The Bush Administration Trashes Civil Liberties of Americans

[SteveG1]

@treis

That law has a calendar limit of 15 days. According to Bush himself the program was reviewed every 45 days. Clearly that means this program went beyond the limits provided by 50 USC § 1811.

cite

Also according to Bush in his latest speech, he intends to keep doing whatever he pleases, no matter what, and is angry at anyone who questions it. Congress is not happy right now.

Reacting to Bush’s defense of the NSA program, Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., said the president’s remarks were “breathtaking in how extreme they were.”

Feingold said it was “absurd” that Bush said he relied on his inherent power as president to authorize the wiretaps.

Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin said Saturday: “There’s not a single senator or member of Congress who thought we were authorizing wiretaps.”

“If he needs a wiretap, the authority is already there – the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act,” Feingold said. “They can ask for a warrant to do that and even if there’s an emergency situation they can go for 72 hours as long as they give notice at the end of 72 hours.”
Comment: This is what I’ve been saying!

“He authorized these wiretaps even though there was no specific law allowing it,” Feingold said. “He’s trying to claim somehow that the authorization for the Afghanistan attack after 9/11 permitted this and that’s just absurd.”

“If that’s true, he doesn’t need the Patriot Act because he can just make it up as he goes along. I tell you, he’s President George Bush, not King George Bush. This is not the system of government we have and that we fought for,”

“There is no doubt that this is inappropriate,” Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, declared Friday. He promised hearings early next year.

Specter, R-Pennsylvania, seemed troubled by Friday’s news and said that the revelation, if true, was “very problemsome, if not devastating” to getting the Patriot Act renewed.

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the group was shocked by the disclosure.

“We’re finding out that the president has possibly authorized the breaking of the law so that our government can eavesdrop on American citizens?” Fredrickson told CBS Radio News. “We’re still trying to process it, but it’s truly amazing.”

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said he had been unsure the night before how he would vote. “Today’s revelation that the government listened in on thousands of phone conversations without getting a warrant is shocking and has greatly influenced my vote,” he said. “Today’s revelation makes it very clear that we have to be very careful – very careful.”

Stansfield Turner, a retired Navy admiral who headed the Central Intelligence Agency from 1977 to 1981 under President Jimmy Carter, concurred with Schumer, saying, "Presidents have to conform to the law. All of the agencies of the government have to conform to the law."
Gee, they all sound just like ME.

[treis]

I forgot to mention this pinged pretty high on my irony meter:

Mr. Bush said the information had been “improperly provided to news organizations.” As a result of the report, he said, “our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk.** Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country**.”

[Bricker]

@SteveG1

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.

It doesn’t say they can’t. And this is foreign surveillance – each monitored call was to a foreign country.

[Bricker]

@treis

That law has a calendar limit of 15 days. According to Bush himself the program was reviewed every 45 days. Clearly that means this program went beyond the limits provided by 50 USC § 1811.

cite

That’s fifteen days per subject monitored, not fifteen days for the entire program.

What kind of a war effort would be over in fifteen days?

[Bricker]

@SteveG1

Reacting to Bush’s defense of the NSA program, Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., said the president’s remarks were “breathtaking in how extreme they were.”

So what?

Feingold said it was “absurd” that Bush said he relied on his inherent power as president to authorize the wiretaps.

Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin said Saturday: “There’s not a single senator or member of Congress who thought we were authorizing wiretaps.”

Well, Congress should pass a clear law forbidding it, then.

[quote]

“If he needs a wiretap, the authority is already there – the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act,” Feingold said. “They can ask for a warrant to do that and even if there’s an emergency situation they can go for 72 hours as long as they give notice at the end of 72 hours.”
Comment: This is what I’ve been saying!

Yes. And?

“He authorized these wiretaps even though there was no specific law allowing it,” Feingold said. “He’s trying to claim somehow that the authorization for the Afghanistan attack after 9/11 permitted this and that’s just absurd.”

There’s no specific law forbidding it. If Congress wants to make such a law, they can. If someone wishes to challenge the president’s interpretation in court, they can. When those decisions are made, perhaps we’ll have new law.

“There is no doubt that this is inappropriate,” Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, declared Friday. He promised hearings early next year.

Specter, R-Pennsylvania, seemed troubled by Friday’s news and said that the revelation, if true, was “very problemsome, if not devastating” to getting the Patriot Act renewed.

Inappropriate, problemsome, and devastating are not synonyms for “illegal”.

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the group was shocked by the disclosure.

I doubt it. They been saying how evil Bush is for years. They’re probably not shocked at all.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said he had been unsure the night before how he would vote. “Today’s revelation that the government listened in on thousands of phone conversations without getting a warrant is shocking and has greatly influenced my vote,” he said. “Today’s revelation makes it very clear that we have to be very careful – very careful.”

