# 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:** 6
**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, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/101 "2005-12-18T02:16:18Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > 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. Ah, but Yoo wrote a memo to GW telling him that he had such powers and GW took it seriously and he is the guy with the hammer, not you and not me. ---
**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, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/102 "2005-12-18T02:34:15Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Ah, but Yoo wrote a memo to GW telling him that he had such powers and GW took it seriously and he is the guy with the hammer, not you and not me. That memo also “allows” Bush to decide if we are at war or not, and so he also gets to define just what war is. It’s a blueprint for dictatorship. From around the web, it looks like I was indeed citing the RIGHT laws, as far as what Bush was violating… Via Atrios [http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005\_12\_11\_atrios\_archive.html#113484838458821638](http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_atrios_archive.html#113484838458821638) FISA makes it a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, to conduct electronic surveillance except as provided for by statute. The only defense is for law government agents engaged in official duties conducting “surveillance authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order.” [50 U.S.C. § **1809**] Elsewhere, Yesterday, Bush Said Confirming Domestic Spying Story “Would Compromise Our Ability To Protect The People,” Today He Confirms It by John in DC - 12/17/2005 04:58:00 PM [http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/17/protect-the-people/](http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/17/protect-the-people/) ThinkProgress points out that **yesterday Bush adamantly refused to confirm** the existence of his secret domestic spying program because such an admission would jeopardize national security. **Today Bush is adamantly admitting** he authorized the program. **So, Bush lied to us yesterday** when speaking about this program, why should we believe him today when he says no innocent Americans were spied upon by our own government in violation of the law? > **[Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts (Published 2005)](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/bush-lets-us-spy-on-callers-without-courts.html)** > > National Security Agency officials privately voice concern about legality of eavesdropping on Americans and others inside United States without court-approved warrants, as secretly authorized by Pres Bush in wake of 9/11 attacks; at issue is NSA's... In three years he **NEVER EVEN TRIED** to get Congress to change the law that he now claims was so onerous he needed to break it. From the NYT: President Bush did not ask Congress to include provisions for the N.S.A. domestic surveillance program as part of the Patriot Act and **has not sought any other laws** to authorize the operation… Seeking Congressional approval was also viewed as **politically risky** because the proposal would be certain to face intense opposition on civil liberties grounds. The administration also feared that by publicly disclosing the existence of the operation, its usefulness in tracking terrorists would end, officials said. Ah, so they thought Congress, our elected representatives, **wouldn’t make it legal** for Bush to do what he did, so he didn’t go to Congress, he just broke the law anyway. That shows that the White House had concerns that what they were doing was **illegal**. So let’s see. I believe I invoked 1802, 1809, and eventually 1811. He violated them all (the entire FISA) from the get-go. He violated domestic wiretap laws. He violated NSA regulations and directives. He also violated the first several amendments of the Constitution. All on the basis of the Yoo memo. And the S.O.B. has the gall to stand in front of us today and tell us he will do whatever he damn well pleases. Congress needs to tar and feather him, and if they won’t the Supremes should. Impeach the bastard now. ---
**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 18, 2005, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/103 "2005-12-18T02:59:04Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > And the S.O.B. has the gall to stand in front of us today and tell us he will do whatever he damn well pleases. Congress needs to tar and feather him, and if they won’t the Supremes should. Impeach the bastard now. Now, why’d you have to go over the top like that…? No, he didn’t say he will do “whatever he damn well pleases.” And what, exactly, do you propose that the SCOTUS do? By “tar and feather” I assume you mean take some action to boot him out of office. The SCOTUS would have to violate the constitution to do that-- they have no authority to act against the president. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/104 "2005-12-18T03:23:16Z")
Personally, I don’t really feel informed enough about the relevant law here to know whether this is really a big deal or not. I’m not even clear yet that this is really a novel or radically new usage. But what I don’t get is the constant re-emergence of this argument that such and such new power (torture-that-we-temporarily-agree-not-to-calll-torture, this wiretap, other sorts of new powers) won’t be used on innocents, or will only be used on illegal enemy combatants, etc. This is a transparently stupid argument. ANY legal power has the potential to be used on innocents or people that don’t actually qualify, especially when the government explicitly reserves the right to remove itself from any legal oversight. If there is no oversight, then it is irrelevant that some power (say, special leave-no-marks-torture) is reserved for a particular class of people. First of all, mistakes are and have been made, in the past and in the future. But second of all, if there is no oversight, then the limits mean nothing. You can take a legitimate soldier in uniform or a completely random unarmed citizen and do to them whatever you wish. You can use your wiretap powers on anyone. There aren’t any limits. That’s what secrecy accomplishes and permits. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/105 "2005-12-18T03:36:39Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > This is a transparently stupid argument. It seems to me that, in politics (and political punditry), a transparently stupid argument is better than an admission of wrongness if you’re the one making the argument; it’s not that hard to make the transparent opaque. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/106 "2005-12-18T03:40:07Z")
