I post this because, like Kennedy or not, like Bush or not, believe Bush did or did not break the law, Kennedy has serious clout in the Senate, and this is a good indicator that something serious will happen. Thoughts?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not entirely sure Bush's actions were illegal (though their legal justification sounds weak so far). I am, however, sure that his actions weren't in the spirit of America or the constitution.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The New York times held off publishing the story on this for an entire year, per the White House's request. Bush met with the NYT's editor and the publisher on December 6, shortly before the story broke. source: Newsweek Online
Stark, these wiretaps were illegal without a warrant, by clearly established precedent and the FISA act. Bush has become the firt president in US history to admit to an impeachable offense. Furthermore, the court that issues these warrants is little more than a rubberstamp. It has denied 4 out of tens of thousands of requests.
A judge from that court recently resigned (in protest).
quote:NYT story in case anybody hasn't read up much on this topic: (requires registration--use bugmenot) The Washington Post stated Tuesday night that Judge James Robertson of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had resigned, reportedly in protest of the administration's surveillance program.
Judge Robertson would not comment on his resignation, The Post said, reporting that he notified Chief Justice John G. Roberts of his decision late Monday night in a letter that did not give a reason for leaving the court. The article said two associates of Judge Robertson said he had privately expressed concern about the legality of the surveillance program and about whether it tainted the work of the court.
posted
Whether or not these actions are illegal is a very open question. It is a question that should be probed in Congress and in the Courts. But to say that this is an impeachable offense, without a doubt, is wrong, both in terms of history and the law. First, prior presidents have insisted that they have the power to conduct wiretaps without a warrant for foreign intelligence purposes. Second, every federal court to address the issue has held that the president has inherent authority to do such wiretaps. see http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed Third, presidential actions that some would argue are illegal have been done in the past and admitted to. In fact, during the Korean War, President Truman seized steel plants across America to keep them running when the workers went on strike. This action was found to be illegal by the Supreme Court in the Youngstown Sheet and Tube case.
posted
THERE ARE RULES. I am a staunch strict constructionist and this is just wrong. I can't even form a complete thought so please excuse the ensuing fragments. I do not like Ted Kennedy. At all. 6 mos ago i was a bush suppporter, badly run war and all. Harriet Miers pushed me over the edge and this crap made me get in a car, build up speed and then launch myself into the ocean. i want him impeached, censured, jailed, or anything else that can be done to a man that thinks there are no limits. An admittedly unintelligent man who can't help but listen to the whispers of those power-hungry sychophants that swim around him like a bunch of pirhanas. AAAAAAAH. Maybe this is so Hillary can definately win in 08, equalizing the whole two party system that seemed to have tilted to far in the direction of the GOP. The Presidency needs to be controlled, people seem to forget that the President is the Arm of Congress, and not the other way around. People need to read the Constitution and realize how backward this has all become. I'm sorry, but i REALLY needed to get that out. please share, i hate to feel like i'm not making any sense.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is just hysterical that drunken Ted Kennedy is attacking other people for being above the law.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for making my point. You are so blinded by hatred that you can't think clearly. Bush is trying to destroy America for what purpose? Why would Bush want to destroy America? I'm sure you can cite many reasons why Bush wants to destroy America and how he would benefit from American being destroyed.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's not trying to destroy America, but am I alone in thinking this is the first child-like steps to facism? I read an article in which Cheney called for increase executive power. Then there's yet another editorial in this free paper insisting that the president has executive authority to wiretap. This concerns me because it seems to be seriously eroding the checks and balance system in the name of "protecting" us from terrorists. I see so many ways this can be abused. Our system exist to prevent such a thing, to prevent the president from trying to turn this country into a dictatorship. Perhaps I am not being clear, but this is how it starts. Not with guns and bombs but with, "We are doing this for your own good." I exercise healthy suspiciousness, but there are so many things WRONG with this administration it goes beyond left and right.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:people seem to forget that the President is the Arm of Congress
One of the reasons I hope this current controversy leads to a real discussion of presidential powers, not a lot of political posturing, is so that people will stop making statements like this.
The President is the executive - he executes the laws passed by Congress and approved by himself. But, in certain matters, the President is the originator of policy and cannot be restricted by Congress.
