presented it to me, to answer that question.

I can say is that there is a presumption of constitutionality with respect to any statute passed by Congress. I will take an

oath to defend the statutes.

And to the extent that there is a decision made to ignore a statute, I consider that a very significant decision and one that

I would personally be involved with, I commit to you on that, and one we would take with a great deal of care and

seriousness.

FEINGOLD:

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

GONZALES:

No, sir.

FEINGOLD:

You know, if this is something where you take a good look at it, you give a presumption that the president ought to follow

the law, to me, that's not good enough under our system of government.

GONZALES:

Senator, if I might respond to that, the president is not above the law. Of course he is not above the law.

But he has an obligation too. He takes an oath as well. And if Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, there is a

practice and a tradition recognized by presidents of both parties that he may elect to decide not to enforce that law. Now I

think that that would be...

FEINGOLD:

I recognized and I tried to make that distinction, Judge, between electing not to enforce as opposed to affirmatively telling

people they can do certain things in contravention of the law.

GONZALES:

Senator, this president is not -- it's not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in

contravention of our criminal statutes.

FEINGOLD:

Finally, will you commit to notify Congress if the president makes this type of decision and not wait two years until a memo

is leaked about it?

GONZALES:

I will commit to advise the Congress as soon as I legally can, yes, sir.

FEINGOLD:

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

GONZALES:

Thank you, Senator.

FEINGOLD:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/po...16program.html
Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts
By JAMES RISEN and ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: December 16, 2005

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to

eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the

court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

In 2002, President Bush toured the National Security Agency at Fort Meade, Md., with Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who was then

the agency's director and is now a full general and the principal deputy director of national intelligence.

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and

international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the

past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they

said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval was a major shift

in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on

communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the

surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches....

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20051217.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 17, 2005

President's Radio Address

......To fight the war on terror, I am using authority vested in me by Congress, including the Joint Authorization for Use of

Military Force, which passed overwhelmingly in the first week after September the 11th. I'm also using constitutional

authority vested in me as Commander-in-Chief.

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S.

law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related

terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a

clear link to these terrorist networks.

This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist

attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in

media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations........

....The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that

is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. The activities I have authorized make it more

likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this

authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.

The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment

of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each

assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation's top legal

officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30

times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al

Qaeda and related groups......

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

......Q It was, why did you skip the basic safeguards of asking courts for permission for the intercepts?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I -- right after September the 11th, I knew we were fighting a different kind of war. And so I asked people in my administration to analyze how best for me and our government to do the job people expect us to do, which is to detect and prevent a possible attack. That's what the American people want. We looked at the possible scenarios. And the people responsible for helping us protect and defend came forth with the current program, because it enables us to move faster and quicker. And that's important. We've got to be fast on our feet, quick to detect and prevent.

We use FISA still -- you're referring to the FISA court in your question -- of course, we use FISAs. But FISA is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect.

Now, having suggested this idea, I then, obviously, went to the question, is it legal to do so? I am -- I swore to uphold the laws. Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely. As I mentioned in my remarks, the legal authority is derived from the Constitution, as well as the authorization of force by the United States Congress.....

......Q -- why, in the four years since 9/11, has your administration not sought to get changes in the law instead of bypassing it, as some of your critics have said?

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. First, I want to make clear to the people listening that this program is limited in nature to those that are known al Qaeda ties and/or affiliates. That's important. So it's a program that's limited, and you brought up something that I want to stress, and that is, is that these calls are not intercepted within the country. They are from outside the country to in the country, or vice versa. So in other words, this is not a -- if you're calling from Houston to L.A., that call is not monitored. And if there was ever any need to monitor, there would be a process to do that.

I think I've got the authority to move forward, Kelly. I mean, this is what -- and the Attorney General was out briefing this morning about why it's legal to make the decisions I'm making. I can fully understand why members of Congress are expressing concerns about civil liberties. I know that. And it's -- I share the same concerns. I want to make sure the American people understand, however, that we have an obligation to protect you, and we're doing that and, at the same time, protecting your civil liberties.