Oh, and lest I’m misunderstood – I agree totally with you, **Apos**. It turns my stomach to hear such illogic spouted so regularly. ---
**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, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/107 "2005-12-18T04:54:07Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Now, why’d you have to go over the top like that…? No, he didn’t say he will do “whatever he damn well pleases.” And what, exactly, do you propose that the SCOTUS do? By “tar and feather” I assume you mean take some action to boot him out of office. The SCOTUS would have to violate the constitution to do that-- they have no authority to act against the president. Maybe I went over the top, well yes I did. But I still think he needs to go. he can be impeached or resign. I don’t care which it is, he just needs to go. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/108 "2005-12-18T04:55:58Z")
I should add that at present, my understanding of the claimed wrongness of this is not the spying, but the spying without the warrants that the law requires (as well as the apparenlty popular defense that the President can and should disregard the law and do whatever they see fit). The fact that Bob Barr, no liberal slouch, is disturbed by this is enough to make me take notice. But I know from past experience that the legal issues involved are complicated, and I’m no expert that can draw conclusions without hearing from enough experts to be sure. ---
**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 18, 2005, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/109 "2005-12-18T05:08:36Z")
Yes, I’m going to be very interesting in see how this plays out. Bush says he consulted with both parties in Congress, but Jay Rockefeller (senior Democrat on the Senate Intel Committee) says he wasn’t consulted. ---
**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, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/110 "2005-12-18T05:54:00Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > That memo also “allows” Bush to decide if we are at war or not, and so he also gets to define just what war is. It’s a blueprint for dictatorship. It sure is and that’s why it’s good that Yoo is no longer in the Department of Justice (although the damage may already have been done) and a bad thing that he is teaching future lawyers at UC Berkeley. ---
**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 18, 2005, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/111 "2005-12-18T07:11:56Z")
I wonder if Bush is thinking that his [Proc. No. 7463. Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks](http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001621----000-notes.html) gave him the authority for warrantless wiretaps. I think this declaration (which was in effect for 2 years after 9/11/01) covers the timeperiod during which the wiretapping was done. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/112 "2005-12-18T07:33:11Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I wonder if Bush is thinking that his [Proc. No. 7463. Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks](http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001621----000-notes.html) gave him the authority for warrantless wiretaps. I think this declaration (which was in effect for 2 years after 9/11/01) covers the timeperiod during which the wiretapping was done. Can you point to which section authorizes the wiretaps? I looked through there and didn’t see anything that even related to wiretaps. The powers mostly regard military size and expenditures. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/113 "2005-12-18T11:24:26Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Can you point to which section authorizes the wiretaps? I looked through there and didn’t see anything that even related to wiretaps. The powers mostly regard military size and expenditures. I looked through it too, and reached the same conclusions. The clauses invoked have to do with such things as stop-loss, recalling the inactive reserve, waiving limitations on the number of military officers of particular ranks, and stuff like that. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/114 "2005-12-18T11:35:25Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Yes, I’m going to be very interesting in see how this plays out. Bush says he consulted with both parties in Congress, but Jay Rockefeller (senior Democrat on the Senate Intel Committee) says he wasn’t consulted. I’m thinking this doesn’t matter much. First of all, a crime is a crime, regardless of who one consulted with. And second, the nature of such consultation could vary widely, from a passing mention in the midst of a wide-ranging conversation involving other, largely legal expanded uses of domestic surveillance, to a prearranged meeting on that particular subject, giving all the principals time to research the law and come into the meeting well-informed. If Bush is in effect saying that Rockefeller had the opportunity to warn him off of anything illegal, only a consultation of the latter sort would even provide that much cover. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/115 "2005-12-18T14:48:31Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > 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. What a revealing little post. ---
