UNITED STATES V. NIXON (1974) ...Chief Justice Burger reaffirmed the rulings of Marbury v. Madison and Cooper v. Aaron that under the Constitution the courts have the final voice in determining constitutional questions, and that no person, not even the president of the United States, is above the law. ... Source: 418 U.S. 683 (1974). http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/72.htm
Damn conservative MSM ... Critics Question Timing of Surveillance Story # The New York Times, which knew about the secret wiretaps for more than a year, published because of a reporter's new book, sources say. By James Rainey, Times Staff Writer The New York Times first debated publishing a story about secret eavesdropping on Americans as early as last fall, before the 2004 presidential election. But the newspaper held the story for more than a year and only revealed the secret wiretaps last Friday, when it became apparent a book by one of its reporters was about to break the news, according to journalists familiar with the paper's internal discussions. The Times report has created a furor in Washington, with politicians in both parties and civil libertarians saying that President Bush was wrong to authorize the surveillance by the National Security Agency without permission from a special court. Bush and his supporters have fired back, saying that the eavesdropping was needed to protect Americans after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. On Monday, the president called the public reports on the once-secret surveillance "shameful." Politicians, journalists and Internet commentators have feverishly aired the debate over the timing of the New York Times story in the last four days — with critics on the left wondering why the paper waited so long to publish the story and those on the right wondering why it was published at all. Conservatives suggested the Times had timed the story to persuade members of Congress to oppose reauthorization of the Patriot Act, the federal law that granted the government sweeping surveillance powers. They also charged that the newspaper wanted to short-circuit good news for the Bush administration — Iraq's high-turnout, relatively violence-free elections. Times Executive Editor Bill Keller rejected those alleged motivations and also the suggestion that the timing of the story was linked to next month's scheduled publication of "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," the book by Times reporter James Risen that includes information on the National Security Agency spying program. "The publication was not timed to the Iraqi election, the Patriot Act debate, Jim's forthcoming book or any other event," Keller said in a statement. "We published the story when we did because after much hard work it was fully reported, checked and ready, and because, after listening respectfully to the administration's objections, we were convinced there was no good reason not to publish it." The newspaper had reported Friday that it held publication of the story for "a year" because the White House had argued that it "could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny." In a statement over the weekend, Keller said the paper printed the story after more reporting, which uncovered additional "concerns and misgivings" about the surveillance and also persuaded Times editors that they could proceed and "not expose any intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities that are not already on the public record." The initial Times statements did not say that the paper's internal debate began before the Nov. 2, 2004, presidential election — in which Iraq and national security questions loomed large — or make any reference to Risen's book, due out Jan. 16. But two journalists, who declined to be identified, said that editors at the paper were actively considering running the story about the wiretaps before Bush's November showdown with Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts. Top editors at the paper eventually decided to hold the story. But the discussion was renewed after the election, with Risen and coauthor of the story, reporter Eric Lichtblau, joining some of the paper's editors in pushing for publication, according to the sources, who said they did not want to be identified because the Times had designated only Keller and a spokeswoman to address the matter. "When they realized that it was going to appear in the book anyway, that is when they went ahead and agreed to publish the story," said one of the journalists. "That's not to say that was their entire consideration, but it was a very important one of them." Both of the journalists said they thought that Times editors were overly cautious in holding the story for more than a year. But they said they thought the delays appeared to be in good faith, with the editors taking to heart the national security concerns raised by the Bush administration. Times management and journalists reacted with particular disgust to the claim, put forward by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) over the weekend, that the story had been held, in part, "as part of a marketing campaign for selling the [Risen] book." Risen declined to comment on any aspect of the story, but one of his colleagues called the allegation absurd. Keller said in his statement that the Times had given Risen a leave to write the book but that the paper "otherwise has no connection to it." Simon & Schuster Inc., the book's publisher, is not owned by the New York Times Co. Daniel Okrent, the former public editor at the New York Times, said the disclosure of wiretaps without court authority was an important story and one the newspaper deserved plaudits for bringing into the public debate. But the story also put the newspaper in a difficult position, he said. "You are damned if you do and damned if you don't," said Okrent, who often wrote critical reviews of the Times before leaving in May to write a book. "For the right, this information never should have come out. And for the left, it never could have come out early enough." Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, said readers would like to have more information to judge why the paper waited more than a year to publish the story. "If the concerns were strong enough they didn't run the story, then it puts them in a very difficult position when it comes time to explain" because the newspaper had determined that it could not reveal many of the details for national security reasons, Jamieson said. Nonetheless, Jamieson called on the paper to be as transparent as possible to explain the delay because it had an obligation "to make sure all possible information was available to voters before the election, as long as that information did not jeopardize national security." Although some Democratic commentators have suggested news of secret, extra-judicial wiretaps would have been a political blow against Bush, Jamieson said too little was known about the surveillance program to draw conclusions. "It's possible it plays out in a way that favors the Bush administration too," she said. "We just can't know that yet."
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html Congress addressed this specific issue in 1978. If Bush didn't like the law, he should of gone to Congress to change the law, not just ignore it. This is a high crime - he has admitted he committed this crime - he should be impeached for it - no one is above the law in our country and it is very sad that you feel and argue that he is
Impeachment? I'd say it is more important to get a conviction. Could then Bush pardon himself? That would really rock.
I don't think everyone sees the seriousness of this issue. The constitution instituted checks and balances for a reason. There is only one layer of protecting that the citizens of the U.S. have from govt. intrusion into our private lives, and collecting of this type of evidence without a warrant. The only protection that exists is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. In tens of thousands of cases they have only turned down govt. less than 10 times. The govt. is allowed to start wiretapping immediately without a warrant or court order, as long as it goes back and gets a retroactive one with in an alotted time. Despite this Bush went past the one and only layer of protection that citizens have against govt. intrusion. When our president tries to strip us of our only protection, then it is very serious.
There can be only one explanation. Bush was spying on more than AQ. Hum...Who could that be? Journalist apposed to the bush junta? Democrats during the 2004 election? Anti war groups? Gives one pause...
Excerpt from a W speech ... President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security Remarks by the President in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act Kleinshans Music Hall Buffalo, New York For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary April 20, 2004 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.
This goes beyond hypocritical. It shows that Bush knows that the constitution requires court approval for the eavesdropping. It shows that even Bush doesn't buy into TJ's claim that the constitution gives him power. Honestly I think TJ heard that as one of the talking points, and repeated without any knowledge of what the article in the constitution actually says, since he hasn't been able to point out any of the words that back up his claim. This is so mindblowing, that this could happen in the U.S. If I wanted this from a govt. I could move to one of any number of dictatorships around the world.
Conservative Scholars Argue Bush’s Wiretapping Is An Impeachable Offense Conservative scholars Bruce Fein and Norm Ornstein argued yesterday on The Diane Rehm show that, should Bush remain defiant in defending his constitutionally-abusive wire-tapping of Americans (as he has indicated he will), Congress should consider impeaching him. QUESTION: Is spying on the American people as impeachable an offense as lying about having sex with an intern? BRUCE FEIN, constitutional scholar and former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration: I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want – I don’t need to consult any other branches – that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that … would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant. NORM ORNSTEIN, AEI scholar: I think if we’re going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed. (Listen to The Diane Rehm show here. The segment above begins at 33:40) UPDATE: More from Knight-Ridder: [Bush’s] explanation fueled more anger over the domestic spying, and some legal experts asserted that Bush broke the law on a scale that could warrant his impeachment. “The president’s dead wrong. It’s not a close question. Federal law is clear,” said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and a specialist in surveillance law. “When the president admits that he violated federal law, that raises serious constitutional questions of high crimes and misdemeanors.” http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20...bush’s-wiretapping-is-an-impeachable-offense/ **** More from Bruce Fein from that terrible Liberal paper, The Washington Times http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/bfein.htm . . . unlimited? By Bruce Fein December 20, 2005 According to President George W. Bush, being president in wartime means never having to concede co-equal branches of government have a role when it comes to hidden encroachments on civil liberties. Last Saturday, he thus aggressively defended the constitutionality of his secret order to the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on the international communications of Americans whom the executive branch speculates might be tied to terrorists. Authorized after the September 11, 2001 abominations, the eavesdropping clashes with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), excludes judicial or legislative oversight, and circumvented public accountability for four years until disclosed by the New York Times last Friday. Mr. Bush's defense generally echoed previous outlandish assertions that the commander in chief enjoys inherent constitutional power to ignore customary congressional, judicial or public checks on executive tyranny under the banner of defeating international terrorism, for example, defying treaty