America... Spying on Americans

You don't see me raising the 'terror alert level' if that is what you mean. Look to your own party if you want to find fear-mongering.

There have been allegations that wiretapping which was inappropriate has occured. It is too early to know whether that is true or not. If it is, Bush is in serious trouble. He may be in trouble anyways even if it is not true. We'll see.

So you claim that the president has the Constitutional right to spy upon anyone, at any time, for any purpose? Without an oversight committee, that's exactly what the NSA does; it cannot be verifiably proven that they are not spying for political gain or other gain not associated with Foriegn Intelligence. Therefore, it cannot be said to be limited to this purpose.

If the president has no limits on his power in this area, then he can declare anyone he wants an 'agent of a foriegn country' or 'suspected ties to terrorism' and listen in on that phone call. There can be no oversight, so there is no way to know if this power is being abused or not. So we have to trust the President. Right?

Cycloptichorn

No, but it appears that is precisely what you are saying.

No, I don't say that. Have you been reading this thread? I don't choose to repeat what I've said ten times now.

"There have been allegations that wiretapping which was inappropriate has occured."

There WERE situations when a transmission was monitored that involved one party on US Soil and another on Foreign soil. No alligation there. FACT.

"So you claim that the president has the Constitutional right to spy upon anyone, at any time, for any purpose?"

I never saw anyone clamin a President can "spy" AT ANY TIME , FOR ANY PURPOSE.

These arguments are becoming more tedious as your exageration level increases.

The President of the US MUST have some power to act quicky in these areas involving communicatin to and from the US during a time of war.

It sounds like Cyclops does not want any president to have this power. WHY?

tico wrote:
No, but it appears that is precisely what you are saying.


According to the understanding of most credible sources including many congressmen that includes republicans, I believe Bush is in big trouble. Not only for lying about unauthorized wiretaps, but because the president never has ultimate power to do anything he pleases. The Constitution is the law of the land (which he swore to protect); not even the president can override the Constitutional guarantees.

First of all, this has nothing to do with 'a time of war.' The 'war on terror' is not a time of war in the traditional sense.

If:

The president has unlimited discretion to conduct spying for Foreign Intelligence Purposes;

And:

There can exist no oversight committee to tell the President he cannot spy on someone (that would be limiting his power)

Then:

The president can spy on whoever he wants. He is given the authority to do so for Foriegn Intelligence purposes and it is he or someone he hires who determines what 'foriegn intelligence' purposes are and whether or not it is appropriate to spy upon them.

Of course I'm reading the thread, Tico. If there is no oversight, there is no way to keep the Prez from using this to spy on whoever he wants. If you support the removal of oversight, you support unlimited presidential spying rights.

Cycloptichorn

BLAH. There are many credible sources who agree any President has this authority.

You problem is you are afraid to admit that this issue needs to be looked into based upon an OBJECTIVE REVIEW of what is at stake, what is the Preseident trying to accompliah and how can the Govt provide a President with this authority with oversight but allow the President to move quickly.

Again, it must be said again, there are EXPERTS who hold that the President had the right to authorize surveillance. Some do not agree. THE COURTS WILL ADJUDICATE.



John Schmidt, who, it must be remembered, was not an associate Attorney General under George W. Bush or George Herbert Walker Bush or even Ronald Reagan but rather the ineffable BILL CLINTON.

Schmidt wrote:

"FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation, What was needed after Sept. 11th, according to the President, was surveillance beyond what oculd be authorized under that kind of individualized case be case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment"

Perhaps, and, hopefully, we shall see what the USSC rules on this question. In the meantime, the attempts of partisans to adjudicate this outside the courts appears to be the grossest type of political partisanship.
I am predicting that, as more polls appear that show the voters' belief that President Bush did nothing illegal in his attempt to defend the country against future attacks like 9/11, the politicians running for office in November, will be much more muted on this issue than the left wing crazies in The Screamer Dean's office.

The president has the Constitutional authority to command the military when it is called up. Previously, courts have interpreted this to mean that he has the authority to collect foreign intelligence, which I won't argue with.

The American people have the Constitutional right to be secure in their persons and papers against unreasonable search and seizure. Previously, courts have interpreted this to include their phone conversations. In criminal law, there are safeguards in place to ensure that our rights are not violated -- authorities must demonstrate probable cause and/or get a warrant.

Here we have a fundamental conflict between the president's authority and the rights of the people. FISA was enacted in order to provide us with minimal protections against unreasonable search and seizure in the context of intelligence gathering, seemingly because folks who would know recognized the difference between foreign intelligence gathering and the surveillance of Americans. The idea is to make sure that searches are "reasonable".

Now we have this administration essentially saying that it's up to them to decide what is foreign intelligence and what is not, and that no other branch has the authority to encroach on this power, and previously enacted legislation is irrelevant. No matter how one tries to justify this position, I think it is deplorable in a country that prides itself on "the rule of law".

But does simply agreeing with them make you and agent?

This issue has been around since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and decisions have run both ways. John Adams lost his presidency over it in 1800, Lincoln seized the records of telegraph companies in 1861 citing a clear and present danger and got away with it. Ultimately, as John Adams experience illustrates, it depends on how upset the political opposition is. At the moment the democrats seem less than united on the issue which bods well for Bush.

The Fourth Amendment does NOT apply to the search and seizure by United States agents of property owned by a nonresident alien in a foreign country or in international waters. See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990). Within our own borders, however, government authority is limited by the Constitution. There is no national security exception to the warrant clause that would allow the president to conduct unchecked domestic surveillance of United States persons.

A Fourth Amendment violation is complete at the time of an unreasonable government intrusion whether or not evidence is seized or sought for use in a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, even if a United States citizen (or resident alien) is unaware that the government is conducting secret electronic surveillance of his private communications, the violation of his civil rights is complete the moment the search begins. The president does not have inherent constitutional authority to violate the express limits placed on his authority by the Constitution itself. It is an oxymoron to say that he does.

It would behoove you to understand that FISA itself is a means for the government to get around the Fourth Amendment when conducting domestic electronic surveillance of United States persons. The statute essentially divides United States persons into two classes: 1) United States persons who are NOT agents of a foreign power, and 2) United States persons who ARE agents of a foreign power (or, at least, reasonably believed to be agents of a foreign power).

It is completely unreasonable (hence, unconstitutional) for the government to conduct electronic surveillance of a United States person who is NOT an agent of a foreign power without obtaining a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate based on probable cause to believe the target is engaged in crime.

For those in the second class--United States persons who ARE agents of a foreign power--the government is authorized to conduct domestic electronic surveillance. The statute even permits the government to gather evidence of a crime (e.g., terrorism, espionage, sabotage) for prosecution so long as a significant (measurable) purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information. The statute, however, does not require the government to establish probable cause to believe that the target is engaged it crime. The government is merely required to present facts or circumstances to justify its belief that the target is an agent of a foreign power.

Accordingly, FISA does not encroach on the government's ability to conduct electronic surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information. It simply places a CHECK upon the president's authority to ensure that authority is not abused and to protect the civil rights of United States persons who are NOT agents of a foreign power. Our Constitution does not allow the president to exercise UNCHECKED powers upon the American people.

President Bush's claim of authority to exercise unchecked powers is an attempt to establish himself as a de facto dictator.

De FACTO dictator?

If the previous poster believes what she wrote wouldn't that be an attempt to establish himself as de JURE dictator??

And wouldn't that beg the question of how is it nobody is bringing articles of impeachment against him????

Yet.

Cycloptichorn

YET.

So let's calculate an adequate preparation time.

30 days? 60? 90? 120???

I have $100 betting NOBODY will be bringing articles of impeachment within 120 days from today's date.

Your call

That's because it will take more than 120 days before the next election, where the Dems have a chance of gaining a lot of seats in both houses.

The corrupt Republican party would never allow articles of impeachment to be brought up against their leader, Bush, unless they absolutely had to; and right now they don't have to.

Give it time, though.

Cycloptichorn

There is a big difference between submitting and having them taken seriously. I will happily take your bet. Any submission by even one Congressman counts as a submission.

Louise wrote:
I have $100 betting NOBODY will be bringing articles of impeachment within 120 days from today's date.

This is precisely the problem when the executive and congress are made up from one political party.

American democracy in action. We had elections, Democrats did not win the majority so democrats are complaining. hmmmmmmm

Next time, make sure you have candidates that will win over the swing voter.

Suck it up and drive on!

America is America precisely because we are not inclined to "suck it up".

No need to suck up anything. The American people has realized this problem in the past, and we can almost be assured the next election will swing away from this problem. Many republican congressmen, governors, and mayors are running for their lives.