Is this enough for impeachment?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
diamond said:
In the wake of 9-11 and War On Terror most Americans will give GW a pass and consider him and his actions honorable based the circumstances he was thrust into.

Shrill, negative, naysayers will only be exposed for who they are, and what their agendas include.

The majority of the country figuatively rolls their eyes, acknowledges who is complaining, and the work presses forward.

Peace,
db9

You can't be serious. Give him a pass? If this is true he broke the fucking law. You don't give the leader of the country a pass. If we allow the president of the country to break the law then we compromise democracy. You know that thing we're trying to spread? You can't spread democracy if your own is compromised.

Please get a clue.
 
Why don't we just sign up for a dictatorship while we're at it...everything Dubya says and does must be just purely good, right?

Screw checks and balances, the law, the constitution, congress. Damn the democrats for trying to keep our leader in line...they're such a hindrance and ought to burn in hell.

:|
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


You can't be serious. Give him a pass? If this is true he broke the fucking law. You don't give the leader of the country a pass. If we allow the president of the country to break the law then we compromise democracy. You know that thing we're trying to spread? You can't spread democracy if your own is compromised.

Please get a clue.

condescending posts laced with profanity will not win many people over, and will actually add to one's demise.

db9
 
diamond said:
In the wake of 9-11 and War On Terror most Americans will give GW a pass and consider him and his actions honorable based the circumstances he was thrust into.

So we should throw out everything this country supposedly stands for because of 9/11 and the "war on terror"? I'd say the terrorists really win if we do that. They don't even have to win, we defeat ourselves.

People are treading on dangerous territory when they use September 11th to bend and maybe even break the law and ethical standards. And when they prey on peoples' fears in order to gain support for dubious actions.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:


So we should throw out everything this country supposedly stands for because of 9/11 and the "war on terror"? I'd say the terrorists really win if we do that. They don't even have to win, we defeat ourselves.

People are treading on dangerous territory when they use September 11th to bend and maybe even break the law and ethical standards. And when they prey on peoples' fears in order to gain support for dubious actions.

Everything hasn't been "thrown out" Gina.
That is a bit 'dubious' on your part to even suggest that.;)

db9
 
diamond said:


condescending posts laced with profanity will not win many people over, and will actually add to one's demise.

db9

I'm not trying to win you over. You've made yourself very clear that you don't care if he lies, cheats or steals. That is not democracy, plain and simple.

And if upholding the integrity of democracy will lead to one's demise, than consider me gone.
 
DICK MORRIS: SPY STORY COULD BITE DEMS

December 21, 2005 -- Whom did the Valerie Plame leak hurt? Valerie, who went from undercover to on the cover when she posed for Vanity Fair? Joe Wilson, who got a best-selling book out of the deal?

The current leak, however, of classified material relating to National Security Agency tactics in intercepting conversations between people abroad and those within the United States is a vastly serious proposition that may have materially compromised investigations in progress and tipped terrorists off to our methods so that they can hide among us undetected.

This leak, far more than the Valerie Plame incident, deserves a full investigation to identify who spilled the beans and to whom and how. The consequences of this leak alone merit an independent investigation and, perhaps, a trial for treason.

Why does Bush need to use taps without warrants in the fight on terror? The answer is obvious: We often don't know who or what we are looking for.

Our analysts' best hope of catching and exposing terror plots against us lies in combing the airwaves, listening for suspicious words and phrases or patterns. Unlike criminal investigations, which are deductive -- predicated on a single suspect or a number of alternative suspects -- terror investigators want to find out what is going on and only an inductive approach -- amassing lots of material and searching for patterns -- has any chance of success.

For example, in 2002 the federal government tipped off the New York City Police Department that there was a lot of chatter about the Brooklyn Bridge. The resulting police tactics stopped the attack and eventually led to the apprehension of the would-be bomber.

What warrant could the anti-terror investigators have gotten to allow such a search? They had no name, no phone numbers, no idea of what to look for. But a careful analysis of the data averted a massive tragedy.

Politically, the left is making a big mistake in focusing on the issue. Bush is well-served by bringing the terrorism debate home. Isolationists -- about 40 percent of the nation, divided between the two parties -- will not back him on a war in Iraq but sure will support him against attempts to handcuff homeland security in the name of privacy or civil liberties. By raising this issue -- and the concomitant issue of the Patriot Act renewal -- the Democrats are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Iraq is a winner for the left. Homeland security is a loser.
 
Dreadsox said:


You really should be carefully quoting Drudge "BLURBS".

Maybe take the time to read the actual documents...

