Pardon Bush for breaking the law?

[mc00]

Dear MoveOn member,

This week, the Senate is planning to quietly hold a vote that would pardon President Bush for breaking the law by illegally wiretapping innocent Americans without warrants. According to Senator Leahy, the bill would "...immunize officials who have violated federal law by authorizing such illegal activities."1

President Bush broke the law, and courts are starting to agree. Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter once said the program was illegal "on its face." But he has now caved to pressure from Vice President Cheney, and introduced legislation that marks a new low: the bill justifies everything the president did. Worse, it makes it legal to wiretap Americans, in secret, without warrants or oversight, whenever the administration wants to.2

So far, Democrats and some Republicans are holding strong against the bill, and there are good chances to stop it if enough of us speak up. Can you sign the petition opposing the Republican move to pardon President Bush for breaking the law?

http://pol.moveon.org/dontpardon/?id=8810-6031459-Zm9BlRyR4ohTQ3GvXU0uAQ&t=2

Many legal experts agree that the president's program to wiretap Americans who have nothing to do with terrorism violates the law. President Bush already has the authority to wiretap suspected terrorists?and we support that. In fact, his administration can tap anyone it likes as long as it gets an OK from a court a few days later.

Congress should be trying to hold him accountable?that's their job. Instead, some Republicans are trying to let President Bush off the hook completely. In fact, the legislation would give the president even more unchecked power.

hey... I did use the search button to fine any anything about this before I posted nothing show up or I just suck at using the search feature in here... I'll apologize if this a double post..
I got this email from moveon.org, and I was wondering if this is true because pardon this bastard for breaking law is BS.. because we break the law we go to court but why bush get pardon ? is not fair in my opinion.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: mc00

I got this email from moveon.org, and I was wondering this true because pardon this bastard for breaking law is BS.. because we break the law we go to court but why bush get pardon ? is not fair in my opinion.

Sorry, Republican President is above the Law.

You're either with us or against us. Guess you're against us.

Why do you hate America?

 

[mc00]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: mc00

I got this email from moveon.org, and I was wondering this true because pardon this bastard for breaking law is BS.. because we break the law we go to court but why bush get pardon ? is not fair in my opinion.

Sorry, Republican President is above the Law.

You're either with us or against us. Guess you're against us.

Why do you hate America?

I hope you kidding .
because I don't hate my country I hate the leaders that runs it..

 

[blackangst1]

LOL moveon.org is about as reliable as rushlimbaugh.com...someone find a credible link....

edit: To my knowledge Congress doesnt have the power to pardon. Only the president does.

 

[mc00]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
LOL moveon.org is about as reliable as rushlimbaugh.com...someone find a credible link....

lol.

that's why I ask if this true.. I get this email because my friend invate me to sign up.. I usually ignore it..

 

[BoberFett]

I didn't know congress had the power to pardon anybody?

 

[ebaycj]

I believe that congress has "jurisdiction" over high-up members of the executive branch (and ONLY over high-up members of the executive branch), i.e. they can impeach for breaking the law, they can pardon for breaking the law if they see fit.

I think. I may be wrong.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I didn't know congress had the power to pardon anybody?

Well the Republican congress sure as hell isn't going to go against King Georgie's wishes.

I'm just wondering when they'll make it legal to shoot political opposition...

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: mc00

Dear MoveOn member,

This week, the Senate is planning to quietly hold a vote that would pardon President Bush for breaking the law by illegally wiretapping innocent Americans without warrants. According to Senator Leahy, the bill would "...immunize officials who have violated federal law by authorizing such illegal activities."1

President Bush broke the law, and courts are starting to agree. Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter once said the program was illegal "on its face." But he has now caved to pressure from Vice President Cheney, and introduced legislation that marks a new low: the bill justifies everything the president did. Worse, it makes it legal to wiretap Americans, in secret, without warrants or oversight, whenever the administration wants to.2

So far, Democrats and some Republicans are holding strong against the bill, and there are good chances to stop it if enough of us speak up. Can you sign the petition opposing the Republican move to pardon President Bush for breaking the law?

http://pol.moveon.org/dontpardon/?id=8810-6031459-Zm9BlRyR4ohTQ3GvXU0uAQ&t=2

Many legal experts agree that the president's program to wiretap Americans who have nothing to do with terrorism violates the law. President Bush already has the authority to wiretap suspected terrorists?and we support that. In fact, his administration can tap anyone it likes as long as it gets an OK from a court a few days later.

