Washington Post: Gonzales Misled Congress Again
Washington Post: Gonzales Misled Congress Again
In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this week, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told Ohio Sen. Mike DeWine that the legal requirement for Bush’s domestic wiretapping program is no lower than the “probable cause†requirement of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
GONZALES: The standard is a probable cause standard. It is reasonable grounds to…
DEWINE: A probable cause standard. Is that different than probable cause as we would normally learn that in law school…
GONZALES: Not in my judgment.
DEWINE: OK. So that means…
GONZALES: I think it’s probable cause. But it’s not probable cause as to guilt.
DEWINE: I understand.
GONZALES: Or probable cause as to a crime being committed. It’s probable cause that a party to the communication is a member or agent of Al Qaida. The precise language that I’d like to refer to is, “There are reasonable grounds to believe that a party to communication is a member or agent or Al Qaida or of an affiliated terrorist organization.” It is a probable cause standard, in my judgment.
But the Justice Department told a different story to the FISA Court judges in order to get their approval of the program. According to the Washington Post, former Attorney General John Ashcroft and former NSA Director Michael Hayden told the FISA Court that the “probable cause” legal burden was too difficult to meet:
They made clear that, in such a broad hunt for suspicious patterns and activities, the government could never meet the FISA court’s probable-cause requirement, government officials said.
This wouldn’t be the first time Gonzales has misled the Judiciary Committee about the program. Perhaps Gonzales needs to return to the committee to clarify his answers – this time, under oath. More at Americablog.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Same crap, different day
February 9th, 2006 at 10:59 am“But the Justice Department told a different story to the FISA Court judges in order to get their approval of the program.”
But you moonbats have been arguing for weeks that the program was NOT approved by the FISA court. You liars are just making it all up as you go.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:02 am#2,
Have any links to back it up, I’m sure links are coming to back up the thread. Don’t you have a manual, or list of references provided by your employer?
February 9th, 2006 at 11:04 amOkay. I’ve been reading the WaPo article. The problem with FISA seems to be the issue of crosstalk between a legal system and one that is not. The Black Ops system is not because is not US based, etc. So, when you have a FISA request based on unsound info the Court says No. And then, by the way, if you ever bring that shit in again we will charge you with a crime. That’s why they don’t go to FISA. I believe what is happening is outside of our system (Legal, physical, Constitutional, etc). Not that the thugs need legality, of course. They have proved to disregard it ALL.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:05 am#2, read the article. “Both judges expressed concern to senior officials that the president’s program, if ever made public and challenged in court, ran a significant risk of being declared unconstitutional, according to sources familiar with their actions.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/08/AR2006020802511_pf.html
February 9th, 2006 at 11:06 amI don’t believe warrantless wiretapping was approved by FISA. You might want to check with other moonbats, though….maybe Specter, Graham, DeWine, Wilson, Sensenbrenner.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:07 amSo much for the reputation of Republicans being the party of “ethics” and “responsibility”.
Every time we hear something new from this administration, and the elected Republicans, it’s more calumny, mendacity, and refusal to take responsibility for their actions.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:08 amTestifying under oath means nothing when your god is, Bush.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:08 amHey Non-American, Check this out!
Twice in the past four years, a top Justice Department lawyer warned the presiding judge of a secret surveillance court that information overheard in President Bush’s eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to obtain wiretap warrants in the court, according to two sources with knowledge of those events.
The revelations infuriated U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly — who, like her predecessor, Royce C. Lamberth, had expressed serious doubts about whether the warrantless monitoring of phone calls and e-mails ordered by Bush was legal. Both judges had insisted that no information obtained this way be used to gain warrants from their court, according to government sources, and both had been assured by administration officials it would never happen.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is the current presiding judge of the FISA court, which issues wiretapping warrants. (Associated Press)
The two heads of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court were the only judges in the country briefed by the administration on Bush’s program. The president’s secret order, issued sometime after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, allows the National Security Agency to monitor telephone calls and e-mails between people in the United States and contacts overseas.
James A. Baker, the counsel for intelligence policy in the Justice Department’s Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, discovered in 2004 that the government’s failure to share information about its spying program had rendered useless a federal screening system that the judges had insisted upon to shield the court from tainted information. He alerted Kollar-Kotelly, who complained to Justice, prompting a temporary suspension of the NSA spying program, the sources said.
Yet another problem in a 2005 warrant application prompted Kollar-Kotelly to issue a stern order to government lawyers to create a better firewall or face more difficulty obtaining warrants.
The two judges’ discomfort with the NSA spying program was previously known. But this new account reveals the depth of their doubts about its legality and their behind-the-scenes efforts to protect the court from what they considered potentially tainted evidence. The new accounts also show the degree to which Baker, a top intelligence expert at Justice, shared their reservations and aided the judges.
Both judges expressed concern to senior officials that the president’s program, if ever made public and challenged in court, ran a significant risk of being declared unconstitutional, according to sources familiar with their actions. Yet the judges believed they did not have the authority to rule on the president’s power to order the eavesdropping, government sources said, and focused instead on protecting the integrity of the FISA process.
It was an odd position for the presiding judges of the FISA court, the secret panel created in 1978 in response to a public outcry over warrantless domestic spying by J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI. The court’s appointees, chosen by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, were generally veteran jurists with a pro-government bent, and their classified work is considered a powerful tool for catching spies and terrorists.
The FISA court secretly grants warrants for wiretaps, telephone record traces and physical searches to the Justice Department, whose lawyers must show they have probable cause to believe that a person in the United States is the agent of a foreign power or government. Between 1979 and 2004, it approved 18,748 warrants and rejected five.
Lamberth, the presiding judge at the time of the Sept. 11 attacks, and Kollar-Kotelly, who took over in May 2002, have repeatedly declined to comment on the program or their efforts to protect the FISA court. A Justice Department spokesman also declined to comment.
Both presiding judges agreed not to disclose the secret program to the 10 other FISA judges, who routinely handled some of the government’s most highly classified secrets.
So early in 2002, the wary court and government lawyers developed a compromise. Any case in which the government listened to someone’s calls without a warrant, and later developed information to seek a FISA warrant for that same suspect, was to be carefully “tagged” as having involved some NSA information. Generally, there were fewer than 10 cases each year, the sources said.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:09 amGranted, Chairman Dean has declared that Bush has turned America into Iran.
Such a reasonable lad, eh?
It’s nice to know that the DNC Chairman is an insane extremist.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:09 amAt least I’m not the only one who found it odd that Gonzales wasn’t sworn in during the hearings. You know, you’d think that these people would learn that in the age of the blog it’s next to impossible to pull the wool over people’s eyes. Unless of course you happen to be a brain-dead Republican supporter who would follow Bush to the gates of Hell.
I just hope a who lot of people in the Bush administration, including Bush himself, go to jail for shreding the very document they swore to uphold.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:16 am#10 We are worse than Iran, he misspoke. People like you will bring this country to new lows unless true Americans start educating themselves and stop relying on others to give them “news.”
People like you, Gar, have voted for those that have reduced our military to paying for their own body armor. This is clear and convincing evidence that “support the troops” is just an empty slogan. None of them even know what it means to serve – the deferment gang.
They have no idea what they are doing and this proves it. It is like watching Laurel and Hardy going to war. People like you have entrusted our nation to low IQ mafioso wannabes. You know you helped a liar into our most sacred office, you know it. You have seen the proof and that you still support Bush, shows your amount of patriotism.
You, sir, should be shipped to Iraq on a one-way ticket. You, sir, should have to rebuild the nation you wanted to build! You, sir, should have to do it for minimum wage.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:18 amWhy WOULDN’T the nation’s chief law enforcement officer be sworn in before testimony…anyone care to answer that?
Same reason Bush & Cheney weren’t sworn in before the 9/11 whitewash committee, I s’pose.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:25 amThey couldn’t swear him in because they weren’t familiar with the oath for the satanic bible.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:25 am#10
Gary, we should be thanking our lucky stars that Dean is the chairman of the DNC. With him in charge, there is no chance they will win back any seats in congress or the WH in ‘08. P&P, if things really were as bad as you say, why aren’t there mass protests, rioting in the streets? According to you and every other wacko on this site, we should be in a full scale civil war over Bush, but we’re not. See, things are not as bad as you think they are in your demented mind.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:26 amRandy, you also over looked the fact that the DNC is spending money irresponsibly and that they’re close to bankruptcy.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:27 amSo Gary, what does your post have to do with the price of tea in China?
I’ll be glad to send you an enlistment form in a PDF file. Sounds like you’re just the kind of dupe they are looking for. Maybe you can go help invade some other country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:29 amREASONABLE =/= PROBABLE
February 9th, 2006 at 11:30 amRandy and Gary R – Things are not as GOOD as your president says either. In fact, nothing your president says is the truth. Case in point:
1) “We need to invest in our education programs”, but let’s cut educational benefits by 1.7B.
2) “We will do everything we can to rebuild NO”, yet how many months is it now and there is still no rebuilding going on or any real progress made?
3) “We will help the people of NO”, but thousands are now without assistance from FEMA.
Yeah, were in great shape.
By the way….. I could go on, but this is off topic so just pointing out your inability to see the facts.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:34 am#10 – Oh, Gary! You’re so funny!
Chairman Dean is exaggerating to make a point! You know, like Pres. Bush exaggerated when he said he’d “reign in spendingâ€! Or when he said he’d “cut the deficit in halfâ€! Or when he said he was a “uniter and not a dividerâ€! Or when he said “mission accomplished” and “dead or alive” or “reduce our dependence on oil” or. . . .
I think you get the point:
Chairman Dean – Exaggerating to make a point.
Pres. Bush – Exaggerating to avoid the truth..
Now, which one do YOU think is “such a reasonable lad” when compared side by side? I know you want to realize that Pres. Bush is exaggerating to avoid the truth and spread his mendacity to further his big-governmental agenda at the expense of average Americans. Why else do you think his political party took out a Contract on America? It sure wasn’t a fit of altruism!
I know you can do it. Think for yourself, and stop parroting the talking points of the ultra-radical right wing.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:36 amSupposedly, Gonzales offered to be sworn in and Specter bent over backwards to keep his testimony off the Bible. Why would that be the case? Just to avoid the photo opp of Torquemada with his hand in the air?
Frankly I don’t see what the difference is – a lie is a lie, a book is a book whether his hand is on it or not…
February 9th, 2006 at 11:36 amat the opening of the hearing last monday, specter said that there was no need to swear gonzales in because it’s a federal crime to lie to congress. he cited the sections of title 18 (the criminal code) and said that if gonzales lied, he could be prosecuted.
why, then, isn’t gonzales being taken to task for this?
where is feingold? he needs to call gonzales out again and demand clarification. every lawyer knows there’s a difference between “reasonable basis/grounds” and “probable cause.” the former is a lower standard. gonzales is just making this up as he goes along.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:37 am#16
February 9th, 2006 at 11:37 amCan you link that to some facts. I would be interested in looking at this.
Under oath…yah, right.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:39 am#20, let me be the first to point out: one is simply a party chairman, the other is the ‘the Leader of the Free World’ (that phrase is such a howler)…nothing Howard has said has led to anyone’s death to date as far as I know. Bush? 250,000 and counting
February 9th, 2006 at 11:39 am“Yet the judges believed they did not have the authority to rule on the president’s power to order the eavesdropping,”
February 9th, 2006 at 11:40 am
#16 – “…spending money irresponsibly and that they’re close to bankruptcy.”
You mean like Pres. Bush and the Republican party are doing to America, only on a much more vast scale? You mean like the so-called party of “fiscal conservatism” is “borrowing and spending” our children and grand children and great grand children into massive debt for years and years to come?? Just so the richest of the rich, the top one-fifth of the top one percent can have a capital gains tax cut rather than fully funding the Veterans Administration?
http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2006/02/senate-republicans-screw-veterans.html
Interesting how your blinders keep you from acknowledging the radical excesses of your political party when it suits you. Double standards, anyone?
February 9th, 2006 at 11:41 amBush killed 250,000 people? ROFLMAO You people are just plain nuts! Funny!
