Shouldnt Bush be impeached for spying on US citize

[Chesspiece_face]

So.... Rather than jump to the impeachment phase, how about we figure out what the heck law was broken, if any?
[right][snapback]97442[/snapback][/right]

The laws that this will fall under will be FISA (???) I believe (one of the million laws that stars with F and ends with A). It was written just after the vietnam war when it was learned that the CIA was tapping calls of american citizens that they deemed to be national threats. Such horrible individuals as Martin Luther King Jr., John Lennon, and others.

The problem, and this is what Liberals and some Conservatives (especially Conservative Libertarians) are going to pound home, is that Bush isn't giving any reason for doing this that wasn't giving back in the 70s. The american people heard this reasoning and said that it didn't matter you still can't spy on american people without proper oversight. Even the people that helped write the law are coming out and saying that if it isn't drop dead illegal it is completely against what the law was written for.

It's possible that we will find out that Bush and the government finagled their way through some loopholes that keep what they did in the realm of law. That doesn't mean what they have done isn't slimey as all hell. But that part doesn't really suprise me.

here's some more slimey stuff regarding the government spying on americans:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121805D.shtml

[Xukuth]

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.
[right][snapback]97455[/snapback][/right]

During the presidency, sure...but don't forget what Washington did before he became President, in terms of actually establishing the nation.

The disregard of Lincoln for the Constitution kinda ruins my opinion of him.

[GenericKen]

Are we ranking presidents in terms of what they did while they were president, or what they did throughout their lives? Because if it's the latter, President Clinton still has like 30 years to cure cancer or ascend to transcendence or something. :whistling:

[Guest]

Some people in the NSA refused to participate because they felt it was or might be illegal. I think you are too easily "shocked".

[Guest]

Please post to the threads not the bottom of the post.

[GenericKen]

Please post to the threads not the bottom of the post.
[right][snapback]97462[/snapback][/right]

Sry, was viewing in standard mode and forgot this forum had threads.

[Roland]

Edited. You're over the line, Roland.

Edit:
My apologies to all, Ghostiger included.

Rough night, and I didn't have the sense to hold my tongue. No excuses.

I'm sorry.

And now I feel like a stupid jackass for not understanding "impeachment". I heard plenty of talk about it during that whole fiasco, but I must admit I tuned out LONG before anything of substance came out of it all, so I guess I missed the outcome. How sad is that? I almost feel ashamed for being so ignorant of my own government...

Double apologies for trying to correct you Ghostiger, when I myself was in the wrong. I should have know that if I'm the only one "seeing" something, there must be a logical reason for it.

[GenericKen]

Am I the only one to note that Clinton was NOT impeached, despite what you may think Ghostiger?

Honestly, some days I truly wonder why you even bother to post here at all. Then I remember your true intentions, and it all just makes sense.

Must have really hurt when London Bridge came down on your head, huh?
[right][snapback]97473[/snapback][/right]

Well that was productive.


Clinton *was* impeached. Common misconception. Impeachment is akin to indictment, not conviction.

[kandrathe]

Had they done these with FISA warrants, we wouldn't have an issue since that system has many checks for abuses of power. I think there are two issues, 1] Why didn't they use FISA, and 2] how are they authorized to do what they did without FISA?

I'm just wondering if the "congressional oversight" on keeping the top party dogs and the members of the select intelligence committee's aprised is reasonable constitutional muster for something this sensitive. It sounds like it was an "Act and Inform" process, rather than a closet operation at least.

This situation is different in a number of ways than the invasions of privacy abuses of the J. Edgar Hoover era, since in that day the insurgents were merely spies, now they are terrorists who want to murder millions of innocents, and these are not silo agencies given carte blanche anymore.

[kandrathe]

"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?
[right][snapback]97453[/snapback][/right]

The key there to Mr. Franklin's quote is "Essential Liberty" -- the framework of those liberties is the Bill of Rights, but when a person violates the law (and convicted usually), or is working against the nation who's Constitution guarentees those rights, then I think some of their rights become forfit.

We are talking about how many US citizens? Two that I know of, Yaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padilla. CRS Report for Congress -- Detention of American Citizens as Enemy Combatants

This excerpt is relevant;

The government argues, and two federal courts have agreed, that the
identification and detention of enemy combatants is encompassed within Congress’
express authorization to the President “to use force against those ‘nations,
organizations, or persons he determines’ were responsible for the September 11,
2001 terrorist attacks.” Some argue, however, that since Congress only authorized
force and did not formally declare war, that the absence of language explicitly
addressing the detention of either alien enemies or American citizens cannot be read
to imply such authority, at least with respect to persons captured away from the
battlefield. 

The government asserts that the lack of a formal declaration of war is not
relevant to the existence of a war and unnecessary to invoke the law of war. While
a declaration is unnecessary for the existence of an armed conflict according to the
international law of war, it may be argued that a formal declaration is necessary to
determine what law applies domestically, whether to aliens or citizens. For
example, the Alien Enemy Act and the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), both
of which regulate the domestic conduct of persons during a war, expressly require a
declared war and are not triggered by the authorization to use force. The
Emergency Detention Act, in effect from 1950 to 1971, had similar requirements
prior to the invocation of its measures.

