Defiant Bush admits breaking law

[FlaSoxxJim]

Gonzales is saying Bush's actions are legal... This ought to be an interesting fight.

 

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle....PING.xml&rpc=22

 

But other than the 'whereas' clauses that allow all "reasonable and necessary" means in the statute he cited, it seems not to be the case. Almost all legal experts (not in the administration's pocket) will tell you that the whereas clauses are not legally binding but merely clarifying. The "resolving" clauses are the portions that are legally binding, and they stipulate that the President is required to operate within the Constitution.

 

You are correct though, this is going to get very interesting. And if Karl gets indicted in Plamapalooza before the end of the year and GWB is forced to fly blind on the pushback, it's going to get very ugly as well. If you listeded to GWB's press conference this morning you could hear the agitation in his voice when he was admonishing Congress for filibustering Patriot Act renewal and the press and the unnamed leaker/whistleblower for acting irresponsibly.

[Rex Kickass]

Gonzales said Congress had granted an exception when it authorized the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force."

 

So would that mean, if targeted assasinations of leaders were considered necessary in the President's mind, it would be legal?

 

So what Gonzalez is saying is that those five words absolve the President of every blame possible?

 

This is sounding worse, not better.

[FlaSoxxJim]

So would that mean, if targeted assasinations of leaders were considered necessary in the President's mind, it would be legal?

 

So what Gonzalez is saying is that those five words absolve the President of every blame possible?

 

This is sounding worse, not better.

I agree. Plus, it's a hard sell to consider wiretaps and email intercepts to be a "use of force" as Congress intended.

[Balta1701]

Not saying that it is OK because some Dems knew it was going on, but wondering why they didn't say anything if they thought this was so bad? To get all indignant like they didn't know this was happening is simply pure politics.  Sure, Pelosi SAYS she had reservations at the time.  You know that is a lie, because if she did, her pure hatred for Bush would have sent her running to the NY Times, or leaking a memo somewhere.  Why did they not insist on hearings for this?  They insisited for hearings over Iraq, this certainly seems just as important.

Well, we haven't heard from every single possible Democrat in the Senate who they might have told yet...but Harry Reid, the guy who was the #2 Democrat in the Senate when this started (2002) and who is now the #1 Democrat in the Senate said on Fox News Sunday that he was only breifed within the last couple months...basically the NYT knew about it more than half a year before Harry Reid did.

 

Feingold is on the Judiciary committee, he didn't know. Biden says he didn't know. Levin says he didn't know.

 

Basically, as far as I can tell from the talk show circuit yesterday...the only real ranking Democrats who haven't said anything are Kennedy, Leahy, and Daschle, and Given that Leahy brought it up while giving the Democrats radio address response to BWB on Saturday, it doesn't seem like he knew (could be wrong in that supposition). Leahy is important, btw, because he's the current Democratic leader on the Senate Judiciary committee...so if anyone was told when the program started, it would have been him or Daschle, and Daschle's long gone.

 

Edit: Jay Rockefeller (WV) is the Dem Chairman on the Intelligence Committee, the one Bush says was briefed. According to the NYT, it seems he has mainly gone about protesting the thing through normal channels...both he and Pelosi have sent protest letters to the President about the program.

 

Edit the second: At the time the program started (2002) the chairman of the Senate Intelligence committee was now-retired Florida Democratic Senator Bob Graham (Fl). On Nightline last Friday night, he made it very clear he had no idea the program was going on.

Edited December 19, 2005 by Balta1701

[Balta1701]

So would that mean, if targeted assasinations of leaders were considered necessary in the President's mind, it would be legal?

 

So what Gonzalez is saying is that those five words absolve the President of every blame possible?

 

This is sounding worse, not better.

Targeted assassinations are only banned for this country by executive order, as far as I know. There is no law against them. So, if the President chose to have our armed forces launch a targeted assassination of the leader of another nation, for it to be legal, all he would have to do is issue another executive order first. That is something he can overturn through his power - the President can issue executive orders as long as there is no conflicting law (as there clearly is in this case).

[kapkomet]

‘Legal to do so’

The spying program allows the National Security Agency to intercept the communications without court approval. A 1978 law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, makes it illegal to spy on U.S. citizens in the United States without court approval.

 

Bush said he approved the action without such orders “because it enables us to move faster and quicker. We’ve got to be fast on our feet.

 

“It is legal to do so. I swore to uphold the laws. Legal authority is derived from the Constitution,” Bush added.

