Just another in a list of many...
+++++++++++++++++

Bush acknowledges allowing eavesdropping

Order 'consistent' with 'constitutional responsibilities'

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush acknowledged on Saturday that he authorized the National Security Agency "to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations" and said leaks to the media about the program were illegal.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

New York Times admits it held domestic spying story for a full year

On the second page of a report which reveals the White House engaged in warrantless domestic spying, the New York Times reveals that it held the story for a full year at the request of the Bush Administration, RAW STORY can reveal.

The Times also reveals that senior members of Congress from both parties knew about Bush's decision to spy on Americans who were making international calls or emails, without warrants.

Further, the Times notes that they have omitted information in the article they did write, agreeing with the Bush Administration that the information could be useful for terrorists. Excerpts from the Times' article follow.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/New_York_Times_admits_it_held_1215.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is the Pentagon spying on Americans?
Secret database obtained by NBC News tracks ‘suspicious’ domestic groups

WASHINGTON - A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.

A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a “threat” and one of more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” across the country over a recent 10-month period.

“This peaceful, educationally oriented group being a threat is incredible,” says Evy Grachow, a member of the Florida group called The Truth Project.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/from/ET/=EmailThis=1
++++++++++++++++++++++

And just in case you forgot this...

'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.'

The president has openly admitted to violating the constitution. That is an impeachable offence. The "liberal" media even helped him keep it hidden for a year. But hey since BushCo. has assured everyone that it's perfectly legal, even though its not, im sure everyone will just 'fall in line'.

Edit - Get a load of this Bullshit Bush was spouting off in response:

""The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and their civil liberties and that is exactly what I will continue to do as long as I am president of the United States," Bush said."

Protect civil liberties by destroying them. We got a real smart one here...Unfortunatly most Americans are to scared, stupid or fat to care.

Agents' visit chills UMass Dartmouth senior
By AARON NICODEMUS, Standard-Times staff writer

NEW BEDFORD -- A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's tome on Communism called "The Little Red Book."
Two history professors at UMass Dartmouth, Brian Glyn Williams and Robert Pontbriand, said the student told them he requested the book through the UMass Dartmouth library's interlibrary loan program.
The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited at his parents' home in New Bedford by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said.
The professors said the student was told by the agents that the book is on a "watch list," and that his background, which included significant time abroad, triggered them to investigate the student further.
"I tell my students to go to the direct source, and so he asked for the official Peking version of the book," Professor Pontbriand said. "Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security is monitoring inter-library loans, because that's what triggered the visit, as I understand it."
Although The Standard-Times knows the name of the student, he is not coming forward because he fears repercussions should his name become public. He has not spoken to The Standard-Times.
The professors had been asked to comment on a report that President Bush had authorized the National Security Agency to spy on as many as 500 people at any given time since 2002 in this country.
The eavesdropping was apparently done without warrants.
The Little Red Book, is a collection of quotations and speech excerpts from Chinese leader Mao Tse-Tung.
In the 1950s and '60s, during the Cultural Revolution in China, it was required reading. Although there are abridged versions available, the student asked for a version translated directly from the original book.
The student told Professor Pontbriand and Dr. Williams that the Homeland Security agents told him the book was on a "watch list." They brought the book with them, but did not leave it with the student, the professors said.
Dr. Williams said in his research, he regularly contacts people in Afghanistan, Chechnya and other Muslim hot spots, and suspects that some of his calls are monitored.
"My instinct is that there is a lot more monitoring than we think," he said.
Dr. Williams said he had been planning to offer a course on terrorism next semester, but is reconsidering, because it might put his students at risk.
"I shudder to think of all the students I've had monitoring al-Qaeda Web sites, what the government must think of that," he said. "Mao Tse-Tung is completely harmless."

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm
++++++++++++++++++++++

Did you catch the irony?

This shit is insane.

Well, there should be little doubt left that Bush did say and sincerely mean it's only a G-D piece of paper when referring to the constitution.

This proves beyond any doubt, not just reasonable doubt, that he doesn't care one iota about the constitution nor does he care about the oath of office he swore to uphold while having his hand on the bible.

