Did George Bush Break The Law?

[Coldwolf]

I added my name to a Freedom of Information Act request for release of documents

snip
George Bush is using the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance on American citizens without the consent of any court. After initially refusing to confirm the story, the President has admitted to personally overseeing this domestic spying program for years.

These actions are explicitly against the law. But the administration says that other laws somehow allow for this unprecedented use of a foreign intelligence agency to spy on Americans right here in the United States. According to reports, political appointees in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel wrote still-classified legal opinions laying out the supposed justification for this program.

Governor Howard Dean is filing a formal demand that they release these documents. You can add your name to a Freedom of Information Act request by providing the information below.
snip

You can too. (http://www.democrats.org/page/petition/domesticspying/fduabf)

[rimar]

I am not usually political but I think this whole thing is rediculous. The surveillance is being used to protect us. I am not concerned about Bush listening in on my phone sex ... or whatever. LOL

[Ironhorse]

I think he did break the law. This provision of the Patriot Act was put in place with safeguards to prevent it from being used, one of which is obtaining a search warrant. IF you have cause to monitor phone calls from someone, it DOES NOT take that long to get a search warrant. They can be obtained in a matter of hours, and signed by a judge any time of the day or night. What bothers me is that, to me, Bush seems to feel he is above the laws. To monitor phone calls in an emergency situation is one thing, to do as he has apparently directed his minions to do and monitor them quite frequently is something else. Without observing the judicial process set in place, there is great potential for abuses. And I read in the paper today or yesterday that apparently reports are being given to the oversight committee on this verbally, instead of in writing as they are required to be done. And the verbal reports are not complete, according to reports. Just seems to me that there are two many things that are not being done right about this. (okay, standing back so you can begin throwing your rocks about this opinion http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif) JMO

[Dodgergirl]

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/duh.gif

[Coldwolf]

Bush's NSA director Michael Hayden: We didn't seek retroactive warrants because it involved "paperwork"
by John in DC - 12/21/2005 08:54:00 AM

I'm not kidding. This is the reason given by this two-bit un-American generalissimo who deserves to be fired and thrown in jail for life:

Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who was NSA director when the surveillance began and now serves as Bush's deputy director of national intelligence, said the secret- court process was intended for long-term surveillance of agents of an enemy power, not the current hunt for elusive terrorist cells.

"The whole key here is agility," he said at a White House briefing before Bush's news conference. According to Hayden, most warrantless surveillance conducted under Bush's authorization lasts just days or weeks, and requires only the approval of a shift supervisor. Hayden said getting retroactive court approval is inefficient because it "involves marshaling arguments" and "looping paperwork around."

Oh, well a big fat general thinks the current law is "inefficient" because it would require him to write down a few things and actually explain why he wants to invade the privacy of innocent Americans in violation of the law. Gosh, life must be really tough for General Hayden now that he no longer has Soviet dictators to emulate.

Then there's this little bit of illogic from Gonzales, who also needs to spend a few years standing on a box with a block hood on his head:

"This is not a backdoor approach," Gonzales said at the White House. "We believe Congress has authorized this kind of surveillance." He acknowledged that the administration discussed introducing legislation explicitly permitting such domestic spying but decided against it because it "would be difficult, if not impossible" to pass.

Did you get that? Gonzales claims Bush believed that Congress authorized the domestic spying. Then Gonzales says Bush didn't want to ask Congress directly to authorize the spying because he thought Congress would never approve of it. That means Gonzales and Bush knew that Congress opposed legislation permitting domestic spying without a warrant, so they also obviously knew Congress never intended to include such an authorization in the Patriot Act or elsewhere.

So basically, our Attorney General is now lying to us about why he massively violated the civil liberties of American citizens.

[Ironhorse]

~sigh~ more BS from the team of the greatest BS'er of modern times, GWB. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif

[Coldwolf]

The surveillance is being used to protect us.


You just don't get it do you?
It not just that they are spying, all they had to do was ask for an authorization from a special court that deals ONLY with security authorizations. That court has only turned down 2 requests in the last 5 years.
They either didn't think these requests would be authorized, or didn't feel the need to obey the law.
The federal government does not have the right to spy on us. Period. Unless they can at least prove a rudimentary point of law. Thats it. Period. They broke several laws. Period.