Oh wait...Scarletwine did!

THis is SPIN....Verses REALITY.

PHYSICAL searches and Wiretapping of FOREIGN citizens is not the same issue.

I think we are looking at the slippery slope. Past Presidents have exercised powers that would appear to go beyond limits established by law. If we go back far enough, I'm sure we'd see a pattern and practice of this. I'm not sure the new elements added in this case poses such a significant difference that we change from a "Presidential power" to "not a Presidential power".

Perhaps that element should be examined in greater detail.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
DICK MORRIS: SPY STORY COULD BITE DEMS

December 21, 2005 -- Whom did the Valerie Plame leak hurt? Valerie, who went from undercover to on the cover when she posed for Vanity Fair? Joe Wilson, who got a best-selling book out of the deal?

The current leak, however, of classified material relating to National Security Agency tactics in intercepting conversations between people abroad and those within the United States is a vastly serious proposition that may have materially compromised investigations in progress and tipped terrorists off to our methods so that they can hide among us undetected.

This leak, far more than the Valerie Plame incident, deserves a full investigation to identify who spilled the beans and to whom and how. The consequences of this leak alone merit an independent investigation and, perhaps, a trial for treason.

Why does Bush need to use taps without warrants in the fight on terror? The answer is obvious: We often don't know who or what we are looking for.

Our analysts' best hope of catching and exposing terror plots against us lies in combing the airwaves, listening for suspicious words and phrases or patterns. Unlike criminal investigations, which are deductive -- predicated on a single suspect or a number of alternative suspects -- terror investigators want to find out what is going on and only an inductive approach -- amassing lots of material and searching for patterns -- has any chance of success.

For example, in 2002 the federal government tipped off the New York City Police Department that there was a lot of chatter about the Brooklyn Bridge. The resulting police tactics stopped the attack and eventually led to the apprehension of the would-be bomber.

What warrant could the anti-terror investigators have gotten to allow such a search? They had no name, no phone numbers, no idea of what to look for. But a careful analysis of the data averted a massive tragedy.

Politically, the left is making a big mistake in focusing on the issue. Bush is well-served by bringing the terrorism debate home. Isolationists -- about 40 percent of the nation, divided between the two parties -- will not back him on a war in Iraq but sure will support him against attempts to handcuff homeland security in the name of privacy or civil liberties. By raising this issue -- and the concomitant issue of the Patriot Act renewal -- the Democrats are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Iraq is a winner for the left. Homeland security is a loser.

Although Dick Morris is seemed as creepy he has a good point here, the same point I've been trying to make.
 
nbcrusader said:


I think we are looking at the slippery slope. Past Presidents have exercised powers that would appear to go beyond limits established by law. If we go back far enough, I'm sure we'd see a pattern and practice of this. I'm not sure the new elements added in this case poses such a significant difference that we change from a "Presidential power" to "not a Presidential power".

Perhaps that element should be examined in greater detail.

Dick Cheney agrees with you, but he has been flat out wrong so many times lately

Cheney Defends Domestic Spying

He says Bush's decision to sidestep the courts and allow surveillance was an organized effort to regain presidential powers lost in the 1970s.

By Maura Reynolds
Times Staff Writer

December 21, 2005

WASHINGTON — President Bush's decision to bypass court review and authorize domestic wiretapping by executive order was part of a concerted effort to rebuild presidential powers weakened in the 1970s as a result of the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War, Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday.

Returning from a trip to the Middle East, Cheney said that threats facing the country required that the president's authority under the Constitution be "unimpaired."

"Watergate and a lot of the things around Watergate and Vietnam, both during the 1970s, served, I think, to erode the authority I think the president needs to be effective, especially in the national security area," Cheney told reporters traveling with him on Air Force Two. "Especially in the day and age we live in … the president of the United States needs to have his constitutional powers unimpaired, if you will, in terms of the conduct of national security policy."

Cheney's remarks were recorded by reporters traveling with him and disseminated by the White House under an official pool arrangement.
New rounds of criticism followed reports Tuesday of comments Bush made last year in which he seemed to assure his audience that the government conducted wiretaps only with court approval.

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretaps, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order," the president said in a speech in Buffalo, N.Y. on April 20, 2004, in which he discussed enactment of the Patriot Act.

"Nothing has changed, by the way," Bush continued in the speech. "When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said it was "time for the president to tell the truth."