Worse, he is now on record with his radio address, not only that he indeed did order 30+ cases of unlawful spying, he also fully intends to continue using his dictatorial powers and run surveillance anytime he damn well pleases.

These are words of a full-blown dictator telling the duly elected oversight-intended legislature that he doesn't give a crap about what they think and he won't answer to them or their committees.

The constitution provides for handling presidents that over-reach their powers and extend the government offices to cross boundaries where they were never meant to extend, in this case, into the private lives of law-abiding citizens..

The constitution clearly states that overuse of govermental powers needs to be immediately addresed by the drawing up of impeachment papers in the house and trial in the senate and then with his muscles flexed as usual and his mission accomplished banner flying, Bush can answer those charges and explain in depth to america, his motives, his victims names and rationale if it exists.

Every congressperson that does not vote for impeachment is him/herself in violation of their own oath of office and should be charged with conspiracy, tried and sentenced to prison. No exceptions.

In light of this news of Bush's behavior, the only hope for america to continue to be the torchbearer of democracy is to remove him from office.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Well, there should be little doubt left that Bush did say and sincerely mean it's only a G-D piece of paper when referring to the constitution.


I don't know if he said it, but clearly it's how he feels about it.

Insert moronic "But I don't have anything to hide" post here:

It is interesting that the Republican Congressional leaders want to have hearings about this in the Intelligence Commitee behind closed doors. I think the hearings belong in the House Judiciary Commitee, in the full view of the public. The commitee should look into whether impeachable offenses have occurred. If they have, and I must add that if the news reports I have seen are true I think this rises to the level of an impeachable offense, that commitee should report articles of impeachment to the House of Representatives.
I am heartily sick of the way this administration has ignored the Constitution, and in general acted as if it and the laws and treaties this country have entered into are merely obstacles to be overcome in achieving their will. They regard the law as something to be obeyed only when it suits them. It is time for them to learn what the remedy prescribed in the Constitution for such an administration is.

found this capture from cnn (as well as someones addition)
http://www.chris-floyd.com/images/cnn.gif

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.
(Governing Magazine 7/98)
-- From Paul Begala's "Is Our Children Learning?"

"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked.
-- CNN.com, December 18, 2000

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said.
-- Business Week, July 30, 2001


"The difference between a Democracy and a Dictatorship is that in Democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a Dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting."
— Charles Bukowski, "Politics Is Like Trying to Screw a Cat in the Ass."

Paraphrasing ...

McCain on Meet the press speaking about spying on americans... congress knew what Bush was doing WTF? has this guy totally lost it. Why the hell does congress want to investigate if they knew about it? This will make a great attack for the dems to use against him if he runs in '08.

On George Stephanopolis's This Week ... Sam Donaldosn was a total crack up ... when talking about the mentality of spying on americans he tossed this out ... if you lived in west texas you'd understand it - they do what they want to do when they want to do it

On O'reilly's war on xmas ... O'reilly is only stroking the yahoos in his audience

Even Cokie Roberts, who usually defends Bush on everything, couldn't defend him this time.

Here's a post-it note for Cokie - you're 3 years, 2200 troops and 100,000 Iraquis too late

On edit: Andrea Mitchell, on Hardball, said the orders for the warrantless spying came from Cheney's office and she said it with conviction. She went on to say the story was broke by the intel agents themselves who knew they were breaking the law. Now we know why the NYT took the story to press -- they knew it was coming out anyway so they scooped it.

as the saying goes, you have to question the timiing of this. How is it that the day after very succesful elections in iraq this story appears? anyone who still sees the NYT as a bush lackey is fucking idiot, pardon my french. the chancess of the timing of the release of this as a coinicidence are ZERO.

As pointed out in my post up-thread ... it appears the intel agents were getting ready to go public with it so the NYT jumped on it. Other than that, I agree the timing is somewhat questionable.

whatever you say dop.

