Defiant Bush admits breaking law

[Balta1701]

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.

Not in the least. Gorelick's testimony covered only those searches which were not dealt with under the original FISA. Go read the Testimony...there's links at the page there. The searches she was discussing were done before the law was changed.

 

In the National Review, Byron York has an article called “Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches.” In it, he cites then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick’s July 14, 1994 testimony where she argues “the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes.” (This afternoon, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) quoted her testimony on the Senate floor.)

 

Here is what York obscures: at the time of Gorelick’s testimony, physical searches weren’t covered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). It’s not surprising that, in 1994, Gorelick argued that physical searches weren’t covered by FISA. They weren’t. With Clinton’s backing, the law was amended in 1995 to include physical searches.

 

York claims that, after the law was amended, “the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.” That’s false. Neither Gorelick or the Clinton administration ever argued that president’s inherent “authority” allowed him to ignore FISA. (We’ve posted the full text of Gorelick’s testimony here).

 

The Clinton administration viewed FISA, a criminal statute, as the law. The Bush administration viewed it as a recommendations they could ignore. That’s the difference.

[FlaSoxxJim]

There were foreign operatives on the other end of the intercepts.  Not one of these, at least my understanding, was 100% domestic.

 

If this statement is in reference to the current Bush affair it is incorrect. There were intercepts of purely domestic communications. although they are for the moment presumed to be accidental.

 

Spying Program Snared U.S. Calls

By JAMES RISEN and ERIC LICHTBLAU

Published: December 21, 2005

 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 - A surveillance program approved by President Bush to conduct eavesdropping without warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases, despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil, officials say.

 

The officials say the National Security Agency's interception of a small number of communications between people within the United States was apparently accidental, and was caused by technical glitches at the National Security Agency in determining whether a communication was in fact "international."

 

http://nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics/21n...artner=homepage

[kapkomet]

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.

Get ready...

 

I pretty much agree with this.

 

This is not an easy issue. But my points are that the law allows certain things to take place, and all presidents bend it to fit the needs of the day. This case is no different. Whether Clinton, Carter, Bush I, or Bush II has done it, I don't like it. Let's find out what the right way to do this is, and get it done. I do, however, think the bashing of Bush for taking something out of the law that he really believes is the right thing to do, and admitting it, with that as a pretext, the "IMPEACH HIM" cries need to go the hell away.

[kapkomet]

Not in the least. Gorelick's testimony covered only those searches which were not dealt with under the original FISA.  Go read the Testimony...there's links at the page there.  The searches she was discussing were done before the law was changed.

OF COURSE this is different. Bulls***.

 

The intent is the exact same damn thing. And if one is illegal, the other one is as well. Clinton used this WITHOUT A WARRANT to get this man. Period. He did it by his "inherent powers granted by the Constitution". How can this ignore FISA? Because it wasn't relevant in this case. But the intent is the same. Gain evidence without a warrant on a subject (a US Citizen!) that is aiding an enemy of the United States.

[Balance]

Get ready...

 

I pretty much agree with this.   

 

This is not an easy issue.  But my points are that the law allows certain things to take place, and all presidents bend it to fit the needs of the day.  This case is no different.  Whether Clinton, Carter, Bush I, or Bush II has done it, I don't like it.  Let's find out what the right way to do this is, and get it done.  I do, however, think the bashing of Bush for taking something out of the law that he really believes is the right thing to do, and admitting it, with that as a pretext, the "IMPEACH HIM" cries need to go the hell away.

Be honest- did you support the calls for Clinton's impeachment?

[kapkomet]

Be honest- did you support the calls for Clinton's impeachment?

I did, actually, but NOT on the charges he was brought up on. I think he did far more serious things in office, but the one that stuck was lying about the "devil with the blue dress on..." which was VERY unfortunate. (nice song tie in...)

[Balance]

I did, actually, but NOT on the charges he was brought up on.  I think he did far more serious things in office, but the one that stuck was lying about the "devil with the blue dress on..." which was VERY unfortunate. (nice song tie in...)

So I think you can relate, then, to those of us who believe that Dubya has done some "far more serious things in office" which might, just might, be impeachable offenses.

 

There's evidence, some of it circumstantial, some of it from Dubya's own admissions, that he broke the law and violated the Constitution, which he swore an oath to uphold. I don't think it's fair to simply dismiss it, to refuse to investigate it, and to accuse the people who are calling for an investigation (which, I might add, stops far short of impeachment) of partisanship or supporting the enemies of the United States.

 

EDIT: I don't mean that you're calling people traitors, I mean that's what the Right Wing Spin Machine is doing.

Edited December 22, 2005 by Balance

[Balta1701]

OF COURSE this is different.  Bulls***.

 

The intent is the exact same damn thing.  And if one is illegal, the other one is as well.  Clinton used this WITHOUT A WARRANT to get this man.  Period.  He did it by his "inherent powers granted by the Constitution".  How can this ignore FISA?  Because it wasn't relevant in this case.  But the intent is the same.  Gain evidence without a warrant on a subject (a US Citizen!) that is aiding an enemy of the United States.

Yes, but you're totally ignoring the single most relevant point...the law of the United States has changed since this happened. At the time, there was no statute covering teh exact behavior Clinton did. There is now. There is also a statute that covers GWB's exact behavior. Bill Clinton did that search when there was no statute, and he later signed into law a bill which made that exact act illegal.

 

George W. Bush's act was in direct defiance of an extant statute. Bill Clinton's act was not covered by any statute at the time. It is now. Right now, it would be just as illegal for Clinton to order that search as Bush's executive orders were.

[kapkomet]

Yes, but you're totally ignoring the single most relevant point...the law of the United States has changed since this happened.  At the time, there was no statute covering teh exact behavior Clinton did.  There is now.  There is also a statute that covers GWB's exact behavior.  Bill Clinton did that search when there was no statute, and he later signed into law a bill which made that exact act illegal.

 

George W. Bush's act was in direct defiance of an extant statute.  Bill Clinton's act was not covered by any statute at the time.  It is now.  Right now, it would be just as illegal for Clinton to order that search as Bush's executive orders were.

Well, therein lies the problem, because the legal teams for Bush, including the AG, thinks that there is legal justification. And Bush came right out and said, "yep, we've done this"... if he didn't think they could, they would have lied their asses off to cover it up, or said "no comment"... neither of which happened.

 

The bottom line is was it illegal? No one here can answer that. And the sooner this gets vetted, the sooner we can correct the actions, one way or the other.

[Balance]

The bottom line is was it illegal?  No one here can answer that.  And the sooner this gets vetted, the sooner we can correct the actions, one way or the other.

And if it's illegal, don't we have to at least consider impeachment?

 

After all, if what Dubya did was illegal, it would seem that it violated his oath to uphold the Constitution, right? Or that it's a "high crime [or] misdemeanor?"

[kapkomet]

And if it's illegal, don't we have to at least consider impeachment?

 

After all, if what Dubya did was illegal, it would seem that it violated his oath to uphold the Constitution, right?  Or that it's a "high crime [or] misdemeanor?"

ABSOLUTELY! HANG HIS ASS! TREASONOUS BASTARD!

 

If he thought this were illegal, they would be hiding larger then life. That tells me, somewhere along the line, they're 100% sure it's not.

[southsideirish71]

And if it's illegal, don't we have to at least consider impeachment?

 

After all, if what Dubya did was illegal, it would seem that it violated his oath to uphold the Constitution, right?  Or that it's a "high crime [or] misdemeanor?"

 

 

The liberal witch hunt continues for another day.

 

 

I guess if you cant vote him out, you can hope for this.

 

I would suggest that if a president irritates you so much, organize a bit better and actually get out a vote. If half the MTV Rock the Vote crap was true you would of had enough of the vote. But I guess talk is cheap, so you need to work on option B. Maybe Michael Moore can do another documentary, or maybe when Ramsey Clark is done with the enemy he can come back and start this crap up.

 

And its also good that Conyers has been practicing for option B now for a few years. Talk about obsessed.

 

Antiwar group starts a impeach bush now "Started by Terrorist defender Ramsey Clark"

Conyers so hung up on this, holds mock Impeachment Hearings since 2003

And now this. Give it up.

[Balance]

SouthSide- See Post 157.

 

[kapkomet]

SouthSide- See Post 157.

 

And the thing is, you really believe this "Nazi" s***, don't you? Just like you believe Ann Coulter was serious with her comments. It's ABSOLUTELY why this country can never find a common ground, and it's beyond f***ed up.

[Mercy!]

The liberal witch hunt continues for another day.....

For you and everyone who really believes this - how wide an intellectual net are you casting on this subject? Many conservative civil libertarians are appalled.

 

Here's one place you might start, that bastion of Communism, the Wall Street Journal:

 

Wiretap Furor Widens Republican Divide

[Balta1701]

For you and everyone who really believes this - how wide an intellectual net are you casting on this subject?  Many conservative civil libertarians are appalled.

 

Here's one place you might start, that bastion of Communism, the Wall Street Journal:

 

Wiretap Furor Widens Republican Divide

Hey, according to that study which found Drudge to be a centrist, the Wall Street Journal is the most left wing national paper in the U.S.

 

Oh heck, just saw these, have to use one for the heck of it.

 

[kapkomet]

For you and everyone who really believes this - how wide an intellectual net are you casting on this subject?  Many conservative civil libertarians are appalled.

 

Here's one place you might start, that bastion of Communism, the Wall Street Journal:

 

Wiretap Furor Widens Republican Divide

For my part, I do think there is a serious issue here. But, I can't figure out why they are so open about it.

[Mercy!]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I find that mildly disturbing. What's he doing with his mouth? Please, make it stop.

[Balta1701]

For my part, I do think there is a serious issue here.  But, I can't figure out why they are so open about it.

My best guess remains that they're attempting to set a precedent about how widely the President's authority can be applied in this case.

 

Think about this...there is nothing at all in the Afghan war resolution which specifically authorizes the President to do these wiretaps...nothing by name at least. Here are the words they've tried to use to justify that program:

 

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.

If the President can find a legal way to apply that statute to this matter, and have either Congress or a court of law agree with him, then there's basically no limit as to the President's power in any matter which could be remotely tied to the war on terror. If you're like Dick Cheney and actually believe that the President is unrestrained during wartime by the U.S. laws, then that's an incredibly useful and powerful precedent to set.

 

The only other thing I can come up with as a possible explanation given that it really does seem to be a blatant violation of the law is that the Republicans are hoping they can use it against the Democrats in 2006 the same way they used the DHS in 2002 - to try to portray the Democrats as weak on the war, when that's hardly the issue at hand at all.

[kapkomet]

My best guess remains that they're attempting to set a precedent about how widely the President's authority can be applied in this case.

 

Think about this...there is nothing at all in the Afghan war resolution which specifically authorizes the President to do these wiretaps...nothing by name at least.  Here are the words they've tried to use to justify that program:

 

If the President can find a legal way to apply that statute to this matter, and have either Congress or a court of law agree with him, then there's basically no limit as to the President's power in any matter which could be remotely tied to the war on terror.  If you're like Dick Cheney and actually believe that the President is unrestrained during wartime by the U.S. laws, then that's an incredibly useful and powerful precedent to set.

 

The only other thing I can come up with as a possible explanation given that it really does seem to be a blatant violation of the law is that the Republicans are hoping they can use it against the Democrats in 2006 the same way they used the DHS in 2002 - to try to portray the Democrats as weak on the war, when that's hardly the issue at hand at all.

 

No, it's not that kind of an issue... but running around calling for "impeachment" makes it sound that way.

 

The Democrat's problem on this issue is that the President is being TOO OPEN about it. And that's just plain weird.

 

I need to get out of here... you do raise some good points with this post. There's more to this yet to come, because they are "beaming" about this program. It's going to have to come out that we stopped something 100% dead in its tracks for this to have that much justification.

[Balta1701]

No, it's not that kind of an issue... but running around calling for "impeachment" makes it sound that way.

 

The Democrat's problem on this issue is that the President is being TOO OPEN about it.  And that's just plain weird.

 

I need to get out of here... you do raise some good points with this post.  There's more to this yet to come, because they are "beaming" about this program.  It's going to have to come out that we stopped something 100% dead in its tracks for this to have that much justification.

Well, they have claimed that it helped stop a "plot" to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge using blowtorches.

 

(I'm going to wager 3 to 1 that the guy who was plotting that was referring to it as Project Vulcan and always uses air quotes when saying the word laser)

[LowerCaseRepublican]

http://www.bushflash.com/wmf/Countdown-Spying.wmv

 

Better living through domestic spying.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Here is the long and short of it regarding the "openness" in all of this that Kap keeps talking about.

 

What else can they do? The NYT authors knew about this. And knew it was a serious matter if the White House asked them to sit in it for 13 months and again tried to make them kill the story a couple weeks ago. Boxer and Rockafeller (sp?) are documented as knowing about it and there are written documents from them to that effect. A handful of other Congressmen have been briefed in a token mattter on it. It is obviously beyond the point of deniability.

