’)I don’t agree with a lot of the stuff that says Bush is a bad president simply because he’s stupid. Because it’s clear that while his intellectual scope is significantly limited, Bush is an astute politician tha understands how to use his position to get what he wants.
But does he realize that he isn’t the King of America?
We have three equal branches of government for a reason. The president doesn’t just get to decide on a whim that he can spy on American citizens without a warrant and use as his justification the nonsense that he felt it was legal. That ain’t how it works. Richard Nixon tried this trick before too, making the determination that as president he wasn’t subject to the laws of the land, that because he resided at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. he was given special powers that excused him from our system of laws.
Nixon:”When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
He was wrong.
J Edgar Hoover spied on people he did not like ( JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King, and many others). That was wrong. I think everyone agrees. The CIA will continue spying on people and intercepting phone calls, especially if it is terrorist related. Even if it is against the law. If it is related to national security I support it. Sometimes there just is not enough time to do everything legally.
Oliver insinuating somebody else is stupid?
Now that’s rich.
The thing is: getting a WARRANT is NOT DIFFICULT. If you can’t get a warrant, you can’t justify the tap. It’s that simple.
So far the righties have brought up internment and the Barrett report. Anyone want to actually address the charges here in the present? Anyone want to tell us which amendment in the Bill of Rights you would forgo in the name national security? Anyone?
Call your Senator today and ask him to release the Barrett Report.
So I guess now if you believe we live by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights you’re anti-American and support the terrorists. We’ve surely gone down the rabbit hole…… My head hurts……
“The Democrats did it!” is not a Constitutional argument. I promise.
Um Hedley, I think the left has led the charge against the internment policy of FDR and the idea of racial profilingin general. Prominent figures on the Right, on the other hand, have recently revived internment as a great idea. Do I need to tell you who?
So tell us Hedley, which amendments would you be willing to forgo if the President said it was necessary for national security?
And we know the Democrats would never forego the Constitution for a little national security, right? Anyone here Japanese-American?
Or were you joking? I’m starting the think you were joking. I mean, you couldn’t possibly be serious. Right?
“Even if it is against the law. If it is related to national security I support it.”
So let me ask you Southpaw, how much of the Bill of Rights are you willing to forgo in the name of national security? Could suggest a few of the specific amendments you could live without in the name of national security? The 1st? The 2nd? The 4th? The 6th? Maybe the 10th?
I’m curious. Read through The Bill of Rights and tell us which specific rights you yourself would be willing to forgo as an American citizen if the President said it was for national security reasons.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm
frameone, what I would be willing to forego in the name of national security would depend on what I had to hide. I imagine that those with ties to Al Queda would be most upset to learn that their communications were subject to being tapped by the government. Quite frankly, I hope the gov’t is listening to those conversations. We know they weren’t before.
Easy. The 10th Amendment. We forgo it for any other piddling reason, why not national security as well?
Are we done here?
I imagine that those with ties to Al Queda would be most upset to learn that their communications were subject to being tapped by the government. Quite frankly, I hope the gov t is listening to those conversations. We know they weren t before.
Here’s your typical false wingnut dichotomy: either we let the president run roughshod over the constitution or it will be impossible to surveille any suspected al qaeda.
You’ve got suspicions that x has ties to al qaeda? Take your evidence to a judge and get a warrant. Otherwise you’re farting in the face of the law, pissing on the bill of rights, shitting on the separation of powers, and fucking up any future prosecutions.
Are we done here?
I know you wish we were, but no, we’re not. Not by a long shot.
If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn’t have a problem with the government setting up cameras in your bedroom. “But that’s different.”
Is it?
“Sounds like this is all on the up and up& .”
No, it isn’t. The law says you have to get a warrant from an actual judge. Not an opinion from the justice department, the white house counsel, or the chief law enforcement officer. A judge. It doesn’t get much clearer than that.
Let’s turn this around a bit, shall we. Suppose it’s 1997 and President Clinton has identified internal anti-Government, pro-gun militias as the greatest threat to American national security. After all, militiamen carried the greatest terrorist attack in US history only 2 years earlier and the militia movement is known to receive support from gun-owners and “gun rights” supporters all over the country. Clinton decides that he is going to have the NSA secretly wiretap NRA members and people known to express support for the militia movement. Clinton decides not to seek judge’s warrants for these wiretaps because he believes Presidents going back to the Ford Administration have surrendered too much executive authority. After all, the OKC attack was an act of war carried out by domestic insurgents with a distinct political agenda, and the President is the Commander-in-Chief, including in cases like Abraham Lincoln faced when the greatest threats to national security came from within. When caught in the act by the Washington Times – which sat on the story before the 1996 election – Clinton assails his critics by saying that he has an obligation to prevent another Oklahoma City from ever occurring, and so long as the militant anti-government militia movement still threatens America, he is going to use anything in his power to stop it.
So, would you support Clinton in such a scenario? Or do you think he was guilty of an impeachable abuse of power? And if he was guilty of an impeachable abuse of power, how is Bush not guilty of the same?
So what we have here is the wingnuts saying “as long as the pResident says it’s for national security, it’s ok to rape the constitution”
Very predictable. And very sad. They claim to be bringing freedom to Iraq, at the same time they are removing it here.
It isn’t like bush is just looking in on personal enemies, like say, a white house travel office he doesn’t like…
“He said the program is reviewed every 45 days, using fresh threat assessments, legal reviews by the Justice Department, White House counsel and others, and information from previous activities under the program.”
So, we have the chief law enforcement officer for the country reviewing these taps, and therefore approving them….sounds to me like it is legal. Oh and dugger quoted a US Code that gave permission to listen in on signal intel coming in and going out of the US.
Sounds like this is all on the up and up….
You rightwing whackos keep justifying this on National Securitry grounds; Al Qaeda in particular. Yet, we already have FISA courts to issue rapid and even retroactive warrants for just this purpose. In fact, I think the FISA courts have only ever denied one warrant request. So national security can’t legitimately be the motivation.
The Bushies must be after something beyond what you could get with a FISA warrant.
So can a single righty who supoports this gross violation of the United States Constitution explain exactly why Bush needs these warrantless searches above and beyond what can be done through a FISA warrant?
Because every rationale you’ve given so far does not justify going around the FISA courts.
