Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Eyeball Chambers on December 18, 2007, 12:37:14 AM
-
AT&T engineer says Bush Administration sought to implement domestic spying within two weeks of taking office
John Byrne
Published: Sunday December 16, 2007
Nearly 1,300 words into Sunday's New York Times article revealing new details of the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program, the lawyer for an AT&T engineer alleges that "within two weeks of taking office, the Bush administration was planning a comprehensive effort of spying on Americans’ phone usage.”
Continues...
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/ATT_engineer_says_Bush_Administration_sought_1216.html
-
Bush's spying predates the attacks of 9/11.
So much for the 'keeping us safe defense' by Bush apologists.
Domestic spying is what Nixon was going to be impeached for.
Not Bush though, I guess this is what his supporters would characterize as another Bush administration success story.
Well we haven't been attacked again have we?
On the other hand, if domestic spying were effective, why didn't the Bush Adm. see 9/11 coming?
-
Bush's spying predates the attacks of 9/11.
So much for the 'keeping us safe defense' by Bush apologists.
Domestic spying is what Nixon was going to be impeached for.
Not Bush though, I guess this is what his supporters would characterize as another Bush administration success story.
Well we haven't been attacked again have we?
On the other hand, if domestic spying were effective, why didn't the Bush Adm. see 9/11 coming?
because they were busy spying on the wrong people...d'oh!
-
because they were busy spying on the wrong people...d'oh!
Now I understand. How can you find out what Al Qaeda is up to if you're only spying on your political enemies?
-
Bush's spying predates the attacks of 9/11.
So much for the 'keeping us safe defense' by Bush apologists.
Domestic spying is what Nixon was going to be impeached for.
Not Bush though, I guess this is what his supporters would characterize as another Bush administration success story.
Well we haven't been attacked again have we?
On the other hand, if domestic spying were effective, why didn't the Bush Adm. see 9/11 coming?
Nixon spied for political gain and to punish enemies. Are you saying Bush was spying for the same reasons?
-
Nixon spied for political gain and to punish enemies. Are you saying Bush was spying for the same reasons?
LOL... you fuck. you're justifying the spying because we can't prove he WASN'T using it on AMericans... you know, cause it's classified?
You make me want to spit. Will you be okay with Prez Hilary spying on you, BB?
-
Nixon spied for political gain and to punish enemies. Are you saying Bush was spying for the same reasons?
defending the indefensible. Let me be the first to call you a piece of shit.
have a nice day, you piece of shit :)
-
LOL... you fuck. you're justifying the spying because we can't prove he WASN'T using it on AMericans... you know, cause it's classified?
You make me want to spit. Will you be okay with Prez Hilary spying on you, BB?
::) How old are you? Haven't you learned to stay out of discussions that actually require some thought? Sit this one out son.
-
defending the indefensible. Let me be the first to call you a piece of shit.
have a nice day, you piece of shit :)
LOL. Says the 170 pound punk. lol . . . you crack me up. Go eat your wheaties. :)
-
Nixon spied for political gain and to punish enemies. Are you saying Bush was spying for the same reasons?
I don't know who he was spying on in particular. It certainly wasn't Al Qaeda.
He was spying on Americans without a warrant though. That's illegal...even for the president.
-
I don't know who he was spying on in particular. It certainly wasn't Al Qaeda.
He was spying on Americans without a warrant though. That's illegal...even for the president.
The "spying" label has been thrown around quite a bit. Let’s assume he was "spying" (i.e., tapping phone calls without a warrant). What do you think his purpose was?
-
::) How old are you? Haven't you learned to stay out of discussions that actually require some thought? Sit this one out son.
Son?
You high school dropout, non-walton book reading liar.
-
you 2 crack me up.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
LOL. Says the 170 pound punk. lol . . . you crack me up. Go eat your wheaties. :)
you're a 38 year old high school dorpout who has been caught in many, many lies here.
You're defending spying on americans. You're pathetic. Some give me heat for not criticizing the war because I am alright with american expansion - but you... you're defending the violation of the constitution. You're disgusting.
and until you post a pic, you're a 120 pound, 38-year old dropout. thank you :)
-
Son?
You high school dropout, non-walton book reading liar.
Now where is my fly swatter when I need it? Have you threatend to kill your wife lately, Scott Peterson?
-
Now where is my fly swatter when I need it? Have you threatend to kill your wife lately, Scott Peterson?
LOL... coward. Post a pic, beach bum. coward!
-
you're a 38 year old high school dorpout who has been caught in many, many lies here.
