President Bush has yet to offer a convincing defense of his warrantless wiretapping program. During his State of the Union address, he suggested that Sept. 11 could have been prevented had the program been in place before the attack — by monitoring the calls of two suspects. But this Washington Post article says that the facts don’t agree, considering “the Sept. 11 commission and congressional investigators said the government had compiled significant information on the two suspects before the attacks and that bureaucratic problems — not a lack of information — were the main reasons for the security breakdown. The FBI did not even know where the two suspects lived and missed numerous opportunities to track them down in the 20 months before the attacks.”
Posted by Melissa Cooley
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
73 Comments
I have yet to hear an intelligent reason why FISA is inadequate. I heard shrub complain in another speech that the FISA law was drawn up in the 1970’s and hint that it is no longer useful. Well that explains a lot, after all the Bill of Rights is over 200 years old. I guess that must be why he is ignoring it.
He stated that it was too slow, 72 hours till a warrant was needed. A judge was on call day or night and would respond within the hour.
I would think a judge would not be too hard to convince and understand a tap on a cell phone or e-mail.
Have I forgotten anything?
What worries me is how willing people are to accept his answer.
He says it’s legal, so it is.
I’ve said this before and as time goes by it looks more possible. As long as he has unlimited powers as Commander in Chief, in his eyes.
What will we do if Bush decides in time of war that we need to not have elections?
Sum1, that might be easier than you think. A declaration of martial law would do it. Cancel elections “for the good of the country”.
Of course it would be for our own good and Democrats would be traitors for whining about it.
Dear Melissa,
When Porter Goss testified before the Senate yesterday he described the people that leaked the original story to the NYT as ’saboteurs’. This leak is criminal and has weakened our intelligence gathering ability in the time of war.
He further stated that they needed to be found and takened up before a grand jury.
Congress gave the President the authority to take whatever measures required. Article 2, sction 2. of the Constitution gives the president the responsibility and the authority to do what is required in the time of war.
The problem with the liberals is they are still have a pre-9-11 mentatlity. they still want to treat terrorists like citizen criminals and give them all of the rights of a criminal. If your purpose is to gather evidence that will hold up in court, get a warrent. If your purpose is to deliver a hellfire missle, nevermind!
Traitor, court/prison. Terorist, kill. Its really that simple. And legal!
Hank
In the summer of 1864, President Lincoln was counselled to cancel elections. The US was mired in a wildly, bitterly unpopular civil war, there were threats against the president’s life, there were draft riots in New York City (the city was shut down for 3 days in 1864; there were parts of the city with no police protection whatsoever during this time), Kansas and Missouri were engaged in a vicious guerrilla war at their border, the war was raging and Phil Sherman was marching through northern Georgia on his way to the Atlantic port of Savannah.
1864, a Presidential election year, probably marked the nadir of the US. It was as close as we’ve ever been to death as a nation.
In one of America’s finest hours, President Lincoln did *not* suspend elections. (Sheridan’s ‘gift’ of Atlanta on Sept. 2 likely gave Lincoln the win in the Nov election, over the Democrat George McClellan, the famous ‘non-fighting’ former General of the Army of the Potomac; McClellan repudiated his party’s call for an end to the war and a ceasefire; McClellan’s war record was ridiculed during the campaign; the Union army overwhelminly voted for Lincoln–sound familiar?)
Neither will President Bush.
Calm down.
I read an article last week, can’t remember where it was, a former NSA official stated that the paperwork involved in FISA warrant is inches thick, has to go through the AG’s office and takes hours to prepare. When they capture a suspected terrorists phone or computer they may exploit hundreds of phone numbers and e-mail addresses and they need to do it immediately. As a practical matter it requires a lot of man hours to prep and process all the paper work, tying up staff that could be doing actual investigative work.
The thing you Fever-swamp-Rats can’t seem to get through your heads is that there is a legal distinction between gathering ” foreign intelligence ” and “domestic law enforcement”.
When Bush says ‘if Al Qaeda is calling you, or you’re calling Al Qaeda we need to know why ‘ rational Americans understand and agree with him. Keep on acting like fringe wackos and losing elections, I think its great.
A health tip- I’ve heard that quinine can help with the symptoms.
Heckler,
I always drink tonic water that has quinine in it. Slightly bitter and highly refreshing.
However, you repeat Bush’s phony and dishonest defense of his illegal policy when you assert that those who oppose the policy also oppose listening in to al Qaeda. You should apologize for saying that, Heckler. Nobody, nobody, nobody thinks we shouldn’t listen in on al Qaeda operatives. But there is a law that works just fine for the purpose.
Finally, Heckler, when it comes to the FISA, the NSA, and the gathering of domestic intelligence, the attempt to separate ‘foreign intelligence’ and ‘domestic law enforcement’ becomes a distinction without a difference. There’s an immense dragnet out there sucking up all kinds of info. Given the partisanship of this Administration and their demonstrated history of revenge against political enemies, I’m not comfortable giving them a blank check to spy when and where they see fit without having to obtain a court order.
Hank,
To watch Porter Goss running the Administration’s latest ‘defense’ of their lawbreaking reminds one of why he was put in charge of the CIA in the first place. He’s the Uber-Partisan hack, and the job he’s done at driving out all the career folks at Foggy Bottom guarantees they’ll never raise an objection to intelligence policy written in the basement of the Pentagon.
But I digress. Heckler and Hank Price both run the GOP spin that the crime isn’t the crime, but the reporting is the crime. Hank then trots out the Administration’s supposed justification of its decision to ignore FISA, a justification which is roundly rejected by members of Congress as well as Constitutional scholars. Finally, he throws down his trump card: liberals have a ‘pre-9/11′ mindset. Well, Hank, if by ‘pre 9/11 mindset’ you mean ‘the rule of law,’ then yes, I guess I DO have a ‘pre-9/11 mindset.’ The cause of 9/11 was not the laws, and despite Heckler’s insistence of this on another thread, the fact that the criminal and intelligence sides of the Executive branch (FBI and CIA) were walled off. Each failed on its own terms. The FBI had the info that was needed to identify the patterns of activity undertaken by the sleeper cells in the U.S. It was the chain of command that failed.
There is one point I will concede: the inside / outside and domestic / foreign dichotomy clearly needs to be rethought on a number of levels, and the boundaries of criminality and security need to be redrawn. But you don’t accomplish that by having a chief Executive baldly assert Constitutional powers that have never been asserted, and by having Congress cave in.
CF
I’ve found that a little tonic water with a glass of scotch can be quite refreshing as well.
Well said, CF. The point is, warrants can be obtained up tp 72 hours AFTER gathering information. There is no reason not to follow the law, it doesn’t impede intelligence gathering, but it’s nessesary to protect the rights of Americans. Those of you who think that abuse won’t happen if the law can be overridden by executive powers have your head in the sand.
I get the feeling that a lot of people are confusing two different types of operations with this wiretapping operation.
The Echelon program, which has been around a while crunched mountains of electronic transmissions looking for key-words and phrases to zero in on suspects. It was a broad approach and I think this is the type of operation FISA was created to deal with.
The operation Bush has approved and is defending is very targeted and is based on some evidence that the person or group that is being targeted is a foreign enemy. I think that a lot of people are paranoid and are trying to make one into the other. The facts will eventually come out.
But just because you’re paranoid doesnt mean that they’re NOT listening!
It doesn’t matter, they can still obtain warrants, before and after the fact. Homeland security isn’t going to be threatened by that.
Dear CF,
Thankyou so much for taking time to put a DNC spin on my post and explaining in detail my motivations and meaning.
However, you seemed to miss the point.
Constitutional responsibilities and powers.
Criminals, prosecute.
Terrorists kill.
Hank
Did it ever occur to anybody that the Bushie’s Democratic counterparts have lots of foreign correspondence to do in the everyday world of politics?
As far as that goes, his own people too?
How conveinent!!
