White House Derails Attempts to End Illegal Wiretapping 647
P. Rivacy writes "If you recall, last month we discussed Congress's attempts to outlaw the already illegal NSA wiretaps authorized by the President. The White House is now using delaying tactics to derail the passage of that bill. Their tactic is to stall on providing documents related to the President's warrantless wiretapping program, despite requests from the Senate Intelligence Committee that is currently reviewing the proposed legislation. '"Another critical priority for congressional oversight is government wiretapping of Americans, conducted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and, illegally, under the President's warrantless wiretapping program," Senator Russ Feingold said. "When the program was finally placed within the FISA process, an opportunity arose for the Administration and the Congress to move forward, under the law. Unfortunately, the Administration has yet to demonstrate a real interest in doing so."'"
A universal maxim that applies here: (Score:5, Insightful)
The makers of rules are never motivated to personally abide them. Rules are for you to follow.
Ergo, it is up to us to demand that rulemakers comply at least as well as the rest of us.
I predict... (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Legalities and such (Score:3, Insightful)
And, if you actually take the time to look into the entire program, I think you'll find that these alleged wiretaps are NOT occuring on domestic phone calls between American citizens. They are happening between people residing in this country (not necessarily citizens) and another party typically in al Queda-linked countries.
Re:A universal maxim that applies here: (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay (Score:4, Insightful)
Blatant and ongoing violations of the law (Score:5, Insightful)
What about me? (Score:3, Insightful)
Need a court ruling on this (Score:5, Insightful)
The most telling thing to answer the question though of "were these wiretaps illegal without any new law needing to be passed making them so?" is the Bush team's defense of the program. They have never argued that they are operating in compliance with FISA, that the program was operating within the written law. They have only argued that Bush, being the President, has the inherent authority to conduct such searches as he deems fit in the interest of national security.
Obviously Bush's administration has been pushing very hard to increase the power of the Executive, and this is part of that. But if there was an actual legal explanation for the program that made it clear that Bush was complying with the law, wouldn't it be better to avoid the scandal and ongoing conflict? He wouldn't have to abandon the stance that he can do whatever he wants. So when his best reply is "yes I ignored the law but I can do that because I'm president", that's pretty much all I need to hear.
I highly doubt that should it come to it that SCOTUS would agree with the President's views.
P.S. I'm sure someone will bring up the "other presidents did warantless taps!" talking point, but if you actually read what all these other presidents did from Carter on it was in compliance with the terms of FISA that allow warrantless tapping. Bush isn't even pretending that he is doing the same thing, which is why it's only conservative talk show hosts and not the White House PR who bring this up.
Re:I predict... (Score:5, Insightful)
BULLSHIT! (Score:5, Insightful)
And since NONE of the facts have been released, exactly HOW is it that YOU know who has and has not been tapped?
IF that was the case, THEN it would be EXACTLY the kind of situation that FISA was supposed to handle.
Sticktuitiveness (Score:5, Insightful)
The White House is nothing, if not consistent. It will not give ground on issues it deems important. They are convinced that the only way to catch terrorists on American soil is to tap everyone's phones and read everyone's email. While it may be a laudable idea in theory, the practice is far from certain to net anything useful. This is the information age. The terrorists no doubt know what is being tapped or watched. They haven't exactly proven themselves to be stupid or they would never have been able to pull off 9-11. So while the White House is sure that they'll catch them red-handed, the terrorists are no doubt finding other avenues of communication that the government can't tap into.
Al Qaeda took advantage of our false sense of security, and this is just more of that, only with bells, whistles, and the cry of "See?!? There hasn't been a terrorist attack here lately!". We're no more secure now than we were then, just more aware. What we do with that awareness will count for more than all the tapped phone calls the NSA listens to.
Re:Just impeach his sorry ass (Score:5, Insightful)
What bush has done to freedom, to fiscal security, and to the world is deserving of far worse than impeachment.
Re:What I find astonishing is... No impeachment ye (Score:3, Insightful)
One is both illegal espionage on a POPULAR group and ALSO an attempt to disrupt the basic running of your own government.
