News NY Times discloses secret Executive Order: NSA is spying domestically

[Art]

Meredith Hill in the UK, where the US and UK monitor transatlantic communication - basically spying on anyone and everyone.

A few years back there was a diplomatic incident between Britain and Ireland when it was found that GCHQ (the British spy centre) was listening in on all calls to and from Ireland. This had started with good intentions to find out what the IRA were planning but as always seems to happen in such situations the temptation to misuse the information gleaned won out over principles and the British began to use the information they were collecting to win commercial contracts where Ireland and England were competing for foreign investment.

It is a very dangerous path when you have a president deciding who should be tapped to protect national security. The Bush admin believe anything but a republican gov't is a threat to national security and so it is a short step for them to abuse these powers they have seized for political ends.

Nobody suggests that suspected terrorists should not be put under surveilence but what is wrong with the court order system? One can only presume that Bush and co. must think a judge would not grant some of their requests and so one should wonder if the admin's case is as compelling as Bush claims as if it was the judicial oversight system would suffice.

 

[edward]

Nobody suggests that suspected terrorists should not be put under surveilence but what is wrong with the court order system? One can only presume that Bush and co. must think a judge would not grant some of their requests and so one should wonder if the admin's case is as compelling as Bush claims as if it was the judicial oversight system would suffice.

There simply aren't enough judges to handle all of the requests for court orders that would have to be made. Domestic intel operations are far to massive.

 

[Art]

There simply aren't enough judges to handle all of the requests for court orders that would have to be made. Domestic intel operations are far to massive.

there's lots of judges and only one president yet he found the time to sign off on them.

Unrepentant Bush reveals he ordered secret wiretaps in US
By Philip Sherwell in Washington
(Filed: 18/12/2005)
President George W Bush revealed yesterday that he had personally authorised 30 secret wiretaps in the United States since the September 11 terror attacks as he strongly defended his administration's clandestine eavesdropping programme.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...18.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/12/18/ixnewstop.html
I'm sure he could have found judges to sign off on 30 wiretaps! That is unless of course his motives were suspect or he had zero probable cause. It would be very interesting to know who these suspected terrorists were. His personal involvement suggests a certain sensitivity about the people being scrutenised. Senior politicians in the US perhaps??
Many people are claiming what he is doing is illegal if so than it sounds like something he should be impeached for.

Mr Specter questioned the legality of Mr Bush's executive orders, saying: "The law prohibits this type of electronic surveillance."

Some lawmakers called for an immediate end to the programme.

Reacting yesterday to Mr Bush's defence, Russell Feingold, a Democratic senator, said the president's remarks were "breathtaking in how extreme they were".

He described as "absurd" Mr Bush's explanation that he relied on his inherent power as president to authorise extra-judicial wiretaps. "If that's true, he doesn't need the Patriot Act because he can just make it up as he goes along.

 

[russ_watters]

Because a phone conversation in the privacy of one's home is not in a public forum, unless one now considers the telecom systems to be public forums.

Yes, the situations are different, but not as different as most people think: Empty the restaurant. What has changed? Nothing. People tend to forget that the staff of the restaurant is still part of the public and will inevitably still overhear things. It is precisely the same with your phone company: they own the phone lines and they work on the phone lines. You never know when someone might be listening in due to the necessity of working on your lines (that need is decreasing with technology, but it's still there).

Really, I think privacy is maintained in phone lines mostly because of tradition. There is no logical reason why your phone company doesn't own your phone conversations, just like AOL owns your emails.

Caveat: I'm talking here about hypothetical logic and practicality. Laws are not necessarily always logically consistent, even though they are supposed to be. And I'm really not clear on what the law says on this isue. But I think that if the laws prevent this kind of thing, they may soon change because of the logic behind email's working getting itself into the forefront of people's consciousness. I can see no logical reason why the police (or FBI or NSA) shouldn't be able to simply request a wiretap from the phone company instead of getting a court order to both allow and require one. They already get the calling records (time, number, duration) by request alone - I see no logical reason why the content of the phone conversation shouldn't be similarly available.

 

[russ_watters]

It's about our right to privacy, which is one of our most fundamental rights, much more so than our "right" to bear arms.

Is it? Where do you get that idea? If privacy is such a fundamental right, why does the word "privacy" not appear in the Bill of Rights? Why is the closest thing to a "right to privacy" the 4th Amendment, which isn't a blanket right to privacy, but merely prohibits unreasonable search and siezure?