[concerned]

I spent 3 years working under contract to the NSA. Their job was listening for Enemy communications and decoding or interpreting them.All their antennas faced outward from the U.S.A.

[concerned]

I forgot one thing I wqnted to say.
IMPEACH GEORGE BUSH.

[Yosemite Joy]

Coldwolf, why do you keep posting these things here? People don't want to read things that make them uncomfortable.



Why are people in this country so eager to give up their rights? You seem to have the attitude of "well I am not an assassin, or a "terrorist" (laughable word nowadays), so what do I care?" Hello? Get smart! Wake up, you should care.

We are losing the groundwork of what this country was built on. We are losing our freedom, bit by bit. I am not being extremist here, read a bit, Google it, learn dammit.

Oh hehe, it isn't me going to blow up anything I don't care! DUH!

IGNORANCE IS FREEDOM! Want to borrow 1984? (I have two copies and mean it, PM me) I know that it is based in a communist-socialist regime setting, but dammit what do you think is happening to this place? (No offense to socialists)

I hope that for every American who hasn't read 1984 or a newspaper (I mean the sections that matter, not Dear Abby) there are 10 others that have.


God help us all.

I am done, done, done...............

[Yosemite Joy]

Oh and don't forget to vote.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904#survey

[Yosemite Joy]

Spy Court Judge Quits In Protest
Jurist Concerned Bush Order Tainted Work of Secret Panel

By Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 21, 2005; A01



A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.

Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.

Robertson, who was appointed to the federal bench in Washington by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and was later selected by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to serve on the FISA court, declined to comment when reached at his office late yesterday.

Word of Robertson's resignation came as two Senate Republicans joined the call for congressional investigations into the National Security Agency's warrantless interception of telephone calls and e-mails to overseas locations by U.S. citizens suspected of links to terrorist groups. They questioned the legality of the operation and the extent to which the White House kept Congress informed.

Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) echoed concerns raised by Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has promised hearings in the new year.

Hagel and Snowe joined Democrats Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.) in calling for a joint investigation by the Senate judiciary and intelligence panels into the classified program.

The hearings would occur at the start of a midterm election year during which the prosecution of the Iraq war could figure prominently in House and Senate races.

Not all Republicans agreed with the need for hearings and backed White House assertions that the program is a vital tool in the war against al Qaeda.

"I am personally comfortable with everything I know about it," Acting House Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said in a phone interview.

At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan was asked to explain why Bush last year said, "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." McClellan said the quote referred only to the USA Patriot Act.

Revelation of the program last week by the New York Times also spurred considerable debate among federal judges, including some who serve on the secret FISA court. For more than a quarter-century, that court had been seen as the only body that could legally authorize secret surveillance of espionage and terrorism suspects, and only when the Justice Department could show probable cause that its targets were foreign governments or their agents.

Robertson indicated privately to colleagues in recent conversations that he was concerned that information gained from warrantless NSA surveillance could have then been used to obtain FISA warrants. FISA court Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who had been briefed on the spying program by the administration, raised the same concern in 2004 and insisted that the Justice Department certify in writing that it was not occurring.

"They just don't know if the product of wiretaps were used for FISA warrants -- to kind of cleanse the information," said one source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the FISA warrants. "What I've heard some of the judges say is they feel they've participated in a Potemkin court."

Robertson is considered a liberal judge who has often ruled against the Bush administration's assertions of broad powers in the terrorism fight, most notably in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld . Robertson held in that case that the Pentagon's military commissions for prosecuting terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were illegal and stacked against the detainees.

Some FISA judges said they were saddened by the news of Robertson's resignation and want to hear more about the president's program.

"I guess that's a decision he's made and I respect him," said Judge George P. Kazen, another FISA judge. "But it's just too quick for me to say I've got it all figured out."

