America... Spying on Americans

Bush's counsel on spying now under close scrutiny
Has everyone forgotten Condi Rice's position in the Bush Administration before she became Secretary of State? Head of the National Security Council. She is defending Bush's spying action but no one is asking her about her advice to Bush. ---BBB

Bush's counsel on spying now under close scrutiny
By Peter S. Canellos, Boston Globe Columnist
December 27, 2005

WASHINGTON -- When President Bush sought to reassure the country that his authorization of spying on Americans without warrants was a reasonable exercise of his power, he emphasized that his orders were always reviewed by the attorney general and the White House counsel.

''Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland," Bush said in his Dec. 17 radio address. ''The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the attorney general and the counsel to the president."

The current occupants of those jobs are Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and White House counsel Harriet E. Miers. Prior to 2005, Gonzales was White House counsel and John Ashcroft was attorney general.

The current dispute over whether the president had the authority to order domestic spying without warrants, despite a law against it, has put new focus on the legal officials who have guided Bush. And the qualifications of Ashcroft, Gonzales, and Miers could become a focus of the upcoming Senate hearings on the spying decision.

Legal advice given to the president in national security matters can hardly be of greater importance. Telling Bush that he lacks the authority to make a particular move could leave the country vulnerable to attack; assuring him that he has the power to override civil liberties could consign innocent suspects to imprisonment, abuse, or disappearance to secret holding areas in other countries.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, Bush's legal advisers have cleared the way for him to hold enemy combatants without trials; eavesdrop on overseas telephone calls and e-mails; place ever-greater numbers of government documents under a veil of secrecy; imprison a US citizen indefinitely on the suspicion of terrorist links; and, according to The Washington Post, operate a secret CIA prison in an Eastern European country.

In each case, the legal official responsible for assessing the extent of Bush's powers was Ashcroft, Gonzales, or Miers.

Defining the president's powers -- when he can act alone, when he's constrained by treaties, when he must seek congressional authorization -- is extremely difficult. If there's one area of the law where the framers of the Constitution relied on the good faith of the men and women in government, it's in adhering to a system of divided powers. Nonetheless, presidents and members of Congress have often disagreed on their respective powers, and the Supreme Court has approached such cases warily, fearful of upsetting the constitutional balance of power.

The determinations of Ashcroft, Gonzales, and Miers have had great weight because they effectively cut Congress out of the decision-making, at least until the Supreme Court could weigh in. But in spying cases especially, the targets weren't aware that they were being monitored, and thus could not challenge Bush in court.

By the standards of past attorneys general, Ashcroft and Gonzales were well qualified for the job. Still, neither of them had much occasion to consider the legal limits of presidential power before they took office. Ashcroft taught business law and later became attorney general of Missouri. He then spent 14 years as a governor and senator before becoming Bush's first-term AG. Gonzales was a partner at a corporate law firm before Bush became governor of Texas. He served as a legal adviser to the governor, and was briefly Texas secretary of state and a justice of the Texas Supreme Court.

By the standards of past White House counsels, both Gonzales and Miers were lightly qualified, since neither of them had Washington experience before guiding the president. By contrast, two of President Clinton's White House counsels, Lloyd Cutler and Abner Mikva, were eminent attorneys with decades of experience in assessing the limits of federal power.

During her ill-fated Supreme Court nomination, Miers was castigated by conservatives for her lack of qualifications. But her years as a partner in a corporate firm would have been more useful on the Supreme Court, which hears dozens of business cases a year, than in her current job reviewing the legality of Bush's actions.

To be sure, Gonzales and Miers -- like Ashcroft before them -- have many excellent lawyers working beneath them. But as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. can attest from their own days in the Justice Department, junior lawyers are usually restricted to coming up with justifications for the decisions made by their bosses.

And in these cases, the boss's decisions have literally been matters of life and death.
---------------------------------------------------

Peter S. Canellos is the Globe's Washington bureau chief. National Perspective is his weekly analysis of events in the capital and beyond.

0 Replies

Debra_Law:

You are certainly a snide little one, aren't you?

DL wrote:

So yes, Ticomaya, despite your incredulous astonishment, it is possible to prove that the president lied via the use of evidence and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from that evidence.

Show me where I said it was not possible to prove something through reasonable inferences. On the contrary, I said no such thing. What I have done is point out at least FIVE major problems with your post: (1) you first claimed Bush's "lies" can't be proven, then attempted to claim you could prove them, (2) what a weak effort it would be to try and prove Bush lied employing such a method, (3) even though you claimed that the FISA and 4th Circuit courts have already prejudged Bush, there is no evidence they have done so, (4) the courts are not going to engage in this fantasy of yours, and (5) the FISA court has already affirmed prior case law that makes it clear the President holds the inherent power to do that which you are complaining of.

DL wrote:

inference

n. a rule of logic applied to evidence in a trial, in which a fact is "proved" by presenting other "facts" which lead to only one reasonable conclusion-that if A and B are true, then C is. The process is called "deduction" or "deductive reasoning" and is a persuasive form of circumstantial evidence.

And there is the next problem with your little theory, Debra: There is certainly more than one reasonable inference to be drawn from your "evidence." Your "recap" certainly made no effort to show any counter arguments, and flatly ignores legal precedent. In sum, it's a losing argument.

DL wrote:

The only one displaying incompetence with respect to elementary legal concepts is you.

