America... Spying on Americans

And, when the elections come, IF the Dems take control, then the republicans will have to suck it up until the next election. Do you guys need everything translated?

0 Replies

Was that a translation?

0 Replies

John Lewis? You don't mean the John Lewis from Georgia who graduated from Fisk University and the Baptist Theological Seminary, do you? Do you mean the John Lewis was beaten in the civil rights march and had his skull fractured in 1965? Are you referring to the John Lewis, who according to the( Almanac of American Politics-2002-P. 447) said in 1994 when railing against the Republican Welfare Bills( signed by his hero, Bill Clinton, who he defended throughout his impeachment)that QUOTE- They're coming for the children. They are coming for the poor. They are coming for the sick, the elderly, and the disabled" END OF QUOTE.

Such a level headed, even tempered man MUST be listened to when he speaks of impeachment.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

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.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/cartoon/mrdid.jpg

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The president doesn't have the constitutional authority to spy on his own citizens. Or are you claiming he does?

Cycloptichorn

If someone in the US --- whether they be a citizen or not -- is an agent of a foreign power and is communicating with someone else in a foreign country, the US government can surveil that communication, sans warrant. That's what I'm claiming.

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.

You do a pretty good job of stating the obvious .... then sail off -- UNCHECKED --- into hyperbole.

0 Replies

Quick question...
Should all laws be enforced?

0 Replies

US fraud lobbyist pleads guilty
US lobbyist Jack Abramoff has pleaded guilty to fraud, paving the way for him to co-operate in an inquiry into corruption in Congress. Mr Abramoff has also pleaded guilty to conspiracy and tax evasion.

He and an associate are said to have defrauded several indigenous tribes of millions of dollars.

The money was allegedly spent on some 20 lawmakers and aides, who are now the focus of a US justice department investigation.

Mr Abramoff's former business partner, Michael Scanlon, pleaded guilty in November.

The lobbyist is also facing separate charges in Miami over the purchase of a fleet of gambling boats, a case in which he is also expected to plead guilty.

'Profound regret'

The indictment against Mr Abramoff and Mr Scanlon accuses them of putting millions of dollars, wrongfully claimed from indigenous tribes, into a fund for bribing lawmakers.

Gifts and favours lavished upon the lawmakers included golfing trips, dinners and sports tickets, according to the indictment.

Mr Abramoff told the judge at Tuesday's hearing: "Words will not ever be able to express my sorrow and my profound regret for all my actions and mistakes."

He agreed with the judge when she said he had been part of a conspiracy involving "corruption of public officials" and acknowledged that he had helped deliver favours and gifts "in exchange of certain official acts".

Prosecutors are trying to implicate top Republican senators in the scheme, including Tom DeLay, who stepped down as the House of Representatives majority leader to fight the allegations earlier this year.

Mr DeLay denies charges of money-laundering.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4578628.stm

Republicans: What, me worry?

0 Replies

Louise R. Heller- I will join you on your bet, if you allow. Not only will I bet that the President will not be impeached and that only loonies like John Lewis, who, after all, suffered a fractured skull in 1965 and has apparently never fully recovered, even talk about the possibilty.

Here is what those who know very little about the nature of Politics and the coming election appear not to know, Louise R. Heller.

They do not know that according to an article in the Chicago Sun Times Nov. 5th 2005, by Morton Kondracke, an organization called Fair Vote, which is a bipartisan organization calling for redistricting through non-partisan commissions rather than through elected politicians, predicted that according to their research, THERE ARE ONLY 30 OR SO DISTRICTS THAT ARE CONSIDERED COMPETITIVE BECAUSE OF THE INTENSE GERRYMANDERING BY BOTH PARTIES AFTER THE 2000 CENSUS.

Fair Vote says: This year, as opposed to 1994 when there were 52 open seats, there are only 18 open seats, 12 o f which are held by Republicans. Fiar Vote indicates that there are only FOUR DISTRICTS that Kerry carried by 55 Percent or better that are occupied by Republicans.

In other words, The Democrats must have a landslide to capture the House.

Anyone who knows Politics will tell you that it is extremely difficult to unseat an incumbent.

Now, in the Senate, there is a Republican edge of six seats. Those who follow the polls know that in Tennessee, the House member, Ford, is already slightly behind in his try to take the seat of the retiring Frist.

Those, Louise R. Heller, who are banking on bad news to lower the President's rating just before the election are not aware of the distinct possiblity that the Iraqis may have indeed taken a much more firm control of their country by August or September. The Economy, to any but the uninformed, is tooling along well with a lowering of the Unemployment percentage to 4.9%.