Bush said Monday that the White House briefed Congress more than a dozen times. But those briefings were conducted with only a handful of lawmakers who were sworn to secrecy and prevented from discussing the matter with anyone or from seeking outside legal opinions.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) revealed Monday that he had written to Vice President Cheney the day he was first briefed on the program in July 2003, raising serious concerns about the surveillance effort. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she also expressed concerns in a letter to Cheney, which she did not make public.

The chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), issued a public rebuke of Rockefeller for making his letter public.

In response to a question about the letter, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) suggested that Rockefeller should have done more if he was seriously concerned. "If I thought someone was breaking the law, I don't care if it was classified or unclassified, I would stand up and say 'the law's being broken here.' "

But Rockefeller said the secrecy surrounding the briefings left him with no other choice. "I made my concerns known to the vice president and to others who were briefed," Rockefeller said. "The White House never addressed my concerns."

Staff writers Jonathan Weisman and Charles Babington and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

[Coldwolf]

From USA Today (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/gonzalesgenerallayoutdefenseforspying;_ylt=AqdzCNt PuVxIGiGa1ZGXgTmyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN 5bmNhdA--)


Despite the secrecy of the ongoing domestic surveillance, the White House had Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Gen. Michael Hayden, the nation's No. 2 intelligence official, brief reporters:....

He and Gonzales said it was essential to bypass the legal requirements to obtain secret court warrants for such operations because they had to move quickly to stop terrorist threats.

But they struggled to explain why the administration could not have relied on FISA provisions that allow surveillance to be conducted and a warrant obtained after the fact in emergencies.

(Yes, General Hayden, you remember him? The guy who said they didn't get the retroactive warrants because it involved "paperwork" and "making arguments.")

The Bush administration simply cannot answer this one question - if time was of the essence, why didn't they conduct the searches and get the warrants after the fact, something that is allowed under the FISA law? They conducted the searches alright, but they never once sought the retroactive warrants.

They have yet to answer this question, and this is the ONLY QUESTION you need to be immediately focusing on. There is no answer, short of the administration simply wanting to defy the law. It wasn't for expediency, because they could do the search immediately. And if they say it was because they were afraid the court would deny the warrant, that's absurd since the court has refused only 5 to 15 of 19,000 warrants that have been requested.

The only reason the court would refuse a warrant in post-9/11 America is if the warrant were for something outrageous, such as, oh I don't know, spying on an American elected official or an American journalist. It would have to be a pretty outrageous request if the administration were afraid the Potemkin court would turn it down. So aren't you the least bit curious what that request was, and whether it involved YOU?

[Average Joe]

As more and more comes out on this including the practices of prior administrations, court cases, and statements from previous AGs etc., it is becoming clear it has been common practice - and not just for use against terrorism, and not just international calls.

Can it be abused? Certainly. Almost any power a politician may have can be and probably will be abused to some degree at some time.

But once again all of this ado has been just a ploy to raise concerns about renewal of the Patriot Act. Now that it has been extended the clatter should subside after a few more questions/shots fired toward Bush.

The REAL question now is who the hell leaked this covert information to the NYT???? This may well seriously backfire on the dems.

[Average Joe]

December 21, 2005
It's Legal

John Schmidt, associate attorney general of the United States in the Clinton administration, superbly explains why the NSA intercept program is legal under all authorities and precedents:

President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

Schmidt quotes the same language from the 2002 decision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review that we have cited repeatedly:

the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."

This morning, I sent the following email to New York Times reporters Eric Lichtblau and Adam Liptak (other Times reporters who have participated in the NSA stories do not publish their email addresses):

In your reporting in the Times you appear to have tried to create the impression that the NSA's overseas intercept program is, or may be, illegal. I believe that position is foreclosed by all applicable federal court precedents. I assume, for example, that you are aware of the November 2002 decision of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, in Sealed Case No. 02-001, where the court said:

"The Truong court [United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 4th Cir. 1980], as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. *** We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

In view of the controlling federal court precedents, I do not see how an argument can be made in good faith that there is any doubt about the NSA program's legality. Therefore, I wonder whether you are somehow unaware of the relevant case law. If you know of some authority to support your implication that the intercepts are or may be illegal, I would be interested to know what that authority is. If you are aware of no such authority, I think that a correction is in order.

