Gonzales on the hotseat right now...
- Thread starter FirstFreedom
- Start date
First off, I do not have a problem with Bush using the technology available to eavesdrop on terrorist communications with people in this country. If it has to take 72hrs to listen in on Abdul calling some crony here in the US on his cell phone about what they will blow up next - that is too long.
2nd, I have yet to hear a conclusive agreement that it is INDEED ILLEGAL. Even experts on Air America can not say that it is illegal, because the limitations put on the president by the FISA law can be deemed "unconstitutional" because at a time of war, he is CINC, and he does have the power to decide if he is being restricted in up holding his sworn duties. You may not like it, you may not agree, but until I see for sure that it has been abused or IS ILLEGAL (and that don't mean 'cause Al Frankin or some other Randi Rhodes babbler on AA thinks it is), I will agree with them doing whatever they can logically do to stop another attack.
Besides, IF they want to impeach Bush, bring it on, then Cheney can be president - we would have some real fun then!
PS - Hillary having the same power WOULD scare me though - she is just nasty *shudder*
2nd, I have yet to hear a conclusive agreement that it is INDEED ILLEGAL. Even experts on Air America can not say that it is illegal, because the limitations put on the president by the FISA law can be deemed "unconstitutional" because at a time of war, he is CINC, and he does have the power to decide if he is being restricted in up holding his sworn duties. You may not like it, you may not agree, but until I see for sure that it has been abused or IS ILLEGAL (and that don't mean 'cause Al Frankin or some other Randi Rhodes babbler on AA thinks it is), I will agree with them doing whatever they can logically do to stop another attack.
Besides, IF they want to impeach Bush, bring it on, then Cheney can be president - we would have some real fun then!
PS - Hillary having the same power WOULD scare me though - she is just nasty *shudder*
BreacherUp!
New member
.
1stFreedom, obviously, you HAVE NO IDEA what getting a FISA entails. The hookers are, however, much easier to get, as is a T-III.
Pipoman,
You are spreading false information. The hearings are exactly for determining the legality of the wiretaps. If you would've paid attention to the hearings at all you may have heard Senator Leahy say, and this is a quote:
"Now the hearing is expressly about the legality of this program. It is not about the operational details, it's about whether we can legally spy on Americans."
So show me why you think the hearings aren't about the legality of the spying?
shield20,
FISA states that the government can tap immediately then go and get a warrant up to 72 hours later. Your arguement here doesn't make sense because the government does not have to wait to get the warrant. This very reason makes Bush's warrantless wiretaps all the worse because, like the law states, he can get them up to three days AFTER the tapping has occured. Get it?
(not directed towards anyone) To me it is very strange how the people who won't trust a word coming from a Democrat will swallow everything a Republican said. Oh well, kool-aid of a different flavor I guess.
Last edited:
Senator Leahy's take on the purpose of the hearings is inconsequential. Senator Leahy would love to find the Bush administration guilty of illegal activity.
The Bush Administration has admitted that the wiretaps did occur. If there was any grounds, Leahy would be calling for impeachment hearings.
The result of these hearings, if any, will be an attempt by the Senate to change or clarify the President's authority to order such wiretaps.
Any attempt to revoke the Presidents authority to order this type of wiretap will probably end with review by the SC. The SC may or may not find the Senate's attempt to limit the President constitutional.
I agree the hearings are about determining if wiretaps without warrants are legal/constitutional in the broad sense. Maybe the Judiciary Committee will find this practice to be illegal or unconstitutional. That finding still would not retroactively make the Bush Administrations actions illegal.
garand_shooter
New member
So then, may I assume, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, you were out vigorously defending the president against his detractors, because the action taken by the Federal Government, or lack thereof, did not violate the constitution, and thereby left him without culpability?
May then I also infer that in the case of another major terrorist attack, you would not hold the president accountable, provided his inaction did in no way violate the constitution?
