Shouldnt Bush be impeached for spying on US citize

[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???