Thank you.

John Hinderaker

I will post any response I receive.
Posted by John at 10:29 AM http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012623.php

[Kim]

Coldwolf, why do you keep posting these things here? People don't want to read things that make them uncomfortable.
I actually do want to read things that make me uncomfortable. That's how I learn. Either I get comfortable with what I'm reading because I'm stacking arguments up in my head, or I get more uncomfortable because it's making me think; then I get comfortable after I've formed an opinion. Based on your postings, I thought you feel the same; you often have very good points to make which someone who doesn't educate herself wouldn't be capable of making.

[Coldwolf]

Kim, YJ was being sarcastic. Like dripping sarcasm. With whipped cream and a cherry.

[Coldwolf]

The REAL question now is who the hell leaked this covert information to the NYT???? This may well seriously backfire on the dems.


Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.

Either you're with the Constitution or you're against it. If Congress thinks Bush has the power to do what he did, then pass legislation that explicitly lets him spy on us without any judicial check - stop playing games with this inferred and implied crap. Give him the power directly and let the American people know it (then see what happens). And if you don't want him to have the power, impeach him. But there's no in between. Either be man enough to give the man the power outright or charge him with high crimes against the Constitution.

[The President] said: "It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy."



Wrong. If we don't discuss the program and the lack of authority for it, we are meeting the enemy -- in the mirror.

[Kim]

Originally posted by Coldwolf:
Kim, YJ was being sarcastic. Like dripping sarcasm. With whipped cream and a cherry.
Wow...the new antidepressant must have slowed down the sarcasm meter. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sick.gif

[electroman]

Yeah, he broke the law...
HTTP://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c305/electrodan/bush_bong.jpg

[CatdaBrat]

It is my opinion that the public would be naive to expect any politicians to follow the law and we probably don't even know the half of it (and probably wouldn't want to). I don't think positions of power are achieved by following the straight and narrow.

Yeah, I'm jaded ...

hahahahahaa ... great photo of Bush!

[Coldwolf]

Bush now basically claiming that court wouldn't approve warrants to listen in on Osama's phone calls to Americans

That is exactly what he said today, in so many words. Read on.

Now Bush is claiming (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060101/pl_nm/security_eavesdropping_dc) that the phone calls he was tapping were solely Al Qaeda members calling people in the US.

Bush said the program limited to "a few numbers" called by known al Qaeda members outside the United States.

"If somebody from al Qaeda is calling you, we'd like to know why," Bush said.

If that's the case, then why was it so important that the administration NOT get search warrants? Why were they so deathly afraid that the court would NOT give them a warrant? Is Bush suggesting that any court in the country would reject a warrant to tap a phone conversation an American is having with Osama bin Laden? That's ridiculous, and patently untrue on its face. Clearly that's not who Bush's domestic spying program was targeting, or it wouldn't be a new program requiring new rules, and it wouldn't be "too difficult" to get a warrant after the fact. Any court in the land would give you a warrant on the spot to tape Osama's phone calls.

If that's all Bush was doing, taping the equivalent of Osama's phone calls, then he could already do it under the law. We therefore know that this is NOT what Bush was doing.

So the question remains, what was Bush really doing, who was he really spying on, and why is he now lying about it?

[electroman]

So the question remains, what was Bush really doing, who was he really spying on, and why is he now lying about it?
I think he was getting dirt on all those who would prosecute his criminal a$$ to keep them quiet http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/idea3.gif

[concerned]

It would not surprise me if you were right Electroman. He has been crapping on the Constitution and he is probably trying to cover his butt.

[49er]

I can agree that he broke the law. Heck he probably used that power to spy on his political enemies. Who knows maybe the next administration will use this power of information to financially gouge the consumer. Like what the energy companies are doing now. (oil, gas) And maybe there is a sliver of truth of how a terroristic act had been prevented using a tool in the patriot act. I don't know. Information is power and power can be abused to support specific agendas. How will the next administration abuse it to meet it's agenda?