There are certain, specific instances where your privacy is protected under the law, but by and large, the right to privacy is a myth. And in my opinion, rightly so. There is too much secrecy in the world. Too many people are afraid to speak their minds or be themselves because of the fear of people thinking differently of them. But that is changing, with the internet and blogs. Kids today share their innermost thoughts with the entire world, and do you know what they are finding out about those deep-dark secrets that everyone has? Everyone has them and they are all the same! How ironic is that?

Heck, one thing I consider a fundamental part of being an adult is dropping the need for secrecy and starting to feel comfortable with who you are - and the corollary is that one of the biggest problems teenagers face is the perceived need to fit in. Why care if you are different? Why care if people are watching and will find out? What is there to be afraid of?

 

[Burnsys]

Russ, the problem arise when you have a criminal state spying on it's inocent citizens.

In the 70' dictatorship here in argentina people were kidnaped and tortured based on others kidnapeds phonebooks... For example if they suspected of me they kidnapedme, take my phonebook and kidnaped all my contacts. Just imagine what a criminal state could do with all this power and technology. You are being to much optimistic about the real nature of the human being.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, the problem arise when you have a criminal state spying on it's inocent citizens.

In the 70' dictatorship here in argentina people were kidnaped and tortured based on others kidnapeds phonebooks... For example if they suspected of me they kidnapedme, take my phonebook and kidnaped all my contacts. Just imagine what a criminal state could do with all this power and technology. You are being to much optimistic about the real nature of the human being.

So... does that mean that you agree that in a stable, open democracy, there is no need for secrecy?

The US is not a dictatorship and does not kidnap and torture random civilians.

I recognize that one of the reasons people fear openness is a general distrust of others, specifically in the government, but in the western world, I don't consider that to be a rational, realistic fear. I'll use my common analogy: just because people are afraid of airplanes, that doesn't mean they aren't safe.

 

[russ_watters]

What I think is the right to know that you are being monitored. When you call those support centers, they sometimes tell you that your call may be monitored. That is correct practice. In a crowded restaurant, sure I know that the guy sitting beside could potentially listen in. But on the phone, I wouldn't expect the same. There are times you don't want people knowing about parts of your life.

The whole issue about privacy isn't just about privacy. Atleast not in my opinion. It's about how it can be abused. If you know the guy who's doing these 'investigations', it's mighty easy to get someone marked a terrorist suspect isn't it. Although it may sound okay that this info is going to the 'government', but government is still people.

That's all true, but I think people make unrealistic assumptions about their privacy. On the internet, if a site doesn't have a privacy policy posted, people assume (or they should) that any information they submit to the site can/will be used for whatever purpose the company wants. People should apply the same default assumption to other communications media.

On that, does anyone know if phone companies have TOS policies that include a privacy policy?

 

[Burnsys]

So... does that mean that you agree that in a stable, open democracy, there is no need for secrecy?

Never thougth about that. but i don't believe there is any stable open democracy. i think they are all dictatorships diguised as democracys. (USA, and my country included)

The US is not a dictatorship and does not kidnap and torture random civilians.

mm. maybe not inside, but it's it daily job in irak and afghanistan...
(Replace Random civilian with Suspected terrorists.)

I recognize that one of the reasons people fear openness is a general distrust of others, specifically in the government, but in the western world, I don't consider that to be a rational, realistic fear. I'll use my common analogy: just because people are afraid of airplanes, that doesn't mean they aren't safe.

Beliveme 30.000 were killed here in my country, and i can see everyday that those same people who organized and runned the dictatorship of the 70' are well alive and running my government in key positions...

 

[russ_watters]

Beliveme 30.000 were killed here in my country, and i can see everyday that those same people who organized and runned the dictatorship of the 70' are well alive and running my government in key positions...

Burnsys, I just said 'planes are safe' and your response was 'cars are not safe'. So what? Your response has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[Burnsys]

Burnsys, I just said 'planes are safe' and your response was 'cars are not safe'. So what? Your response has nothing to do with what I said.

I don't understand your analogy... do you mean,.
Planes=Democracy?

 

[Art]

Burnsys, I just said 'planes are safe' and your response was 'cars are not safe'. So what? Your response has nothing to do with what I said.

I believe the point being made is that although at the moment you have nothing to fear from expressing your views and opinions and so are not concerned re your privacy, others who are not in lockstep with the current admin feel differently.

Come a change in government to one who's policies you fundamentally oppose I suspect your attitude to privacy would change dramatically when it is your views and opinions which are considered seditious.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is not about what the law should be or could be. What Bush did was illegal, dangerous, and unconstitutional; end of story. We now have undeniable grounds for impeachment.

