Defiant Bush admits breaking law

[Balta1701]

The NYT Had this story before the 2004 election and sat on it at the request of the White House.

 

    The New York Times first debated publishing a story about secret eavesdropping on Americans as early as last fall, before the 2004 presidential election.

[Nokona]

Big Brother watches.

[Rex Kickass]

Interesting stuff in the Drudge Report. Drudge claims to have found executive orders by Carter and Clinton to have agreed to do the same thing that Bush did i.e. in regards to this. (The "centrist" Drudge Report has seemingly neglected to research whether Reagan or Poppy Bush has also issued related executive orders.)

 

He keeps quoting this paragraph which is nearly identical in both executive orders linked from Drudge.

 

  Section 1.  Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the

Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a

court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of

up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications

required by that section.

 

      Sec. 2.  Pursuant to section 302(B) of the Act, the Attorney

General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain

orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign

intelligence information.

 

Seems like a clear violation, right?

 

Except here's the FISA text:

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—

(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—

(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or

(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and

© the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and

if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but both the Clinton and Carter executive orders seem to indicate that spying on foreign nationals' electronic communications is acceptable without a warrant as long as it meets the criteria spelled out in the FISA act where electronic communications spying is deemed acceptable.

 

Nowhere does it talk about targetting US Citizens. Which is something the Bush administration has admitted to doing, from what I understand.

 

So "they all do it" is the new excuse from the right, I'm assuming. Except according to what they cite, they don't all do it at all.

[Rex Kickass]

http://nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

 

Drudge also links to a column in National Review that talks about how a Clinton deputy attorney general argued that the President has the power to bypass FISA courts. "They all did it." Except that the Clinton administration actually put everything through FISA... and York admits in in his column.

 

Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Spy Court Judge Quits In Protest. . .

 

Jurist Concerned Bush Order Tainted Work of Secret Panel

By Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer

Washington Post Staff Writers

Wednesday, December 21, 2005; Page A01

 

A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.

 

U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation. . .

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5122000685.html

 

In other related news:

 

•  Rep. Blunt says he's enjoying spending life on his knees gobbling Bush's knob:

 

"I am personally comfortable with everything I know about it" [the illegal spying program], Acting House Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said in a phone interview.

 

• Scotty Mac unconvincingly redefines the term "any time" to mean, well. . . , 'not really any time':

 

At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan was asked to explain why Bush last year said, "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." McClellan said the quote referred only to the USA Patriot Act.

 

• Pat Roberts plays the lapdog:

 

The chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), issued a public rebuke of Rockefeller for making his letter public.

 

• McCain says Rockefeller should have done all that and more:

 

In response to a question about the letter, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) suggested that Rockefeller should have done more if he was seriously concerned. "If I thought someone was breaking the law, I don't care if it was classified or unclassified, I would stand up and say 'the law's being broken here.' "

 

• And Rockefeller explains what its like when Cheney f***s you stupid and then never calls you back:

 

But Rockefeller said the secrecy surrounding the briefings left him with no other choice. "I made my concerns known to the vice president and to others who were briefed," Rockefeller said. "The White House never addressed my concerns."

Edited December 21, 2005 by FlaSoxxJim

[Texsox]

The administration should put together an enemies list and check it twice each day . . .

 

BTW, IMNSHO, Bush should not be impeached for this, so far. I think we are far better off with him in office, than dragging through the hearings.

[FlaSoxxJim]

The administration should put together an enemies list and check it twice each day . . .

 

BTW, IMNSHO, Bush should not be impeached for this, so far. I think we are far better off with him in office, than dragging through the hearings.

 

IMNSO, I'm glad you're not the one who is going to be making that decision.

 

[Rex Kickass]

If this was 1995, there would have been impeachment proceedings pending right now.

[Texsox]

If this was 1995, there would have been impeachment proceedings pending right now.

 

I felt they were wrong then, and I would feel the same party politics stain on these.

