Thin Black Line said:And neither did most of our previous presidents. However, it's interesting
to see all the things mounting up against this one recently such as the
blatant disregard of the Constitution, his earlier support of torture, and
still see so-called conservatives (especially gun-owners) continue to
support him. I can still remember the outrage expressed by gun-owners
when they learned of the anti-terror measures called on by Clinton and his
various beaurocrats. This was likened to the beginning of a totalitarian police
state that we would soon be under UN/Global Rule.
But now we have a chiming chorus of those who sing the song of "Get Over
it" when it comes to Bush. Hmmmm....with visions of the 1994 ban not
being renewed and folding stock firearms dancing in their heads have most
gun-owners been completely placated (ie, bought off) when it comes to the
continued erosion of our collective rights? Are we willingly trading more
of our rights away for the temporarily relaxed restrictions against another?
The official said that since October 2001, the program has been renewed more than three dozen times. Each time, the White House counsel and the attorney general certified the lawfulness of the program, the official said. Bush then signed the authorization.
“The president has authorized NSA to fully use its resources — let me underscore this now — consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution to defend the United States and its citizens,” the official said, adding that congressional leaders have also been briefed more than a dozen times.
VorpalSpork said:So, if the program started in October 2001, and congressional leaders have been aware of it all this time, why is it that we are just hearing about this now?
They actually agreed to sit on it for a year. The MSM is such a joke anymore, and that's coming from a card carrying progressive (progun!) liberal.Live Free Or Die said:Because the information was supposedly leaked to the NYT very recently.
hso said:What needs to be pointed out is that President Bush directed the NSA to intercept communications inside the U.S. without following the legalrequirement under the FISA to get the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to grant permission prior to or, on an emergency basis, after initiation of the surveilance to allow NSA to intercept communications inside the U.S. made by U.S. citizens. This mechanism was in place for the NSA to legally conduct these intercepts if the FISC had granted permission. This did not happen and it seems President Bush directed the NSA to not follow the legal process.
Bartholomew Roberts said:The President is wrong on this and not just a little bit wrong either. Even if the NSA is targeting only real terrorists in its effort, Bush is claiming that he can choose whether or not to follow the law and it is OK because his appointees have declared it legal. This is a SERIOUS issue. This is the kind of issue a Democratic President would be impeached over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VorpalSpork
So, if the program started in October 2001, and congressional leaders have been aware of it all this time, why is it that we are just hearing about this now?
Because the information was supposedly leaked to the NYT very recently.
It is also the type of issue that makes me think that those who say a Democratic House would be a good thing are right. Plainly the current House doesn't have what it takes to do their job of oversight.
BuddyOne said:These bash Bush threads are very transparent. Do these girlie-men really own guns?
Buddy
Lobotomy Boy said:The timing of this was too perfect. Someone somewhere must have orchestrated the release of this information to scuttle the renewal of the Patriot Act provisions. If so, we owe that person or persons an incredible debt.
They're testing the waters of public opinion, which means infinitely more to them then such trivial issues as right and wrong. Bush could conceivably be indicted for this, in which case the testicularly challenged members of congress would act.
Bartholomew Roberts said:Bush is claiming that he can choose whether or not to follow the law and it is OK because his appointees have declared it legal.
Bartholomew Roberts said:the Administration is not entitled to issue legal opinions on its own directives
So was OJ's. Saying you're not, and A) knowing you're not or B) actually not breaking the law are entirely different things. Nice try. I do believe the Admin really did believe it didn't need to get warrants. Bully for them, but that's NOT a defense.VorpalSpork said:That statement doesn't even make any sense. Furthermore I'm not aware of anyone in the Bush administration ever claiming that “[they] can choose whether or not to follow the law.” The administrations position is that they are not breaking the law.
The problem here is that W is getting bad legal counsel from that John Yoo asswipe, whose stance is essentially "you don't have to follow the rules in the GWOT." This appears to be pretty darn simple--the only reason to not seek the warrants was because you didn't feel you had to.IANAL, but it's my understanding that the court system doesn't just issue opinions, they try cases. So what is the administration supposed to do to get a legal opinion, prosecute themselves?
If I understand this correctly, the Bush administration would only have needed to get warrants after the fact, but they were too contemptuous of the Constitution to even go through that formality.
The administration does not have to claim that they can choose. By virture of failing to enforce it has just made the claim. I point your attention to the ongoing and growing fiasco call illegal immigration, among other terms. Here is a situation where we as a society already have a pallette full of laws prohibiting a whole sack full of activities associated with importation of labor. Yet, we also see an administration which does nothing to enforce existing code and piously stands around asking us to create more laws. The issue is not law. The issue is enforcement of existing law.VorpalSpork said:Furthermore I'm not aware of anyone in the Bush administration ever claiming that “[they] can choose whether or not to follow the law.” The administrations position is that they are not breaking the law.
Bartholomew Roberts said:This is the point that really needs to be pounded home. If it really was necessary for NSA to spy on American citizens, there are procedures that allow that while still giving some element of protection. President Bush cannot even claim immediate necessity because under the Patriot Act he can initiate these procedures first and ask later. In this case, he never asked and the only people who have "certified" this as legal are the Attorney General (Executive Branch) and White House counsel (Executive Branch).
The President is wrong on this and not just a little bit wrong either. Even if the NSA is targeting only real terrorists in its effort, Bush is claiming that he can choose whether or not to follow the law and it is OK because his appointees have declared it legal. This is a SERIOUS issue. This is the kind of issue a Democratic President would be impeached over.
It is also the type of issue that makes me think that those who say a Democratic House would be a good thing are right. Plainly the current House doesn't have what it takes to do their job of oversight.