You're defending spying on americans. You're pathetic. Some give me heat for not criticizing the war because I am alright with american expansion - but you... you're defending the violation of the constitution. You're disgusting.
and until you post a pic, you're a 120 pound, 38-year old dropout. thank you :)
LOL. Nice try Scottie. You are a friggin nut. And you have zero credibility. But you amuse me. :)
-
seriously, beach bum. you used to piss me off and i used to have fun debating you.
But today, you defended spying on americans.
You're the biggest piece of shit on this board.
You don't love your country. You love being on the "winning" team. And just like you voted for CLinton twice before, you are a sheep and a coward who just agrees with whoever is in charge.
You're a piece of shit. No way around it. I won't debate you anymore becase seriously, you don't love your country and you sure as hell don't even respect the constitution.
-
seriously, beach bum. you used to piss me off and i used to have fun debating you.
But today, you defended spying on americans.
You're the biggest piece of shit on this board.
You don't love your country. You love being on the "winning" team. And just like you voted for CLinton twice before, you are a sheep and a coward who just agrees with whoever is in charge.
You're a piece of shit. No way around it. I won't debate you anymore becase seriously, you don't love your country and you sure as hell don't even respect the constitution.
Now listen son, go back and look at about the last 50-100 exchanges we've had on this board. Have you not figured out yet that I don't take you seriously? We have not had debates. You make dumb comments, ask ridiculous questions, I slap you around a little, but we don't debate. You're not smart enough.
I've suggested this to you before, but pay closer attention to a fellow liberal like Decker. Smart guy, can discuss the issues, not a nut (like you). Watch and learn. He can teach you a few things.
Now . . . isn't Sesame Street on? Run along now . . . .
-
The "spying" label has been thrown around quite a bit. Let’s assume he was "spying" (i.e., tapping phone calls without a warrant). What do you think his purpose was?
His purpose is irrelevant to the act itself. If the constitution/fisa law says get a warrant, even retroactively, then he better get a warrant. The burden is on the president to show a valid reason why he committed a felony.
Why do you think he ordered the phone taps prior to the Al Qaeda threat?
-
Because JFK was killed by Al Queda?
-
His purpose is irrelevant to the act itself. If the constitution/fisa law says get a warrant, even retroactively, then he better get a warrant. The burden is on the president to show a valid reason why he committed a felony.
Why do you think he ordered the phone taps prior to the Al Qaeda threat?
I don't think it's irrelevant at all. You compared him to Nixon. Not sure if you were around when we first discussed warrantless wiretaps, but I've never approved of them. I do, however, draw a distinction between acts done for (at least the perceived) benefit of the country, versus a criminal like Nixon.
I'm not sure if and/or why he ordered warrantless taps before 911, but didn't Clinton do the same thing? Regardless, I'm pretty certain he was provided some kind of legal counsel.
But you didn't answer my question about the purpose. I understand the argument people make about oil. What I'm trying to understand is the rational for concluding Bush intentionally broke the law by spying. What did he have to gain?
-
information
-
information
For what? A personal enemies list? Suspected terrorists?
-
I don't think it's irrelevant at all. You compared him to Nixon. Not sure if you were around when we first discussed warrantless wiretaps, but I've never approved of them. I do, however, draw a distinction between acts done for (at least the perceived) benefit of the country, versus a criminal like Nixon.
I'm not sure if and/or why he ordered warrantless taps before 911, but didn't Clinton do the same thing? Regardless, I'm pretty certain he was provided some kind of legal counsel.
But you didn't answer my question about the purpose. I understand the argument people make about oil. What I'm trying to understand is the rational for concluding Bush intentionally broke the law by spying. What did he have to gain?
I could be wrong, but i believe Clinton got warrants for his wiretaps.
As for what he'd have to gain? That's irrelevant. The point is he did something he shouldn't have.
If he had nothing to gain by it, ...then he is even more messed up than previously thought.
-
I don't think it's irrelevant at all. You compared him to Nixon. Not sure if you were around when we first discussed warrantless wiretaps, but I've never approved of them. I do, however, draw a distinction between acts done for (at least the perceived) benefit of the country, versus a criminal like Nixon.
I'm not sure if and/or why he ordered warrantless taps before 911, but didn't Clinton do the same thing? Regardless, I'm pretty certain he was provided some kind of legal counsel.
But you didn't answer my question about the purpose. I understand the argument people make about oil. What I'm trying to understand is the rational for concluding Bush intentionally broke the law by spying. What did he have to gain?
I agree with you to an extent. If there was an emergency and the president could not get a warrant in advance or within 3 days after the spying, then I wouldn't be a hard-ass on the matter.
Bush didn't do that. In fact, he ignored the court and Congress and broke the law.
