Bush said he authorized eavesdropping by NIS

R

Rob P.

Moderator
Gonna just stick the link here instead of copy/paste the article. Otherwise the post would get too long.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051217/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

Some highlights I wanted to discuss:
Bush said his authority to approve what he called a "vital tool in our war against the terrorists" came from his constitutional powers as commander in chief.
Click to expand...

"I didn't hear him specify any legal right, except his right as president, which in a democracy doesn't make much sense," Bamford (an author and expert on the NSA - RP) said in an interview. "Today, what Bush said is he went around the law, which is a violation of the law — which is illegal."

Susan Low Bloch, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center, said the president needs authorization from Congress for this kind of activity — or risk adverse rulings from the Supreme Court has it has with other post-Sept. 11 changes.

"He's taking a hugely expansive interpretation of the Constitution and the president's powers under the Constitution," she said.
Click to expand...

I really don't understand how or why anyone would support this egomaniac. Anyone who would believe that his power as "commander in chief" extend to domestic law enforcement is a complete idiot and certainly needs someone to point him in the right direction to go to the bathroom.

I also understand the the SCOTUS has consistently & thoroughly ruled that this sort of thing by the President is illegal.

The president had harsh words for those who revealed the program to the media, saying they acted improperly and illegally.
Click to expand...

Uhh, last time I checked "whistleblowing" was legal. In fact, failing to be a whistleblower could get you in hot water as either an accessory or accomplis if you had any power to affect the illegal activity and failed to report it.

Sooo, it is just me or do we really have an idiot sitting in the White House?
 
Authorizing eaves dropping

I think he is actually doing whats right for all of our safety. All of the far-left people and A.C.L.U. (criminal libertys union) probally should all live in a tall skyscraper, and if its not big enouh biuld one beside it. Id bet they would politly decline.
 
I think he is actually doing whats right for all of our safety.

HA!:barf: Now thats a real LOL. More like whats best for him and his elite halliburton type buddies. Rapidly moving closer and closer to the status of a tyrant.:eek:
 
Lets see he authorized watching 500 phone numbers after 9/11 that were known or suspected of being involved in terror; only authorized listening on international calls and still required warrants for any calls made in the US; Federal law gave him the authority to do this under laws passed prior to his being in office and from what we know alot of Intel has been gained; The NY Times sat on the story until their reporter had his book ready to go for over a year and the listening in stopped over a year ago...... So those with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) loose again. Sounds damn smart to me.:p

By the by "Whistleblowing" on something illegal is legal. "Whistleblowing of an intel op that is not illegal is called treason...
 
Treason as like Cheneys chief of staff??????:confused:
Benjamin Franklin said, "Live Free or Die. Those that would give us essential liberty in pursuit of a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.":rolleyes:
 
Who said anything about giving up anything? We are at war and the constitution is not a suicide pact.

The chief of staff i think you refer to is not convicted of anything and was not charged with any crime except "lying" to a Federal investigator about comments made over 6 years time. You keep notes of all your converstations and could repeat every conversation you have had over that period without getting anything wrong?

Those with Haliburtin syndrome a question? Clintoon hired them for work in Bosnia with no bid contracts to clean up his mess. But that was OK? Or was it to supply us with snow? They are the only company in the world that can do what they do. And by the way Haliburtin is trying to sell thier contracts in the middle east because they are loosing money.

I would also like your source on your quote on Franklin, I don't think he's the one that said that....
 
yea right

If Haliberton were to go under Bush & Cheny would be on the welfare line tomorrow. I cant wait till oil gets to 10 bucks a gallon and people can say, ''humm, maybe that Bush guy was trying to secure oil for this country to use in the future but we were accusing him of pumping the stuff into tanks in his back yard''. oh darn. If people would use thier brains instead of thier mouths they would know it's this country he's trying to help out. The man can and did make 50 times more money than he does being president of this country, and Cheny is one of the richest men in Washington BEFORE he was vice. In one ocasion he sold 90million worth of stock, 90 million!, and thats only one of his endevors, people sound so well, dumb acting like they are just dying to make a couple bucks. If all went to hell tomorrow im pretty sure he could still put his daughters through college.
 
Bush defended the program as narrowly designed and used "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution." He said it is employed only to intercept the international communications of people inside the U.S. who have been determined to have "a clear link" to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations.
Click to expand...
If that is the case, I don't have a problem with it. If it was shown to be expansive beyond that, it's another issue.

On the other hand, having Senator Russ Feingold, co-author of the First-Amendment squashing McCain-Feingold bill (which Bush signed), lecture thusly is amusing:
I tell you, he's President George Bush, not King George Bush. This is not the system of government we have and that we fought for," Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., told The Associated Press.
Click to expand...

And then there is the gun-grabbing, judicial filibuster-threatening Senator Leahy:
Added Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt.: "The Bush administration seems to believe it is above the law."
Click to expand...

Rick
 
We are at war and the constitution is not a suicide pact.
Click to expand...

2 points here:

1) We are NOT at war with the American public. Thus, the wiretapping of American citizens without a warrant violates the Federal Constitution. The Patriot Act does not void the BoR's generally nor the 4th amendment specifically. Any claims of "narrowly designed" STILL do not meet the requirments of a warrant and probable cause.

I also would like to know how G-dub is going to continue the wiretaps (as he says he will) once the Patriot Act sunsets in 2 weeks. At that point he won't even have THAT to rely upon.

2) In fact, the Constitution IS a suicide pact.

It was created as part of the declaration that we are free from the tyranny of England. Had the war gone differently, those who signed the deed knew that they would be executed for it./ Yet they still stood together in a win or die pact.