 

If that is the case, the only strategy is to come out with it and stand behind it as iff you thought you had the legal authority to do whhat you did. And that is what they are doing. And they are not scrambling and trying to figure out a strategy at this stage. They were aware this was coming out and they knew this strategy is their best bet.

 

Hopefully alll of the smoke and mirrors are not going to amount to anything here, however. The 'any reasonabel and necessary force' clause, or whatever the exact wording in the post 9-11 Congressional authorization was, is a "whereas clause" and not a "resolving clause." Such clauses are typically used as tablesetters or clarifiers but are almost never found to be legally binding when they ere scrutinized by the courts.

 

The fact that I have yet to see any Congressperson agree that their authorization to use appropriate and necessary force (I think that is the wording) included authority to circumvent the FISA courts and overstep the Constitution suggests the administration is going to be on shaky ground.

 

Also, what I think is going to be important in countering Cheney's argument asserting unlimited wartime presidential authority is the fact that there never was a formal declaration of war, re the Invasion of Afghanistan. there was a Congressional authorization of tthe use of force but no formal war declaration, so I believe an argument in support of unchecked presidental power will be difficult to sustain.

 

Finally, nobody will be able to argue that telling a handful of Congresspersons what they were doing, giving them no capacity for advise and consent, and not even responding to formal notifications as to serious misgivings about the program constitutes meaningful ovversight. See yesterday's Bizzaro World press runaround with Scotty Mac for a glimpse of just how much the administration is missing the mark on what is defined by statute as oversight.

 

OK, that's it for the rational content of this post. The rest is a partial laundry list of hurdles the administration is going to have to overcome in defending its actions and in rallying support from its footsoldiers.

 

A couple of years' worth of GWB and Abu Gonzalez assurinng both Congress and the public that domestic spying always always ALWAYS requires court approval, even as they were secretly carrying out the NSA activities without court knowledge or consent isn't going to help them. Nor is the now common knowledge that Ashcroft had previoussly bbeen rebuked by the FISA courts for bulls***ting his way through warrant requests or failing to share intel on more than 75 occassions. I truly wonder if concerns about this stuff hitting the fan help[ed Ashcroft in his decision to bail out before a second term.

 

The Alito confirmation hearings all of a sudden have a new dimension, as he is now going to be asked specifically about his opinions on Presidential authority and Congressional oversight. And hopefully some moderate Republicans who might want to vote no on him over abortion but fear voter backlash can find better justification in voting no if he doesn't come out a firmly against and disgusted by the NSA spying program.

 

If Rove (and possibly Hadley) can be neutralized as the primary fallout from Plamapalooza before the Spygate investigations take off then then the Admministtration is already going to be gasping. Depending on how many GOP lawmakers are brought down by Abramoff, there's also going to be a lot of Congressional disarray as well, and hopefully the Republicans will lack either the will or the strength to circle the wagons around the president.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I need to add one oher critical point that would, in a rational universe, bring the war-making authority argument crasing down around Bush's ears. Today's (Friday - damn it's late) WaPo has an important piece in which Daschle reveals that Bush requested AND WAS DENIED by Congress war-making authority "in the United States" immediately after 9-11.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5122202119.html

 

So if Congress refused to explicitly to grant such authority even as they were drafting the 9/18 use of force authorization, how can BushCo. logically argue such authority is implicit in that resolution?

 

This is critically important, especilly for Kap and anybody else who still contends that Bush thought what he was asking NSA to do was implicitly authorized:

 

As drafted, and as finally passed, the resolution authorized the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons" who "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the Sept. 11 attacks.

 

"Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words 'in the United States and' after 'appropriate force' in the agreed-upon text," Daschle wrote. "This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused."

 

Daschle wrote that Congress also rejected draft language from the White House that would have authorized the use of force to "deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States," not only against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.

 

Republican legislators involved in the negotiations could not be reached for comment last night.

 

We know what Bush wanted to be able to do and we know that he went ahead and did it. Now we know that there was no misunderstanding as to what autthority Congress had granted, because they flatly denied him wartime authority in the US in the same session 9/18 session in which the Afghan resolution was passed.

 

How much more spelled out does this need to be? Bush asked for this specific power and was denied this by Congress – which is the ONLY PLACE such authorization can come from. He then knowingly went ahead and approved the NSA surveilances without FISA warrants and in excess of the authority specifically granted by Congress.

