Is this enough for impeachment?

[U2democrat]

It's a catch phrase, just like the "war on drugs" or the "war on AIDS."

Melon

Ah I was just about to say that.

Great minds

 

[VertigoGal]

War on Terror does kind of have the orwellian ring to it...seeing as War itself usually strikes terror in people.

^but U2dem, I beat both of you to it!

 

[BVS]

War On Terror.

Just because someone at Fox came up with a nice catch phrase doesn't make it a real declaration of war.

Star Wars wasn't real either...

 

[Dreadsox]

War On Terror.

War on Terror is not a recognized War constitutionally.

By this logic...the President....because of the "War on Drugs" would be able to wiretap.

 

[U2democrat]

Isn't there a War on Obesity or something like that too?

 

[BVS]

Isn't there a War on Obesity or something like that too?

Another one America is losing we're 0 for 3.

 

[diamond]

War on Terror is not a recognized War constitutionally.

By this logic...the President....because of the "War on Drugs" would be able to wiretap.

equals-

you lost me and most Americans on that one.

 

[A_Wanderer]

It is an ill defined name for a foreign policy and national security agenda entailing the destruction of Radical Islam by means of democratic peace theory, overhauled and centralised intelligence, law enforcement apparatus and limited use of military force.

 

[Calluna]

I think it's great how even practically illiterate people like diamond can still communicate on internet forums by using photographs and cutting and pasting. Good for them for finding a clever way to get around their disabilities!

 

[melon]

you lost me and most Americans on that one.

There's a lot of things Americans are lost on. Maybe they need to brush up on their civics lessons, so they can understand the roles of the judiciary, legislature, and executive branch better. It would certainly do this country a hell of a lot of good.

Melon

 

[cydewaze]

Just because someone at Fox came up with a nice catch phrase doesn't make it a real declaration of war.

Yeah but having a war on a concept like that is pretty ingeneous, because you can never really tell if you've won, so you have a pretense to basically be at war as long as you'd like - perhaps forever.

In a war against another country, you win when the other country surrenders (or I guess when all the people are dead) but in a war against "terror" you never know if there might be someone, somewhere out there who is thinking terrorist thoughts, so you have an excuse to keep spending money and recruiting soldiers and blowing things up so you can pay your friends to rebuild them, etc.

It's a great way to funnel tax dollars to you and your friends, and you even get to call people who have a problem with it "unpatriotic".

 

[Justin24]

Well Bush wasn't the only one who spyed on us "illegally." Jimmy Carter and Clinton did also.

http://drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

 

[Scarletwine]

So true.

In response to Drudge's usual half-assed posts.

Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans »
The top of the Drudge Report claims “CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER…” It’s not true. Here’s the breakdown –

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter. expand post »

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”

What Carter’s executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved. « collapse post

 

[BVS]

you lost me and most Americans on that one.

Sad thing is he's probably right, most Americans probably don't know. Hell they think Saddam was behind 9/11.

This statement is exactly what's wrong with the majority of the voting populace and why Bush got elected.

 

[Sherry Darling]

Diamond--he did not lose "most American", thanks. Plenty of us understood what he meant.

Update: I have officially called my rep and senators. I said it was my expectation as their constituent that they exercise oversight and investigate. I will follow up after the New Year. Please EVERYone who is concerned about this, please call today!

 

[Scarletwine]

Here's a couple of conservative scholars weihging in.

Conservative scholars Bruce Fein and Norm Ornstein argued yesterday on The Diane Rehm show that, should Bush remain defiant in defending his constitutionally-abusive wire-tapping of Americans (as he has indicated he will), Congress should consider impeaching him.

QUESTION: Is spying on the American people as impeachable an offense as lying about having sex with an intern?

BRUCE FEIN, constitutional scholar and former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration: I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want – I don’t need to consult any other branches – that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that … would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.

NORM ORNSTEIN, AEI scholar: I think if we’re going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed.

Bruce Fein, former Associate Deputy Attorney General under President Reagan: Bush is claiming “more power than King George III had at the time of the revolution, in asserting the theory that anything the president thinks is helpful to fighting the war against terrorism he can do.

*edit*

 

[U2democrat]

Spy Court Judge Quits In Protest

Jurist Concerned Bush Order Tainted Work of Secret Panel

By Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 21, 2005; Page A01

A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.

Link to full article

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

The world we live in demands many things Mr. Vice President, that doesn't necessarily justify them.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/20/D8EK9JP81.html


WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday called for "strong and robust" presidential powers, saying executive authority was eroded during the Watergate and Vietnam eras.

"I believe in a strong, robust executive authority and I think that the world we live in demands it," Cheney said.

"I would argue that the actions that we've taken there are totally appropriate and consistent with the constitutional authority of the president. ... You know, it's not an accident that we haven't been hit in four years," the vice president said, speaking with reporters on Air Force Two en route from Pakistan to Oman.

.... Cheney told reporters that in his view, presidential authority has been weakened since the 1970s through laws such as the War Powers Act, which Cheney says infringes on presidential authority

He said the White House has helped protect presidential power by fighting to keep secret the list of people who were a part of his 2001 energy task force. The task force's activities attracted complaints from environmentalists, who said they were shut out of discussions on developing a national energy policy while corporate interests were present.

