Lets see, The President authorized the NSA to spy on american citizens in this country. There is a law against that as I recall.
The Bush would not answer questions about Plame affair and the NSA activity on Lear news hour.
Remember "I am not a crook". Kind of goes with I never make mistakes and I have a responsibility to protect the American people. Seem to me he does not remember that his oath of office says he swears to "support and defend the constitution" not the American people. The consititution is what protects us individually.
I smell a Nixon resignation or impeachment. Too many serious lies and too much deceit and now much too much to cover up.
Joe
Echos from the past
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
Echos from the past
Yup, only?3 short years and we'll be out from under. Let's just hope?us voters can come up with a better one next time. In the meantime, get your laughs from the The Daily Show.
Christy
?
Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Christy
?
Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:
Ain't gonna happen Joe...better get your nose checked. [Laughing]
Like Lieberman said...Bush is gonna be here for another three years....deal with it.
Marco
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Echos from the past
Ignoring FISA is a lot closer to high crimes and misdemeanors than
lying about a blow job. Look, I'm an executive branch intel guy:
"in God we trust, all others we monitor". But Bush completely blew
off the relevant law. He got a certain amount of slack after 9/11,
but not an indefinite blank check. If the 15 days of unwarranted
monitoring provided for under FISA wasn't enough, Bush could have
gone to Congress anytime in the last 4 1/2 years and they would
likely have given him additional powers. What this really is is a
presidential arrogation of power to do anything he wants without
constraint. Again, if the security services didn't keep making
obvious errors wherein innocent people are detained through mistaken
identity, etc., there would be a better case for trusting the
administration - but there's not. So, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld have to
be reined in... - Hugh
lying about a blow job. Look, I'm an executive branch intel guy:
"in God we trust, all others we monitor". But Bush completely blew
off the relevant law. He got a certain amount of slack after 9/11,
but not an indefinite blank check. If the 15 days of unwarranted
monitoring provided for under FISA wasn't enough, Bush could have
gone to Congress anytime in the last 4 1/2 years and they would
likely have given him additional powers. What this really is is a
presidential arrogation of power to do anything he wants without
constraint. Again, if the security services didn't keep making
obvious errors wherein innocent people are detained through mistaken
identity, etc., there would be a better case for trusting the
administration - but there's not. So, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld have to
be reined in... - Hugh
Clinton ordered & supported warrantless spying
Do you remember this echo from the past?
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp
Excerpt: <<
"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, ">>
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp
Excerpt: <<
"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, ">>
Echos from the past
Marco, if you read the article all the way to the end, Congress didn't let
Clinton do no-warrent searches, he had to go through FISA. So why should
Bush be allowed to do otherwise?
-Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Zee [mailto:marcoz757@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 4:35 AM
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Echos from the past
Do you remember this echo from the past?
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp
Excerpt: >
Clinton do no-warrent searches, he had to go through FISA. So why should
Bush be allowed to do otherwise?
-Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Zee [mailto:marcoz757@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 4:35 AM
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Echos from the past
Do you remember this echo from the past?
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp
Excerpt: >
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Re: Echos from the past
I think marco would agree that Joe Lieberman and J Kerry essentially authorized these actions!MikeBalk wrote:Marco, if you read the article all the way to the end, Congress didn't let
Clinton do no-warrent searches, he had to go through FISA. So why should
Bush be allowed to do otherwise?
-Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Zee [mailto:marcoz757@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 4:35 AM
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Echos from the past
Do you remember this echo from the past?
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp
Excerpt: >
marcoCrusader
Great Googly-moo!
Excerpt: <<In her testimony, Gorelick made clear that the president believed he had the power to order warrantless searches for the purpose of gathering intelligence, even if there was no reason to believe that the search might uncover evidence of a crime. "Intelligence is often long range, its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise," Gorelick said. "Information gathering for policy making and prevention, rather than prosecution, are its primary focus."
In her testimony, Gorelick signaled that the administration would go along a congressional decision to place such searches under the court ? if, as she testified, it "does not restrict the president's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security." In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court, but the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.>>
Mike,
The Clinton Admin did not surrender its right to act WITHOUT A WARRANT if it deemed it "necessary". The FISA Court is authorized to review foreign suspects IN the USA, but NOT abroad. So, in the case of a wiretap that is from abroad, but is in communication with a mainland US location, it is "unclear" if FISA has authority over these communications since the communication originated or terminated in a foreign country. It is a "grey area" in the law. And all previous Prez's (Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton) have reserved the right, constitutionally given, to gather intelligence without a warrant. Clinton was spying on US citizens in militia's ( no foreigners involved) without a warrant for years following the Okla City Bombing.
Constitutional powers of the president cannot be taken away by the Legislative Branch, even if they pass a law.....the only way to remove these powers is to change the Constitution. Likewise, the Prez cannot decree an Executive Order which changes or limits the Constitutional powers of the Legislative or Judicial Branches.
Marco
In her testimony, Gorelick signaled that the administration would go along a congressional decision to place such searches under the court ? if, as she testified, it "does not restrict the president's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security." In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court, but the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.>>
Mike,
The Clinton Admin did not surrender its right to act WITHOUT A WARRANT if it deemed it "necessary". The FISA Court is authorized to review foreign suspects IN the USA, but NOT abroad. So, in the case of a wiretap that is from abroad, but is in communication with a mainland US location, it is "unclear" if FISA has authority over these communications since the communication originated or terminated in a foreign country. It is a "grey area" in the law. And all previous Prez's (Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton) have reserved the right, constitutionally given, to gather intelligence without a warrant. Clinton was spying on US citizens in militia's ( no foreigners involved) without a warrant for years following the Okla City Bombing.
Constitutional powers of the president cannot be taken away by the Legislative Branch, even if they pass a law.....the only way to remove these powers is to change the Constitution. Likewise, the Prez cannot decree an Executive Order which changes or limits the Constitutional powers of the Legislative or Judicial Branches.
Marco
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Are we talking about Russia or the US here?Marco Zee wrote:Constitutional powers of the president cannot be taken away by the Legislative Branch, even if they pass a law.....the only way to remove these powers is to change the Constitution. Likewise, the Prez cannot decree an Executive Order which changes or limits the Constitutional powers of the Legislative or Judicial Branches.
Marco
marc
Great Googly-moo!
Echos from the past
So lessee, Bush has asserted the right to detain indefinitely without trial both foreigners and U.S. citizens, to torture same, and to surveil all of the above, without any oversight.? And he, or his very dangerous Attorney General, has now shied at taking the Padilla case to the Supreme Court (cause they knew they would lose, I guess).? So let's take this quite expansive reading of presidential war powers to the new "strict constructionist" Supreme Court.? Does the phrase "hoist on his own petard"* ring a bell?? I'm beginning to think I'm going to positively enjoy the next three years... - Hugh
* A petard was an early form of landmine.?
Flying Lobster <in_a_cloud@hotmail.com> wrote:
* A petard was an early form of landmine.?
Flying Lobster <in_a_cloud@hotmail.com> wrote:
Marco Zee wrote:
Constitutional powers of the president cannot be taken away by the Legislative Branch, even if they pass a law.....the only way to remove these powers is to change the Constitution. Likewise, the Prez cannot decree an Executive Order which changes or limits the Constitutional powers of the Legislative or Judicial Branches.
Marco
(end of quote)
Are we talking about Russia or the US here?
marcNeo-ConGanja-BushMan
Echos from the past
I love it that doctors think they are also lawyers.? The FISA judges, who are all also federal district court judges, and a VERY conservative group;? and the 4th Circuit, also a VERY conservative bench, do not seem to agree with your legal theory, Marco.? As I mentioned before, there is strong sentiment for granting the president extraordinary powers in a crisis, but Bush is asserting an indefinite and "plenary" power - that is, that?GWOT gives him the right to invade Canada, for example,?if he wants to.? The grant of power to conduct warrantless surveillance rests on the idea of speed.? If the 15 days of warrantless monitoring provided under FISA isn't enough (then you have to go back and get a retroactive warrant) isn't enough, then Bush should have gone to Congress and asked for the additional authority sometime in the last 4 1/2 years.? Instead, he just did it without asking (briefing a few Congressmen does not constitute oversight).? Again, a wiser leader could be trusted with more power, but this guy shouldn't be allowed to run with sharp objects. - Hugh
Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:
Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:
Excerpt:
Mike,
The Clinton Admin did not surrender its right to act WITHOUT A WARRANT if it deemed it "necessary". The FISA Court is authorized to review foreign suspects IN the USA, but NOT abroad. So, in the case of a wiretap that is from abroad, but is in communication with a mainland US location, it is "unclear" if FISA has authority over these communications since the communication originated or terminated in a foreign country. It is a "grey area" in the law. And all previous Prez's (Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton) have reserved the right, constitutionally given, to gather intelligence without a warrant. Clinton was spying on US citizens in militia's ( no foreigners involved) without a warrant for years following the Okla City Bombing.
Constitutional powers of the president cannot be taken away by the Legislative Branch, even if they pass a law.....the only way to remove these powers is to change the Constitution. Likewise, the Prez cannot decree an Executive Order which changes or limits the Constitutional powers of the Legislative or Judicial Branches.
Marco
Hugh Stated: << I love it that doctors think they are also lawyers. The FISA judges, who are all also federal district court judges, and a VERY conservative group; and the 4th Circuit, also a VERY conservative bench, do not seem to agree with your legal theory, Marco. >>
Hugh, below is section in the US Code which allows Electronic Surveillance authorization without court order. So, can you direct me to where a FISA court, or some other court, has ruled that the President cannot order Electronic Surveillance without a court order under his Commander in Chief powers??? Clearly this is allowable....it's right there in the US Code !!!!!!!!!!
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ ... -000-.html
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > ? 1802
? 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court
Marco
Hugh, below is section in the US Code which allows Electronic Surveillance authorization without court order. So, can you direct me to where a FISA court, or some other court, has ruled that the President cannot order Electronic Surveillance without a court order under his Commander in Chief powers??? Clearly this is allowable....it's right there in the US Code !!!!!!!!!!
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ ... -000-.html
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > ? 1802
? 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court
Marco
Hugh, this article mentions one supreme court and four appeals court decisions supporting warrantless searches on foreign agents ordered by the President.
http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary ... 05_CK.html
Excerpt: <<In 1972, the Supreme Court required the president to obtain warrants to eavesdrop on domestic groups, but specifically declined to apply this requirement to snooping on foreign agents. Four appeals courts have since upheld presidential authority for such warrantless searches. Not surprisingly, the executive branch has agreed.
True, Congress tried to restrict this presidential authority with the so-called FISA law of 1978. It requires that warrants for wiretapping of enemy agents in the U.S. be obtained from a secret court. But as John Schmidt, associate attorney general in the Clinton administration, writes: ``Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms.'' Indeed, Clinton's own deputy attorney general testified to Congress that ``the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes,'' then noted a few minutes later that ``courts have made no distinction between electronic surveillances and physical searches.'' >>
Marco
http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary ... 05_CK.html
Excerpt: <<In 1972, the Supreme Court required the president to obtain warrants to eavesdrop on domestic groups, but specifically declined to apply this requirement to snooping on foreign agents. Four appeals courts have since upheld presidential authority for such warrantless searches. Not surprisingly, the executive branch has agreed.
True, Congress tried to restrict this presidential authority with the so-called FISA law of 1978. It requires that warrants for wiretapping of enemy agents in the U.S. be obtained from a secret court. But as John Schmidt, associate attorney general in the Clinton administration, writes: ``Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms.'' Indeed, Clinton's own deputy attorney general testified to Congress that ``the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes,'' then noted a few minutes later that ``courts have made no distinction between electronic surveillances and physical searches.'' >>
Marco
Echos from the past
If it were an open-and-shut case as you suggest, would there be any
controversy? Would a very conservative Bush-appointed FISA judge
have resigned in protest? I'm not a lawyer either, but I suspect
the answer is that FISA limited the broader power that you found in
USC. Why was this kept secret - from even the fully-cleared FISA
judges? This is really more of an issue of whether there are any
limits on presidential power in an emergency. The Supreme Court
nomination hearings for Judge Alito will now be much more complex...
- Hugh
controversy? Would a very conservative Bush-appointed FISA judge
have resigned in protest? I'm not a lawyer either, but I suspect
the answer is that FISA limited the broader power that you found in
USC. Why was this kept secret - from even the fully-cleared FISA
judges? This is really more of an issue of whether there are any
limits on presidential power in an emergency. The Supreme Court
nomination hearings for Judge Alito will now be much more complex...
- Hugh
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
The Bushies are just following their standard procedure--give them an inch and they take a mile. The intent was to monitor calls in immediate response to captured/intercept data leading to likely terrorist connections. The administration, in its typical fashion, immediately began harvesting ALL data communications through the massive channels of data switches which were located in the US. In essence, the administration has seized the capability to harvest and store ALL forms of communication, regardless of origin or intended destination.
marcoBigBrother
marcoBigBrother
Great Googly-moo!
Merry Christmas to all
Hugh,
The judge who resigned is a liberal Clinton appointee, not a Bush appointee. Renquist assigned him to FISA, but he is NOT a Bush appointee to the Federal Bench. And as far as i'm concerned, the more lib judges that resign, the better.
Marc,
I certainly hope that Bush and the Intel services are monitoring every single al-Quada email or phone call into the USA. Anything less would be neglicence.
I hope everyone has a Merry Christmas.
Marco
The judge who resigned is a liberal Clinton appointee, not a Bush appointee. Renquist assigned him to FISA, but he is NOT a Bush appointee to the Federal Bench. And as far as i'm concerned, the more lib judges that resign, the better.
Marc,
I certainly hope that Bush and the Intel services are monitoring every single al-Quada email or phone call into the USA. Anything less would be neglicence.
I hope everyone has a Merry Christmas.
Marco
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Re: Merry Christmas to all
Actually, its more like EVERYTHING is being monitored--in the hopes of intercepting something connected to evil-doers.Marco Zee wrote:Hugh,
The judge who resigned is a liberal Clinton appointee, not a Bush appointee. Renquist assigned him to FISA, but he is NOT a Bush appointee to the Federal Bench. And as far as i'm concerned, the more lib judges that resign, the better.
Marc,
I certainly hope that Bush and the Intel services are monitoring every single al-Quada email or phone call into the USA. Anything less would be neglicence.
I hope everyone has a Merry Christmas.
Marco
Merry x-mas to you and yours!
marc
Great Googly-moo!
Echos from the past
In point of fact, much more can be intercepted than can ever be
listened to by a human being. In the case of targeted phone numbers
(e.g. off a cell phone captured with an al-Qa'ida member), that may
merit at least a scan by an operator. But the bulk has to be
electronically scanned for key words, etc. For domestic
surveillance, the bar is supposed to be higher - no bulk intercept,
and there needs to be some showing that the person being monitored is
either a criminal or a threat to national security. One feature of
the "Patriot" Act is that you no longer have to get separate warrants
for home phone, work phone, cell phone, each e-mail account. That
part seems like a good idea to me.
On "liberal" and "conservative" judges: which of them are in favor
of limiting the power of government vis-a-vis the individual? This
is going to be a wedge issue which will see lots of people crossing
party lines.
Everyone wants terrorist communications to be monitored. The issue
is whether the executive branch has to get a mother-may-I from the
judicial branch. It is not beyond the wit of man to devise
streamlined procedures which will preserve that important separation
of powers. Bush is asserting that he doesn't have to be bothered
with these niceties.
-Hugh
listened to by a human being. In the case of targeted phone numbers
(e.g. off a cell phone captured with an al-Qa'ida member), that may
merit at least a scan by an operator. But the bulk has to be
electronically scanned for key words, etc. For domestic
surveillance, the bar is supposed to be higher - no bulk intercept,
and there needs to be some showing that the person being monitored is
either a criminal or a threat to national security. One feature of
the "Patriot" Act is that you no longer have to get separate warrants
for home phone, work phone, cell phone, each e-mail account. That
part seems like a good idea to me.
On "liberal" and "conservative" judges: which of them are in favor
of limiting the power of government vis-a-vis the individual? This
is going to be a wedge issue which will see lots of people crossing
party lines.
Everyone wants terrorist communications to be monitored. The issue
is whether the executive branch has to get a mother-may-I from the
judicial branch. It is not beyond the wit of man to devise
streamlined procedures which will preserve that important separation
of powers. Bush is asserting that he doesn't have to be bothered
with these niceties.
-Hugh
Echos from the past
Don't know anything about that judge, but the one who did the lengthy ruling against the Dover school board was a Bush appointee. So you're right about Bush on that one - he can do some things right.
Christy
Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:
Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.
Christy
Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:
Hugh,
The judge who resigned is a liberal Clinton appointee, not a Bush appointee. Renquist assigned him to FISA, but he is NOT a Bush appointee to the Federal Bench. And as far as i'm concerned, the more lib judges that resign, the better.
Marc,
I certainly hope that Bush and the Intel services are monitoring every single al-Quada email or phone call into the USA. Anything less would be neglicence.
I hope everyone has a Merry Christmas.
Marco
Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.
<<So you're right about Bush on that one - he can do some things right.
Christy>>
Christy,
I feel ya coming our way....keep an open mind and I'm sure you'll see that my side has much more positive things to offer than the other side ( the dark side ). Keep posting and contributing.
Marco
PS: Notice, no PS message to you on this one.....I'm learning
Christy>>
Christy,
I feel ya coming our way....keep an open mind and I'm sure you'll see that my side has much more positive things to offer than the other side ( the dark side
). Keep posting and contributing.Marco
PS: Notice, no PS message to you on this one.....I'm learning
Echos from the past
I'm just about finished reading David Galula's book Counterinsurgency warfare. I recommend it.
Christy
Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Christy
Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:
Christy,
I feel ya coming our way....keep an open mind and I'm sure you'll see that my side has much more positive things to offer than the other side ( the dark side [Laughing] ). Keep posting and contributing.
Marco
PS: Notice, no PS message to you on this one.....I'm learning [Laughing]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com