When the ACLU goes after Bush what will you say, Elrod, which side will you be on?
Ya let’s turn this around a bit. Let’s turn this around and talk abut FDR and Clinton and completely ignore the breach going on now. Makes perfect sense.
And guess what Elrod, the ACLU was right there allied with the NRA fighting the Clinton administration’s attempts to expand the use of federal wiretaps.
One anomalous result of the increased federal surveillance has been the teaming up of the ACLU and the NRA to curtail federal wiretapping. According to ACLU Associate Director Barry Steinhardt, “Wiretapping is almost never used to investigate bombings, arson or firearms violations. Indeed the last time a wiretap was requested by a law enforcement agency to investigate one of these crimes was seven years ago in 1988. Ironically, while the number of wiretaps has been increasing, they have become even less useful as a law enforcement tool. Again, according to the government’s own figures, the proportion of incriminating conversations snared by a wiretap has been steadily dropping over the last two decades from 50% in the early 1970’s, all the way down to 17% in 1994. In other words, the government concedes that 83% – five out of every 6 – of the conversations it has intercepted in recent years were totally innocent.”
In addition, the ACLU fought the Clinton Administration in 1994 over provisions in the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act that required the country’s telephone companies to include in their systems special access for government wiretaps as they develop new digital phone systems.
http://www.virtualrecordings.com/bigbrother.htm
Bush said 9-11 changed all the rules. We have had to give up lots of our freedoms since then that I don’t like. But, I see nothing wrong with intecepting communication covertly (phone calls or e-mail) between possible terrorists and citizens of this country. Certain key words in an e-mail can trigger an investigation. And possibly prevent another attack on this country.
I don’t care what the righties say, there are explicit, clear U.S. Laws that prohibit this EXACT type of action.
In the case provided by elrod, it’s still illegal.
This nation is first and foremost a nation lf laws. We are not, as some people purport, a nation of “freedom and democracy.” We are neither of those things and I would argue that we never truly have been. We are a republic, and a representiative one at that and moreover, this country has never been nearly as free as many of its counterparts throughout the world. Today marks one more stage upon which we have failed to even meet the bar that has been set with that term, let alone cross the hurdle with any efficiency.
There is not doubt in my mind that President Bush must be impeached for this. I am also exceedingly curious as to exactly who was doing the so-called oversight on this law and who in the Justice Department gave the thumbs up repeatedly. Each of these people needs to be removed from their posts if they have not already departed (i.e., Ashcroft).
Today is a dark day in the American experiment. The laws regarding domestic spying were last updated when we had to begin proceedings on a lying Republican president who broke the law for what he believed was the greater good of the country – his continued “leadership.” I sincerely hope that Bush suffers a similar fate to Nixon. This is a clear abuse of power. It is illegal and it is simply too far.
From the New York Times story:
Hmm… Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary. Yup, all three involved.
But we can’t let reality interfere with Oliver’s high dudgeon, now, can we?
J.
Rule of law says that a warrant must be obtained. Why don’t you wingnuts respect the rule of law?
“After you decided to publish an e-mail of mine without my permission, I have achieved the impossible: I think even less of you than I thought possible.”
Doesn’t this constitute conversing? Idiot.
Jay –
Bush telling some congressional leaders and a judge doesn’t make what was done legal. Not by a long shot. It just means more people knew the law was being broken and looked the other way. Also from the article:
“Some officials familiar with it say they consider warrantless eavesdropping inside the United States to be unlawful and possibly unconstitutional, amounting to an improper search. One government official involved in the operation said he privately complained to a Congressional official about his doubts about the program’s legality. But nothing came of his inquiry. “People just looked the other way because they didn’t want to know what was going on,” he said
Pedro, it is illegal. You wrote: “A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.” You’ve got it backwards. A FISA warrant is *always* required when surveilling U.S. citizens except for 1) speaking on lines owned by a foreign power, and 2) if it’s extremely time sensitive. Do your homework next time, Pedro.
IT IS ILLEGAL.
Hedley,
I think we found another one dumber than you — Jay Tea thinks the US Constitution is satisfied by telling a few friendly Congress people what your up to and telling a friendly Judge what your generally going about. No specific review necessary then, he stupidly suggests.
But wait — then there’s Pedro Mellonballer who thinks if you don’t need a FISA warrant you don’t need a warrant at all. He’s. of course. got it backwards. A FISA warrant is an exception to the general warrant requirements. That is, if you don’t qualify for a FISA warrant, you need to go to the regular criminal courts to obtain a warrant — you don’t instead get to do a warrantless search.
Can one of you Righties please address the real question — Why did Bush need to go around the FISA system at all?
“I think even less of you than I thought possible.”
Says someone who trolls liberal message boards.
frame, as I said before, I have no interest in conversing with you whatsoever. After you decided to publish an e-mail of mine without my permission, I have achieved the impossible: I think even less of you than I thought possible.
J.
Hey factcheck, will you tell Jay that he’s not supposed to be speaking to me anymore?
“Just a funny coincidence it comes out the day after the Iraqi elections conclude, and JUST in time to promote a book by a New York Times reporter& ”
Jay obviously missed the bit where the NY Times held the story for over a year at the request of the administration. I wonder what was going on around this time just over a year ago? Oh ya right, a presidential election. What a coincidence.
So, MacSwain, enlighten me: just what law was violated? From what I’ve heard, it was all done legally.
Just a funny coincidence it comes out the day after the Iraqi elections conclude, and JUST in time to promote a book by a New York Times reporter…
J.
Ok, lets stop the flat out, bald-face lying going on here shall we?
This.is.not.illegal
The Foreign Intelligence Security Act permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens 50 USC 1801, et seq. A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.
Ok? You can argue that the law is unconstitutional if you like.
Factcheck, try to at least approximate living up to your screen name…the rule of law says this is legal.
Bush said the program was narrowly designed and used “consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution.” He said it is used only to intercept the international communications of people inside the United States who have been determined to have “a clear link” to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations.
and frameone’s first sentence…
“If the target is a U.S. person, which includes permanent resident aliens and associations and corporations substantially composed of U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens, 50 U.S.C.A. § 1801(i), there must be probable cause to believe that the U.S. person s activities may or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States.” and ”
knowingly engages in activities in preparation for sabotage or international terrorism on behalf of a foreign power)” See the last line of my first paragraph? “People who have been determined to have a “clear link” to al Qaida….”
