|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
klg
|
|
response 4 of 404:
| 
Dec 28 01:52 UTC 2005 |
First of all, despite your rantings and the claims of the left-wing
media, according to the constitution and the federal courts there is
nothing illegal or unethical about the wiretapping.
Suppose, for instance, that the country had been invaded. Would you be
so foolish as to claim that the President (the commander-in-chief who
has sworn to protect and defent the country) did not have the authority
to monitor and intercept communications (whether by courier, by wire, or
by satellite) that took place between one camp of invaders (and its
sympathizers) and another??
Well, guess what? The country has been invaded and the President - any
President - is duty-bound to use his powers to counter plots to attack
the citizens and the government.
But, be my guest and go ahead with your silly talk about impeachment.
Not only is it mildly amusing; it's that kind of irrationality that
will, once again, lead the Democrats down the road to electoral defeat
because the American people simply aren't that stupid to believe their
mishugas.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 5 of 404:
|
Dec 28 02:10 UTC 2005 |
Abuse of power? Yes.
Shocking? Not really.
|
richard
|
|
response 6 of 404:
|
Dec 28 02:16 UTC 2005 |
klg, bush committed a federal CRIME when he ordered those wiretaps.
Does that even matter to you?
George W. Bush committed a federal crime by violating the 1978 Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act. The act outlines procedures for
requesting judicial authorization for electronic surveillance and
physical search of persons engaged in espionage or international
terrorism against the United States on behalf of a foreign power.
The act authorizes a secret court to issue warrants to eavesdrop on
potential suspects, or anyone even remotely connected to them, inside
the United States. The bar to obtain a FISA warrant is low; more than
15,000 have been granted, with only four requests denied since 1979 as
best as I can find. In emergency situations, the government can even
apply for FISA warrants retroactively within 72 hours.
Bush has conceded that he personally ordered that crime and renewed
that order at least 30 times. This should satisfy the standard of high
crimes and misdemeanors for the purpose of an impeachment.
Nevertheless, Bush chose not to comply with FISA's minimal
requirements: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa
|
nharmon
|
|
response 7 of 404:
|
Dec 28 02:36 UTC 2005 |
How do you know they were crimes richard? You do realize that FISA
grants the President warrantless wiretap rights against non-Citizens,
correct? Do we know for sure these warrantless wiretaps were against
citizens? Don't you think you should before spouting off about crimes
being committed?
|
richard
|
|
response 8 of 404:
|
Dec 28 02:52 UTC 2005 |
re #7 nharmon what part of this didn't you understand:
"George W. Bush committed a federal crime by violating the 1978 Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act. The act outlines procedures for
requesting judicial authorization for electronic surveillance and
physical search of persons engaged in espionage or international
terrorism against the United States on behalf of a foreign power."
He explicitly violated that act, and if you violate a federal act you
have committed a crime. Bush cannot decide himself that he is not
bound by that act, the president doesn't define his own duties and
doesn't define what laws he must abide by and what laws he doesn't have
to abide by.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 9 of 404:
|
Dec 28 02:57 UTC 2005 |
What I don't understand is how you can arrive at the conclusion that
"Bush committed a federal crime" when your only evidence is that he
ordered wiretaps that may or may not have violated FISA.
Good thing Richard isn't a judge.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 10 of 404:
|
Dec 28 03:50 UTC 2005 |
Ummm, Bush authorized wiretaps that under FISA all he had to do was apply
for a warrant retroactively. He didn't do that. He violated FISA. What
about that is hard for you to undertand?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 11 of 404:
|
Dec 28 03:52 UTC 2005 |
klg...WHAT left-wing media?
you are crazy.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 12 of 404:
|
Dec 28 04:19 UTC 2005 |
Were these wiretaps that he didn't have to apply for warrants on? Thats
what I'm asking. What about the fact that the president doesn't always
need a warrant don't YOU understand?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 13 of 404:
|
Dec 28 04:48 UTC 2005 |
Re #4: A federal court has ruled on the legality of the wiretapping?
What court, when? And how did they do this without interpreting the
FISA?
|
tod
|
|
response 14 of 404:
|
Dec 28 11:33 UTC 2005 |
Leave it to a dittohead to equate "War President" fearmongering with Martial
Law (i.e. law of constitutional rights for citizens) to justify Executive
abuses.
|
klg
|
|
response 15 of 404:
|
Dec 28 11:45 UTC 2005 |
No. Federal courtS, including the FISA court, have ruled that the
President has authority to order warrantless wiretaps in the
performance of his constitutionally-mandated duties. (That is despite
Richard's Rantings.)
|
tod
|
|
response 16 of 404:
|
Dec 28 11:56 UTC 2005 |
re #15
FISA is intended for foreign intelligence gathering by the NSA. It is NOT
intended as a free-for-all to tap THOUSANDS of American citizens. The NSA
is barred from domestic spying and FISA is the one lever available in times
of emergency. GW utilized FISA over 30 times. That's unacceptable. While
you stomp your foot and say its "legal" well so is Martial Law when it comes
down to it. Let's talk about morality and integrity first, though.
|
ogre666
|
|
response 17 of 404:
|
Dec 28 12:41 UTC 2005 |
Can't we all just get along?
Also I think I'm being wiretapped at home, any suggestions?
|
tod
|
|
response 18 of 404:
|
Dec 28 12:55 UTC 2005 |
Enjoy it! Not everyone gets the luxury of a captive audience.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 19 of 404:
|
Dec 28 15:15 UTC 2005 |
Legal counsel for accused terrorists are now pursuing claims against NSA
for unwarranted wiretaps. The illegal use of such wiretapping will likely
result in the dropping of charges against the accused! How stupid could
Bush be?
|
richard
|
|
response 20 of 404:
|
Dec 28 15:16 UTC 2005 |
klg said:
"No. Federal courtS, including the FISA court, have ruled that the
President has authority to order warrantless wiretaps in the
performance of his constitutionally-mandated duties. (That is despite
Richard's Rantings.)"
That is not true. klg is lying. The FISA court would never rule that
the President could bypass its authority. That would be tantamount to
the FISA court saying it has no reason to exist. That would be like
Congress giving the authority to make laws without them being
involved.
|
richard
|
|
response 21 of 404:
|
Dec 28 15:29 UTC 2005 |
re #19 true, and klg doesn't even CARE that some or many of the accused
could end up getting released because they have been arrested or
evidence gathered via illegal wiretaps. klg just doesn't care, becuase
if Bush did this, it MUST be right. Because Bush is his king and he
worships him.
|
richard
|
|
response 22 of 404:
|
Dec 28 15:43 UTC 2005 |
ACLU calls for action. This could get uglier than Watergate before its
all over. Bush can't just decide which laws apply to him and which
don't:
WASHINGTON - In a formal request to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales,
the American Civil Liberties Union today called for the immediate
appointment of an outside special counsel to investigate and prosecute
any criminal acts and violations of laws as a result of the National
Security Agency s surveillance of domestic targets as authorized by
President Bush.
"President Bush s disregard and disrespect for the Constitution are
evident, but in America, we are all bound by the rule of law," said
Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. "The president took an oath
to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United
States. He cannot use a claim of seeking to preserve our nation to
undermine the rules that serve as our foundation. The Attorney General,
who may have been involved with the formulation of this policy, must
appoint an outside special counsel to let justice be served."
In its letter, the ACLU called on the Attorney General to "appoint an
outside special counsel with the independence to investigate and
prosecute any and all criminal acts committed by any member of the
Executive Branch in the warrantless electronic surveillance of people
in the United States over the past four years by the NSA," noting
that, "such crimes are serious felonies and they need to be fully and
independently investigated."
An outside special counsel is the only way to ensure that all those who
authorized the warrantless electronic surveillance, or engaged in this
electronic interception or monitoring, are held accountable for
committing serious violations of the law. The Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 states that electronic surveillance is only
permissible following "a search warrant or court order." The statements
of the president and other officials make it clear that domestic
surveillance, without court approval or review, has occurred and will
continue to occur.
