NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/31/senate.censure.ap/index.html

John W. Dean, Richard Nixon's White House lawyer, told senators Friday that President Bush's domestic spying exceeds the wrongdoing that toppled his former boss.

Let the Dean bashing begin! I suspect we'll hear things like:

"He's just trying to make a buck!"

"We're in a time of war! Besides, Lincoln and Emperor Nero did worse!"

"He's just an egotistical showoff like that Wilson guy."

"He's trying out for VH1's 'Behind the Corruption.' Dude, did you see that chick spit at that other chick on Flava Flav's show?"

I like Dean. He's done a great deal of really positive things since rethinking and redesigning himself after his incarceration. He's entitled to his opinion just like everyone else. :p

He's got the benefit of actually having looked at what was going on and rejecting it--albeit a bit late in the game. That puts him light years ahead of unrepentant dickheads like Chuck Colson and G. Gordon Liddy.

He's got the benefit of actually having looked at what was going on and rejecting it--albeit a bit late in the game. That puts him light years ahead of unrepentant dickheads like Chuck Colson and G. Gordon Liddy.

Which also means he can't get employment at Fox, unlike good upstanding criminals like Ollie North.

And when you've been up close and personal with corruption like Dean has, it says a lot when Bush is deemed as going a lot further than Nixon.

Thing is, most conservatives still won't give a shit. They'll hear "Bush is going too far" and immediately tune it out, no matter who it is. It could Dick fucking Cheney himself and they'd STILL ignore him.

Thing is, most conservatives still won't give a shit. They'll hear "Bush is going too far" and immediately tune it out, no matter who it is. It could Dick fucking Cheney himself and they'd STILL ignore him.


Their ability to dismiss legitimate criticism as personal dislike or wanting to blame Bush for everything is incredible.

And then they roll off a list of similar actions by former Presidents without once considering that they have to combine the incompetent or unethical acts from several Presidents in order to equal Bush's mistakes.

I wish people would stop calling them 'mistakes'. Thing about mistakes is, you're supposed to learn from them.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/31/senate.censure.ap/index.html


Let the Dean bashing begin! I suspect we'll hear things like:

"He's just trying to make a buck!"

"We're in a time of war! Besides, Lincoln and Emperor Nero did worse!"

"He's just an egotistical showoff like that Wilson guy."

"He's trying out for VH1's 'Behind the Corruption.' Dude, did you see that chick spit at that other chick on Flava Flav's show?"
Eh, he was wrong thirty years ago and he's wrong now. Some things just never change.

Thing is, most conservatives still won't give a shit. They'll hear "Bush is going too far" and immediately tune it out, no matter who it is. It could Dick fucking Cheney himself and they'd STILL ignore him.
Hmm, let's see. Specific wiretaps on political opponents to help sabotage their campaigns vs. computer triggered wiretaps using buzzwords associated with terrorists then reviewed by a human before being passed on as approaching legit to the appropriate agencies who then conduct further investigation and, depending on it's validity, either drop it or pursue it. Oh yeah, sooo much worse.

Hmm, let's see. Specific wiretaps on political opponents to help sabotage their campaigns vs. computer triggered wiretaps using buzzwords associated with terrorists then reviewed by a human before being passed on as approaching legit to the appropriate agencies who then conduct further investigation and, depending on it's validity, either drop it or pursue it. Oh yeah, sooo much worse.No oversight in either case, and what makes it worse now is that while the system may well be what you describe, there's no way to know it for sure. We're basically asked to trust the Bush administration when they say they're only targeting terrorist groups, but why should we trust them? They've been violating the law all along. You don't trust someone after they've fucked you over once, and the Bush administration has been fucking us over for five years.

Eh, he was wrong thirty years ago and he's wrong now. Some things just never change.
Oh, so you're a Nixon apologist now too? :rolleyes:

No oversight in either case, and what makes it worse now is that while the system may well be what you describe, there's no way to know it for sure. We're basically asked to trust the Bush administration when they say they're only targeting terrorist groups, but why should we trust them? They've been violating the law all along. You don't trust someone after they've fucked you over once, and the Bush administration has been fucking us over for five years.
Because if they try to use the evidence in anything other than a terrorist case it would be thrown out. With a terrorist base, one can construe it as exigent circumstances. As for abuse, until the level of gevernment is greatly reduced, I don't care how much you bitch, there will be abuse. Don't worry, gun owners have been putting up with the governments shit for years, now it's your turn.

