The President Bush Wrongdoing Thread

* The President Has The Inherent Authority Under The Constitution, As Commander-In-Chief, To Authorize The NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program. AG GONZALES: "I might also add that we also believe the President has the inherent authority under the Constitution, as Commander-in-Chief, to engage in this kind of activity. Signals intelligence has been a fundamental aspect of waging war since the Civil War, where we intercepted telegraphs, obviously, during the world wars, as we intercepted telegrams in and out of the United States. Signals intelligence is very important for the United States government to know what the enemy is doing, to know what the enemy is about to do." (The White House, Press Briefing, 12/19/05)

* The Congress Confirmed And Supplemented This Authority When It Passed The Authorization For The Use Of Military Force In The Wake Of The 9/11 Attacks. AG GONZALES: "Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ... requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on Saturday ... unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires. Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence." (The White House, Press Briefing, 12/19/05)

* The Supreme Court Ruled That The AUMF's Authorization To "Use All Necessary And Appropriate Force" Encompasses The "Fundamental Incident[s] Of Waging War." AG GONZALES: "[O]ne might argue, now, wait a minute, there's nothing in the authorization to use force that specifically mentions electronic surveillance. Let me take you back to a case that the Supreme Court reviewed this past - in 2004, the Hamdi decision. ... [In Hamdi, the Supreme Court said that] it was clear and unmistakable that the Congress had authorized the detention of an American citizen captured on the battlefield as an enemy combatant for the remainder - the duration of the hostilities. So even though the authorization to use force did not mention the word, 'detention,' she felt that detention of enemy soldiers captured on the battlefield was a fundamental incident of waging war, and therefore, had been authorized by Congress when they used the words, 'authorize the President to use all necessary and appropriate force.'" (The White House, Press Briefing, 12/19/05)

* Interception Of Communications Has Been Authorized Since President Roosevelt In 1940. "[Interception of communications for foreign intelligence purposes] have been authorized by Presidents at least since the administration of Franklin Roosevelt in 1940." ("Legal Authorities Supporting The Activities Of The National Security Agency Described By The President," U.S. Department Of Justice, 1/19/06)

* Every Federal Appellate Court To Rule On The Issue Has Concluded That The President Has Inherent Authority To Conduct Warrantless Searches. "The courts uniformly have approved this longstanding Executive Branch practice. Indeed, every federal appellate court to rule on the question has concluded that, even in peacetime, the President has inherent constitutional authority, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, to conduct searches for foreign intelligence purposes without securing a judicial warrant." ("Legal Authorities Supporting The Activities Of The National Security Agency Described By The President," U.S. Department Of Justice, 1/19/06)

* Congressional Leaders "Have Been Briefed More Than A Dozen Times" On The NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program. THE PRESIDENT: "Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization." (President Bush, Radio Address, 12/17/05)

* Rep Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) Says That Members Of Congress Had Multiple Opportunities To Ask Questions And Express Concerns. REP. HOEKSTRA: "When the program began, I guess, roughly four years ago, you know, congressional leaders were brought in. The leadership of the House and the Senate, the leadership of the House and Senate intelligence committees - I've been chair for about 15 months - I've been briefed four times on this, I've been given every opportunity to ask questions about the program, to ask questions about the legality of the program, to understand the scope of the program and how it works and, most importantly, the impact it has. I've had every opportunity to get information on the program. And I have a responsibility, as the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, that if I believe the law is being broken to stand up in that meeting and say, stop it and we're going to do everything in Congress. The problem that we have right now is we have a whole bunch of Democrats who were for this program before they were against it and the only thing that has changed is that the story was illegally, in a damaging way, leaked to The New York Times." (ABC's "This Week," 1/22/06)

* These Briefings Are Fully Consistent With The National Security Act Of 1947. The Act expressly states that Executive Branch briefings should be conducted in a manner consistent with "due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters." (50 USC 413a(a))

* Former Clinton Administration Associate Attorney General Writes That "FISA Does Not Anticipate A Post-Sept. 11 Situation." "The administration has offered the further defense that FISA's reference to surveillance 'authorized by statute' is satisfied by congressional passage of the post-Sept. 11 resolution giving the president authority to 'use all necessary and appropriate force' to prevent those responsible for Sept. 11 from carrying out further attacks. The administration argues that obtaining intelligence is a necessary and expected component of any military or other use of force to prevent enemy action. But even if the NSA activity is 'electronic surveillance' 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.' FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment." (John Schmidt, Op-Ed, "President Had Legal Authority To OK Taps," The Chicago Tribune, 12/21/05)

* The Government Continues To Use The FISA Court But Must Preserve The Flexibility To Act With Speed In All Circumstances. AG GONZALES: "Well, we continue to go to the FISA court and obtain orders. It is a very important tool that we continue to utilize. ... The operators out at NSA tell me that we don't have the speed and the agility that we need, in all circumstances, to deal with this new kind of enemy. You have to remember that FISA was passed by the Congress in 1978. There have been tremendous advances in technology ... since then." (The White House, Press Briefing, 12/19/05)

* Because Of Its Speed, The NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program Has Provided Crucial Information Otherwise Not Available. GENERAL HAYDEN: "I can say unequivocally, all right, that we have got information through this program that would not otherwise have been available." QUESTION: "Through the court? Because of the speed that you got it?" GENERAL HAYDEN: "Yes, because of the speed, because of the procedures, because of the processes and requirements set up in the FISA process, I can say unequivocally that we have used this program in lieu of that and this program has been successful." (The White House, Press Briefing, 12/19/05)

Sunday, September 10, 2006
The President's FISA statements now are the opposite of what he said in October, 2001

(updated below)

The President this week urged passage of the Specter bill by arguing that FISA is an inadequate tool for eavesdropping on terrorists, and that we therefore need to legalize his warrantless surveillance program. This is his explanation as to why FISA is inadequate:


When FISA was passed in 1978, there was no widely accessible Internet, and almost all calls were made on fixed landlines. Since then, the nature of communications has changed, quite dramatically. The terrorists who want to harm America can now buy disposable cell phones, and open anonymous e-mail addresses. Our laws need to change to take these changes into account. If an al Qaeda commander or associate is calling into the United States, we need to know why they're calling. And Congress needs to pass legislation supporting this program. (Applause.)


This statement is completely misleading, because it depicts FISA as some sort of relic from 1978 that doesn't take into account all of this new, complicated communications technology. But FISA was amended in October, 2001 at the request of the President precisely in order to take that technology into account, and when it was, the President himself even used virtually the same language back then to praise the FISA amendments that he is now using to claim that FISA is obsolete. Here is what President Bush said once FISA was amended in October, 2001 via the Patriot Act:

Quote:

We're dealing with terrorists who operate by highly sophisticated methods and technologies, some of which were not even available when our existing laws were written. The bill before me takes account of the new realities and dangers posed by modern terrorists. It will help law enforcement to identify, to dismantle, to disrupt, and to punish terrorists before they strike. . . .

Surveillance of communications is another essential tool to pursue and stop terrorists. The existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones. This new law that I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones.

The flaw which President Bush is claiming exists with FISA today is exactly the flaw which he himself said -- using almost identical language -- was eliminated by the 2001 amendments to FISA which he requested. In his radio address the next weekend (on October 27, 2001), he emphasized the same point by praising the new FISA as follows:

Quote:

Surveillance of communications is another essential method of law enforcement. But for a long time, we have been working under laws written in the era of rotary telephones. Under the new law, officials may conduct court-ordered surveillance of all modern forms of communication used by terrorists.

So, in October, 2001, the President said the problem with FISA is that it was an old law which -- to use his words -- was "written in the era of rotary telephones." Therefore, he argued, his power to eavesdrop needed to be expanded, and when it was, he said that "nder the new law, officials may conduct court-ordered surveillance of all modern forms of communication used by terrorists."

But now that he wants all limits on his eavesdropping power eliminated via the Specter bill, he is saying the exact opposite of what he said in October, 2001. Now he is pretending that those amendments never happened and is claiming that he has to work under a FISA law passed in 1978 which does not take into account that "the nature of communications has changed, quite dramatically." The dishonesty of that is so glaring and obvious but he knows that he can get away with it because going back and looking at what he said in October, 2001 and comparing it to what he is saying now is something the media simply will not do.

And just as a side note, the President's supporters have been insisting -- and his own Attorney General has been explicitly considering -- that the reporters and editors of The New York Times who revealed this illegal eavesdropping program should be imprisoned on the ground that they "blew the cover" on this program and thereby rendered it ineffective. If that's true, how could it also be the case that "Congress needs to pass legislation supporting this program"? Why would it be urgent that Congress pass a law legalizing a program which The New York Times destroyed when -- to use the President's words -- "details of the Terrorist Surveillance Program were leaked." When he urged the imprisonment of Jim Risen and Bill Keller (along with Dana Priest), Bill Bennett argued:


How do we know [the NSA story] damaged us? Well, it revealed the existence of the surveillance program - so people are going to stop making calls - since they are now aware of this - they're going to adjust their behavior . . . .


