Did the Bush admin break the law? - Page 9 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Charlatan · 12-30-2005, 05:45 PM

People...stop pestering Ustwo. He doesn't care if Bush broke the law or not. He thinks Bush did the right thing regardless of the law.

I don't think he will change this position even if Bush is impeached and hauled off to jail.

Move on... why waste your time chasing your tails (or his).

Elphaba · 12-30-2005, 06:02 PM

Excellent point, Charlatan, and one that I have adopted. And once again, I agree with Ustwo that he could make better use of his time by cleaning off his desk.

pan6467 · 12-30-2005, 06:33 PM

My question is why if someone finds this so unnewsworthy and not worth their time, why post and say so?

It's like the talking heads on radio and Fox and elsewhere the more they talk and try to defend this or try to blow this off the more foolishly stupid and self involved they look.

This is a big issue and hopefully the Left doesn't let this die like they have so many other things.

I just wonder what more Bush is doing that HASN'T been released. We should truly know what liberties he is taking ffor granted or what rights he is destroying, this is 'WE THE PEOPLE'S" GOVERNMENT not just W's not just the Right's but ALL OF US and WE have the right to know.

P.S. As someone who writes his own long posts and sometimes I make sense and sometimes I just babble and most likely I am ignored most of the time.....

I APPRECIATE HOST'S POSTS. I may not read every item but this is a man who has a great love for his country and friends and works hard to speak out against the wrongs he sees.

I may not always agree with him, but I don't always agree with myself...... But to HOST, I say, I truly appreciate what he does and the effort and love of country he has.

I also have yet to see anyone dispute and debate him. Rather they attack him for his posts and not the articles and information he brings. How sad, this man does not get the true respect owed to him.

Ustwo · 12-30-2005, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

People...stop pestering Ustwo. He doesn't care if Bush broke the law or not. He thinks Bush did the right thing regardless of the law.

I don't think he will change this position even if Bush is impeached and hauled off to jail.

Move on... why waste your time chasing your tails (or his).

If you were to listen to the left learning media types even they are saying it appears he didn't 'break' the law, so they are focusing on the ethics of it all. The odds of Bush going to jail for this are far less than the odds of host voting straight republican next election cycle. Unless of course he is an agent of the right wing secret army attempting to sway people to the right by being so far left. (If you read the illuminatis trilogy you know what I'm talking about

)

So do any of you socialist types think that government agents are posting on this forum? Its time for check here.

Elphaba · 12-30-2005, 08:05 PM

Ustwo, back to the tittie forum, please. You do so much better there. Host already addressed your notion of the "liberal" response that you claim to have heard, read, caught in your Renyolds (sic) tinfoil hat. It really isn't amusing anymore when it is obvious that you simply wish to disrupt any topic in the politics forum.

Big yawn, darlin'

Charlatan got it right.

host · 12-30-2005, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Guard yourself well with the Foil of Renyolds for verily I come for thee!

Moved..... <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1970385&postcount=67">here.</a>

Elphaba · 12-30-2005, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

If you were to listen to the left learning media types even they are saying it appears he didn't 'break' the law, so they are focusing on the ethics of it all. The odds of Bush going to jail for this are far less than the odds of host voting straight republican next election cycle. Unless of course he is an agent of the right wing secret army attempting to sway people to the right by being so far left. (If you read the illuminatis trilogy you know what I'm talking about

)

So do any of you socialist types think that government agents are posting on this forum? Its time for check here.

I would have expected the master of mockery to recognize that he was being mocked with similar jibberish. Host is getting better at your own game, Ustwo.

Elphaba · 12-30-2005, 08:58 PM

Ok, lets call a truce. dksuddeth has created a politics topic that is now at nine pages. That deserves all of our respect and getting it shut down now due to the usual shit stirring from the usual source means the terrorists win or some dumb bullshit like that.

Back on topic, but dksuddeth deserves a mighty applause.

Elphaba · 01-02-2006, 02:28 PM

It would appear that NSA spying on US citizens has been hiding in plain sight. I remember Bolton needing to defend his requests for NSA information during his confirmation hearing, but no bell rang and no light turned on for me.

Link

Quote:

Bolton Testimony Revealed Domestic Spying
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Investigative Report

Monday 02 January 2006

This past spring, an explosive nugget of information slipped out during the confirmation hearings of John Bolton - nominated by President Bush to be the United States Ambassador to the United Nations - that in hindsight should have blown the lid off Bush's four-year-old clandestine spy program involving the National Security Agency.

At the hearing in late April, Bolton, a former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, told Congress that since 2001 he had asked the NSA on 10 different occasions to reveal to him the identities of American citizens who were caught in the NSA's raw intelligence reports in what appears to be a routine circumventing of the rules governing eavesdropping on the American public.

It turned out that Bolton was just one of many government officials who learned the identities of Americans caught in the NSA intercepts. The State Department asked the NSA to unmask the identities of American citizens 500 times since May 2001.

Newsweek revealed earlier this year that the NSA disclosed to senior White House officials and other policymakers at federal agencies the names of as many as 10,000 American citizens the agency obtained while eavesdropping on foreigners. The Americans weren't involved in any sort of terrorist activity, nor did they pose any sort of threat to national security, but had simply been named while the NSA was conducting wiretaps.