On Meet the Press, Rice kept asserting that he used certain powers available to a President. What powers, Russert kept asking; from where does he derive this authority? She had no answer. She would only insist that he has the authority.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/
Be sure to read the follow-up with Sen Levin

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Note also that Bush's idea of a balance of power is to avoid legal review, tell a few members of congress what he's doing, and that although they have no say in the matter, if they speak out they will be violating national security laws.

This essentially makes Bush a dictator.

This sort of reminds me of how Saddam was told to give up his WMDs or we'll attack.

 

[edward]

Excellent points Ivan

I do notice that the article in the Times has Cheney/Bush on the high speed spin cycle again. Bush even had a rare live press conference this morning, following yesterdays speech.

 

[SOS2008]

Bush has claimed he had/has the right to spy on American citizens according to:

1) The powers of the President according to Article II of the US Constitution -

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions, which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Aside from being a self-proclaimed “War President,” current consensus among constitutional experts is that the constitution does not give the Executive Branch this kind of authority.

2) Congressional approval of the resolution to take military action against Afghanistan also gave him approval to spy on American citizens.

That’s news to most of Congress, including Republicans who have not responded in defense of Bush.

3) Time constraint -

The FISA court would have approved taps of domestic-to-international calls as quickly and easily as they do with normal domestic wiretaps. But if really in a crunch, Bush could have sought approval after the fact, yet never did.

The icing on the cake is Bush lashing out with this statement: “My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war.”

Where has he been? Hasn’t he heard about a leak regarding a certain CIA agent?

IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS LYING WOULD-BE DICTATOR!

 

[Skyhunter]

Bush has claimed he had/has the right to spy on American citizens according to:
1) The powers of the President according to Article II of the US Constitution -
Aside from being a self-proclaimed “War President,” current consensus among constitutional experts is that the constitution does not give the Executive Branch this kind of authority.
2) Congressional approval of the resolution to take military action against Afghanistan also gave him approval to spy on American citizens.
That’s news to most of Congress, including Republicans who have not responded in defense of Bush.
3) Time constraint -
The FISA court would have approved taps of domestic-to-international calls as quickly and easily as they do with normal domestic wiretaps. But if really in a crunch, Bush could have sought approval after the fact, yet never did.
The icing on the cake is Bush lashing out with this statement: “My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war.”
Where has he been? Hasn’t he heard about a leak regarding a certain CIA agent?
IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS LYING WOULD-BE DICTATOR!

I read through the entire thread and was just going to mention the fact that FISA routinely grants retroactive warrants.

I would like to know who Bush is spying on that he doesn't want to be made public. My guess is that they are probably journalists. Probably Democrats as well. I would hope there are a few would be terrorists in that list, except in the case of terrorists there is no reason not to seek authorization from the secret FISA court.

My sentiments exactly;

IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS LYING WOULD-BE DICTATOR!

 

[russ_watters]

I don't understand your analogy... do you mean,.
Planes=Democracy?

I said 'our democracy is stable and open' and you responded with 'my dictatorship was not'. The fact that your country was not does not in any way imply that the US is not.

I believe the point being made is that although at the moment you have nothing to fear from expressing your views and opinions and so are not concerned re your privacy, others who are not in lockstep with the current admin feel differently.

First of all, my views are not in lockstep with the current admin, and even if they were, how is that relevant? I strongly disliked Clinton, but did not fearthe government then either.

Come a change in government to one who's policies you fundamentally oppose I suspect your attitude to privacy would change dramatically when it is your views and opinions which are considered seditious.

See above - and "seditious" [views]? This is America, Art - there is no such thing.

 

[russ_watters]

This is not about what the law should be or could be.

Fair enough.

What Bush did was illegal, dangerous, and unconstitutional; end of story. We now have undeniable grounds for impeachment.

Could you explain both of those, please? Both how it is illegal (specific law would be helpful) and how it is unConstitutional.

Aside from being a self-proclaimed “War President,” current consensus among constitutional experts is that the constitution does not give the Executive Branch this kind of authority.

Could you cite some of these expert opinions, please?

 

[Burnsys]

I said 'our democracy is stable and open' and you responded with 'my dictatorship was not'. The fact that your country was not does not in any way imply that the US is not.

You said:

So... does that mean that you agree that in a stable, open democracy, there is no need for secrecy?

The US is not a dictatorship and does not kidnap and torture random civilians.

I recognize that one of the reasons people fear openness is a general distrust of others, specifically in the government, but in the western world, I don't consider that to be a rational, realistic fear. I'll use my common analogy: just because people are afraid of airplanes, that doesn't mean they aren't safe.

Well. your stable and open democracy kidnap and torture civilians (Suspected terrorists who end to be just inocent civilians in most of the cases.) all around the globe...
And when you said: "in the western world[/B], I don't consider that to be a rational, realistic fear"
I asume you was talking about all western democracies, including argentina, which is in the western hemisphere.

