Author Topic: Let's hear the justifications for this one. I dare you.  (Read 5152 times)

ribonucleic

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5158
  • I bring you ultimate reality!
Let's hear the justifications for this one. I dare you.
« on: May 16, 2007, 08:46:43 AM »
In 2001, Bush tells the NSA to spy on domestic phone calls without a warrant. By 2004, when the program is due to expire, the lawyers at the Justice Department have concluded that this is a violation of the law. You know... a criminal act. So Robert Comey, who is the acting Attorney General while John Ashcroft is hospitalized for emergency gall bladder surgery, refuses to sign the Presidential order to continue the program.

What does Bush do? He has his Chief of Staff Andrew Card and (surprise surprise) Alberto Gonzales secretly head over to Ashcroft's hospital room to get his signature - even though Ashcroft is so disoriented that his wife has prohibited visitors. 

Tipped off to this by one of Ashcroft's aides, Comey races over to the hospital with emergency lights to intercept them. Comey has only a few minutes to tell a barely-conscious Ashcroft (who has previously agreed the spying program is illegal) what is going on before the Bush goons show up. Ashcroft totters up from his bed and tells them to forget it. The goons no doubt exchange a meaningful look before skulking away.

Shortly afterwards, an angry Card summons Comey to the White House. Comey replies: “After what I just witnessed, I will not meet with you without a witness, and I intend that witness to be the solicitor general of the United States.”

When everyone finally sits down, Card bites his lip over how it will look if Ashcroft, Comey, and FBI director Robert Mueller all follow through on their promise to resign. So arrangements are made to have the program go ahead without Justice Department approval.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/washington/16nsa.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Bring it on, wingnuts. I dare you.

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Let's hear the justifications for this one. I dare you.
« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2007, 09:03:48 AM »
FISA is very clear. 

The president cannot order spying on americans without a warrant.

End of story.

Bush broke that law.

The law was put in place after Nixon's abuses of presidential power and it was designed to cover exactly what Bush is doing w/ the illegal wiretaps.

Of all the crimes of the Bush administration, this is closest to a slam dunk.

ieffinhatecardio

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5202
  • More proof God is a man.
Re: Let's hear the justifications for this one. I dare you.
« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2007, 09:10:40 AM »

Bring it on, wingnuts. I dare you.


From much of what I've heard and read from Bush supporters they don't care if his acts are unconstitutional or even criminal. They use the justification that his actions are "stopping terrorist attacks" against us.

A curious side note is that it's never them that have their constitutional rights shredded, it's always others.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Let's hear the justifications for this one. I dare you.
« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2007, 09:21:19 AM »
Anyone who defends this is a piece of shit.

ribonucleic

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5158
  • I bring you ultimate reality!
Re: Let's hear the justifications for this one. I dare you.
« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2007, 09:30:25 AM »
Anyone who defends this is a piece of shit.

Q: ... According to James Comey, they were trying to take advantage of a sick man who was in intensive care.

TONY SNOW: Trying to take advantage of a sick man -- because he had an appendectomy, his brain didn't work? ... Jim Comey can talk about whatever reservations he may have had, but the fact is that there were strong protections in there. This is a program that saved lives, that is vital for national security....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070515-3.html

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Let's hear the justifications for this one. I dare you.
« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2007, 09:33:31 AM »
Q: ... According to James Comey, they were trying to take advantage of a sick man who was in intensive care.

TONY SNOW: Trying to take advantage of a sick man -- because he had an appendectomy, his brain didn't work? ... Jim Comey can talk about whatever reservations he may have had, but the fact is that there were strong protections in there. This is a program that saved lives, that is vital for national security....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070515-3.html


I wouldn't want to attack a cancer survivor...

GigantorX

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6371
  • GetBig's A-Team is the Light of Truth!
Re: Let's hear the justifications for this one. I dare you.
« Reply #6 on: May 16, 2007, 03:34:28 PM »
Not to justify it, because legally you cant', but wasn't the "domestic spying" program installed to tap the phone lines of persons inside the U.S. making calls to people outside the country that were on the "terror watch list".  Not just anyone inside the U.S. calling there grandma for instance? If it is vital than great, but this leaves plenty of room for abuse.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Let's hear the justifications for this one. I dare you.
« Reply #7 on: May 16, 2007, 05:28:25 PM »
Not to justify it, because legally you cant', but wasn't the "domestic spying" program installed to tap the phone lines of persons inside the U.S. making calls to people outside the country that were on the "terror watch list".  Not just anyone inside the U.S. calling there grandma for instance? If it is vital than great, but this leaves plenty of room for abuse.

fbi admits there was abuse already.  ribo posted the first of the cases.

w8tlftr

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5111
  • I ♥ ( o Y o )
Re: Let's hear the justifications for this one. I dare you.
« Reply #8 on: May 16, 2007, 06:04:02 PM »
This program pre-dates the Clinton adminstration and will continue long after the Bush administration.

