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

[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.

 

[selfAdjoint]

But phcatlantis, what about the theory that the president is above the law. It appears to me that this assertion goes farther than has been noticed, since the president's legal advisors asserted it holds "in time of war", but presidents have notoriously asserted their right to declare a state of war independent of the constitutional requirement for a congressional declaration, and the congress has seemed to bow to this assertion with the war powers act. So putting the two ideas together, the president can declare a ste of war any time he wants and then can do anything he wants without being constrained by law.

 

[Burnsys]

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."

Well, that explains why the fbi thinks "Defenders of the constitution" are terrorist.

Look at this FBI pamphlet:

http://www.gaianxaos.com/SpecialReports_files/Megiddo_fbi_watch23lg.jpg

It says:
Right-Wing terrorists:
"Defenders" of US constitution against federal government and the UN

And: Those who make numerous references to US constituton.

 

[Burnsys]

Ever heard of the Yoo memo? This is the legal rationale that the Bush administration is relying on to justify nearly every move related to the War on Terror: the denial of habeas corpus to “enemy combatants,” the torture of individuals for information, and most recently spying on American citizens without warrants. The Yoo memorandum essentially argues that no statute passed by Congress “can place any limits on the president’s determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing and nature of the response.” So, if the country is involved in a war, the president is bound by no law, treaty, or oversight; his power is completely unchecked and absolute — in the words of the administration, “plenary.”

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

 

[phcatlantis]

But phcatlantis, what about the theory that the president is above the law.

If there's such a noteworthy theory in American law, I've never heard of it. I'd go as far as to say that there is no Administration that's asserted as much about itself--the phrase "above the law" is inherently pejorative. On the other hand, it reads like you're simply questioning whether presidential power in wartime is as extensive as it is.

It appears to me that this assertion goes farther than has been noticed, since the president's legal advisors asserted it holds "in time of war", but presidents have notoriously asserted their right to declare a state of war independent of the constitutional requirement for a congressional declaration, and the congress has seemed to bow to this assertion with the war powers act.

Which is simply not true in this case. The President consistently and publically refers to Pub. Law No. 107-40 each time he claims special powers, specifically section 2, subsection A. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html ]. We haven't gotten to the point where the executive even feels the need to declare its constitutional wartime privileges in absence of a declaration of war.

So putting the two ideas together, the president can declare a ste of war any time he wants and then can do anything he wants without being constrained by law.

Except there is no finding in law yet that the President isn't constrained by law or is acting otherwise. Put another way, there's no finding whatsoever that the President's actions are extra-legal. Just a lot of opinion-making.

 

[phcatlantis]

Ever heard of the Yoo memo? This is the legal rationale that the Bush administration is relying on to justify nearly every move related to the War on Terror: the denial of habeas corpus to “enemy combatants,” the torture of individuals for information, and most recently spying on American citizens without warrants. The Yoo memorandum essentially argues that no statute passed by Congress “can place any limits on the president’s determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing and nature of the response.” So, if the country is involved in a war, the president is bound by no law, treaty, or oversight; his power is completely unchecked and absolute — in the words of the administration, “plenary.”
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

The President is bound by Congress' power of the purse and power to pursue impeachment and trial. And plenary does not mean unchecked or absolute; or did you think ambassadors in the age of sail simply did as they wished with no strictures whatsoever?

 

[selfAdjoint]

President Bush is apparently still asserting what his lawyers told him.

Your recourse to the record of the law sensa strictu is valuable, but the extra-legal affairs are not just persiflage either. The Supreme Court seems to always have many members who are either infuenced by public opinion or else overly protective of Congressional decisions, so the 'bully pulpit", plus control of the Congress can often be exchanged for legal validity.

[ADDED] And the recourse to "power of the purse and impeachment" is kind of a joke, isn't it? We have seen in recent years what toothless monsters those two really are.

 

[phcatlantis]

Your recourse to the record of the law sensa strictu is valuable, but the extra-legal affairs are not just persiflage either. The Supreme Court seems to always have many members who are either infuenced by public opinion or else overly protective of Congressional decisions, so the 'bully pulpit", plus control of the Congress can often be exchanged for legal validity.

