Alberto Gonzales Sets the Record Straight on Surveillance

Do you HONESTLY believe that?

 

Yes, I do. I consider Clinton to be an "average" Democrat, and he did rather well. I think my definition of average, and that of most people, might be a bit different. Carter managed to win after scandals rocked the Republican Party... how would you describe him?

Please understand that "average" is the last kind of candidate I want to see get the Democratic nomination. We've seen several "below average" Democrats run the last several years, excepting Clinton. Not seeing the kind of candidate I'd like to see run in '08 come to the fore, yet, I'm lowering my expectations, and remain optimistic. I'll be more optimistic after we take the House or/and the Senate in '06.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

I would really love to go up against ROXRAN, halfbreed & co. in court one day. Really, I would love it. Please guys, go to law school - I beg you. Please do.

 

Vice President Dick Cheney bitterly complains that national security leaks are endangering America. Unless, of course, he's doing the leaking, tapping Scooter Libby to reveal national security information to punish a political critic.

President Bush says he will not talk about specific security threats to America. Unless, of course, he needs to talk about a specific threat to Los Angeles to confuse the public and gain some cheap political advantage.

The White House says it has done everything possible to protect the homeland. Unless, of course, it hasn't. Then it can lie to hide the callous portrait of Incurious George in Crawford as New Orleans drowned.

The attorney general can claim that torture and warrantless wiretapping are legal, and can mislead Congress. Unless, of course, enough Republicans stand up and say, as Arlen Specter told The Washington Post, that if that lickspittle lawyer thinks all this is legal, "he's smoking Dutch Cleanser."

The president doesn't know the Indian Taker Jack Abramoff. Unless, of course, W. has met with him a dozen times, invited him to Crawford and joked with him about his kids.

The Bushies can continue to claim that the invasion of Iraq was justified because Saddam was a threat to our security. Unless, of course, he wasn't, and the Cheney cabal was simply abusing the trust of Americans to push a wild-eyed political scheme.

Read the whole column here.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.h...22j)7Q26Q7EDD7)e44U)4e)xx)DlS,SD,)xx5Du5ic7q(

 

I never once said that my position is the only possible one that can be right. I put forth evidence that I thought would help my side of the argument. If that evidence changes someone's mind, cool. If someone provides evidence that changes my mind, cool too, right? That's what debate and discussion is all about. Treating this like a courtroom where you advocate for one side regardless of whether or not they're right isn't exactly what I'd expect.

Also, I am going to law school. You'll get your chance to use your superior intellect to deliver a harsh beatdown to little old me. Isn't the point of law school to learn? I suppose I should already know as much as you Mr. Mighty SamFisher. I hope to one day live the life of a SplinterCell and have as much knowledge about truth as you do.

 

Once you go to law school you'll learn that you can't cite the things you cited and expect to be taken halfway seriously.

Have some respectable people made cases FOR illegal surveillance not being illegal? sure.

Do I (or most) find them credible? no....but they're a lot more credible than citing some of the ridiculous things that you and ROXRAN have been citing, which are just plain wrong and do nothing but confuse and obfuscate.

 

Good defense lawyers are supposed to confuse and obfuscate.

 

Bush's Bad Connection

The White House is defiant in defense of warrantless wiretaps. That stance is beginning to bug Congress.

By Michael Isikoff, Mark Hosenball and Evan Thomas
Newsweek

Feb. 20, 2006 issue - The attorney general of the United States was playing rope-a-dope. Why, the senators wanted to know, did the White House circumvent a law passed by Congress, the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires intelligence services to obtain search warrants before intercepting international communications inside the United States? Alberto Gonzales was evasive and bland. Speaking in legalisms, he offered few details about the National Security Agency's sweeping post-9/11 eavesdropping program. After a series of senatorial questions had gone essentially unanswered, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont interjected, "Of course, I'm sorry, Mr. Attorney General, I forgot: you can't answer any questions that might be relevant to this."

Such sarcasm might be expected of a Democrat like Leahy. But Gonzales also came under tough questioning from four of the 10 Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee, including its chairman, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. At the hearing, Gonzales argued, as President George W. Bush has several times before, that Congress gave the executive branch the power to wiretap when it passed a resolution, right after 9/11, authorizing the "use of force" to battle terrorism. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a conservative Republican, called that argument "very dangerous in terms of its application to the future. When I voted for it, I never envisioned that I was giving to this president or any other president the ability to go around FISA carte blanche."

It is not yet clear how the public feels about warrantless wiretapping. As usual, the answer depends on the question. Asked if they approve of government eavesdropping on U.S. citizens, most people say no; asked if they approve of eavesdropping to catch terrorists, most people say yes. More-sophisticated polls show a roughly even split in opinion, so it's hard to know how the issue will cut in the 2006 elections. But there is no question that the solons of Capitol Hill—and, increasingly, those in the Republican Party—are growing restless and ready to challenge the authority of the Bush White House.

