America... Spying on Americans

Mortkat wrote:

Debra L A W does not realize that there are legal minds which are more highly trained than hers( do I dare say this) who say:

PRESIDENT HAD LEGAL AUTHORITY TO OK TAPS.

If you're inviting me to post my curriculum vitae, I respectfully decline. I don't want you showing up on my doorstep.

Why don't you go back, starting at page one of this thread, and read all the posted articles containing opinions from "highly trained legal minds" that disagree with the notion that it's okay for the president to evade FISA. If that's too much work, why don't you read the FINDLAW articles written by your legal hero, Edward Lazarus. Razz

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

What would you expect from the far left, Finn?

What would you expect from the conservative right? How about this:

Quote:

Conservative Scholars Argue Bush’s Wiretapping Is An Impeachable Offense

Conservative scholars Bruce Fein and Norm Ornstein argued yesterday on The Diane Rehm show that, should Bush remain defiant in defending his constitutionally-abusive wire-tapping of Americans (as he has indicated he will), Congress should consider impeaching him.

QUESTION: Is spying on the American people as impeachable an offense as lying about having sex with an intern?

BRUCE FEIN, constitutional scholar and former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration: I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want – I don’t need to consult any other branches – that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that … would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.

NORM ORNSTEIN, AEI scholar: I think if we’re going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed.

0 Replies

Dear Debra- Edward Lazarus wrote a good book called Closed Chambers but he is NOT MY HERO. Anyone reading his book would know that he is a LIBERAL( caps on purpose).

On the other hand, he, Lazarus, as a federal prosecutor in LA ,cannot tie the shoes of John Schmidt( or don't you know what an assistant attorney general of the United States is?).
I stand by my post and Schmidt's opinions. If you really were good ,.you would refute Schmidt's postions one by one, but you really cannot do that, can you?

What Schmidt says at the end is that the Supreme Court would not second guess the presidential judgment.

Would they?

They only way we can find out is to have the case referred to the court.

In the meantime, I WOULD SINCERELY HOPE THAT THE DEMOCRATIC LEFT KEEPS FULMINATING ABOUT BUSH'S ILLEGAL WIRETAPS.

I really don't think this will happen. I do think the issue will die away except in the farthest reaches of the Democratic left like The Nation Magazine.

The Democrat consultants are not insane. They realize that this one is a loser with the American People. The latest Rasmussen Poll showed that a full 64% of people polled thought that President Bush did not do anything illegal by authorizing wiretaps..ONLY 24%( the reflexive Bush Haters, and the superannuated hippies) said that he did act illegally.
Check out Rasmussen Reports.

I sincerely hope the issue stays alive. I do think that frantic Democrats in the House will tell the Democratic Spin Machines--For God's sake, kill that crap. I'm getting murdered on it in my district.

We will see what the USSC says. The left SCREAMED about the illegallity of Vice President Cheney's meetings on energy and had the results crammed down their throats. Some of them are still bewildered by the outcome. They forgot that the Justice Department has some good lawyers too.( As good as John Schmidt was)

0 Replies

Legal scholar, Johathan Turley:

“The president’s dead wrong. It’s not a close question. Federal law is clear,” said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and a specialist in surveillance law. “When the president admits that he violated federal law, that raises serious constitutional questions of high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute:

"Watching Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez justify the wiretaps by relying on the inherent powers of the commander in chief suggests that the Bush Justice Department is to checks and balances what Paris Hilton is to chastity."

In an editorial published by the Washington Times, conservative constitutional lawyer and former Reagan Justice Department official, Bruce Fein stated:

"President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law. He cannot be trusted to conduct the war against global terrorism with a decent respect for civil liberties and checks against executive abuses."

University of Chicago law professor (and former law school dean) Geoffrey Stone wrote in an December 21 Chicago Tribune op-ed:

"Bush has the audacity to assert that his authorization of NSA surveillance of American citizens on American soil was 'lawful.' It was not. It was a blatant and arrogant violation of American law. If Bush wanted the authority to undertake such surveillance, he should have gone directly to Congress and sought such authorization, publicly. He did not do this, because it would not have been granted. So, instead of acting in accord with his pledge to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,' he acted surreptitiously and unconstitutionally. What is revealing about Bush's view of the terrorists is that he apparently believes they assume we act within the bounds of our own Constitution. So, he decided, we'll trick them. We won't."

0 Replies

Mortkat: It's nice to know that you switch your legal heros whenever it suits your agenda. You'll have to write to Lazarus and let him know that he's no longer on your hip list. All the arguments of your newest legal hero have been refuted, at length. We are now on page 125 of this thread. If you're too lazy to go back and read, that's your problem.

0 Replies

Are you so dense, Debra L A W that you really think that "opinions" can settle such an argument. I have my law professors, you have your law professors. That and A dollar and a half will get you on the trolley.

For a law expert,you really are dense.

THE COURT WILL SETTLE THE LEGALITY OF THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS

As a law expert, you might be able to tell me how long that will take? I have an idea but I would like to hear it from an expert.

THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION( which, you wisely have said nothing about) IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT TO THE POLITICIANS WITH AN ELECTION COMING UP. The politicians are only interested in the argument if it has "legs". If the polls show that the American People are largely in favor of the President's position, the issue will die except in the Ivory Towers. Don't you know that?

You did take some classes in Poly. Sci, as well as Constitutional Law, did you not?

Are you going to tell me that the typical American Voter will react negatively to the President's alleged malfeasance?

That is what the politicians are looking at and if you don't think the election of 2006 is five hundred times more important to them than anything FISA said you are really naive.

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

Are you so dense, Debra L A W that you really think that "opinions" can settle such an argument. I have my law professors, you have your law professors. That and A dollar and a half will get you on the trolley.

I'm dense? You apparently don't understand that this is a discussion thread in a political forum. If you want ride the trolley rather than discuss the subject of this thread, go ahead.

Quote:

For a law expert,you really are dense.

THE COURT WILL SETTLE THE LEGALITY OF THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS

Really? If only you had entered this thread on page one and told us all how dense we were for talking about this issue, you could have saved us a lot of time and 125 pages of discussion space. Where was your profound wisdom when we needed it?

Quote:

As a law expert, you might be able to tell me how long that will take? I have an idea but I would like to hear it from an expert.

Based on past experience, I expect it will take a few more pages of discussion and you will leave crying.

Quote:

THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION( which, you wisely have said nothing about) IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT TO THE POLITICIANS WITH AN ELECTION COMING UP. The politicians are only interested in the argument if it has "legs". If the polls show that the American People are largely in favor of the President's position, the issue will die except in the Ivory Towers. Don't you know that?

Oh really? I posted a poll wherein 85 percent of the responding members of the public were of the opinion that Bush should be impeached. I posted that right after you posted your poll information. You post your poll, I post my poll; you have your law professors, I have mine; you have your legs, I have mine (and I have no doubt that my legs are a lot nicer than yours).

If you're now claiming the issue will die in the Ivory Towers, why were you previously claiming the courts will settle the issue? As always, you are inconsistent and can't remember from one sentence to the next what you said. Laughing

Quote:

You did take some classes in Poly. Sci, as well as Constitutional Law, did you not?

Did you take ANY classes in how to make sense?

Quote:

Are you going to tell me that the typical American Voter will react negatively to the President's alleged malfeasance?

Objectively reasonable persons would see the President as someone who lies to their faces while he's violating their civil rights behind their backs:

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

Rolling Eyes

Quote:

That is what the politicians are looking at and if you don't think the election of 2006 is five hundred times more important to them than anything FISA said you are really naive.

Okay. The politicians should worry about getting elected so they can sit in Washington D.C. and enact laws that are totally unenforceable and meaningless. Do you really think the members of Congress are going to allow the President to negate their role in our constitutional system of government and make fools of all of them? I wonder who is truly naive.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

But then there's the fact that every president in recent memory has done the same thing, and the fact that he has several relatively recent legal opinions on his side.

Are you seriously arguing that "Everyone else did it too" is a defense?

0 Replies

Quote:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 - A top Justice Department official objected in 2004 to aspects of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and refused to sign on to its continued use amid concerns about its legality and oversight, according to officials with knowledge of the tense internal debate. The concerns appear to have played a part in the temporary suspension of the secret program.

full article

0 Replies

A couple of interesting items in that article

The NSA program was so secret they didn't even tell the #2 man in the AG office.

When they DID inform the #2 man he was concerned about the legality and refused to sign off on it. When he refused, they went around him.

It doesn't look like the program is the legal slam dunk that many keep claiming it is.

0 Replies

Quote:

NSA Gave Other U.S. Agencies Information From Surveillance
Fruit of Eavesdropping Was Processed and Cross-Checked With Databases

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 1, 2006; Page A08

Information captured by the National Security Agency's secret eavesdropping on communications between the United States and overseas has been passed on to other government agencies, which cross-check the information with tips and information collected in other databases, current and former administration officials said.

The NSA has turned such information over to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and to other government entities, said three current and former senior administration officials, although it could not be determined which agencies received what types of information. Information from intercepts -- which typically includes records of telephone or e-mail communications -- would be made available by request to agencies that are allowed to have it, including the FBI, DIA, CIA and Department of Homeland Security, one former official said.

At least one of those organizations, the DIA, has used NSA information as the basis for carrying out surveillance of people in the country suspected of posing a threat, according to two sources. A DIA spokesman said the agency does not conduct such domestic surveillance but would not comment further. Spokesmen for the FBI, the CIA and the director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte, declined to comment on the use of NSA data.

full article

0 Replies

And it all comes full circle back to the activities that the Congress wrote legislation to prevent happening.

Abuses occur and are occurring. It is easy to say it is inadvertent or human error but the people that whined about Clinton's 1000 FBI files from human error seem to be just fine with thousands more files by the NSA and DIA and other officials. The process was CHANGED because of the FBI files. Isn't it time we change the process because of this lack of oversight?