The "NSA received - and fulfilled - between 3,000 and 3,500 requests from other agencies to supply the names of U.S. citizens and officials (and citizens of other countries that help NSA eavesdrop around the world, including Britain, Canada and Australia) that initially were deleted from raw intercept reports," Newsweek said in its May 2 issue. "Sources say the number of names disclosed by NSA to other agencies during this period is more than 10,000. About one third of such disclosures were made to officials at the policymaking level; most of the rest were disclosed to other intel agencies and, perhaps surprisingly, only a small proportion to law-enforcement agencies."

The NSA has always blacked out the names of American citizens when it distributes reports about its activities to various governmental agencies because the NSA, by law, is not supposed to spy on Americans. If the NSA intercepts the names of Americans in the course of a wiretap, the agency is supposed to black out the names prior to distributing its reports to other agencies. The names of American citizens that are blacked out can be revealed to government officials if they ask for them in writing and only if they're needed to help the official better understand the context of the intelligence information they were included in.

But that didn't appear to be the case with Bolton.

During one routine wiretap, the NSA obtained the name of a state department official whose name had been blacked out when the agency submitted its report to various federal agencies. Bolton's chief of staff, Frederick Fleitz, a former CIA official, revealed during the confirmation hearings that Bolton had requested that the NSA unmask the unidentified official. Fleitz said that when Bolton found out his identity, he congratulated the official, and by doing so he had violated the NSA's rules by discussing classified information contained in the wiretap.

In a letter to Gen. Michael Hayden, then the NSA's outgoing director, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Intelligence Committee's vice chairman said, "the NSA memorandum forwarding the requested identity to State (Intelligence and Research) included the following restriction: 'Request no further action be taken on this information without prior approval of NSA.' I have confirmed with the NSA that the phrase 'no further action' includes sharing the requested identity of U.S. persons with any individual not authorized by the NSA to receive the identity."

"In addition to being troubled that Mr. Bolton may have shared U.S. person identity information without required NSA approval," Rockefeller wrote, "I am concerned that the reason for sharing the information was not in keeping with Mr. Bolton's requested justification for the identity in the first place. The identity information was provided to Mr. Bolton based on the stated reason that he needed to know the identity in order to better under the foreign intelligence contained in the NSA report."

Patrick Radden Keefe, author of Chatter: Dispatches From the Secret World of Global Eavesdropping, said at the time that he was troubled that, other than the questions raised by Rockefeller, Congress and the Senate showed little concern over the NSA's practices "beyond the specifics involving Bolton."

"If the National Security Agency provides officials with the identities of Americans on its tapes, what is the use of making secret those names in the first place?" Keefe wrote in an August 11 op-ed in the New York Times. "We now know that this hasn't been the case - the agency has been listening to Americans' phone calls, just not reporting any names. And Bolton's experience makes clear that keeping those names confidential was a formality that high-ranking officials could overcome by picking up the phone."

pan6467 · 01-03-2006, 11:21 PM

There's a very simple way to get at the "suspected" terrorists without treading on the Constitution and taking rights away.

It's this: simply take your suspect in hold him for the 24-48 hours without charge while you get warrants for anything and everything you need..... once you have the warrants and you have the evidence charging the suspect should not be that hard. It's legal and it would work....oooo but wait... for some reason Bush would rather try all these people in private.

I think public trials of these suspected terrorists would not only help show we mean business, but may actually help sway public opinion back to Bush, by showing what he is doing is necessary and that poltical enemies and innocent of terrorism suspects are not losing any rights or freedoms.

Unfortunately, won't happen..... makes one wonder why, also makes one wonder what he is hiding.

smooth · 01-04-2006, 01:00 AM

the problem with public trials and evidence probes are that figuring out networks of secretive people takes time and discretion. Even in domestic drug network infiltrations, the investigations may take years of covert operations and observations. That's just the shitty thing about all this. But then you have to give up vulnerabilities to get them. Vulnerabilities they exploit to operate. And when we transgress our open society, we illustrate the sham of a freedom loving society we are. That's what much of the world sees when we violate our own tenets. Much of our population manages to see our own actions in ways that don't transgress our values, but these are the choices we have to make in my opinion.

Poppinjay · 01-04-2006, 05:39 AM

<a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1145243,00.html">Bob Barr</a> is smarter than I thought.

From the column:

Quote:

Back in the 1930s, when confronted with clear evidence he had violated the law, Georgia's then agriculture commissioner and gubernatorial candidate Eugene Talmadge popped his bright red suspenders and dared those accusing him of corruption to do something about it, declaring, "Sure, I stole, but I stole for you." He was elected Governor in 1932. Accused of breaking the law in the current debate over electronic spying, President George W. Bush has, in his own way, dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of our Constitution, I hope they will.

dksuddeth · 01-04-2006, 08:49 AM

america is doomed. either people don't realize or they just plain don't care that if an elected leader like POTUS breaks the law and congress won't, or can't, do anything about it then they (the citizens) are the LAST line of defense for the constitution. It should be every citizens personal obligation to remove the current government when its not working anymore, just like it says in the constitution, but the majority of 'citizens' we have in this nation today are as morally and ethically bankrupt as are the politicians. If President Bush told america at the state of the union address that he's suspending the constitution due to a national emergency crisis, most citizens would just roll over and whine like babies.

I repeat, america is doomed.

