Shouldnt Bush be impeached for spying on US citize

[Zippyy]

I freely admit I completely and utterly screwed up, and made a total ass of myself. Give a fool enough rope, and all that. *shrug* Just goes to show how much of that media frenzy I followed. Truth be told, I don't even remember anything past the mentioning of the "Stars report", or whatever the hell it was. I just plain tuned out.

And here it comes back to bite me in the rear, by my own mouth no less! Ah well, teach me to get snappy when I shouldn't, eh?
[right][snapback]97560[/snapback][/right]

Goats are cool.

Never forget.

[Lissa]

And I will ask you how you determine who is a citizen within US borders?  By phone records?  Do you have any idea how many non citizens live in this country.  Well over 10 million.  Not all domestic phone calls are necessarily being made by citizens, but rather residents in this country, persons located inside the borders.
[right][snapback]97650[/snapback][/right]

The Act is specific and it states that it is illegal to spy on a naturalized citizen, ie, someone either born within the US or it's territories and has maintained citizen status or someone that has gone through the steps and completed them to become a US citizen. The only time a warrant is required, by FISA, is when a US citizen is involved. It's easy enough to check someone's status as a US citizen AND retroactive warrants can be applied (as has already been done previous to Bush).

Bush broke the law as based on FISA by simply wire tapping US citizens and not getting a warrant (which he could have got retroactively, but choose not to).

[Occhidiangela]

The Act is specific and it states that it is illegal to spy on a naturalized citizen, ie, someone either born within the US or it's territories and has maintained citizen status or someone that has gone through the steps and completed them to become a US citizen.  The only time a warrant is required, by FISA, is when a US citizen is involved.  It's easy enough to check someone's status as a US citizen AND retroactive warrants can be applied (as has already been done previous to Bush).

Bush broke the law as based on FISA by simply wire tapping US citizens and not getting a warrant (which he could have got retroactively, but choose not to).
[right][snapback]97653[/snapback][/right]

Noted.

Renewed every 45 days, Senators/Reps from both parties briefed on eight different occasions, or more often. David Rockefeller's letter was heavily edited in the version I read today.

George Will asked the best question:

Perhaps the brief argues, as its author, John Yoo -- now a professor of law at Berkeley but then a deputy assistant attorney general -- argued 14 days after Sept. 11, 2001, in a memorandum on "the president's constitutional authority to conduct military operations against terrorists and nations supporting them," that the president's constitutional power to take "military actions" is "plenary." The Oxford English Dictionary defines "plenary" as "complete, entire, perfect, not deficient in any element or respect."

The brief should be declassified and debated, beginning with this question: Who decides which tactics -- e.g., domestic surveillance -- should be considered part of taking "military actions''?

This has apparently been going on for over two years, with full knowledge of members of the Senate Intelligence committee. Why the hubub now? Why not when it first started? Silence is consent, or rather, complicity. Rockefeller covered his own backside, and that is about it. See

Washington Post  December 20, 2005  Pg. 10  Senator Sounded Alarm In '03
Rockefeller Wrote Cheney to Voice Concerns on SpyingBy Charles Babington and Dafna Linzer, Washington Post Staff Writers

I am not content that this action is as cut and dried as you think it is, but it may be a violation of the law anyway.

As to "naturalized citizens," Lissa, I was not referring to legal residents, but rather our sub-population of illegals. Ten million and counting, and sadly, that is only via estimates. It could be as high as 30 million. They drive, they don't get insurance, and I am sure some use cell phones.

That concern is a bit of a red herring in this matter, however, as the tension between Congress and the President is eternal and part of the Constitution's design. I will be carefully watching the arguments in the next few days on why the Administration counsel felt it was legal, and why, now, someone has chosen for political reasons to bring this out in the open, at the risk of compromising operations underway.

I smell a case going to the Supreme Court.

This disagreement of a law's interpretation goes to the core roles of Executive versus Legislative Branch. It also touches on authorities conferred during a war, even though Congress' "authorization to use force" is NOT a declaration of war. If these intelligence activities are necessary to find and fix the enemy, so they can be killed or captured, is it within the rubric of "conduct of war?"

There is a category of activity called espionage, and fifth column activity, that is not legal for citizens to undertake. I don't give a hoot about illegals, though I imagine most agents have some sort of cover/documentation to allow them some freedom of action.

How is probable cause determined?

I am still trying to understand how Clinton's staff briefed this when no war was underway and got approval. There was probably a good reason. I am sure there is a good article on that somewhere.

Occhi

Note the language of the authority during time of war:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize the use of a pen register or trap and trace device without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed 15 calendar days following a declaration of war by Congress.

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress

.

And regarding Business records

The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

We shall see. I think the loophole surfing is "if a call comes from non American person who is on the 'need to find out what he is up to list' and comes to an 'American person' who isn't, does this immediately establish probable cause?

Most likely not, all manner of innocent activity such as ordering a train ticket, ordering a pizza, et cetera) does not put the citizen into a probable cause of aiding and abetting the foreign or terrorist. But how do you know until you check the call and find out "ah, that was an order for a triple cheese supreme, this was a call to ship the det chord."

Occhi

[Lissa]

Noted. 

Renewed every 45 days, Senators/Reps from both parties briefed on eight different occasions, or more often.  David Rockefeller's letter was heavily edited in the version I read today.  

George Will asked the best question:
This has apparently been going on for over two years, with full knowledge of members of the Senate Intelligence committee.  Why the hubub now?  Why not when it first started?  Silence is consent, or rather, complicity.  Rockefeller covered his own backside, and that is about it.  See

I am not content that this action is as cut and dried as you think it is, but it may be a violation of the law anyway.  

As to "naturalized citizens," Lissa, I was not referring to legal residents, but rather our sub-population of illegals.  Ten million and counting, and sadly, that is only via estimates.  It could be as high as 30 million.  They drive, they don't get insurance, and I am sure some use cell phones. 

That concern is a bit of a red herring in this matter, however, as the tension between Congress and the President is eternal and part of the Constitution's design.  I will be carefully watching the arguments in the next few days on why the Administration counsel felt it was legal, and why, now, someone has chosen for political reasons to bring this out in the open, at the risk of compromising operations underway. 

I smell a case going to the Supreme Court. 

This disagreement of a law's interpretation goes to the core roles of Executive versus Legislative Branch.  It also touches on authorities conferred during a war, even though Congress' "authorization to use force" is NOT a declaration of war.  If these intelligence activities are necessary to find and fix the enemy, so they can be killed or captured, is it within the rubric of "conduct of war?"

There is a category of activity called espionage, and fifth column activity, that is not legal for citizens to undertake.  I don't give a hoot about illegals, though I imagine most agents have some sort of cover/documentation to allow them some freedom of action. 

How is probable cause determined? 

I am still trying to understand how Clinton's staff briefed this when no war was underway and got approval.  There was probably a good reason.  I am sure there is a good article on that somewhere.

Occhi

Note the language of the authority during time of war:
.

And regarding Business records
We shall see.  I think the loophole surfing is "if a call comes from non American person who is on the 'need to find out what he is up to list' and comes to an 'American person' who isn't, does this immediately establish probable cause?

Most likely not, all manner of innocent activity such as ordering a train ticket, ordering a pizza, et cetera) does not put the citizen into a probable cause of aiding and abetting the foreign or terrorist.  But how do you know until you check the call and find out "ah, that was an order for a triple cheese supreme, this was a call to ship the det chord."

Occhi
[right][snapback]97659[/snapback][/right]

The illegality only applies to citizens being wire tapped without a warrant. An illegal can be wire tapped without a warrant. The problem is, Bush wire tapped citizens as well as non-citizens. In this case where he wire tapped citizens and did not get a warrant, he broke the law as set out by FISA. This is the problem and it is putting Bush moving along the same road as Nixon with Nixon's ordering of the DNC headquarters at the Watergate to be wire tapped (this was also the cause of why FISA came about).