Secondly, an open debate about law would say to the enemy, here is what we're going to do. And this is an enemy which adjusts. We monitor this program carefully. We have consulted with members of the Congress over a dozen times. We are constantly reviewing the program. Those of us who review the program have a duty to uphold the laws of the United States, and we take that duty very seriously..........

....Q Thank you, Mr. President. I wonder if you can tell us today, sir, what, if any, limits you believe there are or should be on the powers of a President during a war, at wartime? And if the global war on terror is going to last for decades, as has been forecast, does that mean that we're going to see, therefore, a more or less permanent expansion of the unchecked power of the executive in American society?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I disagree with your assertion of "unchecked power."

Q Well --

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on a second, please. There is the check of people being sworn to uphold the law, for starters. There is oversight. We're talking to Congress all the time, and on this program, to suggest there's unchecked power is not listening to what I'm telling you. I'm telling you, we have briefed the United States Congress on this program a dozen times.

This is an awesome responsibility to make decisions on behalf of the American people, and I understand that, Peter. And we'll continue to work with the Congress, as well as people within our own administration, to constantly monitor programs such as the one I described to you, to make sure that we're protecting the civil liberties of the United States. To say "unchecked power" basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the President, which I strongly reject.

Q What limits do you --

THE PRESIDENT: I just described limits on this particular program, Peter. And that's what's important for the American people to understand. I am doing what you expect me to do, and at the same time, safeguarding the civil liberties of the country...

Quote:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/
Column/Between The Lines
Jonathan Alter

Bush’s Snoopgate
The president was so desperate to kill The New York Times’ eavesdropping story, he summoned the paper’s editor and publisher

to the Oval Office. But it wasn’t just out of concern about national security.

WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY
By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek
Updated: 6:17 p.m. ET Dec. 19, 2005

.......No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency

eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of

the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur

Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The

Times will not comment on the meeting,
but one can only imagine the president’s desperation.

The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His

comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to

change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists—in fact, all American Muslims, period—have long

since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that “the fact that we

are discussing this program is helping the enemy.” But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this

is so. And rather than the leaking being a “shameful act,” it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying

to stop a presidential power grab.

No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for

a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the

Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey

the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear

reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in

any area in the name of fighting terrorism.......

pan6467 · 12-20-2005, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grey2000

Serious question ..

Do you see terrorism as a criminal threat or a military threat ?

That's a broad and loaded question and no matter how one answers someone can point and say "see he"s easy on terrorists........ or ..... "see he puts catching terrorists above our civil rights."

It's a little bit of both, depending on the strength of the organization and where we are with the "war" on them.

We must protect ourselves from enemies foreign and domestic but we cannot sacrifice all that we believe in to do so. If we choose to go that route then the enemy has won far more than we ever will.

Does this answer give any legitimacy to the illegal actions and fear mongering this administration has done?

Absolutely not. We must find ways to battle without sacrificing the rights and way of life the enemy seems determined to destroy.

There were ways to legally perform these wiretaps and the President refused to adhere to them. Why?

Grey2000 · 12-21-2005, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

That's a broad and loaded question and no matter how one answers someone can point and say "see he"s easy on terrorists........ or ..... "see he puts catching terrorists above our civil rights."

It's a little bit of both, depending on the strength of the organization and where we are with the "war" on them.

That's exactly the problem right there. Your ideological outlook demands that you straddle the fence on an issue like this.

It wasn't even slightly loaded. Because its very important to answer this question one way or the other and not prevaricate and tie yourself up in knots as you consider the pros and cons (not that due consideration is wrong - just that at the end of it a decision must be reached.)

If you think its a criminal issue , then so be it, its an understandable, (if injudicious) point of view.

This is my point in a more general sense. - To actually make a decision on where you stand and then stick by it seems to be beyond most liberal ideology.

Like Kerry's flip-floppin' and Senator Clinton's playing the numbers, you haven't made a choice yet. You believe you don't really have to make a choice, don't you ? Your sense of personal morality is preserved because you feel you're on the 'good' side of the issue. The side of reason and moderation and due consideration.