[Coldwolf]

no...No...NO...Dammitt NO

Okay, now we're talking rogue agency wiretapping people in the US in violation of the law and without the president's approval (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/04/politics/04nsa.html?hp&ex=1136350800&en=7709e127186eb686&ei=5094&partner=homepage) . This is getting into incredibly serious territory. Even if you buy Bush's bogus "L'etat c'est moi" argument that what Bush says IS the law, since Bush hadn't signed off on what the NSA was doing, Bush appears to have no legal leg to stand on for what the NSA was doing.

It shouldn't be surprising that we're learning about more and more mission creep each day with regards to the NSA spy scandal. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's only a matter of time.

But my problem with the report is that now the focus will change. Now it is going to be on the NSA, and some mid-level jack is going to fall on a sword to save Bush.

[Summer]

It shouldn't be surprising that we're learning about more and more mission creep each day with regards to the NSA spy scandal. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's only a matter of time.

But my problem with the report is that now the focus will change. Now it is going to be on the NSA, and some mid-level jack is going to fall on a sword to save Bush.

Yup, I think thats exactly right Coldwolf. The focus will and has changed. Right where Dubya wanted it! Again, its smoke and mirrors to confuse the people and as always, someone will pay. I do think 49er had a good point that this is not a new tactic. It has been used before and undoubtedly will be used in future administrations BUT with the present crisis it is (and considered by many) to be criminal. I have to agree with a previous post (banal as it may seem) that someone "please" give this guy a b#ow j## to get impeached. It amazes me that Clinton went thru hell and high water for a sexual impropriety when a president who lies, tramples and changes the constitution, leads our country into war on false charges, ad nauseum, still continues to rule the country. I KNOW we elected him but how long can we keep ignoring the damage that is being done? This guy is getting really scary and I am scared for our country and worried about our troops. This is going beyond Vietnam (in my opinion) and where is the end?

[John @ 3300ft.]

When the terrorists finally get a nuke or a biologic, the Libs will finally get the Vietnam bodycount you all seem to be jonesing for.

To bad the tens of thousands killed will be American civilians. But, then you will be happy, 'cus it will be all Bush's fault. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/bonk.gif

[Coldwolf]

Originally posted by John @ 3300ft.:
When the terrorists finally get a nuke or a biologic, the Libs will finally get the Vietnam bodycount you all seem to be jonesing for.

To bad the tens of thousands killed will be American civilians. But, then you will be happy, 'cus it will be all Bush's fault. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/bonk.gif

John, with all due respect, what an asinine thing to say.
We aren't talking about the administration just eavesdropping on terrorists. That isn't even a freaking part of the equasion. He has the authority and ability to do that already. He also has the authority and ability to spy on citizens if he thinks they might be involved. He can get a court ordered wiretap for either of those. He can even do it first and ask later, provided there is a warrantable reason.

No John, its spying on US citizens that he felt that he couldn't get a warrant for. THATS the problem. Thats what he did wrong. And he got caught. And he admitted to it. He admitted to a felony. That is an impeachable felony.

We don't need to toss out the Constitution just because Bush wants to spy on political enemies.

[Summer]

When the terrorists finally get a nuke or a biologic, the Libs will finally get the Vietnam bodycount you all seem to be jonesing for.

To bad the tens of thousands killed will be American civilians. But, then you will be happy, 'cus it will be all Bush's fault.

Man, I think all us libs just got a good *** whoopin from John! Let me tell you this, I do not like to argue politics - "try" to stay out of this thread, but I think I do have to say that I think many people like myself want to take the "middle of the road" attitude. We may lean a little to the left or we may lean a little to the right but I don't think we want to be a fanatic in either direction. I don't profess that I am knowledgeable about all the issues today but I try my best. I read - a lot. I read about liberal and conservative views alike. My basic roots are extreme leftist - probably because of my generation attitudes (which, by the way, I have been criticized by some posters here). I am now not a "bleeding heart liberal" anymore. In fact most recently I have been leaning more to the right than I ever have! Then again, the more I see what is happening my leftist views kick in and say "this is the truth". I do believe every administration has had their faults but the more I delve into this one the more disturbed I become. Is this making sense to anyone? I am confused. Never before have I been so unable to take a definite stand on government issues. I'm scared, I'm wondering where all this is leading to, I am appalled to hear the President of the U.S. is adapting the constitution to his own means. When the hell are the troops coming home? Why is it ok for government to "spy" on citizens' conversations? What about torturing? These are just basic questions from a basic knowledgeable citizen. I love my country. I don't want it in jeopardy. I don't want anyone messing with the Constitution. Who is right and who is wrong? To all the adamant people who are black or white, good for you. But I don't think anyone has all the right answers. I get peeved by self rightous zealots who have all the answers. No, you don't have all the answers and lets hear from more people on this board that have different views. Come on out you guys, its ok to throw in your posts, no matter what they are.