And I choose to allow the hearings to run their course, before rendering judgement. Before we light our torches, gather our pitch forks, assemble the mob and storm the castle, shouldn't we at least make sure Dr Frankenstein is home?
Look at it this way. Your mind is already made up. If the hearings show that the president violated the constitution, you can say 'Aha, I knew all along he was breaking the law' and you can hammer him. If the hearings determine the constitution was not violated, you can attack him from an ethical stand point. Either way, it's a win-win for you, because you'll get to bash the president, regardless of the outcome of the hearings.
Interesting thought I heard asked today
Were the people being tapped actual Americans? Or were they just called on American telephones?
From what I understand, the calls that are "tapped" or whatever they are actually doing, are calls from phone numbers outside of this country to numbers within this country. Is this correct? Do we know one way or another? It is also my understanding that the incoming caller's number sometimes matches numbers taken from computers of terrorists. Can anyone provide details one way or the other? Because I'd like to know exactly what's going on as I haven't made my mind up yet.
Were the people being tapped actual Americans? Or were they just called on American telephones?
From what I understand, the calls that are "tapped" or whatever they are actually doing, are calls from phone numbers outside of this country to numbers within this country. Is this correct? Do we know one way or another? It is also my understanding that the incoming caller's number sometimes matches numbers taken from computers of terrorists. Can anyone provide details one way or the other? Because I'd like to know exactly what's going on as I haven't made my mind up yet.
Probably monitoring this website as you keyboard.
One thing is for sure: our prez - with his guns>butter budget, his record deficit spending and his blackhole-war with the Muslims - is most certainly paving the way for Hillary to take her place in the Oval Office.
You have him to blame when she gets there.:barf:
One thing is for sure: our prez - with his guns>butter budget, his record deficit spending and his blackhole-war with the Muslims - is most certainly paving the way for Hillary to take her place in the Oval Office.
You have him to blame when she gets there.:barf:
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
There seems to be a LOT of misinformation regarding this issue here. Let's start with a little history:
In the 25 years since FISA was enacted, only FIVE requests have ever been denied. One of these requests was later overturned by the first ever meeting of the FISA Review Court in 2002. The remaining four requests were denied in 2003 (out of 1,727 applications). All, 1,758 applications requested in 2004 were approved.
FISA has been amended five times since 2001. Under the Patriot Act, several important changes were made to the FISA act. One of these was that surveillance could begin immediately as long as a warrant was requested within 72 hours.
The second was a lower surveillance standard. Originally, FISA required that the surveillance have a primary purpose of gathering foreign intelligence. Under the Patriot Act this was lowered to be a "significant" purpose.
The third area it was changed was to loosen restrictions on roving traces without a specific phone number and "trapping" of phone numbers to and from certain areas.
In addition to these restrictions, the collection of the NSA is governed by United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18 which spells out under what circumstances the NSA can monitor United States citizens without a warrant or approval from the Director NSA.
There is no question that Bush has violated FISA. Nobody, including the administration, is disputing this fact. The Bush administration claims two authorities for violating FISA. The first is that the authorization for the use of military force passed after 9/11 authorizes this type of surveillance. The second is under the authority granted by the Constitution, the President may collect foreign intelligence.
There are two primary challenges to the authority offered by the President. One if that many of the members who voted for the authorization of military force (Repubilcan as well as Democrat) do not agree with the assertion of the White House on this matter. The second is that while the President (and past Presidents) have always asserted the power to carry out surveillance of American citizens without a warrant in the process of collecting foreign intelligence, this President appears to be asserting this power much more broadly.
An important factor being missed in these discussions, is that whatever it is the Bush administration wanted to do, NONE of these loopholes were big enough to allow it. The President made a conscious choice to bypass both FISA (a secret court that had rarely ever denied him a request) and the majority of Congress (House and Senate Intelligence leaders were briefed on this program in 2003, and the Bush administration approached select Congressmembers about the possibility of amending FISA for a sixth time after it became apaprent the NYT would run the story).
