Bush renames spying

[Aguila Blanca]

It doesn't say "Declaration of War" at the top, but that's largely a PR matter. Legally and substantively this is a formal declaration of war.

No, it is not. It is neither legally nor substantively a declaration of war.

Note also that the declaration/resolution says the following:
The congress explicitly authorized the President to use military force (including reconnaisane/surveillence/spying) on the people HE DETERMINES are/were involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept 11.

Let there be no misunderstanding. Congress did NOT authorize FISA court to decide who is and who isn't a terrorist. Congress did NOT authorize the FISA court to decide what sorts of military operations should or should not be carried out against those terrorists.

Let there be no mistake. The Congress was authorizing the use of military FORCE. Wiretapping and reading private e-mails are not "force," they are spying.

 

[R.H. Lee]

If the energy the administration is putting into spinning this situation to its advantage is any indication, they are worried about this themselves.

And if the energy of this President's detractors had been put into finding an electable opponent (twice, no less) this wouldn't even be an issue.

May I suggest that those detractors now learn from their failures, deal with reality, and move forward. Better luck next time.

 

[casual]

i am surprised that so many members of this forum are perfectly willing to allow the usurpation of the President's clear constitutional mandate to defend the U.S. by the same arrogant, unelected, power-hungry judiciary that has done so much do restrict our Second Amendment Rights, enabled, as always by a cowardly, emasculated legislative branch

warrantless tapping of international calls with suspected terrorist associates is simply not something you should worry about

i would worry if the gov was not doing its job in this manner

i am not worried about the fanciful imposition of a police state

i am worried about the possibility of a radioactive crater where chicago used to be which seems to me to be a much more likely possibilty

casual

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

No, it is not. It is neither legally nor substantively a declaration of war.

It certainly is. Otherwise, under the War Powers Act, it would have been impossible to use the military for more than 60 days. YOU say it isn't a declaration of war, but the government (including the Congress, the people whose job it is to declare war) seem to think it is.

If this isn't a declaration of war, then I place the burden upon you to name whatever essential feature it lacks. Why isn't this a declaration of war? It names an enemy and the reasons why they are the enemy. It compells the Commander in Chief to carryout a war against that enemy. It explicitly states that it satisfies the requirements of the War Powers act that require a declaration of war before military force can be used for any prolonged period.

Ultimately it's a matter of semantics. "Use of military force against XYZ is hearby authorized" is simply the modern politcally correct way of saying "a state of war exists between us and XYZ." For these purposes, Authorization of Force is synonymous with Declaration of War, the two serve exactly the same purpose.

Let there be no mistake. The Congress was authorizing the use of military FORCE. Wiretapping and reading private e-mails are not "force," they are spying.

Gathering information about the locations, intentions, numbers, and resources of an enemy has long been a part of waging war. Modern militaries don't attack randomly, blindly, and without any regard to who or what they're waging war against. Surveillence of the enemy is a vital and inescapable aspect of the use of military force.

 

[Manedwolf]

Well, yeah, except that FISA warrants aren't necessary, provided the AG authorizes the interceptions. Further, the FISA court is a usurpation of the executive authority. We've gone over all this already.

Since when does the Commander in Chief need to ask the permission of a judge to carry out a military operation during a war?

Eh... This is debate is going round and round in circles. What's the point anymore?

While we're at it, how about we do away with Posse Comitatus as well? How about making it legal for soldiers to seize your residence for quartering whenever needed?

Look around. See that funny material woven of obfuscation, halftruths, and willingly given freedoms for thumbsucking security? It's called a handbasket. We're in it.

 

[Manedwolf]

You may not like the Bush. You may not like the fact that Bush is the one who holds these powers. I can certainly understand that.

As for myself, I could care less who the name was committing CRIMES against the Constitution. If it were Kerry, Hillary, I'd feel the same way. Rule of law. It's an abuse of power, it's illegal, and it's wrong.

The men I DO respect carried names like Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Payne, Washington, Franklin...

...and they'd be horrified at what we're doing. Read the Federalist Papers. PLEASE read them, ASAP. And stop and think. Is this what they wanted?

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

As for myself, I could care less who the name was committing CRIMES against the Constitution. If it were Kerry, Hillary, I'd feel the same way. Rule of law. It's an abuse of power, it's illegal, and it's wrong.

The men I DO respect carried names like Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Payne, Washington, Franklin...

...and they'd be horrified at what we're doing. Read the Federalist Papers. PLEASE read them, ASAP. And stop and think. Is this what they wanted?

It's highly debatable whether these are "crimes against the constitution". As descussed prviously, the existence of the FISA court may be just as inimical to the constitution as anything inthis matter.

