Top Ten Myths About the Illegal NSA Spying on Americans

[Nbadan]

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/12.19.96/gifs/ethics-9651.jpg
Who will save us now?

MYTH: This is merely a “terrorist surveillance program.”

REALITY: When there is evidence a person may be a terrorist, both the criminal code and intelligence laws already authorize eavesdropping. This illegal program, however, allows electronic monitoring without any showing to a court that the person being spied upon in this country is a suspected terrorist.

MYTH: The program is legal.

REALITY: The program violates the Fourth Amendment and FISA and will chill free speech.

MYTH: The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) allows this.

REALITY: The resolution about using force in Afghanistan does not mention wiretaps and does not apply domestically, but FISA does--it requires a court order.

MYTH: The president has authority as commander in chief of the military to approve this program to spy on Americans without any court oversight.

REALITY: The Supreme Court recently found the administration’s claim of unlimited commander in chief powers during war to be an unacceptable effort to “condense power into a single branch of government,” contrary to the Constitution’s checks and balances.

MYTH: The president has the power to say what the law is.

REALITY: The courts have this power in our system of government, and no person is above the law, not even the president, or the rule of law means nothing.

MYTH: These warrantless wiretaps could never happen to you.

REALITY: Without court oversight, there is no way to ensure innocent people’s everyday communications are not monitored or catalogued by the NSA or other agencies.

MYTH: This illegal program could have prevented the 9/11 attacks.

REALITY: This is utter manipulation. Before 9/11, the federal government had gathered intelligence, without illegal NSA spying, about the looming attacks and at least two of the terrorists who perpetrated them, but failed to act.

MYTH: This illegal program has saved thousands of lives.

REALITY: Because the program is secret the administration can assert anything it wants and then claim the need for secrecy excuses its failure to document these claims, let alone reveal all the times the program distracted intelligence agents with dead ends that wasted resources and trampled individual rights.

MYTH: FISA takes too long.

REALITY: FISA allows wiretaps to begin immediately in emergencies, with three days afterward to go to court

MYTH: Only liberals disagree with the president about the program.

REALITY: The serious concerns that have been raised transcend party labels and reflect genuine and widespread worries about the lack of checks on the president’s claim of unlimited power to illegally spy on Americans without any independent oversight.

All supporting footnotes and a further discussion of these topics can be found at Boston Chronicle (http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2006/020906ACLU.shtml)

[gtownspur]

Article 2 of the constitution which gives the executive branch imolied powers to protect this country knock this whole article to bits.

waste of time.

[Nbadan]

Article 2 of the constitution which gives the executive branch imolied powers to protect this country knock this whole article to bits.

waste of time.

REALITY: The courts have this power in our system of government, and no person is above the law, not even the president, or the rule of law means nothing. Under our democracy’s separation of powers, the president cannot act as judge or legislator. It is high school civics 101 that it is the province of the courts to say what the law is, the role of Congress to make law and the responsibility of the president to faithfully execute the law, not re-write it.[15] The president’s actions violate these fundamental principles. This is especially so because the laws controlling government eavesdropping on Americans are well-established and clear. Numerous legal experts as well as non-partisan researchers agree that the president’s actions have violated these laws.[16]

The administration has claimed that Congress was briefed and thus approved of the program, but the few Members of Congress who were told about the program were prohibited from telling anyone else about it, and some of those members expressed serious concerns at the time.[17] Strong concerns about the propriety of the program were not limited to Congress. It has been reported that some of the federal judges on the FISA court who learned of the program expressed objections to its legality. Even members of the executive branch, beyond those who blew the whistle on the program, have objected to it. For example, it has been reported that Acting Attorney General James Comey indicated he was unwilling to give his approval to certain aspects of the program. And the program apparently was audited only in advance of the presidential election for fear that a new president would prosecute those who participated in the program.

Nevertheless, President Bush has arrogated to himself the power to unilaterally and secretly ignore laws passed by Congress, contravening the balance struck by a democratically enacted law. Under our constitutional democracy the president has the power to sign or veto laws—not to disregard them or interpret them away. The administration’s radical approach to presidential power is sadly reminiscent of disgraced President Nixon who said: “When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.” The president has claimed that he is doing everything within his authority to protect against terrorism but seems to have no awareness that there are any limits on that authority. He took an oath to “faithfully execute” the laws of the United States, not just the ones he chooses to follow.

The administration has also claimed the right to do so based on a distorted view of history. For example, some have claimed that "President Clinton exercised the same authority" as President Bush, based on the testimony of Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick back in 1994, but what she actually said was that FISA at that time restricted only electronic surveillance and not physical searches in intelligence investigations, which was correct. In the wake of the Aldrich Ames spying investigation, Gorelick testified that "the administration and the attorney general support, in principle, legislation establishing judicial warrant procedures under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for physical searches undertaken for intelligence purposes... the Department of Justice believes that Congress can legislate in the area of physical searches as it has done with respect to electronic surveillances, and we are prepared to support appropriate legislation." In October 1994, Congress amended FISA to require court oversight of requests to conduct physical searches in intelligence cases. Accordingly, claims that the last president did the same thing are just political red herrings.

So too are the arguments made by the administration about prior presidents. The Church Committee thoroughly examined the rationales used by some former administrations to try to justify warrantless spying in the name of national security, noting that any system of secret police “may become a menace to free government and free institutions because it carries with it the possibility of abuses of power which are not always quickly apprehended or understood’ . . . Our investigation has confirmed that warning. We have seen segments of our government, in their attitudes and action, adopt tactics unworthy of a democracy... We have seen a consistent pattern in which programs initiated with limited goals, such as preventing criminal violence or identifying foreign spies, were expanded to what witnesses characterized as ‘vacuum cleaners,’ sweeping in information about lawful activities of American citizens.” That is why, after its exhaustive examination of law and history, the Committee found: “There is no inherent constitutional authority for the President or any intelligence agency to violate the law.” It also stated ”It is the intent of the Committee that statutes implementing these recommendations provide the exclusive legal authority for federal domestic security activities,” the gathering of foreign intelligence on these shores.[18]

[gtownspur]

Your a fucking tart! The courts do not protect the country, the constitution gives this responsibility to the executive branch. And the courts cannot overturn it. it is an exectutive privelege.

[Nbadan]

Your a fucking tart! The courts do not protect the country, the constitution gives this responsibility to the executive branch. And the courts cannot overturn it. it is an exectutive privelege.

