# IS IT IMPEACHMAS YET?Surveillance reserved for overseas?This bug's for you... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 16, 2005, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882 "2005-12-16T07:24:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/301 "2005-12-23T06:09:54Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > It’s long, and it was written by Assrocket. That’s two good reasons not to bother with it. One good reason TO bother with it, and the reason why I brought it up in the first place: if it’s any indication of the arguments Republicans will use, it’s better to be prepared to deal with them. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/302 "2005-12-23T06:17:50Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122202119.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122202119.html) > Apparently, the Administration _asked_ for war powers in the USA… and was turned down by Congress. Thats pretty devestating to anyone trying to argue that Congress authorized these wiretaps with the AUMF. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/303 "2005-12-23T11:13:00Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Don’t know if this is linked anywhere but here’s a link to the [Justice Department’s Comments](http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/12%2022%2005%20NSA%20letter.pdf) (warning - PDF) > > Everyone’s making a big deal about why Bush isn’t just going for a FISA - that it makes no sense because it’s so easy, and almost always granted. > > Well… Tonight I was googling for information about FISA, and came across this tidbit from 2002: [Hijack Plot Suspicions Raised With FBI in Aug.](http://prisonplanet.com/hijack_plot_suspicions_raised_with_fbi_in_aug.html) Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the _special FISA court_ the one that decides whether or not to grant a FISA warrant? ISTM like the FBI General Counsel’s office gave up too easily. > [@](#): > > Also, here’s a [Defense of the warrantless wiretaps](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed) by the assistant attorney general under Clinton. I’d think more of it if it included actual language from those decisions and stuff. It’s easy to buffalo people in an op-ed column, where you can implicitly say, “X supports my argument entirely, but I don’t have room to even fully cite it here, let alone quote from it.” ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/304 "2005-12-23T14:10:19Z")
> [@whoever Sam Stone quoted](#): > > Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant. The implications of this are pretty staggering: if the President has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping, _in the United States, without warrants_, for foreign intelligence purposes, then who’s to know whether he’s wiretapping just for those purposes, or whether he’s wiretapping anyone and everyone, for whatever reason strikes his fancy? That’s a pretty big _carte blanche_ for the President to become Big Brother. There’s just no way I can believe the courts have repeatedly given such a grant of effectively unlimited surveillance power to the President. Absent appropriate cites and quotes, I’m gonna call _reductio ad absurdum_. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/305 "2005-12-23T14:40:01Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Thats pretty devestating to anyone trying to argue that Congress authorized these wiretaps with the AUMF. If the administration floated the idea in Congress for a law permitting them to detain people in Hamdi’s situation, and were turned down… do you believe that would make one iota of difference to the Supreme Court’s decision? It may sound crazy, I know… but one thing the courts do NOT do when trying to resolve a question of legislative intent is send a note back the legislature asking, “Say, what did you guys mean by this?” ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/306 "2005-12-23T16:04:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, just to be crystal clear: > > 31 trials > > 11 outright acquittal > 8 guilty of lesser charges but acquitted on top count > 12 guilty of top count > > Believe me when I say that given what I had to work with, those were good numbers. So what. I don’t care. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/307 "2005-12-23T16:11:27Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > There was an interesting segment on today’s New Hour w/ Jim Leher (on PBS). Gwen Ifil interviewed two legal experts, one a former Bush justice dept. attorney who was defending Bush’s action. He stated that the 15 calendar days in subchapter 1811 refered to the first 15 days of a war, not for any 15 day period during a war. Wasn’t that one of MY points down in the Pit??? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/308 "2005-12-23T16:17:31Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > linton in 1994 and was later selected by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to serve on the FISA court, declined to comment when reached at his office late yesterday. > > Word of Robertson’s resignation came as two Senate Republicans joined the call for congressional investigations into the National Security Agency’s warrantless interception of telephone calls and e-mails to overseas locations by U.S. citizens suspected of links to terrorist groups. They questioned the legality of the operation and the extent to which the White House kept Congress informed. > > Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) echoed concerns raised by Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has promised hearings in the new year. > > Hagel and Snowe joined Democrats Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.) in calling for a joint investigation by the Senate judiciary and intelligence panels into the classified program. > > [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122000685.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122000685.html) > > For something that was supposed to be of marginal criminality, and dubious political impact, this is certainly turing into a shitstorm for George Wow. I’ve been saying I thought it was illegal. Me, with no fancy law degree or anything. Imagine. A FISA judge resigns because he has the same concerns. “Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was **legally questionable** and may have tainted the FISA court’s work.” ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/309 "2005-12-23T16:21:24Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > Another republican heard from: > > . The impeccably conservative legal scholar and former Reagan aide Bruce Fein explained the deep implications of the President’s arrogance:“If President Bush is totally unapologetic and says, ‘I continue to maintain that as a wartime President I can do anything I want—I don’t need to consult any other branches,’ that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath, because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that … would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.” > > [http://www.observer.com/opinions\_conason-2.asp](http://www.observer.com/opinions_conason-2.asp) It’s just a replay of the Nixonian argument that “anything the President does is legal”. It didn’t work then, it won’t work now. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/310 "2005-12-23T16:31:14Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > No, the legal principle is that Mr. Bush is responsible for the acts of those who serve under him, unless he explicitly disavows illegal actions of which he had no knowledge. In his own words, “It happened on my watch.” It would be awful hard to disavow it at this point, he came right out and said in effect “I’m doing it and I’m going to keep doing it”. How do you disavow something you’ve already said you plan to keep doing? ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/311 "2005-12-23T16:31:58Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > It’s just a replay of the Nixonian argument that “anything the President does is legal”. It didn’t work then, it won’t work now. Oh, I wish we could be sure of that. It’s quite surprising how many people, including some with legal training, buy the claim that after 9/11 everything is so different that all bets are off. Since the constitution made the president commander and chief and he was authorized to use the armed forces in the war on terrorism, whatever he decides to do might be unfortunate but it is all legit seems to be the line. There is a glimmer of hope though. The 4th circuit appeals court just turned down the Justice Dept.'s petition(?), motion(?), or whatever, to move Jose Padilla’s trial to a civilian court. Speculation is that they wanted it moved because there is action ongoing to get a Supreme Court review of the legitimacy of trying Padilla, a US citizen, in a military court and the administration dosen’t want such a review. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/312 "2005-12-23T17:57:30Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > There is a glimmer of hope though. The 4th circuit appeals court just turned down the Justice Dept.'s petition(?), motion(?), or whatever, to move Jose Padilla’s trial to a civilian court. Speculation is that they wanted it moved because there is action ongoing to get a Supreme Court review of the legitimacy of trying Padilla, a US citizen, in a military court and the administration dosen’t want such a review. Right church, wrong pew. The administration is trying to dodge a SCOTUS ruling on whether it can hold citizens w/o charges\*, not whether they can be tried in a military court. Remember, Bush doesn’t want Padilla tried **anywhere**. In fact he didn’t even want to bring charges against him-- just detain him “indefintely”. \*IE, declare him an illegal enemy combatant even though he is a US citizen, arrested on US soil ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/313 "2005-12-23T18:17:46Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > So what. I don’t care. Hey shitstain: I posted that in response to someone else’s question. I don’t care that you don’t care. How’s THAT for elevating the level of discourse here? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/314 "2005-12-23T18:20:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Hey shitstain: I posted that in response to someone else’s question. > > I don’t care that you don’t care. How’s THAT for elevating the level of discourse here? And I thought I was in the Pit. My deepest apologies. If I could report my own post, I would. I would take it as a kindness if someone would report this, and if a Mod would remove the first two words of that post. I certainly didn’t intend to use that sort of rejoiner in GD. It’s confusing to have two threads proceeding in roughly the same fashion in GD and the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![Nature\_s\_Call](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nature_s_call/32/19006_2.png) [@Nature\_s\_Call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nature_s_Call)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/315 "2005-12-23T18:23:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I would take it as a kindness if someone would report this Done. In future I think mods don’t mind if you report someone else’s thread above or below yours. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/316 "2005-12-23T18:28:13Z")
> [@Nature's Call](#): > > Done. In future I think mods don’t mind if you report someone else’s thread above or below yours. Thanks. I e-mailed **tomndebb** , but I figured the “report the post” would notify everyone and be the better approach. It’s a good lesson. Even in the Pit, when I give in to the fleeting temptation to descend into vulgar language, I’m almost never happy with the result later. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/317 "2005-12-23T19:08:16Z")
I think, with decent debates happening in both this thread and a pit thread, and with this thread being an Alaricthegoth title special, it’s an easy mistake to make. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/318 "2005-12-23T19:11:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And I thought I was in the Pit. > > My deepest apologies. If I could report my own post, I would. > > I would take it as a kindness if someone would report this, and if a Mod would remove the first two words of that post. I certainly didn’t intend to use that sort of rejoiner in GD. It’s confusing to have two threads proceeding in roughly the same fashion in GD and the Pit. If it was up to me. I’d just ignore it and chalk it up to simple confusion. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/319 "2005-12-23T19:54:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > and if a Mod would remove the first two words of that post. Sorry. Legal concerns prevent Mods from altering text in a post other than to correct vB tags or to correct bad links or break inappropriate links. You’ll just have to live with the knowledge that you need to be more careful remembering where you post. [/Moderator Mode] ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/320 "2005-12-23T21:10:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If the administration floated the idea in Congress for a law permitting them to detain people in Hamdi’s situation, and were turned down… do you believe that would make one iota of difference to the Supreme Court’s decision? > > It may sound crazy, I know… but one thing the courts do NOT do when trying to resolve a question of legislative intent is send a note back the legislature asking, “Say, what did you guys mean by this?” ( Behold the approaching petard…prepare to be hoisted…) Might the exchange of notes cited by Daschle be germane to your prior proposed mitigation of presidential culpability based upon his subjective belief that he was acting within the powers granted him? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882.md?page=17)