0 Replies

I have a question. I have read that the members of congress that were briefed on this didn't really know enough about it to have raised objections or to have put a stop to this practice.

Now that they do know all the details, why can't they, why haven't they put a stop to it yet?

And if they don't stop the practice, then doesn't that say that they, at least, in a tacit way, agree with Bush that it isn't illegal?

0 Replies

We don't know if Congress does have all the details yet. They are getting their information from the press like the rest of us, except for the 8 members that were briefed and couldn't tell anyone and some of them felt they weren't getting all the information.

Oh yes, and congress is on recess for December. Don't expect much until Feb or March.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Well, I know Clinton and Carter did.

The EXACT same thing? Clinton and Carter both went around FISA? I think you are mistaken. If you are referring to executive orders which allowed the AG to approve wiretaps on US citizens, that is within the guidelines of FISA. What Bush did is not, and he has acknowledged as much.

Quote:

And yes, I'm absolutely certain there are several relatively recent legal opinions on his side. I would refer you to that FISCR opinion which refers to the several legal opinions I'm referring to.

That one opinion takes for granted a pre-FISA court decision (not exactly what I would call recent) and does not delve into the issue at all. So again, several? When you say "several" you leave the impression that you are talking about more than one recent decision and not one recent decision that uses not-so-recent precedents.

0 Replies

It doesn't matter what legal trickery the Righties try to employ on this. Article 2, section one of the constitution lays out the president's responsibility clearly:

Quote:

The oath to be taken by the president on first entering office is specified in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution:

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.

The highest oath the President takes is to defend the Constitution of the US. This cannot be done by breaking laws! The claim that it can is a contradiction in terms.

I do not accept the argument that Bush has unlimited power in any category. Our system is specifically set up to keep any branch of government from weilding absolute power. It doesn't matter that the issue at hand is intelligence gathering, and no fear-mongering terrorism arguments are going to change that fact.

Also, not answered by any Rightie, is how the system can be trusted to work without an independent oversight committee; there is no way to ensure that those being spied on are actually talking to agents of AQ, no way to tell who recieves what information, no way to tell how that information is used. This is most definately against the intentions of our framers; that a secret and unoverseeable spying program be set up.

Without the ability to prove who and who shouldn't be spied upon, there is little doubt that such a program violates the 4th amendment of at least some of those monitored.

The president's highest duty is to protect the laws of America, NOT to defend against terrorism!

Cycloptichorn

ps. is Bush claiming Plenary powers based upon the WoT? Because, as far as I know, that isn't an officially declared war, is it?

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
. . . thanks for responding . . . ideological zealot or a partisan hack. . . intellectually dishonest . . . wrap these wild claims within a cocoon of case law and legal principles . . . little more than the rant of a ideological zealot or a partisan hack . . . spurious drivel . . . redundant . . . erroneous charges . . . utterly false and vituperative charge . . . Bombast, pure and simple . . . you and all of your fellow zealots . . . you are living in a house filled with sh*t.

No need to thank me--it is thanks enough to know that you appreciate my thoughtful responses to all your questions.

Now you can add these: out of context...deflection...hyprocritical

Cool

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

I have a question. I have read that the members of congress that were briefed on this didn't really know enough about it to have raised objections or to have put a stop to this practice.

Now that they do know all the details, why can't they, why haven't they put a stop to it yet?

And if they don't stop the practice, then doesn't that say that they, at least, in a tacit way, agree with Bush that it isn't illegal?

kicky

As parados said, the limitations placed on the eight are 100% restrictive. That is, they were not allowed to speak or discuss what they were told with anyone else. Thus, they could not even consult legal specialists in their own staffs, for example. They couldn't speak to anyone else in congress. They certainly could not speak of it to citizens or the press. No matter what illegality or potential illegality was being perpetrated, the eight were stopped from doing anything at all about it. This is the Bush/Cheney version of "informing Congress".

Further, no one has any way of checking the veracity and completeness of what the eight were told. Safe to assume both are in question.

0 Replies

Blatham sheds just a little heat and no light at all on the problem.

I will reference the Chicago Tribune of December 21st 2005 P. 23

Article headed PRESIDENT HAD LEGAL AUTHORITY TO OK TAPS.

( I am sure that Blatham is erudite and a great scholar with a massive intellect. However, he does not know as much about the problem of wiretaps as the person I am going to quote)

John Schmidt(THE ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES FROM 1994 TO 1997 A S S U R E S U S
THAT

QUOTE:

"Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. UNDER PRESIDENT CLINTON, DEPUTY JAIME GORLICK TESTIFIED THAT "THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BELIEVES, AND THE CASE LAW SUPPORTS, THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS INHERENT AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT WARRENTLESS PHYSICAL SEARCHES FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES"

end of quote

That is a straightforward quote from Jaime Gorlick as referenced by the former Assistant Attorney General- John Schmidt which backs up Ticomaya's statement.

0 Replies

gatos do you like bow ties? frankly I wear a bolo tie.

0 Replies

America... Spying on Americans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know