Ustwo · 01-04-2006, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

america is doomed. either people don't realize or they just plain don't care that if an elected leader like POTUS breaks the law and congress won't, or can't, do anything about it then they (the citizens) are the LAST line of defense for the constitution. It should be every citizens personal obligation to remove the current government when its not working anymore, just like it says in the constitution, but the majority of 'citizens' we have in this nation today are as morally and ethically bankrupt as are the politicians. If President Bush told america at the state of the union address that he's suspending the constitution due to a national emergency crisis, most citizens would just roll over and whine like babies.

I repeat, america is doomed.

When was this golden age when people were not morally and ethically bankrupt?

Willravel · 01-04-2006, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

When was this golden age when people were not morally and ethically bankrupt?

Just because things have never been perfect does not mean we can't take actions in order to make things better. Don't you hate political corruption (from any party), just like the rest of us? Wouldn't you like to remove that stress from our country?

dksuddeth · 01-04-2006, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

When was this golden age when people were not morally and ethically bankrupt?

I think it ended somewhere between the end of WW2 and Vietnam. I guess it should be expected though since people, as a whole because they are little sheep, have a tendency to follow the shining examples of morals and ethics that are exhibited by their elected leaders.

pan6467 · 01-04-2006, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

america is doomed. either people don't realize or they just plain don't care that if an elected leader like POTUS breaks the law and congress won't, or can't, do anything about it then they (the citizens) are the LAST line of defense for the constitution. It should be every citizens personal obligation to remove the current government when its not working anymore, just like it says in the constitution, but the majority of 'citizens' we have in this nation today are as morally and ethically bankrupt as are the politicians. If President Bush told america at the state of the union address that he's suspending the constitution due to a national emergency crisis, most citizens would just roll over and whine like babies.

I repeat, america is doomed.

I don't think America is doomed, to be quite honest it is always darkest before the dawn. I think the people will wake up when it is necessary. Sometimes something has to be taken away or threatened before truly appreciated. Ideally, I wouldn't want it to be our rights and liberties but if that is what it takes........

You also have to remember that America is very centrist by it's nature and when we allow the penduulum to swing too far in one direction the people have always moved it back.

It's what happened to the Dems and it's what is happening now to the GOP. The radicals and far Right took over and there are enough moderate GOP that are going to start splitting the party more and more. Same as what the Dems. have gone through.

Historically, the generation following the one in power leans more toward the opposite direction of their parents. Hence Clinton after Bush, JFK after Ike, Ike after Truman, all the way to Addams and Jefferson.

The only thing that concerns me is that right now there is no compromising and the Radical Right refuses to give on anything, which worries me that they may play with the penduulum and try to hold onto power using any means necessary.

If that happens though, I don't see the people rolling over, I see a 60's radical type revolution happening. Noone believed the Boomers would do it, and had you told the people in the 50's what was coming they would have laughed..... and I see that type of struggle coming if things do not change.

stevo · 01-04-2006, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

There's a very simple way to get at the "suspected" terrorists without treading on the Constitution and taking rights away.

It's this: simply take your suspect in hold him for the 24-48 hours without charge while you get warrants for anything and everything you need..... once you have the warrants and you have the evidence charging the suspect should not be that hard. It's legal and it would work....oooo but wait... for some reason Bush would rather try all these people in private.

I think public trials of these suspected terrorists would not only help show we mean business, but may actually help sway public opinion back to Bush, by showing what he is doing is necessary and that poltical enemies and innocent of terrorism suspects are not losing any rights or freedoms.

Unfortunately, won't happen..... makes one wonder why, also makes one wonder what he is hiding.

It sounds easy enough, doesn't it? But what about when NSA receives some vague intel, that doesn't give them a name. How do you detain a suspect when you don't even know his name? How do you get a warrent when all you have is a bit of info? You can't. So using that bit of intel NSA gains more intel until they have a clearer picture on what is going on. Sometimes things aren't as simple as you put it, Pan. I'm also suprised that you would rather have a a suspect held a detained for up to 48 hours rather than just listening in on their calls. Wouldn't your option infringe on the guys freedom more than just listening to a conversation with al-qaeda?

Do you remember the 21st highjacker, Z. Massoui (sp?)? The FBI had him detained prior to 9/11 and wanted to get into his laptop, but alas, a Federal Judge DENIED the FBI access to his laptop that may have had info on 9/11 and actually prevented it. But we don't hear about that, do we?

The longer this story goes on the more obvious it is that what bush did was legal and moral.

dksuddeth · 01-04-2006, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

The longer this story goes on the more obvious it is that what bush did was legal and moral.

while technically it might be wholly legal, care to point out to me where its 'moral'?

stevo · 01-04-2006, 12:03 PM

What is done is for PROTECTING the american people, not to undermind them.

roachboy · 01-04-2006, 12:20 PM

fact is that there should be an interesting and potentially important series of consequences for the bushpolicies in question here---there should be an investigation into this, which would set off a series of legal battles over the legitimacy of john yoo's carl schmitt-like usage of a state of emergency to remove all boundaries to executive power and the bushpeople's---um---loose interpretation of this argument.

and if the administration looses, it should fall along with the doctrine of unlimited execustive power that it has ridden since 9/2001.