Yes, Louise R. Heller, it is obvious that posters like Cyclochipthorn do not read the important political magazines and articles or they would know the basics involved in the next election.

0 Replies

And, Louise R. Heller, what, do the demographers and political analysts predict for the future of the Electoral College? MORE PROBLEMS FOR THE EASTERN DEMOCRATIC INFLUENCE IN THE HOUSE.

Chicago Tribune- December 22, 2005- P. 10

POLITICAL CLOUT SHIFTS IN U.S.

"Demographers and Political Analysts project that Texas and Florida could each gain as many as three House seats. Ohio and New York could lose as many as two seats apiece. Every ten years, the 435 seats in the House of Representatives are divided among the states based on population counts in the census...In 1940, Northeastern and Midwestern States had 251 seats in the House, compared with 184 for states in the South and West. Today, Southern and Western States have the edge- 252-183."

I am very much afraid that the news has not reached the East Coast Elites yet.

0 Replies

AND WHY, WHY, SHOULD THE OPINIONS OF BILL CLINTON'S FORMER ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL BE GIVEN NO WEIGHT? HE IS CERTAINLY QUALIFIED AS A FORMER ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO HAS COVERED SUCH MATTERS IN DEPTH. HE CANNOT, AS A LAWYER WHO WORKED FOR CLINTON BE ACCUSED OF BEING A REPUBLICAN PARTISAN---

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.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
Are you arguing that FISA is unconstitutional?

No, I'm not. The FISCR opinion I've been citing didn't find it unconstitutional, and in dicta it upheld the rulings of those prior cases IN LIGHT OF THE PASSAGE OF FISA. So again, your argument is in conflict with the FISCR opinion.

How can that be? You can't have it both ways, Ticomaya--and neither can the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Appeals. The sentence you keep quoting from that decision is nonsensical--it amounts to a contradiction wrapped into an enigma.

If the President has constitutional authority--an authority that Congress cannot encroach upon; then the President's authority must be exclusive and Congress must be excluded from legislating on the subject. However, the FISA Court did not declare that FISA was unconstitutional. That means, if FISA is a constitutional enactment, then the President must faithfully execute the law as written. The President has NO AUTHORITY (inherent or otherwise) to override a constitutional congressional enactment by executive order.

You're basically telling us that Congress has the power to enact enforceable laws that can't be enforced. That makes no sense at all. No one can possibly make such an absurd argument and maintain a straight face.

To the extent the FISA encroaches upon the President's inherent authority, it is unconstitutional. That does not mean the entire enactment is unconstitutional.

You're basically telling us that the FISCR opinion is wrong. With a straight face I'm telling you that I agree with the FISCR judges.

I am not telling you the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review's opinion is wrong. The Court considered the constitutionality of the Patriot Act amendment that provided that a "significant" purpose of the electronic surveillance must be to obtain foreign intelligence information. The Court HELD that the Patriot Act amendment to FISA was constitutional because it was reasonable under a Fourth Amendment analysis.

I am, however, telling you that the sentence you pulled out of that opinion had absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of the case and amounts to pure nonsensical dicta.

Remember, based on widespread past abuses and violations of the people's civil rights, FISA was specifically designed to place a CHECK upon executive power to prevent abuse and to protect the civil rights of United States persons. If you are correct that FISA is not unconstitutional in its entirety, but only to the extent that it encroaches upon the president's "inherent" authority, please identify the parts or sections of FISA that you believe are unconstitutional. Using the framework established by the Supreme Court, please explain how these "unconstitutional" parts or sections can be severed from the statute while still maintaining intent of Congress and the purpose of the statute.

If you conduct a severability analysis, your entire argument falls apart and exposes how ridiculous it is for you to rely on unauthoritative, nonsensical dicta that is loosely based on lower court opinions that were decided BEFORE the enactment of FISA.

Either the entire statute is unconstitutional in its entirety and void ab initio, or it is constitutional and the president has no authority, inherent or otherwise, to override a constitutional enactment by executive order.

If FISA is an unconstitutional encroachment upon presidential authority, that means our founding fathers delegated unchecked powers to an executive dictator. We know that's not true.

0 Replies

I do not know why the legal expert, Debra L A W, is afraid of meeting the position of John Schmidt head on. Certainly Debra L A W can, with one swipe of her constitutional law knowledge demolish John Schmidt's postion and leave us all knowing the TRUTH!!!

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.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

I distinguished Youngstown in a prior post. Youngstown dealt with the issue of whether the President has the power to take possession of private property in order to keep labor disputes from stopping production. It did not deal with the President conducting warrantless searches for foreign intelligence.

No, you didn't distinquish Youngstown. You avoided the actual issue that the Court decided: Whether the president has inherent constitutional authority to override congressional enactments by executive order. He does not.

When Congress has expressly spoken on the matter through a congressional enactment, the president may not override that enactment by executive order unless Congress has no authority at all to legislate on the matter.

Congress has explicit constitutional power to make rules for government and to place checks on executive authority (even on the president when he is exercising his war powers) in order to prevent abuse of power within our boundaries and to protect the people's civil rights. When the president seeks to turn his power against the people in our own country as demonstrated by known past abuses of power, Congress has absolute authority to restrain him by instituting reasonable checks.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
The president doesn't have the constitutional authority to spy on his own citizens. Or are you claiming he does?

Cycloptichorn

If someone in the US --- whether they be a citizen or not -- is an agent of a foreign power and is communicating with someone else in a foreign country, the US government can surveil that communication, sans warrant. That's what I'm claiming.

That's a BIG "if," Ticomaya.

All FISA does is place a check on executive branch power by ensuring that the government can set forth facts and circumstances to justify its belief that the target of domestic surveillance is indeed an agent of a foreign power.

In light of past abuses by the executive branch, are you saying this check upon executive power is unreasonable? That we should trust the executive branch not to abuse UNCHECKED power? Why did our forefathers go to the trouble of establishing a constitutional system of checks and balances and separation of powers if our founders trusted the president to exercise UNCHECKED power? Our founders did not create a dictatorship headed by an executive branch dictator.

CHECKS AND BALANCES: By the very nature of our constitutional republic where we are ruled by law, not by men, the president cannot escape accountability and exert unchecked powers on the American people.

0 Replies

In the past when the mission of NSA has been circumvented by political entities it has always meant a big headache for those employed by the agency. Since the law has not been changed, currently anyone complying with the Presidents wishes is game to be charged in a Federal Court. I don't know if this will happen during this administration, but I do know that it has happened in the past. Bush should have made a compelling argument with the other two branches of the Government before he assumed authority that doesn't rest in his hand alone. His arrogance is breathtaking.

0 Replies

In the past when the mission of NSA has been circumvented by political entities it has always meant a big headache for those employed by the agency. Since the law has not been changed, currently anyone complying with the Presidents wishes is game to be charged in a Federal Court. I don't know if this will happen during this administration, but I do know that it has happened in the past. Bush should have made a compelling argument with the other two branches of the Government before he assumed authority that doesn't rest in his hand alone. His arrogance is breathtaking.

0 Replies

Louise_R_Heller wrote:

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????

If you have been paying attention to this thread, there will be an investigation and congressional hearings on the president's domestic spying program when Congress reconvenes. I expect a bill of impeachment to be brought against Bush and that he will be placed on trial. In order to escape conviction and removal from office, Bush will have to convincingly argue that Congress via the AUMF had authorized his conduct--or that FISA is an unconstitutional encroachment upon his "inherent" powers to conduct UNCHECKED domestic surveillance of United States persons.

I doubt there is any member of Congress who would agree that they implicitly repealed FISA when they voted to pass the AUMF. I doubt there is any member of Congress who would agree that the President has inherent constitutional powers to override Congressional enactments that institute checks on executive branch authority via a secret executive order. To agree with such an absurd contention would be for Congress to concede that the presidency is a de facto dictatorship and to negate their own role in our constitutional republic to enact rules for government designed to secure the blessings of liberty.

The president's own words are stong evidence that he knew that domestic surveillance of United States persons required FISA court approval.

0 Replies

I really do not know why Debra L A W does not notice that there is an ELEPHANT in the room. Perhaps she thinks that if she doesn't notice it, it will go away.

Schmidt's essay will be reprinted over and over in various newspapers as a perfect riposte to the hysterical claims of those who care not for law but only for political advantage-

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.

0 Replies

I'm a little old fashioned, I prefer to be kissed first. That's another little gesture the President has done away with.

0 Replies

glitterbag wrote:

I'm a little old fashioned, I prefer to be kissed first. That's another little gesture the President has done away with.

Hey Glitter!

My, you are old fashioned Smile

Anon

0 Replies

America... Spying on Americans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know