However that can only ever satisfy your ideological moral viewpoint.

In the real world Joe Al Queda says - "yippee, the libs in the states are putting forward the exact viewpoints we need them to. Anyone got a phonecard for the US?"

I jest there, but you get the picture. No matter what your ideological point of view is, at the end of the day it comes down to physical activities performed by individuals - these activities you can make easier or harder. Its your choice.

Oh, and the answer to your 'why' question appears to have been answered already : Pure and simple expediency. Or do you have some proof of another motive ?

pan6467 · 12-21-2005, 12:52 AM

OOO so because of my ideology now that gives the president the ok to commit illegal acts???????

Like the way YOU didn't post all of what I said..... you took out just what was useful to you hoping noone would see the rest.

Timothy McVeigh was a criminal and shopuld have been tried as such, because he was pretty much small time.

Al Quida is military because they are a tad more organized and their tentacles reach far and they can do far more damage.

However, fighting neither gives the president the right to justify breaking the law.

What because I don't agree with you you are going to attack me and my beliefs?

How soon until, what I just said, is grounds for the president to wiretap me?

Do I have to drink Bush's piss and believe it's lemonade like so many on the Right do?

And if I don't? If I stand up and say what is going on is wrong and needs to be stopped..... am I going to be considered the enemy????? I have already on here been accused of being a terrorist sympathizer, a non patriot, told to move elsewhere and so on.

I have been personally attacked and had someone on this board use my gambling addiction to do so (Been recovering for 6 proud years) and I'm the bad guy????

Been told I am wanting to be a martyr because I choose to work and better my life than use the system and quit to pay my medical bills..... and I'm the bad guy?????

Been told because I speak out and exorcise my RIGHT to speak out and express my displeasure with Bush and the government.... and I get accused of being anti-patriotic, a traitor, a terrorist sympathizer and so on.... and I'm the bad guy????

This is my country also and I have just as much right to believe and speak out as you do.... don't like it keep supporting Bush and turn me in as some form of criminal for my beliefs.....

I defer to Rekna's Ben Franklin quote as that pretty much says it all:

Quote:

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.

Benjamin Franklin

BTW what is your definition of "a terrorist"?

Grey2000 · 12-21-2005, 01:23 AM

Well, since you asked...

Quote:

It's a little bit of both, depending on the strength of the organization and where we are with the "war" on them.

So no real decision one way or the other then ?

Quote:

We must protect ourselves from enemies foreign and domestic but we cannot sacrifice all that we believe in to do so. If we choose to go that route then the enemy has won far more than we ever will.

You don't have to sacrifice all you believe in, but you do have to recognize that the situation has changed - globally, and as you must well know, the compromise for the sake of security is always at the expense of freedom, without exception.

Trouble is you look down the road and think that every change to accomodate security will lead to a fascist state.

Quote:

Does this answer give any legitimacy to the illegal actions and fear mongering this administration has done?

'Fear Mongering' ? So there really aren't international terrorist organizations who will stop at nothing to kill and maim their ideological enemies, with their ultimate aim being the complete destruction of the non-islamofascist world? That was just made up ?

So here's the real truth, the perceptive break that liberals have with conservatives. Liberals believe that the threat is exagerated, conservatives believe we don't take it seriously enough.

Only one can be true though. Wonder which it is ?

Quote:

Absolutely not. We must find ways to battle without sacrificing the rights and way of life the enemy seems determined to destroy.

I love that 'must find ways' what does that mean in real terms ? when you're not willing to give up any of your freedoms at all ?

Another liberal trait - lots of things we shouldn't do, not many suggestions about what we should do.

Quote:

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.

Yeah, but read that quote carefully. The key word is 'essential' what essential liberties have you lost.

As to being accused of non-patriotism etc. It may seem cruel or nasty for you ta have been labeled in such a way. But if you believe that fighting your government will protect your country more than fighting the evil ideology it faces - then you are certainly not being patriotic, and whether you like it not, whether its done for the 'right reasons' or not, whether its 'speaking truth to power' or not is immaterial - you are harming your nations efforts.