Overall, what people are screaming about is the fact that Bush is wire tapping citizens (and one conviction may now get overturned because of no warrant) without a warrant which is where the illegality comes from.

[Thecla]

I'm no lawyer, but as far as I can tell the actions of the Bush administration are completely illegal, all the more so since it appears that some surveillance of purely domestic US communication is taking place, presumably by mistake.

Their rationale seems to be that the executive branch has virtually unlimited power in a time of self-declared and indefinite war. To make it extreme, I suppose by the same token you could argue it would be legal to shoot US citizens sleeping at home if the executive branch said it was justified.

You have to wonder though why they did this when they could easily have obtained legal warrants for the same stated purpose (after the fact if necessary). One relevant point may be given in the following Slate article from 2002 on then Attorney General John Ashcroft's request to weaken the requirements on foreign surveillance for FISA warrants, further blurring the line between criminal investigations of any kind and foreign intelligence investigation. The FISA response, linked there, rejecting his request also makes interesting reading.

[Occhidiangela]

I'm no lawyer, but as far as I can tell the actions of the Bush administration are completely illegal, all the more so since it appears that some surveillance of purely domestic US communication is taking place, presumably by mistake.

Their rationale seems to be that the executive branch has virtually unlimited power in a time of self-declared and indefinite war. To make it extreme, I suppose by the same token you could argue it would be legal to shoot US citizens sleeping at home if the executive branch said it was justified.
[right][snapback]97698[/snapback][/right]

Thanks for the links. :) The Slate article is a bit dated regarding the Patriot Act, the Senate showed some (belated) reservations. I agree that Congress was "being hasty" when they slapped it together. I don't agree with her assumption that measures to codify how to deal with Fourth Generation Warfare should be held hostage to the Ostrich approach of outdated statues. FISA is a Cold War relic. That said, it is the law on the books. That means something.

The FISA ruling seemd to cover both Ashcroft's filings and some filings AG Reno made in 1995. Looks like AG Ashcroft was asking too much wiggle room on that law, partly due to its being dated, partly to preclude having to get legislation sponsored that updated that statue.

FISA's legal language has the standard problem of being a relic of the cold war, and of the internal political war against the CIA waged in the 1970's. In FISA's defense, it clarified some previously gray areas. It's process is cumbersome in the digital age, satellite linked age. It leaves the fifth column actor well inside the decision cycle of the counter intelligence or counter terrorist agents.

I'd guess that until IED's go off routinely in the US, as they do weekly or daily in Iraq, Americans won't "get" what it is they are up against. The gritty reality is that there is no security. The WTC attacks of 1993 and 2001 were as much symbolic as deliberately murderous. The US is still, for my money, losing the war of symbols.

Segue to "The War on Terror." IIRC, the Congress did not declare that war. It is a piece of clumsy rhetoric masquerading as policy guidance. (I have an expeditionary medal for being in the "Global War on Terror." GWOT. I refer to it as my medal for T.W.A.T: The War Against Terror." :P)

FISA's shortcoming as a tool against modern fifth column activity highlights both the Clinton and the Bush Administration's failure to reform the relationships between FBI, CIA, NSA, and other counter espionage organs, to harness our full capability to deal with criminal and extranational movements, both internationally and internally. I don't think of the West Coast Cripps as much different than Colombian narco terrorists.

If FISA is all we can come up with for policy guidance, the crooks and terrorists are free to loophole surf, to exploit strategic weaknesses at the seams. This approach is conceptually identical to the Marine Corps doctrine on Maneuver Warfare.

Those politically opposed to Pres Bush, for a variety of reasons, continue to let their contempt for his administration blind themselves to the current and future security environment. For that matter, Bush and Company are wearing blinders of a different sort. Few of them admit that the so called War on Terrorism is decades old. The Cold War Light with Iran has been going on since 1979. The struggle with the various narco terrorists and otherwise motivated terrorists have been a problem since at least 1972.

FISA language ignores the extra national actor. It is legislation unsuited to American Security in the year 1995, much less 2005. The "Ostrich Hides Head in Sand" approach to extranational groups is a strategic weakness. It requires action and policy to fix that. This policy weakness is no excuse for breaking the law.

Note: some law is created when a law is broken and then the law itself comes under fire in the courts. ;) Perhaps GW Bush and VP Cheney are embarking on a bizarre imitation of civil disobedience. <_<

I am not content with FISA being the only legal matter at hand. The crux of the legal matter is nearly Constitutional, since the White House seems to be pushing for a new agreement on what authorities and powers a President has in unconventional war

NOT

what powers he has in "time of peace" to deal with espionage, or a simpler conventional war against "foreign powers." What a quaint notion.

If the war used as reference is the War on Terror, rather than the War in Iraq, or the War in Afghanistan, then your comment on the forever war model hits the bullseye. The proper course of action is to make a better case for better policy tools to deal with Fourth Generation War, and extranational threats.

I guess that is too much like work for anyone in this Administration, not to mention the whole Congress who have had this issue in front of them since the Clinton administration, and since the 1993 WTC bombing. If correcting or over riding FISA is such a good idea -- dear Republicans of the House and Senate who attack the President's critics on this matter -- why a lack of support for WJ Clinton and his AG on this matter?

The world wonders. ;)

Occhi

PS: Rockefeller's complaint is almost unbelievable. From a Washington Post article today about a FISA judge quitting over this bruhaha.

Rockefeller said the secrecy surrounding the briefings left him with no other choice. "I made my concerns known to the vice president and to others who were briefed," Rockefeller said. "The White House never addressed my concerns."

I agree with Senator McCain's suggestion that Rockefeller is a moral coward. Added to his condition as a pompous ass of a senator, I'd like to grant Sen Reckefeller of West Virginia (right!) the "Oxygen Thief of the Week" award. In yesterday's article, where he discussed his classified memo, he complained, basically, that he was too stupid to understand the briefings he got. Due to security classification was unable to share his notes with a staffer. Were he as confident a man as Ted Kennedy, I suspect he'd have sounded off a lot sooner.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

...
Those politically opposed to Pres Bush, for a variety of reasons, continue to let their contempt for his administration blind themselves to the current and future security environment.&nbsp; For that matter, Bush and Company are wearing blinders of a different sort.&nbsp; Few of them admit that the so called War on Terrorism is decades old.&nbsp; The Cold War Light with Iran has been going on since 1979.&nbsp; The struggle with the various narco terrorists and otherwise motivated terrorists have been a problem since at least 1972.&nbsp; &nbsp;
...
If the war used as reference is the War on Terror, rather than the War in Iraq, or the War in Afghanistan, then your comment on the forever war model hits the bullseye.&nbsp; The proper course of action is to make a better case for better policy tools to deal with Fourth Generation War, and extranational threats.

I guess that is too much like work for anyone in this Administration, not to mention the whole Congress who have had this issue in front of them since the Clinton administration, and since the 1993 WTC bombing.&nbsp; If correcting or over riding FISA is such a good idea -- dear Republicans of the House and Senate who attack the President's critics on this matter --&nbsp; why a lack of support for WJ Clinton and his AG on this matter?
...
[right][snapback]97706[/snapback][/right]

Replace "politically opposed to Pres Bush" with "politically opposed to the current ruling party". I fault equally the Republicans during the Clinton administration for wagging the dog(or the intern), rather than focus hard on things that really mattered. The republicans during the Clinton administration could have focused on our nations complete lack of security against terrorism, or the deteriorating control that Sanctions was having on Iraq, or the mismanagement of the UN, or containing Islamic fundamentalism, or Middle East peace, or any number of really important issues that might have changed the world for the better.

The problem with US national politics is the complete lack of responsibility that Congress has for carrying out their constitutional mandate. Rather, it has become a battle of bickering political parties, with the constituencies to be damned. Outrage is reserved for attacking what the other party has actually done, but never for what they collectively failed to address.

I'll leave it the the lawyers to hash out whether or not what Bush did was legal, but I see a huge difference between Bush's use of executive authority and the abuse by Nixon which led to FISA. When this was reported by the NY Times, the administration response was to say "Yes we did that, and we have the authority to do it to fight Al Queda and shame on the leaker who just aided the terrorists", contrasted with Nixon's abuse of power to spy on his political enemies and a huge cover up.

I agree with you though, that the better solution would have been to make a fix to FISA, if it was broken such that the NSA had to look for loopholes to do their jobs.

[kandrathe]

My mother moved to Arkansas which from my many visits to her allow me to say, 1] the people I've met there in Western Arkansas are very devoted to family and God, and 2] there are very few people that want the Clintons to ever return.

I think it is more a case of a combination of "You can take the man out of his past, but you can't get the past out of the man." and as Lord Acton said, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." If you look at his sexual pecadillos as Govenor, and then consider how much he risked while under scrutiny to continue his sexual misconduct as President, then you must conclude as I do the he has character flaw which requires professional help. This was the primary reason I did not vote for him ever. I'm not a prude, and I can forgive a person their troubled past, if they have moved beyond it. I believe that the Presidency requires a person of strong character above anything else.

[Occhidiangela]

I see a huge difference between Bush's use of executive authority and the abuse by Nixon which led to FISA.  When this was reported by the NY Times, the administration response was to  say "Yes we did that, and we have the authority to do it to fight Al Queda and shame on the leaker who just aided the terrorists", contrasted with Nixon's abuse of power to spy on his political enemies and a huge cover up.
[right][snapback]97711[/snapback][/right]

OK, difference in tone. Some would attribute that to arrogance or hubris rather than any moral responsibility or penchant for forthright action. There are times I agree with that assessment.

I agree with you though, that the better solution would have been to make a fix to FISA, if it was broken such that the NSA had to look for loopholes to do their jobs.

Not would have been, is. The is still a need to take legislative action. Fix the problem that needs addressing, be it via amendment to FISA or a statute clearly addressing Fourth Generation Warfare. The Patriot Act, having been rushed into place, is also in serious need of either overhaul or consignment to the dustbin. The badminton match most recently played is a first step, I suppose, but Congress needs to get back into the weeds of that effort and dig out some of the more egregious garbage, such as the tie in to gun control. :angry:

My local Rep to Congress is a moral coward. Solomon P. Ortiz. On the Patriot Act vote recently, he . . . abstained. Or maybe he was taking a siesta that day and woke up too late to vote. 22 years as the lackey of the local Canales-Longoria (yes, Eva's extended family, she came from money) power block down here, and he's as noticeable in the House as a page, while both less literate and less eloquent.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

Mmmmm, Eva Longoria... <drifts off into a desperate housewife fantasy>
...
<back to reality>

Another interesting read;

Chicago Tribune -- President had legal authority to OK taps By John Schmidt

As for embarassments, I give you the former senator Paul Wellstone(early years), and the current senator Mark Dayton. Wellstone was intelligent, and he eventually realized that he was a Senator, not a protester with a bullhorn in the Senate. My main opposition to Mr. Dayton was that he won his position by relentlessly outspending his opponents 5 to 1 with his inheritance of the Dayton's department store fortune, but it does go to show that any idiot with enough money backing can get elected. He survives in Washington as a toady to the ultra progressives.

[jahcs]

...but Congress needs to get back into the weeds of that effort and dig out some of the more egregious garbage, such as the tie in to gun control.&nbsp; :angry:
[right][snapback]97716[/snapback][/right]

It's quite frustrating the way Congress tacks on extra things to bills, especially spending bills, in efforts to see them get forced through or rejected.

Most recent example: Pentagon spending bill with Alaska oil exploration tacked on.
That's enough of a separation of issues that it needs it's own bill and own debate. :angry:

One of the few things I see without extra things tacked on are when Congress votes themselves a pay increase, those bills get passed so fast nobody has time to even see the fine print. :o

[Thecla]

Only to comment on a couple of things.

The Slate article is a bit dated regarding the Patriot Act

Yup, there is much water under the bridge in many directions since that article was written, but I still thought it provided an interesting context.

I am not content with FISA being the only legal matter at hand.&nbsp; The crux of the legal matter is nearly Constitutional

In many ways FISA is irrelevant. The Bush adminstrations seems to claim it can authorize warrantless surveillance of communications concerning terrorist threats that involve US citizens with or without FISA, and seems determined to prove that it can do so without FISA. (Either that, or they are ordering surveillance which is not permitted under FISA; the argument that it's too much bother to get warrants from a virtually 100% compliant secret court is completely bogus.) The ultimate obstruction to this claim is more than nearly consititutional. (But perhaps the constitution should be scrapped also if there's a terrorist with a nuclear bomb; or perhaps those who view the Bush administration as well-intentioned and competent are happy to give them any powers they wish.)

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.

It is hardly for the executive branch to both order such searches (or surveillance) and, at the same time, declare their constitutionality. But the administration not only seems to reject working with congress, if congress does not simply approve their expanded powers, they also seem to try and avoid any supreme court consideration of their assertions of power, often in secret, despite the general deference of the court to the executive branch in matters of national security.

One final quote from FindLaw analyzing the constitutionality of warrantless electronic surveillance.

Warrantless ''National Security'' Electronic Surveillance .--In Katz v. United States, 151&nbsp; Justice White sought to preserve for a future case the possibility that in ''national security cases'' electronic surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney General could be permissible without prior judicial approval. The Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to ''bug'' in two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority on a theory of ''inherent'' presidential power and then in the Supreme Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a ''reasonable'' search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required. 152&nbsp; Whether or not a search was reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause; except in a few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, only those searches conducted pursuant to warrants were reasonable. The Government's duty to preserve the national security did not override the gurarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy. 153&nbsp; This protection was even more needed in ''national security cases'' than in cases of ''ordinary'' crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the Fourth. 154&nbsp; Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is required. 155&nbsp;

The question of the scope of the President's constitutional powers, if any, remains judicially unsettled. 156 Congress has acted, however, providing for a special court to hear requests for warrants for electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence situations, and permitting the President to authorize warrantless surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information provided that the communications to be monitored are exclusively between or among foreign powers and there is no substantial likelihood any ''United States person'' will be overheard. 15

[Occhidiangela]

Only to comment on a couple of things.
FindLaw analyzing the constitutionality of warrantless electronic surveillance.
[right][snapback]97769[/snapback][/right]

Good comment. The Constitutional quote forces a hard examination of how limited the lateral thinking has been in crafting procedures and safeguards that both meet timeliness criterion for the modern age, and traceability/accountability in conjunction with the general citizen versus the citizen/resident who is in bed with the enemy.

I am not intimating that this is easy. It is fraught with difficulty, but that is why those lily livered sunzabitches in Congress are there, to sort that out. And, to demand the President make a better case, or come up with cleaner policy.

One small problem: laziness in sorting this out gives those who wish us harm opportunity to continue to do so, and I refer to enemies both foreign and domestic. Still, in terms of calling the Pres to accounting, better late than never.

Nice link. Thanks, even though I find this opinion by Powell to be an erroneous assumption and personally offensive to me.

This protection was even more needed in ''national security cases'' than in cases of ''ordinary'' crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the Fourth. 154 Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is required

The judge knows no more of national security than he does of fornication/ His presumption that the executive will default to tyrrannical behaviour, unethical behaviour, and behaviour injurious to the citizen makes a rule of exception, an assertion I reject from my personal experience of 25 years in the executive's pointy end. The default is not as dire as the esteemed justice infers. Bah. I am done with this topic, because this one will most likely, and probably should, go to the courts since the administration has challenged the letter of the law.

Let the games begin.

Occhi

[Thecla]

The judge knows no more of national security than he does of fornication

For all I know, he could be an expert fornicator.

His presumption that the executive will default to tyrrannical behaviour, unethical behaviour, and behaviour injurious&nbsp; to the citizen makes a rule of exception.

I don't think he presumes that the executive will default to tyrrannical behavior, only they may do so, as in fact they have done in the past.

Unfortunately, my presumption is that the Bush Administration will default to tyrrannical behavior --- behavior that is intended to advance their own adgenda, whether or not it is beneficial or harmful to the US as a whole --- and they will use 9/11, the `war on terror', or any other justification that comes to hand, unless otherwise prevented.

When it comes to searches, secret surveillance and control of information, there is a strong tendency for governments to use them for their own ends, unless they are subject to appropriate checks. The constitutional freedom of speech and information in the US is a huge plus relative to, for example, the much greater governmental powers of censorship in the UK.

How this all ties in with protection from terrorism is indeed a difficult question, but it's one that the Bush administration has utterly failed to grasp.

[Occhidiangela]

How this all ties in with protection from terrorism is indeed a difficult question, but it's one that the Bush administration has utterly failed to grasp.
[right][snapback]97785[/snapback][/right]

You can't protect from terrorism. The no nail clippers idiocy on airline flights was an exercise in seeing how far the sheep would let themselves be harrassed.

The only way to defeat terrorism is if you pre empt it, or if they get the drop on you, clean up the mess and retaliate. (No, the pre emptive war on Iraq was not a pre emption of a terrorist group.)

As in football: versus a terrorist group the only effective defense is a good offense. Hunt them down and kill them, or hunt them down and capture them, (I prefer the former, but I understand those who approach terrorists as criminals). Time is the terrorist's ally and your enemy.

As to the credibility of the Bush team on their "trust me, we are being mindful of protections as we pursue the enemy" I'd be more willing to trust them if the blatant falsehoods weren't so common. For example, see the Washington Post
December 22, 2005 article by Glenn Kesslre entitled File The Bin Laden Phone Leak Under 'Urban Myths', or the attempt to equate the Iraq post war effort with the Japan post WW II effort wherein The Government is power (the Emperor at any rate) was the same as the pre war, and wartime, government and had support of many of the people. There is no such trust, nor continuity, in Iraq, yet the White House vomits forth idiotic reasoning such as this. Nothing new, the most inelegant rhetoric seen from Washington since Zachary Taylor tried to give a speech while suffering from laryngitis. <_<

Powell's remarks were general, which I disagree with, yours are specific to the Bush administration, who have given you ample cause to carry around immense boulders of salt to take with every public utterance they spew forth.

Go ahead, impeach George W Bush, and convict him in the Senate. It could work.

Then roll out the red carpet and welcome Dick Cheney as President.

Are you sure you can handle that? Who do you think the brains behind this administration is? It ain't the Shrub. :whistling:

Occhi

[eppie]

As in football: versus a terrorist group the only effective defense is a good offense.&nbsp; Hunt them down and kill them, or hunt them down and capture them, (I prefer the former, but I understand those who approach terrorists as criminals).&nbsp; Time is the terrorist's ally and your enemy.

Occhi
[right][snapback]97793[/snapback][/right]

Well that is a bit too black and white. If you are talking about, groups like the RAF, the brigate rosse, and the 17th november you might be right. These are organisations mainly supported by very intelligent people that fight against (according to them) gross ionjustice in todays society. These are people still available for reason and that chose there victims in a rational way. Trying to catch them will indeed lead to less terrorists and a slow dissappearance of the groups. (although the change in society also helped against this?

Modern day terrorists like the islamic ones and the IRA and UFF in Ireland are different kinds. These are populated by the typical "followers", that are full of hate for another group of people solely based on religeous differnces. These groups are supported by many "followers", because there are very many of these not very intelligent people that "just because somebody says they have to hate certain people" become complete fanatics.

I don't think this last group can be easily defeated by attacking them. Several reasons: 1 there is a very large "basin" of moronic followers that can take over the place of an arrested member. 2. the group of followers that will get to a point at which they are willing to commit terrorist acts will grow bigger the harder their group gets attacked 3. the "antiterrorist attacker" is very likely to lose it's principles (that have been established by years of stable politics) and this will only escalate the whole conflict.

The katholics and protestants are getting more and more on spekaing terms becuase of peace talks, not because of hard action to destroy these terrorist groups.

The same will happen with muslim terrorism. The way chosen by the US will only enlarge the conflict. The west should keep it's dignity and play by their own moral standards, not the ones of the terrorists. Ever torture scandal, every innocent person that is killes will strengthen the terrorist and their support.

[Occhidiangela]

Comments on terror groups, and their diversity.
[right][snapback]97798[/snapback][/right]

I agree with you that each terror group should be considered within its own context.

However, when dealing with absolutists and True Believers, there is often no real room for negotiation, the approach one is faced with "what's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable."

I find Eric Hoffer's "True Believer" model useful in considering what motivates a terrorist. I highly recommed his book, even though he wrote it decades ago in reference to a slightly different phenomenon than the contemporary terrorist issue.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

Wonder of wonders. A red letter day. Eppie, Occhi and I agree on something.

I was just going to mention something similiar to your post. In the carrot and stick metaphor, you need to remember to apply the right type of stick, and not to forget to use the right kind of carrots. I'm sure we've discussed approaches to terrorism here before.

On the carrot side, you need to avoid capitulating toward allowing them to realize a Taliban model state as was done in Afghanistan. I think like all counter-cultures, the fundamentalist Islamic movement will either become diluted and absorbed, or rejected outright. With ideological terror groups who are willing to commit "suicide" for the cause, you need to also ask, "What things would hurt the cause?" rather than just "What things would disuade the individual from supporting the cause?"

I put suicide in quotes, because I think it may be a western cultural notion, whilst in the minds of the Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist there is a difference between martyrdom operations, suicide, and murder. There is some danger in attacking these causes directly, resulting in a reactionary popularism, veneration of martyrs, and a justification for resistance.

My view has been that we need to win the war of ideas rather than the highest body count, and I agree in part with Occhi in that being proactive in preventing a terrorist event wins in a few ways. It demoralizes the terrorist organization with a failure, it disuades others from joining a cause that is a failure, it boosts the morale of the defenders, and gives credibility to the anti-terrorist cause.

However, preventing the few vipers from killing does not root out the vipers nests, and that is what ultimately needs to be done. I would lean heavily on the psychological "winning the hearts and minds" by debunking their distorted ideology and "poison the nest" to make the association unteneble and minimize the problem non-violently.

One issue in the past has been that there are these old salty clerics spewing hatred and inciting violent action who never implicate themselves in the actions they inspire. In our society we allow such vipers ("grand dragons") to exist and spew their venom, such as the marginalized white supremicist movements. The natural leap has been to pass laws, but I fear "hate speech" laws in how they might be applied to squelch dissident speech, and erode our freedom of speech protections. Can we live with the idea of allowing hate mongers amoung us to occasionally recruit a new batch of killers?

[Thecla]

Then roll out the red carpet and welcome Dick Cheney as President.&nbsp;

Personally, I think the whole administration should just resign in shame, but perhaps Cheney as President would clarify things.

One of the beauties of the Bush-Cheney administration is that there are always two possible explanations for its actions: the "village idiot" theory or the "evil genius" theory. As a strategy to confuse opponents, this would work less well in, say, a Nixon-Quayle administration. ;)

[Chesspiece_face]

There's been a lot of jibber jabber lately coming out lately rationalizing Bush's "Spying" by claiming that Clinton did the same thing. Just thought i would clear this up for anyone that is following the whole bruhahah.

What Clinton approved was entirely different than what has happened under Bush (whether Bush broke the law or not). This is what Clinton 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.

Full Text

The key excerpt from above is the "certifications required by that section". And if you look at what those certifications state you'll find that the only way they can enact these searches is if

there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person

Full Text 2
(this link may ask you to make a donation. just click "no thanks")