Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
Originally posted by: BBond
I don't want to go too far off topic but since the door has been opened -- what is this nonsense about President Clinton being a "known liar"???
Is everyone who ever lied a "known liar" too? If so, I would suggest that every person on Earth is a known liar. Only some tell lies that do far more harm than others. If you people who insist on labeling Clinton a known liar have any sense of fair play at all -- and I doubt you do -- then how can you possibly not label Bush the same? And why, after the myriad lies Bush has told and continues to tell, haven't you done so yet?
:thumbsup:
I'm still waiting for one of them to answer that question.
On December 16, 2005 Bush was
interviewed by Jim Lehrer whose first question was on the Bush/NSA illegal wiretapping.
JIM LEHRER: Mr. President, welcome.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you, sir.
JIM LEHRER: First, the New York Times story this morning that says that you authorized secret wiretaps by the National Security Agency of thousands of Americans. Is that true?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Jim, we do not discuss ongoing intelligence operations to protect the country, and the reason why is that there's an enemy that lurks, that would like to know exactly what we're trying to do to stop them.
I will make this point. That whatever I do to protect the American people, and I have an obligation to do so, that we will uphold the law, and decisions made are made understanding we have an obligation to protect the civil liberties of the American people.
JIM LEHRER: So if, in fact, these things did occur, they were done legally and properly?
PRESIDENT BUSH: So you're trying to get me to talk about a program--
JIM LEHRER: Yeah.
PRESIDENT BUSH: --that's important not to talk about, and the reason why is that we're at a war with an enemy that still wants to attack.
I-- after 9/11, I told the American people I would do everything in my power to protect the country, within the law, and that's exactly how I conduct my presidency.
JIM LEHRER: Mr. President, in all due respect, don't you believe that answer is going to lead people to believe that you're confirming that in fact you did this?
PRESIDENT BUSH: We don't talk about sources and methods. Don't talk about ongoing intelligence operations. I know there's speculation. But it's important for the American people to understand that we will do-- or I will use my powers to protect us, and I will do so under the law, and that's important for our citizens to understand.
JIM LEHRER: I don't want to "beat a dead horse" here, Mr. President--
PRESIDENT BUSH: Okay.
JIM LEHRER: --but the story is now all over the world.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah.
JIM LEHRER: I mean, it's on the front page of the New York Times, the Washington Post, every newspaper in America today, and it's going--it's the main story of the day. So--
PRESIDENT BUSH: It's not the main story of the day.
JIM LEHRER: Well, but I mean in terms of the way it's being covered--
PRESIDENT BUSH: The main story of the day is the Iraqi election.
JIM LEHRER: Right, and I'm going to get to that.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Okay.
JIM LEHRER: But I mean, is it correct to say that the National Security Agency is normally told to do surveillance only on international calls rather than domestic calls, without reference to this specific thing?
PRESIDENT BUSH: I-- Jim, I know that people are anxious to know the details of operations, they-- people want me to comment about the veracity of the story. It's the policy of this government, just not going do it, and the reason why is is that because it would compromise our ability to protect the people.
I think the point that Americans really want to know is twofold. One, are we doing everything we can to protect the people? And two, are we protecting civil liberties as we do so?
And my answer to both is yes, we are.
Bush refused to answer the question. But he does make some vague remarks that are intended to either justify his illegal activity by claiming powers that are NOT the president's to claim or he outright lies again by claiming that he is doing everything according to the law when the very story he refuses to discuss is on the front page of the NY Times and the Washigton Post telling the world that he is absolutely breaking the law.
Then the very next day, December 17, 2005...
President's Radio Address (there's even a video link -- now why did Bush decide to do a "video" "radio address" that day??? Because they knew this was a big one and they needed the image to sell the lies Bush was telling, to influence perceptions just like they always do with their overused backdrop graphic talking point -- so for this one it's the White House, the flags, the podium, the presidetial seal, the liar in a nice clean white shirt and fresh suit, a painting of Teddy Roosevelt "roughriding" on a horse right behind him!!!)
In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.
This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.
...
The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities.
...
I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks,
Read it all in context. Bush is doing just what he did with Iraq. He's using 9/11 and fear mongering to justify the unjustifiable. He uses 9/11 over and over in his address just like he did with Iraq and ties it all into the Patriot Act renewal, that thank God the senate blocked, because he knows he needs an excuse for his illegal activity.