Edit: and my dictatorship was trained by your goverment!

 

[Burnsys]

See above - and "seditious" [views]? This is America, Art - there is no such thing.

------------------------------
The Sedition Act of 1798

Just a few years after the First Amendment was added to the Constitution, the federal government passed a law restricting freedom of speech. In 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act

Congress and President John Adams believed that the Sedition Act would help control pro-French troublemakers by forbidding criticism of the federal government. "Sedition" generally means the incitement of violent revolution against the government. The Sedition Act of 1798, however, went far beyond this. It required criminal penalties for persons who said or published anything "false, scandalous, or malicious" against the federal government, Congress or the president.
------------------------------------
Another major attempt to regulate freedom of speech occurred during World War I. In 1917, Congress passed the Federal Espionage Act. This law prohibited all false statements intending to interfere with the military forces of the country or to promote the success of its enemies. In addition, penalties of up to $10,000 and/or 20 years in prison were established for anyone attempting to obstruct the recruitment of men into the military.
---------------------------
In 1918, another law was passed by Congress forbidding any statements expressing disrespect for the U.S. government, the Constitution, the flag, or army and navy uniforms.
-------------------
The Alien Registration Act of 1940, usually called the Smith Act because the antisedition section was authored by Representative Howard W. Smith of Virginia, was adopted at 54 Statutes at Large 670-671 (1940). The Act has been amended several times and can now be found at 18 U.S. Code § 2385 (2000).
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
(I wonder if pat roberson readed this )
----------------------------------

Now, just imagine The Sedition Act of 1798 combined with the government actual power to ear every comunication and intercept any internet trafic at will.. Dictatorship is knocking at your door...

 

[BobG]

Both how it is illegal (specific law would be helpful) and how it is unConstitutional.

The current NSA domestic surveillance violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

The issue is whether FISA unconstitutionally restricts the powers of the President as a Commander in Chief acting in war time.

Considering the Communist blacklists of the 50's, the FBI's COINTELPRO operation of the 60's (which just an extension of their anti-Communist blacklists), and considering the pressure Nixon tried to exert on the FBI to direct their surveillance activities towards Nixon's targets, I think the FISA act was necessary and constitutional. It prevents executive branch abuse of powers rather than restricts legitimate powers as Commander in Chief.

In other words, the big, long-term picture is more important than any benefits Bush may believe he's getting from surveillance conducted without warrants.

As Benjamin Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

[arildno]

NSA workers aren't stupid. .

Neither were the guys in Stasi.

 

[russ_watters]

The current NSA domestic surveillance violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

The issue is whether FISA unconstitutionally restricts the powers of the President as a Commander in Chief acting in war time.

In other words, the big, long-term picture is more important than any benefits Bush may believe he's getting from surveillance conducted without warrants.

As Benjamin Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

You and I have a different idea of what that long-term picture looks like, though. And I'd be very interested to hear a court weigh-in on whether this was a justified expansion of his power - or rather, the FISA was a justifiable restriction of his power. This has a good chance of turning out like every War Powers Act fight has: Congress drops the issue because they don't want to risk losing the law.

Considering the Communist blacklists of the 50's, the FBI's COINTELPRO operation of the 60's (which just an extension of their anti-Communist blacklists), and considering the pressure Nixon tried to exert on the FBI to direct their surveillance activities towards Nixon's targets, I think the FISA act was necessary and constitutional. It prevents executive branch abuse of powers rather than restricts legitimate powers as Commander in Chief.

That's fine, but as of yet, I haven't seen any indication that this was used in a similar manner, so I don't consider Nixon's/McCarthy's abuses relevant. Nixon/McCarthy used/abused their powers for political vendettas. If Bush did violate a Constitutional and applicable law, he did it strictly for national security reasons, and that makes it very different from those cases you mentioned.

Cheney said recently:

The vice president also told reporters that in his view, presidential authority has been eroded since the 1970s through laws such as the War Powers Act and anti-impoundment laws.

"Watergate and a lot of the things around Watergate and Vietnam both during the '70s served, I think, to erode the authority I think the president needs to be effective, especially in the national security area," Cheney said. But he also said the administration has been able to restore some of "the legitimate authority of the presidency."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-12-20-cheney_x.htm

And I tend to agree.

Furthermore, even if after all is said and done on this issue, it is found that Bush violated a Constitutional and applicable law, he won't be and shouldn't be impeached, for exactly the same reasons Lincoln wasn't: what he did was still the right thing to do.

 

[russ_watters]

The Sedition Act of 1798

Now, just imagine The Sedition Act of 1798 combined with the government actual power to ear every comunication and intercept any internet trafic at will.. Dictatorship is knocking at your door... [emphasis added]

The sedition act is not in effect today (in reality, it never was), and your imagination is not reality.

 

[Art]

The sedition act is not in effect today (in reality, it never was), and your imagination is not reality.

"There are none so blind as those that will not see"

Russ your 'patriotism' is both naive and sadly misplaced. The Bush admin are the greatest threat to american democracy and values for many a long year which is why the true patriots are calling for him and his regime to be reigned in.

In contrast to what you and your fellow neo-cons believe the end does not justify the means.

 

[BobG]

You and I have a different idea of what that long-term picture looks like, though. And I'd be very interested to hear a court weigh-in on whether this was a justified expansion of his power - or rather, the FISA was a justifiable restriction of his power. This has a good chance of turning out like every War Powers Act fight has: Congress drops the issue because they don't want to risk losing the law. That's fine, but as of yet, I haven't seen any indication that this was used in a similar manner, so I don't consider Nixon's/McCarthy's abuses relevant. Nixon/McCarthy used/abused their powers for political vendettas. If Bush did violate a Constitutional and applicable law, he did it strictly for national security reasons, and that makes it very different from those cases you mentioned.
Cheney said recently: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-12-20-cheney_x.htm
And I tend to agree.
Furthermore, even if after all is said and done on this issue, it is found that Bush violated a Constitutional and applicable law, he won't be and shouldn't be impeached, for exactly the same reasons Lincoln wasn't: what he did was still the right thing to do.

The only way for this (or the War Powers Act) to go to the US Supreme Court for a decision is for a president to challenge it either directly by bringing a suit against Congress or indirectly by ignoring it and daring Congress to impeach him.

You won't have a president challenge it directly for the same reason Congress is scared to send it to the Supreme Court - neither side wants to risk a Supreme Court decision.

That makes Bush's action pretty bold, at least on the surface. He's risking impeachment by violating a law Congress passed. In practice, you're right that Congress wouldn't be willing to risk losing at least the threat of the law unless they also had evidence of malicious abuse (like in the 50's and 60's). The fact that you have a Republican controlled Congress doesn't make impeachment any more likely, either, but both parties should be able to see the nightmare scenarios that could come out of this. Successfully impeaching a president for violation of either law, and then having the president appeal the decision based on the law's constitutionality, would be an even worse situation than having the 2000 election go to the Supreme Court.

Bush will eventually have to give in, though. This is as hard an issue to sell as his stance against prohibiting inhumane and degrading treatment of detainees - both sound like the policies of the dictator we removed from Iraq. It comes down to whether or not obtaining warrants for the surveillance is such a great hindrance that Bush is willing to sacrifice any other issues he may like to get support for. Already, he's having to fly Cheney back to Washington in case he's needed as the tiebreaking vote on the deficit reduction bill - a bill that could depend on the vote of Democrat Ben Nelson even in a Republican controlled Congress.

 

[russ_watters]

The only way for this (or the War Powers Act) to go to the US Supreme Court for a decision is for a president to challenge it either directly by bringing a suit against Congress or indirectly by ignoring it and daring Congress to impeach him.

#2 is exactly what Presidents have been doing. There is a reason Congress authorized Bush's attack on Iraq after he announced it and without him asking: they didn't want to risk a war powers fight (or, rather, they didn't want to instantaneously invalidate it).

You won't have a president challenge it directly for the same reason Congress is scared to send it to the Supreme Court - neither side wants to risk a Supreme Court decision.

I'm not so sure a President can challenge it directly - the way such things generally work (as in the case in this thread), to challenge a law that prevents you from doing something, you have to violate it. So by simply ignoring it (in both the War Powers Act and with FISA), Bush puts the ball in Congress's court, and as with the War Powers Act, I'd be surprised if they will call his bluff.

That makes Bush's action pretty bold, at least on the surface. He's risking impeachment by violating a law Congress passed.

In practice, you're right that Congress wouldn't be willing to risk losing at least the threat of the law unless they also had evidence of malicious abuse (like in the 50's and 60's).

Agreed. But you know what they say about bluffing: every now and then, you have to be holding the winning hand. And it simply isn't worth the risk for Congress, so they will whine about it then let it go for now.

The fact that you have a Republican controlled Congress doesn't make impeachment any more likely, either, but both parties should be able to see the nightmare scenarios that could come out of this. Successfully impeaching a president for violation of either law, and then having the president appeal the decision based on the law's constitutionality, would be an even worse situation than having the 2000 election go to the Supreme Court.