Additionally we are also talking about the interception of phone calls to and from known terrorists organizations.

What strikes me as funny here is that the Democrats would have a field day with the very same people responsible for safeguarding Americans if they had information that could save thousands of people and did nothing with it.

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24454
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Let's hear the justifications for this one. I dare you.
« Reply #9 on: May 16, 2007, 08:19:55 PM »
This program pre-dates the Clinton adminstration and will continue long after the Bush administration.

Additionally we are also talking about the interception of phone calls to and from known terrorists organizations.

What strikes me as funny here is that the Democrats would have a field day with the very same people responsible for safeguarding Americans if they had information that could save thousands of people and did nothing with it.


{LOL}  I couldn't help but laugh when I read this part. Didn't Ashcroft once refer to the librarian's association,
as well as the teacher's association, ...as a bunch of terrorists?
w

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Let's hear the justifications for this one. I dare you.
« Reply #10 on: May 16, 2007, 08:24:21 PM »
This episode - trying to force a medicated man following surgery to sign a huge law because no one else would sign it - it's hilarious.

And it sounds like fairly big news.  Fallout in the AM should be good.

Mr. Intenseone

  • Guest
Re: Let's hear the justifications for this one. I dare you.
« Reply #11 on: May 16, 2007, 09:02:18 PM »
In 2001, Bush tells the NSA to spy on domestic phone calls without a warrant. By 2004, when the program is due to expire, the lawyers at the Justice Department have concluded that this is a violation of the law. You know... a criminal act. So Robert Comey, who is the acting Attorney General while John Ashcroft is hospitalized for emergency gall bladder surgery, refuses to sign the Presidential order to continue the program.

What does Bush do? He has his Chief of Staff Andrew Card and (surprise surprise) Alberto Gonzales secretly head over to Ashcroft's hospital room to get his signature - even though Ashcroft is so disoriented that his wife has prohibited visitors. 

Tipped off to this by one of Ashcroft's aides, Comey races over to the hospital with emergency lights to intercept them. Comey has only a few minutes to tell a barely-conscious Ashcroft (who has previously agreed the spying program is illegal) what is going on before the Bush goons show up. Ashcroft totters up from his bed and tells them to forget it. The goons no doubt exchange a meaningful look before skulking away.

Shortly afterwards, an angry Card summons Comey to the White House. Comey replies: “After what I just witnessed, I will not meet with you without a witness, and I intend that witness to be the solicitor general of the United States.”

When everyone finally sits down, Card bites his lip over how it will look if Ashcroft, Comey, and FBI director Robert Mueller all follow through on their promise to resign. So arrangements are made to have the program go ahead without Justice Department approval.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/washington/16nsa.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Bring it on, wingnuts. I dare you.


Defend what? They have been wire tapping for along time, as a matter of fact, isn't Clinton the one who signed the original order? Just asking, not really sure, but I do know Clinton administration used wire tapping as well, besides, this artical is very vague, sounds like typical NYTimes bullshit to me!!

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Let's hear the justifications for this one. I dare you.
« Reply #12 on: May 16, 2007, 09:06:51 PM »
Joe,

Justice Dept told Bush it was a crime to do it.  They gave him a law to follow.

The solution was a sneaky visit to a post-op medicated guy (cause the acting guy didn't want to break the law) to try to get him to override our justice dept.

No offense, but this position is completely indefensible.

Mr. Intenseone

  • Guest
Re: Let's hear the justifications for this one. I dare you.
« Reply #13 on: May 16, 2007, 09:14:39 PM »
Joe,

Justice Dept told Bush it was a crime to do it.  They gave him a law to follow.

The solution was a sneaky visit to a post-op medicated guy (cause the acting guy didn't want to break the law) to try to get him to override our justice dept.

No offense, but this position is completely indefensible.

Why was it a crime for Bush and not Clinton? Also, what was the name of Ashcrofts aid again??

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: Let's hear the justifications for this one. I dare you.
« Reply #14 on: May 17, 2007, 12:23:17 AM »
Why was it a crime for Bush and not Clinton? Also, what was the name of Ashcrofts aid again??

When did Clinton do this?

I'm not saying he didn't, but I'm not aware of it if he did... It certainly didn't come out at the time.