Clinton never violated FISA. Never.
The allegation is that Bush ordered the spying just after he got into office some 7 months before Al Qaeda attacked NY.
A second year law student could have looked at FISA and told the president that he needed a warrant. Bad legal advice is not exculpatory.
I have no idea what he was looking for by spying on americans. Like I said, the burden is on the president to show why he should be able to violate FISA with impunity.
-
A second year law student could have looked at FISA and told the president that he needed a warrant. Bad legal advice is not exculpatory.
Too bad all the admin lawyers were graduates of Pat Robertson's university. :P
-
Too bad all the admin lawyers were graduates of Pat Robertson's university. :P
That's a good one. I remember when I was applying to law school, I check out Regent U. for the heck of it. It's a low ranked school with a very modest yet stringently conservative reputation.
-
I agree with you to an extent. If there was an emergency and the president could not get a warrant in advance or within 3 days after the spying, then I wouldn't be a hard-ass on the matter.
Bush didn't do that. In fact, he ignored the court and Congress and broke the law.
Clinton never violated FISA. Never.
The allegation is that Bush ordered the spying just after he got into office some 7 months before Al Qaeda attacked NY.
A second year law student could have looked at FISA and told the president that he needed a warrant. Bad legal advice is not exculpatory.
I have no idea what he was looking for by spying on americans. Like I said, the burden is on the president to show why he should be able to violate FISA with impunity.
So we're talking about an allegation? I guess I'd need more context. Who is making this allegation, who was he spying on, and for what purpose? I'm talking specifically about this alleged period seven months before 911.
Legal advice is an important component. If the president's legal advisors tell him his actions are legal, it's much more difficult to conclude that he intentionally violated the law.
-
So we're talking about an allegation? I guess I'd need more context. Who is making this allegation, who was he spying on, and for what purpose? I'm talking specifically about this alleged period seven months before 911.
Legal advice is an important component. If the president's legal advisors tell him his actions are legal, it's much more difficult to conclude that he intentionally violated the law.
Bad legal advice is bad legal advice. Whether his WH counsel or John Ashcroft or the Kaiser gave him the advice to ignore the legal requirements of FISA, that's bad advice.
The legislative history of FISA is that it was enacted precisely to keep presidential power in check re domestic spying--it was done as a reaction to the Nixonian excesses.
An AT&T engineer implementing Bush's spying network is making these allegations that he did so only 2 weeks after Bush took office.
-
Bad legal advice is bad legal advice. Whether his WH counsel or John Ashcroft or the Kaiser gave him the advice to ignore the legal requirements of FISA, that's bad advice.
The legislative history of FISA is that it was enacted precisely to keep presidential power in check re domestic spying--it was done as a reaction to the Nixonian excesses.
An AT&T engineer implementing Bush's spying network is making these allegations that he did so only 2 weeks after Bush took office.
Decker if his legal counsel tells him his conduct is legal then he isn't intentionally ignoring legal requirements of a statute.
Here is a more expansive excerpt from the article. Hardly a smoking gun and certainly leaves a lot of unanswered questions:
Nearly 1,300 words into Sunday's New York Times article revealing new details of the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program, the lawyer for an AT&T engineer alleges that "within two weeks of taking office, the Bush administration was planning a comprehensive effort of spying on Americans’ phone usage.”
In a New Jersey federal court case, the engineer claims that AT&T sought to create a phone center that would give the NSA access to "all the global phone and e-mail traffic that ran through" a New Jersey network hub.
The former AT&T employee, who spoke on condition of anonymity to the Times said he took part in several discussions with agency officials about the plan.
"The officials, he said, discussed ways to duplicate the Bedminster system in Maryland so the agency “could listen in” with unfettered access to communications that it believed had intelligence value and store them for later review," Times reporters Eric Lichtblau, James Risen and Scott Shane wrote. "There was no discussion of limiting the monitoring to international communications, he said."
“At some point,” he told the paper, “I started feeling something isn’t right.”
"Two other AT&T employees who worked on the proposal discounted his claims, saying in interviews that the project had simply sought to improve the N.S.A.’s internal communications systems and was never designed to allow the agency access to outside communications."
AT&T's spokesman said they didn't comment on national security matters, as did a spokesman for Qwest, which was also approached but apparently rebuffed the plan. The lawyer for the engineer and others in the New Jersey case says AT&T's internal documents would vindicate his clients.
“What he saw,” Bruce Afran, a New Jersey lawyer representing the plaintiffs, told the Times, “was decisive evidence that within two weeks of taking office, the Bush administration was planning a comprehensive effort of spying on Americans’ phone usage.”