For every action there is a consequence. You may not like the fact that your beliefs are an aid and comfort to the enemy but that doesn't stop it from being true.

And lastly :

Quote:

OOO so because of my ideology now that gives the president the ok to commit illegal acts???????

No, its your ideological outlook that convinces you that the actions are illegal.

pan6467 · 12-21-2005, 02:47 AM

So you label and attack and who cares... your side is right I'm wrong....

Is that what you want to hear....

I offer clean debates and not one Righty takes me up on it.... hmmmm

You didn't address the personal attacks against me did you?

It's all or nothing with you isn't it?

Sorry to say but the world is in shades of gray not black and white.

I refuse to have anyone tell me that illegal wiretaps are being done for my own good.

I would rather run the risk of getting killed by a terrorist and living the way I choose than to allow my rights and freedoms to be trampled over by an egocentric president and his self righteous followers.....

sorry.

I'm tired of being attacked in other threads for my beliefs.... I'm tired of the Right picking and choosing what I say and adding their meaning to it and ignoring the rest.

I am tired of being stalked by someone on these boards, making snide personal attack remarks. I am tired of people using my personal life and issues on these boards to pick fights... there's no debates...... I offered to have one in another thread not 1 taker.... wonder why. Because maybe the Right can't... all they can do is attack and make things personal?

I'm tired of having my patriotism and my beliefs questioned by self righteous assholes who keep telling me I'm unpatriotic, I'm a terrorist sympathizer I'm.... whatever because I refuse to believe I have to give up ANY of my God given rights to appease them.

The president broke the law.... but let's ignore that and attack those who speak out.... it's old it's bullshit and it is tearing this nation apart faster and far more effectively than any fucking terrorist ever will.

Hardknock · 12-21-2005, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grey2000

As you say, perception. And what shapes perception ?

Who's opinions mean something to Joe Average ?

Mainstream news media, stand-up comics, celebrities and cartoonists.
Sounds simplistic, but its true.

Ooohh, and wait, what side do they lean to I wonder ?

Also, I live in South Africa and my perception hasn't changed. I believe in what America stands for and believe in her intentions for the middle-east and the world.

Nixon used to refer to the 'silent majority' - myself and millions others worldwide form part of that group.

Because its a socially-established meme (through repetition) that bush=hitler its actually socially unacceptable to support the Bush administration, which means that polls won't tell the whole story, because people are reluctant to admit their support.

America's worldwide support would be just fine if her own citizens could look past their utopian ideologies and face the harsh realties of the modern world.
An America united behind president Bush ('we support the troops' doesn't cut it) would have seen the Iraq well on its way to peace and prosperity already.

The fact that liberals are so commited to ideology above reality that they would actively undermine their own armed forces is reprehensible to me.

Thank God liberalism didn't have such a shrill voice in the 40's.

Ideology above reality? I don't agree. We've been spouting reality since before this debacle of a war began. Iraq was doing just fine without us going in the in the first place. And don't give me any "well Saddam was a bad man and he had to go so we had no choice but to invade" crap. Everytime some sheep spouts this from their mouth I reply with why are Castro, Kim IL Sung, Hu Jintao still in power? I have yet to receive an answer.

Just in case you don't remember, Bush had approval ratings of 85% right after 9/11 happened. The entire country was behind him in the goal of capturing Bin Laden. Now, four years later, he has since pissed it all away with his underground policies and secret agendas. All in the name of "security”. Hogwash. Bush did it to himself.

I also don't think that liberals purposely try to undermine our armed forces. I'm curious to where to got this perception. If anything, liberals are more responsible with our armed forces by using them when there is an actual need instead of fabricating evidence to send them to their premature deaths.

Grey, you need to understand that if any piece of America is destroyed; including all the freedoms that we currently have, then the terrorists have won. Once we turn our state of freedom, democracy, and liberty into a police state, they have won. We have laws and procedures that allow us everything we need to do to engage the enemy in this war but Bush chose to circumvent those procedures claiming that they would take too long. That's ridiculous since the courts can approve surveillance warrants in a matter of minutes if necessary. There was no reason for Bush to circumvent the system. The only reason he did it is that he knew it would be illegal. He even goes to the point where he got desperate to keep the story from breaking out. See this link. NSA officials even demanded that their names be taken off the order to eavesdrop because they questioned the legality of the order.