My reading of these legal procedings always returns to the problem of Congress' willingness to authorize force (like 150 times), but unwillingness to declare war (like 5 times). It's the "You can go ahead and use the military and we'll pay for it, but let's not actually call it war." The laws are much clearer when congress grows a spine.

[kandrathe]

Am I the only one to note that Clinton was NOT impeached, despite what you may think Ghostiger?

Honestly, some days I truly wonder why you even bother to post here at all. Then I remember your true intentions, and it all just makes sense.

Must have really hurt when London Bridge came down on your head, huh?
[right][snapback]97473[/snapback][/right]

He was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. He was not convicted by the Senate on either charge(req. 2/3rds majority).

In 1998, as a result of issues surrounding personal indiscretions with a young woman White House intern, Clinton was the second U.S. president to be impeached by the House of Representatives. He was tried in the Senate and found not guilty of the charges brought against him. He apologized to the nation for his actions and continued to have unprecedented popular approval ratings for his job as president.
Biography of William Jefferson Clinton

[Jester]

The  laws are much clearer when congress grows a spine.
[right][snapback]97476[/snapback][/right]

And it's much easier to pay the rent when it's raining money. Too bad it doesn't happen.

-Jester

[Fragbait]

Am I the only one to note that Clinton was NOT impeached, despite what you may think Ghostiger?

Honestly, some days I truly wonder why you even bother to post here at all.
[right][snapback]97473[/snapback][/right]

Now that was a good example for a shot into the own foot.

:mellow:

Greetings, Fragbait

[Guest]

Edited. Roland crossed the line, you responded in kind.

[Ashock]

So, considering that Clinton used the NSA to screen or wiretap millions of phone calls in 2000, shouldn't there have been an uproar then too, or is this purely for wiretapping done by GW or just Republicans in general?


-A

[Occhidiangela]

So, considering that Clinton used the NSA to screen or wiretap millions of phone calls in 2000, shouldn't there have been an uproar then too, or is this purely for wiretapping done by GW or just Republicans in general?
-A
[right][snapback]97491[/snapback][/right]

A

Whatever Clinton did or didn't do does not excuse unlawful actions on the part of the current President. One of the advantages of an open government is that questionable issues are exposed to the light of day, or should be. If this was questionable, but found to be legal, so be it. If not, then Congress has an obvious duty to pursue the matter further.

K

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.

This is the same soundbyte provided by my paper yesterday. Not sure I will have time to reserach the details in depth, thanks for the looking under the hood that you have already done.

Was his action legal? The 45 day renewal piece I was unaware of. That changes my gut perception, though I am still uncomfortable, possibly because I don't know enough. I expect that after consulting his legal advisors, it was either deemed legal or was yet another case of surfing the loopholes -- which approach has provided all and sundry much amusement in re Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. (I don't know if you have a Rush Limbaugh "Club Gitmo" T-shirt or not, but I have on a couple of occasions been tempted to order one. Just for the sick joke.)

Occhi

[Munkay]

Edit: On second thought, Kandrathe and Fragbait pretty much covered it. :)

[kandrathe]

The name calling is childish. Rise above it.

[Ashock]

A

Whatever Clinton did or didn't do does not excuse unlawful actions on the part of the current President.  One of the advantages of an open government is that questionable issues are exposed to the light of day, or should be.  If this was questionable, but found to be legal, so be it.  If not, then Congress has an obvious duty to pursue the matter further.

[right][snapback]97496[/snapback][/right]

Oh, I don't disagree with you, but I am sick and tired of the one-sided games being played, especially by the media, who ignores everything negative that the liberals did/do and does their best imitation of a lynch mob when it comes to conservatives. Well, not counting Fox of course, but they don't really count.


-A

[jahcs]

I'm going to play the "I don't know enough to cast judgement" card at this point.

From what I know so far:

The Bush administration has talked with Congressional commities at least 12 times on this matter, before, during and after the fact. They did not have "open" hearings for fear the enemy would learn enough about our procedures to counteract them.
-source: this morning's Presidential press conference

If a call originated and was received in the U.S. a warrant is required. The President knows this (he said as much in this morning's broadcast). That isn't being debated, this part of the system is working with no grey area.

The real question for me is does the spying originate with the U.S. end of the phone call or with the foreign end of the call? Are our spooks already watching the outside threat? If they are what happens when a U.S. citizen gets on the line? Do they block out half the conversation, hang up, or keep listening to their known/suspected outside threat? Personally I hope they keep listening. If the wire tap starts with our citizens being monitored "just in case they decide to talk to some shady characters" then it's a real problem. If the U.S. caller gives something concrete or shows a trend then I hope they get a warrant to tap all that person's calls.

I don't really care who dialed the call or where they are located, just who was being watched first.

When a domestic to domestic call is being tapped you don't need a warrant for the person at each end, only the person you are investigating.