Finally the Washington Post reports that after an automated selection process of some sort, 5,000 Americans had their international phone calls listened to. Of these 5,000 Americans, 10 were deemed worthy of pursuing an actual warrant to allow surveillance of domestic calls as well.
So those maintaining that only Americans talking to al-Quaida or terrorists have been monitored have a dilemmna on their hands. Either the administration is allowing 4,990 guilty people to go free or many Americans who have not been talking to terrorists had their conversations monitored without a warrant.
Personally, I am all for this type of monitoring if it is necessary for our security; BUT right now the executive branch claims the sole authority to
A) determine who gets monitored
B) decide whether that monitoring is legal
C) decide whether that monitoring is being abused
Putting all that power in one branch of government is a recipe for disaster. Considering that the FISA court has considered well over 15,000 requests and denied only five of them, I can't believe that anybody would seriously argue that there is a valid reason for the executive branch not to submit to oversight from Congress and the Judiciary given the stakes involved.
In the 25 years since FISA was enacted, only FIVE requests have ever been denied. One of these requests was later overturned by the first ever meeting of the FISA Review Court in 2002. The remaining four requests were denied in 2003 (out of 1,727 applications). All, 1,758 applications requested in 2004 were approved.
FISA has been amended five times since 2001. Under the Patriot Act, several important changes were made to the FISA act. One of these was that surveillance could begin immediately as long as a warrant was requested within 72 hours.
The second was a lower surveillance standard. Originally, FISA required that the surveillance have a primary purpose of gathering foreign intelligence. Under the Patriot Act this was lowered to be a "significant" purpose.
The third area it was changed was to loosen restrictions on roving traces without a specific phone number and "trapping" of phone numbers to and from certain areas.
In addition to these restrictions, the collection of the NSA is governed by United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18 which spells out under what circumstances the NSA can monitor United States citizens without a warrant or approval from the Director NSA.
There is no question that Bush has violated FISA. Nobody, including the administration, is disputing this fact. The Bush administration claims two authorities for violating FISA. The first is that the authorization for the use of military force passed after 9/11 authorizes this type of surveillance. The second is under the authority granted by the Constitution, the President may collect foreign intelligence.
There are two primary challenges to the authority offered by the President. One if that many of the members who voted for the authorization of military force (Repubilcan as well as Democrat) do not agree with the assertion of the White House on this matter. The second is that while the President (and past Presidents) have always asserted the power to carry out surveillance of American citizens without a warrant in the process of collecting foreign intelligence, this President appears to be asserting this power much more broadly.
An important factor being missed in these discussions, is that whatever it is the Bush administration wanted to do, NONE of these loopholes were big enough to allow it. The President made a conscious choice to bypass both FISA (a secret court that had rarely ever denied him a request) and the majority of Congress (House and Senate Intelligence leaders were briefed on this program in 2003, and the Bush administration approached select Congressmembers about the possibility of amending FISA for a sixth time after it became apaprent the NYT would run the story).
Finally the Washington Post reports that after an automated selection process of some sort, 5,000 Americans had their international phone calls listened to. Of these 5,000 Americans, 10 were deemed worthy of pursuing an actual warrant to allow surveillance of domestic calls as well.
So those maintaining that only Americans talking to al-Quaida or terrorists have been monitored have a dilemmna on their hands. Either the administration is allowing 4,990 guilty people to go free or many Americans who have not been talking to terrorists had their conversations monitored without a warrant.
Personally, I am all for this type of monitoring if it is necessary for our security; BUT right now the executive branch claims the sole authority to
A) determine who gets monitored
B) decide whether that monitoring is legal
C) decide whether that monitoring is being abused
Putting all that power in one branch of government is a recipe for disaster. Considering that the FISA court has considered well over 15,000 requests and denied only five of them, I can't believe that anybody would seriously argue that there is a valid reason for the executive branch not to submit to oversight from Congress and the Judiciary given the stakes involved.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
Thank you, Bart Roberts! Those are the facts folks. Read 'em & weep, Bush lovers.