This is more of a criticism of how law manifests, exists, behaves, and evolves than specific to the issue at hand, and its a point I've taken up when StatutoryApe approached it from a different point of view. Courts supervise the implementation of policy, and the discipline treats their role as much as engineering would treat its students; intelligent agents that are nevertheless constrained by physical realities (in this case, the inertia of a body of law expressing the psychological mass of an entire society) and also capable of mistake. Regardless of our judicial philosophies, we shouldn't underappreciate the enormous political and social pressure, from childhood to law school to the bench, on justices to actually persuade people to their reasoning--more importantly, persuade from law itself. There is potential for error in an engineer's model of a physical problem; there is also potential for error in a court officer's model of a legal problem

[ADDED] And the recourse to "power of the purse and impeachment" is kind of a joke, isn't it?

Have to disagree. The political and social reality of law compels a stable, constitutional democracy to abide by these explicit, undisputed powers. It would take literally thousands of people in the executive branch to approve of a conspiracy that would divert between 1 and 8 percent of federal outlays a year against Congress' will.

We have seen in recent years what toothless monsters those two really are.

Remember what Congress did to Ford in 1975? Or what this Congress is doing now with the Patriot Act authorization? Absent mind control powers, there is no physical way for the President to act against Congress when it has decided not to authorize; just as a Congress that does not authorize cannot physically bring itself to appropriate on such a large scale.

 

[BobG]

If there's such a noteworthy theory in American law, I've never heard of it. I'd go as far as to say that there is no Administration that's asserted as much about itself--the phrase "above the law" is inherently pejorative. On the other hand, it reads like you're simply questioning whether presidential power in wartime is as extensive as it is.
Which is simply not true in this case. The President consistently and publically refers to Pub. Law No. 107-40 each time he claims special powers, specifically section 2, subsection A. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html ]. We haven't gotten to the point where the executive even feels the need to declare its constitutional wartime privileges in absence of a declaration of war.
Except there is no finding in law yet that the President isn't constrained by law or is acting otherwise. Put another way, there's no finding whatsoever that the President's actions are extra-legal. Just a lot of opinion-making.

Surely, this can't be the law they're citing. Their eavesdropping started almost immediately after 9/11, but this law was passed in the fall of 2002. The law authorizes the President to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq".

I haven't yet seen a good specific explanation or justification from the administration about why the surveillance is legal, but I may have missed it. But, if this is the specific authorization the President is using, then he's really missed the boat.

(It amazes me how many of the justifications cited in the lead-in to this law turned out to be wrong - even if this were related to the eavesdropping, the administration would have to be pretty desperate to bringing this back out into the spotlight.)

 

[phcatlantis]

Surely, this can't be the law they're citing.

Good point, I cut and pasted the wrong URL. Here's http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/sjres23_eb.htm , Congress' authorization to the President to use military force against "those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

 

[SOS2008]

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

Micheal Moore...another over-used exaggeration from right-wingers. And for a review on the topic of credible sources:

The Drudge Report is a website hosted by Matt Drudge, which features frequent salacious rumors about politicians and celebrities. Drudge relies heavily on information from Republican party operatives and has repeatedly broadcast claims that were later proven false. His website was also one of the first to publish reports of Monica Lewinsky's affair with President Bill Clinton. However, Drudge had nothing to do with the footwork associated with this scoop. He obtained it from Newsweek magazine, which had decided at the last minute to can the story written by Michael Isikoff.

In the 1990s, Matt Drudge had a short-lived cable television show. He filled in for right-wing talker Rush Limbaugh during Limbaugh's 2003 stint in a drug rehabilitation clinic.

Jeanette Walls, a rival gossip-monger at MSNBC, gave Drudge a taste of his own medicine, reporting that he is gay in her book, Dish: The Inside Story on the World of Gossip (http://www.advocate.com/html/news/030200/030200news04.asp) . Drudge denied the allegation, but former right-wing journalist David Brock also describes Drudge as gay in his book, Blinded by the Right. Brock, who is openly gay, describes receiving flirtatious emails from Drudge and going on a date with him to a gay bar.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Drudge_Report

Lovely group aren't they?

----------

Back to the OP, if John Dean (who was White House Counsel to U.S. President Richard Nixon) says this is the first time he has seen a president admit to an impeachable offense, I'm inclined to believe it is.

 

[SOS2008]

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.

