quote:Lawyers Group Says Bush Exceeds His Powers Monday, February 13, 2006
CHICAGO - The American Bar Association denounced President Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program Monday, accusing him of exceeding his powers under the Constitution. The program has prompted a heated debate about presidential powers in the war on terror since it was disclosed in December.
The nation's largest organization of lawyers adopted a policy opposing any future government use of electronic surveillance in the United States for foreign intelligence purposes without first obtaining warrants from a special court set up under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
The 400,000-member ABA said that if the president believes the FISA is inadequate to protect Americans, he should to ask Congress to amend the act.
posted
Is there a link to the page that says this is an ABA position (a in "the 400,000-member ABA") and not the opinion of the ABA president?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Yeah, that's a tricky bit of reporting, Dag. I wouldn't like that any more than I would like, say, Bush's opinion being extrapolated to cover the entire country. But then again, in both cases, the man IS the president and his views are at least somewhat representative. And, let's face it, they count for a bit more than yours or mine.
You'd like to think the Associated Press reporter who wrote this would contact the ABA and get the official policy, if it exists. I'm sure as hell not going to go through the trouble of doing it, but that's why I'm not a reporter, I guess.
Maybe you can enlighten us regarding this, Dag?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: ... Greco released a policy proposal that is to be presented to the ABA House of Delegates on Monday, when it convenes during the ABA’s 2006 Midyear Meeting in Chicago. The report will not constitute ABA policy until it is adopted by the House of Delegates.
The report was submitted by a Task Force on Domestic Surveillance created by Greco in January to respond to revelations about NSA domestic surveillance. A roster of task force members, which includes a former Director of the FBI, former General Counsel of the CIA and former Counsel of the National Security Agency, is available at http://www.abanet.org/op/domsurv.
The proposal includes six clauses, which would:
Call on the President to abide by our constitutional system of checks and balances and respect the roles of Congress and the judiciary in protecting national security consistent with the Constitution
Oppose any further electronic surveillance in U.S. for foreign intelligence purposes that does not comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and urge the President, if he believes FISA is inadequate, to seek amendment or new legislation
Urge Congress to affirm that the Authorization for Use of Military Force adopted by Congress in September 2001 did not provide an exception to FISA, saying such an exception must be explicit
Urge Congress to conduct a comprehensive, thorough investigation of the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program
Urge Congress to assure proceedings of that investigation are open to public
Urge Congress to review and make recommendations regarding intelligence oversight process
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Looks like CBS out and out lied about this.
More like jumped the gun - proposed policy is not yet policy. As you said Dag, at this point this is just opinion of the President (and the ABA appointed committee) which investigated the issue.
But this is a story worth following, since of course it IS the ABA and their opinion - AND whether this is or is not ratified - certainly will hold some weight in the perceived legality of the NSA spying program.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Report of ABA Task Force on Domestic Surveillance in the Fight Against Terrorism (PDF) The ABA House of Delegates voted overwhelmingly to adopt the Task Force report with recommendations at its meeting in Chicago on February 13, 2006. The Task Force recommendations now reflect official ABA policy.
From the top of the page where ABA presents the recommendations report. It's just possible the reporter got to it before ABA posted this notice. Or...did you all already see this statement and still have doubts about this being "official?"
quote:Report of ABA Task Force on Domestic Surveillance in the Fight Against Terrorism (PDF) The ABA House of Delegates voted overwhelmingly to adopt the Task Force report with recommendations at its meeting in Chicago on February 13, 2006. The Task Force recommendations now reflect official ABA policy.
From the top of the page where ABA presents the recommendations report. It's just possible the reporter got to it before ABA posted this notice. Or...did you all already see this statement and still have doubts about this being "official?"
quote:Posted by Dagonee: Looks like CBS out and out lied about this.
It's an AP article, Dag. The CBS site was just the first major newsource site I clicked on to link. Many other sites had the exact same article.
quote:Posted by Smitty:
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: But then again, in both cases, the man IS the president and his views are at least somewhat representative.
You really think so?
Maybe representative was the wrong word. I meant it in a literal sense, that the president's views represent the views of a decent portion of the ABA/USA, if not a majority. I do see how it could be read to mean, "the president's views are the countries views," but as a certified anti-bushie I would have to be smoking something not of this world to make that argument.
Where Greco is concerned, that op-ed is the only thing I know of him. I likey so far, and I STILL wouldn't try to claim he perfectly represented the ABA.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man, those lawyers are always trying get people to follow laws. Bush is all like "Well, I don't think the old law (wherein I had to go to a super-secret court, often after the wire-tap, to get a warrant) works for what I want to do." and then they're like "So change the old law. Don't just say, 'This means I don't have to follow any laws now.'." I don't think they get that the President is now a power unto himself and doesn't have to answer to anybody or, you know, go through due process. They must hate America.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Juxtapose and smitty: WHAT? The average person doesn't completely understand the Constitutional system of checks and balances in the first place. And saying that the President's views on a subject that in this case benefits HIM must be relatively popular because HE represents a somewhat large segment of society boggles my mind. The Presidents have crossed the line for decades, mostly because people don't understand how our constitution was built to limit the governments control over our lives, not cement it.
I love my country. I will never forget being allowed to salute when the music played for the first time in basic training, but things like this make me think that she's falling apart at the seams. It kills me.
Rock on, MrSquicky, rock on.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Man, those lawyers are always trying get people to follow laws. Bush is all like "Well, I don't think the old law (wherein I had to go to a super-secret court, often after the wire-tap, to get a warrant) works for what I want to do." and then they're like "So change the old law. Don't just say, 'This means I don't have to follow any laws now.'."
Of course, Bush isn't saying he doesn't have to follow the old law. He's saying the old law doesn't keep him from conducting this particular surveillance.
quote:The average person doesn't completely understand the Constitutional system of checks and balances in the first place.
Which was made abundantly clear by those calling for impeachment the day this story broke.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I believe that depends upon whether you consider circumventing a congressional check on domestic espionage Treason or some other High Crime or Misdemeanor. I'd lean towards misdemeanor, myself.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point is that no one could know based on what was released in the Times whether Bush was circumventing FISA or whether it really was within Bush's CINC powers.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Is there a link to the page that says this is an ABA position (a in "the 400,000-member ABA") and not the opinion of the ABA president?
quote:Looks like CBS out and out lied about this.
Why are you so anxious to dismiss this report?
While I have not worked with the ABA, I have worked with a variety of professional societies and associations. Such associations rarely ask for the approval of ever single member before taking such a position, but it would be extraordinary for the president of such an association to announce an official position without following established bylaws.
The standard proceedure when professional associations take a position on an issue is very close to the proceedure Silkie posted. The elected president (or some other elected officer) appoints a committee of distinguished members to review the question. The commitee then makes a recommendation which is voted on by either general membership or an officers council. The proceedure is always outlined in the bylaws for the association. Unless the ABA is exceptional in this regard, it would be an egregious violation of association rules for the president to offer his opinion as an association position. An action of this nature in such a high profile case would be an impeachable offense in most professional societies.
Do you have some reason to believe that the president of the ABA has so little integrity or were you simply grasping at straws to dismiss an ABA position you don't like?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Read the rest of the thread, Rabbit. What was linked was an op-ed, clearly labeled as such, by the President of the ABA.
quote:Unless the ABA is exceptional in this regard, it would be an egregious violation of association rules for the president to offer his opinion as an association position.
Pretty much exactly my point. The original link was to something being offered as the President's opinion, not as an official position. There was no link to anything official, not were the pages that currently show the official position on the ABA site when I posted.
Further, the procedure outlined by Silkie specifically said "The report will not constitute ABA policy until it is adopted by the House of Delegates." And the original news report did not mention a vote.
quote: Do you have some reason to believe that the president of the ABA has so little integrity or were you simply grasping at straws to dismiss an ABA position you don't like?
Actually, I was assuming that the President of the ABA had too much integrity to represent his position as the official position. He didn't represent his position as the official position.
It was CBS's report coupled with the link in the initial post that created that impression, an impression I came to the conclusion was wrong because I accepted the President at his word.
I'd be really greatful if you could point to anything I said that accuses the ABA president of any lack of integrity.
