So, when is the impeachment? 
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
Supreme Court says Bush acted illegally
- Thread starter ChopsJazz
- Start date
Uh...no.
It was a Federal District Judge (appointed by Jimmy Carter).
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the Bush Administration disagreed with the ruling and has appealed.
"We believe that the program is lawful," he said in Washington.
The administration secretly instituted the program after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington. It gives the National Security Administration authorization to secretly conduct wiretaps without a court order.
In a statement from the White House, Press Secretary Tony Fox said, "The program is carefully administered and targets only international phone calls coming into or out of the United States where one of the parties on the call is a suspected al Qaeda or affiliated terrorist.
"The whole point is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks before they can be carried out," the statement said.
It was a Federal District Judge (appointed by Jimmy Carter).
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the Bush Administration disagreed with the ruling and has appealed.
"We believe that the program is lawful," he said in Washington.
The administration secretly instituted the program after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington. It gives the National Security Administration authorization to secretly conduct wiretaps without a court order.
In a statement from the White House, Press Secretary Tony Fox said, "The program is carefully administered and targets only international phone calls coming into or out of the United States where one of the parties on the call is a suspected al Qaeda or affiliated terrorist.
"The whole point is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks before they can be carried out," the statement said.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/17/domesticspying.lawsuit/index.html
In a 44-page memorandum and order, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor struck down the NSA program, which she said violates the rights to free speech and privacy. (Read the complete ruling -- PDF)
The defendants "are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and Internet communications, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Title III," she wrote.
She declared that the program "violates the separation of powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III."
Her ruling went on to say that "the president of the United States ... has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders."
The full 44 page decision may be found here: http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/08/17/nsa.lawsuit.pdf
In a 44-page memorandum and order, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor struck down the NSA program, which she said violates the rights to free speech and privacy. (Read the complete ruling -- PDF)
The defendants "are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and Internet communications, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Title III," she wrote.
She declared that the program "violates the separation of powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III."
Her ruling went on to say that "the president of the United States ... has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders."
The full 44 page decision may be found here: http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/08/17/nsa.lawsuit.pdf
Just more political posturing...
- Joined
- 29 April 2004
- Messages
- 1,567
haha yea, i hate him too - but that's a good point. Who's the alternative anyhow? Even if Bush was removed (never happen) it's an administrative attitude that would continue this stuff anyways. Oh well, let's hope we can survive long enough til we can get a great president.
I know tons of 04' bush voters who said "I didn't like Bush, I just didn't like the alternative either"
I know tons of 04' bush voters who said "I didn't like Bush, I just didn't like the alternative either"
What I don't understand about the warrantless wiretapping is this: The country already has a confidential procedure under which the government can get search warrants secretly, from federal court judges, to conduct wiretaps. This system was established via legislation a few years ago, for this precise purpose, i.e. to deal with terrorist threats. So why should it be necessary to conduct any wiretapping without a warrant, when it's already possible to get warrants on a secret basis?
Ski_Banker
Suspended
nsxtasy said:
Oh dear. You saw it here first...at least NSXSTASY got to 20k posts before mysteriously selling his NSX and moving to Guam.
nsxtasy said:
Exactly. :wink:
nsxtasy said:
Ken,
Here's the best explanation I've read on the subject....
-Jim
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html
Sounds like political games to me..point of the matter..I would want the wiretaps to prevent any chance of another 9/11 from happening. Sometimes, we are our worst enemies.
You know, I read that entire thing, and it doesn't answer my question at all. It seems like all it does is dance around and try to score political points using propaganda (e.g. mentioning al Qaeda 20 times), as a distraction from the fact that the wiretaps were obtained without the court orders that are required by law. In fact, this is part of the problem - that terrorism continues to be used as a means of scoring political points, rather than seen as a serious problem that should NOT be politicized, that should be worked on in a bipartisan manner, with adequate funding, the same way our country has worked on other serious problems in the past.Jimbo said:
I still don't understand why they can't just get a court order, in secret - which is legal - instead of eavesdropping without a court order, which is illegal. I can only conclude from the obfuscation and distraction in that web link that no such legitimate reason exists.
So would I. But I still don't understand why they can't get a court order for the wiretaps.Wheelman said:
I read it and thought it was clear that...
1. They don't believe that a court order is legally required because its viewed as military signals intelligence in a war time situation.
2. They believe that Congress has already authorized this.
3. Existing FISA statutes do not "...provide the speed and the agility that we need in all circumstances to deal with this new kind of threat."
4. There are strict rules, parameters, checks and balances to ensure "...the authorization by the President is only to engage in surveillance of communications where one party is outside the United States, and where we have a reasonable basis to conclude that one of the parties of the communication is either a member of al Qaeda or affiliated with al Qaeda."
1. They don't believe that a court order is legally required because its viewed as military signals intelligence in a war time situation.
2. They believe that Congress has already authorized this.
3. Existing FISA statutes do not "...provide the speed and the agility that we need in all circumstances to deal with this new kind of threat."
4. There are strict rules, parameters, checks and balances to ensure "...the authorization by the President is only to engage in surveillance of communications where one party is outside the United States, and where we have a reasonable basis to conclude that one of the parties of the communication is either a member of al Qaeda or affiliated with al Qaeda."
That sounds to me like a bunch of mumbo jumbo. It still doesn't explain why they couldn't get a court order. They can get a court order in about 5-10 minutes any time they need one - far less time than it takes to set up a wiretap.Jimbo said:
Maybe they are just Razy Americanz...:tongue:
nsxtasy said:
Wiretap? As in phone tap? I doubt Al Qaeda is using phones.
I suspect they're not doing much in the way of conventional phone taps. Instant messages, chat rooms, emails and other forms of online communications is probably the focus. These could be much less than 5-10 minutes.
They claim the existing FISA mechanism is too slow and cumbersome in many instances.
I guess it all comes down to whether you think this whole Al Qaeda terrorism - Homeland Security thing is a law enforcement problem or a military operation.
Like the NSA hasn't been listening in to anything their little hearts desired for years anyway.
*YAWN*
*YAWN*
nsxtasy said:
Ken, I believe there is a limitation on how many wire taps can be approved within a specific time frame - a year from what I am told. This numerical limitation was dispersed among the different investigative divisions so that there was a constant inner battle of who could have the rights to certain wire taps. With the advent of the Patriot Act, those restrictions were eliminated.
I really can't confirm this information. What I can confirm is that the Patriot Act has done more to track and incriminate casual law breakers as opposed to terrorists. The war on drugs has seen a huge turnaround in the past 2 years.
Personally, I don't care if they take away a few civil liberties to protect myselt and others. Let them listen, what do I have to hide?
Listen away Mr President. I do not have a problem with it. I have nothing to hide but if to whomever it may concern, if you do and can read this, I hope your terrorist self and your family tree burns to ashes.
Everyone screams "My constitutional rights!" until their own daughter, son, mother, father, wife, husband, brother, sister, fiancee burns to death in a slow horrible death because some terrorists decides he wants to crash a plane into the building where these innocent people work, or where those even more innocent children nap in daycare. Or when they realize that it's THEIR son/father/husband/brother/fiancee, who's head is getting sawed off with a dull knife while they're still alive and conscience, that's being broadcasted all over arabic tv uncensored, then shown on CNN or FOX news, then spewed all across the internet. Then these people see the same video clips, photo clips of their loved one, flashed over and over and over every form of media in every corner of the world no matter where they go.
Don't argue with me, don't waste your time. You're life is worthless if you're worried the feds might stumble across the porno letters you write to that 10 year boy or girl because they're trying to save more than just your sorry pathetic life.
Everyone screams "My constitutional rights!" until their own daughter, son, mother, father, wife, husband, brother, sister, fiancee burns to death in a slow horrible death because some terrorists decides he wants to crash a plane into the building where these innocent people work, or where those even more innocent children nap in daycare. Or when they realize that it's THEIR son/father/husband/brother/fiancee, who's head is getting sawed off with a dull knife while they're still alive and conscience, that's being broadcasted all over arabic tv uncensored, then shown on CNN or FOX news, then spewed all across the internet. Then these people see the same video clips, photo clips of their loved one, flashed over and over and over every form of media in every corner of the world no matter where they go.
Don't argue with me, don't waste your time. You're life is worthless if you're worried the feds might stumble across the porno letters you write to that 10 year boy or girl because they're trying to save more than just your sorry pathetic life.
- Joined
- 29 April 2004
- Messages
- 1,567
Personally, I don 't have anything to hide either - but I think what some people are thinking is, "If they can break the law for this, what else can the break the law for?". Some people fear the proverbial 'can of worms' that could be opened if we let the administration do whatever they want, even things against the law, as long as they justify it as "for our own protection".
Who knows - if they are allowed to roam free with White-Out and the Constitution... maybe they'll take away our right to speak negatively about certain issues publically because it may upset terrorists. If they KNOW they can get away with anything, the sky is the limit... and some people just don't wanna go there.
Who knows - if they are allowed to roam free with White-Out and the Constitution... maybe they'll take away our right to speak negatively about certain issues publically because it may upset terrorists. If they KNOW they can get away with anything, the sky is the limit... and some people just don't wanna go there.
Ski_Banker
Suspended
Funny, I've seen this issue debated elsewhere. Concerns of govt infringing on constitutional rights, Dems vs Repubs, "I don't have anything to worry about therefore why should I care", Big Brother and the slippery slope if left unchecked - you know, those sorts of issues. No where was that?? Let me think. Hmmmmmmmmmm....
Oh yeah!
Gun control
Note: Hope you're views on the two issues are consistant, b/c 90% of the public that follows party lines wouldn't be!
Oh yeah!
Gun control
Note: Hope you're views on the two issues are consistant, b/c 90% of the public that follows party lines wouldn't be!
Ski_Banker
Suspended
Hugh said:
Hehe sometimes when I'm bored, I'll call Pakistan from a pay phone and blast an air horn into the receiver, just to mess with 'em. :biggrin: j/k
I was using the term to apply generically to any form of electronic surveillance. I thought that was what we were talking about. Not semantic games of picking apart words.Jimbo said:
No, I think it all comes down to whether or not you think the government is responsible for obeying the laws of our country. Even those in the military are responsible for obeying the law, or facing the consequences when laws are broken.Jimbo said:
Simply not true.Juice said:
While the federal judge in this recent decision agrees that it shows a flagrant disregard for the law - your point - the point I was making is that it also shows a certain level of gross incompetence, by doing something the wrong way when the right way is easily available.rickysals said:
Similar threads