The other is an is an illegal espionage on a totally unpopular group for the legal purpose of supporting the basic running of our country.
While popularity may not be a reasonable counterargument, the disruption vs. support is a good one.
Re:This is new how? (Score:0, Insightful)
Also bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)
G8 (Score:4, Insightful)
gang1 (gng) pronunciation n.
A group of criminals or hoodlums who band together for mutual protection and profit.
A group of adolescents who band together, especially a group of delinquents.
A pack of wolves or wild dogs.
One with a logical mind has to clearly wonder what this administration is really up to at this point. They've subverted laws across all boundaries (national and international) yet nothing is done. The second a prior idiot played with a cigar, they tried impeaching him. I don't know about you but a cigar is nothing in comparison to privacy invasion, AT&T wiretaps, warrantless searches and phone taps... Did this man never read the federalist papers let alone any paper outside of Hustler magazine.
Re:What I find astonishing is... No impeachment ye (Score:3, Insightful)
The NSA is equipped to filter and process ALL telephone communications. Don't fool yourself; they're listening.
Actually, they have been for a long time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON [wikipedia.org]
So, you know... Your argument is like unto a cup of yummy kool ade!
Re:I predict... (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you ever thought about who is a terrorist? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just impeach his sorry ass (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What I find astonishing is... No impeachment ye (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the whole country wasn't on him like a cheap suit until well after wrong-doing had been established. Until that point, most either didn't care or thought Nixon was innocent of the accusations. It did sound more than a wee bit like a tin-foil-hat conspiracy. It didn't help that Nixon's political enemies had been hounding him for years. Remember all the fuss over accepting a frickin dog as a gift? Nixon's downfall started years before his near-impeachment and most of it revolved around enemies he made while he was politically involved with McCarthy.
The problem with impeachment... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just impeach his sorry ass (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, that would be "Article IV, Section 4" not the other way around, and it is specific to the federal government, not the Executive. And the language it uses, "invasion," is something most legal experts think does not apply to illegal immigration (and again, even if it did, it would mean the Congress has failed in its duties to pass laws to repel such an invasion, and the Congress can hardly hold the President accountable for that).
Keep trying! The Congress can impeach for any reason, of course, but you've offered only bad ones, that certainly would put the public against the Democrats, forcing them to take sides with Bush, which is the last thing the Democrats want. And besides, almost every Senator wants to be President: none of them would want to remove the President from office for such weak arguments.
Re:Just impeach his sorry ass (Score:5, Insightful)
He was being asked about an entirely consensual (by all accounts) sexual act, to try to establish that he was a harasser? Can you really not see the flaw in the logic there?
Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky was utterly irrelevant to the case at hand, as the only allegations of impropriety were related to infidelity, which is not what the lawsuit was supposed to be about.
However, since the lawsuit actually was about the infidelity (as it was not a serious attempt to find him guilty, but only to ruin his reputation) the whole thing was a farce to begin with.
The point remains that nothing Clinton did was as bad as what we've seen from Bush. If you believe that Clinton did wrong, then you can only believe that Bush did more wrong, or you are simply a hypocrite.
I despise lies, but I despise partisan political bullshit even more.
Re:What I find astonishing is... No impeachment ye (Score:2, Insightful)
Social Security is the Democrat's doing;
Medicare is the Democrat's doing;
Food stamps and welfare are the Democrat's doing;
(I.E. all of the most humanistic, compassionate programs our government has ever created were done by Democrats)
The Democratic party is the party that actually cares about people?
Yeah, you know? I think you're right. Thanks for the compliment.
Re:Just impeach his sorry ass (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Legalities and such (Score:3, Insightful)
The FISA ('78) was the only one offering some leeway in how wiretapping could be conducted OUTSIDE of "regular" law enforcement prior to 9/11.
And then, there's the "U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act" shortly afterwards.
