NationStates Jolt Archive

This story just develops more twists and turns as it goes.
Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate—he made it seem as if those who didn’t agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda - but it will not work. We’re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.

No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting, but one can only imagine the president’s desperation.
Full story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/

So, if Bush's warrantless eavesdropping was really legal, why was he so desperate to keep the story from getting out? The answer, of course, is that it was illegal, he knew it, and he was trying to kill a story that would reveal him to be guilty of the same sort of abuse of power that brought down Richard Nixon.

And why did he bypass the FISA courts in the first place, when they have approved around 19,000 requests for eavesdropping and rejected only four or five? The only explanation that holds water is that the eavesdropping that was taking place was so outrageously illegal that the FISA courts would have rejected it.

I can't wait for an investigation to reveal who it was who was actually targeted by the eavesdropping.

:rolleyes:

I can't wait for an investigation to reveal who it was who was actually targeted by the eavesdropping.

:rolleyes:
Congress

Yet another example of Bush's powerlust and his desperate bid to hide his craving for power until the time is ripe to execute the Senate and the Supreme Court and use the Military to declare himself "Holy Emperor of America" and "Messiah of the New Church of Bushism".

This is our fate.

Yet another example of Bush's powerlust and his desperate bid to hide his craving for power until the time is ripe to execute the Senate and the Supreme Court and use the Military to declare himself "Holy Emperor of America" and "Messiah of the New Church of Bushism".

This is our fate.
More like "Holy Emperor of the World"

This story just develops more twists and turns as it goes.

Full story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/

So, if Bush's warrantless eavesdropping was really legal, why was he so desperate to keep the story from getting out? The answer, of course, is that it was illegal, he knew it, and he was trying to kill a story that would reveal him to be guilty of the same sort of abuse of power that brought down Richard Nixon.

And why did he bypass the FISA courts in the first place, when they have approved around 19,000 requests for eavesdropping and rejected only four or five? The only explanation that holds water is that the eavesdropping that was taking place was so outrageously illegal that the FISA courts would have rejected it.

I can't wait for an investigation to reveal who it was who was actually targeted by the eavesdropping.

:rolleyes:
If it was legal (doubtful), it would make all the sense in the world to keep the story secret. Why would we want a successful, clandestine tactic to gain information foiled by exposure? Some things work better when the targets don't know they are targets. Doesn't that make sense?

The Year in Review, Part One: http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW12-21-05.jpg

...you just know it'll only get worse. Why isn't this man in jail, anyway?

The Year in Review, Part One: http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW12-21-05.jpg

...you just know it'll only get worse. Why isn't this man in jail, anyway?
He has power. Period.

He has power. Period.
That just isn't enough on its' own. Power, period leads to Trouble that starts with a capital "T" which rhymes with "D" which stands for Dictatorship.

That just isn't enough on its' own. Power, period leads to Trouble that starts with a capital "T" which rhymes with "D" which stands for Dictatorship.
Apparently it is enough.

More like "Holy Emperor of the World"

No, he'd be 'Holy Emperor of America'. Only thing is that the Holy Empire of America would span from the California coast to the Hudson River to the Iberian Penninsula, to the isle of Madagascar, to the Arabian Penninsula, to the Indian sub-continent, to the Korean Penninsula, to the isle of Tasmania, to the black shores of Hawai'i. And everything in between.

Apparently it is enough.
If it is enough, it's a pathetic reflection America sees in its' leaders...

It doesnt matter, he will get away with it. He could get away with murder. There is talk about his crime for a day, Bush says it was legal and the issue slowly disapears.

"Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Gee its easy to say its illegal what Bush did, when one doesnt bother to look at our own laws!

"Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Gee its easy to say its illegal what Bush did, when one doesnt bother to look at our own laws!

Bush didn't have Warrants, PERIOD. That is what the controversy is all about!!!

The War Powers Act of 1973

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

We were attacked on 9/11.
this was an act of war.

ergo, Mr. President did not break any laws!

"Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Gee its easy to say its illegal what Bush did, when one doesnt bother to look at our own laws!

Um. Bush made it so no warrants were required. All warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable. They are only allowed under very specific circumstances. None of those circumstances apply here.

Bush violated the 4th Amendment (and several federal statutes).

That's really sad, capitalizing on the deaths of all those people to set himself up as an untouchable voyeur and all-round busybody, sticking his thick nose everywhere it oughtn't be.

Um. Bush made it so no warrants were required. All warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable. They are only allowed under very specific circumstances. None of those circumstances apply here.

