Quote: Originally Posted by AP WASHINGTON - President Bush personally blocked a Justice Department investigation of the anti-terror eavesdropping program that intercepts Americans' international calls and e-mails, administration officials said Tuesday. Bush refused to grant security clearances for department investigators who were looking into the role Justice lawyers played in crafting the program, under which the National Security Agency listens in on telephone calls and reads e-mail without court approval, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee. Without access to the sensitive program, the department's Office of Professional Responsibility closed its investigation in April. "It was highly classified, very important and many other lawyers had access. Why not OPR?" Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the committee chairman, asked Gonzales. "The president of the United States makes the decision," Gonzales replied. Later, at the White House, spokesman Tony Snow said the eavesdropping program is reviewed every 45 days by senior officials, including Gonzales. The president did not consider the Justice unit that functions as a legal ethics watchdog to be the "proper venue," Snow said. "What he was saying is that in the case of a highly classified program, you need to keep the number of people exposed to it tight for reasons of national security, and that's what he did," Snow said. Yet, according to OPR chief Marshall Jarrett, "a large team" of prosecutors and FBI agents were granted security clearances to pursue an investigation into leaks of information that resulted in the program's disclosure in December. Justice Department inspector general Glenn A. Fine and two of his aides were among other department officials who were granted clearances, Jarrett said in an April memo explaining the end of his probe. That memo was released by the Justice Department Tuesday. The existence of the eavesdropping program outraged Democrats, civil libertarians and even some Republicans who said Bush overstepped his authority. A group of 13 prominent legal experts wrote lawmakers last week that the Supreme Court's recent decision striking down military commissions for detainees at the Guantanamo naval base in Cuba "strongly supports the conclusion that the president's NSA surveillance program is illegal." Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., who requested the Justice Department investigation, said he and other lawmakers were preparing a letter to Bush asking him to allow the probe to go forward. "We can't have a president acting in a dictatorial fashion," Hinchey said. Gonzales insisted Tuesday that the president "has the inherent authority under the Constitution to engage in electronic surveillance without a warrant." Still last week, under a deal with Specter, Bush agreed conditionally to a court review of the warrantless eavesdropping operations. Bush's 2001 directive authorized the National Security Agency to monitor — without court warrants — the international communications of people on U.S. soil when terrorism is suspected. The administration initially resisted efforts to write a new law, contending that no legal changes were needed. But after months of pressure, officials have grown more open to legislation. Under the deal with Specter, the president agreed to support a bill that could submit the program to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a constitutional review. Last week, Gonzales said the bill gives Bush the option of submitting the NSA program to the intelligence court, rather than requiring the review. Specter said Tuesday Bush assured him he will seek the court review if the legislation passes without significant amendment. Critics of the legislation have called it a fig leaf that would give congressional blessing to a legally suspect program. "The so-called compromise reached by Senator Specter and the White House does nothing to establish a check over the administration's warrantless surveillance program," said Bruce Fein, a former Justice Department official in the Reagan administration.

We've all been there... done something we knew was wrong, and then tried to cover it up in the hopes that it would go away. Usually it doesn't work, and it looks like here it didn't either, but even more importantly, we have a case of the fox watching the hen house.

W was in charge of the people who would find out that he was doing something wrong.

The thing I really have a problem about this is that there was already a mechanism to allow for secure warrants to be issued... it's called FISA

Now, we have something in place to allow for judicial review of warrants that will not threaten national security... and W decides not to use it?

You got to ask yourself WHY?

If Al Gonzales' assertion that "the president 'has the inherent authority under the Constitution to engage in electronic surveillance without a warrant.'" has any merit, why would FISA have ever been created?

Bottom line is he doesn't. It falls under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution which states:

"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."

So fellow citizens, which would you rather have an impeachment for...

Having a chicken-headed intern in the Oval Office?

or

Willfull violation of the Constitution of the United States of America?

As they used to say in Sesame Street... "One of these things is not like the other... can you tell which one it is?"

LoL...
I find it funny how you would bring up the old "Impeachment" and "Intern" bits to attempt to further a point.... If its valid then its valid but making a political jab as such does nothing for the case at hand IMHO..... Rather it makes the post look like a Political Statement by someone bias to the subject..

This is simply my opinion and you can take it as you will but remember its my 2¢ and I am just tossing it in to the fountain....

Ahh Yes, this further proves the corruption with in. Lets impeach him, But lets not forget, his henchmen will still be in office. There would have to be...a Revolution of some sort. And no, I do not mean Anarchy- Anarchy is Antigovernment, someone has to get the idiots out of office. But thats probably impossible. Idiots exsist where ever you are. We see them on the road, on the web, in space..etc.

I say we vote Clinton Back into office (sarcasim ). And No Not hilary clinton, My opinion is starting to change about her... Not to go off topic, I am all for a women president, But comon, we can do better! How about Oprah!

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between or among "foreign powers".

Bush's 2001 directive authorized the National Security Agency to monitor — without court warrants — the international communications of people on U.S. soil when terrorism is suspected.

See the difference?

