At the end of the day, this Supreme Court decision does not mean much.
They have not said Guantanamo has to be closed.... nor does it say anyone muct be released.
It has simply said that the US cannot convene special military tribunals to adjudicate terror suspects. We can, however, convene special tribunals with Congress approval. So that will be the next step.... go to Congress.
(OT): IN YER FACE BUSH! cant buy the supreme court
-
subterFUSE
- Posts: 1557
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 11:04 pm
- Location: Winter Park, FL
-
Hatchets McGee
- Posts: 251
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:23 pm
-
Hatchets McGee
- Posts: 251
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:23 pm
Did President Bush Break The Law? Here are the facts.
FISA Was Passed in 1978 to Prescribe Procedures for Physical and Electronic Surveillance.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ( FISA) of 1978 prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between or among "foreign powers." (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ ... 10_36.html)
The highly classified FISA court was set up in the 1970s to authorize secret surveillance of espionage and terrorism suspects within the United States. Under the law setting up the court, the Justice Department must show probable cause that its targets are foreign governments or their agents. The FISA law does include emergency provisions that allow warrant-less eavesdropping for up to 72 hours if the attorney general certifies there is no other way to get the information. (“Judges on Surveillance Court To Be Briefed on Spy Program,” Washington Post, 12/22/05)
According to the New York Times, Bush Authorized a Secret Spying Program Outside the FISA Systems.
”Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others without the court-approved warrants required for domestic spying, according to government officials. . . Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years.” (“Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts,” New York Times, 12/16/05)
In January, the Non-Partisan Congressional Research Service Reported that Bush Broke Law
“A Congressional Research Service [CRS] report concludes that: ‘the Bush administration’s limited briefings for Congress on the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping without warrants are ‘inconsistent with the law.’’” (“Report Questions Legality of Briefings on Surveillance,” New York Times, 1/19/06)
Legal Experts Repudiated President Bush’s Claim that He has Inherent Power for Wiretaps as Commander-in-Chief. Congress has the authority to regulate electronic surveillance in the United States. Under FISA the President must seek court approval for electronic surveillance.
A letter to Congress from a group of legal experts including Lawrence Tribe, David Cole, Ronald Dworkin, and others concluded: “But even conceding that the President in his role as Commander in Chief may generally collect "signals intelligence" on the enemy abroad, Congress indisputably has authority to regulate electronic surveillance within the United States, as it has done in FISA. Where Congress has so regulated, the President can act in contravention of statute only if his authority is exclusive, that is, not subject to the check of statutory regulation.” (“On NSA Spying: A Letter to Congress,” The New York Review of Books, 2/9/06)
The Non-Partisan Congressional Research Service Repudiated President Bush’s Claim that the NSA Program was Authorized after September 11th.
A Congressional Research Service [CRS] report concludes, “that Bush's assertion that Congress authorized such eavesdropping to detect and fight terrorists does not appear to be supported by the special resolution that Congress approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which focused on authorizing the president to use military force. ” (“Report Rebuts Bush on Spying; Domestic Action’s Legality Challenged,” Washington Post, 1/7/06)
Contrary to Administration Claims, Congress Was Not Informed of Wiretapping Program – Another Likely Infringement of the Law.
White House Counselor Dan Bartlett claimed: “We went to Congress. We talked to the chairman and the ranking member of the intelligence committee. We talked to the leadership, both Republican and Democrat, House and Senate. These very discussions happened three to four years ago… The fact of the matter is, everybody came to the same conclusion, that what the president was doing was legal and was necessary.” (CNN American Morning, 1/23/06, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... tm.08.html)
But Senator Jay Rockefeller released a sealed 7/03 letter that warned of “profound oversight issues” with warrant-less spying program: “For the last few days, I have witnessed the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General repeatedly misrepresents the facts. The record needs to be set clear that the Administration never afforded members briefed on the program an opportunity to either approve or disapprove the NSA program. The limited members who were told of the program were prohibited by the Administration from sharing any information about it with our colleagues, including other members of the Intelligence Committees.” ( http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/Intell.pdf)
And in a separate report from the one described above, the Congressional Research Office concluded that “the Bush administration’s limited briefings for Congress on the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping without warrants are ‘inconsistent with the law.’” (“Report Questions Legality of Briefings on Surveillance,” New York Times, 1/19/06)
Contrary to Administration Claims, NSA Spying Uncovered “No Imminent Plots . . . Inside the United States.”