-
Saw the story a few days ago...my two cents. Americans don't have the right to know everthing, I hope we're still doing it. This guy needs to shut the hell up. Or be shut up.
-
I could be wrong, but i believe Clinton got warrants for his wiretaps.
Whole different ballgame, on top of that was a decade ago.
Like Headhunter said you have your rights but that does not give you the right to know everything that makes this country tick. If that were the case, well the capitalism would not exist, nor would your freedoms ever have been created.
-
Decker if his legal counsel tells him his conduct is legal then he isn't intentionally ignoring legal requirements of a statute.
Here is a more expansive excerpt from the article. Hardly a smoking gun and certainly leaves a lot of unanswered questions:
Nearly 1,300 words into Sunday's New York Times article revealing new details of the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program, the lawyer for an AT&T engineer alleges that "within two weeks of taking office, the Bush administration was planning a comprehensive effort of spying on Americans’ phone usage.”
In a New Jersey federal court case, the engineer claims that AT&T sought to create a phone center that would give the NSA access to "all the global phone and e-mail traffic that ran through" a New Jersey network hub.
The former AT&T employee, who spoke on condition of anonymity to the Times said he took part in several discussions with agency officials about the plan.
"The officials, he said, discussed ways to duplicate the Bedminster system in Maryland so the agency “could listen in” with unfettered access to communications that it believed had intelligence value and store them for later review," Times reporters Eric Lichtblau, James Risen and Scott Shane wrote. "There was no discussion of limiting the monitoring to international communications, he said."
“At some point,” he told the paper, “I started feeling something isn’t right.”
"Two other AT&T employees who worked on the proposal discounted his claims, saying in interviews that the project had simply sought to improve the N.S.A.’s internal communications systems and was never designed to allow the agency access to outside communications."
AT&T's spokesman said they didn't comment on national security matters, as did a spokesman for Qwest, which was also approached but apparently rebuffed the plan. The lawyer for the engineer and others in the New Jersey case says AT&T's internal documents would vindicate his clients.
“What he saw,” Bruce Afran, a New Jersey lawyer representing the plaintiffs, told the Times, “was decisive evidence that within two weeks of taking office, the Bush administration was planning a comprehensive effort of spying on Americans’ phone usage.”
Your argument makes no sense. What if your attorney on retainer told you it was ok to kill your wife b/c you suspected her of being unfaithful?
Bad legal advice is bad advice period. It doesn't matter if it's white house counsel or otherwise.
It doesn't matter what the advice of his counsel is b/c the Congress makes the laws, THE PRESIDENT ENFORCES THE LAWS and the Judiciary interprets the laws. If the president knowingly violates the FISA law enacted by Congress, he isn't exactly enforcing the law, is he?
The only significance that the AT&T worker brings to the FISA case is that he removes entirely the president's excuse that he was spying on americans without a warrant for national security reasons b/c of the Al Qaeda threat.
The president broke the law plain and simple.
-
Saw the story a few days ago...my two cents. Americans don't have the right to know everthing, I hope we're still doing it. This guy needs to shut the hell up. Or be shut up.
Hey HH, it's good to see you again.
The government is by and for the People. It is our government and any strict constructionist would tell you that we have the right to know what our government does. We are the government.
Thanks to Harry Truman, the US shed its constitutional basis and became a quasi-police state where 'national security' trumped any constitutional consideration.
So in that respect, you are correct.
-
Your argument makes no sense. What if your attorney on retainer told you it was ok to kill your wife b/c you suspected her of being unfaithful?
Bad legal advice is bad advice period. It doesn't matter if it's white house counsel or otherwise.
It doesn't matter what the advice of his counsel is b/c the Congress makes the laws, THE PRESIDENT ENFORCES THE LAWS and the Judiciary interprets the laws. If the president knowingly violates the FISA law enacted by Congress, he isn't exactly enforcing the law, is he?
The only significance that the AT&T worker brings to the FISA case is that he removes entirely the president's excuse that he was spying on americans without a warrant for national security reasons b/c of the Al Qaeda threat.
The president broke the law plain and simple.
Your hypothetical makes no sense. No sane person would believe, before the fact, that murdering his wife is okay because his lawyer says so. That's absurd.
What we're talking about here is arguably a gray area. President gets advice, the advice is wrong, that negates or at minimum casts serious doubt on the "intent" issue.
I just read a little about this. I see where one judge ruled warrantless taps are unconstitutional under FISA. He was unanimously overturned because the plaintiffs couldn't prove they had been subjected to warrantless wiretaps. I didn't see where any of the judges on the court of appeals panel concurred with the judge on the constitutional issue. I know they didn't have to discuss it, but I would think they would have least said something in a footnote given how serious this issue is. Perhaps they didn't all agree?