Quoting wikipedia on that:
"The original Act had a sunset clause to ensure that Congress would need to take active steps to reauthorize it. Like many sweeping reform laws, the people of the United States needed time to test and implement its measures before deciding what provisions to keep and which to modify. One of the challenges to the original Act had been perceived civil liberties intrusions. The reauthorization resolution passed in 2006 contained the following civil liberties protections ("Safeguards"):
[...]
* Requiring Additional Specificity from an Applicant Before Roving Surveillance May be Authorized: The USA PATRIOT Act conference report addresses concerns about vagueness in applications for roving wiretaps in foreign spying and terrorism investigations by requiring additional specificity in these applications in order for a FISA Court judge to consider authorizing a roving wiretap.
* Requiring Court Notification Within 10 Days of Conducting Surveillance on a New Facility Using a Roving Wiretap: The USA PATRIOT Act conference report addresses concerns the roving wiretap authority could be abused by requiring the investigators to inform the FISA Court within 10 days when the roving surveillance authority is used to target a new facility.
* Requiring Ongoing FISA Court Notification of the Total Number of Places or Facilities Under Surveillance Using a Roving Wiretap: The USA PATRIOT Act conference report enhances judicial oversight to address any concerns that the roving wiretap authority could be abused. Specifically, the conference report requires the FISA Court to be informed on an ongoing basis of the total number of places or facilities under surveillance using a roving wiretap authority.
* Requiring Additional Specificity in a FISA Court Judges Order Authorizing a Roving Wiretap: The USA PATRIOT Act conference report addresses concerns about vagueness about the target in a FISA Court judges order authorizing a roving wiretap in foreign spying and terrorism investigations by requiring additional specificity."
Basically, it's no question that the wiretaps are legal or illegal, they were obviously and intentionally abusing a PROBABLE legal grey area in between, exploiting weaknesses in the promulgated legislation.
With this, the legislators try to FINALLY DEEM IT ILLEGAL FOR GOOD, to eliminate all probable legal uncertainties regarding them that MIGHT have been exploited to CLAIM they are legal in the first place.
One more thing to add in the "only in America" list of things: "Only in America, you need to pass a new law deeming something already illegal to be actually illegal".
Re:Sticktuitiveness (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just impeach his sorry ass (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is new how? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bear in mind that the parties have essentially reversed. In the 1950s/1960s, the Democrats were the party of the South and the Republicans the party of the North. It's backwards now. What happened is complicated, but it includes a number of factors including the decline of unions, the rise of the Religious Right, the general polarization of the parties into a "conservative party" (Republicans) and a "liberal party" (Democrats), the increasing geographical divide between secular and religious values, and a whole host of other issue.
Re:I predict... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say it was more questionable on Bush's part. Clinton just fired the USAs en masse when he got into office, Bush seems to have fired specific USAs that would not speed up iffy prosecutions of democratic supporters in time for the election.
As for the recess appointments, I'd say it's a bit pathetic that Bush was forced to do recess appointments while his party held the majority in the legislature. Not to excuse Clinton's actions, but he was dealing with a legislature that was in the process of impeaching him, that doesn't leave much room to agree on appointees.
heck we have the speaker of the house trying to make herself the face of American foreign policy!
Actually we have the press and the republicans trying to convince people that congress people are somehow not alowed to leave the narrow confines of DC and their home district to look into situations. I mean, what was it a week, two weeks before that a republican delegation went and talked to Syria? No one said they were trying to be the face of American foreign policy.
ice attempt at an apologia for the Administration though.
Re:A universal maxim that applies here: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just impeach his sorry ass (Score:3, Insightful)
Lied about the intelligence? Come on! He had the same intelligence EVERYONE had. Clinton himself thought he had WMD. Further, he signed a bill AUTHORIZING regime change in Iraq while he was in office!
Lied about Medicare costs? Is it a lie when numbers are just wrong? Or do you need any evidence to backup such claims? If it's a LIE, then lets impeach Kennedy and Kerry for The Big Dig fiasco. And every other federal government office holder with their name attached to anything.
You're blowing smoke.