This is interesting and some good points are made. I will be watching to see what happens. I think if the issue were as "cut and dried" as you express it there would be cries and pleads from Dems to "impeach the President" (not that there hasn't been but none taken seriously).
Could it be that the Dems do not want Clinton admin. "warrantless wiretaps" scrutinized? Maybe Sandy Burglar would have to be utilized again.
I would like to know more about how previous admins. have used this Presidential authority.
I have heard some Rep. Senators upset with the President about this too. IMO the Bi-partisan Senate committees don't have the greatest history of being leak free.
There are aspects of this issue promoted by the current Admin. I do not like. I think Presidential powers should be very broad in times of war and believe this will be the ultimate end of this issue.
Could it be that the Dems do not want Clinton admin. "warrantless wiretaps" scrutinized? Maybe Sandy Burglar would have to be utilized again.
I would like to know more about how previous admins. have used this Presidential authority.
I have heard some Rep. Senators upset with the President about this too. IMO the Bi-partisan Senate committees don't have the greatest history of being leak free.
There are aspects of this issue promoted by the current Admin. I do not like. I think Presidential powers should be very broad in times of war and believe this will be the ultimate end of this issue.
In the not so distant past
In the not so distant past censorship was put in place by Executive Order.
This included montoring of communications without warrants on phone calls telegraphs etc.. This time the stakes are even higher than the typical democrat chucklehaed can comprehend. the enemy is among us within our borders. We have been attacked and like it or not we are at war.
Keep in mind before the flaming begins that the war powers act just might be involved here since it was voted on several times and has passed.
Pay careful attention to his statement :It is necessary that a watch be set upon our borders, so that no such information may reach the enemy, inadvertently or otherwise, through the medium of the mails, radio, or cable transmission, or by any other means.
• Franklin D. Roosevelt
Executive Order 8985 Establishing the Office of Censorship.
December 19th, 1941
Statement:
All Americans abhor censorship, just as they abhor war. But the experience of this and of all other Nations has demonstrated that some degree of censorship is essential in wartime, and we are at war.
The important thing now is that such forms of censorship as are necessary shall be administered effectively and in harmony with the best interests of our free institutions.
It is necessary to the national security that military information which might be of aid to the enemy be scrupulously withheld at the source.
It is necessary that prohibitions against the domestic publication of some types of information, contained in long-existing statutes, be rigidly enforced.
Finally, the Government has called upon a patriotic press and radio to abstain voluntarily from the dissemination of detailed information of certain kinds, such as reports of the movements of vessels and troops. The response has indicated a universal desire to cooperate.
In order that all of these parallel and requisite undertakings may be coordinated and carried forward in accordance with a single uniform policy, I have appointed Byron Price, Executive News Editor of the Associated Press, to be Director of Censorship, responsible directly to the President. He has been granted a leave of absence by the Associated Press and will take over the post assigned him within the coming week, or sooner.
Executive Order:
By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the statutes of the United States, and particularly by section 303, Title III of the Act of December 18, 1941, Public Law 354, 77th Congress, 1st session, and deeming that the public safety demands it, I hereby order as follows:
1. There is hereby established the Office of Censorship, at the head of which shall be a Director of Censorship. The Director of Censorship shall cause to be censored, in his absolute discretion, communications by mail, cable, radio, or other means of transmission passing between the United States and any foreign country or which may be carried by any vessel or other means of transportation touching at any port, place, or Territory of the United States and bound to or from any foreign country, in accordance with such rules and regulations as the President shall from time to time prescribe. The establishment of rules and regulations in addition to the provisions of this Order shall not be a condition to the exercise of the powers herein granted or the censorship by this Order directed. The scope of this Order shall include all foreign countries except such as may hereafter be expressly excluded by regulation.
2. There is hereby created a Censorship Policy Board, which shall consist of the Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, the Attorney General, the Postmaster General, the Secretary of the Navy, the Director of the Office of Government Reports, and the Director of the Office of Facts and Figures. The Postmaster General shall act as Chairman of the Board. The Censorship Policy Board shall advise the Director of Censorship with respect to policy and the coordination and integration of the censorship herein directed.