 

I also feel Californias law to reverse any election at any time with enough signatures is wasteful. I believe once someone is in office, it should take more than what I've seen from Bush or Clinton to drive them out.

[Rex Kickass]

I would say the charges, if true, constitute an absolute impeachable offense for any president.

[kapkomet]

I would say the charges, if true, constitute an absolute impeachable offense for any president.

What do you mean "if true"... you people are all over this President for "lying"... yet he has come right out and said, hell yes, I do this, because I think we have Consitutional authority to do so. THAT is the argument, and one that needs solved so it can be stopped if this is "wrong" in the eyes of the constitution.

 

As far as the "they all do it" argument, what pisses me off so bad is hell yea, they all do it. But when George W. Bush does anything "wrong", according to the media and some who post in this forum, the hate runs so deep that it HAS to be the worst effin' thing EVER to have taken place in the White House and the sheer magnitude HAS to be worse from George W. Bush then ANYONE ELSE, EVER. Ever since he "stole" the election, the hate does run really, really deep. The guy could s*** golden bricks and most people would complain that he didn't eat enough and he needs to s*** more. It's alway something, and it's NEVER good enough, because the Dems (or more correctly, YOUR idealogy) are not in control.

 

(shifting gears off topic but it's relevant to the whole argument)

 

I'll say it again, for all those idiot, moronic Dems leading their party, GET A EFFIN' MESSAGE and take these morons out who are in power instead of CONSTANTLY sniping at the Republicans. When the leader of the Dem party goes on record to say (paraphrasing) "we don't have to have a plan or a message, it's our job to raise issues against the current power structure"... they will NEVER get the power back. The Republicans were out of power for 40 years until 1994, because they did the same s***, until they got a message and TOOK the power back. If the Democrats get a solid (centrist - because that's what most are in this country) message, hell, I'd vote for them. This forum's cross section really magnifies the issue. There's way more bull s*** posted around here about what the Repubicans are doing wrong then good ideas to fix it. It's no wonder our system is failing right now. It fails HERE on a stupid baseball message board and that's really, really sad because it represents "America".

[Rex Kickass]

I say "if true" because I'm not a constitutional scholar. I'm not a lawyer. It looks like he broke the law. And a big one at that.

 

The "they all did it" excuse doesn't fly with me, ever. And I'm sorry that I hold my President up to a high standard, but I do. You think we only b**** about Bush and talk about it being the worst f'ing president ever - but what other president have we had presiding over office here in the US since Soxtalk has been online?

 

Oh yeah, none.

 

You sit there and yell get a f'in message all the time, but when people actually tell you what the message is - you don't listen and shout louder.

 

The message seems pretty clear:

Responsibility, Accountablity: screaming for investigation over government missteps because the GOP refuses to do so.

 

Protecting our Environment: fighting to stop an add-on regarding ANWR drilling in Alaska, because its risk with relatively little reward.

 

Protecting the working class: fighting to stop the privatization and dismantling of Social Security.

 

Enhancing National Security: Why don't you ask Senator Lautenberg if he's been fighting to make sure that Port Elizabeth and Newark Airport might actually get the chance to screen cargo going in and out of this country via ship for nuclear, biological, or chemical weaponry. Or how about cargo on passenger planes getting screened? Cause right now he can't get the funding to make that happen.

 

The list goes on.

 

But their bills don't get heard in Congress. Their agenda doesn't get the chance to get a hearing half the time. It's hard to be on the offensive policy wise when the other side is threatening to tear down all of the safeguards that protect you and I physically and financially. It's hard to be on the offensive policy wise when the other side is trying to change the constitution or otherwise appearing to have a blatant disregard for the constitution in many other cases.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I say "if true" because I'm not a constitutional scholar. I'm not a lawyer. It looks like he broke the law. And a big one at that.

 

The "they all did it" excuse doesn't fly with me, ever. And I'm sorry that I hold my President up to a high standard, but I do. You think we only b**** about Bush and talk about it being the worst f'ing president ever - but what other president have we had presiding over office here in the US since Soxtalk has been online?