Damoon
I understand getting a warrant if a subject under investigation turns out to be a US citizen and the NSA or FBI or whoever wishes to contiue surveillance. But why mess with a warrant if the person is a foreigner communicating with suspected terrorists overseas? The point of the program is to stop attacks not gather evidence for a trial.
Why do so many on the left wish to confer the full rights and protections of our constitution on foreigners communicating with terrorists?
TRACY,
You act like President Bush is sitting in his office looking at a switch board and when a pretty light comes on he chuckles to himself and figures why not listen in Im kinda bored…
In this great plave called reality it is the NSA who is monitoring phone calls that are found to be probable to be some type of terrorist activity.
Just like anything/everything else “you” (the generic you) try to distort the truth to try and use your scare tactics becuase all you can do is hope that you can convince somone that doesn’t know what they are talking about into believing that President Bush is tapping their phone when it is a lie.
Yeah, Nathan, but didn’t John Bolton use these very same NSA logs to read 30+ emails sent by Americans to various members of the UN?
If I recall correctly, Bolton was called on the carpet in Congress to explain, the explanation for which I do not remember completely. Had nothing to do with terrorism, though, if I recall correctly. I believe Bolton was trying to determine who was on which side in the runup to Iraq and who was therefore ‘loyal’ to the war effort and who was not (distinct from loyalty to country, it was loyalty to the president, if I recall).
It’s not so farfetched to believe this bunch would use the NSA to spy on the Democrats in the runup to the election. Why wouldn’t they? After all, the leadership of the GOP has accused the Dems of everything just short of treason. Isn’t it possible they thought the Dems *needed* spying on?
That’s why transparency is the best disinfectant in these situations: it tends to kill ourright the very kind of paranoia everybody wants to blame CF and others for. Secret NSA wiretaps on US citizens are toxic to American democracy – in the long run.
This is not news.
In mid-August, President Bush received a CIA briefing that read: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US.” It listed hijacking of planes as a distinct concern.
Bush’s response was to continue with his five week vacation. Dick Cheney had headed up THE federal anti-terrorism committee THAT NEVER MET. Condi Rice, national security advisor at the time, planned to give a speech on national security on 9-11 that had NOT A SINGLE WORD ABOUT AL QAEDA or terrorism, but was instead filled with dire warnings about anti-ballistic missiles and the need for Star Wars.
This is the administration that tells us that 9-11 could have been prevented with wire taps?
You’d have to be HANK to believe that . . .
If wiretaps are so important, why didn’t the administration just get the law changed instead of breaking it? Seems like Congress gave the pres everything he wanted after 9/11. Why would a simple change in the law be any different?
Nathan you don’t know a damn thing about who they do or do not monitor.To pretend you do is simply silly.
I don’t have any information on who’s correspondence is monitored, and I don’t pretend to.
They monitor this blog you know.
It might be possible for an intelligent person to read my e-mail, tap my phone or look at my bookshelves, and figure out who I am, and what I’m about. But with my luck, the office dolt will be assigned my case, and I’ll be assumed to be in league with Ian and Nathan, since I post on this blog!
Heckler,
I haven’t the slightest doubt that this blog is monitored, and that the NSA knows just who I am. I’m also quite sure I have an FBI file. Given how far on the Left I am, I don’t think it’s at all paranoid to have such beliefs.
Welcome to Bush’s Amerika. It’s McCarthy’s America, and, oddly but predictably, Stalin’s America.
Heckler,Just curious. What information do you have that Bush’s program is “very targeted and is based on some evidence that the person or group that is being targeted is a foreign enemy.”
From what I can see NO ONE except the people directly involved knows who he is wiretapping.Where do you get your information and can you provide links that aren’t based on a “I told you it is” from the president, but actual facts?
If they are monitoring this blog then they can kiss my White Cuban backside, twice!
V.L.R.B!!
Sum1
Aside from the fact that members of the administration have stated such I have no evidence that the program is “very targeted and is based on some evidence that the person or group that is being targeted is a foreign enemy.”
And you have any facts that prove otherwise?
I would venture that La Cosa Nostra has killed as many or more people as al Quaeda and caused more economic damage to the country. Yet, that organization was dismantled, for the most part, by legal means. One could have made the same claims that it would have been in the national interest and more expedient to proceed without the court system. In the end, however, the protection of their rights protected ours, and law enforcement still did its job.
Ah yes, I see the classic game of you have not defended yourself so you are guilty is going on…
It is not the job of the accused to provide defense against your silly alligations.
If you think Bush is guilty of some crime then lets see the evidence and prosecution.
Otherwise, go back to trying to recount the votes in Florida. I wouldn’t want to distract you too much from that.
Give it a week or two and then we will be onto the next gotcha topic and this will be forgotten.
The Wingnut mind at work: the Constitutional limits of Executive power counts as a ‘gotcha’ topic.
CF,
When the traitor Clinton abused executive power and shredded the constitution, why were you silent?
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
Not the topic CF, just the way you are going about it.
Nathan
Oh yeah:
Me: 1
CF: 16
Dear ProudLiberal,Predictably, you bring out evidence that proves the administration’s argument instead of your own!You refer to the CIA August 6, 2001 memo like it was some damning evidence of Bush’s in competency. Let’s review the memo:It was an informative update, not a warning. It referred to information that was first brought to light in 1998. It also reported that the FBI was currently involved in over 70 investigations concerning possible Al Quieda terrorist plots in the US. It was a report on historical and present circumstances and efforts underway to investigate them.
You then try to impugn the president because he stayed on ‘vacation’. Now granted, he was on vacation, but you and I both know that he does more work on any single day of his vacation than most people do in a week. The liberal press always makes a big deal out of republican president vacations, but seem to ignore it when the democrats take a break. His vacation status in this argument is a non-starter and you know it
Stay proud,
Hank
Hank repeats Condi’s whitewash of the Presidential briefing word-for-word. Nicely memorized.
Still nothing on Cheney’s anti-terrorism task force that never met nor anything on Condi’s speech of 9-11 with nary a mention of Al Qaeda.
But like I said, you’d have to be Hank to believe anything the Liar-in-Chief says anymore . . .
But thanks for reminding me about how hard Bush works clearing recalcitrant brush and watching Barney chase armadillos while he’s on vacation and Al Qaeda was putting the final touches on the 9-11 plot.
As he told a large crowd of 1,000 dollar donors as President, “Washington’s a place to work but Texas is a great place to relax.”
Reporters asked him that August what he was doing and he said while SITTING IN A GOLF CART, “I’m working on national security issues, Iraq and Macedonia are very worrisome right now.”
So worrisome he had to hit golf balls at just that moment.
But let’s look at Ashcroft’s budget right before the attacks, shall we?
Here’s how Al Franken describes it–
“Ashcroft sent his Justice Department budget request to Bush. It included spending increases in sixty-eight different programs. Out of these sixty-eight programs, less than half dealt with terrorism. Way less than half. In fact, none of them dealt with terrorism. Ashcroft passed around a memo listing his seven top priorities. Again, terrorism didn’t make the list.”
http://www.avatara.com/operationignore0.html
Oh well . . . at least we’ve got Bush in there who’ll make sure that we kill Osama, right?
Oh how I wish I was as simple minded as Hank Price.
Dear ProudLiberal,
I refer to the memo, you use Al Frankin.
Hang in there, help is on the way.
Hank
Lets see,
We have Hank who presented some points, what does Proudlib respond with:
“Hank repeats Condi’s whitewash of the Presidential briefing word-for-word.”
The classic liberal argument:
Obscure, Obtuse, and Omit.
As far as vacation goes, Hank says that:
“but you and I both know that he does more work on any single day of his vacation than most people do in a week.”
What does Proudlib do? He goes off on some rant about how Bush was golfing and clearing timber.
Was President Bush clearing timber and golfing all day?
Of course not.
So why does Proudlib try to bring it up the way he did?
Obscure, Obtuse, and Omit.
Proudlib,
It doesn’t take being Hank to believe what the President says.
It takes some critical thinking, a lesson or two in logic, a lesson or two in argument, and a bit of common sense to see what your arguments and many others really are…
A load of crap.
Hey Nathan,
You coming out for the Super Bowl?
Hank
Right, we’ve had a test of your theory–Bush is the man.
So why’d we get hammered on 9-11 again? Because he couldn’t wire tap?
And why did we invade Iraq again? Let me give you a hint–three letters–WMD.
And how long were we going to be in Iraq? Rummy: “six days, six weeks, I doubt six months.”
It’s been three YEARS.
“I’m gonna get Osama dead or alive.” George W. Bush . . . uhm . . . last time I checked, he didn’t do that either.
What the load of crap is how much crap you guys can accept from this load of crap . . .
And btw, even if you hate Al Franken, that doesn’t allow you to evade his argument: “Terrorism was never a priority for this administration.”
But you knew that already, didn’t you.
One last point–”obtuse” is an adjective, it’s not a verb.
You can’t “obtuse” something; however an obtuse thinker could use it as a verb.
I find that clarity in language mirrors clarity in thought.
Maybe that’s why President Cuckoo-Bananas can’t utter a grammatical sentence to save his life.
Yeah, I’ll come watch the game. Who are you going for?
Gonna have any goodies too?
Proudlib,
You seem to be having trouble discussing this topic let alone introducing more.
We were attacked because a man named Osama Bin Laden planned out and executed a terrorist attack against us.
There were several reasons for invading Iraq. Yes WMD’s were one of them.
Did Rumsfield ever give an exact date on how long we would be in Iraq?
What does it matter? We still have troops in Germany, Japan, and many other parts of the world too.
Last time I checked we are still trying to get Osama dead or alive. You did notice that he sure isn’t giving interviews anymore and doesn’t seem to be too active either.
I suppose we are on topic for you though. The topic of trying to attack President Bush with anything we can legitimate or not.
Oh gee…
Thank you for the lesson on the word Obtuse.
Now if only you would use that kind of critical thinking when discussing President Bush.
Yes
Pittsburg
Hank–
Can you post the exact wording of those war powers given to the President in Article II, Section II of the Consitution? ‘Cause it sure isn’t in MY copy of it.
Or maybe you’re confused? Maybe you meant the War Powers Act of 1973? And from what I could tell in that, the President isn’t given blanket powers to do whatever he wants to do. But then GW DID say that he “mentioned” the wiretapping to Congress. Or was that only a select few in Congress, because it seems there are a lot of Congressmen and women who didn’t know what was going on.
“but you and I both know that he does more work on any single day of his vacation than most people do in a week.”Hank and Nathan, I know nothing of the sort. Where’s your evidence to back up this claim?I would think that in a time of war, a responsible leader wouldn’t take ANY time off. Our troops are dying and he’s hitting golf balls and clearing brush. If I were him, I’d be embarrased by those photo ops.
Dear RD,
Books and books have been written about Article II Section 2 of the Constitution. Does the President have the authority to declare war or not? Was the War Powers Act of 1973 constitutional or not?
I’m sure that I cannot give you a satisfactory answer in a BLOG entry, but I can give you a little insight. First of all, to understand the Constitution you must understand the people that wrote it. Understand their concerns and motives.
What was the purpose of Article II Section 2 of the Constitution? Why was it written into the Constitution? The Articles of Confederation that were basically replaced by the Constitution did not even have a Chief Executive, a Commander-in-Chief. The founding fathers realized that in order to quickly respond foreign aggression we needed a President, a Commander-in-Chief with the authority to wage war.
Now to understand the constitution these days you, not only must understand the original intent, but also, be aware of and understand over 200 years of judicial decisions that have interpreted the constitution. In general, many of the powers of the President present in the Constitution are assumed, and in general affirmed by court interpretations.
After 9/11, the Congress pretty much gave Bush a blank check to take whatever measures required to fight terrorism. The fact that he has kept key members of Congress briefed as to his actions pretty much makes him bullet proof.
You bring up the War Powers Act of 1973. I’m not confused at all. This act was pretty much a petulant act by Congress to put Nixon in his place. Congress was upset with what they thought was an abuse of Presidential powers by Johnson and Nixon in the aftermath of the Viet Nam War. It substantially limits the Presidents ability to engage in hostilities for more that 60 days without a declaration of war or specific Congressional authorization. It also requires the President to consult with Congress about military deployments.
In actual practice the War Powers Act has been pretty much ignored, or defeated in court. It’s stupid. Carter violated it with his inept Iran hostage rescue fiasco. Reagan pretty much ignored it when he deployed troops to Lebanon, Grenada, the Persian Gulf and Libya. G.H.W. Bush basically claimed the power to unilaterally initiate war prior to Desert Storm. Congress then saved a constitutional battle with their authorization. Clinton then pretty much followed suit with his little adventures into Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo and the Middle East. In the 2003 ruling, O’Connor v. United States, the court ruled in favor of President Bush. “…there are no judicially discoverable standards that would permit a court to determine whether the intentions of the President in prosecuting a war are proper.” There have been many challenges to the various Presidents usurpation of the powers that the War Powers Act of 1973 gave to Congress, and in almost every one the various Presidents have prevailed.
Now, Article II, Section 2 gives the President responsibilities and authority. Mainly in the declaration and waging of war. Congress gave GWB blanket authority to take care of the Al Quada threat. They gave him the discretion to determine the threat. The Constitution, Precedent and law are in his favor.
He did not authorize domestic wiretaps. He is not spying on American Citizens. He is intercepting electronic communications between terrorists and people in the US. When poll questions are written with the facts instead of inflammatory buzzwords 75 to 80 percent of Americans are in agreement with the President’s actions.
Thanks for asking,
Hank
Well Damoon,
ok, you are right. I am not with the President nor do I happen to have an itenerary of his every action on or about the days in question.
On the flip side neither do you.
So,
I can neither show you the proof you require nor can you show me proof otherwise.
A couple of photos do not account for his entire day nor are they proof of not doing his job.
Since I am not sure what your standard of Presidential job doing is, please tell me exactly how much free time the President should have each day for himself.
Should he get 8 hours for sleep?
Should he get a break to eat?
Should he ever get to have fun?
Please Damoon, in all your infinite wisdom let us know what your standards are for his typical day.
Wait a minute…
I understand now. Since you liberals want to blame him for everything, then perhaps you also think he should be doing everything… is that it?
I would suggest you look into this thing called:
delegation
Okay Hank that’s what I thought. You have less proof to base your assumption then we had when this administration told us there were wmd’s.
Nathan-Delegation? Convince New Orleans that Bush’s great talent is delegation. Brownie did a heck of a job. And please blame city and state officials. It was ALL their fault. Right.
Dear Sum1,
We need to establish the premise of the debate. I’m not trying to prove anything. The liberals are accusing the President of illegal domestic wiretapping of American citizens. They are basing this accusation on the top-secret information that was leaked to the NYT. They know that this accusation in unfounded, but they make it anyway solely for political gain.
There is no ‘wiretapping’. The members of Congress and the media understand this; they use the word wiretapping because of the pejorative nature of the word. They use it because it sounds more criminal. The President has authorized the NSA to perform electronic intercepts of communications between known Al Queda sources and people, citizens or otherwise, in the United States. Generally these citizens are assumed to be Al Queda operatives or sympathizers.
I basically explained how the President through Constitutional authority and precedent had responsibility to legally do this intelligence intercept. It is not up to me or the President to prove that he is innocent of any crime. It is up to his accusers to first list the crime he is accused of committing and then offer up proof.
Warrants are used to gather evidence for the prosecution of a crime. They are used to gather proof to convict criminals. Congress has authorized the President to take whatever means necessary to fight the war on terror. Intelligence gathered is used to kill terrorists.
Hopefully, the President and the Justice department will have the will to prosecute the traitor that leaked this top-secret information to the NYT. According to Porter Goss it has severely damaged our ability to fight domestic terror.
Thanks for allowing me to clarify this for you!Hank
Hank – why do we have a FISA Court? Its very existence contradicts your thesis.
As for “Hopefully, the President and the Justice department will have the will to prosecute the traitor that leaked this top-secret information to the NYT.” I hope they are as diligent with that as they have been with the outing of valerie Plame.
Hank,Here’s a definition of wiretapping according to snapshot
Wiretapping usually means the interception of telephone conversations by a listening device connected to the telephone wire or placed nearby. The message may be heard live, or it may be recorded or transmitted to another location.
sounds a bit like what you were describing, don’t ya think?
Nathan, I would think as president I wouldn’t take lots of vacation time (more than any other president) in a time of war. How insensitive is that to those who have lost loved ones in this misguided war? He should at least PRETEND to be working around the clock. As to how he spends his day, all I have to go by is what I see and hear. When he’s out playing golf, I assume he’s not discussing foreign policy with other world leaders, or planning a strategy to bring our soldiers home. All you have is speculation for your thoughts.FYI, Clinton only sleep about 4-5 hrs a night. Same with Nixon and Johnson. Some presidents take their responsibility pretty seriously.
Dear Ben Huie,
Good question, bad assumption. We have a FISA court to allow the Justice Department to secretly intercept intelligence from a foreign power. Justice Department. There is nothing in the law that limits the Executive branch from ordering surveillance without FISA approval. Every President since its inception has exercised his right to bypass FISA. Every one.
Now it is ironic, no absurd for the liberals to use FISA to hammer the President. The ACLU and other extreme left-wing groups have had their panties in a wad since FISA’s inception in 1978. They maintain that its very existence is unconstitutional! Now they use it as the legal option not taken to accuse the President of illegal doings!
No my friend, FISA was created to be a tool of the Justice Department. It has no authority to limit the Constitutional discretion of the President in the time of war. The liberals know this. They merely advance the argument as a straw man to confuse the great unwashed.
Now the ‘outing of Valerie Plame’ has been reduced to merely harassing poor ol’ Scooter for having a bad memory. I got big bucks that say it will never go to court! But it will be fun to watch the journalists involved twist in the wind!
Hank
My dear Sum1,
Do you intentionally miss the point? Or did you ride the short bus to school?
Hank
Thanks for not answering my question, Hank. You danced around it, but never answered. You should be a politician. Or a minister.
OK, RD
Here’s some questions for you. Exactly what law has the President broken? What are the liberals exactly accusing him of that I didn’t address in my answer to you?
I answered your question. It was a very detailed anwser for the time and space allowed.
I await your answer,
Hank
I do not miss the real point, it is not a question as to just whom the spying is being done against. Since at this point NONE of us know whom the spying was being done against.
The real point of all this is the question as to why Bush felt he was entitled and why ignore the law to do it. Since on the face of it the law did give him the ability to do what he was doing? A warrant only requires reasonable suspicion not conclusive proof. The fact that someone is in contact with a terrorist does give that reasonable suspicion. Therefore no need of a general swipe of communications within the U.S.. In fact such a swipe with terrorism, attacks upon the United States, discussions of the Islamic religion, words and phrases used by the terrorists and the like have flooded the phones, e-mails and communications in general.Thus not only increasing the chance of confusion but the likelihood of an innocent person being accused. And in the current practice of secreting people off and denying them the rights given by the laws.This will do more damage to this country and what has made it great then any terrorist could ever do.This battle, this war is a fight of ideology not religion to sacrifice that ideology to fight their ideology.Means they have won without another attack occurring.
You do not burn your house down to protect it from a tornado, nor would it may any sense to destroy what this country stands for to save it from those wishing to end it.
Well said, Dog!!
Don’t you love this Hank-ism?
“Hopefully, the President and the Justice department will have the will to prosecute the traitor that leaked this top-secret information to the NYT.”
That traitor is guilty of . . . embarrassing the President!
BTW, I wouldn’t hold my breath on the Keystone Kops being able to catch the “traitorous leaker.”