"That issue was litigated all the way up to the Supreme Court and we won," Cheney said

 

[U2democrat]

What the hell happened to Republicans fearing a strong central government?

Are we seeing a shift in traditional party stands or do the Bushies have their heads so far up their asses they can't think straight?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

do the Bushies have their heads so far up their asses they can't think straight?

Yes

 

[U2democrat]

We can't let this story go away. In all likelihood something big will come along, some sensational story that the media will go nuts over, but we can not let this story be put on the back burner. Write letters to the editor, e-mail the major cable news networks, etc. This can not die if we want legitimate action taken.

 

[diamond]

another wet dream of the left fizzles into obscurity.

db9

 

[diamond]

I think it's great how even practically illiterate people like diamond can still communicate on internet forums by using photographs and cutting and pasting. Good for them for finding a clever way to get around their disabilities!

comments like these show a poster's own insecurities.

 

[Scarletwine]

another wet dream of the left fizzles into obscurity.

db9

That's not going to happen this time. From the wingnuts favorite paper

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/bfein.htm

. . . unlimited?
By Bruce Fein
December 20, 2005


According to President George W. Bush, being president in wartime means never having to concede co-equal branches of government have a role when it comes to hidden encroachments on civil liberties.
Last Saturday, he thus aggressively defended the constitutionality of his secret order to the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on the international communications of Americans whom the executive branch speculates might be tied to terrorists. Authorized after the September 11, 2001 abominations, the eavesdropping clashes with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), excludes judicial or legislative oversight, and circumvented public accountability for four years until disclosed by the New York Times last Friday. Mr. Bush's defense generally echoed previous outlandish assertions that the commander in chief enjoys inherent constitutional power to ignore customary congressional, judicial or public checks on executive tyranny under the banner of defeating international terrorism, for example, defying treaty or statutory prohibitions on torture or indefinitely detaining United States citizens as illegal combatants on the president's say-so.
President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law. He cannot be trusted to conduct the war against global terrorism with a decent respect for civil liberties and checks against executive abuses. Congress should swiftly enact a code that would require Mr. Bush to obtain legislative consent for every counterterrorism measure that would materially impair individual freedoms.
The war against global terrorism is serious business. The enemy has placed every American at risk, a tactic that justifies altering the customary balance between liberty and security. But like all other constitutional authorities, the war powers of the president are a matter of degree. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer (1952), the U.S. Supreme Court denied President Harry Truman's claim of inherent constitutional power to seize a steel mill threatened with a strike to avert a steel shortage that might have impaired the war effort in Korea. A strike occurred, but Truman's fear proved unfounded.
Neither President Richard Nixon nor Gerald Ford was empowered to suspend Congress for failing to appropriate funds they requested to fight in Cambodia or South Vietnam. And the Supreme Court rejected Nixon's claim of inherent power to enjoin publication of the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War in New York Times v. United States (1971).
Mr. Bush insisted in his radio address that the NSA targets only citizens "with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist organizations."
But there are no checks on NSA errors or abuses, the hallmark of a rule of law as opposed to a rule of men. Truth and accuracy are the first casualties of war. President Bush assured the world Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 invasion. He was wrong. President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared Americans of Japanese ancestry were security threats to justify interning them in concentration camps during World War II. He was wrong. President Lyndon Johnson maintained communists masterminded and funded the massive Vietnam War protests in the United States. He was wrong. To paraphrase President Ronald Reagan's remark to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, President Bush can be trusted in wartime, but only with independent verification.
The NSA eavesdropping is further troublesome because it easily evades judicial review. Targeted citizens are never informed their international communications have been intercepted. Unless a criminal prosecution is forthcoming (which seems unlikely), the citizen has no forum to test the government's claim the interceptions were triggered by known links to a terrorist organization.
Mr. Bush acclaimed the secret surveillance as "crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies." But if that were justified, why was Congress not asked for legislative authorization in light of the legal cloud created by FISA and the legislative branch's sympathies shown in the Patriot Act and joint resolution for war? FISA requires court approval for national security wiretaps, and makes it a crime for a person to intentionally engage "in electronic surveillance under color of law, except as authorized by statute."
Mr. Bush cited the disruptions of "terrorist" cells in New York, Oregon, Virginia, California, Texas and Ohio as evidence of a pronounced domestic threat that compelled unilateral and secret action. But he failed to demonstrate those cells could not have been equally penetrated with customary legislative and judicial checks on executive overreaching.
The president maintained that, "As a result [of the NSA disclosure], 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." But if secrecy were pivotal to the NSA's surveillance, why is the president continuing the eavesdropping? And why is he so carefree about risking the liberties of both the living and those yet to be born by flouting the Constitution's separation of powers and conflating constructive criticism with treason?

Bruce Fein is a constitutional lawyer and international consultant with Bruce Fein & Associates and the Lichfield Group.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

another wet dream of the left fizzles into obscurity.

or another complete delusion of the "right" is shattered, another flaw exposed

 

[U2democrat]

zing!

 

[lemon_pop]

Clinton was not impeached because of a blow job. He was impeached because he lid under oath....aka perjury

 

[Dreadsox]

Well Bush wasn't the only one who spyed on us "illegally." Jimmy Carter and Clinton did also.

http://drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

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.

 

[U2democrat]

Thank you Dread

Drudge is an idiot

 

[diamond]

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