Defiant Bush admits breaking law

[southsideirish]

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 06:31 PM)

Not only do you all sound like Chicken Little (thanks, YAS) but you all WANT to catch Bush on something like this so you can hang him by his toenails.  That's the reality of it all... you 'nasty leftists' want to get him so bad, on ANYTHING, that you'll take points of view that support your hatred and feed the fire of "anything but Bush".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm sorry, but just because the nasty rightists did this with Clinton does not mean that the nasty leftists are doing the same thing to Bush. I think a large majority of America feels lied to and scammed by this president. The fact is that we may be over protecting ourselves from letting it happen again, or to maybe from letting it to keep on happening.

[NorthSideSox72]

Not only do you all sound like Chicken Little (thanks, YAS) but you all WANT to catch Bush on something like this so you can hang him by his toenails.  That's the reality of it all... you 'nasty leftists' want to get him so bad, on ANYTHING, that you'll take points of view that support your hatred and feed the fire of "anything but Bush".

 

Wow. You're starting to sound a little paranoid, there.

 

Here is the thing. I don't like Bush's policies, for the most part. And this domestic spying thing is pretty bad if you ask me. Even on issues I normally side with the GOP on, this administration seems hell bent to stomp all over (budget, debt, less intrusive gov't). Frankly, it's hard NOT to find things wrong with Bush's Presidency - he's laid government-side bombs all over the damn place!

 

I agree that there are those on the left who just blame everything on Bush. But this issue is a pretty big problem, and it upsets people even in his own party. To say this is some sort of witch hunt is really pushing the envelope of reality a bit. Your defense that EVERYONE IS AFTER BUSH sounds no less ridiculous than the EVERYTHING IS BUSH'S FAULT assault.

[southsideirish]

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 01:19 PM)

It is YOUR OPINION he broke the law.  It is not that clear cut.

 

It sounds good for 'the agenda' of people with an axe to grind that he 'broke the law'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So the law is not actually a law? He may have followed the law and we just don't know? Please explain to me why it is only MY OPINION that he broke the law. I would love to know why it is not that clear cut.

Edited January 20, 2006 by southsideirish

[Balta1701]

I'm sorry, but just because the nasty rightists did this with Clinton does not mean that the nasty leftists are doing the same thing to Bush. I think a large majority of America feels lied to and scammed by this president. The fact is that we may be over protecting ourselves from letting it happen again, or to maybe from letting it to keep on happening.

I actually disagree with the phrase "Over-protecting ourselves" here...I don't think it's that we're over-protecting ourselves, rather I think its the reverse...we're leaving several obvious avenues of improved protection untouched, while going after various other avenues of highly dubious relationships to the actual war itself.

[Balta1701]

So the law is not actually a law? He may have followed the law and we just don't know? Please explain to me why it is only MY OPINION that he broke the law. I would love to know why it is not that clear cut.

It's not that clear-cut because he can still claim that the 9/11 authorization somehow gave Bush this authority. While, for reasons shown earlier (i.e. the whereas parts of the resolution), this explanation may be dubious, it has not been firmly, 100% shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush broke the law. I may believe that, but without a court or Congress coming down and saying that, then it is just an opinion, no matter how well-supported 1 side is and how poorly supported the other side is.

[jackie hayes]

 

How is this "conjecture"? We know what was done and what the laws were. I don't see anyone guessing.

 

The WH claims that "necessary and appropriate force" means that the government can ignore the FISA law -- even though that law includes provisions for (initially) warrantless searches and contains explicit exceptions for wartime. If that sort of an argument holds water, you have to ask, are there ANY limits on the President in acting against (or in the general vicinity of) al Qaeda? Does any law restrain him? If the executive branch can't be overseen by a secret court, who the hell can oversee it?

 

If we can not reject an argument that awards dictatorial powers to the executive branch in such a broad area, there's not much left in the idea of checks and balances.

[southsideirish]

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 06:56 PM)

It's not that clear-cut because he can still claim that the 9/11 authorization somehow gave Bush this authority.  While, for reasons shown earlier (i.e. the whereas parts of the resolution), this explanation may be dubious, it has not been firmly, 100% shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush broke the law.  I may believe that, but without a court or Congress coming down and saying that, then it is just an opinion, no matter how well-supported 1 side is and how poorly supported the other side is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thank you Balta.

[NorthSideSox72]

It's not that clear-cut because he can still claim that the 9/11 authorization somehow gave Bush this authority.  While, for reasons shown earlier (i.e. the whereas parts of the resolution), this explanation may be dubious, it has not been firmly, 100% shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush broke the law.  I may believe that, but without a court or Congress coming down and saying that, then it is just an opinion, no matter how well-supported 1 side is and how poorly supported the other side is.

 

These taps have been going on pre-9/11, I thought, so that's not much of an explanation.

 

But even more importantly, I'd like to point out again what I mentioned earlier in this very long thread: no Congressional authorization can grant the authority of illegal activity. Congress did NOT pass a law of any kind, first of all - this was a resolution, and there is no action statement in it that can be defensible here, therefore there is no new law regarding it. The taps clearly violate FISA. Therefore, there is no possible viable argument to defend it's legality. Even the Justice department report finds no new defense - they lean on the resolution, which is pretty laughable.

