posted December 16, 2005 10:37 PM              

Bush approved eavesdropping

KATHERINE SHRADER

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - President Bush has personally authorized a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States more than three dozen times since October 2001, a senior intelligence official said Friday night.

The disclosure follows angry demands by lawmakers earlier in the day for congressional inquiries into whether the monitoring by the highly secretive National Security Agency violated civil liberties.

"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," declared Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He promised hearings early next year.

Bush on Friday refused to discuss whether he had authorized such domestic spying without obtaining warrants from a court, saying that to comment would tie his hands in fighting terrorists.

In a broad defense of the program put forward hours later, however, a senior intelligence official told The Associated Press that the eavesdropping was narrowly designed to go after possible terrorist threats in the United States.

The official said that, since October 2001, the program has been renewed more than three dozen times. Each time, the White House counsel and the attorney general certified the lawfulness of the program, the official said. Bush then signed the authorizations.

During the reviews, government officials have also provided a fresh assessment of the terrorist threat, showing that there is a catastrophic risk to the country or government, the official said.

"Only if those conditions apply do we even begin to think about this," he said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the intelligence operation.

"The president has authorized NSA to fully use its resources - let me underscore this now - consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution to defend the United States and its citizens," the official said, adding that congressional leaders have also been briefed more than a dozen times.

Senior administration officials asserted the president would do everything in his power to protect the American people while safeguarding civil liberties.

"I will make this point," Bush said in an interview with "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." "That whatever I do to protect the American people - and I have an obligation to do so - that we will uphold the law, and decisions made are made understanding we have an obligation to protect the civil liberties of the American people."

The surveillance, disclosed in Friday's New York Times, is said to allow the agency to monitor international calls and e-mail messages of people inside the United States. But the paper said the agency would still seek warrants to snoop on purely domestic communications - for example, Americans' calls between New York and California.

"I want to know precisely what they did," Specter said. "How NSA utilized their technical equipment, whose conversations they overheard, how many conversations they overheard, what they did with the material, what purported justification there was."

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., a member of the Judiciary Committee, said, "This shocking revelation ought to send a chill down the spine of every American."

Vice President Dick Cheney and Bush chief of staff Andrew Card went to the Capitol Friday to meet with congressional leaders and the top members of the intelligence committees, who are often briefed on spy agencies' most classified programs. Members and their aides would not discuss the subject of the closed sessions.

The intelligence official would not provide details on the operations or examples of success stories. He said senior national security officials are trying to fix problems raised by the Sept. 11 commission, which found that two of the suicide hijackers were communicating from San Diego with al-Qaida operatives overseas.

"We didn't know who they were until it was too late," the official said.

Some intelligence experts who believe in broad presidential power argued that Bush would have the authority to order these searches without warrants under the Constitution.

In a case unrelated to the NSA's domestic eavesdropping, the administration has argued that the president has vast authority to order intelligence surveillance without warrants "of foreign powers or their agents."

"Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority," the Justice Department said in a 2002 legal filing with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review.

Other intelligence veterans found difficulty with the program in light of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed after the intelligence community came under fire for spying on Americans. That law gives government - with approval from a secretive U.S. court - the authority to conduct covert wiretaps and surveillance of suspected terrorists and spies.

In a written statement, NSA spokesman Don Weber said the agency would not provide any information on the reported surveillance program. "We do not discuss actual or alleged operational issues," he said.

Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, former NSA general counsel, said it was troubling that such a change would have been made by executive order, even if it turns out to be within the law.

Parker, who has no direct knowledge of the program, said the effect could be corrosive. "There are programs that do push the edge, and would be appropriate, but will be thrown out," she said.

Prior to 9/11, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance activities to foreign embassies and missions - and obtained court orders for such investigations. Much of its work was overseas, where thousands of people with suspected terrorist ties or other valuable intelligence may be monitored.

