• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 15 123411 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 149

Topic: Snoopgate: Bush in 2004

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    Snoopgate: Bush in 2004

    sponsored links


    ***Advertisments***
    And I quote:

    "Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
    --
    Robert Gregory Browne
    KISS HER GOODBYE (now available)
    KILLER YEAR: Stories to Die For (Jan. 2008)
    WHISPER IN THE DARK (2008)
    St. Martin's Press
    http://www.robertgregorybrowne.com

  2. #2

    Re: Snoopgate: Bush in 2004

    Quote Originally Posted by robgb
    And I quote:

    "Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. ... because we value the Constitution."
    That's a typo. Shoud be "there are such things as ROVE-ing wiretaps..."

    And we already know what he thinks about the Constitution.
    Dasher
    -------
    It's all about the music - really. I keep telling myself that...

  3. #3

    Re: Snoopgate: Bush in 2004

    BTW,

    If you support a Freedom of Information Act request for the legal opinions behind Bush's snoop poop, you can add your name to the petition here:

    http://www.democrats.org/foia

    And for those who say that this is political, be glad that we are battling this president politically. How else would you have us fight him?

    BTW, here is the main text in the request:

    ...* We therefore request all documents in the possession, custody or control of the Office of Legal Counsel, prepared on or after January 20, 2001, referring, relating to or discussing the authority of the President of the United States to authorize any agency of the U.S. Government, including but not limited to the National Security Agency, to conduct electronic surveillance of a United States person, as defined in FISA, 50 U.S.C. §1801(i), or where there is a substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of a communication to which such a United States person is a party, without obtaining a court order as required by FISA.

    -JF

  4. #4

    Re: Snoopgate: Bush in 2004

    Seems the NY Times doesn't know how to search their own archives for stories reporting on federal court decisions regarding wiretaps.



    Brian
    __________________________________________________
    COURT SAYS U.S. SPY AGENCY CAN TAP OVERSEAS MESSAGES

    By DAVID BURNHAM, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (NYT) 1051 words Published: November 7, 1982

    A Federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency may lawfully intercept messages between United States citizens and people overseas, even if there is no cause to believe the Americans are foreign agents, and then provide summaries of these messages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

    Because the National Security Agency is among the largest and most secretive intelligence agencies and because millions of electronic messages enter and leave the United States each day, lawyers familiar with the intelligence agency consider the decision to mark a significant increase in the legal authority of the Government to keep track of its citizens.

    Reverses 1979 Ruling

    The Oct. 21 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit involves the Government's surveillance of a Michiganborn lawyer, Abdeen Jabara, who for many years has represented Arab-American citizens and alien residents in court. Some of his clients had been investigated by the F.B.I.

    Mr. Jabara sued the F.B.I, and the National Security Agency, and in 1979 Federal District Judge Ralph M. Freeman ruled that the agency's acquisition of several of Mr. Jabara's overseas messages violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free of ''unreasonable searches and seizures.'' Last month's decision reverses that ruling.

    In earlier court proceedings, the F.B.I. acknowledged that it then disseminated the information to 17 other law-enforcement or intelligence agencies and three foreign governments.

    The opinion of the three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals held, ''The simple fact remains that the N.S.A. lawfully acquired Jabara's messages.''

    The court ruled further that the lawyer's Fourth Amendment rights ''were not violated when summaries of his overseas telegraphic messages'' were furnished to the investigative bureau ''irrespective of whether there was reasonable cause to believe that he was a foreign agent.''
    Regards,
    Brian W. Ralston

    Check out my new FREE iPhone App! Click Here!

  5. #5

    Re: Snoopgate: Bush in 2004

    So, the Reagan Administration was also up to these dirty tricks. No surprise.

    The fact remains that Congress passed a law requiring a FISA court to approve NSA wiretaps. Bush bypassed the courts, potentially breaking the law. Note that the 1982 court did not say that for Congress to require court approvals would be unconstitutional.

    Why is it that Republicans love big government so?

    -JF

  6. #6

    Re: Snoopgate: Bush in 2004

    Quote Originally Posted by JonFairhurst
    So, the Reagan Administration was also up to these dirty tricks. No surprise.

    The fact remains that Congress passed a law requiring a FISA court to approve NSA wiretaps. Bush bypassed the courts, potentially breaking the law. Note that the 1982 court did not say that for Congress to require court approvals would be unconstitutional.

    Why is it that Republicans love big government so?

    -JF
    No Jon...Actually...the gov't wiretapping referred to in this case was done in 1978 or '79 I believe. The case was originally ruled on in 1979 and through the appeals proccess...the federal court ruled in 1982 on the actions that were taken in the late 70's by the Carter admin.

    Also...the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (under Carter) and the presidential executive order 12333 from Reagan's era also lay out presidential powers in these similar circumstances and they are still in effect. It was used heavily during the Clinton admin as well...but why didn't we hear about that then...or about it now? Because when the Democrats do it...it is ok and the press doesn't care. When Republicans do it and follow the precedent set...it is a scandal.

    It is all legal folks.
    Regards,
    Brian W. Ralston

    Check out my new FREE iPhone App! Click Here!