February 9th, 2006 at 11:41 amHere is Sen. Feinstein’s letter dated 060127, PDF from secrecy News from FAS project on Government Secrecy, Vol2006 issue #11 060130. http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/feinstein012606.pdf. thanks&enjoy. Steven Aftergood and Juan Cole make me tingly.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:45 am#15
February 9th, 2006 at 11:46 amI guess reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, eh, Randy? Gary’s a winger just like you, fool!
250,000 is probably a conservative estimate. The Iraqi invasion is not his only killing field. Consider his inaction in the Sudan, Afghanistan, his measures against AIDS control and his efforts against health support here and abroad.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:47 am#28 – here you go….http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11674.htm
Decisions made by George W. Bush have led to the deaths of 250,000 people who would not have died otherwise (Saddam or no Saddam).
Wean yourself off Fox News sonny, its polluting your mind.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:48 amSpudge, Giacomo, you guys out there. Trolls at full deployment. Please send facts.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:49 am“Bush killed 250,000 people? ROFLMAO You people are just plain nuts! Funny!”
Comment by American — February 9, 2006 @ 11:41 am
Sounds like someone’s got a quilty conscience. So Warbucks, when you enlisting?
February 9th, 2006 at 11:49 am#32, Howard Dean? Maybe he should cut out the cheeseburgers and he can keep his clean sheet…
February 9th, 2006 at 11:49 am#26
“Yet the judges believed they did not have the authority to rule on the president’s power to order the eavesdropping,â€
Comment by American
That would be correct! So what’s your point? If they don’t have the “power” to do something about it does not make it LEGAL.
GEEZE!
February 9th, 2006 at 11:50 am#26 – You forgot the first sentence:
“Both judges expressed concern to senior officials that the president’s program, if ever made public and challenged in court, ran a significant risk of being declared unconstitutional, according to sources familiar with their actions.”
There’s more you conveniently ignored:
“The FISA court secretly grants warrants for wiretaps, telephone record traces and physical searches to the Justice Department, whose lawyers must show they have probable cause to believe that a person in the United States is the agent of a foreign power or government. Between 1979 and 2004, it approved 18,748 warrants and rejected five.”
So, out of 18,748 requests only 5 warrants were rejected. Less than one percent were rejected. They rejected 0.02667% of all the requested warrants.
So, following the established laws, and adhering to the Constitution would have hampered their domestic spying. . . . . how?????????
Lastly:
“Several FISA judges said they also remain puzzled by Bush’s assertion that the court was not “agile” or “nimble” enough to help catch terrorists. The court had routinely approved emergency wiretaps 72 hours after they had begun, as FISA allows, and the court’s actions in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks suggested that its judges were hardly unsympathetic to the needs of their nation at war.”
So-called “American”, I wouldn’t give up your day job to sell snake oil to the public. You might end up on food stamps, and you know how much Pres. Bush cut THAT program.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:51 am#16
February 9th, 2006 at 11:51 amGary,
Do you have links to these facts? Still waiting.
#33 Flyman, here’s Feingold on the wiretapping after the SOTU circle-jerk
And my 250,000 link better formatted
February 9th, 2006 at 11:52 am#26
Cherry picking to change the meaning. The ENTIRE reason for FISA to exist is to “rule on the president’s power to order the eavesdropping” … Didnt your great intellect catch that logical problem before you posted? Or did you do one of those DOH! moments just as you clicked the Post button? Or do you actually believe taking info out of context is not lieing?
February 9th, 2006 at 11:52 am#39, curses, there’s something wrong with my bloody fingers today – Feingold again
February 9th, 2006 at 11:53 amNot to mention the fact that according to a recent article in the Washington Post (which was featured here on Think Progress), the intelligence officers in charge of this so-called “terrorist surveillance” dismissed nearly all of the calls they monitored because they cold not detect any association with terrorism. Fewer than ten US citizens or residents per year were judged as warranting further attention due to suspicious elements in monitored calls. What this basically means is that the vast majority of people whose calls have been monitored — the White House refuses to reveal how large this number is, but it’s estimated to be in the thousands — are to all appearances innocent.
Here’s the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/04/AR2006020401373.html
Wouldn’t one be inclined to think that this dragnet would be catching more people if “probable cause” as properly defined were truly the benchmark that was being used to determine whose calls were put under surveillance? I’m not a legal expert, so people are free to correct me if I’m wrong — but unless I’m quite mistaken, “probable cause” requires more than a simple hunch or suspicion that someone could be guilty. In order to demonstrate the existence of probable cause, those who are in charge of the investigation are required to supply at least one or two pieces of information which seem to confirm their suspicions that the person or persons under investigation could potentially be guilty of a crime.
Let’s remember that Michael Hayden appeared a little confused about the exact wording of the Fourth Amendment governing search and seizure (which entails probable cause) during a recent exchange with a reporter. The words which the general used — and the entire exchange is reported in an article in Editor and Publisher — to all appearances make it seem that “probable cause” has effectively been more or less discarded in favor of “reasonable belief” which may or may not be the same thing. It’s possible that the general was using these terms more or less interchangably to refer to the same concept — but at one point, he appears to say that the words “probable cause” do not appear in the Fourth Amendment when in fact they do.
Here’s the link:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001883620
February 9th, 2006 at 11:55 amNo oath, no fear, no truth.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:56 am#40
Cherry picking to change the meaning. The ENTIRE reason for FISA to exist is to “rule on the president’s power to order the eavesdropping†… Didnt your great intellect catch that logical problem before you posted? Or did you do one of those DOH! moments just as you clicked the Post button? Or do you actually believe taking info out of context is not lieing?
Comment by Gerald Gibson
WRONG, the whole reason for FISA is to ensure that the president is following the letter of the law. It is not set up to RULE on anything. It is to make it easy for the president to obtain warrants and to allow the information to remain SECRET at the same time.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RULING ON THE PRESIDENTS POWER.
You may want to go back to school and learn the basics of law and how our country works.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:56 amStop responding to the trolls. They are just RNC interns hoping to land a job a NASA censoring Ph.Ds in climatology. By the way, they shouldn’t get too ambitious. George Deutsch was just forced to resign as head of the NASA public affairs department for lying about his non-existent college degree on his resume. Typical wingnut slime.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:56 am#16
February 9th, 2006 at 11:58 amI guess Gary has no voodoo.
Gerald Gibson – Not attacking you, using your post to expand on. I realized it may have looked that way so I wanted to make that point clear.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:59 amTtT, thanks, the first one worked just finegold. Thanks. Sorry about the PDF here is one in html. Read the top of this first and I would suggest printing it also. Enjoy.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:59 amhttp://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/073102baker.html
#40 – Only legal eavesdropping, Gerald. They don’t have the power to rule that something is illegal. Just to say NO. The SCOTUS does the determination. It appears the thugs went to FISA and when the DOJ atty AND the Judge said there were problems they stopped going. The system remains in place but they can’t use it as justification of Probable Cause in a Court because “it” is illegal.
February 9th, 2006 at 12:02 pmRioting in the streets? Are you that that dull? Can you not articulate any better than that? Things aren’t so bad? Things? You aren’t a very clever orator and thus, probably won’t get many “recruits” on this mission of yours.
You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
February 9th, 2006 at 12:02 pm#46 His fax machine broke down again
February 9th, 2006 at 12:02 pmRemoveBush – Correct.
February 9th, 2006 at 12:02 pmRandy, do you have no retort to all of Democratic Soldier’s posts? Cat got your fingers?
February 9th, 2006 at 12:03 pm#45 Yea but he got the job over the trolls here.
February 9th, 2006 at 12:05 pmThere is no lifeguard or chlorine in this pool, to bad. Why bother explaining anything to the mindless parasites who have dedicated their souls to the drunk, druggie they call their leader. They don’t want to be confused with the fact’s they just want to create strife and derail everyone off topic with their lies and propaganda. Get real and ignore, unlike our real problems in this country these trolls are merely working for the drunk, probably collecting pittence per word to shoot blanks over our heads from their fear of loosing. Sooner or later we will get the truth out to the masses and this bunch will be out of work along with their corrupt leaders……Blessings
February 9th, 2006 at 12:07 pmGary,
Your comment in #10 is both irrelevant and unsupported. If you feel that you can make a case for its relevance, please provide a link which supports the idea that Dean made any such statement.
February 9th, 2006 at 12:07 pm#51
February 9th, 2006 at 12:09 pmI guess asking for facts is like light to a cockroach.
Gary, you were totally popped yesterday, one of your own quotes from a month ago was in contradiction to what you were saying about Abramoff yesterday. What are you doing even coming back?
February 9th, 2006 at 12:13 pmYep, Gary has slithered off to the next thread until, once again, he is forced to look at reality.
February 9th, 2006 at 12:13 pm“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.”
And after hearing Gonzales’ testimony, I am hearing the interpretation: “President Bush can do whatever he wants to anybody that gets in the way of what he wants to do as long as he puts all his eggs in one basket: Waging war on terror.”
Thank god Congress at least qualified it in terms of the 9/11 attacks so that someday 100 years from now there will be no one left who was alive on 9/11 and by process of elimination this power will expire…
And on a side note, I absolutely positively unequivocally guarantee that if there is a Rep Congress and Dem President in 2008, these despotistic loopholes will be closed.
And with the closure, all pertient information about how they were exploited in the interim.
February 9th, 2006 at 12:14 pmOk folks, back on track, Gary actually got some people off topic.
February 9th, 2006 at 12:14 pmThe number of 250K may be right. May be wrong. We do know that president bUsh it estimated 30K. It is reasonable to assume that thousands were innocent children.
Had saddam been involved in the attack on 911, the little children whose life was cut short – would be indeed tragic collateral damage. Unfortunately the real perpretators of this attack are apparently still around to plot and practice by picking off the children of millions in Americans who happen to be in theater.
Exactly why did so many innocents have to die? And before some right wing troll responds with the innocents killed on 911 – re-read sentence starting with “Unfortunately”.
Why are we allowing our country to go bankrupt while we occupy a land where we are not wanted?
Having been derided from the thread. Of course alberto should be under oath – Janet Reno was, what makes the current a.g. so above it?
February 9th, 2006 at 12:15 pmPeter,
It’s the partisan brain that Gary and Randy suffer from. It doesn’t permit the brain to use the reasoning centers, and it can’t learn new facts that contradict with its partisan preconceptions. It’s why both of them continually say, and re-say things that are known to be false, yet they continue to believe to be true.
It’s kind of like how the flat earthers (also Gary and Randy belong to) believe their religious bible is literal and that the earth is flat, 8000 years old, and donkeys can talk. When you’re raised to believe that fairy tales are literal truth, it seems to incapacitate one from living fully in the real world.
But the thing to remember is that they deserve our love and forgiveness. They don’t think with their reasoning centers, so there’s no way to expect them to act rationally, reasonable or say anything relevant or useful. They clearly have the best of intentions for our country – although their partisan brains don’t let them see what those intentions might mean. So just offer them your pity, and realize that they’re addicted to their fantasy – they have to break that addiction like any alcoholic or druggie. It’s not something any ‘normal’ person can do for them – poor pumpkins.
I forgive you Randy and Gary for your partisan acts and partisan lies pumpkins. Poor things, you have my pity.
February 9th, 2006 at 12:16 pm#44 Ruling on whether a wiretap can be used or not is doing exactly that. If they say no then the president must stop.
Is it ruling whether the president has the power to wiretap at all? No that is Congress and the Constitution.
February 9th, 2006 at 12:16 pmHMMMMM. Just realized… if the NSA eavesdropped on anyone’s correspondence who is under five years old, it would be definitively outside the scope of their authority…
February 9th, 2006 at 12:16 pmmeant to say children of Americans. lame type sorry.
February 9th, 2006 at 12:17 pmAs to the topic, that the Attorney General has misled (lied)Congress under oath at his confirmation hearings isn’t big news is beyond me. Isn’t that reason enough to be stripped of his office? Lieing at your job interview seems a pretty basic reason to me to get the boot. Who cares if he is who he is? It’s the position that is important not the man.
