The Bush Administration and Wiretaps

[Babar]

The Bush Administration and Wiretaps

[Babar]

Apparently some conservative pundit on a talk show claimed that the Clinton Administration did not seek warrants to investigate & catch Aldrich Ames.

Counter 1: The search of Ames' work and residence was done pursuant to warrants

Counter 2: Congress -- with Clinton's support -- amended FISA to require court orders for physical searches. The Clinton administration thereafter never argued that any "inherent authority" pre-empted the new warrant requirements for physical searches under FISA.


So why did the Bush Administration proceed with wiretaps without obtaining court orders?

SIMPLE!

Because the courts denied too many of his wiretap requests, so he just skipped them.

How's that for abuse of power?

[Rocky]

People have this argument all wrong. Its not about spying on enemies, or keeping america safe. Everyone is for that obviously and every expects the president to do that. But there are laws for a reason and theres a legal means for aquiring wiretaps, Bush tried those routes and was denied by leaders of Congress. After asking and being denied he went against Congress and the law and did it anyways. It doesnt matter who is president or who is in congress, if the president disagrees with congress and congresses passed the alw anyways, the President is required to follow it, he is not above the law. Clinton was not above the law, Nixon was not above the law, Bush is not either.

[link2661]

Pretty blatant disregard for following the laws, and he justifies it by saying he wants to keep America safer.  Great, I hope he can, but I also hope I can trust my President to follow the laws of the America he wants to protect.  It wasn't that he disregarded them, he tried to change the language of the law, was unsuccessful, and decided to just go around it.


Daschle letter

[Reflex]

No one is above the law.  That was established when we decided not to go with a Monarchy after the Revolution.

[Lord Raiden]

lol.  I wondered how long it would take before someone made a thread about this.  

I agree with the consensus that Bush overstepped his authority.  Man, the legal woes he'll be involved in after he's out of office.  

[mikevalla]

He's facing legal woes now, though, as well.  

For me personally, this wasn't about *why* the law was broken, it's that the law *was* broken.  I may be somewhat liberal-minded, but I'm not so loyal that Clinton, if he were to do the same, that I'd turn my cheek and ignore it.  I wonder if there's any actual factual information under that claim? (for Clinton, I mean; not Bush)

[Reflex]

Actually what I found most interesting is that Clinton was the first to make the argument that prisoners in US custody overseas do NOT have rights under either the Geneva conventions or the US Constitution.  It happened during the 90's with Hatians imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay.

I'll dig out the article later if anyone cares.

About the wiretapping, what the Republicans need to ask themselves is "How would we feel if this was President Hillary Clinton and all this came out?"  I think the answer to that sums up the issue nicely.

[Rocky]

If you were a smart republicn you would call him out on it and lead the investigation and then run for president in 2008.

[Lord Raiden]

Ya know rocky, we may not agree on much, but I really like your idea.  

Call that sucker out and fry him.  If I could only call him out on one thing, he'd totally fry for this one.  The others were plain stupidity.  This is a killing of rights.  That's WAY beyond wrong.

[mikevalla]

Originally posted by: Reflex

Actually what I found most interesting is that Clinton was the first to make the argument that prisoners in US custody overseas do NOT have rights under either the Geneva conventions or the US Constitution.  It happened during the 90's with Hatians imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay.

I dimly remember hearing about that.  Fairly amusing to hear of it, what with the recent torture scandals and debates.

[Reflex]

The Clinton administration lost their case in court, and then struck a deal with the group that had taken on the case to vacate the order(ie: erase it from the law books) in exchange for the situation to be settled.  Which is unfortunate since the vacated case would have explicitly made clear that what Bush is doing is illegal.  The thing is, its already been tried in court, it would take little to get it tried again and the arguments are already in place, Bush would have to come up with something Clinton's DOJ didn't come up with to win...

[ric]

Originally posted by: Rocky

If you were a smart republicn you would call him out on it and lead the investigation and then run for president in 2008.

If you were a smart Dem you would change your strategy...lol

What, me worried?...I don't think so


GALLUP: GOP UP, DEMS DOWN


Gallup has just released a poll on the favorable/unfavorable ratings of the political parties, and it appears to show two things: One, neither party is viewed all that favorably, and two, at least for the moment, Republicans are on the way up and Democrats are on the way down.