or statutory prohibitions on torture or indefinitely detaining United States citizens as illegal combatants on the president's say-so. President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law. He cannot be trusted to conduct the war against global terrorism with a decent respect for civil liberties and checks against executive abuses. Congress should swiftly enact a code that would require Mr. Bush to obtain legislative consent for every counterterrorism measure that would materially impair individual freedoms. The war against global terrorism is serious business. The enemy has placed every American at risk, a tactic that justifies altering the customary balance between liberty and security. But like all other constitutional authorities, the war powers of the president are a matter of degree. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer (1952), the U.S. Supreme Court denied President Harry Truman's claim of inherent constitutional power to seize a steel mill threatened with a strike to avert a steel shortage that might have impaired the war effort in Korea. A strike occurred, but Truman's fear proved unfounded. Neither President Richard Nixon nor Gerald Ford was empowered to suspend Congress for failing to appropriate funds they requested to fight in Cambodia or South Vietnam. And the Supreme Court rejected Nixon's claim of inherent power to enjoin publication of the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War in New York Times v. United States (1971). Mr. Bush insisted in his radio address that the NSA targets only citizens "with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist organizations." But there are no checks on NSA errors or abuses, the hallmark of a rule of law as opposed to a rule of men. Truth and accuracy are the first casualties of war. President Bush assured the world Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 invasion. He was wrong. President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared Americans of Japanese ancestry were security threats to justify interning them in concentration camps during World War II. He was wrong. President Lyndon Johnson maintained communists masterminded and funded the massive Vietnam War protests in the United States. He was wrong. To paraphrase President Ronald Reagan's remark to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, President Bush can be trusted in wartime, but only with independent verification. The NSA eavesdropping is further troublesome because it easily evades judicial review. Targeted citizens are never informed their international communications have been intercepted. Unless a criminal prosecution is forthcoming (which seems unlikely), the citizen has no forum to test the government's claim the interceptions were triggered by known links to a terrorist organization. Mr. Bush acclaimed the secret surveillance as "crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies." But if that were justified, why was Congress not asked for legislative authorization in light of the legal cloud created by FISA and the legislative branch's sympathies shown in the Patriot Act and joint resolution for war? FISA requires court approval for national security wiretaps, and makes it a crime for a person to intentionally engage "in electronic surveillance under color of law, except as authorized by statute." Mr. Bush cited the disruptions of "terrorist" cells in New York, Oregon, Virginia, California, Texas and Ohio as evidence of a pronounced domestic threat that compelled unilateral and secret action. But he failed to demonstrate those cells could not have been equally penetrated with customary legislative and judicial checks on executive overreaching. The president maintained that, "As a result [of the NSA disclosure], our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk." But if secrecy were pivotal to the NSA's surveillance, why is the president continuing the eavesdropping? And why is he so carefree about risking the liberties of both the living and those yet to be born by flouting the Constitution's separation of powers and conflating constructive criticism with treason?
Bush's own lies come back to haunt him. So we have 1) Bush lying that he follows the protections under the Patritot Act. and 2) Bush admitting that he broke this law, though he now says that he had some other right to do so. See this from a speech Bush gave while defending the Patriot Act a while back. Bush: 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 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html.
When Bush said that wiretaps require court orders because that's the way the constitution mandates things, he wasn't lying. He was basing that on the faulty intel he had regarding the Constitution. It turns out that the intel was wrong, he wasn't lying.
Would the country be better off with Cheany in charge? impeach him in house if you can but don't even think about actually take Bush down in the senate.
I understand the logic, but having Bush taken down may be enough of a deterrent for further unethical behavior that Cheney will tow the line enough that it would still be an improvement. Furthermore it will only be a short time that he would be allowed to serve. Either way these actions require that our leader face the consequences.
Well, someone was spying on VEGAN anti war groups! Those dam vegans... F.B.I. Watched Activist Groups, New Files Show By ERIC LICHTBLAU WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 - Counterterrorism agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted numerous surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations that involved, at least indirectly, groups active in causes as diverse as the environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief, newly disclosed agency records show. F.B.I. officials said Monday that their investigators had no interest in monitoring political or social activities and that any investigations that touched on advocacy groups were driven by evidence of criminal or violent activity at public protests and in other settings. After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, John Ashcroft, who was then attorney general, loosened restrictions on the F.B.I.'s investigative powers, giving the bureau greater ability to visit and monitor Web sites, mosques and other public entities in developing terrorism leads. The bureau has used that authority to investigate not only groups with suspected ties to foreign terrorists, but also protest groups suspected of having links to violent or disruptive activities. But the documents, coming after the Bush administration's confirmation that President Bush had authorized some spying without warrants in fighting terrorism, prompted charges from civil rights advocates that the government had improperly blurred the line between terrorism and acts of civil disobedience and lawful protest. One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20fbi.html?pagewanted=print Batman! What have you been up too? I mean! You only post at 3AM in the morning. That's...unamerican...
Here is the legal code (TITLE 50, CHAPTER 36, SUBCHAPTER I) on Electronic Survailance I came to this link through a very informed editorial done on the issue at Cryptome. After reviewing it I'm not sure how the President can claim that he had any sort of justification. In listening to the President, I remember him saying that he asked his advisors if the spying was legal and they said "absolutely". I'm willing to believe that our less than intellectual president may have relied on the advice of his rabidly dogmatic political advisors in making his decision. That of course does not excuse his criminal behavior, only helps elucidate the failures that would allow him to contemplate breaking the law while thinking he was justified. The editorial I mentioned follows: [rquoter] A small editorial from your moderator. I rarely use this list to express a strong political opinion -- you will forgive me in this instance. This mailing list is putatively about cryptography and cryptography politics, though we do tend to stray quite a bit into security issues of all sorts, and sometimes into the activities of the agency with the biggest crypto and sigint budget in the world, the NSA. As you may all be aware, the New York Times has reported, and the administration has admitted, that President of the United States apparently ordered the NSA to conduct surveillance operations against US citizens without prior permission of the secret court known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (the "FISC"). This is in clear contravention of 50 USC 1801 - 50 USC 1811, a portion of the US code that provides for clear criminal penalties for violations. The President claims he has the prerogative to order such surveillance. The law unambiguously disagrees with him. There are minor exceptions in the law, but they clearly do not apply in this case. They cover only the 15 days after a declaration of war by congress, a period of 72 hours prior to seeking court authorization (which was never sought), and similar exceptions that clearly are not germane. There is no room for doubt or question about whether the President has the prerogative to order surveillance without asking the FISC -- even if the FISC is a toothless organization that never turns down requests, it is a federal crime, punishable by up to five years imprisonment, to conduct electronic surveillance against US citizens without court authorization. The FISC may be worthless at defending civil liberties, but in its arrogant disregard for even the fig leaf of the FISC, the administration has actually crossed the line into a crystal clear felony. The government could have legally conducted such wiretaps at any time, but the President chose not to do it legally. Ours is a government of laws, not of men. That means if the President disagrees with a law or feels that it is insufficient, he still must obey it. Ignoring the law is illegal, even for the President. The President may ask Congress to change the law, but meanwhile he must follow it. Our President has chosen to declare himself above the law, a dangerous precedent that could do great harm to our country. However, without substantial effort on the part of you, and I mean you, every person reading this, nothing much is going to happen. The rule of law will continue to decay in our country. Future Presidents will claim even greater extralegal authority, and our nation will fall into despotism. I mean that sincerely. For the sake of yourself, your children and your children's children, you cannot allow this to stand. Call your Senators and your Congressman. Demand a full investigation, both by Congress and by a special prosecutor, of the actions of the Administration and the NSA. Say that the rule of law is all that stands between us and barbarism. Say that we live in a democracy, not a kingdom, and that our elected officials are not above the law. The President is not a King. Even the President cannot participate in a felony and get away with it. Demand that even the President must obey the law. Tell your friends to do the same. Tell them to tell their friends [/rquoter]