February 9th, 2006 at 12:18 pmJust remember when it comes to trust, The President had to make recess appointments. His party is in the Majority. He doesn’t even trust his own party. That is a sound logical departure point is it not? What was the Harriet Meires nomination all about anyway? Also they knew the NYTIMES had this info so they have a whole year to come up with a defense of this program,s.
February 9th, 2006 at 12:21 pm#64 Ruling on whether a wiretap can be used or not is doing exactly that. If they say no then the president must stop.
Is it ruling whether the president has the power to wiretap at all? No that is Congress and the Constitution.
Comment by Gerald Gibson
NO! They are ruling on whether, under the LAW, what the president is requesting is LEGAL. They are in no way ruling on what he can or cannot do.
They only authorize or deny the paperwork based upon the legal aspects for the request.
February 9th, 2006 at 12:26 pmGerald Gibson – What your trying to say is that if FISA denies a warrant request, that they are saying the president does not have the power to do it? Well, as we have seen that is not true either. The president has the POWER to order things to be done, and it does not matter what FISA says.
What does matter, is that FISA says what can and cannot be done LEGALLY. FISA is setup to provide checks and ballances to the president, and this is the concern of those who love our Civil Liberties.
Understand?
February 9th, 2006 at 12:34 pmHere’s you’re oversight.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/08/AR2006020802511.html
read it and weap, bitches.
February 9th, 2006 at 12:36 pm70 True..true true
Though the president has the power to SAY anything …and people can carry out what he said… but if a court says he didnt have the Constitutional “right” …(not power) to order that in the first place …well…
So ya I guess the word I should have used was RIGHT to do something rather than the POWER. He has the power to walk right up to me and put three bullets in my head and walk away and NO ONE would touch him … but in court later the POWER situation just might be the other way around.
February 9th, 2006 at 12:38 pm#71 – Chase you moron, don’t you read?????? I posted that article in #9.
This article only supports our point you idiot!
February 9th, 2006 at 12:41 pm#71 …Try to read more than headlines…you are embarressing yourself. Every president since the 1970s have used FISA. There is no dispute that Bush used FISA thousands of times. If the judges knew there was something going on outside of FISA they couldnt do anything about it unless Bush presented it to them. Then they could have ruled it unConstitutional. This “special” spying was not brought before the court. That is NOT oversight. If the spying was brought before the court and the court was able to determine that it was Constitutional then that WOULD be oversight. Bush cannot tell 8 people in congress and then call it oversight. Bush cannot tell 2 judges outside of court and then call that oversight. If it is done as part of legal channels THEN it is oversight.
February 9th, 2006 at 12:45 pm#71 And the story only points out that WHEN THEY WENT TO THE FISA COURT, not the thousands of times when they did not. That is the problem what about the times they did not, where is the oversight then?
February 9th, 2006 at 12:48 pmYou just HAD to know there was a very good reason Specter refused to put that treasonous, step-n-fetchit, sell out, sombich Gonzo under oath before he started lying…
…justice denied…
February 9th, 2006 at 12:58 pmYou guys don’t get it, do you. Our enemies are trying to kill us in mass quantities! The NSA program stopped the sabotage of the Brooklyn Bridge. Now this WH press release reveals another foiled plot:
Since Septemeber 11th, the United States and our coalition partners have disrupted a number of serious al Qaeda terrorist plots, including plots to attack targets inside the United States. Let me give you an example:
In the weeks after September 11th, while Americans were still recovering from an unprecedented strike on our homeland, al Qaeda was already busy planning its next attack. We now know that in October 2001, Khalid Sheik Muhammed, the mastermind of the September 11th attacks, had already set in motion a plan to have terrorist operatives hijack an airplane using shoe bombs to breach the cockpit door, and fly the plan into the tallest building on the West Coast.
We believe the intended target was Liberty Tower [Library Tower], in Los Angeles, California.
Rather than use Arab hijackers as he had on September 11th, Khalid Sheik Muhammed sought out young men from Southeast Asia, whom he believed would not arouse as much suspicion. To help carry out his plan, he tapped a terrorist named Hambali, one of the leaders of an al Qaeda affiliated group in Southeast Asia called J-I [Jemaah Islamiya]. J-I terrorists were responsible for a series of deadly attacks in Southeast Asia, and members of the group had trained with al Qaeda. Hambali recruited several key operatives, who had been training in Afghanistan. Once the operatives were recruited, they met with Usama bin Laden, and then began preparations for the West Coast attack.
Their plot was derailed in early 2002, when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key al Qaeda operative. Subsequent debriefings and other intelligence operations made clear the intended target, and how al Qaeda hoped to execute it. This critical intelligence helped other allies capture the ringleaders, and other known operatives who had been recruited for this plot.
The West Coast plot had been thwarted.
These are the kinds of plots the Bush administration has been working to detect and thwart – lawfully – while the Left throws rocks at him from the comfort of the fever swamp. God help us all if the ankle-biters prevail.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:00 pmBSR – Go fight in the military if you support this crap. If your all for believing all the lies your president gives you, then show it by action and not words. Go serve.
Your arguements have been debunked time and time again. Get a clue!
If your that paranoid, move to China where the government is into everything you do, so you will feel real safe.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:06 pmBSR, what about the Sami al-Arian case? That was a big success wasn’t it?
February 9th, 2006 at 1:09 pmThe wingnut pinball machine flipper has just been tweeked. Look at em bounce of each other. Heh, heh, heh
February 9th, 2006 at 1:14 pmGod help us all if the ankle-biters prevail.
Comment by Blue State Red #77
Blubal*ed inbRed,
God has no use for idolators like yourself…
…you are cursed among all humankind…
…your souls are forfeit for the greater glory of the false gods of war you worship, Bushiva and L’il Dick…
…hell is too good for you…
February 9th, 2006 at 1:17 pmOne of the false premises of the Left is that warrantless searches are always illegal. That is not true, as anyone who has been through airport security can attest. In fact, there are over a dozen kinds of warrantless searches that are perfectly legal. Courts have held for decades that probable cause is an elastic concept, whose application depends on the circumstances and the nature of the alleged privacy invasion.
Another false premise of the Left is that our wartime enemies are entitled to the same civil rights as our peacetime citizens. That also is untrue. In fact, as the Hamdi case demonstrates, a state of war can deprive even a U.S. citizen of some civil rights if he is taken as an enemy combatant.
A third false premise of the Left is that the tactical decisions of the commander in chief must be dislcosed to Congress any time some senator decides to get his nose out of joint (which, I note, did not happen for the first 4 years of the NSA program). In truth, however, warfighting tactics are never the prerogative of Congress. Never. Congress can withhold money for wartime activities, but Congress may not reserve for itself the decisions as to when, where, and how they will be used in fighting the war.
The measure of the commander in chief is his success in protecting the nation. And this President has successfully protected the U.S. homeland from al Qaeda terrorist attacks for over 4 years now. It seems to me that he at least is deserving of some credit for that success, whatever else one may think of him.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:18 pmAfter reading the obtuse criticism of an administration that wishes to avoid another devastating 9/11-like tragedy, I am convinced that the radicals on the left could care less if we are attacked again. Perhaps in the evolution of their “thinking” they believe they will be able to seize power and build the socialist utopia they seek.
Thank you, progressive socialists, for caring about criminals and enemies …and neglecting the country.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:24 pm“successfully protected the U.S. homeland from al Qaeda terrorist attacks for over 4 years now” Oh, please is the shark repellant argument again. There are NO sharks here. See it’s working. Try something new, wil ya?
February 9th, 2006 at 1:27 pmBSR – Let me once again shoot holes in your loser thought process.
“One of the false premises of the Left is that warrantless searches are always illegal. That is not true, as anyone who has been through airport security can attest. In fact, there are over a dozen kinds of warrantless searches that are perfectly legal. Courts have held for decades that probable cause is an elastic concept, whose application depends on the circumstances and the nature of the alleged privacy invasion.”
FALSE! Going through an airport is voluntary! You agree to the search or you don’t get on the plane. NO COMPARISON. Show me one law case that has said that there could be searches without a warrant.
“Another false premise of the Left is that our wartime enemies are entitled to the same civil rights as our peacetime citizens. That also is untrue. In fact, as the Hamdi case demonstrates, a state of war can deprive even a U.S. citizen of some civil rights if he is taken as an enemy combatant.”
I have told you at least a DOZEN TIMES, that the Handi case is not even close to warrantless wiretaps. This case rules on whether a Citizen can be held in a BATTLE ZONE.
“A third false premise of the Left is that the tactical decisions of the commander in chief must be dislcosed to Congress any time some senator decides to get his nose out of joint (which, I note, did not happen for the first 4 years of the NSA program). In truth, however, warfighting tactics are never the prerogative of Congress. Never. Congress can withhold money for wartime activities, but Congress may not reserve for itself the decisions as to when, where, and how they will be used in fighting the war.”
Well the information did not come out because the Senators did not want to go to jail for revealing classified information of an illegal program. (and not all members were notified as by law). Also, Congress can tell the president that he must follow the law of the land. Hense, the UCMJ (Unifor Code of Military Justice).
“The measure of the commander in chief is his success in protecting the nation. And this President has successfully protected the U.S. homeland from al Qaeda terrorist attacks for over 4 years now. It seems to me that he at least is deserving of some credit for that success, whatever else one may think of him.”
NOOOO! He is president and has swarn an OATH to protect the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST DOMESTIC AND FORIEGN ENEMIES. I have never heard anything in an oath that states that he must protect the people, as they will do that themselves, or the country. Can you show me anyplace that says he is to protect the country?
Yeah!!!! Just because 1 or 4 years goes by, its all because he is doing such a great job. Idiot, look at the years that went by from the 1993 bombing of the WTC. GEEZE, I just wish you would join the military, move to China, or shut the hell up and just say thank you to me for protecting your constitution and country while I was in the military.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:30 pmThe wingers love to hound these issues, since they love to be afraid and the fear card works so well.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:30 pmIt’s too bad that President Bush is a right wing extremeist who thinks he can trample on our civil rights and privacy.
You will make an excellent boot licker for your masters.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:34 pmThis [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/08/AR2006020802511.html] may explain why, despite its unprecedented increase in FISA applications, the Bush administration found it necessary, in some circumstances, to rely on the President’s inherent constitutional powers, and on the AUMF, instead of FISA.
The key graphs:
Both judges expressed concern to senior officials that the president’s program, if ever made public and challenged in court, ran a significant risk of being declared unconstitutional, according to sources familiar with their actions. Yet the judges believed they did not have the authority to rule on the president’s power to order the eavesdropping, government sources said, and focused instead on protecting the integrity of the FISA process . . .
Lamberth, the presiding judge at the time of the Sept. 11 attacks, and Kollar-Kotelly, who took over in May 2002, have repeatedly declined to comment on the program or their efforts to protect the FISA court. A Justice Department spokesman also declined to comment.
Both presiding judges agreed not to disclose the secret program to the 10 other FISA judges, who routinely handled some of the government’s most highly classified secrets.
So early in 2002, the wary court and government lawyers developed a compromise. Any case in which the government listened to someone’s calls without a warrant, and later developed information to seek a FISA warrant for that same suspect, was to be carefully “tagged” as having involved some NSA information. Generally, there were fewer than 10 cases each year, the sources said.
According to government officials familiar with the program, the presiding FISA judges insisted that information obtained through NSA surveillance not form the basis for obtaining a warrant and that, instead, independently gathered information provide the justification for FISA monitoring in such cases. They also insisted that these cases be presented only to the presiding judge.
The important point here is that, while the FISA chief judges both had misgivings about whether the NSA program was consistent with FISA, they did nothing to interfere with the NSA program itself. This judicial inaction, combined with over 4 years of congressional inaction, further strengthens the President’s argument as to the legality of the NSA program.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:38 pmGuys the winger job just might get a lot more difficult
http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/ap/2006/02/08/ap2511247.html
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0209nj1.htm#
would be interesting if they both spilled the beans.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:41 pmBSR – You just keep burrying your head into the sand don’t you. Last time I comment to you regarding this since you have the ability to take in information like a brick wall.