 

If this makes it to a court, I don't see how it will be legal. I think the only thing that keeps Bush out of this mess is if it never makes it to court at all (as was suggested here by others). That could happen if Congress intervenes to pass a new law, or if some red tape BS is thrown at the problem by the administration that causes it to be buried or profoundly delayed.

[jackie hayes]

These taps have been going on pre-9/11, I thought, so that's not much of an explanation.

 

But even more importantly, I'd like to point out again what I mentioned earlier in this very long thread: no Congressional authorization can grant the authority of illegal activity.  Congress did NOT pass a law of any kind, first of all - this was a resolution, and there is no action statement in it that can be defensible here, therefore there is no new law regarding it.  The taps clearly violate FISA.  Therefore, there is no possible viable argument to defend it's legality.  Even the Justice department report finds no new defense - they lean on the resolution, which is pretty laughable.

 

If this makes it to a court, I don't see how it will be legal.  I think the only thing that keeps Bush out of this mess is if it never makes it to court at all (as was suggested here by others).  That could happen if Congress intervenes to pass a new law, or if some red tape BS is thrown at the problem by the administration that causes it to be buried or profoundly delayed.

Now, I think these actions were illegal and pretty damn slimy. BUT, to be fair, the resolution does have some power. The Supreme Court did accept that it gave the WH authority to hold US citizens as enemy combatants (though it did not accept the way in which the WH held them). Just saying, it's not true that the resolution is empty.

[NorthSideSox72]

Now, I think these actions were illegal and pretty damn slimy.  BUT, to be fair, the resolution does have some power.  The Supreme Court did accept that it gave the WH authority to hold US citizens as enemy combatants (though it did not accept the way in which the WH held them).  Just saying, it's not true that the resolution is empty.

 

The supreme court reiterated the ability to hold enemy combatants because it was of what they were. That has nothing to do with the means-necessary. The court agreed that the US was able to act militarily, and therefore have POWs, for all purposes. That was action taken by Congress, authorizing the use of force. Use of force cannot be stretched by anyone into breaking US law. It's just not legally defensible.

[Balta1701]

Now, I think these actions were illegal and pretty damn slimy.  BUT, to be fair, the resolution does have some power.  The Supreme Court did accept that it gave the WH authority to hold US citizens as enemy combatants (though it did not accept the way in which the WH held them).  Just saying, it's not true that the resolution is empty.

I think I agree with this point...if it was a resolution passed by a vote of the House and the Senate, does it not basically have the force of law? There are still 2 major questions remaining - whether or not the "Whereas" clauses can be taken as justification for actions, and whether or not that resolution in fact gave the President the authority to override FISA with those statements in the Whereas parts. But that the resolution does have the force of law I didn't think was in doubt.

[jackie hayes]

Congress makes the law, so I don't understand this: "no Congressional authorization can grant the authority of illegal activity". It can't countervene the Constitution, but it may, if it wants, authorize the President to act outside a previous law of Congress (like FISA) -- new laws superceding old ones. It seems very clear to me that Congress did no such thing here, but I don't really understand how it's not allowed to change its mind.

[jackie hayes]

A quote from the SC decision that uses the 2001 resolution:

The AUMF authorizes the President to use “all neces-sary and appropriate force” against “nations, organiza-tions, or persons” associated with the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. 115 Stat. 224. There can be no doubt that individuals who fought against the United States in Afghanistan as part of the Taliban, an organization known to have supported the al Qaeda terrorist network respon-sible for those attacks, are individuals Congress sought to target in passing the AUMF. We conclude that detention of individuals falling into the limited category we are considering, for the duration of the particular conflict in which they were captured, is so fundamental and accepted an incident to war as to be an exercise of the “necessary and appropriate force” Congress has authorized the Presi-dent to use.

Clearly the resolution is, in some sense, "law" and "actionable". Just not however the WH pleases.

[NorthSideSox72]

Congress makes the law, so I don't understand this: "no Congressional authorization can grant the authority of illegal activity".  It can't countervene the Constitution, but it may, if it wants, authorize the President to act outside a previous law of Congress (like FISA) -- new laws superceding old ones.  It seems very clear to me that Congress did no such thing here, but I don't really understand how it's not allowed to change its mind.

 

Re-read my post. In the sentence right after that, I point out that no new applicable law was passed. So, with no new law, they can't say it's OK to break the law. They can MAKE new law, which may change existing law. But a statement about general leeway or force or some other subject cannot be used to break some other law.

[NorthSideSox72]

A quote from the SC decision that uses the 2001 resolution:

 

Clearly the resolution is, in some sense, "law" and "actionable".  Just not however the WH pleases.

 

Right. Combatants are combatants, and these prisoners are combatants because of the military action. But that actionable phrase does not cover that which is outside of military force. Military force NEVER deals with domestic situations, by undisputed law. Therefore, no actionable law regarding domestic ANYTHING is contained in that statement.