Gallup asked respondents to "please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the Republican party," and then asked the same question about Democrats. Forty-five percent of those polled say they have a favorable opinion of the GOP, while 48 percent say they have an unfavorable opinion, with seven percent having no opinion. The 45 percent favorable number is up five points from October, while the 48 percent unfavorable is down two points from the same time. The GOP favorable number is, however, down significantly from 56 percent favorable in February of this year.

For the Democrats, 46 percent say they have a favorable opinion of the party, while 45 percent have an unfavorable opinion, and nine percent have no opinion. The 46 percent favorable number is down six points from October, while the 45 percent unfavorable is up nine points from the same time. Also, the 46 percent favorable figure is down six points from the party's favorable rating in February.

In light of all the attention paid to the GOP's problems in the last few months, the Democrats' numbers are quite striking. Months of aggressive Democratic attacks on President Bush and the Republican party, on subjects ranging from the war in Iraq to the NSA wiretaps to the "culture of corruption," have led to...lower numbers for the Democratic party.

[Byron York]

[Rocky]

Ric seems to show his partisan hack side again. This thread is about breaking the law, not about political parties.  And you can use that same gallup poll to see Bush's unfavorable rating, because thats who we are talking about.  At least pretend to be objective or that you have some care for the law of the land.

[fall-apart]

It cracks me up that whenever Bush admits to screwing something up, his approval ratings go up... he should invade Iran based on faulty intelligence... that would put him up at 60%...

[ric]

Originally posted by: Rocky

Ric seems to show his partisan hack side again. This thread is about breaking the law, not about political parties.  And you can use that same gallup poll to see Bush's unfavorable rating, because thats who we are talking about.  At least pretend to be objective or that you have some care for the law of the land.

For the most part that was intended as an observation exercise and YOU FAILED

Originally posted by: fall-apart

It cracks me up that whenever Bush admits to screwing something up, his approval ratings go up... he should invade Iran based on faulty intelligence... that would put him up at 60%...

Great observation, fall-apart...the man is a political phenomenon. Things that go beyond the scope...its simply amazing!

[mikevalla]

Originally posted by: fall-apart

It cracks me up that whenever Bush admits to screwing something up, his approval ratings go up... he should invade Iran based on faulty intelligence... that would put him up at 60%...

Nah, pick up a random prostitute, and be found at a nearby hotel... That should perk his ratings up to 70%.

[Texmaster]

Under Section 4 of USSID 18, communications which are known to be to or from U.S. persons can't be intentionally intercepted without: (a) the approval of the FISA court...; OR (b) the approval of the Attorney General of the United States with respect to "communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside the United States...international communications" and other categories of communications including for the purpose of collecting "significant foreign intelligence information."

USSID 18 goes on to allow NSA to gather intelligence about a U.S. person outside the United States even without Attorney General sanction in emergencies "when securing the approval of the Attorney General is not practical because...the time required to obtain such approval would result in the loss of significant foreign intelligence and would cause substantial harm to national security."

So, unless you liberals have evidence he did not go to the AG to get permission, your theory is worthless.

But please, go ahead and keep on bashing Bush on this issue.  The second a terroirst is freed based on a misinterpretation of the law lead by liberals, Bush wins again.  We as a country of course loose but who cares about that when we can get Bush right?

And for those of you who are worshipping the FISA act, know that it was written in the late 70s and the best a court order can be in place is 24 hours according to CIA experts and more likely 72 hours.  In that time, terrorists have switched numbers and phones.   And of course it isn't the area that Bush has used as his defense of what he did.

This authorization clearly supported the war in Afghanistan. It also clearly justifies the use of force against Al Qaeda. In the Hamdi case, the Supreme Court added that the AUMF authorizes the detention of enemy combatants  -  notwithstanding 18 USC 4001(a), which requires an Act of Congress to support executive detention. In the Court's view, the AUMF stands as the relevant Act of Congress, authorizing detention. It is therefore reasonable to say that the AUMF, by authorizing the use of "all necessary and appropriate force," also authorizes surveillance of those associated with Al Qaeda or any other organizations that "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks" of September 11.

The reason is that surveillance, including wiretapping, is reasonably believed to be an incident of the use of force. It standardly occurs during war. If the President's wiretapping has been limited to those reasonably believed to be associated with Al Qaeda and its affiliates  -  as indeed he has said  -  then the Attorney General's argument is entirely plausible. (The AUMF would not permit wiretapping of those without any connection to nations, organizations, and persons associated with the September 11 attacks.)