In follow-up to edward's reply,

The Rise of Nazism in Germany

THE KILLING OF MILLIONS OF JEWS and other "non-Aryans" in the Holocaust is the greatest crime against humanity recorded in history. It was made possible by a unique combination of factors: the total control over the machinery of a modern state by the totalitarian regime of the National Socialists; the active cooperation or passive consent of a large part of the German population; the collaboration of like-minded regimes and people in the occupied territories; and a deeply rooted anti-Semitism common to all Christian countries in Europe. The catastrophic loss of humane standards in German society took place after the prolonged political and economic crisis of the 1920s.

For more - http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/beyond-the-pale/english/47.html
And:

Adolf Hitler's Rise to Power

Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in 1927, which focused on "how to obtain and retain political power, how to use propaganda and terrorism, and how to build a political organization." ...Mein Kampf "struck a responsive chord among its target and those Germans who believed it was their destiny to dominate Europe."

...Once released from prison, Hitler decided to seize power constitutionally rather than by force of arms. Using demagogic oratory, Hitler spoke to scores of mass audiences, calling for the German people to resist the yoke of Jews and Communists, and to create a new empire which would rule the world for 1,000 years.

Rise to Power: 1930-1933

http://www2.dsu.nodak.edu/users/dmeier/Holocaust/hitler.html

So, from the end of WWI in 1919 conditions evolved until Hitler rose to power in the 1930's = a decade.

Just... wow...

Please see the last comment in the post above regarding John Dean.

As for the term "cabal" once again I don't know what news you follow, but the term cabal has become quite common beginning with reference to the close relationship between Dubya and Jeb in which one hand scratches the other's back (e.g., election irregularities).

A cabal is a number of persons united in some close design, usually to promote their private views and interests in a church, state, or other community by intrigue. Cabals are secret organizations composed of a few designing persons; a political cabal is often called a junta.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabal

Hmm... close knit group...promoting private views...church, state...secretive. Sound familiar yet? Maybe you prefer "junta."

----------

In general...to avoid additional OT posts, if members question a minor comment made, please jump through the google-hoops first yourself and provide (credible) sources to support your question.

 

[BobG]

Good point, I cut and pasted the wrong URL. Here's http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/sjres23_eb.htm , Congress' authorization to the President to use military force against "those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

One thing the act doesn't address is how long this authorization lasts. It has no expiration date, so I guess it's implied that its effective until the job is done. When is the job done?

When bin Laden's caught? When his group is too weak to mount a threat (it already is)? Or do we have to eradicate any terrorist group willing to assume the al-Qaida brand name (such as Zarqawi, who attacks the same Islamic theocrats that bin Laden was supposedly championing)? Or do we have to eradicate all terrorist groups?

I think Law 107-40 still has some legitimacy (at least there is no real question of Bush being impeached), if only because Congress has been very slow to figure out how the US should deal with balancing security and liberty in the face of a threat that will never completely disappear.

After four years and with the Patriot Act up for renewal, some decisions about the kind of country we want to be 'forever' are overdue. If we were really on the ball, we wouldn't be in the position of fighting over an extension of the Patriot Act - after four years we would have already decided who we want to be.

Tell the American people that a few of their liberties are gone forever in the interest of security and see how well that works in the next election. The attitude will be "If you're not good enough to give us both, then it's probably time to make way for someone better than you".

 

[Informal Logic]

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

I did not address my post specifically to you because you are not the only member who defends Bush, or in this particular thread some are complacent about citizen privacy and spying.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

In follow-up to edward's reply,

You see I believe that we were talking about Bush's legislative actions and your comparison of this to the Nazis. "The Nazis didn't take over Germany in a day". Once appointed chancelor it took Hitler less than two months to make Germany a dictatorship under the Nazi party through his legislative actions. Bush has already been through a whole term of office and still hasn't succeed in this supposed goal of his. I don't think he's any where near it and I don't think he's ever going to get there. When Bush tries to dissolve congress or outlaw any political parties you let me know.

 

[SOS2008]

You see I believe that we were talking about Bush's legislative actions and your comparison of this to the Nazis. "The Nazis didn't take over Germany in a day". Once appointed chancelor it took Hitler less than two months to make Germany a dictatorship under the Nazi party through his legislative actions. Bush has already been through a whole term of office and still hasn't succeed in this supposed goal of his. I don't think he's any where near it and I don't think he's ever going to get there. When Bush tries to dissolve congress or outlaw any political parties you let me know.

