Shouldnt Bush be impeached for spying on US citize

[Guest]

This is kind of a mess but. It seems pretty clear they blatently and purposefully broke the law.
I think impeachment is the only way to even hold someone accountable for this.(I could be mistaken of course.)

Clinton was impeached a laughable crime, it would seem rather absurd to let this slide.

[DeeBye]

This thread is gonna be GREAT!

[Ashock]

Clinton was impeached a laughable crime, it would seem rather absurd to let this slide.
[right][snapback]97401[/snapback][/right]

In your opinion, what was that crime?



-A

[GenericKen]

This is an interesting legal precedent. Is it a breach of justice to search without warrent if the results of the search remain classified and are inadmissible in court?


I personally have no idea whether the Patriot Act covers President Bush otherwise for this, especially since the details of his authorization are so vauge right now.


Regardless of how legal it is, it's obviously too unpopular to go on.

[eppie]

I think he should be stripped naked, covered in honey, and lowered down in a pit with three dozens of killer-chinchilla's. That will teach him.

[Guest]

"Wire tapping" US citizens with out a warrent(illegal search.)

[Guest]

I think he should be stripped naked, covered in honey, and lowered down in a pit with three dozens of killer-chinchilla's. That will teach him.
[right][snapback]97410[/snapback][/right]

Silly Euro.

[Occhidiangela]

This is kind of a mess but. It seems pretty clear they blatently and purposefully broke the law.
I think impeachment is the only way to even hold someone accountable for this.(I could be mistaken of course.)

Clinton was impeached a laughable crime, it would seem rather absurd to let this slide.
[right][snapback]97401[/snapback][/right]

Today's paper pointed out that there was a 1978 law that set up a court, or board, through which security sensitive warrants/taps could be vetted. I am going to look into more on that topic before I comment on that piece, but I see two problems.

Justice/FBI have been stovepiped vis a vis Intelligence for years. Look at the 9-11 commission report, for what it is worth, and the Able Danger issue still in work for how that left significant cracks in the security wall.

The last 30 years have significantly changed, security wise, with the Information Age. Legislation and policy, IMO, have not caught up. Getting the policies changed is hard, as most people are clueless on how war, information war, is waged and fought. But doint that hard job is exactly the President's and the Congress' job. I don't think the Patriot Act covers the NSA taps, and it has its own shortcomings.

Many very smart people can't seem to understand that "war" and "economic war" and "propaganda war" are part of a continuum, not a set of stovepiped or discrete products. This leads them to follow idiotic policies, and fight the last information war, as it were, sort of like using cavalry against attack helicopters.

The problem of weak policy is no excuse to break the law. :angry:

I think President Bush's critics are going to milk this cow until it is dry, and will use it as leverage in the 2006 elections. If a bit more comes to light on the dealings with Congress regarding the Iraq War, it could be enough to send him packing.

Should be interesting, particularly as he has been completely unapologetic about the wire tap.

Who here is ready for Dick Cheney to be President? :whistling:

Occhi

[Guest]

Im not really a Bush critic. I like Kerry and Gore even less than him and I think 9/11 was in no small part due Clintons aversion to hard choices.

But I think this is a huge deal.
If Bush said "I was wrong but I felt it was the best choice at the time and i wont do it again"- I could live with that.
But to simply act like it breaking these rules doesnt matter is completely unacceptable.
I think the only mechanism to do this is impeachment.

[kandrathe]

Im not really a Bush critic. I like Kerry and Gore even less than him and I think 9/11 was in no small part due Clintons aversion to hard choices.

But I think this is a huge deal.
If Bush said "I was wrong but I felt it was the best choice at the time and i wont do it again"- I could live with that.
But to simply act like it breaking these rules doesnt matter is completely unacceptable.
I think the only mechanism to do this is impeachment.
[right][snapback]97433[/snapback][/right]

Maybe he is not wrong, and has no reason to think it was wrong. My impression is this NSA wire tapping has paid off in preventing some terrorist events.