  7. #7

    Re: Snoopgate: Bush in 2004

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian W. Ralston
    The court ruled further that the lawyer's Fourth Amendment rights ''were not violated when summaries of his overseas telegraphic messages'' were furnished to the investigative bureau ''irrespective of whether there was reasonable cause to believe that he was a foreign agent.''
    Note that this is a reversal of a previous decision which ruled against this kind of behavior...courts have been wrong more than once in US history.

    The larger question, since you obviously support these kinds of actions, is this=>just what, in your opinion, does the 4th Amendment guarantee? The text is pretty simple:

    "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."

    But yet, a police officer can seize money or other property from me if he "suspects" that it is connected to drugs and no "proof" or warrant is needed, just "suspicion" (there are numerous documented cases of abuse of this practice). Under the Patriot Act, which was SUPPOSED to protect me against terrorism, my home and property can be secretly searched, my phone can be tapped, my medical and library records obtained secretly and any evidence so obtained can be used for any purpose whatsoever (and there are documented cases of abuse here, as well).

    So what does the 4th Amendment guarantee? As a conservative, you should be outraged by this slow deterioration of fundamental rights in our country.

    ;-)

    Jim Jarnagin - no not THAT Jim Jarnagin, the other one.

  8. #8

    Re: Snoopgate: Bush in 2004

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian W. Ralston
    It is all legal folks.
    Not if Congress passed a law saying that it isn't legal - unless the courts rule that Congress has no such authority. As I wrote earlier, the court ruling that you referenced made no such limit on Congress.

    And if the Carter Administration supported such action, then shame on them. Apparently somebody took them to court on in and unfortunately lost. My only question was why wasn't it appealed to the Supreme Court?

    I'm against the executive branch overreaching regardless of which party is in power.

    The attitude of the Whitehouse right now seems to be that they can do whatever they please, as long as they aren't impeached. And with both houses in Republican control, that's unlikely, unless the guy is caught with a smoking six-shooter on tape.

    Support politicians who want to expand the rights afforded to us under the Constitution. Slam politicians who try to maximize personal power by minimizing our rights under the Constitution.

    Unless, of course, you don't support the priciples in the Constitution in the first place...

    -JF

  9. #9

    Re: Snoopgate: Bush in 2004

    In a time or war...the rules are different. This is also very clear.

    And...the 1982 ruling (and executive order, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) has stood ever since.

    If some known terrorist is calling Ern's neighbor from Pakastan or Iran, or Syria, etc...I have absolutely no problem with the gov't authorities, NSA, FBI... whatever tapping into that conversation and determining what they were talking about. The key here (and in all the cases we have been discussing) is it is a call where one party is overseas...and is a known terrorist entity speaking with someone inside the U.S. They even released a list of known terrorist plots that were averted due to these specific wiretaps for goodness sakes.

    These wiretaps are not on continental U.S. calls from your house to robgb's house and I can assure you they don't give a rat's ~~~ about the drugs you guys may or may not do.
    Regards,
    Brian W. Ralston

    Check out my new FREE iPhone App! Click Here!

  10. #10

    Re: Snoopgate: Bush in 2004

    In a time or war...the rules are different. This is also very clear
    What happened to make you this way, Brian? Severe psychological trauma?

    ***

    Dear [removed by an ape] ,

    Yesterday, I issued the following release about President Bush's recent admission that he has personally authorized domestic surveillance without a court order. I sent the referenced letter to four presidential scholars, asking for their input:

    Cass Sunstein, University of Chicago Law School
    Bruce Ackerman, Yale University
    Susan Low Bloch, Georgetown University Law Center
    Michael Gerhardt, College of William and Mary School of Law

    I hope you'll take a moment to read my statement below, and then forward this email to everyone you know.

    In Friendship,

    Barbara Boxer


    Boxer Asks Presidential Scholars About Former White House Counsel's Statement that Bush Admitted to an 'Impeachable Offense'

    December 19, 2005

    Washington, D.C. -- U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today asked four presidential scholars for their opinion on former White House Counsel John Dean's statement that President Bush admitted to an "impeachable offense" when he said he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge.

    Boxer said, "I take very seriously Mr. Dean's comments, as I view him to be an expert on Presidential abuse of power. I am expecting a full airing of this matter by the Senate in the very near future."

    Boxer's letter is as follows:

    On December 16, along with the rest of America, I learned that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. President Bush underscored his support for this action in his press conference today.

    On Sunday, December 18, former White House Counsel John Dean and I participated in a public discussion that covered many issues, including this surveillance. Mr. Dean, who was President Nixon's counsel at the time of Watergate, said that President Bush is "the first President to admit to an impeachable offense." Today, Mr. Dean confirmed his statement.

    This startling assertion by Mr. Dean is especially poignant because he experienced first hand the executive abuse of power and a presidential scandal arising from the surveillance of American citizens.
    Given your constitutional expertise, particularly in the area of presidential impeachment, I am writing to ask for your comments and thoughts on Mr. Dean's statement.

    Unchecked surveillance of American citizens is troubling to both me and many of my constituents. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible.

    Sincerely,

    Barbara Boxer
    United States Senator
    # # #

    Visit BarbaraBoxer.com | Contribute Today!

    Paid for by PAC for a Change, www.barbaraboxer.com, Treasurer Sim Farar, FEC#C00342048.
    Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee

Go Back to forum
Page 1 of 15 123411 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •