Printable View
The A.P lobby story has nothing to do with our discussion. This is either a failure to understand entailment or poor reading skills. Regardless, after two clear chances were provided you have failed to deliver: "Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting."Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Next.
Methinks we have a misunderstanding here, gentlemen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Pindar claims that actions are illegal only if and when they have been adjudged so by a court.
Tribesmen and I maintain that we can make that judgement for ourselves, even though the matter has not been adjudicated.
We are in good company because the Senate Intelligence Committee in a June 17, 2005, report said that there was no reason to change the Patriot Act to grant the FBI more surveillance authority than it already possesses.
In the Committee's motivation it is stipulated that the FBI could not produce evidence that national security might be threatened by a court taking too long to approve surveillance powers, search warrants or subpoenas: 'When testifying before the Committee, the FBI could not document significant past or current instances when national security investigations faltered or were hindered due to lack of an administrative subpoena authority.'
The report also states that federal law enforcement should continue to seek approval from FISA because it provides 'an important check against potential abuse in the investigative process'. Circumventing the court 'is not necessary, justified, or wise,' according to the Committee.
The A.P lobby story has nothing to do with our discussion.
The discussion is about the activities of the intelligence community Pindar , something you do not wish to address at all beyond the simple fact that foriegn taps are covered under legislation .
You will not address domestic taps , you will not address illegal entry and warrentless searches in a program that they are not allowed for , you will not address the NSA continuing activities for two years after Congress told them to stop .
You have been weighed in the balances , and been found to have your head buried in the sand while wearing a blindfold and earplugs for good measure .
Bush has spoken again , he believes what he is doing is legal , it has been applied to only a few foriegn calls not domestic ones , there have been no roving wiretaps on fishing expeditions for information .
Oh , there have been , but that is different .:inquisitive:
So still no movement on the attempts by members of his own party for a judicial inquiry over the legality of the actions , hey who needs a judicial inquiry into the facts of the issue as long as the President has his beliefs that he is right .
Hmmmmm....so much for checks and balances then .:laugh4:
First, until you're willing to provide links to your news "developments" they should be ignored- it's not my responsibility to substantiate your own weak arguments for you, do it yourself. Second, the NYT has not yet made any claims to wholly domestic wiretaps or offered any proof of such. What they have talked about is telecom companies turning over "calling patterns" of domestic sources- which is an entirely seperate matter and, to my understanding, is totally legal under National Security Letters and the PATRIOT ACT. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
First, until you're willing to provide links to your news "developments" they should be ignored
Well ignore them then :dizzy2:
So that means you do not wish to examine Bushes statement from 2004 concerning wiretaps do you ......
``Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, a wiretap requires a court order.''
So was your President misleading the people ? did he believe that he required court orders ? or is he one of those flip-flopping thingies ?
Good idea- let someone else respond to your unsubstantiated BS if they want to deal with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
unsubstantiated BS
Poor Xiahou , just because you don't know about what I am writing doesn't make it either unsubstantiated or Bullshit , perhaps you should read more , or more widely .
Or you could wait for the Senate hearings into these matters , the judicial committee is getting onto it once they have got through the Alito business .
Illegality is based on court rulings. This is beyond question. Even so, my position has not been the NSA program is legal until a court pronounces a ruling. On the contrary, I have argued the NSA program is legal because it is an inherent power tied to the President's base charge of office. I have then provided the surrounding case law to demonstrate Appellate and Supreme Court deference to that position. I have further argued that this is so firmly established that the NSA program is legally mundane irrespective of political bluster.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Alas, no. The discussion is not about any and all actions of the NSA. The discussion is not about any and all actions of the FBI. The discussion is not about any and all actions of the CIA. The discussion is about the story broken by the NY Times concerning Bush giving the NSA authorization to conduct warrantless surveillance of foreign communiqués. This is what I have referred to since joing the discussion: post 74. I entered the discussion to address the specific legal issues related to the above: post 87. This has been my focus: both in regards to explanation of the case law and answering any legal challenges. Hostility to Bush, tangents, accusations and other forms of ill-disciplined posting are not my concern. Unfortunately, your posts have generally reflected the latter despite having opportunity to actually put together something thoughtful or relevant. This is why you fail.Quote:
the Good Guys: The A.P lobby story has nothing to do with our discussion. [/B]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
You also lose points for the following lack of originality:
"You have been weighed in the balances , and been found to have your head buried in the sand while wearing a blindfold and earplugs for good measure."
