Reagan Justice Department veteran Bruce Fein:
By on Feb 6th, 2006 at 7:53 am
Reagan Justice Department veteran Bruce Fein:
“[I]f the president is unwilling to delineate anything that is out of bounds no matter what Congress says, you are establishing a principle of ‘trust me’ as a measure of our civil liberties – and at that point you do have to start talking about impeachment.â€
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
I want to see the trials of the people arrested in the Domestic Spying program.
February 6th, 2006 at 8:00 amOnce again, Bruce Fein did not read the War resolution, which gives Bush the power to do anything necessary to stop terrorism.
February 6th, 2006 at 8:08 amUGGGGGGGH
I don’t wanna subscribe.
I just want to read the article.
Anyone have a lead to an alternate?
February 6th, 2006 at 8:17 amActually the war resolution gave the president the authority to use any force necessary to go after those that attacked us on 9-11-01. That is not the same thing as saying he has “the power to do anything necessary to stop terrorism.” Not all terrorists were involved with the attacks of 9-11-01. The ones that were not, therefore, are not covered by the war resolution.
And even if that was what Congress “authorized”, such authorization would not be allowed to supercede our Constitutional rights against warrantless searches, so again the president does not have the authority he claims.
And the Article II powers giving the president the authority as “Commander-in-Chief” over the armed forces is just that: authority over the armed forces, not everyday citizens.
February 6th, 2006 at 8:22 amLet me break the authorization down for you all.
How is Bush authorized to do all this?
“President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force”
Who is Bush authorized to act 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”
Why is he authorized to act?
“in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons”
Is it force if he prevents future acts of terrorism? Yes it is.
Is all of Al Qaeda covered here? definately.
As well, there is nothing in the 4th Amendment that has prohibited actions such as the Terrorist Surveilence Program.
February 6th, 2006 at 8:33 amGary,
February 6th, 2006 at 8:40 amIt’s disturbing that you have 100% trust in the actions of your leaders. Even more disturbing that you come here and talk about it constantly. Just don’t forget we all care about the security of America. And when you’re critical of our patriotism it makes you look like a subversive.
#5 You just proved my point.
Not all terrorist organizations were part of “those nations, organizations, or persons†who “planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept 11, 2001†or that “harbored such organizations or persons.†And since he is only authorized to act “to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or personsâ€, this resolution would not give him authority to act against groups such as Hamas, Shining Path, or the Irish Republican Army, since those groups had nothing to do with the attacks of 9-11-01.
Also, it is not “necessary†to spy on domestic groups unrelated to al Qaeda such as anti-war Quakers (which did happen) in order to go after those that attacked us on 9-11-01. If you want to live under tyranny, then I suggest you go live in Saudi Arabia.
February 6th, 2006 at 8:44 amBush wasn’t acting against misc. terrorist groups, he was monitoring Al-Qaeda terrorists in this nation.
February 6th, 2006 at 8:50 amThe link to FT (and I’m a subscriber) is no good. Has the story been scrubbed from the site? Does anyone have a link to a copy?
February 6th, 2006 at 8:53 amGary
A few things to ponder:
1) IF the president was granted to use all necessary force, then why do we need the Patriot Act?
2) IF the president is monitoring the “Al-Qaeda terrorists in this nation” then this presupposes that they ARE terrorists already and that the NSA knows who and where they are.
Somehow, I just don’t get your logic.
February 6th, 2006 at 8:55 am#8 That’s what he claims, but he refuses to let anyone oversee what he’s doing to vedrify that he isn’t lying. Have you noticed that whenever anyone tries to do oversight of this president, he and his entire administration stonewall and do everything they can to prevent the truth from coming out? I’m not just talking about this illegal spying, I’m talking about everything.
Assuming you aren’t being paid by someone to come here and spew the stupidity you do, then I sincerely hope that you do not genuinely believe that the president has acted within the law his entire time in office. Because he hasn’t, and his goal has been to grab as much power for the Executive Branch (or, as he likes to think of it, the “Adminstrative Branch”) as he could. Just like Nixon.
