Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [prezveepsenator] My Thoughts On Bush's Latest Actions

Expand Messages
  • Greg Cannon
    I agree with you completely, Gregory. There s one thing about this that s particularly confusing to me about all this: why didn t they seek warrants? Is it
    Message 1 of 5 , Dec 18, 2005
      I agree with you completely, Gregory. There's one
      thing about this that's particularly confusing to me
      about all this: why didn't they seek warrants? Is it
      just laziness, or are they spying on someone other
      than terrorist suspects and don't want a court to know
      about it? The Defense Tech site puts it better than I
      can:

      Wiretaps' Fishy Rationale

      It's no surprise that the President defended the NSA's
      domestic eavesdropping this morning; the guy backs
      every decision he makes, to the death. And it's no
      surprise to learn that the President had "reauthorized
      the program more than 30 times since the terrorist
      attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and plans to continue doing
      so," according to the AP.

      But what's odd is why the Administration felt they
      needed to avoid geting warrants for the wiretaps, in
      the first place. As Josh notes:

      [T]he prime rationale for this program appears to
      have been to avoid the time and bureaucratic hurdles
      involved in getting warrants.

      In the abstract, there sounds like there might be
      some merit in that argument, especially considering
      the importance of speed in counter-terrorism work.

      The problem is that the FISA Court -- the secret
      court set up to handle just such warrant requests --
      is designed for speed. And it is known for being
      extremely indulgent of government applications for
      warrants...

      It turns out that FISA specifically empowers the
      Attorney General or his designee to start wiretapping
      on an emergency basis even without a warrant so long
      as a retroactive application is made for one "as soon
      as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the
      Attorney General authorizes such surveillance." (see
      specific citation, here)...

      All of this, of course, is separate from the issue
      of the president overruling a federal statute by
      executive order -- something that by definition a
      president cannot do. But something seems fishy about
      the rationale itself.

      But that's not the only fishy thing here. In his radio
      address today, the President said:

      The existence of this secret program was revealed
      in media reports after being improperly provided to
      news organizations. As a result, 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.

      Which implies that, somehow, suspected jihadists might
      not have known before that the government could be
      eavesdropping on them. Realistically, what are the
      chances of that?

      UPDATE 2:05 PM EST: Also, if the Administration thinks
      it basically has the power to do whatever it damn
      pleases -- detain Americans indefinitely, torture
      terror suspects, eavesdrop without a warrant -- then
      why bother pushing for the Patriot Act? What do you
      need new laws for, if you're already allowed to use
      every trick in the book?

      UPDATE 12/18/05: Ryan says the same thing, but better.
      And be sure to check out this WaPo page one analysis:

      In his four-year campaign against al Qaeda,
      President Bush has turned the U.S. national security
      apparatus inward to secretly collect information on
      American citizens on a scale unmatched since the
      intelligence reforms of the 1970s.

      December 17, 2005 12:33 PM

      http://www.defensetech.org/

      --- Gregory <greggolopry@...> wrote:

      > It just keeps getting worse.
      >
      > I already thought I knew of the very worst decisions
      > and polices from
      > the Bush White House, and nothing could happen that
      > would make me
      > surprised anymore. I was wrong.
      >
      > I am shocked to learn that there is now an even more
      > perplexing and
      > blatantly unconstitutional attack on Americans being
      > waged by this
      > utterly corrupt Administration. By using the
      > National Security
      > Administration (NSA) to obtain information on
      > citizens, without
      > utilizing existing judicial procedures, should
      > outrage all who still
      > believe in a place called America.
      >
      > Bush has never had any use for constitutional law
      > and clearly has
      > only contempt for civil liberties. It is imperative
      > that sober-minded
      > citizens stand up and rebuke in the clearest words
      > possible, so that
      > even Bush can understand, that we will not condone
      > this horrific
      > action.
      >
      > No American needs to be told of the horrors of
      > terrorism. We lived
      > through the days of 9/11 and do not require the fear
      > tactics from
      > Karl Rove and company to explain their "rationale"
      > for these
      > unwarranted and illegal NSA activities. There is no
      > explanation.
      > There is no justification.
      >
      > A President does not destroy our constitutional
      > safeguards and civil
      > liberties in the guise of trying to "protect
      > America". If our
      > country's democratic foundations are good enough to
      > export to Iraq
      > with the aid of our blood-soaked soldiers, they are
      > good enough for
      > Americans who live here, pay their taxes, still
      > believe in law and
      > order, and due process.
      >
      > George Bush is doing more harm to our country, and
      > all that it stands
      > for, than any terrorist could ever achieve.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Gregory
      Your very question is the heart of the matter. There are existing measures in place for any President (even prior to 9/11) to seek out info on a person prior
      Message 2 of 5 , Dec 18, 2005
        Your very question is the heart of the matter. There are existing
        measures in place for any President (even prior to 9/11) to seek out
        info on a person prior to getting a federal judge to OK a warrant.
        The government can use 72 hours to track and research a person. If a
        warrant is then given, fine. If not then the info must be destroyed
        and the wire-tapping etc. stopped.

        Since no warrants were given for perhaps thousands of
        Americans...well this is total BS!

        Gregory

        --- In prezveepsenator@yahoogroups.com, Greg Cannon
        <gregcannon1@y...> wrote:
        >
        > I agree with you completely, Gregory. There's one
        > thing about this that's particularly confusing to me
        > about all this: why didn't they seek warrants? Is it
        > just laziness, or are they spying on someone other
        > than terrorist suspects and don't want a court to know
        > about it? The Defense Tech site puts it better than I
        > can:
        >
        > Wiretaps' Fishy Rationale
        >
        > It's no surprise that the President defended the NSA's
        > domestic eavesdropping this morning; the guy backs
        > every decision he makes, to the death. And it's no
        > surprise to learn that the President had "reauthorized
        > the program more than 30 times since the terrorist
        > attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and plans to continue doing
        > so," according to the AP.
        >
        > But what's odd is why the Administration felt they
        > needed to avoid geting warrants for the wiretaps, in
        > the first place. As Josh notes:
        >
        > [T]he prime rationale for this program appears to
        > have been to avoid the time and bureaucratic hurdles
        > involved in getting warrants.
        >
        > In the abstract, there sounds like there might be
        > some merit in that argument, especially considering
        > the importance of speed in counter-terrorism work.
        >
        > The problem is that the FISA Court -- the secret
        > court set up to handle just such warrant requests --
        > is designed for speed. And it is known for being
        > extremely indulgent of government applications for
        > warrants...
        >
        > It turns out that FISA specifically empowers the
        > Attorney General or his designee to start wiretapping
        > on an emergency basis even without a warrant so long
        > as a retroactive application is made for one "as soon
        > as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the
        > Attorney General authorizes such surveillance." (see
        > specific citation, here)...
        >
        > All of this, of course, is separate from the issue
        > of the president overruling a federal statute by
        > executive order -- something that by definition a
        > president cannot do. But something seems fishy about
        > the rationale itself.
        >
        > But that's not the only fishy thing here. In his radio
        > address today, the President said:
        >
        > The existence of this secret program was revealed
        > in media reports after being improperly provided to
        > news organizations. As a result, 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.
        >
        > Which implies that, somehow, suspected jihadists might
        > not have known before that the government could be
        > eavesdropping on them. Realistically, what are the
        > chances of that?
        >
        > UPDATE 2:05 PM EST: Also, if the Administration thinks
        > it basically has the power to do whatever it damn
        > pleases -- detain Americans indefinitely, torture
        > terror suspects, eavesdrop without a warrant -- then
        > why bother pushing for the Patriot Act? What do you
        > need new laws for, if you're already allowed to use
        > every trick in the book?
        >
        > UPDATE 12/18/05: Ryan says the same thing, but better.
        > And be sure to check out this WaPo page one analysis:
        >
        > In his four-year campaign against al Qaeda,
        > President Bush has turned the U.S. national security
        > apparatus inward to secretly collect information on
        > American citizens on a scale unmatched since the
        > intelligence reforms of the 1970s.
        >
        > December 17, 2005 12:33 PM
        >
        > http://www.defensetech.org/
        >
        > --- Gregory <greggolopry@c...> wrote:
        >
        > > It just keeps getting worse.
        > >
        > > I already thought I knew of the very worst decisions
        > > and polices from
        > > the Bush White House, and nothing could happen that
        > > would make me
        > > surprised anymore. I was wrong.
        > >
        > > I am shocked to learn that there is now an even more
        > > perplexing and
        > > blatantly unconstitutional attack on Americans being
        > > waged by this
        > > utterly corrupt Administration. By using the
        > > National Security
        > > Administration (NSA) to obtain information on
        > > citizens, without
        > > utilizing existing judicial procedures, should
        > > outrage all who still
        > > believe in a place called America.
        > >
        > > Bush has never had any use for constitutional law
        > > and clearly has
        > > only contempt for civil liberties. It is imperative
        > > that sober-minded
        > > citizens stand up and rebuke in the clearest words
        > > possible, so that
        > > even Bush can understand, that we will not condone
        > > this horrific
        > > action.
        > >
        > > No American needs to be told of the horrors of
        > > terrorism. We lived
        > > through the days of 9/11 and do not require the fear
        > > tactics from
        > > Karl Rove and company to explain their "rationale"
        > > for these
        > > unwarranted and illegal NSA activities. There is no
        > > explanation.
        > > There is no justification.
        > >
        > > A President does not destroy our constitutional
        > > safeguards and civil
        > > liberties in the guise of trying to "protect
        > > America". If our
        > > country's democratic foundations are good enough to
        > > export to Iraq
        > > with the aid of our blood-soaked soldiers, they are
        > > good enough for
        > > Americans who live here, pay their taxes, still
        > > believe in law and
        > > order, and due process.
        > >
        > > George Bush is doing more harm to our country, and
        > > all that it stands
        > > for, than any terrorist could ever achieve.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
      • Ram Lau
        ... Bush is still the same fraternity President at Yale that he once was. He never grew up. To him, being the Commander in Chief is still a game of playing
        Message 3 of 5 , Dec 18, 2005
          > Bush has never had any use for constitutional law and clearly has
          > only contempt for civil liberties. It is imperative that

          Bush is still the same fraternity President at Yale that he once was.
          He never grew up. To him, being the Commander in Chief is still a game
          of playing dress-up and acting cool.

          More than six thousand Katrina victim are still missing. But then, why
          would he give a damn.

          Ram
        • THOMAS JOHNSON
          After 5 years of one outrage after another, I m too inured to feel any kind of special outrage other than the fact that the power structure, ie the
          Message 4 of 5 , Dec 19, 2005
            After 5 years of one outrage after another, I'm too
            inured to feel any kind of special outrage other than
            the fact that the power structure, ie the
            Washington/New York press corps, Democrats, moderate
            Republicans. etc., was so afraid of this bunch that
            they would not criticize, much less debunk lies, or
            expose stolen elections, politically motivated
            war-mongering and the most corrupt climate since
            Harding.
            That's the real outrage.

            Tom



            --- Ram Lau <ramlau@...> wrote:

            > > Bush has never had any use for constitutional law
            > and clearly has
            > > only contempt for civil liberties. It is
            > imperative that
            >
            > Bush is still the same fraternity President at Yale
            > that he once was.
            > He never grew up. To him, being the Commander in
            > Chief is still a game
            > of playing dress-up and acting cool.
            >
            > More than six thousand Katrina victim are still
            > missing. But then, why
            > would he give a damn.
            >
            > Ram
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            > --------------------~-->
            > Know an art & music fan? Make a donation in their
            > honor this holiday season!
            >
            http://us.click.yahoo.com/.6dcNC/.VHMAA/Zx0JAA/CvmplB/TM
            >
            --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            > prezveepsenator-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.