So, when did Clinton do this? If he did, it was wrong then too.

Are you excusing Bush because another person committed a crime?

Like saying that Bush can murder someone because Clinton murdered someone too?

Hedgehog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19464
  • It Rubs The Lotion On Its Skin.
Re: Let's hear the justifications for this one. I dare you.
« Reply #15 on: May 17, 2007, 04:38:33 AM »
Why was it a crime for Bush and not Clinton? Also, what was the name of Ashcrofts aid again??

When did Clinton do this?

-Hedge
As empty as paradise

The Enigma

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1486
  • Porsche 911 Turbo Carerra. My reality, your dream.
Re: Let's hear the justifications for this one. I dare you.
« Reply #16 on: May 17, 2007, 06:01:05 AM »
Why was it a crime for Bush and not Clinton?

Really Mr. Lib?  When did this happen?


Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Let's hear the justifications for this one. I dare you.
« Reply #17 on: May 17, 2007, 07:06:23 AM »
Why was it a crime for Bush and not Clinton? Also, what was the name of Ashcrofts aid again??
Clinton got a warrant in compliance with the law.

Bush ignored the law thus breaking it.

Mr. Intenseone

  • Guest
Re: Let's hear the justifications for this one. I dare you.
« Reply #18 on: May 17, 2007, 07:54:48 AM »
Really Mr. Lib?  When did this happen?



Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence.
    "The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
    That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps.
    More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."
    Such warrantless searches have been at the center of a political fight in Washington after the New York Times reported Friday that the Bush administration had a program to intercept communications between al Qaeda suspects and persons in this country, a story whose publication coincided with the congressional debate over reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act.
    In a 2002 opinion about the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the USA Patriot Act, the court wrote: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
    Indeed, previous administrations have used that same authority.
    One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants.
    In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.
    Previous administrations also asserted the authority of the president to conduct searches in the interest of national security.
    In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government.
    That same year, Congress approved and Mr. Carter signed FISA, which created the secret court and required federal agents to get approval to conduct electronic surveillance in most foreign intelligence cases.


    A Washington Post report at the time said the new FISA law permits "the government (primarily NSA with the occasional help of an FBI 'black bag job' or break-in) to continue electronic spying without a court order if it is directed solely at the premises or communications of 'official' powers, such as governments, factions or entities openly known to be directed and controlled by foreign governments."
    The year after FISA became law, a columnist in The Washington Post described what could still happen to any person or group determined to be "an agent of a foreign power."
    "Once the attorney general has made that finding about someone, then the FBI can spy on them or burglarize their offices," wrote William Greider in a May 1979 column.
    The Bush administration and Republicans on Capitol Hill say terrorist cells in this country are precisely what those FISA loopholes were intended for, even if they don't represent a traditional enemy state.
    "Following the 9/11 attacks, it was obvious that al Qaeda utilized high-tech communication systems and modified its communication methods to avoid surveillance," Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, said.
    Mr. Cornyn and other Republicans have agreed with Democrats that hearings are necessary to learn more about Mr. Bush's domestic spy policy. There remains disagreement, however, over whether those hearings should be open to the public.
    One area certain to be discussed in any hearings would be the use of warrantless searches in previous administrations.
    In an interview yesterday, Miss Gorelick acknowledged her testimony before Congress but said it pertained to presidential authority prior to 1994, when Congress expanded FISA laws. Left unanswered, she said, is whether that congressional action trumped the president's "inherent authority."
    "The Clinton administration did not take a position on that," she said.
   


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm

egj13

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
  • Got life by the balls
Re: Let's hear the justifications for this one. I dare you.
« Reply #19 on: May 17, 2007, 08:20:48 AM »
This episode - trying to force a medicated man following surgery to sign a huge law because no one else would sign it - it's hilarious.

And it sounds like fairly big news.  Fallout in the AM should be good.

From listening to Ashcroft interviews, he had no problem signing it and believes whole heartedly in it to this day.

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Let's hear the justifications for this one. I dare you.
« Reply #20 on: May 17, 2007, 08:50:40 AM »
Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence.
Of course FISA permits warrantless searches.  There is a 3 day retroactive period to secure a proper warrant.

Therefore a search may be performed without a warrant as long as a warrant is secured within 3 days after the search.

Bush just ignored that requirement.

That is a crime.