It's an open question as to whether this is one of those matters. But it is absolutely inaccurate to say the president is the arm of congress.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:True, Congress tried to restrict this presidential authority with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. It requires that warrants for wiretapping of enemy agents in the United States be obtained from a secret court. But as John Schmidt, associate attorney general in the Clinton administration, wrote: "Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms." Indeed, President Bill Clinton's own deputy attorney general testified to Congress that "the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," then noted a few minutes later that "courts have made no distinction between electronic surveillances and physical searches."
I'd prefer more orignial source material, but I knew I'd heard this before.
The key point isn't that this is a dispositive statement about the constitutionality of the wiretaps. Rather, it's evidence that 1.) this was not so obviously unconstitutional as to warrant impeachment; 2.) there is nothing particularly unique about this administration's contention that this is inherent executive authority; and 3.) the contention is not specific to either party.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So in 2008 Bush does what? He extends his facist rule somehow? King Bush is out of office in 2 more years so if he is setting up his Kingdom or facist state he would need to get moving a lot faster than he is. Carter, Reagan, and Clinton have all done the same thing and have all said that what Bush is doing is legal but no one had a problem with them, we didn't become a facist state, we did not become a kingdom or become slaves to a new dictator. I do wonder if we are attacked again, will the cry go out that we didn't do enough or connect the dots?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given that FISA appears to allow for searches without warrants during time of war, and given the precedents set by presidents since Lincoln (who suspended habeas corpus twice and tapped telegraph lines to monitor Confederate communications), I'm not losing any sleep over this. I agree that the law seems a bit hazy and needs to be better crafted and clarified, but we are not about to enter the Bush Fatherland stage of American history or anything...
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Under FISA, the President has the right to authorize a search without a warrant for 3days before the requirement to submit them to the FISA Court for approval kicks in. What I dislike is the President outright lying in claiming that "Minutes count in countering terrorist threats, therefore abiding by the Law under the FISA places the Nation at risk." What I dislike is the Presidential subtext claiming that "Onlythe President and those (s)he authorizes are trustworthy in matters relating to the Defense of the UnitedStates, and even the FISA Court is filled with potential traitors."
posted
FISA doesn't allow for any such thing, except with a 72 hour post hoc window. The administration isn't even trying to say that FISA allows the sort of thing they've been doing, they've specifically admitted to practices that violate FISA willy-nilly, this is one reason many members of Congress are very very upset.
The President is arguing that the Constitution gives him the power to perform wiretaps of US citizens without warrants during times of war, even when an established court exists well able to grant such warrants (though the term warrant here is used in a somewhat different sense than normally).
Funny you should cite those Lincoln "precedents", btw. AFAIK, at least one of them got declared Unconstitutional, and I don't think any of them came out ringingly in his favor.
You're right, we're not going to enter the Bush Fatherland stage of history or anything, but I'd prefer not to enter the "even more greatly increased executive power at the expense of the legislature" stage of American history, or the "vast potential for abuses due to almost non-existent oversight" period (and we're well familiar that, even if not with this administration, with some administration using such a program abuses would happen -- they already have in the past).
And of course, this is the President who told us (well after this program started):
quote:"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."
Congressional censure may well be in order, though that's somewhat up in the air. Some of his office's statements talking about how Congressional leaders were briefed and supportive might be enough to tick the Congress off (and justify censure), given how clear its become many of the people briefed were not supportive. Lying about the positions of Congresspeople who you've told to not discuss the program with anyone at all isn't kosher.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just this past week there were public reports that a college student in Massachusetts had two government agents show up at his house because he had gone to the library and asked for the official Chinese version of Mao Tse-tung's Communist Manifesto. Following his professor's instructions to use original source material, this young man discovered that he, too, was on the government's watch list.
This piece of the Op-Ed by Ted Kennedy really set off alarm bells for me. I just can't imagine the scenario under which I would agree that tracking library borrowing of the Communist Manifesto is a good and valid use of tax dollars, let alone actually sending agents to visit a college student who did so.
I'd like more info on this if someone has it. Never saw that in any of the online sources I frequent.