REALITY: The Supreme Court recently found the administration’s claim of unlimited commander in chief powers during war to be an unacceptable effort to “condense power into a single branch of government,” contrary to the Constitution’s checks and balances.[9] As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor declared in this case focused on combatants captured on the battlefield, it is “clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens.”[10]

The President’s power to act in the area of electronic spying is at its lowest ebb--not its zenith, as claimed by Attorney General Gonzales—because Congress has created comprehensive rules governing electronic surveillance in the US in times of war and to protect against international terrorism. When President Truman tried to seize the steel mills to support the war in Korea, the Supreme Court rebuked him, stating that: “It is one thing to draw an intention of Congress from general language and to say that Congress would have explicitly written what is inferred, where Congress has not addressed itself to a specific situation. It is quite impossible, however, when Congress did specifically address itself to a problem, as Congress did to that of seizure, to find secreted in the interstices of legislation the very grant of power which Congress consciously withheld. To find authority so explicitly withheld is . . . to disrespect the whole legislative process and the constitutional division of authority between President and Congress.”[11]

And, the legislative history of FISA refutes the claims of the White House: “[E]ven if the President has the inherent authority in the absence of legislation to authorize warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, Congress has the power to regulate the conduct of such surveillance by legislating a reasonable procedure, which then becomes the exclusive means by which such surveillance may be conducted.”[12] As legal experts have established: “Congress did not implicitly authorize the NSA domestic spying program in the AUMF, and in fact expressly prohibited in FISA.”[13]

In the current crisis, not only did Congress specifically provide rules governing electronic surveillance on these shores to protect national security, it also reinforced those very rules after passing the AUMF. Within 40 days of the vote on the AUMF, Congress enacted 25 changes to FISA at the request of President Bush in the USA Patriot Act (Title II, including Section 215 relating to getting court approval for business or library records as well as Section 206 regarding getting court approval for multiple-point wiretaps), but none of these amendments struck the requirement that the president get judicial approval to conduct electronic surveillance of people in the U.S. Congress has made other changes to FISA in the past four years.[14] This legislative history only serves to reinforce the continuing legal obligation of the administration to follow FISA regardless of the authority to use military force in Afghanistan.

[gtownspur]

You have only one justice who only gave her oppinion and you backed the rest with of your point with your oppinion of why congress should regulate the executive power, but the words are as clear as day.

Post the constitution and we will see what it states, not what one lone justice believes.

[George W Bush]

the constitution .

Whatcha talkin' about there sissy boy?
We don't need that ol' thing.
There's no piktures.

I'm George W Bush and I approve this message :tu

[101A]

The Constitution does not give the court the ability to define the laws of the land...a court decision (and John Marshall) did that: Marbury V. Madison.

[George W Bush]

laws of the land.

:lmao

good one there sonny.

[Mr. Peabody]

The Constitution does not give the court the ability to define the laws of the land...a court decision (and John Marshall) did that: Marbury V. Madison.

Goddam you John Marshall!!!! You activist judge!!!!!

[Nbadan]

Here is the real issue. Do we have rule of law or blind trust in Government? I'm willing to bet real conservatives pick the first.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v411/gsh999/Constitution.jpg

[Nbadan]

The Constitution does not give the court the ability to define the laws of the land...a court decision (and John Marshall) did that: Marbury V. Madison.


Although Marbury v. Madison was the first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court exercised the power of judicial review, it was a narrowly based decision: It declared unconstitutional a power which Congress sought to grant to the Court itself, and it was found to conflict with Article III of the Constitution, which governs the Federal courts. Marbury thus lies in the intersection between judicial review in the modern sense and the older theory that each branch of government is responsible (to the people) for keeping its own acts within the bounds of constitutionality. (Jackson held that he had no constitutional power to enforce Worcester v. Georgia, for example.) No general Federal law was struck down until Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857, more than half a century later. However, the Court treated the decision with deference: between 1804 and 1894, Marbury was cited in 49 separate opinions in the United States Supreme Court. Of these, 24 citations extend or reiterate Marbury's jurisdictional holding.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison)


Section 2: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Federal judicial power extends to cases depending on either: (1) the subject matter of the case; or (2) the parties involved.

Article 3 of the Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_III_of_the_United_States_Constitution)

[Yonivore]

Goddam you John Marshall!!!! You activist judge!!!!!
Judicial review is a constraint on Congress, not the executive branch -- which, by the way, has no legislative power.

[xrayzebra]

REALITY: The Supreme Court recently found the administration’s claim of unlimited commander in chief powers during war to be an unacceptable effort to “condense power into a single branch of government,” contrary to the Constitution’s checks and balances.[9] As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor declared in this case focused on combatants captured on the battlefield, it is “clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens.”[10]

The President’s power to act in the area of electronic spying is at its lowest ebb--not its zenith, as claimed by Attorney General Gonzales—because Congress has created comprehensive rules governing electronic surveillance in the US in times of war and to protect against international terrorism. When President Truman tried to seize the steel mills to support the war in Korea, the Supreme Court rebuked him, stating that: “It is one thing to draw an intention of Congress from general language and to say that Congress would have explicitly written what is inferred, where Congress has not addressed itself to a specific situation. It is quite impossible, however, when Congress did specifically address itself to a problem, as Congress did to that of seizure, to find secreted in the interstices of legislation the very grant of power which Congress consciously withheld. To find authority so explicitly withheld is . . . to disrespect the whole legislative process and the constitutional division of authority between President and Congress.”[11]

And, the legislative history of FISA refutes the claims of the White House: “[E]ven if the President has the inherent authority in the absence of legislation to authorize warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, Congress has the power to regulate the conduct of such surveillance by legislating a reasonable procedure, which then becomes the exclusive means by which such surveillance may be conducted.”[12] As legal experts have established: “Congress did not implicitly authorize the NSA domestic spying program in the AUMF, and in fact expressly prohibited in FISA.”[13]

In the current crisis, not only did Congress specifically provide rules governing electronic surveillance on these shores to protect national security, it also reinforced those very rules after passing the AUMF. Within 40 days of the vote on the AUMF, Congress enacted 25 changes to FISA at the request of President Bush in the USA Patriot Act (Title II, including Section 215 relating to getting court approval for business or library records as well as Section 206 regarding getting court approval for multiple-point wiretaps), but none of these amendments struck the requirement that the president get judicial approval to conduct electronic surveillance of people in the U.S. Congress has made other changes to FISA in the past four years.[14] This legislative history only serves to reinforce the continuing legal obligation of the administration to follow FISA regardless of the authority to use military force in Afghanistan.


As usual, BS, in the first degree. Judical is not the final word on anything.

[George W Bush]

As usual, BS, in the first degree. Judical is not the final word on anything.

Your damn right lil striped horsy,

I have the final say,
and by the way,
I have the last word.

God Bless America :tu

[xrayzebra]

Your damn right lil striped horsy,

I have the final say,
and by the way,
I have the last word.

God Bless America :tu

The pimple has spoken! :lol

[boutons_]

Some Repug Congress, probably getting the message from their constitutiencies that dubya/dickhead/etc are law-raping, lying dead-meat, are abandoning the WH's scorched-earth campaing to remove all legal restaints on the Exec so that dubya/dickhead can clain anything they do is legal by defintion of having been done by dubya/dickhead.

"L'etat, c'est moi"

===========================

February 11, 2006

Republican Speaks Up, Leading Others to Challenge Wiretaps

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 — When Representative Heather A. Wilson broke ranks with President Bush on Tuesday to declare her "serious concerns" about domestic eavesdropping, she gave voice to what some fellow Republicans were thinking, if not saying.

