REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Is this accurate?

POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 3, 2006 11:33
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4435
PAGE 1 of 2

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 6:00 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


If so, I find it lamentable...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_
challenges_hundreds_of_laws
/

Quote:


"Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.

Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.

But with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override.

Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.

Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts.

Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University law professor who has studied the executive power claims Bush made during his first term, said Bush and his legal team have spent the past five years quietly working to concentrate ever more governmental power into the White House.

''There is no question that this administration has been involved in a very carefully thought-out, systematic process of expanding presidential power at the expense of the other branches of government," Cooper said. ''This is really big, very expansive, and very significant."

For the first five years of Bush's presidency, his legal claims attracted little attention in Congress or the media. Then, twice in recent months, Bush drew scrutiny after challenging new laws: a torture ban and a requirement that he give detailed reports to Congress about how he is using the Patriot Act.

Bush administration spokesmen declined to make White House or Justice Department attorneys available to discuss any of Bush's challenges to the laws he has signed.

Instead, they referred a Globe reporter to their response to questions about Bush's position that he could ignore provisions of the Patriot Act. They said at the time that Bush was following a practice that has ''been used for several administrations" and that ''the president will faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution."

But the words ''in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution" are the catch, legal scholars say, because Bush is according himself the ultimate interpretation of the Constitution. And he is quietly exercising that authority to a degree that is unprecedented in US history.

Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work.

Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ''signing statements" -- official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register.

In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills -- sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed.

''He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back those compromises -- and more often than not, without the Congress or the press or the public knowing what has happened," said Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political science professor who studies executive power.


Military link
Many of the laws Bush said he can bypass -- including the torture ban -- involve the military.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to create armies, to declare war, to make rules for captured enemies, and ''to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." But, citing his role as commander in chief, Bush says he can ignore any act of Congress that seeks to regulate the military.

On at least four occasions while Bush has been president, Congress has passed laws forbidding US troops from engaging in combat in Colombia, where the US military is advising the government in its struggle against narcotics-funded Marxist rebels.

After signing each bill, Bush declared in his signing statement that he did not have to obey any of the Colombia restrictions because he is commander in chief.

Bush has also said he can bypass laws requiring him to tell Congress before diverting money from an authorized program in order to start a secret operation, such as the ''black sites" where suspected terrorists are secretly imprisoned.

Congress has also twice passed laws forbidding the military from using intelligence that was not ''lawfully collected," including any information on Americans that was gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches.

Congress first passed this provision in August 2004, when Bush's warrantless domestic spying program was still a secret, and passed it again after the program's existence was disclosed in December 2005.

On both occasions, Bush declared in signing statements that only he, as commander in chief, could decide whether such intelligence can be used by the military.

In October 2004, five months after the Abu Ghraib torture scandal in Iraq came to light, Congress passed a series of new rules and regulations for military prisons. Bush signed the provisions into law, then said he could ignore them all. One provision made clear that military lawyers can give their commanders independent advice on such issues as what would constitute torture. But Bush declared that military lawyers could not contradict his administration's lawyers.

Other provisions required the Pentagon to retrain military prison guards on the requirements for humane treatment of detainees under the Geneva Conventions, to perform background checks on civilian contractors in Iraq, and to ban such contractors from performing ''security, intelligence, law enforcement, and criminal justice functions." Bush reserved the right to ignore any of the requirements.

The new law also created the position of inspector general for Iraq. But Bush wrote in his signing statement that the inspector ''shall refrain" from investigating any intelligence or national security matter, or any crime the Pentagon says it prefers to investigate for itself.

Bush had placed similar limits on an inspector general position created by Congress in November 2003 for the initial stage of the US occupation of Iraq. The earlier law also empowered the inspector to notify Congress if a US official refused to cooperate. Bush said the inspector could not give any information to Congress without permission from the administration.


Oversight questioned
Many laws Bush has asserted he can bypass involve requirements to give information about government activity to congressional oversight committees.

In December 2004, Congress passed an intelligence bill requiring the Justice Department to tell them how often, and in what situations, the FBI was using special national security wiretaps on US soil. The law also required the Justice Department to give oversight committees copies of administration memos outlining any new interpretations of domestic-spying laws. And it contained 11 other requirements for reports about such issues as civil liberties, security clearances, border security, and counternarcotics efforts. Continued..."



There's more pages, but you can read the article. It's rather long.

Is this accurate? Is this web source reliable?


--Anthony




[edited to remove a typo]
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 6:06 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Is this accurate? Is this web source reliable?



Yes and no. The source is not reliable because, while accurate, the story's premise is fatally flawed.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 6:10 AM

JMB9039


Ah, Hero, here we go again..

While the accuracy of the article can come into question because it is rather editorial in nature. Many do agree that Bush has broken numerous laws (perhaps as many as the article claims), yet others will argue that his authority gives him the power to do so.

Legally, it is a continuing argument. I think until there is a serious investigation and open, critical debate, we'll just keep arguing the same points. Time to start digging for the truth.

