# 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:** 8
**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 19, 2005, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/141 "2005-12-19T17:46:57Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > I suspect, in it’s base form, it’s all old-fashioned IOKIARDI. > > Which would be simply laughable if it weren’t for all the mindless Bush apologists who eagerly embrace every cock-eyed excuse for the excesses of this Presidency. You suspect wrongly. I was wrong, too, if it makes you feel better. 🙂 Bush \*\*did \*\*“trot out” Gonzales for an explanation. Gonzales has now said that the authorization to use force given to the president in Sept '01 is the source of his authority. So, they’re going to use the “we’re at war” arguement, and hence subchapter 1802 allows wiretaps w/o a warrant. I hope this goes to the SCOTUS so we can a ruling one way or another. > [@](#): > > [Gonzales: War powers authorized eavesdropping](http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051219/ts_nm/security_eavesdropping_dc) > > The U.S. Congress’ authorization of military force after the September 11, 2001, attacks also gave > President George W. Bush the right to eavesdrop on people in the United States, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Monday. > > “Our position is that authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11, constitutes that other authorization … to engage in this kind of signals intelligence,” Gonzales said. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/142 "2005-12-19T20:41:03Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > You suspect wrongly. I was wrong, too, if it makes you feel better. 🙂 Bush \*\*did \*\*“trot out” Gonzales for an explanation. > > Gonzales has now said that the authorization to use force given to the president in Sept '01 is the source of his authority. So, they’re going to use the “we’re at war” arguement, and hence subchapter 1802 allows wiretaps w/o a warrant. I hope this goes to the SCOTUS so we can a ruling one way or another. Going to the SCOTUS shouldn’t be necessary and frankly should not happen. Congress knows whether or not they wanted to declare war and from all reactions that I have seen they clearly didn’t. A declaration of war by congress has very specific wording and it has been that way for a long time. The Declaration of War against Germany in WWII: > [@WWII Declaration of War against Germany](#): > > The War Resolution > > ``` > **Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.** > > Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America: > > Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, **that the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared** ; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States > > ``` [http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/germwar.html](http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/germwar.html) > [@Declaration of War against Japan](#): > > JOINT RESOLUTION **Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.** > > ``` > Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, **That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared;** and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States. > > ``` [http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/japwar.html](http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/japwar.html) Against Germany in WWI > [@Declaration of War against Germany in WWI](#): > > **Joint Resolution Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial German Government and the Government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.** > > Whereas the Imperial German Government has committed repeated acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America; Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, **that the state of war between the United States and the Imperial German Government which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared** ; and that the President be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial German Government; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States. Against Spain in the Spanish-American War > [@](#): > > **An Act Declaring that war exists between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain.** > > Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, First. **That war be, and the same is hereby, declared to exist, and that war has existed since the twenty-first day of April, anno Domini eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, including said day, between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain.** > > Second. That the President of the United States be, and he hereby is, directed and empowered to use the entire land and naval forces of the United States, and to call into the actual service of the United States the militia of the several States, to such extent as may be necessary to carry this Act into effect. > > Approved, April 25, 1898. Against Britain in the war of 1812 > [@](#): > > **An Act Declaring War Between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Dependencies Thereof and the United States of America and Their Territories.** > > Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, **That war be and the same is hereby declared to exist between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the dependencies thereof, and the United States of America and their territories;** and that the President of the United States is hereby authorized to use the whole land and naval force of the United States to carry the same into effect, and to issue to private armed vessels of the United States commissions or letters of marque and general reprisal, in such form as he shall think proper, and under the seal of the United States, against the vessels, goods, and effects of the government of the said United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the subjects thereof > > APPROVED, June 18, 1812 I couldn’t find the declaration of war on Mexico during the Mexican-American war but I suspect its more of the same. That is susbstantially different than authorizing the use of force against those responsible for a crime. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/143 "2005-12-19T21:22:22Z")
I reiterate my earlier question. How does it come before the court? there are few scenearia: 1. A defendant whose conviction was based in part on evidence gathered in one of these intercepts appeals on the grounds the evidence should have been excluded as the fruits of an illegal search. This is unlikely to happen since they are not trying anyone they catch in this net, they snatch them off to Gitmo. 2. An action is brought against the President by someone who apprehends that they are being surveilled. This is the famous case of Mace v. Bush. Problematic on grounds of plaintiff’s standing to sue, let alone the question of whether in the absence of a showing that he was being tapped, Mace could allege harm which entitled him to sue. The constitution provides only one remedy when the president violates the law. Even a direct order from scotus that the president due thus and so (cf. Andrew Jackson) which is ignored can only be vindicated, if at all, through impeachment. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/144 "2005-12-20T01:58:29Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > 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. A **lot** of things would be a lot simpler if Bush would do the right thing. And if a frog had wings… ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/145 "2005-12-20T02:09:36Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > > [@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. [Well, now we know the extent of the consultation.](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/rock-cheney1.html) > [@Jay Rockefeller (handwritten letter to Vice President Cheney)](#): > > Clearly, the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues. As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult with staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to evaluate, much less fully endorse these activities. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/146 "2005-12-20T02:19:19Z")
Specifically by [John Lewis](http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=69123) of the House, and [Barbara Boxer](http://boxer.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=249975) of the Senate. Finally. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/147 "2005-12-20T02:19:32Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > What I was trying to do was point out that your statement that if the prisoners were on US soil they would have access to our legal system is disproved by the example of prisoners who were on our soil but had no access to our legal system. _sigh_ Look, the prisoners of war in WWII were, well, prisoners of war. They had rights under the GC and so their was no reason to bring them under our system. Terrorists or ‘unlawful combatants’ however fall in a grey area. They don’t have the same rights under the GC. That very quasi-status would probably have some judge in the US attempting to bring them into our system as criminals instead of unlawful combatants. I could very well see a media circus that could follow bringing them here. Again, there is no comparison between prisoners of war in WWII and enemy combatants captured without uniform or militia symbols or any other identifying marks or documentation. You seem bound and determined to continue to hammer this point but David it just doesnt work. There is NO comparison between prisoners of war in WWII and these folks as far as this particular discussion is concerned. > [@David Simmons](#): > > As to the “enemy combatant” crap, that’s just a semantic dodge to avoid the Geneva Convention. What do you base this incredible statement on? Your own desires? Or a close reading of the GC on the subject of non-uniformed combatants? > [@David Simmons](#): > > As to “outlaw” regimes, the Japanese in WWII didn’t follow the Geneva Convention but it wasn’t official US policy to torture prisoners in order to gain intelligence, although I suspect there was some indivitual mistreatment for revenge. Are you seriously comparing the Japanese government during WWII and the Taliban? Do you think they are comparable? As for the US torturing Japanese prisoners…man, you need to grow up. Of COURSE we did. Hell, we locked up all the Japanese CITIZENS in the country into concentration camps for gods sake. You can pretty much take it as a given that more Japanese were tortured (and killed) by Americans during WWII than all the ‘enemy combatants’ in the entire War on Terror. And probably much more brutally. And we were the GOOD guys, and probably more restrained than any other major power during the war. > [@David Simmons](#): > > I don’t buy this facile statement that everything is now different. The world wasn’t invented yesterday. Other countries have undergone terrorist attacks for years without going slightly batty over them. It’s time we grew up and stop trying to conduct our national affairs like a scene from a Clint Eastwood movie. I’m tired of quibbles over terminology being used in order to justify acts that demean the US and make a mockery of our claim to be of a higher order character. Whether you buy it or not its pretty obvious that everything IS different now. In the old days folks who fought out of uniform and were captured were SHOT. Probably after an extended and extensive torture session. As for other countries not going ‘batty’ over terrorist attack, again you need to get your head out. Look up some time what the Brits would do to Irish terrorists they caught. Think the French are better? Take a look at what they do to their REGULAR prisoners some time before making claims. Germans? Right. How about those fun loving Russians and their Chechen, er, problem? Who do you suppose that has had terrorist attack them that turned the other cheek? Could you give me some examples of a nation attacked as the US was that put on the velvet gloves? I can’t think of any. -XT ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/148 "2005-12-20T02:24:32Z")
against unreasonable searches and seizures, is being protected by [the best shift supervisors the NSA can provide](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html''): > [@](#): > > Q And who determined that these targets were al Qaeda? Did you wiretap them? > > GENERAL HAYDEN: The judgment is made by the operational work force at the National Security Agency using the information available to them at the time, and the standard that they apply – and it’s a two-person standard that must be signed off by a shift supervisor, and carefully recorded as to what created the operational imperative to cover any target, but particularly with regard to those inside the United States. > > Q So a shift supervisor is now making decisions that a FISA judge would normally make? I just want to make sure I understand. Is that what you’re saying? Feeling secure yet? ---
**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 20, 2005, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/149 "2005-12-20T03:09:09Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > _sigh_ Look, the prisoners of war in WWII were, well, prisoners of war. They had rights under the GC and so their was no reason to bring them under our system. Terrorists or ‘unlawful combatants’ however fall in a grey area. They don’t have the same rights under the GC. That very quasi-status would probably have some judge in the US attempting to bring them into our system as criminals instead of unlawful combatants. I could very well see a media circus that could follow bringing them here. Sigh. They could easily have been classified as prisoners of war as “unlawful combatants.” Look, you said that if they had been brought to the US they would have come into our legal system. I pointed out to you a case where prisoners were not under our legal system even though they were in the US. The main reason for GW, all by himself, not classifying them as POW was to prevent application of the Geneva Convention. Sigh. > [@](#): > > Again, there is no comparison between prisoners of war in WWII and enemy combatants captured without uniform or militia symbols or any other identifying marks or documentation. Do you know this for a fact in all cases? > [@](#): > > There is NO comparison between prisoners of war in WWII and these folks as far as this particular discussion is concerned. I didn’t say there was, I said that they could be in the US without coming into our legal system and they could. They were sent to Guantanamo so that we could have a freer hand in practicing agressive interrogation. > [@](#): > > Are you seriously comparing the Japanese government during WWII and the Taliban? Do you think they are comparable? Bataan Death March, anyone? > [@](#): > > As for the US torturing Japanese prisoners…man, you need to grow up. Of COURSE we did. You need to read. I said that undoubtedly there were cases of individual torture. However it wasn’t US government policy, which seems to be the case now with our “unlawful combatants.” > [@](#): > > Whether you buy it or not its pretty obvious that everything IS different now. Yes, that’s the mantra that’s chanted over and over in order to justify the unjustifiable. > [@](#): > > As for other countries not going ‘batty’ over terrorist attack, again you need to get your head out. Look up some time what the Brits would do to Irish terrorists they caught. Think the French are better? Take a look at what they do to their REGULAR prisoners some time before making claims. Germans? Right. How about those fun loving Russians and their Chechen, er, problem? Our battiness isn’t about torturing prisoners. It’s about the abridgement of the privacy of US citizens and going overboard on government snooping. > [@](#): > > Who do you suppose that has had terrorist attack them that turned the other cheek? Could you give me some examples of a nation attacked as the US was that put on the velvet gloves? I can’t think of any. > > -XT No one is arguning that the other cheek need be turned. However the countermeasures should be effective and not blind striking out, such as forming a whole new government department that isn’t working very well yet, four years down the road; passing a complex law, the USA Patriot Act, without hearings for many members of Congress even knowing what it contained. Things like that. I can’t just swallow ineffective and misdirected actions like the above, not to mention to the war in Iraq, like the lockstep legions of GW fans can. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/150 "2005-12-20T03:20:50Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Specifically by [John Lewis](http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=69123) of the House, and [Barbara Boxer](http://boxer.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=249975) of the Senate. > > Finally. Yep, impeachment is practically a done deal now. ---
**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 20, 2005, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/151 "2005-12-20T03:26:04Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > … we locked up all the Japanese CITIZENS in the country into concentration camps for gods sake. And it was a bad mistake not only in its own right but because it set a precent useable in future cases. At the time I was all for it. Show them dirty Jap bastards, right? But then I was only 20 years old and didn’t know anything. I have since come to the realization of just how wrong and dangerous it was. I would hope that our current citizens have learned a little something since then, but maybe I’m over optimistic on that question. In fact it looks like I am. > [@](#): > > In the old days folks who fought out of uniform and were captured were SHOT. Probably after an extended and extensive torture session. And so because it was done in “the old days” we should continue the practice now? If we are going to use the practices of “the old days” I suppose we could classify them as witches and wizards and burn them at the stake after the tortue has extracted all the bad intelligence from them. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/152 "2005-12-20T03:30:37Z")
Bush Bound for Big House? Dershowitz: criminal Turley: criminal Fox News (!) criminal [http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/19.html#a6391](http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/19.html#a6391) ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/153 "2005-12-20T06:14:10Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Specifically by [John Lewis](http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=69123) of the House, and [Barbara Boxer](http://boxer.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=249975) of the Senate. > > Finally. DIdn’t a third person start making noises about the Big I also? ---
