|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 50 of 404:
| 
Dec 28 22:24 UTC 2005 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 51 of 404:
|
Dec 28 22:58 UTC 2005 |
In 1978, after revelations that President Nixon had used the NSA to
spy on his domestic enemies, Congress enacted a law making it illegal
to wiretap a U.S. citizen without permission from a secret national
security court.
We are talking about Bush spying on U.S. Citizens. There are no
exceptions to this law.
klg if in fact Bush has violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, which I will link here so you can read it:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.ht
ml
If Bush has in fact intentionally violated that act, broken the law,
and infringed upon the fourth amendment rights of american citizens,
isn't that wrong? Doesn't Bush deserve to be impeached if this is the
case, as it appears to be?
|
richard
|
|
response 52 of 404:
|
Dec 28 23:02 UTC 2005 |
here's the relevant part of the above linked law:
"
1804. Applications for court orders
Release date: 2005-03-17
(a) Submission by Federal officer; approval of Attorney General;
contents
Each application for an order approving electronic surveillance under
this subchapter shall be made by a Federal officer in writing upon
oath or affirmation to a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803
of this title. Each application shall require the approval of the
Attorney General based upon his finding that it satisfies the criteria
and requirements of such application as set forth in this subchapter.
It shall include
(1) the identity of the Federal officer making the application;
(2) the authority conferred on the Attorney General by the President
of the United States and the approval of the Attorney General to make
the application;
(3) the identity, if known, or a description of the target of the
electronic surveillance;
(4) a statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the
applicant to justify his belief that
(A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an
agent of a foreign power; and
(B) each of the facilities or places at which the electronic
surveillance is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a
foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
(5) a statement of the proposed minimization procedures;
(6) a detailed description of the nature of the information sought and
the type of communications or activities to be subjected to the
surveillance;
(7) a certification or certifications by the Assistant to the
President for National Security Affairs or an executive branch
official or officials designated by the President from among those
executive officers employed in the area of national security or
defense and appointed by the President with the advice and consent of
the Senate
(A) that the certifying official deems the information sought to be
foreign intelligence information;
(B) that a significant purpose of the surveillance is to obtain
foreign intelligence information;
(C) that such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal
investigative techniques;
(D) that designates the type of foreign intelligence information being
sought according to the categories described in section 1801 (e) of
this title; and
(E) including a statement of the basis for the certification that
(i) the information sought is the type of foreign intelligence
information designated; and
(ii) such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal
investigative techniques;
(8) a statement of the means by which the surveillance will be
effected and a statement whether physical entry is required to effect
the surveillance;
(9) a statement of the facts concerning all previous applications that
have been made to any judge under this subchapter involving any of the
persons, facilities, or places specified in the application, and the
action taken on each previous application;
(10) a statement of the period of time for which the electronic
surveillance is required to be maintained, and if the nature of the
intelligence gathering is such that the approval of the use of
electronic surveillance under this subchapter should not automatically
terminate when the described type of information has first been
obtained, a description of facts supporting the belief that additional
information of the same type will be obtained thereafter; and
(11) whenever more than one electronic, mechanical or other
surveillance device is to be used with respect to a particular
proposed electronic surveillance, the coverage of the devices involved
and what minimization procedures apply to information acquired by each
device.
(b) Exclusion of certain information respecting foreign power targets
Whenever the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power,
as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title, and each
of the facilities or places at which the surveillance is directed is
owned, leased, or exclusively used by that foreign power, the
application need not contain the information required by paragraphs
(6), (7)(E), (8), and (11) of subsection (a) of this section, but
shall state whether physical entry is required to effect the
surveillance and shall contain such information about the surveillance
techniques and communications or other information concerning United
States persons likely to be obtained as may be necessary to assess the
proposed minimization procedures.
(c) Additional affidavits or certifications
The Attorney General may require any other affidavit or certification
from any other officer in connection with the application.
(d) Additional information
The judge may require the applicant to furnish such other information
as may be necessary to make the determinations required by section
1805 of this title.
(e) Personal review by Attorney General
(1)
(A) Upon written request of the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, or
the Director of Central Intelligence, the Attorney General shall
personally review under subsection (a) of this section an application
under that subsection for a target described in section 1801 (b)(2) of
this title.