"Why is it that President Bush went in front of the American people and said that a wiretap 'requires a court order' after having approved a wiretap program without a court order two years earlier?"
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-spy21dec21,1,7927927,print.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
 
nbcrusader said:


I think we are looking at the slippery slope. Past Presidents have exercised powers that would appear to go beyond limits established by law. If we go back far enough, I'm sure we'd see a pattern and practice of this. I'm not sure the new elements added in this case poses such a significant difference that we change from a "Presidential power" to "not a Presidential power".

Perhaps that element should be examined in greater detail.

I agree it needs examination.

In reading about the things on Clinton it says "PHYSICAL" search.

In reading about Carter it is clear that American citizens were not allowed to be the target.

At what point to the checks and balances count.

I am not willing to allow the law to be broken on the President's wim. I do not trust one branch of the government to make certain my rights are not being broken.

I have argued in here for the Patriot Act. A legal means that this President said was necessary to fight terrorism. There were provisions and oversites established by this law.

They say he did not violate the Patriot Act because he was operating under another law.

Well, then WHY did you need the Patriot Act if you are going to circumvent it.

It does not add up. I do not buy it. It is wrong.

The smoke cloud thrown out there over this is amazing. I have heard pundits say he is operating under the War Powers. There has been no War declared.

I have seen Carter did it.....apparently not true.

I have seen Clinton did it.....apparently not true.

There needs to be an investigation. I SERIOUSLY wonder what intercepts there have been.

Last night I heard Greenpeace, PETA.,,,,

What if MOVE ON was tapped.

As fucking disgusting I find MoveON, I would be more disgusted if it turns out that they were tapped as well.

This is not going to go away without an investigation.

Peace
 
Can someone please point out the exact line in the Patriot Act/FISA law whatever that gives the President the right to wiretap without a warrent? They say it's in the Patriot Act but no one has come out and said "Yes here's the line that gives the president such power." Does that not say something?
 
Good points Dread!

There are some people who are wondering about why didn't they simply go back and get the permission after the taps were in place, they can do that. Some people say it's because they didn't want the courts to have an official record of who were the targets of the wiretaps.

Did you like my Fox News format there?:wink:
 
if you see something, GAY something ...



[q]Pentagon spied on gay student groups, report says
Gay kiss-in labeled 'credible threat'
By ANDREW KEEGAN | Dec 20, 5:38 PM

Pentagon officials have spied on student groups opposed to the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban on openly gay military personnel, according to media reports.

A February protest at New York University was one of the events under government surveillance, NBC News reported last week.

The network reported that the law school’s gay advocacy group, OUTlaw, was classified as "potentially violent" by the Pentagon.

"I was shocked to read that OUTLaw was classified as a threat and investigated," OUTlaw Co-chair Rebecca Fisher said in a telephone interview on Monday. "Since we still don't know how the Pentagon went about investigating us, I'm wondering how far they went in invading our personal privacy to make their determination. Did they read our e-mail? Monitor our meetings?”

Ellen Kranke, a Department of Defense spokesperson who handles issues regarding sexual orientation at the Pentagon, could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Fisher said the Bush administration continues to display an attitude that is anything but democratic.

"For all its talk about democracy and free speech, this administration seems to feel very threatened by our peaceful exercise of our First Amendment rights," Fisher said. "This does not reflect the values of our Constitution. It's what you'd expect to see in a totalitarian police state, not in a country founded on freedom of conscience."

NBC also reported that a "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" protest at University of California Santa Cruz, which included a gay kiss-in, was labeled as a "credible threat" of terrorism by the Pentagon.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a group dedicated to helping military members affected by the "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy, condemned the Pentagon surveillance and monitoring.

"The Pentagon is supposed to defend the Constitution, not turn it upside down," Dixon Osburn, SLDN executive director, said in a statement released Dec. 20. "Students have a first amendment right to protest and Americans have a right to expect that their government will respect our constitutional right to privacy."

SLDN said it plans to submit a Freedom of Information Act request to learn if other gay organizations have also been monitored by the government.

"To suggest that a gay kiss-in is a 'credible threat' is absurd, homophobic and irrational," Osburn said. "To suggest the Constitution does not apply to groups with views differing with Pentagon policy is chilling."

http://www.newyorkblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=4146

[/q]



it's so hard not to giggle uncontrolably.
 
It's like the worst aspects of the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations wrapped in one. Lucky us!

Melon
 
U2democrat said:
Can someone please point out the exact line in the Patriot Act/FISA law whatever that gives the President the right to wiretap without a warrent? They say it's in the Patriot Act but no one has come out and said "Yes here's the line that gives the president such power." Does that not say something?

FISA is different from the Patriot Act.....