Because if they try to use the evidence in anything other than a terrorist case it would be thrown out. With a terrorist base, one can construe it as exigent circumstances. As for abuse, until the level of gevernment is greatly reduced, I don't care how much you bitch, there will be abuse. Don't worry, gun owners have been putting up with the governments shit for years, now it's your turn.
At this point, if they tried to use the evidence in any kind of case it would be tossed because it was illegally obtained. And the real problem here, the one you're so blithely overlooking, is that there's no oversight on the program, so we have no idea who's being spied on. Could be terrorists. Could also be the DNC headquarters. You don't know. I don't know. Congress doesn't know. The FISA court doesn't know. And that's the problem.

But go ahead--continue to not care, and watch what's left of the country crumble around you. You'd be screeching if this was President Hillary doing this shit and you know it.

At this point, if they tried to use the evidence in any kind of case it would be tossed because it was illegally obtained. And the real problem here, the one you're so blithely overlooking, is that there's no oversight on the program, so we have no idea who's being spied on. Could be terrorists. Could also be the DNC headquarters. You don't know. I don't know. Congress doesn't know. The FISA court doesn't know. And that's the problem.

But go ahead--continue to not care, and watch what's left of the country crumble around you. You'd be screeching if this was President Hillary doing this shit and you know it.

To be fair, this would probably gotten out either during a Kerry or Gore Presidency anyway. I think this would've leaked regardless who was president.

Either which way, I'll say this now. Whoever leaked the tapping info violated National Security Laws and should be punished and I do not care what party they are from

To be fair, this would probably gotten out either during a Kerry or Gore Presidency anyway. I think this would've leaked regardless who was president.

Either which way, I'll say this now. Whoever leaked the tapping info violated National Security Laws and should be punished and I do not care what party they are from
I love your definition of fair, since it presupposes that Gore would have instituted an illegal program in the first place, or that Kerry would have continued one, neither of which has any basis in reality.

This was a Bush program, Corneliu. I know you like to think that Clinton did this too, but he didn't. Clinton's surveillance programs always had warrants involved. This one doesn't.

And I think whoever blew the whistle on this program deserves a goddamn medal, not prosecution.

I love your definition of fair, since it presupposes that Gore would have instituted an illegal program in the first place, or that Kerry would have continued one, neither of which has any basis in reality.

This was a Bush program, Corneliu. I know you like to think that Clinton did this too, but he didn't. Clinton's surveillance programs always had warrants involved. This one doesn't.

And I think whoever blew the whistle on this program deserves a goddamn medal, not prosecution.

I see that I come up with as non-partisan post as I could and I still get blamed for a partisan attack.

*sighs*

And it also surprises me that you support violations of National Security Laws as well. Alwell.

Continue to live in fantasy. I do not care if you want to stay blind. Have a nice day Nazz.

I see that I come up with as non-partisan post as I could and I still get blamed for a partisan attack.

*sighs*

And it also surprises me that you support violations of National Security Laws as well. Alwell.

Continue to live in fantasy. I do not care if you want to stay blind. Have a nice day Nazz.I'll tell you when I support them--in the very limited instance that they expose an illegal government program, which is the case here. I'm not the one who's blind here--you'd support a government that prosecutes people who let the public know that the government is breaking the law and violating their rights. That's pretty totalitarian.

I see that I come up with as non-partisan post as I could and I still get blamed for a partisan attack.

*sighs*

And it also surprises me that you support violations of National Security Laws as well. Alwell.

Continue to live in fantasy. I do not care if you want to stay blind. Have a nice day Nazz.