You want to know why I fight my government? I fight my current government because they are liars. Because they are crooks. Because they are cold-blooded murders. I fight them because they are against everything that this country stands for and that they try and justify every illegal action they do by hiding behind their 9/11 curtain by sending Bush on TV every week or so (notice how the intervals between the "please keep supporting the war" speeches have gotten shorter and shorter since Bush's approval rating has fallen further into the toilet) "pleading" his case to America trying to get the sheep in line with speeches that he didn't write. If we allow Bush to get away with this, then this is the beginning of the end of this great nation. I don't agree with the way my country was founded (on the backs of indigenous peoples) but I believe in the IDEA of America. The idea that ALL its citizens shall have life, liberty, and freedom from persecution. Bush does not believe in any of these things. I knew that the day he took office and on last Saturday, I believe that his admission was the straw that finally broke the camels back.

I believe in America. I believe in freedom. That makes me and anyone else who agrees with me TRUE patriots.

dksuddeth · 12-21-2005, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grey2000

That's exactly the problem right there. Your ideological outlook demands that you straddle the fence on an issue like this.

Now this is a problem I definitely have with most rabid left and right wingers. The unending inability to see anything more than two answers, right or wrong, left or right. There is NOTHING that is a cut and dried black or white answer when you consider large issues, i.e. terrorism or choose any other major issue. People talk about the political divide in america and how its tearing the nation apart but its those two radical sides that are causing it.

anyway, back on topic.....

stevo · 12-21-2005, 06:00 AM

Before you get on me about bringing up Clinton and Carter, wait. Its not about "well, look what Clinton did." Its about "If it wasn't illegal then, why is it illegal now?"
continue.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

Quote:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release February 9, 1995

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949

- - - - - - -
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801,
et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for
the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.

Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney
General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain
orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign
intelligence information.

Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or
defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section
303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical
searches:

(a) Secretary of State;

(b) Secretary of Defense;

(c) Director of Central Intelligence;

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;

(e) Deputy Secretary of State;

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications,
unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 9, 1995.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

Quote:

EXERCISE OF CERTAIN AUTHORITY RESPECTING ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
EO 12139
23 May 1979

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and
104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this
chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for
foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General
is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order, but only if the
Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

1-102. Pursuant to Section 102(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Act
of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(b)), the Attorney General is authorized to
approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under Section
103 of that Act (50 U.S.C. 1803) to obtain orders for electronic
surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence
information.

1-103. Pursuant to Section 104(a)(7) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)), the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national
security or defense, is designated to make the certifications
required by Section 104(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications
to conduct electronic surveillance:

(a) Secretary of State.

(b) Secretary of Defense.

(c) Director of Central Intelligence.

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(e) Deputy Secretary of State.

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense.

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above
certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

1-104. Section 2-202 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
the end of that section: ''Any electronic surveillance, as defined
in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be
conducted in accordance with that Act as well as this Order.''.

1-105. Section 2-203 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
the end of that section: ''Any monitoring which constitutes
electronic surveillance as defined in the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be conducted in accordance with that
Act as well as this Order.''.

Jimmy Carter.

http://nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

Quote:

Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches
Does anyone remember that?
In a little-remembered debate from 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has "inherent authority" to order physical searches — including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens — for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body. Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own.

"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."

"It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."

Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."

Reporting the day after Gorelick's testimony, the Washington Post's headline — on page A-19 — read, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches." The story began, "The Clinton administration, in a little-noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S. spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order. The administration's quiet lobbying effort is aimed at modifying draft legislation that would require U.S. counterintelligence officials to get a court order before secretly snooping inside the homes or workplaces of suspected foreign agents or foreign powers."

