Impeach Bush? - Page 4

**Apophis** · 01-16-2006, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buck Fush

The funny thing is that I haven't seen one person in this thread on the side of not impeaching that has even tried to justify that the wiretaps were legal. The legality of the wiretaps is not in question. It is known to be illegal and anyone arguing to the contrary is merely trying to protect the president.

Is it known to be illegal? I think there is some question about that. I know many people believe it to be illegal, but belief isn't enough to make it fact. And I don't feel this way merely to protect the president. I believe that statement of yours to be pretty short sighted and an attempt to pidgeon hole anyone that doesn't believe the way you do.

munchkin · 01-16-2006, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I'm not proposing that the process be closed. I'm suggesting that people that oppose the leader of our country reign themselves in during a time of war. Present that united front to the outside world, y'know?

Personally speaking from what I see and hear about American politics, I'm glad to see heated discussion in action. It makes me slightly more comfortable that the place with all the nukes has at least some interal criticism and review.

Also (not directed at anyone in particular), if you believe that the Democrats and other opponents of the President are unusually foul-mouthed and virulent in their criticism, you might wanna check out what was said by the republicans about Clinton taking action in Kosovo. Interesting (but not bedtime) reading.

Buck Fush · 01-16-2006, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis

Is it known to be illegal? I think there is some question about that. I know many people believe it to be illegal, but belief isn't enough to make it fact. And I don't feel this way merely to protect the president. I believe that statement of yours to be pretty short sighted and an attempt to pidgeon hole anyone that doesn't believe the way you do.

We could start posting federal statutes, if you'd like. I can show you how a president isn’t above the law and must actually obey all laws. I can show you that the president is required to obtain permission from a special court before authorizing wiretapping of American citizens on American soil. I can show you how, even in war time, the president has limited powers, especially state-side. Can you show me anything other than Gonzalez stating that the president was ADVISED several times that his actions were legal?

Considering that there are obvious laws that declare this action illegal I think it’s reasonable to start with the assumption that it is actually illegal until such time that even one US law is cited to the contrary. I don’t believe my comment is short-sighted at all. I believe my comment is the only one supported by US law and I challenge anyone to show any statutory evidence to the contrary.

I’ll start the ball rolling; here is my proof that his actions are illegal:
50 U.S.C. §1801 - FISA Definition on Wikipedia

**Apophis** · 01-16-2006, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buck Fush

I’ll start the ball rolling; here is my proof that his actions are illegal:
50 U.S.C. §1801 - FISA Definition on Wikipedia

Well, the first paragraph details situations in which the President can authorize wiretaps without a court order. I think we first need to establish WHO is being wiretapped. I don't believe it's average US citizens, in fact, I believe it is targeting individuals in the US that could be considered agents of a foreign power.

Considering the goal is to stop terrorism, and that most known terrorists and suspected terrorists operating in the US are foreign, I believe the following would apply:

Quote:

(a) “Foreign power” means—
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;
(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;
(5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or
(6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.

(b) “Agent of a foreign power” means—
(1) any person other than a United States person, who—
(A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this section;
(B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances of such person’s presence in the United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities; or
(2) any person who—
(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;
(D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or
(E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).

You started the ball rolling by providing a link to a rather huge document. It would be more helpful if you were to read through the entire document and show what particular sections therein you believe the president to be in breach of and your reasons behind it.

The section I quoted above says to me that if you're a terrorist and operating in the US. Or even a citizen working for a foreign power as an agent, you forego your rights regarding a warrant being required for a wiretap.

Sure, the media would have you believe that it's every Joe and Jane on the street being wiretapped. The frenzy and fury makes it a good story and keeps people glued to their political spinner of choice. That doesn't work for me. I usually try and seek out the truth and the facts before jumping on ANY of the popular or unpopular bandwagons.

Buck Fush · 01-16-2006, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis

I don't believe it's average US citizens, in fact, I believe it is targeting individuals in the US that could be considered agents of a foreign power.