Illegality is based on court rulings. This is beyond question.
Then how can someone from the Attorney Generals office refuse to sign off on some of the programs activities ?
Has he access to different court rulings , or access to more information on the program ?
'Illegal' means 'against the law', not 'against a court ruling'. An act can be illegal without having (yet) been adjudged so by a court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
A 1978 law that explicitly restricts the President's surveillance powers has been knowingly and openly violated. This is inherently illegal. There is no way around that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
This has been my focus: both in regards to explanation of the case law and answering any legal challenges.
Exactly Pindar , you are focussing on something already established , and using a very narrow viewpoint . Hence......
"You have been weighed in the balances , and been found to have your head buried in the sand while wearing a blindfold and earplugs for good measure."
The discussion is about the story broken by the NY Times concerning Bush giving the NSA authorization to conduct warrantless surveillance of foreign communiqués.
The discussion changed when further revelations were made that the warrentless surveilance has not been limited to foriegn communications . That is something you will not address , because as a lawyer you don't like answers that do not agree with your position .
Now it may be true that the official (so far) version is correct and that these are just accidental "technical glitches" , but then again it may not .
That is why it is important for the commitee to start its work as soon as possible , to discover if the NSA has indeed been acting illegally (apart from its illegal activity that it has already apologised for , as that was just a mistake).
One has to wonder, if it are only a few phonenumbers that are being tapped, why don't just ask permision from the judges. Bit weird.
Hmm, because they are Congressmen's phone numbers? :mellow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
EDIT
I mean part of the NSA's job is to spy on other U.S. spies from CIA, FBI etcetera, and on their contacts with politicians and the media as well. Tapping a Congressman would be considered, um, politically sensitive to say the least. Even if it were only Waxman.
I was kind of referring to what he(bush) said, that only a few phones were tapped if El Goata made a call. Seems a bit weird to break a law just for a few people since all it takes is permision from a judge. I am sure a judge would grant permision if uncle Bin called someone in the states.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
ah well! Happy new year mia muca and may all your sons be camels!
Conservatives should fall down on their knees every morning and thank their stars for the existence of the New York Times. The paper that helped sell the Iraq war via Judy Miller’s sterling reportage may also be the paper that helped ensure the re-election of George W. Bush — by sitting on the fact that he was busy committing (arguably)impeachable offenses until a year after the election.
There's a liberal media?
Ah a distraction from the current discussion. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by solypsist
How much case law has Pindar cited that has occurred since that 1978 legislation? It's ironic that people accuse Pindar of having blinders on when they refuse to see the issue objectively because of their hatred of the administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Indeed, this has become a case-study in bad debating. :dizzy2:Quote:
Hostility to Bush, tangents, accusations and other forms of ill-disciplined posting are not my concern.
When this story first broke, I found it left a very bad taste in my mouth. When I researched it more I discovered a few things... first, all of the liberal blog hype is greatly exaggerating the severity of the situation considering how little is really known at this point. Also, from what we actually do know of the warrantless survellience, it may stink to high heaven, but it's nothing new, nor has anything come to light as of yet that shows illegal activity. You can think it stinks to high heaven, but that's a different matter- emotional appeals and hyperbole have no place in a debate on legality. You can argue that it's wrong and should be illegal, but that doesnt make it so.
"The law is reason, free from passion."
It's ironic that people accuse Pindar of having blinders on when they refuse to see the issue objectively because of their hatred of the administration.
Really ? now would that be the administration that has its own members questioning this issue , would that be the administration that has had its members refusing to sign off on this issue ?
Or is that just another example of blinkered reasoning along the lines of ...you hate Bush , or , you hate freedom , or perhaps , you hate America .
There are serious questions raised Xiahou , there is a body that is in existance which has oversite on these issues and it is going to investigate them .
For people to say that every thing is legal and above board after questions have been raised over the legality , but before they are investigated by the judicial commitee is very blinkered indeed .
You can argue that it's wrong and should be illegal, but that doesnt make it so.
It will be interesting to see the development unfold , especially why people from the AGs office question the legality and why members of the special court have resigned .