I happen to the agree with the judge that warrantless wiretaps on American citizens are unconstitutional, but what other judges have made similar rulings? Have there been any split decisions by appellate courts? That would be one indication that this isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be.
-
Your hypothetical makes no sense. No sane person would believe, before the fact, that murdering his wife is okay because his lawyer says so. That's absurd.
What we're talking about here is arguably a gray area. President gets advice, the advice is wrong, that negates or at minimum casts serious doubt on the "intent" issue.
I just read a little about this. I see where one judge ruled warrantless taps are unconstitutional under FISA. He was unanimously overturned because the plaintiffs couldn't prove they had been subjected to warrantless wiretaps. I didn't see where any of the judges on the court of appeals panel concurred with the judge on the constitutional issue. I know they didn't have to discuss it, but I would think they would have least said something in a footnote given how serious this issue is. Perhaps they didn't all agree?
I happen to the agree with the judge that warrantless wiretaps on American citizens are unconstitutional, but what other judges have made similar rulings? Have there been any split decisions by appellate courts? That would be one indication that this isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be.
Of course my example is absurd. As El Rushbo says, "I am using absurdity to demonstrate the absurdity of your idea."
There is no gray area. The law says get a warrant either before or after the act of wiretapping or else you have committed a felony.
It is that simple.
That is a nice framing of intent...except that your assertion is irrelevant. The president ordered the tapping of domestic phone lines but did not intend to either order the tapping of domestic phone lines or use the information from those taps.
Justice is blind but not stupid Beach Bum.
The case you mentioned is apples and oranges. A plaintiff must show harm to collect in court. How does that square with the president violating a law against wiretaps which was enacted as a specific response to any president that illegally wiretaps US citizens?
We are discussing presidential felonies here and not rules of evidence for normal citizens.
-
Of course my example is absurd. As El Rushbo says, "I am using absurdity to demonstrate the absurdity of your idea."
There is no gray area. The law says get a warrant either before or after the act of wiretapping or else you have committed a felony.
It is that simple.
That is a nice framing of intent...except that your assertion is irrelevant. The president ordered the tapping of domestic phone lines but did not intend to either order the tapping of domestic phone lines or use the information from those taps.
Justice is blind but not stupid Beach Bum.
The case you mentioned is apples and oranges. A plaintiff must show harm to collect in court. How does that square with the president violating a law against wiretaps which was enacted as a specific response to any president that illegally wiretaps US citizens?
We are discussing presidential felonies here and not rules of evidence for normal citizens.
The case I mentioned is directly on point. It involved a challenge to domestic warrantless wiretaps under FISA.
And no gray areas? Not everyone agrees with you:
Arguing that the program is legal or probably legal
John Eastman, Chapman Law professor and Director of the Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, wrote in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner on January 27, 2006, that the Congressional Research Service's assessment was institutionally biased against the President, ignored key constitutional text and Supreme Court precedent, and that the case made by the Department of Justice in support of the President's authority to conduct surveillance of enemy communications in time of war was compelling.[82]
Robert Turner, Associate Director of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia, testified before Congress on March 31, 2006, that "I believe the President has this authority by virtue of his “executive Power” vested in him by Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution. And if he needed any additional authority, the AUMF statute—enacted with but a single dissenting vote in the entire Congress—clearly empowers him to exercise the intelligence-gathering component of his Commander in Chief power as well."[8]
Michael Stokes Paulsen, Associate Dean, University of Minnesota Law School, in a debate with Professors Heidi Kitrosser and Dale Carpenter entitled Presidential Powers in Time of War
“ The president’s power as military commander in chief, in time of constitutionally authorized war, of course includes the power to intercept enemy communications, including enemy communications with persons here in the United States who may be in league with the enemy, and to follow the chain of such communications where it leads, in order to wage the war against the enemy and, of vital importance, to protect the nation against further attacks. ”
Letter from Senator Pat Roberts to Senator Arlen Specter Senator defending NSA program legality, February 3, 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy#Arguing_that_the_program_is_legal_or_probably_legal
-
The case I mentioned is directly on point. It involved a challenge to domestic warrantless wiretaps under FISA.