And you need to explain this to me:

"A group of 13 prominent legal experts wrote lawmakers last week that the Supreme Court's recent decision striking down military commissions for detainees at the Guantanamo naval base in Cuba "strongly supports the conclusion that the president's NSA surveillance program is illegal." "

I'm no Bush lover, in fact I'm no lover of anything in Washington DC theses days, on either side. If discreet survelliance is not one of the answers in fighting terrorism, what's a better solution? Or is there one?

To answer your (Im_gumby) question, I'd rather not have an impeachment at all. I'd rather have some concrete results.

Wrong question to ask: "Do you think our president is an idiot?"

Right question to ask: "I don't like Bush's security proposal, what alternative can I put on the table that would still protect our nation and our way of life?"

The beauty of our system of government is that we can replace bad ideas/policies with good ones by presenting clear and solid support for the better idea/policy in a scientific spirit like the forefathers of America did centuries ago.

Twizted - I am not biased against any party or person, per se. I am just extremely displeased with this president's flagrant disregard for the constitutional protections which he pledged to uphold.

Joecoin - FISA was ammended by the Patriot Act as follows:

Quote: Originally Posted by Wikipedia The Act was amended by the USA Act (part of the USA PATRIOT Act) of 2001, primarily to include terrorism on behalf of groups that are not specifically backed by a foreign government.

My issue is if there was terrorism suspected, then there should be sufficient probable cause to justify a warrent pursuant to the 4th amendment and related court rulings. As there was already procedures in place (via regular courts as well as FISA court) to obtain a warrant, there can be only one reason for NOT employing them... there was insufficient probable cause to justify said warrant. They knew that, which is why they actively took steps to circumvent current procedures.

As to the Gitmo ruling's relationship to these activities, I can't explain it, as I'm not one of the "13 prominent legal experts." I'm not a lawyer, but I can see the problem with the warrantless wiretapping. Personally, I can see the benefit of detaining the enemy combatants, however, they should be afforded the rights under the Geneva Convention which we are signatories to.

Don't misunderstand me... there ABSOLUTELY needs to be surveillance. The NSA, DIA, CIA, FBI, and others have every reason to exist and do what they can to keep us safe. The problem is that there are, and should be, limits to what they are able to do.

Hibiki - I never asked if W was an idiot. I asked if you think he knew what he was doing was wrong. I believe he knew, as evidenced by his actions to prevent review of the policy. I don't think there needs to be a better alternative developed, as there are already procedures in place to accomplish what he wanted within the limits of the law.

On the assumption that the FISA is not working, wouldn't it then be the Executive Branch's responsibility to PROPOSE a change to the Legislative Branch rather than just do whatever they wanted?

Who are you kidding, Clinton was a PIMP

This policy is a definite violation of the Bill of Rights. All these organizations (FBI, CIA, NSA, etc) need to find other means to fight terrorism.

I think we all have to remember that freedom has a high price and that we should be unwilling to change our laws and lifestyle for the few terrorist incidents that have occured.................Basically, we have to remain vigilant.

Gumby, IÂ’m not sure I understand the title of your thread. What was it he asked for that you think he thought was wrong? Your links clearly show that he has the legal right for these surveillances. The Patriot Act (which was initially passed by congress and re-upped in Dec 2005) also gives the President the authority to do the same.

If your only real problem is that the president isn’t protecting the 4^th amendment (which the Patriot Act provides some leeway to) you might want to read up on “Unitary Executive Theory” which has been used by presidents mostly during war time since America’s birth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary...tary_executive

Highperf15, unless you've been communicating with terrorist groups, they certainly aren't reading your email or listening to your phone conversations

Quote: Originally Posted by EstwingMan Gumby, I’m not sure I understand the title of your thread. What was it he asked for that you think he thought was wrong? Your links clearly show that he has the legal right for these surveillances. The Patriot Act (which was initially passed by congress and re-upped in Dec 2005) also gives the President the authority to do the same. If your only real problem is that the president isn’t protecting the 4th amendment (which the Patriot Act provides some leeway to) you might want to read up on “Unitary Executive Theory” which has been used by presidents mostly during war time since America’s birth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary...tary_executive Highperf15, unless you've been communicating with terrorist groups, they certainly aren't reading your email or listening to your phone conversations

The unitary executive theory is indeed what is at the heart of this issue and i believe has not been as much a part of the debate as it should be. The basic premise is that the executive branch has the ultimate authority and all other branches defer to it. In other words , The president , if he feels the need, can circumvent congress or the courts.

And the NSA case is just one example among many. The president knowlingly decided to start a secret surviellance program with out any warrants or oversight. The law requires all surviellance go through the FISA court which has traditionally been quite gererous in granting warrants and is also quite flexible allowing warrants to be obtained for up to 72 hours after the wiretap is conducted in emergency situations. Why would he feel the need to sidestep such a flexible program unless he knows the courts won't accept his legal justfication for the wiretaps?

Naturally the administration asures the public everything will be alright and that they are only wiretapping terrorists and threats to national security but who exatly decides who is a terrorist or a threat? How do we know that defenition isn't being stretched to include political oppenents of this administration? We don't because no one is overseeing this program. Nixon used wiretapping to spy on his political enemies which was what caused FISA to be created in the first place.

