Debra_Law wrote:The president's own words are stong evidence that he knew that domestic surveillance of United States persons required FISA court approval.
"Reasonable inference," huh?
At least Bush made the statement that wiretaps required court approval. But what he says can mean many things including the opposite of what most people believe it to be. If you trust a president like Bush, how do you trust your friends and work associates? Same flexibility of meaning?
YOu prolly know that kind of changed meaning in a court room would not fly.
During a rape-murder trial that I was involved in as a juror, the judge told our jury that if we find a witness tell one lie, we can refuse other things they state on the stand.
Ticomaya wrote: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.
Since I am stating the obvious, why does it continue to escape your comprehension?
Hyperbole? I guess I'm in good company:
The Federalist No. 51: The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments
Independent Journal
Wednesday, February 6, 1788
[James Madison]
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm
Quote:If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
On December 19th, George W. Bush, angrily responded to allegations that he was exercising unchecked powers:
"To say 'unchecked power' basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the President, which I strongly reject."
However, Bush's past statements show that far from rejecting dictatorial power for the President, he's actually quite enamored of it:
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." -- President George W. Bush, July 26, 2001.
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." -- President-elect George W. Bush, December 18, 2000.
"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." -- Texas Governor George W. Bush, July 1998.
source
Bush chose to secretly exercise the unchecked powers of a dictator because it was the easiest way to do what he intended to do: circumvent our democratically-elected Congress, circumvent federal law, and to circumvent our Constitution.
Yeah, but Bush didn't mean what he said...
How idiotic for people to continue their defense of this sick tyrant that can't even speak the English language coherently.
Is it more idiotic to believe comments made in jest?
Depends on how serious the issue is, and how the reader perceives it.
Debra L A W, the prosecutor, has not rebutted the key statement made by the expert witness- Attorney John Schmidt.
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.
Der Fuhrer Bush is royally upset that people are blowing the whistle on his illegal, unconstitutional conduct because doing so undermines his credibility and complicates his ability to make a persuasive case for going to war against IRAN:
"Where it is going to be most difficult to make the case is in the public arena," Bush said. "People will say, if we're trying to make the case on Iran, 'Well, if the intelligence failed in Iraq, therefore, how can we trust the intelligence on Iran?"
I don't trust Bush. He's a power-hungry wannabe dictator who will not want to relinquish control of this country when his term expires. I wouldn't put it past him to orchestrate another "9-11ish" catastrophe on American soil in order to terrorize the people; to make outrageous accusations that it wouldn't have happened if we had just granted him absolute unchecked authority to fight this amorphous war on terror; and use it as an excuse to declare martial law, to suspend elections, to suspend civil liberties, to conscript our nation's youth, and to enter a war of aggression against Iran based on the accusation that Iran is harboring terrorist organizations.
Do you have a link, Debra L A W? Or is that just an unsourced opening statement? I must be forgiven if I say that it sounds postively PARANOIC.
quote--"I wouldn't put it past him to orchestrate another 9-11ish catastrophe on American soil just to terrorize the people"
Do you also believe, as some loonies on the left have claimed, that the Mossad knew of 9/11 and warned Jews ahead of time not to go to work in the WTC on 9/11?
Those are the types of statements made by the irrational haters.
Summary: In a Chicago Tribune op-ed, John Schmidt, former associate attorney general under President Clinton, argued that President Bush's decision to authorize warrantless domestic surveillance "is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents." However, Schmidt falsely claimed that Jamie Gorelick, as deputy attorney general under Clinton, testified that the president has the authority to "go beyond" the terms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Schmidt also offered a number of empty and irrelevant arguments in defense of Bush.
Scmidt's op-ed has been cited by various media conservatives as a defense of Bush's actions. National Review White House correspondent Byron York excerpted Schmidt's op-ed in a December 21 entry on National Review Online's weblog, The Corner, titled "READ THIS IMPORTANT ARTICLE." On the December 21 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Fox News chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle reported: "But yet another former official in the Clinton Justice Department wrote in the Chicago Tribune today that President Bush's actions are consistent with a number of court decisions as well as the position of the Justice Department under several prior presidents."
After The New York Times reported on December 16 that Bush authorized the National Security Agency to "eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying," Bush publicly acknowledged the existence of the warrantless surveillance program and the fact that he had reauthorized it more than 30 times since 2001.
Schmidt's claim about Gorelick testimony is false
FISA, passed in 1978, requires that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court authorize any domestic surveillance. In his Tribune op-ed, Schmidt wrote: "Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms." As evidence, he quoted Gorelick's 1994 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, in which she said: "[T]he Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has the inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes." But as Media Matters for America noted, physical searches were not governed by FISA at the time Gorelick made that statement. So her argument was not that the president could go beyond FISA, as Schmidt wrote, but that FISA did not then apply to physical searches. FISA was amended in 1995 to encompass physical searches. Moreover, Gorelick at the time stated her support for legislation requiring FISA warrants for physical searches.
Schmidt obscured NSA program's "targeting" to defend Bush
Schmidt went on to write:
FISA contains a provision making it illegal to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." The term "electronic surveillance" is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication "sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person" (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by "intentionally targeting that United States person." The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens. If the surveillance is based upon other kinds of evidence, it would fall outside what a FISA court could authorize and also outside the act's prohibition on electronic surveillance.
Schmidt's assertion that it is "unclear" whether the NSA surveillance is specifically targeting citizens ignores Bush's own characterization of his actions in authorizing the domestic spying. HIn a December 19 press conference, Bush said the calls being monitored under the NSA program "are from outside the country to in the country, or vice versa." He made no distinction between "a United States person," and someone in the country who lacks legal immigration status. If Bush administration officials could say that only undocumented immigrants were targeted, that would likely be their first line of defense. Schmidt used the administration's "cryptic descriptions of the NSA program" in Bush's defense, when in fact the point that their descriptions have been "cryptic" merely highlights the administration's efforts to claim -- without specificity -- its legal authority to engage in these actions.
Moreover, Schmidt ignored the provision within FISA (50 USC 1802) that specifically addresses electronic surveillance without a warrant, which requires the attorney general to certify in writing and under oath that "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party." The administration has thus far not produced such certification from Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, and Bush's characterization of the program suggests that such certification would be impossible to make.
Schmidt's assertion also ignores specific news accounts indicating that the NSA program targeted at least one legalized alien. The December 16 New York Times article reported that "[s]everal officials said the eavesdropping program had helped uncover a plot by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker and naturalized citizen who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches." As Schmidt noted, the FISA definition of a "United States person" includes naturalized citizens, so warrantless surveillance of him would apparently not fall under FISA's exclusion, and would therefore be prohibited. Schmidt defended Bush with a red herring
Schmidt then wrote: "But even if the NSA activity is 'electronic surveillance' [as set out and governed by FISA] and the Sept. 11 resolution* is not 'statutory authorization' within the meaning of FISA, the act still cannot, in the words of the 2002 Court of Review decision, 'encroach upon the president's constitutional power.' " Schmidt was quoting a ruling by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which stated that FISA could not encroach on the president's "authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." However, Schmidt's assertion is meaningless.
Of course a law passed in 1978 would not trump the Constitution -- the supreme law of the land. The question is whether Bush, as president, has the constitutional authority to authorize warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and legalized aliens, notwithstanding FISA's restrictions. Contrary to Schmidt's suggestion, the case he cited does not address that question.
Schmidt accepted Bush's assertions about scope of NSA program, despite past inconsistent statements and despite lack of judicial oversight
Schmidt continued:
Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense. The danger is that surveillance will not be used solely for that narrow and extraordinary purpose.
But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.
Here, Schmidt suggested that the eavesdropping program has not already expanded beyond the administration's stated "narrow and extraordinary purpose." But how could Schmidt know this? Many observers have noted that the president's April 2004 statement (in which he said: "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") appears to have been flatly false.
Gonzales stated the supposed boundaries of the program during a December 19 press conference, claiming that the eavesdropping is limited to "communication[s] where the other end of the call is outside the United States and where we believe that either the American citizen or the person outside the United States is somehow affiliated with Al Qaeda." But there has been no judicial review or any substantive congressional oversight of the program. Indeed, The New York Times reported on December 21 that the program "has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases, despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil." According to the Times:
Eavesdropping on communications between two people who are both inside the United States is prohibited under Mr. Bush's order allowing some domestic surveillance.
But in at least one instance, someone using an international cellphone was thought to be outside the United States when in fact both people in the conversation were in the country. Officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified, would not discuss the number of accidental intercepts, but the total is thought to represent a very small fraction of the total number of wiretaps that Mr. Bush has authorized without getting warrants. In all, officials say the program has been used to eavesdrop on as many as 500 people at any one time, with the total number of people reaching perhaps into the thousands in the last three years.
* Joint Resolution 23, which authorized the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
You can stop re-posting that John Schmidt piece, because it's been shown to be nothing but irrelevant arguments.
oF COURSE, THE QUESTION IS, AS DEBRA L A W HAS WRITTEN HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO WARRENTLESS SURVEILLANCE OF US CITIZENS AND LEGALIZED ALIENS( in contact with Al Qaeda). Schmidt has written - It is hard to imagine the USSC second guessing that Presidential judgment. THAT IS PRECISELY WHY, NO MATTER HOW MANY PUNDITS RING IN ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS QUESTION THAT IT WILL NOT BE SETTLED JUDICIALLY UNTIL THE COURT RULES.
In the meantime, the only court, as I have repeatedly pointed out, that is pertinent is the court of Public Opinion. IT IS CLEAR THAT, WHEN REFERENCE TO RASMUSSEN REPORTS IS MADE, THAT 64% OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DO NOT THINK THAT THE PRESIDENT ACTED ILLEGALLY.
Therefore:
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. Schmitdt wrote -It is hard for
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.
Mortkat wrote:IT WILL NOT BE SETTLED JUDICIALLY UNTIL THE COURT RULES.
The issue will not be settled "judicially" until the "court rules." Wow. That's profound. Where's my fly swatter?
No,it is not profound. You are correct. But no amount of posturing on these threads will arrive at a conclusion. The courts will do that. IN THE MEANTIME, THE ALL IMPORTANT( because of the election in November) Public Opinion on this subject will determine how hard the left wing will keep the topic current. If politicians and thier staff who may be involved in the election in November SEE THE ISSUE AS A LOSER, it will disappear from all but the most kooky left wing sites and/or the Ivory Tower.
At this time, the source( Rasmussen Reports) indicates that 64% of the people polled do not think that President Bush violated the law when he ordered warrantless wiretaps.24% do think so. IF SUBSEQUENT POLLS SHOW THAT THE AMERICAN VOTER SIDES WITH THE PRESIDENT ON THIS ISSUE, THE POLITICIANS, WHO DEVOUR EVERY POLL, WILL LET THE ISSUE DIE.
That is my prediction!! It will die except in the corners of the polity.
McGentrix wrote:Is it more idiotic to believe comments made in jest?
When someone tells you what they are, no matter the delivery method, believe them.
When a boyfriend jokingly says "I'm a cheapskate," he's telling you what he is. Don't marry him and then wonder why he won't spend a penny to take you out to dinner any more.
When a woman tells you "I'm a real B!tch sometimes," believe her. Even if she says it in retreat from a confrontation to try to smooth things over, she is telling you who she is.
When a President tells you it would be easier if it were a dictatorship...