The President argues that "if an al Qaeda commander or associate is calling into the United States, we need to know why they're calling." Leaving aside the obvious point that eavesdropping on such conversations is already permissible under FISA, shouldn't it be the case, as Bennett claimed, that al Qaeda commanders no longer call into the U.S. ever since they "learned" from the New York Times that we are eavesdropping on their conversations?

The contradictions in the President's claims as to why he needs to be able to eavesdrop on Americans without judicial oversight are endless. The media cannot, I suppose, be expected to make all of those contradictions clear. For instance, perhaps it is too much to ask of the media to explain that Alberto Gonazles himself previously said -- contrary to the President's arguments -- that the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" does not expand the scope of conversations on which the President can eavesdrop, because the standard it uses is the same exact standard as FISA uses. As Gonzales said in a February 28, 2006 letter (.pdf) to Sen. Arlen Specter (written in order to enable Gonzales to retract numerous statements he made at the Judiciary Committee hearing):


[quote]Senator Feingold noted that, on September 10, 2002, then-Associate Deputy Attorney General David S. Kris testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sen. Feingold quoted Mr. Kris' statement that "we cannot monitor anyone today whom we could not have monitored last year."

In any event, [Mr. Kris'] statements are also accurate with respect to the President's Terrorist Surveillance Program, because the program involves the interception of communications only when there is probable cause ("reasonable grounds to believe") that at least one party to the communication is an agent of a foreign power (al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization).

Moral judgements aside, the terrorst surveillance program was not illegal as shown in my previous post.

I am interested though in your definition of "unAmerican".

What makes you the judge of what can be considered "unAmerican"? Racism is morally wrong, is that also "unAmerican"? It would seem to me that many, not only in America, but abroad would suggest that racism is a very American attribute. I would disagree, but only because I am not a racist and find the idea objectionable. So, you find the terrorist surveillance program objectionable and you have labeled it it "unAmerican". Is that about right?

I find defending our nation VERY American. If the terrorist surveillence program (TSP because I am sick of writting that over again) helps defend our nation and hastens the capture of those plotting against American interests and lives then it should be allowed to continue and should be legislated into proper existance. If the TSP is shown to do nothing but eavesdrop on Betty talking to Sue about Bobby, then it is not being used as it should be and should be brought to a hasty end. It is up to those officials in the know to determine how it has been used. I am sure there are many aspects of the TSP that general populace does not have access to that officials have been briefed on. So far, no action has been brought against teh TSP that would cease its operation. That tells me that those that have inside knowledge have been satisfied as to the need, usefulness and legality of the program.

So the attorney General knows nothing of the law?

His education, experience and background would suggest otherwise. You will have to excuse me if I take his word over yours or other politically driven opponents of the President.

The declaration of war on Iraq was given well in advance....didn't seem to mess things up too badly.
Besides, how many terrorists are in the US vs how many innocent Americans personal lives were infringed upon because of the illegal spying.
Would it make sense to bomb a school full of children because there are 2 terrorists inside?
The same logic can be applied with wiretaps, albeit on a different moral scale.

Exactly!!!
Can you name one single person,anywhere in the country,that has had their rights infringed on or their lives disrupted by the eavesdropping on foreign calls?

Anyone,anywhere???

The case in Oregon arguably presents the most potent legal challenge to the NSA warrantless program. The most significant hurdle for plaintiffs to overcome in the other lawsuits (including the one before Judge Taylor) is the need to prove "standing" -- i.e., that the plaintiffs were actually harmed by the warrantless eavesdropping program, a burden that is exceedingly difficult to meet because the Bush administration has been eavesdropping in secret and with no oversight -- while its allies in Congress have blocked any investigations into the program -- and therefore nobody knows who has been subject to the eavesdropping program.

But in the Oregon case, the plaintiff, an Islamic charity, has alleged that the NSA eavesdropped without warrants on conversations between an officer of the charity (who was in Saudi Arabia at the time) and the charity's own lawyers (in Washington, DC). And they have compelling evidence to support that allegation -- namely, a classified NSA log listing calls intercepted by the NSA which was accidentally provided by Justice Department lawyers to the charity's lawyers. According to the charity's lawyers, that document reveals that the NSA eavesdropped on the calls between the charity and their own lawyers as part of the warrantless eavesdropping program, which gives the plaintiffs standing to challenge the legality of that eavesdropping.