Though of course most of the findings/proceedings will be classified due to the nature of the subject .
Pindar, would you please stop trying to handcuff the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
I started this thread, and I did not intend it to be strictly limited to 'foreign' comuniques. You keep trying to define them as 'foreign' even though they may have been domestic phone calls from American citizens to American citizens. The full extent of the program has yet to be revealed. I'm not sure why you keep trying to limit the discussion--apparently because you can't win the argument otherwise--but that was not the thread's original intent, and you are quite obviously begging the question.
Please stop.
Thank you
Yes, lets all discuss the scenarios that we've been given no indication of whether or not they've actually happened. We should only talk about situations in where it would be illegal, facts or no- any others make it too tough to pile on Bush. :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
Discussion of the multitudes of scenarios under which it'd be totally legal have absolutely no place here Pindar. :wink:
I agree with this. I'm pretty well ticked at the Times for sitting on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by solypsist
Some talking douchebag on FOX today was trying to point out how "convenient" the timing was of the story while ignoring the truth. FOX ALWAYS tries to couch things in a a "what's best for Dubya" setting. Pathetic excuse for journalism that FOX is. "Fair and balanced?" LOL. I think they should change it to "Clueless and deluded."
Yes, lets all discuss the scenarios that we've been given no indication of whether or not they've actually happened.
But Xiahou , it has been confirmed that they actually happened , or don't you listen to your President or the White House spokespeople .
Two reasons have been given for two diffent occurances involving the NSA , one was a technical problems , the other was oh it was just a mistake .
The issue is are they breaking the guidlines , that will be established hopefully one way or another in the inquiry .
I do not believe that it is so convenient and simple. That is the approach the Prez is using. Yet FISA has not been ruled unconstitutional, nor have all the ramifications of what the NSA is up to in this matter been considered by a court. (The cases you cited illustrated the hole in that nicely.) I can come up with half a dozen paths that the NSA are likely using that WOULD exceed the constitutional protections--apparently, so could some of the Admin's own legal experts and cabinet members as they did not back Dubya/Cheney's approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
It will take an investigation to determine what the NSA was doing and whether or not the President has abused his power. A pity, since the FISA court could have prevented that. The leak is defensible on the grounds that national security was being used as cover for illegal and perhaps impeachable activity by the Prez.
Well, you can continue to try to argue that this is all legitimate based on protecting the nation, that it was not domestic surveillance and that the Prez can do anything he wants in that regard. Unfortunately there are still several holes in the arguments.Quote:
The second point is more an apprehension based on a misunderstanding of the roles of government and therefore a step removed from the issue: but to give a response, any exercising of a branch power is Constitutionally derived. Its legality is therefore based on the Constitution. The Constitution is the proof text. To apply this to our general discussion: this is why Nixon's surveillance was wrong. He was involved in solely domestic surveillance independant of protecting the nation, which is outside of the Presidential purview.
You are basing all of this on an assumption of innocence and on an assumption that no domestic-to-domestic intercepts have occurred and therefore that the President has not exceeded his constitutional authority. Conveniently if guilty (or ironically, inconveniently if innocent), the only way to prove this has been bypassed. I smell a big RAT. The only explanation for what Dubya has done is that he WAS exceeding his constitutional authority. Otherwise it was unnecessary.
Debatable. The only method for verifying this has been bypassed. I would give you very good odds that this in NOT the case. There is an expansive gray area. That's why the whistleblowing has occurred, and this is why it is raising such a stink.Quote:
The NSA's actions, on the other hand, is foreign intelligence focused which is central to the President's charge.
Good, bring on the crisis. It is already here. We have a Prez who thinks he can ignore all treaties, conventions, and apparently the Constitution.Quote:
Nothing. Of course, in the 72 Keith Case SCOTUS expressly refused to attempt any limit of Presidential prerogatives regarding foreign intelligence gathering and there are good reasons why not that I have previously explained. Now, if SOCTUS did as you suggest this would be tantamount to Congress voting to eliminate the Presidential veto, the point being: doing a thing is not the same as having the authority to do a thing. Such a bald faced challenge to a basic component of one branch's delineated power would lead to a Constitutional crises.
