Yet you apologize for the way Bush has abused the letter of the law in illegal wire taps. The same BUSH who is quoted as saying that wire taps MUST have a court order. What fooking bizzaro right winged nut world blinders are you wearing?
Putting aside the question of whether or not it is illegal - do you think it is acceptable conduct for members of the executive branch to disclose the identity of undercover CIA agents solely for the purpose of settling political scores? And by that I mean, "yes" or "no", not some nonresponsive "fervid" (don't most people use "fervent" these days?) rant about somebody blowing the whistle on illegal wiretapping to the Times.
do you have proof that a memebr of the executive branch disclosed the identity of undercover CIA agents solely for the purpose of settling political scores? what if, as seems likely, ms. flame's name, commonly known among reporters covering the cia, was disclosed by dick armitage, not a partisan gunslinger he, in an attempt to discredit the CIA "boondoggle?"
Dick Armitage is non-partisan? Why does that seem likely to you? Furthermore while Plame's name might have been known by a few reporters her status and position with the CIA certainly weren't. But despite that, we now know that she was covert out of the nation within the last five years and that she was working on keeping tabs on Iran's nuclear doings. That seems very important. And yet for whatever reason, her identity was leaked. How can anyone who claims to care aboout national security not be troubled by this?
That's completely non-responsive to the question I asked you. I'm going to ask you the question again: Putting aside the question of whether or not it is illegal - do you think it is acceptable conduct for members of the executive branch to disclose the identity of undercover CIA agents solely for the purpose of settling political scores?
Ya know the only the only *proof* is that the Chucklehead-N-Chief admitted to breaking the law, giving various lame rationales as support. Since the C-n-C has zero credibility (since he has told so many lies), he is probably lying again. Who really would trust anything he said nowadays anyway? SamFisher? FranchiseBlade? Deckard?
I've made what I think of George W. Bush and his bankrupt Administration perfectly clear. Do I trust anything the man says? Absolutely not. Even as disappointed as I've been with him, lately, I would be far more likely to trust basso. Better the unknown person behind his computer screen than the fool in the White House, who I know all too well, simply by his words and actions. Keep D&D Civil.
the bush team is blocking the investigation to this because they are illegally spying on people that have no relation to al qaeda etc whatsoever.
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS): Chairman of the Senate Coverup Committee As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen. Pat Roberts’s (R-KS) duty is “to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States” and “to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” But on the most important intelligence issues facing Americans – such as the manipulation of Iraq intelligence, warrantless domestic spying, and torture - Roberts has transformed his committee into a “Senate Coverup Committee” for the Bush administration. ...
Judges on Secretive Panel Speak Out on Spy Program By ERIC LICHTBLAU Published: March 29, 2006 WASHINGTON, March 28 — Five former judges on the nation's most secretive court, including one who resigned in apparent protest over President Bush's domestic eavesdropping, urged Congress on Tuesday to give the court a formal role in overseeing the surveillance program. In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order. They also suggested that the program could imperil criminal prosecutions that grew out of the wiretaps. Judge Harold A. Baker, a sitting federal judge in Illinois who served on the intelligence court until last year, said the president was bound by the law "like everyone else." If a law like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is duly enacted by Congress and considered constitutional, Judge Baker said, "the president ignores it at the president's peril." Judge Baker and three other judges who served on the intelligence court testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in support of a proposal by Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, to give the court formal oversight of the National Security Agency's eavesdropping program. Committee members also heard parts of a letter in support of the proposal from a fifth judge, James Robertson, who left the court last December, days after the eavesdropping program was disclosed. The intelligence court, created by Congress in 1978, meets in a tightly guarded, windowless office at the Justice Department. The court produces no public findings except for a single tally to Congress each year on the number of warrants it has issued — more than 1,600 in 2004. Even its roster of judges serving seven-year terms was, for a time, considered secret. But Mr. Bush's decision effectively to bypass the court in permitting eavesdropping without warrants has raised the court's profile. That was underscored by the appearance on Tuesday of the four former FISA judges: Judge Baker; Judge Stanley S. Brotman, who left the panel in 2004; Judge John F. Keenan, who left in 2001; and Judge William H. Stafford Jr., who left in 2003. All four sit on the federal judiciary. At a hearing lasting more than three hours, the former FISA judges discussed in detail their views on the standards of proof required by the court, its relations with the Justice Department, and the constitutional, balance-of-power issues at the heart of the debate over the N.S.A. program. The agency monitored the international communications of people inside the United States believed to be linked to Al Qaeda. The public broadcasting of the court's business struck some court watchers as extraordinary. "This is unprecedented," said Magistrate Judge Allan Kornblum, who supervised Justice Department wiretap applications to the court for many years and testified alongside the four former judges. But the most pointed testimony may have come from a man who was not at the hearing: Judge Robertson. A sitting federal judge in Washington, Judge Robertson resigned from the intelligence court just days after the N.S.A. program was disclosed. Colleagues say he resigned in frustration over the fact that none of the court's 11 judges, except for the presiding judge, were briefed on the program or knew of its existence. But Judge Robertson has remained silent, declining all requests for interviews, and his comments entered into The Congressional Record on Tuesday represented his first public remarks on the controversy. In a March 23 letter in response to a query from Mr. Specter, the judge said he supported Mr. Specter's proposal "to give approval authority over the administration's electronic surveillance program" to the court. The Bush administration, in its continued defense of the program, maintains that no change in the law is needed because the president has the inherent constitutional authority to order wiretaps without warrants in defense of the country. Mr. Specter's proposal seeks to give the intelligence court a role in ruling on the legitimacy of the program. A competing proposal by Senator Mike DeWine, Republican of Ohio, would allow the president to authorize wiretaps for 45 days without Congressional oversight or judicial approval. Judge Robertson made clear that he believed the FISA court should review the surveillance program. "Seeking judicial approval for government activities that implicate constitutional protections is, of course, the American way," he wrote. But Judge Robertson argued that the court should not conduct a "general review" of the surveillance operation, as Mr. Specter proposed. Instead, he said the court should rule on individual warrant applications for eavesdropping under the program lasting 45 or 90 days. Acknowledging the need for secrecy surrounding such a program, he said the FISA court was "best situated" for the task. "Its judges are independent, appropriately cleared, experienced in intelligence matters, and have a perfect security record," Judge Robertson said. He did not weigh in on the ultimate question of whether he considered the N.S.A. program illegal. The judges at the committee hearing avoided that politically charged issue despite persistent questioning from Democrats, even as the judges raised concerns about how the program was put into effect. Judge Baker said he felt most comfortable talking about possible changes to strengthen the foreign intelligence law. "Whether something's legal or illegal goes beyond that," he said, "and that's why I'm shying away from answering that."
The times just can't help itself in its guerilla war against all things republican. it's gotten so bad i don't even trust the restaurant reviews anymore. http://media.nationalreview.com/093732.aspv -- NYT Abandons Reporting for Assertion Via Power line, New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau appears to have asserted something in his wiretapping story today that just isn't supported by his own reporting, much less a transcript of the hearing. In the second paragraph of the story, Lichtblau wrote: In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order. They also suggested that the program could imperil criminal prosecutions that grew out of the wiretaps. The only reporting I can find in Lichtblau's story to back up this assertion is contained in the next paragraph, where he writes: Judge Harold A. Baker, a sitting federal judge in Illinois who served on the intelligence court until last year, said the president was bound by the law "like everyone else." If a law like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is duly enacted by Congress and considered constitutional, Judge Baker said, "the president ignores it at the president's peril." It only takes one look at the transcript to see how Lichtblau has changed the meaning of this quote by taking it out of context. At the time, Baker was on the receiving end of an aggressive line of questioning from Democrat Sen. Diane Feinstein. Here's the relevant passage: FEINSTEIN: Thank you very much. Now, I want to clear something up. Judge Kornblum spoke about Congress' power to pass laws to allow the president to carry out domestic electronic surveillance. And we know that FISA is the exclusive means of so doing. Is such a law, that provides both the authority and the rules for carrying out that authority — are those rules then binding on the president? [U.S. District Judge Allan] KORNBLUM: No president has ever agreed to that. When the FISA statute was passed in 1978, it was not perfect harmony. The intelligence agencies were very reluctant to get involved in going to court. That reluctance changed over a short period of time, two or three years, when they realized they could do so much more than they'd ever done before without... FEINSTEIN: What do you think, as a judge? KORNBLUM: I think — as a magistrate judge, not a district judge — that a president would be remiss in exercising his constitutional authority to say that, "I surrender all of my power to a statute." And, frankly, I doubt that Congress in a statute can take away the president's authority — not his inherent authority but his necessary and — I forget the constitutional — his necessary and proper authority. FEINSTEIN: I'd like to go down the line, if I could, Judge, please. Judge Baker? [U.S. District Judge Harold] BAKER: Well, I'm going to pass to my colleagues, since I answered before. I don't believe a president would surrender his power, either. FEINSTEIN: So you don't believe a president would be bound by the rules and regulations of a statute. Is that what you're saying? BAKER: No, I don't believe that. A president... FEINSTEIN: That's my question. BAKER: No, I thought you were talking about the decision… FEINSTEIN: No, I'm talking about FISA and is a president bound by the rules and regulations of FISA? BAKER: If it's held constitutional and it's passed, I suppose he is, like everyone else: He's under the law, too. FEINSTEIN: Judge? [U.S. District Judge Stanley] BROTMAN (?): I would feel the same way. FEINSTEIN: Judge Keenan? [U.S. District Judge John] KEENAN: Certainly the president is subject to the law. But by the same token, in emergency situations, as happened in the spring of 1861, if you remember — and we all do — President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and got in a big argument with Chief Justice Taney, but the writ was suspended. KEENAN: And some of you probably have read the book late Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, "All the Laws But One." Because in his inaugural speech — not his inaugural speech, but his speech on July 4th, 1861, President Lincoln said, essentially, "Should we follow all the laws and have them all broken, because of one?" FEINSTEIN: Judge? (UNKNOWN) [probably U.S. District Judge William Stafford]: Senator, everyone is bound by the law, but I don't believe, with all due respect, that even an act of Congress can limit the president's power under the necessary and proper clause under the Constitution. And it's hard for me to go further on the question that you pose, but I would think that (inaudible) power is defined in the Constitution, and while he's bound to obey the law, I don't believe that the law can change that. FEINSTEIN: So then you all believe that FISA is essentially advisory when it comes to the president. (UNKNOWN): No. FEINSTEIN: That's what you're saying. I don't mean — my time is up, but this is an important point. If the president isn't bound by it... SPECTER: Excuse me. It was four and a half minutes ago. But pursue the line to finish this question, Senator Feinstein. FEINSTEIN: I don't understand how a president cannot be bound by a law. (UNKNOWN): I could amend my answer to saying... FEINSTEIN: But if he is, then the law is advisory, it seems to me. (UNKNOWN):* No, if there's an enactment, a statutory enactment, and it's a constitutional enactment, the president ignores it at the president's peril. * Lichtblau attributes this quote to Harold Baker Throughout the long line of questioning, each judge appears to support the argument that the president did not act illegally when he used his constitutional authority to order the NSA to eavesdrop on people in the United States receiving phone calls from suspected al-Qaeda terrorists. Baker merely stated the obvious — that if the president had circumvented a statute without having the constitutional authority to do so, he would be doing so at his peril. I wonder if Lichtblau can point to anything in the transcript that justifies his assertion that "several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order." Because the transcript I read indicates that the exact opposite is true.
Now let's look at the transcript ... KORNBLUM: I think — as a magistrate judge, not a district judge — that a president would be remiss in exercising his constitutional authority to say that, "I surrender all of my power to a statute." And, frankly, I doubt that Congress in a statute can take away the president's authority — not his inherent authority but his necessary and — I forget the constitutional — his necessary and proper authority. FEINSTEIN: I'd like to go down the line, if I could, Judge, please. Judge Baker? [U.S. District Judge Harold] BAKER: Well, I'm going to pass to my colleagues, since I answered before. I don't believe a president would surrender his power, either. FEINSTEIN: So you don't believe a president would be bound by the rules and regulations of a statute. Is that what you're saying? BAKER: No, I don't believe that. FEINSTEIN: No, I'm talking about FISA and is a president bound by the rules and regulations of FISA? BAKER: If it's held constitutional and it's passed, I suppose he is, like everyone else: He's under the law, too. [U.S. District Judge Stanley] BROTMAN (?): I would feel the same way. [U.S. District Judge John] KEENAN: Certainly the president is subject to the law. But by the same token, in emergency situations, as happened in the spring of 1861, if you remember — and we all do — President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and got in a big argument with Chief Justice Taney, but the writ was suspended. (UNKNOWN) [probably U.S. District Judge William Stafford]: Senator, everyone is bound by the law, but I don't believe, with all due respect, that even an act of Congress can limit the president's power under the necessary and proper clause under the Constitution. And it's hard for me to go further on the question that you pose, but I would think that (inaudible) power is defined in the Constitution, and while he's bound to obey the law, I don't believe that the law can change that. (UNKNOWN):* No, if there's an enactment, a statutory enactment, and it's a constitutional enactment, the president ignores it at the president's peril. Both articles overstated their hand. The judges appear to say that the Presidents has constitutional powers that can not limited by statues. It is an open question whether the President acted under his constitutional authority or broke the law. Constitutional pundits favor the latter, albeit their opinion carries little weight. The final arbiter is the federal courts. The President is very reluctant to go before them, which would imply he believes he has a weak case and may very well have broken the law.
A couple of stories this morning worth noting. NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY. The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans - most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews. "It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added. For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made - across town or across the country - to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others. The three telecommunications companies are working under contract with the NSA, which launched the program in 2001 shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the sources said. The program is aimed at identifying and tracking suspected terrorists, they said. http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/ns...BlSzzys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ-- And here's the good one! Security Issue Kills Domestic Spying Probe WASHINGTON - The government has abruptly ended an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program because the National Security Agency refused to grant Justice Department lawyers the necessary security clearance to probe the matter. The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, or OPR, sent a fax to Rep. Maurice Hinchey D-N.Y., on Wednesday saying they were closing their inquiry because without clearance their lawyers cannot examine Justice lawyers' role in the program. "We have been unable to make any meaningful progress in our investigation because OPR has been denied security clearances for access to information about the NSA program," OPR counsel H. Marshall Jarrett wrote to Hinchey. Hinchey's office shared the letter with The Associated Press. Jarrett wrote that beginning in January, his office has made a series of requests for the necessary clearances. Those requests were denied Tuesday. "Without these clearances, we cannot investigate this matter and therefore have closed our investigation," wrote Jarrett. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto.../20060510/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/domestic_spying_2