(B) Except when disabled or otherwise unavailable to make a request
referred to in subparagraph (A), an official referred to in that
subparagraph may not delegate the authority to make a request referred
to in that subparagraph.
(C) Each official referred to in subparagraph (A) with authority to
make a request under that subparagraph shall take appropriate actions
in advance to ensure that delegation of such authority is clearly
established in the event such official is disabled or otherwise
unavailable to make such request.
(2)
(A) If as a result of a request under paragraph (1) the Attorney
General determines not to approve an application under the second
sentence of subsection (a) of this section for purposes of making the
application under this section, the Attorney General shall provide
written notice of the determination to the official making the request
for the review of the application under that paragraph. Except when
disabled or otherwise unavailable to make a determination under the
preceding sentence, the Attorney General may not delegate the
responsibility to make a determination under that sentence. The
Attorney General shall take appropriate actions in advance to ensure
that delegation of such responsibility is clearly established in the
event the Attorney General is disabled or otherwise unavailable to
make such determination.
(B) Notice with respect to an application under subparagraph (A) shall
set forth the modifications, if any, of the application that are
necessary in order for the Attorney General to approve the application
under the second sentence of subsection (a) of this section for
purposes of making the application under this section.
(C) Upon review of any modifications of an application set forth under
subparagraph (B), the official notified of the modifications under
this paragraph shall modify the application if such official
determines that such modification is warranted. Such official shall
supervise the making of any modification under this subparagraph.
Except when disabled or otherwise unavailable to supervise the making
of any modification under the preceding sentence, such official may
not delegate the responsibility to supervise the making of any
modification under that preceding sentence. Each such official shall
take appropriate actions in advance to ensure that delegation of such
responsibility is clearly established in the event such official is
disabled or otherwise unavailable to supervise the making of such
modification. "
Bush didn't just violate the intent of this section, he violated the
letter of it. He disregarded the entire section of this law, in cases
where the Courts rejected his requests.
|
jep
|
|
response 53 of 404:
|
Dec 29 14:26 UTC 2005 |
I get the feeling that a lot of people (here and of course elsewhere)
are on one side or the other, and they don't really care what's right
or wrong, they care about scoring points on the other side or defending
their side from having points scored on it.
If you attacked Clinton for wrongdoing in the Monica Lewinsky mess,
then you've established at least that you expect honesty (and
integrity) from the president. I did this. So did klg.
Now the next president has committed dishonesty, and shown a lack of
integrity. He's gone much further; he's shown a flagrant lack of
commitment to the Constitution.
I've denounced this. I do not understand why klg is not doing so as
well if he has principles and standards for the behavior of the
president.
It cuts the other way, too. Many people here said that Clinton's
scandal was entirely personal. When he wagged his finger and lied on
national TV, he showed he was willing to abuse his presidential power
to evade the consequences of his personal actions. That made it a
national political issue. (How in the world can anyone believe a man
who would do that, would NOT very possibly do other things, more
important but less visible, to cover up his personal problems? You
DON'T believe Clinton would have sold a nuclear weapon to Osama bin
Laden if it would have allowed him to escape his national embarrassment
and impeachment?)
Those who are currently attacking Bush, but who defended Clinton -- at
least it seems possible that Bush is *trying* to do something positive
and in the interests of the American people. Even if he's misguided,
he seems to be trying to defend the country from terrorists. Clinton
was driven from the course of good governance by mere personal pleasure.
It seems to me that both categories, of people who defend one president
but attack the other, are motivated by wanting to defend their side and
overlook it's shortcomings. I don't understand that, not on Grex. It
annoys me much more when my side turns out to be wrong -- as Bush is
now turning out to be wrong -- than when the other side is committing
crimes and evil. I expect my side to be good; that's why I am on the
side that I am.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 54 of 404:
|
Dec 29 16:14 UTC 2005 |
re resp:53 John, I agree with almost everything you said.
You had me until you got to this "Bush is *trying* to do something
positive and in the interests of the American people. "
You know, I really don't think he is. I think he's out to make money for
his friends and to further his competition with his father.
|
twenex
|
|
response 55 of 404:
|
Dec 29 16:15 UTC 2005 |
Well, he's a politician.
|
tod
|
|
response 56 of 404:
|
Dec 29 16:28 UTC 2005 |
least it seems possible that Bush is *trying* to do something positive
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
I felt Clinton should have resigned only because he compromised his security
clearance by fraternizing with a subordinate. I did not feel it was an
impeachable offense nor did it warrant the wasted funds of investigation.