The report surfaced as the administration and its GOP allies on Capitol Hill were fighting to save provisions of the expiring USA Patriot Act that they believe are key tools in the fight against terrorism. An attempt to rescue the approach favored by the White House and Republicans failed on a procedural vote.

posted December 16, 2005 10:45 PM            

If so, why do you think so?

And by the way, if your posted AP story is correct, then between the two AP stories, they lie at a 50% rate.

That good enough for you?

posted December 16, 2005 10:49 PM              

we are no longer it's priority
or all these secret's wouldn't be kept

we have been kept in the Dark for long enough
it's time to SEE the reality
things have to change

posted December 16, 2005 11:36 PM            

Were the formation, ideals and implementation of the government corrupt? Or, are some in the government corrupt?

posted December 16, 2005 11:45 PM              

This story is all over...

...network news.....cable news..... internet.....so looks like there must be something to it.....

In fact, I first heard it on CNN....

posted December 17, 2005 12:03 AM            

quote:

---

And by the way, if your posted AP story is correct, then between the two AP stories, they lie at a 50% rate.

---

It's amazing how low you'll stoop to try to make something look worse than it is.

Here are the 13 other articles AP has on Yahoo today (13 in addition to the one that leads this thread) -- JUST THE POLITICAL ONES. Like I said before, your example is three stories in hundreds. If all of the following are true, we're up to 82% accuracy (14 articles + 3 bad ones = 17. 3/17 = .176 [18%]). If we add all the true articles in all the other sections we're probably well into the 90th percentile.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051217/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_iraq http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/ap_on_re_us/miami_mayor_raise http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/ap_on_go_ot/reed_lobbyist http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/ap_on_el_ho/tennessee_election http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/ap_on_go_co/congressman_heart_attack http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051217/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/katrina_documents http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/ap_on_re_us/murtha_fundraising http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/ap_on_go_co/abramoff_senator http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_foreign_trip http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051217/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_interview http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051217/ap_on_go_co/congress_detainees http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051217/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act

posted December 18, 2005 01:17 PM              

"Yes, I did it! You see,
I'm the commander-in-chief here.

I'm the presidint of
these United States,
and can do anything
I want!!!!
and nobody

- not even that g0d dam
piece of paper is gonna stop me!"

posted December 21, 2005 01:53 AM              

But hey! Maybe the people at this church got the right idea after all....

***********************************************************

"Hey, I own the supreme court.....so just try and stop me!"

posted December 21, 2005 09:19 AM            

I just love the way virtually everything they touch or step in blows up in their leftist faces.

Stand by for the coming sh*t storm.

Bush is fully authorized to take relevant action to safeguard the United States and US citizens against not only terrorist threats but virtually any foreign or domestic threat; in fact, it's his sworn oath and duty to do so.

That power is conferred on Bush by the United States Constitution, as Commander In Chief of all US military forces and the agencies which serve to focus those military forces on threats to the United States and US citizens.

Among those agencies which gather intelligence against threats to the US are the DIA...Defense Intelligence Agency, CIA...Central Intelligence Agency, NSA...National Security Agency and the FBI...Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Further, the Congress of the United States confirmed that power in the Joint Congressional Resolution authorizing the use of military forces against Iraq.

Here's the specific wording.

Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

"Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;"

Further, the court has confirmed and upheld the power of the President to authorize warrantless searches and intercepts of communications.

"In Re: Sealed Case," the FISA appeals court decision cited a previous FISA case [U.S. v. Truong], where a federal court "held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." ***Notice, the authority is inherent in the president.

The court's decision went on to say: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power." ****Notice, this authority is a constitutional power bestowed on the president.

So, now all the brain dead leftist morons are just shocked, shocked they say to find the President has used his Constitutional and statutory authority to detect and thwart terrorist activity directed against the United States; not to mention a couple of brain dead republican senators, Lindsey Graham and Arlen Specter...soon to be joined by Chuck Hagel, as soon as he can locate a microphone and elbow his way to the front of the line for a media camera.

The targets of these intercepts and wiretaps had already tripped some wires which gave intelligence officers and Bush good reason to believe they were or might be either a terrorist, a recruiter, funder or planner for terrorist activity directed against the United States. And the so called spy works were tightly targeted on them and were not random interception of Americans talking to Americans in private conversations about purely innocent matters.

This is the most delicious part. The part the shrill shriekers of the leftist press, the pants wetters of the brain dead leftist democrats and panty twisters of the support groups surrounding the former who are pathologically inclined to believe every word; the part they have forgotten or hope to hell everyone else has.

Soon after Commander Corruption...Bill Clinton took office, he authorized an NSA monitoring program code named ECHELON. ECHELON, the kind of monitoring program the shrieking leftist press and brain dead leftist morons in Congress are attempting to portray the Bush program as being but which it isn't.

ECHELON monitored millions of purely private phone and other electronic communications between Americans as well as foreign conversations. ECHELON was not focused on known threats or even suspected threats. ECHELON monitored conversations and other communications for a list of words, then transferred that conversation or communication to an operator who listened in and recorded the conversation or copied the fax or whatever form it happened to be. Under ECHELON, a United States Senator had his private conversation live monitored and tape recorded and there's no doubt whatsoever hundreds of thousands of other Americans were monitored and recorded as well.

The NY Times called the Bush authorized program unprecedented. Other organs of the shrieking leftist press picked up the story and spread the lies and none that I could find in the so called main stream media made one mention of ECHELON. If they don't talk about ECHELON, then it didn't exist..or so they would have everyone believe.

But ECHELON did exist and may still exist for all I know. One of the so called news magazines ran a piece on ECHELON during the administration of Commander Corruption which started with the brief that if you were one of the millions of Americans who made a phone call, sent a fax, email or engaged in any one of numerous types of communication that day, then your communication was very likely monitored by ECHELON.

Now, stand by while the person(s) who broke the story about the targeted intercepts of the Bush Administration, are hauled before a grand jury to testify as to the identity of the government official who leaked the existence of this program, the program the Attorney General of the United States says is the most highly classified program in the United States. I sincerely hope he or they decide not to reveal their source. In which case, I hope they will be hauled before a court who will put them in jail and haul them out once a month to see if they've changed their mind(s) and it's ok with me if he/they rot in jail...well, forever...and a day.

posted December 21, 2005 10:52 AM            

FLASHBACK: CLINTON, CARTER SEARCH 'N SURVEILLANCE WITHOUT COURT ORDER

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

WASH POST, July 15, 1994, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches": Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

Government officials decided in the Ames case that no warrant was required because the searches were conducted for "foreign intelligence purposes."

Government lawyers have used this principle to justify other secret searches by U.S. authorities.

"The number of such secret searches conducted each year is classified..."
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

posted December 21, 2005 12:18 PM            

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

posted December 21, 2005 11:54 AM            

Statutorily legal
Constitutionally legal
Has been upheld by the court

That Commander Corruption signed Executive Orders saying it is legal

That Carter signed Executive Orders saying it was legal

That ECHELON was a totally unfocused snooping program which spied on American Citizens with no expectation any of them had broken any laws or intended to do so.

That ECHELON was a creation of Commander Corruption

And yet, with all that information out there, here's the lying Associated Press following the NY Times down Lying Lane and omitting any reference to any information which would undercut their leftist friends arguments against Bush.

Now, if there's anyone with 2 braincells to rub together who still believe anything the NY Times or the Associated Press prints, it's time to get some professional help.

Cheney Says President Has Spying Authority

By DEB RIECHMANN
Associated Press Writer
Dec 20 6:55 PM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday called for "strong and robust" presidential powers, saying executive authority was eroded during the Watergate and Vietnam eras. Some lawmakers objected that President Bush's decision to spy on Americans to foil terrorists showed he was flexing more muscle than the Constitution allows. The revelations of Bush's four-year-old order approving domestic surveillance without court warrants has spurred a fiery debate over the balance of power between the White House, Congress and the judiciary.

"I believe in a strong, robust executive authority and I think that the world we live in demands it," Cheney said.

"I would argue that the actions that we've taken there are totally appropriate and consistent with the constitutional authority of the president. ... You know, it's not an accident that we haven't been hit in four years," the vice president said, speaking with reporters on Air Force Two en route from Pakistan to Oman.

On Capitol Hill, senators from both parties said the role of Congress cannot be sidelined _ even in wartime.

"I think the vice president ought to reread the Constitution," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

Democrats said they were deeply troubled by the surveillance program, and contended the president had no authority to approve it. "He has no legal basis for spying on Americans without court approval," said Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate.

Republicans said Congress must investigate whether Bush was within the law to allow the super-secret National Security Agency to eavesdrop _ without warrants _ on international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the United States with suspected ties to al-Qaida.

"I believe the Congress _ as a coequal branch of government _ must immediately and expeditiously review the use of this practice," said Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine.

Snowe joined three other members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, including Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel , in calling for a joint inquiry by the Senate judiciary and intelligence committees.

The administration defends the program, saying Congress gave Bush the authority to use "signals intelligence" _ wiretaps, for example _ to eavesdrop on international calls between U.S. citizens and foreigners when one of them is a suspected al-Qaida member or supporter.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales cites the Authorization to Use Military Force law, which Congress passed and Bush signed a week after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The administration believes that law lets the government avoid provisions of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The surveillance act was passed after public outcry over abuses during the Nixon administration, which spied on anti-war and civil rights protesters. Under the act, known as FISA, an 11-member court oversees government applications for secret surveillance or searches of foreigners and U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism or espionage.

"I'm not a lawyer, but in my reading, it is pretty conclusive, very conclusive, that FISA prohibits all warrantless electronic surveillance of Americans in America," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D- Calif.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., asked: "Why didn't the administration feel that it could go to the FISA court to get the warrant?"

Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, introduced a bill calling on Congress to determine whether there are grounds for impeachment _ an event that is extremely unlikely in a Republican-controlled Congress.

Democrats called attention to a Bush statement in April 2004 that they said conflicts with what the president is saying now.

"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires _ a wiretap requires a court order," Bush said during a speech on the Patriot Act in Buffalo, N.Y. "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."

The White House said the president's comments _ two years after approving the domestic surveillance program _ applied to the kind of roving wiretaps the Patriot Act allows for law enforcement, not eavesdropping for foreign intelligence.

Bush and his top advisers have suggested senior congressional leaders vetted the program in more than a dozen highly classified briefings. Democrats said they were told of the program, but had concerns.

West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, on Monday released a letter he wrote to Cheney in July 2003 that, given the program's secrecy, he was "unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities."

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., pushed back Tuesday, saying that if Rockefeller had concerns about the program, he could have used the tools he has to wield influence, such as requesting committee or legislative action. "Feigning helplessness is not one of those tools," Roberts said.

Cheney told reporters that in his view, presidential authority has been weakened since the 1970s through laws such as the War Powers Act, which Cheney says infringes on presidential authority.

He said the White House has helped protect presidential power by fighting to keep secret the list of people who were a part of his 2001 energy task force. The task force's activities attracted complaints from environmentalists, who said they were shut out of discussions on developing a national energy policy while corporate interests were present.

"That issue was litigated all the way up to the Supreme Court and we won," Cheney said.

___

Associated Press writers Nedra Pickler in Oman and Katie Shrader, Liz Sidoti, Elizabeth White in Washington contributed to this report.

posted December 21, 2005 07:03 PM            

By John Schmidt
Published December 21, 2005
John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States. He is now a partner in the Chicago-based law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw.

President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.

In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."

The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power," which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.

But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

FISA contains a provision making it illegal to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." The term "electronic surveillance" is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication "sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person" (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by "intentionally targeting that United States person." The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens. If the surveillance is based upon other kinds of evidence, it would fall outside what a FISA court could authorize and also outside the act's prohibition on electronic surveillance.

The administration has offered the further defense that FISA's reference to surveillance "authorized by statute" is satisfied by congressional passage of the post-Sept. 11 resolution giving the president authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent those responsible for Sept. 11 from carrying out further attacks. The administration argues that obtaining intelligence is a necessary and expected component of any military or other use of force to prevent enemy action.

But even if the NSA activity is "electronic surveillance" and the Sept. 11 resolution is not "statutory authorization" within the meaning of FISA, the act still cannot, in the words of the 2002 Court of Review decision, "encroach upon the president's constitutional power."

FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment.

Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense. The danger is that surveillance will not be used solely for that narrow and extraordinary purpose.

But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

posted December 21, 2005 10:10 PM              

I counted five responses from you in defense of bush, after my last post discussing the possibility of his impeachment!

Whoa! What devotion!

If I didn't know, I'd think you were trying to change my mind...

.....anyway......

........here's some more stuff I found on dubya, and it sure makes good sense to me....

******************************************

Impeachable Offenses

DigitalDivide.net

12-21-5

President Bush has admitted that he has authorized the use of surveillance upon American citizens and residents. He has argued that he has the authority to do so, that he has balanced the need to spy on us and our civil liberties. Unfortunately, his claims do not withstand scrutiny

posted December 21, 2005 10:15 PM              

The 1st Amendment guarantees our right to associate and communicate unimpeded by state and federal government. Merely communicating overseas is not grounds for monitoring, marking, flagging or otherwise recording the communications of US citizens. Current law allows for the presentation of evidence of criminal or terrorist activities as probable cause to issue a wiretap order. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for this administration to circumvent the rights guaranteed by this amendment.

The 4th Amendment guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. The US courts have held that a wiretap is an unreasonable search unless it is executed upon a valid warrant. The US congress has held such as being so unreasonable that it has passed the following laws that guarantee limits upon the execution of surveillance, investigation and record keeping by use of communication, telecommunication and records (including dossiers and case files):

- The Telecommunications Privacy Act of 1984 (TPA)
- The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986
(ECPA)
- The Privacy Act of 1974
- The Wire And Electronic Communications Interception
And Interception Of Oral Communications
- The Wireless Telecommunications Privacy Act of 2000
- The Freedom of Information Act

So, not only has Mr. Bush violated the Constitution, his oath or office, but also (at a minimum) six federal laws.

In so doing, he has violated his duties and obligations as the chief executive officer of this great nation and should be impeached.

posted December 21, 2005 10:20 PM              

He has lied, misled and/or relied upon inappropriate intelligence DATA to engage in an improper invasion of a sovereign nation, violated the UN Charter (which is part and parcel of our Constitution by law), has circumvented our fundamental rights, and portrays himself as our great protector.

Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Franco, Khomeini, the Saudi Royal Family and the Taliban all made the same claims of protection, but even Mr. Bush has recognized their actions as contrary to fundamental liberties, democracy and basic human rights.

The 5th Amendment guarantees the right of due process. The acts of spying on American citizens and residents without application, review, approval and issuance of a warrant is, without a doubt, a complete negation and circumvention of due process. There can be no excuse for such an end-run around due process. Such circumvention of due process is a breach of the highest magnitude of our fundamental liberties.

The 9th Amendment limits all members of government, including the president, from exceeding the powers and authority provided by the Constitution.