Re:I predict... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would be quite surprised if the Democrats don't start busting out the contempt charges real fucking soon, with the way justice officials seem to be making a habit of lying to congress.
Re:I predict... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please take a moment to consider the difference between a clean sweep and a targetted purge.
Re:Just impeach his sorry ass (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know whether to laugh until I collapse, or ask you what it is you're smoking, and where I can get some.
Re:A universal maxim that applies here: (Score:3, Insightful)
They already know "where their power is derived from", the corporations, and wealthy individuals who contribute to their campaigns and send lobbyists to Washington, D. C. to write...ummm, excuse me, advise on critical legislation pertaining to corporations and wealthy individuals.
Re:Car analogy! (Score:3, Insightful)
Your car analogy is deeply flawed; a theft (sinmgle act) cannot possibly be compared to sexual harassment (a pattern of acts)
Re:I predict... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please stop referring to this as though it has any impact on the current scandal. Nearly every president fires all of the federal prosecutors and replaces them with their own appointees, INCLUDING Bush. Bush *already* fired all of Clinton's appointees, and nobody complained because that was completely normal, just like when Clinton did it. The Bush Justice Department fired *Bush's* appointees mid-term because they weren't prosecuting according to the political agenda of the President. It is nothing like the previous firings, including the earlier firings by Bush.
Re:Just impeach his sorry ass (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just impeach his sorry ass (Score:3, Insightful)
A history of consensual relationships does not have any merit to a sexual harassment case. Strange how with all those victims of his harassment that they needed a consensual partner to try to show a pattern of non-consensual sexual aggression. If they couldn't show that behavior through actual sexual misconduct from all these victims, how were they supposed to do so with someone who was not a victim at all?
I have no qualms about him being caught in the lie and impeached -- Clinton was a consumate politician (until his fear of Hillary made him retarded), he played these political games all the time, so when he got caught in a political trap no sympathy from me. But that line of reasoning that Lewinsky was actually relevent to the case is brain damaged.
What Clinton did was proven and he plead out and was punished.
So before this occured, were you arguing that since the claims against Clinton had not been proven that there should have been no prosecution? You realize that impeachment would be such an attempt to prove the allegations of wrong doing?
"Innocent until proven guilty" is with regards to punishment, not actual prosecution. For prosecution, suspicion based on evidence is sufficient. Otherwise it'd be rather hard to enforce laws.
He had the same intelligence EVERYONE had.
No, everyone had the intelligence he gave them. Yes they were stupid for believing it.
Lied about Medicare costs? Is it a lie when numbers are just wrong? Or do you need any evidence to backup such claims? If it's a LIE, then lets impeach Kennedy and Kerry for The Big Dig fiasco. And every other federal government office holder with their name attached to anything.
I always find it funny when someone thinks a great way to steer blame away from a politician is to start listing names of people of the opposite party of the politician and say they did the same thing. As if I'm going to go "Oh, but I don't want my precious Democrats to be prosecuted! I'll let Bush slide!"
Ha ha! As if! Send all the fuckers to jail. I'm against all criminals no matter what animal-themed political club they belong to. So yes, I agree completely, go after Bush and the political architects of the Big Dig.
Re:I predict... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, in addition to being distasteful and demonstrative of Bush's disrespect for the office, it's quite likely that they were also illegal.
It is illegal under the Hatch Act of 1939 to use political office and federal funds for campaigning for any particular candidates. The 8 fired attorneys all allege that they were fired for refusing to do so. Numerous witnesses so far have supported these claims, including Monica Gooding's recent testimony in which she stated that the Republican party had engaged in vote caging as recently as the 2004 election despite a 1986 supreme court injunction ordering them to stop.
Gonzales has, of course, denied them, but has claimed that beyond very vague "performance reasons" he can't remember why they were fired, or even who fired them.
Of course, what's really scary about this is not that 8 US Attorneys refused abuse their office to promote Republican party political campaigns, but that 85 of them didn't.
Re:I predict... (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose they too were giving tyrant states credibility?