JMB9039

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 6:22 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I'm not sure if it's included in THIS article, but the latest - and breathtaking- abrogation of the law was shen Bush recently signed a bill inot law that had NOT been passed in the same form by both the House and Senate. UNCONSTITUTIONAL action.
Quote:

When Democratic members of the House learned that the Senate and Speaker Hastert had sent the President legislation that was substantially different that what the House had passed - different to the tune of $2 billion dollars -- they were understandably upset. They had already been shut out of the process: The entire legislative package of cuts had largely been agreed upon behind closed doors, without any Democrats present - now standard procedure in the GOP controlled Congress -- and the vote in the House had been taken after midnight, which is another ploy frequently relied upon by the GOP leaders. But this added injury to insult: The legislation that had gone to the President, was materially different from the legislation upon which they had voted!


I don't know how Bush supporters justify his actions to themselves, let alone how they justify it to others. It's really NOT "politics as usual", it's a naked and wholly unconstitutional (and I don't mean that metaphorically, Bush is breaking the law as set forth in the Constitution) power grab that could only be clearer if Bush refused to step down at the end of his term.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 6:33 AM

ZISKER


Bush has 994 more days in office (but who's counting?). At this point, with his ratings, he won't be able to declare himself president for life.

So, the question is: will history look back on his behavior as a deviation from the norm, or will future presidents cite his actions as precedent for their own questionable, deeply unsettling behavior in office?

One day.
One plan.
One army of Browncoats.

On June 23rd, we aim to misbehave.
http://www.serenityday.org/

Little or no free time, but want to help?
Help Spread the Signal: http://www.geocities.com/browncoatsignalcorps

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 6:35 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


This does seem to be very disturbing.

The idea that the president can ignore laws at will is disturbing.

If this is a provision of presidential power that is outlined in the constitution, we may need to revisit it.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 6:50 AM

JMB9039


It is scary. I think a lot of Bush supporters forget that when they blindly support what he does, they are supporting a precident (one that future presidents can use and abuse) not just Bush. The Republican Party has put party loyalty above the well being of the American people. But ultimately, we only have ourselves to blame. We have the power to voice our opinions, to vote, etc.

It comes down to having intelligent voters. Voters who don't lie down for their party but stand up for what they think is right. Voters who think rather than follow.

In a democracy, the people are supposed to have the power - but we've let that go. We need to reclaim that power and hold our public servants accountable. When the VP shoots someone he shouldn't get the night to sleep it off - we wouldn't! When the president is acting recklessly, we should be able to force him to be accountalbe.

Ok, sorry for the rant...

JMB9039

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 6:55 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm not sure if it's included in THIS article, but the latest - and breathtaking- abrogation of the law was shen Bush recently signed a bill inot law that had NOT been passed in the same form by both the House and Senate.


There is no way to justify that, if there is a single letter out of place, even a comma in one where a semicolon appears in the other, the bill is not allowed to become law.

Signing that into law is (legally) the same as signing into law something that didn't pass through the houses of congress in any form.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 6:59 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by jmb9039:
It is scary. I think a lot of Bush supporters forget that when they blindly support what he does, they are supporting a precident (one that future presidents can use and abuse) not just Bush.
JMB9039



Hey, this isn't about Bush, for while he has abused this power, he did not set the precident. No, this existed before Bush, and it seems to me it ought not to exist at all.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 7:00 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I don't know how Bush supporters justify his actions to themselves, let alone how they justify it to others. It's really NOT "politics as usual", it's a naked and wholly unconstitutional (and I don't mean that metaphorically, Bush is breaking the law as set forth in the Constitution) power grab that could only be clearer if Bush refused to step down at the end of his term.


We support the President because we agree with his actions (I note for the record that there are also disagreements about what actions he did or did not take, I can fully support the actions I know of and reserve judgement for those I do not...as for those he didn't do but is often accused of, I neither support nor deny those actions) and we disagree that they are unconstitutional. Lots of Presidents have faced this particular charge. FDR is a good example of playing fast and loose with Constitutional authority in a time of crisis. Don't forget the 'switch in time' business. Or maybe Truman and the drafting of the striking miners.

Its all political. In the early days of Clinton a lot of the right-wing fringe had similar misgivings about Clinton and how he was going to suspend the Constitution and refuse to step down. Sure, Clinton sabotaged the Gore campaign and the economy in a blatent attempt to propel Hillary to power in 2004, but he were not the evil dictator the militia types feared.

In this case Bush is acting as President and Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive and Senior Big Guy, etc. Liberals, unable to cope with or accept the 2000 election have attacked his legitimacy and intentions from day one, even in the wake of 9/11. But come the 20th of January, 2009 we'll be swearing in Hillary, Condi, Rudy, or some other person from one party or the other and Bush will retire to Texas to build his library, write his book, and perhaps ruin a business or two (great President, not so great businessman...not uncommon in our history).