I agree. We have to be careful. That we don’t go from this legal action into any territory that would have us breaking laws.

Stansfield Turner, a retired Navy admiral who headed the Central Intelligence Agency from 1977 to 1981 under President Jimmy Carter, concurred with Schumer, saying, "Presidents have to conform to the law. All of the agencies of the government have to conform to the law."

I agree. As they are doing right now.

Gee, they all sound just like ME.

Except that they’re very carefully NOT saying a law was broken. And you are. but for that, you could be twins. Or quintuplets. Whatever.

[SteveG1]

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.

[treis]

@Bricker

That’s fifteen days per subject monitored, not fifteen days for the entire program.

What kind of a war effort would be over in fifteen days?

What kind of surveillance would be over in fifteen days? The point, as I read it, is to grant the President emergency powers to respond to a war not give him carte blanche to spy during the war.

[E-Sabbath]

Bricker, I believe it is, by default, illegal, in regards to a person’s 4th amendment rights, to employ surveilance without proper authorization through the justice system.

That said, Congress, therefore, must make a law allowing it for it to be legal.

Am I in error? Or can the President pass laws now?

[SteveG1]

@treis

What kind of surveillance would be over in fifteen days? The point, as I read it, is to grant the President emergency powers to respond to a war not give him carte blanche to spy during the war.

That is what I have been TRYING to get across. We are not even at war, except in the “war on terror” which will never end. It will go on forever, just like the war on poverty and the war on drugs. Even during a congresionally declared war, the President does not get carte blanche to spy on American citizens, no matter what excuse he uses.

On the one hand, Bricker says - “nothing in there says he can’t”. I’m, taking the approach - “nothing in there says he can.”

[Binarydrone]

@Bricker

Before we can possibly answer that, it seems to me we must agree on a mutually acceptable theory of morality.

I say sex outside of marraige is immoral. You disagree. For the most part, the country sides with you.

Now you ask me, in essence, to forget the law… is sex outside of marriage intrinsically moral or immoral?

How can we answer that?

This is the thing, though. I am not looking for a mutually agreed upon definition of morality. I understand that we are coming from some fundamentally different places there.

What I am asking here is that we take the discussion here to a level above or beyond the Law. In that I view the Law as an inadequate compromise that we have all, more or less, agreed on for the Good, I believe that it is productive for us to talk about our differences in how we see the Good to reach a more perfect compromise.

So this is what I am after: I am asking you to explain, using your moral compass, how the level of force that the State can currently exert on me (again, a productive and law abiding member of society) more or less at whim is moral. I would also be interested to know what your “too much” point is.

[tomndebb]

@Bricker

Congress’s resolution authorized the President to:

…use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to— (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.

That constitutes war, within the ordinary meaning of the word.

That’s my authority. Public Law 107-243.

Hey! I think Bricker has found grounds for impeachment.

Since Iraq never posed anything remotely resembling a threat to the United States, then Bush used the powers granted to him outside the conditions under which they were granted. (Note that the “he determines” modifies “use…to be necessary” not “in order to.” The defense was supposed to have been against an objectively real threat–not one that never existed except as an illusion that Bush created for political purposes.)

Illegal war!

(Sorry for the hijack.)

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

I contend that Congress’ authorization to the President meets the conditions of “declared war” as that term is used in 50 USC § 1809.

If you have some authority for the proposition that it does not, I’d like to hear it.

Of course. Its own fucking text. Your assertion that it declared war is a lie, one which you should have known wouldn’t fly here before you tried it.

@E-Sabbath

Bricker, I believe it is, by default, illegal, in regards to a person’s 4th amendment rights, to employ surveilance without proper authorization through the justice system.

Summary showing it isn’t “by default” but by law.

Or can the President pass laws now?

But 9/11 changed everything!

[SteveG1]

@Bricker

I contend that Congress’ authorization to the President meets the conditions of “declared war” as that term is used in 50 USC § 1809.

If you have some authority for the proposition that it does not, I’d like to hear it.

Which law are you gonna invoke next, or will you hop from one to the next as suits you?

@ElvisL1ves

Of course. Its own fucking text. Your assertion that it declared war is a lie, one which you should have known wouldn’t fly here before you tried it.

Damn right. Thought we wouldn’t check I guess.

@E-Sabbath

Bricker, I believe it is, by default, illegal, in regards to a person’s 4th amendment rights, to employ surveilance without proper authorization through the justice system.

Damn right.

@E-Sabbath

Am I in error? Or can the President pass laws now?