In part, congressional egos and prerogatives are on the line. Members of both parties feel bullied by the sometimes high-handed treatment they get from the Bush administration, particularly from Vice President Dick Cheney, the outspoken avatar of executive power. Congress has always been the place to go to complain about executive-branch bungling and malfeasance. Last week was particularly rough for the Bush team on Capitol Hill: former FEMA director Michael Brown used a congressional hearing to lay the blame for the botched handling of Hurricane Katrina on the White House and the Homeland Security Department—both of which, Brown argued, had been promptly informed of the storm's terrible toll, an assertion that may shift more of the blame for the disaster-within-a-disaster away from the seemingly hapless "Brownie," as President Bush called his ousted FEMA director.

This coming week is not going to be any better. The Senate intelligence committee is likely to vote to open an investigation into the NSA's wiretapping program, according to senior congressional aides who declined to be identified discussing sensitive matters. The chairman of the committee, Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, will probably follow the White House line and try to keep a lid on the hearings. But three Republicans—Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Mike DeWine of Ohio—are expected to join with the Democrats on the committee to vote to demand more information about the secret eavesdropping program from the White House and intelligence agencies.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11300384/site/newsweek/

 

This is the difference between you and me. By referring to them as illegal wiretaps and not warrantless wiretaps, you have let the rest of us know that you won't change your opinion. Discussing things with you then, is a moot point because you are just like those on my side of the fence that you constantly mock and argue with.

 

but warrantless=illegal.

 

Lawyers group slams Bush on eavesdropping

By Michael Conlon

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The American Bar Association told President George W. Bush on Monday to either stop domestic eavesdropping without a warrant or get the law changed to make it legal.

"We hope the President will listen," association president Michael Grecco told reporters after the more than 500 members of its policy-setting body passed a resolution saying that both national security and constitutional freedoms needed to be protected.

"We do not say surveillance should be stopped, only that it comply with the law," said Neal Sonnett, a Miami lawyer who headed the task force formed to look at the issue not long after the spying program came to light in December.

Authorized by Bush in 2001, the program allows the National Security Agency to monitor the international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens to track people with ties to al Qaeda and other militant groups.

The White House has said warrantless eavesdropping is legal under Bush's constitutional powers as commander-in-chief and a congressional authorization for the use of military force adopted days after the September 11 attacks.

The program bypassed secret courts created under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, that grant warrants.

"We are not trying to limit the President's ability to go after terrorists," Sonnett told the group's House of Delegates before it passed his task force's resolution with relatively little debate.

"Nobody wants to hamstring the President," he added, "But we cannot allow the U.S. Constitution and our rights to become a victim of terrorism," he added.

Grecco told the group the issue is not whether the President can conduct surveillance but whether he can do it unilaterally.

The association's resolution calls on Bush "to abide by the limitations which the Constitution imposes on a President" to make sure national security is protected in a way that is consistent with constitutional guarantees.

It opposes "any future electronic surveillance inside the United States by any U.S. government agency for foreign intelligence purposes that does not comply with provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."

If Bush believes that law is inadequate, then he should ask Congress to change it or enact new legislation, it added.

The resolution also called on the U.S. Congress to affirm that the post September 11 law on the authorization of military force did not give the White House an exemption from the requirements of the 1978 law.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsa..._RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-EAVESDROPPING-POLL.xml

 

The bottom line is this...The President has the chief responsibility under the Constitution to protect America from attack, and the Constitution gives the President the authority necessary to fulfill that solemn responsibility...more to come beach.

 

"I think there's a very powerful case that the president has independent authority" to order surveillance without a warrant, said Robert Turner, a University of Virginia professor who specializes in national security law.

www.foxnews.com

 

His chief responsibility under the Constitution is not to protect America, but to uphold the Constitution.

Now, within that he is supposed to act as the commander and chief in order to protect the nation.

But there is one thing mandated by the constitution and that is that the President uphold the constitution. Part of that constitution is the system of checks and balances that must be maintained. So if the president steps above the constitution even in a supposed effort to protect this nation, then he is actually failing in his chief duty under the constitution. He is breaking his oath of office.

 

Administration Cites Law, Court Precedent

President Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Monday cited three areas in which the administration has the authority to conduct warrantless domestic surveillance: presidential powers in Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution; the 2001 congressional authorization for the use of force after the Sept. 11 attacks; and the Supreme Court's decision in the 2004 case of enemy combatant Yaser Hamdi, a Saudi-American citizen captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan who was held for three years without being charged.

On Tuesday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan repeated the legal underpinnings used to justify the "signals intelligence."

"Under Article 2 of the Constitution, as commander in chief, the president has that authority. The president has the authority under the congressional authorization that was passed and clearly stated that, quote, 'The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force.' This was under Section 2 in the authorization for the United States Armed Forces," McClellan said.

"It is limited to people who have — one of the parties to the communication [who has] a clear connection to Al Qaeda or terrorist organizations and one of the parties [who] is operating outside of the United States. And I think that's important for people to know, because there's been some suggestions that it's spying inside the U.S. That's not the case," the press secretary added.

Gonzales told reporters that the Supreme Court decision on Hamdi reinforced the claim that the president was given wide permission in the Sept. 14, 2001, vote by Congress authorizing the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against those behind the Sept. 11 attacks.

Gonzales said the congressional authorization did not specifically mention the word "detention," but in the Hamdi case, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in the majority opinion "that detention of enemy soldiers captured on the battlefield ... had been authorized by the Congress when they used the words, 'authorize the president to use all necessary and appropriate force.'"

"We believe the court would apply the same reasoning to recognize the authorization by Congress to engage in this kind of electronic surveillance," Gonzales said.

The New York Times, which first disclosed the existence of the NSA program last week, also cited unnamed sources who said the administration used two other opinions to justify its actions. One was embedded in a public Justice Department brief from 2002 and another was in a 2002 opinion issued by the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review that oversees the secretive court that usually deals with terror-related wiretap requests.

In 2002, that FISA review court upheld the president's warrantless search powers, referencing a 1980 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. That court held that "the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. ... 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," wrote the court.

"The Foreign Intelligence Court of Review, which is the highest court that's looked at these questions, has said that the president has the inherent constitutional authority to use electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence and Congress cannot take away that constitutional authority. That's a pretty good argument," Bryan Cunningham, former National Security Council legal adviser, told FOX News.

How is this cite job Samfisher? Ooooh the truth burns in your eyes! Quick flush it with neo-demo liquid so the lies and deception of reality can give you a good self-served face smack to counter...I count NOT 1,...NOT 2...but 3 areas Sam! 1...2...3! I know this may confuse and obfuscate you to have 3 fact-based supporting areas to deal with and taciturn, but the reality is the President has the fact-based reasoning in several areas. Most notably is section 2 of the Constitution...

 

Yes there is that professor. But should we take that professor's word over these people who including the chief Justice on the foreign intelligence surveilance court? And it also includes Former FBI director William Sessions, not to mention many others.

Here is the list that disagree with that professor that FOXNEWS quoted.

Sincerely,
Curtis A. Bradley
Richard and Marcy Horvitz Professor of Law, Duke University*
Former Counselor on International Law in the State Department Legal Adviser’s Office, 2004
David Cole
Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Walter Dellinger
Douglas Blount Maggs Professor of Law, Duke University
Former Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel,1993-1996
Former Acting Solicitor General of the United States, 1996-97
Ronald Dworkin
Frank Henry Sommer Professor, New York University Law School
Richard Epstein
James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor, University of Chicago Law School
Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution
Harold Hongju Koh
Dean and Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law, Yale Law School
Former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor 1998-2001
Former Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, DOJ, 1983-85
Philip B. Heymann
James Barr Ames Professor, Harvard Law School
Former Deputy Attorney General, 1993-94
Martin S. Lederman
Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center
Former Attorney Advisor, Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, 1994-2002
Beth Nolan
Former Counsel to the President, 1999-2001; Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, 1996-1999; Associate Counsel to the President, 1993-1995; Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, 1981-1985
William S. Sessions
Former Director, FBI
Former Chief United States District Judge, Western District of Texas
Geoffrey R. Stone
Harry Kalven, Jr. Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago
Former Dean of the University of Chicago Law School and Provost of the University of Chicago
Kathleen M. Sullivan
Stanley Morrison Professor, Stanford Law School
Former Dean, Stanford Law School
Laurence H. Tribe
Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law
Harvard Law School
William W. Van Alstyne
Lee Professor, William and Mary Law School
Former Attorney, Department of Justice, 1958

* Affiliations are noted for identification purposes only.

Cc: Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
Chief Judge, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
U.S. Courthouse
333 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001
http://www.tedkennedy.com/content/665/legal-experts-weigh-in-on-fisa-and-the-bush-administration


The letter they wrote is at the link above and details many different reasons why the warrantless wiretaps are illegal.

 

Under Article 2 of the Constitution[/b], as commander in chief, the president has that authority. The president has the authority under the congressional authorization that was passed and clearly stated that, quote, 'The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force.'

As he does in accordance...

 

Roxran, the Hamdi court case citation has already been refuted. I thought it was in this very thread.

Section 2 of the constitution talks about presidential powers in the time of war. Congress has not declared war. Further more They mentioned the AUMF given by congress. When they asked for that AUMF they specifically requested that it contain the authority for the president to use the kinds of wiretaps he has been using.

Congress removed that authorization before passing the AUMF. Congress has in effect expressly forbidden the President from doing the wiretaps, but he did it in anyway.

The things I mentioned are all documented and fact based.

 

There are multiple professors on both sides. The legal reasoning is sound in three ways and this is irrefutable.

 

Number 1. Listening in to somebody is not a use of force. Listening is not force.

Number 2. When asking for the AUMF the president asked for the wiretapping powers. Congress passed the AUMF, but specifically removed the section allowing the president to wiretap. Going back through and trying to make the claim that warrantless wiretapping is somehow a use of force, is irrelevant, considering that congress has already denied the president the power of wiretapping that he requested in regards to the AUMF.