in the "debate" above all that is really happening is a rehearsal of basic political divisions without any real dialogue--the rightwingers cannot see any possibility of a problem, everyone else sees a problem, round and round.
it is a bit surprising to see the conservatives above already arrayed in a "defense" of total denial of any problem whatsoever--but no matter, this is the right we are talking about here and submissiveness to the dominant talking point of the moment is evidently a kind of marker of belonging to that curious little world. and the recycling of these same divisions is tedious. no-one ever moves when things reach this point. maybe this recurrent state of affairs is a type of penis function, marking of territory, walking purposefully about on it.....it's hard to know, really.

anyway, it would appear that the folk who run the ideological show on the right think that this problem can be managed at the public opinion level--but the problem is bigger than that: it is whether the administration acted illegally in claiming unlimited power for the executive branch (and thereby jettisoning any pretense to democratic accountability--like the carl schmitt precursor for this ove, a state of emergency cannot abide democracy because it is too slow and too messy--a dictator, capable of Decision is required--a "logic" which is essentially that of the national security state as a whole since ww2, and of the ever-submissive american right now---with dick cheney as the most attractive spokesmodel for it.)

i would like to see the legal fight happen.
of course i would hope that the defeat the bushpeople would suffer would be total....
but that is just my opinion about outcome and has nothing to do with the importance of the legal fight--which would function to reinscribe the balance of power between branches as the states enters a new and improved slide into that twilight world of fading empires.

Ustwo · 01-04-2006, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I think it ended somewhere between the end of WW2 and Vietnam. I guess it should be expected though since people, as a whole because they are little sheep, have a tendency to follow the shining examples of morals and ethics that are exhibited by their elected leaders.

Edit: OOpps read that wrong.

Political scandal was around long before WW2, there is no golden age in American politics.

I'm at work and don't have time to dig up examples beyond the obvious war we had based on false assumptions (Spanish American) civil liberties shot to hell far beyond your wildist imaginations (Civil war), big time scandal (T-pot dome), and lets not forget the great depression.

dksuddeth · 01-04-2006, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Edit: OOpps read that wrong.

Political scandal was around long before WW2, there is no golden age in American politics.

I'm at work and don't have time to dig up examples beyond the obvious war we had based on false assumptions (Spanish American) civil liberties shot to hell far beyond your wildist imaginations (Civil war), big time scandal (T-pot dome), and lets not forget the great depression.

you've misunderstood what golden age I was talking about. I KNOW there was never a golden age of politics, I was referring to the golden age of the american population when it came to being decently american.

dksuddeth · 01-04-2006, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

What is done is for PROTECTING the american people, not to undermind them.

so when any political office holder tells you he/she broke the law and they would do it again to protect you, you'll give them a pass, right? after all, its all about protecting us in a time of war.

so tell me, if the government figures out that you will let them do whatever they need to (read that as want to) as long as they tell you its for your protection, do you ever think that you'll no longer need their protection? and how long will you let the government continue to ignore basic laws, complex laws, constitutional laws?

dksuddeth · 01-04-2006, 12:51 PM

Bush could bypass torture ban

Quote:

When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law.

With this kind of attitude, why should we even bother with congress and the courts anymore? If he can interpret the laws in any way he deems fit and necessary, why should we even bother? somebody just give him a frickin bejeweled crown already and get it over with.

Rekna · 01-04-2006, 01:07 PM

all hail king bush!

Elphaba · 01-04-2006, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Do you remember the 21st highjacker, Z. Massoui (sp?)? The FBI had him detained prior to 9/11 and wanted to get into his laptop, but alas, a Federal Judge DENIED the FBI access to his laptop that may have had info on 9/11 and actually prevented it. But we don't hear about that, do we?

The longer this story goes on the more obvious it is that what bush did was legal and moral.

Stevo, we don't hear about that, because it didn't come down the way you describe. The Washington Post article below is a long one, but I have posted the relevant information.

Link

Quote:

A Zeal to Defend Secrecy

Saturday, December 24, 2005; Page A15

In their zeal to defend President Bush for ordering the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on communications of American citizens, William Kristol and Gary Schmitt got key things wrong regarding the FBI's terrorism investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui ["Vital Presidential Power," op-ed, Dec. 20].

They are wrong about Moussaoui being a "U.S. person" who required a higher standard of probable cause under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Moussaoui was a French citizen in the United States with an expired temporary visa, which means that the higher FISA standard did not apply.

More important, and contrary to Kristol and Schmitt's assertion that "the Justice Department decided there was not sufficient evidence to get a FISA warrant to allow the inspection of his computer files," no evidence of Moussaoui's suspicious flight training and ties with terrorism was presented to the Justice Department. The department was never contacted and so did not decide anything; therefore, no decision was ever made regarding the given evidence and its subsequent application to FISA standards.

-- Coleen Rowley

Apple Valley, Minn.

The writer is a retired FBI agent who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2002 about the problems the FBI faces in investigating terrorists.

That means the FISA procedures were not the reason the FBI failed to inspect Moussaoui's computer files. Rather, the FBI's failure to share and analyze intelligence sufficiently is what enabled Moussaoui to escape further investigation. If you recall, Rowley was the whistle blower on the ineptitude of FBI senior management in reviewing her Moussaouri intel.

pan6467 · 01-04-2006, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

It sounds easy enough, doesn't it? But what about when NSA receives some vague intel, that doesn't give them a name. How do you detain a suspect when you don't even know his name? How do you get a warrent when all you have is a bit of info? You can't. So using that bit of intel NSA gains more intel until they have a clearer picture on what is going on. Sometimes things aren't as simple as you put it, Pan. I'm also suprised that you would rather have a a suspect held a detained for up to 48 hours rather than just listening in on their calls. Wouldn't your option infringe on the guys freedom more than just listening to a conversation with al-qaeda?

