# The Bush Administration Trashes Civil Liberties of Americans **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 16, 2005, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856 "2005-12-16T03:02:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**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 22, 2005, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/401 "2005-12-22T22:31:50Z")
> [@NurseCarmen](#): > > Doesn’t that perceived constitutional authority he has also trump the SCOTUS? No, because the SCOTUS gets to say what the constitution means. Of course, Bush might ask Chief Justice Roberts what army he’s going to use to enforce his decisions. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/402 "2005-12-22T22:34:15Z")
> [@NurseCarmen](#): > > Doesn’t that perceived constitutional authority he has also trump the SCOTUS? Of course it does, according to Bush and Bricker. Appareantly Bush can do any thing he wants and it’s legal because he did it. Nixon tried using that same argument. Well, this thread has gone on long enough for me. I’m tired of it. I’m sick of it. We will see what happens in Congress and the courts. ---
**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 22, 2005, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/403 "2005-12-22T22:57:04Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Of course it does, according to Bush and Bricker. Got any evidence that either of those two disagrees with the concept of judicial review? No, I didn’t think you did… ---
**Author:** ![choie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/choie/32/7829_2.png) [@choie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choie)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/404 "2005-12-22T22:57:53Z")
> [@](#): > > In fact, that isn’t my position. I _still_ disagree that this in un-American, that it’s unconstitutional, and immoral. Ah, so “despotic” behavior to you is not un-American, unconstitutional, or immoral? You must have a strikingly high standard. Or low standard, I should say. > [@](#): > > Not me. And I’m not saying it’s wrong to get upset about this action, seeing as how it’s unwise, poor public policy. I’m saying that in 1800, if you said slavery was illegal and unconstitutional, i would have heaped scorn on your richly deserving argument, because slavery was in fact legal and constitutional. And you would have stalked away in a huff, muttering about how I was defending slavery… all the while missing the point that I wasn’t defending slavery, simply defending the POINT that slavery wasn’t illegal and wasn’t unconstitutional. If people can’t distinguish a difference between your defending the legality of slavery or spying on citizens from your approving of such topics, perhaps you’d do well to, I dunno, **state your own fucking opinion** on an issue now and then, instead of acting like you’re standing in front of a jury. In other words, instead of simply replying “it’s legal to hold slaves,” your 19th-century counterpart could say something like, “Shamefully, it’s legal to hold slaves. I detest that this hasn’t been addressed in the courts by now, because denying someone’s humanity is evil.” > [@](#): > > You believe that your view concerning constitutional guarantees of due process and privacy is the only right one, and I disagree with you. No shit? Thanks for the recap. > [@](#): > > Who is opposing an investigation? Me? Who the fuck knows? If I believed Bush’s activites were legal, why would I want there to be an investigation? Waste of money and time, right? The point is that you never discuss what YOU think. You express no values or personal beliefs, or anything that can’t be found on Lexis. So how the hell could I know what you really feel about an issue? I can only guess from the arguments you make upon which side you fall. Yes, I know I’m flawed and not always able to give strictly reasoned debate. I’m emotional and passionate about issues, and I cannot understand how someone can continually argue from such a dry, amoral position. That’s why I only ever lurk in **Great Debates**. {shudder} ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/405 "2005-12-22T23:46:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I do still contend it. I also believe that the AUMF independently and adequately permitted it. I see, do you believe Congress intended t he AUMF to do this? In addition, would you please respond to my post [338](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6920601&postcount=338) . ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/406 "2005-12-23T01:30:26Z")