That's because you are missing the point of the law: to promote the general welfare of the citizens of a nation. In the case of national security laws, they exist and should be enforced only insofar as they promote the general welfare by ensuring that security secrets are not leaked to those who would use them to hurt citizens. In this case, however, the government was the party hurting citizens, because it was undermining and defacing the law itself. Ergo, a person who violates the letter of the law to uphold their spirit should not be prosecuted.

In other words, either you've never read Crito or you are ignoring it, and by doing so you seem to be ignoring a very intuitive notion of justice and law.

That's because you are missing the point of the law: to promote the general welfare of the citizens of a nation. In the case of national security laws, they exist and should be enforced only insofar as they promote the general welfare by ensuring that security secrets are not leaked to those who would use them to hurt citizens. In this case, however, the government was the party hurting citizens, because it was undermining and defacing the law itself. Ergo, a person who violates the letter of the law to uphold their spirit should not be prosecuted.

In other words, either you've never read Crito or you are ignoring it, and by doing so you seem to be ignoring a very intuitive notion of justice and law.

OH I read Crito. I had to for my political THEORY class. It was interesting actually. Quite an interesting book.

At this point, if they tried to use the evidence in any kind of case it would be tossed because it was illegally obtained. And the real problem here, the one you're so blithely overlooking, is that there's no oversight on the program, so we have no idea who's being spied on. Could be terrorists. Could also be the DNC headquarters. You don't know. I don't know. Congress doesn't know. The FISA court doesn't know. And that's the problem.
Actually, that's the problem. It's entirely debatable where or not what Bush did was illegal, since ever single president since the FISA act was passed has stated, publicly, that they retain the right to authorize wiretaps. It all comes down to whether the senate can, through passing laws, restrict the executive branches power. I don't think they can, they can only expand it but not so it inflicts upon states' or individuals' rights. Sort of like new federalism for the states but as applied to the branches of government.

I find it amusing that Bush openly stated during a debate that all warrants had to be reviewed by a court before they were legit and that that was the law, and now it comes out that he was spying without warrants.

I mean, this is obvious proof that the man can be trusted in everything he says. :rolleyes:

And yeah, the guy that leaked this needs a medal, not jail time.

I find it amusing that Bush openly stated during a debate that all warrants had to be reviewed by a court before they were legit and that that was the law, and now it comes out that he was spying without warrants.

I mean, this is obvious proof that the man can be trusted in everything he says. :rolleyes:

And yeah, the guy that leaked this needs a medal, not jail time.

Spying on phone calls out of the nation do not require warrents. Spying domestically for intelligence does.

Oh, so you're a Nixon apologist now too? :rolleyes:
If you remember, Dean organized the break-in and the cover up that followed. He was the one that broke the news to Nixon. He went to jail. He was wrong to obstruct justice then and he's wrong to accuse this President of worse crimes than his own.

To be fair, this would probably gotten out either during a Kerry or Gore Presidency anyway. I think this would've leaked regardless who was president.

Either which way, I'll say this now. Whoever leaked the tapping info violated National Security Laws and should be punished and I do not care what party they are from
(A) You have no evidence and thus no reason to suggest that any alternate or future president would have done what Bush chose to do, and (B) it should have been leaked, regardless of who was president, if they did it.

As for the leaker -- it is not a crime to expose a crime, even if the president is the perpetrator.

If you remember, Dean organized the break-in and the cover up that followed. He was the one that broke the news to Nixon. He went to jail. He was wrong to obstruct justice then and he's wrong to accuse this President of worse crimes than his own.
Not if the crimes are worse.

Not if the crimes are worse.
If this is the Democratic Party poster child for integrity, they're in trouble.

Spying on phone calls out of the nation do not require warrents. Spying domestically for intelligence does.
And who told you that -- the accused -- uh, I mean, the president?

If this is the Democratic Party poster child for integrity, they're in trouble.

He's not a Dem.

Actually, that's the problem. It's entirely debatable where or not what Bush did was illegal, since ever single president since the FISA act was passed has stated, publicly, that they retain the right to authorize wiretaps.

Prove it, and prove they were referring to domestic cases.




