Bush vows to continue breaking the law

[Drocket]

President Bush said Saturday he personally has authorized a secret eavesdropping program in the U.S. more than 30 times since the Sept. 11 attacks and he lashed out at those involved in publicly revealing the program. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1416154&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312)
First up, a public admission of guilt in violating US law, thereby violating the oath he took when sworn into office...

"I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al-Qaida and related groups," he said. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1416154&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312)
Followed by a promise to continue breaking the law. So, can we impeach him yet?

[Danro]

So, can we impeach him yet?

The man has everyone in the grip of fear, hes unimpeachable.

[Metal Boss]

More than fear, its also money, family ties...etc


Psi ops is in full force for this president and its just barely keeping him alive it seems

[alonzomourning23]

Wheres Oswald when you need him?

[elprincipe]

Is what he's ordering technically against the law or it is another grey area? I know wiretaps within the U.S. require a court order, but I have to confess to ignorance in this area of the law. Is what he ordered clearly illegal? If so, they should start thinking about impeachment.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

It's a big grey area.

While illegal to tap phone lines if both ends are in the United States to intercept a phone call that has a domestic end and a foreign end is indeed grey. You don't know which end of the wire was tapped or technically where the call was tapped. Was it here? Was it in route through satellite signals? Was it done on the other end?

The NSA could potentially have done all three but for them the easiest route would be to intercept satellite transmissions or foreign phone calls. There are as many ways to intercept an international phone call as there are way to skin the proverbial cat.

Intercepting emails can theorehetically be done from anywhere in the world. Given the IP/packet nature of all internet communications there's a very real possibility that this very post gets broken up into 32 data packets that are going to cheapassgamer.som/forums/showthread.php?2=78383 and some may never leave the country while others may route through Stockholm, London, Tokyo, Seoul, Moscow and Bangalore before being recompiled by the intended recipient nearly instantaneously.

I don't see this at all as a political issue or even a legal issue. There are ways to intercept foreign phone calls and any email without ever having to being on U.S. soil. I'm just an armchair technophile too. I'm sure that if you honestly sat down and did a modicum of research on just how it is these communications work you could see they were done without breaking the law.

You have to assume any phone call, email or electronic transmission you ever make can and will be read or heard by someone else. We had a good saying at Morgan Stanley, never put anything in an email you wouldn't want to appear on the front page of the Wall Street Journal.

BTW, if this had been done by any President/administration to terrorist suspects with Presidential approval I wouldn't get my panties up in a bunch about it. This topic/issue continues to defy my belief on how little the MSM, liberals and the clueless know about how terrorists are free to operate at will within this country with world class communications and encryption at their fingertips.

[alonzomourning23]

PAD, a lot more than liberal congressman seem concerned.

Though there is a 1978 law that is relevant here:

In 1978, Congress thought it had closed a loophole in the law when it passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The loophole concerned secret spying authorized by the president on grounds of national security.....

The New York Times reported that Bush had authorized the National Security Agency to listen to the phone calls of thousands of people in this country without getting permission from a court. Bush's lawyers maintained that the president had the inherent authority as commander in chief to protect national security through secret spying. The account was confirmed by the Los Angeles Times.

"This sounds like an extraordinarily broad exemption to FISA," said Washington lawyer Kenneth Bass, who worked on the 1978 law as an aide to President Jimmy Carter. "This is well beyond the pale of what was anticipated back then."...

As a general matter, the Constitution forbids the government from spying on Americans, including by listening in on their phone calls without a court's permission. The 4th Amendment says police or federal agents must show a magistrate some evidence of wrongdoing before they can obtain a warrant that authorizes them to listen in on phone calls.

Through most of the 20th Century, however, presidents maintained they had the power to protect the nation's security by, for example, spying on foreign agents operating in the United States. No one questioned that U.S. intelligence agencies could tap the phones of Soviet agents.

In the mid-1970s, Congress learned that the White House had abused this power. Presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, had authorized the FBI to tap the phones of hundreds of political activists and celebrities, including Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Vietnam War protesters.

Those revelations led to the 1978 law. One provision says it is a crime for anyone to "intentionally engage in electronic surveillance" except as authorized by law or a court order. But if officials obtain a warrant from a special court that operates inside the Justice Department, "the president, through the attorney general, may authorize electronic surveillance ... to acquire foreign intelligence information."

FISA judges acquiescent

Known as the FISA court, these judges may issue warrants to authorize wiretaps when the government has evidence that a person is working for a "foreign power" or is involved in terrorism. This is not a high standard, legal experts say.