NEXT QUESTION:
Please (in a virtual way) raise your hand if you think the President (not just this one, but ANY President past or future) should have the power to order wiretaps on American Citizens without having to show probable cause before a judge and thereby obtain a legal warrant.
I'm just curious as to how many Americans (especially) think this is a good idea, whether they think this current President acted according to the law or not.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Please (in a virtual way) raise your hand if you think the President (not just this one, but ANY President past or future) should have the power to order wiretaps on American Citizens without having to show probable cause before a judge and thereby obtain a legal warrant.
I guess I would need more of a clarification on what you mean by wiretaps. Does wiretap mean a computer searching looking for matches or an acitve wiretap being listened to by a person?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: American people have the right to know what our elected leaders are doing so that we can make informed decisions as to whether to continue to elect them.
The biggest problem with this is that if the American people know what our elected officials are doing then so do the people that we are trying to gain intelligence from and those same people can then use that information against us. How much we get to know is a very touchy thing. If we know that the government is going to be monitoring things in a certain, then the bad people can immediately start working on ways to defeat that.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aspectre, I think someone posted here in Hatrack something about that story being false or at least very very misleading. I will see if I can find it again
posted
Far more disturbing than the actual spying, law-breaking or not, is the language Bush uses to defend his actions. He claims to have the authority to do anything he deems necessary to defend America. If this is a nation of laws, that can't be true.
Then he says (this is a direct paraphrase) that the fact that this issue is being discussed helps our enemies. Does he have any concept at all of how a democracy is supposed to function, with the people making choices about who should be their leaders? (And thus, presumably, needing to know what the hell their leaders are doing in order to judge correctly.)
If he's broken the law here, it seems to be a relatively minor breach, especially compared with some of the flatly wrong, treaty-breaking acts that he's done publicly. What disturbs me more is his attitude toward secrecy, the law and his own power.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dark Knight, ummm, the Executive Branch exists to execute laws enacted by the Congress and run the military. Thats it. That's a fact, and you saying it isn't does not make it any less true. And he definately does not want to destroy America, he's just so blinded by his perception of terrorism that he's doing what he thinks he has to do. The problem is that he doesn't realize that what he thinks he has to do is ILLEGAL. he isn't an evil man, he's just not very smart and completely hung up on "Executive privilege" and that one little Commander-In-Chief thing. Being the Commander-In-Chief does not mean that everything you do is in the interest of National Security and therefore legal, it means that there is a rotating National Command Authority and visible chain-of-command in time of war. That little phrase is all that keeps these wiretaps from being blatantly illegal instead of arguably illegal. I've never used the term Orwellian before, but i believe that this time it really does apply.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Republicans should be equally concerned with these trends towards an imperial presidency that is becoming more and more immune to investigation or control.
Someday a Democrat may occupy the White House again. Do you want a Democratic president to have that much power?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
George Bush and the people in his administration have always moved forward with a "if I want to do it, it must be all right" mentality. I really don't see why anything we find out about secrecy shenanigans should be any surprise at all.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Secrecy in intelligence operations should be the default."
What intelligence purpose is being served by keeping the names of the advisors to Cheney's EnergyCommission top secret? What intelligence operation is being kept secret by shutting down the Bureau of Land Management website to prevent the public from finding out which public lands are in the process of being sold or leased to private individuals/corporations? Etc Why does Dubya&Gang consider the judges on the FISA Court to be untrustable, potential traitors???
posted
Let's not forget that Laura Bush killed her High School boyfriend in a drunken car accident, and got off without being charged. Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, it's always nice to be rich.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Who broke the law though? Unless you have already tried and convicted Bush without a trial or even knowing the full story.
Secrecy in intelligence operations should be the default.
Legal Scholars are divided on this one, but my personal opinion is he overstepped his authority.
quote:It may be exceedingly unlikely that President Bush will be impeached, but in the past few days, the I-word has become a topic of considered discussion among constitutional scholars, former intelligence officers and even a few politicians.
"If you listen carefully, you can hear the word 'impeachment,'" curmudgeonly commentator Jack Cafferty said on CNN. "Two congressional Democrats are using it. And they're not the only ones."
Indeed, speaking on the Diane Rehm show on public radio, Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said, "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."