**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 18, 2005, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/116 "2005-12-18T15:34:01Z")
You know, this whole thing would a lot simpler if Bush would just tell us (and Congress) \*\*why \*\*he thinks he has the authority to do this. Obviously there are many people in the country and in Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, who don’t think he does have that authority. If he thinks it’s the Authorization to use Force resolutions passed by Congress in Sept '01 and Oct '02, then tell us that. If it’s something else, then tell us. Don’t just give us some lecture about National Security and then expect us to figure it out. Wiretapping US citizens w/p a warrant is not normally legal. What are the extraordinary circumstances that make these acts legal? It’s that simple. ---
**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 18, 2005, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/117 "2005-12-18T15:35:20Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > YWiretapping US citizens w/p a warrant is not normally legal. And that was supposed to be “w/o” a warrant… ---
**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, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/118 "2005-12-18T16:04:25Z")
> [@furt](#): > > What a revealing little post. Um, yeah, that line of **SteveG1** ’s didn’t help this discussion at all. One thing we’ve seen from the recent behavior of so many of us is that growing up in a democratic republic by no means assures that fascistic government styles are not attractive. All it takes is a good scare and many, even most, of us are willing to blindly trust an executive who’s just as human and just as corruptible by power as any of the rest of us; all it takes is for him to assure us that he’ll protect us and it’s for our own good. The number of people able to come up with niggling legalistic rationalizations for it, who still are the product of systems that are better than that, is saddening as well. ---
**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, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/119 "2005-12-18T16:23:24Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Um, yeah, that line of **SteveG1** ’s didn’t help this discussion at all. It was a stupid post. I was extremely angry at the time, both at Bush, Yoo, and the many “opinions” I had been reading all over the web which all said the same thing - “like it or leave it” and “how dare anyone question the prez”. I should have known not to post in that frame of mind. To tell the truth, I’m still furious. I hope the Congress has the guts to start a real firestorm and raise holy hell. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am, that Bush broke the law. The more I think about i, the more outraged I am over his “performance piece” yesterday. His whole demeanor said “who are you to question me, I do things my way”. I retract my remark about Yoo going to North Korea. He can go to hell instead. ---
**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, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/120 "2005-12-18T17:47:35Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Um, yeah, that line of **SteveG1** ’s didn’t help this discussion at all. > > One thing we’ve seen from the recent behavior of so many of us is that growing up in a democratic republic by no means assures that fascistic government styles are not attractive. All it takes is a good scare and many, even most, of us are willing to blindly trust an executive who’s just as human and just as corruptible by power as any of the rest of us; all it takes is for him to assure us that he’ll protect us and it’s for our own good. The number of people able to come up with niggling legalistic rationalizations for it, who still are the product of systems that are better than that, is saddening as well. And the sad thing is that I don’t think that the terrorist attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon were a great threat to our security as a nation. Terrible? Yes. However the terrorists lacked the means to follow through and threaten our national existance. Therefore, it seems to me that extreme measures infringing on our liberties aren’t in any way justified. As I said[here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6908354&postcount=42), after 9/11 it rapidly became clear that it wasn’t a lack of information about the hijackers that was the problem. It was a failure of our intelligence analysts to imagine the intentions of the hijackers. After the event everyone was on high alert and looking for more such things. I think there would have been plenty of time to examine our security gathering methods and the laws relating to them and come up with sensible tightening where it seemed necessary. As any one who has read my posts knows, I’m not an admirer of George Patton, but he did have at least one valuable maxim. Don’t believe the early reports: things are seldom as bad or as good as that. Relax, take a deep breath and look at the situation before you commit large resources to a situation or change you general strategy and tactics because of it. What we now have is a diversion of vast resources to a war that is either only periferal to the terrorist menace to the US or not even connected to it. Meanwhile, the executive was given added power and seems to have assumed even more and that is now beginning to result in a divisive argument here instead of a serious effort to work out a sensible counter to international terror. Overreaching by the executive was as predictable as tomorrow’s sunrise because you know; “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882.md?page=7)