Now they are speaking up — and growing louder.

In interviews over several days, Congressional Republicans have expressed growing doubts about the National Security Agency program to intercept international communications inside the United States without court warrants. A growing number of Republicans say the program appears to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that created a court to oversee such surveillance, and are calling for revamping the FISA law.

Ms. Wilson and at least six other Republican lawmakers are openly skeptical about Mr. Bush's assertion that he has the inherent authority to order the wiretaps and that Congress gave him the power to do so when it authorized him to use military force after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The White House, in a turnabout, briefed the full House and Senate Intelligence Committee on the program this week, after Ms. Wilson, chairwoman of the subcommittee that oversees the N.S.A., had called for a full-scale Congressional investigation. But some Republicans say that is not enough.

"I don't think that's sufficient," Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said. "There is considerable concern about the administration's just citing the president's inherent authority or the authorization to go to war with Iraq as grounds for conducting this program. It's a stretch."

The criticism became apparent on Monday, when Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales was the sole witness before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a hearing on the legality of the eavesdropping. Mr. Gonzales faced tough questioning from 4 of the 10 Republicans on the panel, including its chairman, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

By week's end, after Ms. Wilson became the first Republican on either the House or the Senate Intelligence Committees to call for a Congressional inquiry, the critics had become a chorus. Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, said the more she learned about the program, the more its "gray areas" concerned her.

Mr. Specter said he would draft legislation to put the issue in the hands of the intelligence surveillance court by having its judges rule on the constitutionality of the program.

Even Senator Orrin G. Hatch, the Utah Republican and Judiciary Committee member who has been a staunch supporter of the eavesdropping, said that although he did not think the law needed revising, Congress had to have more oversight.

"The administration has gone a long way in the last couple of days to assure people that this highly classified program is critical to the protection of the nation," Mr. Hatch said. "I think they've more than made a persuasive case. The real question is how do we have oversight?"

In part, the backlash is a symptom of Congressional muscle flexing; a sort of mutiny on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers have been frustrated by the way Mr. Bush boldly exercises his executive authority.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who has also criticized the program, said Ms. Wilson's comments were "a sign of a growing movement" by lawmakers to reassert the power of the legislature.

"This is sort of a Marbury v. Madison moment between the executive and the legislative branch," Mr. Graham said in a reference to the 1803 Supreme Court decision in which the court granted itself the power to declare laws unconstitutional.

"I think there's two things going on," said Mr. Graham, a Judiciary Committee member. "There's an abandonment of you-broke-the-law rhetoric by the Democrats and a more questioning attitude about what the law should be by the Republicans. And that merges for a very healthy debate."

Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, said: "I don't think anyone wants any kind of constitutional showdown over this. We want the president to succeed, but the fact is we are a coequal branch of government and we have serious oversight responsibilities."

The White House insists that there is no need to amend the law, a position that a spokeswoman, Dana Perino, restated on Friday. But Mr. Bush also made clear on Friday that he was tuned in to the growing Republican angst. At a retreat with House Republicans in Cambridge, Md., he began private remarks by defending the legality of the eavesdropping, a White House pool report said.

Apparently thinking that his microphone had been turned off so reporters could not hear, the president told lawmakers that he wanted to "share some thoughts with you" before answering questions.

"I expect this conversation we're about to have to stay in the room," Mr. Bush began. "I know that's impossible in Washington."

He restated what he had said publicly, that the program was legal and necessary for the nation's safety.

"You've got to understand something about me," Mr. Bush said. "Sept. 11 changed the way I think. I told the people exactly what I felt at the time, and I still feel it, and that is we must do everything in our power to protect the country."

Ms. Wilson later stood up to pose a question, and many in the room braced for a confrontation, said an attendee who insisted on anonymity because the session was private.

But there was no showdown. Ms. Wilson simply thanked Mr. Bush and told him that everyone wanted to catch the terrorists.

At the age of 45, Ms. Wilson has considerable credentials in national security. She is a graduate of the Air Force Academy and a former Air Force officer. A Rhodes Scholar, Ms. Wilson obtained a master's degree and doctorate in international relations. She also worked as an arms control negotiator for the National Security Council under the first President Bush.

( ie, she's much qualified and accomplished to be a professional member of the government that dubya )

"I think that had an impact on the administration," she said. "They knew that people in Congress would listen to me on this."

But Ms. Wilson, who represents a swing district in Albuquerque, also faces a tough re-election challenge from the attorney general of New Mexico, Patricia Madrid.

Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Ms. Wilson was most likely distancing herself from the White House to curry favor back home.

Yet Representative Jane Harman of California, the senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said Ms. Wilson expressed private concerns to her about the eavesdropping last year, shortly after it became public.

"She was very concerned," said Ms. Harman, who has supported the program in the past but said she now believed that its legal underpinnings were weak. "She came to me, asking me what I thought."

Ms. Wilson said she decided to speak out this week because she had become increasingly "frustrated that the administration was not giving us the information we needed to do our job." With Mr. Gonzales unable or unwilling to answer questions at the Senate hearing, she said, there was no way to determine whether the surveillance law needed to be updated.

"I think the argument that somehow, in passing the use-of-force resolution, that that was authorizing the president and the administration free rein to do whatever they wanted to do, so long as they tied it to the war on terror, was a bit of a stretch," she said. "And I don't think that's what most members of Congress felt they were doing."

Carl Hulse contributed reporting from Cambridge, Md., for this article.

* Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

[Vashner]

All this proves is that a Kerry, Hillary or other DNC president will not use the NSA wiretap program. ...

They will change Bush's "whatever it takes" policy.

This means they won't get into power in 06 congress or 08 POTUS.

Hillary took a stance against this and got fucking burned.

[George W Bush]

POTUS..

I like Harry POTUS.
Nice piktures.

[ChumpDumper]

All this proves is that a Kerry, Hillary or other DNC president will not use the NSA wiretap program. ...Nah, they'll just go through FISA.

[Vashner]

We have like 1000's of people here in San Antonio the Spy everyday...

Security Hill at Lackland...

Maybe DAN and other anti USA folks could move away from where people spy.

I mean you hate war.. San Antonio is a war machine.. get the fuck out bitches.. or let the people do there job to protect the free world.

[George W Bush]

get the fuck out bitches.. or let the people do there job to protect the free world.

There ya go Vashie, doin your best
impression of me, actin' tuff so noone
knows how mush of a sissy we really are.

By the way Vashie, don't let em know
you actually won't go fight this war yourself.

They made fun of me about dodgin' that ol'
draft.

I'm George W Bush and I approve this message. :tu

[gtownspur]

You should gitttttttttttttt out!

whether you like this country or not!

I'm Gtown and i porked your mother and approved this message.

[George W Bush]

You should gitttttttttttttt out!

whether you like this country or not!

I'm Gtown and i porked your mother and approved this message.


Hey gtown, texas
are ya gonna sign up to go fight our war?

I'm George W Bush and I approve that question. :tu

[xrayzebra]

Nah, they'll just go through FISA.

Like other dimm-o-craps have done in the past..... :lol

Hello MLK and others. Are you listening, cause they did to you. :lol

[George W Bush]

Are you listening,

Yes, I'm listenin' to everyones fone calls and readin'
your PM's. America, be on alert.

I'm George W Bush and I approve the law I am breakin' :tu

[gtownspur]

Hey gtown, texas
are ya gonna sign up to go fight our war?

I'm George W Bush and I approve that question. :tu


I'll sign up for war when your ass gets laid. In that case i should put my money on el pimpo getting laid first. He's boyscout master so he has the advantage.

[George W Bush]

I'll sign up for war when your ass gets laid..

Now, I'm Republican, you know we don't get laid, boy.

Now by the way, quit avoidin' questions like I do.
Why don't you go sign up for the war?

I'm George W Bush and I approve that question although I wouldnt answer it myself :tu

[boutons_]

dubya/dickhead broke the law, and now they are having their little chihuahua Gonzales starting yipping after the leak of their breaking the law. scumbags. DoJ is probably spending more resources going after the leak than they spending on terrorism.

Intimidate dissent so we can keep doing whatever the fuck we want.

===============


February 12, 2006

Inquiry Into Wiretapping Article Widens

By DAVID JOHNSTON

WASHINGTON, Feb. 11 — Federal agents have interviewed officials at several of the country's law enforcement and national security agencies in a rapidly expanding criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding a New York Times article published in December that disclosed the existence of a highly classified domestic eavesdropping program, according to government officials.

The investigation, which appears to cover the case from 2004, when the newspaper began reporting the story, is being closely coordinated with criminal prosecutors at the Justice Department, the officials said. People who have been interviewed and others in the government who have been briefed on the interviews said the investigation seemed to lay the groundwork for a grand jury inquiry that could lead to criminal charges.

The inquiry is progressing as a debate about the eavesdropping rages in Congress and elsewhere. President Bush has condemned the leak as a "shameful act." Others, like Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director, have expressed the hope that reporters will be summoned before a grand jury and asked to reveal the identities of those who provided them classified information.

Mr. Goss, speaking at a Senate intelligence committee hearing on Feb. 2, said: "It is my aim and it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present being asked to reveal who is leaking this information. I believe the safety of this nation and the people of this country deserve nothing less."

( more reporters going to jail )

The case is viewed as potentially far reaching because it places on a collision course constitutional principles that each side regards as paramount. For the government, the investigation represents an effort to punish those responsible for a serious security breach and enforce legal sanctions against leaks of classified information at a time of heightened terrorist threats. For news organizations, the inquiry threatens the confidentiality of sources and the ability to report on controversial national security issues free of government interference.

Bill Keller, executive editor of The Times, said no one at the paper had been contacted in connection with the investigation, and he defended the paper's reporting.

"Before running the story we gave long and sober consideration to the administration's contention that disclosing the program would damage the country's counterterrorism efforts," Mr. Keller said. "We were not convinced then, and have not been convinced since, that our reporting compromised national security.

"What our reporting has done is set off an intense national debate about the proper balance between security and liberty — a debate that many government officials of both parties, and in all three branches of government, seem to regard as in the national interest."

( the Repugs don't have a "national interest" only a "Repug interest" )

Civil liberties groups and Democratic lawmakers as well as some Republicans have called for an inquiry into the eavesdropping program as an improper and possibly illegal intrusion on the privacy rights of innocent Americans. These critics have noted that the program appears to have circumvented the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court approval for eavesdropping on American citizens.

Former Vice President Al Gore has called for a special prosecutor to investigate the government's use of the program, and at least one Democrat, Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, has said the eavesdropping effort may amount to an impeachable offense.

At the same time, conservatives have attacked the disclosure of classified information as an illegal act, demanding a vigorous investigative effort to find and prosecute whoever disclosed classified information. An upcoming article in Commentary magazine suggests that the newspaper may be prosecuted for violations of the Espionage Act and says, "What The New York Times has done is nothing less than to compromise the centerpiece of our defensive efforts in the war on terrorism."

The Justice Department took the unusual step of announcing the opening of the investigation on Dec. 30, and since then, government officials said, investigators and prosecutors have worked quickly to assemble an investigative team and obtain a preliminary grasp of whether the leaking of the information violated the law. Among the statutes being reviewed by the investigators are espionage laws that prohibit the disclosure, dissemination or publication of national security information.

( another Starr-type of Repug-interested witch hunt. Repugs kick the lead prosecutor off the Abramoff investigation. dubya vows and reflexively refuses to get to the bottom of the Plame leak )

A Federal Bureau of Investigation team under the direction of the bureau's counterintelligence division at agency headquarters has questioned employees at the F.B.I., the National Security Agency, the Justice Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the office of the Director of National Intelligence, the officials said. Prosecutors have also taken steps to activate a grand jury.

The interviews have focused initially on identifying government officials who have had contact with Times reporters, particularly those in the newspaper's Washington bureau. The interviews appeared to be initially intended to determine who in the government spoke with Times reporters about intelligence and counterterrorism matters.

In addition, investigators are trying to determine who in the government was authorized to know about the eavesdropping program. Several officials described the investigation as aggressive and fast-moving. The officials who described the interviews did so on condition of anonymity, citing the confidentiality of an ongoing criminal inquiry.

The administration's chief legal defender of the program is Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who is also the senior official responsible for the leak investigation.

( "Aluminum Tits" Ashcroft, "Torture is great" Gonzales, two of the worst AGs in the history of the Repubic )

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1785000/images/_1788845_statue300ap.jpg


At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Feb. 6, Mr. Gonzales said: "I'm not going to get into specific laws that are being looked at. But, obviously, our prosecutors are going to look to see all the laws that have been violated. And if the evidence is there, they're going to prosecute those violations."

Mr. Bush and other senior officials have said that the electronic surveillance operation was authorized by what they call the president's wartime powers and a Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Al Qaeda passed in the days after the September 2001 terror attacks.

The government's increasing unwillingness to honor confidentiality pledges between journalists and their sources in national security cases has been evident in another case, involving the disclosure in 2003 of the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson. The special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, demanded that several journalists disclose their conversations with their sources.

Judith Miller, at the time a reporter for The Times, went to jail for 85 days before agreeing to comply with a subpoena to testify about her conversations with I. Lewis Libby Jr., who was chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Mr. Libby has been indicted on charges of making false statements and obstruction of justice and has pleaded not guilty.

"An outgrowth of the Fitzgerald investigation is that the gloves are off in leak cases," said George J. Terwilliger III, former deputy attorney general in the administration of the first President Bush. "New rules apply."

How aggressively prosecutors pursue the new case involving the N.S.A. may depend on their assessment of the damage caused by the disclosure, Mr. Terwilliger said. "If the program is as sensitive and critical as it has been described, and leaking its existence could put the lives of innocent American people in jeopardy," he said, "that surely would have an effect on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion."

Recently, federal authorities have used espionage statutes to move beyond prosecutions of government officials who disclose classified information to indict private citizens who receive it. In the case of a former Pentagon analyst, Lawrence A. Franklin, who pleaded guilty to disclosing defense secrets, federal authorities have charged Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, formerly representatives of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group.

The two men have been indicted on charges of turning over information obtained from Mr. Franklin to a foreign government, which has been identified as Israel, and to journalists. At Mr. Franklin's sentencing hearing in Alexandria, Va., Judge T. S. Ellis III of Federal District Court said he believed that private citizens and government employees must obey laws against illegally disseminating classified information.

"Persons who have unauthorized possession, who come into unauthorized possession of classified information, must abide by the law," Judge Ellis said. "That applies to academics, lawyers, journalists, professors, whatever."

Some media lawyers believe that The Times has powerful legal arguments in defense of its reporting and in protecting its sources.

Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., who has represented publications like The Wall Street Journal and Time magazine, said: "There is a very strong argument that a federal common-law reporters' privilege exists and that privilege would protect confidential sources in this case. There is an extremely strong public interest in this information, and the public has the right to understand this controversial and possibly unconstitutional public policy."

* Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

[SA210]

I'll sign up for war when your ass gets laid. In that case i should put my money on el pimpo getting laid first. He's boyscout master so he has the advantage.
:lmao

I like the way gaytownspur avoids the question about signing up to fight the war he supports so much.

I guess fairy girls don't fight, they just bitch.

:lol

[Sec24Row7]

Oh please make national security your major talking for the midterm elections.

Pretty, Pretty please.

If you did the Republicans would utterly destroy you.

[Harry Whittington]

I can tell you this...It might involve a Quail hunt...OUCH! THAT SHIT STILL HURTS!

WHAT A DICK!

[Nbadan]

Oh please make national security your major talking for the midterm elections.

Pretty, Pretty please.

If you did the Republicans would utterly destroy you.

It's not about National Security, although Republicans will get their panties in a wad trying to spin it that way. It's about the expanding powers of the Executive branch and what this does to our Constitutional system of checks and balances and to established laws like FISA.

[Peter]

Right, and most voters will see it that way. How much bud you smoke?

[Nbadan]

Right, and most voters will see it that way. How much bud you smoke?

We'll let the deteriorating situation in Iraq speak for the current administrations ability to fight the war on terror, but the illegal wiretaps are a impeachable offense and it would be a coup for the Demo's to point out to the 06 voters that the Republican controlled Senate and Congress sat on their hands while the President broke the law.

[gtownspur]

:lmao

I like the way gaytownspur avoids the question about signing up to fight the war he supports so much.

I guess fairy girls don't fight, they just bitch.

:lol


Go ahead bitch, there you go again stalking me.

Are you a sado masochist bitch, cuz it seems you just love me calling you a dirty faggot whore. And boy do you always show up for more..


OWNED!!!

[gtownspur]

Now, I'm Republican, you know we don't get laid, boy.

Now by the way, quit avoidin' questions like I do.
Why don't you go sign up for the war?

I'm George W Bush and I approve that question although I wouldnt answer it myself :tu


Cuz i choose not to you silly faggot.


It's a free country you pacifist rim licking bitch, and i can support whatever the fuck i want too.

And this is pac man laughing>>>> :lol <<<< at you and your girlfreind Sa210's small dicks.

And this is your mom>>>>>> :oops <<<<< taking a pounding doggystyle from me, your daddy.

[MannyIsGod]

Judicial review is a constraint on Congress, not the executive branch -- which, by the way, has no legislative power.2 words: Executive Order

[MannyIsGod]

BTW, Nice job owning the thread Dan.

[George W Bush]

Cuz i choose not to you silly faggot.


It's a free country you pacifist rim licking bitch, and i can support whatever the fuck i want too.

And this is pac man laughing>>>> :lol <<<< at you and your girlfreind Sa210's small dicks.

And this is your mom>>>>>> :oops <<<<< taking a pounding doggystyle from me, your daddy.

gaytownspur, Pac man is not gay like you boy, leave him alone and quit tryin to rape him,

get off these internets and spread gayness elsewhere's and go sign up for our war fraidy cat.

God Bless America :tu

[Mr Dio]

Gaytown = :princess
Gaytown is just everyone's bitch all over this forum huh?
That is too damn funny. :lol

[xrayzebra]

We'll let the deteriorating situation in Iraq speak for the current administrations ability to fight the war on terror, but the illegal wiretaps are a impeachable offense and it would be a coup for the Demo's to point out to the 06 voters that the Republican controlled Senate and Congress sat on their hands while the President broke the law.

Er, ah, Dan, are you sure he has broken the law. No one else is. As far
as expanding his powers, you need to read a little history on past
Presidents. Could it be that he is just reasserting the power of the
Presidency where others have relinquished it? Thank goodness we have
a President with some guts.

[MannyIsGod]

Er, ah, Dan, are you sure he has broken the law. No one else is. As far
as expanding his powers, you need to read a little history on past
Presidents. Could it be that he is just reasserting the power of the
Presidency where others have relinquished it? Thank goodness we have
a President with some guts.If by no one else you mean a ton of constiutional and FISA experts, then I agree with you!

[Peter]

I think the key point is that it has not been determined whether or not the program violates the Constitution. There is plenty of speculation to that end, but this is a key point for the Bush = FDR, Lincoln & Washington combined as well as the Bushitler crowd.

[Yonivore]

I think the key point is that it has not been determined whether or not the program violates the Constitution. There is plenty of speculation to that end, but this is a key point for the Bush = FDR, Lincoln & Washington combined as well as the Bushitler crowd.
I think another key point to consider is that no one, outside a very select few, will ever have all the necessary information that will allow a definitive judgement to be made by the public or the press unless it goes to a trial...which, I believe, most people now doubt will ever occur.

It all boils down to those who trust this administration believe they are telling the truth when they say the NSA Program was Constitutional and legal; those who don't trust this administration will believe they are circumventing the law.

My question to those who believe he is violating the law is this; to what end? It's not like he's been accused of spying on Americans for political, partisan, or personal reasons.

[MannyIsGod]

A violation of the law is ok when....?

You fill in the blank.

[gtownspur]

gaytownspur, Pac man is not gay like you boy, leave him alone and quit tryin to rape him,

get off these internets and spread gayness elsewhere's and go sign up for our war fraidy cat.

God Bless America :tu


The only reason you call me a fag, is because my load ended up in your mouth, its not my fault your mom snowballed it into you. :lol


This is pac man>>>> :lol ,laughing at your tiny dick!

[George W Bush]

The only reason you call me a fag, is because my load ended up in your mouth, its not my fault your mom snowballed it into you. :lol


This is pac man>>>> :lol ,laughing at your tiny dick!

What are you doin' lookin' at my package pansy boy?

[gtownspur]

Your small package was out in public, It's not my fault you buttfuck stray dogs near the park benches.