February 6th, 2006 at 8:55 amIF the president was granted to use all necessary force, then why do we need the Patriot Act?
So we can be able to stop terrorist threats from Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The authorization doesn’t seal the holes in our domestic defense.
IF the president is monitoring the “Al-Qaeda terrorists in this nation†then this presupposes that they ARE terrorists already and that the NSA knows who and where they are.
Uh huh, so?
That’s what he claims, but he refuses to let anyone oversee what he’s doing to vedrify that he isn’t lying.
Bush knows that if he releases the list of terrorists being spied on, as the Liberal Media wants him to do, then America will be put at risk.
February 6th, 2006 at 9:01 amRuppert, your arguments are worthless and weak. Now drop and give me twenty!
February 6th, 2006 at 9:03 amGary,
February 6th, 2006 at 9:04 amMy opinion is that Bush wanted to do blanket surveillance to make up for the absence of legal, effective surveillance prior to 911. Most people think this. He asked for this power and it was denied.
I’m pretty confident the data mining starts with literally every electronic communication. Then code words start the filter system. Congress denied Bush this power because the system was already specified. Bottom line is this is search without probable cause. They have admitted this. They wanted this.
sh*t Bruce…
Bushiva had me (wanting his impeachment) at, “Hello”…
February 6th, 2006 at 9:09 amI’d be interested in hearing Gary Ruppert’s explaination as to why this is not covered by the 4th amendment? Why do supporters of Bush have to work so hard to distance his actions from the Constitution which serve as the authority for his actions? I’m interested in the answer but I do believe Mr. Ruppert is a bit off base with his enthusiastic support for the subversion of our Constitution. Hitler’s followers were made up of the same fanatics. Perhaps, we should pass laws to put dangerous, un-Americans like him away where they can’t threaten the freedoms our founding fathers gave us?
February 6th, 2006 at 9:11 amAccording to Article VI, the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, so Congress can’t give anybody the right to violate it. The 4th amendment says no unreasonable searches or seizures without a warrant from a court, having shown probable cause.
Is is constitutional to violate the Constitution in the name of defending the Constitution?
February 6th, 2006 at 9:13 amGive it up Gary. Everyone here learned about the American revolution. The powers you are trying to claim for your fascist leaders are the powers the King had. Americans didnt put up with a King thinking he can search everybodies homes for contraband and we are not going to put up with our every conversation being monitored.
No WAR POWERS exist. NONE. There is NO war going on. There is a “authorization of force” going on which is no where near a war. WWII was war. This is not. You can dream your little dream that America has reverted back to living under a king but your living in pre1776 mentality.
Get with the 21st century.
February 6th, 2006 at 9:14 amSo we can be able to stop terrorist threats from Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The authorization doesn’t seal the holes in our domestic defense.
But if the president has the authority to use ALL necessary force, then doesn’t that ALL inclusiveness that you subscribe to include the issues that the Patriot Act covers thus making the need for the Patriot Act, its self, unnecessary???
IF the president is monitoring the “Al-Qaeda terrorists in this nation†then this presupposes that they ARE terrorists already and that the NSA knows who and where they are.
Uh huh, so?
Then if they ARE terrorists and they ARE in our country, why is he watching them and not arresting them?
Bush knows that if he releases the list of terrorists being spied on, as the Liberal Media wants him to do, then America will be put at risk.
The thought of “It’s the NYT fault, it’s those liberals fault” is bordering on Fascist speech. “How dare they question their government.”
February 6th, 2006 at 9:16 amSo we can be able to stop terrorist threats from Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The authorization doesn’t seal the holes in our domestic defense.
Comment by Gary Ruppert #12
Once again Scary Pookbutt,
This time with feeling, “Sieg Heil!”
Look stupid, “seventy two hours” or “fifteen days” 9during “wartime) the Bushiva and his goons have to eavesdrop without a FISA warrant…
…to protect you from foreing or domestic terrorists”
… thousands are being eavesdropped on, you mean we have “thousands” of Al Qaeda/al Qaeda connected people here in the U.S.?
…who’s translating all these communications, you Scary?