And no gray areas? Not everyone agrees with you:
Arguing that the program is legal or probably legal
John Eastman, Chapman Law professor and Director of the Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, wrote in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner on January 27, 2006, that the Congressional Research Service's assessment was institutionally biased against the President, ignored key constitutional text and Supreme Court precedent, and that the case made by the Department of Justice in support of the President's authority to conduct surveillance of enemy communications in time of war was compelling.[82]
Robert Turner, Associate Director of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia, testified before Congress on March 31, 2006, that "I believe the President has this authority by virtue of his “executive Power” vested in him by Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution. And if he needed any additional authority, the AUMF statute—enacted with but a single dissenting vote in the entire Congress—clearly empowers him to exercise the intelligence-gathering component of his Commander in Chief power as well."[8]
Michael Stokes Paulsen, Associate Dean, University of Minnesota Law School, in a debate with Professors Heidi Kitrosser and Dale Carpenter entitled Presidential Powers in Time of War
“ The president’s power as military commander in chief, in time of constitutionally authorized war, of course includes the power to intercept enemy communications, including enemy communications with persons here in the United States who may be in league with the enemy, and to follow the chain of such communications where it leads, in order to wage the war against the enemy and, of vital importance, to protect the nation against further attacks. ”
Letter from Senator Pat Roberts to Senator Arlen Specter Senator defending NSA program legality, February 3, 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy#Arguing_that_the_program_is_legal_or_probably_legal
The case you mentioned does not address the legality of the president's execution of his duties, does it?
Rather it addresses a lack of evidence on the part of that particular plaintiff which is the minimal evidence needed for the case to proceed.
The brief list of legal apologists for the president can easily be drown out by the overwhelming super-majority of constitutional scholars that would disagree with your guys.
And to be technical, "Constitutionally Authorized War" has never been declared on Iraq and the spying is not for "foreign intelligence information" it is domestic spying.
I like the "institutionally biased" reasoning of John Eastman. It requires no proof and is conclusive in effect...sort of like shouting "liberal bias" when the facts reported don't go your political way.
The president is merely asserting that he is above the law.
Robert Turner must have glossed over the 4th amendment and its warrant-probable cause part. Big mistake.
Here are some guys from your side of the ideological fence:
BRUCE FEIN, constitutional scholar and former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration: I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want – I don’t need to consult any other branches – that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that … would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.
NORM ORNSTEIN, AEI scholar: 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.
Here's more:
“The president’s dead wrong. It’s not a close question. Federal law is clear,” said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and a specialist in surveillance law. “When the president admits that he violated federal law, that raises serious constitutional questions of high crimes and misdemeanors.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-
I won't comment to much on this other then to say that somebody needs to tell that guy to shut up. I spent 10 days freezing my ass off in Japan.....not a big fan. I liked Korea better. After talking to guys over there, while working...I've realized that the shit we ( the Military) feed u and what u guys are told about Iraq and Afghanistan, makes this wire tap crap look minor. Decker would have a heart attack. Honestly we just don't need to know everthing..its better that we don't.
-
Its funny, all the guys on the front lines of this thing could care less about Federal law and what Bush is doing domestically. There is a major danger to this country and the West and they are using our laws and media to hang us. If he violated Federal law...GOOD, change the damm law or better yet drag that piece of shit into the NSA or CIA and lay out for him the damage he's causing to our operations and the threats this animals pose to our way of life..I bet he shuts up. In Russia, if somebody did this they'd drag him off and he'd be gone.
-
Its funny, all the guys on the front lines of this thing could care less about Federal law and what Bush is doing domestically. There is a major danger to this country and the West and they are using our laws and media to hang us. If he violated Federal law...GOOD, change the damm law or better yet drag that piece of shit into the NSA or CIA and lay out for him the damage he's causing to our operations and the threats this animals pose to our way of life..I bet he shuts up. In Russia, if somebody did this they'd drag him off and he'd be gone.
Speaking of which he is Time Magazines "Man of the Year"
It is what it is .
-
Yeah the Old Russis seems to be coming back....
-
Saw the story a few days ago...my two cents. Americans don't have the right to know everthing, I hope we're still doing it. This guy needs to shut the hell up. Or be shut up.
Wrong. You may not be able to handle the information.
I believe I have the right to know "everything."
The theory that it is better to not know what is going on is bullshit.
I know....Men in Black "A person is smart...people are stupid."
That's bullshit.
-
No no u don't...u really don't. I know plenty of things that I can't repeat here, no of which u have a right to in any way. Just like in any big business...do u have a right to the latest formula for a new Coke product...no u don't...why. because u could hurt the bottom line of Coca Cola. I don't need u or anybody else hurting the bottom line of this country. AQ watches shit like 20/20 and laughes...maybe not so much now because their getting their ass handed to them, but yeah they laugh at our laws.
-
The case you mentioned does not address the legality of the president's execution of his duties, does it?