In her testimony, Gorelick made clear that the president believed he had the power to order warrantless searches for the purpose of gathering intelligence, even if there was no reason to believe that the search might uncover evidence of a crime. "Intelligence is often long range, its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise," Gorelick said. "Information gathering for policy making and prevention, rather than prosecution, are its primary focus."

The debate over warrantless searches came up after the case of CIA spy Aldrich Ames. Authorities had searched Ames's house without a warrant, and the Justice Department feared that Ames's lawyers would challenge the search in court. Meanwhile, Congress began discussing a measure under which the authorization for break-ins would be handled like the authorization for wiretaps, that is, by the FISA court. In her testimony, Gorelick signaled that the administration would go along a congressional decision to place such searches under the court — if, as she testified, it "does not restrict the president's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security." In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court, but the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.

It seemed to be OK when presidents clinton, carter, and even reagan issued executive orders to gather intelligence on US citizens without a warrant. But Mr. Bush does it and every liberal blows his top.

shakran · 12-21-2005, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

So you label and attack and who cares... your side is right I'm wrong....

Is that what you want to hear....

I offer clean debates and not one Righty takes me up on it.... hmmmm

He's trapping you and you're falling for it. He's trying to get you side tracked arguing over what a terrorist is. If he can keep you mired in that maybe we will forget that the real issue is what a presidential crime is. You have to watch out for these tactics, because that political machine is VERY good at obfuscation and distraction. That's how they managed to get enough of the people behind the Iraq war to go through with it - by using smoke and mirrors to make it look like Saddam was a threat to us. Unfortunately not enough people saw through the deception in time. And now that their deceitful and imperialist, not to say criminal, actions have gotten them backed into a corner they're putting the machine into overdrive trying to distract everyone from the real issues long enough so they get away with it. Again.

Ustwo · 12-21-2005, 06:37 AM

Stevo stevo, those were done by DEMOCRAT presidents, not evil Hitler Bush.

I just saw those myself and was gonig to post but you beat me to it

Ustwo · 12-21-2005, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

I would hardly consider this ham fisted approach to law enforcement as Machiavellian. More like Nixonian. Clumsy. Stupid. Dangerous.

Poppinjay I was refering to the big wacky left picture, not just this specificly. Plus if you read above, apparently Clinton and Carter decided do to the same type of thing by executive order. Oddly no one complained then.

pan6467 · 12-21-2005, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Before you get on me about bringing up Clinton and Carter, wait. Its not about "well, look what Clinton did." Its about "If it wasn't illegal then, why is it illegal now?"
continue.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

http://nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

It seemed to be OK when presidents clinton, carter, and even reagan issued executive orders to gather intelligence on US citizens without a warrant. But Mr. Bush does it and every liberal blows his top.

I already answered that here post #57 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ge#post1962298

Quote:

So you people on the Right, where is the same outrage you showed for Waco? Ruby Ridge?

Same principles. Government saw someone breaking the law and refused to go about the right channels, instead the Constitution gets walked over and shat on and when Clinton did it the Right howled and cried foul and not their own president does it and they are making excuses why it was ok.

Clinton wasn't right for those instances above and had Congress tried to impeach him for those, I would probably have agreed.

Wrong is wrong. Illegal is illegal. And NO PRESIDENT is above the law when it comes to the rights of the people.

This quote came from your own National review article:

Quote:

Meanwhile, Congress began discussing a measure under which the authorization for break-ins would be handled like the authorization for wiretaps, that is, by the FISA court.

So in the end, yes, it is still illegal.

All the Carter stuff just puts into action the FISA court, who falls under its authority.

NIce try though to try to paint me as hypocritical.... but won't work.

Marvelous Marv · 12-21-2005, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Poppinjay I was refering to the big wacky left picture, not just this specificly. Plus if you read above, apparently Clinton and Carter decided do to the same type of thing by executive order. Oddly no one complained then.