[kapkomet]

Your defense that EVERYONE IS AFTER BUSH sounds no less ridiculous than the EVERYTHING IS BUSH'S FAULT assault.

 

I didn't say that. However, when you read some people's posts around here, "everything is Bush's fault' comes through loud and clear.

 

See my post about Cheney's arrogance. There's plenty of blame to go around, my friend. And I can see that. However, on the 'domestic spying' issue (which it's not, but hey, whatever sounds bad enough to make it a TRAVESTY) all of the facts are not out there about it, and people go around parroting like they know all the facts and Bush is a treasonous, Constitution stomping mother f*cker. People don't know what happened, other then what was leaked in the NYSlimes. But, it's enough to know that the President is 'morally bankrupt' and is 'stomping on the constitution' according to the 'leftists'.

[Balta1701]

  People don't know what happened, other then what was leaked in the NYSlimes.

And the parts that Mr. Bush was willing to admit, amongst quite a few other sources now. If you'll note the title of this thread...I didn't launch it based on the NYT report, I launched it when Mr. Bush gave his radio address a few days later confirming the NYT report's accuracy and defiantly stating that he was going to keep doing it.

[Reddy]

I didn't say that.  However, when you read some people's posts around here, "everything is Bush's fault' comes through loud and clear.

 

See my post about Cheney's arrogance.  There's plenty of blame to go around, my friend.  And I can see that.  However, on the 'domestic spying' issue (which it's not, but hey, whatever sounds bad enough to make it a TRAVESTY) all of the facts are not out there about it, and people go around parroting like they know all the facts and Bush is a treasonous, Constitution stomping mother f*cker.  People don't know what happened, other then what was leaked in the NYSlimes.  But, it's enough to know that the President is 'morally bankrupt' and is 'stomping on the constitution' according to the 'leftists'.

 

you know, i find it funny too when all of the blame goes to the guy who's leading our country. if something goes wrong why should we look to the top? i mean for gods sake, no body ever got mad at clinton when things went wrong... ever...

[Rex Kickass]

It's all a matter of legal opinions at point.  It will be sorted out.  Let's let the courts figure this out before we slander the POTUS.

 

Then I think its wholly appropriate if we not banter around conjecture about OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, Phil Spector or Robert Blake, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy or anyone else who hasn't been convicted of anything just merely had accusations bandied about with a degree of possibly incontrovertable evidence. To say that they've broken the law would clearly be slander.

 

K Thanks.

[jackie hayes]

Right. Combatants are combatants, and these prisoners are combatants because of the military action.  But that actionable phrase does not cover that which is outside of military force.  Military force NEVER deals with domestic situations, by undisputed law.  Therefore, no actionable law regarding domestic ANYTHING is contained in that statement.

The title contains "military force", but the text itself uses only "force". I don't believe any interpretation of the word should exclude intelligence. In any case, I want to see a source which states that "military" action must be "foreign". The Civil War was just a police action?

 

As for the other point, "a statement about general leeway or force or some other subject cannot be used to break some other law", again, you seem to be implying that the authorization was vacuous, and 'less than a law'. But the Supreme Court accepted that it has the force of law in the Hamdi case. The authorization is itself law.

 

The crux of the matter, imo, is "necessary". The Bush admin claims that it is "necessary" to do something that Congress explicitly forbid in a law that deals explicitly with wartime situations. So apparently Congress, just for fun, decided to outlaw something "necessary" for the protection of the US, and didn't even bother to fix their little national security joke when they passed the Patriot Act. Come f***ing on...

[Rex Kickass]

The crux of the matter, imo, is "necessary".  The Bush admin claims that it is "necessary" to do something that Congress explicitly forbid in a law that deals explicitly with wartime situations.  So apparently Congress, just for fun, decided to outlaw something "necessary" for the protection of the US, and didn't even bother to fix their little national security joke when they passed the Patriot Act.  Come f***ing on...

 

Except the law provides for this to be done. They just have to follow a procedure. They've chosen not to.

[jackie hayes]

Except the law provides for this to be done. They just have to follow a procedure. They've chosen not to.

Oh, right. It's okay by FISA only if they obtain the warrant ex post. Since they didn't do that, their actions are forbidden by FISA. That much is undisputed, I think.

[Rex Kickass]

Then they broke the law.

 

And since they authorized necessary force (or action), and there were avenues to use the "force" (defined as spying on US citizens) that didn't stop the president from doing what he needed to do as quickly as he needed to do it.

 

So he would have been in compliance with the necessary clause in either case. To me that means he - or people in his administration - willfully broke the law.

[jackie hayes]

I can't tell -- where are you disagreeing with me? I think it was unlawful.

 

They broke FISA, obviously. The WH claims that doing so was necessary b/c of wartime (too many taps too quickly), and appropriate b/c of the force resolution. But, FISA treats wartime explicitly, so Congress obviously does not consider the WH actions "necessary". Imnsho.

[Rex Kickass]

I don't think we're actually disagreeing.