[snip]
On Dec. 17, after the story of Bush's domestic spying broke in the New York Times, the president conceded that he had ordered the National Security Agency to intercept Americans' communications without seeking judicial approval. Unrepentant, the White House insisted that Bush had been granted such authority by the post-9/11 congressional resolution authorizing "all necessary force" in the fight against terrorism, and that the president would continue to order warrantless searches.
The next day, during a public discussion with Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., former Nixon White House counsel John Dean called Bush "the first president to admit to an impeachable offense." Boxer took Dean seriously enough to consult four presidential scholars about impeachment.
"This startling assertion by Mr. Dean is especially poignant because he experienced firsthand the executive abuse of power and a presidential scandal arising from the surveillance of American citizens," she wrote to them. "Given your constitutional expertise, particularly in the area of presidential impeachment, I am writing to ask for your comments and thoughts on Mr. Dean's statement."
Boxer has not made public any of the responses yet.
[snip]
"The American public has to understand that a crime has been committed, a serious crime," Chris Pyle, a professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College and an expert on government surveillance of civilians, tells Salon. "Looking at this controversy objectively, you inevitably end up with a question of impeachment," says Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University School of Law.
[snip]
"The fact is, the federal law is perfectly clear," Turley says. "At the heart of this operation was a federal crime. The president has already conceded that he personally ordered that crime and renewed that order at least 30 times. This would clearly satisfy the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors for the purpose of an impeachment."
Turley is no Democratic partisan; he testified to Congress in favor of Bill Clinton's impeachment. "Many of my Republican friends joined in that hearing and insisted that this was a matter of defending the rule of law, and had nothing to do with political antagonism," he says. "I'm surprised that many of those same voices are silent. The crime in this case was a knowing and premeditated act. This operation violated not just the federal statute but the United States Constitution. For Republicans to suggest that this is not a legitimate question of federal crimes makes a mockery of their position during the Clinton period. For Republicans, this is the ultimate test of principle."
quote: The next day, during a public discussion with Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., former Nixon White House counsel John Dean called Bush "the first president to admit to an impeachable offense." Boxer took Dean seriously enough to consult four presidential scholars about impeachment.
from Silkie's Salon link
Wow, Dean said that? I wonder how many other Repubs are going to come out against Bush on this issue.
It's already sure to pop up in Alito's confirmation hearings, because of memos and briefs he wrote in 1984 warrantless domestic wiretapping SC case.
What I find prescient is the SC's ruling in that case:
quote: The danger that high federal officials will disregard constitutional rights in their zeal to protect the national security is sufficiently real to counsel against affording such officials an absolute immunity,[against lawsuits after warrantless wiretapping--Morbo]" the court held.
Also, it's worth noting that the Bush administration's desire for more power in the executive branch pre-dates the 9/11 tragedy. It pre-dates their election, especially with Cheny.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Turley's colleague at GW has a very different opinion.
quote:Does the president have the constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches against suspected foreign agents in the United States? George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr (one critic calls him the man who "literally wrote the book on government seizure of electronic evidence") finds "pretty decent arguments" on both sides, but his own conclusion is that Bush's actions were "probably constitutional."
Remember, SCOTUS ruled in Hamdi that the 9/11 resolution authorized the detention of American citizens caught on American soil without a warrant - an opinion I thought was atrocious, by the way.
Interception of international calls is a far lesser intrusion in liberty than actual detention. There are very specific laws about when someone may be held prior to conviction - laws that guarantee far greater due process protections and judicial review. Yet SCOTUS has accepted the argument that the resolution suspends those laws, even though it doesn't mention detention.
Whatever I may think of the decision (see Scalia's dissent for a good take on it), the fact that it commanded a plurality is a good indication that the Bush administration had a good faith basis for believing the resolution could be interpreted to allow a lesser intrusion into constitutional protections. Especially given that this is an area in which it is unclear that congress may restrict the president's actions anyway.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Turley's colleague at GW has a very different opinion.
quote:Does the president have the constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches against suspected foreign agents in the United States? George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr (one critic calls him the man who "literally wrote the book on government seizure of electronic evidence") finds "pretty decent arguments" on both sides, but his own conclusion is that Bush's actions were "probably constitutional."