Bush violated the 4th Amendment (and several federal statutes).

So in other words it is wrong to spy on known and suspected terror cells in the US when they have just successfully launched an attack against us? Thats what he was doing really. I suppose that if we intercepted a cell that was planning to nuke Chicago or New York with an "Illegal" wire tap, we should not use it, let them go, and watch them succeed again? Come on! You people make it sound like he just started spying on innocent civilians just for fun and to invade privacy. He probably did it so he would not have to put up with all the road blocks that get in the way of getting a warrent. Do you have any idea how long it takes to get one?

Do you have any idea how long it takes to get one?
Not long enough, from what I'm hearing of late.

So in other words it is wrong to spy on known and suspected terror cells in the US when they have just successfully launched an attack against us? Thats what he was doing really. I suppose that if we intercepted a cell that was planning to nuke Chicago or New York with an "Illegal" wire tap, we should not use it, let them go, and watch them succeed again? Come on! You people make it sound like he just started spying on innocent civilians just for fun and to invade privacy. He probably did it so he would not have to put up with all the road blocks that get in the way of getting a warrent. Do you have any idea how long it takes to get one?

Do you? It can be nigh instantaneous.

And, you are apparently unaware that FISA already allowed for wiretaps to start so long as the warrant was obtained within a few days afterwards.

Other than that your strawman ramblings were amusing.

And since when should terrorists enjoy the protection of our laws, when they are trying to destroy us?

And since when should terrorists enjoy the protection of our laws, when they are trying to destroy us?
Who says they were terrorists?

And since when should terrorists enjoy the protection of our laws, when they are trying to destroy us?

1. You are assuming that only terrorists were wiretapped. That assumes the government never made a mistake and never abused its power. Neither is likely.

2. All citizens of the US are guaranteed equal protection under the laws.

3. OK, tomorrow the NSA decides that you are a potential terrorist. Suddenly you have no rights. Does that really seem correct to you?

So in other words it is wrong to spy on known and suspected terror cells in the US when they have just successfully launched an attack against us? Thats what he was doing really. I suppose that if we intercepted a cell that was planning to nuke Chicago or New York with an "Illegal" wire tap, we should not use it, let them go, and watch them succeed again? Come on! You people make it sound like he just started spying on innocent civilians just for fun and to invade privacy. He probably did it so he would not have to put up with all the road blocks that get in the way of getting a warrent. Do you have any idea how long it takes to get one?

The problem is that the required oversight (warrants from a SECRET court,) was put into place so that no one could spy on citizens without someone looking over their shoulder. Phonecalls from known and suspected terrorist members WILL EASILY pass the level of probable cause the secret court requires. So...why bypass it? The only reason to do it is so that you can spy on citizens WITHOUT ANYONE knowing it. So, aside from the fact that it is illegal, it's use does not make us safer in any way and the only motivation to use this warrantless spying power is to keep government misdeeds from coming to light. In other words, they want to keep what they're doing wrong from EVERYONE.

The War Powers Act of 1973

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

We were attacked on 9/11.
this was an act of war.

ergo, Mr. President did not break any laws!

Let me remind you that 9/11 was an attack from a terrorist group, not a country. Because of that, the argument of an act of war is null and void.

And since when should terrorists enjoy the protection of our laws, when they are trying to destroy us?

This is what I like to see.

"Why should the enemy have any rights? They're the enemy!"

Rights mean absolutely nothing unless they apply to everyone. Otherwise, no-one's rights are secure. You don't decide who "the enemy" is and is not. The President does. Or more accurately, his political-hacks and incompetent cronies. That may make you feel safe, but would you feel as safe with President Clinton using those kind of powers? Nixon? Jefferson Davis?

You have no understanding of the meaning of "human rights" if you think it's ever appropriate, for any reason, to strip anyone of them.

The meaning of justice is that, having respected the rights of innocent and guilty alike, the guilty are punished and the innocent vindicated. Without that you simply have the rule of savages.

If that's what you have to do to survive, you should take a long look in the mirror and question whether or not you really deserve survival.

The War Powers Act of 1973

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

We were attacked on 9/11.
this was an act of war.

ergo, Mr. President did not break any laws!

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001811----000-.html

There was no declaration of war by Congress, try again.

Wow you people are more paranoid of the government then I thought. So all of a sudden, the government will start calling random people "terrorists"? They will then interrogate you, beat you to get more names from you, and then maybe even kill you?
From what I understand, I dont think the government has any interest in just everyday folk like you and me. They are more interested in genuine threats against our country than the individual. Plus, do not tell me there are not any terrorist cells in our country, and if there are, we should not spy on them. Again, unless you have something to hide, stop worrying about the "men-in-black" waiting for you outside in a van with a large dish on it. Plus if they do come for you, you won't know what hit you.