Considering the goal is to stop terrorism, and that most known terrorists and suspected terrorists operating in the US are foreign….

You are right. We don’t know who was(is) being monitored. What we do know is that FISA has only turned down 4 requests in its history. We also know that the FISA court was created to balance national security with personal privacy. I assume that the FISA court was bypassed because it would have denied the warrants. And I’m pretty sure that the FISA courts would have only denied warrants that wanted to listen to American citizens without probable cause. I am not arguing that these wiretaps should not have been done prima facia, but if there was a law preventing them, and there was, then it should have been addressed prior to ordering the wiretaps and not circumvented. These wiretaps probably produced some very good intelligence, but wiretapping American citizens without a warrant is illegal, even for the President of the United States.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis

You started the ball rolling by providing a link to a rather huge document. It would be more helpful if you were to read through the entire document and show what particular sections therein you believe the president to be in breach of and your reasons behind it.

Point made. I will post later this evening with more detail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis

(a) “Foreign power” means—
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;
(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;
(5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or
(6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.

(b) “Agent of a foreign power” means—
(1) any person other than a United States person, who—
(A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this section;
(B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances of such person’s presence in the United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities; or
(2) any person who—
(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;
(D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or
(E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis

The section I quoted above says to me that if you're a terrorist and operating in the US. Or even a citizen working for a foreign power as an agent, you forego your rights regarding a warrant being required for a wiretap.

I see how you can interpret it that way, if you choose to ignore some of the wording. Like in the first section, you have to ignore the part where it says (more than once), “not substantially composed of United States persons”, or in the second paragraph where it states, “any person other than a United States person, who—”, if you wanted it to say that merely being labeled as a terrorist gives the US government the authority to wiretap an American citizen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1802

(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

Take special note of the “there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party” part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis

Sure, the media would have you believe that it's every Joe and Jane on the street being wiretapped.

Actually, I wouldn’t have as much problem with “every Joe and Jane on the street” as our courts have upheld such things as sobriety road blocks and security check points many times. I find blanket surveillance to be distasteful but acceptable. What scares me is if legal political groups that disagree with the president are being monitored. These types of wiretaps are what the FISA courts were created to prevent and so it makes sense to me that these types of wiretaps would be the only real reason to bypass this check and balance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis

I usually try and seek out the truth and the ...

Well, it would be nice if we could find some truth. Let me know if you find any.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis

… before jumping on ANY of the popular or unpopular bandwagons.

You got me there. I normally am the first person on the bandwagon.

**Apophis** · 01-16-2006, 05:54 PM

I think the biggest question I have in all of this is: who IS being wiretapped without a warrant? Are we talking about a situation where a large number of American citizens are being wiretapped? Or is the media spinning it to make it sound like this is the case?

Are individuals being wiretapped that are predominantly non-US citizens?

Quote:

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and

What constituted substantial likelihood? If 1 out of every 10 wiretaps include a United States citizen, is that substantial? Is it measured based on the breadth of the taps issued or measured based on the percentage of US citizens party to an individual conversation?

So many questions.

Steeler · 01-16-2006, 06:07 PM

Unfortunately, the exact nature of the wiretapping is still classified. If it is a Total Information Awareness - style datamining operation, then it is probably something that needs to be hashed out in court, as that program, though widely unpopular, is a kind of grey area. If it is a more targetted dragnet against ethnic groups or political organizations in the US with possible ties to foreign interests, then it MUST go through the FISA courts eventually.

One of the things that struck me was Gonzales saying that what they wanted to do wouldn't pass the FISA courts at all, so they had to have a Presidential order to bypass them. The congressional order supposedly confirmed extra-judicial powers upon the president. Now, that seems pretty flimsy to me, and smacks of circular logic in pursuit of justification after the fact.

It certainly was never Congress' stated intent to allow the President to bypass one of the branches of government in the prosecution of a war, but I imagine that will be hashed out in Congress itself, if not before the Supreme Court. Whether that will be elevated to an impeachment hearing is hard to say. As I have said before, I don't think an impeachment would seriously solve anything, but it might be warranted. Such things are never a "win" for anyone.

