NSA thing???

[Zuruck]

Suprised that this has not been discussed as of yet. My take, there is a legal way to use the intelligence act, you have to get get court approval, Bush circumvents that, now says they are only doing it to suspect people. I don't know about you, but I do not believe this administration has any kind of restraint. Seems like there was a legal way to do this, but Bush & Co has yet to prove they care anything about doing it the legal way.

[Will Robinson]

I think the latest acusation that Bush has broken the law is based on political motivation knowing that many ignorant people will just assume Bush has broken the law when in fact he hasn't.

Here's one of Clintons justice department heads on the subject: click me

excerpt:
"In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant."

[woodchip]

Also Zuruck, have you forgotten the terms "Echelon" and "Carnivore"? Programs that your love mate Clinton authorised the feds to use to read your email.

[Birdseye]

Also Zuruck, have you forgotten the terms "Echelon" and "Carnivore"? Programs that your love mate Clinton authorised the feds to use to read your email.

What Clinton did has no bearing on this issue. Next argument, woody.

On this issue it is of no concern to me what clinton or anyone else did, or if bush broke any laws.

I just think it's wrong. I am surprised that 'conservatives' are losing their roots as being distrustful of government. Allowing bush to do this taps is to trust the government -- something I can't do.

[Will Robinson]

I am surprised that 'conservatives' are losing their roots as being distrustful of government. Allowing bush to do this taps is to trust the government -- something I can't do.

The president has always been able to act like an emporer when the subject is a foreign threat so conservatives haven't changed, only your understanding of the scope of a U.S. President's powers has....

[woodchip]

Birdy, the burning question is why is Bush being singled out on this topic when his predessesors did the very same thing.

[Fusion pimp]

Bush is being singled out because he is the immediate threat. If not for the fact that the alternative would have been worse, I'd be ashamed to admit I voted him. These political lines are so blurred that I'm not even sure where I stand in my own party. Over the past couple of years, I guess I've become at peace with the fact that there really is no difference between the smoke and mirrors of the Republicrate party and the artful deception of the demopublicans.

[Zuruck]

Will, you furthered my point on your own, your post says foreign wiretaps without warrants. These were domestic, and he can do it LEGALLY but he chose not to. Sounds like he's thumbing his nose at the courts to me. Will, do you trust Bush when he says that all domestic taps have a foreign beginning or end? Has Bush proven to be trustworthy before?

[Will Robinson]

Will, you furthered my point on your own, your post says foreign wiretaps without warrants. These were domestic, and he can do it LEGALLY but he chose not to. Sounds like he's thumbing his nose at the courts to me. Will, do you trust Bush when he says that all domestic taps have a foreign beginning or end? Has Bush proven to be trustworthy before?

I think your point is unclear. You imply he has broken the law yet the courts clearly ruled that he can use these methods when the threat is from a foriegn source.

It doesn't say he can't use warrantless searches on calls that originate in the U.S., or calls between two people in the country. He may be saying that all the calls he has intercepted either came from, or were directed to, foriegn destinations, and that all the intercepts were acomplished outside of the country but the president actually has the constitutional authority to listen to anyones communication or search without warrant anyones property if the threat he's concerned with is in the realm of foriegn attack,espionage, terrorism etc.!

Clinton even went so far as to authorize the warrantless searches of ghetto housing project residents who were suspected of being involved in drug/gang crime!
So before you go off half cocked on Bush for listening in on any communications to or from the phone numbers harvested from a captured al Queda chiefs cell phone tell me about the rights of citizens threatened by Clintons interpretation of his powers when he authorized his wiretapping and warrantless searches in the 'hood!

Where was/is the outcry for his "spying on americans"? Apparantly it's ok to go warrantless in the hood to get info on gang bangers but al Queda cells in america need a higher level of protection from law enforcement?!? Heh!

[woodchip]

Further would Jamie Gorelik's name suprise you as being the one to say what Clinton did was A-OK?
Before you (Zuruck) get all indignant, our local radio station interviewed the House of Representatives Chairman of the intelligence committee and he stated that Bush regularly kept them appraised of the wire taps. Sounds to me that Bush was being above board on this issue.
Now, while we are at it, lets look at something else.
when Valorie Plames name surfaced, look at all the hullabaloo that was generated. How the Dems howled and cried foul. Yet who was damaged? No one.
Yet here we have a issue of the safety of american citizens being compromised and I have yet to read or hear anyone on the Dems side or the mainstream press calling for a special investigator. So just like the treasonish revealing that we were tracking OBL via cell phone, we are again put at risk by certain liberals who's lust to bring down Bush out weighs their concern for innocent american citizens being injured or killed.
If you wonder why I think the liberals in charge and their accomplises in the press are dirt bags of the lowest order, well now you have some insite. I await the prosecution of whomever released this info.

[Zuruck]

Will, you need to look at the law. The NSA has the power to wiretap anything overseas, but if it deals with an American citizen/business here at home, it must be court-approved. Furthermore, you guys like to try and defend Bush by saying that Clinton did it, well guess what, it's still wrong!

What if there is no foreign connections to these wiretaps? Would you actually be suprised? Bush & Co has not been the most honest of administrations, so what makes you think he's honest about the scope of these taps? I think this all, in the end, is proof that this country and society is not as free as it is thought. Now granted, we have more than most, but think about it, next time you call someone, they could be listening, next time you check out a book, they could be checking, don't live your life in fear, how can you not? The govt says everything changed on 9/11, the only thing that changed was the relationship between the people and the govt. They used to be a blurred entity, seemed like everything was smooth. Now they are so distant apart it seems as if the people are the enemy sometimes.

[Will Robinson]

Will, you need to look at the law. The NSA has the power to wiretap anything overseas, but if it deals with an American citizen/business here at home, it must be court-approved. Furthermore, you guys like to try and defend Bush by saying that Clinton did it, well guess what, it's still wrong!

No Zuruck read it again, because you have missed the substance of their message.
You need to look at the courts findings with the intention of learning something new instead of just looking for words that, when glossed over, seem to back up your preconcieved interpretation of the law.
In cases where they ruled on warrantless activity they specifically mentioned that when you get into the realm of presidential authority to order such activity their rulings do not apply to the presidents constitutional authority to order such activity 'when the threat is coming from a foriegn source'!

So although the default position of the court is to require an agency like the NSA or CIA or FBI to go through judicial approval they specifically say that their rulings do not supercede the recognized authority of the president to order such activity without a warrant.

Therefore he can authorize warrantless searches and doesn't need to use the court system if he doesn't want to....
He usually trys to do so to avoid the political fallout when he can but as he implied in this case, if he has to choose between letting people like you be told to think he's breaking the law or let al Queda cells continue to hide behind our civil rights protections then he will let people like you continue to be fooled so he can pursue the al Queda types in spite of your willingness to be ignorant.

Have you even considered what it means when you find out that the people he's authorized these taps for are people who's phone numbers were found on the cell phone of a captured al Queda leader, the one who was directly connected to coordinating the 9/11 attacks?

If your phone was called by his phone, or your phone used to call his phone, then you're on the list, and the fact that this has now been publicized has no doubt caused some people to realize that they are now suspects when before they thought they were unknown.

Aren't you glad that someone felt that giving this information to the democrats so they can have some political ammo to help rile up ignorant voters was more important than letting the NSA secretly monitor people in our country who are/were in contact with the 9/11 al queda crew?

PS: The reason I mention Clintons use of the same tactics is two fold.
One, because it shows that no one made a big deal about it when he was wiretapping druggies in the hood...hypocrisy, polical expediency etc....
Two, it shows that your assertion that things have changed is wrong.

[Phoenix Red]

The govt says everything changed on 9/11, the only thing that changed was the relationship between the people and the govt. They used to be a blurred entity, seemed like everything was smooth. Now they are so distant apart it seems as if the people are the enemy sometimes.

This is exactly why the Clinton comparison is relevant. Nothing changed except perspective. The "people" and the government haven't been a blurred entity EVER. America is going through a phase of recognising that.

However, a knee-jerk reaction needs to be avoided here. Sure it seems like you're suddenly losing what you thought you had, but you need to chill out and see if that's really a bad thing, all things considered. If my government wants to listen in on my phone conversations, I don't really care. They're doing it to stop people from making life worse/shorter for me, not to catch my ass in some petty violation.

[Zuruck]

Are you sure though Phoenix? Just like IPass here in Illinois is ONLY for speeding up tolls, no, they use it to time people's travel and can subpoena the records.

Letter argues Bush acted legally
Moschella maintained that Bush acted legally when he authorized the National Security Agency to go around the court to conduct electronic surveillance of international communications into and out of the United States by suspects tied to al-Qaida or its affiliates.

Moschella relied on a Sept. 18, 2001, congressional resolution, known as the Authorization to Use Military Force, as primary legal justification for Bush?s creation of a domestic spying program. He said Bush?s powers as commander-in-chief give the president ?the responsibility to protect the nation.?

The resolution ?clearly contemplates action within the United States,? Moschella wrote, and acknowledges Bush?s power to prevent terrorism against the United States.

Congress adopted the resolution in the chaotic days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, authorizing the president to wage war against al-Qaida and other terrorist groups that pose a threat to the United States.

Moschella said the president?s constitutional authority also includes power to order warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance inside the United States. He said that power has been affirmed by federal courts, including the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court. The FISA court was created in 1978 after public outcry over government spying on anti-war and civil rights protesters.

The administration deliberately bypassed the FISA court, which requires the government to provide evidence that a terrorism or espionage suspect is ?an agent of a foreign power.? The foreign intelligence law makes it a crime for anyone who ?intentionally intercepts? a communication without a warrant.

Moschella said Bush?s action was legal because the foreign intelligence law provides a ?broad? exception if the spying is authorized by another statute. In this case, he said, Congress? authorization provided such authority.

The resolution didn?t limit the president to going after al-Qaida only in Afghanistan, Moschella wrote.

No Fourth Amendment violation?
Moschella also maintained the NSA program is ?consistent? with the Fourth Amendment ? which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures ? and civil liberties.

For searches to be reasonable under law, a warrant is needed, Moschella said. But, outside criminal investigations, he said, the Supreme Court has created exceptions where warrants are not needed, finding that the ?reasonableness of a search? depends on ?the totality of the circumstances.?

?Foreign intelligence collection, especially in the midst of an armed conflict in which the adversary has already launched catastrophic attacks within the United States, fits squarely within the ?special needs? exception to the warrant requirement,? Moschella wrote.

?Intercepting communications into and out of the United States of persons linked to al-Qaida in order to detect and prevent a catastrophic attack is clearly reasonable.?


Interesting article, it's not explicity legal, yet, not explicitly illegal. Seems like Bush, with just about everything, enjoys pushing the envelope and seeing how far they can go.

On a side note, I absolutely love the wording that Bush & Co employs. Catastrophic attack, armed conflict, we aren't in this anymore with terrorists, only a small country the size of Texas.

[woodchip]

"On a side note, I absolutely love the wording that Bush & Co employs. Catastrophic attack, armed conflict, we aren't in this anymore with terrorists, only a small country the size of Texas."

Terrorism is not something that emminates from any one country nor from any particular country. We are slowly whittling down the countries that willingly sponser and give aid to terrorists. We do not know the extent of how many attacks against America have been stymied nor how many are brewing. I'm not prepared just yet to have our country go back to sleep as it was prior to 9/11.

[Will Robinson]

....
Interesting article, it's not explicity legal, yet, not explicitly illegal. Seems like Bush, with just about everything, enjoys pushing the envelope and seeing how far they can go.....

Interesting spin you have there. Every court that ever ruled on the subject specifically says he has the authority to act unencumbered by the laws covering warrants and searches, they refer to it as "the presidents inherent authority", an authority that has been in effect and used at least since President Truman yet you try to qualify it as something new...as something where Bush has decided to push the envelop.
Well there's a future for someone like you in the democrat national party machine that's for sure.

[Zuruck]

\"The administration deliberately bypassed the FISA court, which requires the government to provide evidence that a terrorism or espionage suspect is \"an agent of a foreign power\"


BTW, I have yet to defend Clinton, ever. Bush could take a dump on your face and you'd still love him. So, who's in the machine?

[Will Robinson]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051223/ap_ ... MlJVRPUCUl

"The administration deliberately bypassed the FISA court, which requires the government to provide evidence that a terrorism or espionage suspect is "an agent of a foreign power"


BTW, I have yet to defend Clinton, ever. Bush could take a dump on your face and you'd still love him. So, who's in the machine?

Zuruck, do you realize you are quoting Tom Daschles opinion and ignoring the rulings and specific findings of many U.S. court judges on the subject?!?!

Daschle the recently defeated in-large-part-directly-because-of-Bush's-personal-campaign-efforts- against-him ....ex- Democrat party leader Senator Daschel?!? You don't suppose he might have a slightly slanted view of this do you?!?

So I surrender to you that in Tom Daschels fantasy world Bush did not have authority to do this.

But back on topic.... I still maintain that on planet earth, withing the jurisdiction of the constitution of the United States of America, in reality, G.W. Bush is one of a couple of dozen presidents who did/does have the inherent authority to order warrantless searches to pursue foriegn threats to our country and he is not the first to do so!!!

[Zuruck]

A Guarantee President Bush Cannot Ignore: Our final word comes not from a mere pundit but from an informed source familiar with Bush's thinking: \"... 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. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.\"

The source: Bush, speaking in Buffalo, on April 20, 2004 _ more than two years after he had begun ordering wiretaps without a court order

Will, that law allows him to wiretap without court approval for 48 hours, then he has to get court approval. Next?

[Will Robinson]

Zuruck, you are really trying hard to miss the distinction I described to you, a distinction that is found in deliberations in congress and found in court rulings...

That distinction is:
Although generally speaking the government must follow the laws regarding warrants it is recognized that the president has inherent authority to order warrantless searches if the search is related to a foriegn threat...

You keep quoting the law that covers most instances of warrants and searches and FISA court rulings and you keep ignoring the other instances where the president has inherent authority to ignore all the legislation regarding warrants because the legislative body can not pass law that supercedes his inherant authority to execute his defense of the country.

Please address this specific distinction if you want to discuss it further....

[Zuruck]

Will,

I am addressing that specific distinction, the courts allow 48 hours of unauthorized taps. They don't allow a blanket approval of everything the president wants to do, that is called tyranny. 48 hours is what he has then he must seek court approval. The inherent powers that you speak of are there, but it's not unlimited time as Bush has made it to be.

[Will Robinson]

Will,

I am addressing that specific distinction, the courts allow 48 hours of unauthorized taps. They don't allow a blanket approval of everything the president wants to do, that is called tyranny. 48 hours is what he has then he must seek court approval. The inherent powers that you speak of are there, but it's not unlimited time as Bush has made it to be.

No Zuruck, if you think any legislation passed by congress at anytime, in the whole history of our government is allowed to supercede the presidents sole constitutional authority to dictate foriegn policy and/or stop the president from ordering a warrantless search in pursuit of a foriegn threat then you are wrong and have failed to recognize the distinction!
It's not a question of what the court will allow, it's a question of what the constitution authorizes the president to do and that authority supercedes the legislation written by congress not the other way around, and this distinction has been acknowledged by congress and recognized in the courts!!!

[Zuruck]

Will,

Breathe and open up your mind a little bit. What are we arguing about here? Spying on a foreign nation? No, the FISA Act and court is available to spy on Americans that may be engaged in illegal activity with a foreign entity. It is in THIS realm that these taps are involved, not the president's authority to conduct national security measures elsewhere.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/ ... 2&num=4648

Good article there. BTW, how much do you think the govt knows about your finances? I have to work with the Patriot Act every single day, the Bank Secrecy Act, and plenty others. If you think for a second, that your stuff is secure, trust me, it's not. Many of the files that we send to the various govt agencies that want them are done without any knowledge of the client. Think about that for awhile.

[Will Robinson]

Zuruck the inherent authority I'm speaking of empowers the president to order warrantless searches on american citizens in america if he deems it necessary so quit trying to muddy the waters with unrelated examples.

\"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.

also...

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.\"
Such warrantless searches have been at the center of a political fight in Washington after the New York Times reported Friday that the Bush administration had a program to intercept communications between al Qaeda suspects and persons in this country, a story whose publication coincided with the congressional debate over reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act.

And from the very court you seem to hold as the ultimate authority on the subject:

In a 2002 opinion about the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the USA Patriot Act, the court wrote: \"We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power.\"

So tell me again why I should believe you know what you're talking about?!?!

Also...

Indeed, previous administrations have used that same authority.
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.
In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.

So what we have there is the very FISA court you mention specifying that their jurisdiction does not restrict the president from ordering warrantless searches...we also have a previous president using warrantless searches on U.S. citizens in america and not even for foriegn threats...

Any more questions?

[Zuruck]

Yea, why don't you still get it? Bringing Clinton into this does nothing, he was as much a slimeball as Bush, not quite as secretive, but bad enough.

18. Does FISA authorize surveillance without a court order?
Yes. In general, the Justice Department may engage in electronic surveillance to collect FII without a court order for periods up to one year. 50 U.S.C. § 1802. There must be no \"substantial likelihood\" that the intercepted communications include those to which a U.S. person is a party. § 1802(a)(1)(B).

Such electronic surveillance must be certified by the Attorney General and then noticed to the Senate and House intelligence committees. § 1802(a)(2). A copy of the certification must be filed with the FISC, where it remains sealed unless (a) an application for a warrant with respect to it is filed, or (b) the legality of the surveillance is challenged in another federal district court under § 1806(f). § 1802(a)(3). Common carriers must assist in the surveillance and maintain its secrecy. § 1802(a)(4).

In emergencies, the Attorney General may authorize immediate surveillance but must \"as soon as practicable, but not more than twenty-four hours\" later, seek judicial review of the emergency application. § 1805(e).


That is the verbiage from the act itself. It's not any clearer than that...any more incredibly stupid questions? Why doesn't this bother you anyways? Isn't this contradictive of what the Republican party is always been about?

[Ferno]

bypassing the law on on wiretapping is wrong. period.

The law was written in such a way that no one person can say 'I don't care what the law says. I'm in power, so do it.'

The arguments supporting such decisons are absurd at best.

Just because you have a certain status, doesn't mean you can act as if you're above the law.

[Will Robinson]

Zuruck please tell me in your own words what the court that oversee's the FISA court meant when, in 2002, they delivered an opinion about the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the USA Patriot Act, and said:
\"We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power.\"

Go ahead make my day....what power and authority are they suggesting the FISA court can not encroach on?

[Will Robinson]

Just because you have a certain status, doesn't mean you can act as if you're above the law.

It's not acting above the law to execute a power and authority that the constitution protects for you!
It is acting above the law if you try to stop someone from executing authority that the constitution is protecting for them...

So it's not Bush who is acting above the law, it would be congress who was acting above the law if they tried to stop him from doing this.

Notice you don't see any courts or prosecutors or even democrat lawmakers trying to do that. Instead you only see democrat hacks complaining that Bush is breaking a law...they do it to stir up ignorant voters. If they thought for a minute they really had any legal means to prosecute Bush on this it would be in the works already...

[Ferno]

\"It's not acting above the law to execute a power and authority that the constitution protects for you!\"

Wiretapping is protected by the constitution? heh I find that VERY hard to believe.

and saying that 'democrat hacks' are the only people doing this? That's hubris.

seems to me those are the only ones with the balls to stand up and say that this is wrong.

Also, do you feel comfortable knowing you're being monitored will? even if it's just a random intercept?


What else is going to be deemed okay in this 'war on terror'?

[Will Robinson]

"It's not acting above the law to execute a power and authority that the constitution protects for you!"

Wiretapping is protected by the constitution? heh I find that VERY hard to believe.....

You are free to refuse believing anything you want but no matter how hard you try you will never alter reality!

It has been established by the courts, including the court that oversee's the FISA court itself...and it has been affirmed by congress on the floor of the legislature that the president does have this authority to order warrentless searches. These are facts not wishful thinking or the product of my refusing to believe otherwise...

So combine the courts interpretation with the supporting assertions by congress together with the specified constitutional authority of the president to conduct foriegn policy unencumbered by congress and I think it's safe to say that any legal challenge to the president on this issue would be thrown out before it ever reached the supreme court as an unconstitutional attempt to usurp the presidents authority. That's what we call "protected by the constitution"!

So just like you can't find the part that literally describes a womans right to abort a fetus in the constitution, you will never find the 'wire tapping clause' literally described in the constitution...but that doesn't mean it's not there!

[Ferno]

so you have no problem with the president doing anything he wants, huh.

\"So just like you can't find the part that literally describes a womans right to abort a fetus in the constitution....\"

completely irrelevant.

[Zuruck]

Well, I'm not continuing this debate with you will. You're a complete moron and the perfect example of why this country is going down the tubes. You've forgotten that being an American meant you got a little bit more...you are fine with the status quo. Oh well. My suggestion? Go back to your scared life where you think you need to carry a gun everywhere in North Carolina, go wait for the apocalypse.

[Will Robinson]

so you have no problem with the president doing anything he wants, huh.

I never made that claim, I only said that he has the authority to do this in the pursuit of foriegn threats. Why do you need to misrepresent my position before you can offer a rebuttal? Is it because you can't counter my actual position?

"So just like you can't find the part that literally describes a womans right to abort a fetus in the constitution...."

completely irrelevant.

No not irrelevant. Completely relevant. You said you 'find it VERY hard to believe that the presidents warrentless wiretaps were protected by the constitution' and I gave you the background in congress and the courts that support my claim that it is in fact an authority protected for the president to do such a thing and I showed you by example how there are things not specifically mentioned in the constitution that are protected....

Obviously you don't like it but it's true, the president has the constitutional authority to pursue foriegn threats using methods that would not be allowed in purely domestic realms of law enforcement. It's been that way since the first congress and there are many documented instances of the congress supporting such authority dating all the way back to the days of George Washington!

[Will Robinson]

Well, I'm not continuing this debate with you will. You're a complete moron and the perfect example of why this country is going down the tubes. You've forgotten that being an American meant you got a little bit more...you are fine with the status quo. Oh well. My suggestion? Go back to your scared life where you think you need to carry a gun everywhere in North Carolina, go wait for the apocalypse.

Of course you're not continuing the debate because you were losing from day one and things only got worse for you from there! So you end it by calling me names, hurling insults, typical.

Just so you know, I live in South Carolina and rarely carry a gun, but when I do it's legal and I do so by a right also protected for me under the constitution.

As to the apocalypse, I'm not buying it, too much like a fairy tale, but I do fear the day when enough people like you are led by the nose to the voting booth, stirred up by the same kind of dishonest rhetoric that you've failed to substantiate here in this debate, and you all vote for the pimps who have been spoon feeding you these bull★■◆● arguments that you so whole heartedly believe even though you haven't given one minute of honest evaluation to them. That to me would be the apocalypse.

One thing is certain now though Zuruck, you can't use ignorance as an excuse on this topic. If you continue to believe the bull★■◆● after being exposed to so much evidence to the contrary you will have to fess up to just being willfully stupid.

[Ferno]

no. I said that I find it very hard to believe that the constitution grants a president the ability to arbitrarily wiretap whoever he wants.

Also, bringing up abortion is a red herring buddy.

and just how many wiretap warrants were denied by FISA? Five. yes, FIVE. out of how many? 19,000.


And the rest of your statement? heh yea right. I'm not that stupid.

Vice President Cheney said the president \"was granted authority by the Congress to use all means necessary to take on the terrorists, and that's what we've done.\"

Look familiar?

In the face of mounting questions about news stories saying that President Bush approved a program to wiretap American citizens without getting warrants, the White House argues that Congress granted it authority for such surveillance in the 2001 legislation authorizing the use of force against al Qaeda. On Tuesday, Vice President Cheney said the president \"was granted authority by the Congress to use all means necessary to take on the terrorists, and that's what we've done.\"

As Senate majority leader at the time, I helped negotiate that law with the White House counsel's office over two harried days. I can state categorically that the subject of warrantless wiretaps of American citizens never came up. I did not and never would have supported giving authority to the president for such wiretaps. I am also confident that the 98 senators who voted in favor of authorization of force against al Qaeda did not believe that they were also voting for warrantless domestic surveillance.


On the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, the White House proposed that Congress authorize the use of military force to \"deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States.\" Believing the scope of this language was too broad and ill defined, Congress chose instead, on Sept. 14, to authorize \"all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed or aided\" the attacks of Sept. 11. With this language, Congress denied the president the more expansive authority he sought and insisted that his authority be used specifically against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Just before the Senate acted on this compromise resolution, the White House sought one last change. 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. 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.

The shock and rage we all felt in the hours after the attack were still fresh. America was reeling from the first attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor. We suspected thousands had been killed, and many who worked in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were not yet accounted for. Even so, a strong bipartisan majority could not agree to the administration's request for an unprecedented grant of

authority.

The Bush administration now argues those powers were inherently contained in the resolution adopted by Congress -- but at the time, the administration clearly felt they weren't or it wouldn't have tried to insert the additional language.

All Americans agree that keeping our nation safe from terrorists demands aggressive and innovative tactics. This unity was reflected in the near-unanimous support for the original resolution and the Patriot Act in those harrowing days after Sept. 11. But there are right and wrong ways to defeat terrorists, and that is a distinction this administration has never seemed to accept.

[Ferno]

Instead of employing tactics that preserve Americans' freedoms and inspire the faith and confidence of the American people, the White House seems to have chosen methods that can only breed fear and suspicion.

If the stories in the media over the past week are accurate, the president has exercised authority that I do not believe is granted to him in the Constitution, and that I know is not granted to him in the law that I helped negotiate with his counsel and that Congress approved in the days after Sept. 11. For that reason, the president should explain the specific legal justification for his authorization of these actions, Congress should fully investigate these actions and the president's justification for them, and the administration should cooperate fully with that investigation.

In the meantime, if the president believes the current legal architecture of our country is insufficient for the fight against terrorism, he should propose changes to our laws in the light of day.

That is how a great democracy operates. And that is how this great democracy will defeat

terrorism.

I had to do two posts due to a major bug. The three quoted parts make up one story

[Will Robinson]

I never said he has the authority to wiretap anyone he wants \"arbitrarily\"..I said he can do that if it's in the pursuit of a foriegn threat. So yes, \"arbitrarily\" within the confines of the scope of a foriegn threat if you want to call that arbitrary....

And as far as the war powers act, that may well cover him also despite the obvious partisan interpretation delivered by the democrat spokesmen but regardless of that, the constitutionality of his ordering warrentless searches/wiretaps is not at all addressed or refuted by all that you posted!
The war powers act is a different angle that I never mentioned.

Maybe the congress did and maybe the congress didn't give him the authority by casting that vote but regardless of that possibility, if the president has an inherent authority, as has been supported by congress numerous times, and even Clinton justice department officials have said Bush was within that authority in this case.... and even Carter justice department officials, the ones who drafted the the damn FISA court law in the first place, have specifically said that the FISA laws do not supercede the presidents inherent authority...well obviously with those facts in mind the red herring is all the extraneous points you keep raising as a way to avoid addressing the glaring fact that the president does have the inherent authority to order warrentless searches regardless of how the FISA court would come into play if it wasn't ordered by the president!!!
No one else in the administration can sidestep the FISA court rules, not the FBI, not the NSA, no one except the president himself can.
It's been specifically stated by the court that oversee's the FISA court as recently as 2002!
So pardon me if I take their interpretation as gospel and ignore Tom Daschle and any other partisan hack you may want to quote....

[Ferno]

exactly how much effort does the president have to expend getting a warrant from FISA? From what I understand, not much.

so why bypass it? Most likely because the reasons are a pile of crap.

\" So pardon me if I take their interpretation as gospel and ignore Tom Daschle and any other partisan hack you may want to quote....\"

see that's your problem. you seem to not want to even consider anything other than from the select few people you think are trustworthy.

Please, can you stop being a presidential lap-dog and open your eyes?

[Will Robinson]

I'm not taking the word of a few people...as in the way you are taking the interpretation of a few people like Tom Daschle who obviously has a partisan angle to his message.
I'm taking the word of the actual authority on the subject! The court that oversee's the FISA court. They are the ones who determined that the FISA statutes do not supercede the presidents inherent authority...(their words not mine)

Then I took the authors of the FISA law, Jimmy Carters justice department when they asked congress for the law to be passed they specifically stated in their request that they are in no way suggesting that these new FISA laws would usurp the presidents inherent authority...
(their words not mine)

Then I took a recent democrat justice department deputy attorney generals opinion, obviously not pro republican, who also said specifically that Bush was well within his inherent authority to order warrentless searches and he gave examples of how his boss, President Clinton had done the same thing and it wasn't even for foriegn threat purposes!

And that's not even all the sources I've sited!!

So tell me, what case history, what courts, what statements from the congressional record, what past administrations do you site as your source for your opposing position?

[Ferno]

I never said the article was written by \"Tom Daschle\".

yet, you assumed it was by him. or I should say by a 'democratic partisian hack' as you put it.

no one's asking anyone to 'usurp' the \"president's authority\", they're angry because he didn't go through the proper channels.

Also, you never really did address any of my points. So why should I address yours?


The law is the law, pal.

Also, you can find similar stories to what i've pasted on the new york times, united press international, Alternet, MSNBC, and washington post. (in no particular order)


I found this story just today (sat dec 31) http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051230.html

In short: the president should be impeached because of this.