I've read the Federalist papers, and all of the similar philosophical thought. One thing that John Locke makes clear is that a primary reason governments are instituted is for the common defense. Throughout history men have banded together to better protect their lives, liberties and property. This is the reason the colonies banded together into a confederation. It is the same reason they eventually strengthened their confederated government into a federal union. They intentionally wrote a constitution that gives these sorts of authorities to an executive. We hear frequently about the risks and dangers of a governement, but how often do we consider the benefits of a government? The founders wanted government (to a point), that's why the colonies eventually came to unite under a federal constitution. They were smart men, they knew what they were doing. The discussed, and ultimately rejected, a government that wasn't sufficiently empowered to provide effective national defense.

The Executive was given the power to decide matters of war and foreign affairs. The Judiciary was NOT. The founders were smart, they did it that way for a reason. They wanted war to be something the electorate had some control over. These recent attempts to usurp war powers by the judiciary what's offensive to the Constitution in this issue.

Of all the things the Fed dabbles in these days, spying on Al Qeuda (even when they call into or out of this country) is one of the few that has a valid grounding in the Constitution and the thinking of the founders.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

It's highly debatable whether these are "crimes against the constitution".

It would not be highly debatable if Bush was a Democrat. The Republicans would be screaming if a Democrat had done the same thing.

Remember, any extra power you give Bush, Hillary will have in 2008.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

It would not be highly debatable if Bush was a Democrat. The Republicans would be screaming if a Democrat had done the same thing.

Remember, any extra power you give Bush, Hillary will have in 2008.

Around and around we go...

OK, once more. I WANT President Hillary to have the same Executive authorities the Constitution grants to all duely elected Presidents. Unconstitutional Judicial actions are as offensive as unconstitutional Executive actions.

I would EXPECT President Hillary spy on Al Queda just like Bush has been doing. Anything less is negligence, a violation of the oath of office. I myself, as a republican, and many other repuiblicans I know, would be screaming if President Hillary ever FAILED to do what is expected of a diligent Commander in Chief.

It's not about the man (or woman). It's about the office. It's about not letting short term political forces (i.e. the popular hatred of G W Bush) contort the Constitution.

 

[Manedwolf]

Here's an idea...

The Bush family is still very good friends with the bin Laden family, however much that's ignored.

Question. Are their phone calls to each other being wiretapped? I mean, they ARE the immediate family of our greatest threat! What a lead!

No? Of course not? Why...they're above the fate of the Common American in being investigated? They're better than you and your family? They're royalt..er...oh. Right.

See what path we have chosen...

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The Bush family is still very good friends with the bin Laden family, however much that's ignored.

Question. Are their phone calls to each other being wiretapped? I mean, they ARE the immediate family of our greatest threat! What a lead!

No? Of course not? Why...they're above the fate of the Common American in being investigated? They're better than you and your family? They're royalt..er...oh. Right.

See what path we have chosen...

It's all a Grand Universal Conspracy!! Alas, it all makes sense to me now!

 

[North Texan]

Bush renames spying

Pretty much. It's no longer "patriotic" that we are being spied upon, but it's because of we're surveying "terrorists".

I'd type more, but it's so hard to see with all this wool pulled over my eyes.

 

[ceetee]

From the President's press conference of today:

"[FISA] was passed in 1978. We're having this discussion in 2006. It's a different world..."


-- George Bush, 01/26/2006

Ohhhhhhhh..... Now I get it!






.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Another reason you can't believe a single word out of this administration:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0126-01.htm

Published on Thursday, January 26, 2006 by Knight Ridder
In 2002, Justice Department Said Eavesdropping Law Working Well
by Jonathan S. Landay


WASHINGTON - A July 2002 Justice Department statement to a Senate committee appears to contradict several key arguments that the Bush administration is making to defend its eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without court warrants.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the law governing such operations, was working well, the department said in 2002. A "significant review" would be needed to determine whether FISA's legal requirements for obtaining warrants should be loosened because they hampered counterterrorism efforts, the department said then.

President Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other top officials now argue that warrantless eavesdropping is necessary in part because complying with the FISA law is too burdensome and impedes the government's ability to rapidly track communications between suspected terrorists.

In its 2002 statement, the Justice Department said it opposed a legislative proposal to change FISA to make it easier to obtain warrants that would allow the super-secret National Security Agency to listen in on communications involving non-U.S. citizens inside the United States.

Today, senior U.S. officials complain that FISA prevents them from doing that. ...

