Did the Bush admin break the law? - Page 7 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Ustwo · 12-21-2005, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

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?

Sigh....

WASH POST, July 15, 1994, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches": Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Poppinjay · 12-21-2005, 08:31 AM

Ustwo, as posted just a few posts back,

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.

In case you missed it:

if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

Siiiiiiiggggghhhhhhhhhhh:::::::::::::::::

Lebell · 12-21-2005, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

... but the chest thumping here is about the 'illegal' action which are apparently legal.

I noted something similiar in another thread.

I think it is just human nature to make an argument by slipping in an assumption without examining it.

This is not a "left" or "right" phenonemon, it just apparently is.

Likewise, the complaining when someone does it.

*feeling particularly introspective this am*

Ustwo · 12-21-2005, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

Ustwo, as posted just a few posts back,

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.

In case you missed it:

if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

Siiiiiiiggggghhhhhhhhhhh:::::::::::::::::

Ummm so you are saying Bush didn't have the approval of the Attorney General?

Whats your point here?

Poppinjay · 12-21-2005, 08:45 AM

The AG did not make the certifications.

Ustwo · 12-21-2005, 08:50 AM

Ugh this is where a guy in a British military uniform should come in and say....

"I'm stopping this sketch because it has become extremely silly."

Poppinjay · 12-21-2005, 08:52 AM

I don't get that. Why? With a certification, there's a record. If something gets screwed up, there's a record of what happened, or why it was approved.

stevo · 12-21-2005, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

The AG did not make the certifications.

So had the AG made the certifications for Carter, would he have broken the law?

If the AG made the certifications for bush, he wouldn't have broken the law?

What are you trying to get at here?

Marvelous Marv · 12-21-2005, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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.

We're in total agreement. My purpose was to point out that some presidential powers and misdeeds didn't bother the left until January of 2001.

roachboy · 12-21-2005, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Clash Is Latest Chapter in Bush Effort to Widen Executive Power

By Peter Baker and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 21, 2005; A01

The clash over the secret domestic spying program is one slice of a broader struggle over the power of the presidency that has animated the Bush administration. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney came to office convinced that the authority of the presidency had eroded and have spent the past five years trying to reclaim it.

From shielding energy policy deliberations to setting up military tribunals without court involvement, Bush, with Cheney's encouragement, has taken what scholars call a more expansive view of his role than any commander in chief in decades. With few exceptions, Congress and the courts have largely stayed out of the way, deferential to the argument that a president needs free rein, especially in wartime.

But the disclosure of Bush's eavesdropping program has revived the issue, and Congress appears to be growing restive about surrendering so much of its authority. Democrats and even key Republicans maintain Bush went too far -- and may have even violated the law -- by authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens' overseas telephone calls in search of terrorist plots without obtaining warrants from a secret intelligence court.

The vice president entered the fray yesterday, rejecting the criticism and expounding on the philosophy that has driven so many of the administration's actions. "I believe in a strong, robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in demands it -- and to some extent that we have an obligation as the administration to pass on the offices we hold to our successors in as good of shape as we found them," Cheney said. In wartime, he said, the president "needs to have his constitutional powers unimpaired."

Speaking with reporters traveling with him aboard Air Force Two to Oman, Cheney said the period after the Watergate scandal and Vietnam War proved to be "the nadir of the modern presidency in terms of authority and legitimacy" and harmed the chief executive's ability to lead in a complicated, dangerous era. "But I do think that to some extent now we've been able to restore the legitimate authority of the presidency."

For Cheney, the post-Watergate era was the formative experience shaping his understanding of executive power. As a young White House chief of staff for President Gerald R. Ford, he saw the Oval Office at its weakest point as Congress and the courts asserted themselves. But scholars such as Andrew Rudalevige, author of "The New Imperial Presidency," say the presidency had recovered long before Cheney returned to the White House in 2001. The War Powers Act, the legislative veto, the independent counsel statute and other legacies of the 1970s had all been discarded in one form or another.

"He's living in a time warp," said Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer and Reagan administration official. "The great irony is Bush inherited the strongest presidency of anyone since Franklin Roosevelt, and Cheney acts as if he's still under the constraints of 1973 or 1974."

Sen. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.) said: "The vice president may be the only person I know of that believes the executive has somehow lost power over the last 30 years."

The tug over executive power traces back to the early years of the republic, and presidents have traditionally moved to expand their reach during times of war. John Adams, fearing a hostile France, presided over the imprisonment of Republican critics under the Alien and Sedition Acts. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Woodrow Wilson jailed Socialist Eugene V. Debs, who had run against him for president, for protesting the entry into World War I. Franklin D. Roosevelt sent Japanese Americans to internment camps during World War II. And Ronald Reagan circumvented a Cold War congressional ban on providing aid to contra rebels in Nicaragua.

The Bush administration rejects comparisons to such events and says its assertions of authority in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks have been carefully tailored to meet the needs of a 21st-century war against a nebulous foe. At his news conference Monday, Bush bristled at the notion that he sought "unchecked power" and said he had consulted with Congress extensively.

Yet Bush supporters believe that other branches should take a subsidiary role to the president in safeguarding national security. "The Constitution's intent when we're under attack from outside is to place maximum power in the president," said William P. Barr, who was attorney general under President George H.W. Bush, "and the other branches, and especially the courts, don't act as a check on the president's authority against the enemy."

Even before the NSA surveillance program, the Bush administration has asserted its war-making authority in detaining indefinitely U.S. citizens as enemy combatants, denying prisoners access to lawyers or courts, rejecting in some cases the applicability of the Geneva Conventions, expanding its interrogation techniques to include harsher treatment and establishing secret terrorist prisons in foreign countries.

"The problem is, where do you stop rebalancing the power and go too far in the other direction?" asked David A. Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union. "I think in some instances [Bush] has gone too far."

Taken alone, the expansion of executive wartime power may seem an obvious outflow of confronting the new threat of global terrorism. But when coupled with the huge expansion of the federal government in general under Bush -- the budget has grown by 33 percent and his administration has broadened the federal role in education and the scope of Medicare -- a growing number of conservatives are expressing concern about the size and reach of government on his watch.