Rather it addresses a lack of evidence on the part of that particular plaintiff which is the minimal evidence needed for the case to proceed.
The brief list of legal apologists for the president can easily be drown out by the overwhelming super-majority of constitutional scholars that would disagree with your guys.
And to be technical, "Constitutionally Authorized War" has never been declared on Iraq and the spying is not for "foreign intelligence information" it is domestic spying.
I like the "institutionally biased" reasoning of John Eastman. It requires no proof and is conclusive in effect...sort of like shouting "liberal bias" when the facts reported don't go your political way.
The president is merely asserting that he is above the law.
Robert Turner must have glossed over the 4th amendment and its warrant-probable cause part. Big mistake.
Here are some guys from your side of the ideological fence:
BRUCE FEIN, constitutional scholar and former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration: I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want – I don’t need to consult any other branches – that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that … would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.
NORM ORNSTEIN, AEI scholar: 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.
Here's more:
“The president’s dead wrong. It’s not a close question. Federal law is clear,” said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and a specialist in surveillance law. “When the president admits that he violated federal law, that raises serious constitutional questions of high crimes and misdemeanors.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The case I mentioned is ACLU v. NSA. Yes, the case deals explicitly with the constitutionality of domestic warrantless wiretaps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU_v._NSA
I still question why the appellate court ran away from the underlying issue. It is possible they didn't all agree.
You don't have to try and convince me that domestic wiretaps require (or at least should require) a warrant. What I've pointed out is there isn't a uniform opinion on FISA. Discount the "brief list of apologists" all you want, but the fact remains that people with pretty good credentials have different opinions.
-
I won't comment to much on this other then to say that somebody needs to tell that guy to shut up. I spent 10 days freezing my ass off in Japan.....not a big fan. I liked Korea better. After talking to guys over there, while working...I've realized that the shit we ( the Military) feed u and what u guys are told about Iraq and Afghanistan, makes this wire tap crap look minor. Decker would have a heart attack. Honestly we just don't need to know everthing..its better that we don't.
Hey welcome home major. Hope you didn't drink too much sake. :)
-
No no u don't...u really don't. I know plenty of things that I can't repeat here, no of which u have a right to in any way. Just like in any big business...do u have a right to the latest formula for a new Coke product...no u don't...why. because u could hurt the bottom line of Coca Cola. I don't need u or anybody else hurting the bottom line of this country. AQ watches shit like 20/20 and laughes...maybe not so much now because their getting their ass handed to them, but yeah they laugh at our laws.
Please....
"I know plenty of things that I can't repeat here,"
Don't attempt to place yourself in the "been there" viewpoint here. That is the weakest strategy of debate.
I work in a field that involves private information. Most people are privy to some level of private information.
Perhaps you feel you couldn't handle the information.
I can.
There is a difference between a "right" to know and being able to "handle" the knowledge.
There are things I don't have a "right" to know about. Illegal wire tapping by our President is something I both have the right to know about, and have the ability to handle the information.
-
Hey bro....Japan is wayyyy to expensive. We started hiting the town a few nights and the food was very small and way over priced. We did find one place that served MONSTER burgers as big as ur head and as much beer (sapporo) as u could drink. We splt a bunch of burgers and got maybe 40 pitchers between 9 guys, I think that maybe conservative....the Japs were not happy..but it was a very nice "Sports Bar' on the 30th floor of some building. Very clean and ordered society. The Japanese military is pretty far behind....but we did manage to kick the crap out of the country not named china. ;D
-
Actually "Majestic" I hold a TS clearance for my current job...I've got two tours overseas in both Iraq and Afghanistan. While most of what I've seen would be available if u dug around or will end up in a book, some won't..plus u hear things while talking to guys. And while u might be able to handle whatever information is out there...ur not allowed to..like most of the American public. U should not have access to that information...I have 'been there'...its pretty boring but occasionally u get to hear some pretty cool stuff...but nothing that won't make a great book in 10 years. The stuff coming off those taps won't ever see the light of day, nor should it.
-
The case I mentioned is ACLU v. NSA. Yes, the case deals explicitly with the constitutionality of domestic warrantless wiretaps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU_v._NSA
I still question why the appellate court ran away from the underlying issue. It is possible they didn't all agree.
You don't have to try and convince me that domestic wiretaps require (or at least should require) a warrant. What I've pointed out is there isn't a uniform opinion on FISA. Discount the "brief list of apologists" all you want, but the fact remains that people with pretty good credentials have different opinions.
Here's what you had originally typed:
He was unanimously overturned because the plaintiffs couldn't prove they had been subjected to warrantless wiretaps.