[MadScot]

When the terrorists finally get a nuke or a biologic, the Libs will finally get the Vietnam bodycount you all seem to be jonesing for.

To bad the tens of thousands killed will be American civilians. But, then you will be happy, 'cus it will be all Bush's fault.

Statements like this make it very hard to stay within the forum rules. If the concept of liberal peaceniks wanting people to die wasn't so absurd, I'd find this really insulting.


Bush broke the law plain and simple. All the insulting remarks towards liberals isn't going to change that.

[49er]

To just accuse him of breaking a law is plain. A more interesting question would be why he broke the law. What were the motivations behind his decisions. Were they to maybe protect us from future catastrophe?

[electroman]

Originally posted by 49er:
To just accuse him of breaking a law is plain. A more interesting question would be why he broke the law. What were the motivations behind his decisions. Were they to maybe protect us from future catastrophe?

to protect US? surely you jest - when's the last time Bush thought about US, except to think how he could phuk us and get rich doing it. More likely to try to save his and his cronies' sorry criminal a$$es from further exposure.

[MadScot]

NBC is investigating whether or not CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour has been spied on. This would be very troubling as her husband Jamie Rubin is a former Clinton senior offical and a senior national security adviser to John Kerry's presidential campaign. If this is true he's got an awful lot of explaining to do.

[49er]

Good point electro. I would also like to see where this investigation will lead.

[Coldwolf]

Dear Scott,


Shortly after it was revealed that the Bush Administration had been using the National Security Agency to spy on American citizens without oversight by any court, Governor Dean sent an email asking you to join him in signing a Freedom of Information Act request demanding that the White House release Justice Department memos outlining the supposed authority for this illegal program.

The response to this request was overwhelming, and new signers came in daily for the past two weeks.

We spent the past few days printing all 160,000 requests, boxed them up, and DNC General Counsel Joe Sandler, blogger Tim Tagaris and I drove downtown to the Department of Justice and formally submitted them. Joe did the talking and I took the pictures -- you can see them here:

http://www.democrats.org/foiadelivery

The Justice Department has to respond within 20 days. But we may hear from them sooner -- a judge on the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which exists to provide a crucial check on executive power while allowing maximum flexibility to our intelligence services, has demanded the administration explain the supposed legal authority for this domestic spying program. The hearing will take place on Monday.

Your 160,000 requests demand exactly the same information. This gets to the core of the domestic spying scandal: we need to know what authority this administration thinks it has to conduct a program like this not only to get to the bottom of this illegal activity, but to understand just what this administration thinks it can and cannot do. Reports suggest that the vague assertion of authority to spy on Americans may be part of a larger claim of blanket authority to conduct all kinds of blatantly illegal activity - from improper detentions to torture.

George Bush himself said on the campaign trail in 2004 that any wiretap "requires a court order". But he recently admitted that years before that statement, he had personally directed our intelligence agencies to conduct surveillance on Americans without going to any court for a warrant - even though secret warrants could be obtained up to 3 days after the surveillance had begun.

It's clear that our Constitution and the rule of law mean very little to this president -- and we've seen this kind of secrecy and abuse of power before. The DNC Communications team put together a short video that looks at George Bush's Nixon-like justification for the actions he ordered:

http://www.democrats.org/wiretap

Back in 1755, Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

This administration, whose strategy for fighting terror involves unnecessary illegal wiretaps on Americans, seems to have given us exactly what Franklin predicted. Democrats will protect our nations liberty and security.