Who says they were terrorists?

You make it sound like they tapped everyone but the terrorists.

You make it sound like they tapped everyone but the terrorists.

No, they made it sound that without any kind of oversight, we have no way to assure that the only ones who are tapped are terrorists. They are correct.

Wow you people are more paranoid of the government then I thought. So all of a sudden, the government will start calling random people "terrorists"? They will then interrogate you, beat you to get more names from you, and then maybe even kill you?
From what I understand, I dont think the government has any interest in just everyday folk like you and me. They are more interested in genuine threats against our country than the individual. Plus, do not tell me there are not any terrorist cells in our country, and if there are, we should not spy on them. Again, unless you have something to hide, stop worrying about the "men-in-black" waiting for you outside in a van with a large dish on it. Plus if they do come for you, you won't know what hit you.

Why does Bush need to violate the 4th Amendment, FISA, etc., in order to spy on terrorist cells?

You are the one being paranoid about terrorists, while ignoring history regarding the abuse of government power.

Wow you people are more paranoid of the government then I thought. So all of a sudden, the government will start calling random people "terrorists"? They will then interrogate you, beat you to get more names from you, and then maybe even kill you?
From what I understand, I dont think the government has any interest in just everyday folk like you and me. They are more interested in genuine threats against our country than the individual. Plus, do not tell me there are not any terrorist cells in our country, and if there are, we should not spy on them. Again, unless you have something to hide, stop worrying about the "men-in-black" waiting for you outside in a van with a large dish on it. Plus if they do come for you, you won't know what hit you.
If he was seeking wiretaps against terrorists, he could easily have gotten them through the FISA courts. And saying it would have taken too much time is not a valid argument; the law says that warrants are required, and has NO OPTION for bypassing them. (Imagine trying the same argument on the IRS: "Sir, why didn't you pay taxes last year?" "It would have taken me too much time to fill out the paperwork, so I didn't bother." "Sir, you have the right to remain silent...")

So what logical explanation could there be for Bush to bypass the courts when he could have easily and quickly gotten permission from them to conduct wiretaps on suspected terrorists? The only reason to do so is because he wasn't wiretapping terrorists. That's not paranoia. It's the only logical explanation consistent with the facts. (If you want to argue that Bush wasn't acting logically, go right ahead.)

So, as it stands, Bush has admitted to ordering wiretaps without warrants, which is blatantly illegal. No law can authorize a president to bypass the Constitution. Bush has taken, twice, an oath to uphold the Constitution. He is in violation of the law and of his oath of office. If that doesn't justify removing him from office, what does?

:rolleyes:

So, if Bush's warrantless eavesdropping was really legal, why was he so desperate to keep the story from getting out?

Oh, I don't know. Possibly because YOU DON'T WANT THE ENEMY TO KNOW THERE IS SURVILLANCE GOING ON?????

Idiot

Oh, I don't know. Possibly because YOU DON'T WANT THE ENEMY TO KNOW THERE IS SURVILLANCE GOING ON?????

Idiot


Right.


Because up until this news story broke, everyone figured that the American intelligence divisions had taken the President's "Mission Accomplished" sign to heart, and decided to take the rest of the decade off.....

The notion, therefore, that intelligence WAS still being gathered came as a complete shock to all.





Hey, have you ever noticed how sarcasticly pointing out the utter lameness of the juvenile assertions of some other posters is SOOOO much more satisfying and effective than simply stooping to personal insults?

If it was legal (doubtful), it would make all the sense in the world to keep the story secret. Why would we want a successful, clandestine tactic to gain information foiled by exposure? Some things work better when the targets don't know they are targets. Doesn't that make sense?
I would guess that if you're connected in any way with al-Qaeda, you live under the assumption that you're being targeted, that your phones are tapped and that your email is being read, just to be safe. You would never say anything or write anything in the clear, not if you're smart, and let's be real here--we're not having trouble finding the dumb ones. One of the great "successes" of this program was rolling up the group that was planning on destroying the Brooklyn Bridge--with blowtorches. Not exactly top of the heap guys there.

The War Powers Act of 1973

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

We were attacked on 9/11.
this was an act of war.

ergo, Mr. President did not break any laws!

No it wasn't, it was an isolated attack with absolutly no possibility of follow up (despite what the media would have you think) ergo it was not an act of war.