Bush is doing things through covert channels rather than operating at an
honest level against American citizens and the Constitution. I do feel this
is an impeachable offense.
|
richard
|
|
response 57 of 404:
|
Dec 29 16:35 UTC 2005 |
re #56 tod said:
"I felt Clinton should have resigned only because he compromised his
security clearance by fraternizing with a subordinate."
If all the CEO's and top company officials in this country
who "fraterinized with a subordinate" at one time or another resigned,
you wouldn't have enough qualified people left to run anything. How
did he compromise his "security clearance" when there is no evidence he
told Ms. Lewinsky anything top secret? He didn't compromise his
security clearance with her anymore than he did when he slept with his
wife, or played poker with his buddies.
Unlike Clinton, Bush has blatantly broken a federal law. He has shown
contempt with the laws that were set up after the Watergate mess.
National security trumps the law?
|
richard
|
|
response 58 of 404:
|
Dec 29 16:41 UTC 2005 |
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little
security will deserve neither and lose both."
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
|
mcnally
|
|
response 59 of 404:
|
Dec 29 16:59 UTC 2005 |
re #57:
> If all the CEO's and top company officials in this country
> who "fraterinized with a subordinate" at one time or another resigned,
> you wouldn't have enough qualified people left to run anything.
I very much doubt that the field would be so stripped of talent that
there'd be nobody left to run things, and even if it were, would
replacing the patently corrupt with a few honest people of questionable
competency necessarily be worse than the corporate leadership situation
we've got now?
Politically our problem seems to be that we may have the worst of both
worlds: dishonest *AND* incompetent.
> How did he compromise his "security clearance" when there is no
> evidence he told Ms. Lewinsky anything top secret?
Through his actions he rendered himself extremely vulnerable to extortion.
That's a legitimate security concern.
|
tod
|
|
response 60 of 404:
|
Dec 29 17:06 UTC 2005 |
re #57
How
did he compromise his "security clearance" when there is no evidence he
told Ms. Lewinsky anything top secret?
A security clearance has many hard and soft flags. Criminal history is a hard
flag while credit history or fraternization may be either hard or soft flags
depending on their depth. I do not like to equate the POTUS to a CEO. It
makes more sense to compare to a Commanding General since we're talking about
the Commander in Chief. In the military, fraternization is not taken lightly
nor should it be when you are in a position of national security. Had Miss
Lewinsky been Mossad rather than just a possessive college kid, Clinton might
have compromised the integrity and confidentiality of his office.
That's one to think about further than just some graying hair white collar
dude hauling his ashes..it gets much more complicated than that.
|
richard
|
|
response 61 of 404:
|
Dec 29 17:08 UTC 2005 |
You can't serve as President and not be vulnerable to extortion. Bush
was vulnerable to extortion because he was deliberately having the NSA
break laws, and anyone who knew about it and knew he wanted it kept
secret, could have extorted him. Does Tod think Bush should resign on
that basis?
Kennedy was sleeping around with women during the Cuban Missile
Crisis. Bush the Sr. had a mistress. FDR was hiding the severity of
his own illness. In short ALL presidents have secrets. There is no
way to have a fully secure country and there is no way to have
Presidents who are invulnerable to extortion because there is no way to
have Presidents who aren't human beings with weaknesses.
We can't get swallowed up in our own paranoia. We don't live in a
secure world, we will NEVER live in a secure world. We must live with
what is reality.
|
richard
|
|
response 62 of 404:
|
Dec 29 17:11 UTC 2005 |
tod said:
"Had Miss Lewinsky been Mossad rather than just a possessive college
kid, Clinton might have compromised the integrity and confidentiality
of his office."
Anyone who works that closely to the President has passed an intensive
security clearance. There is no possibility she could have been
Mossad.
|
tod
|
|
response 63 of 404:
|
Dec 29 17:17 UTC 2005 |
Anyone who works that closely to the President has passed an intensive
security clearance. There is no possibility she could have been
Mossad.