Checks and balances are the backbone of democracy. The founding fathers specifically intended that there be three branches of government so that all the power would not be consolidated into one single branch. The unitary executive is the antithesis of this principle and is erorisve to democratic government.

Quote: Originally Posted by Morion The law requires all surviellance go through the FISA court which has traditionally been quite gererous in granting warrants and is also quite flexible allowing warrants to be obtained for up to 72 hours after the wiretap is conducted in emergency situations. Why would he feel the need to sidestep such a flexible program unless he knows the courts won't accept his legal justfication for the wiretaps?

Exactly my point there Morion!!!

*UPDATE*

Quote: Originally Posted by AP DETROIT - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. "Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion. The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly listening to conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries. The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets. The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule.

Can you feel it? Oh yeah... here it comes:

[cartman_taunt] Nyeh, nyeh, nyeh, nyeh, nyeh, nyeh. Heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh.[/catman_taunt]

Quote: Originally Posted by Im_gumby *UPDATE* Can you feel it? Oh yeah... here it comes: [cartman_taunt] Nyeh, nyeh, nyeh, nyeh, nyeh, nyeh. Heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh.[/catman_taunt]

So Im guessing that opening peoples suitcases at the airport ISNT a violation of privacy?

Makes me wonder what other nations are doing for their domestic security.

Quote: Originally Posted by Nerdz So Im guessing that opening peoples suitcases at the airport ISNT a violation of privacy?

My guess would be no, because nobody is forcing you to fly.

If you want to carry explosives around in a suitcase in your car, the only way it will be searched is if you drive in a manner that gives a police officer probable cause to pull you over AND you give consent. By flying, you are voluntarily giving consent for your suitcases to be searched.

Making and/or receiving a phone call or email does not implicitly or explicitly waive protection from warrantless searches.

Finally, a victory for liberty and freedom.

Sometimes I wonder just how much people are willing to give up in exchange for a little freedom. I could give a little well-known quote here but I'm sure that everyone has heard it before.

Really, how much would people give up? Would they allow the government to openly and freely view their online bank account? Would they willing give a DNA blood sample? Would they willingly install CCTV video cameras in their own home? Would they willingly submit to a polygraph ever month? Would they allow government inspections of their own home to make sure they were not hiding anything?

After all, people are screaming about gun registrations, right? That they are too stringent? Well, why not have the government confiscate all the guns then?

Wait, what about the Second Amendment?

Well, total disregard is already being shown for the Fourth Amendment, so why not the Second, too?

Quote: Originally Posted by Rob Finally, a victory for liberty and freedom. Sometimes I wonder just how much people are willing to give up in exchange for a little freedom. I could give a little well-known quote here but I'm sure that everyone has heard it before. Really, how much would people give up? Would they allow the government to openly and freely view their online bank account? Would they willing give a DNA blood sample? Would they willingly install CCTV video cameras in their own home? Would they willingly submit to a polygraph ever month? Would they allow government inspections of their own home to make sure they were not hiding anything? After all, people are screaming about gun registrations, right? That they are too stringent? Well, why not have the government confiscate all the guns then? Wait, what about the Second Amendment? Well, total disregard is already being shown for the Fourth Amendment, so why not the Second, too?

"Give me Liberty, Or Give Me death!"

I wouldnt give up my right for anything in the world. Give me freedom any day! Of course, to have total freedom, we would also have to be disembarked from the human body, with only having the skys as the limit for our souls ( credit to an unknown author)

But when will the madness stop? Is it big corporations to blame? Is it Religion to blame? Or ones own personal Greed? But doing manifesting these "securities" we are, in truths, playing in to what they want (they want to change our way of living). When we fall into their plan, we are demonstrating we are weak, and we all know, They like to push the weak around. But have you wondered, what would happen if we didnt put these securities into order? Would the attacks stop?

If we didnt, It would, literally, mean a slap in the face for the terrorist. Think about it, if their ultimate goal is to change our ways, and we just go on Living like we have always been, isnt that showing we arent effected by your attacks? Would they increase attacks? Or just get bored all together and just stop?

Quote: Originally Posted by Nerdz "Give me Liberty, Or Give Me death!"

Unfortunately we live in a world where thousands of millitant muslims will happily give us the latter while we try to enjoy the former.

Like it or not terrorists are here and they need to be squashed, burned, blown up, and torn to shreds like the bugs they are.

Quote: Originally Posted by Nerdz "Give me Liberty, Or Give Me death!"

Uh, that was Patrick Henry that said that.

Actually, this is the quote I was referring to...

Quote: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Quote: Originally Posted by Im_gumby *UPDATE* Can you feel it? Oh yeah... here it comes: [cartman_taunt] Nyeh, nyeh, nyeh, nyeh, nyeh, nyeh. Heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh.[/catman_taunt]

Let's see, Judge Taylors' background is 110% Democratic Party.

http://www.daahp.wayne.edu/biographiesDisplay.asp?id=64

But, of course, she has no political agenda, after all, Judges are non-partisan.

The more it changes...