Many conservatives in Congress came to office in the 1980s and 1990s with visions of shrinking government and protecting individual freedoms. The Sept. 11 attacks, however, prompted Republicans to shift their priorities and emphasize fighting terrorism. With both houses of Congress in Republican hands, lawmakers generally have been willing to yield to Bush's views on the balance of power.

"Defending the country is preeminently an executive function," said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.). "He is the commander in chief, and you have to move with speed and dispatch."

At the same time, some believe, Congress has abrogated its duty to provide a check on the White House. Rarely has the Republican Congress used its subpoena power to investigate Bush policies or programs or to force administration officials to explain them. Even when lawmakers are inclined to challenge the White House, they are restricted by secrecy rules in cases such as the NSA program, which was known to only a handful of key members briefed by the administration.

"When you have unified party government, the oversight tends to be very timid," said James A. Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University. "It's not just the president pushing for more power. . . . The Congress has not done its job of careful evaluation of giving the president more power post-9/11."

Thurber and others think that may be changing. Led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Congress just forced Bush to accept a ban on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners, and a handful of Republican senators have joined Democrats to block the renewal of the USA Patriot Act until more civil liberties protections are built into the law. "Congress needs to do some introspection about whether oversight is serious or basically political," Cole said

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) is one of several Republicans lobbying Bush to use the debate over NSA to work with Congress on striking the right balance of power on security issues. "The question is: Should the administration and Congress sit down and talk about where presidential authority begins and ends and congressional blessing begins and ends?" he said. "I think yes."

funny how much more certain the conservatives are here about the illusion that this is all hunky dory and that they have sorted out all legal issues than are the actual people involved with this.
it is also interesting to watch how the right defenses modulate: cheney talks yesterday in terms of a longer-term view of executive power and here you have the conservatives here taking the same line.
"sponteneously" of course.

the argument about executive power as the right woudl frame it here is a non sequitor in general and false in its particulars. superbelt pointed out the main flaws already. typically, these do not register with the right, which persists in its usual lather rinse repeat mode.

in the real world, there is no such certainty:

Quote:

Spy Court Judge Quits In Protest
Jurist Concerned Bush Order Tainted Work of Secret Panel

By Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 21, 2005; A01

A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.

Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.

Robertson, who was appointed to the federal bench in Washington by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and was later selected by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to serve on the FISA court, declined to comment when reached at his office late yesterday.

Word of Robertson's resignation came as two Senate Republicans joined the call for congressional investigations into the National Security Agency's warrantless interception of telephone calls and e-mails to overseas locations by U.S. citizens suspected of links to terrorist groups. They questioned the legality of the operation and the extent to which the White House kept Congress informed.

Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) echoed concerns raised by Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has promised hearings in the new year.

Hagel and Snowe joined Democrats Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.) in calling for a joint investigation by the Senate judiciary and intelligence panels into the classified program.

The hearings would occur at the start of a midterm election year during which the prosecution of the Iraq war could figure prominently in House and Senate races.

Not all Republicans agreed with the need for hearings and backed White House assertions that the program is a vital tool in the war against al Qaeda.

"I am personally comfortable with everything I know about it," Acting House Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said in a phone interview.

At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan was asked to explain why Bush last year said, "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." McClellan said the quote referred only to the USA Patriot Act.

Revelation of the program last week by the New York Times also spurred considerable debate among federal judges, including some who serve on the secret FISA court. For more than a quarter-century, that court had been seen as the only body that could legally authorize secret surveillance of espionage and terrorism suspects, and only when the Justice Department could show probable cause that its targets were foreign governments or their agents.

Robertson indicated privately to colleagues in recent conversations that he was concerned that information gained from warrantless NSA surveillance could have then been used to obtain FISA warrants. FISA court Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who had been briefed on the spying program by the administration, raised the same concern in 2004 and insisted that the Justice Department certify in writing that it was not occurring.

"They just don't know if the product of wiretaps were used for FISA warrants -- to kind of cleanse the information," said one source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the FISA warrants. "What I've heard some of the judges say is they feel they've participated in a Potemkin court."

Robertson is considered a liberal judge who has often ruled against the Bush administration's assertions of broad powers in the terrorism fight, most notably in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld . Robertson held in that case that the Pentagon's military commissions for prosecuting terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were illegal and stacked against the detainees.

Some FISA judges said they were saddened by the news of Robertson's resignation and want to hear more about the president's program.

"I guess that's a decision he's made and I respect him," said Judge George P. Kazen, another FISA judge. "But it's just too quick for me to say I've got it all figured out."

Bush said Monday that the White House briefed Congress more than a dozen times. But those briefings were conducted with only a handful of lawmakers who were sworn to secrecy and prevented from discussing the matter with anyone or from seeking outside legal opinions.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) revealed Monday that he had written to Vice President Cheney the day he was first briefed on the program in July 2003, raising serious concerns about the surveillance effort. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she also expressed concerns in a letter to Cheney, which she did not make public.

The chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), issued a public rebuke of Rockefeller for making his letter public.

In response to a question about the letter, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) suggested that Rockefeller should have done more if he was seriously concerned. "If I thought someone was breaking the law, I don't care if it was classified or unclassified, I would stand up and say 'the law's being broken here.' "

But Rockefeller said the secrecy surrounding the briefings left him with no other choice. "I made my concerns known to the vice president and to others who were briefed," Rockefeller said. "The White House never addressed my concerns.

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122000685.html

but whatever--this is obviously only in a small measure about information and its evaluation, and in much greater measure about how hard folk on the right find it to introduce ANYTHING critical of the bush people into their political lanscape. sad, really.

Dragonknight · 12-21-2005, 09:17 AM

Okay so I've read through most of this post and it scares and angers me. People will go spouting off about there "Oh so untouchable rights" yet are willing to sacrifice NOTHING what so ever to have them. They want to sit on there butts at home with more crap then most anyone in the world has because it's "Their right" to have these nice things. What did you do to earn these wondrous rights I ask??? Your For Fathers fought and died for them, they sacrificed there time and lives to do so. Yet you can't stand the thought of someone listening in on your calls to some country, where the hell ever it is or read those oh so important e-mails that God forbid someone see, because it will totally ruin your life when they read it or listen in and say "No he's not planning on killing innocent people" and never once think twice about it. It’s not some average Joe we’re talking about. These are people who are trained, and tested over and over again to get their jobs with background checks that are worse then the worst audit. These people can and will keep your secret fling with the dancing clown a secret, because it’s there job to do so. If you are planning on blowing up the Brooklyn bridge though there going to cause you some problems.

Did Bush break the law, yeah if you, or I, or any other average Joe did it, but when your the NSA, FBI, CIA, INTERPOL, or any other organization DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY to catch those who don't want to be caught NO NO and NO no law was broken. Do we as a nation really expect the above-mentioned organizations to get a warrant for EVERY wiretap they want? These are the guys that have to sneak in the shadows to catch the BAD GUYS. How else are they going to catch these people? The very reason for a government agency is to not be seen. If your not doing anything wrong then you have Nothing to worry about. Hell you will never even know they are/were there.

Yeah I'm sorry some people got grilled over what they said, did, or wrote. That's all that happened though they got grilled. If they were innocent then nothing happened. I'd rather have them be a little too careful then not careful enough. Think of the parent who goes through their kids stuff because they think they’re on/or drugs doing or something they shouldn't be. Are they wrong when they find drugs, guns, or a letter on how they plan on doing something completely wrong that could harm them or others? Should we punish that parent for violating their child’s right to privacy? Then we'll give the kid back the drugs, guns, or what ever and tell them to have a nice day. Now that child will fill safe knowing that their rights are being protected to the fullest extent possible.

Now yes in the Utopian society that some think we live in the parents can simply go up to there 100% morally right kid and say, "Hey Billy/Suzie are you smoking crack?” and yes in the Utopian society you happy people live in Billy/Suzie will happily say, "Why yes mom/dad I was/or have been smoking crack." Just remember in that Utopian society there will be no drug, guns, or problems. Now it the real world where I live unfortunately this won't happen, so mom and dad have to do a little looking into things on there own. Not all have to do this but more do then don't. It's the same with the government, and if your doing nothing wrong then you have no worries.

Please remember this is only about the wiretaps.

Please don't take my writing (as miss spelled and grammatically incorrect as it is) to be open hostility, I only meant to show how vehemently I feel about this subject. Every one has there own opinion and I can live with that. If I came off harsh I’m sorry. Mods if you want me to change this please let me know and I will.

dksuddeth · 12-21-2005, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Sigh....

WASH POST, July 15, 1994, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches": Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

using jamie gorelick as your precedent kinda goes against the demonization she rightfully earned during the 9/11 commission concerning who built the invisible wall between intel and law enforcement, don't ya think?

kutulu · 12-21-2005, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

funny how much more certain the conservatives are here about the illusion that this is all hunky dory and that they have sorted out all legal issues than are the actual people involved with this.
it is also interesting to watch how the right defenses modulate: cheney talks yesterday in terms of a longer-term view of executive power and here you have the conservatives here taking the same line.
"sponteneously" of course.

Are you surprised? They just repeat the right wing mantra. Repeat it enough times and it becomes true.

Willravel · 12-21-2005, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Are you surprised? They just repeat the right wing mantra. Repeat it enough times and it becomes true.

Give Willravel a million bucks....Give Willravel a million bucks....Give Willravel a million bucks....

Poppinjay · 12-21-2005, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

So had the AG made the certifications for Carter, would he have broken the law?

If the AG made the certifications for bush, he wouldn't have broken the law?

What are you trying to get at here?

If Carter then used that cert for domestic spying, yes.

If Bush used that cert for domestic spying, then yes, though there is no order in place that duplicates that order.

Bush's wiretapping has been entirely domestic. How can it be that 100% of the wiretapping that is supposed to involve foreign interests is domestic?

dksuddeth · 12-21-2005, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonknight

Okay so I've read through most of this post and it scares and angers me. People will go spouting off about there "Oh so untouchable rights" yet are willing to sacrifice NOTHING what so ever to have them.

Do my 6 years as a marine count?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonknight

Your For Fathers fought and died for them, they sacrificed there time and lives to do so. Yet you can't stand the thought of someone listening in on your calls to some country, where the hell ever it is or read those oh so important e-mails that God forbid someone see, because it will totally ruin your life when they read it or listen in and say "No he's not planning on killing innocent people" and never once think twice about it. It’s not some average Joe we’re talking about. These are people who are trained, and tested over and over again to get their jobs with background checks that are worse then the worst audit. These people can and will keep your secret fling with the dancing clown a secret, because it’s there job to do so. If you are planning on blowing up the Brooklyn bridge though there going to cause you some problems.

Did Bush break the law, yeah if you, or I, or any other average Joe did it, but when your the NSA, FBI, CIA, INTERPOL, or any other organization DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY to catch those who don't want to be caught NO NO and NO no law was broken. Do we as a nation really expect the above-mentioned organizations to get a warrant for EVERY wiretap they want? These are the guys that have to sneak in the shadows to catch the BAD GUYS. How else are they going to catch these people? The very reason for a government agency is to not be seen. If your not doing anything wrong then you have Nothing to worry about. Hell you will never even know they are/were there.

Yeah I'm sorry some people got grilled over what they said, did, or wrote. That's all that happened though they got grilled. If they were innocent then nothing happened. I'd rather have them be a little too careful then not careful enough. Think of the parent who goes through their kids stuff because they think they’re on/or drugs doing or something they shouldn't be. Are they wrong when they find drugs, guns, or a letter on how they plan on doing something completely wrong that could harm them or others? Should we punish that parent for violating their child’s right to privacy? Then we'll give the kid back the drugs, guns, or what ever and tell them to have a nice day. Now that child will fill safe knowing that their rights are being protected to the fullest extent possible.

Now yes in the Utopian society that some think we live in the parents can simply go up to there 100% morally right kid and say, "Hey Billy/Suzie are you smoking crack?” and yes in the Utopian society you happy people live in Billy/Suzie will happily say, "Why yes mom/dad I was/or have been smoking crack." Just remember in that Utopian society there will be no drug, guns, or problems. Now it the real world where I live unfortunately this won't happen, so mom and dad have to do a little looking into things on there own. Not all have to do this but more do then don't. It's the same with the government, and if your doing nothing wrong then you have no worries.

and we can add one more individual to the rank of 'serf' who believes he's a servant of the government instead of the government serving the people.

Poppinjay · 12-21-2005, 09:25 AM

in the Utopian society you happy people live in Billy/Suzie will happily say, "Why yes mom/dad I was/or have been smoking crack."

I SO want to make this my tagline.

Willravel · 12-21-2005, 09:32 AM

Clinton and Regan gave Willravel a million bucks....

Dragonknight · 12-21-2005, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Do my 6 years as a marine count?

Yeah because the 4.5 with two deployments to Iraq that I have count, and yeah I still have 3 years left on this contract and am In Korea away from my family for the third holiday season. Semper Fi

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

we can add one more individual to the rank of 'serf' who believes he's a servant of the government instead of the government serving the people.

I forget who said it, "Only by serving can we truly serve." I expect it to go both ways because without one you don't have the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

I SO want to make this my tagline.

By all means feel free.

roachboy · 12-21-2005, 10:22 AM

the premise of this thread is not a legal question--it is not about the (obvious) problems the bush squad has caused for themselves by their excessively enthusiastic take on their own j.d. legal memos---it is not whether there are grounds for a formal investigation and potentially formal charges against the administration--though there are obviously grounds for an investigation and i would not be surprised to see that this ends up being the Real Mistake, the one that the administration cannot talk away....

the real premise of the thread is the question of whether the extralegal arguments are compelling--these extra-legal arguments center on the "war on terror" and its psychological correlates.
this question can be reduced to a matter of relative paranoia.
do folk on the right feel more special than the rest of us because they imagine "terrorism" is a constant direct threat to them personally--this in the face of all evidence to the contrary----what it involved with this question for conservatives?
they never---ever--address the matter, but it is crucial to every last response above that even tried to defend the bush administration.
it is the centre of this debate, such as it is.
yet no-one addresses it.
all you get is a series of various indices of the extent to which the matter operates psychologically for individual conservatives.
that's it.
it is like a "fact" in conservativeland.
what causes this sense of "terrorism" to vary with political affiliation?
what justifies it?
are certain types of information sources more likely to present "terrorism" as a constant, real menace than others?
how do these information souces line up politically?

fact is, folks, that there is nothing "objective" about your sense of this fiction called the "war on terror"---there is no agreement on what it means, this "war--no agreement on the nature of the adversary--no agreement about the danger posed to civilians by it--no agreement on causes--no agreement about anything, really.

what justifies the separation of the notion of "terrorism" from the arrangements backed by the americans internationally?
that is, on what basis does anyone, anywhere accept the argument floated by the bush people sine 9/12/2001 that "terrorism" can be understood as something other than a political response to aspects of globalizing capitalism on the one hand and american foreign policy on the other?

it would seem to me that if you want to combat "terrorism" you would have to advocate basic changes to the international capitalist order and to american foreign policy, particularly in the middle east.
which means that you would have to know what the americans are doing, and what they are blamed for.

the right seems totally uninterested in such matters, presumably as a function of a politically sanctioned type of ignorance.
yet the folk on the right wonder why others do not buy their arguments. they do not buy them because of all the extra stuff involved with even starting to take them seriously----which conservatives seem incapable of laying out and debating.

but for any of the conservative arguments to be valid at all, there has to be some kind of coherent view of the question of "terrorism"--for these arguments to hold in this kind of debate, that view of "terrorism" would have to be introduced as a major premise and defended as such--as things stand, all it is is an arbitrarily invoked bit of background information the only interest in which is its persistence across rightwing views expressed in this thread.

the right does not have a compelling claim that the bushsquad's survellance actions are legal---i have read through the various attempts above to argue this point, and i find none of them even interesting, much less compelling.
what it comes down to is a sense of whether the bush squad is justified in its actions based on raison d'etat.
period.
and so around we go.

pan6467 · 12-21-2005, 10:59 AM

I have no problem sacrifing anything, if I believe in the cause and it is done legally.

Ustwo · 12-21-2005, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

using jamie gorelick as your precedent kinda goes against the demonization she rightfully earned during the 9/11 commission concerning who built the invisible wall between intel and law enforcement, don't ya think?

Ummm not at all. One thing has nothing to do with another, nor does it weaken the argument at hand in the slightest.

Ustwo · 12-21-2005, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

If Carter then used that cert for domestic spying, yes.

If Bush used that cert for domestic spying, then yes, though there is no order in place that duplicates that order.

Bush's wiretapping has been entirely domestic. How can it be that 100% of the wiretapping that is supposed to involve foreign interests is domestic?

They were only monitoring calls going to or from OUTSIDE the US.

stevo · 12-21-2005, 11:38 AM

John Schmidt served under President Clinton as the associate attorney general of the United States. He believes bush was well within the law to authorize those wire taps.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...commentary-hed

Quote:

President had legal authority to OK taps

By John Schmidt
Published December 21, 2005

President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.

In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."

The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power," which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.

But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "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."

FISA contains a provision making it illegal to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." The term "electronic surveillance" is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication "sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person" (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by "intentionally targeting that United States person." The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens. If the surveillance is based upon other kinds of evidence, it would fall outside what a FISA court could authorize and also outside the act's prohibition on electronic surveillance.

The administration has offered the further defense that FISA's reference to surveillance "authorized by statute" is satisfied by congressional passage of the post-Sept. 11 resolution giving the president authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent those responsible for Sept. 11 from carrying out further attacks. The administration argues that obtaining intelligence is a necessary and expected component of any military or other use of force to prevent enemy action.

But even if the NSA activity is "electronic surveillance" and the Sept. 11 resolution is not "statutory authorization" within the meaning of FISA, the act still cannot, in the words of the 2002 Court of Review decision, "encroach upon the president's constitutional power."

FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment.

Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense. The danger is that surveillance will not be used solely for that narrow and extraordinary purpose.

But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.

----------

John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States. He is now a partner in the Chicago-based law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw.

Poppinjay · 12-21-2005, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

They were only monitoring calls going to or from OUTSIDE the US.

That remains to be seen. They were also monitoring supposed internationa e-mails. I have a bbc e-mail addy that ends co.uk, and yet I live in DC. So my e-mail can be monitored. Likewise, several companies in my business keep e-mail and web accounts based out of Micronesia because of the .fm tag. These happen to all be American media organizations who can now be monitored.

That's just a microcosm of a bigger problem, being that if I pick up a phone in my home and call Canada, the US government should have absolutely no right to listen in.

As far as whether they've monitored domestic-domestic conversations, they won't say exactly and we'll have to see what happens in the Specter hearing.

Lebell · 12-21-2005, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I have no problem sacrifing anything, if I believe in the cause and it is done legally.

Ah, but what is "legal"?

Hitler's extermination of Undesirables was "legal" because he made the laws.

Yet I believe you wouldn't do it because you didn't "believe" in it.

Likewise, I think you would probably fight against it because you believed in the cause even though it was "illegal".

And thus is the problem with saying things are legal/illegal without some consideration to the larger framework of "right" and "wrong".

Individuals are inclined to do what they consider to be "right" if they believe in it strongly enough, regardless of legality. This is true whether it is a French freedom fighter or an abortion clinic bomber. Where the "legal" aspect enters is what the majority ends up believing and deciding to make "legal". Hitler was a charismatic leader who persuaded the masses to make him the "legal" ruler and by extension, rule maker.

This is where I believe the only real comparision between Bush and Hitler can be made. Bush also has a vision of what he believes it "right" and he is trying his hardest to persuade the American public to back him which leads naturally to a Congress that will make his actions "legal". He is also showing that he is trying hard to interpret the existing rules to make his actions "legal".

I don't think anyone would disagree with his larger "good" of making America safe from terrorism, but the devil is in the details. Ultimately, history will tell us who was right and who was wrong.

pan6467 · 12-21-2005, 11:52 AM

Bfore I go to work..... I have one thing to say..........

Give Willravel a million bucks....Give Willravel a million bucks....Give Willravel a million bucks....

Ustwo · 12-21-2005, 12:10 PM

Hehe I think the title of this thread needs to be changed based to fit the current tone.

Replace ' Did the Bush admin break the law?'

with....

'We hope the Bush admin broke the law.'

We are arguing over technicalities, unknown data, and legal issues NONE of us have the slightest knowledge over.

My stance has always been Bush did what was necessary in light of the 9/11 attacks, the technicalities of the case don't matter to me, frankly I wasn't worried if they were illegal, as I feel it was the right thing to do (though I never thought they were illegal in the first place). Now that more and more information is pointing to the fact that they were not illegal as presented, it seems the switch is to find what ELSE they did, hoping to find something illegal, not because of any fundamental outrage but as a way to 'get Bush', basically they want to go fishing.

Well cast your lures away folks, this is an issue where the American people will again react not in outrage over Bush, but in outrage over those who weaken the security of the nation in their quest for political power. Maybe when this is all said and done, 11 months from now when it seems that SOMEHOW the Republicans gained in the midterms we can start a thread in paranoia about how Karl Rove leaked the wire tap story hoping for senate hearings which made the Democrats look like obstructionists yet again for another election.

Poppinjay · 12-21-2005, 12:16 PM

Let’s see how the people react when a court rules that a known terrorist is going scot-free because the surveillance is ruled illegal. Why not go through the extra few minutes to get a warrant to make sure we have these bastards and they can’t get away?

Ustwo · 12-21-2005, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

Let’s see how the people react when a court rules that a known terrorist is going scot-free because the surveillance is ruled illegal. Why not go through the extra few minutes to get a warrant to make sure we have these bastards and they can’t get away?

So you hope, but it won't go down that way

stevo · 12-21-2005, 12:33 PM

Since this thread is checked all day, I'll put this here. I'm out for the rest of the year. Have a merry Christmas and a happy new year, you all!

kutulu · 12-21-2005, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

We are arguing over technicalities, unknown data, and legal issues NONE of us have the slightest knowledge over.

Hmm... I think we've heard that quite a few times. This administration seems to get as close to breaking the law as they can. In their minds, they have never broken the law and even if they did, it's the best thing for us and an investigation would only help the terrorists. You don't want to help the terrorists, do you?

They lied about aluminum tubes
They lied about Sadam trying to buy uranium
They paid Armstrong Williams to write fluff pieces for them
They paid Jeff Gannon to ask softball questions to them
They leak information to discredit critics
They cover up the fact that they leaked information
They lied about torturing people
They hold american citizens without trial or access to lawyers
They accuse crtics of being traitors with regularity
Now we see that they possibly abused wiretap powers.

When is enough enough?

I'm willing to reserve judgement on the potential wiretap abuses until we know for sure but the only way to know if to have a full investigation by an independant counsell.

host · 12-21-2005, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

They were only monitoring calls going to or from OUTSIDE the US.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Hehe I think the title of this thread needs to be changed based to fit the current tone.

Replace ' Did the Bush admin break the law?'

with....

'We hope the Bush admin broke the law.'

We are arguing over technicalities, unknown data, and legal issues NONE of us have the slightest knowledge over.......

I've already provided solid evidence, in quotes from Bush and Gonzales, on government web pages, that demonstrate that neither official is trustworthy in their statements about wire-tapping authority. Bush's comments were in front of a live and televized audience of the American people, and Gonzales spoke while he was under oath before a senate committee.

Your "take" on this is a bit of a stretch, Ustwo!