3. The Director of Censorship shall establish a Censorship Operating Board, which shall consist of representatives of such departments and agencies of the Government as the Director shall specify. Each representative shall be designated by the head of the department or agency which he represents. The Censorship Operating Board shall, under the supervision of the Director perform such duties with respect to operations as the Director shall determine.
4. The Director of Censorship is authorized to take all such measures as may be necessary or expedient to administer the powers hereby conferred, and, in addition to the utilization of existing personnel of any department or agency available therefor, to employ, or authorize the employment of, such additional personnel as he may deem requisite.
5. As used in this Order the term "United States" shall be construed to include the Territories and possessions of the United States, including the Philippine Islands.
In the not so distant past censorship was put in place by Executive Order.
This included montoring of communications without warrants on phone calls telegraphs etc.. This time the stakes are even higher than the typical democrat chucklehaed can comprehend. the enemy is among us within our borders. We have been attacked and like it or not we are at war.
Keep in mind before the flaming begins that the war powers act just might be involved here since it was voted on several times and has passed.
Pay careful attention to his statement :It is necessary that a watch be set upon our borders, so that no such information may reach the enemy, inadvertently or otherwise, through the medium of the mails, radio, or cable transmission, or by any other means.
• Franklin D. Roosevelt
Executive Order 8985 Establishing the Office of Censorship.
December 19th, 1941
Statement:
All Americans abhor censorship, just as they abhor war. But the experience of this and of all other Nations has demonstrated that some degree of censorship is essential in wartime, and we are at war.
The important thing now is that such forms of censorship as are necessary shall be administered effectively and in harmony with the best interests of our free institutions.
It is necessary to the national security that military information which might be of aid to the enemy be scrupulously withheld at the source.
It is necessary that prohibitions against the domestic publication of some types of information, contained in long-existing statutes, be rigidly enforced.
Finally, the Government has called upon a patriotic press and radio to abstain voluntarily from the dissemination of detailed information of certain kinds, such as reports of the movements of vessels and troops. The response has indicated a universal desire to cooperate.
In order that all of these parallel and requisite undertakings may be coordinated and carried forward in accordance with a single uniform policy, I have appointed Byron Price, Executive News Editor of the Associated Press, to be Director of Censorship, responsible directly to the President. He has been granted a leave of absence by the Associated Press and will take over the post assigned him within the coming week, or sooner.
Executive Order:
By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the statutes of the United States, and particularly by section 303, Title III of the Act of December 18, 1941, Public Law 354, 77th Congress, 1st session, and deeming that the public safety demands it, I hereby order as follows:
1. There is hereby established the Office of Censorship, at the head of which shall be a Director of Censorship. The Director of Censorship shall cause to be censored, in his absolute discretion, communications by mail, cable, radio, or other means of transmission passing between the United States and any foreign country or which may be carried by any vessel or other means of transportation touching at any port, place, or Territory of the United States and bound to or from any foreign country, in accordance with such rules and regulations as the President shall from time to time prescribe. The establishment of rules and regulations in addition to the provisions of this Order shall not be a condition to the exercise of the powers herein granted or the censorship by this Order directed. The scope of this Order shall include all foreign countries except such as may hereafter be expressly excluded by regulation.
2. There is hereby created a Censorship Policy Board, which shall consist of the Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, the Attorney General, the Postmaster General, the Secretary of the Navy, the Director of the Office of Government Reports, and the Director of the Office of Facts and Figures. The Postmaster General shall act as Chairman of the Board. The Censorship Policy Board shall advise the Director of Censorship with respect to policy and the coordination and integration of the censorship herein directed.
3. The Director of Censorship shall establish a Censorship Operating Board, which shall consist of representatives of such departments and agencies of the Government as the Director shall specify. Each representative shall be designated by the head of the department or agency which he represents. The Censorship Operating Board shall, under the supervision of the Director perform such duties with respect to operations as the Director shall determine.