Notice no mention of “citizen” or “green card holder”, just “people” by the President.
Ergo, all legal under current law.
People, words have meaning. Frameone can cut and paste with the best of them, but that doesn’t mean he or any of you other leftists here have any better understanding of the law or the situation.
More for Pedro:
“If the target is a “U.S. person,” which includes permanent resident aliens and associations and corporations substantially composed of U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens, 50 U.S.C.A. § 1801(i), there must be probable cause to believe that the U.S. person’s activities “may” or “are about to” involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States. § 1801(b)(2)(A),(B); see also § 1801(b)(2)(C) (knowingly engages in activities in preparation for sabotage or “international terrorism” on behalf of a foreign power); § 1801(b)(2)(D) (knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power).
A “United States person” may not be determined to be an agent of a foreign power “solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” 50 U.S.C. § 1805(a)(3)(A).
…
On the basis of the application, a FISC judge must find probable cause that the target is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power, and that the facilities where the surveillance is directed are or will be used by the target.
For U.S. persons, the FISC judge must find probable cause that one of four conditions has been met: (1) the target knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of a foreign power which “may involve” a criminal law violation; (2) the target knowingly engages in other secret intelligence activities on behalf of a foreign power pursuant to the direction of an intelligence network and his activities involve or are about to involve criminal violations; (3) the target knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism or is preparing for such activities; or (4) the target knowingly aids or abets another who acts in one of the above ways.”
…
In general, the Justice Department may engage in electronic surveillance to collect FII without a court order for periods up to one year. 50 U.S.C. § 1802. There must be no “substantial likelihood” that the intercepted communications include those to which a U.S. person is a party. § 1802(a)(1)(B).”
http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html
Hedley and Jay Tea
Well how about if the bogeyman was holding a big rock over the country and the only way the president could save us was to kill a baby he’d have to do it right? I imagine that would be really hard work!
Hedley said this: “What I would be willing to forego in the name of national security would depend on what I had to hide.”
What Hedley and others of the “If you don’t have anything to hide don’t worry” school fail to understand is that they aren’t the ones who determine if they’re doing anything wrong. This secret order was intended to make sure that NSA agents and NSA agents alone determined who had something to hide or not before they proceeded to wipe away a person’s civil liberties. That’s a frightening power to place unchecked in the hands of federal agents.
Dr. Pedro, Calling Dr. Pedro …
“The aim of the program was to rapidly monitor the phone calls and other communications of people in the United States believed to have contact with suspected associates of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups overseas, according to two former senior administration officials. Authorities, including a former NSA director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, were worried that vital information could be lost in the time it took to secure a warrant from a special surveillance court, sources said.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html
The question is who made the determination that the people to be spied on were enemy agents or enemy powers. In every case involving a US citizen on US soil probable cause would have to be shown to FISA judge who would determine if an intercept was appropriate. Bush’s order was intended to circumvent just that check on the power of the NSA. What’s so fucked up is that Bush doesn’t have the authority to rescind this check. But he did it anyway in total violation of the law.
Jay Tea,
There’s a little law known as the United States Constitution. Maybe you’ve heard of it. It contains a lil iem known as the Fourth Amendment.
Now answer my question … why did Bush need to avoid even the extremely search-friendly requirements of the FISA laws?
My counterfactual was meant to point out the hypocrisy of right-wingers who excuse warrant-less spying by referencing points they brought up in the 1990s, not to excuse the spying itself. They are both illegal. That’s the point.
“He said…”
Well in that case…
I am not a crook.
This is like when the sports media interviews a free agent in the offseason about how prepared he is going to be for the next season.
Why listen to a suspect?
DrPedro, we have how many troops in Iraq because in part Bush believed Saddam Hussein was in league with Al Qaeda, which of course was simply not true. Now you want to argue that Bush is the best judge of who is an Al Qaeda agent? Right. Bush has no right to do this. There was a specific avenue set up by congress for exactly the kind of activity Bush wanted monitored and he didn’t use it. There is no oversight by anyone, and that doesn’t scare you. Secret prisons, rendition, torture, warrantless searches, holding prisoners without legal counsel or again judicial oversight, invading foreign countries on bogus intelligence etc etc etc. What the hell country are we talking about again?
There s a little law known as the United States Constitution.
The US Constitution is not a ‘law’ dummy.
And with all the faux outrage I’ve seen expressed here, I’ve yet to see anybody show how this was illegal.
I wonder what was going on around this time just over a year ago? Oh ya right, a presidential election. What a coincidence.
You’re right. And somebody truly broke the law by leaking this classified information, truly critical to our national security, just around the time of a Presidential election. You’re right. That’s an amazing coincidence.
This the second time in the last few months that sensitive classified information, critical to our national security has been leaked to the media and the left has done nothing except shriek like little girls over the information contained within those leaks. They’re not concerned about the illegal leaks themselves yet pulled their hair out screaming about Valerie Plame, an agent who drove to Langley every day to work in an office. It’s hard to fathom such lunacy.
There’s something from another article that should be noted:
Now, let’s suppose for a moment that one of these intercepted calls or emails prevented some sort of terrorist attack on US soil. A person who is not a US citizen, is caught communicating and conspiring with another person outside of the United States has their phone call overheard by some tech at the NSA. That information is used to start the ball rolling that thwarts a terrorist attack.
Just consider that. And think about the fact (again) that nobody here has show how this action by the President was illegal beyond screaming it was illegal.
You people really are not that bright…
Or, you are deliberately being obtuse and ignorant because you can’t possibly believe tha your country and your President might possibly be doing something like this in good faith.
Frameone, the people making the decision about who to monitor were the intel types as well as the Justice Department and WH lawyers and I stated clearly above. Your latest cut and past job again does not state that US citizens or green card holders were the people being surveiled.
Mr Pidge, Bush wasn’t the one who decided that Saddam was a threat, the ENTIRE world community did. I am getting tired of repeating myself….France, Germany, Russia, Turkey, Israel, Canada etc etc all thought Saddam had weapons. More importantly, he had a positive duty to PROVE he did not have them per the UN resolution. Further, he continued to shoot at coalition forces in violation of a cease fire.
