Monitoring telephone calls into the US by suspected terrorists

[Jim]

Unless FISA is unconstitutional' date=' there is nothing in the constitution that trumps it. Conversely, if the constitution trumps a law, that law is unconstitutional. By definition, really.

[/quote']

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with this circular argument. Your initial post started with blasting "George Milhous Bush" over the FBI file issue.

 

With respect to the NSA issue, you understand that the Bush administration was relying on the president's implied powers in the Constitution as commander-in-chief? It seems like a good faith arguement to me that a commander in chief in a time of war (declared or not) has the right to monitor communications between the enemy and individuals inside of the United States.

 

Reasonable minds can differ here but I don't see why it is necessary to villify Bush over doing something that he felt was in the national security interest. To compare this action to those of Nixon's is really just not sensible.

 

 

 

Only "a couple" (or even one) out of the "gang of four" that needed to be briefed would be a frighteningly large fraction.

 

As a member of the "gang of four" the Senator would be precluded from discussing the situation with most people. AFAIK he can do it now (to some extent) that the cat is out of the bag' date=' and because he's finding out that he was misinformed.

[/quote']

 

Oh, come on. If any of these senators who had high responsibility for the national security of the country honestly felt that the president was acting as a rogue in violating the constitution, they would have had recourse. The could have held hearings, subpoened witnesses and done something to escalate the issue. What Rockefeller did was send a CYA letter.

 

 

What part of "I'm not saying he has [done anything in political self-interest]" didn't you understand?

 

Honestly' date=' I don't understand what you are saying here. You analogized Bush to Nixon but admit Bush acted for his perception of national security not his political self interest. YOu think Nixon was acting in the national security interest?

 

Come on, admit it: You threw out the Nixon analogy because it was easy and you hate Bush. This kind of silliness is all to common on the left and it does the country damage by making a rational discourse all but impossible.

 

What I'm concerned about is relying on the good graces of those in power not to become corrupted by the power that they have. The administration had decided that someone is an enemy combatant, and all of the sudden that person has no rights and can be held indefinitely. There's no legal recourse to stop them under that system — no way to stop abuse if it occurs, unless there happened to be a large conspiracy in place (and I am not suggesting there is). That's why oversight is necessary.

 

 

Ergh. Now you shift to yet a THIRD issue. You trot out the FBI files, then shift to NSA and now you go to the issue of the detainees. Each one of these issues raises different legal issues that would require hours of in depth research. I'd give it some thought if I weren't already in the office working today and didn't think you'd shift to a fourth issue if I gave you the good faith argument for the Bush position on this issue.

 

A problem with the current situation is that the administration apprently asked for FISA warrants and were rejected on an unprecedented scale (from what I've read' date=' it was almost unheard-of to be turned down for a warrant before this). Bush decided to go ahead and do it anyway, and not bother the courts.

[/quote']

 

Can you give me the link that points to the massive denial of FISA warrants? I thought we didn't know the details of the program but I've not refreshed my research in a few days.

 

 

Lest anyone think that massive spying by the NSA is something new' date=' you should know about Project Shamrock, which involved snooping on all telegraph traffic starting in 1945, and only shut down (~30 years later) when they started to be investigated by Congress. It was these actions that led to FISA, and the restrictions on what the NSA can do.

 

"Bush's eavesdropping program was explicitly anticipated in 1978, and made illegal by FISA. There might not have been fax machines, or e-mail, or the Internet, but the NSA did the exact same thing with telegrams."

 

You really can't imagine why the advent of e-mail, cell phones and the like might create for a need for a quicker and broader response than telegrams?

[swansont]

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with this circular argument. Your initial post started with blasting "George Milhous Bush" over the FBI file issue.

 

Circular argument?

 

There were two distinct, though related, thoughts in that posts. Hence two paragraphs. Bush admitting spying on suspected domestic terorrists, and the FBI classifying peaceful protestors as domestic terrorists.

 

With respect to the NSA issue, you understand that the Bush administration was relying on the president's implied powers in the Constitution as commander-in-chief? It seems like a good faith arguement to me that a commander in chief in a time of war (declared or not) has the right to monitor communications between the enemy and individuals inside of the United States.

 

FISA contains black-letter law regarding wartime surveillance. It is not, therefore, a good-faith argument.