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

And another:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security
Remarks by the President in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act
Kleinshans Music Hall
Buffalo, New York

9:49 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for coming. I think you're going to find this to be a really interesting discussion about how federal, state and local authorities are working hard to prevent a terrorist attack. That's what we're here to talk about -- and why it's important for those of us in positions of authority to give federal, state and local authorities all the tools necessary to do the job we expect of them.

snip

September the 11th ... September the 11th.

snip

September the 11th -- when the President says something, he better mean it.

snip

One of the lessons of September the 11th, was when you see a threat overseas, you must act before it materializes. September the 11th said...

snip

September the 11th changed the equation....

snip

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.

...

Note the date. April 2004, at least 2 years after the domestic surveillance program started.

 

[ceetee]

But...



But...



But...



Malone...

"We're having this discussion in 2006. It's a different world..."

 

[Khornet]

Laws are always subject to interpretation

or we wouldn't have lawyers and judges. As far as anyone can see from the info we all have, this administration went to great lengths to be sure that they were lagally allowed to do what they are doing. Surely rational people of good faith can disagree about a point of law without automatically assuming criminal intent on the part of the other side of the argument? Why, if you assert that I'm a brainwashed fool for the Bush administration, would it not be equally valid for me to assume that you are a brainwashed tool of the left?

It seems to me crystal-clear that good arguments-and good faith arguments- can be made for and against what the NSA is doing. That's the way it is with most things in life. I cannot refute your argument by calling you brainwashed. Nor can you refute me that way. 75% of this thread is waste.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I voted for Bush twice, and am a member of the Republican National Committee.

I think Bush is overstepping his bounds here. I am not in favor of increasing the power of the executive branch of government. Any power Bush is given today will be Hillary's power tomorrow.

 

[bowfin]

/*Any power Bush is given today will be Hillary's power tomorrow.*/

Hillary had boxes full of classified FBI reports on her political opposition lying around in one of the rooms of the White House for over a year. Rules only work for those predisposed not to break them.

As for Hillary's power tomorrow, the most recent poll showed she had only a 16% approval rating, and she is the only one running for president at the present time. She had three times as many people say they don't like her as those that do.

I think we need to draw a distinction between a criminal and an enemy combatant. I think some some figure if a terrorist is outside the country, he is a terrorist and a combatant, and if he is inside our borders, he becomes a white collar criminal.

 

[Manedwolf]

It's all a Grand Universal Conspracy!! Alas, it all makes sense to me now!

It's not a conspiracy at all. But if an AVERAGE citizen had such ties, they'd be enjoying their vacation in Guantanamo about now.

It's about equality. And about NOT having de facto royalty subject to special treatment.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Bowfin, there are other people besides Hillary that don't need the power to do this as well. At some point, I will guarantee you that a politician you don't like will be elected president. He will do the same thing that Bush has done, and the Republicans will scream that it is illegal.

 

[Blue Jays]

Hi Manedwolf-

Besides that liar Michael Moore and his inane soundbite movies, what are your sources that inform you that President Bush is "very good friends" with Osama bin Laden's family as you posted above?

How many analysts does everyone think are sitting around dissecting the billions of telephone calls that occur each day between our 296 million residents?

To recap...the only calls being monitored by the NSA originate from foreign countries from people already of interest as terrorists and/or those giving comfort to terrorists.

~ Blue Jays ~

 

[Biker]

Hi Manedwolf-

Besides that liar Michael Moore and his inane soundbite movies, what are your sources that inform you that President Bush is "very good friends" with Osama bin Laden's family as you posted above?

How many analysts does everyone think are sitting around dissecting the billions of telephone calls that occur each day between our 296 million residents?

To recap...the only calls being monitored by the NSA originate from foreign countries from people already of interest as terrorists and/or those giving comfort to terrorists.

~ Blue Jays ~

And again, how do we know that your recap is true? Because the Bush admin says so? Who defines just who is a terrorist and what constitutes giving comfort?
Me thinks that you're far too trusting in this admin (or any other, for that matter) when it comes to this subject and not trusting enough in the wisdom of the Founders.
Biker

 

[Khornet]

Mandewolf,

middy has already corrected you by linkin to this:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp

Hard to take the Bush critics seriously when they swallow urban legends, then regurgitate.

 

[Blue Jays]

Hi Biker-

Au contraire, I'm completely distrusting of Big Government across the board as it relates to my affairs. In this case, we're talking about telephone calls that originate in another country. This monitoring doesn't have anything to do with anyone who resides here. If I ever even accidentally received a telephone call from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia, or similar country I certainly wouldn't answer...and you can bet that I would call the telephone company to have future calls blocked.

As far as my recap goes, I'm sure that if President Bush was having brunch and going bowling over beers with the family of Osama bin Laden, there would have been tons of coverage by now. Heck, there was coverage of President Clinton getting a snarling under his desk in the privacy of his own office with only two people present...so I'm sure less-intimate friendships maintained by this president would be similarly visible.

~ Blue Jays ~