Congressional Research Service says Bush broke yet another law

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Genx87
I keep hearing about all these laws the president is breaking. When are we going to see charges filed?

There've been a few lawsuits thus far.

But I'd rather ask ... When are we going to see some fact and evidence?

The "facts" are the laws on the books, the Congressional record (indicating Congressional intent in making laws), the Constitution and what it means (which, ultimately, the Supreme Court will decide), and the Administration's statements (many of which undermine their own claims).

The "evidence" is very simple: Bush stated that he's authorized domestic surveilance by the NSA - without warrants - 39 times since 2001 and that the NSA has acted on that authorization.

So this really should be an open and shut case: Get an independent counsel to examine all the information and make a determination. Shouldn't take but a month or two. The Justice department CANNOT be allowed to make this determination, as they are a party to (and instigator of) the President's actions.

At that point, the independent counsel's indictments (excuse me here for making an assumption, but there really isn't any doubt about what an independent counsel will conclude) will be expedited through the court system. After the Surpreme court finds that the indictments are valid, we'll see what the "rule of law" really means to the party in power.

One thing we can take from the facts right now is the idea Bush was spying on everybody including dear old grandma are bogus. 39 times over a 4 year span isnt exactly going Gestapo style like we have been lead to believe.

The hearings should be interesting and Ill be interested in seeing if any criminal charges come from it.

You ask for facts out of one side of your mouth and then ignore them and cite facts on the otherside of your mouth. Mr. Bush says 39 times and you take that as fact. There is a thread somewhere here on P&N where inteligence officials claimed that they have had to track down 1000s of dead ends as a result of this new spying policy, thats a fact too. Actually, both are facts until proven otherwise in a court or congressional hearing.

lets stop throwing the words facts and evidence around. You like to do it just as much as the next guy.

I just love it when people ask for facts, evidence, and proof. What do you do when you have the facts, evidence, or proof? That is what matters. I would hope for the sake of your intelect, you do not ignore the facts. That no one ignores the facts.

Now here is the real kicker, we have caught Mr. Bush lying about his facts before (WMDs, Spying, etc etc) so you can forgive me if I don't take his statement about "39 times" with just a grain of salt?

But in the end, you and I agree, there need to be independant hearings and such. so thats good!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Genx87
I keep hearing about all these laws the president is breaking. When are we going to see charges filed?

There've been a few lawsuits thus far.

But I'd rather ask ... When are we going to see some fact and evidence?

The "facts" are the laws on the books, the Congressional record (indicating Congressional intent in making laws), the Constitution and what it means (which, ultimately, the Supreme Court will decide), and the Administration's statements (many of which undermine their own claims).

The "evidence" is very simple: Bush stated that he's authorized domestic surveilance by the NSA - without warrants - 39 times since 2001 and that the NSA has acted on that authorization.

So this really should be an open and shut case: Get an independent counsel to examine all the information and make a determination. Shouldn't take but a month or two. The Justice department CANNOT be allowed to make this determination, as they are a party to (and instigator of) the President's actions.

At that point, the independent counsel's indictments (excuse me here for making an assumption, but there really isn't any doubt about what an independent counsel will conclude) will be expedited through the court system. After the Surpreme court finds that the indictments are valid, we'll see what the "rule of law" really means to the party in power.

One thing we can take from the facts right now is the idea Bush was spying on everybody including dear old grandma are bogus. 39 times over a 4 year span isnt exactly going Gestapo style like we have been lead to believe.

The hearings should be interesting and Ill be interested in seeing if any criminal charges come from it.

You ask for facts out of one side of your mouth and then ignore them and cite facts on the otherside of your mouth. Mr. Bush says 39 times and you take that as fact. There is a thread somewhere here on P&N where inteligence officials claimed that they have had to track down 1000s of dead ends as a result of this new spying policy, thats a fact too. Actually, both are facts until proven otherwise in a court or congressional hearing.

lets stop throwing the words facts and evidence around. You like to do it just as much as the next guy.

I just love it when people ask for facts, evidence, and proof. What do you do when you have the facts, evidence, or proof? That is what matters. I would hope for the sake of your intelect, you do not ignore the facts. That no one ignores the facts.