He had oversight, the Justice department. Bleeding hearts like yourself are constantly squawking about our police state and the Constitution. Here is a clue: The Constitution applies to US Citizens and to a lesser extent, denizens of this country. Not to turban-wrapped suicide bombers half a world away. On the WORST day in an american run “secret prison” these people are treated better than the BEST day in one of Saddams. I don’t like it, but you know, the world is an ugly place.
Where was all of your angst when the Clinton’s were actually using our intelligence assets to spy on actual american citizens cause they wanted them out of the White House?
Freaking leftists care more about the incorrectly perceived “rights” of some foreign fighter trying to kill his fellow citizens, that to the trampled rights of one of his own countrymen
While my sourced post awaits moderation, the fact is that this power has rested with the Justice Department since 2002 thanks to the FISA appeals court who found that such surveillance for national security purposes does not violate the Constitution.
Now, if you want to argue that the appeals court was wrong, that is a fair argument. If you want to argue if such power is going to exist it is best left with the Justice Dept. and not the NSA, that, too, is a fair argument. However, if you want to argue that this is illegal, well, that would not appear to be the case.
“A person who is not a US citizen, is caught communicating and conspiring with another person outside of the United States has their phone call overheard by some tech at the NSA.”
Jay C, the NSA was using this secret order to spy on US citizens in the United States without having to go through a judge first. That’s why it’s illegal.
I take by the utter idiocy of Dr Pedro’s and Jay C’s post that Bush is in big trouble. Sometimes the left-wing of the blogosphere gets up in arms over nothing and it’s usually pretty apparent by the strength of conservative counter-arguments. But when all the right says is “it’s not illegal” after being shown obvious evidence that, at least, there is a strong possibility that a law was broken then it’s obvious that the Right is wrong. And when the Right starts spewing neo-fascist garbage about it being more problematic that somebody leaked to the public the fact that the government was violating the Constitution then you really know the Right is nervous. Hopefully Senator Specter will treat this as seriously as it deserves to be treated; his initial comments are encouraging. Maybe there weren’t laws broken, but it looks very possible that laws were broken. I look forward to Sen. Specter getting to the bottom of this.
“Frameone, the people making the decision about who to monitor were the intel types as well as the Justice Department and WH lawyers and I stated clearly above. Your latest cut and past job again does not state that US citizens or green card holders were the people being surveiled.”
How fucking stupid are you Dr? From the FIRST PARAGRAPH of the article I linked to:
“President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night.”
The NSA was spying in US citizens. They can’t do that without a judge’s approval no matter how many intel types, WH lawyers, cabinet members, Congressmen, justice department officials, NSA officers, governors, mayors, patent clerks, priests, rabbis or whoever else knew about it, approved of it or sign off on it. Unless a judge finds probable cause, an intercept on a US citizen is illegal.
Considering that the Justice Dept. was granted the power to obtain wiretaps on U.S. citizens from the FISA appeals court in 2002, when used for intelligence gathering rather than prosecution, the fact that the NSA is doing it, coupled with section 1805(f)’s allowance for the Attorney General to obtain wiretaps without warrants in certain emergent situations, means it is likely not illegal.
Besides, as frameone already told us:
“ The aim of the program was to rapidly monitor the phone calls and other communications of people in the United States believed to have contact with suspected associates of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups overseas, according to two former senior administration officials. Authorities, including a former NSA director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, were worried that vital information could be lost in the time it took to secure a warrant from a special surveillance court, sources said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html“ [my bold]
Heck, even a drunk Macswain should be able to figure this out.
Hedley attempts to conflate FISA warrants with AWOL George’s EO.
The FISA courts were established in the late 1970s specifically for the purpose of quickly obtaining warrants in cases involving national security. And the fact is FISA warrants can be retroactive–that is, surveillance can be immediately initiated without a warrant, so long as the application for a warrant is made within 72 hours.
Hedley attempts to argue that AWOL Bush’s EO is the same as FISA. It is not. AWOL Bush’s EO doesn’t require even the minimal oversight of FISA.
It means no warrant and no oversight.
Now, given the fact this illegitimate and criminal administration has demonstrated they have no hesitation in disclosing a CIA agent’s classified status for he purposes of punishing a critic–it’s clear they’d use illegal and unconstitutional activities for purposes unrelated to national security.
Oh, and for those of you who think the president’s action is obviously legal, take it up with that terrorist-lovin pinko Bob “Cool Whip” Barr (Speaking on CNN 12/16):
The fact of the matter is the law prohibits specifically prohibits what apparently was done in this case, and for a member of Congress to say, oh, that doesn t matter, I m proud that the president violated the law is absolutely astounding, Wolf.
drpedro: Or, you are deliberately being obtuse and ignorant because you can t possibly believe tha your country and your President might possibly be doing something like this in good faith.
Oh, so if he didn’t think he was breaking the law, he wasn’t breaking the law? I’ll have to remember that one. “Please, your honor, when I took that candy bar, I didn’t believe that taking a candy bar without paying was a crime. I acted in good faith that what I was doing was legal.” “Good point, case dismissed!” And you accuse us of being obtuse!
The most disturbing thing about this to me is Bush’s response: not even a hint of an acknowledgment that there might be some legitimate concern about this practice.
Instead it’s “warrants? Idon’t need no stinkin’ warrants. I didn’t do anything wrong and whoever told you what I was doing is a traitor”
I agree with Oliver: it’s not that W is dumb. There have been plenty of decent presidents who weren’t einsteins. But dumbfuckitude combined with arrogance, pig-headedness, vindictiveness and a legacy yalie’s sense of entitlement and privilege is a lethal combination.
Ryland says….
“Oh, so if he didn t think he was breaking the law, he wasn t breaking the law?”
Who enforces the laws of this country?
The Justice Department.
Who was reviewing this whole set up from the get-go?
The Justice Department.
’nuff said on that subject.
And that F’ing hypocrite Jadegold
“Now, given the fact this illegitimate and criminal administration has demonstrated they have no hesitation in disclosing a CIA agent s classified status for he purposes of punishing a critic it s clear they d use illegal and unconstitutional activities for purposes unrelated to national security.”