Why would you make this accusation based on nothing, Rabbit?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The point is that no one could know based on what was released in the Times whether Bush was circumventing FISA or whether it really was within Bush's CINC powers.
quote:AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADOPTS NEW POLICY ON DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE, IMMIGRATION REFORM, ASBESTOS LITIGATION AND MORE CHICAGO, Feb. 13, 2006 -- The American Bar Association House of Delegates today voted overwhelmingly to urge the Bush Administration to comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by seeking court orders for domestic wiretaps in terrorism investigations, or to seek amendments to the act if such are needed to protect national security. http://www.abanews.org/releases/news021306_2.html
quote:ABA CALLS ON ADMINISTRATION TO COMPLY WITH FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT IN DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE CHICAGO, Feb. 13, 2006 -- The House of Delegates of the American Bar Association today voted overwhelmingly to urge the Bush Administration to comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by seeking court orders for domestic wiretaps in terrorism investigations, or seek amendments to the act if needed to protect national security. --- "We are not trying to limit the President's ability to go after terrorists. All of us want to give the President every tool he needs," said Sonnett. He added, "We stand shoulder to shoulder with the President in the fight against terrorism," but must not forfeit our freedom in that fight. http://www.abanews.org/releases/news021306_3.html
This policy decision was not hasty, and had Intelligence professionals as well as qualified prosecutors in the Task Force. It is clearly stated in the policy and in the letter to President Bush that this is NOT political. This is about the Rule Of Law.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Silkie, it's customary to make the response to a quoted portion of someone's post be actually relevant to that portion quoted. Because I was talking about the situation on the day the Times report first broke, nothing you've written or posted in response to what you just quoted is relevant to what I posted. I did not call the ABA report hasty.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Silkie, it's customary to make the response to a quoted portion of someone's post be actually relevant to that portion quoted. Because I was talking about the situation on the day the Times report first broke, nothing you've written or posted in response to what you just quoted is relevant to what I posted. I did not call the ABA report hasty.
My mistake Dag - though I thought you were referring to the Times 'interpretation' of the story - which is why I posted...
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
airmanfour, Smitty and I were discussing a misunderstanding through some poor word choices on my part.
I do NOT think that the president, ANY president, through virtue of being president, can whimsically represent his/her opinion as the will of the represented.
All I meant to say was, since they hold an elected position, it's likely that a decent part of their constiuents agree with them on any given issue.
Back to the main topic: It's nice of the ABA to weigh in on the issue. Too bad Bush won't care.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
NO ONE should be allowed to be above the Rule of Law. Maybe Congress will care, if enough people write to their Congresspeople about it.
Look here for your Congressperson's email address, if you are interested in expressing your views to them about the issue.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I do believe congress will take him to task for it. There's an election year coming up and the public is pretty strongly against the whole thing. According to this Zogby Poll, a (thin) majority of Americans support impeaching Bush if it is proven that he ordered domestic spying without a warrant. Incumbents up for reelection are gonna be scrambling to do something about this.
The problem is that, short of impeachment, I consider it likey that the president will simply continue what he's doing and cover it up further. He's not exactly known for giving a damn what anyone thinks.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Oh, I do believe congress will take him to task for it. There's an election year coming up and the public is pretty strongly against the whole thing. According to this Zogby Poll, a (thin) majority of Americans support impeaching Bush if it is proven that he ordered domestic spying without a warrant. Incumbents up for reelection are gonna be scrambling to do something about this.
The problem is that, short of impeachment, I consider it likey that the president will simply continue what he's doing and cover it up further. He's not exactly known for giving a damn what anyone thinks.
I would be very surprised if this Republican Congress held Bush accountable for any of his 'mis-statements' or actions, even though voters don't like what's going on. The only way he and his administration will ever be held accountable (in my opinion) is if voters change the Majority in Congress.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Senate's actually been pretty good at calling Bush on stuff; much of it happens behind closed doors to preserve the public face of the party, but you can still see it happen if you pay attention to what gets dropped and who's been saying what.
The House is much more in the White House pocket, though.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And as this seems a good place to mention this, here's the result I'd like to see in the next election: roughly split House, strong Republican Senate, Democrat as President.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Sad isn't it. 