Thank you for stepping up and demanding accountability. We will be sure to keep you updated as this important story evolves.

Josh McConaha
Internet Department
Democratic National Committee

[John @ 3300ft.]

Did Osama sign that online petition too?
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

[concerned]

Many of you use the term liberal derogatively without even knowing what the word means. According to ANY dictionary it simply means having an open mind.

[Coldwolf]

Did Osama sign that online petition too?


Well John, he might have if he were a Citizen of the United States. You might not have noticed, because you are so full of awe toward the Bush league, that the problem isn't the NSA spying...thats their job. It isn't that they are looking for terrorists...that too is their job.

Its that Bush authorized them, hell, he directed them to spy on us Americans. And not just to spy on us, because there are some who need spying on, but to do it without going to the special court that gives them the special warrants.

Now you might not have a problem with that. I do. I would if it had been discovered that Clinton had done it. And I bet if it had been discovered that Clinton had ordered the NSA to do warrantless spying on...oh, ....say, his political opponents, that you would have a problem with it. That you and every other neo-con would already have impeachment hearings started. Hell look what the rightwing nutcases did because he lied about a sexual indiscretion.

Now you might not mind this president spying on Americans without a warrant. But then you've already admitted your admiration for the fascist qualities of the Bush administration. But the next president might not be of the same genre.

Do you want to give a Democrat the same powers?

[John @ 3300ft.]

Did Billary Clinton Break the Law?

Remember He/She had a penchant for FBI files...

Selective memory I guess.

[Coldwolf]

FI sign off again.
TSTDW

[Coldwolf]

What is it with these people? It's like a massive cause of stupidity has hit every reporter and every organization dealing with the issue of Bush wiretapping Americans without a warrant.

To wit, PEW's latest poll (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=267) :

Reports about President Bush authorizing wiretaps of Americans suspected of having ties to terrorists has drawn far more attention than the Abramoff case. But there is not an outcry or even consensus opinion about the government's monitoring, without court permission, the phone and email communications of Americans suspected of having terrorist ties; 48% feel this is generally right while about the same number (47%) think it is generally wrong. Public attitudes on this issue are highly partisan, with 69% of Republicans saying the government actions are generally right and nearly as many Democrats (62%) saying they are generally wrong.

Ok, did you catch that? PEW's poll showed only 48% of Americans, less than half, believe that the government should, without search warrants, tap the phones of Americans suspected of having ties to terrorists.

Again, did you get that?

Americans suspected of having ties to terrorists. And we STILL only have less than 50% support tapping them without a warrant.

Now PEW actually did ask the REAL question in this debate, namely, should the government be allowed to tap Americans' phone calls, but they buried their result way down in the report. How do Americans feel about having their phones tapped? 73% oppose. Hello? Kind of an amazing result, and one that very clearly speaks to "outrage," dontchathink?

But for PEW to say that the results from just the first question - the one that includes terrorist ties - shows there isn't an outcry, well excuse me. But fewer than half of all Americans think it's okay to tap the phones, without a warrant, of people with suspected ties to terrorists? That's a heck of a big deal. I'd have thought most Americans would say "if you've got ties to terrorists, all bets are off."

I don't mean to knock PEW, but these kind of mistakes impact us all. It's nice that they asked the real question later on, but Jesus people, that's your headline, that's your outrage, 73% of the public is opposed to what these people are doing.

[MadScot]

Well the information on this keeps piling in. Turns out Bush began doing this shortly after taking office not after 9-11. Kind of shoots down the fighting terrorists excuse such as it was. We even find out after 9-11 they destroyed the list of people they were spying on rather than share the names with other agencies.