It all comes down to whether the senate can, through passing laws, restrict the executive branches power. I don't think they can, they can only expand it but not so it inflicts upon states' or individuals' rights. Sort of like new federalism for the states but as applied to the branches of government.

They can, as long as the supreme court doesn't overturn what they pass into law. It's a thing called checks and balances and is the basis of the Constitution.

Spying on phone calls out of the nation do not require warrents. Spying domestically for intelligence does.

Cool... Since shrubman has such a history of telling the truth, maybe you can tell me why I ought to beleive he's only spying on "overseas calls".

In the meantime, here's a nice little quote for you:

"The evil incident to invasion of the privacy of the telephone is far greater than that involved in tampering with the mails. Whenever a telephone line is tapped, the privacy of the persons at both ends of the line is invaded, and all con- [277 U.S. 438, 476] versations between them upon any subject, and although proper, confidential, and privileged, may be overheard. Moreover, the tapping of one man's telephone line involves the tapping of the telephone of every other person whom he may call, or who may call him. As a means of espionage, writs of assistance and general warrants are but puny instruments of tyranny and oppression when compared with wire tapping." - Olmstead Vs. United States (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=277&invol=438#478)

emphasis is my own

If this is the Democratic Party poster child for integrity, they're in trouble.
So even if Dean's opinions (which is all he was stating in the hearing) are later backed up by independently gathered corroborating evidence by investigtors, thus proving that the Bush admin broke the law, you would still let him off the hook because you don't like the people who accused him in the first place?

I'll be honest -- I like Dean, but the only reason he was even at that hearing was because Feingold's call for censure failed to allege and describe bad faith on the part of Bush. Arlen Specter pointed that out as the single fatal weakness of the measure. Specter, quite frankly, would probably just love to censure, if not outright impeach, Bush. He has frequently denounced the Bush admin for ignoring law and/or making up their own laws when the real law would block them from their little pet projects. But Feingold's measure is not the tool to do it with. These hearings are a waste of time. Dean's testimony was just theater. He's right, of course, but nothing will come of it this time.

Actually, that's the problem. It's entirely debatable where or not what Bush did was illegal, since ever single president since the FISA act was passed has stated, publicly, that they retain the right to authorize wiretaps. It all comes down to whether the senate can, through passing laws, restrict the executive branches power. I don't think they can, they can only expand it but not so it inflicts upon states' or individuals' rights. Sort of like new federalism for the states but as applied to the branches of government.
1. No, it's not debatable. The president can authorize wiretaps with warrants, which he may apply for retroactively. There is nothing in the law that says he doesn't need a warrant as per the 4th Amendment. The only people who are trying to claim otherwise are Bush, Cheney and AG Gonzalez, and they only started claiming so after their initial denials that they were doing it at all got shot down. You'll note also that they vascillate between saying the president always had this power and saying the congress gave him this power with the authorization to use force in Iraq. They have proven neither of these claims.

2. You're implying that the senate is trying to take a power away from the president, but neither you nor AG Gonzalez has proven that the president ever had the power to wiretap without a warrant. It seems to me the senate is just restricting the expansion of presidential power, and that they can and should do -- it's called checks and balances.

Originally Posted by Ravenshrike
Because if they try to use the evidence in anything other than a terrorist case it would be thrown out. With a terrorist base, one can construe it as exigent circumstances. As for abuse, until the level of gevernment is greatly reduced, I don't care how much you bitch, there will be abuse. Don't worry, gun owners have been putting up with the governments shit for years, now it's your turn.
At this point, if they tried to use the evidence in any kind of case it would be tossed because it was illegally obtained. And the real problem here, the one you're so blithely overlooking, is that there's no oversight on the program, so we have no idea who's being spied on. Could be terrorists. Could also be the DNC headquarters. You don't know. I don't know. Congress doesn't know. The FISA court doesn't know. And that's the problem.

But go ahead--continue to not care, and watch what's left of the country crumble around you. You'd be screeching if this was President Hillary doing this shit and you know it.
Most importantly, illegally obtained evidence would be tossed out if they tried to use it in a trial of an actual accused terrorist. So much for winning the War on Terror(tm).