> [@choie](#): > > Ah, so “despotic” behavior to you is not un-American, unconstitutional, or immoral? You must have a strikingly high standard. Or low standard, I should say. Despotic behavior may, or may not, be un-American, unconstitutional, or immoral. It depends on what the behavior is. Despotic behavior is simply that which tends towards an assumption of absolute power or authority. As the President _is_ the absolute authority of one of the three branches of government, and the only branch that’s embodied by one person, some assumption of absolute authority _in his constitutionally-mandated area_ is appropriate. On the other hand, attempting to usurp authority that properly belongs to Congress or the judiciary is inappropriate. So… it depends. > [@](#): > > If people can’t distinguish a difference between your defending the legality of slavery or spying on citizens from your approving of such topics, perhaps you’d do well to, I dunno, **state your own fucking opinion** on an issue now and then, instead of acting like you’re standing in front of a jury. In other words, instead of simply replying “it’s legal to hold slaves,” your 19th-century counterpart could say something like, “Shamefully, it’s legal to hold slaves. I detest that this hasn’t been addressed in the courts by now, because denying someone’s humanity is evil.” There are fifty-seven zillion posters on this board offering some version of that song. I’ve said it more than once myself, but I don’t need to include an asterisked disclaimer on every single post I make. > [@](#): > > Who the fuck knows? If I believed Bush’s activites were legal, why would I want there to be an investigation? Waste of money and time, right? What we KNOW of Bush’s activities is legal. Bush did not disclose this voluntarily; he was forced into it by the leak. It’s reasonable to wonder what else he might have authorized of more dubious legality. An investigation is certainly reasonable. > [@](#): > > The point is that you never discuss what YOU think. You express no values or personal beliefs, or anything that can’t be found on Lexis. So how the hell could I know what you really feel about an issue? I can only guess from the arguments you make upon which side you fall. How I feel is absolutely irrelevant to the accuracy of the position I’m espousing. I’m reminded of the line in _A Few Good Men_ when Lt. Weinberg comments on how Lt Galloway emotionally protested an adverse court ruling: > [@](#): > > “I strenuously object?” Is that how it’s done? Hm? “Objection, your Honor.” “Overruled” “No, no. I STRENUOUSLY object.” “Oh. You **strenuously** object. Then I’ll take some time and reconsider.” Either my point has merit, or it doesn’t. I find YOUR attitude kind of scary; it suggests to me that you’d let pass a questionable line of reasoning from someone that’s “on your side” – after all, he feels the right things, he’s on the right side - why worry about every little smidgen of accuracy? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/407 "2005-12-23T01:31:28Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I see, do you believe Congress intended t he AUMF to do this? > > In addition, would you please respond to my post [338](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6920601&postcount=338) . No, I suspect the members that voted for this didn’t realize what the effect of their authorization would be. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/408 "2005-12-23T02:05:59Z")
Interestingly, one of Clinton’s Justice Dept Lawyers thinks the [President had legal authority to OK taps](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,1,3677848.story?ctrack=1&cset=true). The more this thing plays out, the more it looks like a classic President vs Congress battle. I don’t think any president wants to think that Congress can tell him what he can and cannot do. > [@](#): > > President Bush’s post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents. > \ > > …as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, “FISA could not encroach on the president’s constitutional power.” > > Every president since FISA’s passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act’s terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that “the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes.” > > \ > > But even if the NSA activity is “electronic surveillance” and the Sept. 11 resolution is not “statutory authorization” within the meaning of FISA, the act still cannot, in the words of the 2002 Court of Review decision, “encroach upon the president’s constitutional power.” > > - > > John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States. He is now a partner in the Chicago-based law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw.\* ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/409 "2005-12-23T02:31:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, I suspect the members that voted for this didn’t realize what the effect of their authorization would be. Interesting, thats quite a departure from the typical interpetation of laws that you make. Why aren’t we limiting the interpetation to what it says and/or what congress intended? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/410 "2005-12-23T02:32:33Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Interestingly, one of Clinton’s Justice Dept Lawyers thinks the [President had legal authority to OK taps](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,1,3677848.story?ctrack=1&cset=true). The more this thing plays out, the more it looks like a classic President vs Congress battle. I don’t think any president wants to think that Congress can tell him what he can and cannot do. Actually, it sounds more to me like The President against a hostile media playing ‘gotcha politics’, and Congress jumping on board after smelling some blood in the water. Members of Congress knew about this a long time ago, and many had to certainly know that Bill Clinton engaged in warrantless wiretaps for the same reason as did (I believe) Carter. None of this would be news to veteran