Defiant Bush admits breaking law

[YASNY]

Sorry fellas .. I have to get some sleep. I 'll look at the past few posts tonight. Have a good day.

[Balta1701]

I'll agree with you on the deficit.  That's the one area that most conversaatives have issues with Bush.  Not due to too much taxation, but due to too much spending. 

 

But this:

The Democrats, IF they have ideas should be taking them to the voters.  IF they have something substantial to say, say it to the people.  All I hear is Bush did this or Bush said that.  Those aren't ideas.  That's just b****ing and whining.

Could it possibly be that the Democrats have presented a fair number of decent policy proposals (to go along with some obvious bad ones), but because of the fact that the media likes to filter things as "he said versus he said" and hates policy points, you just don't hear them?

[jackie hayes]

Could it possibly be that the Democrats have presented a fair number of decent policy proposals (to go along with some obvious bad ones), but because of the fact that the media likes to filter things as "he said versus he said" and hates policy points, you just don't hear them?

That, plus the fact that they don't have the slimmest chance in hell of being passed by a Republican Congress and Republican President. Why would the news report on that?

 

But go to almost any Dem congressperson's page, and you'll find some number of bills sponsored, though usually defeated.

 

And in so far as civility is concerned, the GOP should be LAST to b****. Look at how Murtha was treated when he suggested that the troops should come home. (For the record, I disagree with Murtha, and I thought he sounded terrible, but that's neither here nor there.) The WH loves to shut down all discussion by calling its opponents terrorists and cowards, and then claim that the lack of discussion is the fault of Democrats.

[Rex Kickass]

Could it possibly be that the Democrats have presented a fair number of decent policy proposals (to go along with some obvious bad ones), but because of the fact that the media likes to filter things as "he said versus he said" and hates policy points, you just don't hear them?

 

That plus the people who whine the hardest about not hearing ideas here, never listen when they get presented.

[kapkomet]

That, plus the fact that they don't have the slimmest chance in hell of being passed by a Republican Congress and Republican President.  Why would the news report on that?

 

But go to almost any Dem congressperson's page, and you'll find some number of bills sponsored, though usually defeated.

 

And in so far as civility is concerned, the GOP should be LAST to b****.  Look at how Murtha was treated when he suggested that the troops should come home.  (For the record, I disagree with Murtha, and I thought he sounded terrible, but that's neither here nor there.)  The WH loves to shut down all discussion by calling its opponents terrorists and cowards, and then claim that the lack of discussion is the fault of Democrats.

That's total BS. If the message resonated with the American people, come election time every two years, the Republicans would get shoved out faster then you can say "Bush sucks."

[jackie hayes]

That's total BS.  If the message resonated with the American people, come election time every two years, the Republicans would get shoved out faster then you can say "Bush sucks."

No, elections just aren't that simple. The Dems haven't done a very good job picking candidates, that's for damn sure.

 

A very interesting argument -- If the Dems had any positions, they would be elected. Since they weren't elected, they must not have any positions. Therefore as long as they aren't in power they should just shut up and accept that they don't believe anything, since any statements are merely criticisms of Bush.

 

I wouldn't argue that the GOP is doing much resonating itself now, given the approval numbers.

[kapkomet]

No, elections just aren't that simple.  The Dems haven't done a very good job picking candidates, that's for damn sure.

 

A very interesting argument -- If the Dems had any positions, they would be elected.  Since they weren't elected, they must not have any positions.  Therefore as long as they aren't in power they should just shut up and accept that they don't believe anything, since any statements are merely criticisms of Bush. 

 

I wouldn't argue that the GOP is doing much resonating itself now, given the approval numbers.

The truth of the matter is that NEITHER party has it right, but the Republican message resonates more with people (not by much, mind you) when that lever is pulled in the voting booth.

 

And truthfully, the Dems have not had a message since they got 'side-swiped' in the 2000 election. They've pretty much been bitter ever since. I wish that something from their party would rise up so that there could be better debate of the issues.

 

This is absolutely CLEARLY why I wish we had an alternative, something that the middle folks could relate to. Both parties are hijacked by their fringes, because that's where most of the money comes from. And it's SICK.

[jackie hayes]

I don't think that's the truth of the matter at all, but back to the main issue -- what is one good reason for the WH to need to ignore FISA?

[Rex Kickass]

There's that word again.  It's in the interpretation of reasonable, or in this case ' unreasonable'.  As I said before, that explanation of the 4th amendment I post the link to had 'reasonable' or forms of the word sprinkled liberally throughout.

 

Fine, so what's so unreasonable about asking the government to notify a secret court of its intent to wiretap or perform surveillance on US Citizens especially with organizations that were created with the purpose of foreign surveillance?

 

What exactly is the FISA preventing here that makes it necessary to flout the law? Nobody answers this question.

[kapkomet]

I don't think that's the truth of the matter at all, but back to the main issue -- what is one good reason for the WH to need to ignore FISA?

 

We don't know the answer to that, but there has to be one. You just don't do this "just because".

[jackie hayes]

We don't know the answer to that, but there has to be one.  You just don't do this "just because".

Oh, no no no -- just a suggestion. What's one possibility?

[kapkomet]

Oh, no no no -- just a suggestion.  What's one possibility?

I can think of a couple. Time was of the essence, and there are also some things that they might not have wanted to get out AT ALL. Even the FISA judges have talked to the media, as was proven when the story broke.

[jackie hayes]

Totally. And if the Supreme Court disagrees on a couple rules, why the f*** should they be included, either? Be with the new America, or be gone!

 

(Since, of course, "time was of the essence" was irrelevant, since they could get the warrant afterwards.)

[FlaSoxxJim]

I can think of a couple.  Time was of the essence, and there are also some things that they might not have wanted to get out AT ALL.  Even the FISA judges have talked to the media, as was proven when the story broke.

 

The argument that "there are also some things that they might not have wanted to get out AT ALL" is only acceptable if you do not believe in judicial checks on exectutive power. That is, it should not be acceptable to Americans who think separation of powers is a good idea.

 

What exactly did the FISA judges say when they talked to the media? As far as I remember, the first judge quit in protest since they didn't even know about the program, and then the remaining rotating judges requested a briefing because they were also concerned that the court was sidestepped. What was divulged here that is supposed to give me pause?

[YASNY]

Fine, so what's so unreasonable about asking the government to notify a secret court of its intent to wiretap or perform surveillance on US Citizens especially with organizations that were created with the purpose of foreign surveillance?

 

What exactly is the FISA preventing here that makes it necessary to flout the law? Nobody answers this question.

 

You are under the opinion that they are flouting the law. They are operating under the opinion that the are within the law. There's your difference.

 

As for the use of the word unreasonable, above. I was using the word and other forms of the word 'reasonable' as it was used by the courts to define aspects of the various circumstantial interpretations of the 4th amendment. Whether it is reasonable or unreasonable to ask them to notify the secret court is not the question. The question is whether it is legal or not. Apparently, that hasn't been decided as of yet. Your opinion has been decided, certainly. But the question of the legality of the issue has not.

Edited January 25, 2006 by YASNY

[FlaSoxxJim]

[kapkomet]

Ben was a smart man. I'm sure he's rolling in his grave. :rolly

 

Again, for those who are so quick to say "he broke the law", etc. That's not been proven, nor do we know all the facts. You can take pieces of this and come to the wrong conclusions. I said this about 25 pages ago in this thread (I think, and I'm too lazy to re-read the whole thing) that on the surface, this is a potentially horrible program, but until we KNOW what really happened, I'll reserve judgement. Most people on here have totally made up their mind, and that's pretty obvious.

[Texsox]

I can't believe this thread is still going strong. Even I lost interest about a week ago.

[Cknolls]

Totally.  And if the Supreme Court disagrees on a couple rules, why the f*** should they be included, either?  Be with the new America, or be gone!

 

(Since, of course, "time was of the essence" was irrelevant, since they could get the warrant afterwards.)

 

 

Is 72 hours long enough to establish probable cause with respect to a FISA warrant?

 

And if not what then???

[Balta1701]

Is 72 hours long enough to establish probable cause with respect to a FISA warrant?

 

And if not what then???

Then take those 80% approval ratings in 2001-2002, the ones that got the Patriot Act passed 99-1, and use them to extend it from 72 hours to 2 weeks or whatever number would work better.

[Rex Kickass]

FISA law: Section 1809

 

"A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally— (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute."

 

Condoleeza Rice:

 

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, exactly. FISA, which came out of 1978 at a time when the principal concern was, frankly, the activities of people on behalf of foreign governments, rather stable targets, very different from the kind of urgency of detection and thereby protection of a country that is needed today. And so the president has drawn on additional authorities that he has under the Constitution and under other statutes.

 

The NY Times 12/19

But the law is specific in banning any searches without warrants on Americans except in extraordinary circumstances, like within 15 days of a formal declaration of war, said David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who specializes in national security law.

 

The Bush administration has not cited any of those exemptions for the domestic eavesdropping program. The White House and other defenders of the program maintain that the president has the authority to allow such searches in the interests of national security.

 

The Washington Post 12/22

The Justice Department acknowledged yesterday, in a letter to Congress, that the president's October 2001 eavesdropping order did not comply with "the 'procedures' of" the law that has regulated domestic espionage since 1978. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, established a secret intelligence court and made it a criminal offense to conduct electronic surveillance without a warrant from that court, "except as authorized by statute."

 

There is one other statutory authority for wiretapping, which covers conventional criminal cases. That law describes itself, along with FISA, as "the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . may be conducted."

 

U.S. Constitution Article 2, Section 3

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

 

So FISA makes it clear what a violation of FISA is.

The Department of Justice admits that the Bush administration did not follow procedures deemed necessary by FISA.

FISA defines what extraordinary measures means in relation to citizens' protection.

The U.S. Constitution requires to faithfully execute the law, which the Bush administration - by its own admission - did not do.

 

And you still want to argue that this is neither inappropriate or a violation of the law.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Is 72 hours long enough to establish probable cause with respect to a FISA warrant?

 

And if not what then???

 

15 days is enough to bring these concerns to Congress and have FISA revised. Like Balta said, post 9-11 Congress would have made such concessions in a heartbeat had they been asked to and provided with just the littlest bit of rationale as to why the changes were needed. The administration chose not to do this.

 

Several scholars have said as much, most recently David Cole, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center of a book on this subject (Terrorism and the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties for National Security) in response to Abu Gonzales' speech yesterday.

[Rex Kickass]

Actually, it was 24 hours, and I believe when FISA was amended after 9/11, the time was extended to 72 hours - although that might have been the 1995 amendments to FISA.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Actually, it was 24 hours, and I believe when FISA was amended after 9/11, the time was extended to 72 hours - although that might have been the 1995 amendments to FISA.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the 72 hours was in place befor 9-11, but I don't know when it was added.

[kapkomet]

And I'll also say this again. I have not heard ONE Democrat for the program to be stopped. Only that it's "wrong".

 

Leahy today: (paraphrasing)... "how many have been arrested as a result of this program?"

 

Senator, no one. Because these people are probably DEAD. Score one for the good guys.