 

 

Reasonable minds can differ here but I don't see why it is necessary to villify Bush over doing something that he felt was in the national security interest. To compare this action to those of Nixon's is really just not sensible.

 

He could have chosen to do so within the confines of the law. But by thinking the law doesn't apply to him, he is acting as Nixon did.

 

 

Oh, come on. If any of these senators who had high responsibility for the national security of the country honestly felt that the president was acting as a rogue in violating the constitution, they would have had recourse. The could have held hearings, subpoened witnesses and done something to escalate the issue. What Rockefeller did was send a CYA letter.

 

And now, maybe hearings. From what I read, though, his options were limited at the time, otherwise he would have been in violation of the law.

 

 

 

Honestly, I don't understand what you are saying here. You analogized Bush to Nixon but admit Bush acted for his perception of national security not his political self interest. YOu think Nixon was acting in the national security interest?

 

No, that's not what I said. I said I don't know either way, and I don't think you do, either. We don't know for sure upon whom he spied.

 

 

Come on, admit it: You threw out the Nixon analogy because it was easy and you hate Bush. This kind of silliness is all to common on the left and it does the country damage by making a rational discourse all but impossible.

 

It was easy because it was apt. If a liberal had done this, would you be taking his word that it was for national security?

 

Ergh. Now you shift to yet a THIRD issue. You trot out the FBI files, then shift to NSA and now you go to the issue of the detainees. Each one of these issues raises different legal issues that would require hours of in depth research. I'd give it some thought if I weren't already in the office working today and didn't think you'd shift to a fourth issue if I gave you the good faith argument for the Bush position on this issue.

 

You are missing or ignoring the common thread of legality and oversight.

 

Can you give me the link that points to the massive denial of FISA warrants? I thought we didn't know the details of the program but I've not refreshed my research in a few days.

 

here

 

"A review of Justice Department reports to Congress by Hearst newspapers shows the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than the four previous presidential administrations combined."

 

You really can't imagine why the advent of e-mail' date=' cell phones and the like might create for a need for a quicker and broader response than telegrams?[/quote']

 

I think phones had been invented by 1978, so it's hard to pretend that the speed of communication was a surprise. Information using e-mail and cell phones doesn't travel any faster.

[Jim]

Circular argument?

 

Yes. You just keep repeating that FISA is the law if it is constitutional' date=' ignoring my argument that that the President is asserting his constitutional power during a time of war to monitor individuals in contact with suspected enemies.

 

And round and round we go without your ever having addressed my point that Bush has a CONSTITUTIONAL argument. You blow past that and just assume he broke the law... which he didn't if he had the constitutional power to act as he did.

 

There were two distinct, though related, thoughts in that posts. Hence two paragraphs. Bush admitting spying on suspected domestic terorrists, and the FBI classifying peaceful protestors as domestic terrorists.

 

I don't see why you can't use exact words in this discussion. The FBI put some names in domestic terrorist files; they did not classify them as terrorists. You ignore my argument that there could be a variety of reasons to put names in files.

 

It's kind of telling that you have to use loose language to make your arguement.

 

FISA contains black-letter law regarding wartime surveillance. It is not' date=' therefore, a good-faith argument.

[/quote']

 

This is a conclusion, not an argument.

 

Congress used its Constitutional powers to enact this "black-letter law." The President used his Constitutional power as commander in chief to monitor individuals suspected of communicating with the enemy.

 

You don't even know the full details of his argument yet you deem it not in good faith. I'm scratching my head as to how you can jump to such conclusions.

 

 

He could have chosen to do so within the confines of the law. But by thinking the law doesn't apply to him' date=' he is acting as Nixon did.

[/quote']

 

Breaking into the Democratic National Committee's offices was not even arguably a use of the Presdient's Constitutional powers.

 

Circular argument?

And now' date=' maybe hearings. From what I read, though, his options were limited at the time, otherwise he would have been in violation of the law.

[/quote']

 

I don't see how if he felt this was an unconstitutional act of a rogue president. If this debate is so obvious as you make it out to be, he could have gone to the New York Times and been lauded as a hero. Only if there are genuine national security issues would have have been at risk.

 

No' date=' that's not what I said. I said I don't know either way, and I don't think you do, either. We don't know for sure upon whom he spied.