[kapkomet]

However, you have to ask yourself the basic question - does CONGRESS even have the authority to grant this anyway?

 

And - I'm no Constitutional lawyer, but under the 4th amendment, it's presumed that a person hasn't given up the rights granted therein. In this case, I would argue that said persons involved in (potential) illegal activity have given up the rights covered in the 4th amendment anyway.

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

So, why is it that the FBI can take my bank s*** anytime they want without a warrant? Because I've given up my rights, by giving my information to a third party. I think the same argument can be made on these phone calls. They've already been (at least suggested that they are) involved in activity that warrants (pardon the word) monitoring. We'll see how the arguments take shape.

 

And a last thought.

 

Federalist 70: (partial)

 

But quitting the dim light of historical research, attaching ourselves purely to the dictates of reason and good sense, we shall discover much greater cause to reject than to approve the idea of plurality in the Executive, under any modification whatever.

 

Wherever two or more persons are engaged in any common enterprise or pursuit, there is always danger of difference of opinion. If it be a public trust or office, in which they are clothed with equal dignity and authority, there is peculiar danger of personal emulation and even animosity. From either, and especially from all these causes, the most bitter dissensions are apt to spring. Whenever these happen, they lessen the respectability, weaken the authority, and distract the plans and operation of those whom they divide. If they should unfortunately assail the supreme executive magistracy of a country, consisting of a plurality of persons, they might impede or frustrate the most important measures of the government, in the most critical emergencies of the state. And what is still worse, they might split the community into the most violent and irreconcilable factions, adhering differently to the different individuals who composed the magistracy.

 

Men often oppose a thing, merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike. But if they have been consulted, and have happened to disapprove, opposition then becomes, in their estimation, an indispensable duty of self-love. They seem to think themselves bound in honor, and by all the motives of personal infallibility, to defeat the success of what has been resolved upon contrary to their sentiments. Men of upright, benevolent tempers have too many opportunities of remarking, with horror, to what desperate lengths this disposition is sometimes carried, and how often the great interests of society are sacrificed to the vanity, to the conceit, and to the obstinacy of individuals, who have credit enough to make their passions and their caprices interesting to mankind. Perhaps the question now before the public may, in its consequences, afford melancholy proofs of the effects of this despicable frailty, or rather detestable vice, in the human character.

 

Upon the principles of a free government, inconveniences from the source just mentioned must necessarily be submitted to in the formation of the legislature; but it is unnecessary, and therefore unwise, to introduce them into the constitution of the Executive. It is here too that they may be most pernicious. In the legislature, promptitude of decision is oftener an evil than a benefit. The differences of opinion, and the jarrings of parties in that department of the government, though they may sometimes obstruct salutary plans, yet often promote deliberation and circumspection, and serve to check excesses in the majority. When a resolution too is once taken, the opposition must be at an end. That resolution is a law, and resistance to it punishable. But no favorable circumstances palliate or atone for the disadvantages of dissension in the executive department. Here, they are pure and unmixed. There is no point at which they cease to operate. They serve to embarrass and weaken the execution of the plan or measure to which they relate, from the first step to the final conclusion of it. They constantly counteract those qualities in the Executive which are the most necessary ingredients in its composition, vigor and expedition, and this without any counterbalancing good. In the conduct of war, in which the energy of the Executive is the bulwark of the national security, every thing would be to be apprehended from its plurality.

 

 

Isn't this an interesting snippet? It's like these guys actually thought about stuff like this. Let's quit parsing words about the formal "declaration of war" - the president was indeed granted "by all means necessary".

 

My point about all this is - you people are looking for a magical bullet to bring Bush down. That's why you're so passionate about it. WE FINALLY GOT THIS ASSHOLE is the mantra I see coming from Libs. They are all too gleeful in this endeavor.

 

I think that I'm uncomfortable with the eavesdropping - but I also think that 99.99999999999% of American's rights are NOT being eroded. This is a call of sensationalism about "MY RIGHTS" when it has nothing to do with "MY RIGHTS". It has to do with some assholes IN OUR COUNTRY plotting terrorist activities. I think that Congress doesn't have to grant explicit authority on these issues. I also think that the Federalist papers (boy I'm glad I remembered this from government classes) sort of highlight some of these thoughts. It's not 100%, no, but it sure seems to me that once you've crossed the line and given opportunity to third parties - you've lost your rights granted under the 4th amendment.