Your panties are all in a twist because they outed some soccer mom who was covert in the previous decade, but currently commutes to a small cubicle at Langley on a daily basis, not exactly the nightmare of every CIA agent, but none the less, very patriotic.
Now someone leaks an ACTIVE, ONGOING ANTI-TERRORISM PROGRAM that is code-word and above classified…so I am SURE you will be jumping up and down screaming for the head of THAT leaker, right?
Yea, I thought not….
Dr. Pedro proves once again that whatever mental wiring it is that endows someone with the ability to perform the miracle of modern brain surgery totally precludes him/her from having a rational thought on any other issue.
Yes, the justice department enforces the laws, but they are an arm of the executive. They do not provide sufficient oversight of the executive in our system of checks and balances.
I am SURE you will be jumping up and down screaming for the head of THAT leaker, right?
Leaking is bad, but that doesn’t mean that what a leaker leaks is good.
In my opinion this leak should be investigated and the leaker prosecuted. If s/he is convicted s/he can at least bring up the mitigating argument that s/he was trying to expose gross government wrongdoing. Scooter Libby won’t be able to make that argument.
But back when we were talking about Libby, the wingnuts here were telling us that the leak didn’t matter since there was no real harm done that anyone could prove. Can we apply the same standard to this leak?
No one was talking about WMDs Pedro, I was talking about the bogus claims of Al Qaeda-Saddam links. Next.
Why should we put our faith in the good intentions of this president or any other. What you have is a president and his chosen people deciding to put warrantless searches in place with no oversight or accountability. Say this president’s intentions are good (which I don’t), it still sets a dangerous precedent for the next president and the president after that who may not be honest. You willing to allow Hillary Clinton this power and trust to her intentions?
And for Jay C. thank god there is someone willing to leak this crap. These are questions that go to the fundamental nature of our government. This isn’t someone leaking out a secret agent’s identity for political purposes (which you excuse), but someone calling attention to severe abuse of power. I could see an argument if they went through channels and were denied warrants that intel people said were vital and the president overriding the court – maybe; but to just skip the process entirely is just gross and arrogant misconduct.
Who watches the watchers?
Jay C,
Warrantless wiretaps violate the Fourth Amendment, you dumb bitch.
Even the vast majority of rightwing whackjob jurists like Bork recognize that. They’ve even acknowledged that the Fourth by finding unenumerated rights therein specifically involving surveilence issues; it’s what guys like Roberts are referring to when the acknowledge the existence of a Right to Privacy in the US Constitution.
So unless your going to say that all nine justices of the US Supreme Court are wrong about the Fourth and that even those as far out to the right like Bork are wrong, you can’t claim Bush’s action doesn’t violate the Constitution.
Hedgiver,
Emergency situations under FISA still require an application for a warrant as soon as practicable but no more than 72 hours after the AG’s authorization (maybe you ought to read section 1805 before commenting on it).
So searches that were completely warrantless were not legal under section 1805 as you falsely claim.
BUT, and most importantly, the pemissive standard provided under section 1805 again begs the question — why weren’t the FISA procedures used? An emergency situations argument fails because FISA specifically provides for that.
Why did Bush authorize warrantless searches outside of FISA?
drpedro: Who enforces the laws of this country? The Justice Department.
The responsibility of enforcing the laws does not relieve them of the responsibility of following the laws. The Justice Department is not above the law, and neither is the president. Come on, do you seriously believe that the executive branch of government can just arbitrarily decide which laws they have to follow? If that were the case, why do we even have laws, or a Constitution for that matter?
The NSA are bound to obey the law of the land. The Justice Department are are bound to obey the law of the land. The president is bound to obey the law of the land. They are bound to obey the law, just as you and I are bound. The law of the land states that NSA have to obtain a warrant to use a wiretap. Therefore, NSA have broken the law, and so has the president for authorizing it, and so have the Justice Department for signing off on it.
It just boggles my mind that people don’t get this.
My gravatar has never been more appropriate. GO, LEMMINGS, GO!
Condi Rice, Secretary of (2nd Rate Integrity) State responded
to the insistent questions of Tim Russert on the legal basis for what is probably illegal spying by stating that “I am not a lawyer’ and (sputter, stammer) “This is a very different war”.
It appears that Frist and Hastert both knew of this legal ‘end run’ and republicans as well as democrats are furious.
All this excuse-making for Bush and Henchmen (ad infinitum on this post and elsewhere-especially YOU Dr. Scholl) is a testament to the fact that conservatives have no place in the protection of the Consitution. FISA was clearly violated, and it is a no-brainer to conclude the LAW was violated.
Someone recently said “The only way to impeach Bush is to arrange for a White House Blow Job for the Preznit”. Any volunteers?
Here’s a fascinating link explaining not only why this secret order was illegal but also how the right-wing has rallied around a misquotation of the law to argue otherwise:
via Atrios:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/purposely-misquoting-fisa-to-defend.html
Taking the liberty to copy a couple of the graphs from above link.
Within the link are several interesting references which may be of interest to those who have not permanently grafted themselves to the tribe of plausible denialists.
A blogger named Al Maviva wrote a staggeringly dishonest post which he said was based upon what he called a “little legal research” concerning FISA. He then proceeded to deliberately mis-quote the statute in order to reach the patently false conclusion that “the President probably does have the power to order NSA to monitor suspects, without a warrant, in terrorism cases.”
This post was then cited and linked to, in some cases with approval, by several large conservative bloggers, and thereafter wormed its way up to the conservative motherload of Internet traffic, Instapundit, who approvingly linked to it. I have no doubt that — thanks to law professor Instapundit and these others Administration defenders — tens of thousands of people (at least) have now read this “legal analysis” defending the legality of the Administration s conduct which is based on a glaringly unethical distortion of the language of FISA.
It’s amazing to me how easily Americans are willing to give up their hard-won rights and freedoms. Would Bush apologists be as understanding if these actions had been taken by a Democratic president? Would you then be willing to accept that:
“Even if it is against the law. If it is related to national security I support it.
Sounds like a police state to me.
BTW;
Much criticism (deserved) has been levied on NYT for not properly vetting stories before going to print. How about the ‘responsible truth-tellers’ of the conservative blogosphere?
“ nuff said on that subject.”