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=222

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

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. <b>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.</b>

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..........

The answer Bush gave at this press conference two days ago, is bullshit.
Very similar to the BS he spoke in Buffalo on April 20, 2004, and the BS that Gonzales gave under oath to Senator Feingold on Jan. 6, 2005.

If you take these men at their word, Ustwo, you are naive and you demonstrate only a casual embrace of your guaranteed rights spelled out in our constitution.

kutulu · 12-21-2005, 12:47 PM

This administration is 'not guilty' in the sense that OJ was 'not guilty'

Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed democracy, the Democrats would certainly want you to believe that President Bush is a criminal. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself. But ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one, final, thing I want you to consider.
Ladies and gentleman, this is Chew-bacca. Chewbacca is a Wookie from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca… LIVES …on the planet Endor. Now think about that. That does NOT MAKE SENSE.
Why would a Wookie, an eight-foot tall Wookie, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does NOT MAKE SENSE! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does NOT MAKE SENSE! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending the President of the United States, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed democracy, it does NOT MAKE SENSE! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey.

Ustwo · 12-21-2005, 01:15 PM

Apparently I'm not the only one thinking this way....

Quote:

DICK MORRIS: SPY STORY COULD BITE DEMS

December 21, 2005 -- Whom did the Valerie Plame leak hurt? Valerie, who went from undercover to on the cover when she posed for Vanity Fair? Joe Wilson, who got a best-selling book out of the deal?

The current leak, however, of classified material relating to National Security Agency tactics in intercepting conversations between people abroad and those within the United States is a vastly serious proposition that may have materially compromised investigations in progress and tipped terrorists off to our methods so that they can hide among us undetected.

This leak, far more than the Valerie Plame incident, deserves a full investigation to identify who spilled the beans and to whom and how. The consequences of this leak alone merit an independent investigation and, perhaps, a trial for treason.

Why does Bush need to use taps without warrants in the fight on terror? The answer is obvious: We often don't know who or what we are looking for.

Our analysts' best hope of catching and exposing terror plots against us lies in combing the airwaves, listening for suspicious words and phrases or patterns. Unlike criminal investigations, which are deductive -- predicated on a single suspect or a number of alternative suspects -- terror investigators want to find out what is going on and only an inductive approach -- amassing lots of material and searching for patterns -- has any chance of success.

For example, in 2002 the federal government tipped off the New York City Police Department that there was a lot of chatter about the Brooklyn Bridge. The resulting police tactics stopped the attack and eventually led to the apprehension of the would-be bomber.

What warrant could the anti-terror investigators have gotten to allow such a search? They had no name, no phone numbers, no idea of what to look for. But a careful analysis of the data averted a massive tragedy.

Politically, the left is making a big mistake in focusing on the issue. Bush is well-served by bringing the terrorism debate home. Isolationists -- about 40 percent of the nation, divided between the two parties -- will not back him on a war in Iraq but sure will support him against attempts to handcuff homeland security in the name of privacy or civil liberties. By raising this issue -- and the concomitant issue of the Patriot Act renewal -- the Democrats are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Iraq is a winner for the left. Homeland security is a loser.

dksuddeth · 12-21-2005, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Ummm not at all. One thing has nothing to do with another, nor does it weaken the argument at hand in the slightest.

you don't think that ripping the number 2 official in the clinton DOJ for her part in the BS legislation that divided the intel and law enforcement allowing 9/11 to happen and then supporting her arguments about eavesdropping on US citizens while end running around FISA is counterproductive in the slightest?

Talk about breaking down contexts of arguments in to contexts of time periods combined with macro global conflicts in micro judicial definitions of legalities and illegalities as it concerns presidential powers according to the constitution etc. and blah blah blah.

are you a fan of chaos theory by chance?

Hardknock · 12-21-2005, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonknight

Okay so I've read through most of this post and it scares and angers me. People will go spouting off about there "Oh so untouchable rights" yet are willing to sacrifice NOTHING what so ever to have them. They want to sit on there butts at home with more crap then most anyone in the world has because it's "Their right" to have these nice things. What did you do to earn these wondrous rights I ask??? Your For Fathers fought and died for them, they sacrificed there time and lives to do so. Yet you can't stand the thought of someone listening in on your calls to some country, where the hell ever it is or read those oh so important e-mails that God forbid someone see, because it will totally ruin your life when they read it or listen in and say "No he's not planning on killing innocent people" and never once think twice about it. It’s not some average Joe we’re talking about. These are people who are trained, and tested over and over again to get their jobs with background checks that are worse then the worst audit. These people can and will keep your secret fling with the dancing clown a secret, because it’s there job to do so. If you are planning on blowing up the Brooklyn bridge though there going to cause you some problems.

Did Bush break the law, yeah if you, or I, or any other average Joe did it, but when your the NSA, FBI, CIA, INTERPOL, or any other organization DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY to catch those who don't want to be caught NO NO and NO no law was broken. Do we as a nation really expect the above-mentioned organizations to get a warrant for EVERY wiretap they want? These are the guys that have to sneak in the shadows to catch the BAD GUYS. How else are they going to catch these people? The very reason for a government agency is to not be seen. If your not doing anything wrong then you have Nothing to worry about. Hell you will never even know they are/were there.

Yeah I'm sorry some people got grilled over what they said, did, or wrote. That's all that happened though they got grilled. If they were innocent then nothing happened. I'd rather have them be a little too careful then not careful enough. Think of the parent who goes through their kids stuff because they think they’re on/or drugs doing or something they shouldn't be. Are they wrong when they find drugs, guns, or a letter on how they plan on doing something completely wrong that could harm them or others? Should we punish that parent for violating their child’s right to privacy? Then we'll give the kid back the drugs, guns, or what ever and tell them to have a nice day. Now that child will fill safe knowing that their rights are being protected to the fullest extent possible.