The ACLU also rejected the White House position that the "Authorization
for Use of Military Force" resolutions passed by Congress granted the
president the broad authority to circumvent the Fourth Amendment. As
then-White House Counsel, Attorney General Gonzales may have, along
with other legal advisors to the president, offered interpretations of
the law to encourage the president to authorize the NSA to engage in
domestic surveillance. His possible involvement only further
underscores the need for an independent investigation.
Additionally, the ACLU noted warrantless domestic surveillance was
unnecessary, as well as illegal. FISA already contains a provision to
permit the government to retroactively apply for a wiretap order in
cases of emergencies. The government had legal means at its disposal to
engage in the very surveillance it conducted through the NSA,
procedures that had some judicial oversight and review.
There have already been some calls from Congress that the legality of
the president s actions must be examined. Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA),
chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has committed to conduct
oversight hearings on the NSA's actions. However, no other
Congressional committees, particularly the Intelligence committees,
have committed to conducting inquiries or oversight hearings into the
matter.
The ACLU s call for an independent special counsel follows its
expedited records request on Tuesday, under the Freedom of Information
Act, to the NSA, the Department of Justice and the Central Intelligence
Agency for information about the NSA's program of warrantless spying on
Americans.
"The president cannot use the pursuit of national security as a carte
blanche to undermine the very freedoms that define America," said
Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative
Office. "This administration - like that of President Nixon - has
apparently secretly adopted a legal view of the Executive Branch s
power that is unbounded. A commitment to the Constitution and our laws
demand an independent investigation."
|
marcvh
|
|
response 23 of 404:
|
Dec 28 16:43 UTC 2005 |
klg is, as usual, using half-truths. It is true that the president can,
in some limited circumstances, order wiretaps without a warrant, and
that federal courts have interpreted the law this way (despite klg's
strange belief that they lack the authority to do so.) It also appears
to be true that many of the wiretaps ordered by the administration
exceeded these limited circumstances.
|
tod
|
|
response 24 of 404:
|
Dec 28 16:52 UTC 2005 |
Kwame Kilpatrick driving the Excursion seems kinda tame when you compare
it to 30 re-initiations of the wiretapping.
|
jep
|
|
response 25 of 404:
|
Dec 28 18:23 UTC 2005 |
Gosh it pains me to agree with anything said by the ACLU. But I pretty
much agree with what richard posted in resp:22.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 26 of 404:
|
Dec 28 18:49 UTC 2005 |
klg is ironing his brown shirt. lookout.
|
khamsun
|
|
response 27 of 404:
|
Dec 28 18:53 UTC 2005 |
Re #4:
> The country has been invaded.
??? the evening of Xmas, while americans were around their trees, evil
communists did cross over the Bering and (re-)took Alaska by surprise?
Anyways, while people chat so much about Emperor Dubya being this or that,
I still am very amazed by that NSA/wiretapping/... thing.
Down to the facts:
--> evildoers are aliens, out there somewhere
--> in the outside universe, out there, people do not speak english, excepted
Tony Blair, aussie John Howard, and few frozen Canadians, who are to be
considered as belonging more or less to the Empire (excepted funny french
speaking quebeckers) and then are friendly and nice to Dubya
--> so, the threat doesn't speak english
--> does NSA &co. employ enough linguists to catch what evildoers are talking
about?
The government is wiretapping noise in fact?
Say few young educated neo-islamists of french citizenship do travel to the
US, which is no problem, does the "intelligence" expect they will discuss
their plot in a transparent manner over their cell phones, in clear english?
If the guys are using suburban french slang together, very few linguists could
be able to understand, even native frenchies.Keep in mind that linguists
working at NSA must be american citizens and pass strong security clearance
inquiries...
cojones!
|
tod
|
|
response 28 of 404:
|
Dec 28 19:02 UTC 2005 |
Keep in mind that linguists
working at NSA must be american citizens and pass strong security clearance
inquiries...
That doesn't stop the NSA from passing scripts to other agencies for
translation.
|