Congress should be trying to hold him accountable?that's their job. Instead, some Republicans are trying to let President Bush off the hook completely. In fact, the legislation would give the president even more unchecked power.

hey... I did use the search button to fine any anything about this before I posted nothing show up or I just suck at using the search feature in here... I'll apologize if this a double post..
I got this email from moveon.org, and I was wondering if this is true because pardon this bastard for breaking law is BS.. because we break the law we go to court but why bush get pardon ? is not fair in my opinion.

It looks like rubbish. My quick check indicates the power to pardon is held only by the President, not Congress. See HERE

Moreover:

Worse, it makes it legal to wiretap Americans, in secret, without warrants or oversight, whenever the administration wants to.2

Congress also does not have the power to do this (permit a wiretap for whenever the Prresident wants to). It would have to pass the constitutional amendment process.

Moreover, I understand there to be two different programs (please correct me if I'm wrong - add links too). One authorizing eavesdropping (actually listening to the conversation) on calls between a domestic caller and the other international. These callers are supposed to be suspected of terrorism. And one caller HAS to be from outside the USA.

The other program, not contain the above restrictions but does not include eavesdropping, is for all calls. They are run through a supercomputer looking for trends/patterns, whatever.

Which program is Moveon referring to?

Perhaps there is some bill that has something to do with the subject, but I highly doubt that it's been described accurately in the above piece.

Fern

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I didn't know congress had the power to pardon anybody?

Well the Republican congress sure as hell isn't going to go against

King Georgie

's wishes.

I'm just wondering when they'll make it legal to shoot political opposition...

sigh...a man can dream. i'd rather live under monarchy than hear all the bvtching from the liberals

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I didn't know congress had the power to pardon anybody?

Well the Republican congress sure as hell isn't going to go against

King Georgie

's wishes.

I'm just wondering when they'll make it legal to shoot political opposition...

sigh...a man can dream.

I'd rather live under monarchy than hear all the bvtching from the liberals

Well there is at least one Republican man enough to admit he hates America.

:thumbsup: for that

:thumbsdown: for hating America

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: mc00

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: mc00

I got this email from moveon.org, and I was wondering this true because pardon this bastard for breaking law is BS.. because we break the law we go to court but why bush get pardon ? is not fair in my opinion.

Sorry, Republican President is above the Law.

You're either with us or against us. Guess you're against us.

Why do you hate America?

I hope you kidding .
because I don't hate my country I hate the leaders that runs it..

You're new here... so I'll just let you know that dmcowen674 is a bot that doesn't actually reply to what you are saying... just uses syntax matching to post appropriate anti-Republican comments. Trying to carry on a conversation with it is pretty pointless

 

[forfor]

http://sfdx.com/blog/img/12oct04_bushWindowsDialog.gif

 

[blackangst1]

I dont remember this much outrage at King Clinton about this when he was in office...he had the same power GW does...

 

[mc00]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: mc00

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: mc00

I got this email from moveon.org, and I was wondering this true because pardon this bastard for breaking law is BS.. because we break the law we go to court but why bush get pardon ? is not fair in my opinion.

Sorry, Republican President is above the Law.

You're either with us or against us. Guess you're against us.

Why do you hate America?

I hope you kidding .
because I don't hate my country I hate the leaders that runs it..

You're new here... so I'll just let you know that dmcowen674 is a bot that doesn't actually reply to what you are saying... just uses syntax matching to post appropriate anti-Republican comments. Trying to carry on a conversation with it is pretty pointless

ROFL
I been here for while didn't know he was a bot.. hahaha

and to Fern
thank you for info.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Fern
Congress also does not have the power to do this (permit a wiretap for whenever the President wants to). It would have to pass the constitutional amendment process.

And the President does not have the authority to hold US citizens without a warrant or charges, nor does he have the authority to invade the privacy of US citizens without a court order. Not like the Consitution or US law would ever really get in the way of anything, right?

 

[conehead433]

There seems to be a lot of right wing outrage that a number of people don't support the President's wiretapping
program in an effort to stop terrorism. I think that most of the opposition is not to the wiretapping, it's skirting the
law to do it. I think under the current law regarding such the government can do a wiretap without a warrant,
but they have to obtain a warrant from the FISA court within 24 hours. This administration didn't bother with
going through the legal process and obtaining warrants on many of the wiretaps. So the President blatantly
disregrds the law and then tries to get Congress to pass legislation that makes his breaking the law OK retroactively. On a
related subject I am sure that our government tortured a number of terror suspects held in overseas facilities
in violation of the Geneva articles and now we see the same thing- the President trying to get Congress to pass
legislation redefining article 3 of the Geneva convention to be worded so that some forms of torture are OK as
the ends justify the means. The President can always make the claim that these techniques have given us
information that has stopped terror events in this country and abroad. I'd really love to see him fidget and try
to give an answer to a reporter who would ask him to name any such incident. I'm sure he would say national
security prevented him from speaking of any such specific incidents. Deeper and deeper we go into a big pile of
steaming dookie.

 

[Pens1566]

Conehead: You're right about the wiretapping issue. I have no problem with them doing it, just as long as it follows the already existing statute in FISA. That would require them to get the warrant within 72 hours (not 24). It's a "slam dunk" to get the warrant, the court has only denied like 5 warrants in almost 30 years and 10k requests. Pretty good odds I'd say.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Fern
Congress also does not have the power to do this (permit a wiretap for whenever the President wants to). It would have to pass the constitutional amendment process.

And the President does not have the authority to hold US citizens without a warrant or charges, nor does he have the authority to invade the privacy of US citizens without a court order. Not like the Consitution or US law would ever really get in the way of anything, right?

what is this mysterious "right to privacy" that you speak of? I've re-read the Constitution 1000 times and still cant find it... perhaps you can find it for me? thanks...

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I dont remember this much outrage at King Clinton about this when he was in office...he had the same power GW does...

How many Americans did Clinton wiretap ilegally?

How many wars did he start under false pretense?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Fern
Congress also does not have the power to do this (permit a wiretap for whenever the President wants to). It would have to pass the constitutional amendment process.

And the President does not have the authority to hold US citizens without a warrant or charges, nor does he have the authority to invade the privacy of US citizens without a court order. Not like the Consitution or US law would ever really get in the way of anything, right?

what is this mysterious "right to privacy" that you speak of? I've re-read the Constitution 1000 times and still cant find it... perhaps you can find it for me? thanks...

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

As usual, you're way too literal. The US Constitution has many inferred protections, upheld by numerous legal decisions over the years. The right to privacy is not specifically mentioned by name, but given credence by various amendments within the Bill of Rights. Specifically, the 9th and 10th as well as the 4th.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Fern
Congress also does not have the power to do this (permit a wiretap for whenever the President wants to). It would have to pass the constitutional amendment process.

And the President does not have the authority to hold US citizens without a warrant or charges, nor does he have the authority to invade the privacy of US citizens without a court order. Not like the Consitution or US law would ever really get in the way of anything, right?

what is this mysterious "right to privacy" that you speak of? I've re-read the Constitution 1000 times and still cant find it... perhaps you can find it for me? thanks...

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

As usual, you're way too literal. The US Constitution has many inferred protections, upheld by numerous legal decisions over the years. The right to privacy is not specifically mentioned by name, but given credence by various amendments within the Bill of Rights. Specifically, the 9th and 10th as well as the 4th.

given credence? by whose interpretation? yours? some lawyer 30 years ago?

Who's to say that such rights cannot be re-interpreted? are you denying the living will of said document and the founders' intention to have our congress and courts re-interpret those rights throughout years?

in laymen's terms: Do times change, or not?

FISA is an outdated interpretation of Presidential powers, and CAN and SHOULD be re-written in the form of new laws granting the President modern powers that he can use to fight terrorism. that said, Bush's actions were still within the law, as HIS advisors interpreted. (and I happen to agree).

Just as with Article 3 of the GC, there are times when updates and clarifications are required in the laws. Thus, we have a congressional system in place to do such updating and rewriting.

and thank God for that!

bottom line: other than those rights spelled out SPECIFICALLY in the Constitution, you have whatever rights our legislaters decide are yours. At the end of the day, their interpretation, and those of the SC, are all that you are guaranteed.

 

[DealMonkey]

As I said, by numerous legal decisions. Go research the case law if you're interested. And yes, many times these issues are re-brought before the courts, however previous decisions tend to guide the process. And by the way, the Administrations bill is a pure power grab, no doubt about it. The whole thing is an end-run around Congressional power and checks and balances as well as a retroactive free pass should it be decided that laws were broken. Fix FISA and bring it up to date, sure, but I don't suspect Congress will roll over for this one as-is.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
bottom line: other than those rights spelled out SPECIFICALLY in the Constitution, you have whatever rights our legislaters decide are yours. At the end of the day, their interpretation, and those of the SC, are all that you are guaranteed.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: palehorse74
bottom line: other than those rights spelled out SPECIFICALLY in the Constitution, you have whatever rights our legislaters decide are yours. At the end of the day, their interpretation, and those of the SC, are all that you are guaranteed.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

I could say the same thing, but something tells me that your membership in ACLU will prevent you from understanding.