*rubbing hands and laughing maniacally!*


Well, well, well, it's just AMAZING what one digs up on the internet if they happen to be in the right place at the right time! Man, this is going to be good!


It seems that not only did Bush have the authority to conduct electronic surveillance on those who are in contact with Al Qeada, but he had the authority, and indeed, the DUTY to override, set aside, scorn, slight, tune out, discount, disdain and just plain old ignore the FISA act of 1978 and conduct surveillance without a warrant. In fact, Bush could've and did, as Vile put it, make up his own procedure when it comes to surveilling those who might be in cahoots with the Al Qeada types.


So where does this Authority comes from and who said it, WELL that is the interesting part, read on!!


It seems that the question of exactly what powers the President has when it comes to National Security and Foreign Intelligence Collection has arisen before, and time and time again, it has been upheld that the President is completely and totally free to do as he damn well sees fit to protect the U.S. foreign attacks.

So, who did defend such vast Presidential Authority? IF you're guessing Limbaugh, Rove, Cheney, Rice or another GOP crony, put on your DUNCE cap and go to the back of the class! The most recent examples come from the Attorney General's Office when it was under the tender mecrcies of Janet Reno, more over the Walter Dillinger, who was the Assistant Attorney General and working for the Office of Legal Counsel at the time, wrote out an legal opinion titled "The President's Authority to Decline to Execute Unconstitutional Statutes."

Nor was Mr Dillinger wasn't the only one to support the idea that the President has supreme authority to collect intelligence and protect national security. The same opinion was seconded by one Bryan Cunningham, a lawyer for the Clinton and Bush Administration who has worked on National Security issues.


So, the Clinton Administration and two wonks supported the idea that the Prez has complete authority to do as he pleases when it comes to surveillance, right? WRONG. EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENCY has claimed that executive privledge that has come before. Moreover, the SUPREME COURT has upheld this idea going back to the Wilson Administration and support from the Justice Department going back to 1860! So, we're looking at some 150 years of precedent, of Executive Priviledge. Wow.

So, what does this mean? Congressmen Kennedy, Reid, Boxer, Pelosi, Clinton all KNEW not only of Bill Clinton Echelon programs (and weren't outraged by the amount of invasiveness it was into the lives of ordinary Americans). They, and all the other Democrats now screaming blue murder about Bush going beyond the Constitution, knew full and god damned well the scope of Presidential priviledge when it comes to operations like Bush's NSA surveillance. They were willing to bet on public ignorance and feign outrage to undermine the Bush Administration. These guys were willing, and did, put the American people at risk for false, phony and cheap political points.

Contrast that with what Bush was doing. Who did inform the Justice Department, the Senate Intelligence Committe, the Majority and Minority leaders of Congress of exactly what his NSA serviellance program was doing, and had that programmed reviewed by the Justice Department to INSURE that what info was being gathered was kept narrow and focussed only on those who were communicating with Al Qeada.

Now, you guys tell me who was acting responsibly, and who's out making political cheap shots, dammit.


They're talking about holding hearing on the "domestic spying case?" BRING IT ON! I'll be more than happy to see these guys discuss Presidential authority, court precedent and which Senators knew what and when, and the rampant case of Selective Outrage Syndrome the Democrats seem to suffer.

I'll post the link for some informative reading, dammit.

So, Vile, what do you have to say about this?


Read it and WEEP! (http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200602060731.asp)

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
So where does this Authority comes from and who said it, WELL that is the interesting part, read on!!


It seems that the question of exactly what powers the President has when it comes to National Security and Foreign Intelligence Collection has arisen before, and time and time again, it has been upheld that the President is completely and totally free to do as he damn well sees fit to protect the U.S. foreign attacks.

Who "upheld" this authority?


So, who did defend such vast Presidential Authority? IF you're guessing Limbaugh, Rove, Cheney, Rice or another GOP crony, put on your DUNCE cap and go to the back of the class! The most recent examples come from the Attorney General's Office when it was under the tender mecrcies of Janet Reno, more over the Walter Dillinger, who was the Assistant Attorney General and working for the Office of Legal Counsel at the time, wrote out an legal opinion titled "The President's Authority to Decline to Execute Unconstitutional Statutes."

Nor was Mr Dillinger wasn't the only one to support the idea that the President has supreme authority to collect intelligence and protect national security. The same opinion was seconded by one Bryan Cunningham, a lawyer for the Clinton and Bush Administration who has worked on National Security issues.

I certainly hope you aren't arguing that a President has powers because some lawyers working for the Executive Branch write an opinion saying he does.