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 7:27 AM

ONETOOMANY


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
In this case Bush is acting as President and Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive and Senior Big Guy, etc. Liberals, unable to cope with or accept the 2000 election have attacked his legitimacy and intentions from day one, even in the wake of 9/11.



Based on some of your comments HERO It's hard to tell what side your on, but if you think that the outcry against bush is just "Liberals, unable to cope or accept the results of the 2000 election" then go back to sleep, cuz you aren't awake enough to be paying attention.

Notice anythig particular 'bout our luck these past few days, any kind'a pattern'. You depend on luck you end up on the drift no fuel, no prospects, beggin for alliance make work getiin' towed off to the scrap out THAT AIN'T US NOT EVER

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 7:53 AM

JMB9039


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
We support the President because we agree with his actions (I note for the record that there are also disagreements about what actions he did or did not take, I can fully support the actions I know of and reserve judgement for those I do not...as for those he didn't do but is often accused of, I neither support nor deny those actions) and we disagree that they are unconstitutional.


For the love of all things holy, stop. You are embarrasing yourself. Basically, what you've said it you chose not to acknolwedge what he may have done wrong and only to support what you think he did right...

Quote:

Its all political. In the early days of Clinton a lot of the right-wing fringe had similar misgivings about Clinton and how he was going to suspend the Constitution and refuse to step down. Sure, Clinton sabotaged the Gore campaign and the economy in a blatent attempt to propel Hillary to power in 2004, but he were not the evil dictator the militia types feared.

Hey you made a funny! Nice conspiracy theory. I'm sure you feel Fahrenheit 911 was all conspiracy but your thoughts on Clinton are fact. That’s how you refer to opinion, right HERO? As fact? And suspend the Constitution? Step Down? The entire impeachment was a show. Face it. Even the republicans didn't give a rat's behind if Clinton lied or not; they wanted to embarrass him publicly.

Quote:

In this case Bush is acting as President and Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive and Senior Big Guy, etc. Liberals, unable to cope with or accept the 2000 election have attacked his legitimacy and intentions from day one, even in the wake of 9/11.

Right, that's why we are upset with Bush, because we lost the election. It couldn't be his blatant disregard for the Constitution, his shoot first mentality with foreign relations, his inablity to understand complex issues, his imposing of Christian beliefs on America, his "stay the course" attitude that disregards facts, his choice to put business over environment and health... shall I continue?

You said it right at the end though "he'll go off to the ranch" To Bush, this is just a job, he makes his money, enjoys his power and in the end just goes home. He doesn't care about the people of this country or the future of our society. And yes, that's an opinion just so you don't get the two confused again.

Don't follow a leader just because you voted for him or he is of your party. Follow a leader because they are a good leader. Be open to change your mind.

JMB9039

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 8:11 AM

ONETOOMANY


Quote:

Originally posted by jmb9039:
Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
We support the President because we agree with his actions (I note for the record that there are also disagreements about what actions he did or did not take, I can fully support the actions I know of and reserve judgement for those I do not...as for those he didn't do but is often accused of, I neither support nor deny those actions) and we disagree that they are unconstitutional.


For the love of all things holy, stop. You are embarrasing yourself. Basically, what you've said it you chose not to acknolwedge what he may have done wrong and only to support what you think he did right...

Quote:

Its all political. In the early days of Clinton a lot of the right-wing fringe had similar misgivings about Clinton and how he was going to suspend the Constitution and refuse to step down. Sure, Clinton sabotaged the Gore campaign and the economy in a blatent attempt to propel Hillary to power in 2004, but he were not the evil dictator the militia types feared.

Hey you made a funny! Nice conspiracy theory. I'm sure you feel Fahrenheit 911 was all conspiracy but your thoughts on Clinton are fact. That’s how you refer to opinion, right HERO? As fact? And suspend the Constitution? Step Down? The entire impeachment was a show. Face it. Even the republicans didn't give a rat's behind if Clinton lied or not; they wanted to embarrass him publicly.

Quote:

In this case Bush is acting as President and Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive and Senior Big Guy, etc. Liberals, unable to cope with or accept the 2000 election have attacked his legitimacy and intentions from day one, even in the wake of 9/11.

Right, that's why we are upset with Bush, because we lost the election. It couldn't be his blatant disregard for the Constitution, his shoot first mentality with foreign relations, his inablity to understand complex issues, his imposing of Christian beliefs on America, his "stay the course" attitude that disregards facts, his choice to put business over environment and health... shall I continue?

You said it right at the end though "he'll go off to the ranch" To Bush, this is just a job, he makes his money, enjoys his power and in the end just goes home. He doesn't care about the people of this country or the future of our society. And yes, that's an opinion just so you don't get the two confused again.

Don't follow a leader just because you voted for him or he is of your party. Follow a leader because they are a good leader. Be open to change your mind.

JMB9039



HOOORAHHH!!!!
for clear thinkers, you said what I didn't have time to.
Peoples if your going to have an opinion make sure you state it as such,(OPINION) but be prepared for a fight if your are a supporter of an oligarchical aristocracy, cuz that's really what we have here in the U.S.(/OPINION) I challenge any one to contend that using known deffinitions of political structures

Notice anythig particular 'bout our luck these past few days, any kind'a pattern'. You depend on luck you end up on the drift no fuel, no prospects, beggin for alliance make work getiin' towed off to the scrap out THAT AIN'T US NOT EVER

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 8:14 AM

SASSALICIOUS


Quote:

Originally posted by jmb9039:
Right, that's why we are upset with Bush, because we lost the election. It couldn't be his blatant disregard for the Constitution, his shoot first mentality with foreign relations, his inablity to understand complex issues, his imposing of Christian beliefs on America, his "stay the course" attitude that disregards facts, his choice to put business over environment and health
JMB9039



That's exactly my position. And I also think a lot of Republicans are starting to feel that way except for the real hardliners. My stepdad voted for Bush and now he completely regrets it and even referred to him as a "fascist" at one point.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 9:12 AM

RAZZA


Signym:

Can you provide some origin or citation for this news article? Thanks in advance!

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 9:18 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Zero, the Commander in Chief has the authority to do a LOT of things related to the military, but one of the things he CANNOT as CiC is sign a bill that was not passed by both House and Senate. (BTW this particular bill had nothing to do with the military. ) Now, I don't expect the Prez to be on top of $2billion details but his staff certainly is, and the signature was done knowingly and with malice.

As far as Bush being "politics as usual": If you have to go back to Truman/ FDR to find a comparison (or in the case of detentions and internal spying some people have referenced Lincoln) then clearly you are treading beyond the "usual" of the past 50- 140 years. And altho Bush is/was facing a real problem (terrorism) he created his very own fiscal and policy crisis by ignoring terrorists and focusing on hapless Iraq. What he responded to was the crisis in his head.

And now he wants the authority to change mileage standards? The guy who f*cked up everything wants to be rewarded with the power to f*ck up more things? I'm snickering as I write this, actually.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 9:22 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Dang! I thought I had posted a link... but apparently not! Here it is.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060310.html

I heard about this on radio and found it by googling bush + signed + "not passed" + house + senate. There are a lot of other articles on the topic so you might want to google them up too.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 9:42 AM

RAZZA


Thanks for the cite Sig!

You stated in your earlier post
Quote:

"I don't know how Bush supporters justify his actions to themselves, let alone how they justify it to others. It's really NOT "politics as usual", it's a naked and wholly unconstitutional (and I don't mean that metaphorically, Bush is breaking the law as set forth in the Constitution) power grab that could only be clearer if Bush refused to step down at the end of his term."


I think you may be placing an inordinate amount of blame at the President's feet. The article is very disturbing to say the least, but I think most of the unconstitutional behavior took place in Congress. The President only signed what he was assured was a properly passed bill. I think the GOP leadership in Congress has much more to answer for than the President. It will be interesting to see how the court case turns out.


-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 9:50 AM

RAZZA


Signym,

Is 1994 recent enough for a domestic spying case?

Quote:

Paper: Washington Post
Title: ADMINISTRATION BACKING NO-WARRANT SPY SEARCHES
Author: R. Jeffrey Smith
Date: July 15, 1994
Section: A SECTION
Page: a19

The Clinton administration, in a little-noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S.spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order.

The administration's quiet lobbying effort is aimed at modifying draft legislation that would require U.S. counterintelligence officials to get a court order before secretly snooping inside the homes or workplaces of suspected foreign agents or foreign powers.

The legislation grew out of a legal debate surrounding the government's secret surveillance of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who pleaded guilty in April to charges of spying for the former Soviet Union. Key evidence in the case was collected during secret searches of Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

The Constitution's Fourth Amendment guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" unless the government obtains a warrant based on probable cause of criminal activity. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), that made the search of Ames's house -- and other secret searches by the government -- probably illegal.

But government officials decided in the Ames case that no warrant was required because the searches were conducted for "foreign intelligence purposes," a goal of such vital national security interest that they said it justified extraordinary police powers.

Government lawyers have used this principle to justify other secret searches by U.S. authorities, including "black bag jobs" long conducted at foreign embassies. The number of such secret searches conducted each year is classified, but knowledgeable sources say only a handful involve U.S. citizens such as Ames and a dozen or so involve foreigners or foreign establishments.

The principle has never been rigorously tested in court, however, and in the aftermath of the Ames case, Justice Department lawyers started worrying that such warrantless searches of private homes could be held unconstitutional. Their concerns were exacerbated when Ames's lawyer, Plato Cacheris, threatened to litigate the issue.

The government's remedy was to help draft legislation giving physical searches for "foreign intelligence purposes" a stronger legal underpinning, by requiring approval from a special court established in 1978 under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The court consists of seven district court judges who now only authorize federal electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens.

As approved by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in June, however, the bill's requirements 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."

Places such as foreign embassies, for example. So the Justice Department, acting on behalf of the FBI, told Capitol Hill it wants these searches to continue with Attorney General Janet Reno's approval, rather than that of the special seven-judge court.

The government also wants to narrow the definition of a physical search, now given in the draft bill as an "examination of the interior of a property by technical means." Its preferred alternative would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order.

The ACLU argues that giving warrantless physical searches a stronger legal underpinning will promote their wider use. "Black bag jobs were one of the worst civil liberties abuses of the Cold War," ACLU official Kate Martin told the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence at a hearing yesterday. "Instead of now approving them, the Congress should outlaw them."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick yesterday countered that while the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes," it believes legislation requiring court orders could "provide additional assurances {to intelligence authorities} that their activities are proper and necessary.

Author: R. Jeffrey Smith
Section: A SECTION
Page: a19

Copyright 1994 The Washington Post



President Clinton's actions are much more contraversial than President Bush's in my opinion. They didn't just tap his phone without a warrant they physically entered his home and seized his personal property without a warrant. I think it was justified, and that the President had the authority to do so. The Clinton administration argued very effectively this very point at the time by the way. If it was justified then why wouldn't it be now?

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 10:01 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Except that it was legal, because FISA didn't cover that. Don't spend much time researching, do ya?

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 10:22 AM

RAZZA


Forget FISA what about the 5th Ammendment?

Quote:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


Why are President's Clinton's actions not a "power grab" but President Bush's are?

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 11:53 AM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
This does seem to be very disturbing.

The idea that the president can ignore laws at will is disturbing.

If this is a provision of presidential power that is outlined in the constitution, we may need to revisit it.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner



Who do you think is going to be the next president!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 11:59 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Forget FISA what about the 5th Ammendment?
Um... isn't that the Fourth Amendment? The Fifth Amendment protects people from self-incrimination ie "pleading the Fifth".

And saying "Forget FISA..." is like saying "Forget the law...". That's what the President does too.
I was going to add to my previous post but couldn't access the site. What I was going to say is that I don't care for Clintons' hairsplitting either. Administrations should err on the side of privacy. But at least Clinton's snooping was focused... apparently more than three thousand people have been investigated under National Security Letters and an unknown number (probably thousands, given the admitted number) have been wiretapped w/o a warrant. According to ACLU, some of the groups that are on the "security risk" list include Quakers and a group of anti-war grandmas.



---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 12:01 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Just because the Legislative Branch passes a law which attempts to control what the Executive Branch can do, That does not make that law Constitutional, or the Executive Branch's disregarding it Unconstitutional. The powers of the Executive Branch are enumerated in the Constitution itself, and can only be changed by amending it, such as the 22nd amendment, limiting presidential terms in office.

If there's a question about the constitutionality of laws impacting the Executive, they should be resolved by the Judiciary - the Supreme Court. About the only way they can get there is for the Executive to disregard a law passed by the Legislature on the grounds of Executive privilege, and for it to work its way up through the courts.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 12:18 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Apparently the question of warrantless searches has been run up the flagpole before, all the way up thru the Supreme Court. The GW Bush admin argued that warrantless wiretapping was implicit in the Authorization of Use of Force. (Seems like a stretch to me since wiretapping wasn't even mentioned). There are a lot of ins and outs to the whole issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy
Quote:

In Kieth, the Supreme Court unanimously and unequivocally held that, even in national security investigations, the President had no constitutional authority to conduct electronic surveillance of American citizens on American soil without a judicially issued search warrant based on a finding of probable cause.


http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2006/01/bushs_spy_progr.html


And focusing on wiretaps doesn't negate the fact that Bush has flouted many laws. Signing a bill not passed by both House and Senate was breathtaking, but neither it nor wiretaps are the only issue. The melange of broken laws is testament to Bush's disregad for the Constitution, which he reportedly called called "that godd*mned piece of paper". www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_7779.shtml


---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 12:29 PM

RAZZA


Signym,

Whoops, you are right it's the 4th ammendment, sorry for the typo.

When I say "forget FISA" I point to an ammendment in the Bill of Rights which I think is a great deal more authoritative than a law passed by Congress a couple of decades ago. So your characterization that it,
Quote:

"...is like saying "Forget the law..."
isn't a very applicable one if you ask me.

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 12:33 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

In Kieth, the Supreme Court unanimously and unequivocally held that, even in national security investigations, the President had no constitutional authority to conduct electronic surveillance of American citizens on American soil without a judicially issued search warrant based on a finding of probable cause.


http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2006/01/bushs_spy_progr.html



Later in the same article:

Quote:

Now, one might think that the Court’s unanimous opinion in Keith resolved the issue of the Bush spy program, but it does not, because the Court put aside, as not before it, the constitutionality of government surveillance of “foreign powers or their agents.” Although the reasoning of Keith would seem to apply to foreign as well as domestic threats to the national security, at least insofar as the surveillance involves wiretapping American citizens within the United States, Keith left the question unresolved. Thus, it is possible to argue, even after Keith, that Bush’s spy program, which purportedly is directed at those who communicate with foreign-based terrorists or terrorist organizations, is not necessarily prohibited by established Supreme Court precedent.


Although the writer states "The Court in Kieth left open the precise application of the Fourth Amendment to foreign intelligence activities, but the logic of the opinion leaves little doubt that the Bush spy program violates the Fourth Amendment.", that's his opinion, not the Supreme Court's. Get it to the Court, and we'll know.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 12:49 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Even further in the article the author basically refutes the intepretation that spying on foreign agents is substantially different from spying on citizens where they may overlap because of- among other reasons- lack of internal controls over who is defined as a foreign agent. He goes on to say that no court has ever approved warrantless searches of American citizens. My exerpt - unlike yours- was entirely reflective of the author's point.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 1:11 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yes, I believe the Consitution is the more authoritative document. And my admittedly unlawyerly reading of the Constitution tells me that warrantless searches are ... well, Unconsitutional. But Presidents more than any other branch chip away at the Constitution, which is why this current President's unparalleled use of signing statements is so troubling. And now... back to work for me.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 1:39 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
But Presidents more than any other branch chip away at the Constitution, which is why this current President's unparalleled use of signing statements is so troubling. And now... back to work for me.

Except for Clinton’s "unparalleled" use of warrantless intrusive searches which you dismiss as “legal.”



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 2:35 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Perhaps you don't know how to read? I was referring to "signing statements"- statements that presidents add to signed legislation. I personally find the practice an abuse of power. Clinton wrote 140 signing statments in eight years, GW Bush 750 in five years. That's the unparalleled part.

But to address YOUR point- IMHO Clinton was wrong to authorize a warrantless search. And that makes Bush wrong too... but worse by several orders of magnitude.

{What, did you think I was going to defend Clinton? heh heh heh!!! )

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 3:19 PM

SAINTANDEOL


bringing up Clinton in any context is just obscuring the issue. It doesn't matter what Clinton did; he's not president anymore, and we had plenty of time to deal with his problems when he was in office. But now someone else is president, someone whose leadership ability is being called to question.

Clinton is not the issue. I didn't necessarily like him, but he's totally irrelevant when it comes to attacking or defending G.W.

"I'd be totally hacked if Stimutacs wasn't so . . ."
"Outrageously chill?"
"Word."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 3:53 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important



Hello everyone,

Forget about persecuting or exonerating Bush for a moment.

Doesn't everyone think that this ability to simply disregard laws, by any President, is wrong?

I mean, the process is supposed to be that Congress makes the law, and the President either Executes it or Vetoes it. If he Vetoes it, Congress can still have a chance to push it through with a big majority. Then the President must Execute it.

But the idea that the President can choose to neither Execute it nor Veto it seems like the system is broken.

I think the concept, the idea behind it, is wrong. I can't condemn any President too harshly for using this power, because it is available to them. I just think it should NOT remain available to them.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 3:54 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important



Hello everyone,

Forget about persecuting or exonerating Bush for a moment.

Doesn't everyone think that this ability to simply disregard laws, by any President, is wrong?

I mean, the process is supposed to be that Congress makes the law, and the President either Executes it or Vetoes it. If he Vetoes it, Congress can still have a chance to push it through with a big majority. Then the President must Execute it.

But the idea that the President can choose to neither Execute it nor Veto it seems like the system is broken.

I think the concept, the idea behind it, is wrong. I can't condemn any President too harshly for using this power, because it is available to them. I just think it should NOT remain available to them.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 4:13 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Even further in the article the author basically refutes the intepretation that spying on foreign agents is substantially different from spying on citizens where they may overlap because of- among other reasons- lack of internal controls over who is defined as a foreign agent. He goes on to say that no court has ever approved warrantless searches of American citizens. My exerpt - unlike yours- was entirely reflective of the author's point.



...but the author of that article is not the final arbitor of the Constitution. The Judiciary is. If the Judiciary, up to the Supreme Court if it keeps getting appealed and the Supremes choose to review the last decision, rules that tapping conversations with foreign nationals is un-Constitutional, then it is. Until that time, it is not settled law. Your opinion, my opinion, doesn't matter.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 4:47 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
What, did you think I was going to defend Clinton? heh heh heh!!! )

Well, you already did that. I was just checking to see if you could remain consistent.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 3:40 AM

JMB9039


Of course a huge difference is that Clinton was spying on foreign nationals, embassies, the like. Bush is spying on American citizens. Big difference. In addition, Clinton discussed the issues with Congress and attempted to legally modify the law. Bush just ignored the law and did things his way - lying to congress and the American people.

Now, I'm not saying that what Clinton did was right, but I don't think it is the same as what Bush did. Not even close.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 3:54 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
But the idea that the President can choose to neither Execute it nor Veto it seems like the system is broken.


