^^^^^ To contact your Representative: http://www.house.gov/writerep/ To contact your Senator: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Why does Repub Senator Osama Bin Specter insist upon having an investigation into Bush's alleged illegal spying early next year? __________ Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., says he is "very, very skeptical" about Bush's explanation but "prepared to listen" when his committee convenes hearings on the issue early next year. link
I hope Bush can explain it, but my guess is that he "THINKS" he is doing the right thing, when in fact it is horribly wrong. DD
I haven't finished reading this thread and I'm sure someone else has answered this already but it never hurts to restate it. Article II doesn't grant the President executive power to trump legislative action. If it did that would mean that the President can be a dictator in time of crisis which he cannot. Further the argument that we are at war is false. We are not at war since there was no official declaration. There were resolutions authorizing military action in Afghanistan and granting the President the discretion to use military force in Iraq but there has been no official declaration of war. Everything that has happened since Sept. 11 has technically been done in a time of peace and not war.
The Republican Congress will not impeach Bush. They won't even start impeachement hearings to see if a high crime or misdemeanor was committed. Yet another argument for a divided government. As long as one party controls all branches of government any serious oversight or check on power goes out the window.
Funny you should mention that... --------------------- WARTIME....Do President Bush's inherent constitutional powers as commander-in-chief give him the authority to override federal law and approve domestic spying by the NSA? That's certainly the justification he provided at Monday's press conference: Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely. As I mentioned in my remarks, the legal authority is derived from the Constitution, as well as the authorization of force by the United States Congress. Bill Kristol and Gary Schmitt support this assessment in the Washington Post today, and they've been joined by a small army of other commentators. Of course, their argument is not that the president has the inherent power to authorize domestic surveillance anytime he wants, only that he has that power during wartime. And as near as I can tell, that's the elephant in the room that no one is really very anxious to discuss: What is "wartime"? Is George Bush really a "wartime president," as he's so fond of calling himself? Conservatives take it for granted that he is, while liberals tend to avoid the subject entirely for fear of being thought unserious about the War on Terror. But it's something that ought be brought up and discussed openly. Consider a different war, for example. It's safe to say that whatever Bush's NSA program actually involves, no one would have batted an eyelash if FDR had approved a similar program during World War II. Experience suggests that during a period of genuine, all-out war, few people complain when a president pushes the boundaries of the law based on military necessity. But aside from World War II, what else counts as wartime? If you count only serious hot wars, the United States has been at war for over 20 of the 65 years since 1940. That's a lot of "wartime." However, if you count the Cold War, as conservatives generally think we should, the tally shoots up to about 50 years of war. That means the United States has been almost continuously at war during the past 65 years — and given the nature of the War on Terror, we'll continue to be at war for the next several decades. If this is how we define "wartime," it means that in the century from 1940 to 2040 the president will have had emergency wartime powers for virtually the entire time. But does that make sense? Is anyone really comfortable with the idea that three decades from now the president of the United States will have had wartime executive powers for nearly a continuous century? Somehow we need to come to grips with this. There's "wartime" and then there's "wartime," and not all armed conflicts vest the president with emergency powers. George Bush may have the best intentions in the world — and in this case he probably did have the best intentions in the world — but that still doesn't mean he has the kind of plenary power Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt exercised during their wars. During a genuine emergency, the president's powers are at their most expansive. The rest of the time they're more restricted, whether he considers himself a wartime president or not. Right now, if George Bush needs or wants greater authority than he currently has, he should ask Congress to give it to him — after all, they approve black programs all the time and are fully capable of holding closed hearings to debate sensitive national security issues. It's worth remembering that "regulation of the land and naval forces" is a power the constitution gives to Congress, and both Congress and the president ought to start taking that a little more seriously. UPDATE: I haven't read all the comments, but a couple of emails have persuaded me that part of this post was sloppily worded. To make myself clear, then: although Presidents have increased authority during wartime, both in theory and in practice, that authority doesn't extend to deliberately violating acts of Congress. The president is required to obey the law during both war and peace. I've modified the post slightly to make that clearer. —Kevin Drum http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007818.php
The Republican Congress might appoint a special prosecutor. In theory, the special prosecutor will clear Bush's name
Mas Pelosi Requests Declassification of Her Letter on NSA Activities Washington, D.C. -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on her request to the Director of National Intelligence to declassify a letter she wrote several years ago to the Bush Administration expressing concerns about the activities of the National Security Agency. "When I learned several years ago that the National Security Agency had been authorized to conduct the activities that President Bush referred to in his December 17 radio address, I expressed my strong concerns in a classified letter to the Administration and later verbally. "Today, in an effort to shed light on my concerns, I requested that the Director of National Intelligence quickly declassify my letter and the Administration's response to it and make them both available to the public. "The President must have the best possible intelligence to protect the American people. That intelligence, however, must be produced in a manner consistent with our Constitution and our laws, and in a manner that reflects our values as a nation to protect the American people and our freedoms."
Avoiding paperwork versus civil liberties? Avoiding paperwork wins!!! Bush Addresses Uproar Over Spying 'This Is a Different Era, a Different War,' He Says as Some Lawmakers Seek Probe By Peter Baker and Charles Babington Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, December 20, 2005; Page A01 The political uproar over President Bush's secret domestic spying program escalated yesterday as the president denied overstepping his constitutional bounds while congressional critics from both parties stepped up their attack and vowed a full investigation. Bush mounted a vigorous defense of his order authorizing warrantless eavesdropping on overseas telephone calls and e-mail of U.S. citizens with suspected ties to terrorists. He contended that his "obligation to protect you" against attack justified a circumvention of the traditional process in a fast-moving, high-tech battle with a shadowy enemy. "This is a different era, a different war," the president said at a year-end news conference in the East Room. "People are changing phone numbers and phone calls, and they're moving quick. And we've got to be able to detect and prevent. I keep saying that, but this . . . requires quick action." But Democrats and some key Republicans on Capitol Hill were unconvinced, and they questioned whether Bush has violated a law intended to prevent the government from spying on its citizens without court approval. Voicing "grave doubts" over the legality of the National Security Agency program, Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said he will conduct hearings next month on the issue. To rebut suggestions of congressional acquiescence, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) released a handwritten letter he secretly sent Vice President Cheney in July 2003 objecting to the program. The dispute further fueled the debate over the USA Patriot Act, the measure bolstering the powers of law enforcement agencies that was passed shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The Senate yesterday again failed to muster the votes to end Democrat-led efforts to block legislation renewing the law, which expires Dec. 31. Bush angrily branded the filibuster "inexcusable" three times at his news conference but refused to accept a temporary extension. "I want senators from New York or Los Angeles or Las Vegas to go home and explain why these cities are safer," Bush said. "It is inexcusable to say, on the one hand, 'connect the dots' and not give us a chance to do so." The meeting with reporters was the latest effort in a presidential communications barrage intended to calm public nerves about the war in Iraq and woo back disaffected supporters; it came the morning after a prime-time Oval Office address and followed four other speeches, congressional briefings and a surprise trip to Iraq by Cheney. Bush once again counseled patience, saying that "2 1/2 years seems like an eternity, but in the march of history it's not all that long." In the wide-ranging news conference, Bush demanded that the Senate confirm Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court by Jan. 20, even as Democrats vowed to question the nominee on his view of the NSA program. Bush acknowledged that the bungled intelligence on Iraq has made it harder to pressure Iran to drop any nuclear weapons aspirations. Looking ahead to 2006, he listed as a priority rebuilding the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast, and he expressed regret that some question whether he cares enough about black victims. But the 56-minute session became dominated by the four-year-old NSA surveillance program, which was revealed last week by the New York Times. While generally relaxed and sometimes joking, Bush grew testy when asked if he is presiding over the expansion of "unchecked power" by the executive branch. "To say 'unchecked power' basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the president, which I strongly reject," he responded sharply, waving his finger. Asked what limits he sees on a president's power in a time of war, Bush said a few key congressional leaders were briefed on the domestic spying program and his administration reviews its own actions periodically. "I just described limits on this particular program," he said. "That's what's important for the American people to understand. I am doing what you expect me to do, and at the same time safeguarding the civil liberties of the country." Bush's remarks left many critics unassuaged and many questions unanswered. The president offered no details about how many people are under surveillance, what standard must be met to intercept communications or what terrorist plots have been disrupted as a result of the program. Nor did he explain why the current system is not quick enough to meet the needs of the fight against terrorism. Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the NSA in urgent situations can already eavesdrop on international telephone calls for 72 hours without a warrant, as long as it goes to a secret intelligence court by the end of that period for retroactive permission. Since the law was passed in 1978 after intelligence scandals, the court has rejected just five of 18,748 requests for wiretaps and search warrants, according to the government. Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who was NSA director when the surveillance began and now serves as Bush's deputy director of national intelligence, said the secret- court process was intended for long-term surveillance of agents of an enemy power, not the current hunt for elusive terrorist cells. "The whole key here is agility," he said at a White House briefing before Bush's news conference. According to Hayden, most warrantless surveillance conducted under Bush's authorization lasts just days or weeks, and requires only the approval of a shift supervisor. Hayden said getting retroactive court approval is inefficient because it "involves marshaling arguments" and "looping paperwork around." In asserting the legality of the program, Bush cited his power under Article II of the Constitution as well as the resolution authorizing force passed by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks. The resolution never mentions such surveillance, but Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said it is implicit and cited last year's Supreme Court decision in Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld , which found that the force resolution effectively authorized Bush to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely as enemy combatants. But the same ruling held that detainees are entitled to challenge their imprisonment in court. "This is not a backdoor approach," Gonzales said at the White House. "We believe Congress has authorized this kind of surveillance." He acknowledged that the administration discussed introducing legislation explicitly permitting such domestic spying but decided against it because it "would be difficult, if not impossible" to pass. Bush and Gonzales maintained that the program is not unchecked because select congressional leaders have been briefed on it more than a dozen times. But several of those who received classified briefings objected yesterday that it hardly constituted oversight. In fact, those lawmakers said they were sworn to secrecy, barred from disclosing the program even to their colleagues and staff, and therefore unable to block the president's actions. Rockefeller, ranking Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, released his 2003 letter to Cheney to make the point that he had "profound" concerns at the time but could not act on them. He said he kept a copy in a sealed envelope ever since to preserve a record of his views. Complaining about seeing Bush and his aides "repeatedly misrepresent the facts," he demanded "a full investigation" by his panel. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and his predecessor, Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), said yesterday that they had been briefed on the program and were not asked for their advice or consent. Reid added that "key details about the program apparently were not provided to me," and Daschle said he voiced concern at the time. "I am surprised and disappointed that the White House would now suggest that none of us informed of the program objected," he said in a statement. Specter was briefed for the first time by Gonzales on Sunday night and vowed to seek more information. "I have grave doubts about the wide scope of executive power claimed by Attorney General Gonzales," he said in an interview. Despite Gonzales's reassurances, Specter said, "I'm far from being satisfied." Several senators pressed the matter further. Specter and Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) sent letters to Alito promising to grill the nominee on the issue at confirmation hearings next month. Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) raised the prospect of a special prosecutor investigation and said Gonzales would have to recuse himself. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) sent an inquiry to presidential scholars asking if they agree with John Dean, the White House counsel during Watergate, who she quoted as saying that Bush has admitted to an impeachable offense. But Bush had a different investigation in mind. At his news conference, he said that although he had not issued an order, he presumed the Justice Department has opened an inquiry into who leaked the information about the NSA program. "It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war," he said. "The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy." Staff writer Jim VandeHei and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
So Dick Cheney claims that he never heard any dissent from congress but we have Pelosi's letter and Rockefeller's letter that prove him to be a liar. Outside of TJ's attempts to claim the constitution allows this, we haven't heard much from giddyup, basso, texxx, or other Bush supporters. I believe basso and giddyup have been the most stalwart in defending this administrations so called honesty or at least disapproving of calling Bush a liar. Have any of the falsehoods spoken about this changed their minds at all? I wonder why or why not?
a right, brave and honest question Sire! But even more importantly, why does Article II hate America?
Wow, because congress won't pass it isn't an excuse to bypass legislation. That is in fact a reason not to do it. That is the whole checks and balances system in a nutshell. This is flagrant disregard for our nation's constitution. Bush's oath of office has been violated, he has not upheld and preserved the constitution of the United States. Protecting the national security is not a mandated part of the presidential oath. Preserving the constitution is. The man needs to be punished.
that was 3 days ago TJ came up with that ridiculous claim.. and he was easily shut down.. he's probably been watching faux news all day waiting for talking points.. it looks like silence means agreement
The President needs to do both. Its obvious to anyone that the Constitution hinders maximizing security both national and local but its very likely that if law enforcment or the military violated the Constitution in a situation of a very immediate and clear threat that most Americans and courts would probably forgive that transgression. For instance a scenario out of 24 where Jack Bauer and President Palmer routinely violate the Constitution. That said though is the non-FISA mandated surveillance justified under an imminent crisis. That seems a lot murkier since from what I'm hearing this seems more like fishing expeditions that have now become part of general policy rather than exceptions made under extraordinary circumstances.
I agree he needs to defend national security and preserve the constitution. But the constitution makes it clear which of those two should take precedent. The constitution mandates that the President defend and preserve the constitution. It does not mandate that he defend national security. That doesn't mean national security is unimportant, just that the priorities are fairly clear in this instance. That is even if you concede to Bush that he had to spy without the court's approval to protect our nation(which in reality I believe is bogus).
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. Ottoman. Back to the perennial question: Is Bush lying and evil or just stupid, yet relatively well meaning? I don't buy that he is that stupid. He has his beliefs and chooses to be surrounded by only those who will tell him what he wants. Perennial yes man Alberto Gonzalez could have been told to give Bush a neutral legal opinion on the situation.