Now yes in the Utopian society that some think we live in the parents can simply go up to there 100% morally right kid and say, "Hey Billy/Suzie are you smoking crack?” and yes in the Utopian society you happy people live in Billy/Suzie will happily say, "Why yes mom/dad I was/or have been smoking crack." Just remember in that Utopian society there will be no drug, guns, or problems. Now it the real world where I live unfortunately this won't happen, so mom and dad have to do a little looking into things on there own. Not all have to do this but more do then don't. It's the same with the government, and if your doing nothing wrong then you have no worries.

Please remember this is only about the wiretaps.

Please don't take my writing (as miss spelled and grammatically incorrect as it is) to be open hostility, I only meant to show how vehemently I feel about this subject. Every one has there own opinion and I can live with that. If I came off harsh I’m sorry. Mods if you want me to change this please let me know and I will.

So you're saying that we're supposed to give up our freedoms for temopary security? I think that you need to read our constitution and understand what is says and what it means.

And understand this quote too (it been said a lot in this thread but it bears repeating until the sheep of this country understand it and stand up to dictator Bush.)

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

Benjamin Franklin

Hardknock · 12-21-2005, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

This administration is 'not guilty' in the sense that OJ was 'not guilty'

Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed democracy, the Democrats would certainly want you to believe that President Bush is a criminal. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself. But ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one, final, thing I want you to consider.
Ladies and gentleman, this is Chew-bacca. Chewbacca is a Wookie from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca… LIVES …on the planet Endor. Now think about that. That does NOT MAKE SENSE.
Why would a Wookie, an eight-foot tall Wookie, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does NOT MAKE SENSE! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does NOT MAKE SENSE! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending the President of the United States, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed democracy, it does NOT MAKE SENSE! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey.

What the hell are you talking about?

Are you trying to imply that wireptaps that violate the fourth amendment have no justification in this case?

Hardknock · 12-21-2005, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Hehe I think the title of this thread needs to be changed based to fit the current tone.

Replace ' Did the Bush admin break the law?'

with....

'We hope the Bush admin broke the law.'

We are arguing over technicalities, unknown data, and legal issues NONE of us have the slightest knowledge over.

But that's where you're wrong. The forth amendment is clear. We do know that the wiretaps were conducted all on domestic soil. We do know that they were conducted against American citizens. Whether you like it or not, if there are American CITIZENS who happen to sympathize with terrorism, you still cannot circumvent the law. Once you do that, then we're no better than they are. The FISA court can approve warrants in minutes. We can still catch them before they cause any damage. There was no reason for Bush to circumvent the courts.

Poppinjay · 12-21-2005, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

So you hope, but it won't go down that way

Which is basically the same argument O'Reilly and Limbaugh make every day. Lefties want terrorists to go free. Lefties want terrorists to attack. All in the name of bringing down Bush.

It's all a lie, but it's easier than thinking.

12-21-2005, 08:31 AM	#242 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	Ustwo, as posted just a few posts back, 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. In case you missed it: if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section. Siiiiiiiggggghhhhhhhhhhh::::::::::::::::: __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

12-21-2005, 08:45 AM	#245 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	The AG did not make the certifications. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

12-21-2005, 08:50 AM	#246 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Ugh this is where a guy in a British military uniform should come in and say.... "I'm stopping this sketch because it has become extremely silly." __________________ 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.

12-21-2005, 08:52 AM	#247 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	I don't get that. Why? With a certification, there's a record. If something gets screwed up, there's a record of what happened, or why it was approved. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

12-21-2005, 09:17 AM	#251 (permalink)
Dragonknight Insane Location: Hawaii	Okay so I've read through most of this post and it scares and angers me. People will go spouting off about there "Oh so untouchable rights" yet are willing to sacrifice NOTHING what so ever to have them. They want to sit on there butts at home with more crap then most anyone in the world has because it's "Their right" to have these nice things. What did you do to earn these wondrous rights I ask??? Your For Fathers fought and died for them, they sacrificed there time and lives to do so. Yet you can't stand the thought of someone listening in on your calls to some country, where the hell ever it is or read those oh so important e-mails that God forbid someone see, because it will totally ruin your life when they read it or listen in and say "No he's not planning on killing innocent people" and never once think twice about it. It’s not some average Joe we’re talking about. These are people who are trained, and tested over and over again to get their jobs with background checks that are worse then the worst audit. These people can and will keep your secret fling with the dancing clown a secret, because it’s there job to do so. If you are planning on blowing up the Brooklyn bridge though there going to cause you some problems. Did Bush break the law, yeah if you, or I, or any other average Joe did it, but when your the NSA, FBI, CIA, INTERPOL, or any other organization DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY to catch those who don't want to be caught NO NO and NO no law was broken. Do we as a nation really expect the above-mentioned organizations to get a warrant for EVERY wiretap they want? These are the guys that have to sneak in the shadows to catch the BAD GUYS. How else are they going to catch these people? The very reason for a government agency is to not be seen. If your not doing anything wrong then you have Nothing to worry about. Hell you will never even know they are/were there. Yeah I'm sorry some people got grilled over what they said, did, or wrote. That's all that happened though they got grilled. If they were innocent then nothing happened. I'd rather have them be a little too careful then not careful enough. Think of the parent who goes through their kids stuff because they think they’re on/or drugs doing or something they shouldn't be. Are they wrong when they find drugs, guns, or a letter on how they plan on doing something completely wrong that could harm them or others? Should we punish that parent for violating their child’s right to privacy? Then we'll give the kid back the drugs, guns, or what ever and tell them to have a nice day. Now that child will fill safe knowing that their rights are being protected to the fullest extent possible. Now yes in the Utopian society that some think we live in the parents can simply go up to there 100% morally right kid and say, "Hey Billy/Suzie are you smoking crack?” and yes in the Utopian society you happy people live in Billy/Suzie will happily say, "Why yes mom/dad I was/or have been smoking crack." Just remember in that Utopian society there will be no drug, guns, or problems. Now it the real world where I live unfortunately this won't happen, so mom and dad have to do a little looking into things on there own. Not all have to do this but more do then don't. It's the same with the government, and if your doing nothing wrong then you have no worries. Please remember this is only about the wiretaps. Please don't take my writing (as miss spelled and grammatically incorrect as it is) to be open hostility, I only meant to show how vehemently I feel about this subject. Every one has there own opinion and I can live with that. If I came off harsh I’m sorry. Mods if you want me to change this please let me know and I will. __________________ Freedom is NOT Free.