Remember, SCOTUS ruled in Hamdi that the 9/11 resolution authorized the detention of American citizens caught on American soil without a warrant - an opinion I thought was atrocious, by the way.
Interception of international calls is a far lesser intrusion in liberty than actual detention. There are very specific laws about when someone may be held prior to conviction - laws that guarantee far greater due process protections and judicial review. Yet SCOTUS has accepted the argument that the resolution suspends those laws, even though it doesn't mention detention.
Spygate indicates a policy that escalated those spying actions. We need to do this to keep you safe ... and this... and this... and ... whatever we need to do. After all, what is the worth of Liberty and due process when the terrorists might get you!
Where will the line be drawn? What's first base? What's second base? When is it Rape?
quote:Whatever I may think of the decision (see Scalia's dissent for a good take on it), the fact that it commanded a plurality is a good indication that the Bush administration had a good faith basis for believing the resolution could be interpreted to allow a lesser intrusion into constitutional protections. Especially given that this is an area in which it is unclear that congress may restrict the president's actions anyway.
As mentioned elsewhere, legal scholars disagree. I thought it significant that one of the legal scholars that helped convict Clinton is standing up and saying that at the very least this is an Impeachable offense.
These excuses for not following the law are Clintonesque "What is the meaning of "is" in this instance?" Hair splitting doesn't change the facts. Bush broke the law, as stated in FISA.
FISA was written specificly to clarify the law after the Nixon incidents. That Political spying was certainly less critical than this scenario is. Routine 'fishing expeditions' into ordinary citizen's lives is an example of Police State tactics. We are a Republic.
I pray that our congress will be beyond politics, and hold this Administration accountable for this contempt of Congress and the Rule of Law.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Spygate indicates a policy that escalated those spying actions. We need to do this to keep you safe ... and this... and this... and ... whatever we need to do. After all, what is the worth of Liberty and due process when the [Eek!] terrorists [Eek!] might get you!
Where will the line be drawn? What's first base? What's second base? When is it Rape?
You're line drawing argument would be a lot more persuasive if you a.) bothered to address the counter arguments, such as the separation of powers issue, instead of continuously asserting your position and b.) dealt with the fact that the surveillance is almost certainly farther away from the line than actual detention is.
quote:These excuses for not following the law are Clintonesque "What is the meaning of "is" in this instance?" Hair splitting doesn't change the facts. Bush broke the law, as stated in FISA.
Are you incapable of even acknowledging that LEGAL SCHOLARS DISAGREE THAT HE BROKE THE LAW? It's not a question of "what does is mean?" It's a question of whether or not the President possesses this power. If he does NO LAW WAS BROKEN.
quote:FISA was written specificly to clarify the law after the Nixon incidents. That Political spying was certainly less critical than this scenario is.
Exactly. What Nixon did was identifiably for private gain and did not have a national security justification. No one to date has argued that the listening Bush has authorized wasn't relevant to national security, although they disagree about whether the process was jsutified by the security need.
quote:I pray that our congress will be beyond politics, and hold this Administration accountable for this contempt of Congress and the Rule of Law.
I pray that the people responsible for making this decision won't jump to conclusions as quickly as you have and will, in their decision, acknowledge the strong precedent on each side.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is debatable whether or not the President broke the law or not, but he came close enough that he would have authorized having his phones bugged.
President Bush claims that he needs to secretly bug suspects phones in order to learn if they are involved in a crime. Since he is suspected here, do we but his?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:President Bush claims that he needs to secretly bug suspects phones in order to learn if they are involved in a crime.
That's not what Bush claimed at all. He claimed he needed to secretly bug suspects' phones in order to gather foreign intelligence in order to protect the United States from attacks by foreign powers.
Further, even if your rationale held, you could only intercept international communications.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: You're line drawing argument would be a lot more persuasive if you a.) bothered to address the counter arguments, such as the separation of powers issue, instead of continuously asserting your position and b.) dealt with the fact that the surveillance is almost certainly farther away from the line than actual detention is.
I have Dag. Did you miss that in my posts?
quote:Their disagreement is Bush's defense.
