Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Even in your glibness, you must understand that the other two branches are meant to be the check on executive power for every minute he sits in the office; it's not limited to elections.> The ability of the other two branches to check the executive branch is limited as well. They do not have the authority to deny the President his Constitutional powers. <If the admin. felt FISA was too cumbersome for their needs, they could have - and should have - gone to Congress to explain why and ask them to rewrite the law. Instead, they simply violated the law as written.> No, they didn't. They determined that the statue did not apply to what they were doing.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Saying this is a partisan ploy doesn't pass the smell test.> Nobody said that.
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<They (Congress and the Supreme Court) do not have the authority to deny the President his Constitutional powers.>> They have the obligation to check them, which is what the Congress is doing now. And it's about time, IMO. <<They determined that the statue did not apply to what they were doing.>> What did they think the FISA statute *DID* apply to if not quick and secret access to search warrants? <<Saying this is a partisan ploy doesn't pass the smell test.>> <<Nobody said that.>> "All this posturing is clearly for political advantage" Post #252. "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." G. Bush Was he lying then, or is he lying now?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What did they think the FISA statute *DID* apply to if not quick and secret access to search warrants?> As the editors of National Review recently wrote, "FISA is aimed at collecting intelligence over the long term against foreign agents and spies who operate domestically. The terrorist-surveillance program is an early-warning system designed to safeguard the nation against attack, and depends on the kind of quick decision-making that only the executive can provide." <"All this posturing is clearly for political advantage" Post #252.> It's bipartisan posturing. <Was he lying then, or is he lying now?> Neither. He was talking about the Patriot Act, not the NSA program.
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<Neither. He was talking about the Patriot Act, not the NSA program.>> A wiretap is a wiretap. Without a warrant, it's hard to know where the authorization came from, isn't it?
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>I don't believe that's correct.<< Belief is irrelevant. Many people don't believe that the holocaust happened but that doesn't deter from the fact that it did happen.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Can you point to any facts that support the statement "a wiretap is a wiretap"? Or is it likely that there are different types of survellience programs that government agencies use?
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<Can you point to any facts that support the statement "a wiretap is a wiretap"?>> And I thought that the "libs" were the ones that were too nuanced. Is a wiretap (by any name that you choose) any more legal or illegal if you don't have a warrant? My point is that if you don't have a warrant, how can you prove that the evidence that you are gaining was obtained lawfully? Is any court just supposed to take their word for it? The warrant is the paper trail. It's for the government's protection as much as the person under surveilance. Why so much stonewalling about obtaining a warrant?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <My point is that if you don't have a warrant, how can you prove that the evidence that you are gaining was obtained lawfully?> You can't. Which is why the NSA program isn't used for criminal cases, but rather to prevent terrorist attacks. <Why so much stonewalling about obtaining a warrant?> I've explained that several times.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<<If the Congress doesn't like what the NSA is doing, then they can cut the funding for the program.>>> ><That's bass ackwards. If the admin. felt FISA was too cumbersome for their needs, they could have - and should have - gone to Congress to explain why and ask them to rewrite the law. Instead, they simply violated the law as written.<> <It may be backwards, but it would definitely send the message with the consequences of the action when the NSA activity is defunded.> Of course, if they did that, the right-wing would immediately start the noise machine claiming that the Democrats are defunding the program that lets us listen to Al Qaeda. And there would actually be some truth to that, as I'm guessing most of the wiretaps ordered have been on legitimate targets. So defunding the program makes no sense. Insisting that all the targets BE legitimate, as vetted by court oversight, makes much more sense.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Even in your glibness, you must understand that the other two branches are meant to be the check on executive power for every minute he sits in the office; it's not limited to elections.>> <The ability of the other two branches to check the executive branch is limited as well. They do not have the authority to deny the President his Constitutional powers.> No one said they did. But it's pretty clear to most in congress, including quite a few Republicans, that Bush reached too far here. I posted the link to a very good editorial in another thread - here's just one paragraph: "It's not about whether we want to know what terrorists abroad are saying to people in the United States. Of course we do. There's no debate about that. It's not even about whether the National Security Agency's eavesdropping is legal. The administration's legal argument is specious..." Indeed. <<If the admin. felt FISA was too cumbersome for their needs, they could have - and should have - gone to Congress to explain why and ask them to rewrite the law. Instead, they simply violated the law as written.>> <No, they didn't. They determined that the statue did not apply to what they were doing.> That's one of the examples of specious reasoning the editorial was referring to. We can see this in the shifting argument. At first they were saying that FISA was too cumbersome. Then when it was pointed out that they could have asked congress to ammend the law if that was the case, they changed to "oh, well, we don't think FISA even applies here" because they claimed they had authorization based on the post 9/11 authorization of force. Which, of course, did not mention wiretaps at all. They're reaching here. And IMO will be found to have done so.
