Top Ten Myths About the Illegal NSA Spying on Americans

[RandomGuy]

You say: "Our courts must be the ultimate arbiter of what is cons utional 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...

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 cons ution and sur- ing-prise!! the world has changed since the cons ution was written".

What a dumb statement. "reality is more complicated than our Cons uion".
You live in a dream world, friend. The Cons ution is just as relavent today
as the day it was written. It is not a "living' do ent 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 cons ution 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 Cons utional debate and Amendment to the Cons ution 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

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 cons ution 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 Cons ution. 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 Cons ution
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 Cons utional debate and Amendment to the Cons ution 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.