The "I" word is in the air - (Impeachment)

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Simple law doesn't carry the full weight of the constitution. The amendments do carry the full weight of the constitution. In the event that a simple law tries to grant the government powers specifically denied by the constitution, the constitution must prevail.

SCOTUS has not ruled that such actions are unconstitutional. Whether you agree with that interpretation or not, it has been the role of the Supreme Court to make those decisions since Marbury v. Madison.

If you wish to qualify your statements with "Under the Constitution of the United States of yonderway this is blatantly illegal" then you have a point. Otherwise you are substituting your own interpretation of the law for that of the people who have the Constitutional authority to interpret the law.

 

[jbear6]

It's a shame we only know what has been reported in the news. The New York Times held the story for a year before going public, are they telling the whole story now?

It seems to me that if the FISA Court was purposely left out of the loop, they might have denied approval if informed of the depth of the eavesdropping. Maybe this was more of a "blanket USA eavesdropping" rather than a "one party in Afganistan, the other in the USA.

Why don't we seal up the US/Mexico border if we want to stop terrorists from getting to us? How many terrorists have crossed our open border while they listen to domestic phone calls, and search grandma's shoes before she boards a plane? I'm a conservative by the way, not a liberal.

 

[PCGS65]

1. People LOVE to HATE and will reach to the end of the universe to do so.
2. Especially demorats because of how clinton humiliated his party. First it was Bush lied about WMD. Now that has taken the back seat for "Bush broke the law". Whether he did or didn't doesn't matter. People will say he did just like the media.
3. The media does more harm to this country than anything.
4. End of story.

 

[rhubarb]

Dittoheads make me

We've got a chance to make it two in a row. Let's make it standard practice to impeach presidents. Take some wind out of their sails.

 

[Trip20]

Everybody except the Attorney General seems to feel that Bush has plainly violated FISA requirements. However, there is still considerable discussion over whether or not this is legal.

Previous Presidents going back to Carter have maintained that they have the constitutional authority to order warrantless searches in order to gather foreign intelligence. All of them have maintained that they did not surrender that authority just because FISA was signed. Since most of the cases in the brief I read on it were named things like "In re Classified" and "Unnamed v. Classified" it was a little difficult to get an idea of just how broad that authority is and were FISA supercedes it.

The second issue is that the Bush Administration is claiming that even if they did not have the constitutional authority before this, they do as a result of Congress's Authorization for Use of Military Force passed after September 11.

Those who are saying this is plainly illegal are wrong. It isn't plain and is in a grey area. However, I think a pretty good case can be made that letting the Executive branch both electronically surveil American citizens AND be the sole decisionmaker on whether such surveillance is legal is a really, really bad idea. This is the whole reason FISA exists.

The Bush Administration isn't going to be impeached over this because:

1) Republicans aren't going to impeach their sitting president in this case
2) Too many skeletons would surface during the debate - nobody from either party wants to see that happen
3) It is a genuinely grey area legally where the President has plenty of plausible room to justify his policy, even if it is a policy I think is horrible.

Bolding, mine.

It's finally happened! A post concerning this controversial topic, which is truly worthy of +1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

See! This is what it looks like when someone disagrees with what's going on.... yet they have the prescience to know there may be more to evaluate than what's being spewed by the mainstream media. The result is commentary that shows both apprehension towards the actions, and skepticism towards the biased reports of the same. Beautiful.

 

[LAK]

Anyone find any statute prohibiting the transfer to the United States government of information on U.S. citizens living in the United States obtained in the surveillance operations conducted by foreign intelligence services?

I thought not
---------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Fidel Castro]

Everybody except the Attorney General seems to feel that Bush has plainly violated FISA requirements. However, there is still considerable discussion over whether or not this is legal.

Previous Presidents going back to Carter have maintained that they have the constitutional authority to order warrantless searches in order to gather foreign intelligence. All of them have maintained that they did not surrender that authority just because FISA was signed. Since most of the cases in the brief I read on it were named things like "In re Classified" and "Unnamed v. Classified" it was a little difficult to get an idea of just how broad that authority is and were FISA supercedes it.