12-21-2005, 09:25 AM	#257 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	in the Utopian society you happy people live in Billy/Suzie will happily say, "Why yes mom/dad I was/or have been smoking crack." I SO want to make this my tagline. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

12-21-2005, 09:32 AM	#258 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Clinton and Regan gave Willravel a million bucks....

12-21-2005, 10:22 AM	#260 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the premise of this thread is not a legal question--it is not about the (obvious) problems the bush squad has caused for themselves by their excessively enthusiastic take on their own j.d. legal memos---it is not whether there are grounds for a formal investigation and potentially formal charges against the administration--though there are obviously grounds for an investigation and i would not be surprised to see that this ends up being the Real Mistake, the one that the administration cannot talk away.... the real premise of the thread is the question of whether the extralegal arguments are compelling--these extra-legal arguments center on the "war on terror" and its psychological correlates. this question can be reduced to a matter of relative paranoia. do folk on the right feel more special than the rest of us because they imagine "terrorism" is a constant direct threat to them personally--this in the face of all evidence to the contrary----what it involved with this question for conservatives? they never---ever--address the matter, but it is crucial to every last response above that even tried to defend the bush administration. it is the centre of this debate, such as it is. yet no-one addresses it. all you get is a series of various indices of the extent to which the matter operates psychologically for individual conservatives. that's it. it is like a "fact" in conservativeland. what causes this sense of "terrorism" to vary with political affiliation? what justifies it? are certain types of information sources more likely to present "terrorism" as a constant, real menace than others? how do these information souces line up politically? fact is, folks, that there is nothing "objective" about your sense of this fiction called the "war on terror"---there is no agreement on what it means, this "war--no agreement on the nature of the adversary--no agreement about the danger posed to civilians by it--no agreement on causes--no agreement about anything, really. what justifies the separation of the notion of "terrorism" from the arrangements backed by the americans internationally? that is, on what basis does anyone, anywhere accept the argument floated by the bush people sine 9/12/2001 that "terrorism" can be understood as something other than a political response to aspects of globalizing capitalism on the one hand and american foreign policy on the other? it would seem to me that if you want to combat "terrorism" you would have to advocate basic changes to the international capitalist order and to american foreign policy, particularly in the middle east. which means that you would have to know what the americans are doing, and what they are blamed for. the right seems totally uninterested in such matters, presumably as a function of a politically sanctioned type of ignorance. yet the folk on the right wonder why others do not buy their arguments. they do not buy them because of all the extra stuff involved with even starting to take them seriously----which conservatives seem incapable of laying out and debating. but for any of the conservative arguments to be valid at all, there has to be some kind of coherent view of the question of "terrorism"--for these arguments to hold in this kind of debate, that view of "terrorism" would have to be introduced as a major premise and defended as such--as things stand, all it is is an arbitrarily invoked bit of background information the only interest in which is its persistence across rightwing views expressed in this thread. the right does not have a compelling claim that the bushsquad's survellance actions are legal---i have read through the various attempts above to argue this point, and i find none of them even interesting, much less compelling. what it comes down to is a sense of whether the bush squad is justified in its actions based on raison d'etat. period. and so around we go. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 12-21-2005 at 10:24 AM..

12-21-2005, 10:59 AM	#261 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I have no problem sacrifing anything, if I believe in the cause and it is done legally. __________________ 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?"

12-21-2005, 11:52 AM	#267 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Bfore I go to work..... I have one thing to say.......... Give Willravel a million bucks....Give Willravel a million bucks....Give Willravel a million bucks.... __________________ 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?"

12-21-2005, 12:10 PM	#268 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Hehe I think the title of this thread needs to be changed based to fit the current tone. Replace ' Did the Bush admin break the law?' with.... 'We hope the Bush admin broke the law.' We are arguing over technicalities, unknown data, and legal issues NONE of us have the slightest knowledge over. My stance has always been Bush did what was necessary in light of the 9/11 attacks, the technicalities of the case don't matter to me, frankly I wasn't worried if they were illegal, as I feel it was the right thing to do (though I never thought they were illegal in the first place). Now that more and more information is pointing to the fact that they were not illegal as presented, it seems the switch is to find what ELSE they did, hoping to find something illegal, not because of any fundamental outrage but as a way to 'get Bush', basically they want to go fishing. Well cast your lures away folks, this is an issue where the American people will again react not in outrage over Bush, but in outrage over those who weaken the security of the nation in their quest for political power. Maybe when this is all said and done, 11 months from now when it seems that SOMEHOW the Republicans gained in the midterms we can start a thread in paranoia about how Karl Rove leaked the wire tap story hoping for senate hearings which made the Democrats look like obstructionists yet again for another election. __________________ 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.

12-21-2005, 12:16 PM	#269 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	Let’s see how the people react when a court rules that a known terrorist is going scot-free because the surveillance is ruled illegal. Why not go through the extra few minutes to get a warrant to make sure we have these bastards and they can’t get away? __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

12-21-2005, 12:33 PM	#271 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	Since this thread is checked all day, I'll put this here. I'm out for the rest of the year. Have a merry Christmas and a happy new year, you all! __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

12-21-2005, 12:47 PM	#274 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	This administration is 'not guilty' in the sense that OJ was 'not guilty' Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed democracy, the Democrats would certainly want you to believe that President Bush is a criminal. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself. But ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one, final, thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentleman, this is Chew-bacca. Chewbacca is a Wookie from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca… LIVES …on the planet Endor. Now think about that. That does NOT MAKE SENSE. Why would a Wookie, an eight-foot tall Wookie, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does NOT MAKE SENSE! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does NOT MAKE SENSE! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending the President of the United States, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed democracy, it does NOT MAKE SENSE! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests. Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey.