home

Is FISA Not Clear Enough?

The New York Times has a good editorial today on Bush's insistence that his executive orders allowing domestic warrantless monitoring of conversations was in accord with the Constitution and our nation's laws.

President Bush defended the program yesterday, saying it was saving lives, hotly insisting that he was working within the Constitution and the law, and denouncing The Times for disclosing the program's existence. We don't know if he was right on the first count; this White House has cried wolf so many times on the urgency of national security threats that it has lost all credibility. But we have learned the hard way that Mr. Bush's team cannot be trusted to find the boundaries of the law, much less respect them.

Mr. Bush said he would not retract his secret directive or halt the illegal spying, so Congress should find a way to force him to do it. Perhaps the Congressional leaders who were told about the program could get the ball rolling.

What section of FISA do the Bush advisors not understand? Glenn Greenewald makes his case here .

The only way to argue that the Bush Administration’s warrantless eavesdropping on suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens, complied with the law is by misquoting the law in order to change its requirements.

As to the credibility of Bush officials on this issue, Think Progress points out:

While under oath during his confirmation hearings in January, Alberto Gonzales was asked about the precise issue raised by Bush's warrantless domestic spying program by Sen. Feingold. Feingold asked if the president could authorize violations of criminal law because he's commander in chief. Gonzales responded that "it is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes." Meanwhile, we learned yesterday from Bush's radio address that Gonzales personally approved the spying program, even though it violated federal law. It's all documented below.

< Feingold's Response to President's Admissions | Time Magazine: Persons of the Year >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 09:37:18 AM EST
    Uh, legality isn't exactly an issue for these people.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#2)
    by wg on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 09:48:22 AM EST
    Check out this. The freshest take on the whole Bush thing I've seen in the long time.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Bill Arnett on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 12:26:21 PM EST
    People long thought that I was exaggerating when I would say that Bush is the greatest threat to our country and democracy that we have ever faced; now they aren't so sure I was wrong. This latest revelation, I pray, will be the final straw for all patriotic Americans. Put simply: Any American President who knowingly and willingly breaks the law and destroys the guarantees of our Constitution AND SWEARS TO CONTINUE DOING SO must be stopped by any/all means possible. Failure to do so WILL lead to the destruction of our democracy and the end of the "American dream." This administration is dedicated to absolute Republican rule, the use of power and force to impose that rule, and an utter lack of ethics, loyalty, or any concept of what's right for this country. Anybody want to contradict me or think me crazy NOW?

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Fr33d0m on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 01:05:01 PM EST
    And now that the judiciary and congress is irrelevent, now that all power rests with the executive...

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#6)
    by ras on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 01:53:09 PM EST
    Lessee here, the Dems are attacking Bush for tapping Al Qaeda's international ph calls. That oughtta be a vote-getter, for sure. And he did it while consistently informing Congress, including prominent Dems such as Rockefeller, about what he was doing. He told them this on a dozen occasions, or more. Sounds like another winner arg for the Dems; i.e. that they were in on it. Those who condemn Bush for the taps cannot still support the Dems without being hypocrites themselves. Cuz the Dems knew all about it. Republicans, Democrats. Two peas in a pod on this issue. At least Bush is willing to speak straight; more than I can say for his Dem critics.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#7)
    by soccerdad on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 01:54:19 PM EST
    Ras do you have to just lie. What scum

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#8)
    by ras on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 02:03:33 PM EST
    Merry Christmas Soccerdad, And ho ho ho to you. Take your time, check it out. The Dems were informed repeatedly. So ... what you gonna do about that. The principled stance would be that if it's right, it's right, and if it's wrong, it's wrong, whoever does it. The Dems were in on it. Whatcha gonna do?

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#9)
    by ras on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 02:06:14 PM EST
    BTW, understand that I think the whole thing is a tempest in a teapot; drama queen central. But for those of you who see it as a civil liberties apocalypse, remember: the Dems were part of it. Whatcha gonna do, Democrats? Double-standard time?

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 02:24:05 PM EST
    Any Dem. who accepted such an abuse of power can be targeted in '06. There is only one way to remove the President sooner. Also, the person with the distinct constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed is particularly guilty. You can blow smoke somewhere else. Thanks.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#11)
    by soccerdad on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 02:34:08 PM EST
    Ras do u have proof that the Dems knew everything if so provide source otherwise peddle your nonsense somewhere else. Any dem who was a part of this should be voted out of office.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#12)
    by soccerdad on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 02:35:42 PM EST
    "It's inexcusable ... clearly and categorically wrong," says Sen. Arlen Specter (R) of Pennsylvania, who was not among the congressional leaders Mr. Bush says had been briefed on the program. Senator Specter promises that the Judiciary Committee he chairs will hold hearings on domestic spying by the National Security Agency in the new year.


    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#13)
    by ras on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 03:01:42 PM EST
    Soccerdad, You can start at Tom M's place, see here (but go to his homepage, too, cuz he has multiple good posts on the topic, thorough fellow that he is). So many Democrats, so little time. I'm sure their excuses will be accepted on the Left, though. Or will they? Crunch time, Soccer m'lad. Are you all talk or all walk? This is gonna be fun.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#14)
    by ras on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 04:09:10 PM EST
    Hey Soccerdad, Add Pelosi & Reid, along w/Rockie Feller, to the list of those Dems who say they knew all about it beforehand. But, in their defence, they had "concerns" ... probably the same concerns that Bush had. I'll await your condemnation of them and your call for their immediate resignations. Told ya this was gonna be fun. And it's only just starting up!

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#15)
    by soccerdad on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 04:26:54 PM EST
    Ras - I dont read national review they are lying scum so why don't you go get something reputable. if you cant I'll assume its all crap

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 04:49:02 PM EST
    So, for those who are still reading after the flame exchange . . . "Mr. Bush said he would not retract his secret directive or halt the illegal spying, so Congress should find a way to force him to do it." The ONLY way to do this is impeachment. We've hit the iceberg. At this point, everything else is just rearranging the deck chairs. A simple, focused, message to pass on to Democrats in Congress. Redemption for past sins and errors of those who are complicit in ways, major or minor, with Republican assaults on the Constitution.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#17)
    by ras on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 05:00:04 PM EST
    Soccerdad, Closing your eyes and putting your hands over your ears won't change the facts on the ground, regardless of who reports them. The Dems were in on it. But there's a silver lining for you: This gives Dem supporters the opportunity to demonstrate whether their opposition to Bush and the Republicans has been principled all along, or merely a case of those same Dems being frustrated Republican wannabe's. At last we'll all know, unambiguously. Which is it, then? Denial is what we'd expect from the wannabe's, whereas facing up to the facts on the ground, and dealing with them as they are, is what a principled person would do. The facts themselves aren't really in dispute. Pelosi, for ex, has gone on camera to say as much. So whatcha gonna do? Is the Left merely a mirror image of the Right? Or something more?

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 05:03:59 PM EST
    After Bush is impeached can we see about the constituionality of the 'FISA court?' A secret court is no court at all. Is one tried by a jury of his secret peers? Might one secretly confront his secret accuser? It's all too Republican for this country.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 05:06:29 PM EST
    Thanks, ras, I did enjoy reading Admiral Inman's rather clear condemnation of President Bush. Back in 2003 I was in graduate school. A couple of fellow students, women, one from Egypt, the other from one of the former Soviet republics, were telling me about how their calls back home were being monitored. I told them it wasn't possible. The things they described, like having their calls disconnected if they said certain things, were only possible by the NSA. And I knew the NSA didn't do domestic surveillance. We've gone our seperate ways, so fortunately they can't tell me "I told you so".

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#20)
    by ras on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 05:11:16 PM EST
    OregonDave, Both R & D were in on it. But at least the R's justify their actions as necessary, and can make a case (agree or disagree, as you prefer) on their behalf. But D's say they did it in spite of there not even being a case! In other words, they did it - and presumably would do it again - for no reason at all. What for, then gratuitous pleasure? If what the R's did was an assault on the Constitution, what the D's did is even worse. And if the D's were in on this "assault," but did nothing to stop it and didn't even tell you about it till it came out in the press, what else are they in on? What else are they not telling you? Without q, as this story demonstrates, they are operating in secret just as much as are the R's. I am genuinely curious to see how the Left reacts. Are they principled, or merely opportunist? Looks like we'll find out.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#21)
    by soccerdad on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 05:15:04 PM EST
    Ras put up or shut up. We heard for years now that everyone in Congress had access to the same intellegence therefore all were to blame only to learn last week well no, congress did not have access. Your claim smells ec=xactly like that. So no evidence? besides I've made my feelings clear about the dems here but as for you youre just a propagandist who spreads the latest talking points

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 05:21:39 PM EST
    Apologies for the double post, but -
    The Dems were in on it.
    Please stop lying, ras. There's a difference between knowing about a crime and committing a crime. The only people in on this were the President and the chain of command down into the NSA. Some journalists new about it as long as a year ago. Are you going to accuse them?

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#23)
    by ras on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 05:45:14 PM EST
    Allen, The President submitted his actions to "congressional oversight" (pls ignore the obvious irony in that phrase). Prominent members of Congress, R & D alike, clearly gave him the go-ahead, at least a dozen times. If any of them had felt that Bush was acting against the Constitution, they had the duty, took an oath even, to try to stop it. They did not, they approved it. Like I said above, I have no prob, myself, with tapping AQ's calls and I think this is all a tempest in a teapot. But if you are one who strongly opposes such actions on principle (a position I can and do respect, even if I disagree with you on the particular case at hand), then you have to be as opposed to the elected Dems who approved the taps as you are to their Republican counterparts who did the same. This is easy for me, but emotionally tough on you, cuz you gotta condemn "your" side. But if yours is indeed a principled position, that's the only principled reaction. If Bush deserves censure, so do the Dems. If Bush deserves to be kicked outta office, so do the Dems. If you wanna call on voters to reject the R's in '06 over this, you must also call on them to reject the D's. They did this together.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Sailor on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 06:07:01 PM EST
    The President submitted his actions to "congressional oversight" (pls ignore the obvious irony in that phrase). Prominent members of Congress, R & D alike, clearly gave him the go-ahead, at least a dozen times.
    Please provide links.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 07:17:55 PM EST
    As to the matter of complicity by members of Congress (particularly claims that failure of Democrats to make public that these violations were going on was somehow more heinous than the actual commision of the crimes): Quite simply, the briefings given to the people in Congress were done under national security gag order. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D, CA): "What is concerning me, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, is if eight people, rather than 535 people, can know there is going to be an illegal act and they were told this under an intelligence umbrella — and therefore, their lips are sealed — does that make the act any less culpable? I don't think so," Feinstein said.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 07:28:07 PM EST
    Former Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., who chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2002, said he wasn't informed of the domestic surveillance program.
    Knight Ridder

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 07:38:58 PM EST
    Ah, even better. Senator Graham on Nightline:
    GRAHAM: There was such a meeting. And the issue, then, was whether we could intercept foreign communications when they transited through U.S. communication sites. The assumption was that if we did that, we would do it pursuant to the law, the law that regulates the surveillance of national security issues. And there was no suggestion that we were going to begin eavesdropping on United States citizens without following the full law. ABC: You’re saying you were not briefed as the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee at the point the President signed this? GRAHAM: I was briefed. There was no reference made to the fact that we were going to use that as the subterfuge to begin unwarranted, illegal — and I think unconstitutional — eavesdropping on American citizens. ABC: So if the administration says that you were informed about this action, they would not be telling the truth? GRAHAM: We were not informed that this would be a pretense for using warrantless searchs to listen in to the private conversations of United States citizens. ABC: Sounds like you were saying you were lied to. GRAHAM: I think there has been a selective use of information to build a case that was already determined, rather than using intelligence for its intended purpose, which is to improve the decision-making process on a judgment that has not yet been determined.


    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 08:07:58 PM EST
    Our Last Arrested Moment This is the greatest crisis in American history, excepting only our birth and our civil war. The president is not above the law, and we will need move the very machinery of the law to prevent him from reaching his goal of a “christian” corporate despotism while casting himself as Big Bother. Call in every favor ever owed you from anybody powerful, print out your thoughts about this and make Arrest the Police State bumperstickers and mail these to your representatives. Hundreds of thousands of us need to speak out right now in defense of law and Constitution, tomorrow on Monday morning.. and fight this out. This is it folks, it’s us or them.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 11:24:37 PM EST
    The Democrats are guilty all right...of trusting Bush and his "unspecified activities". Maybe it was the anthrax letters that punked them down (or maybe the anthrax was one of the unspecified activities...hmmmm). Anyway, it was good to see both Republicans and Democrats telling Bush to shove the Patriot Act back up his wazoo where it belongs, wasn't it ras? Looks like we finally have a bipartisan exodus from GW's Big Fraudulent Plantation of Fear.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#30)
    by bad Jim on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 12:41:53 AM EST
    It's as clear as usual that those who style themselves conservatives hold our liberties cheap and clamor for a strong man on horseback to protect us. Only a coward could defend the surrender of our liberties and insist on the right of the executive to torture or spy on our fellow citizens. It's good to know that less than 60 of our senators think that the current administration can be trusted to run a police state, given that they don't seem to care what laws they break. It's still disheartening to learn that a majority is so frightened to sell our birthright for a potted message.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#31)
    by john horse on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 04:13:51 AM EST
    Bush broke the law. Noone is above the law, even the President. In order to wiretap Americans, Bush was required to obtain a court order. He didn't. Some Democrats, such as Pelosi, were informed that "Bush had authorized unspecified activities by the National Security Agency." They expressed strong concerns about that. Bush then proceeded to continue violating the law. Even if these Democrats expressed support, instead of strong concerns, this still does not allow the President to violate the law.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 05:43:17 AM EST
    Allen writes:
    The things they described, like having their calls disconnected if they said certain things
    A wire tap is to listen and record. Allen, did you stop and think that if there were secret wire taps on these peoples' phones they wouldn't be disconnected for saying things? But if they were:
    (i) “United States person” means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.
    Persons in the US on student visas are not "United States Persons." Read the link. SD - ras may have been razing you, you but the fact is that Pelosi admits she knew. Now if she knew, she knew. Guess it is time for he Demos to dump her or quit complaining about Bush. Doing may be worse than knowing, but by not doing she joined him. Harboring a criminal, was she? Simple. John Horse:
    Some Democrats, such as Pelosi, were informed that "Bush had authorized unspecified activities by the National Security Agency." They expressed strong concerns about that.
    John - Please provide us with a link, prior to the NYT article, that shows Pelosi doing what you claim. bad jim writes: Only a coward could defend the surrender of our liberties and insist on the right of the executive to torture or spy on our fellow citizens. Uh, does this mean that you agree with ras? Please read the legal definition of who the law allows to be warrant less wiretapped. US Citizens are specifically protected. Why did you think otherwise? ernie - The issue is, what didn't they protest? Even if they knew the NSA was involved. Et al – Harry and Nancy, tripping the light fantastic.. "Harry," said Nancy, we know, we know but don’t you dare tell.. "When the NYT strikes we'll become bombastic And give W pure hell."

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#33)
    by soccerdad on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 06:05:47 AM EST
    Knew what dunb 888. there is nothing you won't excuse. if you got proof the Dems knew everything then lets see it. I dont get the neocon network news so you'll have to come up with something more mainstream. or is this the same nonsense you ve been spouting for a year about congress had the same intelligence when now we know they didn't As I pointed out in quoting the law US citizens are not protected. pond scum spouting their lies even after they have been shown to be false.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#34)
    by soccerdad on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 06:07:45 AM EST
    BTW PPJ you have left half the law out of your quote nice selective editing, you're full of it as usual.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#35)
    by roger on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 06:29:03 AM EST
    Ras, Maybe you are right, maybe some Dems were in on this. If so, they can have the cell next to W. Jim, Pelosi should have blown the whole operation, I will shed no tears when she is gone. BTW, if even ONE US citizen was tapped, FISA calls for 5 years in prison. W better keep a good grip on that soap!

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 06:52:18 AM EST
    Roger - (1
    ) 1. Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that— (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at ..... B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
    I think he is safe. I mean, it depends on the meaning of what "is," is. ;-) Link SD - Then why don't you quote it? Anyone can read the link I provided, you know.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 06:53:45 AM EST
    SD Can you tell us what this meant??
    Knew what dunb 888.
    I hate to miss an insult from you.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 06:56:02 AM EST
    Maybe you are right, maybe some Dems were in on this. If so, they can have the cell next to W.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#39)
    by roger on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 07:06:21 AM EST
    Jim, Exactly the right question, were US citizens tapped? If so, W has a big problem. Also, this could have been done legally as long as they went to the FISA court within 72 hours AFTER starting the tap. There seems to be no legitimate reason not to have done this. Bottom line: the ball is in W's court. I actually do hope that he has compelling reasons for ducking the FISA court. Time will tell.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#40)
    by soccerdad on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 07:19:14 AM EST
    PPJ - check my Sunday 9:15 am post on Feingold thread. Any person can be spied on if thought to be an agent of foreign country and they get to define agent. But you knew that and ignored it.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 07:21:51 AM EST
    Sorry, I meant to quote Roger, not plagirize him. My sentiments exactly. Freedom has enemies on both sides of our corrupted two-party system. It seems one of the few you can count on for the protection of freedom is Feingold.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Dadler on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 10:13:32 AM EST
    Ras, From the link you provided: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she had been told on several occasions that Bush had authorized unspecified activities by the National Security Agency, the nation's largest spy agency. She said she had expressed strong concerns at the time, and that Bush's statement Saturday "raises serious questions as to what the activities were and whether the activities were lawful." This makes our point for us -- the dems were NOT fully aware. Bush lied again, said he was doing something lawful and he wasn't. This sick, egomaniacal man who sees himself as our savior needs to be eliminated, and soon. Impeachment will do, but it's far too lenient. Next time, bud, provide links that actually support your argument. Right now, it's clear the Dems were told something, but it certainly wasn't the truth. Pathological liars run the country now. Been proven and continues to be.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#43)
    by glanton on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 11:12:08 AM EST
    If any of them had felt that Bush was acting against the Constitution, they had the duty, took an oath even, to try to stop it. They did not, they approved it.
    Uh, sorry guys, but knowing about something and approving it are not the same thing. Rockefeller sent a letter to the Administration arguing against it, after they told him and others, "here, we're doing this." So. You have a few Democrats in Congress who have been informed that something is happening. But they can't stop it. Hell, they can't even go public with it, it's all classified. And this means they're "in on it," how exactly? Ras you represent a big part of the problem in this country, you might well have cut the ribbon at the Grand Opening. Blaming Dems for GOP power grabs might work on talk radio and the morons who take it seriously, but not with anyone who actually (gasp!) thinks.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 02:16:00 PM EST
    dadler - Look. You kid your friends and I will kid mine. But we both know that Nancy Pelosi complains about everything, including what the President had for breakfast. For you and Pelosi to claim that she didn't know enough to go public is laughable at best and one of your weakest comments. SD - So the answer to my question, what does the following mean:
    Knew what dunb 888.
    is contained in:
    PPJ - check my Sunday 9:15 am post on Feingold thread.
    ?? Roger - What 's your answer to:
    there is no substantial likelihood


    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#45)
    by glanton on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 02:26:53 PM EST
    Check this out No doubt those blights of skin constituting the "Dayside" audience come across as sympathetic to the same posters here defending Bush. Tells you a lot about them all.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 03:09:23 PM EST
    Mr. Bush said he would not retract his secret directive or halt the illegal spying, so Congress should find a way to force him to do it
    Skip Congress. Got to the AG and demand a warrant be issued for GDub's arrest. He is on tape admitting he committed a crime. If the AG won't do it, go to the FBI. If they won't do it, go to the DC police. Lessee here, the Dems are attacking Bush for tapping Al Qaeda's international ph calls. That oughtta be a vote-getter, for sure.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 03:19:58 PM EST
    Mr. Bush said he would not retract his secret directive or halt the illegal spying, so Congress should find a way to force him to do it
    Skip Congress. Got to the AG and demand a warrant be issued for GDub's arrest. He is on tape admitting he committed a crime. If the AG won't do it, go to the FBI. If they won't do it, go to the DC police. Can any lawyers chime in? Is illegal wiretapping an arrestable offense? If we ever found out the identities of the American citizens that have been spied upon, can they file a complaint?
    Lessee here, the Dems are attacking Bush for tapping Al Qaeda's international ph calls. That oughtta be a vote-getter, for sure.
    For christ's sake ras, somethings are bigger than politics, or should be. The Bill of Rights for example. The president is sworn to uphold it. He admits to ignoring it. Case closed, right or wrong, for better or for worse, even if it temporarily weakens the country, he must be tried for his crimes. The Bill of Rights deserves no less. This is an especially gross violation. The FISA Act allows the pres to put taps in place in an emergency such as the days following 9/11, and get court approval AFTER THE FACT. There is no reasonable excuse.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 03:23:45 PM EST
    But we both know that Nancy Pelosi complains about everything, including what the President had for breakfast She's the Minority Leader, do you think that the job description entails praise of every f*** that comes out of the President's a** regardless of the parties that the ML and the POTUS belong to? Because we know you POV that once the President is elected, everyone must bow down, not b**** and moan about anything he does, as to do otherwise is treasonous and unpatriotic to the extreme. And pathetic attempts to gain an implicit agreement by telling someone "you know and I know..." Is getting to be an old shtick. I know that, but that you'll know it before the heat death of the universe is questionable, at best..... Can you tell us how you know what dadler, or anyone else here knows anything? Is it a gift, or did you get some sort of special training? For you and Pelosi to claim that she didn't know enough to go public is laughable at best and one of your weakest comments Gotta link to back you up, PPJ? Have you kept track of dadler's 'weak' comments so that everyone here can test your judgement in this area by analyzing your data? Naw, just your usual hit and run remark. Thanks for the giggles, PPJ!

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#49)
    by roger on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 06:52:00 PM EST
    Jim, The hearings will tell. The only reason that I can see to skip the FISA court, which doesnt even require PC, is that NSA was tapping people who were out of bounds legally. W has ignored the general rule, he is claiming an exception. That puts the burden on him.

    Re: Is FISA Not Clear Enough? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Mike on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 02:29:53 PM EST