From what I understand the people "intruded" upon have some links to terrorist activities, and that the NSA tracking of them is in accordance with powers vetted in the Executive branch. It might be that the President needs to explain why he thinks he has this power, but it just might be that he does. It may or may not stand up to constitutional scrutiny either, but the nature of law is that it stands until the Supremes say its not constitutional. My only concern would be that there are some checks to insure that the US does not return to the bad old days of J. Edgar Hoover.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended Bush's actions, telling "Fox News Sunday" the president had authorized the National Security Agency "to collect information on a limited number of people with connections to al Qaeda."

On Saturday, Bush acknowledged he authorized the NSA to intercept international communications of people in the United States "with known links" to terror groups, and criticized the media for divulging the program.

He said he has re-authorized the NSA wiretap program about 30 times "and I intend to continue doing so as long as we have terror threats."

While the NSA is barred from domestic spying, it can get warrants issued with the permission of a special judicial body called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court. Bush's action eliminated the need to get a warrant from the court.

Asked why the president authorized skipping the FISA court, Rice said the war on terrorism was a "different type of war" that gives the commander in chief "additional authorities."

"I'm not a lawyer, but the president has gone to great lengths to make certain that he is both living under his obligations to protect Americans from another attack but also to protect their civil liberties," Rice said on "Meet The Press."

"And that's why this program is very carefully controlled. It has to be reauthorized every 45 days. People are specially trained to participate in it. And it has been briefed to leadership of the Congress, including the leadership of the intelligence committees."

It sounds like it might also be a specific area of War Powers as it applies to consorting with the enemy, subversion, insurgency, and sedition within the US. It is an area that was extensively abused in WWII, against Japanese and German Americans so I imagine there has been some sensitivity to not make the same mistakes in punishing the innocents.

Congress will certainly do another about face, like they are doing with the Patriot Act, and perhaps Bush is the only one with the spine to say "Yes, I did what I had to do to keep America safe." What makes me sick continuously is the Washington politicos diving for cover, unwilling to even stand behind their own damn votes. I'm pretty tired of the "Yes, I voted to authorize the war on Iraq, but ... [insert bull crap excuse here]" or "Yes, I voted the Patriot Act, but ... [insert another bull crap excuse here]". Read the darn bills, debate them, make your decision, cast your vote and then stand behind it, or if you change your mind then say so.

This is why after 9/11 many people talked about sacrificing liberty for security, and that we need to be careful not to over react. That means both sacrificing liberty driving down the road to dictatorship, and the wenging and hand wringing everytime a Jose Padilla gets swept off to an undisclosed prison. Have there been mistakes? You bet. Can it be 100% perfect? I don't know. But, given the choice between allowing Jose Padilla to carry out his terrorist missions, and mistakenly locking someone up for a while. I know which choice I would make. But, I would really want a mountain of tangible evidence, and an unbiased tribunal to make the decision.

EDIT: I was looking more into Executive National Emergency Powers... And I found an interesting paper: Congressional Research Service ˜ (The Library of Congress) -- National Emergency Powers update September 18, 2001.

Perhaps we are still under
Proc. 7463, 09/14/01, Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks -- 66 Fed. Reg. 48197- 48199.
or another Executive Proclamation???

[SwissMercenary]

Well, no surprise there, although I guess this doesn't qualify for an "I told you so" dance. Honestly didn't think the slimeball would pull this one. Patriot Act not enough, eh?

[Guest]

If that was the case it would make sense for the President to at least tell what what authority he was using to do this. There is no no national security issue in telling that now that the wire tapping is public knowledge.

Im guessing youre wrong though. Even Republican senators are saying this appears to be illegal.

As I said originally. Im not positve this is illegal. But it looks illegal and I think congress is the only body with the authority to investigate and possible take action(impeachment.)

[Guest]

I really doubt its that simple.
I suspect that to some degree this wire tapping did make America safer from terrorists.

But it is a problem and this is not the way to handle it especially at this point.


People often forget that our greatest President utterly broke with the Constitution and suspended Habeus Corpus in a time of emergency on no authority but his own.

[kandrathe]

If that was the case it would make sense for the President to at least tell what what authority he was using to do this.  There is no no national security issue in telling that now that the wire tapping is public knowledge.

Im guessing youre wrong though. Even Republican senators are saying this appears to be illegal.

As I said originally. Im not positve this is illegal. But it looks illegal and I think congress is the only body with the authority to investigate and possible take action(impeachment.)
[right][snapback]97439[/snapback][/right]

So.... Rather than jump to the impeachment phase, how about we figure out what the heck law was broken, if any?

[Guest]

Notice I didnt say impeach him - I was asking if whether he should be impeached.

But at this point he has refused to even give a specific justification. If he maintains this stance the only means for Congress to find out would be an impeachment.

[Xukuth]

Whether it means anything or not, Bush said absolutely nothing about the wiretapping in his Address to the Nation tonight. It was his usual spiel about "army supports me...defeatist liberals...can't pull out...not committing to a timetable...God bless America."

[Wiz]

He gave orders to allow NSA to listen to international communications with individuals in the US who they clearly believed were involved in terrorism.

My response was "Damn, I HOPE so!" Is the solution to terrorist communications security to simply have one end of the communication in the US? NSA has always listened to international communication and is not prohibited from doing so in the US. The CIA is -- not the NSA.

I'd be shocked if his action was illegal. He has excellent legal advisors for such matters, and he well knows that there are those in Washington( and in the NSA) who would gleefully ratted him out to the press a long time ago regardless of the cost to the country. His action was politically offensive to a number of people, but that's not illegal.

And Congress can find out whatever it chooses, whenever it chooses. They control the budgets for the intelligence agencies, and be very certain that the career bureaucrats in those agencies know that. If Congress gets really irritated, they can zero out the budget for whatever activities they object to. It's happened before.

Someone once said "there never was a democracy that did not commit suicide." Turning into a "Big Brother" government is certainly one way to do that. Another way is to refuse to defend ourselves.

[Xukuth]

I really doubt its that simple.
I suspect that to some degree this wire tapping did make America safer from terrorists.

But it is a problem and this is not the way to handle it especially at this point.
People often forget that our greatest President utterly broke with the Constitution and suspended Habeus Corpus in a time of emergency on no authority but his own.
[right][snapback]97440[/snapback][/right]

I'd debate Lincoln's status as our greatest president. Illegally imprisoning Maryland delegates so they couldn't vote for secession isn't a cool thing, IMHO.

Plus, you know, I'd go with Washington instead - Father of our nation and all that.

[Xukuth]

This is why after 9/11 many people talked about sacrificing liberty for security, and that we need to be careful not to over react.  That means both sacrificing liberty driving down the road to dictatorship, and the wenging and hand wringing everytime a Jose Padilla gets swept off to an undisclosed prison.  Have there been mistakes?  You bet.  Can it be 100% perfect?  I don't know.  But, given the choice between allowing Jose Padilla to carry out his terrorist missions, and mistakenly locking someone up for a while.  I know which choice I would make.  But, I would really want a mountain of tangible evidence, and an unbiased tribunal to make the decision.

[right][snapback]97436[/snapback][/right]

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for a small amount of security deserve neither and will soon lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

In all honesty, I think it's just plain wrong to imprison people (especially US citizens) as unlawful combatants and hold them in a military prison without being charged with a crime and with no judicial oversight. It stinks of military dictatorship.

After all, if we give up our rights to maintain "security," how can we even pretend to claim the moral high ground over our opponents anywhere?

[GenericKen]

I'd debate Lincoln's status as our greatest president.  Illegally imprisoning Maryland delegates so they couldn't vote for secession isn't a cool thing, IMHO.

Plus, you know, I'd go with Washington instead - Father of our nation and all that.
[right][snapback]97452[/snapback][/right]

You gotta conceede that the presidency Lincoln was handed was a raw deal compared to the presidency Washington was handed. In sheer terms of lemons to lemonade, you gotta go with Lincoln.