Go to the FISA thread...maybe that will help disseminate the Patriot Act and its effects on FISA.
 
VertigoGal said:
irvine, was that one of the NSA surveillance instances without a warrant? I can't imagine what court would find that to be a possible threat to national security. :ohmy: :coocoo:

Is Greenpeace?
 
Here is a SCATHING article....with MANY CONSERVATIVES up in arms.

Bob Barr....of the Clinton Impeachment is livid after seeing him on CNN tonight...

The FISHA Court asked for a certified letter from the Administration in 2004 to declare that they were not doing wiretaps without warrents.

[Q]POLITICS-US:
Congress to Probe Domestic Spying
William Fisher

NEW YORK, Dec 21 (IPS) - As those loyal to Pres. George W. Bush circle the wagons to aggressively defend his programme of conducting surveillance of phone calls and emails of U.S. citizens, a judge on the court set up to review requests for such actions has resigned, apparently in protest.

At the same time, a prominent Republican senator promised to hold public hearings, the House of Representatives Democratic leader and the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Intelligence Committee said they had objected to the programme, and a California Democratic Senator said a number of legal authorities had told her that the president's actions rose to the level of impeachable offences.

The Californian, Sen. Barbara Boxer, was the first to use the "I" word (impeachment) in the political firestorm started by revelations in the New York Times earlier this week that, following the 9/11 attacks on the U.S., Pres. Bush authorised the highly secretive National Security Agency (NSA) to intercept phone calls and emails without warrants between U.S. citizens and what the administration said were foreigners with known ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations.

The administration said today that some internal U.S. communications might also have been intercepted by mistake.

The president, in a press conference on Monday following The Times' disclosures, defended the legality of the programme, saying that he had to move too quickly to go to court for warrants and that he had both Constitutional and statutory authority to use warrantless wiretaps to protect U.S. citizens.

Bush based his position on his inherent powers as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, his Constitutional obligation to protect the U.S. people, and the post-9/11 Congressional resolution that authorised him to wage war.

The president's position drew strong endorsements from Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales, who was the chief White House lawyer at the time the programme was started, Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Advisor Richard Hadley, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, who was National Security Advisor at the time, and numerous other administration and congressional officials.

However, the president's critics and a number of legal authorities disagreed. They pointed out that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. They also noted that the law establishing the court authorised to issue such warrants would have been able to act quickly on any request from the administration, adding that the law also permitted the president to act first and seek court authority after the fact.

The court being referred to is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, established in the post-Watergate era of the 1970s, as part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The highly secret 11-member Court is located in the Department of Justice (DOD) and its members are federal judges appointed by the chief justice of the U.S. The USA Patriot Act designates the FISA court as the only judicial body authorised to issue surveillance orders in terror-related investigations. Of the 5,000-odd requests it has received from the Justice Department, it is believed to have denied only a handful.

The controversy over the president's actions reportedly triggered the resignation of FISA judge James Robertson. Judge Robertson, a U.S. District Judge, notified Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. of his decision late Monday without providing an explanation.

But the Washington Post newspaper reported today that two associates familiar with his decision said Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorised by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.

The FISA court's presiding judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who had been briefed on the spying programme by the administration, raised the same concern in 2004 and insisted that the Justice Department certify in writing that it was not occurring.

Robertson's resignation came as two Senate Republicans -- Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine -- called for congressional investigations. They questioned whether the programme was carried out within the law and the extent to which the White House kept Congress informed.

Hagel and Snowe joined Democrats Dianne Feinstein of California, Carl M. Levin of Michigan and Ron Wyden of Oregon in calling for a joint investigation by the Senate judiciary and intelligence panels into the classified programme.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, promised hearings in the new year.

But not all Republicans agreed with the need for hearings and backed White House assertions that the programme is a vital tool in the war against al Qaeda.

"I am personally comfortable with everything I know about it," said Acting House Majority Leader Roy Blunt of Missouri. .

While Pres. Bush said at his Monday press conference that the White House had briefed Congress more than a dozen times, briefings were conducted for only a handful of lawmakers who were sworn to secrecy and prevented from discussing the matter with anyone or from seeking outside legal opinions.

John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, said on Monday that he had written to Vice Pres. Cheney the day he was first briefed on the programme in July 2003, raising serious concerns about the surveillance effort.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said she also expressed concerns in a letter to Cheney. She did not make the letter public.

Rockefeller said the secrecy of the briefings left him with no other choice. "I made my concerns known to the vice president and to others who were briefed," Rockefeller said. "The White House never addressed my concerns."

The Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, criticised Rockefeller for making his letter public.