Forgive me if (once again) I defer to the opinion of the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Arlen Specter- a lock step Bushite republiscum- …
“Bushy, you got some ’splainin’ to do”…
February 6th, 2006 at 9:17 amtype-o’s are becoming the bane of my existence…
apologies…
February 6th, 2006 at 9:18 amIs is constitutional to violate the Constitution in the name of defending the Constitution?
Comment by Yachts and Lattes — February 6, 2006 @ 9:13 am
That’s similar to why we ultimately decided to invade Iraq. We defied the U.N. in order to make the point that the U.N. should not be defied.
And the correct answer to your question (in case Mr. Ruppert is struggling with it) is “No.”
February 6th, 2006 at 9:21 amPerhaps, we should pass laws to put dangerous, un-Americans like him away where they can’t threaten the freedoms our founding fathers gave us?
Comment by Eural #16
Eural,
We could banish them for life to their nearest urban center public housing project, and force them to walk around with (uncovered) “I worship Bush” t-shirts…
February 6th, 2006 at 9:22 amThe thought of “It’s the NYT fault, it’s those liberals fault†is bordering on Fascist speech. “How dare they question their government.â€
Comment by Max-1 #19
Max-1,
“Scary Gary” and his inbred brethren aren’t “bordering” hell they’re being suckled by their right wing fascist gods Bushiva and L’il Dick…
anencephaly is a seriously congenital disorder shared by most inbreds…
February 6th, 2006 at 9:28 am#23 big papa,
Tempting idea, but are we trying to get them subjected to random acts of “accidentally” tripping, falling on their faces, falling down stairs, breaking their arms, breaking their noses, and hitting themselves upside the back of the head with lead pipes? ‘Cause, you know, people accidentally do these things to themselves all the time when they’re around people who may not care for them. And we certainly don’t want anyone to accuse of us being “hateful” and wanting to hurt anyone, now do we?
Ha, who am I kidding? I’m just messing with you! Blindfold ‘em while you’re at it! :)
February 6th, 2006 at 9:31 amGR is beyond redemption. He is closed off to rational thinking. He insanely believes that we are not patriotic and that he, who irrationally salutes Bush at all cost, is absolutely right.
February 6th, 2006 at 9:34 amAll of you here today have made great arguments in explaining/defending what is correct and Constitutional -which is not political – and with all my heart, I hope that the outcome of all of this is correct and Constitutional, not political.
GR serves the purpose of only aiding us to solidify our thoughts on this, and we will view the hearings with finer attention to the details. GR reacts only politically.
Of course, there is high likelihood that the outcome will be political and we will all be worse off for that, so we must heighten public knowledge and attention as well as our own, doing all we can to uphold the constitution.
#26 You may very well be right, Marie. The solidification of our thinking is about the only good that comes from his ilk showing up here.
Based on some of the “knee jerk” reactions of supporters of President Bush, it seems to me like the Talking Point is to completely conflate the authorized, publicly supported efforts to go after the terrorists who attacked us, with the unauthorized, publicly denounced surveillance of domestic groups not connected to those that attacked us on 9-11.
Every time we try to talk about the illegal domestic spying that has been going on, they try to argue that we support the terrorists because we don’t like them going after al Qaeda. This is nonsense, of course, and completely off the issue. Then ignoring our responses, they go around telling everyone that we want al Qaeda to win. They have absolutely no respect for the truth, and they will say anything, no matter how big a lie, to convince people that they are right and we are wrong.
It’s hard to stand up to them when our very standing is deemed traitorous by those who embrace tyranny.
February 6th, 2006 at 9:48 amGary Ruppert, Congress does not have the authority to authorise the constitution being superceded, neither does the president. They can try to define things, but ultimately they do not have the authority no matter how you spin it.
February 6th, 2006 at 9:53 amThe idiot should be impeached, and I suggest that we impeach any politician who pretends not to understand why he is being impeached for pure stupidity.
February 6th, 2006 at 10:30 am“Bush knows that if he releases the list of terrorists being spied on, as the Liberal Media wants him to do, then America will be put at risk.”
Wow, when did you talk to God and find out what Bush knows? Can you teach us all how to do that?