Gotcha. Still, erosion due to complacency of the population in regard to similar tactics that are being used took more time and set the stage for next steps. It could be that Bush simply has not been successful to date because there are still those who work hard to oppose the tactics—such as spying on anti-war protestors (not enemy combatants) without court order or proper congressional oversight—and only one tactic on a long list of misuse of power discussed here in this forum.

Clash Is Latest Chapter in Bush Effort to Widen Executive Power

By Peter Baker and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 21, 2005; Page A01

...The Bush administration...says its assertions of authority in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks have been carefully tailored to meet the needs of a 21st-century war against a nebulous foe. At his news conference Monday, Bush bristled at the notion that he sought "unchecked power" and said he had consulted with Congress extensively.

Hmm…the fact that Cheney has lobbied to expand executive power since he was "a young White House chief of staff for President Gerald R. Ford" would indicate this behavior has nothing to do with responding to terrorism. Furthermore it is misplaced:

"He's living in a time warp," said Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer and Reagan administration official. "The great irony is Bush inherited the strongest presidency of anyone since Franklin Roosevelt, and Cheney acts as if he's still under the constraints of 1973 or 1974."

Sen. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.) said: "The vice president may be the only person I know of that believes the executive has somehow lost power over the last 30 years."

…Even before the NSA surveillance program, the Bush administration has asserted its war-making authority in detaining indefinitely U.S. citizens as enemy combatants, denying prisoners access to lawyers or courts, rejecting in some cases the applicability of the Geneva Conventions, expanding its interrogation techniques to include harsher treatment and establishing secret terrorist prisons in foreign countries...

[And] when coupled with the huge expansion of the federal government in general under Bush -- the budget has grown by 33 percent and his administration has broadened the federal role in education and the scope of Medicare -- a growing number of conservatives are expressing concern about the size and reach of government on his watch.

...With both houses of Congress in Republican hands, lawmakers generally have been willing to yield to Bush's views on the balance of power.

...Rarely has the Republican Congress used its subpoena power to investigate Bush policies or programs or to force administration officials to explain them. Even when lawmakers are inclined to challenge the White House, they are restricted by secrecy rules in cases such as the NSA program, which was known to only a handful of key members briefed by the administration.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122001858.html

We definitely lack balance of power, which has resulted in lack of balance in security versus liberty. If we don’t get these things corrected, what’s next? Bush/Cheney are lunatics who should have never been in the WH, and their removal is overdue.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Gotcha. Still, erosion due to complacency of the population in regard to similar tactics that are being used took more time and set the stage for next steps. It could be that Bush simply has not been successful to date because there are still those who work hard to oppose the tactics—such as spying on anti-war protestors (not enemy combatants) without court order or proper congressional oversight—and only one tactic on a long list of misuse of power discussed here in this forum.

Germany's political atmosphere as a whole from even before WWI set the Nazis up. It had little to do with their particular actions. They presented the same propaganda as most everyone else, they just did a better job of it.
Bush had a similar situation in the political atmosphere post 9/11. This fractor was temporary though. How he's been able to ride it as far as he has I think even the people who fell for it can't figure out. Bush is receiving more and more resistence and criticism as time goes on and the political climate becomes less and less hospitable to his course of actions.

By the way do you have any sources that show he has been spying on antiwar protesters that were not legitimate targets or similar misuse of power?

We definitely lack balance of power, which has resulted in lack of balance in security versus liberty. If we don’t get these things corrected, what’s next? Bush/Cheney are lunatics who should have never been in the WH, and their removal is overdue.

The congress members who are supposed to be standing up for this need to reach down and find a pair then. It's hard to believe that he's commited so many impeachable offenses when there's so little effort made by his political rivals to impeach him. Either they're cowards, they in reality have little to go on, or they are just as bad as Bush. Maybe a little of all three. Does the republican majority really make it that hard for them to do anything like this? Where are the congress members getting behind the "Impeach Bush" movements?
I'm not trying to say that you are wrong. I just want tro know, if he really has made all these offenses and they aren't just exagerations and propaganda, then why is congress so complacent?

 

[BobG]

Maybe part of the problem is some of the technology has expanded beyond what the FISA court normally considers?