“The law enforcement and counterterrorism officials said the program had uncovered no active Qaeda networks inside the United States planning attacks. ‘There were no imminent plots - not inside the United States,’ the former F.B.I. official said.” (“Spy Agency Data after 9/11 Let F.B.I. to Dead Ends,” New York Times, 1/17/06)
Contrary to Administration Claims, NSA Spying Program was Broad and Unfocused. o “In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month. […] ‘We’d chase a number, find it’s a schoolteacher with no indication they’ve ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed,’ said one former F.B.I. official…After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration.’” (“Spy Agency Data after 9/11 Let F.B.I. to Dead Ends,” New York Times, 1/17/06)
Numerous Legal Scholars and Republican Leaders say President Bush Broke the Law.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SCHOLARS AND FORMER GOV. OFFICIALS: “Although the program’s secrecy prevents us from being privy to all of its details the Justice Department’s defense of what it concedes was secret and warrantless electronic surveillance of persons within the United States fails to identify any plausible legal authority for such surveillance. Accordingly the program appears on its face to violate existing law.” (“On NSA Spying: A Letter to Congress,” The New York Review of Books, 2/9/06)
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: “If he has the authority to go around the FISA court, which is a court to accommodate the law of the war of terror, the FISA Act was–created a court set up by the chief justice of the United States to allow a rapid response to requests for surveillance activity in the war on terror. I don’t know of any legal basis to go around that . There may be some, but I’m not aware of it.” (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18/no-legal-basis/)
SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER: “‘There is no doubt that this is inappropriate,’ said Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who favored the Patriot Act renewal but said the NSA issue provided valuable ammunition for its opponents.”(“On Hill, Anger and Calls for Hearings Greet News of Stateside Surveillance,” Washington Post, 12/17/05)
GROVER NORQUIST: “Referring to what some see as a conflict between fighting vicious terrorists and upholding all civil liberties, Norquist said: ‘It’s not either/or. If the president thinks he needs different tools, pass a law to get them. Don’t break the existing laws .’ ” (“Political opposites aligned against Bush wiretaps,” San Francisco Chronicle, 1/26/06)
JOHN MCCAIN : “Wallace: But you do not believe that currently he has the legal authority to engage in these warrant-less wiretaps. McCain: You know, I don’t think so, but why not come to Congress?” (Fox News Sunday, 12/22/05)
CHUCK HAGEL : “Chuck Hagel said he is looking forward to congressional hearings on the legal justification for the secretive National Security Agency program. He remains unconvinced that Bush could allow the program without fully consulting with the courts or Congress.” (“Hagel Urges Bush to Explain Spy Program,” Associated Press, 1/29/06) “If he needs more authority, he just can’t unilaterally decide that that 1978 law is out of date and he will be the guardian of America and he will violate that law.” (This Week, 1/29/06)
CONGRESSMAN BOB BARR: “It’s bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without court order. So it's bad all around, and we need to get to the bottom of this. . . And if we're going to say, well, simply because some people think that this is a new threat, we're going to throw the constitution and specific laws out the window and let a president rule by the seat of his pants, is extremely dangerous, and it's uncalled for. The president had full authority to have done this under the law. He apparently chose not to, and we need to find out why? . . . Well, I am because the law provides very vast authority, and for the president, or Frank Gaffney to justify the president saying even though I have the authority under the law to do it, I have to take certain steps, I'm just going to ignore that, puts us in a situation where we've seen in decades past, with Mr. Nixon, with President Lincoln and others, President Truman, when they overstep their bounds, they need to be held accountable.
Americans Disapprove of Bush’s Overreach, According to Polls.
CNN/USA Today (Jan. 20-22): “As you may know, the Bush Administration has been wiretapping telephone conversations between U.S. citizens living in the United States and suspected terrorists living in other countries without getting a court order allowing it to do so. Do you think the Bush Administration was right or wrong in wiretapping these conversations without obtaining a court order?” Right 46%. Wrong 51%. (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... om.03.html)
CBS/NYT (Jan 20-25): “After 9/11, George W. Bush authorized government wiretaps on some phone calls in the U.S. without getting court warrants. Do you approve or disapprove of George W. Bush doing this?” Approve 46%. Disapprove 50%. (http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm)
“Breaking the Law”
Claiming national security, Richard Nixon illegally wiretapped innocent Americans.