Now here is the real kicker, we have caught Mr. Bush lying about his facts before (WMDs, Spying, etc etc) so you can forgive me if I don't take his statement about "39 times" with just a grain of salt?

But in the end, you and I agree, there need to be independant hearings and such. so thats good!

I didnt ask for any facts, I am simply responding to Shira's reporting of the facts.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Genx87
I keep hearing about all these laws the president is breaking. When are we going to see charges filed?

There've been a few lawsuits thus far.

But I'd rather ask ... When are we going to see some fact and evidence?

The "facts" are the laws on the books, the Congressional record (indicating Congressional intent in making laws), the Constitution and what it means (which, ultimately, the Supreme Court will decide), and the Administration's statements (many of which undermine their own claims).

The "evidence" is very simple: Bush stated that he's authorized domestic surveilance by the NSA - without warrants - 39 times since 2001 and that the NSA has acted on that authorization.

So this really should be an open and shut case: Get an independent counsel to examine all the information and make a determination. Shouldn't take but a month or two. The Justice department CANNOT be allowed to make this determination, as they are a party to (and instigator of) the President's actions.

At that point, the independent counsel's indictments (excuse me here for making an assumption, but there really isn't any doubt about what an independent counsel will conclude) will be expedited through the court system. After the Surpreme court finds that the indictments are valid, we'll see what the "rule of law" really means to the party in power.

One thing we can take from the facts right now is the idea Bush was spying on everybody including dear old grandma are bogus. 39 times over a 4 year span isnt exactly going Gestapo style like we have been lead to believe.

The hearings should be interesting and Ill be interested in seeing if any criminal charges come from it.

You ask for facts out of one side of your mouth and then ignore them and cite facts on the otherside of your mouth. Mr. Bush says 39 times and you take that as fact. There is a thread somewhere here on P&N where inteligence officials claimed that they have had to track down 1000s of dead ends as a result of this new spying policy, thats a fact too. Actually, both are facts until proven otherwise in a court or congressional hearing.

lets stop throwing the words facts and evidence around. You like to do it just as much as the next guy.

I just love it when people ask for facts, evidence, and proof. What do you do when you have the facts, evidence, or proof? That is what matters. I would hope for the sake of your intelect, you do not ignore the facts. That no one ignores the facts.

Now here is the real kicker, we have caught Mr. Bush lying about his facts before (WMDs, Spying, etc etc) so you can forgive me if I don't take his statement about "39 times" with just a grain of salt?

But in the end, you and I agree, there need to be independant hearings and such. so thats good!

I didnt ask for any facts, I am simply responding to Shira's reporting of the facts.

Sorry, on that point you are right, you weren't asking for facts it was Pabster. Pabster loves his facts and evidence.

 

[BBond]

For anyone who can't figure out why a Republican congress hasn't done anything to rein in a Republican president who is trampling the Constitution daily here is an editorial from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that discusses exactly that on the issue of another of Bush's newly found but totally illegal powers -- the presidential signing statement that Bush us now using to subvert laws passed by congress.

Also, it is, IMO, the height of ingnorance for anyone to hold a minority party that doesn't even have the power to call hearings on Bush's illegal and un-American activities responsible for the Republican attack against America's laws and the Bill of Rights.

As mentioned in the editorial, the fact that Bush's party controls congress is the only reason congress isn't in open revolt over Bush's increasingly alarming move toward monarchy and totalitarianism.

Editorial: Ominous sign / The president's growing disregard for the law

Friday, January 20, 2006
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

President Bush's latest tool for disrespecting the Constitution, Congress and the American people, used more than a hundred times so far, is the presidential signing statement.

That statement is normally a few words that a president says when he signs a bill passed by Congress. In the past it was an occasion for the president to congratulate legislators who had been particularly active in passing the bill and to praise the new legislation generously, even if he himself had been unsympathetic to it.

There is no mention of the statement in the Constitution, nor does it have any role in how laws are passed and put into effect.