February 6th, 2006 at 10:34 amI see that Gery Ruppert has gotten his talking points from Ken “Pretty Boy” Mehlman early this morning, or probably late last night.
He is a paid hack.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:04 am#31 And an overpaid one, too, based on the silly arguments he uses to support the president’s illegal actions.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:46 am#8, why are these people not being arrested if they are Al Queda operatives?
February 6th, 2006 at 1:25 pmOnce again, Bruce Fein did not read the War resolution, which gives Bush the power to do anything necessary to stop terrorism.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — February 6, 2006 @ 8:08 am
Once again, you refuse to read the resolution which -by the way- was title “Authorization for Use of Military Force“.
Said resolution was passed in order to “authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.”
The excerpts you have posted are found under Section 2 of the resolution, called “Authorization for use of the United States Armed Forces.”
(All emphasis added)
You have repeatedly and conveniently ignored that it’s a resolution for the use of the Armed Forces, and that the secret wiretap was done by the NSA -not by the Armed Forces. That is intellectual dishonesty at its best.
February 6th, 2006 at 2:01 pm#Once again, Bruce Fein did not read the War resolution, which gives Bush the power to do anything necessary to stop terrorism.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — February 6, 2006 @ 8:08 am
Keep repeating that GARY, maybe YOU will start actually believing that Yarn..
February 6th, 2006 at 5:58 pm#
Bush wasn’t acting against misc. terrorist groups, he was monitoring Al-Qaeda terrorists in this nation.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — February 6, 2006 @ 8:50 am
How do you KNOW that Gary?
February 6th, 2006 at 6:07 pmDid bush call you and tell you?
I hear just the opposite;
that NONE of bushs Taps resulted in anything.
Secondly BUSH started this BEFORE 911 gary.
and thats BEFORE this Law you keep ranting,Wrongly, about
of course GARY ruppert runs around internet blogs thinking he will find some ‘terrrusts’
Cmon Gary BUSH use a Computer? How WOULD george KNOW who Alqaeda and who isnt? Isnt that what Analysts do?
February 6th, 2006 at 6:12 pmIs Bush an Analyst Gary?
Does Bush KNOW terrorists Gary, if hes pulling names out of his head he must know them, Unless Bush is a Psychic..
and that I doubt.
When is this Gary Ruppert guy going to wipe the fog from his eyes. This guy sounds like a Rush puppet. Hey, Gary. Here’s the news. Questioning athority, especially this bunch, IS PATRIOTIC! You want to follow blindly, move to China.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:15 pmThey are Blamers and Haters Wayne
they have nothing other than that,They do not deal in facts.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:17 pmThey Deal in misplaced Bush Faith.
Their ‘Faith’ in bush has misled them.
Yet their BushFaith doesnt allow them to accept that he has lied to them or that he has duped them as a group.
WTFU gary
It is truly a waste of time to argue with Gary Ruppert. He is obvoiusly so scared he can’t think strait. He is clueless about what makes this country the best we’re the best because we care and will fight for our civil liberties. My guess is he is one of these chickenhawk republicrybabies who shit his pants on 9-11 and is looking for someone to “save him” from the bad guys. I’ll bet he is so scared he would give up all his rights as a citizen so he can be tucked into bed at night by his mommy or boyfriend? Gary If you are so afraid of terroist join the Army, Navy or Air Force. Trust me getting shot at and shooting back is the best tonic for over coming fear and doing something comstructive to the bad guys. Best of all a little later it at will clarify your thinking and make you really appreciate the freedoms we have in this country. When you truly learn to appreciate your freedoms you won’t trust them to a chickenhawk dressed in a flightsuit who thinks he is above the law.
February 6th, 2006 at 8:33 pm[...] In February, Bruce Fein suggested that President Bush should be impeached for conducting a boundless surveillance program. Now, Fein’s written an essay about abortion that is just as absurd, and I’d like to add a few thoughts to what Paul’s already said about Fein’s new abortion essay. [...]
March 14th, 2006 at 2:41 pmPayday Advance Loans
April 7th, 2008 at 7:20 am