This is what the most powerful man in the free world had to say about finding the leaker of Valerie Plame’s identity, and this leaker worked in the freakin’ White House:
“I don’t know if we’re going to find out the senior administration official,” Mr. Bush said. “I don’t have any idea. I’d like to. I want to know the truth.”
But, Mr. Bush said, “This is a large administration and there’s a lot of senior officials.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/08/national/main577086.shtml
Columnist Robert Novak and all-around conservative suck-up said this about Bush’s knowledge–
“I’m confident the president knows who the source is,” Novak told a luncheon audience at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh on Tuesday. “I’d be amazed if he doesn’t.”
“So I say, ‘Don’t bug me. Don’t bug Bob Woodward. Bug the president as to whether he should reveal who the source is.’ ”
So, Hank, your man is either a bald-faced liar or merely incompetent at running a tight ship.
I believe he’s BOTH: corrupt AND incompetent, but that’s just me.
writerdog,
What law is it that President Bush is ignoring?
The point here is that you all are accusing Bush of a crime.
None of you seem to be able to point out what crime it is that he is guilty of or how.
Proudlib,
Since when did Novak become the defacto mind reader and all knowing and powerful?
Yes, we already know what you think about Bush. What we are waiting for is any kind of proof to back it up…
Nathan, how about Amendment IV of the Constitution of the United States?
“Intelligence officers who eavesdropped on thousands of Americans in overseas calls under authority from President Bush have dismissed nearly all of them as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat, according to accounts from current and former government officials and private-sector sources with knowledge of the technologies in use.”
“Fewer than 10 U.S. citizens or residents a year, according to an authoritative account, have aroused enough suspicion during warrantless eavesdropping to justify interception of their domestic calls”
I really have to ask myself, if the program isn’t doing any better than this, why are they spying on us? What are they doing with all that information?
Something smells fishy.
With this administration, if it’s not one damn thing, it’s another.
What’s next for an administration with a dirty littie agenda? Well, how about this:
“Under Presidents Reagan, Bush “41″ and Clinton, the executive order prohibiting political assassination was maintained and honored. As has now been publicly revealed, the administration of Bush “43″ secretly repealed the prohibition on assassination. In its place, under the omnipresent 9/11 rationale, the U.S. is back in the business of assassination.
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_3476929
XXX,
“I really have to ask myself, if the program isn’t doing any better than this, why are they spying on us?”
Who is this “us” you are talking about?
“What are they doing with all that information?”
Looking for terrorist activity…
“What’s next for an administration with a dirty littie agenda?”
If they had a dirty little agenda I might be able to answer your question.
Answer the questions, boy.
They’re starting to turn on shrub. I think this will probably only be the begining. On the down side, if king g does get impeached I will feel a little remorse for him. He isn’t intelligent enough to realize he is just a pawn for people a whole lot smarter (they didn’t need daddy to help them graduate).
http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060205-065029-9962r
Don’t misunderestimate shrub, he is not stupid, he is evil and corrupt!
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
k,It seems a little meaningless to worry about how many vacations the guy takes when he’s permanently out to lunch!
Yikes, it seems I was right about shrub being evil and I will add insane to that. The following article should make everyone question this lunatic. If shrub hets to define who exactly is a terrorist then CF might be in trouble!
Newsweek
In the latest twist in the debate over presidential powers, a Justice Department official suggested that in certain circumstances, the president might have the power to order the killing of terrorist suspects inside the United States.
Steven Bradbury, acting head of the department’s Office of Legal Counsel, went to a closed-door Senate intelligence committee meeting last week to defend President George W. Bush’s surveillance program. During the briefing, said administration and Capitol Hill officials (who declined to be identified because the session was private), California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked Bradbury questions about the extent of presidential powers to fight Al Qaeda; could Bush, for instance, order the killing of a Qaeda suspect known to be on U.S. soil? Bradbury replied that he believed Bush could indeed do this, at least in certain circumstances.
Current and former government officials said they could think of several scenarios in which a president might consider ordering the killing of a terror suspect inside the United States.
Full articlehttp://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=7796
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
Jed, what are you talking about? I haven’t said anything about dubya and his vacations.