Yet Mr. Bush has taken the presidential signing statement as another means of asserting his will over and above the country's laws, whatever they may say. In effect, he is trying to establish that whatever he says when he signs the bill overrides whatever the legislation itself may stipulate. Historians and presidential scholars, among others, find it alarming.

This is nothing new for Mr. Bush. He began disregarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 in 2002 when he authorized wiretapping of foreigners and Americans' telephone calls and e-mails by the National Security Agency without first obtaining a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The practice continues today.

His new use of the presidential signing statement turned up egregiously when after signing the bill sponsored by Sen. John McCain to ban the torture of prisoners in American custody, Mr. Bush issued a statement Dec. 30 that in effect said he would enforce the new law only as he saw fit.

We repeat -- there is nothing in the Constitution that says he can do that. To the degree that the American system functions, Congress passes laws that put into effect the will of the people.

Mr. Bush's subversion of the process is particularly ironic since the laws passed by Congress that he chooses not to carry out are the product of a legislature controlled by his own political party. Unfortunately, that is also a prime reason that Congress is not in open revolt over the president's disregard for its work.

Everyone loses when a president chooses to carry out only the laws that he wants to, as he wants to. Fundamental governance of the United States through the rule of law is sabotaged by this practice. We'll see what happens when Mr. Bush's ability to do so is challenged by a court -- assuming there will still be independent courts after he succeeds in stocking them with acquiescent appointees.

Mr. Bush's presidential signing statements are a practice designed to paint the Constitution, Congress and the American people into a shrinking corner. If Congress can't pass a law and expect the president to respect it, where exactly is this nation left?

 

[slash196]

Let's just get them in court so we can book em and move on. Jeez.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: slash196
Let's just get them in court so we can book em and move on. Jeez.

Are you referring to Bush and his accomplises? Or the innocent average Americans Bush and his accomplises are spying on?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Genx87
I keep hearing about all these laws the president is breaking. When are we going to see charges filed?

There've been a few lawsuits thus far.

But I'd rather ask ... When are we going to see some fact and evidence?

Lawsuits are civil actions, any nutjob with 29 bucks can file one. I am looking for the type that usually go with breaking the law, a criminal charge.

Criminal charges can not be leveled against the president.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Heh, that is the whole point I do not believe he did break the law while you may, I don't. That is right either he broke it or he didn't regardless of believe, and the verdict isn't out on that thus far. Plain and simple enough for you now?

Naw, there's no "innocent until proven guilty" when you're a liberal.

That is, unless you are a card-carrying member of the American Criminals Liberties Union.

If you cannot formulate an opinion other than blaming "liberals"; we could probably replace you with a parrot, or small oily primate with a keyboard. Oh, wait...


:laugh:

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Heh, that is the whole point I do not believe he did break the law while you may, I don't. That is right either he broke it or he didn't regardless of believe, and the verdict isn't out on that thus far. Plain and simple enough for you now?

Naw, there's no "innocent until proven guilty" when you're a liberal.

That is, unless you are a card-carrying member of the American Criminals Liberties Union.

If you cannot formulate an opinion other than blaming "liberals"; we could probably replace you with a parrot, or small oily primate with a keyboard.

Ignore the village idiot--he's just slinging his feces around again. He'll eventually get bored and move on.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Heh, that is the whole point I do not believe he did break the law while you may, I don't. That is right either he broke it or he didn't regardless of believe, and the verdict isn't out on that thus far. Plain and simple enough for you now?

Naw, there's no "innocent until proven guilty" when you're a liberal.

That is, unless you are a card-carrying member of the American Criminals Liberties Union.

Interesting...especially considering a big part of this whole issue is ignoring the rights of people merely suspected of having something to do with terrorism. I'm all for innocent until proven guilty and all that, but complaining that nobody is giving the President the benefit of the legal doubt and then turning around and complaining that the ACLU is defending the rights of the accused seems a LITTLE bit odd to me.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Genx87
I keep hearing about all these laws the president is breaking. When are we going to see charges filed?

There've been a few lawsuits thus far.

But I'd rather ask ... When are we going to see some fact and evidence?

Lawsuits are civil actions, any nutjob with 29 bucks can file one. I am looking for the type that usually go with breaking the law, a criminal charge.

I think you both have your panties twisted so tight you can't see straight! 😛

Just wait for the hearings, they will be coming along soon enough. You don't mind congressional and legislative hearings over the subject right?
😀

I have no problem with it at all. But with laws being broken as we have been hearing the democrats talking points for the last week or so. You would think by now charges could be readied.

Or is this going to turn out to be another democrat wet dream that fails to satisfy ala Plame?

Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but sometimes it seems like you are more interesting in sticking it to the Democrats than in what's right for this country. Again, I could be wrong, but I wonder if your desired outcome of this issue has more to do with seeing the Democratic "wet dream" go down in flames than in making sure justice is done and rights are protected.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Interesting...especially considering a big part of this whole issue is ignoring the rights of people merely suspected of having something to do with terrorism. I'm all for innocent until proven guilty and all that, but complaining that nobody is giving the President the benefit of the legal doubt and then turning around and complaining that the ACLU is defending the rights of the accused seems a LITTLE bit odd to me.

The "oddity" is that the ACLU is 'defending' people who have no claim to defend. They can't prove they were the 'victim' of any 'spying'.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Genx87
I keep hearing about all these laws the president is breaking. When are we going to see charges filed?

There've been a few lawsuits thus far.

But I'd rather ask ... When are we going to see some fact and evidence?

The "facts" are the laws on the books, the Congressional record (indicating Congressional intent in making laws), the Constitution and what it means (which, ultimately, the Supreme Court will decide), and the Administration's statements (many of which undermine their own claims).

The "evidence" is very simple: Bush stated that he's authorized domestic surveilance by the NSA - without warrants - 39 times since 2001 and that the NSA has acted on that authorization.

So this really should be an open and shut case: Get an independent counsel to examine all the information and make a determination. Shouldn't take but a month or two. The Justice department CANNOT be allowed to make this determination, as they are a party to (and instigator of) the President's actions.

At that point, the independent counsel's indictments (excuse me here for making an assumption, but there really isn't any doubt about what an independent counsel will conclude) will be expedited through the court system. After the Surpreme court finds that the indictments are valid, we'll see what the "rule of law" really means to the party in power.

One thing we can take from the facts right now is the idea Bush was spying on everybody including dear old grandma are bogus. 39 times over a 4 year span isnt exactly going Gestapo style like we have been lead to believe.

The hearings should be interesting and Ill be interested in seeing if any criminal charges come from it.

Perhaps I wasn't completely clear on what I meant by "authorizations". Those are 39 THREE-MONTH BLANKET authorizations. That means that when Bush says "Go!", the NSA can surveil ANYONE and EVERYONE who passes whatever standards the NSA is applying over the following three-month period. The Administration claims that by requiring that the program to be re-authorized every three months, they're exercising responsible control over the program. IIRC, the Administration reported something on the order of 500 surveillances ongoing at any one time.

So if 39 total over 4 years doesn't rock your Gestapo boat, does a few THOUSAND per year do it for you?

Again, these are the numbers and other facts reported by Bush, Gonzalez, and their co-conspirators, . . ., er, aides. Not fantasies conjured up by bleeding-heart liberals like me.

 

[Pabster]

I'd like to add some historical perspective to this debate and solicit the opinions of the haters on it:

Looky here...

While the libs here would like everyone to believe W is the first to "spy" on various telephone conversations, etc, nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Pabster
I'd like to add some historical perspective to this debate and solicit the opinions of the haters on it:

Looky here...

While the libs here would like everyone to believe W is the first to "spy" on various telephone conversations, etc, nothing could be further from the truth.

that doesnt make it legal

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Pabster
I'd like to add some historical perspective to this debate and solicit the opinions of the haters on it:

Looky here...

While the libs here would like everyone to believe W is the first to "spy" on various telephone conversations, etc, nothing could be further from the truth.

I know right and wrong are hard concepts for the Bush faithful, but two wrongs still don't make a right Pabsie. Ten wrongs don't make a right. Five years of increasingly blatant wrongs don't make a right.


(PS. And by the way, apples to oranges. I'd tell you it was a "nice try" at a duhversion ... but I'd be lying. Just more of the same desperate, transparent apologism.)

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
I am actually curious about that. Since the administration firmly controls the justice department who would file charges in this case if federal law was broken.

I think this was missed in the bickering, but it's a great question. Who can file charges in a case like this, especially when the Justice Department may be complicit in the violation? Who can prosecute it? Who prosecutes the prosecutors? Are there other options besides Bush or the Republican-controlled Congress appointing someone? Are civil suits the only tool available?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
that doesnt make it legal

And it doesn't make it illegal, either.

Until the Supreme Court hears the issue, we'll have endless debate about it.

I was simply providing some historical context for the debate.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I think this was missed in the bickering, but it's a great question. Who can file charges in a case like this, especially when the Justice Department may be complicit in the violation? Who can prosecute it? Who prosecutes the prosecutors? Are there other options besides Bush or the Republican-controlled Congress appointing someone? Are civil suits the only tool available?

I think Civil Suits would be, but there's a big problem. How do you file a suit when you have no evidence that you were targetted by the NSA? No evidence that your conversations were listened to, et al. You can't just throw out a net.

That's why the ACLU lawsuits are so pathetic. It'd be one thing to make a claim with evidence that you were targetted and proof to show how you were damaged by it...

 

[Jhhnn]

It's more than a little bit disingenuous to compare pre-FISA efforts with those afterwards. Congress made its intent clear in 1978, which was signed into law by the Executive, and conformed to existing SCOTUS rulings...

Well, yeh, until the rightwing ravers started up with the "9/11 changed everything!" routine, seeing their big chance to advance their agenda...

Nevermind the whole "smaller govt" song and dance...

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Heh, that is the whole point I do not believe he did break the law while you may, I don't. That is right either he broke it or he didn't regardless of believe, and the verdict isn't out on that thus far. Plain and simple enough for you now?

Naw, there's no "innocent until proven guilty" when you're a liberal.

That is, unless you are a card-carrying member of the American Criminals Liberties Union.

Ummmm, WTF? Why are you calling the ACLU "criminals?!" Is that your ignorance talking again? Or are you simply after the world's largest hypocrite award for a single post in the moronic right-wing category? Ironic that you would bitch about "innocent until proven guilty" when it involves the administration and in nearly the same breath call this country's best civil liberties organization "criminals."

:roll:

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
I am actually curious about that. Since the administration firmly controls the justice department who would file charges in this case if federal law was broken.

I think this was missed in the bickering, but it's a great question. Who can file charges in a case like this, especially when the Justice Department may be complicit in the violation? Who can prosecute it? Who prosecutes the prosecutors? Are there other options besides Bush or the Republican-controlled Congress appointing someone? Are civil suits the only tool available?

Are you kidding me? Gonzales and Bush are tied at the hip when it comes to violating domestic and international law with creative lawyering. The only way we'll get to the bottom of this is via Congressional hearings on the matter and perhaps convincing the USSC to examine the case. Eventually the ACLU suit and other suits brought against the administration will wind their way up to the USSC.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
that doesnt make it legal

And it doesn't make it illegal, either.

Until the Supreme Court hears the issue, we'll have endless debate about it.

I was simply providing some historical context for the debate.

Here's some more "historical context" for the debate...

40 YEARS AGO WIRETAPPING INNOCENT AMERICANS WAS AN ABUSE OF POWER

And it still is.

That's why the law that Bush is breaking was created in the first place.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Naw, there's no "innocent until proven guilty" when you're a liberal.

Bush, himself, said on national television he authorized the NSA to wiretap without warrants.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: Pabster
I'd like to add some historical perspective to this debate and solicit the opinions of the haters on it:

Looky here...

While the libs here would like everyone to believe W is the first to "spy" on various telephone conversations, etc, nothing could be further from the truth.

Dodge and weave.... dodge and weave.... keepp trying to evade the issue which is warrantless searches where a warrant was required by law.

On another note.... doesn't the Unitarian Theory mean that President CLinton was wrongly impeached!