[MadScot]

Had to point out the insidious Cheney lie from last week. Cheney boldly stated in defense of the lawless Bush Administration that if they had conducted this program prior to 9/11, they would have found out the names of some of the hijackers.
The facts are the eavesdropping operation was going on before 9-11.
We did know the names of two of the hijackers before 9-11.
So let's ask a couple real simple questions. Were the two hijackers whom were already on the watch list being eavesdropped on? If so how was 9-11 allowed to happen. This program was put in place specifically for this purpose. The special court was in place to obtain the rubber stamp warrants.
If not why not? If these were not the group of people being spied on then who were? Is the President guilty of an even larger crime. Did he divert manpower which should have been protecting us and use it for his personal political agenda? Much like 9-11 we will never get all the answers the list of people who were spied on has already been destroyed.

[BGW]

Hmmm...all the news channels have been airing sound bytes of Gore saying everything but the "I" word = impeachment. Gore sounds pretty serious about getting a committee together though.

Suddenly....I am interested!! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/yes.gif

[MadScot]

Powerful Republican Senator Arlen Specter said today said that if it is determined that Bush broke the law, both impeachment and criminal prosecution are legitimate remedies.

Specter also said that Bush didn’t have the authority under the resolution authorizing the use of force. The president has to follow the Constitution. Where you have a law which is constitutional, like Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, there still may be collateral different powers in the president under wartime circumstances.

It would seem that there is little doubt Bush broke the laws as they are written and that the FISA is valid law under the Constitution.

[49er]

Gore is a bottom feeder. You know those fish that eat crap and then spew it.

[electroman]

So, do you know what George Bush and Kurt Cobain have in common?


They both have half a brain and gore is on their back.

[MadScot]

49er might have a point you can't get much lower than Bush and Gore just sunk his teeth in pretty deep.

[Coldwolf]

Senate Judiciary Chair Arlen Specter's statement that the Bush domestic spying program broke the law was generating major news coverage last night, on the eve of the hearings. Check out some of the headlines:

CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/05/politics/main1281759.shtml): "Specter Blasts Spy Program Rationale"

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/politics/05cnd-intel.html?hp&ex=1139202000&en=f04536b9b41f4481&ei=5094&partner=homepage): "Specter Says Surveillance Program Violated the Law"

Associated Press (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DOMESTIC_SPYING?SITE=JRC&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-02-05-19-34-23): "Specter Criticizes Rationale for Spying"

That article by AP, which has been picked up on numerous sites including ABC News (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1583235) and MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11188271/), has a very clear intro: <blockquote>Sen. Arlen Specter said Sunday he believes that President Bush violated a 1978 law specifically calling for a secret court to consider and approve such monitoring. The Pennsylvania Republican branded Gonzales' explanations to date as "strained and unrealistic."</blockquote>The big question is whether Specter stays resolute today. He usually caves in to the Bush team. But the media coverage is unquestionable: Specter thinks Bush broke the law. Which should put Specter under some unpleasant scrutiny if he tries to weasel out of his repeated statements to the contrary today.

Glenn Greenwald will be doing the lion's share of the coverage of the hearings, as he's a lawyer and an expert on these issues. And for you early birds, Glenn will be on C-SPAN's Washington Journal today morning from 7:45-8:30 a.m EST debating the NSA scandal with University of Virginia Professor Robert Turner.

More from Glenn:<blockquote>This clip (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/03.html#a6996) of George Bush should be talked about all week -- why, if the Administration had all the legal authority in the world to eavesdrop without warrants and outside of FISA did it repeatedly make false statements (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/administrations-pattern-of-deceit-re.html) to the public and to the Congress assuring us all that it was eavesdropping only in accordance with FISA? Parties make false statements in order to conceal their behavior only when their behavior is improper and wrong, not when it is justified and legal. And deliberately false statements of that sort from our government officials happen to be unacceptable and wrong, and really constitute a scandal unto itself.</blockquote>Glenn makes an excellent point. If you're obeying the law, but the info you're being asked about is top secret, then you say "it's top secret" or you can even say "all of our work is within the law." You don't say "oh no, we'd never spy on anyone without a court order." Yet that is what the president said. He lied. And generally, the only reason you outright lie is when you're breaking the law and you know it.

[MarkB]

http://a.im.craigslist.org/UC/Ov/4c9CVVD2vbcVozWrDUvp42euPdPU.jpg

you guys lost .... get over it