Yeah ummm In case you didn't bother reading the thread (which you obviously didn't) the NYT held onto this story for a year at the behest of the White House. Get a fucking clue Trav. Great way to try and attack the messenger while completely ignoring this infringment on Americans rights as granted by the Constitution.

sure guerilla, the white house is going to tell them to release the story the same day as the iraqi elections :rolleyes: you are so gullible its not even funny

What day the impeachable offenses are revealed is far less important than that they took place. President Bush has stated that they did, and that he is going to continue them. His arrogance is almost unbelievable. I think he must be impeached to save our republic, because the alternative is a series of Emperors like Rome had.
I, for one, am willing to fight for our constitutional form of government. In my youth I served in the military to defend this country. In my late middle age, I will still do whatever I can to insure the continuation of our republic.

That roundtable of screwballs on FOX just said the illegal spying was Clinton's fault.

I had a tough time trying to follow their well-thougt-out scheme of things because the circular logic kept getting in the way, but it went something like this ...

Bush had to spy to track terrorism because Clinton didn't.

WTF? Someone pass me the bong.

It seems Bush can justify whatever he likes by just saying "National Security"

Well - it doesn't work like that. You want to wiretap American citizens then you get a judge to sign off on it after he is presented with evidence of a credible threat. You don't just have the executive branch doing the work of the judge.

It seems more & more this administration does whatever it likes & screw the constitution. What else are they doing that has not been outed yet?

Illegal wiretaps, people held without charge indefinately in an off shore Gulag, desire to allow torture....it's not a good story.

Congress will put a stop to this wiretap stuff within weeks - just watch.

Originally posted by DrewM


Congress will put a stop to this wiretap stuff within weeks - just watch.

Congress is going to find out that they were the ones that were being wire-tapped. ROTFLMAO -- they deserve what they get for giving all the power to the neocons.

I wonder how many hugs Bush will get when McCain finds out he's been under surveillance.

Well - it doesn't work like that. You want to wiretap American citizens then you get a judge to sign off on it after he is presented with evidence of a credible threat. You don't just have the executive branch doing the work of the judge. actually with the (un)Patriot(ic) act agents didn't even have to get a warrent until 48 hours after a wiretap was placed. One has to wonder why this wasn't sufficient and what BushCo. is hiding.

This also illustrates the problem with the things like the Patriot Act. I expect the government to lie and cheat and break the rules. This doesn't mean I think it is acceptable or that it shouldn't be prosecuted when it comes to light. However when the "accptable" boundries that are presented to the public get pushed back so does all the shady shit.

FWIW: Get ready to hear the I-word. If not today, it will be along shortly. I just don't see congress letting the president tell them, they are no loger needed -- that he will decide what to do and when to do it and they will not have any oversight powers ... period. This has to come to a head and I think it will be pronto rather than later.

I'm still amazed that Clinton was impeached because he lied to Congress about something that should never have been brought to Court. Was Bill scum for cheating on his wife? Well, yeah. But he didn't break any laws. Yet it went to Court, he lied about it, and yes that was illegal. But c'mon, all he did was have a fuckin affair.

Now compare to Bush, who fabricated a war that should never have happened, has blatantly disregarded the constitution and publically announced that he WILL CONTINUE to do so.

He better be impeached. Along with all of his administration. It sickens me to think that the most intelligent species on the planet is currently being ruled by a man as fucked-up as Bush. Such power should not be in his hands. This is no longer a debate, it is a FACT.

If you think this will go as far as impeachment you grow overly enthusiastic. There may be a halt to the activities and a purging of those who participated in the happenings, but I believe the republican-controlled congress will never go to the extent of throwing Bush himself out.

Things will be cleaned up, fingers will be pointed, but in a few weeks everyone will grow weary and the heat shall die down.

Just a prediction.

You guys ought to read the original NYT article. It makes this entire discussion moot.

Now we'll have a skill testing question. Why is it moot? First one in gets a prize.

its moot because it came from the NYT

Originally posted by Evakian
If you think this will go as far as impeachment you grow overly enthusiastic. There may be a halt to the activities and a purging of those who participated in the happenings, but I believe the republican-controlled congress will never go to the extent of throwing Bush himself out.