The second issue is that the Bush Administration is claiming that even if they did not have the constitutional authority before this, they do as a result of Congress's Authorization for Use of Military Force passed after September 11.

It's called Martial Law, not the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Americans. Read the definition and note the striking simularities.

"Martial law is the system of rules that takes effect (usually after a formal declaration) when a military authority takes control of the normal administration of justice.

Martial law is instituted most often when it becomes necessary to favor the activity of military authorities and organizations, usually for urgent unforeseen needs, and when the normal institutions of justice either cannot function or could be deemed too slow or too weak for the new situation; e.g., due to war, major natural disaster, civil disorder, in occupied territory, or after a coup d'état. The need to preserve the public order during an emergency is the essential goal of martial law. However, declaration of martial law is also sometimes used by dictatorships, especially military dictatorships, to enforce their rule.

Usually martial law reduces some of the personal rights ordinarily granted to the citizen, limits the length of the trial processes, and prescribes more severe penalties than ordinary law. In many countries martial law prescribes the death penalty for certain crimes, even if ordinary law does not contain that crime or punishment in its system.

In many countries martial law imposes particular rules, one of which is curfew. Often, under this system, the administration of justice is left to military tribunals, called courts-martial. The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is likely to occur."

 

[Master Blaster]

From the Horses Mouth:

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration formally defended its domestic spying program in a letter to Congress late Thursday saying the nation's security outweighs privacy concerns of individuals who are monitored. In a letter to the chairs of the House and Senate intelligence committees, the Justice Department said President Bush authorized electronic surveillance without first obtaining a warrant in an effort to thwart terrorist acts against the United States.


ADVERTISEMENT


"There is undeniably an important and legitimate privacy interest at stake with respect to the activities described by the president," wrote Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella. "That must be balanced, however, against the government's compelling interest in the security of the nation."

President Bush has acknowledged he authorized such surveillance and repeatedly has defended it in recent days.

But Moschella's letter was the administration's first public notice to Congress about the program in which electronic surveillance was conducted without the approval of a secret court created to examine requests for wiretaps and searches in the most sensitive terrorism and espionage cases.

Moschella maintained that Bush acted legally when he authorized the National Security Agency to go around the court to conduct electronic surveillance of international communications into and out of the United States by suspects tied to al-Qaida or its affiliates.

Moschella relied on a Sept. 18, 2001, congressional resolution, known as the Authorization to Use Military Force, as primary legal justification for Bush's creation of a domestic spying program. He said Bush's powers as commander-in-chief give the president "the responsibility to protect the nation."

The resolution "clearly contemplates action within the United States," Moschella wrote, and acknowledges Bush's power to prevent terrorism against the United States.

Congress adopted the resolution in the chaotic days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, authorizing the president to wage war against al-Qaida and other terrorist groups that pose a threat to the United States.

Moschella said the president's constitutional authority also includes power to order warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance inside the United States. He said that power has been affirmed by federal courts, including the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court. The FISA court was created in 1978 after public outcry over government spying on anti-war and civil rights protesters.

The administration deliberately bypassed the FISA court, which requires the government to provide evidence that a terrorism or espionage suspect is "an agent of a foreign power." The foreign intelligence law makes it a crime for anyone who "intentionally intercepts" a communication without a warrant.

Moschella said Bush's action was legal because the foreign intelligence law provides a "broad" exception if the spying is authorized by another statute. In this case, he said, Congress' authorization provided such authority.

The resolution didn't limit the president to going after al-Qaida only in Afghanistan, Moschella wrote.

Moschella also maintained the NSA program is "consistent" with the Fourth Amendment _ which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures _ and civil liberties.

For searches to be reasonable under law, a warrant is needed, Moschella said. But, outside criminal investigations, he said, the Supreme Court has created exceptions where warrants are not needed, finding that the "reasonableness of a search" depends on "the totality of the circumstances."

"Foreign intelligence collection, especially in the midst of an armed conflict in which the adversary has already launched catastrophic attacks within the United States, fits squarely within the 'special needs' exception to the warrant requirement," Moschella wrote.

"Intercepting communications into and out of the United States of persons linked to al-Qaida in order to detect and prevent a catastrophic attack is clearly reasonable."

 

[El Tejon]

MB, what? The test for the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness? "Totality of the circumstances", isn't that a test involving whether or not Republicans or Democrats are in office?

That's not what they say at DU or the New York Times! Isn't it an absolute standard for privacy? If only more judges in my county thought that it was.

Isn't it funny how the Democrats/Media love privacy and believe in solid walls between terrorists and the government, unless American gun owners ask for privacy.

 

[Waitone]

Amazing! Just amazing.

 

[The Drew]

saying the nation's security outweighs privacy concerns of individuals who are monitored.

That's all I need to know... and is all ANYONE in this nation should need to know to see where we are really headed...

 

[Robert J McElwain]

Wow... .The political spectrum isn't black and white, right or left, or red and blue... It is possible that SOME people value liberty more than they value party loyalty...

You bring up a good point about the spectrum. The political/social spectrum is not a straight line. It's circular. Think of a circle with Moderation being at the bottom of the circle and then follow the circle to the left or right. Follow it far enough and the two extremes meet at the top, which is totalitarianism.

Given that description, how close are we to the top of the circle these days?

Bob

 

[The Drew]

Politics are not just a circle, but more of a globe like the political compass. Authoritarianism Vs. Libertarianism in one axis, and Fiscal policy on the other...

In reality it's probably much more than that...

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Politics is ... a very precious, delicate thing that must be held ever so gently to ones buxom and caressed slowly and lovingly...

Yes politics is like the first snowflake... falling slowly ... drifting ... like the dulcid tones of Robert Byrd lovingly lambasting his Republican rivals whilst he designs yet another public toilet in West Virginia to put his name upon...

I could go on, but the muse escapes ...

Merry Christmas to all, and remember, we are all snug in our beds whilst the Congress is back home keeping from mischief...

 

[Fidel Castro]

Politics is ... a very precious, delicate thing that must be held ever so gently to ones buxom and caressed slowly and lovingly...

Yes politics is like the first snowflake... falling slowly ... drifting ... like the dulcid tones of Robert Byrd lovingly lambasting his Republican rivals whilst he designs yet another public toilet in West Virginia to put his name upon...

I could go on, but the muse escapes ...

Merry Christmas to all, and remember, we are all snug in our beds whilst the Congress is back home keeping from mischief...

I think Mongo the Mutterer writes porn.

:No offense intended sir:

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

nope I don't do porn, but it is amazing the colorful words which pop into my mind each time I see KKK Byrd...

 

[Phyphor]

1. People LOVE to HATE and will reach to the end of the universe to do so.

I don't really see much real "hate" for Bush in this thread. Some dislike, of course, especially in light of the decisions he's made, and what he's said about those decisions.

2. Especially demorats because of how clinton humiliated his party. First it was Bush lied about WMD. Now that has taken the back seat for "Bush broke the law". Whether he did or didn't doesn't matter.

Whether he broke the law doesn't matter? Since when? I seem to remember a huge ruckuss when Clinton perjured himself. Folks were shouting that he should be impeached for breaking that law. So, if it's proven that Bush did in fact violate the law...

People will say he did just like the media.

There's just as many that will say he didn't.

3. The media does more harm to this country than anything.

As opposed to politicians with their own agendas for how they think this nation should be run? Now, that doesn't apply just for Bush, it applies for creatures like Feinstein, Boxer, etc....

Plus, I seem not to recall much complaining regarding the media attention the Clinton debacle(s) got.

4. End of story.

No, I think this S-storm is just beginning. :banghead:

 

[AirForceShooter]

We went through this with Bubba. One reason I can't stand Newt is that he impeached Clinton Knowing he wouldn't be removed from office by the Senate.
The whole country was put through a process that the House knew would result in nothing. I always wondered if the Impeachment diverted Clinton from dealing with stuff.

So, if somebody in the House plans on Impeaching our resident idiot they better KNOW it will go all the way and we wind up with President Cheney.
How does that sound? President Cheney.

What I think is sad about this is that I truly believe Bush thinks he's in the right. It's for our own protection. WOW.
Just my .02

AFS

 

[RealGun]

So, if somebody in the House plans on Impeaching our resident idiot

This is the kind of excessive rhetoric that we should get under control in order to have any pretense of being the high road. Snarky pejoratives are one thing, but this label is offensive. It lacks respect for either the person or the office.

 

[telewinz]

Impeach him about what???

For the good of the country, just like Bush's "Patriot" Act.

 

[wingnutx]

in a WashingtonPost.com chat, Richard Morin, the Post's polling editor, provides some context (ellipses in original):

Naperville, Ill.: Why haven't you polled on public support for the impeachment of George W. Bush?

Richard Morin: This question makes me mad . . .

Seattle, Wash.: How come ABC News/Post poll has not yet polled on impeachment?

Richard Morin: Getting madder . . .

Haymarket, Va.: With all the recent scandals and illegal/unconstitutional actions of the President, why hasn't ABC News/Washington Post polled whether the President should be impeached?

Richard Morin: Madder still . . .

Dublin, Ireland: In a statement on Sunday, John Dean, former White House counsel during Watergate, stated that President Bush is "the first President to admit to an impeachable offense." Will The Washington Post be polling about impeachment of the President in the near future, now that this topic has taken on national significance?

Richard Morin: An impeachment demand from Ireland? Oh my gawd. Now I'm furious.

Let me explain.

For the past eight months or so, the major media pollsters have been the target of a campaign organized by a Democratic Web site demanding that we ask a question about impeaching Bush in our polls.

The Web site lists the e-mail addresses of every media pollster, reporters as well as others. The Post's ombudsman is even on their hit list.

The Web site helpfully provides draft language that can be cut-and-pasted into a blanket e-mail.

The net result is that every few months, when this Web site fires up the faithful with another call for e-mails, my mailbox is filled with dozens and dozens of messages that all read exactly the same (often from the same people, again and again). Most recently, a psychology professor from Arizona State University sent me the copy-and-paste e-mail, not a word or comma was changed. I only hope his scholarship is more original.

We first laughed about it. Now, four waves into this campaign,we are annoyed. Really, really annoyed.

Some free advice: You do your cause no service by organizing or participating in such a campaign. It is viewed by me and others with the same scorn reserved for junk mail. Perhaps a bit more.

That said. we [sic] do not ask about impeachment because it is not a serious option or a topic of considered discussion--witness the fact that no member of congressional Democratic leadership or any of the serious Democratic presidential candidates in '08 are calling for Bush's impeachment. When it is or they are, we will ask about it in our polls.

Enough, already.

 

[enfield]

- - -- - - snicker- - - - -

What a bunch of losers!

 

[spartacus2002]

saying the nation's security outweighs privacy concerns of individuals who are monitored.

That's all I need to know... and is all ANYONE in this nation should need to know to see where we are really headed...

yep. The true test of any law is not how it will be used, but how it can be abused. Do the Bush-lovers want President Hillary to have the same legal authority? What do you think Atty Gen Schumer would do with such powers?

 

[AirForceShooter]

I can't call him an idiot??

AFS

 

[CAnnoneer]

I can't call him an idiot??

AFS

Sometimes the truth is so harsh that it looks very offensive.

But especially to those that idolize the office.

But especially to those that are heavily emotionally invested in politicians that deserve neither their loyalty nor their efforts.