Plus, you are right about the danger of abuses, of course. Bush apologists love to pretend they have some cynical acceptance of government corruption and that it doesn't really affect anyone. But they bitched loud enough about every crooked deal Clinton ever made, and if the next president isn't a rightwing loon, you can bet they'll be bitching about secret warrantless wiretaps then. Especially if it's one of the Democrats they accuse of being in bed with the terrorists every time Bush gets criticized.

Actually, that's the problem. It's entirely debatable where or not what Bush did was illegal, since ever single president since the FISA act was passed has stated, publicly, that they retain the right to authorize wiretaps. It all comes down to whether the senate can, through passing laws, restrict the executive branches power. I don't think they can, they can only expand it but not so it inflicts upon states' or individuals' rights. Sort of like new federalism for the states but as applied to the branches of government.
It's only debatable for apologists like you who refuse to acknowledge that your own party has stated that it's obviously illegal.

Think about this for just a second--it might sprain you, but try it. If it weren't illegal, then why is the Republican congress trying desperately to make it retroactively legal?

They can, as long as the supreme court doesn't overturn what they pass into law. It's a thing called checks and balances and is the basis of the Constitution.
Um ,you do realize that most laws must come before the supreme court in a criminal case BEFORE they can be declared constitutional or unconstitutional right? It's this thing called standing. Look it up.

Um ,you do realize that most laws must come before the supreme court in a criminal case BEFORE they can be declared constitutional or unconstitutional right? It's this thing called standing. Look it up.
Actually, very few, comparatively speaking, come as a result of criminal cases. Sometimes, they're preemptive challenges of laws that will affect existing precedents, such as the abortion cases. You might want to look that up.

You also might want to answer the question I posed to you above.

I find it amusing that Bush openly stated during a debate that all warrants had to be reviewed by a court before they were legit and that that was the law, and now it comes out that he was spying without warrants.

I mean, this is obvious proof that the man can be trusted in everything he says. :rolleyes:

And yeah, the guy that leaked this needs a medal, not jail time.

You forget, he didn't fuck up, so he doesn't get a medal.

You forget, he didn't fuck up, so he doesn't get a medal.

Well, assuming that the guy doesn't get tossed in Guantanomo the moment he's unveiled, I'd say the whole population of the US owes the guy lunch or something then. :p

That's assuming that he's not already in Guantanomo (Because this administration is so good at letting people know what illegal acts it commits).

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/31/senate.censure.ap/index.html


Let the Dean bashing begin! I suspect we'll hear things like:

"He's just trying to make a buck!"

"We're in a time of war! Besides, Lincoln and Emperor Nero did worse!"

"He's just an egotistical showoff like that Wilson guy."

"He's trying out for VH1's 'Behind the Corruption.' Dude, did you see that chick spit at that other chick on Flava Flav's show?"


Hmmm... John Dean's been criticising the Bush administration for a while now. He did write Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush (copyright 2004) after all. (Here's an excerpt from Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/031600023X/ref=sib_rdr_ex/002-4422151-0918441?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S00Q&j=0#reader-page).) And his criticisms go well beyond the wiretaps (as one might guess in a book written before those became public knowledge).

It's only debatable for apologists like you who refuse to acknowledge that your own party has stated that it's obviously illegal.

Think about this for just a second--it might sprain you, but try it. If it weren't illegal, then why is the Republican congress trying desperately to make it retroactively legal?
There's a couple of former FISA judges that have supported Bush's actions, as well as one Democratic member of the HIC. I think that's taking it out of the realm of apologist-only support.

We might put it another way, though. The only folks that find illegal activity in the President's actions are those that think he's more of a threat than the terrorists.

There's a couple of former FISA judges that have supported Bush's actions, as well as one Democratic member of the HIC. I think that's taking it out of the realm of apologist-only support.

We might put it another way, though. The only folks that find illegal activity in the President's actions are those that think he's more of a threat than the terrorists.
Names? Statements? Especially the HIC member, if you please.

Names? Statements? Especially the HIC member, if you please.
I posted about the Congresswoman that sits on the HIC a month or so ago. I'll have to dig for the former FISA judges, though. I read a story in the airport about that hearing and I don't recall the names. Shouldn't be too hard, though.

I posted about the Congresswoman that sits on the HIC a month or so ago. I'll have to dig for the former FISA judges, though. I read a story in the airport about that hearing and I don't recall the names. Shouldn't be too hard, though.
If you're talking about Jane Harman, then you're mischaracterizing her statements (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/12/AR2006021201174.html). She's been very careful to stay on the side of the program as delineated by the FISA statute, and that's what this whole debate has been over--whether Bush has the authority to o around FISA without congressional authorization.

Nice. And I DID see that chick spit on the other chick on the Flava Flav show, but it was on some sort of recap show on VH1. Outrageous!

If you're talking about Jane Harman, then you're mischaracterizing her statements (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/12/AR2006021201174.html). She's been very careful to stay on the side of the program as delineated by the FISA statute, and that's what this whole debate has been over--whether Bush has the authority to o around FISA without congressional authorization.
I don't think so. I recall, without reading the reference, that she has not reported any illegal activity by the Administration.

The transcripts of the Judiciary committee hearing are not publicly available yet, as best as I can tell. So we have to rely on folks that have either been there, or paid the money to read the transcript at fednews.com. The National Review reports these proceedings from the hearing. I think the judge's statements give some validity to the Administration position. None of this decides anything, but it at least opens up some room for doubt.

Judge Kornblum: Presidential authority to conduct wireless [Sic. Presumably Judge Kornblum meant "warrantless."] surveillance in the United States I believe exists, but it is not the President's job to determine what that authority is. It is the job of the judiciary. *** The President's intelligence authorities come from three brief elements in Article II....As you know, in Article I, Section 8, Congress has enumerated powers as well as the power to legislate all enactments necessary and proper to their specific authorities, and I believe that is what the President has, similar authority to take executive action necessary and proper to carry out his enumerated responsibilities of which today we are only talking about surveillance of Americans. ***

Senator Feinstein: Now I want to clear something up. Judge Kornblum spoke about Congress's power to pass laws to allow the President to carry out domestic electronic surveillance, and we know that FISA is the exclusive means of so doing. Is such a law, that provides both the authority and the rules for carrying out that authority, are those rules then binding on the President?

Judge Kornblum: No President has ever agreed to that. ***

Senator Feinstein: What do you think as a Judge?

Judge Kornblum: I think--as a Magistrate Judge, not a District Judge, that a President would be remiss in exercising his Constitutional authority to say that, "I surrender all of my power to a statute," and, frankly, I doubt that Congress, in a statute, can take away the President's authority, not his inherent authority, but his necessary and proper authority.

Senator Feinstein: I would like to go down the line if I could. *** Judge Baker?

Judge Baker: No, I do not believe that a President would say that.

Senator Feinstein: No. I am talking about FISA, and is a President bound by the rules and regulations of FISA?

Judge Baker: If it is held constitutional and it is passed, I suppose, just like everyone else, he is under the law too.

***

Senator Feinstein: Judge?

Judge Stafford: Everyone is bound by the law, but I do not believe, with all due respect, that even an act of Congress can limit the President's power under the Necessary and Proper Clause under the Constitution.

***

Chairman Specter: I think the thrust of what you are saying is the President is bound by statute like everyone else unless it impinges on his constitutional authority, and a statute cannot take away the President's constitutional authority. Anybody disagree with that?

[No response.]

Chairman Specter: Everybody agrees with that.

*begins to shift through paperwork*

Thanks Myrmidonisia

I don't think so. I recall, without reading the reference, that she has not reported any illegal activity by the Administration.

The transcripts of the Judiciary committee hearing are not publicly available yet, as best as I can tell. So we have to rely on folks that have either been there, or paid the money to read the transcript at fednews.com. The National Review reports these proceedings from the hearing. I think the judge's statements give some validity to the Administration position. None of this decides anything, but it at least opens up some room for doubt.
Of course, this leaves open the question of whether Bush' actions are "necessary" "proper" or "constitutional."

Actually, very few, comparatively speaking, come as a result of criminal cases. Sometimes, they're preemptive challenges of laws that will affect existing precedents, such as the abortion cases. You might want to look that up.

You also might want to answer the question I posed to you above.
Um, no. Most are criminal cases. A few, like abortion cases, are considered to have automatic standing, but that's because of the biology involved. As for you're question, because while the idea may be all fine and dandy in theory, it's always a good idea to attempt to cover your ass, just in case. Especially in the realm of politics.

I don't think so. I recall, without reading the reference, that she has not reported any illegal activity by the Administration.

The transcripts of the Judiciary committee hearing are not publicly available yet, as best as I can tell. So we have to rely on folks that have either been there, or paid the money to read the transcript at fednews.com. The National Review reports these proceedings from the hearing. I think the judge's statements give some validity to the Administration position. None of this decides anything, but it at least opens up some room for doubt.

That is entirely within keeping with the official word on the subject, which is Jackson's concurring opinion in the Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer case. Jackson never said that it was impossible for the President to do anything legally that wasn't precleared or even prohibited by Congress, only that his authority was at its lowest ebb and must be for very good reasons, usually imminent threat or actual attack on the US. To use an example, if the President had been made aware of the threat to the World Trade Center, he might have had legitemate standing to shoot down those airliners even supposing that Congress had made such an act illegal. Why? Because the US was under attack, and in such circumstances we cannot reasonably expect the President to observe the niceties of consulting Congress.

That, however, wasn't the case in this instance at all. There was no indication that the US was under threat of imminent attack. Moreover, the reason the last attack slipped through seems more because of a backlog in data analysis to interpret the dots, not the lack of dots, so it's questionable what effectiveness such a surveillance system could have. And in fact, that's what we've seen thus far from the surveillance program, namely that they've had to sift through an inordinate amount of absolute garbage. Even further, the policy is in direct contravention of laws that President Bush himself asked Congress to modify to make it more amenable to prosecution. The law was never overturned nor supplanted by later law.

In short, what we have is a standard of when the President can break the law without violating the Constitution. We also have fairly clear-cut evidence that this instance did not meet that standard: the situation was not as dangerous as the standard requires, the way to meet the danger did not seem to include the President's actions, and Bush himself asked for amending the law to make it easier to comply with the law and Congress agreed. That being the case, then everything that the woman you mentioned said could well be true without it vindicating Bush, because she was probably talking about the standard set up in the Sawyer decision.

There's a couple of former FISA judges that have supported Bush's actions, as well as one Democratic member of the HIC.
Ooh, that reminds me, while you're digging stuff up, you should post the name and statements of the judge who QUIT due this situation. That way the viewers here know you retain some integrity for your statements and you aren't just coming across as a pathetic partisan hack.

Um, no. Most are criminal cases. A few, like abortion cases, are considered to have automatic standing, but that's because of the biology involved. As for you're question, because while the idea may be all fine and dandy in theory, it's always a good idea to attempt to cover your ass, just in case. Especially in the realm of politics.
Tell you what--you count them. (http://www.oyez.org/oyez/portlet/cases/term/2003/) That's a link that lists the Supreme Court cases on the docket now and that were argued since 2004. I count 24 criminal cases out of 76 total. If by "most" you meant "more than any other single classification," then I'll concede the point. But if by most, you meant, as I understood you to mean, a majority of overall cases, then I think you're mistaken.

Of course, this leaves open the question of whether Bush' actions are "necessary" "proper" or "constitutional."
I don't pretend to like the actions of the Administration, but the recent discussion does leave the possibility of exoneration open.

Ooh, that reminds me, while you're digging stuff up, you should post the name and statements of the judge who QUIT due this situation. That way the viewers here know you retain some integrity for your statements and you aren't just coming across as a pathetic partisan hack.
Ask me if I care.