So, the Clinton Administration and two wonks supported the idea that the Prez has complete authority to do as he pleases when it comes to surveillance, right? WRONG. EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENCY has claimed that executive privledge that has come before.

Are you saying that every President has wiretapped people without getting a warrant? That is what we're talking about here, not the legal idea of Executive Privilege.


Moreover, the SUPREME COURT has upheld this idea going back to the Wilson Administration and support from the Justice Department going back to 1860! So, we're looking at some 150 years of precedent, of Executive Priviledge. Wow.

Do you have any actual cases to cite? Again Darth, we're not talking about Executive Privilege.


So, what does this mean? Congressmen Kennedy, Reid, Boxer, Pelosi, Clinton all KNEW not only of Bill Clinton Echelon programs (and weren't outraged by the amount of invasiveness it was into the lives of ordinary Americans). They, and all the other Democrats now screaming blue murder about Bush going beyond the Constitution, knew full and god damned well the scope of Presidential priviledge when it comes to operations like Bush's NSA surveillance. They were willing to bet on public ignorance and feign outrage to undermine the Bush Administration. These guys were willing, and did, put the American people at risk for false, phony and cheap political points.

Who cares. I didn't know. My outrage isn't feigned.


Contrast that with what Bush was doing. Who did inform the Justice Department, the Senate Intelligence Committe, the Majority and Minority leaders of Congress of exactly what his NSA serviellance program was doing, and had that programmed reviewed by the Justice Department to INSURE that what info was being gathered was kept narrow and focussed only on those who were communicating with Al Qeada.

This isn't about who Bush told, our how responsible you think he was being. There were laws in place requiring a warrant to be issued for wiretaps. He ignored those laws. It may, or may not, have been legal for him to do so. This needs to be determined. Do you want a President in office who committed an illegal act?


Now, you guys tell me who was acting responsibly, and who's out making political cheap shots, dammit.

In this argument you'd be the one making the cheap shots.


They're talking about holding hearing on the "domestic spying case?" BRING IT ON! I'll be more than happy to see these guys discuss Presidential authority, court precedent and which Senators knew what and when, and the rampant case of Selective Outrage Syndrome the Democrats seem to suffer.

Me too...except for that last bit of political blather.


So, Vile, what do you have to say about this?


Read it and WEEP! (http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200602060731.asp)

I'd say it's an opinion, nothing more. One side of a two-sided argument.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
It seems that not only did Bush have the authority to conduct electronic surveillance on those who are in contact with Al Qeada, but he had the authority, and indeed, the DUTY to override, set aside, scorn, slight, tune out, discount, disdain and just plain old ignore the FISA act of 1978 and conduct surveillance without a warrant.Looks like some Republican Senators disagree with your opinion:

<snip>

"I don't think (Congress) can measure the president's inherent authority ... without knowing what you're doing," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "Just can't do it because that authority is not unlimited, it is not a blank check."

<snip>

When Gonzales argued that Bush wasn't circumventing a 1978 law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court approval before eavesdropping on U.S. soil, Specter became exasperated.

"That just defies logic and plain English," he said.

<snip>

"This statutory force resolution argument that you're making is very dangerous in terms of its application for the future," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "When I voted for it, I never envisioned that I was giving to this president or any other president the ability to go around FISA (the 1978 law) carte blanche."

<snip>

"The legislative process may result in attempted restrictions upon the president's inherent constitutional authority and he may not be able to protect the country in the way that he believes he has the authority to do under the Constitution," Gonzales said.

Among the committee's Republican senators who questioned that conclusion were Graham, Specter, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Sam Brownback of Kansas.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13807144.htm

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Now, you guys tell me who was acting responsibly, and who's out making political cheap shots, dammit.

I wasn't take political cheap shots. I'm a winger, you know.

Yeah I mean did you know that even Washington and Lincoln engaged in massive (far broader as well) electronic surveillence?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/gonzales-Washington-electronic.wmv

:lolhit:

Oh yeah and I guess you forgot about this...

"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution." -Bush 2004
+++++++++++++++++++
Carter disagrees as well
++++++++++
Ex-President Carter: Eavesdropping Illegal
By KATHLEEN HENNESSEY
Associated Press Writer

Former President Jimmy Carter criticized the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program Monday and said he believes the president has broken the law.

"Under the Bush administration, there's been a disgraceful and illegal decision _ we're not going to the let the judges or the Congress or anyone else know that we're spying on the American people," Carter told reporters. "And no one knows how many innocent Americans have had their privacy violated under this secret act."