The actions Bush admits to are NOT consistent with his costitituional duties and authorities. Congress passed legislation that expressly forbids anyone from doing what Bush did without the proper warrants. Then he tell some lie about briefing congress a dozen or so times when the very next day members of congress were on the news irate due to that statement saying that there was so much information left out of the briefings that they expressed deep concern at the time about whatever the operations were the president was conducting and asking for more information that they never received.
Bush and his "team" come out with another lie later about Clinton doing the same thing.
It looks like Clinton has straigtened that one out personally.
This reminds me of Bush's ridiculous claim that he doesn't use torture or send people to nations which use torture at the very same time the news was filled with stories of "Extraordinary Rendidion," secret prisons, waterboarding, tortured and murdered inmates -- the very things Bush was standing right in front of the cameras and denying at the very same time they were happening.
This is the MO of the Bush administration. They say whatever and do whatever they like then say they aren't doing it even as they do it right in front of your eyes. This is dangerous behavior. This is the behavior of a dictator. Of people like Saddam that do whatever they like with impunity then look you right in the eye and say they aren't doing it because they know there isn't anything anyone can do about it.
Is the president or anyone permitted to spy on Americans without any regard to existing law or the Bill of Rights? Is this still America?
The Congressional Research Service Report
The CRS report, undertaken at the request of some members of Congress, does not come out and flatly say that there was no legal basis for the secret spy program, because the full details of the program are not yet known. However, it directly rebuts the Administration's claims, in its December 22 letter, as to why it had to engage in secret surveillance.
The Administration's main excuse was that FISA -- enacted in 1978, as a direct response to former President Nixon's illegal wiretapping of his political "enemies" -- is too outdated, too slow, and too cumbersome to deal with the "new threat" posed by this "new" kind of enemy and new kind of "war."
But then, why not ask Congress to amend FISA? Acting outside FISA, the CRS report pointed out, is illegal: FISA itself says that "procedures in this chapter . . . shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted."
What about the argument that the President has the power simply to disregard FISA if he so chooses? The CRS outright rejected the claim that there is constitutional authority for plenary presidential surveillance in derogation of Congressional statutes clearly to the contrary. And it points out that FISA is, indeed, directly to the contrary: Its legislative history of FISA and amendments indicate clearly that the "exclusive means" language was inserted to precisely to counter any claim that the President has inherent Executive authority to order surveillance of Americans without complying with FISA.
Finally, the CRS report effectively refutes the Administration's claims that FISA is too slow or cumbersome to be effective in current times. It explains how, under FISA, surveillance can begin prior to receipt of a warrant. (It is also done in secret, without notice to the target.) And it points out that if the President nevertheless feared that FISA warrants would take too long or might somehow "tip off" targets of surveillance, he had only to ask Congress for changes to the law.
Legal Scholars Appeal to the Congress
The legal experts' conclusions are strikingly similar to those of the CRS report: They characterize the Bush administration's defense of its NSA domestic spying program as lacking "any plausible legal authority."
The signers - listed in the letter -- include the nation's leading constitutional law scholars, many of them former Justice Department attorneys and presidential advisors, and even a former FBI Director and federal judge.
The experts' letter refutes Administration claims that the AUMF and Article II of the Constitution, which includes the "Commander-in-Chief" language, give Bush the authority to disregard FISA and violate the Fourth Amendment. The letter agrees with the CRS report that Bush should have asked the Congress for changes to existing law, rather than proceeding unilaterally - and illegally. And it ends with a stinging admonition: "[T]he President cannot simply violate criminal laws behind closed doors because he deems them obsolete or impracticable."
The Congressional Research Service and Constitutional Law Scholars Weigh in on President Bush's Authorization of Warrantless Surveillance: Why This Controversy Bridges the Partisan Divide, At Least Among Experts
Unless America has been reading the Constitution wrong all of these years Bush has been illegally spying on America citizens. Don't be absurd and suggest that Bush is the first president in American history who has the authority to unilaterally, secretly spy on American citizens. Bush's actions are in violation of existing law and our rights under the constitution.
Are you really that scared of the boogeyman in the turbin to give up your freedom and your way of life?
I thought the whole point was to protect our way of life.
What's the difference if bin Laden or Bush destorys it. You lose your precious way of life either way.
Facebook
Twitter