Beatnik · 01-16-2006, 06:39 PM

The significant question is: Why would the administration intentionally bypass a legal, secret warrant obtainment process (i.e. going the FISA court), that is extremely liberal in granting such requests, denying 5 out of ~10,000 in its 30 year history (an approval rate of 99.95%)?

The administration's answer is that they need quick turnaround for their requests. The real answer is far scarier - the NSA are indeed datamining TIA-style, using internet communications, phone communications through major carriers' switches, and other eavesdropping methods. And the reason they are bypassing the FISA court is that the court cannot process the thousands of would-be requests. So essentially we have one branch of government with unlimited power looking into citizens' private communications, unchecked by any other agency or branch of government.

This abuse of privacy contradicts the 4th ammendment, which of course protects citizens from unreasonable searches by the government. So the issue is far deeper than a matter of simple legality.

**Apophis** · 01-16-2006, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beatnik

The administration's answer is that they need quick turnaround for their requests. The real answer is far scarier - the NSA are indeed datamining TIA-style, using internet communications, phone communications through major carriers' switches, and other eavesdropping methods. And the reason they are bypassing the FISA court is that the court cannot process the thousands of would-be requests. So essentially we have one branch of government with unlimited power looking into citizens' private communications, unchecked by any other agency or branch of government.

Do you have a source that can corroborate this "real answer"?

Lucky Shot · 01-16-2006, 06:49 PM

There was a precedent that wiretapping communications was ok as was commented to 60 minutes about how Project Echelon captured EVERY phone call and email and had them analyzed. The results then were shared with foreign governments including England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Here is what 60 minutes host Steve Kroft reported in 2000... http://newsbusters.org/node/3282

Quote:

Originally Posted by 60 minutes Steve Kroft

"If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency and four English-speaking allies: Canada, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand. The mission is to eavesdrop on enemies of the state: foreign countries, terrorist groups and drug cartels. But in the process, Echelon's computers capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world."

Not only was this designed for plain monitoring traffic, but James Woolsey claims that he was asked by Bill Clinton to develop Project Echelon into a tool for gathering economic intelligence... Quote lifted from French Newspaper Le Figaro. http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/19/114807.shtml

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Woolsey, 2000, CIA Director

"We have a triple and limited objective," the former intelligence chief told the French paper. "To look out for companies which are breaking US or UN sanctions; to trace 'dual' technologies, i.e., for civil and military use, and to track corruption in international business."

Further information from Wired News... http://www.wirednews.com/news/politi...,33891,00.html

Look it up, there is TONS of information out there under Project Echelon.

Lucky Shot

Lucky Shot · 01-16-2006, 07:14 PM

http://home.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html

Project Echelon was designed in order to capture signal intelligence including capturing electronic signals and interpretting it. Project Echelon captures and analyzes virtually every phone call, fax, email and telex message sent int the world. The foundation for Echelon is the UKUSA aggrement which is designed to share communications intelligence and was ratified on May 17th, 1943.

Most of the above is very close to the original author's work, here is a direct quote on Echelon's purpose...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick S. Poole, 1999

ECHELON is actually a vast network of electronic spy stations located around the world and maintained by five countries: the US, England, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. These countries, bound together in a still-secret agreement called UKUSA, spy on each other’s citizens by intercepting and gathering electronic signals of almost every telephone call, fax transmission and email message transmitted around the world daily. These signals are fed through the massive supercomputers of the NSA to look for certain keywords called the ECHELON “dictionaries.”

Lucky Shot

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 01-16-2006, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis

Do you have a source that can corroborate this "real answer"?

And thus the problem with secrets. If everything is a secret then citizens can do nothing but create "real answers" from conjuncture. Based on what is known the conclusion that Beatnick came to is one I, and many others, have come to also. (Even ole Gorge Will has questioned why they bypassed the FISA court since it is so easy to get the warrants.)

