# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/81 "2005-12-17T22:05:36Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Are you saying that we shouldn’t even investigate? I pointed to a “few” laws down in the pit, which you are still ignoring. Shall I post them here? Same response I made in the Pit: 50 USC § 1811. Not §§ 1809. ---
**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 17, 2005, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/82 "2005-12-17T22:15:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 50 USC § 1811. Which reads: > [@](#): > > Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress. Just for clarification, are you saying this act covers the actions by the President, or are you saying his actions should be investigated wrt this law? Congress hasn’t declared war, and the wiretap effort went on for longer than a 15 day period, if the newspaper reports are correct. I don’t see how this act covers the President’s actions (again, if the details in the newspaper reports are correct). ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/83 "2005-12-17T22:25:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Same response I made in the Pit: > > 50 USC § 1811. Not §§ 1809. Same reply as I just made in the Pit: > [@Bricker](#): > > Read 50 USC § 1811. The monitoring they did was legal under THAT section, not under §§ 1809. It still talks about **FOREIGN intelligence**. In domestic cases, they still need a warrant. It also does not say anything about doing any of this stateside. It also does NOT say the NSA can operate stateside. The Act also expands the government’s power to conduct surveillance pursuant to the **Foreign Intelligence** Security Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-511, 92 Stat. 1783 (codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. §§1801-1811 (2000))[FISA] . To use FISA surveillance, no predicate crime is required; nor does the FISA require a “probable cause” showing. Instead "the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this title **to acquire foreign intelligence information"** with the proper minimization procedures. FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1802. . Through the USA PATRIOT Act, Congress enlarged the scope of law enforcement surveillance situations to which FISA authority would apply. Section 218 enlarges the scope of the FISA authority by authorizing applications for wiretaps or physical searches **so long as the gathering of foreign intelligence information is “a significant purpose” of the application.** Prior to this change, the FISA authority had been interpreted as only available when the gathering of foreign intelligence information was “the primary purpose.” ---
**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 17, 2005, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/84 "2005-12-17T22:32:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How long would he be in for? How would we decide? > > I guess you’re right. Ignoring the law, and doing what you believe needs to be done, really is appropriate. I agree. Bricker, Bricker, Bricker. I said I’d _want_ to. Not that it’d be legal to do so. Nation of laws, not men, you know. I just wanted to point out that sometimes, even if it is legal, it can be, what, evil, or immoral, or reprehensible to do something. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/85 "2005-12-17T22:35:42Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Which reads: > Just for clarification, are you saying this act covers the actions by the President, or are you saying his actions should be investigated wrt this law? > > Congress hasn’t declared war, and the wiretap effort went on for longer than a 15 day period, if the newspaper reports are correct. I don’t see how this act covers the President’s actions (again, if the details in the newspaper reports are correct). John, That’s the same thing I’ve been saying. I’ve been getting the “we’re still at war” argument, but damn it, we never officially declared war. As I see it, under the laws covering domestic wiretaps of US citizens, a warrant is **required** , no matter what the President or Attorny General say… By law the warrant can be obtained 72 hours after the tap was done. But it still **must** be obtained. With regard to the gathering of FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE, no warrant is required. That means, spying on other countries. If the President is insisting that he don’t need no stinking warrants, and that he intends to keep on keepin’ on, then he is breaking the law. Quoting a law that governs **overseas** espionage, and applying it to domestic spying on US citizens is an error and is illegal. ---
**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 17, 2005, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/86 "2005-12-17T22:44:22Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Same reply as I just made in the Pit: > > It still talks about **FOREIGN intelligence**. In domestic cases, they still need a warrant. It also does not say anything about doing any of this stateside. It also does NOT say the NSA can operate stateside. > > The Act also expands the government’s power to conduct surveillance pursuant to the **Foreign Intelligence** Security Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-511, 92 Stat. 1783 (codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. §§1801-1811 (2000))[FISA] . To use FISA surveillance, no predicate crime is required; nor does the FISA require a “probable cause” showing. Instead "the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this title **to acquire foreign intelligence information"** with the proper minimization procedures. FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1802. . > > Through the USA PATRIOT Act, Congress enlarged the scope of law enforcement surveillance situations to which FISA authority would apply. Section 218 enlarges the scope of the FISA authority by authorizing applications for wiretaps or physical searches **so long as the gathering of foreign intelligence information is “a significant purpose” of the application.** Prior to this change, the FISA authority had been interpreted as only available when the gathering of foreign intelligence information was “the primary purpose.” Now I’m even more confused. I quote subchapter 1811 above, and it doesn’t say what you’re saying it says. You seem to be talking about subchapter 1802, but even that doesn’t apply to “United States person[s]”, and I assume that means US citizens (and legal residents?). ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/87 "2005-12-17T22:53:36Z")
50 § 1811 limits these searches to 15 days after Congress declares war. Even notwithstanding the declaration of war part these searches occured past 15 days anything that can be considered a declaration of war and apparently continue even today. This law simply does not authorize Bush to do what he did. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/88 "2005-12-17T23:01:08Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Now I’m even more confused. I quote subchapter 1811 above, and it doesn’t say what you’re saying it says. You seem to be talking about subchapter 1802, but even that doesn’t apply to “United States person[s]”, and I assume that means US citizens (and legal residents?). It is 1802. However, mesh it with what you know about 1811 and 1809, and the “sense” of the law seems clear. While the laws are indeed looser for spying on foreign countries, that does NOT give Bush carte blanche within the US when US citizens are investigated. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/89 "2005-12-17T23:21:32Z")
Here is some information on the origin of FISA. FISA, according to this, was never intended to be use within the USA against citizens. 50 US 1811 is worded to speak about foreign activities. Therefore, unless a direct line can be drawn from a home grown terrorist to a foreign group, FISA does not apply. [http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/civil/index.php?action=showtopic&topicid=2](http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/civil/index.php?action=showtopic&topicid=2) > [@CivLibOnline](#): > > FISA was designed to enhance the government’s ability to investigate the potentially dangerous **activities of foreign powers** by authorizing different types of surveillance in the context of such investigations. It resulted from a compromise between the Congress and the President in the wake of United States v. United States District Court (Keith), 407 U.S. 297 (1972). In Keith, **the government argued that the president’s responsibility to protect the national security justified warrantless surveillance** of groups suspected of acts of violence, including the destruction of government property. **This was a case of domestic terrorism, with no allegations of connections to foreign powers**. The Supreme Court **did not accept the government’s argument** , but specifically noted that the “case requires no judgment on the scope of the President’s surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country.” 407 U.S. 297, 308 (1972). Keith invited creation of a statutory structure for surveillance of **agents of foreign powers** under terms distinct from those that govern ordinary domestic law enforcement. FISA was the eventual result. Agents of foreign powers USUALLY means spies and saboteurs. It does not mean some local malcontent. Therefore, it could be argued that the entire FISA law is being misused in some cases. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/90 "2005-12-17T23:26:50Z")
Since part of the discussion has moved on to 50 USC 1802, here’s the part about its applicability: > [@50 USC 1802](#): > > (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that— > > (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at— > > (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; **or** > > (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; > > (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; **and** > > © the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and > if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately. My bolding of conjunctions. Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/91 "2005-12-17T23:27:18Z")
[http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/PA2draft.html](http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/PA2draft.html) Section 103: Strengthening Wartime Authorities Under FISA. Under 50 U.S.C. §§ 1811, 1829 & 1844, the Attorney General may authorize, without the prior approval of the FISA Court, electronic surveillance, physical searches, or the use of pen registers for a period of **15 days following a congressional declaration of war.** This wartime exception is unnecessarily narrow; **it may be invoked only when Congress formally has declared war** , a rare event in the nation’s history and something that has not occurred in more than sixty years. This provision would expand FISA’s wartime exception by allowing the wartime exception So when did Congress officially declare war? Never. Even under a condition of war, why is the President grossly exceeding the 15 day limit? I submit that, with all the other laws that have been cited, we have a “serious problem”. No matter what, the President has broken at least one law, and probably MANY. ---
**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 18, 2005, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/92 "2005-12-18T00:09:17Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > So when did Congress officially declare war? Never. Even under a condition of war, why is the President grossly exceeding the 15 day limit? Being a naif about the structure of the US government I think he really believes that the President has unlimited power in time of war, declared or not. I think we have to remember that he has been quoted as saying that one nice thing about being President is that you can do whatever you want. I’m more and more thinking that he is a zealot on the question of “national security” and considers all who disagree with his particular method of getting it as almost “enemy combatants.” And he has the opinion of[John Yoo](http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/960315in.html) a Professor of Constitutional Law at the prestigious University of California and former Deputy Attorney General to back him up. > [@John Yoo](#): > > One important area where a declaration of war remains significant is domestic civil liberties. The Supreme Court has held as constitutional certain deprivations of liberties in wartime only because a declaration of war has been issued; in fact, one of the rights in the Bill of Rights can only be suspended during wartime. The declaration of war plays an important role in limiting the power of the federal government as it affects citizens,\*\* but it does not perform that function with regard to the executive branch.\*\* [my bolding] Congress has a number of other methods for controlling and influencing executive prosecution of a war. It appears to me that Yoo argues in the cite that the only real control over Presidential wartime powers is to refuse to provide funds. At least that is what he spoke of. He never seemed to address the impracticality of such a course once a war has started and we are militarily engaged in another country… ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/93 "2005-12-18T00:49:42Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Being a naif about the structure of the US government I think he really believes that the President has unlimited power in time of war, declared or not. I think we have to remember that he has been quoted as saying that one nice thing about being President is that you can do whatever you want. > > I’m more and more thinking that he is a zealot on the question of “national security” and considers all who disagree with his particular method of getting it as almost “enemy combatants.” > > And he has the opinion of[John Yoo](http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/960315in.html) a Professor of Constitutional Law at the prestigious University of California and former Deputy Attorney General to back him up. > > It appears to me that Yoo argues in the cite that the only real control over Presidential wartime powers is to refuse to provide funds. At least that is what he spoke of. He never seemed to address the impracticality of such a course once a war has started and we are militarily engaged in another country… The Daily Kos wrote a blistering attack today, well worth reading. Coincidence - I just re-read the Yoo memo. Sure it is only Yoo’s opinion, but that doesn’t mean shit to me, I have a lot of opinions too. Fuck Yoo. I made a funny 🙂 Just some pencil necked, pointy headed college perfessor. No authority. Nada. Zilch. Yoo is from Korea isn’t he? That means he did not grow up in our culture, where even if we are greedy grasping bastards at least we have the common courtesy to pay occasional lip service to the Constitution. Maybe if he wants, we can pack him off to North Korea. They share his politial philosophy quite nicely. The Attorney general and John Yoo do NOT make the law. Apparently, their advice sucks too. > [@Yoo memo](#): > > You have asked for our opinion as to the scope of the President’s authority to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. We conclude that the President has broad constitutional power to use military force. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93-148, 87 Stat. 555 (1973), codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541-1548 (the “WPR”), and in the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). Further, the President has the constitutional power not only to **retaliate against any person** , organization, or State **suspected** of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States **suspected** of harboring or supporting such organizations. Finally, the President may deploy military force **preemptively** against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, **whether or no** t they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. John Yoo’s memo argues that because there is terrorism in the world, the President of the United States can do whatever he wants, to anyone, at any time, **without justification or warning** –and it is all legal. **No need for evidence or proof required. All it takes is a suspicion**. That is fucking **INSANE**. If this isn’t enough to get Congress and the Supremes and everyone else worried, nothing will. _“There ought to be limits to freedom”_ - May 21, 1999 _“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier…just as long as I’m the dictator…”_ - Dec 18, 2000 Maybe those early quotes were a glimpse at the REAL Bush. _If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention. I’ll take terrorism over totalitarianism_ Finally, one more time… I don’t care what Bush says, he IS breaking the law. If we are not at war (we aren’t) he is breaking 1811 by trying to invoke it. If we are at war, where is the Congressional declaration? If this is a domestic spying matter, he is breaking the law anyway (wiretap, 1802, 1809 etc.) No matter how you slice it, he is breaking a law. It’s just a matter of which one STICKS. Worse, it is a war on terror. Like the war on poverty and war on drugs, it will **never end**. So, according to Yoo, the president has unlimited power without any “sunset” clause. All he has to do is keep pointing at some new enemy country or bogeyman. Forever. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/94 "2005-12-18T01:20:35Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Good points. But it would be difficult for the House members to impeach and the Senate to convict. The election is too close and the Republican members of Congress would be faced with the question - If he is so bad as to be guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors how come you stuck with him so long? It wouldn’t be too hard to find some cover, along the lines of “He filtered the intelligence before sending it to us, thereby misleading us, therefore it’s his fault for lying to us, not our fault for believing him”. I’ve seen polls that show a solid majority of Americans in favor of impeachment if it’s shown that he lied about the reasons for war - and that explains the ongoing stalling by the GOP leaders in Congress about investigating his use of intelligence. But let’s revisit this after next November - things could and likely will change. > [@](#): > > I think Bush is just enough insulated from reality that he really believes that in a war the President does have dictatorial powers. I suspect it’s even shallower than that - that he really believes, as he’s been told, that he was anointed by God to be President. It follows that whatever he wants to do is right. **Polycarp** , I sympathize with your deploring the lack of analysis of the reasons for impeachment, but really, there’s nothing to analyze, no objective standards to measure by. It’s a matter of political (in the sense of statecraft) judgment, and any argument addressing it will be rhetorical in nature, even if they’re from the faction claiming that even lying us into a war isn’t enough reason. Better suck it up, big guy, it ain’t gonna go away. ---
**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 18, 2005, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/95 "2005-12-18T01:36:23Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > The Daily Kos wrote a blistering attack today, well worth reading. Coincidence - I just re-read the Yoo memo. Sure it is only Yoo’s opinion, but that doesn’t mean shit to me, I have a lot of opinions too. Fuck Yoo. I made a funny 🙂 Just some pencil necked, pointy headed college perfessor. No authority. Nada. Zilch. Yoo is from Korea isn’t he? That means he did not grow up in our culture, where even if we are greedy grasping bastards at least we have the common courtesy to pay occasional lip service to the Constitution. Maybe if he wants, we can pack him off to North Korea. They share his politial philosophy quite nicely. The Attorney general and John Yoo do NOT make the law. Apparently, their advice sucks too. I couldn’t agree more. I’ve been opposed to GW’s adventurism in Iraq from the beginning. My concern about removing GW is that Cheney is next in line. I don’t know who is more dangerous, a clueless GW or Cheney who I think is really evil. The possibility of electing a really evil person as President is why I think the USA Patriot Act is so dangerous. Sure, an executive with appreciation of US history an the methodolgy of our government won’t abuse it. However, these things are like a ratchet I think. Many of the assumptions of power by GW are based on precedents set in cases that arose when we were actually at war. Yoo and GW took them to permit great executive license in case of a threat that was defined as a threat by the Presisdent alone. Unless this sort of thing is struck down, it will become a precedent to go just a little bit further next time and when Cheney of the future is chief executive, look out. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/96 "2005-12-18T01:42:58Z")
Between 6,000 and 7,000 terrorist suspects are regularly monitored abroad and some of their calls have been linked — directly or indirectly — to American citizens. > **[The Times & The Sunday Times](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/)** > > News and opinion from The Times & The Sunday Times I have it figured out. They got tired of trying to get translators for the volume of calls that these 6-7000 terrorists were generating, so they figured they would just listen to any American with a phone number similar to the terrorists. That way,even tho they wouldn’t get any information, at least the information they weren’t getting would be in english, and they would have people to lock up from time to time as needed. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/97 "2005-12-18T01:43:10Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > I couldn’t agree more. I’ve been opposed to GW’s adventurism in Iraq from the beginning. My concern about removing GW is that Cheney is next in line. I don’t know who is more dangerous, a clueless GW or Cheney who I think is really evil. > > The possibility of electing a really evil person as President is why I think the USA Patriot Act is so dangerous. Sure, an executive with appreciation of US history an the methodolgy of our government won’t abuse it. However, these things are like a ratchet I think. Many of the assumptions of power by GW are based on precedents set in cases that arose when we were actually at war. Yoo and GW took them to permit great executive license in case of a threat that was defined as a threat by the Presisdent alone. Unless this sort of thing is struck down, it will become a precedent to go just a little bit further next time and when Cheney of the future is chief executive, look out. I don’t know which is more dangerous- an smart evil man or a stupid evil one. It’s the rock and the hard place. Given Bush’s arrogance and defiance today, I no longer think he is ONLY stupid. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/98 "2005-12-18T01:54:12Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > T Just some pencil necked, pointy headed college perfessor. No authority. Nada. Zilch. Yoo is from Korea isn’t he? That means he did not grow up in our culture, > > - May 21, 1999 > [I. Yoo is a snake, but he’s an american snake. Kind of porky around the neck, too. He was on cspan last month from Berkeley getting a new one ripped by the dean of USF Law and some buy from UCB foreign studies. But don’t misunderestimate this fat fuck. He can say the most heinous things in the flatest, quietest voice you ever heard. ---
**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 18, 2005, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/99 "2005-12-18T01:55:59Z")
Looks like we have a Henry Kissinger for a New Generation! Eff YOO! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/100 "2005-12-18T02:07:41Z")
This is EXACTLY the sort of situation in which impeachment is required. Far from being partisan use of a hammer on a walnut, you have a president who says I’m above the law, and I will do as I choose. There is no response other than impeachment or the acquisition of a three year supply of vaseline and cushions suitable for bending over so as to present a convenient angle of ingress. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882.md?page=6)