You didn't link any case. Judging by what you typed I would conclude that the plaintiff did not have the evidence to withstand a motion to dismiss.
There is no uniform opinion on anything. There are flat-earthers. Just b/c you can find some scholar to say, "hey wait a minute, the president really is doing the right thing here" doesn't amount to much.
The plain language of the FISA statute is that if domestic spying is going to be done by our government, then it damn well better get a warrant.
The Appeals court said that it denied any holding on the legality of the program b/c the plaintiffs had no standing to sue. Since the plaintiffs could not prove any grievance that could be addressed by the court, they had no business suing in court, thus the lawsuit ends there. The court was not obligated to rule on the matter.
-
Actually "Majestic" I hold a TS clearance for my current job...I've got two tours overseas in both Iraq and Afghanistan. While most of what I've seen would be available if u dug around or will end up in a book, some won't..plus u hear things while talking to guys. And while u might be able to handle whatever information is out there...ur not allowed to..like most of the American public. U should not have access to that information...I have 'been there'...its pretty boring but occasionally u get to hear some pretty cool stuff...but nothing that won't make a great book in 10 years. The stuff coming off those taps won't ever see the light of day, nor should it.
Both of my Grandparents were in the Military. I know many Military men.
Almost all 'secret' information is boring. It's the desire of insecure men to keep it secret. I will never be a fan of the "you can't handle the information" view. I'm sure there are people that can't handle the information. I am not one of them. Most of the people that can't handle the information will never visit the sites where the information is disclosed anyway.
-
If all this crap is true...then Bush should issue a national security finding or simply change the law to appease the leagal liberals.
-
What we're talking about isn't normal military stuff. Should these taps actaully lead somewhere..it becomes actionable intelligence and somebody somewhere gets their door kicked in or a missile up their ass. Or even better saves the lives of ur family if they realy hit the jack pot. Its not a matter of handling it... I don't know what u do but u say u know things...it might be in the private sector and involve corprate secrets etc...i don't need to know..no big deal. U don't need to know because if u know, alot of other people will know and then we'll have a problem.
-
Here's what you had originally typed:
You didn't link any case. Judging by what you typed I would conclude that the plaintiff did not have the evidence to withstand a motion to dismiss.
There is no uniform opinion on anything. There are flat-earthers. Just b/c you can find some scholar to say, "hey wait a minute, the president really is doing the right thing here" doesn't amount to much.
The plain language of the FISA statute is that if domestic spying is going to be done by our government, then it damn well better get a warrant.
The Appeals court said that it denied any holding on the legality of the program b/c the plaintiffs had no standing to sue. Since the plaintiffs could not prove any grievance that could be addressed by the court, they had no business suing in court, thus the lawsuit ends there. The court was not obligated to rule on the matter.
Yes you can find people who believe in almost anything. I also know your profession can find people to say whatever they are paid to say. So-called "expert witnesses," or what some people call prostitutes (don't want to use the "w" word in mixed company. :)) Heck, there are people who post on this board who still believe we didn't land on the moon, for goodness sake. (Names omitted to protect the innocent. :)) But the people I listed aren't nuts. You simply disagree with them. I do too, but the fact there are people with those kinds of credentials giving opinions about FISA tells me it isn't simply black and white.
I understand the appellate court didn't have to rule on the matter. What I question is why they didn't at least discuss it in some fashion.
-
Change the law..stop the argument.
-
If all this crap is true...then Bush should issue a national security finding or simply change the law to appease the leagal liberals.
Our constitution governs the US. We are a country of laws. President Bush ignored the FISA law, he did not go to Congress to have the law changed or to have an exception to the law in secret, he simply ignored it.
That is dangerous in a constitutional republic. It sets bad precedent.
What if President Hillary started ignoring legal restrictions on the exercise of her power without consulting Congress?
That sounds like a dictatorship.
-
When we're all glowing in the dark for a piece of paper remind me to feed u to the cockroaches
-
When we're all glowing in the dark for a piece of paper remind me to feed u to the cockroaches
So now I should suffer death b/c I don't care for a rogue presidency?
If Bush's spying predates Al Qaeda's attack (started just 2 weeks after taking office), how do you know who he was spying on?
You assume he was spying to protect the country. How do you know? You don't. You're putting lipstick on a pig.
No accountability...even military guys like you with security clearance have to observe accountability to someone.
I don't like rogue presidents.
Congress should have been consulted prior to the spying.
-
How do we know he wasn't..we don't..i'll take my chances.
-
How do we know he wasn't..we don't..i'll take my chances.
I took my chances on 9/11 with Bush.
Not exactly a safe bet.