[/quote']

 

You've not even articulated a theory by which Bush's actions COULD be politically motivated. No one is making that claim. This is not Nixon or Clinton acting to save their own skins. This is a President who rightly or wrongly perceives there is a gap in the law caused by advancing technology and who tried to act covertly to make the terrorists think we are not as agile as we really are.

 

At least, no one has presented any alternate motivation that makes sense.

 

It was easy because it was apt. If a liberal had done this' date=' would you be taking his word that it was for national security?

[/quote']

 

Of course. This really shouldn't be the partisan issue it's being made into.

 

 

You are missing or ignoring the common thread of legality and oversight.

 

 

I've addressed legality at least fifteen times with you - the President argues his actions were authorized by the Constitution and a legislative act may not be able to impinge on those powers.

 

Re oversight' date=' that's a more substnative issue but we don't even know at this point how common this program was used or what level of information was given to Congress. I think that the fact that he was going to the leading intelligence committemembers every 45 days kept this thing from running too wild.

 

All of this said, I now welcome the hearings. I don't think Bush could fare less favorably than he has in the press.

 

 

I think phones had been invented by 1978, so it's hard to pretend that the speed of communication was a surprise. Information using e-mail and cell phones doesn't travel any faster.

 

You can far more easily spam email than you can a telephone call. YOu can also set up forwarding systems so that a terrorist could route voice mail or email through what looks to be a united states account. It may have been very burdensome to go to court with such spamming and forwarding techniques.

 

If you stop thinking defensively and start thinking offensively, i.e. how as a terrorist would you exploit the technologies that have proliferated post 1978, I think you'll easily conclude there is a world of difference.

[Jim]

Here's an interesting article in the National Review. What's remarkable is not the argument that is being made here but that you have to go to the National Review to glean even basic truisms about what is at stake in this debate:

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200601031523.asp

 

****

 

"Is it written somewhere that the Constitution can be violated only by the president? One would think so, given the debate over the secret National Security Agency program to monitor, without court approval, calls between suspected al Qaeda operatives overseas and people in the United States. Opponents of the program say President Bush has trashed the Constitution, in particular the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches.

 

The Constitution, however, doesn't exist solely to constrain the executive, as those braying about the NSA wiretaps seem to suggest. It confers powers on the executive as well as limiting them. If those powers are abridged by another branch of the government, the Constitution is being violated — and not, obviously, by the president."

[swansont]

And round and round we go without your ever having addressed my point that Bush has a CONSTITUTIONAL argument. You blow past that and just assume he broke the law... which he didn't if he had the constitutional power to act as he did.

 

Fine. Please point out where in the constitution the president is empowered to do what he has admitted to doing.

[bascule]

The Constitution, however, doesn't exist solely to constrain the executive, as those braying about the NSA wiretaps seem to suggest. It confers powers on the executive as well as limiting them. If those powers are abridged by another branch of the government, the Constitution is being violated — and not, obviously, by the president.

 

Oh please, FISA is merely an extension of the Fourth Amendment into the electronic age. IANAL, but if FISA is ruled unconstitutional and Bush's actions are upheld, it would be a gross misinterpretation of the Constitution. FISA is on sound Constitutional footing. But if you want to persist with your "Bush isn't wrong, the whole damn system is wrong!" argument go right ahead...

 

It all goes back to the idea of checks and balances. Judicial oversight ensures that the executive can't run amok, and, for example, illegally spy on political opponents like Nixon did. When you attempt to bypass these checks and balances, you're violating the Constitution.

 

That article is unabashed apologism for the administration.

[Jim]

Fine. Please point out where in the constitution the president is empowered to do what he has admitted to doing.

 

Lol. You are kidding right? Please read my posts, starting with the first one in this thread, then ask me something that is halfway responsive to the position I've been expressing.

 

Please note that I'm not arguing Bush is correct legally, only that there is on its face a good faith basis for the argument. You are the one contending Bush doesn't have a good faith argument.

[Jim]

Oh please' date=' FISA is merely an extension of the Fourth Amendment into the electronic age. IANAL, but if FISA is ruled unconstitutional and Bush's actions are upheld, it would be a gross misinterpretation of the Constitution. FISA is on sound Constitutional footing. But if you want to persist with your "Bush isn't wrong, the whole damn system is wrong!" argument go right ahead...