Re:Just impeach his sorry ass (Score:3, Insightful)
No Way In Hell Parent is Accurate (Score:5, Insightful)
Were GWB's recess appointments any less questionable than Clinton's?
Then takes a left turn into fairytale land:
Was the firing of certain federal prosecutes by bush any less questionable than Clinton firing *all* of them?
You are sorely mistaken as to why matters are different in this case. I copied this nice summary: "During the Clinton administration, there were just four people in the White House -- the President, the Vice President, the White House Counsel, and the Deputy White House Counsel -- who could participate in discussions with the Justice Department "regarding pending criminal investigations and criminal cases." There were just three Justice Department officials authorized to talk with the White House. This arrangement was intended restrict political interference in the administration of justice.
Yesterday in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said that it was important that the Justice Department "be independent from" the White House. But as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) pointed out, the firewalls that had existed during the Clinton administration have been ripped down. In the Bush administration, the rules have been rewritten so that 417 White House officials and 30 Justice Department officials are eligible to have discussions about criminal cases."
struggle between branches
The current administration is not struggling. They _have_ vastly expanded the executive offices powers. Nixon tried and failed. They got it right this time.
heck we have the speaker of the house trying to make herself the face of American foreign policy
This comment suggest you believe in an executive branch with infinite powers. I respectfully disagree.
Re:I predict... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I predict... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I predict... (Score:1, Insightful)
Not only that, it lets them pretend that spending billions of dollars to bring democracy to the middle east was a great idea by allowing them to believe that Hamas and Hezbollah were not actually democratically elected.
Hell, if they turned the ray up high enough, they might even be able to convince themselves that the US-backed and democratically elected Afghanistan government sentencing Christians to death is a good thing.
Re:I predict... (Score:4, Insightful)
If similar criticism were to be fielded by serious political opponents here (in Norway) against a sitting government it would pretty much be a tremendous political scandal the likes of which has scarcely been seen in sixty years and heads would roll on one side or the other. But then, in Taiwan MPs throw shoes at eachother as a matter of course
Re:A universal maxim that applies here: (Score:5, Insightful)
Governments sit for entire sessions coming up with new laws, never really repealing old stupid ones most of the time.
Imagine an entire whitehouse year full of repealing laws instead of creating new ones. Wouldn't look too great eh... (IMO fantastic, but MO doesn't count)
Re:Just impeach his sorry ass (Score:3, Insightful)
This is 100% correct. Look here: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/01
If someone spent $40 million dollars digging dirt on _anyone_ something will come up. Being that only a BJ came up after $40 million in research actually proves that Clinton is almost a saint.
This was a witch hunt, plain and simple. Just a precursor to the commander in chief we have today and the loss of rights of everyone in the process.
Re:How about some facts? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A universal maxim that applies here: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I predict... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never considered the pardoning of Nixon a good thing. He we are not even 40 years later with a President condoning far worse crimes such as torture and warrant less wiretapping. Hell, there have even been things considered war crimes committed in the name of the United States which goes against everything the country stands for. At what point do we say stop, you have behaved like a criminal, it is time for us to treat you like one and throw them the hell in jail.
I think that would do far more to actually healing the country versus getting us to start thinking about other problems to tackle. International opinion has never been a concern of the United States and I don't think it should play a part in our decisions now.
I think we need to do something about the wrongs being committed against American citizens as well as the wrongs Americans are committing against others. If we're fighting a war on terror and Americans are now less safe because we can be stripped of our citizenship and shipped to Guantanamo bay where we can be held for more than 5 years without even a hearing then this country has some serious problems that should never have been allowed in the first place. No where in the constitution does is say that the government can torture people, and no where does it say that the government can spy on our own people. If we're going to become a police state then the legislature needs to bring it forward and pass laws to allow this all to happen legally.
In short, Nixon gave America some serious nerve damage, we just stopped more damage from happening and didn't go through any therapy to get back what we lost because we chose to just forget about it. We can't afford to forget about Bush and all the rights that we have lost without a constitutional amendment. That's not supposed to be possible.
