Warantless searches are precedented because media matters says so

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

I'm still waiting for any of the Bush faithful to address this. Are any of you comfortable giving President Hillary Clinton the right to wiretap anyone she believes might be connected in some way to anyone who might pose a threat to America? If no, kindly explain how you're not being hypocritical.

As a matter of fact, given Hillary's consistent support for virtually every facet of the Bush Administration's anti-terror policies, I don't mind that President Hillary would have the "inherent authority" (e.g. granted by the constitution, not by law or statute) to conduct warrantless physical searches or electronic surveillence if it deemed in the vital interest of national security.

There was no law in the books regarding warrantless physical searches of foreign entities. Clinton used an executive order to define that he could search physically search foreign entities without a warrant. If said physical search involved a "UNITED STATES PERSON", THEN YOU NEED TO GET A WARRANT BASED UPON THE RULES SET UP BY THE FISA ACT.

I agree! Clinton used an executive order to voluntarily restrict (i.e. "define") the circumstances or criteria under which it would conduct warrantless searches, and used the modified FISA law as its criteria. I'm glad we agree that the executive office could not restrict its own "inherent authority" unless there was an "inherent authority" to begin with, whether the instrument of that purely elective self-restriction is an executive order or administrative rule-making.

While Congress cannot restrict the Executive Branch on matters of its inherent authorities and powers, the Executive Branch is certainly free to restrict itself.

But Bush used his power to deliberately break the FISA law. His searches were supposed to be under FISA restrictions and he had to take it to the FISA court. He did not. He did not put in an Executive Order (which he couldn't have in this case), he just decided to ignore the law altogether.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
But Bush used his power to deliberately break the FISA law. His searches were supposed to be under FISA restrictions and he had to take it to the FISA court. He did not. He did not put in an Executive Order (which he couldn't have in this case), he just decided to ignore the law altogether.

Because he wanted to get impeached?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

I would have no problem with it assuming she uses it correctly. If she uses it to spy on political opponents, no way in hell. I feel the same way about Bush.

And where do you want to include Constitutionally mandated oversight of such actions by the executive branch to be sure they're complying with the law and the Constitution? Do you think "because we say so." is an adequate response?

Sorry, but there's nobody watching these particular wolves as they rensack the Constitution. :|

Because he wanted to get impeached?

With any luck, and the sooner the better.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
If she didn't use it correctly, there will be an investigation.

That's not how power works, if the President has the authority to spy on people without court approval, you can't investigate them if they suddenly use that power in a manner you don't approve of. That was my whole point, you want Bush to have that power because you trust him to use it correctly. But if a President doesn't, there is very little you can do about it.

The whole limits on executive power idea is based on what you just said. You give them power, but you also limit that power through external controls, checks and balances if you will. That way, if they abuse the power, you can do something about it.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
But Bush used his power to deliberately break the FISA law. His searches were supposed to be under FISA restrictions and he had to take it to the FISA court. He did not. He did not put in an Executive Order (which he couldn't have in this case), he just decided to ignore the law altogether.

Because he wanted to get impeached?

I don't think he wanted to get impeached, but he probably didn't think he'd get caught. Bush has shown a fairly obvious disdain for rules and laws, they apply to other people, not to him. I have no doubt that if he thought he could get away with something, he would do it, legal or not.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
If she didn't use it correctly, there will be an investigation.

But who will determine she didn't use it correctly?

With all due respect, you're avoiding the point. You are apparently willing to accept Bush's claim he is only spying on people who communicate with known al Qaeda members, without requiring any sort of independent oversight, no checks and balances, no verification there is no abuse. Are you willing to put equal trust in Hillary Clinton, or Michael Moore, or anyone? Are you willing to abandon even the minimal oversight provided by the FISA court in order to give Joe Random Politician a blank check for domestic spying?

Remember Roanld Reagan's credo: "Trust, but verify?" How can we do anything less with something so fundamental as Americans' civil liberties? Why would we?

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

But who will determine she didn't use it correctly?

Who determined Bush didn't use it correctly?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

But who will determine she didn't use it correctly?

Who determined Bush didn't use it correctly?

How about the FISA law itself?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

But who will determine she didn't use it correctly?

Who determined Bush didn't use it correctly?

Well, in this context, it's accepted that Bush HAS used his power "correctly". Assuming his power extends to warrantless wiretaps, I believe he's probably used it correctly, to only spy on people he thinks are terrorists.

But that's not the point, as Bowfinger is pointing it. It's not a question of whether or not Bush is using his imaginary power correctly, it's how we would know what he's doing. If Hillary Clinton can spy on people with no oversight, how do we know if she's using her power for good or evil? Same deal with Bush, the argument for oversight isn't that he's spying on Joe Sixpack, it's that if there isn't any oversight, how do you KNOW he's not spying on Joe Sixpack?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Who determined Bush didn't use it correctly?

Why, Harry Reid did! :laugh: :laugh:

The fact is that no one has determined anything. So this is all endless speculation and pointless debate. Carry on...

 

[Screech]

Debating whether Bush broke the law in a 'correct' manner by not following FISA is akin to debating if a thief robbed the bank 'correctly.' A very humorous concept, I would agree. :laugh:

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

But who will determine she didn't use it correctly?

Who determined Bush didn't use it correctly?

Well, in this context, it's accepted that Bush HAS used his power "correctly". Assuming his power extends to warrantless wiretaps, I believe he's probably used it correctly, to only spy on people he thinks are terrorists.

But that's not the point, as Bowfinger is pointing it. It's not a question of whether or not Bush is using his imaginary power correctly, it's how we would know what he's doing. If Hillary Clinton can spy on people with no oversight, how do we know if she's using her power for good or evil? Same deal with Bush, the argument for oversight isn't that he's spying on Joe Sixpack, it's that if there isn't any oversight, how do you KNOW he's not spying on Joe Sixpack?

Okay, so we have a tough decision to make. If it's found that Bush was only spying on terrorists, but he technically didn't do it correctly, would you want him impeached or to just correct the problem?

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: screech
Debating whether Bush broke the law in a 'correct' manner by not following FISA is akin to debating if a thief robbed the bank 'correctly.' A very humorous concept, I would agree. :laugh:

AHAHA BUSH IS EVIL DUDE! **** BUSH LETS GO GET HIGH!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Who determined Bush didn't use it correctly?

Why, Harry Reid did! :laugh: :laugh:

The fact is that no one has determined anything. So this is all endless speculation and pointless debate. Carry on...

Yeah, all of those legal scholars and former Bush appointees were just figments of our imagination.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Well, in this context, it's accepted that Bush HAS used his power "correctly". Assuming his power extends to warrantless wiretaps, I believe he's probably used it correctly, to only spy on people he thinks are terrorists.

But that's not the point, as Bowfinger is pointing it. It's not a question of whether or not Bush is using his imaginary power correctly, it's how we would know what he's doing. If Hillary Clinton can spy on people with no oversight, how do we know if she's using her power for good or evil? Same deal with Bush, the argument for oversight isn't that he's spying on Joe Sixpack, it's that if there isn't any oversight, how do you KNOW he's not spying on Joe Sixpack?

I'm afraid you're more trusting than I am. When you give power-hungry people power without oversight, they will abuse it. That's their nature. IMO, the purpose of oversight isn't just to verify power isn't abused, it's to deter abuse by increasing the risk of getting caught. It is to force accountabilty upon people who will invariably be tempted to evade it. And yes, I believe this about both Republicans and Democrats, though I believe Bush personally is uniquely amoral among recent Presidents.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: conjur
The fact is that no one has determined anything. So this is all endless speculation and pointless debate. Carry on...

Yeah, all of those legal scholars and former Bush appointees were just figments of our imagination.[/quote]

Looks to me like a disgruntled former administration figure. And that would be one 'legal scholar' :laugh:

Keep searchin' them RawStory archives.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

But who will determine she didn't use it correctly?

Who determined Bush didn't use it correctly?

Well, in this context, it's accepted that Bush HAS used his power "correctly". Assuming his power extends to warrantless wiretaps, I believe he's probably used it correctly, to only spy on people he thinks are terrorists.

But that's not the point, as Bowfinger is pointing it. It's not a question of whether or not Bush is using his imaginary power correctly, it's how we would know what he's doing. If Hillary Clinton can spy on people with no oversight, how do we know if she's using her power for good or evil? Same deal with Bush, the argument for oversight isn't that he's spying on Joe Sixpack, it's that if there isn't any oversight, how do you KNOW he's not spying on Joe Sixpack?

Okay, so we have a tough decision to make. If it's found that Bush was only spying on terrorists, but he technically didn't do it correctly, would you want him impeached or to just correct the problem?

That's a tough question. For me personally, I think it would raise serious questions about what OTHER things he might be doing wrong. At the very least, I would trust him far less than I do anyways. On the other hand, this would be somewhat mitigated if he did not drastically misuse the program like similar programs have been misused in the past, say, to spy on civil rights leaders.

So to answer your question, I honestly am not sure, it would depend on what details come out in the hearings. The problem is that there is really no way to "kind of" impeach the president, either you let him off the hook, or you kick him out. Personally, assuming he did break the law, I'd probably be happy if the problem was corrected, with better controls in place to make sure it doesn't pop up again. The damage will have been done to the Republicans if this happens, I'm not sure it would need to go all the way to impeachment.

On the other, other hand, Clinton was impeached for a lot less major legal violation. I'm not suggesting payback, I'm just saying that maybe I have an unreasonable expectation of where the line is.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: conjur
The fact is that no one has determined anything. So this is all endless speculation and pointless debate. Carry on...

Yeah, all of those legal scholars and former Bush appointees were just figments of our imagination.

Looks to me like a disgruntled former administration figure. And that would be one 'legal scholar' :laugh:

Keep searchin' them RawStory archives.

[/quote]

Don't forget those crazy folks at the non-partisan Congressional Research Service.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

But who will determine she didn't use it correctly?

Who determined Bush didn't use it correctly?

This is the role of an independent counsel. To examine the law, examine the actions of the Bush Administration, get judicial review if appropriate, and to then act based on what's been determined.

 

[Bowfinger]

Here's an interesting development (courtesy Slashdot). The EFF has filed a class-action suit against AT&T for "Collaboration with Illegal Domestic Spying Program":

EFF's Class-Action Lawsuit Against AT&T for Collaboration with Illegal Domestic Spying Program

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T on January 31, 2006, accusing the telecom giant of violating the law and the privacy of its customers by collaborating with the National Security Agency (NSA) in its massive and illegal program to wiretap and data-mine Americans' communications.

In December of 2005, the press revealed that the government had instituted a comprehensive and warrantless electronic surveillance program that ignored the careful safeguards set forth by Congress. This surveillance program, purportedly authorized by the President at least as early as 2001 and primarily undertaken by the NSA, intercepts and analyzes the communications of millions of ordinary Americans.

In the largest "fishing expedition" ever devised, the NSA uses powerful computers to "data-mine" the contents of these Internet and telephone communications for suspicious names, numbers, and words, and to analyze traffic data indicating who is calling and emailing whom in order to identify persons who may be "linked" to "suspicious activities," suspected terrorists or other investigatory targets, whether directly or indirectly.

But the government did not act-and is not acting-alone. The government requires the collaboration of major telecommunications companies to implement its unprecedented and illegal domestic spying program.

AT&T Corp. (which was recently acquired by the new AT&T, Inc,. formerly known as SBC Communications) maintains domestic telecommunications facilities over which millions of Americans' telephone and Internet communications pass every day. It also manages some of the largest databases in the world, containing records of most or all communications made through its myriad telecommunications services.

The lawsuits alleges that AT&T Corp. has opened its key telecommunications facilities and databases to direct access by the NSA and/or other government agencies, thereby disclosing to the government the contents of its customers' communications as well as detailed communications records about millions of its customers, including the lawsuit's class members.

The lawsuit also alleges that AT&T has given the government unfettered access to its over 300 terabyte "Daytona" database of caller information -- one of the largest databases in the world. Moreover, by opening its network and databases to wholesale surveillance by the NSA, EFF alleges that AT&T has violated the privacy of its customers and the people they call and email, as well as broken longstanding communications privacy laws.

The lawsuit also alleges that AT&T continues to assist the government in its secret surveillance of millions of Americans. EFF, on behalf of a nationwide class of AT&T customers, is suing to stop this illegal conduct and hold AT&T responsible for its illegal collaboration in the government's domestic spying program, which has violated the law and damaged the fundamental freedoms of the American public."

Substantially more information at the link. I think this is great news. The more pressure we can put on the Bush administration and its collaborators, and the more we can keep this in the public eye, the less likely it is to be abused.

 

[Bowfinger]

Bump (now that the SOTU talk has died down).