**Author:** ![Cardinal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cardinal/32/4000_2.png) [@Cardinal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cardinal)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/154 "2005-12-20T07:09:26Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > If nobody broke the law, it sure looks like they were skating awfully close to the edge. I hardly ever come into GD because of the horrid tone between the warring parties, but I have a small comment on that. If it does come out that the Bush administration was acting within the law, then let’s all admit it, and not simply start screaming, “But it came close to being illegal!” That’s what laws are for. They define exactly what is and is not illegal. Everything not described is legal. Can you imagine what would happen if the government were able to prosecute citzens for “almost” doing something illegal? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/155 "2005-12-20T11:44:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yep, impeachment is practically a done deal now. If you’re being sarcastic, you’re only joining me in _my_ sarcasm. Evidence justifying serious consideration of impeachment has been on the table for over two and a half years, and the Dems haven’t done jack. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/156 "2005-12-20T13:10:06Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > If you’re being sarcastic, you’re only joining me in _my_ sarcasm. Evidence justifying serious consideration of impeachment has been on the table for over two and a half years, and the Dems haven’t done jack. Never before in history has a serious impeachment effort proceeded without alleging a violation of law. Johnson broke the Tenure in Office Act (irrelevantly later found to be unconstitutional), Nixon for obstruction of justice for using federal agency power to derail the investigation into the Watergate burglary, Clinton for perjury. What was the actual violation of law two and a half years ago? ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/157 "2005-12-20T13:36:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Never before in history has a serious impeachment effort proceeded without alleging a violation of law. Johnson broke the Tenure in Office Act (irrelevantly later found to be unconstitutional), Nixon for obstruction of justice for using federal agency power to derail the investigation into the Watergate burglary, Clinton for perjury. > > What was the actual violation of law two and a half years ago? In which of the earlier cases was an actual violation of law shown? As was correctly stated, a mere allegation has been adequate. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/158 "2005-12-20T14:25:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What was the actual violation of law two and a half years ago? I’m not sure how this could be any more clear. [From 50USC36 section 1802:](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html) > [@](#): > > 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— > > -snip- > > there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; My questions: Has the Attorney General certified in writing under oath that there is no likelihood that the survelillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party? If so, then that’s a lie since we know that indeed US persons were monitored. If not, then this section was not fulfilled. It does not say this applies only within US territory, it covers all communications with a United States person. If you want to take shelter in 1811, I don’t see how you can justify it. There has been no declaration of war by Congress and there hasn’t been one since WW II. Even if you can stretch the Iraq Resolution to be a declaration of war, they did not confine the surveillance to the first 15 days. Am I being too simplistic? I just don’t see the gray area. How can you interpret these actions as being in compliance with 1802? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/159 "2005-12-20T14:41:13Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I’m not sure how this could be any more clear. [From 50USC36 section 1802:](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html) > > My questions: > Has the Attorney General certified in writing under oath that there is no likelihood that the survelillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party? If so, then that’s a lie since we know that indeed US persons were monitored. If not, then this section was not fulfilled. It does not say this applies only within US territory, it covers all communications with a United States person. > > If you want to take shelter in 1811, I don’t see how you can justify it. There has been no declaration of war by Congress and there hasn’t been one since WW II. Even if you can stretch the Iraq Resolution to be a declaration of war, they did not confine the surveillance to the first 15 days. > > Am I being too simplistic? I just don’t see the gray area. How can you interpret these actions as being in compliance with 1802? 1. Yes, §§ 1811 is the authorization. §§ 1802 is irrelevant. 2. Moreover, §§ 1811 permits wiretaps of fifteen days _per target_, not fifteen days total. Who ever heard of a war that lasts fifteen days? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/160 "2005-12-20T14:48:18Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > In which of the earlier cases was an actual violation of law shown? As was correctly stated, a mere allegation has been adequate. Well, that’s correct. Each of the previous cases was analgous to an indictment: they laid out specific facts that, if true, constitute a criminal offense. So my question here is: what specific facts, if true, are a criminal offense as a matter of law? Example: if you said, “The government monitored Joe Smith’s phone calls for 30 days, in violation of the fifteen day requirement in §§ 1811,” that would allege a violation of the law. But no individual domestic target was monitored for over fifteen days, precisely in order to comply with the law. Of course, if you have evidence to the contrary, then THAT evidence would certainly be an acceptable basis for impeachment. Do you? Or do you have some other allegation of fact that, if true, would be a violation of criminal law? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882.md?page=9)