Things will be cleaned up, fingers will be pointed, but in a few weeks everyone will grow weary and the heat shall die down.

Just a prediction.

I didn't say there would be a successful impeachment -- I simply stated you will start hearing the I-word, which IMHO, is about time, regardless of the chances of it's success.

In fact, since my prediction in my post up-thread, 2 have thrown the word out there ...

Congressman John Lewis (Georgia) ...

http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=69136

and Senator Barbara Boxer (CA) ...

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Senator_says_shes_asked_for_opinions_1219.html

Do not presume all the republicans would vote against an impeachment. Maybe they wouldn't vote for it today, but as this develops and more infomation leaks out, some of them will buy into an impeachment if necessary.

Some because they are patriots, others because they have to defend their seat and some because they are pissed at being one of the victims -- which the senate and congress members surely are ... who do you think he's spying on?

This is a win-win for the dems. If an impeachment is asked for and republicans vote against it ... the dems can just say the republicans need to explain to america why they are in favor of the president circumventing the constitution. None of them will - it can't be sanely defended. Simple as that.

Bush claims he has absolute authority to act on his own, in secret, with no oversight due to the patriot act, the IWR and the War Powers act. I personally don't recall congress declaring war and the IWR gave him only the authority to make the decision to invade Iraq not to spy on americans illegally.

The constitution makes it quite clear, that the government can not spy on an american citizen without a warrant -- no exceptions. FISA warrants only cover foreign interests -- not american citizens.

America is at a crossroads of democracy and dictatorship. If congress decides to let the president continue with suspending the constitution and relieving the judiciary and legislature of their duties -- that is called a dictatorship.

What's his next step? Gulags? Disappearing people? Martial law? Gitmo for war protestors? And if you think those things couldn't happen, ask yourself if you ever thought
your president would order the NSA to secretely spy on you. Of course you didn't but it sure as hell is happening..

On a personal note ... I gave 10 years of honorable and proud military service to my country to protect our constitution. That doesn't make me special by any means, but it does give me a right to tell these people to go f*uck-off when they want to trash the american democracy and the constitution.

I guarantee you I don't stand alone.

Now we'll have a skill testing question. Why is it moot? First one in gets a prize.
"While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it said the N.S.A. eavesdropped without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time. The list changes as some names are added and others dropped, so the number monitored in this country may have reached into the thousands over the past three years, several officials said. Overseas, about 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time, according to those officials."
-First page of NYT article.
"Since 2002, the agency has been conducting some warrantless eavesdropping on people in the United States who are linked, even if indirectly, to suspected terrorists through the chain of phone numbers and e-mail addresses, according to several officials who know of the operation. Under the special program, the agency monitors their international communications, the officials said. The agency, for example, can target phone calls from someone in New York to someone in Afghanistan."
-Fifth page of NYT article.
Doesn't look so moot to me. Unfamiliar with the constitution? We can eavesdrop all we want on the rest of the world, just not in the US itself. You need a warrant to do that. You get that warrant from a judge. A Judge is from the Judiciary branch. The President is from the Executive branch. The Executive branch cannot usurp(take away) powers from the Judiciary branch. These two branches and the Legislative branch were created to allow a balance of powers. Unbalancing these powers places too much power into the hands of too small a group of people. England had a king with a bunch of power. The framers didn't like that. They tried to prevent that. This administration is trying to undo their work.
Elementary enough for you, Sherlock?

I will agree that impeachment charges should be brought against Bush as soon as charges are also included against all the members of congress, reqardless of party, that previously knew of the wiretaps.

The American people expect congress, as elected officials, to protect the rights of the American citizens.

At least 2 members of congress previously sent letters protesting the acts. Apparantly congress was aware. Lets us hold all involved accountable, without considering political affiliations.

People would have me believe, that the members of congress are sitting in Washington, twittleing their thumbs, allowing Bush to solely run the country.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
I will agree that impeachment charges should be brought against Bush as soon as charges are also included against all the members of congress, reqardless of party, that previously knew of the wiretaps.

The American people expect congress, as elected officials, to protect the rights of the American citizens.

At least 2 members of congress previously sent letters protesting the acts. Apparantly congress was aware. Lets us hold all involved accountable, without considering political affiliations.

People would have me believe, that the members of congress are sitting in Washington, twittleing their thumbs, allowing Bush to solely run the country.

Agreed -- everyone involved needs to answer.

The wihte house told a handful of selected senators -- not the whole senate.

The problem with all this is ... you don't know who to believe ... certainly not Bush -- everything he says turns out to be a lie.

Bush monitoring activist groups ... not terrorists.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20fbi.html?hp&ex=1135141200&en=171df5b870cdd147&ei=5094&partner=homepage

He's going after poverty relief institution? WTF?

its because he hates the poor dop :rolleyes:

I agree with Dan, we should remove all politicians and strt over again. limit the new people to 1 term

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
The problem with all this is ... you don't know who to believe ... certainly not Bush -- everything he says turns out to be a lie.

Yep, all that stuff about America getting attacked on 9/11 is a big conspiracy!
::waves fingers mysteriously::

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
I will agree that impeachment charges should be brought against Bush as soon as charges are also included against all the members of congress, reqardless of party, that previously knew of the wiretaps.

The American people expect congress, as elected officials, to protect the rights of the American citizens.

At least 2 members of congress previously sent letters protesting the acts. Apparantly congress was aware. Lets us hold all involved accountable, without considering political affiliations.

People would have me believe, that the members of congress are sitting in Washington, twittleing their thumbs, allowing Bush to solely run the country.

Good post Dan, agreed on my stand.

Gonzales (AG) says congress knew all about the spying
Congress says they didn't know

Who's lying? Gonzales or the entire senate/congress?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051219/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/domestic_spying

Cheney wants president to have even more power

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=1424802

He says the presidential powers are too constrained and even hints that the president should have full authority over the constitution and war powers without consent of congress.

Originally posted by Travh20
its moot because it came from the NYT

We have a winner. My agents will be contacting you shortly.;)

Well, half a winner.

From page 5 The next year, Justice Department lawyers disclosed their thinking on the issue of warrantless wiretaps in national security cases in a little-noticed brief in an unrelated court case. In that 2002 brief, the government said that "the Constitution vests in the President inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority.....Administration officials were also encouraged by a November 2002 appeals court decision in an unrelated matter. The decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which sided with the administration in dismantling a bureaucratic "wall" limiting cooperation between prosecutors and intelligence officers, cited "the president's inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance.""

"the Constitution vests in the President inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority.....Administration officials were also encouraged by a November 2002 appeals court decision in an unrelated matter. The decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which sided with the administration in dismantling a bureaucratic "wall" limiting cooperation between prosecutors and intelligence officers, cited "the president's inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance."

AGAIN, note the 500 warrentless DOMESTIC surveillance.

So none of a foreign powers agents could live in the US?

None of the foreign powers agents could be an american citizen?

We have the recent examples of the London train bombing to remind us. We have the example of Faris, cited in the article, to remind us that indeed foreign power and their agents could both reside in the US and could be US citizens.

Most people will buy into monitoring a suspect with the proper warrant but during his speech the other night, he clearly stated he wants to detect terrorist.

Monitoring implies you have a target and are going to watch that target. That's fine. Detect implies you are going to blanket everyone until you detect something. I'm not fine with that.

I agree, its better to wait until they actually commit a crime to arrest the terrorists.

Detect infers/implies (certainy doesn't mean) blanketing everyone? :@@:

Wow.

Where did you get that one from?

Uh ... 7th grade science class.

Originally posted by Travh20
I agree, its better to wait until they actually commit a crime to arrest the terrorists.

Then why didn't bush do just that before 9/11 -- like read the intel handed off by President Clinton and read the PDB's on his desk and listen to Germany, France and not cut the budget for FBI surveillance?

It's too late now for Bush to claim to be the saviour ... the twin towers and the Pentagon were hit on his watch. PERIOD.