 

It all goes back to the idea of checks and balances. Judicial oversight ensures that the executive can't run amok, and, for example, illegally spy on political opponents like Nixon did. When you attempt to bypass these checks and balances, you're violating the Constitution.

 

That article is unabashed apologism for the administration.[/quote']

 

Where have I said "Bush isn't wrong, the whole damn system is wrong?" What I've said is that this is all a legitimate issue but that it seems to me a good argument that a commander-in-chief has implied Constitutional power in a time of war to monitor all communications that can be intercepted with the enemy. I've also said that this is an issue that requires considerable legal research by Constitutional scholars.

 

To say that you already know that upholding the PResident's power over the Congressional limitation of FISA would be a "gross" misinterpretation of the Constitution is ... well... uninformed.

 

The most significant check and balance is the separation of powers in the Constitution and Bush is the President of the United States with Constitutional powers . Many times powers and rights are implied from other sections of the Constitution. THe right of privacy, for example, was created from "prenumbras" surrounding other explicit constitutional rights.

 

You can oversimplify my position if you wish but it does not further your argument. You can also just ASSUME that "FISA is the fourth amendment" but that begs the entire question - i.e. what is the President's inherent power as commander in chief in a time of war? You just give conclusions without bothering yourself with the substance of the argument in the previous posts.

[bascule]

Where have I said "Bush isn't wrong, the whole damn system is wrong?"

 

Oops, strawman. Mea culpa.

 

What I've said is that this is all a legitimate issue but that it seems to me a good argument that a commander-in-chief has implied Constitutional power in a time of war to monitor all communications that can be intercepted with the enemy.

 

Yet you go on to say...

 

I've also said that this is an issue that requires considerable legal research by Constitutional scholars.

 

So therefore you are just as unjustified in your original statement, which is your interpretation, as I am in mine. Yet you continue:

 

To say that you already know that upholding the PResident's power over the Congressional limitation of FISA would be a "gross" misinterpretation of the Constitution is ... well... uninformed.

 

And as you are not a Constitutional attorney, your opinion is likewise just as uninformed. Perhaps we can leave it at that.

 

My opinion is backed by the ACLU which comprises some of the country's best Constitutional attorneys, and yours is backed by the Attorney General of the United States. There's some pretty good Constitutional authorities behind either interpretation.

 

The ACLU has argued that the President cannot assert wartime powers because Congress has not declared a state of war (nor have they since WWII)

 

The most significant check and balance is the separation of powers in the Constitution and Bush is the President of the United States with Constitutional powers .

 

Yes, however, this doesn't mean we can ignore the Fourth Amendment and the needed checks the Judicial branch provides on the Executive. Furthermore Bush created this program without any kind of Congressional approval or oversight.

[Jim]

Oops' date=' strawman. Mea culpa.

Yet you go on to say...

So therefore you are just as unjustified in your original statement, which is your interpretation, as I am in mine. Yet you continue:

And as you are not a Constitutional attorney, your opinion is likewise just as uninformed. Perhaps we can leave it at that.

[/quote']

Heh, well, I may have a bit more information on the point, at least enough to know that this is a real issue and not nearly so one sided as is made out in the mainstream media and by some on this board.

 

I know enough to know that there is a good faith basis for the President's position and that the Court might rule either way or might refrain from getting involved at all in this clash between the Executive and Legislative branches.

 

My opinion is backed by the ACLU which comprises some of the country's best Constitutional attorneys' date=' and yours is backed by the Attorney General of the United States. There's some pretty good Constitutional authorities behind either interpretation.

The ACLU has argued that the President cannot assert wartime powers because Congress has not declared a state of war (nor have they since WWII)

Yes, however, this doesn't mean we can ignore the Fourth Amendment and the needed checks the Judicial branch provides on the Executive. Furthermore Bush created this program without any kind of Congressional approval or oversight.[/quote']

 

I agree that there is authority behind both positions. THat's really all I've been arguing. However, the ACLU is an advocacy group and it is hardly surprising that they take the position against Presidential powers.

 

Yes, Bush, as the duly elected chief exeuctive created this program without Congressional approval albeit but with some Congressional knowledge. It is Bush's duty to defend the powers of the Presidency as contemplated by the Constitution.

[entwined]

The ACLU has argued that the President cannot assert wartime powers because Congress has not declared a state of war (nor have they since WWII)

.

 

 

The Constitution says that congress shall have the power to declare war

 

"To declare War' date=' grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water[/i'];"

 

but it does not say that congress must declare war for a state of war to exist.

 

Therefore when congress granted the president the power to:

 

"To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. "

 

And :

 

"(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons"

 

As they did on Sept14 2001, then the president is aithorized - by congress - to use all the powers that a president has in a time of war.

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/joint-resolution_9-14.html

[bascule]

According to who? You? Are you an authority on Constitutional law?

 

I'll go with the ACLU's interpretation, thanks.

[Jim]

According to who? You? Are you an authority on Constitutional law?

 

I'll go with the ACLU's interpretation' date=' thanks.[/quote']

 

We have had several wars since WWII without Congress declaring war. Blind trust in any organization, particularly an advocacy group such as the ACLU, is no better than blind trust in the President.

[entwined]

According to who? You? Are you an authority on Constitutional law?

 

I'll go with the ACLU's interpretation' date=' thanks.[/quote']

 

Certainly not according to me or according to Jim, but according to the courts.

 

There will be yet another investigation and perhaps a panel will be installed to study this issue and quite possibly a court case will make it's weary way through the court system, but I am willing to bet $4 against a fresh dog turd that the bottom line will be that the president is acting within his powers when he is on a war footing.

 

Meanwhile approximately 20,000 hours of news hours will be used up "discussing" the issue - all paid for by their sponsors.

 

That's show business!!

[bascule]

Certainly not according to me or according to Jim, but according to the courts.

 

What courts have said that Bush's "wartime powers" take precedence over the Fourth Amendment and FISA?

 

There will be yet another investigation and perhaps a panel will be installed to study this issue and quite possibly a court case will make it's weary way through the court system, but I am willing to bet $4 against a fresh dog turd that the bottom line will be that the president is acting within his powers when he is on a war footing.

 

I just hope present resentment among the American people is enough to induce a little change-of-guard in Congress, at which point I hope to see Bush impeached. Then maybe we'll get a litte retribution for the White House's disregard for the freedoms they claim they're trying to protect.

[Jim]

What courts have said that Bush's "wartime powers" take precedence over the Fourth Amendment and FISA?

 

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison' date=' 5 US 137, 177 (1803). http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm

 

However, as my first post in this thread noted, in this area, the Courts might not act on the grounds that this is fundamentally a political clash between the other two branches. We'll see.

 

I just hope present resentment among the American people is enough to induce a little change-of-guard in Congress, at which point I hope to see Bush impeached. Then maybe we'll get a litte retribution for the White House's disregard for the freedoms they claim they're trying to protect.

 

Bush is being hurt primarily because of the way this is being presented in the mainstream media. In a campaign when all of this gets more balanced treatment, the issue is a loser for the democrats. The Nov. 2006 elections will be determined by what is happening on the ground in Iraq.

[entwined]

What courts have said that Bush's "wartime powers" take precedence over the Fourth Amendment and FISA?

 

 

 

I just hope present resentment among the American people is enough to induce a little change-of-guard in Congress' date=' at which point I hope to see Bush impeached. Then maybe we'll get a litte retribution for the White House's disregard for the freedoms they claim they're trying to protect.[/quote']

 

The Supreme Court has ruled that the president has powers during times of war that he would not normally have,

 

One case is where Roosevelt ordered military tribunals for German spys during WWII, even though they were captured on American coil and one of them was an American citizen. http://www.spectacle.org/yearzero/tribunal.html

 

The high court also sided with the president in the case of the internment of some 120,000 Japanese American citizens during WWII.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_internment

 

The following link will take you to an opinion (complete with rationale) issued by the Justice Dept in 2001. I strongly recommend that you read it all the way through.http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

 

Now, regarding your statement about the "resentment" of the American people, it seems (according to the polls) that the American people are on Bush's side on this issue.http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm

[Helix]

We have had several wars since WWII without Congress declaring war. Blind trust in any organization, particularly an advocacy group such as the ACLU, is no better than blind trust in the President.