Hope you enjoyed your trip.

The 24-48 holding period is a good idea and it is legal. If Bush is going to do these things at least do these things using LEGAL techniques.

I'm not in favor of either but at least my suggestion is legal and would probably garner just as much if not more info.

So according to your scenario

Quote:

But what about when NSA receives some vague intel, that doesn't give them a name. How do you detain a suspect when you don't even know his name? How do you get a warrent when all you have is a bit of info? You can't. So using that bit of intel NSA gains more intel until they have a clearer picture on what is going on.

There are a few questions..... how did they get the info, how do they know who to tap, and if they know the phone they are to tap then they know who the suspect is?

If you are following the suspect and you know he has info, take him down and get the warrants and all the info you can.

The problem is Bush isn't even getting the warrants. If Bush got warrants (even after the fact), there wouldn't be any argument from me. I'd still believe it was wrong but, again, at least what he would be doing was legal.

It just amazes me that people back him no matter what and the arguments used make no sense, when you know damn well if Bill had used this, or if a future Dem. President uses this, the people supporting Bush would be yelling as loud as we are now.

It's hypocritical, and I have already stated that Waco and Ruby Ridge were abuses of power and at the time I would have supported any Impeachment hearings.

Right, legal and moral is what our leadership should aspire to and set as their goal.... not hiding and using technicalities and flinging bullshit around as they perform illegal tactics, regardless of why or who the party in power is.

Once you start to support such action the government eventually takes more and more liberty on those powers they abuse...... very rarely if ever do they right the wrongs and even if they do it takes generations to correct the situation.

And again I ask if there are no warrants, no paper trails how do we know who truly is being tapped? It could be political opposites of Bush, dissidents that Bush wants tabs on and claims they are Al Quida. If there's no paper trail how do we know he isn't abusing these powers? How do we know what else he is doing, I mean look how long it took this to come out and be admitted to and the "investigations of the leak" we have now. And yet, what isn't being reported, that should scare us even more.

Or are you of the belief what we don't know won't hurt us?

And how can we allow this to continue, knowing the next president can and may take this power even that much further?

Where does it end?

Whether you believe Bush is breaking laws or not, we should make sure NO PRESIDENT ever can excute anything like this without warrants. Because I guarantee you, should we continue down this road it maybe too late, when people who are okaying this and turning blind eyes to it start realizing their rights have been eroded.

(BTW I was raised 7th Day Adventist and the Branch Davidians, who were accused of having some far out religion were also 7th Day Adventists.. but you never really heard that info given anywhere.... just a tidbit of semi-off topic info.)

Elph answered the part I snipped so no sense in my reanswering it.

roachboy · 01-07-2006, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Report Rebuts Bush on Spying
Domestic Action's Legality Challenged

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 7, 2006; A01

A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments.

The Congressional Research Service's report rebuts the central assertions made recently by Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales about the president's authority to order secret intercepts of telephone and e-mail exchanges between people inside the United States and their contacts abroad.

The findings, the first nonpartisan assessment of the program's legality to date, prompted Democratic lawmakers and civil liberties advocates to repeat calls yesterday for Congress to conduct hearings on the monitoring program and attempt to halt it.

The 44-page report said that Bush probably cannot claim the broad presidential powers he has relied upon as authority to order the secret monitoring of calls made by U.S. citizens since the fall of 2001. Congress expressly intended for the government to seek warrants from a special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before engaging in such surveillance when it passed legislation creating the court in 1978, the CRS report said.

The report also concluded that Bush's assertion that Congress authorized such eavesdropping to detect and fight terrorists does not appear to be supported by the special resolution that Congress approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which focused on authorizing the president to use military force.

"It appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations here," the authors of the CRS report wrote. The administration's legal justification "does not seem to be . . . well-grounded," they said.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has pledged to hold hearings on the program, which was first revealed in news accounts last month, and the judges of the FISA court have demanded a classified briefing about the program, which is scheduled for Monday.

"This report contradicts the president's claim that his spying on Americans was legal," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), one of the lawmakers who asked the CRS to research the issue. "It looks like the president's wiretapping was not only illegal, but also ensnared innocent Americans who did nothing more than place a phone call."

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the president and the administration believe the program is on firm legal footing. "The national security activities described by the president were conducted in accord with the law and provide a critical tool in the war on terror that saves lives and protects civil liberties at the same time," he said. A spokesman for the National Security Agency was not available for a comment yesterday.

Other administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the CRS reached some erroneous legal conclusions, erring on the side of a narrow interpretation of what constitutes military force and when the president can exercise his war powers.

Bush has said that he has broad powers in times of war and must exercise them to target not only "enemies across the world" but also "terrorists here at home." The administration has argued, starting in 2002 briefs to the FISA court, that the "war on terror" is global and indefinite, effectively removing the limits of wartime authority -- traditionally the times and places of imminent or actual battle.

Some law professors have been skeptical of the president's assertions, and several said yesterday that the report's conclusions were expected. "Ultimately, the administration's position is not persuasive," said Carl W. Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor and an expert on constitutional law. "Congress has made it pretty clear it has legislated pretty comprehensively on this issue with FISA," he said, referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. "And there begins to be a pattern of unilateral executive decision making. Time and again, there's the executive acting alone without consulting the courts or Congress."

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the report makes it clear that Congress has exerted power over domestic surveillance. He urged Congress to address what he called the president's abuse of citizens' privacy rights and the larger issue of presidential power.

"These are absolutely central questions in American government: What exactly are the authorities vested in the president, and is he complying with the law?" Rotenberg said.

The report includes 1970s-era quotations from congressional committees that were then uncovering years of domestic spying abuses by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI against those suspected of communist sympathies, American Indians, Black Panthers and other activists. Lawmakers were very disturbed at how routinely FBI agents had listened in on U.S. citizens' phone calls without following any formal procedures. As they drafted FISA and created its court, the lawmakers warned then that only strong legislation, debated in public, could stop future administrations from eavesdropping.

"This evidence alone should demonstrate the inappropriateness of relying solely on executive branch discretion to safeguard civil liberties," they wrote. The lawmakers noted that Congress's intelligence committees could provide some checks and balances to protect privacy rights but that their power was limited in the face of an administration arguing that intelligence decisions must remain top secret.

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010601772.html

the legal battle lines are being drawn.
interesting how central the problematic status of this "war on terror" fiction is to the counterarguments
kinda cuts to one of the main questions that conservatives here have never really answered concerning their understanding of this "war" thing, where it comes from, how they understand themselves to be threatened personally by it and the relation of these positions to support for the bushposition on unlimited executive power.

Cynthetiq · 01-07-2006, 11:52 AM

I just read this on Gothamist.com a local NYC blog:

Quote:

So, our siblings over in the Windy City recently pointed out a really creepy set of businesses that we had kinda hoped only existed on Veronica Mars.

What are we blabbering on about? Basically while much of the world is worried about Bush listening in on your phone calls (or those of CNN reporters), the FBI is warning its agents (and pretty much anyone who'll listen) to be aware that your phone records are very, very, easy to obtain for a hundred bucks or so thanks to websites like this.

How easy to get? "To test the service, the FBI paid Locatecell.com $160 to buy the records for an agent's cell phone and received the list within three hours, the police bulletin said." Uhm, by now we probably really shouldn't be at all surprised by that, and yet we are.

Chicagoist points out that this could be a great boon for wives looking into their cheating husbands (no need to steal his phone to look for suspicious numbers, just get the record!). In the meantime, we think we're going be moving all of our "shadier" phone dealings to a prepaid phone...

So if private companies can do it via legal loophole, I'm sure that the government can do it as well via similar legal loopholes. And besides, the damage is already done for those affected immediately by it. It's those future "unborn" situations that need to be protected.

pan6467 · 01-07-2006, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I just read this on Gothamist.com a local NYC blog:

So if private companies can do it via legal loophole, I'm sure that the government can do it as well via similar legal loopholes. And besides, the damage is already done for those affected immediately by it. It's those future "unborn" situations that need to be protected.

While I don't agree phone records should be so easily gotten, that is nothing compared to actually taping a conversation on the phone between people.

cybersharp · 01-07-2006, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

So the count now is 5 for letting the terrorist go free or should I round up to 10?

to answer you, rekna, I'd really just have to quote ustwo

Who cares if the law was followed if we're dead?

Are you saying that you really thought the Terrorists in Iraq could have ever prevailed against the U.S in a war? The fact that any of them are still ALIVE is a miracle. I mean seriously consider that some of the most effective methods of attacking the U.S that they have are Suicide bombers and Car Bombers... Honestly they dont exactly fight us to begin with.. as most of their battle tactics involve getting themselves killed, to kill anyone else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

What about you Libertarians???? How can you support such an obvious violation of the Constitution?

Well I am Libertarian... I DONT support this violation. The consitution was meant to protect civil rights and limit/balance govermental powers. Not the other way around.

If evidence is gained by breaking the laws that are proficent (as ours are if followed) it can not be used in court. They should without a doubt release him inless they have some more substantail proof of his guilt other than stuff that they got by violating his constitutional rights.

From what I know, the only thing they could have LEGALY done is held him for 24 hours, then, without any other evidence they would have had to release him.

Rekna · 01-07-2006, 02:33 PM

So if Bush is given power because of "broad war time powers" my question is this which war is granting him the power to spy on domestic civilians? I don't think there is some vast conspiricy of civilians helping out Iraq. Or is it the war on terror? Wait did congress ever offically declare a war on terror? Are we allowed to be officially at war with an idea?

Elphaba · 01-07-2006, 06:51 PM

Good point, Rekna. The Bush admin says that the "war on terrorism" is a global war, without end. We are being told to cede our constitutional rights to executive war powers, forever. I cannot abide that line of thinking.

Hardknock · 01-07-2006, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

america is doomed. either people don't realize or they just plain don't care that if an elected leader like POTUS breaks the law and congress won't, or can't, do anything about it then they (the citizens) are the LAST line of defense for the constitution. It should be every citizens personal obligation to remove the current government when its not working anymore, just like it says in the constitution, but the majority of 'citizens' we have in this nation today are as morally and ethically bankrupt as are the politicians. If President Bush told america at the state of the union address that he's suspending the constitution due to a national emergency crisis, most citizens would just roll over and whine like babies.

I repeat, america is doomed.

I called this six years ago when Bush first got elected (placed) and everyone either won't listen to me or writes me off as either a communist or a plain idiot.

I agree with you. Our democracy is already dead. The sheep of this country will just sit there, watch tv while gouging their faces with Micky D's, get fat and not care one fucking bit.

Hardknock · 01-07-2006, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

It sounds easy enough, doesn't it? But what about when NSA receives some vague intel, that doesn't give them a name. How do you detain a suspect when you don't even know his name? How do you get a warrent when all you have is a bit of info? You can't. So using that bit of intel NSA gains more intel until they have a clearer picture on what is going on. Sometimes things aren't as simple as you put it, Pan. I'm also suprised that you would rather have a a suspect held a detained for up to 48 hours rather than just listening in on their calls. Wouldn't your option infringe on the guys freedom more than just listening to a conversation with al-qaeda?

Do you remember the 21st highjacker, Z. Massoui (sp?)? The FBI had him detained prior to 9/11 and wanted to get into his laptop, but alas, a Federal Judge DENIED the FBI access to his laptop that may have had info on 9/11 and actually prevented it. But we don't hear about that, do we?

The longer this story goes on the more obvious it is that what bush did was legal and moral.

You can write arguement after arguement after arguement trying to justfity Bush's actions but he violated the 4th amendment plain and simple. So you can't get the name of a suspect that you are persuing? All you have is a bit of info? YOU GET A WARRANT FROM THE FISA COURT. It's a simple process.

You're making this so much more difficult and complicated than it needs to be. I suspect the reason why is to again, to try and justify the criminal Bush's actions.

The longer this goes, I think that more information will come out (espically from Specter's hearings) that this really was an illegal action and Bush overstepped his authority.

He is nothing more than a plain criminal as far as I'm concerned. A murderer too.

Elphaba · 01-08-2006, 01:02 AM

Um, Hardknock? Take a deep breath and a short break. You have made really thoughtful posts in all of the time I have been here. I agree with you, but keeping it chilled goes farther.

Hardknock · 01-08-2006, 07:02 PM

The truth hurts. And you know what? It needs to be said. Over and over and over again because apparently, the people of this country do not want to either listen or they're too dumb to comprehend it.

That's why Bush was permitted to violate our constitution in the first place. If citizens had only been paying attention......

Willravel · 01-08-2006, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardknock

The truth hurts. And you know what? It needs to be said. Over and over and over again because apparently, the people of this country do not want to either listen or they're too dumb to comprehend it.

That's why Bush was permitted to violate our constitution in the first place. If citizens had only been paying attention......

They have to want to listen first. Shouting doesn't make people want to listen. The funny thing? The best way to defeat Bush and those who would take our freedom is to let them win. It is then and only then that those lazy, apathetic, lethargic people will actually give a crap.

dksuddeth · 01-09-2006, 05:50 AM

the majority of people in this nation simply will not care. As long as they have a relatively easy time of getting a job, keeping their family taken care of, and not incurring major outside interference they will continue to not care. thats why I say, america is doomed.

12-30-2005, 05:45 PM	#321 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	People...stop pestering Ustwo. He doesn't care if Bush broke the law or not. He thinks Bush did the right thing regardless of the law. I don't think he will change this position even if Bush is impeached and hauled off to jail. Move on... why waste your time chasing your tails (or his). __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

12-30-2005, 06:33 PM	#323 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	My question is why if someone finds this so unnewsworthy and not worth their time, why post and say so? It's like the talking heads on radio and Fox and elsewhere the more they talk and try to defend this or try to blow this off the more foolishly stupid and self involved they look. This is a big issue and hopefully the Left doesn't let this die like they have so many other things. I just wonder what more Bush is doing that HASN'T been released. We should truly know what liberties he is taking ffor granted or what rights he is destroying, this is 'WE THE PEOPLE'S" GOVERNMENT not just W's not just the Right's but ALL OF US and WE have the right to know. P.S. As someone who writes his own long posts and sometimes I make sense and sometimes I just babble and most likely I am ignored most of the time..... I APPRECIATE HOST'S POSTS. I may not read every item but this is a man who has a great love for his country and friends and works hard to speak out against the wrongs he sees. I may not always agree with him, but I don't always agree with myself...... But to HOST, I say, I truly appreciate what he does and the effort and love of country he has. I also have yet to see anyone dispute and debate him. Rather they attack him for his posts and not the articles and information he brings. How sad, this man does not get the true respect owed to him. __________________ 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; 12-30-2005 at 06:41 PM..

01-03-2006, 11:21 PM	#330 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	There's a very simple way to get at the "suspected" terrorists without treading on the Constitution and taking rights away. It's this: simply take your suspect in hold him for the 24-48 hours without charge while you get warrants for anything and everything you need..... once you have the warrants and you have the evidence charging the suspect should not be that hard. It's legal and it would work....oooo but wait... for some reason Bush would rather try all these people in private. I think public trials of these suspected terrorists would not only help show we mean business, but may actually help sway public opinion back to Bush, by showing what he is doing is necessary and that poltical enemies and innocent of terrorism suspects are not losing any rights or freedoms. Unfortunately, won't happen..... makes one wonder why, also makes one wonder what he is hiding. __________________ 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?"