Originally Posted By woody "Of course, if they did that, the right-wing would immediately start the noise machine claiming that the Democrats are defunding the program that lets us listen to Al Qaeda." What are the Democrats afraid of? They already racheted up the rhetoric, with the New York Times in compliance, giving away all our secrets, and thus our ability to track terrorists. Since the program won't be stopped, the only thing that was hurt was our ability to fight the war against terrorists. "And there would actually be some truth to that, as I'm guessing most of the wiretaps ordered have been on legitimate targets. So defunding the program makes no sense." Of course it makes no sense, but I'm the one who thinks there's nothing illegal about it. "Insisting that all the targets BE legitimate, as vetted by court oversight, makes much more sense." Not really. We are in this predicament precisely because the warrants are difficult to apply for and process. There has to be a better way to have oversight of terrorist survellience. Oh, there is!!! Leave it alone.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<"Of course, if they did that, the right-wing would immediately start the noise machine claiming that the Democrats are defunding the program that lets us listen to Al Qaeda.">> <What are the Democrats afraid of? They already racheted up the rhetoric, with the New York Times in compliance, giving away all our secrets, and thus our ability to track terrorists.> Giving away "all our secrets?" A bit of hyperbole, no? It always amazes me that people can seemingly think that Al Qaeda was unaware of the possibility of having their conversations monitored before this particular program was revealed. You think they didn't know of that possibility? Of course they did. Witness their patterns of encoding messages within jpg pictures, etc. They know very well there's always a chance they're being monitored. <Since the program won't be stopped, the only thing that was hurt was our ability to fight the war against terrorists.> That wasn't hurt. And this program might be stopped after the courts have their say. Not to stop the wiretaps, but simply to stop warrantless wiretaps. <<And there would actually be some truth to that, as I'm guessing most of the wiretaps ordered have been on legitimate targets. So defunding the program makes no sense.>> <Of course it makes no sense, but I'm the one who thinks there's nothing illegal about it.> If it makes no sense, why did you offer it as a possibility? You don't throw away the baby with the bathwater. Tap the bad guys all you want, just get a damn warrant! <<Insisting that all the targets BE legitimate, as vetted by court oversight, makes much more sense.>> <Not really. We are in this predicament precisely because the warrants are difficult to apply for and process. There has to be a better way to have oversight of terrorist survellience. Oh, there is!!! Leave it alone.> Again, if Bush thought FISA was so cumbersome, he could have asked that the law be changed. He didn't.
Originally Posted By woody >>If it makes no sense, why did you offer it as a possibility? You don't throw away the baby with the bathwater. Tap the bad guys all you want, just get a damn warrant!<< Because the charges by the critics is it is a basis for an impeachment. Duh!!! If this is so serious that I warrants an impeachment, the defunding of the program would be a shortcut. BTW, I already said this earlier. You missed it. <a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48358" target="_blank">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n ews/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48358</a> "A new Zogby poll indicates a majority of Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <We can see this in the shifting argument. At first they were saying that FISA was too cumbersome. Then when it was pointed out that they could have asked congress to ammend the law if that was the case, they changed to "oh, well, we don't think FISA even applies here" because they claimed they had authorization based on the post 9/11 authorization of force.> The argument hasn't changed. FISA is too cumbersome, and it doesn't apply.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<We can see this in the shifting argument. At first they were saying that FISA was too cumbersome. Then when it was pointed out that they could have asked congress to ammend the law if that was the case, they changed to "oh, well, we don't think FISA even applies here" because they claimed they had authorization based on the post 9/11 authorization of force.>> <The argument hasn't changed. FISA is too cumbersome, and it doesn't apply.> Of course it's changed. If it didn't apply, why bother to argue its cumbersomeness? They changed their tune when they had to - but apparently love is deaf as well.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>If it makes no sense, why did you offer it as a possibility? You don't throw away the baby with the bathwater. Tap the bad guys all you want, just get a damn warrant!<< <Because the charges by the critics is it is a basis for an impeachment. Duh!!!> That doesn't follow. <If this is so serious that I warrants an impeachment, the defunding of the program would be a shortcut.> Doesn't follow. Defunding the program would defund both the legitimate taps AND the (one hopes, limited number of) illegitimate taps. <BTW, I already said this earlier. You missed it.> Perhaps I didn't respond because it simply made no sense. <<a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n" target="_blank">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n</a> ews/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48358 "A new Zogby poll indicates a majority of Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval."> That's a separate question. But no one is suggesting defunding wiretapping in general because we NEED to tap legitimate targets. The problem is taking on faith that all targets (targeted by this, or ANY adminstration) ARE legitimate without court oversight.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If it didn't apply, why bother to argue its cumbersomeness? They changed their tune when they had to - but apparently love is deaf as well.> They've said FISA didn't apply from the beginning. They argued about FISA cumbersomeness because some critics kept asserting, uncorrectly, that getting warrants are easy and quick.
Originally Posted By woody >>Doesn't follow. Defunding the program would defund both the legitimate taps AND the (one hopes, limited number of) illegitimate taps<< Don't ask me how they would do it. It would be an option they could take. >>The problem is taking on faith that all targets (targeted by this, or ANY adminstration) ARE legitimate without court oversight.<< How can be ever be sure that all the wiretaps are legally permissible with a warrant? You really can't. Court oversight means not all wiretaps will get approved, thus we are back to where the problem originated. The President will have to find a way around the Court.
