Daschle: Congress Denied Bush War Powers in U.S.

Drocket

CAGiversary!
Revealing as a lie the often-used Bush administration talking point that their spying was authorized by Congress in the aforementioned resolution. Such permission was requested by the White House but denied by Congress, before Bush decided that he had the power anyway (raising the question of why was it asked for in the first place?)
 
So chimpy lied in front of millions of Americans -- AGAIN. He wanted absolute and total control over the United States, was denied, but assumed he had totalitarian control anyway. Time to impeach the giggling murderer.

Power We Didn't Grant

By Tom Daschle

Friday, December 23, 2005; Page A21

In the face of mounting questions about news stories saying that President Bush approved a program to wiretap American citizens without getting warrants, the White House argues that Congress granted it authority for such surveillance in the 2001 legislation authorizing the use of force against al Qaeda. On Tuesday, Vice President Cheney said the president "was granted authority by the Congress to use all means necessary to take on the terrorists, and that's what we've done."

As Senate majority leader at the time, I helped negotiate that law with the White House counsel's office over two harried days. I can state categorically that the subject of warrantless wiretaps of American citizens never came up. I did not and never would have supported giving authority to the president for such wiretaps. I am also confident that the 98 senators who voted in favor of authorization of force against al Qaeda did not believe that they were also voting for warrantless domestic surveillance.

On the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, the White House proposed that Congress authorize the use of military force to "deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States." Believing the scope of this language was too broad and ill defined, Congress chose instead, on Sept. 14, to authorize "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons determines planned, authorized, committed or aided" the attacks of Sept. 11. With this language, Congress denied the president the more expansive authority he sought and insisted that his authority be used specifically against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Just before the Senate acted on this compromise resolution, the White House sought one last change. Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words "in the United States and" after "appropriate force" in the agreed-upon text. This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused.
 
I'd like to know if Bush ever used the FISA courts for a warrant in the last 4 years. His argument is that Congress gave him the power to bypass FISA, so if he ever asked for a warrant that would seem to undermine his argument. Why go through an unnecessary step if you don't have to?
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I'd like to know if Bush ever used the FISA courts for a warrant in the last 4 years. His argument is that Congress gave him the power to bypass FISA, so if he ever asked for a warrant that would seem to undermine his argument. Why go through an unnecessary step if you don't have to?[/QUOTE]

That's a good question and I think what everyone would like to know the answer to.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/

Evidently they made an all-time high of 1,758 requests for warrants to the FISA court in 2004. Why not make requests on the other ones they wanted? Unless there were problems with those requests...wow, you see where this is going...
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Evidently they made an all-time high of 1,758 requests for warrants to the FISA court in 2004. Why not make requests on the other ones they wanted? Unless there were problems with those requests...wow, you see where this is going...[/QUOTE]

More than just the fact that they requested 1,758 wiretap warrant - NONE, not one, of those requests was denied. That's because the legal requirements for such a request are extremely low. Which means that not only was there 'problems' with the requests they didn't make, there were BIG problems, to the point where even a rubberstamp court wouldn't go along with them.
 
[quote name='Drocket']More than just the fact that they requested 1,758 wiretap warrant - NONE, not one, of those requests was denied. That's because the legal requirements for such a request are extremely low. Which means that not only was there 'problems' with the requests they didn't make, there were BIG problems, to the point where even a rubberstamp court wouldn't go along with them.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I've seen other numbers on TV that cite 1,758 requested for 2004, 1,754 approved, and 3 withdrawn by the government, leaving just 1 of 1,758 denied. Also some have claimed that in the past four or five years less than 10 requests have been denied total. So it seems to me like either this is a push for more executive power at the expense of any check on said power by either of the other branches of government, or these non-warrant wiretaps have so many problems with them that they knew no court would approve them....or maybe even both. In any case, it's deeply disturbing and Congress is absolutely doing the right thing by holding prompt hearings, if that turns out to actually happen.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Corrected Headline: Loser Demonstrates Why He Is No Longer Senator and His Party Remains in the Minority [/QUOTE]

?????

I don't think I'm alone in wondering what this has to do with the thread, PAD, or what your train of thought is here.

If you don't mind, please explain why Daschle's article means what you think it means. I don't get what you're trying to say here.
 
It means he has absolutely nothing to say to defend Bush on this issue, so he's simply resorting to personal attacks in a desperate attempt to distract attention away from the fact that Bush committed treason.
 
bread's done
Back
Top