This article CLEARLY says that it was ILLEGAL. Yes the judges did nothing. That does not make it right! What part of ILLEGAL do you not understand. So by your logic…… If a police officer knows that one of his fellow police officers is committing an illegal act, then this makes the act legal because the one officer did not say anything?
PLEASE!
February 9th, 2006 at 1:43 pmThe real reason Alberto Gonzales was not sworn in on February 6, 2006 is because he knew he would have to lie to cover-up for Bush’ illegal warrantless wiretaps.
White House
April 20, 2004
President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security
White House
July 14, 2004
President’s Remarks at Ask President Bush Event
White House
June 9, 2005
President Discusses Patriot Act
Monday February 6, 2006, in his unsworn “testimony” Alberto Gonzales said that when Bush was talking about getting court orders, he meant roving wiretaps only.
Washington Post
February 6, 2006
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Holds a Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency’s Surveillance Authority
Alberto Gonzales flat out lied. Anybody that wants to deny this fact, is only fooling themselves. Gaonzales lied to cover-up George Bush’ illegal program.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:46 pmTwo of the hallmarks of a fascist nation are:
1. A disdain for human rights: Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “the need to protect the state.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. – put another way, the state abrogates the definition of a criminal without regard to human or civil rights, defined in law or otherwise supported by precedent
2. Obsession with Crime and Punishment: Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. And here is your uniformed branch of the Department of Homeland Security : the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division. Setting aside the absurdity of have a badge which says ‘Secret Service’ on your nicely pressed uniform… let’s see what they are charged with doing:
What pray tell is an offense against the United States? Where is the mention of the Constitution?
For my final point, the letters SS carry a lot of meaning – Shutzstaffel in German. Which means: Protection/Defense/Security and Echelon/Service/Department
Department of Homeland Security’s uniformed branch? Any guesses what color their uniform will be?
February 9th, 2006 at 1:49 pmTerrytheTurtle – Brown or Black would be my guess.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:57 pm#82 – Wrote “The measure of the commander in chief is his success in protecting the nation.” “It seems to me that he at least is deserving of some credit for that success, whatever else one may think of him.”
So, you’re saying that Pres. Clinton did a great job in keeping Al-Quida from attacking our shores. I didn’t think you had that kind of moral fortitude in you, Red!
February 9th, 2006 at 1:59 pmI heard this VERY likely hypothetical.
Joe calls his girl friend in Japan. Fat fingers the dialing and reaches AlKaDa in Pakistan. NSA picks up the call nothing more, but now “knows” that Joe made this call.
They investigate Joe a little, discover that Joe has given to an Islamic Charity in Pakistan. (Joe being the kind heated sort – contributed to the earthquake relief).
Joe is now on file, and just because he is placed on
a no fly list.
Joe cannot challenge his placement on the list – but Joe travels a lot for his job. Not no more. He will not be told why he is on the list. He cannot get off the list.
bluestatered. why do you parrot stupidity? The Brooklyn bridge nimrod was a plot by some crackpot with a blow torch.
Hardly would take the bridge down.
The latest “stopped attack in LA” – is damn near internet urban legend. Nothing new here.
February 9th, 2006 at 2:04 pm#93, yes,
, I’m sure. There’s just something so uplifting wearing a uniform and striding about in large numbers…..
February 9th, 2006 at 2:15 pmGoing through an airport is voluntary!
So is sending or receiving an al Qaeda phone call, numbnuts.
Show me one law case that has said that there could be searches without a warrant.
Check out the reseach done by former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy at http://nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200512201735.asp.
If you want to review the legal precedents on which Mr. McCarthy relies, I suggest you email him (his email contact info is available at thie above link). I think you will find his analysis to be of very high qulaity. I am sure that you won’t be able to refute it.
I have told you at least a DOZEN TIMES, that the Handi case is not even close to warrantless wiretaps.
First, let’s at least get the name of the case right. It’s Hamdi, not Handi, as you repeatedly call it.
Second, my post does not cite the Hamdi decision for a specific proposition regarding “warrantless wiretaps,” as you call them. Rather, this case stands for the general principle that, in the war on terror, the President is authorized to engage in “fundamental incidents of war” – a general principle that by its own terms extends far beyond the specific facts of a single case. In the Hamdi case, it included the detention of an enemy combatant who turned out to be an American citizen. In other words, the Hamdi case recognizes that there are some wartime circumstances in which even American citizens may lose some of their civil rights. One of those circumstances is fighting, or plotting, or giving aid to the enemy.
Well the information did not come out because the Senators did not want to go to jail for revealing classified information of an illegal program. (and not all members were notified as by law). Also, Congress can tell the president that he must follow the law of the land. Hense, the UCMJ (Unifor Code of Military Justice).
This cracks me up. What you’re saying is, Congress can tell the President what to do, but it’s okay for Congress to keep silent if it thinks the President is breaking the law. What I’m saying is, If Congress said nothing for over 4 years then it must have agreed that the NSA program was legal. I’d rather argue my point thatn yours before any federal judge in the country.
[PS: You may as well stop with the references to the UCMJ. The UCMJ has no application to this issue.]
He is president and has swarn an OATH to protect the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST DOMESTIC AND FORIEGN ENEMIES. I have never heard anything in an oath that states that he must protect the people, as they will do that themselves, or the country. Can you show me anyplace that says he is to protect the country?
This is another beaut. According to you, the President must protect a piece of paper at all costs, but he can leave the nation and the people to defend themselves. Is that why you followed your orders in military service – to defend a piece of paper? You are either ignorant or nuts.
February 9th, 2006 at 2:15 pmYes, Blue State Red, just ignore my post where Gonzales lied to Congress. Prove me wrong if you are so right.
February 9th, 2006 at 2:25 pmNo actually making a phone call and reaching someone of interest by accident is possible – and not intentional.
There can be many reasons one needs to fly – and though voluntary – bsr on what Fascist world do you live in that you do not understand how wrong that is? Quit defending the
indefensible you just appear to most here as an asshole.
Convincing no one, but you do provide an insight into
those who back their party at the expense of the country.
Cult-like follower you are bsr.
The “just a piece paper” defence is truly breathtaking – how unpatriotic have the extremist on the right become?
This “piece of paper” is what makes America AMERICA.
Without out – then we are just living under a dictator.
Checks and balances are a good thing.
bsr would have been a great SS bootlicker.
would an innocent party be entrapped in such a way?
February 9th, 2006 at 2:26 pmActually it is you who are nuts.
FACT: It is the presidents job to uphold and protect the Constitution.
FACT: It is the military’s job to protect the United states property and people. I know, that is what I swore to do.
February 9th, 2006 at 2:27 pmWar on Terror, declared by Congress?
War on Poverty, is that one over yet? Does the King get to do what he wants there too?
War on Drugs, is the government staying within the Constitution on that one, or not?
What’s the difference? Another two hallmarks of fascism are:
1. The identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. And guess what, if there is no way to define an end to these enemies, then the ’state of war’ exists in perpetuity.
2. Obsession with National Security: Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. Does anyone else think that Snowball will ever be caught?
February 9th, 2006 at 2:28 pmI know I said I was not going to comment again, but I have to because you are such a fool.
“So is sending or receiving an al Qaeda phone call, numbnuts.”
Big DIFFERENCE! Don’t you understand the difference between giving concent and not? Let me explain it to you! When you go through the airport you VOLUNTARILY say you may search me or my things. If you say no, they cannot just search you anyway. GEEZE!
“Check out the reseach done by former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy at http://nationalreview.com/ mccarthy/ mccarthy200512201735.asp.”
This is a joke right?
“Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school officials;” First of all, when you work in the proffessional industry, something you obviously don’t do, you sign a document that states that they may require you to take drug screenings from time to time. This is not ILLEGAL and does NOT REQUIRE A WARRANT because you AGREE TO IT. Damn man your so FVCKING IGNORANT!
“Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens and their vessels on the high seas;” This too is rediculous. This is not on AMERICAN SOIL.
If this is your logic, then you are the one who is nuts.
“If you want to review the legal precedents on which Mr. McCarthy relies, I suggest you email him (his email contact info is available at thie above link). I think you will find his analysis to be of very high qulaity. I am sure that you won’t be able to refute it.”
There is nothing HIGH QUALITY about what this moron says.
“First, let’s at least get the name of the case right. It’s Hamdi, not Handi, as you repeatedly call it.”
OOOH Sorry I spelled the name wrong.
“Second, my post does not cite the Hamdi decision for a specific proposition regarding “warrantless wiretaps,†as you call them. Rather, this case stands for the general principle that, in the war on terror, the President is authorized to engage in “fundamental incidents of war†– a general principle that by its own terms extends far beyond the specific facts of a single case. In the Hamdi case, it included the detention of an enemy combatant who turned out to be an American citizen. In other words, the Hamdi case recognizes that there are some wartime circumstances in which even American citizens may lose some of their civil rights. One of those circumstances is fighting, or plotting, or giving aid to the enemy.”
WRONG! The case also showed, if you would have read further, that the situation was not a blank check in the name of war. It clearly showed, as it should, that when on a BATTLE FIELD that an American can be detained.
“This cracks me up. What you’re saying is, Congress can tell the President what to do, but it’s okay for Congress to keep silent if it thinks the President is breaking the law. What I’m saying is, If Congress said nothing for over 4 years then it must have agreed that the NSA program was legal. I’d rather argue my point thatn yours before any federal judge in the country.”
No! What I’m saying is that though it was not right, some of the Senators had higher values and did their job by not saying anything on Classified information. They tried diplomatically to resolve the issue, so not to disclose sensitive information. Unlike your slime anyone pressident.
“[PS: You may as well stop with the references to the UCMJ. The UCMJ has no application to this issue.]”
Actually it does. You keep insisting that Congress cannot tell the president what to do with the military. This CLEARLY shows that they can and do.
“This is another beaut. According to you, the President must protect a piece of paper at all costs, but he can leave the nation and the people to defend themselves. Is that why you followed your orders in military service – to defend a piece of paper? You are either ignorant or nuts.
Comment by Blue State Red ”
Yes! The “peice of paper” as you and the president like to refer to it, is what makes this country what it is. So yes, I served in the military to defend a “goddamn peice of paper”. I served the military for what that peice of paper stands for, something you obviously have no idea of.
Have a nice life, you loser.
February 9th, 2006 at 2:36 pmhttp://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007940
any takers?
February 9th, 2006 at 2:59 pmFACT: It is the military’s job to protect the United states property and people. I know, that is what I swore to do.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — February 9, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
That’s right, Spudge_Boy. And the oaths we each took also said that we would “obey the lawful orders of those appointed over us.” So if the President’s orders to Gen Hayden at the NSA were illegal, then Gen Hayden should have refused to follow them. He would have had the law on his side because no military person is under any obligation to follow an illegal order. (This is settled law.)
February 9th, 2006 at 3:14 pmChase – Sure as long as your civil about it…..
First of all the view is obviously not objective. It does not address the issue. It talks as though people have an issue with Bush spying on Terrorists?
This could not be farther from the truth. What people are saying is do it legally. Do it, but protect the CONSTITUTION that you swore to protect. Don’t spy on thousands, hundred of thousands, or millions of people and say it is for the sake of protecting us. You can’t protect us if you destroy the very thing this country was founded on.
The issue is that they are “Data Minning”, which means that they are not targeting an individual or a group of individuals. They are targeting EVERYONE, and then trying to find out who the terrorist is. This is not only silly, but takes personnel away from actually doing the work they should be doing to protect this country. So you would be OK, as BSR put it above, if the instant you stepped out of your car at the airport, you and your car were completely searched inside and out. They would disassemble your car and you would have to wait until they were finished. Then you would get to be searched. This is the very same thing. They are just searching EVERYONE, and this is the problem.