Then its been broken since the begining. A good examples is Nixon (one of only a handful of good examples he provided...China was another), who refused to spend money appropriated by Congress for projects he didn't agree with.

Then there was Jackson, who refused to honor a Supreme Court ruling regarding the resettlement of Indian tribes.

There are nuances to the power structure and they change over time depending upon the political strength of those who hold the offices in question.

H

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 4:06 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by jmb9039:
Of course a huge difference is that Clinton was spying on foreign nationals, embassies, the like. Bush is spying on American citizens. Big difference.


No. The program Bush authorized is limited to listening to international calls were one party is a known terrorist or terrorist supporter. Signals intellegence of the enemy in time of war is a Presidential power, the legality of signals intellegece specifically goes back to FDR during WW2. That the other party is an American citizen coincidental.

Essentially it comes down to a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you are calling overseas to talk with a known terrorist, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. If you are innocent and make the call unawares then its not likely they will come breaking down your door. No harm...no foul. If you are conspiring...then you deserve to be caught.

Citizen to citizen, domestic calls are not monitored. Only in Congress who have not been briefed say otherwise and there is no evidence that such monitoring is going on.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 4:17 AM

RAZZA


JM

The Washington Post Article I posted said,
Quote:

"The legislation grew out of a legal debate surrounding the government's secret surveillance of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who pleaded guilty in April to charges of spying for the former Soviet Union. Key evidence in the case was collected during secret searches of Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant."


Aldrich Ames was a U.S. Citizen living in the U.S., not as you put it a,
Quote:

"foreign nationals, embassies, the like"


The Clinton Administration entered his home seized his personal property and used it as evidence against him in court. Not really that different at all in my opinion.



-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 5:53 AM

JMB9039


Quote:


No. The program Bush authorized is limited to listening to international calls were one party is a known terrorist or terrorist supporter.


Of course with no oversight how do we know that is what is going on. Also, I believe of the hundreds of calls they have listened in on none (that's right none) have resulted in arrests, new informations, or anything substantial.

Quote:

Signals intellegence of the enemy in time of war is a Presidential power, the legality of signals intellegece specifically goes back to FDR during WW2. That the other party is an American citizen coincidental.

Coincidental? The constitution is coincidental? So, my rights are only contingent upon a guess? We had oversight and warrants to protect our right to privacy from search and seizure. Again, you have to remember, by ok'ing this for Bush you are ok'ing it for every president from here on out. Do you will want to put that much trust in someone you haven't even met yet?

Quote:

Essentially it comes down to a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you are calling overseas to talk with a known terrorist, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. If you are innocent and make the call unawares then its not likely they will come breaking down your door. No harm...no foul. If you are conspiring...then you deserve to be caught.

So, basically, let them listen and if I'm innocent I have nothing to worry about... of course, you don't see how easily this power could be abused? Tell you what, you give me your phone number, I'll set up a tap and record all your conversations... how does that sound? You have nothing to hide right, so it shouldn't really matter, right?

Besides, did anyone bother to try and figure out how they know if you are talking to a known terrorist? Wouldn't they have to trace your calls? Then might listen to determine who you were talking too?

Quote:

Citizen to citizen, domestic calls are not monitored. Only in Congress who have not been briefed say otherwise and there is no evidence that such monitoring is going on.

Again, without oversight how do you know this? We have evidence that the CIA were monitoring peace groups, under Hoover the FBI monitored and kept files on law abiding citizens.

Look, I agree that we should be able to listen to calls invovling terrorists, the problem is in how this mechanism works. Without oversight the power can easily be abused. Sorry, but after Hoover, Nixon, McCarthy, etc, I don't blindly trust anyone in government. It isn't the motive we are questioning so much as the actions. Let's get the terrorists, let's just do it legally.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 6:37 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

What, did you think I was going to defend Clinton? heh heh heh!!! -signy
Well, you already did that. I was just checking to see if you could remain consistent.-Finn

I had posted again later that I had tried add to that post about Clinton's hair-splitting but was blocked for some stupid reason. Naturally, you WOULD fail to mention that. That's pretty typical of you, Finn- you only post half the story.


---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 6:39 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

There are nuances to the power structure and they change over time depending upon the political strength of those who hold the offices in question.
Wow, and that from a lawyer. So much for being a nation of laws!


So- are we agreed that signing statements are Unconsitutional whether they're writtne by Clinton, Nixon, or GW Bush? And are we agreed that warrantless searches of American citizens are Unconstitutional whether they're ordered by GW Bush or Clinton? And are we agreed that Congress has essential powers of oversight?
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 7:57 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


Razza

Are you aware that when one gets a security clearance they sign all kinds of documents, one of which is very explicit in that they WILL watch what you are doing and that you WILL be investigated if they feel you are breaking the confidentiality of your position?

