Is Bush Breaking the Law?

RidinHighSpeeds · 01-09-2006, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyreay

I did not say we should do away with the Patriot Act entirely, just put in some checks and balances that I know you support in general.
As for being off topic, this post's title is 'is bush braking the law?' so I think we are still on topic.
If the act is modified to monitor our domestic spying I have no problem with it. I just think that with all the lies being told and all the covering up going on that it is possible that Bush is using this program for more than is being admitted. If not, than there should be no problem with putting in the checks and balances I'm talking about!

Well I can't argue against that because you are right.

If their is no large support or noticed acts that the President has abused the Patriot Act, then their is no need for all this criticism. If all these lies and propaganda is true, then the media would have a whole lot to say on the matter and the liberals in Congress would have already setup a case against him. Considering this is something mostly heard from the fans of the anti-Bush crowd, it's mostly gobblygook to me.

foundit66 · 01-10-2006, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aMFliberal

"(a)
(1) 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 periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and..."

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

The problem comes with the definitions. Once again words have meaning. This is where the Patriot Act does come into play. Thanks to the Patriot Act, terrorist suspects now fall under the classification of Foreign Agent. This means that anyone providing aid, support, technical knowledge, or money to a terrorist group, who is a citizen of the United States, may be classified as a Foreign Agent.

Therefore, the President with the approval of the Attorney General may then surveil the electronic communications of these parties under the autonomy of FISA.

Your comments may invoke other issues into play, but what aMFliberal quoted still applies.
Even if they are classifed as a "Foreign Agent", a U.S. citizen SHOULD STILL be a U.S. CITIZENS until the courts say otherwise. (Unless we suddenly gave the president power to revoke citizenry based on suspicions...)
Thus they would be a part of the quoted section B "(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and..."

Nothing you have said negates this.
As such, Bush's actions inside the U.S. would be EXPLICITLY outside the scope of the afore-mentioned powers.

The only way around it would be to declare the participants as no longer U.S. citizens, and Bush DOES NOT have that power.

If you're tapping UNITED STATES phone calls where one of the ends is a UNITED STATES phone, it seems blatantly obvious that there is a VERY SUBSTANTIAL likelihood that the contents of the communication will include conversations which are explicitly forbidden.

And in addition, note the wording. It doesn't say that if a participant is KNOWN not to be a U.S. citizen. It talks about the LIKELIHOOD that such a tap could involve a participants who is a U.S. citizen. In other words, if you have a house which has 3 non-U.S. citizens, and one U.S. citizen as residents, it would be illegal to tap that phone's house because there WOULD BE a "substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party".

foundit66 · 01-19-2006, 05:04 PM

To me, a lot of this boils down to whether or not Bush is actually DOING something with his actions...
... or whether he is just trying to get wire taps on phones where he COULD NEVER show a legitimate interest for tapping their phones.

Hopefully, this issue will be answered in the near future.

But judging from other attempts of the Bush administration to "spy" on American citizenry in the interests of fighting terrorism, it seems their dragnet is entirely too large resulting in no real success.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 - In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.

But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.

B.I. officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency, which was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans' international communications and conducting computer searches of foreign-related phone and Internet traffic, that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy.

As the bureau was running down those leads, its director, Robert S. Mueller III, raised concerns about the legal rationale for the eavesdropping program, which did not seek court warrants, one government official said. Mr. Mueller asked senior administration officials about "whether the program had a proper legal foundation," but ultimately deferred to Justice Department legal opinions, the official said.

President Bush has characterized the eavesdropping program, which focused on the international communications of some Americans and others in the United States, as a "vital tool" against terrorism; Vice President Dick Cheney has said it has saved "thousands of lives."

But the results of the program looked very different to some officials charged with tracking terrorism in the United States. More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret eavesdropping program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17spy.html

If we ARE ACTUALLY safer because of ACTUAL results, that is one thing.
But if the Bush administration is just spinning its wheels, doing a massive amount of work with NO actual results, then that is quite another.

If we are giving up "freedom" for the return of NO REAL SAFETY, shouldn't that concern us as Americans?

stevo6049 · 01-19-2006, 09:19 PM

you guys are geniuses

RidinHighSpeeds · 01-19-2006, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo6049

you guys are geniuses

Which side of the debate??

foundit66 · 01-20-2006, 09:52 PM

I found a web-site which has a petition to our Senators regarding an independent investigation into Bush's actions.

If you're interested, here's the web-site:
http://political.moveon.org/ruleoflaw/

Quote:

President Bush admitted to personally authorizing thousands of allegedly illegal wiretaps, and he doesn't plan to stop. In response to this historic abuse of power, which threatens the very core of our Constitution, we've mounted a petition to "Restore the Rule of Law."

We demand a thorough and independent investigation of the Bush administration's allegedly illegal wiretapping activities, including:
appointment of an independent counsel to respond to any criminal activity that may have taken place,
a thorough, meaningful and open Congressional investigation,
protection for all whistleblowers who come forward with evidence of wrongdoing in this program.

sgtdmski · 01-21-2006, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Your comments may invoke other issues into play, but what aMFliberal quoted still applies.
Even if they are classifed as a "Foreign Agent", a U.S. citizen SHOULD STILL be a U.S. CITIZENS until the courts say otherwise. (Unless we suddenly gave the president power to revoke citizenry based on suspicions...)
Thus they would be a part of the quoted section B "(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and..."

Nothing you have said negates this.
As such, Bush's actions inside the U.S. would be EXPLICITLY outside the scope of the afore-mentioned powers.

The only way around it would be to declare the participants as no longer U.S. citizens, and Bush DOES NOT have that power.

If you're tapping UNITED STATES phone calls where one of the ends is a UNITED STATES phone, it seems blatantly obvious that there is a VERY SUBSTANTIAL likelihood that the contents of the communication will include conversations which are explicitly forbidden.

And in addition, note the wording. It doesn't say that if a participant is KNOWN not to be a U.S. citizen. It talks about the LIKELIHOOD that such a tap could involve a participants who is a U.S. citizen. In other words, if you have a house which has 3 non-U.S. citizens, and one U.S. citizen as residents, it would be illegal to tap that phone's house because there WOULD BE a "substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party".

I agree with this statement whole heartedly. I do not believe that the President has the right to tap phones within the United States without a warrant. However, it seems that this case is about the phones being tapped in foreign countries. As more reports come out, we now are learning that the calls being intercepted are those that are being made to a known or suspected terrorist, or someone who has ties to the known or suspected terrorist. So the first question I would have to ask someone would be why are you calling this person???

dmk

LibertaRiaN · 01-21-2006, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyreay

Let's just make up the laws as we go along. The courts are controlled by this administration and that is what the courts making this decision at this time is for, to make up the rules as we play the game.

I never thought I'd miss Richard Nixon.

tyreay · 01-21-2006, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LibertaRiaN

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyreay

Let's just make up the laws as we go along. The courts are controlled by this administration and that is what the courts making this decision at this time is for, to make up the rules as we play the game.

I never thought I'd miss Richard Nixon.

Nixon did more for this country than Bush will ever do!! Unfortunately Nixon opened the door for Bush to put us in serious debt with China, but at the time it was the right thing to do.

LibertaRiaN · 01-21-2006, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyreay

Quote:

Originally Posted by LibertaRiaN

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyreay

Let's just make up the laws as we go along. The courts are controlled by this administration and that is what the courts making this decision at this time is for, to make up the rules as we play the game.

I never thought I'd miss Richard Nixon.

Nixon did more for this country than Bush will ever do!! Unfortunately Nixon opened the door for Bush to put us in serious debt with China, but at the time it was the right thing to do.

ITA. I just make the jokes about Nixon because he has such a poor reputation.......he really wasn't that bad a President until Watergate.

Then again, I think Bush is, has been, and will undoubtedly continue to be the worst president in modern history, bar none. Nixon was a choirboy compared with this megalomaniac. Unfortunately, the damage won't be assessed until after Bush has left office, and by that time, it will be far too late to fix it.