NIXON: In 1969, during my Administration, warrant less wiretapping, even by the government, was unlawful, but if undertaken because of a presidential determination that it was in the interest of national security was lawful.
Senate Select Committee on Government Operations to Study Intelligence Operations, Feb 2, 1976
FROST: These meetings produced a plan, the Huston Plan, which advocated the systematic use of wiretappings, burglaries, or so-called black bag jobs, mail openings and infiltration against antiwar groups and others. Some of these activities, as Huston emphasized to Nixon, were clearly illegal. Nevertheless, the president approved the plan.
FROST: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.
NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.
FROST: By definition.
NIXON: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.
The Third Nixon-Frost Interview, May 20, 1977
When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.
NIXON : Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.
The Third Nixon-Frost Interview, May 20, 1997
We put a law in place to protect innocent Americans, allowing the president to wiretap for national security – but requiring a court approval within days.
The highly classified FISA court was set up in the 1970s to authorize secret surveillance of espionage and terrorism suspects within the United States. Under the law setting up the court, the Justice Department must show probable cause that its targets are foreign governments or their agents. The FISA law does include emergency provisions that allow warrantless eavesdropping for up to 72 hours if the attorney general certifies there is no other way to get the information.
Washington Post, Dec 22, 2005
Government officials are able to get an emergency warrant from the secret court within hours, sometimes minutes, if they can show an imminent threat.
New York Times, Dec 19, 2005
Congress made clear back in 1978 that there are two, and only two, statutes that authorize wiretaps within the United States. One is “Title III,” which gives the rules for wiretaps for law enforcement. The other is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which gives the rules for wiretaps for foreign intelligence purposes.
Since 1978, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(f) has said that Title III and FISA “shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance ... and the interception of domestic wire and oral communications may be conducted.”
18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(f)
George Bush is breaking that law.
LINDSEY GRAHAM:
If he has the authority to go around the FISA court, which is a court to accommodate the law of the war of terror, the FISA Act was–created a court set up by the chief justice of the United States to allow a rapid response to requests for surveillance activity in the war on terror. I don’t know of any legal basis to go around that. There may be some, but I’m not aware of it.
“Face the Nation,” CBS, Dec 18, 2005
ARLEN SPECTOR
“There is no doubt that this is inappropriate,” said Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who favored the Patriot Act renewal but said the NSA issue provided valuable ammunition for its opponents.
Washington Post, Dec 17, 2005
GROVER NORQUIST
Referring to what some see as a conflict between fighting vicious terrorists and upholding all civil liberties, Norquist said: “It’s not either/or. If the president thinks he needs different tools, pass a law to get them. Don’t break the existing laws.”
San Francisco Chronicle, Jan 26, 2006
JOHN MCCAIN
WALLACE: But you do not believe that currently he has the legal authority to engage in these warrant-less wiretaps.
MCCAIN: You know, I don’t think so, but why not come to Congress?
Fox News Sunday, Dec 22, 2005
CHUCK HAGEL
Chuck Hagel said he is looking forward to congressional hearings on the legal justification for the secretive National Security Agency program. He remains unconvinced that Bush could allow the program without fully consulting with the courts or Congress.
AP, Jan 29, 2006
Ex-Rep. BOB BARR
What's wrong with it is several-fold. One, its bad policy for our government to be spying on American citizens through the National Security Agency. Secondly, it's bad to be spying on Americans without court oversight. And thirdly, it's bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without court order. So it's bad all around, and we need to get to the bottom of this.
“The Situation Room,” CNN, Dec 16, 2005
Some experts on intelligence and national security law have said that the president overstepped his authority in ordering the NSA spying, and that the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) specifically prohibits such domestic surveillance without a warrant.
Washington Post, Jan 24, 2006
Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.
New York Times, Dec 16, 2005
Are you having trouble telling these men apart? We had a special prosecutor then.
Former Solicitor General Archibald Cox, 61, agreed yesterday to serve as the Justice Department's special prosecutor in the Watergate scandals.
Besides last June's break-in at Democratic National Headquarters, the investigation will cover all alleged offenses rising out of the 1972 presidential campaign and any other allegations involving President Nixon, his White House employees or appointees.
Speaking at the Pentagon, Richardson, who is still Secretary of Defense, said he was confident that Cox's appointment would help counter any public suspicions that the White House might try to influence the investigation.
Cox Is Chosen as Special Prosecutor: Democrat Served Under Kennedy as Solicitor General, Washington Post, May 19, 1973
We need a special prosecutor now.
AG Alberto Gonzales’s role as White House counsel when the program was authorized shows a conflict of interest; we need someone outside the administration:
The attorney general was White House counsel when Bush initiated the program, a role that could raise issues of attorney-client privilege in seeking his testimony.
ABC News, January 5, 2006
AG Alberto Gonzales is using political spin to defend the program, underscoring the need for a special prosecutor:
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I would say that with respect to comments by the former vice president it’s my understanding that during the Clinton administration there was activity regarding the physical searches without warrants, Aldrich Ames as an example. I can also say that it’s my understanding that the deputy attorney general testified before Congress that the president does have the inherent authority under the Constitution to engage in physical searches without a warrant and so those would certainly seem to be inconsistent with what the former vice president was saying today.
“Larry King Live,” CNN, Jan 16, 2006
The True Story:
Prior to 1995, FISA did not cover physical searches. With Clinton’s signature, the law was expanded to cover physical searches in 1995.
San Francisco Chronicle, Oct 6, 2001
The search of Aldrich Ames home occurred in 1993. It did not violate FISA.
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Nov 1, 1994
Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified in 1994 that the President could conduct warrantless physical searches, before FISA required physical searches to be conducted pursuant to a warrant. Gorelick was arguing that the President could conduct warrantless physical searches in the absence of Congressional action. At no time did she suggest that, after Congress required the President to obtain a warrant, the executive branch could ignore the law, nor is there any evidence the Clinton administration failed to comply with FISA.
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 7/14/94
FISA Was Passed in 1978 to Prescribe Procedures for Physical and Electronic Surveillance.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ( FISA) of 1978 prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between or among "foreign powers." (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ ... 10_36.html)
The highly classified FISA court was set up in the 1970s to authorize secret surveillance of espionage and terrorism suspects within the United States. Under the law setting up the court, the Justice Department must show probable cause that its targets are foreign governments or their agents. The FISA law does include emergency provisions that allow warrant-less eavesdropping for up to 72 hours if the attorney general certifies there is no other way to get the information. (“Judges on Surveillance Court To Be Briefed on Spy Program,” Washington Post, 12/22/05)
According to the New York Times, Bush Authorized a Secret Spying Program Outside the FISA Systems.
”Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others without the court-approved warrants required for domestic spying, according to government officials. . . Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years.” (“Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts,” New York Times, 12/16/05)
In January, the Non-Partisan Congressional Research Service Reported that Bush Broke Law
“A Congressional Research Service [CRS] report concludes that: ‘the Bush administration’s limited briefings for Congress on the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping without warrants are ‘inconsistent with the law.’’” (“Report Questions Legality of Briefings on Surveillance,” New York Times, 1/19/06)
Legal Experts Repudiated President Bush’s Claim that He has Inherent Power for Wiretaps as Commander-in-Chief. Congress has the authority to regulate electronic surveillance in the United States. Under FISA the President must seek court approval for electronic surveillance.
A letter to Congress from a group of legal experts including Lawrence Tribe, David Cole, Ronald Dworkin, and others concluded: “But even conceding that the President in his role as Commander in Chief may generally collect "signals intelligence" on the enemy abroad, Congress indisputably has authority to regulate electronic surveillance within the United States, as it has done in FISA. Where Congress has so regulated, the President can act in contravention of statute only if his authority is exclusive, that is, not subject to the check of statutory regulation.” (“On NSA Spying: A Letter to Congress,” The New York Review of Books, 2/9/06)
The Non-Partisan Congressional Research Service Repudiated President Bush’s Claim that the NSA Program was Authorized after September 11th.
A Congressional Research Service [CRS] report concludes, “that Bush's assertion that Congress authorized such eavesdropping to detect and fight terrorists does not appear to be supported by the special resolution that Congress approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which focused on authorizing the president to use military force. ” (“Report Rebuts Bush on Spying; Domestic Action’s Legality Challenged,” Washington Post, 1/7/06)
Contrary to Administration Claims, Congress Was Not Informed of Wiretapping Program – Another Likely Infringement of the Law.
White House Counselor Dan Bartlett claimed: “We went to Congress. We talked to the chairman and the ranking member of the intelligence committee. We talked to the leadership, both Republican and Democrat, House and Senate. These very discussions happened three to four years ago… The fact of the matter is, everybody came to the same conclusion, that what the president was doing was legal and was necessary.” (CNN American Morning, 1/23/06, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... tm.08.html)
But Senator Jay Rockefeller released a sealed 7/03 letter that warned of “profound oversight issues” with warrant-less spying program: “For the last few days, I have witnessed the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General repeatedly misrepresents the facts. The record needs to be set clear that the Administration never afforded members briefed on the program an opportunity to either approve or disapprove the NSA program. The limited members who were told of the program were prohibited by the Administration from sharing any information about it with our colleagues, including other members of the Intelligence Committees.” ( http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/Intell.pdf)
And in a separate report from the one described above, the Congressional Research Office concluded that “the Bush administration’s limited briefings for Congress on the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping without warrants are ‘inconsistent with the law.’” (“Report Questions Legality of Briefings on Surveillance,” New York Times, 1/19/06)
Contrary to Administration Claims, NSA Spying Uncovered “No Imminent Plots . . . Inside the United States.”
“The law enforcement and counterterrorism officials said the program had uncovered no active Qaeda networks inside the United States planning attacks. ‘There were no imminent plots - not inside the United States,’ the former F.B.I. official said.” (“Spy Agency Data after 9/11 Let F.B.I. to Dead Ends,” New York Times, 1/17/06)
Contrary to Administration Claims, NSA Spying Program was Broad and Unfocused. o “In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month. […] ‘We’d chase a number, find it’s a schoolteacher with no indication they’ve ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed,’ said one former F.B.I. official…After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration.’” (“Spy Agency Data after 9/11 Let F.B.I. to Dead Ends,” New York Times, 1/17/06)
Numerous Legal Scholars and Republican Leaders say President Bush Broke the Law.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SCHOLARS AND FORMER GOV. OFFICIALS: “Although the program’s secrecy prevents us from being privy to all of its details the Justice Department’s defense of what it concedes was secret and warrantless electronic surveillance of persons within the United States fails to identify any plausible legal authority for such surveillance. Accordingly the program appears on its face to violate existing law.” (“On NSA Spying: A Letter to Congress,” The New York Review of Books, 2/9/06)
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: “If he has the authority to go around the FISA court, which is a court to accommodate the law of the war of terror, the FISA Act was–created a court set up by the chief justice of the United States to allow a rapid response to requests for surveillance activity in the war on terror. I don’t know of any legal basis to go around that . There may be some, but I’m not aware of it.” (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18/no-legal-basis/)
SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER: “‘There is no doubt that this is inappropriate,’ said Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who favored the Patriot Act renewal but said the NSA issue provided valuable ammunition for its opponents.”(“On Hill, Anger and Calls for Hearings Greet News of Stateside Surveillance,” Washington Post, 12/17/05)
GROVER NORQUIST: “Referring to what some see as a conflict between fighting vicious terrorists and upholding all civil liberties, Norquist said: ‘It’s not either/or. If the president thinks he needs different tools, pass a law to get them. Don’t break the existing laws .’ ” (“Political opposites aligned against Bush wiretaps,” San Francisco Chronicle, 1/26/06)
JOHN MCCAIN : “Wallace: But you do not believe that currently he has the legal authority to engage in these warrant-less wiretaps. McCain: You know, I don’t think so, but why not come to Congress?” (Fox News Sunday, 12/22/05)
CHUCK HAGEL : “Chuck Hagel said he is looking forward to congressional hearings on the legal justification for the secretive National Security Agency program. He remains unconvinced that Bush could allow the program without fully consulting with the courts or Congress.” (“Hagel Urges Bush to Explain Spy Program,” Associated Press, 1/29/06) “If he needs more authority, he just can’t unilaterally decide that that 1978 law is out of date and he will be the guardian of America and he will violate that law.” (This Week, 1/29/06)
CONGRESSMAN BOB BARR: “It’s bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without court order. So it's bad all around, and we need to get to the bottom of this. . . And if we're going to say, well, simply because some people think that this is a new threat, we're going to throw the constitution and specific laws out the window and let a president rule by the seat of his pants, is extremely dangerous, and it's uncalled for. The president had full authority to have done this under the law. He apparently chose not to, and we need to find out why? . . . Well, I am because the law provides very vast authority, and for the president, or Frank Gaffney to justify the president saying even though I have the authority under the law to do it, I have to take certain steps, I'm just going to ignore that, puts us in a situation where we've seen in decades past, with Mr. Nixon, with President Lincoln and others, President Truman, when they overstep their bounds, they need to be held accountable.