Here, let me provide the "reasoning" for that, before they say it again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

No, I don't. What I question is why you and others keep bringing Clinton up when someone points out wrongdoing by the current administration. I don't care if Clinton was a serial killer while in office - that wouldn't excuse the current candidate from responsibility for his actions. The fact that you guys keep bringing Clinton up shows me that you KNOW there's no defense for what the Bush administration has done, and you're trying to misdirect people so that they can't SEE that there's no excuse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

I really don't care what Clinton did. Why? Because Clinton isn't in office any more. I'm getting awfully tired of you guys using Clinton to excuse everything Bush has done and is doing. It doesn't matter what Clinton did as far as whether or not it excuses what Bush is doing. Nothing Clinton could possibly have done gives Bush a free pass to do whatever wrongs he wants to do. The sooner the liberals get that through their heads the better. Yes, I did say liberals. The "conservatives" (btw, if you side with bush, you're not a conservative) already know that - they're just trying to bullshit the liberals to distract from the inadequacies of their president.

It's called a free pass for stonewalling long enough. If you REALLY want to poke a gigantic hole in liberal logic, consider that anything Clinton did should be forgotten, but tax money should be given to any descendant of an American slave.

I think his quotes above were what he was referring to as "destroying my arguments," or some such nonsense, but I lost interest in talking to him because of the above.

Charlatan · 12-21-2005, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grey2000

Serious question ..

Do you see terrorism as a criminal threat or a military threat ?

Terrorism is a criminal threat and should be dealt with as such. Treating it as a mililtary threat simply serves to legitimize the terrorist's actions.

The military response to 9/11 and other terrorist actions has done more than anything to support Al Qaida's position that the US is an imperialist force with designs on controlling the Islamic nations (i.e. the Middle East).

The prevaritcation of others on this issue stems not from the unwillingness to do anything about Terrorists it stems from a lack of understanding about root causes of terrorism in the Middle East, the fact that terrorists in question are not a unified force and that the attacks being labelled "terrorist" are happening to both civilian and military targets.

It is being presented to most people in America (via the media) in a rather confounding way. Grey2000 you confuse a lack of clarity with a lack of conviction.

Charlatan · 12-21-2005, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

It's called a free pass for stonewalling long enough. If you REALLY want to poke a gigantic hole in liberal logic, consider that anything Clinton did should be forgotten, but tax money should be given to any descendant of an American slave.

I think his quotes above were what he was referring to as "destroying my arguments," or some such nonsense, but I lost interest in talking to him because of the above.

All you are doing is trying to distract from the issue at hand by discussing something else... Arguing that Clinton did this, Clinton did that... is like saying, "But Jefferson owned slaves!!!"

OK. Clinton did some questionable things while he was in power. Why didn't people spend more time look at these things when he was in power rather than focusing on his blowjobs.

In the end, it is the past and (I think) we are *all* interested in making a better present and a better future (though we may disagree on how to get there).

Superbelt · 12-21-2005, 07:52 AM

First:
Clinton and Carter did NOT authorize warrantless searches of Americans

Quote:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

----
That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

A FISA Court Judge resigns in protest

Spying Program snared purely US calls

Quote:

A surveillance program approved by President Bush to conduct eavesdropping without warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases, despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil, officials say.

So, what happened to the Republicans being strict constructionists of the Constitution? Our founding fathers would declare a new revolution against this government.
This is the kind of overreaching government they were fighting against.

Ustwo · 12-21-2005, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Here, let me provide the "reasoning" for that, before they say it again:

It's called a free pass for stonewalling long enough. If you REALLY want to poke a gigantic hole in liberal logic, consider that anything Clinton did should be forgotten, but tax money should be given to any descendant of an American slave.

I think his quotes above were what he was referring to as "destroying my arguments," or some such nonsense, but I lost interest in talking to him because of the above.

In this case it doesn't really matter if Clinton was a serial killer. My point is that there is a LONG standing precedent for this kind of executive order. Now one could argue that presidents have too much power in their executive orders and I would agree, but the chest thumping here is about the 'illegal' action which are apparently legal.

Poppinjay · 12-21-2005, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Poppinjay I was refering to the big wacky left picture, not just this specificly. Plus if you read above, apparently Clinton and Carter decided do to the same type of thing by executive order. Oddly no one complained then.