4. The Director of Censorship is authorized to take all such measures as may be necessary or expedient to administer the powers hereby conferred, and, in addition to the utilization of existing personnel of any department or agency available therefor, to employ, or authorize the employment of, such additional personnel as he may deem requisite.
5. As used in this Order the term "United States" shall be construed to include the Territories and possessions of the United States, including the Philippine Islands.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Unlikely that a Republican Congress is going to impeach a sitting Republican president over an issue that the vast majority of Americans support the President on. From a purely political perspective, this is a winner for the President as it makes the Dems appear "soft on terrorism" if they seek to reign in the amount of authority he has claimed.
Historically the President has enjoyed a lot of authority in the area of foreign intelligence. One of the reasons FISA was passed to begin with was due to Executive branch abuse of foreign intelligence powers to gather info on political enemies and anti-war groups during the Vietnam era. Despite the fact this is usually associated with Nixon, the apparatus Nixon used and much of the ways it was used had been going on for long before he got into office.
Many of the same people who are in this administration (Rumsfeld, Cheney) were around for the initial FISA and they regard it as an unjustified curtailment of Presidential authority. I wouldn't doubt that they see this debate as an excellent chance to reassert Presidential power that Congress has limited.
If previous administrations have ever used similar monitoring, it has not been publicly disclosed. The Clinton administration's surveillance involved Echelon. Under Echelon, foreign intelligence agencies passed on to Americam intelligence information on American citizens that they had collected and American intelligence passed on information concerning foreign citizens. Because foreign intelligence agencies were doing the listening, Constitutional protections did not apply. Echelon would be an excellent example of abiding by the letter of the law while violating the spirit. The current administration appears to be violating both and waiting to see if anyone will stop them.
As for FDRs executive order, two important differences I can see between the Executive Order you have posted and the current situation is that FDR has such authority vested in him by a specific act of Congress (section 303, Title III of the Act of December 18, 1941, Public Law 354, 77th Congress, 1st session). The second difference would be that Congress had made a declaration of war.
The current administration appears to be claiming that its powers to conduct foreign surveillance extend to any contact between Americans and foreigners on the basis that these foreigners could conceivably be foreign agents or terrorists. I base this on the Washington Post report, which if true, means that either there is no reasonable basis to assume many of these people were talking to terrorists (since only 10 warrants were sought for further surveillance) or there are a lot more terrorists in the U.S. then we have the capacity or desire to pursue.
Without any declaration of war, this claimed Presidential power is essentially endless and will go on until this vaguely defined conflict ends (if we ever reach an end). Whatever you might think about the necessity of this monitoring, I think we would all agree that more sharply defined limits need to be set on this power if we are going to allow it to continue.
Bartholomew, I was aware of the differences when I read and posted it !
What it shows is we as citizens may give up a little during war time as our troops are giving up their lives. Keep in mind that we are talking about intercepting communications between known terrorists and the people that answer that particular phone call. A bit of research may show that the NSA has been doing this for many years.
The Libertarian in me doesn't like this at all but the realist in me fails to see that a civil liberty victory for an al qaeda operative may result in the death of thousands of more Americans.
There are even more important differences between then and now. I don't expect my Libertarian friends to agree with me at all times LOL
Some major differences here are todays technology which allows terrorist operatives to use disposable cell phones and dispose of them so quickly that it's next to impossible to monitor them. Keep in mind that the FISA court would not allow a search of a jailed al qaeda operative's computer !
We do have a valid War Powers Resolution along with the President's Constitutional requirement to take action to repel attacks.
The enemy is living here enjoying our freedoms while they are plotting our demise.
While we have only passed a war powers resolution, our enemies have declared war on us !