Scepticism about Rockefeller's letter was echoed by Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who suggested that Rockefeller should have done more if he was seriously concerned. "If I thought someone was breaking the law, I don't care if it was classified or unclassified, I would stand up and say 'the law's being broken here.' "

During his 2000 campaign for the presidency, candidate Bush gave assurances that no surveillance of U.S. citizens would be conducted unless warrants had been obtained.

The NSA contretemps came just days after revelations that FBI counterterrorism investigators are monitoring domestic U.S. advocacy groups engaged in antiwar, environmental, civil rights and other causes, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) charged as it released new FBI records.

"Our government is spying on Americans -- unapologetically, unnecessarily and with no regard for the Constitution," the group said, urging its members to "Hold the Bush administration accountable for secretly authorising the eavesdropping of Americans and others in the U.S., continue our nationwide efforts to expose and end unwarranted political spying and the criminalising of dissent by the FBI, and oppose Patriot Act abuses of freedom in the courts, in Congress, and in the court of public opinion."

The ACLU documents, disclosed as part of a lawsuit that challenges FBI treatment of groups that planned demonstrations at last year's political conventions, show the bureau has opened a preliminary terrorism investigation into People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), a well-known animal rights group.

The FBI has also been charged with carrying out "anti-terrorist" investigations against peaceful anti-war, environmental and other dissident groups.

In an email to IPS, Bob Barr, a former conservative Republican congressman from Georgia, quoted Gen. Michael Hayden, then the head of the NSA and now the deputy director of national intelligence, telling a congressional hearing regarding wiretap targets in 2000, "If that American person is in the United States of America, I must have a court order before I initiate any collection against him or her."

Barr added, "If the president doesn't like the law, the solution should be to amend, not violate it." (END/2005) [/Q]

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31530
 
Right

The latest explanation is that it's too much paperwork to go to the court after the fact.

1st - it legal
2nd - we told congress
3rd - the war authorized it
4th - we're lazy and we don't need to ask nohow

part from = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121900211.html

Bush's NSA director Michael Hayden: We didn't seek retroactive warrants because it involved "paperwork"
by John in DC - 12/21/2005 08:54:00 AM


I'm not kidding. This is the reason given by this two-bit un-American generalissimo who deserves to be fired and thrown in jail for life:
Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who was NSA director when the surveillance began and now serves as Bush's deputy director of national intelligence, said the secret- court process was intended for long-term surveillance of agents of an enemy power, not the current hunt for elusive terrorist cells.

"The whole key here is agility," he said at a White House briefing before Bush's news conference. According to Hayden, most warrantless surveillance conducted under Bush's authorization lasts just days or weeks, and requires only the approval of a shift supervisor. Hayden said getting retroactive court approval is inefficient because it "involves marshaling arguments" and "looping paperwork around."
Oh, well a big fat general thinks the current law is "inefficient" because it would require him to write down a few things and actually explain why he wants to invade the privacy of innocent Americans in violation of the law. Gosh, life must be really tough for General Hayden now that he no longer has Soviet dictators to emulate.

Then there's this little bit of illogic from Gonzales, who also needs to spend a few years standing on a box with a block hood on his head:
"This is not a backdoor approach," Gonzales said at the White House. "We believe Congress has authorized this kind of surveillance." He acknowledged that the administration discussed introducing legislation explicitly permitting such domestic spying but decided against it because it "would be difficult, if not impossible" to pass.
Did you get that? Gonzales claims Bush believed that Congress authorized the domestic spying. Then Gonzales says Bush didn't want to ask Congress directly to authorize the spying because he thought Congress would never approve of it. That means Gonzales and Bush knew that Congress opposed legislation permitting domestic spying without a warrant, so they also obviously knew Congress never intended to include such an authorization in the Patriot Act or elsewhere.

So basically, our Attorney General is now lying to us about why he massively violated the civil liberties of American citizens.
 
So now NOT revealing highly classified info constitutes full consent on the part of the members of Congress who were informed? Haven't they basically called whoever leaked this a traitor? It seems like many of the congressmen who knew about this had serious misgivings about it, but apparently thought bringing it up may actually compromise security.
 
VertigoGal said:
So now NOT revealing highly classified info constitutes full consent on the part of the members of Congress who were informed? Haven't they basically called whoever leaked this a traitor? It seems like many of the congressmen who knew about this had serious misgivings about it, but apparently thought bringing it up may actually compromise security.

And the administration would love for us to think that Congress is in charge of the oversight of this....

they are not...

FISA is....

So telling Congress means JACK SHITE>
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom