How does the presidency affect you personally?

[Dos Equis]

The Court holding pointed out that Bush was breaking the law since he authorized the spying.

The legality of Bush's act is governed by the law he broke...not the subsequent court holding.

2 years of felonious domestic spying by our government and you see no problem?

Your point re Bush's behavior after the decision is an irrelevant red herring.

My point about Bush's behavior after the decision was in response to this comment from Jag:  "Executive branch stated it didn't care what the Judiciary branch said, and it would continue to do what it was doing."  Unless he said he was going to defy the court ruling, then his conduct after the court ruling is entirely relevant to her allegation. 

The legality of Bush's act is determined by the law and the court's interpretation of the law.  That's why we have the courts.  That's how the system is supposed to work.   

[Dos Equis]

No Jedi mind trick.  Bush admitted to the country that he knew of FISA's restrictions.  That's no trick.  That's called evidence of knowledge of a guilty mind....mens rea.

Maybe Bush should hire Bryan Cunningham as a legal rep. since he knows so much about FISA, our constitutional rights, case law and the court decision. 

I'll stick with the experts, thank you.

The American Bar Association denounced President Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program yesterday, accusing him of exceeding his powers under the Constitution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/13/AR2006021302006.html

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/fisa.html

He admitted he knew of the requirements (hardly an admission; the law says what is says).  He also said he didn't think it applied to the activities he authorized.  He said that before and after the court's ruling.  Saying he doesn't think the law applies is a far cry from him saying he knowingly broke the law.   

In any event, this is not "black and white" as you claimed.  I'm sure I could find more people who agree with this guy, but his credentials are pretty darn good: 

Bryan Cunningham served in senior positions in the CIA and as a federal prosecutor under President Clinton, and as deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council under President George W. Bush. He is a private information security and privacy lawyer at Morgan & Cunningham LLC in Denver, Colorado, and a member of the Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in the Information Age. Along with the Washington Legal Foundation, he filed an amicus brief in this case, and has testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

[calmus]

Bryan Cunningham served in senior positions in the CIA and as a federal prosecutor under President Clinton, and as deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council under President George W. Bush. He is a private information security and privacy lawyer at Morgan & Cunningham LLC in Denver, Colorado, and a member of the Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in the Information Age. Along with the Washington Legal Foundation, he filed an amicus brief in this case, and has testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

Hahaha, I just googled this guy, and all I gathered was that he is a govt employee with some access and a JD from a place he's too ashamed to mention (relevant as he said Judge Diggs-taylor's opinion wouldn't be good enough to pass first year con law .

Judge Diggs-taylor on the other hand has had a distinguished career for the last god knows how many years, and this tool (featured on o'reilly has the gall to question her. 

Go sell st00pid someplace else, BB.

[Decker]

My point about Bush's behavior after the decision was in response to this comment from Jag:  "Executive branch stated it didn't care what the Judiciary branch said, and it would continue to do what it was doing."  Unless he said he was going to defy the court ruling, then his conduct after the court ruling is entirely relevant to her allegation. 

The legality of Bush's act is determined by the law and the court's interpretation of the law.  That's why we have the courts.  That's how the system is supposed to work.   

You got me there my friend.

We must remember that in a political system predicated on checks of governmental power, the president's decision to act unilaterally without Congressional notification is wrong.  The president can't start avoiding laws he doesn't like and implementing unconstitutional measures on his own.  The Congress is the only body that legislates and can change the constitution.

[calmus]

The Congress is the only body that legislates and can change the constitution.

 

[Decker]

He admitted he knew of the requirements (hardly an admission; the law says what is says).  He also said he didn't think it applied to the activities he authorized.  He said that before and after the court's ruling.  Saying he doesn't think the law applies is a far cry from him saying he knowingly broke the law.  

If he had knowledge of FISA--which was enacted with the specific legislative intent of curbing PRESIDENTIAL excesses of power re domestic spying--I would say that he knowingly broke the FISA law.

Surely his legal advisors could apprise Pres. Bush of the fact that FISA was enacted in direct response to the spying efforts of President Richard Nixon.

For Mr. Bush to claim that didn't think the law applied indicates he thinks we are imbeciles or that he really is as stupid as people allege.

In any event, this is not "black and white" as you claimed.  I'm sure I could find more people who agree with this guy, but his credentials are pretty darn good:  

Of all of Bush's presidential excesses, legally, this one is the closest to a slam dunk.

Bryan Cunningham served in senior positions in the CIA and as a federal prosecutor under President Clinton, and as deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council under President George W. Bush. He is a private information security and privacy lawyer at Morgan & Cunningham LLC in Denver, Colorado, and a member of the Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in the Information Age. Along with the Washington Legal Foundation, he filed an amicus brief in this case, and has testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

So he is a friend of the defense, he lost and now he airs his sour grapes about the matter.  That's fine.  But as Calmus pointed out, this fellow overstates his contentions--he seems to fail to grasp that, even in a 'war time' situation where the president's power is high, that power is not absolute.

The president cannot make up his mind that a law designed to curb his domestic spying power just doesn't apply.  He doesn't have the constitutional power to do that.

[Decker]

What I mean is that the president cannot create his own domestic spying law unless the constitution is changed to afford him that power--that would be a dictatorial power though.

Beach Bum is trying to portray this situation as if there is contention over whether a law was broken--he claims that Bush just thought the law didn't apply to him...

That's never a defense to illegal activity.

"I didn't know that a law designed to stop US Presidents from spying on citizens w/out a warrant applied to me--the US president who is spying on citizens without a warrant"? ? ? ?

How can the president or Beach Bum make this claim with a straight face?

[Dos Equis]

You got me there my friend.

We must remember that in a political system predicated on checks of governmental power, the president's decision to act unilaterally without Congressional notification is wrong.  The president can't start avoiding laws he doesn't like and implementing unconstitutional measures on his own.  The Congress is the only body that legislates and can change the constitution.

I agree in part.  If the president believes a certain law doesn't apply, he should get advice from his AG, other legal advisors, etc.  If it is something as unconventional as this, he should go to Congress (or a judge).

The only thing that concerns me is national security and how making this public beforehand might interfere with law enforcement efforts.