I have posted this before but it needs repeating:
2.1 A DECLARATION OF WAR
In February 1998, the 40-year-old Saudi exile Usama Bin Ladin and a fugitive Egyptian physician, Ayman al Zawahiri, arranged from their Afghan headquarters for an Arabic newspaper in London to publish what they termed a fatwa issued in the name of a "World Islamic Front." A fatwa is normally an interpretation of Islamic law by a respected Islamic authority, but neither Bin Ladin, Zawahiri, nor the three others who signed this statement were scholars of Islamic law. Claiming that America had declared war against God and his messenger, they called for the murder of any American, anywhere on earth, as the "individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."
We can't formally declare war on every nation that harbors the terrorists. We are not harboring them in America but they are here now plotting against us !
ez45
What it shows is we as citizens may give up a little during war time as our troops are giving up their lives. Keep in mind that we are talking about intercepting communications between known terrorists and the people that answer that particular phone call. A bit of research may show that the NSA has been doing this for many years.
The Libertarian in me doesn't like this at all but the realist in me fails to see that a civil liberty victory for an al qaeda operative may result in the death of thousands of more Americans.
There are even more important differences between then and now. I don't expect my Libertarian friends to agree with me at all times LOL
Some major differences here are todays technology which allows terrorist operatives to use disposable cell phones and dispose of them so quickly that it's next to impossible to monitor them. Keep in mind that the FISA court would not allow a search of a jailed al qaeda operative's computer !
We do have a valid War Powers Resolution along with the President's Constitutional requirement to take action to repel attacks.
The enemy is living here enjoying our freedoms while they are plotting our demise.
While we have only passed a war powers resolution, our enemies have declared war on us !
I have posted this before but it needs repeating:
2.1 A DECLARATION OF WAR
In February 1998, the 40-year-old Saudi exile Usama Bin Ladin and a fugitive Egyptian physician, Ayman al Zawahiri, arranged from their Afghan headquarters for an Arabic newspaper in London to publish what they termed a fatwa issued in the name of a "World Islamic Front." A fatwa is normally an interpretation of Islamic law by a respected Islamic authority, but neither Bin Ladin, Zawahiri, nor the three others who signed this statement were scholars of Islamic law. Claiming that America had declared war against God and his messenger, they called for the murder of any American, anywhere on earth, as the "individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."
We can't formally declare war on every nation that harbors the terrorists. We are not harboring them in America but they are here now plotting against us !
ez45
Bartholomew, I was aware of the differences when I read and posted it !
What it shows is we as citizens may give up a little during war time as our troops are giving up their lives. Keep in mind that we are talking about intercepting communications between known terrorists and the people that answer that particular phone call. A bit of research may show that the NSA has been doing this for many years.
The Libertarian in me doesn't like this at all but the realist in me fails to see that a civil liberty victory for an al qaeda operative may result in the death of thousands of more Americans.
There are even more important differences between then and now. I don't expect my Libertarian friends to agree with me at all times LOL
Some major differences here are todays technology which allows terrorist operatives to use disposable cell phones and dispose of them so quickly that it's next to impossible to monitor them. Keep in mind that the FISA court would not allow a search of a jailed al qaeda operative's computer !
We do have a valid War Powers Resolution along with the President's Constitutional requirement to take action to repel attacks.
The enemy is living here enjoying our freedoms while they are plotting our demise.
While we have only passed a war powers resolution, our enemies have declared war on us !
I have posted this before but it needs repeating:
2.1 A DECLARATION OF WAR
In February 1998, the 40-year-old Saudi exile Usama Bin Ladin and a fugitive Egyptian physician, Ayman al Zawahiri, arranged from their Afghan headquarters for an Arabic newspaper in London to publish what they termed a fatwa issued in the name of a "World Islamic Front." A fatwa is normally an interpretation of Islamic law by a respected Islamic authority, but neither Bin Ladin, Zawahiri, nor the three others who signed this statement were scholars of Islamic law. Claiming that America had declared war against God and his messenger, they called for the murder of any American, anywhere on earth, as the "individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."