[George W Bush]

It's not my fault you buttfuck stray dogs in public.

gaytownspur, why would you think of dogs in that manner?
America, we got ourselves a sick one here.

God Bless America :tu

[gtownspur]

Me thinking was not the problem,

You fucking stray dogs was..

Keep it in perspective phsyco.

Glory Glory Allelujah.

[George W Bush]

Me thinking was not the problem,

You fucking stray dogs was..

Keep it in perspective phsyco.

Glory Glory Allelujah.

It must suck being gay, gaytownspur.

:lol

[gtownspur]

It must suck being gay, gaytownspur.

:lol


You must be speaking for yourself,

who am i to judge? :smokin

[gtownspur]

It must suck being gay, gaytownspur.

:lol


You seemed to put alot of emphasis on (suck), no wonder you're Mr Dio's biggest bitch.

[George W Bush]

You seemed to put alot of emphasis on (suck), no wonder you're Mr Dio's biggest bitch.

Hey gay boy, get it right, I'm Dick Cheney's bitch.
Your justa bitch.

God Bless America :tu

[Mr Dio]

You seemed to put alot of emphasis on (suck), no wonder you're Mr Dio's biggest bitch.


Actually Gaytown, your mom has that honor.

[xrayzebra]

Here is what Mr. Thomas Sowell has to say about this "so called" story. You all
might want to read it instead of talking about all the queer stuff.



Two crises
By Thomas Sowell

Feb 14, 2006

This nation is facing two crises -- one phony and one real. Both in the media and in politics, the phony crisis is getting virtually all the attention.

Like the French official in "Casablanca," politicians and much of the media are shocked, shocked, to discover that the government has been listening in on calls involving international terrorist networks. Congressional leaders of both parties have in fact known this for years without saying a word.

Only after the New York Times published the news and made a big noise about it have politicians begun to declare their shock.

That is not the only thing that makes this big uproar phony. The same people who are going ballistic over what they spin as "domestic spying" never went ballistic over one of the most gross examples of genuine domestic spying during the Clinton years.

Hundreds of raw FBI files on Republicans were sent to the Clinton White House, in violation of laws and for no higher purpose than having enough dirt on enough people to intimidate political opponents. But domestic spying against Republicans did not shock nearly as many people as intercepting phone calls from terrorists.

The current hue and cry that is being whipped up into a media crisis is part of a whole pattern of short-sighted political obstruction and a futile venting of spleen.

What could have been more short-sighted and petty than the Congressional Democrats holding up the official electoral college vote last year confirming the re-election of President Bush? It was the first time such a challenge was made since 1877.

Democrats knew from the outset that they had no chance of preventing Bush's re-election from being confirmed in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Moreover, since he was already President, they could not even delay his taking office. It was obstruction for the sake of obstruction -- and to "do something" to appeal to the Bush-hatred of their political base. It was the same thing when the Democrats obstructed and delayed the confirmation vote on Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State and later the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

They knew from the outset that these were just futile temper tantrums that would not affect the outcome in the slightest.

One of the ugliest examples of the same mindset was painfully visible at the recent funeral of Coretta Scott King, where a solemn occasion was turned into a series of political cheap shots against a President who had come to honor the memory of Mrs. King.

The truly dangerous aspect of this temper tantrum politics is its undermining the government of the United States in its dealings with foreign powers and international terrorist networks.

There are nations and movements that respect only force or the threat of force. Regardless of anyone's politics, the President of the United States is the only one who can launch that force.

In the early days of the Iraq war, when it was clear to all that American military force would be unleashed against our enemies, Libya suddenly agreed to abandon its nuclear program and other countries backed off their hostile stances.

But when our domestic obstructionists began undermining the President and dividing the country, they were undermining the credibility of American power. North Korea's government-controlled media gave big play to Senator John Kerry's speeches against the U.S. hard line on the development of North Korean nuclear weapons.

Obviously this all-out attempt to damage the President at all costs makes any threat of the use of military force less credible with the country divided.

Whether President Bush will in fact use military force as a last resort to prevent an unending nightmare of nuclear weapons in the hands of Iranian fanatics and international terrorists is something only the future will tell.

It would be far better if the threat of force were credible enough that actual force would not have to be used. But divisive politics have undermined the credibility of any such threat. That can narrow the choices to killing people in Iran or leaving ourselves and our posterity at the mercy of hate-filled and suicidal fanatics with nukes.

That is the real crisis that is being overshadowed by the phony political crisis.



Thomas Sowell is the prolific author of books such as Black Rednecks and White Liberals and Applied Economics.




Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2006/02/14/186296.html

[Mr. Peabody]

Here is what Mr. Thomas Sowell has to say about this "so called" story. You all
might want to read it instead of talking about all the queer stuff.



You're right, we must agree with all that the President does so as to have a "united front" for the rest of the world to see....

[gtownspur]

Actually Gaytown, your mom has that honor.


THe only way my mom would fuck you is if she was the one with the strap on and you were taking it. :lol

[FromWayDowntown]

Judicial review is a constraint on Congress, not the executive branch -- which, by the way, has no legislative power.

Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court provides no check on Article II power? I can't fathom that notion, since executive branch actions are certainly subject to review in that Court and other federal courts. While most of what the Supreme Court does is assess the constitutionality of legislative enactments, that is by no means the only review that it undertakes.

[Yonivore]

Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court provides no check on Article II power? I can't fathom that notion, since executive branch actions are certainly subject to review in that Court and other federal courts. While most of what the Supreme Court does is assess the constitutionality of legislative enactments, that is by no means the only review that it undertakes.
No, I'm saying the principle of judicial review arises from the Supreme Court's self-claimed control on the legislative process.

[Yonivore]

Oh yeah! I almost forgot. The number one myth about the "illegal" NSA Program?

THAT IT IS ILLEGAL!

[MannyIsGod]

No, I'm saying the principle of judicial review arises from the Supreme Court's self-claimed control on the legislative process.:lmao

Unreal. How can they control something that they can be overuled by? Doesn't congress have the power to change the constitution?

[Nbadan]

Whether President Bush will in fact use military force as a last resort to prevent an unending nightmare of nuclear weapons in the hands of Iranian fanatics and international terrorists is something only the future will tell.

Anyone noticing that rationalization already being spread by the NeoCon media shills? What is the last resort? Who determines that anyway? John Bolton? Shotgun Cheney?

[Yonivore]

:lmao

Unreal. How can they control something that they can be overuled by? Doesn't congress have the power to change the constitution?
uh, no.

That must be ratified by the states.

[xrayzebra]

:lmao

Unreal. How can they control something that they can be overuled by? Doesn't congress have the power to change the constitution?

No, that is short answer. They can pass an amendment but it must be
ratified by the states. (Cant remember off hand how many states it takes,
but it a bunch).

[xrayzebra]

uh, no.

That must be ratified by the states.

Sorry Yoni, didn't notice your post until I submitted mine.

[Yonivore]

Sorry Yoni, didn't notice your post until I submitted mine.
No problem...and, the answer is three-fourths must vote to ratify.