Old_Rooster

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2380
  • SquadFathers mom gave me a BJ
Re: Let's hear the justifications for this one. I dare you.
« Reply #21 on: May 17, 2007, 08:57:44 AM »
In 2001, Bush tells the NSA to spy on domestic phone calls without a warrant. By 2004, when the program is due to expire, the lawyers at the Justice Department have concluded that this is a violation of the law. You know... a criminal act. So Robert Comey, who is the acting Attorney General while John Ashcroft is hospitalized for emergency gall bladder surgery, refuses to sign the Presidential order to continue the program.

What does Bush do? He has his Chief of Staff Andrew Card and (surprise surprise) Alberto Gonzales secretly head over to Ashcroft's hospital room to get his signature - even though Ashcroft is so disoriented that his wife has prohibited visitors. 

Tipped off to this by one of Ashcroft's aides, Comey races over to the hospital with emergency lights to intercept them. Comey has only a few minutes to tell a barely-conscious Ashcroft (who has previously agreed the spying program is illegal) what is going on before the Bush goons show up. Ashcroft totters up from his bed and tells them to forget it. The goons no doubt exchange a meaningful look before skulking away.

Shortly afterwards, an angry Card summons Comey to the White House. Comey replies: “After what I just witnessed, I will not meet with you without a witness, and I intend that witness to be the solicitor general of the United States.”

When everyone finally sits down, Card bites his lip over how it will look if Ashcroft, Comey, and FBI director Robert Mueller all follow through on their promise to resign. So arrangements are made to have the program go ahead without Justice Department approval.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/washington/16nsa.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Bring it on, wingnuts. I dare you.

Tomorrow night on 24, Jack Bauer....
Benjamin Pearson-Pedo

egj13

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
  • Got life by the balls
Re: Let's hear the justifications for this one. I dare you.
« Reply #22 on: May 17, 2007, 08:58:39 AM »
Aren't we all glad Rooster is back. Like him or not he is a funny bastard!

The Enigma

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1486
  • Porsche 911 Turbo Carerra. My reality, your dream.
Re: Let's hear the justifications for this one. I dare you.
« Reply #23 on: May 17, 2007, 10:20:53 AM »
Of course FISA permits warrantless searches.  There is a 3 day retroactive period to secure a proper warrant.

Bush just ignored that requirement.

That is a crime.


If I'm not mistaken, criminals are involved in crimes......correct?

 

   

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: Let's hear the justifications for this one. I dare you.
« Reply #24 on: May 17, 2007, 10:40:07 AM »
Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence.
    "The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
    That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps.
    More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."
    Such warrantless searches have been at the center of a political fight in Washington after the New York Times reported Friday that the Bush administration had a program to intercept communications between al Qaeda suspects and persons in this country, a story whose publication coincided with the congressional debate over reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act.
    In a 2002 opinion about the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the USA Patriot Act, the court wrote: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
    Indeed, previous administrations have used that same authority.
    One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants.
    In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.
    Previous administrations also asserted the authority of the president to conduct searches in the interest of national security.
    In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government.
    That same year, Congress approved and Mr. Carter signed FISA, which created the secret court and required federal agents to get approval to conduct electronic surveillance in most foreign intelligence cases.


    A Washington Post report at the time said the new FISA law permits "the government (primarily NSA with the occasional help of an FBI 'black bag job' or break-in) to continue electronic spying without a court order if it is directed solely at the premises or communications of 'official' powers, such as governments, factions or entities openly known to be directed and controlled by foreign governments."
    The year after FISA became law, a columnist in The Washington Post described what could still happen to any person or group determined to be "an agent of a foreign power."
    "Once the attorney general has made that finding about someone, then the FBI can spy on them or burglarize their offices," wrote William Greider in a May 1979 column.
    The Bush administration and Republicans on Capitol Hill say terrorist cells in this country are precisely what those FISA loopholes were intended for, even if they don't represent a traditional enemy state.
    "Following the 9/11 attacks, it was obvious that al Qaeda utilized high-tech communication systems and modified its communication methods to avoid surveillance," Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, said.
    Mr. Cornyn and other Republicans have agreed with Democrats that hearings are necessary to learn more about Mr. Bush's domestic spy policy. There remains disagreement, however, over whether those hearings should be open to the public.
    One area certain to be discussed in any hearings would be the use of warrantless searches in previous administrations.
    In an interview yesterday, Miss Gorelick acknowledged her testimony before Congress but said it pertained to presidential authority prior to 1994, when Congress expanded FISA laws. Left unanswered, she said, is whether that congressional action trumped the president's "inherent authority."
    "The Clinton administration did not take a position on that," she said.
   


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm


This is true... Against non US Citizens. Bush also did warrant less tapping against citizens of this country.

That is a crime.