Lots of people did. Unfortunately what they conveniently ignored as that the proviso in the executive order was that the AG could NOT commit such activity on a US citizen and had no right to examine a citizen's property, phone records, physical being, or conversations except with a warrant. The order was entirely about FOREIGN investigations, and a good order considering the times we've been through.

So far, the tapping under Bush has ENTIRELY been of US citizens. ENTIRELY. How many terrorists so far have been US citizens? How many received aid from US citizens?

12-20-2005, 11:45 AM	#202 (permalink)
alpha phi seeker Location: home	So how is domestic spying dangerous to you? .........Your children? .........This will prevent terrorism? Wal-Mart Turns in Student’s Anti-Bush Photo, Secret Service Investigates Him Federal agents visited a college senior two months ago because he requested a book written by Mao Tse-Tung. Colorado Band Singing Dylan Song Seen as Threatening President Bush High school student grilled by US Secret Service over artwork Secret Service Questions Student for Anti-Bush T-Shirt Secret Service agents visited Oakland High and interrogated two 16 year-old male students in connection with comments they had allegedly made during a classroom discussion concerning President Bush and the U.S. Government's role in Iraq. Nah!.......nothing wrong with this picture......their just protecting us Yea.....that's the ticket Squash that dissent early.......that'll show them foreign terrorists And it's all nice and legal.....the lawmakers said so! Morality? what's that got to do with anything? __________________ All ideas in this communication are sole property of the voices in my head. (C) 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 "The Voices" (TM). All rights reserved.

12-20-2005, 01:43 PM	#212 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	is 'anything necessary' a free ticket to violate standing precedents and laws? __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

12-21-2005, 02:47 AM	#227 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	So you label and attack and who cares... your side is right I'm wrong.... Is that what you want to hear.... I offer clean debates and not one Righty takes me up on it.... hmmmm You didn't address the personal attacks against me did you? It's all or nothing with you isn't it? Sorry to say but the world is in shades of gray not black and white. I refuse to have anyone tell me that illegal wiretaps are being done for my own good. I would rather run the risk of getting killed by a terrorist and living the way I choose than to allow my rights and freedoms to be trampled over by an egocentric president and his self righteous followers..... sorry. I'm tired of being attacked in other threads for my beliefs.... I'm tired of the Right picking and choosing what I say and adding their meaning to it and ignoring the rest. I am tired of being stalked by someone on these boards, making snide personal attack remarks. I am tired of people using my personal life and issues on these boards to pick fights... there's no debates...... I offered to have one in another thread not 1 taker.... wonder why. Because maybe the Right can't... all they can do is attack and make things personal? I'm tired of having my patriotism and my beliefs questioned by self righteous assholes who keep telling me I'm unpatriotic, I'm a terrorist sympathizer I'm.... whatever because I refuse to believe I have to give up ANY of my God given rights to appease them. The president broke the law.... but let's ignore that and attack those who speak out.... it's old it's bullshit and it is tearing this nation apart faster and far more effectively than any fucking terrorist ever will. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 12-21-2005 at 03:03 AM..

12-21-2005, 06:37 AM	#232 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Stevo stevo, those were done by DEMOCRAT presidents, not evil Hitler Bush. I just saw those myself and was gonig to post but you beat me to it __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-20-2005, 06:07 PM	#214 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I don't believe this is a complete list, so I will ask for additions. How has the perception of the United States changed since 2001? - We torture prisoners - We have suspended habeus corpus - We kidnap "suspected" terrorists on foreign territory - We have acquiesed to FBI, CIA, Pentagon and NSA spying on US citizens - We have corrupted the press with paid propaganda and the threat of exclusion - We engage in "preemptive" war (the worst oxymoron) The corruption of this administration is simply a symptom of a larger cause. The sheeple continue to graze on sparse grass, content in their ideology.

12-20-2005, 08:42 PM	#217 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	Pretty much every nonpartisan expert on these issues has come down hard on President Bush for this. At the very least, he mistakenly overstepped his authority. Alternatively, he intentionally broke the law while lying to the American people about it. The White House's explanation of this revelation has been so weak and defensive that I'm betting this is only going to get worse for the President the deeper we look.