members of Congress. The Democrats better be careful, though. This issue is NOT a winner for them. If Bush gets completely vindicated on this, the Democrats are going to damage what’s left of their already weak reputation on security. For example, as I pointed out in a GD thread, one of the reasons that the 9-11 plot wasn’t caught beforehand was because Zacarias Moussoui’s surveillance team could not get a warrant under FISA. John Kerry said that this war should not be primarily military, but primarily ‘intelligence and law enforcement’. Well, now he’s on record as opposing at least this form of intelligence gathering. Wait 'till that comes back to bite him in the ass in 2008. This whole issue speaks directly to the central problem the 9-11 commission found - that there is a wall of separation between domestic law enforcement and foreign intelligence, and terrorists can exploit it. Jame Gorelick, the Attorney General for Clinton, defended Clinton’s use of warrantless wiretaps for that very reason. We keep hearing all this talk of ‘terrorist chatter’, and how that allows the government to plan responses. How does anyone think they pick up that ‘chatter’? A FISA warrant, as I understand it, is really designed to allow the feds to tap the communications of someone when they have probable cause to believe that person is an active agent of a foreign government. There are plenty of scenarios where it would never be allowed. For example, let’s say a Special Forces team in Pakistan, trailing a known terrorist, spots a young man travelling with the terrorist. A background check indicates the young man has a number of shady friends in the U.S., and a brother in Detroit. So they notify the NSA that this guy has a cell phone, and is about to use it. The NSA then puts a tap on the call as the guy calls one of his friends in the U.S. Should the government ever do that kind of wiretapping? To make it more interesting, let’s say that the Special Forces team is tailing these guys because they have solid intelligence that a terrorist attack is going to happen in Detroit, and finding this guy who has contacts in Detroit is very troubling. Do you want your government following up on that? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/411 "2005-12-23T02:38:16Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Actually, it sounds more to me like The President against a hostile media playing ‘gotcha politics’, and Congress jumping on board after smelling some blood in the water. Members of Congress knew about this a long time ago, and many had to certainly know that Bill Clinton engaged in warrantless wiretaps for the same reason as did (I believe) Carter. None of this would be news to veteran members of Congress. Do you have cites for these Presidents breaking any laws when they made these wiretaps? The Democrats better be careful, though. This issue is NOT a winner for them. If Bush gets completely vindicated on this, the Democrats are going to damage what’s left of their already weak reputation on security. For example, as I pointed out in a GD thread, one of the reasons that the 9-11 plot wasn’t caught beforehand was because Zacarias Moussoui’s surveillance team could not get a warrant under FISA. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > A FISA warrant, as I understand it, is really designed to allow the feds to tap the communications of someone when they have probable cause to believe that person is an active agent of a foreign government. There are plenty of scenarios where it would never be allowed. For example, let’s say a Special Forces team in Pakistan, trailing a known terrorist, spots a young man travelling with the terrorist. A background check indicates the young man has a number of shady friends in the U.S., and a brother in Detroit. So they notify the NSA that this guy has a cell phone, and is about to use it. The NSA then puts a tap on the call as the guy calls one of his friends in the U.S. > > Should the government ever do that kind of wiretapping? To make it more interesting, let’s say that the Special Forces team is tailing these guys because they have solid intelligence that a terrorist attack is going to happen in Detroit, and finding this guy who has contacts in Detroit is very troubling. Do you want your government following up on that? The government can go to a secret court to get a warrant. I believe the test was lower that probable cause and was almost always granted. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/412 "2005-12-23T02:43:29Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Actually, it sounds more to me like The President against a hostile media playing ‘gotcha politics’, and Congress jumping on board after smelling some blood in the water. Members of Congress knew about this a long time ago, and many had to certainly know that Bill Clinton engaged in warrantless wiretaps for the same reason as did (I believe) Carter. None of this would be news to veteran members of Congress. > > The Democrats better be careful, though. This issue is NOT a winner for them. If Bush gets completely vindicated on this, the Democrats are going to damage what’s left of their already weak reputation on security. For example, as I pointed out in a GD thread, one of the reasons that the 9-11 plot wasn’t caught beforehand was because Zacarias Moussoui’s surveillance team could not get a warrant under FISA. But it’s not only Democrats who have expressed alarm at this activity. You are correct, though, in that there are important political as well legal issues involved. Right now, this is a big bump in the road at a time when Bush’s poll numbers were showing significant improvement. It may not matter long term, but that we won’t know until, well, the long term. I think Bush has done a lousy job explaining himself. If his legal ducks are all lined up, then put them out there front and center. As I noted in the GD thread, I think the Moussoui case was a “pre-9/11 mindset” type of thing. What do you think the FBI lawyers would say today if such an activity was detected? I don’t see that as a FISA shortcoming, but an FBI shortcoming. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/413 "2005-12-23T03:42:35Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Interesting, thats quite a departure from the typical interpetation of laws that you make. Why aren’t we limiting the interpetation to what it says and/or what congress intended? That’s not what you asked me to speculate on. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/414 "2005-12-23T03:53:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s not what you asked me to speculate on. By all means, speculate in a way that would be a response to my statement. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/415 "2005-12-23T06:08:31Z")
> **[Daschle: Congress Denied Bush War Powers in U.S.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122202119.html)** This might be more appropriate here. In fact, it seems Congress was aware what the effect of their authorization might be… and denied it. > **[Defending Spy Program, Administration Cites Law (Published 2005)](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/23/politics/defending-spy-program-administration-cites-law.html)** > > Letter signed by William E Moschella, assistant attorney general for Congressional affairs, is first formal response to Congress on growing controversy over domestic spying; argues that authorization of spying was consistent with 1978 law that... It does seem that the administration is claiming this is legal under FISA. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/416 "2005-12-23T07:02:55Z")
As **Bricker** and **Hamlet** have indicated the legality or otherwise of the wiretaps is an issue on which legal opinions do differ. Similarly, our legal luminaries are as one that it is a question of the scope of congress’ authorisation. One view is that the question is the same as Hamdi (conduct war = wide power). The other view is that the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and intrusions on privacy is widely protected; no ‘statute’ exists to overcome the protective prohibition. Whichever of these is correct, there is no illegality in the sense that Lizzie Borden was entirely innocent. I.e. innocent of any criminallty until a duly constituted Court has made a finding of guilt. In that sense **Bricker** is entirely correct that no ‘illegality’ has occurred. Conversely, one might ask; do the facts suggest a prima facie case, a reasonable likelihood, that the conduct involves a breach of the criminal law? In that case there is a legitimate question of criminal law to bring before a court. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/417 "2005-12-23T18:35:51Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Got any evidence that either of those two disagrees with the concept of judicial review? No, I didn’t think you did… At this point, I honestly don’t give a fuck. I am no longer going to play word games or “lets jump from law to law until we find the one sentence that allows something”, or “let’s jump from sentence to sentence in the same damn law until we find sonething we can twist”, or ponder my navel over the meaning of “notwithstanding”. I made my opinion known, if anyone has a problem with that, tough shit. To me, this whole thing smells just like Nixon’s “anything the president does is legal”. As for judicial review, I don’t think it’s such a giant leap to say any ruling I cite will be discarded out of hand as “irrelevant”. Further, if Bush is indeed working within the definitions of the Yoo Report, then he has decided that he has unlimited power - rendering the Congress and Supreme Court superfluous. Right now, we have more and more high level “experts and senior somethings” saying it is illegal. We have a FISA Judge who just resigned over this. Ask them all your questions. Further, we have Bush’s OWN WORDS that he intends to keep on doing domestic spying **no matter what**. How much clearer does it need to be??? It isn’t as if he couldn’t get the warrants, he could have. He could have even gotten them after the fact. So what’s the fucking problem? > **[Bush Says He Ordered Domestic Spying (Published 2005)](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/politics/bush-says-he-ordered-domestic-spying.html)** > > President Bush acknowledged on Saturday that he had ordered the National Security Agency to conduct an electronic eavesdropping program in the United States without first obtaining warrants, and said he would continue the highly classified program... > [@Times](#): > > President Bush acknowledged on Saturday that he had ordered the