The judges issue warrants virtually whenever the government applies for one, the Justice Department has said in the past.

But the law requires some evidence that the target of the wiretap has links to a foreign government or a terrorist group. It would not permit, for example, the wiretaps of hundreds of Muslim men in the United States simply because they placed phone calls to the Middle East.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0512180249dec18,1,2314391.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

It sounds like it would have been legal if he sought permission but he didn't.

[elprincipe]

Now I'm also reading that the president is claiming that he has the constitutional right above and beyond this law to basically disregard it when it comes to his war powers. Since this administration has defined the war on terror to be everywhere (including in the U.S.) and most likely not over for a long, long period of time, this has the rather scary implication that anyone could be tapped anytime simply by claiming (bogus or not) that they are a security threat, with no court oversight whatsoever.

PAD, I know that every electronic communication might be intercepted. Obviously you don't write anything in an email, especially at work, that might be seriously embarassing. That's prudent. However, I have serious problems with the executive branch just deciding one day that it doesn't want to obey the law and have court oversight on wiretaps. This law was made specifically, it seems to me, to prevent what the president ordered the NSA to do.

This and some parts of the Patriot Act recall this famous statement by Benjamin Franklin:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[PKRipp3r]

not grey

it's as black and white as it gets

and it's also a self-inflicted wound

all this info is/was easily obtainable through the FISA courts, so only an orgy of ego-tastic 'political capital spending' is to blame.

regardless of the downplaying of this story and the 'Plame-ing' of the journalist(s) who wrote the story AND Bush's attempt at telling Jim Lehrer what the story of the day was... THIS is the story of the day for the next two weeks at least - barring the Brooklyn Bridge exploding.

many small-fairly large missteps have been racked up by BushCo in the last year and a half.

NONE of them even begin to approach what this is and will soon become in the way of poll-tanking and john q. public opinion shaping.

impeachment hearings would not surprise me in the least.

neither would an invasion of Venezuela though, so.. hey.

[Drocket]

While illegal to tap phone lines if both ends are in the United States to intercept a phone call that has a domestic end and a foreign end is indeed grey.

How can this be a grey area? The US Constitution is quite clear that its illegal for the government to spy upon US citizens without a warrant. Even if BOTH ends of the phone call were on foreign soil, it wouldn't change the fact that the US government isn't permitted to spy upon it if a US citizen is involved. You MIGHT argue that if both parties were not US citizens, then a warrant may not be required, but that's a situation firmly decided against with more than 200 years worth of legal precedent, and beyond that, the Bush administration hasn't even brought it up as a defense, so its highly unlikely to be the case.

Simple reality: its illegal.

You don't know which end of the wire was tapped or technically where the call was tapped. Was it here? Was it in route through satellite signals? Was it done on the other end?
So just to be clear: Your argument is that the US president is permitted to order US soldiers using US equipment on US military bases to spy on US citizens making phone calls on US phone lines if that phone call is routed to a US satellite, since the phone call has to pass through non-US space between the US phone company and the US satellite?

Mmm-hmm. Sure. What's next, the argument that its legal for police to search your house without a warrant as long as they pump the house full of air imported from Canada first?

[E-Z-B]

Dubya has long viewed the United States Constitution as an obstacle towards a totalitarian state, including the 4th Ammendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So basically Dubya has usurped the U.S. Constitution because "he's the president, and he can do anything he wants". If this isn't grounds for impeachment, then what is? (Besides a BJ, of course). I'd be surprised if the democrats don't press hearings on this.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Drocket, it is so absolutely crystal clear you know nothing about how this country gathers ELINT or what is or isn't legal.

Just do a bit of reading on Echelon and capabilities of the NSA before you dig yourself a hole up to your head.

Your concept of not being able to spy on U.S. citizens overseas is laughable. What makes you think U.S. law applies outside this country? That's the whole point of this. If we're intercepting satellite transmissions of calls going into Pakistan or Afghanistan it's not an illegal wiretap. It is SOP for the NSA and perfectly legal.

I'd like you to prove to us where these communications were intercepted before you say they're illegal. That's the 100% differentiation between legal and illegal.

That goes for anyone else that wishes to say this is impeachable.

There was a famous case in the cold war where we tapped undersea phone lines in the USSR that lead in and out of their naval bases. So, lets say we could have broken the Walker Spy Ring from calls intercepted from that source. Would it have been legal? The answer is yes.

According to the wonder tards on this board though the answer would be no. OMG! U VIOLATED RIGHTS! YOU TAPPED A PHONE CALL OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN IN RUSSIA!