His attempts at claiming "War Powers" in the continued activities are questionable. It is clear that Congress did not grant him all the powers he sought, and the "War on Terror" doesn't give him carte blanche. If he feels it does, then we need to declare it over, TODAY.
I will point out that the Prez didn't actually challenge the law to make it unconstitutional. He also has made no reasonable case that his constitutionally granted power is being restricted by the FISA. In other words, he is taking what would be construed as an illegal path or at least a path outside of the law, while the nation is unaware of his questionable use of power.Quote:
I basically agree with Sunstein's analysis previously given: "Yeah. I guess I'd say there are a couple of possibilities. One is that we should interpret FISA conformably with the president's Constitutional authority. So if FISA is ambiguous, or its applicability is in question, the prudent thing to do, as the first President Bush liked to say, is to interpret it so that FISA doesn't compromise the president's Constitutional power. And that's very reasonable, given the fact that there's an authorization to wage war, and you cannot wage war without engaging in surveillance. If FISA is interpreted as preventing the president from doing what he did here, then the president does have an argument that the FISA so interpreted is unconstitutional. So I don't think any president would relinquish the argument that the Congress lacks the authority to prevent him from acting in a way that protects national security, by engaging in foreign surveillance under the specific circumstances of post-9/11."
You might feel certain of your defense based on what has come out so far, but this has a "tip of the iceberg" aura to it. It will come tumbling down like a house of cards if any domestic spying is turned up during an investigation. There is a lot of gray area that makes that sort of abuse likely. One thing I know from observing this Administration: there is always a lot more hidden waiting to come out--they ALWAYS seem to push past the boundaries. Let's have a full investigation. If the warrantless searches were properly limited, that will come out. If they were not, then the Prez has committed an impeachable act covertly against the constitution he swore to protect. That the Prez did these things outside the scrutiny of FISA strongly suggests that he knew he would be exceeding his authority if his actions were reviewable. Whether or not his supporters agree, Dubya must still answer to this nation for his actions.
Indeed. If Dubya's own hand picked guys won't sign off, something is wrong. The defense would like to ignore that, because it would force them to confront the concept that the Prez could be exceeding his authority. Just claiming that the surveillance is necessary and limited to foreign wiretaps of calls connected to the U.S. does not make it so. Operating with no oversight makes it unlikely. Look at Dubya's record on such statements, nearly every time they have proven false. It would be exceptional if this were to prove any different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
hee hee! it's a better effort than just posting some crazy guy in an animal costume like last timeQuote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
But you would have had more impact with that :idea2:Quote:
Originally Posted by solypsist
This reply does not relate to the above. The general point: illegality is decided through adjudication is correct and should be obvious.Quote:
the Good Guys: Illegality is based on court rulings. This is beyond question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
As far as the unrelated point: see the Dec. 22 letter released by the Justice Department.
I doubt any participating here knew of the case law prior to my posting it. If you agree such is established then there is no residing legal question.Quote:
the Good Guys: This has been my focus: both in regards to explanation of the case law and answering any legal challenges.
Quote:
Exactly Pindar , you are focussing on something already established , and using a very narrow viewpoint .
Minus two points for repeating an unoriginal thought.Quote:
Hence......"You have been weighed in the balances , and been found to have your head buried in the sand while wearing a blindfold and earplugs for good measure."
An allegation does not a revelation make. I don't address unsubstantiated claims. Speculation by its very nature is indeterminate and not a sound basis for determining guilt. The basic scope of the program has been put forward. Based on that standard, there is no illegality.Quote:
the Good Guys: The discussion is about the story broken by the NY Times concerning Bush giving the NSA authorization to conduct warrantless surveillance of foreign communiqués.
Quote:
The discussion changed when further revelations were made that the warrentless surveilance has not been limited to foriegn communications . That is something you will not address , because as a lawyer you don't like answers that do not agree with your position .
Illegality does mean some breach of law, but that was not my point. My point concerned determining illegality. This requires adjudication.Quote:
the Good Guys: Illegality is based on court rulings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
You need to read more of the thread. FISA does not apply to the President's basic charge of gathering intelligence to protect the nation. Note again the 2002 In re Sealed Case:Quote:
A 1978 law that explicitly restricts the President's surveillance powers has been knowingly and openly violated. This is inherently illegal. There is no way around that.
"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."