Domestic spying indicates changes at the NSA

The White House may not be too confident about what the FISA court would do if this type of surveillance hasn't been presented to the court before. It winds up being random surveillance of thousands of people in hopes of picking patterns out of the noise.

 

[BobG]

Reading more on the NSA surveillance, this article, A glimpse inside the supersecret world of intel probably sheds the most light on why the Bush administration would avoid getting warrants from the FISA court. The White House didn't avoid FISA entirely, according to this article: Secret court judges to be briefed on spying.

The program was so highly classified that only Kollar-Kotelly, the head of the FISA court, was briefed, and only four members of Congress, Roberts and Rockefeller of the Senate Intelligence Commitee and Hoekstra and Harman of the House Intelligence Committee were briefed.

It does raise questions about the ability to provide adequate oversight of programs like this. It probably works for most of these super secret programs, but what does a member of Congress do when in Rockefeller's situation?

 

[Informal Logic]

Germany's political atmosphere as a whole from even before WWI set the Nazis up. It had little to do with their particular actions. They presented the same propaganda as most everyone else, they just did a better job of it.

Bush had a similar situation in the political atmosphere post 9/11. This fractor was temporary though. How he's been able to ride it as far as he has I think even the people who fell for it can't figure out. Bush is receiving more and more resistence and criticism as time goes on and the political climate becomes less and less hospitable to his course of actions.

By the way do you have any sources that show he has been spying on antiwar protesters that were not legitimate targets or similar misuse of power?

I find your request for sources to be ironic since you have yet to provide sources for your original assertion that Germany came under Nazi control in only a weeks time. The rise of Nazism and Hitler is usually covered in basic history courses and used as an example of population complacency and manipulation, which as pointed out earlier did not happen over night.

The matter of the Bush regime and monitoring of anti-war protestors has been all over the news. If you made the effort, I am certain you could find several reliable sources on the topic.

The congress members who are supposed to be standing up for this need to reach down and find a pair then. It's hard to believe that he's commited so many impeachable offenses when there's so little effort made by his political rivals to impeach him. Either they're cowards, they in reality have little to go on, or they are just as bad as Bush. Maybe a little of all three. Does the republican majority really make it that hard for them to do anything like this? Where are the congress members getting behind the "Impeach Bush" movements?

I'm not trying to say that you are wrong. I just want tro know, if he really has made all these offenses and they aren't just exagerations and propaganda, then why is congress so complacent?

It is only hard for you to believe. You claim you are not a Bush supporter (as has other members), but the constant defense makes if difficult to believe (and if you and these other members did not vote for Bush in either 2000 or 2004, I would be very surprised). As for your questioning of Republican control and/or impeachment, do you not read other member’s posts in this forum; including some above, and once again do you not watch the news?

There have been so many abuses of power prior to current debate about domestic spying (“fixing” intelligence to make a case for invasion of Iraq, the CIA leak, etc.) that it is difficult to choose which offense Bush/Cheney should be impeached for. If it were not for the Republican-controlled congress, and inappropriate impeachment proceedings against Clinton, these idiots would have been impeached long ago. They should be thankful to Clinton.

 

[Burnsys]

1968

Operation CHAOS — The CIA has been illegally spying on American citizens since 1959, but with Operation CHAOS, President Johnson dramatically boosts the effort. CIA agents go undercover as student radicals to spy on and disrupt campus organizations protesting the Vietnam War. They are searching for Russian instigators, which they never find. CHAOS will eventually spy on 7,000 individuals and 1,000 organizations.

Wagergate Break-in — President Nixon sends in a team of burglars to wiretap Democratic offices at Watergate. The team members have extensive CIA histories, including James McCord, E. Howard Hunt and five of the Cuban burglars. They work for the Committee to Reelect the President (CREEP), which does dirty work like disrupting Democratic campaigns and laundering Nixon’s illegal campaign contributions. CREEP’s activities are funded and organized by another CIA front, the Mullen Company.

1974

CHAOS exposed — Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh publishes a story about Operation CHAOS, the domestic surveillance and infiltration of anti-war and civil rights groups in the U.S. The story sparks national outrage.

Angleton fired — Congress holds hearings on the illegal domestic spying efforts of James Jesus Angleton, the CIA’s chief of counterintelligence. His efforts included mail-opening campaigns and secret surveillance of war protesters. The hearings result in his dismissal from the CIA.