The funny thing about this is under the 1948 UKUSA agreement with the UK, Austrailia, Canada and New Zealand intercepts like this are so easily greyed out legally that I'm surprised it hasn't been used yet.

BTW, try getting the details of the 1948 UKUSA agreement. You'll never get to the bottom of that one.

[kakomu]

The funny thing about this is under the 1948 UKUSA agreement with the UK, Austrailia, Canada and New Zealand intercepts like this are so easily greyed out legally that I'm surprised it hasn't been used yet.

BTW, try getting the details of the 1948 UKUSA agreement. You'll never get to the bottom of that one.
From what I can tell, you're citing a secret paper that has little or no disclosure to regular people. That being said, international agreements and treaties are trumped by the constitution. Unwarranted wiretaps can most certainly fall under an unreasonable search and seizure,

[Drocket]

PAD, its so obvious that you're just following the traditional Republican practice of trying to stir up as much mud to confuse the issue that its pathetic. Its really quite simply - the US president ordered the US military to spy on US citizens without a warrant. That's illegal. Spin all you want in hopes of confusing and boring people - its not going to change what happened.

[MrBadExample]

I'm still waiting for an explanation why they didn't seek warrants before (or after) the wiretaps. Under FISA they are very rarely denied and they had up to 72 hours after the wiretap to seek a warrant.

Dubya is just playing cowboy again.

I did chuckle at PAD's clintonian defense theory though. :lol:

[E-Z-B]

Dubya is just playing cowboy again.


He's worried that this thing has legs, so he's come out shootin' already.

[Sarang01]

I don't know why this is such a big shock and especially with Bush. This is NOT all on Bush. The NSA has been spying on us like forever and will continue to do so unless someone totally DESTROYS their communications network which is probably as varied as a Terrorist Sleeper Cell.
Personally I hate the NSA even if they do this for our "security". I think they're a disgusting and despicable American organization who operates outside of American law whenever they feel they need to.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

PAD, its so obvious that you're just following the traditional Republican practice of trying to stir up as much mud to confuse the issue that its pathetic.

TRANSLATION: Stop creating reasonable doubt! I want this to be as cut and dry GUILITY GUILTY GUILT AS POSSIBLE! STOP BRINGING LOGIC INTO MY DEEP SEEDED EMOTIONAL HATRED OF GEORGE W BUSH!

Drocket, prove to us that the people that were being monitored were U.S. citizens and not foreign nationals in the United States. Oh and the NSA isn't military. If you're going to make broad accusations with no basis in facts at least acknowledge up front you have no idea what you're talking about.

I'll wait patiently for your non-answer.

[Msut77]

What reasonable doubt did you create?

[RedvsBlue]

Would we have a problem with people having their personal property or mail and packages searched as they enter or leave the country? Think about it...

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Are you telling us RvB that you can climb aboard an airplane to international destinations now without having personal property or packages searched?

Are you likewise telling us that you can board planes in other countries without having personal property or packages searched?

Wow, I never knew.

Bush said the program was narrowly designed and used "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution." He said it is used only to intercept the international communications of people inside the United States who have been determined to have "a clear link" to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations.

The program is reviewed every 45 days, using fresh threat assessments, legal reviews by the Justice Department, White House counsel and others, and information from previous activities under the program, the president said.

Without identifying specific lawmakers, Bush said congressional leaders have been briefed more than a dozen times on the program's activities.

The president also said the intelligence officials involved in the monitoring receive extensive training to make sure civil liberties are not violated.
Excerpt: Full Story Linked (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1416192)

Yep, sounds really cowboy to me.

I love how the people being protected by such actions throw more fits for nothing more than political points. I would love to see you explain away your points of view if there's another major attack that kills thousands of American citizens.

I'd love to see you say...

- Intercepting communations was illegal, immoral and unethical.
- Searching people's belongings coming in and out of the country is illegal and immoral.
- Tracking foreigners with known terrorist ties in the U.S. is illegal, immoral and discriminatory.

as thousands of Americans lie dead.

It's no wonder voters do not trust Democrats with national security. They are spoiled, petulant, naieve children with no alternative, no sense of reality and more concerned with the civil rights of terrorists than their tantrums potentially putting thousands of Americans 6 feet under.

[Drocket]

TRANSLATION: Stop creating reasonable doubt! I want this to be as cut and dry GUILITY GUILTY GUILT AS POSSIBLE! STOP BRINGING LOGIC INTO MY DEEP SEEDED EMOTIONAL HATRED OF GEORGE W BUSH!
Get real. Your excuses have no connection to reality or logic.