The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

[RandomGuy]

Your a fucking tart! The courts do not protect the country, the constitution gives this responsibility to the executive branch. And the courts cannot overturn it. it is an exectutive privelege.

The guy gives you a reasoned argument with footnotes and documentation, and you can only come back with bad spelling and insults.

Weak.

[RandomGuy]

Here is the real issue. Do we have rule of law or blind trust in Government? I'm willing to bet real conservatives pick the first.



http://www.oldamericancentury.org/LIBERTY_ABUSED.jpg

[gtownspur]

The guy gives you a reasoned argument with footnotes and documentation, and you can only come back with bad spelling and insults.

Weak.

What was reasonable about his argument? That the courts are the better executors of military powers?

please.

[xrayzebra]

Most people pick the first. BUT, courts have taken it upon themselves to
make law. Bend the Constitution the their way of thinking. Not apply
the rule of law against the Constitution.

Courts do not have the authority to legislate, just as the executive branch
doesn't. But they executive branch does have the authority to issue
executive orders which carry almost the same weight. And the yes, the
Constitution does give the authority and responsibility to the President
for the protection of the country. The wartime powers of the President
are awesome and the courts can make rulings but have no power of
enforcement:

In The Federalist Papers 78, Alexander Hamilton described the federal judiciary as "beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments" of government. Hamilton wrote of the "natural feebleness of the judiciary" with neither the power of the purse nor of the sword, but he made an argument for the necessity of the federal courts' interpreting the Constitution. From its position of weakness, the judiciary would merely have sufficient strength to keep the legislative and executive branches within their assigned limits, thereby ensuring constitutional supremacy. As if to live up to Hamilton's prophecy, the Supreme Court was far from powerful in its early years.
(Lifted from) http://fp.okstate.edu/vestal/RecentSpeeches/the_supreme_court_then_and_now1.htm


Abe Lincoln told them to stuff it in one their rulings. He said, I believe,
something to effect: "it is their ruling, let them enforce it".

Hopefully we will get back to a court that only rules as it should and
not use foreign laws/thoughts/ideas and read things into the Constitution
that aren't there.

[RandomGuy]

What was reasonable about his argument? That the courts are the better executors of military powers?

please.

:rofl

Illegal search and seizure is not a "military power".

[RandomGuy]

Most people pick the first. BUT, courts have taken it upon themselves to
make law. Bend the Constitution the their way of thinking. Not apply
the rule of law against the Constitution.

Courts do not have the authority to legislate, just as the executive branch
doesn't. But they executive branch does have the authority to issue
executive orders which carry almost the same weight. And the yes, the
Constitution does give the authority and responsibility to the President
for the protection of the country. The wartime powers of the President
are awesome and the courts can make rulings but have no power of
enforcement:

In The Federalist Papers 78, Alexander Hamilton described the federal judiciary as "beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments" of government. Hamilton wrote of the "natural feebleness of the judiciary" with neither the power of the purse nor of the sword, but he made an argument for the necessity of the federal courts' interpreting the Constitution. From its position of weakness, the judiciary would merely have sufficient strength to keep the legislative and executive branches within their assigned limits, thereby ensuring constitutional supremacy. As if to live up to Hamilton's prophecy, the Supreme Court was far from powerful in its early years.
(Lifted from) http://fp.okstate.edu/vestal/RecentSpeeches/the_supreme_court_then_and_now1.htm


Abe Lincoln told them to stuff it in one their rulings. He said, I believe,
something to effect: "it is their ruling, let them enforce it".

Hopefully we will get back to a court that only rules as it should and
not use foreign laws/thoughts/ideas and read things into the Constitution
that aren't there.

I've never bought that "foreign thoughts" bullpuckey.

Democracy was a greek idea. Does that mean it's "foreign"?

The Enlightenment didn't happen in the Western hemisphere, should we reject THAT too?

Finally,

Our courts must be the ultimate arbiter of what is constitutional because we need SOMEBODY to do it.

Simple fact is that reality is more complicated than our constitution and sur-fucking-prise!! the world has changed since the constitution was written.

If you don't like the way a rational human being has interpreted the constitution, then you get a bunch of yer buddies together and change it. If it is that far off base, then you should have no problem doing that.

[xrayzebra]

I've never bought that "foreign thoughts" bullpuckey.

Democracy was a greek idea. Does that mean it's "foreign"?

The Enlightenment didn't happen in the Western hemisphere, should we reject THAT too?

Finally,

Our courts must be the ultimate arbiter of what is constitutional because we need SOMEBODY to do it.

Simple fact is that reality is more complicated than our constitution and sur-fucking-prise!! the world has changed since the constitution was written.

If you don't like the way a rational human being has interpreted the constitution, then you get a bunch of yer buddies together and change it. If it is that far off base, then you should have no problem doing that.

You say: "Our courts must be the ultimate arbiter of what is constitutional because we need SOMEBODY to do it."

Maybe you want nine unelected people being the 'ultimate arbiter', but I
sure don't. That is why we have elected representatives, who must
answer to the people. Those nine people appointed for life do not
have to answer to anyone except Congress who can, but wont/cant,
impeach them. Even when they know they are wrong.

You say: "Democracy was a greek idea. Does that mean it's "foreign"?"

We do not live in a democracy, we live in a Republic. We only use the
election to elect our "representatives". They govern by being our
representatives, which a Republic is: Representative Government.

You say: "Simple fact is that reality is more complicated than our constitution and sur-fucking-prise!! the world has changed since the constitution was written".

What a dumb statement. "reality is more complicated than our Constituion".
You live in a dream world, friend. The Constitution is just as relavent today
as the day it was written. It is not a "living' document as some like
to say. It is 'static' and so it should be. If not the Justices, Congress
or the President would be able to violate it or twist it the way they want
it. Lawyers, Supremes and other courts have read things into it that
are not there at all. Abortion is one of them, but that is a topic for another
day. A judge in Colorado raised taxes, now he had authority to do that,
didn't he?

[RandomGuy]

You say: "Our courts must be the ultimate arbiter of what is constitutional because we need SOMEBODY to do it."

Maybe you want nine unelected people being the 'ultimate arbiter', but I
sure don't. That is why we have elected representatives, who must
answer to the people. Those nine people appointed for life do not
have to answer to anyone except Congress who can, but wont/cant,
impeach them. Even when they know they are wrong.



Yeah, the elected judges in Texas are always impartial when they get potential campaign donors in their courtroom... :rolleyes

I love the idea of unelected judges that don't have to worry about opinion polls and can concentrate on doing their jobs.

The oversight that we as a people have over the judiciary is that we elect those who appoint them. That is our check and I am comfortable with that.

[RandomGuy]

You say: "Simple fact is that reality is more complicated than our constitution and sur-fucking-prise!! the world has changed since the constitution was written".