Your article says that FISA “What FISA boils down to is an attempt to further put the executive under the thumb of the judiciary, and in unconstitutional fashion”. How does it step on something that is not there to begin with? There is no power that the president has to break any law of the land or the Constitution. If you can show me where the law states that he can do things like this without permission, then I’ll concede. However, the FISA law was enacted to provide oversight to the presidents actions, and to ensure that things were kept within the law of the land.
Your article also states: “FISA is the intelligence equivalent of asking battlefield commanders in Iraq to get a court order before taking Fallujah. “We can’t afford to impose layers of lawyers on top of career intelligence officers who are striving valiantly to provide a first line of defense by tracking secretive al Qaeda operatives in real time,” as Mr. Gonzales put it.”
Which is the most rediculouse claim I have ever heard. The things this administration wants to do comes down to spying on American citizens that disagree with his point of view. The law has been fine for many years, and has been amended 5 times since it’s enaction. In fact, it was ammended by this president to extend the search time from 24 hours to 72 hours. So, there is no reason that he cannot work with it. Especially when there has been over 18,000 warrants granted and only 5 denied.
February 9th, 2006 at 3:22 pmChase, how do you know it is a terrorist contact?
February 9th, 2006 at 3:47 pmBSR – please explain to us what you meant by “piece of paper.” We are all curious as to why you let that remark slip out. Please, inform every American that you have just insulted why you phrased it that way!
You are on a slippery slope and if I were you, I would back that truck up.
February 9th, 2006 at 3:50 pm#107 P&P, it’s not an original thought from Blue State Redcoat, it allegedly came from Dear Leader himself
February 9th, 2006 at 3:56 pmRBush: Thank you for your considered reaction.
It is definately not objective, but it’s an editorial so I think that’s fair.
You raise interesting points that I don’t necessarily disagree with. Principle among them, why the President did not retroactively seek approval from FISA. I have yet to understand why that didn’t happen. The earlier link I posted (right after I realized you beat me to the punch much earlier) seems to suggest to me the FISA court kept a close eye upon data collected in this particular NSA program. If nothing else, you must admit this is a *step* in the right direction.
Where I think you are out of step with the reality we face is in the dynamic nature of the threat. I know the “FISA as outdated law” argument is threadbare but it does bear remembering: in 1978, there were no disposible cell phones, no anonymous email accounts, etc. While the law *probably* should have been changed to reflect the technological evolution, it wasn’t. The President, who is singulary charged to protect the US from foreign threats, felt he needed the capability to survail these communcations.
Regarding data mining; I am fully aware what this practice entails. I dont understand your fear of it, particularly given the consequences of failing to connect the dots once again. Data mining only brings to light connections that already exist for further investigation. If data mining preempts even one American death from terrorism, I think the program is a success. Conversely, if there is every even a shred of evidence that the NSA program is used to spy on people for political reasons, it is an utter failure. Thankfully, this has not been the case.
I have some other points I’ll make after I see your thoughts.
February 9th, 2006 at 4:00 pmAccording to you, the President must protect a piece of paper at all costs, but he can leave the nation and the people to defend themselves.
Comment by Blue State Red — February 9, 2006 @ 2:15 pm
Where in the world did Blue State Red get this idea?
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
Bush on the Constitution
That’s right. In Pres Bush’s opinion the Law of the Land, the document that is at the very heart of the nation, the Constitution itself is just a “piece of paper”. No wonder Pres Bush thinks he can ignore the law at will.
This is how minions are made. Whatever the authority figure says goes.
February 9th, 2006 at 4:00 pm#108 Okay, now I’m truly sick.
February 9th, 2006 at 4:00 pmWhile the law *probably* should have been changed to reflect the technological evolution, it wasn’t. The President, who is singulary charged to protect the US from foreign threats, felt he needed the capability to survail these communcations.
Comment by Chase — February 9, 2006 @ 4:00 pm
So in essence your argument is that Pres Bush had no choice but to break the law.
Am I understanding you correctly?
February 9th, 2006 at 4:03 pm#109: if the FISA law is outdated (maybe the 4th Amendment is outdated too), then why didn’t Chimpy try to amend it? Reason, what he wanted to do would be considered ‘unconstitutional’. So if you can’t amend the law, ignore it?
Other examples of this behavior:
1. Jose Padilla – first incarcerated without writ of Habeas Corpus for a ‘dirty bomb plot’ now for allegedly financing terror groups
2. Iraq invasion – first it was WMD and Al-Qaeda links but when they don’t pan out, it’s get rid of Saddam, but when that is done, it’s now ‘nation-building’….
How do you know? What does John ‘I’m here to stop the recount’ Bolton need NSA transscripts for?
February 9th, 2006 at 4:12 pmComment by Chase
“If nothing else, you must admit this is a *step* in the right direction.”
I do agree that it is a slight step in the correct direction.
“Where I think you are out of step with the reality we face is in the dynamic nature of the threat. I know the “FISA as outdated law†argument is threadbare but it does bear remembering: in 1978, there were no disposible cell phones, no anonymous email accounts, etc. While the law *probably* should have been changed to reflect the technological evolution, it wasn’t. The President, who is singulary charged to protect the US from foreign threats, felt he needed the capability to survail these communcations.”
I’m not out of step, just realistic. If we, as a nation, say that it is OK to do this without oversight where does it stop? The reason for oversight is to make sure someone in power does not abuse this power. This is the concern of many Americans. I think that it is his job to do just that, but he must do it by the law. Just going around blowing up ships entering the harbor because he feels they may be a threat is not the right way, and neither is this. If he needs to be more adjile, fine but do it legally and with oversight.
“Regarding data mining; I am fully aware what this practice entails. I dont understand your fear of it, particularly given the consequences of failing to connect the dots once again. Data mining only brings to light connections that already exist for further investigation.”
There are several problems with this, as pointed out in a previous post above. First, is that it takes resources away from actually protecting us by having them run around on wild goose chases. By just throwing a net out is not an effective way to gather intelligance. Secondly, this completely runs the risk of having any terrorists that are caught having their case thrown out because they did not do it legally. I would rather a terrorist not get detected, then catch him and piss him off more just to become more determined.
“If data mining preempts even one American death from terrorism, I think the program is a success.”
No it’s not… If our freedom means that we have to give up the constitution, then why did I and the millions of other soldiers serve in the millitary?
“Conversely, if there is every even a shred of evidence that the NSA program is used to spy on people for political reasons, it is an utter failure. Thankfully, this has not been the case.”
Really, and you know that how? It has already been shown that the Quakers have been spyed on by this program and the ACLU, so you really think that it is unbelievable that Kerry was spied on? How about Colin Powell? Jimmy Carter? They were spyed on by this program. Are they terrorists?
February 9th, 2006 at 4:12 pmI think he has nefarious intentions. There is no other reason why he made his special plan secret as he already had what he needed.
February 9th, 2006 at 4:17 pmChase before you ask for a link to proof that some of the people I spoke of were spyed on, here you go:
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0700nsa.htm
February 9th, 2006 at 4:22 pmI have heard the arguments re: Quakers, Powell, Carter being spied upon but I just dont buy it. Does someone have links to info about that?
I also dont give credence to the slippery slope arugment you make (”If we, as a nation, say that it is OK to do this without oversight where does it stop?”) Oversight, it turns out *was* exercised (house/senate leadership was briefed, the presiding FISA judge was informed.) Just because the details werent debated on CNN doesn’t mean there is a coverup or that appropriate oversight wasnt given.
And the “wasted resources” argument is rebuffed by the Post article.
Any early wasted resource (early as in immediatley post 9.11) was probably more a product of overreaction at the FBI than anything else. I would rather waste resources than have the NSA feel stimied to the point they cant survial and have that lead to another attack (as happened with Moussaui.)
February 9th, 2006 at 4:26 pmhaha thanks for the link!
February 9th, 2006 at 4:26 pmWhat happened with the data? There is a difference between electonic interception, stockpilining of the information and action being taking upon it. HR Clinton was survialled… what during her husbands fellatious tenure? Look at the date of the article…
February 9th, 2006 at 4:29 pmRemoveBush,
Let’s not forget that FISA was created by Congress to prevent abuses, specifically like the illegal wiretaps that Hoover’s FBI conducted on war protesters and dissenters in the 1970s.
In response to the Church Committee findings and some court rulings expressing concern about violations of people’s constitutional rights, Congress enacted the “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act” (FISA), to limit and channel domestic spying. Reformers in Washington hoped to install some safeguards against abuse in foreign intelligence and counter-intelligence investigations.
FISA and the FISA Court
Among other things, the [Church] committee’s 1976 report detailed the workings of the infamous COINTELPRO, an FBI domestic spying program on civil rights leaders, anti-war groups, and anyone else who rubbed J. Edgar Hoover the wrong way.
Mondo Washington
To ignore FISA (which in itself is a legal way around the 4th amendment) would be to go back to the days of J. Edgar Hoover when anyone and everyone was a potential target -Martin Luther King was wiretapped for speaking out against the war, for example.
February 9th, 2006 at 4:30 pmGregor – There is no evidence that surveillence of political targets is occuring, much less that any information is being acted upon. What Hoover did was certainly wrong. This *does not yet* appear to be that.
February 9th, 2006 at 4:33 pm“Gregor – There is no evidence that surveillence of political targets is occuring, much less that any information is being acted upon. What Hoover did was certainly wrong. This *does not yet* appear to be that.
Comment by Chase — February 9, 2006 @ 4:33 pm”
Oh pumpkin, sure there is. It’s already been released that the FBI has been spying on peace activists, and political opponents of the government, the only thing that isn’t clear is whether the NSA was also involved in this activity, or whether it was conducted without warrants. But we do in fact know that spying has been occurring on political targets.
But considering that processing these facts requires a non-partisan brain, I forgive you for not remembering, or recognizing their relevance pumpkin. Clearly you’re doing the best you can with what parts of your brain is still active.
February 9th, 2006 at 4:38 pmYou guys don’t get it, do you. Our enemies are trying to kill us in mass quantities — Blue State Red
********************
Dear BSR –
While you’ve never specified in which Blue State you reside, I’d be willing to wage a tidy amount that you don’t live in New York City. I, on the other hand, do and have done for nearly a third of my life now — and given that I’m over thirty-five, that means that I’ve been here since long before 9-11. I’ll tell you the same thing that I tell others who resort to this sort of paranoid, panic-mongering palaver…
For one thing, if I was even half as terror-stricken as folks like you are, I would’ve moved out of New York as soon as it could have possibly been managed — either that, or I would stay inside my apartment twenty-four hours a day. However, I’m still here because I consider this city my home — I’m damned if I’m going to let the threat of terrorism scare me into leaving the city I love or becoming a prisoner of my own fears. Oh, I get it all right…the real question is, do you?
For a long time after 9-11, I saw the smoke and looked nervously up at the sky whenever a plane flew overhead — I have as much reason as you do, if not even more, to want to keep something like this from happening again. Again, I don’t know where you live but the odds are pretty good that I have at least a bit more reason for concern over another potential attack than you do. I don’t however, consider this sufficient justification for our federal government to run riot and do whatever it sees fit without concern for law or Constitutional principle. History has shown us time and time again that when people permit their leaders carte blanche to pursue any course of action in the name of safety, they can very easily become in their own way almost as great a threat to their own people as the enemies from whom they are supposedly protecting them. It should be in the best interest of the government to protect the best interest of the people because the two should be one and the same. Unfortunately, this is not always the case — and when it is not, the government will almost always rationalize its policies by whatever means possible in order to protect its own interests rather than those of the people.
One of our Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry, is famed for having said, “Give me liberty or give me death!” It seems clear that this is an area in which people like you and people like me differ. I certainly don’t like the idea of dying in a terrorist attack — but I don’t see myself as being so incredibly important or my life so infinitely valuable that it’s worth the price of the precious freedoms upon which this country was founded. A lot of people in this country seem to be living a version of the movie “Groundhog Day” with the calendar frozen on September 11 — it looks as though you’re one of them — but human beings are capable of greater resilience than this. All over the world and all throughout history, societies have endured repeated terrorist attacks yet people learn how to survive because life goes on. There’s no question that life is very uncertain in such places, but life is uncertain anyway — if you expect to find any genuine certainty in life, I wish you the very best of luck because you’re going to have a very difficult time finding any that is not to some extent self-imposed.