National Security Agency to conduct an electronic eavesdropping program in the United States without first obtaining **warrants** , and said he **would continue** the highly classified program because it was “a vital tool in our war against the terrorists.” … Democrats saw the issue differently. “Our government must follow the laws and respect the Constitution while it protects Americans’ security and liberty,” said Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee and the Senate’s leading critic of the Patriot Act. > Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has said he would conduct hearings on why Mr. Bush took the action How about when the government’s own attorneys are barred from expressing legal opinions? It may be a different subject, but it shows just “respect” there is for judicial review. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901894](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901894) > [@WaPo](#): > > The Justice Department has **barred staff attorneys from offering recommendations** in major Voting Rights Act cases, marking a significant change in the procedures meant to insulate such decisions from politics, congressional aides and current and former employees familiar with the issue said. # Not only are dissenting opinions from people within government being ignored, they are being barred. > [@WaPo](#): > > Daschle: Congress Denied Bush War Powers in U.S. > Friday, December 23, 2005; Page A04 > The Bush administration requested, and Congress **rejected, war-making authority** “in the United States” in negotiations over the joint resolution passed days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to an opinion article by former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) in today’s Washington Post. # Bounce that against Bush’s claim for godlike “war powers” and Gonzales’ statement that he never went to Congress for warrantless wiretap authorization, because it was already a given that they would never grant it. Spy Court Judge Quits In Protest Jurist Concerned Bush Order Tainted Work of Secret Panel Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 **was legally questionable** and may have tainted the FISA court’s work … Robertson indicated privately to colleagues in recent conversations that he was concerned that information gained from warrantless NSA surveillance could have then been used to obtain FISA warrants. FISA court Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who had been briefed on the spying program by the administration, **raised the same concern** in 2004 and insisted that the Justice Department certify in writing that it was not occurring. So let’s quit playing “gotcha” and all the “word games”. I don’t think Bush gives a good god damn about law, judicial review, or anything else. His entire presidency has been one long “my way or the highway”. Here’s hoping he finally bit of more than he can chew. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/418 "2005-12-23T19:21:00Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > So let’s quit playing “gotcha” and all the “word games”. I don’t think Bush gives a good god damn about law, judicial review, or anything else. His entire presidency has been one long “my way or the highway”. Here’s hoping he finally bit of more than he can chew. Sorry dude, if you make crazy assertions, you’re going to get called on it. With all the crap this adminstration does, it makes no sense to fabricate accusations against them. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/419 "2005-12-23T20:01:35Z")
But is it a fabrication if I have the CITES? I did provide cites after all. What I used as illustration/evidence cane from the news. It didn’t come out of the blue. > **[Tom Daschle - Power We Didn't Grant](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122201101.html)** > [@Daschle](#): > > Power We Didn’t Grant > By Tom Daschle > Friday, December 23, 2005; Page A21 > As Senate majority leader at the time, **I helped negotiate that law with the White House counsel’s office over two harried days. I can state categorically that the subject of warrantless wiretaps of American citizens never came up. I did not and never would have supported giving authority to the president for such wiretaps. I am also confident that the 98 senators who voted in favor of authorization of force against al Qaeda did not believe that they were also voting for warrantless domestic surveillance** … I could see **no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority**. I refused. > **[Daschle: Congress Denied Bush War Powers in U.S.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122202119.html)** > [@WaPo](#): > > Daschle: Congress Denied Bush War Powers in U.S. > The Bush **administration requested, and Congress rejected, war-making authority "in the United States**" in negotiations over the joint resolution passed days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to an opinion article by former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) in today’s Washington Post. > Daschle’s disclosure challenges a central legal argument offered by the White House in defense of the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. It **suggests that Congress refused explicitly to grant authority that the Bush administration now asserts is implicit** in the resolution … The **Justice Department acknowledged yesterday, in a letter to Congress, that the president’s October 2001 eavesdropping order did not comply with “the ‘procedures’ of” the law** that has regulated domestic espionage since 1978. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, established a secret intelligence court and made it **a criminal offense** to conduct electronic surveillance without a warrant from that court, “except as authorized by statute.” [http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/23/doj-memo-debunked/](http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/23/doj-memo-debunked/) > [@ThinkProgress](#): > > The Department of Justice Memo, Debunked … > In other words, there is a reason that the DOJ is giving short shrift to this argument. There is little evidence to substantiate it. … > The rest of the memo is devoted to arguing that the 9/18/01 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against al-Qaeda authorized the President’s actions. This argument doesn’t hold water either: > 1. The administration tried to get language inserted into the AUMF that would have authorized them to take actions “in the United States.” They failed. [Tom Daschle, 12/23/05] > > ``` > 2. Federal law says that “exclusive means” to conduct electronic surveillance is FISA and Title III (which governs the use of wiretaps by law enforcement). Relying on the AUMF, the administration **concedes that neither of those two statutes were used. Federal law says that any surveillance that is not conducted under those two statues is illegal**. [18 U.S.C. 2551(2)(f); 50 U.S.C. 1809(a)] > > 3. FISA has a limited exception that allows warrantless domestic wiretaps after a war is declared, but **it only lasts 15 days**. The Bush administration program has been **going on for more than four years**. [50 U.S.C. 1811] > > ``` [http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/gonzalesgenerallayoutdefenseforspying;\_ylt=AqdzCNtPuVxIGiGa1ZGXgTmyFz4D;\_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--](http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/gonzalesgenerallayoutdefenseforspying;_ylt=AqdzCNtPuVxIGiGa1ZGXgTmyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--) > [@YahooNews](#): > > Lawmakers, including some Republicans, and constitutional scholars said Bush **needs to explain why he went around the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)**, a measure imposed after disclosure that the NSA had spied on Vietnam War protesters. The law requires the government to get warrants from a secret federal court before the NSA can conduct domestic surveillance. (Related site: Link to federal law restricting electronic surveillance) > > “The Bush administration’s argument that post-9/11 actions taken by Congress … gave the president power to eavesdrop electronically on U.S. persons without even a FISA warrant seems to me **a most implausible stretch** ,” Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe said. Even a congressional resolution, he said, would “violate the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.” Same take, from USA Today: > [@USAToday](#): > > Despite the secrecy of the ongoing domestic surveillance, the White House had Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Gen. Michael Hayden, the nation’s No. 2 intelligence official, brief reporters:… > > He and Gonzales said it was essential to bypass the legal requirements to obtain secret court warrants for such operations because they had to move quickly to stop terrorist threats. > > But they struggled to explain why the administration could not have relied on FISA provisions that allow surveillance to be conducted and a warrant obtained after the fact in emergencies. Here is a blog interpretation. Sure, it’s only a blog posing a question. It seems an awful lot like what we’ve been asking. It’s STILL a reasonable question… > **[To my friends in the media, here is the ONLY QUESTION you need to force Bush...](http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/to-my-friends-in-media-here-is-only.html)** > > From USA Today : Despite the secrecy of the ongoing domestic surveillance, the White House had Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Gen. Mi... > [@AmericaBlog](#): > > if time was of the essence, why didn’t they conduct the searches and get the warrants after the fact, something that is allowed under the FISA law? They conducted the searches alright, but they never once sought the retroactive warrants. > > They have yet to answer this question, and this is the ONLY QUESTION you need to be immediately focusing on. There is no answer, short of the administration simply wanting to defy the law. It wasn’t for expediency, because they could do the search immediately. And if they say it was because they were afraid the court would deny the warrant, that’s absurd since the court has refused only 5 to 15 of 19,000 warrants that have been requested. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/420 "2005-12-23T22:53:34Z")
Thanks for the answers. I was listening to Gonzales ramble about how the FISA is too slow to adapt to the post 9/11 and my blood was boiling. BTW, **Choie** is one of my new favorite posters. Love the smarts and sass! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856.md?page=22)