Domestic spying

[Edan]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
You guys are funny.

You expect your intelligence agencies to pick up every terrorist threat coming from a foreign power or terrorist group, and yet you fail to provide them with the tools they need.

Tools like lack of oversight?

[Edan]

From Friday's Nightline:

Cynthia McFadden: You were chairman of the Senate Intelligence Comitte at the time the President signed this order. Vice President Cheney met with congressional leaders - I'm sure you were amoung them. In 2002. Is that correct?

Bob Graham: There was such a meeting, and the issue then was whether we could intercept foreign communications when they transited through USA communication sites. The assumption was that if we did that, we would do it persuant to the law that regulates surveillance of national security issues. And there was no suggestion that we were going to begin eavesdropping on United States citizens without following the full law

McFadden: So you're saying you were not briefed, as the chairman of the senate intelligence committee, at the point the President signed this?

Graham: I was briefed and there was no reference made to the fact that we were going to use that as the subterfuge to begin unwarrented, illegal and I think unconstitutional eavsdropping on American citizens.

[Berzerker]

NO, no more than a demand that a hostage taker give up thier hostages or else is a demand form one authority to another. Again, de facto vs de jure.

The Taliban took Bin Laden hostage? Weird analogy

Actually, NO, ITS NOT. A declaration of war is a very distinct act of Congress. For example, the president would haveno right to cancel Habeas Corpus for citizens, while theoretically during a War or insurrection he could.

You're being silly... Congress authorised the Prez to use force against Iraq. That is a declaration of war. If you dont like the half measures Congress has invented to restrict Presidential authority during wartime, like calling wars "police actions", blame Congress. That aint Bush's fault... He got what he needed legally.

The law is all semantics, given that it is nothing more than a collection of words. The fact that Congress may authorise the Executive branch to resolve some problem, possibly with the use of military force, is not, nor shall it ever be, equal to the Congress authorizing a state of war with another state.

A state of war exists when we are attacked before Congress can declare war, so your terminology doesn't apply to the situation of the US initiating a war.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Odin


Bush just took the Constitution and wiped his ass with it.

Is it Fascism yet?

no it will be when the newly created organization of promotion of morality amongst young americans "The children of Bush" begin to burn the books by those damn liberals and when Democrats burn the Congress so that will require Bush to declare "State of Emergency" where he will become the President "until the war is over".

That would qualify a lot better. At the moment you are at level one wannabe commie dictatorship tactics. Fascism is like level 9 on that scale.

[Ramo]

Yay, Cointelpro 2.0

[The diplomat]

Let's be clear what Bush told the NSA to do. He told them it was ok to eavesdrop on calls or emails betweeen a terrorist and someone in the US without a warrant. Let's say for example, we find out that Zarquawi is calling a number that is located in the US. Shouldn't we eavesdrop and find out why Zarquawi is calling somone in the US?

[Bosh]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Let's be clear what Bush told the NSA to do. He told them it was ok to eavesdrop on calls or emails betweeen a terrorist and someone in the US without a warrant. Let's say for example, we find out that Zarquawi is calling a number that is located in the US. Shouldn't we eavesdrop and find out why Zarquawi is calling somone in the US?

The problem isn't what he did, it's HOW he did it. It's blatantly illegal to wiretap the phones of American citizens without a warrant. And if it's someone like Zarquawi calling it's completely unncessary. It's very easy and fast to get a warrant for national security-related phone taps and if you're in a real hurry you can legally engage in an emergency wiretap for 72 hours as long as you submit the proper paper work at the end of that period.

There's simply to national security related reason for Bush to do what he did, this is all about expanding the power of the executive branch and ****ting all over the 4th Ammendment.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Let's be clear what Bush told the NSA to do. He told them it was ok to eavesdrop on calls or emails betweeen a terrorist and someone in the US without a warrant. Let's say for example, we find out that Zarquawi is calling a number that is located in the US. Shouldn't we eavesdrop and find out why Zarquawi is calling somone in the US?

are those activities what you refer to?

A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.

A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a “threat” and one of more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” across the country over a recent 10-month period.

I don't think it had anything to do with terrorists to me. (or the NSA methods were not used for the peace groups monitoring) In any case would you be suprized if they did?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Bosh


The problem isn't what he did, it's HOW he did it. It's blatantly illegal to wiretap the phones of American citizens without a warrant. And if it's someone like Zarquawi calling it's completely unncessary. It's very easy and fast to get a warrant for national security-related phone taps and if you're in a real hurry you can legally engage in an emergency wiretap for 72 hours as long as you submit the proper paper work at the end of that period.

There's simply to national security related reason for Bush to do what he did, this is all about expanding the power of the executive branch and ****ting all over the 4th Ammendment.

Exactly. Not getting a warrent is the kicker, if he wasn't spying on innocent people, he would just get a warent. This is how Bush gets away with calling Quakers threats to national security.

[Odin]

Bush got the NSA and NASA mixed up in his little speech this morning.

[DRoseDARs]

Mixing Saddam and Osama bin Laden was funnier.

[Odin]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Mixing Saddam and Osama bin Laden was funnier.

Saddamosama! That was funny too.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Odin


Saddamosama! That was funny too.

Isn't that a type of indian food?

Indian food.

[Odin]

Georgia congressman calls for impeachment

Congressman calls for Bush impeachment

The Associated Press - ATLANTA

U.S. Rep. John Lewis said Monday in a radio interview that President Bush should be impeached if he broke the law in authorizing spying on Americans.

The Democratic senator from Georgia told WAOK-AM he would sign a bill of impeachment if one was drawn up and that the House of Representatives should consider such a move.

Lewis is among several Democrats who have voiced discontent with Sunday night's television speech, where Bush asked Americans to continue to support the Iraq War. Lewis is the first major House figure to suggest impeaching Bush.

"Its a very serious charge, but he violated the law," said Lewis, a former civil rights leader. "The president should abide by the law. He deliberately, systematically violated the law. He is not King, he is president."

IMPEACH!
INDICT!
IMPRISON!

[Odin]

Senator Byrd kicks Bush ass

No President Is Above the Law




Senator Byrd on Monday expressed his strong concerns about possible violations of the Constitution in the Bush Administration's admitted practice of spying on American citizens.

Americans have been stunned at the recent news of the abuses of power by an overzealous President. It has become apparent that this Administration has engaged in a consistent and unrelenting pattern of abuse against our Country’s law-abiding citizens, and against our Constitution.

We have been stunned to hear reports about the Pentagon gathering information and creating databases to spy on ordinary Americans whose only sin is choose to exercise their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble. Those Americans who choose to question the Administration’s flawed policy in Iraq are labeled by this Administration as “domestic terrorists.”

We now know that the F.B.I.’s use of National Security Letters on American citizens has increased one hundred fold, requiring tens of thousands of individuals to turn over personal information and records. These letters are issued without prior judicial review, and provide no real means for an individual to challenge a permanent gag order.

Through news reports, we have been shocked to learn of the CIA’s practice of rendition, and the so-called “black sites,” secret locations in foreign countries, where abuse and interrogation have been exported, to escape the reach of U.S. laws protecting against human rights abuses.

We know that Vice President Dick Cheney has asked for exemptions for the CIA from the language contained in the McCain torture amendment banning cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. Thank God his pleas have been rejected by this Congress.

Now comes the stomach-churning revelation through an executive order, that President Bush has circumvented both the Congress and the courts. He has usurped the Third Branch of government – the branch charged with protecting the civil liberties of our people – by directing the National Security Agency to intercept and eavesdrop on the phone conversations and e-mails of American citizens without a warrant, which is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. He has stiff-armed the People’s Branch of government. He has rationalized the use of domestic, civilian surveillance with a flimsy claim that he has such authority because we are at war. The executive order, which has been acknowledged by the President, is an end-run around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which makes it unlawful for any official to monitor the communications of an individual on American soil without the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

What is the President thinking? Congress has provided for the very situations which the President is blatantly exploiting. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, housed in the Department of Justice, reviews requests for warrants for domestic surveillance. The Court can review these requests expeditiously and in times of great emergency. In extreme cases, where time is of the essence and national security is at stake, surveillance can be conducted before the warrant is even applied for.

This secret court was established so that sensitive surveillance could be conducted, and information could be gathered without compromising the security of the investigation. The purpose of the FISA Court is to balance the government’s role in fighting the war on terror with the Fourth Amendment rights afforded to each and every American.

The American public is given vague and empty assurances by the President that amount to little more than “trust me.” But, we are a nation of laws and not of men. Where is the source of that authority he claims? I defy the Administration to show me where in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or the U.S. Constitution, they are allowed to steal into the lives of innocent America citizens and spy.

When asked yesterday what the source of this authority was, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had no answer. Secretary Rice seemed to insinuate that eavesdropping on Americans was acceptable because FISA was an outdated law, and could not address the needs of the government in combating the new war on terror. This is a patent falsehood. The USA Patriot Act expanded FISA significantly, equipping the government with the tools it needed to fight terrorism. Further amendments to FISA were granted under the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002 and the Homeland Security Act of 2002. In fact, in its final report, the 9/11 Commission noted that the removal of the pre-9/11 “wall” between intelligence officials and law enforcement was significant in that it “opened up new opportunities for cooperative action.”

The President claims that these powers are within his role as Commander in Chief. Make no mistake, the powers granted to the Commander in Chief are specifically those as head of the Armed Forces. These warrantless searches are conducted not against a foreign power, but against unsuspecting and unknowing American citizens. They are conducted against individuals living on American soil, not in Iraq or Afghanistan. There is nothing within the powers granted in the Commander in Chief clause that grants the President the ability to conduct clandestine surveillance of American civilians. We must not allow such groundless, foolish claims to stand.

The President claims a boundless authority through the resolution that authorized the war on those who perpetrated the September 11th attacks. But that resolution does not give the President unchecked power to spy on our own people. That resolution does not give the Administration the power to create covert prisons for secret prisoners. That resolution does not authorize the torture of prisoners to extract information from them. That resolution does not authorize running black-hole secret prisons in foreign countries to get around U.S. law. That resolution does not give the President the powers reserved only for kings and potentates.

I continue to be shocked and astounded by the breadth with which the Administration undermines the constitutional protections afforded to the people, and the arrogance with which it rebukes the powers held by the Legislative and Judicial Branches. The President has cast off federal law, enacted by Congress, often bearing his own signature, as mere formality. He has rebuffed the rule of law, and he has trivialized and trampled upon the prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizures guaranteed to Americans by the United States Constitution.

We are supposed to accept these dirty little secrets. We are told that it is irresponsible to draw attention to President Bush’s gross abuse of power and Constitutional violations. But what is truly irresponsible is to neglect to uphold the rule of law. We listened to the President speak last night on the potential for democracy in Iraq. He claims to want to instill in the Iraqi people a tangible freedom and a working democracy, at the same time he violates our own U.S. laws and checks and balances? President Bush called the recent Iraqi election “a landmark day in the history of liberty.” I dare say in this country we may have reached our own sort of landmark. Never have the promises and protections of Liberty seemed so illusory. Never have the freedoms we cherish seemed so imperiled.

These renegade assaults on the Constitution and our system of laws strike at the very core of our values, and foster a sense of mistrust and apprehension about the reach of government.

I am reminded of Thomas Payne’s famous words, “These are the times that try men’s souls.”

These astounding revelations about the bending and contorting of the Constitution to justify a grasping, irresponsible Administration under the banner of “national security” are an outrage. Congress can no longer sit on the sidelines. It is time to ask hard questions of the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of the CIA. The White House should not be allowed to exempt itself from answering the same questions simply because it might assert some kind of “executive privilege” in order to avoid further embarrassment.