Defiant Bush admits breaking law

[FlaSoxxJim]

You got a li'l something on your chin there, Kap.

[NorthSideSox72]

Just some updated data...

 

56% of Americans (in poll) believe that warrants should be necessary EVEN FOR OVERSEAS CALLS, let alone domestic...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060111/ap_on_...ropping_ap_poll

 

Not that popular opinion is all that important in matters of law, of course, but there is interesting information in the data from the poll.

 

One quote from the article in particular, scares the s**t out of me:

 

Cynthia Ice-Bones, 32, a Republican from Sacramento, Calif., said knowing about the program made her feel a bit safer. "I think our security is so important that we don't need warrants. If you're doing something we shouldn't be doing, then you ought to be caught," she said.

 

It amazes me how little people care about their Constitutional rights. When we as a nation give up caring about them, guess where they go?

 

And who the heck has a name like Ice-Bones anyway?

[kapkomet]

Just some updated data...

 

56% of Americans (in poll) believe that warrants should be necessary EVEN FOR OVERSEAS CALLS, let alone domestic...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060111/ap_on_...ropping_ap_poll

 

Not that popular opinion is all that important in matters of law, of course, but there is interesting information in the data from the poll.

 

One quote from the article in particular, scares the s**t out of me:

It amazes me how little people care about their Constitutional rights.  When we as a nation give up caring about them, guess where they go?

 

And who the heck has a name like Ice-Bones anyway?

People care. I care. But I also think if you're stupid enough to make phone calls with people associated with international terrorists, you lost your rights.

[NorthSideSox72]

People care.  I care.  But I also think if you're stupid enough to make phone calls with people associated with international terrorists, you lost your rights.

 

Guilty until proven innocent, huh?

 

Of course people should be monitored if they represent a threat. Point is, EVERYONE is supposed to be protected by the gateway that is the courts. US citizens have the right to have the NSA or anyone else have to show a valid court that the probitive need for the surveillance is supported by some kind of reasonable evidence.

 

What you are saying if you support these warrantless actions is that it is OK for the NSA or the FBI to probe whomever it wants based on its own whims, outside the purview of the judicial system. I just can't see how that is OK. The NSA and FBI are law enforcement agencies, who by nature and necessity are meant to be bulldogs in investigating people, up to the limit of their judicial leash. Remove the leash, and suddenly we are all in danger, criminal or not.

[Rex Kickass]

People care.  I care.  But I also think if you're stupid enough to make phone calls with people associated with international terrorists, you lost your rights.

 

So if a reporter who covered middle eastern politics called you, you've lost your rights?

[kapkomet]

So if a reporter who covered middle eastern politics called you, you've lost your rights?

Is that what I said? No.

[Rex Kickass]

But I also think if you're stupid enough to make phone calls with people associated with international terrorists, you lost your rights.

 

That's what you said. And that's exactly what you would do if you spoke with reporters based in Iraq. If they are actually going out and doing investigative journalism, they've associated with international terrorists.

 

Our government officials have met with Saddam Hussein and have spoken with Khatami, the former president of Iran. They have, at least in the government's eyes, have association with international terrorists. Should they lose their rights? Of course not.

 

This may seem stupid and pointless and arrogant, but I'm trying to make a point here. Rights are rights. And if there's an asterisk on it, it's not really a right anymore.

[kapkomet]

That's what you said. And that's exactly what you would do if you spoke with reporters based in Iraq. If they are actually going out and doing investigative journalism, they've associated with international terrorists.

 

Our government officials have met with Saddam Hussein and have spoken with Khatami, the former president of Iran. They have, at least in the government's eyes, have association with international terrorists. Should they lose their rights? Of course not.

 

This may seem stupid and pointless and arrogant, but I'm trying to make a point here. Rights are rights. And if there's an asterisk on it, it's not really a right anymore.

DIRECT TIES, not throught someone or something, or someone who talked to someone else. Now we're pulling at yarn strings to pull the whole ball of yarn down.

 

I see what you're saying, but I still think that if you're stupid enough to get involved, then you might have people listen in on a phone conversation.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I see what you're saying, but I still think that if you're stupid enough to get involved, then you might have people listen in on a phone conversation.