Drocket, prove to us that the people that were being monitored were U.S. citizens and not foreign nationals in the United States.
1) Does it actually matter? Its still illegal either way
2) The bar for getting a wiretap warrant for foreign nationals *IS* lower than getting a similar warrant for US citizens. So low that you basically just have to say 'Hey, I'd like a warrant'. No evidence even needs to be produced to spy on foreigns in the US in order to get a warrant. So the question is, why didn't the president do it that way? All he had to do was ask. Even if we assume the 'best case scenario' of the wiretapping being directed at foreign nationals, we have a president who's broken the law simply to avoid having to ask permission, permission that was pretty much guaranteed to be granted.

Oh and the NSA isn't military.
Although the NSA has civilian workers, the project is legally a subdivision of the department of defense. Its the military.

[RedvsBlue]

Are you telling us RvB that you can climb aboard an airplane to international destinations now without having personal property or packages searched?

Are you likewise telling us that you can board planes in other countries without having personal property or packages searched?

Wow, I never knew.

All I know is that I would have a huge problem with it if they started restricting what you could or could not allow into this country... How dare the government try to protect us.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Although the NSA has civilian workers, the project is legally a subdivision of the department of defense. Its the military.

You're 180 degrees completely wrong.

The NSA was created by Harry Truman in 1951 and went into operation in 1952. It is completely independent and was not charged at all with relaying any of its intercepts, intelligence or analysis to the military until 1986.

It is not a subdivision of the DOD.

It is a non-cabinent level government organization.

Do some research and you may be able to relieve this chronic foot in mouth disease you're currently experiencing.

[RedvsBlue]

You're 180 degrees completely wrong.

The NSA was created by Harry Truman in 1951 and went into operation in 1952. It is completely independent and was not charged at all with relaying any of its intercepts, intelligence or analysis to the military until 1986.

It is not a subdivision of the DOD.

It is a non-cabinent level government organization.

Do some research and you may be able to relieve this chronic foot in mouth disease you're currently experiencing.

To be fair, the idea for the NSA came about as a result of the code breakers that were used by the Army during WWII. It was realised that coded messages would become a huge aspect of communications and espionage was inevitably a related concern.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

If you want to use that same historical analogy that's why there's the 1948 UKUSA Act. It kept together many of the codebreakers and ELINT personnel that had broken Enigma and operated at Bletchley Park in England.

You had personnel from England, Poland (Who was actually responsible for breaking Enigma.), Canada, UK, U.S. and the Commonwealth States.

That's why the 1948 UKUSA Act that is the backbone of Western ELINT includes every English speaking country in the world.

There's no saying that the information we gathered wasn't actually grabbed by Canadian, British, Austrailian or New Zealand personnel. The way Echelon and ELINT capabilities are layered and distributed all of such gathered information may, beyond a reasonable doubt, be done overseas by non-American citizens and passed along to U.S. counterparts.

[Drocket]

The NSA was created by Harry Truman in 1951 and went into operation in 1952. It is completely independent and was not charged at all with relaying any of its intercepts, intelligence or analysis to the military until 1986.

The key phrase there is the final 'until 1986'. Regardless of when, how and why the office was originally founded, as it exists today, the NSA is predominantly a military organization. The majority of their work is done on behalf of the military. At least a large portion of the workforce are current members of the military (exact numbers are classified.) The head of the department is legally required to be a military officer.

Claiming that its not a military organization is, at best, splitting hairs.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Dude, you are dumb beyond belief.

The NSA is not a military organization. Saying that it's heads "legally" must be military does not make it miliary in nature and certainly it is not organizationally part of the DOD. By your same rationale military officers that serve at Culver or Valley Forge Military Academies make those private institutions "legally" part of the DoD and military organizations.

Also the Deputy Directors have all been civillians since 1956. Hardly makes it military in nature.

It ha numerous "clients". It distirubtes ELINT to the CIA, White House, NSC, DOD and countless other government agencies. It's a clearinghouse of ELINT, nothing more and nothing less. In no way does it fall under the purview of the DOD and as such is not military.

You =Short bus riding, hockey helmet wearing, chronically masturbating, wonder tard.

[RedvsBlue]

The key phrase there is the final 'until 1986'. Regardless of when, how and why the office was originally founded, as it exists today, the NSA is predominantly a military organization. The majority of their work is done on behalf of the military. At least a large portion of the workforce are current members of the military (exact numbers are classified.) The head of the department is legally required to be a military officer.

Claiming that its not a military organization is, at best, splitting hairs.