The only way liberals would win this is if the President actually used this to spy on people not associated with terrorism or terrorists themselves like the AARP or Citizens Against Government Waste.

So, do any of you liberals have ANY proof whatsoever that Bush used these taps to spy on people not acciated with terrorism or actual terrorists themselves?

[mikevalla]

Originally posted by: Texmaster

The only way liberals would win this is if the President actually used this to spy on people not associated with terrorism or terrorists themselves like the AARP or Citizens Against Government Waste.

Actually, would it matter if they were tied to any groups, outside of terroistic groups?  The point of the matter is (withholding AG agreement, which is rather a dubious way to do such a thing, if you ask me), he may have broken the law.  I don't think most of us care why he did so, just that he did, and acted as if he did not.  If you'll also notice, some of us would just as quickly knock down any party member, one side or the other, if they had been in the same spot.

[link2661]

"So, do any of you liberals have ANY proof whatsoever that Bush used these taps to spy on people not acciated with terrorism or actual terrorists themselves?"

You're making an arguement where there is no arguement to be had.  Nothing new, of course.

I don't think anyone has made any claim about who he was spying on.  The dispute is over how he went about spying.  I hope he was spying on anyone associated with terrorism, but I also hope he followed the law in doing it.  It doesn't appear he followed the laws, unless you have ANY proof whatsoever he did.

[Rocky]

"And for those of you who are worshipping the FISA act, know that it was written in the late 70s and the best a court order can be in place is 24 hours according to CIA experts and more likely 72 hours. In that time, terrorists have switched numbers and phones. And of course it isn't the area that Bush has used as his defense of what he did. "

Texmaster, FISA rules are expo facto. It doesnt matter how fast they act, Bush could go to them now and get prior approval for everything he did.  But he hasnt.  Its nice you look up half your facts and not the other half.

[ric]

Originally posted by: link2661

It doesn't appear he followed the laws, unless you have ANY proof whatsoever he did.

Hey, man, what's this game called? Musical ****ing chairs??  Burden of proof is on the accuser

[Reflex]

BTW, its long been a Liberal belief that government is to be trusted in any aspect of our lives that they see fit.  That Big Brother is allowed to watch us, after all Big Brother is just looking out for the people.  Conservatives have long held that government needs to stay out of our lives, peroid.  I find it striking that the so-called conservatives are defending what is intristically a 'liberal' abuse of power, and the liberals are decrying supposed Conservatives utilizing the power that they themselves have long strived to have(and control).

Liberalism and Conservatism are attitudes, not party labels.  Bush is behaving as I would have expected Clinton to(and in fact Clinton did try for much of this and was stopped by the Republicans in Congress).  Yet the Conservatives are saying nothing about it, because he is 'their guy' and gives lip service to their causes.  He says one thing, but does another and the Republicans march in lockstep because at least he's on their team, right?

Bush and Rove are the worst thing to happen to the Republican party in its history at this point.  They have taken a party of ideals and perverted it into a party of power consolidation at any cost.  I miss the Republican party of the mid-90's, when they stood for something besides winning at all costs.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: link2661

"So, do any of you liberals have ANY proof whatsoever that Bush used these taps to spy on people not acciated with terrorism or actual terrorists themselves?"



You're making an arguement where there is no arguement to be had.  Nothing new, of course.

Always nice to see you run away from the arguement presented.   Nothing new of course.

I don't think anyone has made any claim about who he was spying on.  The dispute is over how he went about spying.  I hope he was spying on anyone associated with terrorism, but I also hope he followed the law in doing it.  It doesn't appear he followed the laws, unless you have ANY proof whatsoever he did.

I just gave you the law in nice shiney quotes.  Try reading it and show us exactly where he broke that law.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Rocky

"And for those of you who are worshipping the FISA act, know that it was written in the late 70s and the best a court order can be in place is 24 hours according to CIA experts and more likely 72 hours. In that time, terrorists have switched numbers and phones. And of course it isn't the area that Bush has used as his defense of what he did. "



Texmaster, FISA rules are expo facto. It doesnt matter how fast they act, Bush could go to them now and get prior approval for everything he did.  But he hasnt.  Its nice you look up half your facts and not the other half.

Thats right Rocky.   Ignore the arguement I made.   Ignore the LAW I quoted.  Just focuse on the one quote you think you can attack.

Try commenting on what the law actually says then what you want it to say.   The FISA act is NOT the only law.