No it isn’t Pedro. As Ryland points out the Justice Department is not above the law and neither is the president. There are reasons why a judge has to find probable cause before the NSA can wiretap an American, it’s part of the checks and balances that form the basis for our system of government. Neither the attorney general nor the president can simply make up the law as they go along or ignore the laws they don’t like. Neither can the attorney approve the president’s violation of the law. Just because some White House counsel wrote a brief saying the president has broad powers to violate the privacy of American citizens doesn’t mean the president actually has those powers. You are simply an apologist for unconstitutional behavior.
Look, the Justice department is supposed to be protecting the Constitutional rights of americans. They will make functional decisions regarding what they believe is constitutional. Now, if someone disagrees, then eventually the SOTUS will get a chance to review it.
If this is so obviously illegal, why did the Justice Department agree to proceed?
You have all made the leap that this is cut and dried…it isn’t. I held up my hand and agreed to “support and defend the constitution of the United States” quite a few times over the last years, I am not anxious to see it trampled. By the same token, I think the line needs to be walked upon in this day and age.
I am not willing to give up my security or my civil rights, but I am willing to let my elected government with the input of the Judiciary and Congress walk the fine line for me.
Frame, what evidence do you have that any of this was applied to a US citizen?
Jay –
From the NY Times:
“Mr. Bush’s executive order allowing some warrantless eavesdropping on those inside the United States – including American citizens, permanent legal residents, tourists and other foreigners – is based on classified legal opinions that assert that the president has broad powers to order such searches, derived in part from the September 2001 Congressional resolution authorizing him to wage war on Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, according to the officials familiar with the N.S.A. operation.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?pagewanted=2&en=654a454e2d208a6b&ei=5065&ex=1135400400&adxnnl=0&partner=MYWAY&adxnnlx=1134739513-Obc9tUfV7gxbxI+OkySwyg
“I am willing to let my elected government with the input of the Judiciary and Congress walk the fine line for me.”
Then let them abide by the rules our legislators pass. The law is more important than any politician or bureaucrat.
How do I know US citizens were spied on? That’s what the whole story is about:
“President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html
Dr., the Attorney General is not the perosn who has final say in this matter: only a FISC judge can issue a warrant for the FSA to wiretap an American citizen. Again, it;s called checks and balances. You say that eventually the SCOTUS will get to review its decisions, but circumventing the authority of the judicial branch was exaclty what Bush’s secret decree was designed to do. A FISA court has to find probable cause before the NSA can spy on an American citizen. You would gladly hand that that determination over to the NSA itself without any check on its decision making. That’s an abdication of your civil rights and it’s against the law. There is also no fine line to walk here. The Attorney General can approve a wiretap without a warrant but has to seek a warrant from FISC within 72 hours of the initial decision. There is then, no excuse for not seeking a warrant even in cases when “time is of the essence.” And yet this administration apparently still said, “Screw it, we don’t need no stinking warrants.” These are the people you would trust with your civil liberties? You are far more trusting of power than I.
Legal experts weigh in:
“James Bamford, author of two books on the NSA, said the program could be problematic because it bypasses a special court set up by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to authorize eavesdropping on suspected terrorists.
“I didn’t hear him specify any legal right, except his right as president, which in a democracy doesn’t make much sense,” Bamford said in an interview. “Today, what Bush said is he went around the law, which is a violation of the law which is illegal.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051217/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_13;_ylt=Aqm3PjITrZu4axZPSAnIQz7B4FkB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
“but circumventing the authority of the judicial branch was exaclty what Bush s secret decree was designed to do”
What circumventing? We know for a fact that this was vetted by both the justice department and Congress. When the whole story arrives, which it unfortunately will, we may also find some federal judge in there as well.
Then will you be ok with it?
And remember, the president has rights to make laws as well, Presidential Findings and Executive Orders.
What remains amazing to me is that in your hatred of Bush and Republicans, you are willing to always assume the worst motives to the Executive branch, while at the same time criticizing them for their lack of prowess when it comes to intelligence gathering.
When the next airplane hits, or bomb goes off, our leftist countrymen will then be in a fit about “why we didn’t know more…..”
“When the next airplane hits, or bomb goes off, our leftist countrymen will then be in a fit about why we didn t know more& ..
Nice. What a joke. Again, when the law states that only a FISC court judge can grant a warrant based on probable cause it doesn’t matter how many Justice Department lawyers or Congressmen said, “Hey, go for it.” The law is the law, Dr. The President is not above the law. Or do you think otherwise?
It’s amazing to me that you would put this down to “Bush hatred.” You seem unable to undertsand that this issue extends well beyond the individual currently in the White House. If this is allowed to stand it will set a dangerous precedent for future administrations, ones that you might not agree with.
I am also not attacking anyone’s “prowess.” There is absolutely no reason under current law that warrants couldn’t have been sought and received by the NSA. Indeed, there’s no reason why the attorney general couldn’t have authorized wiretaps under his own authority and then sought a warrant within 72 hours of that decision, so you can’t even argue that bureacracy or timeliness is a factor here. Indeed, the President’s secret decision has actually tainted the intelligence gathering process. If you read the New York Times piece you will find that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the federal judge who oversees the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, became concerned that NSA officials were using information gleaned from warrantless wiretaps to justify warrants for other wiretaps. Essentially, the NSA was using illegally obtained information as justification for obtaining legal wiretaps — while hiding the information’s original source. The judge became aware of the issue and raised her concerns two years into the program in mid-2004. That’s two whole years that the NSA was tainting the whole process by skirting the law. That’s the kind of shit that gets cases thrown out of court on technicalities and it’s entirely unnecessary.
You see, Dr., you seem to enjoy talking tough but you haven’t thought through any of the consequences of your arguments beyond vague threats that anyone who questions the President is endangering lives. That simply isn’t true.
Well you know what? If this was all illegal and unconstitutional, you lefties are going to get your wet dream fulfilled…..Bush flashing a “v” for victory sign as he boards Marine 1.
And though you like to say he is stupid (well, his grades were better than Kerry’s at Yale though), is he so stupid as to make a national pronouncement that he has signed an executive order that is impeachable? Hmmm……
I think not…
Better legal minds than any at this website have vetted this stuff carefully…just like the war, the leftists are going to be on the wrong side of history
“We know for a fact that this was vetted by both the justice department and Congress. When the whole story arrives …”
When the whole story arrives indeed:
ABC: You were Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time the President signed this executive order. Vice President Cheney met with congressional leaders I m sure you were among them in 2002, is that correct?
GRAHAM: There was such a meeting. And the issue, then, was whether we could intercept foreign communications when they transited through U.S. communication sites. The assumption was that if we did that, we would do it pursuant to the law, the law that regulates the surveillance of national security issues. And there was no suggestion that we were going to begin eavesdropping on United States citizens without following the full law.
ABC: You re saying you were not briefed as the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee at the point the President signed this?
GRAHAM: I was briefed. There was no reference made to the fact that we were going to use that as the subterfuge to begin unwarranted, illegal and I think unconstitutional eavesdropping on American citizens.
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18/graham-no-reference/
Do you remember when the whole school was punished by having their privileges suspended because a few students abused the rules?
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. One of the worst effects of this administration is that the blowback from the world, the american public and Congress, will undoubtedly reduce many autonomous (e.g.
War Powers Act) powers the Executive Branch currently enjoys. This Admin’s ham-handedness will hamstring the military’s
ability to respond to real threats that are presaged to occur because
the rollback and increased oversight by the Legislative Branch
will have been precipated by this rash and boobish President.
No, drPedro, that dodge won’t work.
The legal work behind this criminality appears to be John Yoo, of ‘it ain’t torture until major organs fail’ fame. I’ve yet to see any respected conservative legal scholars rushing to defend this.
Yes, you have the usual AWOL George defenders like Mark Levin and David Limbaugh saying it’s all perfectly legal but they’d defend AWOL George on anything.
Frankly, the duty of the press is to uncover abuses and crimes such as this. The NYTimes major failing on this issue is waiting over a year to reveal this.
What you tend to forget is that it’s never a crime to expose criminal activity, DP.
You and your ilk would love to see all the leaks plugged.
Maximum secrecy=maximum efficiency=Dr. Scholls’ Utopia
.
Fair enough…..when you see respected conservative legal scholars rushing to defend this, then you’ll shut your pie-hole and let us prosecute a war on terrorists?
By the way, how are those letter to congress and the justice department going? You know the ones demanding that who ever leaked this code word/compartmentalized project to the press be investigated by an independent counsel?
Or are you waiting til monday?
drpedro: Look, the Justice department is supposed to be protecting the Constitutional rights of americans. They will make functional decisions regarding what they believe is constitutional. Now, if someone disagrees, then eventually the SOTUS will get a chance to review it.
I’m afraid that’s a circular argument. If the Justice Department decides it’s legal and it remains a secret within the executive branch, the SCOTUS will never hear it, even though it’s illegal in fact. So now you’re basically saying that if the executive branch can keep it a secret, it’s not illegal.
If this is so obviously illegal, why did the Justice Department agree to proceed?
Because the president picked an AG that bought into his ideology, DUH. If the AG wasn’t the kind of guy that would sign off on a plan like this, he wouldn’t have got the job.
The lemmings go marching two by two, hurrah, hurrah…
Luckily the press is not the arbiter of crimes….the Justice Department is. And coincedently enough, they are the ones who reviewed the process.
Ryland, you strike me as the type of person who believes in the Trilateral Commission and the Barbaria Illuminati….So let me get this straight, the Justice Department is nothing but a patsy for the evil Bush-Rove machine?
And Bush just announced to the world that he signed off on something that according to you (and the new york times) is criminal…?
Like I said, you should be laughing about this….cause if it’s true, you have yourselves an impeachment.
Unless Bush and the Justice Department aren’t really all that stupid…in which case you will just have egg on your face….again.
So let me get this straight, the Justice Department is nothing but a patsy for the evil Bush-Rove machine?
Sure. Read the news lately? About redistricting and the Voting Rights Act?
DoJ–per the VRA–has been charged with reviewing redistricting plans and approve or disapprove of them. This task has been handled by DoJ’s Civil Rights division, comprised of career staff. Historically, when the division is unanimous in its decision–DoJ follows the recommendation of the staff.
Yet, when DeLay’s redistricting plan was reviewed by DoJ’s civil rights division and unanimously disapproved–it was overruled by a political appointee within DoJ.
JK: Far be it for me to defend the likes of DrPedro, Jay Caruso, Dugger, et al.
Their problem is they have so much invested in AWOL George, they can’t turn back. I suspect a few of them understand how bad this criminality is; I honestly believe some of them really find it hard to type excuses such as ‘we’re not as bad as the Soviet Union’ and the like.
But they can’t find the moral strength to cut that tie–to admit they were wrong.
Not only have they defended AWOL George and his rampant criminality, corruption, and incompetence but they’ve made a mockery about what conservatism professes to be about.
I’ve never been through a 12-step program but I understand the first step is admitting you have a problem. I’d imagine for anyone who has an addiction problem, this is a daunting step. There’s a lot of pride that has to be swallowed. For most addicts, however, the number of people who know about the problem is relatively small. For our AWOL George cultists, however, their addiction is out there for everyone to see. And unlike the addict, the AWOL George cultists are very likely to have their problem thrown at them in mean-spirited ways.
And these are the same guys…Jay….Pedro….Dugger…who got their panties in a twist about lies about a blow job. Perjury, yes…but when put into perspective vis a vis the lies, half-truths and distortions that the Bush administration has perpetuated to advance this bloody war, well…it tells you something about the character and integrity of these people.
Yes, I am questioning your character and integrity you gutless weasels.
JK
sorry. 1st graph should be;
The Administration views the domestic political struggle as synonymous with their war of choice. We can t afford to lose (codeword for winning no matter who or what is sacrificed)
The Administration views the domestic political struggle as synonymous with their war of choice. “We can’t afford to lose” for the need to win at all costs, (codeword for winning no matter who or what is sacrificed)
Their enablers are desperate in much the same way. They, along with their role models, cannot be seen by History as so completely wrong on so many levels, and therefore justify behaviors they would quickly condemn in others. They will trample on any ‘fine line’ that impedes their objectve; winning at all costs.
