Did W Break The Law?

[SA210]

Oh yes, i hear the impeachment talk. Did Dumbya get a blowjob?

[boutons]

washingtonpost.com

Daschle: Congress Denied Bush War Powers in U.S.

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 23, 2005; A04

The Bush administration requested, and Congress rejected, war-making authority "in the United States" in negotiations over the joint resolution passed days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to an opinion article by former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) in today's Washington Post.

Daschle's disclosure challenges a central legal argument offered by the White House in defense of the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. It suggests that Congress refused explicitly to grant authority that the Bush administration now asserts is implicit in the resolution.

The Justice Department acknowledged yesterday, in a letter to Congress, that the president's October 2001 eavesdropping order did not comply with "the 'procedures' of" the law that has regulated domestic espionage since 1978. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, established a secret intelligence court and made it a criminal offense to conduct electronic surveillance without a warrant from that court, "except as authorized by statute."

There is one other statutory authority for wiretapping, which covers conventional criminal cases. That law describes itself, along with FISA, as "the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . may be conducted."

Yesterday's letter, signed by Assistant Attorney General William Mosc a, asserted that Congress implicitly created an exception to FISA's warrant requirement by authorizing President Bush to use military force in response to the destruction of the World Trade Center and a wing of the Pentagon. The congressional resolution of Sept. 18, 2001, formally led "Authorization for the Use of Military Force," made no reference to surveillance or to the president's intelligence-gathering powers, and the Bush administration made no public claim of new authority until news accounts disclosed the secret NSA operation.

But Mosc a argued yesterday that espionage is "a fundamental incident to the use of military force" and that its absence from the resolution "cannot be read to exclude this long-recognized and essential authority to conduct communications intelligence targeted at the enemy." Such eavesdropping, he wrote, necessarily included conversations in which one party is in the United States.

Daschle's article reveals an important new episode in the resolution's legislative history.

As drafted, and as finally passed, the resolution authorized the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons" who "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words 'in the United States and' after 'appropriate force' in the agreed-upon text," Daschle wrote. "This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused."

Daschle wrote that Congress also rejected draft language from the White House that would have authorized the use of force to "deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States," not only against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.

Republican legislators involved in the negotiations could not be reached for comment last night.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[SA210]

It's all catchin up to the King now.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

ou right-wingers who hate the federal govt to death look silly when you trust the fed govt to be Boy-Scout honest and virtuous. aka, ideological blindess.

The assumption must always be that abuse will occur. So preventing or at least detecting abuse is central to any govt powers. Paranoia is expressed in the Cons ution in the system of checks and balances, which assume that (unchecked) power will be abused, because power, like $$$, is always corrupting.

Late to the party here but...

Give it up croutons. It's not like they're spying on you visiting midget porn sites. They're going after bad guys.

I love how when it's brought up that Clinton did it, bleeding s like yourself scream Monica and persecution, but when W. does it (on a smaller scale than Cigar Boy) you all scream impeachment and corruption of power.

H Y P O C R I T.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

BTW, this cracks me up. You all act like they were spying on cute little Jenny down the street calling some guy she met on the internet that lives in London.

They were tapping conversations of people in the US talking with people in places like Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, etc.

Is there anything but illegitimate reasons for about 95% of Americans to be calling any of those places?

SOme of you need to get out of your republican hating ivory ing towers and join us in this place called reality where the bad guys won't rest until all Americans are either dead or bowing to Mecca five times a day.

[SA210]

Big Bush Lies: Bush Lies, Then McClellen Lies In Cover-Up Attempt, Jerry Politex


"A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources....At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan was asked to explain why Bush last year said, "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." McClellan said the quote referred only to the USA Patriot Act." --Washington Post, Dec. 21, '05.

This is not true. Bush was explaining that there was no difference between wiretaps before the Patriot Act and wiretaps after the Patriot Act: "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, cons utional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Cons ution." This was a lie, given the New York Times story on the subject on Dec. 16 and Bush's admission on December 17: "On Friday, the New York Times revealed that, after the 2001 terrorist attacks, Bush authorized the NSA to eavesdrop inside the United States without court-approved warrants. The newspaper said thousands of people may have had their phone calls and e-mail monitored as a result. Bush, appearing angry during his radio address, called the program lawful and crucial to safeguarding America from further attacks." --Houston Chronicle.


Dubya's words.