 

Oh yeah, none.

 

You sit there and yell get a f'in message all the time, but when people actually tell you what the message is - you don't listen and shout louder.

 

The message seems pretty clear:

Responsibility, Accountablity: screaming for investigation over government missteps because the GOP refuses to do so.

 

Protecting our Environment: fighting to stop an add-on regarding ANWR drilling in Alaska, because its risk with relatively little reward.

 

Protecting the working class: fighting to stop the privatization and dismantling of Social Security.

 

Enhancing National Security: Why don't you ask Senator Lautenberg if he's been fighting to make sure that Port Elizabeth and Newark Airport might actually get the chance to screen cargo going in and out of this country via ship for nuclear, biological, or chemical weaponry. Or how about cargo on passenger planes getting screened? Cause right now he can't get the funding to make that happen.

 

The list goes on.

 

But their bills don't get heard in Congress. Their agenda doesn't get the chance to get a hearing half the time. It's hard to be on the offensive policy wise when the other side is threatening to tear down all of the safeguards that protect you and I physically and financially. It's hard to be on the offensive policy wise when the other side is trying to change the constitution or otherwise appearing to have a blatant disregard for the constitution in many other cases.

 

 

Rex. You are familiar with what happened in 1994 right? The Republicans came up with a strong message and stuck to it and they trounced the Dems about as thoroughly as could have been done and haven't looked back since. We didn't whine about Clinton, we refuted his socialist agenda, dragged him through the mud in the mid-terms, and forced him to become the moderate he promised he would be.

[Rex Kickass]

So lets take a look at the Contract shall we? In the first two paragraphs, the GOP frames the debate by saying "Congress is crooked and needs a change in leadership."

 

So everything they based their victory on was based on a problem.

 

Their "positive plan" wasn't revealed until September of 2004.

[kapkomet]

So lets take a look at the Contract shall we? In the first two paragraphs, the GOP frames the debate by saying "Congress is crooked and needs a change in leadership."

 

So everything they based their victory on was based on a problem.

 

Their "positive plan" wasn't revealed until September of 2004.

But they offered solutions. Something that the Democrats have failed to do in 10 years.

 

Like I said, let's hope they do, so we can actually debate ideas, not how bad the other party sucks.

[Balta1701]

Interesting stuff in the Drudge Report. Drudge claims to have found executive orders by Carter and Clinton to have agreed to do the same thing that Bush did i.e. in regards to this. (The "centrist" Drudge Report has seemingly neglected to research whether Reagan or Poppy Bush has also issued related executive orders.)

What Drudge says:

 

    Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

 

What Clinton actually signed:

 

    Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Yessirree. Can you say Constitutional Crisis?

 

One of the Kos Front Pagers says this is going to break in tomorrow's WaPo.

 

Piss off a bunch of Federal judges. That's the ticket.

 

WASHINGTON--The presiding judge of a secret court that oversees government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases is arranging a classified briefing for her fellow judges to address their concerns about the legality of President Bush's domestic spying program, according to several intelligence and government sources.

 

Several members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said in interviews that they want to know why the administration believed secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails of U.S. citizens without court authorization was legal. Some of the judges said they are particularly concerned that information gleaned from the president's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to gain authorized wiretaps from their court.

 

If they can connect the dots and show that BushCo used the information from the unauthorized wiretaps to then go and request court approvals for wiretaps for as if it were a priori knowledge it will be absolutely damning. Particularly if some of the bogus FISA approved wiretaps ended up in actual terrorist arrests that can now be challenged as being the products of illegal search and seizure.

[southsider2k5]

Turns out the courts have never ruled on this specific issue.

 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3541401.html

[NorthSideSox72]

I see some people here arguing that Echelon was substantially different and more OK than Bush's current spying. I see others arguing it's all OK, it was done before and is being done now, so no big deal. And then there is the dangerously narrow-minded "I have nothing to hide so I don't care" argument.