I can imagine the reaction of the Dops of the world if bush went around arresting 11 arab men for no reason on september 10th

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
It's too late now for Bush to claim to be the saviour ... the twin towers and the Pentagon were hit on his watch. PERIOD.

Well, just the twin towers, because in your book the Pentagon wasn't hit.

Originally posted by Evakian
Well, just the twin towers, because in your book the Pentagon wasn't hit.

No -- My claim is it wasn't a 757 -- not that it wasn't damaged.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
No -- My claim is it wasn't a 757 -- not that it wasn't damaged.

Just yanking your chain Dop :D

I know -- the pentagon topic is one I can throw out there anytime I want to liven things up. Works like a charm.

Originally posted by waldo
The next year, Justice Department lawyers disclosed their thinking on the issue of warrantless wiretaps in national security cases in a little-noticed brief in an unrelated court case. In that 2002 brief, the government said that "the Constitution vests in the President inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority.....Administration officials were also encouraged by a November 2002 appeals court decision in an unrelated matter. The decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which sided with the administration in dismantling a bureaucratic "wall" limiting cooperation between prosecutors and intelligence officers, cited "the president's inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance.""

That doesn't even come close to making it moot. Not in the legal sense of the word, anyway.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing

Every congressperson that does not vote for impeachment is him/herself in violation of their own oath of office and should be charged with conspiracy, tried and sentenced to prison. No exceptions.

In light of this news of Bush's behavior, the only hope for america to continue to be the torchbearer of democracy is to remove him from office. [/B]
===========================================
Dop, do we really need Dick Cheney as President?

Originally posted by Lungop Philing

The wihte house told a handful of selected senators -- not the whole senate.


Three of the Senators who were told were Reid, Rockerfeller and Pelosi. Not exactly who you would call a handful of selected senators. Since it was a national security matter not all members of the notoriously leak prone Senate had to be told.

If Bush goes, so should Reid, Rockerfeller and Pelosi, plus whoever else in Congress knew about the wiretaps.

I would also caution my liberal friends that while the wiretaps may yet prove to be illegal they were not criminal in the truest sense. Presidents often push the envelope, especially in times of national crisis. Look what Lincoln did during the Civil War. If you want precidence for wiretapping you need only go as far as Presidents Carter and Clinton, both of whom engaged in the practice.

We have the recent examples of the London train bombing to remind us. We have the example of Faris, cited in the article, to remind us that indeed foreign power and their agents could both reside in the US and could be US citizens.
As it's often said to the left. Don't like it, move. We have the constitution and the bill of rights. You know the USSR had police that didn't have to have a warrant to search. Maybe you should have lived there. The fact that they're in the United States or American citizens overrides their suspected ties to foreign powers. As soon as they've been convicted of treason and are no longer in the US, go ahead, search them without a warrant. Till then, our laws, nay our VALUES require a warrant, require PROBABLE CAUSE, and require each branch of this government to do THEIR job and not another's.

I agree, its better to wait until they actually commit a crime to arrest the terrorists.
In case you were unaware, conspiracy to commit a crime, is a crime. However, just searching possible terrorists without a warrant in the United States is not only a crime, but also unconstitutional. The President and any and all who conspired with him to disregard the Constitution can be tried for criminal offenses. Becoming a criminal in order to catch criminals is not right. Becoming a monster in order to catch monsters is even worse.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
===========================================
Dop, do we really need Dick Cheney as President?

He already is president :D


Frogger said:

Three of the Senators who were told were Reid, Rockerfeller and Pelosi. Not exactly who you would call a handful of selected senators. Since it was a national security matter not all members of the notoriously leak prone Senate had to be told.

If Bush goes, so should Reid, Rockerfeller and Pelosi, plus whoever else in Congress knew about the wiretaps.

I would also caution my liberal friends that while the wiretaps may yet prove to be illegal they were not criminal in the truest sense. Presidents often push the envelope, especially in times of national crisis. Look what Lincoln did during the Civil War. If you want precidence for wiretapping you need only go as far as Presidents Carter and Clinton, both of whom engaged in the practice.

All of congress is the watchdog over the executive, not just 3 house members. And the condidtions under which they were told that supposedly ultra-secret information, is that they could not share it with any of the other house members including their own committee and they could not discuss it between themselves.

Even Senator Graham, head of the Senate intelligence committee was not briefed.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/13453234.htm

So far no on has shown even the smallest piece of proof that the constitution or FISA or any of our laws/documents, gives Bush the power to spy on americans without warrants.

FISA provides for spying 1st and then getting the warrant -- why didn't he take advantage of that law? Here's why -- he'd have to divulge the names of the people being spied on and he'd have to divulge they are american citizens. Chrissakes ... Frogger .. he was spying on a group of Quakers and an animal clinic and an agency that aided the poor and not a single Frigging presumed terrorist. Your guy is out of control and gone broken arrow -- and you're OK with that?

Even the FISA judges know it's wrong and want no part of it -- this one steps down ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122000685.html

Originally posted by Frogger
Three of the Senators who were told were Reid, Rockerfeller and Pelosi.Senator Pelosi?

Good catch Sedan -- but I'm not sure I would have dinged him on it. It's more fun catching the righties on the big stuff.

And speaking of Senator [sic] Pelosi, she wants her NSA letters declassified ... looks like someone is calling someone's bluff. ROTF

http://www.democraticleader.house.gov/press/releases.cfm?pressReleaseID=1339

Wash Post says briefing a handful of senators does not meet the test ...

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics/21intel.html&OQ=adxnnlQ3D1Q26adxnnlxQ3D1135141901-cKwgYo4xbP4EjsELZEQ2FX1gQ26pagewantedQ3Dprint&OP=41df985cQ2F!3V5!Q7DkUsLkk)Z!ZOOu!-Z!Z-!DkQ3Eg)gUs!Z-gQ3A)VQ3ElP)Q3CQ3E

snippet of article ...
=============
Spy Briefings Failed to Meet Legal Test, Lawmakers Say

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 - The limited oral briefings provided by the White House to a handful of lawmakers about the domestic eavesdropping program may not have fulfilled a legal requirement under the National Security Act that calls for such reports to be in written form, Congressional officials from both parties said on Tuesday.

The White House has refused to describe the timing and scope of the briefings, except to say that there were more than a dozen. But among the small group of current and former Congressional leaders who have attended the high-level gatherings conducted by Vice President Dick Cheney at the White House, several have described them as sessions in which aides were barred and note-taking was prohibited.

...

Without a written record or the recollections of staff members to guide them, members of Congress who have attended the briefings have provided starkly different versions of what they were told at the sessions, which they said were almost invariably led by Mr. Cheney and Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who as director of the National Security Agency oversaw the effort.

...

A White House spokesman declined on Tuesday to say whether the administration had ever provided a written report to Congress about the eavesdropping program. Some reports have suggested that the first briefings to Congress took place in late 2001, before the law took effect.

ignorence is no excuse for breaking the law. That includes advice from evil lawyers.

Turns out the Umass student was lying...
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-24-05/a01lo719.htm

Here's a legal strategist's view on Bush's illegal spying scandel.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/24/13118/312

Just when you think they can't get any sleazier ... they friggin wire tapped the UN -- even the member's homes. How f'n embarrassing -- little wonder the entire world hates us.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/After_domestic_spying_reports_U.S._spying_1227.htm l

Post-it note to rest of world: This was not done in my name

Just more proof that the Wiretaps were NOT about stopping terrorists but starting a war. But hey don't let a little thing like facts stop people from defending BushCo...it never has before....

NSA spied on their own people, CIA, DIA and congress

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

That should be just about if for this bunch.

DailyKos names some of the lucky folks that were spied on ... Richardson, Powell, Biden ...

http://jlukes.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/27/24227/922

CHB says it]s not just NSA that's spying on americans ...

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7904.shtml

Not just that but the government casually asked coroporations for all their consumer records and they just handed them right over.

Don't have a link ATM