Additionally, the Constitution is supposed to be a constraint on government. Thus, it tells the gov't that it either abides by the limits in the document which creates it, OR the gov't must cease to exist. There are NO PROVISIONS in the Constitution which allows the gov't to ignore the limitations placed upon it. It must either abide or die as intended by those who created it.

Based on these 2 datum points, it IS a suicide pact irrespective of the beliefs of the person who penned that statement.

Whistleblowing of an intel op that is not illegal is called treason...
Click to expand...

No it is not. First, your premise assumes that the operation is "legal". If it is legal, then the revealing of the op is not "whistleblowing". Whistleblowing only applies to illegal activities.

In this case the operations are quite clearly NOT legal. They do not follow established proceedures for overview. In fact, they do everything possible to AVOID overview. They were authorized by G-dub in secret using presidential powers that don't exist. They are used in spite of the requirements set forth in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requiring special court oversight. They do not follow the proceedures in that Act in applying for permission to proceed.

What would you call an operation that does not follow the law? What would you call a President who intentionally and knowingly uses govt resourses illegally? What would you call intentionally and knowingly violating the law and the constitution in order to advance an illegal agenda?
 
Well hell,

I guess it's a case of Damned if you do and Damned if you don't now ain't it.

I think we would bitch about anything and everything if it fit our agenda's... well wait, we are, would you look at that.

Sorry for the use of so many four letter words with extensions, just couldn't figure out how to say it any differently and get the point across.

Wayne
 
What was done (wiretaps on internat'l calls to/from known or suspected terrorist connected numbers) was legal and congress has been informed and updated on the program repeatedly since it was initiated.

The program was classified and whatever staffers told reporters about it did indeed break the law. AND compromised OPSEC by alerting enemies to one of our tactics. Why don't I hear clamoring for an investigation like I did about the Plame incident? Libby, by the way, was indicted for lying not for revealing classified information, since he didn't.

Arguing about whether or not it is proper is another thing, and now that it has already (improperly, IMO) been exposed, I have no problem with that. I happen to think that it IS proper. I have seen no indications of it being used in an abusive manner and I believe it is a useful tool in combating terrorism.

As to what the president has to do with domestic law enforcement, last time I checked the Department of Justice and the FBI fell under the Executive Branch. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

Personally I believe this story was released, after being sat on for a year, at this time in order to torpedo the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. But then I'm a rightwingnutjobneocon and probably need new tinfoil for my hat anyway.:rolleyes:
 
There are two things of which I am 110% certain in the post 9/11 world:

Some people will defend the administration no matter what this particular POTUS does as long as it's done in the name of our safety,

and the very same people would scream absolute bloody murder if the same measures had been signed into law by a President Gore or Kerry.
 
But thats not the case here Marky and never was. It is also true that alot of sufferers of BDS would howl for his execution if he found the cure for cancer. I fault Bush for a lot of things but to fight to bring the knife to yourown throat is insanity and we do not have to follow you over the cliff.
A lot on the far left want the US destroyed and will not stop until it is. They will partner with terrorists or anyone that is traveling the same road thinking that when the "revolution" comes they will be on top of course. Thats how they think and no facts situational or other wise will change their minds. Hate is addictive.

If Gore or Kerry were elected this would not be the US it would be The Peoples Republic Of Americka as quickly as they could make so. Maybe they would fail to enforce the NEW ORDER but they would try and will keep trying. Remember Kerry is the same one that voted to cut all aid to S Vietnam causing it to fall and killing 1/2 million people in the purges. This self admitted "war criminal" has a lot of blood on his hands to answer for. I am not trying to re start the debate about Nam but his and other votes against this country, before he voted for it, are a matter of record. I look not at what they say, thier lips are moving, hey they are politicals, its what they do...

One last thing, will somebody on this rant with BDS please list for us all rights you have lost personally.
 
That is doubtless a true statement Marko. Just out of curiousity, was it apropos of nothing or are you accusing someone in particular?
 
Come on Sulaco, I'm as conservative as they come, but no Americans (with a very very few exceptions, none of them politicians) want to see the US destroyed.
 
If Bush is committing violence against the letter and spirit of the constitution, are the congressional leaders he notified repeatedly co-conspirators?

There's a LOT more to this story. Wait to get huffy. We have plenty of time to sort it out. Democrat's gameplan since 2004 is to get impeachment rolling against Bush. They've thrown a lot against the wall and nothing sticks. I predict Bush's current boner is what will stick long enough for the howls of "impeachment" to develop it own echo chamber. Ironic is it not that Bush provides the very rope by which he will be congressionally hung.
 
Stupidity knows no bounds and it will be the stupid that entangle us all into the hell that we face.

To trust either or of the parties to look after our, the People's, best interests is folly at best, dangerous at most.

We, the People, have been so effectually divided into two and only two groups that the Republic is changed into this abomination.

Here we fight and disagree on what gear each should have, what arms, what property rights, as well as personal rights. We sit here and argue against the very freedoms that we should have, and enjoy with exceptions, or within certain criteria.

And here we stand, with one common factor, the liking, having, and owning of firearms. Yet, it's all a moot point anyway once the mouths open, and the feet are inserted.

Merry Christmas to you all, and to all, a good night :)

Wayne
 
Posted by: Marko Kloos

There are two things of which I am 110% certain in the post 9/11 world:

Some people will defend the administration no matter what this particular POTUS does as long as it's done in the name of our safety,

and the very same people would scream absolute bloody murder if the same measures had been signed into law by a President Gore or Kerry.
Click to expand...

Hit the nail right on the head with that one. Good post.
 
+1 Wayne

It doesn't matter who you vote for or who you believe, they all pretty much suck. It's only a matter of picking the perceived lessor of two evils. Politicians care about number 1 and number 1 only.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top