W. and Wire Tapping (Page 4)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tim_edwards - 2005-12-20 7:11 PM 10 points to the first person to identify the source of this quote: 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. To those folks who do not object to the President George W. Bush authorizing searches of US Citizens without any oversight - would you be equally comfortable if President Hillary Rodham Clinton were to do the same? Bill of Rights. Amendment IV |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite Veteran![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I worked in the Executive Branch for 5 years...and I'm really enjoying the commentary on BT. If you think for one nanosecond that GWB didn't have legal top-cover each and every step of the way, you're high. Or have been abducted by aliens. Your choice. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to quote you how his actions have been legal, but you can bet that there is a significant legal case to be made on his behalf. Washington lawyers are--well--lawyers. They are the opposite of push-overs. Heck, we staffers sneezed and the lawyers were all over it. I'd add more but I really don't want to be insulting. Just don't insult me. Unless you work in the Executive Branch. If so, fire away. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() lynda - 2005-12-20 9:44 PM I worked in the Executive Branch for 5 years...and I'm really enjoying the commentary on BT. If you think for one nanosecond that GWB didn't have legal top-cover each and every step of the way, you're high. Or have been abducted by aliens. Your choice. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to quote you how his actions have been legal, but you can bet that there is a significant legal case to be made on his behalf. Washington lawyers are--well--lawyers. They are the opposite of push-overs. Heck, we staffers sneezed and the lawyers were all over it. I'd add more but I really don't want to be insulting. Just don't insult me. Unless you work in the Executive Branch. If so, fire away. Lynda makes a great point: I've been spending my morning reading portions of the Patriot Act, U.S. code sections, including The International Emergency Powers Act; The Classified Information Procedures Act, The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996; and I've come to a couple of conclusions: 1) Executive and State Department Lawers earn every penny of their salary. 2) This issue about wire tapping is far more complex then reported by the media and encompasses far more legal concepts and laws then just what has been reported. 3) The power of the president is far greater than I thought. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I'm getting my information from the press, so I may be wrong - but the impression I get is that the legal advice, while I'm sure is thorough, is questionable. These are the same lawyers who say that anything short of organ failure is not torture and does not violate the Geneva conventions. From what I gather, in this case the lawyers are arguing that the president is deriving all of his powers to circumvent exisisting laws such as FISA from the authorization to go to war and use force against those who had something to do with 9/11. It seems like the admin lawyers take an overly broad view of presidential authority and it will be interesting to see how successful they are at defending this view. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() dontracy - 2005-12-21 9:47 AM ASA22 - 3) The power of the president is far greater than I thought. For example? Executive orders is an example. Below is the text from an EO written by Clinton in 1995. Presidential Documents By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following officials, (a) Secretary of State; None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that capacity, THE WHITE HOUSE, |
|
![]() ![]() |
Buttercup ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Didn't Bush et all come into office condemning Executive Orders? I have a vague recollection... |
![]() ![]() |
![]() Renee - 2005-12-21 10:37 AMDidn't Bush et all come into office condemning Executive Orders? I have a vague recollection... I really don't know, he could have. |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I saw this in a column in the Wash POst & thought it ws interesting... "None of these [defenses of the spying] makes sense if the NSA program involved nothing more than an expansion of ordinary taps of specific individuals. After all, the FISA court would have approved taps of domestic-to-international calls as quickly and easily as they do with normal domestic wiretaps. What's more, Congress wouldn't have had any objection to supporting a routine program expansion; George Bush wouldn't have explained it with gobbledegook about the difference between monitoring and detecting; Jay Rockefeller wouldn't have been reminded of TIA [a John Poindexter effort]; and the Times wouldn't have had any issues over divulging sensitive technology. "It seems clear that there's something involved here that goes far beyond ordinary wiretaps, regardless of the technology used. Perhaps some kind of massive data mining, which makes it impossible to get individual warrants? Stay tuned." |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Renee - 2005-12-21 11:37 AMDidn't Bush et all come into office condemning Executive Orders? I have a vague recollection... Hold on, Renee. You're a triathlete, you're only suppose to pedal forwards. ![]() In the first post of this thread, Jim said that the surveillance was an example of the POTUS running roughshod over the Constitution. I still don't fully understand the law involved here, but it seems that it is at least probable that the POTUS was following the law. If that's true, then I have a qustion: Who leaked this and why did they do it? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() What do the courts have to say about FISA and the President's authority to conduct warrrantless searches? it's not fun reading, so I'll summarize, 2002 case, interpreting FISA, in dicta notes the precedent of "all cases discussing the issue" that the President has inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information and that FISA cannot encroach on that inherent authority. In Re Unsealed Case I can't wait until Bush is voted out of office, then all the political sniping will stop..... right? anyone? Bueller? |
|
![]() ![]() |
Buttercup ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ChrisM - 2005-12-21 12:09 PM I can't wait until Bush is voted out of office, then all the political sniping will stop..... right? Oh yeah. Cuz we all know political sniping is a new phenomenon, peculiar to this Presidency only. President Clinton was daily showered with daisy petals by all members of Congress; Newt Gingrich used to wash Willy's feet in a rose water bath each morning. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() uhhhh, I was kidding, sniping is as old as the trees, as much as we like to think we are so ultra partisan these days (but it's interesting that substance is ignored in favor of sarcasm ![]() Man, this cuppa joe forum is spicy Edited by ChrisM 2005-12-21 2:29 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Regular ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Do it! Gotta smoke these guys out... |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Just so everyone is aware, every President has used the executive office for intelligence gathering and covert operations. George Washington had a secret "slush fund" for that purpose that at one point equaled 13% of the Governments budget. He and he alone was in control of that fund for the use of covert operations and intelligence gathering (spying). |
![]() ![]() |
Buttercup ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() True but that was when the Republic was still in it's infancy and they didn't know from one month to the next if the Republic would survive. That is not our current state of affairs. The US will withstand our enemies; we will be our own undoing in the long run. Even during the Revolutionary War period, before the Republic was fully formed, George Washington accepted extraordinary war powers from the Continental Congress with the caveat that he would accept the powers only so that he could help form a Republic in which a leader would have no such powers (only he said it more eloquently than that). You must admit, GWBush is no George Washington. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Renee - 2005-12-22 8:24 AM True but that was when the Republic was still in it's infancy and they didn't know from one month to the next if the Republic would survive. That is not our current state of affairs. The US will withstand our enemies; we will be our own undoing in the long run. Even during the Revolutionary War period, before the Republic was fully formed, George Washington accepted extraordinary war powers from the Continental Congress with the caveat that he would accept the powers only so that he could help form a Republic in which a leader would have no such powers (only he said it more eloquently than that). You must admit, GWBush is no George Washington. I agree Bush is no Washington. However, my point was to demonstrate that every president, since Washington, to the current administration has used the executive branch for conducting covert operations. |
|