Keep drinking that kool-aid, richard. You yourself admitted JFK slept around.
Hell, he knocked up a CIA double agent courier that was dating Sam Giancana.
What makes you think Clinton's associates are only Ward and June Cleaver?
|
richard
|
|
response 64 of 404:
|
Dec 29 17:28 UTC 2005 |
tod, answer the question I asked, based on your own criteria, did Bush
make himself vulnerable to extortion by telling the NSA to break the
law and should Bush resign?
|
fitz
|
|
response 65 of 404:
|
Dec 29 17:31 UTC 2005 |
Clinton's vulnerablility to extortion is setting up a straw man so far as his
impeachment is concerned. Lewinsky was part of the White House staff and
known to the Secret Service in both her official and unofficial capacity.
This extramarital affair raised no security concerns when it happened: The
sole charges against Clinton were perjury and obstruction of justice. I doubt
that a charge of "security concerns" would pass a test of relavncy before the
Senate.
|
tod
|
|
response 66 of 404:
|
Dec 29 17:34 UTC 2005 |
re #65
Did you listen to any of the Secret Service testimonies? There were several
security concerns. Where do we start? Unscheduled Dominos pizza parties in
the Oval Office?
|
jep
|
|
response 67 of 404:
|
Dec 29 17:35 UTC 2005 |
re resp:54-55: I try very hard to assume that a politician probably
means well. Sometimes I can't manage to believe it about some, but I
think just about all have positive goals. They can of course have
wrong goals, or poor perspective, or make mistakes, etc.
|
tod
|
|
response 68 of 404:
|
Dec 29 17:38 UTC 2005 |
Mistakes are one thing but circumventing regulatory processes to spy on
citizens thousands of times? C'mon
|
marcvh
|
|
response 69 of 404:
|
Dec 29 17:47 UTC 2005 |
I don't believe that Clinton would have sold nuclear weapons to Bin Laden
in order to obscure his scandal. There's no way to prove that, of
course, but I don't buy it. I'm also not sure where that leaves other
presidents -- Reagan, of course, funneled arms to Iran in violation of
law for various reasons (to manipulate the 1980 elections, to gain the
release of hostages.) Should Reagan have resigned or been impeached?
Who was the last president who shouldn't have?
|
fitz
|
|
response 70 of 404:
|
Dec 29 17:50 UTC 2005 |
I listened to none: I read the accounts in Newsweak. I have failed. Dominos
Pizza is the gravest espionage threat to the US. Does it rank before
or after floridated water on the espionage scale?
|
tod
|
|
response 71 of 404:
|
Dec 29 17:52 UTC 2005 |
And really, we're talking about "hands caught in the cookie jar". Reagan was
out of office by the time anything came of Iran-Contra Hearings.
Clinton did nothing impeachable, imo.
|
richard
|
|
response 72 of 404:
|
Dec 29 17:54 UTC 2005 |
tod said:
"least it seems possible that Bush is *trying* to do something positive
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
No he's not, you aren't even seeing the big picture. One day the
spying is on terrorists, the next its on people who might be
terrorists, the next its on people who know people who might be
terrorists, and finally its on anyone they feel like doing surveillance
on. Finally its soccer moms and democratic party officials at the
Watergate. If tod thinks Bush is trying to do anything positive, if he
thinks what Bush is doing isn't impeachable, then he didn't live
through Watergate.
I find it appalling that tod finds it more appalling that clinton got a
blowjob in the oval office than that bush is spying on u.s. citizens
without a judge's approval.
tod I will ask again, DO YOU THINK BUSH MADE HIMSELF VULNERABLE TO
EXTORTION AND DO YOU, AS YOU DID WITH CLINTON, THINK HE SHOULD RESIGN?
|
richard
|
|
response 73 of 404:
|
Dec 29 17:57 UTC 2005 |
And by the way, just for the record, I don't think Bush should resign.
Nor did I think Clinton should have resigned. I think Bush should be
impeached. Let the people, the Congress, decide his fate. I don't
think Nixon should have resigned, he should have let himself be
impeached. Nixon should have let the people decide his fate and taken
his punishment like a man.
|
tod
|
|
response 74 of 404:
|
Dec 29 18:05 UTC 2005 |
re #73
I don't think Bush should resign. I think he should go to jail.
|