 

The existence of the program triggered an outpouring of criticism in Congress, but an unflinching defense from Bush and senior officials of his administration.

 

The president spoke not long after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Congress had given Bush authority to spy on suspected terrorists in this country in legislation passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

 

Bush and other officials have said the program involves monitoring phone calls and e-mails of individuals in this country believed to be plotting with terrorists overseas. They have also emphasized that it only involves people suspected of being tied to al-Qaida and that one end of the communication has to be abroad.

 

Bush stressed that calls placed and received within the United States would be monitored as has long been the case, after an order is granted by a secret court under the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

 

So... I'm sure this doesn't make it any better (the part about foreign soil having to be a part of the criteria). But, again, if the bigger picture saves lives, isn't it worth it? I mean come on. OMG *MY* personal freedoms are GONE now. Yours too (whoever is reading this), all because we have a Penis-In-Chief ™. (thanks Mercy... )

 

Oh by the way, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I'm still not sure of all the details yet...

Edited December 19, 2005 by kapkomet

[Rex Kickass]

Kap,

 

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, serious, witty or all of the above. Nice job!

 

The administration can get a warrant up to 72 hours after the fact and still have the eavesdropping be OK under law. Why the need to circumvent the law? And why get mad at the whistleblowers if you're proud of your action to begin with? The anger about being found out seems to portray something more sinister, I fear.

 

And I think the point is that I thought we are fighting to protect freedom and the rule of law. If we flout both to save it, what are we fighting for to begin with?

[FlaSoxxJim]

Face the Nation had Sens. Lindsey Graham and Joe Bidon on today, and both are taking GWB to task on teh spying. Important in that Graham is both a lawyer and a right-winger so it's good to see serious questioning of the legality by other than the Dems and the MSM. Also important because Biden was one of the three authors of the original 1978 FISA andf he makes it completely clear that GWB's actions are in violation of FISA and in no way derived from anny authority given by FISA.

 

Video Link

 

Graham: I don't know of any legal basis to go around that. There may be some, but I'm not aware of it. And here's the concern I have-we can’t become an outcome-based democracy. Even in a time of war, you have to follow the process, because that's what a democracy is all about-a process.

 

Graham didn't want to admit that the President broke the law, but he said as much.

 

Graham: What executive order or constitutional provision would give the authority to the President to avoid the warrant requirement. There may be some, I just don't know of it, nut if there is not any-that's a problem.

 

Biden: I'm the guy that drafted the FISA act , twenty five years ago on the judiciary committee--it's a secret court, allowing the President to wiretap anybody, intercept anything for up to 72 hours-----he already has the authority under the FISA court...

 

Biden went on to say GWB's actions were beither "legal or necessary" and completely shooots down the notion that the FISA avenues are not fast enough for emergency scenarios.

Edited December 19, 2005 by FlaSoxxJim

[kapkomet]

Kap,

 

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, serious, witty or all of the above. Nice job!

 

The administration can get a warrant up to 72 hours after the fact and still have the eavesdropping be OK under law. Why the need to circumvent the law? And why get mad at the whistleblowers if you're proud of your action to begin with? The anger about being found out seems to portray something more sinister, I fear.

 

And I think the point is that I thought we are fighting to protect freedom and the rule of law. If we flout both to save it, what are we fighting for to begin with?

In all seriousness, I can't really make up my mind on this issue yet. I don't think I'm educated enough, other then to know that the NY Slimes held the story for over a year, and 10 days before a book is going to come out on the issue, WALLAHKAZAM, a NY Slimes exclusive appears before our eyes. I can also piece together the issue above - that the only time this was used is if the communications were country to country (outside the US). Not sure of the legalities there, and I wonder if that's where things are somewhat hairy.

 

And I hate to do this ... because again it becomes a pissing contest of sorts and on this issue I don't mean to turn this into that ... but I guarandamntee you that Clinton before and GB the First did it too, and just never got caught. I'm sure of it.

[Rex Kickass]

Kap, they didn't hold the article because of a pending book release. They held the article at the request of the White House.

[kapkomet]

Kap, they didn't hold the article because of a pending book release. They held the article at the request of the White House.

Yea, until the book was going to come out, and then they couldn't hold it any longer.

[Rex Kickass]

So, therefore the whole story is nullified because they wanted the scoop out before the book release?

 

It's still pretty important regardless.

 

I love how everyone here peers into the motivation of the messenger before they even look at the message. That's just plain sad.