Americans Disapprove of Bush’s Overreach, According to Polls.
CNN/USA Today (Jan. 20-22): “As you may know, the Bush Administration has been wiretapping telephone conversations between U.S. citizens living in the United States and suspected terrorists living in other countries without getting a court order allowing it to do so. Do you think the Bush Administration was right or wrong in wiretapping these conversations without obtaining a court order?” Right 46%. Wrong 51%. (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... om.03.html)
CBS/NYT (Jan 20-25): “After 9/11, George W. Bush authorized government wiretaps on some phone calls in the U.S. without getting court warrants. Do you approve or disapprove of George W. Bush doing this?” Approve 46%. Disapprove 50%. (http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm)
“Breaking the Law”
Claiming national security, Richard Nixon illegally wiretapped innocent Americans.
NIXON: In 1969, during my Administration, warrant less wiretapping, even by the government, was unlawful, but if undertaken because of a presidential determination that it was in the interest of national security was lawful.
Senate Select Committee on Government Operations to Study Intelligence Operations, Feb 2, 1976
FROST: These meetings produced a plan, the Huston Plan, which advocated the systematic use of wiretappings, burglaries, or so-called black bag jobs, mail openings and infiltration against antiwar groups and others. Some of these activities, as Huston emphasized to Nixon, were clearly illegal. Nevertheless, the president approved the plan.
FROST: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.
NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.
FROST: By definition.
NIXON: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.
The Third Nixon-Frost Interview, May 20, 1977
When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.
NIXON : Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.
The Third Nixon-Frost Interview, May 20, 1997
We put a law in place to protect innocent Americans, allowing the president to wiretap for national security – but requiring a court approval within days.
The highly classified FISA court was set up in the 1970s to authorize secret surveillance of espionage and terrorism suspects within the United States. Under the law setting up the court, the Justice Department must show probable cause that its targets are foreign governments or their agents. The FISA law does include emergency provisions that allow warrantless eavesdropping for up to 72 hours if the attorney general certifies there is no other way to get the information.
Washington Post, Dec 22, 2005
Government officials are able to get an emergency warrant from the secret court within hours, sometimes minutes, if they can show an imminent threat.
New York Times, Dec 19, 2005
Congress made clear back in 1978 that there are two, and only two, statutes that authorize wiretaps within the United States. One is “Title III,” which gives the rules for wiretaps for law enforcement. The other is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which gives the rules for wiretaps for foreign intelligence purposes.
Since 1978, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(f) has said that Title III and FISA “shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance ... and the interception of domestic wire and oral communications may be conducted.”
18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(f)
George Bush is breaking that law.
LINDSEY GRAHAM:
If he has the authority to go around the FISA court, which is a court to accommodate the law of the war of terror, the FISA Act was–created a court set up by the chief justice of the United States to allow a rapid response to requests for surveillance activity in the war on terror. I don’t know of any legal basis to go around that. There may be some, but I’m not aware of it.
“Face the Nation,” CBS, Dec 18, 2005
ARLEN SPECTOR
“There is no doubt that this is inappropriate,” said Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who favored the Patriot Act renewal but said the NSA issue provided valuable ammunition for its opponents.
Washington Post, Dec 17, 2005
GROVER NORQUIST
Referring to what some see as a conflict between fighting vicious terrorists and upholding all civil liberties, Norquist said: “It’s not either/or. If the president thinks he needs different tools, pass a law to get them. Don’t break the existing laws.”
San Francisco Chronicle, Jan 26, 2006
JOHN MCCAIN
WALLACE: But you do not believe that currently he has the legal authority to engage in these warrant-less wiretaps.
MCCAIN: You know, I don’t think so, but why not come to Congress?
Fox News Sunday, Dec 22, 2005
CHUCK HAGEL
Chuck Hagel said he is looking forward to congressional hearings on the legal justification for the secretive National Security Agency program. He remains unconvinced that Bush could allow the program without fully consulting with the courts or Congress.
AP, Jan 29, 2006
Ex-Rep. BOB BARR
What's wrong with it is several-fold. One, its bad policy for our government to be spying on American citizens through the National Security Agency. Secondly, it's bad to be spying on Americans without court oversight. And thirdly, it's bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without court order. So it's bad all around, and we need to get to the bottom of this.
“The Situation Room,” CNN, Dec 16, 2005
Some experts on intelligence and national security law have said that the president overstepped his authority in ordering the NSA spying, and that the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) specifically prohibits such domestic surveillance without a warrant.
Washington Post, Jan 24, 2006
Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.
New York Times, Dec 16, 2005
Are you having trouble telling these men apart? We had a special prosecutor then.
Former Solicitor General Archibald Cox, 61, agreed yesterday to serve as the Justice Department's special prosecutor in the Watergate scandals.
Besides last June's break-in at Democratic National Headquarters, the investigation will cover all alleged offenses rising out of the 1972 presidential campaign and any other allegations involving President Nixon, his White House employees or appointees.
Speaking at the Pentagon, Richardson, who is still Secretary of Defense, said he was confident that Cox's appointment would help counter any public suspicions that the White House might try to influence the investigation.
Cox Is Chosen as Special Prosecutor: Democrat Served Under Kennedy as Solicitor General, Washington Post, May 19, 1973
We need a special prosecutor now.
AG Alberto Gonzales’s role as White House counsel when the program was authorized shows a conflict of interest; we need someone outside the administration:
The attorney general was White House counsel when Bush initiated the program, a role that could raise issues of attorney-client privilege in seeking his testimony.
ABC News, January 5, 2006
AG Alberto Gonzales is using political spin to defend the program, underscoring the need for a special prosecutor:
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I would say that with respect to comments by the former vice president it’s my understanding that during the Clinton administration there was activity regarding the physical searches without warrants, Aldrich Ames as an example. I can also say that it’s my understanding that the deputy attorney general testified before Congress that the president does have the inherent authority under the Constitution to engage in physical searches without a warrant and so those would certainly seem to be inconsistent with what the former vice president was saying today.
“Larry King Live,” CNN, Jan 16, 2006
The True Story:
Prior to 1995, FISA did not cover physical searches. With Clinton’s signature, the law was expanded to cover physical searches in 1995.
San Francisco Chronicle, Oct 6, 2001
The search of Aldrich Ames home occurred in 1993. It did not violate FISA.
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Nov 1, 1994
Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified in 1994 that the President could conduct warrantless physical searches, before FISA required physical searches to be conducted pursuant to a warrant. Gorelick was arguing that the President could conduct warrantless physical searches in the absence of Congressional action. At no time did she suggest that, after Congress required the President to obtain a warrant, the executive branch could ignore the law, nor is there any evidence the Clinton administration failed to comply with FISA.
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 7/14/94
-
Meef Chaloin
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 10:09 pm
i mean no respresentation because people have been kept there for years (in secret) with no legal leg to stand on. One guy gets represented and that's meant to prove they are being fair? gimme a break. My point was that wtf is the Supreme Court doing saying that military trials are wrong but not mentioning the fact that keeping people in a secret prison without representation or trial is even worse. Oh yeah, sorry, its for the homeland security and the war on terror. nearly forgot that.subterFUSE wrote:Meef..... what are you talking about?
This whole thread was started because a Yemeni terror suspect who was granted a Navy JAG defense attorney has successfully brought his case all the way to the US Supreme Court, and won a temporary victory.
What do you mean, no representation? He has representation, and the USA provided it.... AND it is actually working.
lol no they would cut his head off because all those islamics are such evil cuntssubterFUSE wrote:Hmmmmm.... I wonder if a Muslim country would do this for an American prisoner, or for any prisoner for that matter?
-
Meef Chaloin
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 10:09 pm
I think Hatchets has done a good job of summing it up right there.Hatchets McGee wrote:whoop-tee-doo
george w has been up to no good since 2000, he's only got a year and a half to go. It seems obvious to me he'll leave to a chorus of boos and maybe even disgrace, which of course will all be part of the show. The damage will be done, what he wanted to achieve will have been achieved. but the impotent masses will feel good about themselves that 'justice' has been done (on the surface), yet the funny thing is he was allowed to run amok for 6 years doing what he pleased
its just a farce at this stage, even if he's impeached...thats meaningless. just part of a show for your benefit.
he wouldnt be the only official to do this either. corporations do it all the time. They break a law to achieve what they want, and they pay a fine. No biggie. Calculated cost for the goals they set out to achieve.
2p
-
Meef Chaloin
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 10:09 pm
-
Hatchets McGee
- Posts: 251
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:23 pm
-
subterFUSE
- Posts: 1557
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 11:04 pm
- Location: Winter Park, FL
Every one except the law of the Jungle.
Funny.