 

 

Actually, we haven't had an offical war since WWII. Korea was a "police action" and I think Vietnam also had some sort of euphenism as well.

 

Also, I agree with Bascule in that I'll go with the ACLU's choice. I won't blindly trust them, but on matters of law I think they have some authority.

[zyncod]

The following link will take you to an opinion (complete with rationale) issued by the Justice Dept in 2001. I strongly recommend that you read it all the way through.http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

 

Wow. An opinion issued by an aide to John Ashcroft - and we all know how passionate he is about protecting Americans' civil liberties.

 

Now, regarding your statement about the "resentment" of the American people, it seems (according to the polls) that the American people are on Bush's side on this issue.http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm

 

Nobody is saying that the government shouldn't listen to terrorists' conversations. I think the resentment comes from not getting a warrant, which is borne out by the following poll:

AP-Ipsos Poll

 

You should read the Times magazine this week to see who the dangerous terrorist is that's going on trial first. A chauffeur for Bin Laden. If Bush is going to push the limits of the legal envelope, he better be damn sure that he's doing it for a good reason. And so far, it really doesn't look like he is, which is what concerns me. The preponderance of the evidence suggests that he cares less about terrorism than about increasing the power of his office.

[entwined]

Wow. An opinion issued by an aide to John Ashcroft - and we all know how passionate he is about protecting Americans' civil liberties.

 

 

 

Nobody is saying that the government shouldn't listen to terrorists' conversations. I think the resentment comes from not getting a warrant' date=' which is borne out by the following poll:

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr060107-2topline.pdf&id=2929

 

You should read the Times magazine this week to see who the dangerous terrorist is that's going on trial first. A chauffeur for Bin Laden. If Bush is going to push the limits of the legal envelope, he better be damn sure that he's doing it for a good reason. And so far, it really doesn't look like he is, which is what concerns me. The preponderance of the evidence suggests that he cares less about terrorism than about increasing the power of his office.

 

What is important about the assessment of the Justice Department regarding presidential powers during times of war are the precidents cited therin.

 

Your link does not work, try this one...http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm It seems that 64% feel that what Bush is doing is fine and dandy.

 

And since you refer to the "preponderence of evidence showing that he cares less about terrorism" than increasing the power of his office, (something that he is quite incapable of doing on his own) perhaps you would be good ebough to share some of this evidence?

 

Remember now, I asked for evidence, not opinion.

[Jim]

Incidentally, I heard on Stephanopoulos' program this morning that the FISA court has approved something like 15,000 warrents. Sounds like a lot, right?

 

Not to me. If the intent is to track emails which can be buried in spam, 15,000 is a drop in a bucket. Also, Stephanopoulos said he was hearing from intelligence officials that the procedure was too cumbersome.

 

Rep. Jane Harmon (a member of the so called "gang of eight"), didn't argue with this point; her only point was that the president should have come to the full committee and requested broader authority.

 

Jim

 

PS: Let's all bookmark the phrase "gang of eight" for future reference when we are arguing about media bias and spin.

[perryconcord]

When, exactly, was there a declaration of war?

 

Don't play lawyer, or if you do at least pretend to know that Civil War-era jurisprudence referred to a state of war and executive war powers. A better question you might ask: when do Presidential war powers become operative if at all?

 

But that's a moot point since, from what I've read, the FISA act delineates the procedure in wartime anyway. Bush sidestepped those rules.

 

Jim specifically said that FISA may be trumped by the President's constitutional authority. Address that point.

 

Those congression leaders to whom he "disclosed" the operation say they were misled as to the details. So, Bush apparently did not disclose his actions.

 

Apparantly the White House and the Senate Democrats have a disagreement over the facts. Who you believe, at least on this board, seems to fall down to who you prefer politically.

 

And who is to say he hasn't done anything in political self-interest? I'm not saying he has, but you really can't claim otherwise, either; it's secret.

 

So you're suggesting that the President risked this much political hell for some gain so secret we can't even perceive? Seems to me that extraordinary should find support in extraordinary evidence, not idle cynicism.

 

Bush's action were covert

 

Yeah, he's a ninja or something, right? You know, the agency running the op has a name. Hell, there's even a whole community of agencies doing all sorts of covert things. So I guess you would also say "Bush is covertly hunting al Qaeda in the wilds of Afghanistan."

 

Russ Feingold's set the tone for the Democratic Party base: "Give me liberty or give me death." There's nothing more heartening than watching a party publically offer to bend over and take it from Bin Laden to pursue a stupid, incorrect principle.

[perryconcord]

The Supreme Court has ruled that the president has powers during times of war that he would not normally have...

 

In addition, there's Hirabayashi v. US and Korematsu v. US.

[Jim]

Well that's my question' date=' what if there really was a need here. Truthfully, neither of us know what motivated this program. This was not something lightly done - there were legal opinions obtained, twelve reports to congress and it was put on a 45 day review ticker (I think that's right, anwyay).

 

I have a hard time believing this would have been done just for grins. The problem for Bush may be that to explain the need for this would require him to explain how they are going about monitoring terrorist's emails/telephone calls.

 

[/quote']

 

Am I reading this correctly that the very problems we've intendified here with FISA (e.g. the requirement to prove that the receipient of the communication was an "agent of a foreign power") were pivotal in our failure to prevent 9/11?

 

I've only had 45 minutes to review this so I could be wrong. If so, isn't this hugely significant both to this thread and the mass media bias thread. Why isn't this issue front and center in the debate? This is from the well regarded 9/11 report and is extremely public:

 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

 

The 9-11 Commission Report

Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Official Government Edition

 

P. 87-88:

Later in this story, we will learn that while the NSA had the technical capability to report on communications with suspected terrorist facilities in the Middle East, the NSA did not seek FISA Court warrants to collect communications between individuals in the United States and foreign countries, because it believed that this was an FBI role. It also did not want to be viewed as targeting persons in the United States and possibly violating laws that governed NSA’s collection of foreign intelligence.68 An almost obsessive protection of sources and methods by the NSA, and its focus on foreign intelligence, and its avoidance of anything domestic would, as will be seen, be important elements in the story of 9/11.

 

P. 273-74:

 

The agents in Minnesota were concerned that the U.S.Attorney’s Office in Minneapolis would find insufficient probable cause of a crime to obtain a criminal warrant to search Moussaoui’s laptop computer.94 Agents at FBI headquarters believed there was insufficient probable cause. Minneapolis therefore sought a special warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to conduct the search (we introduced FISA in chapter 3).

 

To do so, however, the FBI needed to demonstrate probable cause that Moussaoui was an agent of a foreign power, a demonstration that was not required to obtain a criminal warrant but was a statutory requirement for a FISA warrant. The case agent did not have sufficient information to connect Moussaoui to a “foreign power,”so he reached out for help, in the United States and overseas.

 

The FBI agent’s August 18 message requested assistance from the FBI legal attaché in Paris. Moussaoui had lived in London, so the Minneapolis agent sought assistance from the legal attaché there as well. By August 24, the Minneapolis agent had also contacted an FBI detailee and a CIA desk officer at the Counterterrorist Center about the case.

 

The FBI legal attaché’s office in Paris first contacted the French government on August 16 or 17, shortly after speaking to the Minneapolis case agent on the telephone. On August 22 and 27, the French provided information that made a connection between Moussaoui and a rebel leader in Chechnya, Ibn al Khattab.This set off a spirited debate between the Minneapolis Field Office, FBI headquarters, and the CIA as to whether the Chechen rebels and Khattab were sufficiently associated with a terrorist organization to constitute a “foreign power” for purposes of the FISA statute. FBI headquarters did not believe this was good enough, and its National Security Law Unit declined to submit a FISA application.

 

P. 276

As mentioned above, before 9/11 the FBI agents in Minneapolis had failed to persuade supervisors at headquarters that there was enough evidence to seek a FISA warrant to search Moussaoui’s computer hard drive and belongings. Either the British information or the Ressam identification would have broken the logjam.

 

(Emphasis added).

[Jim]

At first I wondered why Bush didn't use this. (I really don't need to ask why the MSM hasn't made this a part of the public debate). Now, I'm wondering if Bush isn't dumb like a fox. Let the democrats go ballistic on this issue and then tag them in November with these facts. It almost feels like a lawyer waiting to use his smoking gun piece of evidence until the time of trial.