February 9th, 2006 at 4:40 pmRightPunch: The condescension–it’s been a lifelong struggle huh?
1.) FBI does not equal NSA. Thanks for playing.
February 9th, 2006 at 4:42 pm2.) Just pretending so as not to upset the children, can you cite that? Thanks, sugar.
Comment by Chase
“Oversight, it turns out *was* exercised (house/senate leadership was briefed, the presiding FISA judge was informed.) Just because the details werent debated on CNN doesn’t mean there is a coverup or that appropriate oversight wasnt given.”
Chase, so you consider someone just telling a person oversight? So when my boss tells me to do something and I am not allowed to speak out about it to him, then he has oversight from me? The few people that were told, and not everyone on the committee as the law states, were not allowed to disagree with the program. They could do nothing. Just being told about something is not ov ersight. It does not have to be on the news, but when the committee that the president is suppose to breif, by law, is not then I have an issue with it.
It’s like that recent meeting the president had with all of those former presidential personnel, where the president spent hours telling them what he was doing. Yet they were only given about 5 minutes each to express their ideas or comment on the program of discussion. This was nothing but a publicity stunt. Really, how could a person of intelligance offer comments and ideas in 5 minutes with out debate of the issue between all these great minds that the president brought together?
“I would rather waste resources than have the NSA feel stimied to the point they cant survial and have that lead to another attack (as happened with Moussaui.)”
Not me….. I would rather hold onto our Civil Liberties to show the terrorists that we are not going to let them change our lives or country. I agree that we need to be more effective, but not by giving up our civil liberties.
Also, what does Yahoo, Google, MS, etc. have to do with terrorists? They spin it as a way to detect child molesters and such, but really? If you think that we are not heading in the wrong direction, just look at the “Free Speach Zones”. Since when is it wrong for people to gather and express their views? How about the requested changes in the Patriot Act that says that the Secret Service can now arrest you for walking into an area that may or may not be properly marked. So you go to jail, because you were walking in an area that was not labeled properly? If you think this is not possible, you may want to do some research. Many people are jailed who are inoccent.
February 9th, 2006 at 4:43 pm“RightPunch: The condescension–it’s been a lifelong struggle huh?
1.) FBI does not equal NSA. Thanks for playing.
2.) Just pretending so as not to upset the children, can you cite that? Thanks, sugar.
Comment by Chase — February 9, 2006 @ 4:42 pm”
Oh sweetie, only a partisan who feels guilt would think that love, forgiveness and understanding are condescending. Poor thing, I forgive you.
And I appreciate you pointing out that the NSA isn’t the FBI in that ‘condescending’ way ;) I forgive you for your hypocrisy pumpkin – it’s OK, I understand how you’d feel the need to ‘act out’ in such a hateful way, it’s a common problem among the partisans – you’re a victim of your brain pumpkin.
But the FBI has been used to spy on political opponents, and the FBI is part of the government – so the only thing we aren’t sure of is who exactly the NSA was spying on. See unlike the FBI, they are ’super secret’, and can hide this information – and that’s why there’s a court to review their actions. Without knowing who was spied on specifically, you are in fact just printing conjecture that the NSA wouldn’t be spying on political opponents. Considering that the FBI has already been used for this purpose, then a ‘reasonable’ person might consider the NSA would be used as well.
And you claimed that Bush wasn’t spying on his opponents, I merely correct you on this false statement. So instead of recognizing that you had in fact ‘unintentionally?’ lied, you instead attacked me as being condescending?
I know this rational and reasonable possibility isn’t something that a partisan brain would permit itself to consider – but there it is pumpkin.
But I forgive you for your hatred, anger, paranoia and striking out at those with more rational minds than yourself. It’s to be expected pumpkin, and it’s OK that you can’t help yourself. I forgive you for being the way you are pumpkin.
February 9th, 2006 at 4:49 pmThe measure of the commander in chief is his success in protecting the nation. And this President has successfully protected the U.S. homeland from al Qaeda terrorist attacks for over 4 years now. It seems to me that he at least is deserving of some credit for that success, whatever else one may think of him.
Comment by Blue State Red #82
Blueba*led inbRed,
(Yawn…)
I foiled a terrorist attack three years ago…
Ali bin Jamin al Crackani was on a party line (the other end of which I just happened to be on, talking to my accountant)…
…he was plotting with another al Qaida figure (whose name is classified because he’s currently in rendition in the Uurals) to crash a hijacked airplane (using a combination of cherry smoke and stink shoe bombs) into the Mann’s Grauman Chinese Theater marquis in Hollywood…
…I didn’t have a warrant and FISA was too far away, I knew I didn’t have 72 hours…
…I jumped into action to protect der Faderland und…
…’er that’s Homeland, and captured the culprits with the help of my high school buddy Tightrope…
…his real name is classified too….
…has anybody seen IRI?
…hope he didn’t get caught up in that NBC sting on computer predators…
February 9th, 2006 at 4:50 pmCommented by Bluestocking
Last time I checked, Lincoln took many liberties, much more egregious than Bush could imagine in his most imperialistic dream and the result was preserving the union and ending slavery.
I agree with your point that the Fox News crew, with rampant fearmongering and such is pathetic. But you of all people should recognize the gravity of the situation and understand the consequences of failing to act with “decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch” leaves us very vulnerable.
February 9th, 2006 at 4:51 pmThere is no evidence that surveillence of political targets is occuring, much less that any information is being acted upon. What Hoover did was certainly wrong. This *does not yet* appear to be that.
Comment by Chase — February 9, 2006 @ 4:33 pm
Here are some news for you:
Earlier this week, the Pentagon said it was reviewing its use of a classified database of information about suspicious people and activity inside the United States after a report by NBC News said the database listed activities of anti-war groups that were not a security threat to Pentagon property or personnel.
Report: Americans Spied On By NSA
A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn’t know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.
A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a “threat” and one of more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” across the country over a recent 10-month period.
Is the Pentagon spying on Americans?
Sitting in a wheelchair at the witness table Friday, Rich Hersh of Boca Raton tried to explain to a panel of congressional Democrats how his group of peace activists might be a threat.
“I think the truth is always a credible threat to illegitimate and unjust power,” said Hersh, 59, spokesman for The Truth Project, a group that met in a Quaker meeting house in Lake Worth to discuss nonviolent ways of countering military recruiting efforts at local high schools.
Truth Project spokesman witness in D.C. on spying
So political meetings are being targeted as are groups who oppose military recruiting in high schools.
February 9th, 2006 at 4:52 pmSee Chase, you’re a victim of your brain pumpkin.
The fact is that this administration has conducted political spying already using the FBI. Political spying is always a risk for ANY political party, and that’s why we have a court system sweetie. To prevent it from happening. If you can’t recognize this simple fact – then it’s obvious your partisan brain is running the show. But I forgive you, because according to the research your ‘unconscious’ brain is in control, so you have no control over your beliefs, actions or ideas. So therefore you can’t be held accountable for the things you say – and that’s why I can forgive you pumpkin.
February 9th, 2006 at 4:54 pmChase – “Last time I checked, Lincoln took many liberties, much more egregious than Bush could imagine in his most imperialistic dream and the result was preserving the union and ending slavery.”
One big difference though is that the Supreme Court stepped in and said that he could not do this.
February 9th, 2006 at 4:54 pmRemove: I’m not really sure what kind of discussion Bush had with the leadership–but neither are you. They are surprisingly mum on the subject. If you can find me recent quotes to the contrary, from the leadership, to the contrary, I will likewise concede. I don’t know what law you’re referring to that says when an NSA program protecting national security (or however you would care to characterize it) the entire committee must be consulted.
Why do you think that the Google, Yahoo stuff *isnt* about child porn? That’s a little conspiritorial. Again, evidence to the contrary would be appreciated.
And remember, it’s hard to enjoy your civil liberties when a.) terrorists are flying planes into buildings or b.) you’re dead as a result. I don’t fear for my civil liberties, why do you?
February 9th, 2006 at 5:00 pmBut you of all people should recognize the gravity of the situation and understand the consequences of failing to act with “decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch” leaves us very vulnerable.
Comment by Chase — February 9, 2006 @ 4:51 pm
“gravity of the situation”? I think the situation has been portrayed in a much grimmer light than it actually is in order for this administration to govern by fear.
At any rate, I think all can be accomplished while abiding the laws -many in this blog agree with me.
Further, I think the more Pres Bush claims to have the “inherent power” to order wiretaps, etc. the more the country steps away from one of laws to one of leaders.
Even conceding that Pres Bush is a good leader (I don’t think he is), we cannot trust future presidents will be. Laws must be obeyed. Enough with the cult of personality already.
February 9th, 2006 at 5:01 pmRB: But he did it, and it was the *right thing to do.*
February 9th, 2006 at 5:03 pmChase – Of course not, but since then we have added to the constitution and our laws to prevent that. C’MON
February 9th, 2006 at 5:05 pm“Last time I checked, Lincoln took many liberties, much more egregious than Bush could imagine in his most imperialistic dream and the result was preserving the union and ending slavery. Chase”
Sweetie, this partisan rant is based on the premise that Lincoln had to act in an illegal manner – and that the ends justify the means. Most historians agree that it was the wrong action on the part of Lincoln, and the great stain on his record. And they don’t agree with you that his actions ’saved’ the union – that’s just your spin on an illegal action.
But I forgive you for not being able to think or reason, you’re a victim of your handicap pumpkin.
February 9th, 2006 at 5:06 pmGregor: Bush has been singularly vested with the power to protect the nation–wiretaps are merely incident to this directive.
We could go back and forth about the seriousness of the threat we face but I dont think you can deny there are millions of people out there that would LOVE our guard to be down for a single day.
February 9th, 2006 at 5:08 pmAnd remember, it’s hard to enjoy your civil liberties when a.) terrorists are flying planes into buildings or b.) you’re dead as a result. I don’t fear for my civil liberties, why do you?
Comment by Chase — February 9, 2006 @ 5:00 pm
Taking your argument to its logical conclusion: It is very hard to enjoy any liberties at all if you are dead -let’s shelf the Constitution, and have an absolute monarch who will keep us safe from the big bad terrorists.
I provided links that show people, innocent people with no ties to terrorist groups whatsoever have been labeled a “threat”, and other have been labeled “persons of interest” because they exercised their freedom of speech.
If that doesn’t make you fear for your civil liberties, I don’t know what will.
February 9th, 2006 at 5:12 pm“Gregor: Bush has been singularly vested with the power to protect the nation–wiretaps are merely incident to this directive.
We could go back and forth about the seriousness of the threat we face but I dont think you can deny there are millions of people out there that would LOVE our guard to be down for a single day.
Comment by Chase — February 9, 2006 @ 5:08 pm”
Sweetie, that’s just silly, you didn’t even say anything other than if you were more scared you’d wet your diapers. But I forgive you being so scared in the face of some petty thugs. Clearly you scare easily pumpkin – and that’s to be expected from someone who bends so easily to partisan messages.
And no, the president is not vested with the power to protect the nation pumpkin, Congress is. But I forgive you with not understanding the constitution, separation of powers or american values. Not everyone can function with a full brain when they’re scared.
February 9th, 2006 at 5:12 pmRightPunch: Why dont you move to the mountains, and dont bother nobody. Lincoln saved the Union. His actions were necessary. Nuff said.
RB: Youre right, the constitution is much different now. Women can vote, slaves are no longer, etc etc etc.
Question for whoever: why doesnt anyone in the Dem leadership stand up and call for and end of NSA funding until this whole mess is figured out? That’s the power of the legislature, that’s what they should do. Or call for an impeachment resolution. Why not? Thats the legislative check (pumpkin.)
February 9th, 2006 at 5:12 pmChase – “Last time I checked, Lincoln took many liberties, much more egregious than Bush could imagine in his most imperialistic dream and the result was preserving the union and ending slavery.â€
One big difference though is that the Supreme Court stepped in and said that he could not do this. — Comment by RemoveBush
********************
If I’m not mistaken, Abraham Lincoln was also a Republican — so while Chase is clearly trying to prove that what Dubya did is perfectly acceptable given that other Presidents have done it before, using a fellow Republican president as an example is perhaps not the best way to support his argument…!
February 9th, 2006 at 5:14 pm“But I forgive you being so scared in the face of some petty thugs. ” – Gregor, NYC resident, please take this one.
February 9th, 2006 at 5:14 pmBluestocking: Coincidence.
February 9th, 2006 at 5:16 pm“RightPunch: Why dont you move to the mountains, and dont bother nobody. Lincoln saved the Union. His actions were necessary. Nuff said. Chase”
Sweetie, I love my country, and I live in the real world – why would I want to move anywhere? Frankly, you seem more of the sort of partisan who lives in Ruby Ridge. You really shouldn’t project your fears, hysteria and silly cowardace on others. I’m not so afraid of the terrorists that I forget the values of being american, but I forgive you for your weakness pumpkin. Being hysterically afraid of relatively low risk threats seems to be a common problem among partisans. They all seem to have relatively little tethering to the real world – poor things.
February 9th, 2006 at 5:17 pmpardon me, not gregor, bluestocking – the nyc resident
February 9th, 2006 at 5:17 pmBush has been singularly vested with the power to protect the nation–wiretaps are merely incident to this directive.
Comment by Chase — February 9, 2006 @ 5:08 pm
“Singularly”? Are you talking about the 9/11 resolution? If that’s the case. no, he doesn’t. The resolution authorised the use of military force:
S. J. Res. 23[107]: Authorization for Use of Military Force
And under Section 2, titled “AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.” it specifically states that:
“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(…)”
The resolution grants the President with authorisation to use military force. The wiretaps were carried out by the NSA, not the US military.
Sen. Brownback agrees with me:
Brownback: 9/11 Resolution Did Not Give Bush Authority for Warrantless Wiretapping
As do constitutional scholars: Conservative Scholars Argue Bush’s Wiretapping Is An Impeachable Offense
February 9th, 2006 at 5:20 pm““But I forgive you being so scared in the face of some petty thugs. †– Gregor, NYC resident, please take this one.
Comment by Chase — February 9, 2006 @ 5:14 pm”
And why don’t we talk to the folks in Atlanta, Oklahoma City or every other town in the country with a gay bar, an abortion clinic or a black church. There’s been one successful attack in how many decades? And that was when Bush thought that the drug war was important and Bin Laden wasn’t. So sweetie, you really do live in a delusional world – like most partisans. There are much more real risks in the world. And besides, american muslims have summarily rejected violence and the more radical elements of Islam. The chances of getting the kind of community suppport necessary to actually attack us is slim – by our own intelligence estimates. So poor pumpkin, I forgive you for not being able to live in reality.
February 9th, 2006 at 5:20 pmChase – “Remove: I’m not really sure what kind of discussion Bush had with the leadership–but neither are you. They are surprisingly mum on the subject. If you can find me recent quotes to the contrary, from the leadership, to the contrary, I will likewise concede. I don’t know what law you’re referring to that says when an NSA program protecting national security (or however you would care to characterize it) the entire committee must be consulted.”
There is not a law about the NSA, it is about the PRESIDENT. It was on the news a while back that one of the senators on the panel was claiming that the law states, and she quoted it, that the President is required to BRIEF ALL members of the committee.
This is the law. Since the president did not brief the entire committee, he is once again breaking the law.
“And remember, it’s hard to enjoy your civil liberties when a.) terrorists are flying planes into buildings or b.) you’re dead as a result. I don’t fear for my civil liberties, why do you?”
A). Well if you remember….. There were many months of FBI and CIA agents sending emails and jumping up and down about things happening in the US. Also, how about that PDB? If there are so many terrorist in the US, why doesnt he just go and arrest them? It’s not about security, or we would have our borders more secure. We would have more security around things like our nuclear plants.
February 9th, 2006 at 5:20 pmB). Because we have already seen how they protect the country our our rights. Look at the Plame case. Out of retribution because someone spoke out against Bush he OUTS a CIA agent and damages Plames ability to work, and all of the other people she worked with. You feel safe when someone puts their interrests above the countries? I DON’T
Right: by partisan you mean “conservative” right?
February 9th, 2006 at 5:23 pmRemoveBush,
Well said, but the partisan brain isn’t sane enough to process these rational arguments. Forgiveness and understanding if their inherent mental handicap is the best that can be hoped for.
Chase’s conscious brain isn’t even functioning when he types. Poor thing has less reasoning centers active than a chimp in a zoo does when he problem solves – how ironic is that?
February 9th, 2006 at 5:24 pm“Right: by partisan you mean “conservative†right?
Comment by Chase — February 9, 2006 @ 5:23 pm”
In your case yes sweetie, but in general partisans come in all varieties. My experience of most folks on this blog is that they’re progressives, and I often see them whack Democrats for their actions/inactions/etc., whereas partisans such as yourself ‘drink the koolaid’ and seem willing to carry water at any price.
But I forgive you for attempting to make your illness about me – it’s what a partisan does pumpkin. You’re just spinning the unconscious responses just like the good doctor said you would. And for that, I forgive you sweetie.
February 9th, 2006 at 5:26 pm#151 – Right’s right you know, Chase. For example I’m a raving pinko by American standards and view the body politic of the United States as a corporate-quasi-Fascist one-party state. There are not that many in the current Demo party that seem to give a turd about the population at large and you can see that in my posts.
February 9th, 2006 at 5:51 pmChase you asshole.
My brother and sister live blocks away from ground zero. My sister watched the second plane hit from the roof of her apartment.
They fear bush’s totalitarianism more than new Al Queda attacks. If the point of the terrorists is to take away the good stuff we have, you and your goosestepping brownshirts are the first ones trying to do it. You are the ones playing into Osama’s hands.
Stop blaming us. We, strangely enough, are the ones trying to preserve liberty, freedom and justice for all americans. Sounds corny, doesn’t it? Compare that to you who would let your feurher do his bidding on us all and you still support him. Move away if you hate america so much.
turn around IS fair play.
February 9th, 2006 at 5:53 pmQuestion for whoever: why doesnt anyone in the Dem leadership stand up and call for and end of NSA funding until this whole mess is figured out? That’s the power of the legislature, that’s what they should do. Or call for an impeachment resolution. Why not? Thats the legislative check (pumpkin.)
Comment by Chase — February 9, 2006 @ 5:12 pm
I am not privy to the conversations going at the leadership level in the Democratic party… so my answer to all your questions is a simple “I don’t know”. Why, I don’t even know if cutting the funding is the best idea. I would go for stopping all wiretaps first and go from there. But that’s just me.
Question back to you. You said that what J. Edgar Hoover did was wrong. I have provided links that show the people in charge of the current illegal wiretaps are engaging in the same kind of illegal surveillance and eavesdropping on political opponents and dissenters.
Why do you support illegal wiretaps? Do you think Pres Bush had no choice but to break the law?
February 9th, 2006 at 6:27 pmFirst: Congress has the option of cutting funding of those programs that wiretap. Cutting the funding of NSA would be the best opition to secure this, wouldnt you think? Why is there no talk of that?
Second: I disagree with your characterization of these wiretaps as illegal. And I do not support illegal wiretaps, and I particularly dispise wiretaps to gather information against political opponents.
I do not know the nature of the so-called “Quakers” that were surveilled. They were investigated for some (at least obstensive) reason, and I’m curious what that was. Lacking that, I cannot draw any conclusion.
I also want to touch again on the power of the executive in the realm of foreign affairs. So long as the NSA program in question involves AT LEAST ONE FOREIGN AGENT the president has the authority to wiretap. From Curtiss-Wright (1936):
I knew this was somewhere (had to rifle though my briefs) but this is taken to mean the president, in the realm of foreign affairs, does not have to wait for a congressional grant to act.
February 9th, 2006 at 6:55 pmChase – Though you may not realize this, but we do live in 2006 and your quote is over 70 years old. There have been modifications to the laws which require the president to do just that very thing.
Yes congress does have the right to create laws in this fashion. There is nothing in Article II that states otherwise. So though you might think that he has this “inhearant power”, he does not. Our Admendment 4 TRUMPS the presidents power.
As for your stopping the funding for these groups and that would stop them, and that would be true but the Republicans have the power. We all know that they kiss the presidents butt and would never do anything to rock the boat for their ruthless leader.
So what are the little people suppose to do? This is why I have written to ALL senators and suggested that a 40% vote would be all that was needed to generate an investigation or start an inquiry to any situation, rather than the way it is now. Sooner or later the tables are going to turn, and the Republicans will be crying that they can’t do anything. So why not fix this issue now?
It will never happen though, because the Republicans are to worried about having that reign of power.
February 9th, 2006 at 7:07 pmI’m glad I read further up..
Terry: It’s unfortuate you are completely at the fringe of our society. One of the annointed you are! Enjoy the view, “pinko.”
and Kindness: Ironic name with the quasi illegal slander dripping from your lips. Brownshirt? Ad hominems are great fun. Listen you twit, elections are what they are. Bush won, for better or worse, and (I’m gonna assume you didnt vote for him) you lost. Better luck in 08. At this rate, I doubt it.
February 9th, 2006 at 7:07 pmCongress cannot pass a law in that violates the Const. You know that. The SCOTUS has recognized the president’s plenary power in this realm so this whole case is a nonstarter.
At least you have one thing right: republicans have the power; not by military coup but via election. And yes, the tables will turn one day, no doubt. I really hope the day is soon that the Democratic party is able to run a candidate that is a middle-America type. Then things would be interesting.
February 9th, 2006 at 7:10 pmChase – Bush did not win…..
Let’s see…. I know this has been discussed, but let me present them again.
1) In 2000, the Supreme Court gave Bush the presidency.
2) In 2004, Kerry actually won but the Diebold machines loked the presidancy for Bush.
There is plenty of efidence to the fact. The exit polls show this. The exit polls were never off this much in the history of our elections. Coincidence?
Now your president just mentioned the words (terror, terrorist, and terrorism) 90 times in todays speech. This is a president operating off of keeping the sheeple in fear and cowering in the corner. I don’t know you, but I get the impression you might fall into that catagory, but you do at least ask questions and propose argumenative debate about the subject so there may still be hope.
February 9th, 2006 at 7:13 pmChase – “Congress cannot pass a law in that violates the Const. You know that. The SCOTUS has recognized the president’s plenary power in this realm so this whole case is a nonstarter.”
This is true, but they have not. They have recognized certain powers but have also indicated that the president does not have a “blank check” in time of war. If your refering to Hamdi, then that case has been debunked.
This case was regarding a Citizen in a Battle Zone, being held without his habeous. Other than that, the SCOTUS has not declaired the president has powers above the laws. The Congress has the power to tell the president how to do certain things with the military. i.e. How long he can stay in a war (funding). How the troops must behave (UCMJ Uniform Code of Military Justice).
So Congress can in fact and does tell the president how he will manage certain aspects of the miltary. So by that, this means that the president is in fact limited in what he can do. Doesnt this make sense? If the president has such power in the constitution, then why does the president need to get funding from Congress or why doesnt the president define how the military will act?
February 9th, 2006 at 7:20 pm2004: Kerry? Come on! 3 MILLION VOTES? Reality bro, reality. That’s a landslide. It was the electorate that locked the presidency for Bush, not the machines.
And your 2000 claim is interesting. I can understand disapproval with the Electoral College, but facts is facts.
I’m really not living in this state of fear. I dont think we can underestimate the threat of radical islam but i think we have the power to keep them at bay. no scheme, no intelligence, nothing will ever prevent all terrorism. i just dont think we should open the floodgates, that’s all.
I also appreciate your reasonableness amongst the other schmucks here. I feel so bad – these are probably well educated people that are so misguided, so wrongheaded it’s frightening. But both sides have their fair shares of idiots, that’s for sure.
When Democracy is the game, running to the middle, not the fringes is the path to winning elections. Clinton did it in 92-96. The electorate, the collective intelligence is being represented by the GOP (at least for now.) I think they are very vulnerable, if and only if, the MoveOn/Commie faction is subjugated instead of put out front. I dont know where you fall on this continuium, but this is the truth.
February 9th, 2006 at 7:22 pmI disagree with your characterization of these wiretaps as illegal.
Comment by Chase — February 9, 2006 @ 6:55 pm
I already provided links to the opinion of legal scholars who have stated that Bush cannot claim to have the authority to order wiretaps. Pres Bush has admitted to personally ordering them rather than seek FISA approval -arguing on very shaky legal grounds. He circumvented the law. The wiretaps are illegal.
And I do not support illegal wiretaps, and I particularly dispise wiretaps to gather information against political opponents.
Well, I also provided links that show Quakers have been targeted for opposing military recruitment in high schools.
I do not know the nature of the so-called “Quakers” that were surveilled. They were investigated for some (at least obstensive) reason, and I’m curious what that was. Lacking that, I cannot draw any conclusion.
Quakers were targeted for voicing their opposition to military recruiters on high school grounds (see links in my previous posts). The Quakers are a very old nonviolent Christian community. Read more about them here.
February 9th, 2006 at 7:40 pmChase – “2004: Kerry? Come on! 3 MILLION VOTES? Reality bro, reality. That’s a landslide. It was the electorate that locked the presidency for Bush, not the machines.”
It was down to Ohio in determining who the president would be, if memory serves. Since I cast my vote, and I was not going to be a factor any further I did not watch the election to completion.
I do not vote for a party. I vote for the best person. I would like to see the rest of the country do the same, rather than voting a party no matter what.
February 9th, 2006 at 7:41 pmCongress cannot pass a law in that violates the Const. You know that. The SCOTUS has recognized the president’s plenary power in this realm so this whole case is a nonstarter.
Comment by Chase — February 9, 2006 @ 7:10 pm
I am not sure I understand your post. Are you arguing FISA is unconstitutional?
Pleas elaborate.
February 9th, 2006 at 7:43 pm“But I forgive you being so scared in the face of some petty thugs.” — Gregor, NYC resident, please take this one. — Comment by Chase
“Pardon me, not Gregor, bluestocking – the NYC resident” — Comment by Chase
*******************
Chase, it appears that you didn’t actually pay all that much attention to my little(!) soapbox post — I’m more likely to side with RightPunch than you on this one. If I may be so bold as to quote myself, “I certainly don’t like the idea of dying in a terrorist attack — but I don’t see myself as being so incredibly important or my life so infinitely valuable that it’s worth the price of the precious freedoms upon which this country was founded.”
I can’t say I share RightPunch’s belief that al-Qaeda amounts to little more than “some petty thugs”. I may not be willing to sacrifice my Constitutional freedoms to protect our country from another terrorist attack — but that doesn’t mean that I’m going to stop being careful. I also can’t dispute the fact that, as you put it, “the consequences of failing to act with decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch leaves us very vulnerable.” You and I differ, however, in how “decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch” should be defined. The Bush administration has already attempted to circumvent the Sixth (and possibly also the Fifth) Amendments with regard to Jose Padilla by holding an American citizen for three years without charge or trial and obstructing his right to consult legal counsel.
6th Amendment — In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
They have also attempted to circumvent the Fourth Amendment through the NSA wiretapping.
4th Amendment — 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.
If we allow the President to circumvent these Amendments with impunity today, which ones will he attempt to circumvent tomorrow? Or a future President? How many of your rights are you willing to sacrifice in the name of safety — particularly if you live in an area where there is comparatively little actual risk of an attack? Where does it stop? You may be willing to go for ten out of ten on the Bill of Rights, but I sure as hell am not. I know as well as anyone that post-911 America isn’t an especially easy or happy or comfortable place in which to live sometimes — but there’s no way to turn the clock back. Americans may simply need to find a way to adjust to a greater level of discomfort and uncertainty if we want to maintain the majority of our freedoms. The eagle in the zoo is safe and protected, after all — but he is not free.
Kudos to Kindness, by the way…
February 9th, 2006 at 8:01 pm“But I forgive you being so scared in the face of some petty thugs.” — Gregor, NYC resident, please take this one. — Comment by Chase
“Pardon me, not Gregor, bluestocking – the NYC resident” — Comment by Chase
*******************
Chase, it appears that you didn’t actually pay all that much attention to my little(!) soapbox post — I’m more likely to side with RightPunch than you on this one. If I may be so bold as to quote myself, “I certainly don’t like the idea of dying in a terrorist attack — but I don’t see myself as being so incredibly important or my life so infinitely valuable that it’s worth the price of the precious freedoms upon which this country was founded.”
I can’t say I share RightPunch’s belief that al-Qaeda amounts to little more than “some petty thugs”. I may not be willing to sacrifice my Constitutional freedoms to protect our country from another terrorist attack — but that doesn’t mean that I’m going to stop being careful. I also can’t dispute the fact that, as you put it, “the consequences of failing to act with decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch leaves us very vulnerable.” You and I differ, however, in how “decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch” should be defined. The Bush administration has already attempted to circumvent the Sixth (and possibly also the Fifth) Amendments with regard to Jose Padilla by holding an American citizen for three years without charge or trial and obstructing his right to consult legal counsel.
6th Amendment — In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
They have also attempted to circumvent the Fourth Amendment through the NSA wiretapping.
4th Amendment — 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.
If we allow the President to circumvent these Amendments with impunity today, which ones will he attempt to circumvent tomorrow? Or a future President? How many of your rights are you willing to sacrifice in the name of safety — particularly if you live in an area where there is comparatively little actual risk of an attack? Where does it stop? You may be willing to go for ten out of ten on the Bill of Rights, but I sure as hell am not. I know as well as anyone that post-911 America isn’t the most safe or cheerful or comforting place in which to live sometimes — but there’s no way to turn the clock back. Americans may simply need to find a way to adjust to a greater level of discomfort and uncertainty if we want to maintain the majority of our freedoms. The eagle in the zoo is safe and protected, after all — but he is not free.
Kudos to Kindness, by the way…
February 9th, 2006 at 8:07 pm“2004: Kerry? Come on! 3 MILLION VOTES? Reality bro, reality. That’s a landslide. It was the electorate that locked the presidency for Bush, not the machines. Chase”
You believe a margin of less than 3% of the population is a landslide? Then Clinton’s 6 million vote over BushII, or his 8.5 million vote victory over Dole must be unanimous?
You partisans say the silliest things.
“And your 2000 claim is interesting. I can understand disapproval with the Electoral College, but facts is facts. Chase”
Then by this statement how is a 3 million vote lead (presuming that’s an accurate count in light of Republicans registering more votes than congressmen on their own majority leader) even relevant? After all, if you don’t think a 1/5 million vote victory by Gore is relevant, how is a 3 million vote by Bush that he BARELY won the electoral votes on relevant? After all, if Ohio hadn’t been stolen as has been pretty much proven at this point, Bush wouldn’t have stolen the second straight election. But after consistently losing the previous two elections and the fear of dying supreme court justices – republican partisans were desperate to win at all costs.
And I’ll definitely concede that this wasn’t the first, nor will it be the last time a political party stole an election. However the party that runs on ‘morality’ stealing an election is pretty much the definition of undeserving and hypocrisy pumpkin.
February 9th, 2006 at 8:10 pmIt’s clear one reason for Gonzalez’ misleading answers: — Congress asks questions that invite misleading answers. For example, Rep. Sensenbrenner’s 51 questions from the House Judiciary Committee is not a serious attempt at fact finding — his questions are riddled with flawed assumptions, all 51 of them: [ Click ]
February 9th, 2006 at 8:59 pmYea it was somewhat of an outburst. But listen, I was reading your posts and feel you have absolutely no right to give us that protect us from the terrorists malarkey. bushco doesn’t own the issue, even though you Rovian zombies like to tell everyone how much Democrats are surrender monkeys.
Part of what’s wrong with your argument is that whole cut off the funding aspect. We don’t want to kill off the NSA. We just want it to obey the United States laws. If democrats came out and tried to insist on killing the program, that would play right into Rove’s hands in calling democrats weak on security.
I, personally, don’t like the aspect of any secret court that there is no defense in front of. Too Star Chamberish for me. But it’s there. Most of their stuff is probably reasonable, so for now, I’m willing to let that one pass.
And this whole bushco has kept us from attack bullshit. You overstate the terrorists menace. 19 guys took over 4 planes with boxcutters. That ain’t happening in the US again. It isn’t that you can’t get through security with the stuff, it’s cause the whole plane is gonna rush the hijackers. It isn’t a free trip to Havana any more baby.
Now as far as you don’t like me calling you & bushco a fascist, Yea, it must be pretty embarassing trying to act like you are protecting freedom & goodness while doing exactly what the fascists did. Laws? You suggest the President trumps laws. Hitler. You think listening to EVERYONE’s phone calls is OK. Totalitarian. Dumbya has consistently given out HUGE tax breaks to the top 1% & corporate “friends”.
You aren’t by chance in that top 1% are you? No, I didn’t think so. If you were, you wouldn’t have time to write lies in a liberal chat room. No, you are just like the 99% of us that hasn’t seen the generosity of George W. Bush.
I thought Reagan was bad. Reagan wasn’t a fascist. Reagan truly didn’t trust or like Big Government. George, and especially his boys in the posse, They LOVE Big Government. It’s made them rich. Business interests running hand and hand with a strong Executive. Nazi.
It must being embarrassing trying to pawn yourself off as a Patriot knowing you’re just another Hitler Youth.
February 9th, 2006 at 10:08 pm#157, Chase, I along with most of the rest of the world, don’t think of myself at the fringe of anything. I liken it more to being at the circus when the clowns arrive in one of those cars – there’s always another clown coming out of the US car and there are plenty of red noses to go around. Trouble is, the clowns have started following people home and beating them up.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:08 pmSo long as the NSA program in question involves AT LEAST ONE FOREIGN AGENT the president has the authority to wiretap. From Curtiss-Wright (1936)
Comment by Chase #155
What is meant by “AGENT”?
February 10th, 2006 at 10:11 am[...] DeWine should know better. His efforts to reform FISA were disingenuously rejected in 2002 by the Justice Department. The administration clearly has no problem misleading Congress about its program, and DeWine wants to reward Cheney by giving him a legal blank check? [...]
February 15th, 2006 at 2:19 pm[...] DeWine’s solution completely overlooks the major problem with Bush’s illegal domestic spying program. The administration has argued that FISA doesn’t apply to its program, and DeWine simply wants to embed that viewpoint into law. By doing so, the DeWine legislation would grant authority to the administration to continue to conduct its program without any legal checks or safeguards on its powers. DeWine should know better. His efforts to reform FISA were disingenuously rejected in 2002 by the Justice Department. The administration clearly has no problem misleading Congress about its program, and DeWine now wants to reward Cheney and other administration officials by giving them a legal blank check. Explore posts in the same categories: Illegal Surveillance [...]
February 16th, 2006 at 3:54 pmGonzales is fu7ll of of it. He is conflating the reasonable-basis test and the resonable suspicion standard and using this to misrepresent probable cause. Probalbe cause is is when the facts lead “a man of reasonable caution to beleive that an offense has been or is being committed,” Brinegar v United State, 338 U.S. 160 (1949) and later in Illinois v Gates this definition was reinforced as “a fair probability” that a crime has been or is being committed.Probalbe cause does not include predictions that a crime be committed. However, reasonable suspicion and the reasonable-basis test do allow for speculation about commission of the crime.
However, Gonzales claimed they were using a probable cause standard which means they have to have to beleive that the individual in question has have committed a crime or is committing a crime. This does not include omnisciennt pronouncements or predictions. If they had particualr conversations or evidence that there was “a fair probabiltiy” that a crime was in the process of being committed then they could apply for and get a warrant.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:19 am