Hell no.
Wait a minute here. I’ve been bouncing from NSA to FISA to the Wiretap laws, to 1802 to 1809 to 1811 and back again. Are you trying to jerk me off and bullshit me Bricker? Which fucking law are you sending me on a chase for next? NSA is not allowed to spy on US citizens, and fuck all what Bush says. Constitutional rights to privacy, due process, and duly served warrants are still in full effect, and fuck what Bush says.

The fucking President can not make a law. Neither can his Attorney General, Perfesser Yoo, or anyone else. Only Congress can.

Why don’t we stop the bullshit. Bush is breaking THE LAW. Any law that violates or defies the Constitution is unconstitutional, and I don’t give a flying fuck what Bush or his flunkies say. You know the law, go read the Constitution.

*Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. *
Amendment I says among other things, we can read whateve the fuck we want, even if Bush doesn’t like it. We can also say whatver the fuck we like. Fuck Bush. There. I said it. Now go call the secret police.

*Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. *
Probable cause. Warrants. Unreasonable search and seizure. Got it wise guy? Any law that violates this is unconstitutional. I don’t give a good god damn what Bush says about his wartime god-mode powers.
*
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. *
Speedy and public trial. Gee, I guess secret tribunals, indefinite detainment, GITMO, that whole Padilla “thing” are unconstitutional. Holy shit. People are entitled to a trial and to legal representation against known charges.

*Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. *
We do not torture. Bwah ha ha ha ha. Yeah right.

It looks like Bush broke the hell out of some laws that take serious prededence over the FISA and wiretap laws (which I say he broke anyway)

And one last time, don’t tell me what the NSA/ASA /anyotherSA does, I was IN it for 4 years. I trained in Fort Devens Massachusetts, along with all the other ASA’ers. I know what they do and what they don’t do. We all followed the same rules and laws. THE LAW ABOVE ALL OTHERS was DON’T FUCK WITH US CITIZENS.

Go ahead and invoke the Yoo Memo. Go ahead.

[Sailboat]

@duffer

So the government listens in on calls? Guess what? So do some of your neighbors.

Yes, they do. You can go to Radio Shack and get a trunking scanner that will pick up virtually any conversation from a cordless phone. It’s legal and available to anyone.

@betenoir

How many debates have we had here where someone talks about something being a first admendment violation and someone else making the pertinent point that only if the government does it is a first admendment violation. Because we hold the government to particular standards we don’t necessarilly hold private citizens to. Why? Because the government has the power. C’mon, you don’t really need this explained to you do you?

Yes. As new as I am to the Straight Dope, even I know that it’s clearly established here that we’re all aware that the government is forbidden to do things that private citizens are NOT forbidden to do.

I mean, hell, you can’t read even an high school text on the Articles of Confedration or the workings of the Constitutional convention and then, with a straight face, make the argument Duffer makes here.

My apologies for singling you out, sir. I am simply disappointed to see that kind of tactic permitted by the moderators.

Sailboat

[John_Mace]

@Bricker

That’s what the White House is contending. “War” has a meaning. “A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations; a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism; a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end.” Cite.

Congress’s resolution authorized the President to:

That constitutes war, within the ordinary meaning of the word.

That’s my authority. Public Law 107-243.

Now what’s yours?

The date of that resolution was Oct '02. The wiretaps started before that date.

[tim314]

Bricker, if I understand you right you’re saying that in your opinion there’s nothing (A) illegal or (B) immoral about these wiretaps. But even if that’s so . . . don’t you think it’s a very bad precedent to have the President authorizing a violation of civil liberties that many in Congress considered to already be illegal, and then attempt to keep it secret so that no one could object? I mean, who’s to say there wouldn’t already be a law specifically prohibiting this if the members of Congress had any idea that the President considered it to be within his authority?

Basically, the position of the Bush administration seems to be “We can infringe on civil liberties however we want, provided (A) we think it’s necessary to fight terror, and (B) we don’t believe it violates any laws, and neither the Congress (who might wish to make it illegal) nor the courts (which might find that it already is illegal) need to know about it.” You don’t see a pretty serious problem here?

[Kolak_of_Twilo]

@John Mace

The date of that resolution was Oct '02. The wiretaps started before that date.

OOPS!!

[SteveG1]

@Kolak of Twilo

OOPS!!

Oopsie! Oh well, someone will be allong eventually to re-write history, I’m sure.

[John_Mace]

@Kolak of Twilo

OOPS!!

Not really.

If Bush’s argument is that when Congress authorizes him to use force, that put us in a state of war, then he can fall back on Public Law No: 107-40, which was passed shortly after 9/11/01.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@John Mace

Not really.

If Bush’s argument is that when Congress authorizes him to use force, that put us in a state of war, then he can fall back on Public Law No: 107-40, which was passed shortly after 9/11/01.

Of course, that would be a completely horseshit argument. Congress’ authorization did no such thing.