 

I'd like to plant the flag for this camp: it was wrong when Clinton did it, and it's wrong now. I would love to see some federal judge smack them both upside the head with an oversized copy of the 4th amendment text.

 

Anyone else on this hill?

[southsider2k5]

I see some people here arguing that Echelon was substantially different and more OK than Bush's current spying.  I see others arguing it's all OK, it was done before and is being done now, so no big deal.  And then there is the dangerously narrow-minded "I have nothing to hide so I don't care" argument.

 

I'd like to plant the flag for this camp: it was wrong when Clinton did it, and it's wrong now.  I would love to see some federal judge smack them both upside the head with an oversized copy of the 4th amendment text.

 

Anyone else on this hill?

 

Personally I think it is a violation of the constitution, but then again I thought emminent domain for private gain was a violation of our property rights, and we all know how that turned out. I guess my ability to interpret the constitution isn't quite there, so I am really hoping this ends up there soon so we have an answer.

[kapkomet]

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...22610-7772r.htm

 

Where's all the impeachment talk about Carter and Clinton for doing the EXACT same thing? I know, I know... it's BUSH... it HAS to be different and evil.

[kapkomet]

I see you're posting already Balta, (no surprise), before I get the "the law was changed arguement"... really it wasn't when dealing with foreign enemies of state. Period.

[Balta1701]

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...22610-7772r.htm

 

Where's all the impeachment talk about Carter and Clinton for doing the EXACT same thing?  I know, I know... it's BUSH... it HAS to be different and evil. 

Goodness, the amount of confusion of that issue in that piece is absolutely freaking remarkable.

 

"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

 

That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps.

 

More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."

Everything stated there is correct, the President has the right to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. FISA specifies this. However, the key detail that they so conveniently leave out is that FISA gives the President the right only to do this against Foreign targets. It specifically denies the President the right to do this against U.S. Citizens.

 

One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants.

ANd of course, if the Washington Times bothered to actually educate itself about the law, it would know fully well that The law of the united states has changed since those events happened, and once again, you can't just say that because something was legal 5 years ago you don't have to follow the new law.

 

Actually, our argument is perfectly consistent with Gorelick’s statements. Both her testimony and in the Legal Times quote, were about physical searches. In 1994, the FISA did not cover physical searches. She was explaining what the President’s authority was in the absence of any congressional statute. She wasn’t arguing that the President had the authority to ignore FISA.

 

In 1995, with President Clinton’s signature, FISA was amended to include physical searches. That law prohibited warrantless domestic physical searches. No one in the Clinton administration, including Gorelick, ever argued that the administration could ignore the law, before or after it was amended.

Edited December 22, 2005 by Balta1701

[kapkomet]

Everything stated there is correct, the President has the right to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.  FISA specifies this.  However, the key detail that they so conveniently leave out is that FISA gives the President the right only to do this against Foreign targets.  It specifically denies the President the right to do this against U.S. Citizens. 

 

 

There were foreign operatives on the other end of the intercepts. Not one of these, at least my understanding, was 100% domestic. And what about the lack of warrants against a US citizen? Oh, those don't matter, because there was "justification" for Clinton's AG to do it.

 

It's the same damn thing.

[Mercy!]

I think that times may have changed, and no one bothered to do the legal/legislative work required to bring our laws into the reality of the feds needing to domestically utilize x terabytes of data per second coming down off our spy satellites versus some guy putting a couple of alligator clips on a line down at the central office.

 

However, it’s been over 4 years since Bush claims our world changed such that he could pick and choose which laws he obeyed and which he didn’t. He has NO excuse for not coming to Congress over this. No one would have batted an eye if he had done what he’s done and then requested modifications to applicable laws.

 

It is not giving aid and comfort to the enemy to have a national dialogue on the generalities of this subject. Bush has totally blown it. And he is continuing to misread the country's mood on this.