Once the charity's lawyers revealed that they had received that document and furnished it to the court, the DoJ demanded that the court return all copies to the FBI -- a request which Judge King defiantly refused on the ground that the FBI was a party to the lawsuit and therefore should not be entrusted with its safekeeping. Instead, Judge King ordered the document to be kept by prosecutors in Oregon. The DoJ then argued that the charity should not be allowed to use that document as the basis to prove "standing" because that document is so classified that its use by plaintiffs in the lawsuit would damage national security.

Now,since the President has sworn an oath to defend the country and 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."

and since as the CinC he has also sworn to defend the country "against all enemies,both foreign AND domestic",are you now saying that he cant do that?

If his actions were unconstitutional,are you also willing to say that the govt intercepting communications from foreign embassies in the US is also unconstitutional?
After all,those messages might have been sent by an American citizen,or being sent to an American citizen.

What about the intercepting of communications from the Rosenbergs to the Soviets?
The Rosenbergs werew US citizens,and they were caught,in part,by the FBI intercepting and decoding their communications.

MY personal opinion,is that the security of the US and its citizens trumps everything when it comes to intercepting communications between the US and foreign countries.

No other, actually substantive discussion on this topic?

If noone responds soon, I will move on to more examples of Bush wrongdoing, complete with sources and logical explanations.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No other, actually substantive discussion on this topic?

If noone responds soon, I will move on to more examples of Bush wrongdoing, complete with sources and logical explanations.

Cycloptichorn

There is no more that needs to be discussed. You raised your point, I rebutted it, you didn't like my answer.

My answer is not going to change because you didn't like it, so what's left to discuss?

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No other, actually substantive discussion on this topic?

If noone responds soon, I will move on to more examples of Bush wrongdoing, complete with sources and logical explanations.

Cycloptichorn

There is no more that needs to be discussed. You raised your point, I rebutted it, you didn't like my answer.

My answer is not going to change because you didn't like it, so what's left to discuss?

You didn't, in fact, rebut it. You cut and paste a lot of stuff from the WH that was factually incorrect. You can't show how they are factually correct, so your argument fails.

You don't even understand what 'rebuttal' means, apparently, if you believe you 'rebutted' my argument.

It isn't about whether or not I 'like' your answer, it is about the fact that your answer is factually false. If you can show how it isn't, there would be more to discuss. Since you can't, your point fails, and the original argument goes uncontested.

I challenge you to prove me wrong by showing how I am incorrect in pointing out the error of the WH logic and talking points. But I doubt you will be able to.

Cycloptichorn

You are incorrect, because the world is flat.

what are you talking about? I rebutted your point, you just didn't like my answer.

and reputation he has.

Your "facts" were opinion. At this point in time, the TSP is legal and until PROVEN illegal, will remain so despite whatever opinion anyone has.

When Gonzalez says he "believes", it's with full research into the law with supporting documentation. It's not like saying "I believe in the FSM". His belief comes with the experience and reputation he has.

You are absolutely wrong.

So, now continue to the next topic you will be absolutely wrong about if you wish to.

McGentrix wrote:

You are absolutely wrong.

So, now continue to the next topic you will be absolutely wrong about if you wish to.

Is this a Brandonian "victory"?

I though proof and a sound argument was required in order to disprove another's claims.
I am very much interested in what you think is wrong with Cycloptichorn's claims....

I think if it was illegal, the Dems would have done more to damage Bush with it then they have. I think Gonzalez has the law on his side at this point and has made the case before the senate investigation committee. Were it illegal, they would have put a stop to it.

I think Gonzalez has the law on his side at this point and has made the case before the senate investigation committee.

Quote:

I think if it was illegal, the Dems would have done more to damage Bush with it then they have. I think Gonzalez has the law on his side at this point and has made the case before the senate investigation committee. Were it illegal, they would have put a stop to it.

Weak. You have suppositions, no proof, no evidence, no research.

The reason the Senate committee hasn't put a stop to it is because it is ran, at the moment, by Republicans, and they just don't care if the President is breaking the law. Hell, most of the Republicans here think that it's 'okay' to break the law in the name of security, so you can't even say that they aren't being representative. That doesn't provide proof that something is legal.

Quote:

I think Gonzalez has the law on his side at this point and has made the case before the senate investigation committee.

Gonzales Retracted a bunch of his testimony before the committee, because he was lying. Why did he get away with lying in front of a Senate committee? Because Robertson refused to swear him, so that he could lie. His 'case' is a sham, and everyone knows it.

It is no stronger then your weak-ass, unsourced, unresearched assertions.

Cycloptichorn