So does that mean that NASA is a military organization as well considering how many of the astronauts are military?

[kakomu]

So does that mean that NASA is a military organization as well considering how many of the astronauts are military?

Probably not, since most of the staff, engineers and scientists are not military, nor is NASA's goal solely to benefit the military.

[RedvsBlue]

Probably not, since most of the staff, engineers and scientists are not military, nor is NASA's goal solely to benefit the military.

Yes, I understand that but Drocket's justification for calling the NSA a military organization was that it was staffed mostly by the military. NASA fits that same characteristic so therefore it should considered be a military organization with the same justification.

Oh and BTW, NASA launches spy and other military satellites as well so therefore their work benefits the military as much as the NSA does.

Also, the NSA's goal is not simply to benefit the military, as you imply. Their resources are also used for a variety of other purposes including federal investigations done by the FBI and other federal investigative agencies.

[Drocket]

The difference is in who's calling the shots. NASA may employ military personel, and may take on projects for the military, but in the end, the big decisions are made by civilian personnel (um, or at least they used to be. It may be worth checking that out to make sure Bush hasn't been playing around there too...) The NSA is run by military personnel. You can split hairs all you want to, but when the military is making the decisions, that makes it a military project.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

No clueless.

It's military if it is funded by the DOD.

The NSA has its own budget, own organization and is in no way shape or form under the purview of the DOD.

NASA is a government agency that takes on missions for civillian and military missions alike. In that regards it has commercial aspects as well since NASA launches of civillian satellites are paid for by private enterprise.

[kakomu]

Yes, I understand that but Drocket's justification for calling the NSA a military organization was that it was staffed mostly by the military. NASA fits that same characteristic so therefore it should considered be a military organization with the same justification.

NASA's staff is not mostly military.

[RedvsBlue]

NASA's staff is not mostly military.

Well when you present to me the exact percentage of military personnel in the NSA and NASA then we can have a discussion about what "mostly military" means.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

You can't even find out, by any means, how many employees the NSA even has. That alone is code word secret. Getting any kind of demographic makeup by age, gender, race, education or how many of them are or are not military would be downright impossible.

I'd be surprised if there were 10 people in the U.S. government that could even get access to those statistics.

[elprincipe]

Bush said the program was narrowly designed and used "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution." He said it is used only to intercept the international communications of people inside the United States who have been determined to have "a clear link" to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations.

The program is reviewed every 45 days, using fresh threat assessments, legal reviews by the Justice Department, White House counsel and others, and information from previous activities under the program, the president said.

Without identifying specific lawmakers, Bush said congressional leaders have been briefed more than a dozen times on the program's activities.

The president also said the intelligence officials involved in the monitoring receive extensive training to make sure civil liberties are not violated.
Excerpt: Full Story Linked (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1416192)

Yep, sounds really cowboy to me.

Wow, it's reviewed and approved by people who all work in the executive branch and then Congress is informed about their decision. It's so very comforting that people who work for the executive are there to provide a check on this power instead of the FISA court established by law...you know, the one who (according to senators) has rejected less than 10 out of 19,000 wiretap requests? [/sarcasm]

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/19/1741/8610

[E-Z-B]

Wow, the spy scandal is quickly escalating - it's not just the NSA but the FBI as well. This isn't a conspiracy theory folks - this is real. The president has usurped the U.S. Constitution, and has admitted to it, and has said he will continue to do so. It's time to get him out of office NOW.

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

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, John Ashcroft, who was then attorney general, loosened restrictions on the F.B.I.'s investigative powers, giving the bureau greater ability to visit and monitor Web sites, mosques and other public entities in developing terrorism leads.

But the documents, coming after the Bush administration's confirmation that President Bush had authorized some spying without warrants in fighting terrorism, prompted charges from civil rights advocates that the government had improperly blurred the line between terrorism and acts of civil disobedience and lawful protest. One document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

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

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20fbi.html?hp&ex=1135141200&en=171df5b870cdd147&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[MrBadExample]

Bush said the program was narrowly designed and used "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution." He said it is used only to intercept the international communications of people inside the United States who have been determined to have "a clear link" to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations.
If all that were true, there should have been no problem getting FISA warrants. No one is saying that the NSA should never eavesdrop on domestic calls, but there should be a warrant issued in accordance with FISA.

Bush has gone from thinking he was elected to thinking he was coronated.

[dennis_t]

So if this is all legal, and Bush feels justified in the use of these wiretaps, why did he lie about it when asked a year ago?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

[E-Z-B]

Congressman calls for Bush impeachment

The Associated Press - ATLANTA

U.S. Rep. John Lewis said Monday in a radio interview that President Bush should be impeached if he broke the law in authorizing spying on Americans.

The Democratic senator from Georgia told WAOK-AM he would sign a bill of impeachment if one was drawn up and that the House of Representatives should consider such a move.

Lewis is among several Democrats who have voiced discontent with Sunday night's television speech, where Bush asked Americans to continue to support the Iraq War. Lewis is the first major House figure to suggest impeaching Bush.

"Its a very serious charge, but he violated the law," said Lewis, a former civil rights leader. "The president should abide by the law. He deliberately, systematically violated the law. He is not King, he is president."

http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=69123

[AFStealth]

Eh, so the hell what. Any democrat would try anything to get Bush out of office, that's hardly newsworthy.

[MrBadExample]

Eh, so the hell what. Any democrat would try anything to get Bush out of office, that's hardly newsworthy.
And Republicans will defend him no matter how corrupt, inept or illegal his actions are.

[RedvsBlue]

And Republicans will defend him no matter how corrupt, inept or illegal his actions are.


I'm defending him and I'm not a republican. I just happen to recognize how petty this whole thing is.

Its a lame attempt to impeach Bush for something that only affect 500 immigrant Americans who have known ties to terrorist organizations and frequently call contacts overseas for said terrorist organizations. People will look for any lame reason to impeach Bush these days, why can't people just live with the president we have.

Believe me, I recognize that it goes both ways. The Clinton impeachment was asinine. Realize this though, if you are going to argue that any violation of the constitution or our laws, no matter how minor or arguable, should be reason enough to impeach a president then you should have supported the Clinton impeachment as well.

[alonzomourning23]

I'm defending him and I'm not a republican. I just happen to recognize how petty this whole thing is.

Its a lame attempt to impeach Bush for something that only affect 500 immigrant Americans who have known ties to terrorist organizations and frequently call contacts overseas for said terrorist organizations. People will look for any lame reason to impeach Bush these days, why can't people just live with the president we have.

Believe me, I recognize that it goes both ways. The Clinton impeachment was asinine. Realize this though, if you are going to argue that any violation of the constitution or our laws, no matter how minor or arguable, should be reason enough to impeach a president then you should have supported the Clinton impeachment as well.

There is a difference. Clintons violation affected no one, that's not so with bush's.

Though I don't think he should be impeached for this. I would support it though as a "you did it to us" kind of thing though.

[E-Z-B]

Anyone who thinks they are above the Constitution should be thrown out of office right now. Dubya should be impeached.

[MrBadExample]

Its a lame attempt to impeach Bush for something that only affect 500 immigrant Americans who have known ties to terrorist organizations and frequently call contacts overseas for said terrorist organizations.
Where do you draw the line? Which laws are okay to ignore as long as they only affect those "500 immigrant Americans"?

Wiretap them - fine, but according to FISA, you need to get a warrant. Bush willfully chose to ignore this in favor of an Executive Branch power grab.

Yes, this is more serious than lying about a blowjob.

Edit: Bush's own words from April 20, 2004 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html)

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

What a liar!

[usickenme]

The reason Bush didn't go through FISA was the unique nature of the "wiretaps". I think we are all thinking old school on this one. Speculation is that the Bush program is using some Total Information Awareness type program. He made the distinction of "detecting" information instead of monitoring.

WHAT IS THE NSA UP TO?....So what's the nature of the secret NSA bugging program? Why did the Bush administration feel like they couldn't continue to seek warrants via the usual FISA procedures? Take a look at the following quotes and you can see a single thread that starts to emerge:


Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, telling reporters why Bush didn't simply ask Congress to pass a law making the program clearly legal: "We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be — that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program."


President Bush, answering questions at Monday's press conference: "We use FISA still....But FISA is for long-term monitoring....There is a difference between detecting so we can prevent, and monitoring. And it's important to know the distinction between the two....We used the [FISA] process to monitor. But also....we've got to be able to detect and prevent."


Senator Jay Rockefeller, in a letter to Dick Cheney after being briefed on the program in 2003: "As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter's TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveiliance."


New York Times editor Bill Keller, explaining why the Times finally published its story last week after holding it back for over a year: "In the course of subsequent reporting we satisfied ourselves that we could write about this program — withholding a number of technical details — in a way that would not expose any intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities that are not already on the public record."


None of these quotes makes sense if the NSA program involved nothing more than an expansion of ordinary taps of specific individuals. After all, the FISA court would have approved taps of domestic-to-international calls as quickly and easily as they do with normal domestic wiretaps. What's more, Congress wouldn't have had any objection to supporting a routine program expansion; George Bush wouldn't have explained it with gobbledegok about the difference between monitoring and detecting; Jay Rockefeller wouldn't have been reminded of TIA; and the Times wouldn't have had any issues over divulging sensitive technology.

It seems clear that there's something involved here that goes far beyond ordinary wiretaps, regardless of the technology used. Perhaps some kind of massive data mining, which makes it impossible to get individual warrants? Stay tuned.


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007812.php

[Drocket]

The reason Bush didn't go through FISA was the unique nature of the "wiretaps". I think we are all thinking old school on this one. Speculation is that the Bush program is using some Total Information Awareness type program. He made the distinction of "detecting" information instead of monitoring.

I suspect that this is the case. What we're talking about here almost certainly isn't wiretaps on a few dozen or even hundred people: we're talking about wiretaps on thousands, possibly even millions of lines, using computers to search for 'suspicious' activity. I'm willing to bet that when all is said and done, its going to be shown that we've moved full-steam-ahead into the era of Big Brother.

[MrBadExample]

Something to think about: The War on Terror™ won't be over by 2009, so will all of you who support Bush's eavesdropping now, will you give President Hillary the same unbridled executive power?

[E-Z-B]

Something to think about: The War on Terror™ won't be over by 2009, so will all of you who support Bush's eavesdropping now, will you give President Hillary the same unbridled executive power?

lol, we're going to be amazed at how fast republican congressmen can backpedal in 2009. :lol:

[elprincipe]

Anyone who thinks they are above the Constitution should be thrown out of office right now. Dubya should be impeached.

Interesting you should say that. I doubt you were saying the same a few years ago when a certain president clearly perjured himself before a grand jury...oh, but wait, he was a Democrat.

[Quillion]

Interesting you should say that. I doubt you were saying the same a few years ago when a certain president clearly perjured himself before a grand jury...oh, but wait, he was a Democrat.

Lying to a grand jury under oath is an impeachable offense.
Breaking a 1978 law prohibiting spying on US citizens is an impeachable offense.
Kidnapping foreign citizens and flying them to a third country for "interrogation" is an impeachable offense.
Formenting a cultural invasion in the south and not properly executing the laws of this country to stem the flow of illegal immigration is an impeachable offense.
Permitting torture of foreign nationals in violation of the Geneva convention is an impeachable offense.
Holding an American citizen for years without trial, access to legal counsel or due process is an impeachable offense.

Clinton did one. As for Bush, take your pick.

[usickenme]

Interesting you should say that. I doubt you were saying the same a few years ago when a certain president clearly perjured himself before a grand jury...oh, but wait, he was a Democrat.

Is perjury somehow above the constitution??

in your "gotcha" game looks like you forgot to read.

[Sarang01]

No clueless.

It's military if it is funded by the DOD.

The NSA has its own budget, own organization and is in no way shape or form under the purview of the DOD.

NASA is a government agency that takes on missions for civillian and military missions alike. In that regards it has commercial aspects as well since NASA launches of civillian satellites are paid for by private enterprise.

That reminds me. I usually wouldn't propose such a Conservative idea except for NASA but why do we tolerate their bullshit nowadays? I wish we'd force some bloody savings from them by threatening to contract out to a business if they don't cut like 10% of the cost of the next Space Shuttle.

[alonzomourning23]

Interesting you should say that. I doubt you were saying the same a few years ago when a certain president clearly perjured himself before a grand jury...oh, but wait, he was a Democrat.

Clinton violated a law that affected no one in that instance. Holding him accountable was more symbolic than anything. Bush's violation (if in fact there was one) affected real people and real lives. Clintons only affected people if they bothered to be concerned about his perjury.

Perjury laws are not in place to prevent people from lying about their sex life, that is just a side effect.

[dennis_t]

All this raises an interesting point.

Republicans were all about the "rule of law" during Clinton's impeachment, arguing that even if he lied under oath about a personal matter it was still perjury and thus a reason to remove him from office.

But now Bush has admitted on the record to breaking the law. And in a major and very needless way. Where are all these "rule of law" arguments now?

[MrBadExample]

The White House started this policy 4 years ago. One year ago they knew the NY Times had the story. Two weeks ago they couldn't talk the Times into holding the story any longer.

So why do the excuses and justifications continue to dribble out now? Hasn't the White House had plenty of time to get their ducks in a row on this?