If a wrongdoer confessed his wrongdoing, there would be no need to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence because the fact of the wrongdoing would already be established through his admission. In cases where a wrongdoer does not confess his wrongdoing, factfinders routinely rely on reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence.

The evidence firmly establishes that Bush LIED to the American people when he claimed his domestic spying program was limited to targets who were agents of a foreign power. If that were true, then there would be no reason for Bush to bypass FISA.

I truly believe you would walk into a courtroom and expect to win with that argument, Debra.

Let's continue ...

DL wrote:

When the President intentionally bypasses the FISA court, intentionally avoids his duty to set forth the facts and circumstances that would justify electronic surveillance, and intentionally avoids judicial oversight and accountability, WE THE PEOPLE may reasonably infer that the President was unable to set forth any facts or circumstances that would justify his belief that the target was an agent of a foreign power but the President intentionally chose to conduct electronic surveillance regardless and in violation of the law.

If that is the case, you and anyone else that does so, are foolish. It behooves us to remember a few things at this point:

No presidential Administration has ever conceded FISA trumps a President's inherent power to make exceptions to FISA if national security requires it. In fact, every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond FISA's terms. FISA establishes a process by which certain wiretaps could be approved, but does not set a limit on what wiretaps are allowed.

I have to believe Jamie Gorelick is a hero of yours. Let's remember what she said in 1994 as Deputy Attorney General, while testifying before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: "The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general."

Finally, let's remember the first opinion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001 (FISC Court of Review, 2002), where the Court held that the restrictions that the FISC had placed on the warrant violated both FISA and the USA PATRIOT Act and that there was no constitutional requirement for those restrictions. The FISC Court of Review stated: "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. ... We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power." Id. at 48.

It appears the courts you claim will make these "reasonable inferences," disagree with you.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Debra_Law:

You are certainly a snide little one, aren't you?

pot calling the kettle black

DL wrote:
So yes, Ticomaya, despite your incredulous astonishment, it is possible to prove that the president lied via the use of evidence and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from that evidence.

Show me where I said it was not possible to prove something through reasonable inferences. On the contrary, I said no such thing. What I have done is point out at least FIVE major problems with your post: (1) you first claimed Bush's "lies" can't be proven, then attempted to claim you could prove them, (2) what a weak effort it would be to try and prove Bush lied employing such a method, (3) even though you claimed that the FISA and 4th Circuit courts have already prejudged Bush, there is no evidence they have done so, (4) the courts are not going to engage in this fantasy of yours, and (5) the FISA court has already affirmed prior case law that makes it clear the President holds the inherent power to do that which you are complaining of.

DL wrote:
inference

n. a rule of logic applied to evidence in a trial, in which a fact is "proved" by presenting other "facts" which lead to only one reasonable conclusion-that if A and B are true, then C is. The process is called "deduction" or "deductive reasoning" and is a persuasive form of circumstantial evidence.

And there is the next problem with your little theory, Debra: There is certainly more than one reasonable inference to be drawn from your "evidence." Your "recap" certainly made no effort to show any counter arguments, and flatly ignores legal precedent. In sum, it's a losing argument.

DL wrote:
The only one displaying incompetence with respect to elementary legal concepts is you.

If a wrongdoer confessed his wrongdoing, there would be no need to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence because the fact of the wrongdoing would already be established through his admission. In cases where a wrongdoer does not confess his wrongdoing, factfinders routinely rely on reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence.

The evidence firmly establishes that Bush LIED to the American people when he claimed his domestic spying program was limited to targets who were agents of a foreign power. If that were true, then there would be no reason for Bush to bypass FISA.

I truly believe you would walk into a courtroom and expect to win with that argument, Debra.

Let's continue ...

DL wrote:
When the President intentionally bypasses the FISA court, intentionally avoids his duty to set forth the facts and circumstances that would justify electronic surveillance, and intentionally avoids judicial oversight and accountability, WE THE PEOPLE may reasonably infer that the President was unable to set forth any facts or circumstances that would justify his belief that the target was an agent of a foreign power but the President intentionally chose to conduct electronic surveillance regardless and in violation of the law.

If that is the case, you and anyone else that does so, are foolish. It behooves us to remember a few things at this point:

No presidential Administration has ever conceded FISA trumps a President's inherent power to make exceptions to FISA if national security requires it. In fact, every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond FISA's terms. FISA establishes a process by which certain wiretaps could be approved, but does not set a limit on what wiretaps are allowed.

I have to believe Jamie Gorelick is a hero of yours. Let's remember what she said in 1994 as Deputy Attorney General, while testifying before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: "The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general."

that canard was dealt with earlier. those statments were made before the revisons of the FISA act in '95 and neither Goelick nor Clinton repeated such assertions after the changes.

those statments were also in context about searching foreign nationals and the homes of foreign embassy personnel, not searches of americans on american soil.

Finally, let's remember the first opinion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001 (FISC Court of Review, 2002), where the Court held that the restrictions that the FISC had placed on the warrant violated both FISA and the USA PATRIOT Act and that there was no constitutional requirement for those restrictions. The FISC Court of Review stated: "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. ... We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power." Id. at 48.

You place considerable emphasis on a 2002 decision by the FISA Court of Appeals. There are two important things to remember about that case:

- The FISA appeals court explicitly says it's not addressing the issue ("It was incumbent upon the [Truong] court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority [to conduct warrantless searches]The question before us is the reverse")

- The FISA appeals court acknowledges the cases it mentions were decided before FISA and didn't consider the statute ("We reiterate that Truong dealt with a pre-FISA surveillanceit had no occasion to consider the application of the statute")

It appears the courts you claim will make these "reasonable inferences," disagree with you.

0 Replies

Uhm Debra about your fuzzy logic:

A: I drank rum and coke and got drunk

B: I drank Jack and coke and got drunk

C: Coke causes me to get drunk

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
I have to believe Jamie Gorelick is a hero of yours. Let's remember what she said in 1994 as Deputy Attorney General, while testifying before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: "The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general."

that canard was dealt with earlier. those statments were made before the revisons of the FISA act in '95 and neither Goelick nor Clinton repeated such assertions after the changes.

those statments were also in context about searching foreign nationals and the homes of foreign embassy personnel, not searches of americans on american soil.

I assure you, kuvasz .... the fact that you have talked about a particular matter does not render it "dealt with."

kuvasz wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Finally, let's remember the first opinion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001 (FISC Court of Review, 2002), where the Court held that the restrictions that the FISC had placed on the warrant violated both FISA and the USA PATRIOT Act and that there was no constitutional requirement for those restrictions. The FISC Court of Review stated: "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. ... We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power." Id. at 48.

You place considerable emphasis on a 2002 decision by the FISA Court of Appeals. There are two important things to remember about that case:

- The FISA appeals court explicitly says it's not addressing the issue ("It was incumbent upon the [Truong] court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority [to conduct warrantless searches]The question before us is the reverse")

- The FISA appeals court acknowledges the cases it mentions were decided before FISA and didn't consider the statute ("We reiterate that Truong dealt with a pre-FISA surveillanceit had no occasion to consider the application of the statute")

It appears the courts you claim will make these "reasonable inferences," disagree with you.

What you just said does not negate my point.

0 Replies

Condi Rice authorized National Security Agency to spy on UN Security Council in run-up to war, former officials say
Jason Leopold

President Bush and other top officials in his administration used the National Security Agency to secretly wiretap the home and office telephones and monitored private email accounts of members of the United Nations Security Council in early 2003 to determine how foreign delegates would vote on a U.N. resolution that paved the war for the U.S.-led war in Iraq, NSA documents show.

Two former NSA officials familiar with the agency's campaign to spy on U.N. members say then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice authorized the plan at the request of President Bush, who wanted to know how delegates were going to vote. Rice did not immediately return a call for comment.

The former officials said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also participated in discussions about the plan, which involved "stepping up" efforts to eavesdrop on diplomats.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/After_domestic_spying_reports_U.S._spying_1227.html

0 Replies

But what did Bush know and when did he know it?

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

""Of course it should continue," he said. "And nobody is suggesting that the president shouldn't do this." ""

Excpet of course, the Bushwackers who are not concerned wth security or objective analysis.

Well, now you're following in our President's footsteps and lying. The people who oppose Bush's tyrannical grab of power are just as concerned with our national security as everyone else. We must be wary of not only enemies of our freedom from without the government, but also from within. I am in favor of the government protecting our national security so long as the government stays within legally-established parameters and remains accountable. Our national security concerns are amply addressed by following the law. Our national security concerns do not require BUSH to become a monarch and to exert unlimited powers without any accountability.

Powell was clear that we should target people with known ties to international terrorism for surveillance, but Bush should get a warrant as required by our Constitution and FISA. Rather than allow employees of the NSA determine if probable cause exists to conduct domestic electronic surveillance on the target, the law requires that the probable cause determination must be made by a neutral magistrate. No matter how well-meaning the fox might be, you don't put him in complete control of guarding the chicken coop. Independent oversight is required. Those checks and balances were built into our constitutional system to protect the people from tyranny and oppression.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Yes, because everyone knows that monitoring overseas communications of people with known terrorist connections is the same as giving up all our freedoms...

There you go . . . misrepresenting the facts.

If Bush was monitoring "overseas" communications, he wouldn't need a warrant. It's when he monitors the AMERICAN PEOPLE through his DOMESTIC spying program that HE NEEDS A WARRANT. It's his failure to obtain a warrant in the latter case that is causing the objections.

To SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY, the Constitution prohibits the government from conducting warrantless domestic surveillance. When the government listens in on our private conversations, the government is conducting a search. Our Constitution requires the government to present a sworn affidavit setting forth facts and circumstances that would allow a neutral magistrate (a judge) to determine if probable cause exists to search. Without that important safeguard to protect the people from tyranny and oppression, our liberty is LOST.

0 Replies

You're shouting down a well, Debra.

0 Replies

Another real bad revelation for Bushie. "Secret court modified wiretap requests
Intervention may have led Bush to bypass panel"

By STEWART M. POWELL
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON -- Government records show that the administration was encountering unprecedented second-guessing by the secret federal surveillance court when President Bush decided to bypass the panel and order surveillance of U.S.-based terror suspects without the court's approval.

A review of Justice Department reports to Congress shows that the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four previous presidential administrations combined.

The court's repeated intervention in Bush administration wiretap requests may explain why the president decided to bypass the court nearly four years ago to launch secret National Security Agency spying on hundreds and possibly thousands of Americans and foreigners inside the United States, according to James Bamford, an acknowledged authority on the supersecret NSA, which intercepts telephone calls, e-mails, faxes and Internet communications.

"They wanted to expand the number of people they were eavesdropping on, and they didn't think they could get the warrants they needed from the court to monitor those people," said Bamford, author of "Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency" and "The Puzzle Palace: Inside America's Most Secret Intelligence Organization." "The FISA court has shown its displeasure by tinkering with these applications by the Bush administration."
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/253334_nsaspying24.html?source=mypi

0 Replies

Debra,

It's like pounding your head bloody against a wall, isn't it. The real problem is that the rightwing really doesn't care what Bush does. If it strengthens the rightwing grip on the country, they're for it. Spying on Americans gives them the abilility to search out "terrorist cells" like the ACLU, the U.N., The DNC, and just about anyone who threatens their existance as the "party of choice". They don't care if his actions are illegal, they probably wouldn't even care if if he got a little "trim", just as long as it was kept secret!!

Anon

0 Replies

Yep.

Republicans good. Bush say he Republican. Must be good.

Democrats bad. Clinton get blowjob. Me no get blowjob. Clinton bad!

You not like Bush? You bad. You wrong.

Me no get blowjob.

0 Replies

Is that you McG?? Twisted Evil

Just kidding DD!!
It just sounded so much like McG!

Anon

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Debra_Law:

You are certainly a snide little one, aren't you?

Ticomaya:

I will defend myself against your verbal assaults. If you can't take the heat, don't invite it.

Although kuvasz characterized your "snide" accusation as "pot calling the kettle black," you and I are nothing alike.

My arguments are straightforward and easy to follow. On the other hand, your arguments are filled with misrepresentations, non-sequiturs, and obfuscation. Although you might be amusing yourself, you shouldn't expect your responses to be met with respect.

DL wrote:

So yes, Ticomaya, despite your incredulous astonishment, it is possible to prove that the president lied via the use of evidence and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from that evidence.

Ticomaya wrote:

Show me where I said it was not possible to prove something through reasonable inferences. On the contrary, I said no such thing.

You are misrepresenting and obfuscating again. We were SPECIFICALLY talking about how it is possible to prove that the PRESIDENT LIED (the "something" that we were SPECIFICALLY talking about) through reasonable inferences. You specifically said it couldn't be done and I'll SHOW YOU where you said it:

Ticomaya wrote:

If you are really a lawyer, Debra_Law -- and by that I mean an attorney who has actually seen the interior of a courtroom on a regular basis ... and I don't mean on television -- you would understand that neither you, nor any of your leftist friends, are going to prove Bush lied based on what you characterize as these "reasonable inferences. "

Here's the link:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1748975#1748975

Are you still going to deny that you said no one can prove BUSH LIED based on reasonable inferences or do I have to SHOW YOU your own words again?

Quote:

What I have done is point out at least FIVE major problems with your post: (1) you first claimed Bush's "lies" can't be proven, then attempted to claim you could prove them. . . .

You are misrepresenting again. You have completely ignored my previous posts and other people's previous posts where we addressed your misrepresentations, non sequiturs, and obfuscation.

Again, you took what I wrote out of context and misrepresented the point I was making. That proves: 1) that you can't comprehend the point that was actually made because it swished over your head; or 2) you are intentionally misrepresenting the point that was made in order to obfuscate.

Previously, I typed really slow to help you out and I will do so again. If you consider that to be a snide come-back, I wish to acknowledge that I learned the "slow typing" technique from you. (If you deny that too and demand that I SHOW YOU, I can post a link.)

VERY SLOWLY NOW:

There is a difference between what I can prove and what BUSH can prove. We can't move on until you understand that KEY point.

Bush claims that the targets of his domestic spying program are persons who have known links or ties to a foreign power (an international terrorism group).

I can prove that Bush lied based on the evidence and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence.

However, BUSH cannot prove that his claims are truthful BECAUSE BUSH LIED. BUSH cannot prove that he is telling the truth--BUSH cannot establish probable cause to obtain a search warrant because he is conducting suspicionless monitoring of the American people that can't be justified to a neutral magistrate--therefore BUSH avoids judicial oversight and accountabiity by bypassing the system of checks and balances altogether.

Once you stop confusing (either through you muddled thinking processes or through your intentional obfuscation) the difference between what I can prove and what Bush can prove, then maybe you will stop MISREPRESENTING the context of my post.

Quote:

What I have done is point out at least FIVE major problems with your post: . . . (2) what a weak effort it would be to try and prove Bush lied employing such a method, . . . .

Outlining the evidence and setting forth the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence is NOT A WEAK EFFORT. As set forth in my previous post, it is the common method of proving one's argument. Inasmuch as you unsuccessfully tried to distance yourself from your previous criticisms of the function of reasonable inferences (see above, ROFL), your "weak effort" argument is wholly deflated.

Ticomaya wrote:

What I have done is point out at least FIVE major problems with your post: . . . (3) even though you claimed that the FISA and 4th Circuit courts have already prejudged Bush, there is no evidence they have done so, (4) the courts are not going to engage in this fantasy of yours, and (5) the FISA court has already affirmed prior case law that makes it clear the President holds the inherent power to do that which you are complaining of

Your arguments have already been defunked. Why did the FISA judge resign in protest if he didn't disapprove of Bush's unlawful assumption of power? Why would the FISA court be holding a special meeting to discuss Bush's warrantless surveillance of the American people if the judges didn't believe that Bush was circumventing their role in the process? Why would the Fourth Circuit write an opinion in which the judges openly questioned the administration's credibility?

I'm not engaging in fantasy, but it is clear that you are suffering from an acute case of denial in the face of undeniable facts that prove that the president has betrayed the nation's trust.

The FISA court has NOT ruled that the President has inherent authority to engage in warrantless domestic electronic surveillance of the American people.

Ticomaya wrote:

And there is the next problem with your little theory, Debra: There is certainly more than one reasonable inference to be drawn from your "evidence." Your "recap" certainly made no effort to show any counter arguments, and flatly ignores legal precedent. In sum, it's a losing argument.

I set forth United States SUPREME COURT legal precedent: The Fourth Amendment prohibits the president from conducting warrantless domestic electronic surveillance of the American people. You are the one who flatly ignores legal precedent. I have set forth the ONLY reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence. The president lied. You have FAILED to set forth any OTHER inference that can be drawn from the evidence.

It is not enough for you to make an unsupported conclusion: "There is certainly more than one reasonable inference to be drawn from your evidence." If there truly was "more than one reasonable inference" you would have supported your conclusion by providing an example. Your inability to set forth any other reasonable inference proves that I am right: The president lied.

Debra Law wrote:

The evidence firmly establishes that Bush LIED to the American people when he claimed his domestic spying program was limited to targets who were agents of a foreign power. If that were true, then there would be no reason for Bush to bypass FISA.

Ticomaya wrote:

I truly believe you would walk into a courtroom and expect to win with that argument, Debra.

You haven't proven that I am wrong. You have failed to set forth any other possible conclusion based on the evidence. Your inability to do so establishes that there is no other reasonable inference that can be drawn. The president lied.

Let's continue ...

DL wrote:

When the President intentionally bypasses the FISA court, intentionally avoids his duty to set forth the facts and circumstances that would justify electronic surveillance, and intentionally avoids judicial oversight and accountability, WE THE PEOPLE may reasonably infer that the President was unable to set forth any facts or circumstances that would justify his belief that the target was an agent of a foreign power but the President intentionally chose to conduct electronic surveillance regardless and in violation of the law.

Ticomaya wrote:

If that is the case, you and anyone else that does so, are foolish. It behooves us to remember a few things at this point:

No presidential Administration has ever conceded FISA trumps a President's inherent power to make exceptions to FISA if national security requires it. In fact, every president since FISA’s passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond FISA's terms. FISA establishes a process by which certain wiretaps could be approved, but does not set a limit on what wiretaps are allowed.

It would behoove you to read SUPREME COURT legal precedent. There is no "national security" exception to warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Congress complied with the Court's recommendation and established a SECRET FISA COURT to allow the president to obtain warrants to conduct domestic surveillance. The president does NOT have inherent authority to violate the Constitution or to violate congressional enactments.

NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT asserts that he has authority to conduct warrantless domestic spying on the American people--that's why he steadfastly (but falsely) asserts the targets of his spying program are agents of a foreign power. If that assertion was true, it would be easy for him to obtain a warrant from a FISA court. It is the president's intentional AVOIDANCE of his constitutional and statutory duty to obtain a warrant when conducting searches on American soil that speaks the loudest. Given your desire to place your hands over you eyes and ears, you are the foolish one.

Ticomaya wrote:

I have to believe Jamie Gorelick is a hero of yours. Let's remember what she said in 1994 as Deputy Attorney General, while testifying before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: “The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general."

There doesn't appear to be any "justice" for the American people when the Department of Justice has become the President's Department of Justifications. Your argument has been amply defunked in previous posts. You're beating a dead horse.

But, I will address the "delegation of authority" issue in another post.

Ticomaya wrote:

Finally, let's remember the first opinion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001 (FISC Court of Review, 2002), where the Court held that the restrictions that the FISC had placed on the warrant violated both FISA and the USA PATRIOT Act and that there was no constitutional requirement for those restrictions. The FISC Court of Review stated: "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. ... We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power." Id. at 48.

It appears the courts you claim will make these "reasonable inferences," disagree with you.

No. As kuvasz pointed out, you have misrepresented the Court's ruling. Therefore, your reliance on your own misrepresentations are without merit. Why do you ignore the Supreme Court precedent that I cited in favor of your own misrepresentations of a FISA court ruling? If that's the best you can offer, you offer nothing at all.

0 Replies

ralpheb wrote:

Uhm Debra about your fuzzy logic:

A: I drank rum and coke and got drunk

B: I drank Jack and coke and got drunk

C: Coke causes me to get drunk

A. There's a BIG ELEPHANT in the room.

B. It is trumpeting loudly.

C. It is depositing HUGE SMELLY PILES OF CRAP on the floor.

D. Bush supporters cannot see the elephant, cannot hear the elephant, cannot smell the elephant's crap because they cover their eyes, cover their ears, and plug their noses.

E. Bush supporters DENY the existence of the elephant in the room and declare all other persons who see, hear, and smell it are idiots.

F. Bush supporters walk around with a lot of elephant crap on their shoes.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Debra_Law:

You are certainly a snide little one, aren't you?

Ticomaya:

I will defend myself against your verbal assaults. If you can't take the heat, don't invite it.

I can certainly take the heat. I assure you, your little jabs don't phase me, but they do exhibit a certain lack of class that for some reason I expected you might try and hold onto.

DL wrote:

Although kuvasz characterized your "snide" accusation as "pot calling the kettle black," you and I are nothing alike.

Obviously.

DL wrote:

My arguments are straightforward and easy to follow. On the other hand, your arguments are filled with misrepresentations, non-sequiturs, and obfuscation. Although you might be amusing yourself, you shouldn't expect your responses to be met with respect.

Your argument ignores the law.

DL wrote:

DL wrote:
So yes, Ticomaya, despite your incredulous astonishment, it is possible to prove that the president lied via the use of evidence and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from that evidence.

Ticomaya wrote:
Show me where I said it was not possible to prove something through reasonable inferences. On the contrary, I said no such thing.

You are misrepresenting and obfuscating again. We were SPECIFICALLY talking about how it is possible to prove that the PRESIDENT LIED (the "something" that we were SPECIFICALLY talking about) through reasonable inferences. You specifically said it couldn't be done and I'll SHOW YOU where you said it:

Ticomaya wrote:
If you are really a lawyer, Debra_Law -- and by that I mean an attorney who has actually seen the interior of a courtroom on a regular basis ... and I don't mean on television -- you would understand that neither you, nor any of your leftist friends, are going to prove Bush lied based on what you characterize as these "reasonable inferences. "

Here's the link:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1748975#1748975

Are you still going to deny that you said no one can prove BUSH LIED based on reasonable inferences or do I have to SHOW YOU your own words again?

I obviously gave you reading comprehension credit you did not deserve.

I'll say it again: "Neither you, nor any of your leftist friends, are going to prove Bush lied based on what you characterize as these "reasonable inferences. "

Now -- come on, follow along -- contrast that with what I said here: "Show me where I said it was not possible to prove something through reasonable inferences. On the contrary, I said no such thing."

There are quite a few on this board who have demonstrated an inability to distinguish between the two statements. Are you in that group?

DL wrote:

Quote:
What I have done is point out at least FIVE major problems with your post: (1) you first claimed Bush's "lies" can't be proven, then attempted to claim you could prove them. . . .

You are misrepresenting again. You have completely ignored my previous posts and other people's previous posts where we addressed your misrepresentations, non sequiturs, and obfuscation.

Again, you took what I wrote out of context and misrepresented the point I was making. That proves: 1) that you can't comprehend the point that was actually made because it swished over your head; or 2) you are intentionally misrepresenting the point that was made in order to obfuscate.

Previously, I typed really slow to help you out and I will do so again. If you consider that to be a snide come-back, I wish to acknowledge that I learned the "slow typing" technique from you. (If you deny that too and demand that I SHOW YOU, I can post a link.)

No, I had already assumed you lacked the creativity to come up with that on your own.

DL wrote:

VERY SLOWLY NOW:

There is a difference between what I can prove and what BUSH can prove. We can't move on until you understand that KEY point.

Bush claims that the targets of his domestic spying program are persons who have known links or ties to a foreign power (an international terrorism group).

I can prove that Bush lied based on the evidence and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence.

No, you can't. And I don't think we can move on until YOU understand THAT key point.

DL wrote:

However, BUSH cannot prove that his claims are truthful BECAUSE BUSH LIED. BUSH cannot prove that he is telling the truth--BUSH cannot establish probable cause to obtain a search warrant because he is conducting suspicionless monitoring of the American people that can't be justified to a neutral magistrate--therefore BUSH avoids judicial oversight and accountabiity by bypassing the system of checks and balances altogether.

What Bush did was lawful, and your attempt to claim otherwise continues to ignore the law. (See below.)

DL wrote:

Once you stop confusing (either through you muddled thinking processes or through your intentional obfuscation) the difference between what I can prove and what Bush can prove, then maybe you will stop MISREPRESENTING the context of my post.

I know you can prove squat. I also know you have no idea what Bush can prove.

DL wrote:

Quote:
What I have done is point out at least FIVE major problems with your post: . . . (2) what a weak effort it would be to try and prove Bush lied employing such a method, . . . .

Outlining the evidence and setting forth the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence is NOT A WEAK EFFORT. As set forth in my previous post, it is the common method of proving one's argument. Inasmuch as you unsuccessfully tried to distance yourself from your previous criticisms of the function of reasonable inferences (see above, ROFL), your "weak effort" argument is wholly deflated.

Of course it's weak, but I also understand it's your only option, and that's why you would resort to it. It is the common method when you have no real evidence. The biggest problem with your claims in this regard -- aside from your ignoring the law -- is you have no idea what Bush might say in his own defense when faced with your "reasonable inferences" arguments. Thus far he's not been placed in any situation where he has had to do so. You are free to believe what you want to believe are the "reasonable inferences" to be drawn from the Administration's actions thus far, but such conclusions have not been drawn in the legal arena. Perhaps you should read Judge Luttig's opinion where he articulates as much.

DL wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
What I have done is point out at least FIVE major problems with your post: . . . (3) even though you claimed that the FISA and 4th Circuit courts have already prejudged Bush, there is no evidence they have done so, (4) the courts are not going to engage in this fantasy of yours, and (5) the FISA court has already affirmed prior case law that makes it clear the President holds the inherent power to do that which you are complaining of

Your arguments have already been defunked. Why did the FISA judge resign in protest if he didn't disapprove of Bush's unlawful assumption of power?

I dunno. Have you drawn a "reasonable inference" from his doing so?

My personal guess is he's a leftist and was trying to make a political statement. What's yours?

DL wrote:

Why would the FISA court be holding a special meeting to discuss Bush's warrantless surveillance of the American people if the judges didn't believe that Bush was circumventing their role in the process?

I dunno. What's your guess?

DL wrote:

Why would the Fourth Circuit write an opinion in which the judges openly questioned the administration's credibility?

You obviously need to read the opinion again, without your partisan glasses on. It seems clear to me Luttig wasn't going to let the Dept. of Justice cut-&-run with it's 4th circuit win. The important part:

Quote:

The government cannot be seen as conducting litigation with the enormous implications of this litigation -- litigation imbued with significant public interest -- in such a way as to select by which forum as between the Supreme Court of the United States and an inferior appellate court it wishes to be bound.

DL wrote:

I'm not engaging in fantasy, but it is clear that you are suffering from an acute case of denial in the face of undeniable facts that prove that the president has betrayed the nation's trust.

Of course you are. One of your greatest fantasies would be to think you could prove Bush lied. YOU can't prove he has, and neither the 4th circuit nor the FISA court have made any rulings in that regard, contrary to your prior insinuation.

DL wrote:

The FISA court has NOT ruled that the President has inherent authority to engage in warrantless domestic electronic surveillance of the American people.

If the searches are to obtain foreign intelligence information, it sure has. (See below.)

DL wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
And there is the next problem with your little theory, Debra: There is certainly more than one reasonable inference to be drawn from your "evidence." Your "recap" certainly made no effort to show any counter arguments, and flatly ignores legal precedent. In sum, it's a losing argument.

I set forth United States SUPREME COURT legal precedent: The Fourth Amendment prohibits the president from conducting warrantless domestic electronic surveillance of the American people. You are the one who flatly ignores legal precedent. I have set forth the ONLY reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence. The president lied. You have FAILED to set forth any OTHER inference that can be drawn from the evidence.

No, you are ignoring the FISC Review Court's opinion, and you haven't even heard the government, yet are ready to leap to a conclusion. That shows your partisanship, and little else.

DL wrote:

It is not enough for you to make an unsupported conclusion: "There is certainly more than one reasonable inference to be drawn from your evidence." If there truly was "more than one reasonable inference" you would have supported your conclusion by providing an example. Your inability to set forth any other reasonable inference proves that I am right: The president lied.

Wow. You just encapsulated the insulated thinking you have applied to this issue: I haven't provided any other inferences, therefore that proves you are right.

DL wrote:

The evidence firmly establishes that Bush LIED to the American people when he claimed his domestic spying program was limited to targets who were agents of a foreign power. If that were true, then there would be no reason for Bush to bypass FISA.

Again, you are making assumptions that are neither reasonable, nor the only inferences to be drawn from the facts as presented.

DL wrote:

When the President intentionally bypasses the FISA court, intentionally avoids his duty to set forth the facts and circumstances that would justify electronic surveillance, and intentionally avoids judicial oversight and accountability, WE THE PEOPLE may reasonably infer that the President was unable to set forth any facts or circumstances that would justify his belief that the target was an agent of a foreign power but the President intentionally chose to conduct electronic surveillance regardless and in violation of the law.

As I said, you are free to "reasonably infer" whatever the hell you want to infer, but a court of law has yet to do that, contrary to your prior assertion which started this discussion.

DL wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
If that is the case, you and anyone else that does so, are foolish. It behooves us to remember a few things at this point:

No presidential Administration has ever conceded FISA trumps a President's inherent power to make exceptions to FISA if national security requires it. In fact, every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond FISA's terms. FISA establishes a process by which certain wiretaps could be approved, but does not set a limit on what wiretaps are allowed.

It would behoove you to read SUPREME COURT legal precedent. There is no "national security" exception to warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Congress complied with the Court's recommendation and established a SECRET FISA COURT to allow the president to obtain warrants to conduct domestic surveillance. The president does NOT have inherent authority to violate the Constitution or to violate congressional enactments.

NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT asserts that he has authority to conduct warrantless domestic spying on the American people--that's why he steadfastly (but falsely) asserts the targets of his spying program are agents of a foreign power. If that assertion was true, it would be easy for him to obtain a warrant from a FISA court. It is the president's intentional AVOIDANCE of his constitutional and statutory duty to obtain a warrant when conducting searches on American soil that speaks the loudest. Given your desire to place your hands over you eyes and ears, you are the foolish one.

You are the one ignoring the law, and leaping to wild conclusions in order to fuel your rich fantasy life. (Note: That is the reasonable inference I have drawn from the facts. Wink

)

DL wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
I have to believe Jamie Gorelick is a hero of yours. Let's remember what she said in 1994 as Deputy Attorney General, while testifying before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: "The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general."

There doesn't appear to be any "justice" for the American people when the Department of Justice has become the President's Department of Justifications. Your argument has been amply defunked in previous posts. You're beating a dead horse.

But, I will address the "delegation of authority" issue in another post.

Ticomaya wrote:
Finally, let's remember the first opinion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001 (FISC Court of Review, 2002), where the Court held that the restrictions that the FISC had placed on the warrant violated both FISA and the USA PATRIOT Act and that there was no constitutional requirement for those restrictions. The FISC Court of Review stated: "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. ... We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power." Id. at 48.

It appears the courts you claim will make these "reasonable inferences," disagree with you.

No. As kuvasz pointed out, you have misrepresented the Court's ruling. Therefore, your reliance on your own misrepresentations are without merit. Why do you ignore the Supreme Court precedent that I cited in favor of your own misrepresentations of a FISA court ruling? If that's the best you can offer, you offer nothing at all.

Are you kidding me? I haven't misrepresented the court's ruling. And since this is the most important part of my last post, I find it tremendously amusing that you have given such short attention to it. Instead of focusing on the fact that your argument runs contrary to this FISC Court of Review opinion, you just want to ignore it. Do you ignore case law that hurts your case in real life? I have cited to a specific case that is pretty much right on point, and you ignore it, citing to some unknown "Supreme Court precedent." I'm sorry, but I gotta believe the brain power involved in the In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001 might just exceed yours, and the judges on that panel were fully briefed on all prior Supreme Court precedents prior to issuing their opinion. The most recent judicial statement on the issue sticks your argument where it belongs, and you don't even comment on it?

Are you saying you are going to ignore it because it's dicta? What are you saying? Don't just adopt what kuvasz has to say -- he's not a real lawyer, he just plays one on the Internet. I want to know why you are ignoring the FISC Review Court case.

"We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Debra_Law:

You are certainly a snide little one, aren't you?

Ticomaya:

I will defend myself against your verbal assaults. If you can't take the heat, don't invite it.

I can certainly take the heat. I assure you, your little jabs don't phase me, but they do exhibit a certain lack of class that for some reason I expected you might try and hold onto.

How woeful. You ridicule me. You demean me. You misrepresent what I post. You intentionally ofuscate. And then you bemoan my alleged "lack of class" when I defend myself against your verbal assaults. I don't think I'll be crying very much over the demise of classiness.

As MONK would say, "Here's the deal." You recapture your class and hold onto it and that will inspire me to follow suit.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Debra_Law:

You are certainly a snide little one, aren't you?

Ticomaya:

I will defend myself against your verbal assaults. If you can't take the heat, don't invite it.

I can certainly take the heat. I assure you, your little jabs don't phase me, but they do exhibit a certain lack of class that for some reason I expected you might try and hold onto.

How woeful. You ridicule me. You demean me. You misrepresent what I post. You intentionally ofuscate. And then you bemoan my alleged "lack of class" when I defend myself against your verbal assaults. I don't think I'll be crying very much over the demise of classiness.

As MONK would say, "Here's the deal." You recapture your class and hold onto it and that will inspire me to follow suit.

LOL. You were the first with the "it's elementary law," as if you were giving me a lesson on evidence and "reasonable inferences." I then called your reliance on reasonable inferences to try and prove Bush lied, "weak," which prompted you to bring out the "I'm typing real slowly" (which I'm sure you were just waiting to use), and "if you were truly a lawyer" lines.

Whatever, Debra. I'm perfectly willing to converse at whatever vitriolic level you wish.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

"We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

Sorry that quote won't work.

In all three of the cases (Butenko, Truong, and Keith) the FISA Courts were talking about whether the President's interest in conducting foreign intelligence monitoring creates an exception to the Warrant Requirement of the Fourth Amendment. The issue in those cases was whether the Constitution bars warrantless surveillance absent Congressional action, not whether Congressional prohibitions in this area cannot bind the Executive branch.

With FISA a signed law, that Congressional prohibition was set.

Bush claims that FISA, a Congressional enactment that is clearly within the express powers of Congress, is nonetheless unconstitutional because it impinges upon the President's power as Commander in Chief as granted in Article II. Apparently, if FISA does not permit warrantless surveillance, then FISA is unconstitutional

So, the legal justification for President Bush's authorization of warrantless domestic electronic surveillance rests entirely on the argument that Article II of the Constitution vests the Executive with plenary Commander in Chief powers which can not be restricted by the other branches of our federal government.

The Bush proposition is that in time of war, the Commander in Chief powers granted the President by Article II of the Constitution are superior to the powers granted to the Congress by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. And accordingly, when they conflict, the President's Commander in Chief power prevails.

Two problems with that.

We are not at war, and what ever authority the administration claims was granted Bush as CIC by the authorization to use force in Afghanistan was not indefinite or perpetual. It ended with the cessation of active combat in Afghanistan, according to the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2003 Hamdi Case (Section II of the Majority Opinion).

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/28june20041215/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-6696.pdf

It ended around the time Bush began to exercise it.

The other is laid out in Youngstown v. Sawyer: and the steel mill seizures
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=343&invol=579

from Justice Clark:

Quote:

"I conclude that where Congress has laid down specific procedures to deal with the type of crisis confronting the President, he must follow those procedures in meeting the crisis; but that in the absence of such action by Congress, the President's independent power to act depends upon the gravity of the situation confronting the nation. I cannot sustain the seizure in question because here, as in Little v. Barreme, Congress had prescribed methods to be followed by the President in meeting the emergency at hand."

Paraphrasing Justice Burton for today's issue: The controlling fact is that Congress, within its constitutionally delegated power, has prescribed for the US President specific procedures for intelligence gathering for use in meeting terrorism. Through the FISA laws Congress has reserved to itself the right to determine where and when to authorize surveillance in such an emergency. Under these circumstances, the President's actions invaded the jurisdiction of Congress. It violated the essence of the principle of the separation of governmental powers.

0 Replies

America... Spying on Americans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know