Truly, they cannot afford to lose. And that makes them potentially dangerous
Well, here is a serious (though I often disagree with him) conservative law prof, Bainbridge on the warrantless searches–
“I’ve been surprised and a little disappointed in the reaction of a lot of center-right bloggers for whom I usually have a lot of respect to the news about Bush’s approval of warrantless surveillance…
Coercive interrogations. A gulag of secret prisons. And now warrantless surveillance…
too many want to trade their sacrifices away for a mess of security pottage.
It’s enough to make me think about making a Christmas donation to the ACLU.”
We have had the “not a crime” defense, the “they thought it was legal because the hand picked people they vetted it with didn’t object, therefore it isn’t Bush’s fault”, and now the “conspiracy theory” defense. Next up, “no one has been found guilty yet, so it must be legal” defense.
Ryland, you strike me as the type of person who believes in the Trilateral Commission and the Barbaria Illuminati…
Barbaria Illuminati? ’nuff said.
So let me get this straight, the Justice Department is nothing but a patsy for the evil Bush-Rove machine?
No, you retard, they are co-conspirators. Christ on a stick, man, you are dense.
“making statements without evidence and then expecting everyone to get in lock-step right behind them”
The irony is delicious, thank you.
See Jade, the thing is, I don’t have a thing invested in W.
I do have something invested in the idea of “innocent until proven guilty”.
If this story was about the cell phones of anti-war activists being hacked and then their phones being tapped by the NSA, I would be right there with you. But it isn’t. It is about actionable intelligence regarding our countries security involving foreign terrorists.
For the record I didn’t pile onto Bubba’s BJ lie until he was impeached and then disbarred. I was one of the first to say he should have told the independent council to mind his own business when it came to affairs of his Willy.
That’s the difference….impeached and convicted of perjury and disbarred vs a bunch of malcontent leftists screaming about all sorts of stuff, making statements without evidence and then expecting everyone to get in lock-step right behind them.
Damn, Dr. Pedro, get a new playbook.
You know… I don’t think that guy is a real doctor.
Dr. Pedro you have no idea how our system of government works do you? You have not one clue.
You wrote this: “Luckily the press is not the arbiter of crimes& .the Justice Department is.”
The Justice Department is not an arbiter of crimes. Here’s a definition of arbiter:
1 : a person with power to decide a dispute : JUDGE
2 : a person or agency having the power of deciding
No one in the Justice Department can decide whether someone is guilty of a crime. It’s lawyers bring charges but a judge and/or jury decide whether the charges are a) valid b) true.
Then you wrote this: “They [the justice dcepartment] will make functional decisions regarding what they believe is constitutional.”
Wrong again. Do you know that we have three branches of government and that each one does different things? Since it looks like you don’t, here’s a crash course:
Congress makes the laws.
The Judicial branch interprets them.
The executive branch carries out the laws
The Justice department has no power to determine which laws are constitutional and which aren’t. It’s lawyers may advise the president about the Constitutionality of a law but only the judicial branch can make the binding interpretation of the law’s Constitutionality. The attorney general has no power whatsoever to overturn a law based on its constitutionality. Period.
Another example of how little you know about the Constitution and our system of government is this statement: “It is about actionable intelligence regarding our countries security involving foreign terrorists.”
No it isn’t. It’s about who gets to determine what probable cause exists to warrant spying on an American citizen. Not one of the agencies or officials mentioned by Bush in his radio speech as having reviewed the secret spying operation have the legal authority to determine and act on probable cause when it comes to eletronic surrveilance of US citizens, not NSA agents or officers, not justice department lawyers, not Congressmen, White House lawyers or anyone else beyond an FISC judge. Only a judge can determine whether the intelligence on hand provides probable cause under FISA. No one else. When the president decided that NSA agents could decide probable cause for themselves he crossed over the separation of powers and violated the Constitution.
You just have no idea what you’re talking about.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007800.php#more
You just ran a huge post backing up exactly what I said, and you think I don’t know what I am talking about?
“a person or agency having the power of deciding”
When was the last time a judge came to your house and arrested you? Ok, how about the FBI?
When the law enforcement agency arrests you for probable cause, then the judge sees you…get it?
The Constitution gives the president very broad powers in times of war. Further, intelligence from enemy combatants doesn’t fall under ANY sort of Constitutional protection.
“You just ran a huge post backing up exactly what I said, and you think I don t know what I am talking about?”
Are you for real? Is this a joke?
“When was the last time a judge came to your house and arrested you? Ok, how about the FBI?”
Arresting someone isn’t “arbiting a crime,” as you phrased. Law enforcement officers don’t have the power to decide guilt or innocence. At the same time, law enforcement officers can’t just enter my house without probable cause. If they make a determination of probable cause on the spot — they here gunshots coming from my home — that determination still has to be approved by a jugde retroactively. If a judge determines that probable cause was not warranted then any evidence discovered as a result of the officer’s decision is inadmissable. Again, it’s called checks and balances.
“When the law enforcement agency arrests you for probable cause, then the judge sees you& get it?”
Not in cases of electronic surrveilance which is the issue here you idiot. You need probably cause BEFORE you get a search warrant and a wiretap, probable cause which only a judge can give. If you wiretap someone without a judge’s expressed authorization any evidence obtained by through that wiretap is inadmissable in a court of law.
“The Constitution gives the president very broad powers in times of war. Further, intelligence from enemy combatants doesn t fall under ANY sort of Constitutional protection.”
The Constitution does not give the President unlimited powers and it certainly doesn’t give the President the power to make laws or skirt the law even if we are at war. If the person in question is a US citizen they are entitled to all the same Constitutional protections as you or I.
I think Dr. Pedro is a doctor of mixology. Viva Cuervo!
Why does Bush need to put wiretaps on Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, Joe Wilson, and Al Franken anyway?
I think drpedro is actually about 15 years old, and hasn’t finished his civics homework. “Dad said that George Bush is a good president, so you guys shut up!”
LOG OFF AND CRACK THE BOOKS, YOUNGSTER.
Can we put the Republican Elephant to rest now and replace it with the “See No Evil”, “Hear No Evil”, and “Speak No Evil” monkeys?
I think Ryland ought to copyright that avatar or something. He could make big money selling to the NEW AND IMPROVED GOP: NOW WITH 30 % LESS CIVIL LIBERTIES!!!