[E-Z-B]

http://www.cagle.com/working/051118/kirk.jpg

[evanft]

A FISA court judge has resigned:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10538136/

[elprincipe]

Is perjury somehow above the constitution??

in your "gotcha" game looks like you forgot to read.

Looks like you don't know that the Constitution says the president can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors...and perjury is a crime...oops...

[elprincipe]

Clinton violated a law that affected no one in that instance. Holding him accountable was more symbolic than anything. Bush's violation (if in fact there was one) affected real people and real lives. Clintons only affected people if they bothered to be concerned about his perjury.

Perjury laws are not in place to prevent people from lying about their sex life, that is just a side effect.

So it's okay to violate the law as long as by your own assertion it "doesn't affect anyone"? Wow, shoplifters should know about this! Perjury is a serious crime and people have done serious jail time for it (yes, including lying about sex!). Clinton was merely disbarred and nearly removed from office. The only reason is that idiots felt that because it "didn't affect anybody" it was okay to violate the law if you're the president. In fact, as Dennis has pointed out well, by the Democrats' logic of Clinton's era Bush should get off scot-free.

[alonzomourning23]

So it's okay to violate the law as long as by your own assertion it "doesn't affect anyone"? Wow, shoplifters should know about this! Perjury is a serious crime and people have done serious jail time for it (yes, including lying about sex!). Clinton was merely disbarred and nearly removed from office. The only reason is that idiots felt that because it "didn't affect anybody" it was okay to violate the law if you're the president. In fact, as Dennis has pointed out well, by the Democrats' logic of Clinton's era Bush should get off scot-free.

It all depends if you see the world in black and white or in shades of grey. There are so many conditions placed on severity of crimes that need to be taken into account when considering the punishment.

[kakomu]

With the influx of videos from Crooks and Liars, I looked at this video containing a montage of footage of Bush talking about wiretaps (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/23.html#a6451). I point to Scott Mclellan's (usually arrogant) retorts about how Bush's words were "in the context of the patriot act". What the hell does that mean?

[coffman]

So now we find out that the NSA spied on an anti-war group. How surprising. I guess they must have been talking to terrorists, right PAD? I believe this is the same thing that brought down the Nixon administration.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/NSA_documents_show_massive_spy_operation_0110.html

[elprincipe]

So now we find out that the NSA spied on an anti-war group. How surprising. I guess they must have been talking to terrorists, right PAD? I believe this is the same thing that brought down the Nixon administration.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/NSA_documents_show_massive_spy_operation_0110.html

It's the same thing that caused the law to be passed in the first place...you know, the law that Bush thinks he's above. They were tapping anti-war groups, MLK, etc. and we the people through Congress said: stop it! Now that the administration has said they aren't going to obey the law instead of enforcing it, their duty under the Constitution, what are we the people to do? The courts I guess.

[Drocket]

Now that the administration has said they aren't going to obey the law instead of enforcing it, their duty under the Constitution, what are we the people to do? The courts I guess.

You mean them damn activist judges who think Republicans should obey the laws too? Anywho, once Alito is properly ordained by congress, the court system essentially becomes meaningless - Bush is pretty much guaranteed the votes he needs to declare that ANYTHING he does is legal. We're now on the countdown to the day the United States officially becomes a monarchy (undeclared, of course.)

[elprincipe]

You mean them damn activist judges who think Republicans should obey the laws too? Anywho, once Alito is properly ordained by congress, the court system essentially becomes meaningless - Bush is pretty much guaranteed the votes he needs to declare that ANYTHING he does is legal. We're now on the countdown to the day the United States officially becomes a monarchy (undeclared, of course.)

I think you are too doom and gloom, something PAD rightly points out is more and more a trait of liberals in this country, sadly. I think you all should realize that optimism is much more effective in motivating people.

Anyway, I think the majority of judges who are not activist (and personally I don't define activist in terms of liberal/conservative like some do) are getting a bad rap from you here.

[Drocket]

I think you are too doom and gloom, something PAD rightly points out is more and more a trait of liberals in this country, sadly. I think you all should realize that optimism is much more effective in motivating people.
With regards to PAD, I think the old saying 'ignorance is bliss' applies quite well here. If liberals are pessimistic, I'd say it has a lot to do with them realizing how completely fucked our country is at this point. For those on the right, a frightening number of them tend to consider our country's fuckedness as a good thing, because it means the great and glorius Jebus will be coming any day now to save us.

Anyway, I think the majority of judges who are not activist (and personally I don't define activist in terms of liberal/conservative like some do) are getting a bad rap from you here.
There's a lot of good judges in the country. Once you control the Supreme Court, though, they all become quite irrelevant.