Re:I predict... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I predict... (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering Clinton is still treated like the popular Jock of presidents rather than the buffoon who's illegal and immoral activities left a tarnish on the Oval Office.
Yeah, all those balanced budgets, that surplus, the prosperity, the international respect, the peace. I don't know how the country survived.
Re:I predict... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I predict... (Score:2, Insightful)
You would if he repeatedly talked about burning down the store next door in a non-joking manner, especially if he was the fire-safety marshal of your company and one of the few people with ready access to all the incendiaries. At some point, the CEO is responsible for the actions of employees when he either (a) doesn't pay enough attention to what illegal activities his employees endorse and pursue or (b) does pay attention and silently condones their words and actions by allowing them to continue employment. It's not like Gonzales, for example, was campaigning to change the law on his own time to allow torture. Instead, Gonzales drafted a memo and sent it out to encourage the acts which were, at best, borderline torture. It's funny how the EPA is so reluctant to enforce the idea that carbon dioxide might be a pollutant covered under law while at the same time the Justice Department is perfectly willing to skirt, or even glaringly pass right past, the law. Funny how the "decider" can't seem to decide on whether to follow the law or not; or perhaps he did decide, which of course is the entire problem.
Re:I predict... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I predict... (Score:5, Insightful)
those ALL came to be after Newt Gingrich became speaker.
WRONG. The first year Clinton was in office he did something that 12 years of Republican administration before him failed to do: submit a budget smaller than the year before. Don't think Clinton had anything to do with a balanced budget? Take a look at what happened to the budget with a Republican Congress and a Republican president following Clinton.
I distinctly remember some place called Mogadishu
I remember a president named Bush who left that mess for someone else to clean up. Sound familiar?
As for peace, Balkans war comes to mind.
A war to stop actual genocide? A war where the U.S. suffered not a single combat fatality? Yeah, I remember that one, too.
And our own government was doing the terrorist's job for them at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Ruby Ridge? Are you kidding? That happened before Clinton was even elected. As for Waco, sorry but I'm not going to debate that one with someone from the black helicopter crowd.
Re:A universal maxim that applies here: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, not exactly. Just pointing out that showing the constitution to oppresive leaders is not going to lead to change. What do people think would happen, Bush reads it, blushes and says "Oops, sorry guys, my bad."? Plainly this is not going to happen. These documents vest power to the people, but if the people do not appropriate that power, well, they won't have it. It's not the sort of thing that you can solve by saying "Hey meanie, stop that, we have the power, see, we're sending you a piece of paper"
In any case, Bush is not so powerful that he can't be removed from office. However, people have been well trained in complacency and are unlikely to do anything effective any time soon. You can see a little of my views on why people won't really do anything in this post http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=237629&cid=19
To curtail "Bush's" system (it's really far larger than he is, more appropriately called "The Federal Government"). To remove Bush from the presidency only takes an election. To remove him from all forms of power only takes one determined citizen with a rifle. The problem with actual assasination/revolution though, is that history shows there is an effectively unlimited supply of potential autocrats waiting to take the place of the old ones (a point touched on by the parent to the second link I gave).
The point is that it is not necessary (or desirable) to actually have a civil war or even assasinations. What is necessary and desirable is that the individual government officials etc link the abuse of their power to the possibility of personally experienced consequences, the ultimate being armed resistance from the citizenry.
Re:Wiretap all muslims for 2 generations (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's food for thought:
A religion is nothing more than a set of beliefs.
The base, though, is made up of people.
People, on the whole, are pretty god damn stupid.
And stupid people cause a lot of really stupid problems.
Islam itself is perfectly fine. Want proof? Last I checked, most Muslims don't even live in the Middle East. They live in the West Pacific. You know, Indonesia and such. Maybe not the most stable region in the world, but we're not exactly getting the same problems.
Let's face it. In any religion, if you look hard enough and interpret loosely enough, you can justify pretty much anything. And assholes can and do. This is true then, it's true now, and it'll be true tomorrow. As long as there's religion, there will be people willing to spread it peacefully with books, and people who spread it at the point of a gun.