Anyone know the law on this?

[lanche]

Originally posted by: shira
For righties who can't seem to make the obvious distinction:

The Valerie Plame episode was a leak whose only purpose was to discredit Joseph Wilson and thereby (it was hoped) further the anti-Iraq rhetoric of the Administration. Wilson had broken no laws, and the leak had purely political motives.

In contrast, the NSA wire-gate leak has exposed potential gross misconduct on the part of the Executive branch. Since anyone who follows the news already knew that FISA has provisions for domestic surveilance, the only NEW information exposed by the leak was that for the past four years, WARRANTLESS domestic surveilance has been taking place.

Now, if anyone can explain to me how the knowledge by potential terrorists of the existence of warrantless domestic surveilance hurts national security, I'd like to hear the argument. I am VERY skeptical.

So what we have is a leak with motives that are apparently golden: the exposure of gross misconduct by Bush and his cronies. And there is no downside. If the leaker is wrong - if Bush et al are vindicated and there IS damage to our national security - then the leaker should face prosecution.

But I think what will in fact happen is that we will find that there was no way for the leaker to challenge this illegality through any normal channel, leaving him or her with the leak strategy as the only viable way to combat Bush's abuse of power.

"The Valerie Plame episode was a leak whose only purpose was to discredit Joseph Wilson and thereby (it was hoped) further the anti-Iraq rhetoric of the Administration. Wilson had broken no laws, and the leak had purely political motives."

Total opinion only and is not supported by any facts.

"In contrast, the NSA wire-gate leak has exposed potential gross misconduct on the part of the Executive branch. Since anyone who follows the news already knew that FISA has provisions for domestic surveilance, the only NEW information exposed by the leak was that for the past four years, WARRANTLESS domestic surveilance has been taking place.

Now, if anyone can explain to me how the knowledge by potential terrorists of the existence of warrantless domestic surveilance hurts national security, I'd like to hear the argument. I am VERY skeptical."

This is not a new program. It may have been used more now due to 9-11 but it has been used previous to this administration. You make it seem like Bush started this program. Here is a quote from the Clinton administration...

"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."

"It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."

Not to mention Executive Order 12333, you should look into that.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

Letting our enemies know any of our defenses is a national secuity threat. How can you not see that?
Do you realize that Bush authorized the NSA to listen ONLY to calls that originated outside the US and were believed to be terrorist related? And please show me when anyone's civil liberties have been violated??

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: lanche

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: lanche

Originally posted by: techs
OK, so Bush has pretty much said the Attorney General will be conducting an investigation into who leaked the info about the Bush surveillance.
Now I am wondering if someone leaks info about something the government is doing that is illegal can that someone be prosecuted? In other words can the Government legally declare an illegal act a secret? So if someone was indicted for revealing the info can they claim they had a right to reveal it since it was an illegal government act?

Your premise cannot be accepted because it is from the position that the President did something illegal.

Its not illegal if judicial precedence has been set on the same issue.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703

Doesn't matter.

Nobody is above the Constitution and its Amendments. Not the executive and not the judiciary. Regardless of what is ruled or said or written in anything, be it in law or Executive Order.

Those can all be nulled if brought into a court of law in front of a jury. The jury can rule the law null and void regardless of direction from the judge or the executive and it cannot be overturned by anyone.

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." Thomas Jefferson

"It is not only his right but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." John Adams

Doesn't matter?

"Nobody is above the Constitution and its Amendments. Not the executive and not the judiciary. Regardless of what is ruled or said or written in anything, be it in law or Executive Order."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703

"The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

Judicial precedents are what the legal world uses as a reference to previous rulings and are considered the final result unless overturned. As far as I know a jury has not ruled on this issue so you must look to the precedent for direction.

I think I will choose to believe some FISA Judges on this issue as opposed to your opinion that a jury would find that the President broke the law.

That's not in question. What is in question is absolutism. Which is what you imply and for which I pointed out that there's another way.

The only thing you have going for you, and the President, is that if it ever went to court anyone remotely knowledgeable about the law would be kicked off the jury. Especially someone who knows about jury nullification.

Welcome to a totalitarian state. That's not tomorrow. That's today. It's the normal operating procedure at any court. Sadly not just in the US but in Canada, UK and any other former British colony that has inherited British law in its constitutional foundation.

What I'm trying to say is that your argument is loaded even if you don't realize it. It's not possible for you to be proven wrong. Even though there should be.

Hence my point. Game and match.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: techs
OK, so Bush has pretty much said the Attorney General will be conducting an investigation into who leaked the info about the Bush surveillance.
Now I am wondering if someone leaks info about something the government is doing that is illegal can that someone be prosecuted? In other words can the Government legally declare an illegal act a secret? So if someone was indicted for revealing the info can they claim they had a right to reveal it since it was an illegal government act?

Has it even been proved that it's illegal what the admin is doing?

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: techs
OK, so Bush has pretty much said the Attorney General will be conducting an investigation into who leaked the info about the Bush surveillance.
Now I am wondering if someone leaks info about something the government is doing that is illegal can that someone be prosecuted? In other words can the Government legally declare an illegal act a secret? So if someone was indicted for revealing the info can they claim they had a right to reveal it since it was an illegal government act?

Has it even been proved that it's illegal what the admin is doing?

As pointed out there may be an argument for the administration through the judiciary. See quote directed at me in my previous post.

The point is that it ends at the judiciary. A jury will never see this in court and even if it does it will be so ignorant and controlled that it will be a jury in name alone.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: irwincur
Furthermore, I cannot seem to find where in the Constitution this is illegal... Could you please help me with this...

Try the 4th Amendment.

 

[lanche]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: lanche

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: lanche

Originally posted by: techs
OK, so Bush has pretty much said the Attorney General will be conducting an investigation into who leaked the info about the Bush surveillance.
Now I am wondering if someone leaks info about something the government is doing that is illegal can that someone be prosecuted? In other words can the Government legally declare an illegal act a secret? So if someone was indicted for revealing the info can they claim they had a right to reveal it since it was an illegal government act?

Your premise cannot be accepted because it is from the position that the President did something illegal.

Its not illegal if judicial precedence has been set on the same issue.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703

Doesn't matter.

Nobody is above the Constitution and its Amendments. Not the executive and not the judiciary. Regardless of what is ruled or said or written in anything, be it in law or Executive Order.

Those can all be nulled if brought into a court of law in front of a jury. The jury can rule the law null and void regardless of direction from the judge or the executive and it cannot be overturned by anyone.

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." Thomas Jefferson

"It is not only his right but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." John Adams

Doesn't matter?

"Nobody is above the Constitution and its Amendments. Not the executive and not the judiciary. Regardless of what is ruled or said or written in anything, be it in law or Executive Order."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703

"The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

Judicial precedents are what the legal world uses as a reference to previous rulings and are considered the final result unless overturned. As far as I know a jury has not ruled on this issue so you must look to the precedent for direction.

I think I will choose to believe some FISA Judges on this issue as opposed to your opinion that a jury would find that the President broke the law.

That's not in question. What is in question is absolutism. Which is what you imply and for which I pointed out that there's another way.

The only thing you have going for you, and the President, is that if it ever went to court anyone remotely knowledgeable about the law would be kicked off the jury. Especially someone who knows about jury nullification.

Welcome to a totalitarian state. That's not tomorrow. That's today. It's the normal operating procedure at any court. Sadly not just in the US but in Canada, UK and any other former British colony that has inherited British law in its constitutional foundation.

What I'm trying to say is that your argument is loaded even if you don't realize it. It's not possible for you to be proven wrong. Even though there should be.

Hence my point. Game and match.

So what your saying is that Bush will always have the CONSTITUTION to back him up on this no matter if it went to JURY or not. And you think that is a bad thing for some reason because its not fair?

I guess I don't get your point because if you ask anyone with any common sense if the President was within his rights to protect the American People by having the NSA listen in on a call that originated outside the US and was associated with terrorism, they would agree with the precedence. They would say yes and please continue.

 

[Jhhnn]

From lanche-

"I guess I don't get your point because if you ask anyone with any common sense if the President was within his rights to protect the American People by having the NSA listen in on a call that originated outside the US and was associated with terrorism, they would agree with the precedence. They would say yes and please continue."

Nice bit of obfuscation. The issue isn't about calls originating outside of the US, but rather those originating within... but you already knew that... which is why you're trying to shift the focus...