The best it could be is arrogance (Courts? We don't need no stinking courts! or I AM the law!).

The worse is even more grim than what beatnick outlined. (They are mixing in with the terroists those far left groups that speak out against the administration simply because they speak out.)

I guess if you completly trust the Government or are simply apathetic to it's actions then the answer "let the government handle it" would be appropriote.

If you don't trust the government (and I don't) and are reactionary (I try not to be) then I guess the proper thing to do is call for Bushy Babies head.

There are all kinds of places to squeaze into between those positions.

I say yell and scream and tell those dorks in the white house "I think you buggers are doing evil things. Prove me wrong. And I mean PROVE. Until you PROVE it I will assume you are violating my rights. If you don't prove it and hide behind our fears of terrorism then I might have no choice but to call for your head via empeachment."

But that is just me.

**CingularDuality** · 01-16-2006, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

I say yell and scream and tell those dorks in the white house "I think you buggers are doing evil things. Prove me wrong. And I mean PROVE. Until you PROVE it I will assume you are violating my rights. If you don't prove it and hide behind our fears of terrorism then I might have no choice but to call for your head via empeachment."

But that is just me.

Yeah, that's reasonable, rational and logical...

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 01-16-2006, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Yeah, that's reasonable, rational and logical...

It is very resonable if you have an inherint distrust of the government. (Well, there is some tounge in cheek in there. I hope you recognize that.)

If you distrust something then you, logically, demand proof to gain said trust, no?

This is true even in the dispassionate scientific method.

**CingularDuality** · 01-16-2006, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

It is very resonable....

Very well, I assume that you are being disrespectful to another member here at TG. Until you can prove to me that you are not, I am forced to assume that you're disrespectful. You're banned until you can prove me wrong. And I mean PROVE. Until you PROVE it, I will assume you are being disrespectful.

Sounds kinda silly, doesn't it?

01-16-2006, 06:07 PM	#52 (permalink)
Steeler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Age: 30 Posts: 2,952	Re: Impeach Bush? Unfortunately, the exact nature of the wiretapping is still classified. If it is a Total Information Awareness - style datamining operation, then it is probably something that needs to be hashed out in court, as that program, though widely unpopular, is a kind of grey area. If it is a more targetted dragnet against ethnic groups or political organizations in the US with possible ties to foreign interests, then it MUST go through the FISA courts eventually. One of the things that struck me was Gonzales saying that what they wanted to do wouldn't pass the FISA courts at all, so they had to have a Presidential order to bypass them. The congressional order supposedly confirmed extra-judicial powers upon the president. Now, that seems pretty flimsy to me, and smacks of circular logic in pursuit of justification after the fact. It certainly was never Congress' stated intent to allow the President to bypass one of the branches of government in the prosecution of a war, but I imagine that will be hashed out in Congress itself, if not before the Supreme Court. Whether that will be elevated to an impeachment hearing is hard to say. As I have said before, I don't think an impeachment would seriously solve anything, but it might be warranted. Such things are never a "win" for anyone. __________________

01-16-2006, 06:39 PM	#53 (permalink)
Beatnik Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Age: 33 Posts: 4,320	Re: Impeach Bush? The significant question is: Why would the administration intentionally bypass a legal, secret warrant obtainment process (i.e. going the FISA court), that is extremely liberal in granting such requests, denying 5 out of ~10,000 in its 30 year history (an approval rate of 99.95%)? The administration's answer is that they need quick turnaround for their requests. The real answer is far scarier - the NSA are indeed datamining TIA-style, using internet communications, phone communications through major carriers' switches, and other eavesdropping methods. And the reason they are bypassing the FISA court is that the court cannot process the thousands of would-be requests. So essentially we have one branch of government with unlimited power looking into citizens' private communications, unchecked by any other agency or branch of government. This abuse of privacy contradicts the 4th ammendment, which of course protects citizens from unreasonable searches by the government. So the issue is far deeper than a matter of simple legality. __________________ -F- Beatnik

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links