 

Then there are potentially millions of stupid Americans (yes, something we already know) who may have unknowingly gotten involved. This is from yesterday's Nightline interview with NSSA whistleblower/patrion Russell Tice:

 

President Bush has admitted that he gave orders that allowed the NSA to eavesdrop on a small number of Americans without the usual requisite warrants. But Tice disagrees. He says the number of Americans subject to eavesdropping by the NSA could be in the millions if the full range of secret NSA programs is used. [/b]"That would mean for most Americans that if they conducted, or you know, placed an overseas communication, more than likely they were sucked into that vacuum," Tice said[/b].

 

How comfortable are you going to be with the warrantless surveilance if it turns out that all you needed to do to "get involved" was to be stupid enough to place or receive an overseas call?

[Rex Kickass]

DIRECT TIES, not throught someone or something, or someone who talked to someone else.  Now we're pulling at yarn strings to pull the whole ball of yarn down.

 

I see what you're saying, but I still think that if you're stupid enough to get involved, then you might have people listen in on a phone conversation.

 

How are we pulling at yarn strings? Let's say it's not you that's implicated, but your friend. And your friend calls you.

 

And from what I understand, its not direct ties that these wiretaps are looking at either but rather people who are suspected of talking with people who are suspected of having ties with a terrorist organization. There's lots of room for error there.

 

If the need is that great and necessary, a warrant should be easy to obtain. This isn't a question of whether or not the spying is necessary, but whether or not following the law is. Our President has openly admitted that he is not following the law.

[kapkomet]

How are we pulling at yarn strings?  Let's say it's not you that's implicated, but your friend. And your friend calls you.

 

And from what I understand, its not direct ties that these wiretaps are looking at either but rather people who are suspected of talking with people who are suspected of having ties with a terrorist organization. There's lots of room for error there.

 

If the need is that great and necessary, a warrant should be easy to obtain. This isn't a question of whether or not the spying is necessary, but whether or not following the law is. Our President has openly admitted that he is not following the law.

And again, that's up for debate.

 

I think that the Constitution, when taken literally, gives him this power under unique circumstances. Apparantly, flying planes into buildings and the like isn't unique enough.

[NorthSideSox72]

And again, that's up for debate.

 

I think that the Constitution, when taken literally, gives him this power under unique circumstances.  Apparantly, flying planes into buildings and the like isn't unique enough.

 

If you are saying that 9/11 gives the NSA the power to do warrantless surveillance without court review (which is to say, without limitations), five years later, then there is no longer such thing as "unique". The argument could then be used forever and ever. If Bush had snuck a few in the few chaotic days after, and then used the courts (which are specifically there for this purpose), then one could make that argument. But at this point, no, this is not unique enough. This is now the world we live in, and the rules still apply, because this is still the United States, and we are still bound by the laws of the land.

[Rex Kickass]

And again, that's up for debate.

 

I think that the Constitution, when taken literally, gives him this power under unique circumstances.  Apparantly, flying planes into buildings and the like isn't unique enough.

 

No it's not.

 

A state of war is.

 

Unless we formally declare one, we aren't technically in one. And his powers are limited.

[kapkomet]

No it's not.

 

A state of war is.

 

Unless we formally declare one, we aren't technically in one. And his powers are limited.

Read the resolutions that were passed by Congress. "by all means necessary" is a pretty much blank check to do whatever he needs to do.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Read the resolutions that were passed by Congress.  "by all means necessary" is a pretty much blank check to do whatever he needs to do.

 

 

Havent you read the fine print?

 

 

"By any means necessary.........but we will still whine about it and try to score political points when we feel like it.

[NorthSideSox72]

Read the resolutions that were passed by Congress.  "by all means necessary" is a pretty much blank check to do whatever he needs to do.

 

"by all means necessary" does NOT give him leeway to break the law. Congress has no authority and no desire to give any President to do that.

[kapkomet]

"by all means necessary" does NOT give him leeway to break the law.  Congress has no authority and no desire to give any President to do that.