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/06/D8FJUP882.html
+++++++++++++++++
Oh and if it wasn't illegal then why is Rove twisting Republicans arms to go along with it?
+++++++++++++++++++
Rove counting heads on the Senate Judiciary Committee

Presidential adviser Karl Rove carried his files and luggage after arriving with President Bush in Dallas on Feb. 3. (L.M. Otero/AP)

The White House has been twisting arms to ensure that no Republican member votes against President Bush in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigation of the administration's unauthorized wiretapping.

Congressional sources said Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove has threatened to blacklist any Republican who votes against the president. The sources said the blacklist would mean a halt in any White House political or financial support of senators running for re-election in November.

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Rove2.htm

but he had the authority, and indeed, the DUTY to override, set aside, scorn, slight, tune out, discount, disdain and just plain old ignore the FISA act of 1978 and conduct surveillance without a warrant. The source you cited does not say that at all. It's an opinion that Clinton tried to do the same thing. Which doesn't make it legal. In fact, one of the sources (Reno's legal opinion) from that article states: " Law enforcement may also share with the intelligence community information obtained through surveillance authorized by the court pursuant to Title III where the information is of overriding importance to national security..." So he does a lousy job of proving his point and you miss the whole point altogether. ....*rubbing hands and laughing maniacally!* Keep shooting Darth; someday you'll make a basket. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Vile's quotes....


Who "upheld" this authority?....I certainly hope you aren't arguing that a President has powers because some lawyers working for the Executive Branch write an opinion saying he does....Are you saying that every President has wiretapped people without getting a warrant? That is what we're talking about here, not the legal idea of Executive Privilege...Do you have any actual cases to cite? Again Darth, we're not talking about Executive Privilege.


From what I've read, it's both in the Constitution and it has been upheld by Supreme Court decisions dating back to the Wilson Administration and it has been upheld by Justice Department opinions going back to the Lincoln Administration. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus and that decision seems to have been upheld.

I don't have actual case numbers of Supreme Court decisions, but I do have the opinions of at least Clinton Administration D.O.J. Lawyers who did refer to such cases.

It IS about Executive Priviledge, Vile. That is what Bush's defense is. When Bush was granted authority by Congress to do what is necessary to combat terrorism and to prevent another terrorist attack in the States. Bush recieved authority to conduct surviellance. Also, the article stated that laws like FISA could be suspended when the President conducts Foreign Intelligence and takes action in the interest of National Security. Executive Priviledge trumps FISA in the matter of Bush's actions. Bush did ignore the FISA law, but he had the Constitutional authority to do so.

One of the main thrust of my post is that this HAD to be known by people in Congress, both the Left and Right. This issue came up in the Clinton Administration. (And I'm not blaming the Clinton Administration for anything, I'm merely pointed out that the question of Executive Priviledge has came up in the not too distant past.) To act outraged by Bush's NSA surveillance, is not only cheap and partisan, it's irresponsible. Again, the article I linked to referred to recent attacks overseas and recent threats made by terrorists. We are living in dangerous times. Now is not a good time for partisan politics.

Also, I found out today that if there are hearings on Bush's NSA surveillance, it's going to be uncovered EXACTLY how the NSA was conducting it's surveillance program. You can bet your bottom dollar that Al Qeada is going to be listening. Is it worth giving that kind of info to terrorists?


I've also outlined, a couple of times so far, exactly what Bush did to keep the focus of the NSA surviellance progam narrow and targeted only to those most likely involved with Al Qeada here in the States.

This wasn't a fishing expedition. This wasn't done in complete secrecy, this wasn't done without guidance by the Justice Department. Bush used his Authority with discretion.


Lionel, I wasn't referring to you at all. In fact, I really wasn't referring to anybody, I singled out Vile because he presented the best arguments for Bush's action being illegal. I'm trying to shed some additional info on the "Domestic Spying" scandal.

Dammit.

Fluffernutter,


"Where the President believes that an enactment [by Congress] unconstitutionally limits his powers, he has the authority to defend his office and decline to abide by it,"

That's another quote I dug up from my argument that makes my point quite beautifully.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Lionel, I wasn't referring to you at all. In fact, I really wasn't referring to anybody, I singled out Vile because he presented the best arguments for Bush's action being illegal.

I realize that, but my point is to dismiss the criticism as politically motivated is missing the point. I don't think Bush should be doing this, even if he does have the authority, which IMHO is pretty questionable.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
From what I've read, it's both in the Constitution and it has been upheld by Supreme Court decisions dating back to the Wilson Administration and it has been upheld by Justice Department opinions going back to the Lincoln Administration. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus and that decision seems to have been upheld.

Then there should be no problem having this program reviewed by the courts.


I don't have actual case numbers of Supreme Court decisions, but I do have the opinions of at least Clinton Administration D.O.J. Lawyers who did refer to such cases.

Which would carry a lot more weight if they worked for a seperate branch of the government.


It IS about Executive Priviledge, Vile. That is what Bush's defense is. .....

..... Executive Priviledge trumps FISA in the matter of Bush's actions. Bush did ignore the FISA law, but he had the Constitutional authority to do so.

I understand Bush is claiming Executive Privilege, I just think it's a bit of a stretch.


One of the main thrust of my post is that this HAD to be known by people in Congress, both the Left and Right. This issue came up in the Clinton Administration. (And I'm not blaming the Clinton Administration for anything, I'm merely pointed out that the question of Executive Priviledge has came up in the not too distant past.)

No argument there.


To act outraged by Bush's NSA surveillance, is not only cheap and partisan, it's irresponsible.

Thank you for referring to my motives as "cheap, and partisan". I happen to think it's far more irresponsible to blindly allow our President to do whatever he thinks is right under the guise of "national security".


Again, the article I linked to referred to recent attacks overseas and recent threats made by terrorists. We are living in dangerous times. Now is not a good time for partisan politics.

Attempting to instill fear in me will not change my mind.


Also, I found out today that if there are hearings on Bush's NSA surveillance, it's going to be uncovered EXACTLY how the NSA was conducting it's surveillance program.

I think that's absurd.


You can bet your bottom dollar that Al Qeada is going to be listening. Is it worth giving that kind of info to terrorists?

So is that.


I've also outlined, a couple of times so far, exactly what Bush did to keep the focus of the NSA surviellance progam narrow and targeted only to those most likely involved with Al Qeada here in the States.

I'm not reassured by this statement in the least.


This wasn't a fishing expedition. This wasn't done in complete secrecy, this wasn't done without guidance by the Justice Department.

Perhaps not, but in order to believe that you have to have more trust in Bush than I have at the moment.


Bush used his Authority with discretion.

I completely disagree. My main question is why Bush didn't go to Congress, or the courts, when he wanted to change the existing program for overseeing government surveillance. As usual, Bush did things his way, and that's not how our government is supposed to work. Think checks and balances.


Lionel, I wasn't referring to you at all. In fact, I really wasn't referring to anybody, I singled out Vile because he presented the best arguments for Bush's action being illegal.

Thanks Darth, but I don't believe I've ever said the program is "illegal". I think it's very important that the legality be determined by the Judicial Branch of our government, and that's what I'd like to see.

The people who founded this country understood the corrupting nature of power, and designed our system of government to prevent the Executive from wielding too much power. They did this by establishing three equally powerful branches of government and assuring that no one branch had more authority than the others. Congress passed a law called FISA, and Bush's job was to enforce that law, not ignore it. If he felt that the law was irrelevant in wartime, he should have sought a waiver from the courts before he proceeded with a different program. Instead he unilaterally decided to ignore the law. You may trust him enough to live with that situation, but I do not.

I have been posting to and reading this website/bulletin board for countless hundreds of hours, and I cannot remember EVER seeing a poster get as thoroughly anihilated in a scholarly discussion as badly as Darth Be'lal has been in this one, by Vilepagan.

The exchange below provides a prime example----

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal , in refering to Bush's warrantless wiretaps
Bush used his Authority with discretion.

Vilepagan, in reply
I completely disagree. My main question is why Bush didn't go to Congress, or the courts, when he wanted to change the existing program for overseeing government surveillance. As usual, Bush did things his way, and that's not how our government is supposed to work. Think checks and balances.

Another prime example-------


Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Nor was Mr Dillinger wasn't the only one to support the idea that the President has supreme authority to collect intelligence and protect national security. The same opinion was seconded by one Bryan Cunningham, a lawyer for the Clinton and Bush Administration who has worked on National Security issues.

Vilepagan's reply....
I certainly hope you aren't arguing that a President has powers because some lawyers working for the Executive Branch write an opinion saying he does.

Bush used his Authority with discretion.
Heh...yeah right....

Spy Agency Data after Sept. 11 Led FBI to Dead Ends
The New York Times

Washington - 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.

But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.

F.B.I. officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. The spy agency was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans' international communications and conducting computer searches of phone and Internet traffic. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy.

As the bureau was running down those leads, its director, Robert S. Mueller III, raised concerns about the legal rationale for a program of eavesdropping without warrants, one government official said. Mr. Mueller asked senior administration officials about "whether the program had a proper legal foundation," but deferred to Justice Department legal opinions, the official said.
...
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011706J.shtml