We can't formally declare war on every nation that harbors the terrorists. We are not harboring them in America but they are here now plotting against us !
ez45
What it shows is we as citizens may give up a little during war time as our troops are giving up their lives. Keep in mind that we are talking about intercepting communications between known terrorists and the people that answer that particular phone call. A bit of research may show that the NSA has been doing this for many years.
The Libertarian in me doesn't like this at all but the realist in me fails to see that a civil liberty victory for an al qaeda operative may result in the death of thousands of more Americans.
There are even more important differences between then and now. I don't expect my Libertarian friends to agree with me at all times LOL
Some major differences here are todays technology which allows terrorist operatives to use disposable cell phones and dispose of them so quickly that it's next to impossible to monitor them. Keep in mind that the FISA court would not allow a search of a jailed al qaeda operative's computer !
We do have a valid War Powers Resolution along with the President's Constitutional requirement to take action to repel attacks.
The enemy is living here enjoying our freedoms while they are plotting our demise.
While we have only passed a war powers resolution, our enemies have declared war on us !
I have posted this before but it needs repeating:
2.1 A DECLARATION OF WAR
In February 1998, the 40-year-old Saudi exile Usama Bin Ladin and a fugitive Egyptian physician, Ayman al Zawahiri, arranged from their Afghan headquarters for an Arabic newspaper in London to publish what they termed a fatwa issued in the name of a "World Islamic Front." A fatwa is normally an interpretation of Islamic law by a respected Islamic authority, but neither Bin Ladin, Zawahiri, nor the three others who signed this statement were scholars of Islamic law. Claiming that America had declared war against God and his messenger, they called for the murder of any American, anywhere on earth, as the "individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."
We can't formally declare war on every nation that harbors the terrorists. We are not harboring them in America but they are here now plotting against us !
ez45
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
That is an interesting assertion to make considering I have twice offered evidence from the Washington Post showing as many as 5,000 people were culled by some type of automated process (meaning more than 5,000 were initially subject to some type of surveillance) and that of those 5,000, only ~10 domestic warrants were sought as a result of surveillance.
If, as you claim, only communications between "known terrorists" and Americans are being monitored, how do you explain the lack of interest in the other 4,990 people?
Which is why the Patriot Act amended FISA to allow roving wiretaps over more than one phone number and warrantless trapping of phone numbers.
You are mistaken. In the case of Moussaoui, the FBI decided it did not have enough evidence and never sought a warrant to examine his computer. That incident is well-documented in the Congressional Report on the matter.
There are two problems with this claim. The first is that even during an actual declaration of war, FISA specifically says that warrantless wiretapping may be conducted for 15-days after the start of hostilities and no longer. Even if we consider Congress's 9-15 resolution to authorize military force as equivalent to a declaration of war, I do not see any authorization from Congress extending the deadline set into law by FISA.
The second problem with your assertion is of course the problem of deciding when this special war authority ends since there is no time limit or any other restriction on it. Does the authority expire when terrorism has been vanquished in a new utopia?
Well I hardly think that removing our freedoms so they have nothing to enjoy while they plot is the answer.
The law is pretty plain as far as FISA goes. It has clearly been violated. The President has two defenses.
1) The authorization to use military force not only acted as a declaration of war, giving the President war-time powers. It also acted as an authorization by Congress to violate FISA despite the lack of any explicit language in the act saying this.
That isn't a strong argument. Few in Congress will go along with it and the President's own actions show he doesn't believe it either. After all, if the President really believes the AUMF gives him that power, then why lobby for the Patriot Act at all since most of what he wishes to do can be done under his newly described war powers?
2) FISA is an unconstitutional restriction of the President's power to gather foreign intelligence under Article II.
This would be a question for the Supreme Court to decide. I would guess Bush has at least 4 votes for this outcome, though I am sure the court would add language in its decision that would considerably restrict the current operations. So even a win is likely to result in some trimming of the powers claimed by the President.
Whatever else happens, we should all remember that Presidents besides this one will enjoy whatever powers this precedent sets.