These limits include any and all efforts to usurp, circumvent and/or by-pass the rights of US citizens and residents. The 9th Amendment specifically reserves all rights not specifically assigned elsewhere to the state governments and the PEOPLE. Mr. Bush's claims that he has authority to spy upon US citizens and residents by virtue of an executive order betrays his "anything I want to do" agenda and his fascist demeanor. The 14th Amendment, in the first section, applies all federal protections and obligations under the Constitution to state governments (equal protection) and specifically reasserts the obligation of due process

posted December 21, 2005 10:21 PM              

It is unconscionable that anyone holding the highest political office of our nation would cast aside so many provisions of our Constitution, especially those that were specifically included by amending the original structure to prevent autocratic and/or authoritarian abuses

Violation of our Constitution is treason.

It is so not only in principle, but also by the words of the oath taken by each officer of the government, military and high office. The oath of office includes specific regard for defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic.

Once again, George W. Bush has violated that oath, violated the Constitution, violated federal laws, and made himself an enemy of freedom and civil rights.

Mr. Bush should resign in shame and disgrace.

In the alternative, our House of Representatives should bring about an immediate impeachment proceeding, and the Senate should convict. Should Mr. Bush not resign, and should congress fail to impeach and convict, then we should rise up against such abuses even to the point of militant overthrow of the current administration.

Mr. Bush has offered lame excuses, ridicule and denial as his only defense for his actions. He expects us to trust him. But his record of hypocrisy provides categorical evidence that he cannot be trusted. While he is advocating for liberty, freedom and democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, he is eroding and usurping civil liberties here in the US the supposed bedrock of freedom in our world. We cannot be advocating for freedom elsewhere while aborting freedom here. We cannot be advocating freedom and liberty in Iraq, under extreme lack of security, while we abandon liberties here in the name of security. But that is the hypocrisy that Mr. Bush is shoveling upon us.

posted December 21, 2005 10:24 PM              

Mr. Bush has appealed for us to trust his judgment regarding the protection of our civil liberties. Our fundamental form of government does not call for such trust because our forefathers and framers knew that men, left unchecked and balanced, are subject to corruption of power.

It is exactly because of the corrupting nature of power that our government was built upon a system of checks and balances, of guaranteed rights and liberties, and of due process.

Mr. Bush's judgment has removed many of the checks and balances, deliberately set aside the guaranteed rights, and ignored due process. He has done so not only by spying upon us, but also by circumventing the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, denying prisoners access to fundamental legal representations, invading a country without legal right, using a process of "rendition" to circumvent rules against torture, advocating for torture as a tool of interrogation, and well, we can't really be sure of what else, can we?

While Mr. Bush proclaims his religious fervor, his actions are anything but moral by any standard, not even the Christianity he professes. He proclaims that he understands his role, but does not act within the scope and limits of that role. He makes excuses and expects us to live with his breach of office, law and trust. We cannot trust Mr. Bush or anyone in his inner circle.

Beyond the fact that we cannot trust Mr. Bush is his admission (finally) that he relied upon poor intelligence to bring us into the invasion of Iraq. It was his job to make sure that the intelligence he received was accurate to the highest degree. The facts are in we know that Mr. Bush pushed an agenda of invasion despite being advised that the intelligence he used was suspect and potentially useless.

Several agencies and foreign sources provided this feedback to his administration.

We are thusly faced with the reality that either Mr. Bush, and his entire administration, and the entire intelligence infrastructure, is completely incompetent....

....or that Mr. Bush and others conspired to push forward an agenda of war mongering to meet their own needs and desires.

It is unfathomable that the entire intelligence infrastructure universally failed. It is unbelievable that there was no voice of reason among all the leaders advising Mr. Bush So we can only conclude that Mr. Bush is an outright liar and pushed his agenda regardless of the dangers for our nation, the dangers of war, and the tragedies of our losses.

Bush lied and our troops have died.
Bush lied and his administration spied.
Bush lied and our liberties were denied.
Bush lied and freedoms were circumscribed.
Bush lied and our laws he did not abide.

Face it Bush does nothing without having first lied

posted December 22, 2005 01:09 AM            

Maybe just like this would suffice!

posted December 22, 2005 10:10 AM            

Thursday, December 22, 2005
WASHINGTON - The terror-fighting USA Patriot Act may have a new lease on life.