[kapkomet]

So, therefore the whole story is nullified because they wanted the scoop out before the book release?

 

It's still pretty important regardless.

 

I love how everyone here peers into the motivation of the messenger before they even look at the message. That's just plain sad.

I've never once said that. I do, however, think that if you let a story sit and then release it for purely monetary gain ... that could potentially harm people in this country, that's shameful too.

 

Again, I'd like to know details as opposed to the blanket Penis-In-Chief™ comments. And much like the amputee story (on the flip side), this isn't news at all if a Democrat did it, which I'm positive has happened. Can I prove it? No. But, I'm sure it's happened.

[Rex Kickass]

There's no need for a President to do it. That's what's infuriating.

 

How many secret court judges whose job is pretty much just to agree to warrants on secret eavesdropping do you really think would say no to a request for secret eavesdropping on a person of interest regarding terrorism? I'm guessing none - but that's just me.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Kap, the more I think about it the more I think you are right in that GWB didn't blow off FISA procedures simply because he's an arrogant ass. And the people in his administration as well as NSA knew FISA would have given him all he needed. The logical conclusion, if you rule out the 'being an asshole' hypothesis, is that this spying was something he did not want the FISA courts to be aware of.

 

Just what was the nature of these surveilances that he couldn't let FISA get wind of it? Hopefully we find out soon.

 

As for your ironclad conviction that Clinton and Bush 41 engaged in this same illegal spying activity, I don't understand how you can be so sure without any supporting evidence. Other than the "fact" that They All Do It.®

[FlaSoxxJim]

There's no need for a President to do it. That's what's infuriating.

 

Unless he really thought this activity had to be hidden from even the secret FISA courts.

[Rex Kickass]

Which would mean spying on our journalists.

[kapkomet]

Unless he really thought this activity had to be hidden from even the secret FISA courts.

I'm getting all Tom Clancyish now... but every single conversation that takes place anywhere on earth has the potential to be overheard. Somehow.

 

If they are monitoring certain people that are in illegal activity, and they have to act on it before they get approval, then what?

[FlaSoxxJim]

I'm getting all Tom Clancyish now... but every single conversation that takes place anywhere on earth has the potential to be overheard.  Somehow.

 

If they are monitoring certain people that are in illegal activity, and they have to act on it before they get approval, then what?

Then request the warrrant after the fact within 72 hours as stipulated by FISA.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I'm getting all Tom Clancyish now... but every single conversation that takes place anywhere on earth has the potential to be overheard.  Somehow.

 

If they are monitoring certain people that are in illegal activity, and they have to act on it before they get approval, then what?

 

 

Then they go and act on it. Its always better to ask for forgiveness than to ask permission.

[southsider2k5]

I'm getting all Tom Clancyish now... but every single conversation that takes place anywhere on earth has the potential to be overheard.  Somehow.

 

If they are monitoring certain people that are in illegal activity, and they have to act on it before they get approval, then what?

 

Maybe they used Echelon

[FlaSoxxJim]

Let's add NSA director Michael Hayden to the list of people who knowingly misled Congress about the agency's activites on Bush's behalf. In October of this year Hayden told a committee investigating 9/11 that all surveillance of persons in the United States was by the FISA book.

GOSS: OK, my second question, then. General Hayden, you said something about bin Laden coming across the bridge, hypothetical, of course. But I take that to mean that if bin Laden did come there would be capabilities that we have that we can use elsewhere in the world that we cannot use in the United States of America. Is that correct?

HAYDEN: Not so much capabilities, but how agilely we could apply those capabilities. The person inside the United States becomes a U.S. person under the definition provided by the FISA Act. ?…

GOSS: Well, lets — again, I don’t want to get into details. I’m aware of the public nature of this meeting. But let’s just suppose this sniper [in the United States] is somebody we wanted to catch very badly. Could we apply all our technologies and all our capabilities and all our know how against that person? Or would that person be considered to have protection as an American citizen?

HAYDEN: That person would have protections as what the law defines as a U.S. person. And I would have no authorities to pursue it.

Of course this is now known to be a complete lie, as NSA opted to sidestep FISA when carrying out the surveillance orders.

[Rex Kickass]

From what I understand, there's a big difference between Echelon and other things. This was targetted, not some random surveillance.

[bmags]

i'd like to get past all of this partison B.S. and just like to know if people think their government leaders should be held accountable if they break the law? Because I do.

[Rex Kickass]

I absolutely do.