Perhaps. We will see what happens if and when this goes to court.
quote:Are you incapable of even acknowledging that LEGAL SCHOLARS DISAGREE THAT HE BROKE THE LAW? It's not a question of "what does is mean?" It's a question of whether or not the President possesses this power. If he does NO LAW WAS BROKEN.
Calm down Counselor.
I'm quite capable. Either you are not entirely reading my posts, or you have forgotten what I've posted. I did address those issues in other posts. I'm not going to repeat myself. Each of us has the right to disagree with the other. We simply disagree.
quote:
quote:FISA was written specificly to clarify the law after the Nixon incidents. That Political spying was certainly less critical than this scenario is.
Exactly. What Nixon did was identifiably for private gain and did not have a national security justification. No one to date has argued that the listening Bush has authorized wasn't relevant to national security, although they disagree about whether the process was jsutified by the security need.
According to today's news the 'fishing expeditions' were more widespread than Bush led us to believe in his statements so far.
As far as I am concerned this is worse than Nixon's petty burglary. If in 'securing ourselves' we jettison our freedoms, and discard our Bill of Rights, the Terrorists have won.
quote:
quote:I pray that our congress will be beyond politics, and hold this Administration accountable for this contempt of Congress and the Rule of Law.
I pray that the people responsible for making this decision won't jump to conclusions as quickly as you have and will, in their decision, acknowledge the strong precedent on each side.
This is a grave situation. These next several weeks should be interesting and historic. We can only speculate about what those in authority will do.
I hope this will be decided in the in the congress, and in the courts.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
One, Bush is claiming up, down, front and back that if these kind of wiretaps had been in place prior to September 11, 2001, the attacks could have been avoided. Which kind of ignores the prominent suggestions that if anything could have prevented 9/11/01, it would have been those in power being willing to pay attention the existing intelligence that was given them, not the existence of new sources of intelligence that, given the existing attitudes of the day, would also have been ignored.
Two, the administration is currently arguing that the authority to conduct wiretaps on American citizens was given them along with the ability to authorize military force. Now, if pressed, I think most of the senators and representatives who authorized military force would probably agree that what they had in mind was, at most, the use of military force against a foreign power. If we follow the Oval Office's logic on this, they believe they have been authorized to use military force against local civilian targets. That ought to give anyone pause.
Whether what they've done is legal or not, it certaintly takes the spirit of the law out back and beats it within an inch of its life. And, even more delightful, since it's a _covert_ operation, they don't even have to prove that their actions are doing squat all... Since, obviously, the revelation of such proof would compromise national security. Kind of selling your civil rights for currency which may or may not exist.
Oh, and I love the bits where people try to paint reasonable qualms as extremeism from loonies. That's becoming an increasingly prominent part of political debate in general. Love to see we're keeping up with the times! /sarcasm
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If we follow the Oval Office's logic on this, they believe they have been authorized to use military force against local civilian targets. That ought to give anyone pause.
*waits to see Dag explain away any quaint Posse Comitas concerns* Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I did address those issues in other posts. I'm not going to repeat myself. Each of us has the right to disagree with the other. We simply disagree.
You clearly do not understand the root of my disagreement with you. We are not disagreeing about whether this is constitutional. You are claiming this is not a close legal question.
There is empirical evidence that this is a close legal question.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
You have not explained how the detention of Hamdi without criminal charges, which has been authorized by SCOTUS as being authorized by that resolution, does not lend considerable support to the contention that interception of international communications might have been authorized by the same resolution.
quote:*waits to see Dag explain away any quaint Posse Comitas concerns*
They are international communications. The war department performed searches for German prisoners of war on U.S. soil in WWII. It is clear that PC does not preclude all defense actions on U.S. soil.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is a good question, but one that I know has legal answers--I just don't know what they are...
President Bush is claiming a lot of powers as a President in time of War.
Yet no war was officially declared.
Certainly the attack on 9/11 could be seen as the enemy declaring war on the US, but without a formal declaration of war against this enemy, can the President just assume war powers?
I am not refering to the authorization to use force in Iraq that the congress passed, since these phone taps have been used prior to that time.
I see two other problems. The Administration uses these wire taps to keep track of those connected to Al-Queda, or any terrorist groups, or anyone who may be connected to those groups.