The GOP-controlled Senate on Wednesday approved a six-month extension of the USA Patriot Act to keep the anti-terror law from expiring on Dec. 31. President Bush gave it his grudging blessing.

The Republican-controlled House is now expected to come back and consider the legislation keeping the 16 provisions of the law passed after the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington from expiring.

Republican leaders and Bush wanted to make most of the law permanent, but were stymied by a filibuster in the Senate and had to resort to a six-month extension.

"This will allow more time to finally agree on a bill that protects our rights and freedoms while preserving important tools for fighting terrorism," said Sen. Feingold, D-Wis., who was the only senator to vote against the original Patriot Act in 2001.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan on Thursday accused Senate Democrats of trying to score political points and appease special interests, including the American Civil Liberties Union, by blocking extension of the law. He said the temporary extension is a victory for the administration, even though it long said it would not approve anything but its permanent renewal.

"We kept Senate Democrats from killing the Patriot Act," McClellan said. "We're pleased that the existing Patriot Act is still in place."

"These vital tools will remain in place," he said, adding that the administration would continue to work to get the act reauthorized.

House and Senate negotiators had agreed to compromise legislation that would have made most of the anti-terrorism law permanent and added additional safeguards to the law. But Senate Democrats and a small group of GOP senators blocked the legislation, arguing that the compromise needed more safeguards in it to protect Americans' civil liberties.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he had no choice but to accept a six-month extension in the face of a successful filibuster and the Patriot Act's Dec. 31 expiration date. "I'm not going to let the Patriot Act die," Frist said.

Bush indicated that he would sign the extension. "The work of Congress on the Patriot Act is not finished," Bush said. "The act will expire next summer, but the terrorist threat to America will not expire on that schedule. I look forward to continuing to work with Congress to reauthorize the Patriot Act."

Frist said he had not consulted with House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., yet on the six-month extension. Senior Republicans there have opposed any temporary extension of the current law, insisting that most of the expiring provisions should be renewed permanently, but it would be difficult for the House to reject a plan agreed to by the Senate and President Bush.

The six-month "extension ensures that the tools provided to law enforcement in terrorist investigations in the Patriot Act remain in effect while Congress works out the few differences that remain," said Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., one of a small group of Republicans who crossed party lines to block the Patriot Act legislation.

Republicans who had pushed for legislation that would make most of the expiring provisions permanent said the agreement only postpones the ongoing arguments over the Patriot Act for six months. "We'll be right back where we are right now," said a clearly frustrated Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, added, "Our intelligence and law enforcement officials should not be left wondering, yet again, whether the Congress will manage to agree to reauthorize the tools that protect our nation."

Most of the Patriot Act - which expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates and financiers - was made permanent when Congress overwhelmingly passed it after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington.

Making permanent the rest of the Patriot Act powers, like the roving wiretaps which allow investigators to listen in on any telephone and tap any computer they think a target might use, has been a priority of the Bush administration and Republican lawmakers.

If Congress fails to renew 16 expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act by Dec. 31, America will be less safe, Gonzales and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff warned. Chertoff said every morning he reviews threat information against the United States and lies awake at night worrying about "what's coming next."

"The threat is still very much alive," Chertoff said, referring to terror groups that want to strike the United States.

--------------------------------------------

Well, maybe if Chertoff would consider interrogations of members of sleeper cells and having our soldiers be used for back-up for our intelligence to dismantle those sleeper cells, instead of having an administration that places most of our soldiers all in one place(Iraq). Plus leeking information of our CIA agents for political reasons. Looking into the privacy of the average American citizen, to use his/her information against that person that might be considered a threat for questioning the authority of the administration. Outsourcing our jobs to India and China which happen to be two countries that are so close to Afghanistan and Iran. And then do such an excellent job of provoking anger with our allies...

Yeah, I can see why Chertoff might be losing sleep!