I don't pretend to like the actions of the Administration, but the recent discussion does leave the possibility of exoneration open.
For exoneration, actual evidence would have to be uncovered, made public, and submitted to judicial and/or Congressional review with the result that a jury, judge or independent prosecutor or inspector general appointed by Congress actually show that these actions do fall within proper presidential powers and, thus, exonerate the President and his cabinet of wrongdoing. All this *after* formal charges of wrongdoing are brought.

Not bloody likely, imo. I have no doubt, personally, that the Bush admin deliberately ignores laws they don't like -- and breaks the ones they can't ignore -- but as much as I would love to see at least 3 or 4 of this admin's SOBs rot in prison, I think it is far more likely that the next administration will simply sweep the whole mess under the rug. If they are democrats or moderate republicans, they'll sweep it under the rug and discontinue the programs. If they are more rightwing neocon types, they will simply declare the actions proper, without evidence, and expand the programs further into domestic spying.

Just in case you're in the mood for a prediction. :)

Tell you what--you count them. (http://www.oyez.org/oyez/portlet/cases/term/2003/) That's a link that lists the Supreme Court cases on the docket now and that were argued since 2004. I count 24 criminal cases out of 76 total. If by "most" you meant "more than any other single classification," then I'll concede the point. But if by most, you meant, as I understood you to mean, a majority of overall cases, then I think you're mistaken.
Let me rephrase that. In cases from which important constitutional matters are derived, the majority are criminal cases.

Bush claims hes only using it to listen in on terrorists. But we have no way of knowing that. Were just left to trust him. And why should we? We trusted him in going to war, look how that turned out.

No, if hes done anything in five years, its just give us more reasons NOT to trust him.

Hasn't this wiretapping stuff been used on Quakers in Vermont recently too? Or was that some other kind of spying?

Let me rephrase that. In cases from which important constitutional matters are derived, the majority are criminal cases.

You mean like

Madison vs Marburry?
Brown vs. Board of Ed?
Roe vs. Wade?
Planned Parenthood vs. Casey?
Gibbons vs Ogden?
Dred Scott vs. Sandford?
Plessy vs. Fergusson?
New York Times vs. Sullivan?

These are some of the most important cases ever heard by the Supreme Court. Not a one of them is a criminal case.

Edit: In fact, the only two truly critical ruling made by the Supreme Court that were criminal cases were regarding the rights of the accused (Miranda and Gideon vs. Wainwright)

Hasn't this wiretapping stuff been used on Quakers in Vermont recently too? Or was that some other kind of spying?
That was the Pentagon. I think they actually send in spies to infiltrate the cookie bake-offs.

You mean like

Madison vs Marburry?
Brown vs. Board of Ed?
Roe vs. Wade?
Planned Parenthood vs. Casey?
Gibbons vs Ogden?
Dred Scott vs. Sandford?
Plessy vs. Fergusson?
New York Times vs. Sullivan?

These are some of the most important cases ever heard by the Supreme Court. Not a one of them is a criminal case.

Edit: In fact, the only two truly critical ruling made by the Supreme Court that were criminal cases were regarding the rights of the accused (Miranda and Gideon vs. Wainwright)
Dred scott didn't change anything, and in fact was completely ignored by the court that gave us US v Cruikshank and Presser v Illinois. BvBoE didn't actually change anything significant other than tell the south to shut the fuck up. If I recall correctly, forced segregated schools were not the norm in the north. Rather it was a legal fiction created by the south. Again, not really changing commonly accepted constitutional law. RvW and PPvC deal with biology, as when you get right down to it is BvBoE. Will get to rest later.

Dred scott didn't change anything, and in fact was completely ignored by the court that gave us US v Cruikshank and Presser v Illinois. BvBoE didn't actually change anything significant other than tell the south to shut the fuck up. If I recall correctly, forced segregated schools were not the norm in the north. Rather it was a legal fiction created by the south. Again, not really changing commonly accepted constitutional law. RvW and PPvC deal with biology, as when you get right down to it is BvBoE. Will get to rest later.

Brown didn't do much.... :rolleyes:

It only rolled back a prominent legal paradigm and deemed "Seperate but equal" to be "inherantly unequal".

Similarly, between Roe and Casey we see a new application of Substative Due Process.