What a dumb statement. "reality is more complicated than our Constituion".
You live in a dream world, friend. The Constitution is just as relavent today
as the day it was written. It is not a "living' document as some like
to say. It is 'static' and so it should be. If not the Justices, Congress
or the President would be able to violate it or twist it the way they want
it. Lawyers, Supremes and other courts have read things into it that
are not there at all. Abortion is one of them, but that is a topic for another
day. A judge in Colorado raised taxes, now he had authority to do that,
didn't he?

It is "static" and shouldn't change eh? I gotta give ya honest points for being conservative. :)

Perhaps we should only count the decendants of slaves as 3/5 people too?

I guess since Bush has decided to twist the constitution to suit him, I might agree with you on that one...

Does that mean we are BOTH in favor of impeaching him for his crimes?

[Nbadan]

When it comes down to it, the 4th Amendment brings into QUESTION the legality of any information gleened from domestic wiretaps...


Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

I do believe there needs to be a Constitutional debate and Amendment to the Constitution for the Administration to have the legal justification to randomly tap domestic lines and even this would be a very scary proposition because once it has the legal authority to do so, what is to stop any abuse? Where are the checks and balances?

[Nbadan]

Frist: No New Spy Legislation Needed


Washington (AP) - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, standing firmly with the White House on the administration's eavesdropping program, said Sunday he doesn't think new or updated legislation is needed to govern domestic surveillance to foil terrorists. "I don't think that it does need to be rewritten, but we are holding hearings in the Judiciary Committee right now," Frist said on CBS'"Face the Nation."

Frist also said he didn't think a court order is needed before eavesdropping, under the program, occurs. "Does it have to be thrown over to the courts? I don't think so. I personally don't think so," he said.

Critics argue the program, run by the National Security Agency, sidesteps the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which prohibits domestic eavesdropping without a warrant from a special intelligence court.

"This NSA program - it has to comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and it has to comply with the Fourth Amendment," which guarantees protection against unreasonable searches, California Rep. Jane Harman, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said on CNN's "Late Edition."

WJLA (http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0206/304149.html)

For once, Frist is right, no news laws are needed. FISA works just fine. It's the WH policy that is broken.

[xrayzebra]

It is "static" and shouldn't change eh? I gotta give ya honest points for being conservative. :)

Perhaps we should only count the decendants of slaves as 3/5 people too?

I guess since Bush has decided to twist the constitution to suit him, I might agree with you on that one...

Does that mean we are BOTH in favor of impeaching him for his crimes?

Perhaps we should only count the decendants of slaves as 3/5 people too?

I don't think you will find that in the Constitution. And I don't think it anyways. And no I am not in favor of impeaching President Bush, he
has done nothing wrong as far as I am concerned. Only protecting me
and my family and other Americans. In this thought I am with the greatest
percentage of Americans. Your thought that he twisted the Constitution
to suit him is in the minority.

[boutons_]

White House Working to Avoid Wiretap Probe

But Some Republicans Say Bush Must Be More Open About Eavesdropping Program

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 20, 2006; A08

At two key moments in recent days, White House officials contacted congressional leaders just ahead of intelligence committee meetings that could have stirred demands for a deeper review of the administration's warrantless-surveillance program, according to House and Senate sources.

In both cases, the administration was spared the outcome it most feared, and it won praise in some circles for showing more openness to congressional oversight.

But the actions have angered some lawmakers who think the administration's purported concessions mean little. Some Republicans said that the White House came closer to suffering a big setback than is widely known, and that President Bush must be more forthcoming about the eavesdropping program to retain Congress's good will.

The first White House scramble came on Feb. 8, before the House intelligence committee began a closed briefing on the program, which Bush began in late 2001 but which was disclosed only recently. The program allows the National Security Agency to monitor communications involving a person in the United States and one outside, provided one is a possible terrorism suspect. The administration says the program is exempt from the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provides for domestic surveillance warrants. Many lawmakers and legal scholars disagree.

The House hearing came a day after a prominent Republican member called for an inquiry into the wiretapping program, and two days after Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales had angered some senators by defending it without providing details. On Feb. 8, House members were grumbling that the administration apparently planned to have Gonzales, joined by former NSA director Michael V. Hayden, provide the same limited briefing to the House intelligence committee.

But the White House unexpectedly announced that Gonzales and Hayden would give the 21-member committee more insight into the program's "procedural aspects." The briefing placated many members. When committee leaders later said the panel will look further into the program, they made clear it will be a controlled process rather than the freewheeling investigation some Democrats want.

The second White House flurry occurred last Thursday, as the Senate intelligence committee readied for a showdown over a motion by top Democrat John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.) to start a broad inquiry into the surveillance program. White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. -- who had visited the Capitol two days earlier with Vice President Cheney to lobby Republicans on the program -- spoke by phone with Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), according to Senate sources briefed on the call.

Snowe earlier had expressed concerns about the program's legality and civil liberties safeguards, but Card was adamant about restricting congressional oversight and control, said the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing office policies. Snowe seemed taken aback by Card's intransigence, and the call amounted to "a net step backward" for the White House, said a source outside Snowe's office.

Snowe contacted fellow committee Republican Chuck Hagel (Neb.), who also had voiced concerns about the program. They arranged a three-way phone conversation with Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.).

Until then, Roberts apparently thought he had the votes to defeat Rockefeller's motion in the committee, which Republicans control nine to seven, the sources said. But Snowe and Hagel told the chairman that if he called up the motion, they would support it, assuring its passage, the sources said.

When the closed meeting began, Roberts averted a vote on Rockefeller's motion by arranging for a party-line vote to adjourn until March 7. The move infuriated Rockefeller, who told reporters, "The White House has applied heavy pressure in recent weeks to prevent the committee from doing its job."

Hagel and Snowe declined interview requests after the meeting, but sources close to them say they bridle at suggestions that they buckled under administration heat. The White House must engage "in good-faith negotiations" with Congress, Snowe said in a statement.

Roberts, reacting to Hagel and Snowe's actions, told the New York Times on Friday that he now supports bringing the NSA program under FISA's jurisdiction in some manner, a stand that could put him at odds with the administration. The White House has praised a plan by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) to draft legislation that would exempt the NSA program from FISA, while providing for congressional oversight.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said that Bush "is open to ideas from Congress regarding legislation, and we've committed to working with Congress on a bill."

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[gtownspur]

When it comes down to it, the 4th Amendment brings into QUESTION the legality of any information gleened from domestic wiretaps...



I do believe there needs to be a Constitutional debate and Amendment to the Constitution for the Administration to have the legal justification to randomly tap domestic lines and even this would be a very scary proposition because once it has the legal authority to do so, what is to stop any abuse? Where are the checks and balances?

The right of the people= US citizens

NSA spying is covered under article 2 and many court decisions.

NEXT!!!!!!!!!!

[xrayzebra]

[b]White House Working to Avoid Wiretap Probe

But Some Republicans Say Bush Must Be More Open About Eavesdropping Program


They have good reason to. Why give up any sources/techniques to a
bunch of yo-yo's who run to the NYT the first chance they get. They (Congress) have already compromised too much already.