And YOU say he broke the law and many other scholars say he hasn't. Take it all the way up and let's have a ruling.

[NorthSideSox72]

And YOU say he broke the law and many other scholars say he hasn't.  Take it all the way up and let's have a ruling.

 

OK. Unfortunately, the only investigation that might occur would be some Congressional committee, which I hardly call "all the way up".

 

And there are plenty of "experts" cited in numerous threads in Filibuster who think he DID break the law. Honestly, the supposed experts seem divided on the issue. I personally am not.

[Rex Kickass]

So if our President chooses to imprison every arab because its a war on terror, that's ok because its any means necessary? What if he decides to wiretap on a possible Presidential candidate in 2008 because there might be suspicion that this person at one time may have had some communication with Osama Bin Laden - real or not. Since congress said "any means necessary" and he deems it necessary, I guess that would be OK too under your definition.

 

In this case the law provides the necessary means. You don't even have to get a warrant before you start wiretapping in National Security cases. You just have to go to the supersecret FISA court within 72 hours of starting to wiretap an individual.

 

It might be a pain in the ass, and mean some extra paperwork for some folks in the NSA, but in my opinion ensuring our rights, freedom and way of life is what this "war" on terror is all about. And doing a little extra paperwork to ensure it happens seems to be the right thing to do.

[FlaSoxxJim]

And YOU say he broke the law and many other scholars say he hasn't.  Take it all the way up and let's have a ruling.

I don't believe any constitutional scholar has opined that the flimsy argument of BushCo that S. J. RES. 23 granted the President any explicit or implied authority to bypass the FISA courts and order wiretaps of (presumed innocent) American civilians. If I missed some that have (I have been lloking), please link the arguments. At best, I've only seen a shaky argument that the office of the President inherently has this authority, but without a fomal Congressional War Declaration this also seems to be a flawed interpretation.

 

But, for now, forget what the scholars have to say and tell me how you can interpret the authority to order the wiretaps as deriving from this:

 

IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

 

So, first of all, it says "all necessary and appropriate force," which is not nearly the same as "all means necessary."

 

In fact, as SECTION 1 or the Resolution states,

 

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

 

The NSA is an arm of the military, but does electronic surveilance constitute use of force. Several of the Senators who drafted the Resolution do not believe it does, nor do they think that by passing the Resolution they were granting the power to bypass the courts in conducting surveilance.

 

Also, even this explaining clause does NOT allow that the President may use this force to make a determination that 'nations, organizations, or persons . . . planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks . . .' It only allows that he can use force against those entities once he has made that determination.

 

It's a shame that this whole thing is unlikely to ever see the light of day in a court as the secrecy of the program means the American citizens who were spied on will never know it and therefore will never know they have standing to bring suit. The only hope (unlikely I know) is that the Republican Congress will undertake the investigation with seriousness and not in a smoke and mirrors way that will allow them to circle the wagons and again protect BushCo.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

As long as Republicans are running Congress there will not be any meaningful investigation. They will be busy investigating who it was that leaked word of this classified program to the press and rightfully so.

[Rex Kickass]

This thread is just like the Episode of Good Times where the Evans get investigated by the FBI because Michael wrote to Cuba asking for some information to do a school project.

 

Except the Good Times show wasn't a pain in the ass to watch.

[kapkomet]

I really do wish it would get ran up and decided on by SCOTUS. All you supposed constitutional experts are killing me. Myself included.

[FlaSoxxJim]

As long as Republicans are running Congress there will not be any meaningful investigation.  They will be busy investigating who it was that leaked word of this classified program to the press and rightfully so.

The chief whistleblower/patriot has been identified as Russell Tice. Risin declined to identify him, but Tice copped to it on Nightline Tuesday.

[FlaSoxxJim]

This thread is just like the Episode of Good Times where the Evans get investigated by the FBI because Michael wrote to Cuba asking for some information to do a school project.

 

Except the Good Times show wasn't a pain in the ass to watch.

 

I call the part of Bookman the fat building superintendent.

Edited January 12, 2006 by FlaSoxxJim