Agreed, again.

Bush will eventually have to give in, though. This is as hard an issue to sell as his stance against prohibiting inhumane and degrading treatment of detainees - both sound like the policies of the dictator we removed from Iraq. It comes down to whether or not obtaining warrants for the surveillance is such a great hindrance that Bush is willing to sacrifice any other issues he may like to get support for. Already, he's having to fly Cheney back to Washington in case he's needed as the tiebreaking vote on the deficit reduction bill - a bill that could depend on the vote of Democrat Ben Nelson even in a Republican controlled Congress.

That's something I'm not sure of. The fact that (as you said) there are no allegations of actual abuse related to this, I think that makes this issue very different from the torture issue/deal that just passed. But we'll see.

 

[russ_watters]

"There are none so blind as those that will not see"

Russ your 'patriotism' is both naive and sadly misplaced. The Bush admin are the greatest threat to american democracy and values for many a long year which is why the true patriots are calling for him and his regime to be reigned in.

In contrast to what you and your fellow neo-cons believe the end does not justify the means.

I guess we all see what we want to, Art. You will see me as a neo-con you will not allow yourself the possibility of believing that I can think for myself. But if you can get over that, try responding to one of my actual arguments instead of just calling me names.

 

[Informal Logic]

Christ, I suppose those defending the Bush regime would argue that suspension of elections or martial law is okay too. Just because the man somehow became president does not mean he is above the law no matter what. Please at least explain why you defend him for not obtaining retroactive FISA court orders. He is a frigging fascist. Can you not see this now?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Could you explain both of those, please? Both how it is illegal (specific law would be helpful) and how it is unConstitutional.

Where have you been? The FISA law in particular allows for approval retroactively, but only after judicial review, and Bush never requested approval. He simply authorized spying. So the burden of proof is not for me to prove he didn't have the authority, the burden is for you to prove that he did; and from where. This is what Russert kept asking - there was no answer. Also, by and large it was reported on CNN yesterday that nearly every senator agress that this was illegal. Also note that this was already addressed during the time of Nixon. The supreme court has ruled on this before.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Russ, let me explain how it works. If under the Constitution, the President is not given explicit legal authority to take a certain action, then he doesn't have the power to do so.

 

[SOS2008]

Could you cite some of these expert opinions, please?

I don't know what news you watch--I surf between CNN, MSNBC, PBS for broadcast news plus news on the internet (Newsweek, etc.). Already there are discussions/interviews with experts--very quickly such as this:

KING: Political uproar aside, the central question is whether or not the president's secret domestic spying program violates the law. Mr. Bush has invoked the constitution and Congress in defending his actions. Is he on solid ground? CNN's Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin is here, to help us clear this out.

Let's just begin simply with the president's explanation that he needs to move quickly and needs to get the wiretaps right away, so he won't go to the secret court in most cases because he needs to move quickly. Does that hold up?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: You know, I don't think it does, John. The FISA law has a provision that says if you need to work really fast, as you sometimes need to do in intelligence matters, you can go after you've done the wiretap and get retroactive permission to -- retroactive warrant. So, that argument, I think just is factually not supported.

KING: Well, the other argument is did the constitution and or the resolution Congress passed after 9/11 that gave him the power to launch military strikes in Afghanistan, give him the power to do this? I have a copy of that resolution here. This is the resolution they passed, essentially authorizing the president to use all military force to respond to the 9/11 attacks. Is it in here somewhere?

TOOBIN: It's not obviously in there. And you've had many members of Congress, especially democrats saying, we didn't think in authorizing the use of force in Afghanistan, we were authorizing domestic spying…

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/19/acd.01.html

And we will be hearing a lot more from various legal analysts, of course more from those who are experts on the constitution. I don’t think you will like what they have to say. Though in view of another jump in the polls for approval of Bush, I don’t guess staunch Republicans give a rat’s ass about the law, which would be consistent with the track record to date.

 

[moose]

I can't believe that people are being so nonchalant about our right to privacy and our right to no warrant-less searches. Seriously, "If you aren't planning on causing some terror (!), then the government will take no interest in you anyway?" Am I actually reading this? I thought that no one seriously used that line an argument. It's about our right to privacy, which is one of our most fundamental rights, much more so than our "right" to bear arms.

Do you honestly care about your privacy? I think that crossing the line would be broadcasting everything you do, to everyone else online or something. What is being done is fine.

 

[Burnsys]

Do you honestly care about your privacy? I think that crossing the line would be broadcasting everything you do, to everyone else online or something. What is being done is fine.

Yes i would like that politicians to give up their privacy. There should be a website to broadcast everything they do. And cameras folowing them all the time. That would be nice.
They are the ones that must be controlled by the people not the other way.
But everytime they are more secret and we more public, who are the ones that are doing bad things? who are the ones paranoid, who are the ones that have a lot of things to hide...

 

[Skyhunter]

Do you honestly care about your privacy? I think that crossing the line would be broadcasting everything you do, to everyone else online or something. What is being done is fine.

So you don't care about personal privacy.

What about corporate privacy?

Should corporations be allowed to keep trade secrets?

 

[Skyhunter]

Maybe this should go into the lies thread but I thought it was more appropriate here.

At an http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html aimed at talking up the Patriot Act in April 2004, Bush addressed the question of wiretaps. "Now, by the way," he said, "any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think 'Patriot Act,' constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

As opposed to what he is saying now.

Russ how do you know he is using these warrant less wiretaps for the defense of the nation?

Who is he spying on that he does not want a secret court to know about?

None of his arguments hold water. If you know something we don't could you share it please?

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, let me explain how it works. If under the Constitution, the President is not given explicit legal authority to take a certain action, then he doesn't have the power to do so.

Ivan, that's just not true and you know it. If it were true, there'd be no need for laws saying what the President can't do. The War Powers Act is a perfect example: the the Constitution does not give the President explicit legal authority to do anything, but merely states that the President is "commander in chief" of the armed forces. What, specifically, does that mean? It doesn't say. So that gives the President implicit authority to do a great many things, but a lot of those things had to be figured out along the way.

Where have you been? The FISA law in particular allows for approval retroactively, but only after judicial review, and Bush never requested approval. He simply authorized spying.

I apologize for that first part - honestly, I hadn't paid much attention to this issue when it first came out and I really was simply asking for information. Reading a couple of articles would have provided that information.

However, the issues in the rest of my post...Bob and I have a pretty interesting discussion going...

 

[russ_watters]

Russ how do you know he is using these warrant less wiretaps for the defense of the nation?

The same way you "know" that he isn't, Skyhunter...

The difference is, there is a legal principle that requires a default assumption about it...

 

[russ_watters]

Christ, I suppose those defending the Bush regime would argue that suspension of elections or martial law is okay too. Just because the man somehow became president does not mean he is above the law no matter what. He is a frigging fascist. Can you not see this now?

Allow me to be perfectly clear (something these forums have been lacking of late):

If Bush suspends a national election or institutes martial law for any reason short of a national disaster that day, I'll be opposed to it and I'll line up to support impeachment.

Perhaps you guys should bookmark this post so that you can refer to it the next time you think about posting that I'd support anything Bush would do.

Please at least explain why you defend him for not obtaining retroactive FISA court orders.

You (and pretty much everyone except Bob) completely ignored the explanation. Don't ask for it: scroll back and read it!

 

[SOS2008]

In regard to privacy, it isn’t how serious the intrusion, but rather the erosive nature of such activity that is important. Germany did not come under Nazi control over night.

Yes i would like that politicians to give up their privacy. There should be a website to broadcast everything they do. And cameras folowing them all the time. That would be nice.

They are the ones that must be controlled by the people not the other way. But everytime they are more secret and we more public, who are the ones that are doing bad things? who are the ones paranoid, who are the ones that have a lot of things to hide...

Excellent point. This is one of the many things that is wrong about Bush's spying. Aside from the Bush administration being a very secretive (if not the most secretive) administration, congressional representatives on the intelligence committee, which consists of all of eight committee members, were sworn to secrecy. What kind of oversight is this supposed to be? It's absurdly obvious that it isn't. The Bush cabal makes Nixon look like an angel.

Maybe this should go into the lies thread but I thought it was more appropriate here. …As opposed to what he is saying now.

Russ how do you know he is using these warrant less wiretaps for the defense of the nation?

Who is he spying on that he does not want a secret court to know about? None of his arguments hold water. If you know something we don't could you share it please?

Even if the information has been/is being used for national defense, if the information is being obtained contrary to law, the constitution, and civil liberties it is wrong. How people can trust this man who’s been caught lying time and again is mind boggling.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

In regard to privacy, it isn’t how serious the intrusion, but rather the erosive nature of such activity that is important. Germany did not come under Nazi control over night.

That actually took about a week in March of '33, depending on how you want to look at it, and depended heavily on the illegal arrests and murder of those politicians that stood in the way and Hitler dissolving the current governing body to replace it with Nazi party members. That last part was actually requested for a couple months before the actual burning of the Riechstag and the Riechstag Fire Decree. Either way it wasn't done through gradual erosion of rights, it was just done.

The Bush cabal makes Nixon look like an angel.

Just... wow...

 

[edward]

That actually took about a week in March of '33, depending on how you want to look at it, and depended heavily on the illegal arrests and murder of those politicians that stood in the way

A week to round them up, but how long did it take and what methods were used to determine exactly who they were?? Hmm a bit of secret domestic spying perhaps, the same type of secret spying that is going on in this country right now.

and Hitler dissolving the current governing body to replace it with Nazi party members.

Hitler axed a lot of people other than just the "current governing body".

The Bush Cabal is the most secretive group of people in the history of this nation.

 

[Wishbone]

allright, put down the micheal moore videotapes, its time for a little lesson called, "being the president"
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm"

 

[Skyhunter]

allright, put down the micheal moore videotapes, its time for a little lesson called, "being the president"
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm"

We have already discussed retroactive warrants. This is nothing new.

No need for the ad hominem.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan, that's just not true and you know it. If it were true, there'd be no need for laws saying what the President can't do. The War Powers Act is a perfect example: the the Constitution does not give the President explicit legal authority to do anything, but merely states that the President is "commander in chief" of the armed forces. What, specifically, does that mean? It doesn't say. So that gives the President implicit authority to do a great many things, but a lot of those things had to be figured out along the way.

I apologize for that first part - honestly, I hadn't paid much attention to this issue when it first came out and I really was simply asking for information. Reading a couple of articles would have provided that information.

However, the issues in the rest of my post...Bob and I have a pretty interesting discussion going...

Explicit authority was meant to apply to the over-riding principle that rights not surrendered are reserved, but even in the most general sense,

Bush said his decision was "fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities." And the president's lawyers have maintained that the commander in chief has the "inherent" authority to act in the interest of national security, even if he overrides the law.

But the Supreme Court did not accept that claim when it was tested in the past.

In 1972, the justices unanimously rejected President Nixon's contention that he had the power to order wiretapping without a warrant to protect national security. The decision came in the case of three men who had allegedly plotted to bomb a CIA facility in Michigan. After the ruling, charges in the case were dismissed...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...y?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

 

[Skyhunter]

The same way you "know" that he isn't, Skyhunter...
The difference is, there is a legal principle that requires a default assumption about it...

I don't know that he isn't. I suspect that he is spying on journalists.

No the difference is he has no good reason not to request a retro-active warrant.

Could you provide an example of a scenario where he would need to keep secret the identity of the people he is spying on from the secret FISA court?

If you believe there is no right to personal privacy, do you believe that corporations should have a right to privacy?

What about the secrets that Bush and his cabinet keep by invoking executive privilege?

Like Cheneys energy task force.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Distinct from the right of publicity protected by state common or statutory law, a broader right of privacy has been inferred in the Constitution. Although not explicity stated in the text of the Constitution, in 1890 then to be Justice Louis Brandeis extolled 'a right to be left alone.' This right has developed into a liberty of personal autonomy protected by the 14th amendment. The 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments also provide some protection of privacy, although in all cases the right is narrowly defined. The Constitutional right of privacy has developed alongside a statutory right of privacy which limits access to personal information. The Federal Trade Commission overwhelmingly enforces this statutory right of privacy, and the rise of privacy policies and privacy statements are evidence of its work. In all of its forms, however, the right of privacy must be balanced against the state's compelling interests. Such compelling interests include the promotion of public morality, protection of the individual's psychological health, and improving the quality of life. These distinct rights of privacy are examined separately on the following pages:[continued]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/donors/solicit.php?http_referer=/wex/index.php/

 

[Moonbear]

The difference is, there is a legal principle that requires a default assumption about it...

Wouldn't the default assumption be that if he did not obtain warrants, then he might not have had sufficient probable cause for his actions, and therefore knowingly broke the law? Even if he really was only targetting bona fide terrorism suspects, that he circumvented due process is what raises the red warning flags that something is fishy. From a legal standpoint, how are his actions different from the cop who is certain drugs are being dealt out of a certain house, raids the house and finds proof the drugs are there, but never obtained the warrant granting permission to raid the house, which gets the case tossed out of court because none of that evidence is admissible because it was illegally obtained? Circumventing the Constitution is not permitted.

Keep in mind the presidential oath of office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

[phcatlantis]

Wouldn't the default assumption be that if he did not obtain warrants, then he might not have had sufficient probable cause for his actions, and therefore knowingly broke the law?

There's no such default assumption specified in law, and considering the Courts will adjudicate on probable cause in warrantless searches [1,2,3]and the fact that the Warren court of all courts refused to step in before FISA [4] , it doesn't seem to hold up anyway.