Agreed. Hatchet has done a far better job at making reasonable arguments than you have. I may still disagree, but at least he's made his points with some thought.I think Hatchets has done a good job of summing it up right there.
I'm glad you have someone else who can make your own arguments for you, but better.
M-Tech D900T laptop, 17" WSXGA+ wide-screen, Intel Pentium 4 3.4 GHz HT (600 series) 2 MB cache, 2048 RAM (Dual Channel DDR2 PC4200 533 MHz), Dual hard drives: 80 gig x 2 = 160 gig SATA 5400 rpm (RAID 0 config)
Korg Zero 8 mixer/soundcard/MIDI
Korg Zero 8 mixer/soundcard/MIDI
-
Hatchets McGee
- Posts: 251
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:23 pm
fuck me really? Well good, so long as he says that!! wouldnt want the bally blighter to be some kind of arab hater, would we?! that would look terrible!subterFUSE wrote: He was appointed by the Navy, and was even asked before he started if he had any personal qualms with representing a terror suspect.
Geneva convention? bah, load of old fashioned rubbish, we dont need that we've got good old fashioned real honest Joe PROMISES!
They even spit on their hand before shaking on it when they promise to treat them fairly. a treat to watch, made me think of apple pie.
-
Sales Dude McBoob
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 9:34 pm
- Location: Durham, NC. USA
- Contact:
Agreed. Our administration always finds a way to do whatever the fuck they want.subterFUSE wrote:At the end of the day, this Supreme Court decision does not mean much.
They have not said Guantanamo has to be closed.... nor does it say anyone muct be released.
It has simply said that the US cannot convene special military tribunals to adjudicate terror suspects. We can, however, convene special tribunals with Congress approval. So that will be the next step.... go to Congress.
From the Metro newspaper this morning:
"The Bush administration did not appear ready to accept that. White House counselor Dan Bartlett said the administration's task now is to determine how to design military tribunals that will pass muster."
So in other words, they are busy figuring out how to fly in the face of the supreme court.
You don't understand the way that the supreme court works. They hear cases to determine if certain practices, rulings, or state laws are constitutionally legal. Their rulings on cases have a very narrow scope--they don't make judgement calls on whether weed should be legal, or if Anna Nicole was a gold-digger, they simply pass judgement on the legality of the case before them. Thus, it is not part of their job to pass moral judgement on the prisons or lack of representation, it is their job to rule on the case at hand--in this instance whether or not the tribunals were legal procedings based on the laws that govern these things--the Geneva convention and US military law. Maybe someone will bring a case about the legality of the prisons and lack or representation, but until then, the supreme court has no right to talk about it. This is part of the balance of the three branches of government--if the supreme court could make rulings that are tagentially related to the case at hand, they would wield way too much power. Their job is to rule on the constitutionality of the specifics of cases they hear.Meef Chaloin wrote:
i mean no respresentation because people have been kept there for years (in secret) with no legal leg to stand on. One guy gets represented and that's meant to prove they are being fair? gimme a break. My point was that wtf is the Supreme Court doing saying that military trials are wrong but not mentioning the fact that keeping people in a secret prison without representation or trial is even worse. Oh yeah, sorry, its for the homeland security and the war on terror. nearly forgot that.
Dell Studio XPS 8100 Windows 7 64-bit, 10 GB RAM. RME Multiface, Avalon U5 & M5, Distressor, Filter Factory, UC33e, BCR-2000, FCB1010, K-Station, Hr 824 & H120 sub, EZ Bus, V-Drums, DrumKat EZ, basses, guitars, pedals... http://www.ryan-hughes.net
or hey, maybe they need the time to find the right solution to the ruling now that they have to change the approach.Sales Dude McBoob wrote:Agreed. Our administration always finds a way to do whatever the fuck they want.subterFUSE wrote:At the end of the day, this Supreme Court decision does not mean much.
They have not said Guantanamo has to be closed.... nor does it say anyone muct be released.
It has simply said that the US cannot convene special military tribunals to adjudicate terror suspects. We can, however, convene special tribunals with Congress approval. So that will be the next step.... go to Congress.
From the Metro newspaper this morning:
"The Bush administration did not appear ready to accept that. White House counselor Dan Bartlett said the administration's task now is to determine how to design military tribunals that will pass muster."
So in other words, they are busy figuring out how to fly in the face of the supreme court.
I, for one, would love to have these guys go through an american court system. It will be great to see and hear what the charges are. Make it public and then we can see if Guantanamo was too good for them or not.
rob.