The wiretapping of civilians and the investigative wire tapping of a federal employee with a security clearance are two completely different things.

Furthermore, are you actually intending to imply by this statement that you condone Aldrich Ames behavior?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 8:18 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

There are nuances to the power structure and they change over time depending upon the political strength of those who hold the offices in question.
Wow, and that from a lawyer. So much for being a nation of laws!


My comment was made because I have studied American political history (I've got a degree in that too). In our history terms like "Imperial Presidency" and "Imperial Congress" have used to describe the waxing and waning of power between the branches. Lincoln was very powerful, Johnson much less. Quincy Adams was weak, Jackson was strong. Carter was weak, Reagan was strong. When Clinton was in office he battled Congress a number of times and while he often won his battles, the overall balance of power shifted back to the Congress. Bush is making that same fight and seems to be shifting it back, so far at least, though Reagan was stronger by far and no recent President compares to the power wielded by FDR.

As a lawyer I can tell you that the "nation of laws" has changed dramtically since the founding. If you don't believe me I urge you to fish from horseback in Pennsylvania and marvel at the fact that not one law enforcement agent will try and stop you. On the other hand your effort to purchase a slave in Virginia might meet with a bit of resistance. Or, if you want something more timely. Try and keep your house if the City you live in wants your land for a new highway. Things change.

Our politcial and legal systems are flexible as we grow to understand the nuances of the Constitution and the reality of the modern world.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 8:30 AM

RAZZA


Hi MsFillion!

Welcome to the discussion.

I'll answer the most provocative part of your post first since it was meant to goad me a bit.(some good goading always makes for a lively discussion don't you think?) You asked,
Quote:

"Furthermore, are you actually intending to imply by this statement that you condone Aldrich Ames behavior?"


Obviously, I don't in any way condone his actions and my posts never implied such. His actions were treasonous and reprehensible, but no less so than those who would conspire with foreign terrorists who's stated goal is the destruction of our country.

You also focused on wiretapping. I will remind you once more that the Clinton administration did not just tap Mr. Aldrich's phones, they entered his home, searched his belongings, and seized them for purposes of prosecution, all without a warrant of any kind. Again for the record, I think it was justified then just as it is now.

I think JMB9039's concerns about oversight are certainly warranted, but when as he puts it none of the,
Quote:

"...hundreds of calls they have listened in on none (that's right none) have resulted in arrests..."
I'm not sure how he can conclude that the program has been overly abusive. He has a point when he says,
Quote:

"..Of course with no oversight how do we know that is what is going on.."

The only problem being that we all know there has been some oversight. Granted perhaps not enough for political opponents of the current administration, but what else is new? There can never be enough oversight of any actions taken by an administration according to their political opponents no matter which party is in power. That's just politics!

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 8:39 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


Razza

Excellent post. But again, I have to assert - the actions taken against Mr. Ames were actions by a federal government against one of their own employees. Said employee was fully knowledgeable of the lenghts they would go, and in singing the paperwork giving him his position, he consented to such an investigation. It is a completely different situation. The federal govenment does not and should not have a license to invade the privacy of a CIVILIAN individual. Without due cause and a specific court order.

There is a reason the CIA is not supposed to function on US soil. Their activities can violate civil rights laws.

Federal employees, as well as Military members (edit), are aware of the fact that while they are governed under the same laws, they in fact lose some of the rights afforded to the civilian population. Take the military for example, under the UCMJ a member of the military does NOT have a "right to silence" nor is there, I believe, any absolute right to a Miranda warning.

If you have a security clearance, you are aware that you and your family, your fiancial portfolio, your childhood friendships - every facet of your life - will be investigated on an ongoing if not continuous basis.

Sorry! Long winded I know.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 9:13 AM

RAZZA


MsFillion,

I recognize that Mr. Ames was a federal employee and his security clearance made him especially susceptible to investigation, but not necessarily illegal investigation. Looking at the Washington Post article I originally posted on the subject from 1994, the ACLU agrees with me,
Quote:

"The Constitution's Fourth Amendment guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" unless the government obtains a warrant based on probable cause of criminal activity. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), that made the search of Ames's house -- and other secret searches by the government -- probably illegal."


Okay, so they said probably, but who am I to doubt the validity of the ACLU's conclusions?


-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 9:19 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


The ACLU will always have a problem with what they perceive is a violation of a citizen's rights. Doesn't mean they are correct in their position. He knew what he was doing.

As I have often said in refernce to my husbands military career - I signed on the dotted line. I was well aware of the sacrifices I would have to make to be his wife. Doesn't mean I like them.

So lets agree to disagree. But you still can't use it as a valid example of your point, because its apples and oranges in this instance.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 9:26 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Something else to consider. There a distinction usually made between wiretapping/ searches for eventual prosecution and wiretapping/searches for intelligence gathering.

The Fourth Amendment doesn't make any such distinctions, but it has been parsed that way. Do you think such a distinction is valid?

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:49 - 11 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:45 - 56 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL