Same response I made in the Pit:
50 USC § 1811. Not §§ 1809.
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).
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.”
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.
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.
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?).
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.
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.
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
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.
Since part of the discussion has moved on to 50 USC 1802, here’s the part about its applicability:
My bolding of conjunctions. Carry on.
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.
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 ofJohn Yoo 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Looks like we have a Henry Kissinger for a New Generation! Eff YOO!
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.