They are not using this to keep track of say...The Democrats. That would be wrong and an abuse of power. Using this against an opposing political party would be very wrong.
Yet they are using this to track a lot of Islamic groups, some of which have no terrorist intentions, but do have political aspirations. Is there a difference between tapping the Democratic National Convention and tapping the Islamic National Convention if there is no terrorist connection? Where do we draw the line between political party and enemy? Already the Vice President and other Republicans have claimed that peace activists are hurting our cause in Iraq. They would consider them helping the enemy. Would these be considered acceptable targets for wire taps and bugs? And if they are, and no violence is discovered--but information about a major political protest were discovered, would this information be surrendered to the White House so they could politically manuever around such a protest?
Two: They tape Joe planning to do some act of terror. They swoop in and arrest Joe. They can not use these tapes as evidence against him since they were gathered without warrants so they would be thrown out of court. This may be why they are pushing for "Enemy Combatant" status for US Citizens. They take Joe to a special judge and declare "we have Classified Evidence of his guilt." "What is it?" asks the judge. "We can't tell you." The Judge assumes its to protect some spys or spy system. Instead it is just a way to get evidence into a court that a normal judge would claim was illegal. Does what I am saying make sense?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I am not refering to the authorization to use force in Iraq that the congress passed, since these phone taps have been used prior to that time.
I believe Bush and his spokesmen have claimed legal authority via the authorization to use force against al-Queda, in Afghanistan and elsewhere (passed by congress in 2001, IIRC), as well as the inherent rights as Commander-in Chief.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Remember, SCOTUS ruled in Hamdi that the 9/11 resolution authorized the detention of American citizens caught on American soil without a warrant - an opinion I thought was atrocious, by the way.
In reading the Hamdi v Rumsfeld synopsis I realized that Hamdi was an American who was captured in Afghanistan fighting against us among enemy combatants. He was detained for a very long time without due process. The essence of this case was that the majority of the Supremes determined that Hamdi was - as an American citizan - entitled to due process, just as every American is.
You have cited Scalia (one of the three dissenting Justices ... 6 to 3 decision - Hamdi won) as the source of concern about this wiretapping case. Why is that dissenting opinion a concern??
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The dissenting opinion isn't a concern, the majority opinion is a concern, much of that concern well-explained in the dissent.
Hamdi did not win. Hamdi received an extraordinarily limited "due process" right, but not the ones American citizens typically enjoy. The majority ruled that it was acceptable in the main for the President to hold this American citizen without a warrant, that while he had the right to petition the courts regarding his condition, it was sufficient for a military tribunal to determine release in his case, with no need for a non-military court. Specifically, they held that Congress's act had given the President authority to temporarily suspend normal due process in favor of a far more limited due process for certain sorts of citizens.
IOW, they decided things that could potentially argue for allowing these wiretaps.
Oddly, the argument for forbidding wiretaps would almost be stronger had the resolution been written as a standard declaration of war -- the inexact language in what Congress was authorizing the President to do has resulted in a massive power grab by this administration.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In reading the Hamdi v Rumsfeld synopsis I realized that Hamdi was an American who was captured in Afghanistan fighting against us among enemy combatants. He was detained for a very long time without due process. The essence of this case was that the majority of the Supremes determined that Hamdi was - as an American citizan - entitled to due process, just as every American is.
See my post in the other thread which outlines the extent to which Hamdi's due process rights deviated from what every other american citizen gets when detained federally.
quote:You have cited Scalia (one of the three dissenting Justices ... 6 to 3 decision - Hamdi won) as the source of concern about this wiretapping case. Why is that dissenting opinion a concern??
Some strong proof you haven't comprehended the decision. There were 2 dissenting opinions. Thomas's upheld the gov't's view.
Scalia's, joined by Stevens, totally rejected the gov't's position. It dissented because the plurality allowed continued detention without criminal charges. It said Hamdi was due the full package of due process rights which the plurality denied him.
In other words, Scalia's dissent, had it been the majority opinion, would pretty much destroy the gov't's position regarding these wiretaps. Thomas's dissent would have pretty much guaranteed the government would win.
The majority makes the constitutionality of the wiretaps unclear. Which, of course, has been my point all along.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
terrorists ![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
Calm down Counselor. 
