Reply With Quote
Article 2 of the cons ution which gives the executive branch imolied powers to protect this country knock this whole article to bits.
waste of time.
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 Cons ution’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 do ent 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
Article 2 of the cons ution 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 cons utional 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 ins utions 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 at udes 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 cons utional 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]
Your a ing tart! The courts do not protect the country, the cons ution 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 Cons ution’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 cons utional 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 ( le 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.
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 cons ution and we will see what it states, not what one lone justice believes.
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
The Cons ution 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.
good one there sonny.
Goddam you John Marshall!!!! You activist judge!!!!!
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.
WikipediaAlthough 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 uncons utional a power which Congress sought to grant to the Court itself, and it was found to conflict with Article III of the Cons ution, 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 cons utionality. (Jackson held that he had no cons utional 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.
Article 3 of the Cons utionSection 2: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Cons ution, 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.
Judicial review is a constraint on Congress, not the executive branch -- which, by the way, has no legislative power.
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
The pimple has spoken!Your damn right lil striped horsy,
I have the final say,
and by the way,
I have the last word.
God Bless America
Some Repug Congress, probably getting the message from their cons utiencies that dubya/ head/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/ head can clain anything they do is legal by defintion of having been done by dubya/ head.
"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 cons utionality 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 uncons utional.
"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 at ude 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 cons utional 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
Last edited by boutons_; 02-11-2006 at 10:32 AM.
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 ing burned.
I like Harry POTUS.
Nice piktures.
Nah, they'll just go through FISA.All this proves is that a Kerry, Hillary or other DNC president will not use the NSA wiretap program. ...
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 out es.. 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.
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.
Like other dimm-o-craps have done in the past.....
o MLK and others. Are you listening, cause they did to you.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