01-04-2006, 01:00 AM	#331 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	the problem with public trials and evidence probes are that figuring out networks of secretive people takes time and discretion. Even in domestic drug network infiltrations, the investigations may take years of covert operations and observations. That's just the shitty thing about all this. But then you have to give up vulnerabilities to get them. Vulnerabilities they exploit to operate. And when we transgress our open society, we illustrate the sham of a freedom loving society we are. That's what much of the world sees when we violate our own tenets. Much of our population manages to see our own actions in ways that don't transgress our values, but these are the choices we have to make in my opinion. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

01-04-2006, 08:49 AM	#333 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	america is doomed. either people don't realize or they just plain don't care that if an elected leader like POTUS breaks the law and congress won't, or can't, do anything about it then they (the citizens) are the LAST line of defense for the constitution. It should be every citizens personal obligation to remove the current government when its not working anymore, just like it says in the constitution, but the majority of 'citizens' we have in this nation today are as morally and ethically bankrupt as are the politicians. If President Bush told america at the state of the union address that he's suspending the constitution due to a national emergency crisis, most citizens would just roll over and whine like babies. I repeat, america is doomed. __________________ "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."

12-30-2005, 06:02 PM	#322 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Excellent point, Charlatan, and one that I have adopted. And once again, I agree with Ustwo that he could make better use of his time by cleaning off his desk.

12-30-2005, 08:05 PM	#325 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Ustwo, back to the tittie forum, please. You do so much better there. Host already addressed your notion of the "liberal" response that you claim to have heard, read, caught in your Renyolds (sic) tinfoil hat. It really isn't amusing anymore when it is obvious that you simply wish to disrupt any topic in the politics forum. Big yawn, darlin' Charlatan got it right.

12-30-2005, 08:58 PM	#328 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Ok, lets call a truce. dksuddeth has created a politics topic that is now at nine pages. That deserves all of our respect and getting it shut down now due to the usual shit stirring from the usual source means the terrorists win or some dumb bullshit like that. Back on topic, but dksuddeth deserves a mighty applause.

01-04-2006, 12:03 PM	#340 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	What is done is for PROTECTING the american people, not to undermind them. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

01-04-2006, 12:20 PM	#341 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	fact is that there should be an interesting and potentially important series of consequences for the bushpolicies in question here---there should be an investigation into this, which would set off a series of legal battles over the legitimacy of john yoo's carl schmitt-like usage of a state of emergency to remove all boundaries to executive power and the bushpeople's---um---loose interpretation of this argument. and if the administration looses, it should fall along with the doctrine of unlimited execustive power that it has ridden since 9/2001. in the "debate" above all that is really happening is a rehearsal of basic political divisions without any real dialogue--the rightwingers cannot see any possibility of a problem, everyone else sees a problem, round and round. it is a bit surprising to see the conservatives above already arrayed in a "defense" of total denial of any problem whatsoever--but no matter, this is the right we are talking about here and submissiveness to the dominant talking point of the moment is evidently a kind of marker of belonging to that curious little world. and the recycling of these same divisions is tedious. no-one ever moves when things reach this point. maybe this recurrent state of affairs is a type of penis function, marking of territory, walking purposefully about on it.....it's hard to know, really. anyway, it would appear that the folk who run the ideological show on the right think that this problem can be managed at the public opinion level--but the problem is bigger than that: it is whether the administration acted illegally in claiming unlimited power for the executive branch (and thereby jettisoning any pretense to democratic accountability--like the carl schmitt precursor for this ove, a state of emergency cannot abide democracy because it is too slow and too messy--a dictator, capable of Decision is required--a "logic" which is essentially that of the national security state as a whole since ww2, and of the ever-submissive american right now---with dick cheney as the most attractive spokesmodel for it.) i would like to see the legal fight happen. of course i would hope that the defeat the bushpeople would suffer would be total.... but that is just my opinion about outcome and has nothing to do with the importance of the legal fight--which would function to reinscribe the balance of power between branches as the states enters a new and improved slide into that twilight world of fading empires. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 01-04-2006 at 12:23 PM..

01-04-2006, 01:07 PM	#346 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	all hail king bush!

01-07-2006, 02:33 PM	#353 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	So if Bush is given power because of "broad war time powers" my question is this which war is granting him the power to spy on domestic civilians? I don't think there is some vast conspiricy of civilians helping out Iraq. Or is it the war on terror? Wait did congress ever offically declare a war on terror? Are we allowed to be officially at war with an idea?

01-07-2006, 06:51 PM	#354 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Good point, Rekna. The Bush admin says that the "war on terrorism" is a global war, without end. We are being told to cede our constitutional rights to executive war powers, forever. I cannot abide that line of thinking.

01-08-2006, 01:02 AM	#357 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Um, Hardknock? Take a deep breath and a short break. You have made really thoughtful posts in all of the time I have been here. I agree with you, but keeping it chilled goes farther.

01-08-2006, 07:02 PM	#358 (permalink)
Hardknock Republican slayer Location: WA	The truth hurts. And you know what? It needs to be said. Over and over and over again because apparently, the people of this country do not want to either listen or they're too dumb to comprehend it. That's why Bush was permitted to violate our constitution in the first place. If citizens had only been paying attention......

01-09-2006, 05:50 AM	#360 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	the majority of people in this nation simply will not care. As long as they have a relatively easy time of getting a job, keeping their family taken care of, and not incurring major outside interference they will continue to not care. thats why I say, america is doomed. __________________ "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."