Comments on: Bush was spying even before 9/11

By: chutney

chutney — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 00:14:33 +0000

Bill, you keep pointing everywhere else except to what I posted about. I didn't post about OSHA, or the FDA, or Aldrich Ames, or Clinton, the UUA, Rockefeller, the Republicans or the Democrats. To remind you, I posted a link to a story that said Bush had authorized illegal spying on American citizens even before 9/11. Since I posted that story, Arlen Specter has said that impeachment would be appropriate if his hearings show that Bush did, in fact, break the law. Al Gore has called this a grave Constitutional crisis, drawing parallel's between Bush's current domestic spying and Hoover's during the Civil Rights Era. And the New York Times has reported that the NSA's domestic spying program has not helped us fight terrorism at all. In response to all of this, you have pointed to a blogger. You have compared domestic spying on American citizens to OSHA inspections. You have said that the upcoming hearings are either partisan or political. You have implied that the UUA and myself are hypocritical for not filing suit for an isolated illegal search and seizure I hardly remember now. In summary, you have not shown how Bush's actions are not illegal---you have just asserted that they are not. You have, instead, blown smoke. Therefore, I'm ending this discussion, Bill.

By: Bill Baar

Bill Baar — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:15:51 +0000

I can see you’ve never undergone a suprize OSHA inspection for a worksite your responsible for… wish the Federal Inspectors had done a surprize warrentless inspection of that Mine in WV where those miners were lost.

Aldrich Ames is the only person I know of you was subject to warrentless search of his Home. Clinton Administration did not get a warrent from the FISA court.

I would suggest you or perhapes UUA file a suit on his behalf claiming Ames Fourth Amendment rights were violated.

This is a constitutional issue between the White House and Congress and ultimately the Courts would decide although their loath to get in the middle of these kinds of conflicts and prefer to see them resolved politically.

As in the elections coming this year.

Otherwise, sort hoisting Ames flag and advocating his case because besides surviallance, the feds went in and searched his home.

No one, including Ames lawyers, constested the legality of that for many years. But maybe things have changed.

By: chutney

chutney — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 20:48:34 +0000

Liquor stores and junkyards are not American citizens, last time I checked.

By: Bill Baar

Bill Baar — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:48:28 +0000

NSA does warrentless surviallance same reason FDA and OSHA do. Read Buck on it, Anyway, now that so many people are complaining about the NSA's scrutiny of overseas phone calls related to terrorist groups, it would be interesting if they could do one of two things: 1) Demonstrate their logical consistency by arguing that all agencies of the federal government -- including OSHA, FDA, etc., and not just the NSA -- should have to get a warrant and prove probable cause before performing inspections; or 2) Explain why the inspection of liquor stores or junkyards is so much more important than catching al Qaeda. Otherwise, the criticism of the NSA appears to be nothing more than partisan opportunism. Spector or Democrats want to impeach they should. It will help keep the House Republican in 2006 for sure.

By: chutney

chutney — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:21:43 +0000

I just saw Republican Arlen Specter on This Week with George Steph saying that impeachment may be in order.

By: letimbo

letimbo — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:42:43 +0000

If its “always been legal” then why did Congress pass the FISA courts to begin with? And then why was it signed into law? Bushie broke that law pretty clearly by not getting the reactive warrants. He could have gone to the secret FISA courts for three days after the call was snooped on…and yet didn’t. There is no good reason for that.

Senators *are* saying something’s fishy…which is why the Judiciary Committee is organizing those hearings. Couldn’t do it before due to the Alito case.

…and just because you tell senators that you are breaking the law doesn’t mean that its still permissible. And why not mention the House as well…seems rather clear Pelosi was vhemently against it. But what could they do? It was so secret that they couldn’t get help from their aids, much less go to the Post.

And Bill, its a matter of who defines “terrorist” and what definition they use. Eventually the administration could define “terrorist” as encompassing anyone they disagree with, with no checks. Would you have been willing to grant Clinton that authority?

By: chutney

chutney — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:50:12 +0000

It seems pretty cut and dry that Bush broke the law here, and did more than tapping into phone calls from terrorists. I’m willing to change my mind about this, but I’ve yet to see evidence that contradicts my conclusion.

I don’t really care what Senators are saying about it at this point—that they’re not saying anything right now merely tells me what they believe to be politically expedient for the moment. I’ve never really relied on Senators to tell me what’s right and wrong.

By: Bill Baar

Bill Baar — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:39:09 +0000

Hugh Hewitt's comment on Rockefellers memo-for-record on NSA spying, Whatever Rockefeller was told (and three other senior Congressional leaders) the fact is clear that the Bush Administration was very candid with them and others, and that because the war was very real to them at the time, the Democratic Congressional leadership did nothing to attempt to end the surveillance. Rockefeller's "feeble" note, as one lefty put it, is a great symbol of the entire Democratic Party's approach to the war. These are not the people you want running it, or even close to the controls. Hewitt linked to my post on Rockefeller and the spying here and how it made long time Democrats link myself feel foolish for having voted for such small people.

By: Bill Baar

Bill Baar — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:31:08 +0000

It’s perfectly Legal Chutney. Always has been.

We’re not dealing with the “all” here. We’re dealing with very specific actions by the excecutive. In this case intercepts of incoming calls from suspected terrorists. It’s very legal which is exactly why one reason no senator is willing to ask it be stopped.

By: chutney

chutney — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 22:55:28 +0000

It’s not okay to tape me taking an overseas phone call without a warrant. It’s illegal, and it’s a violation of my right to privacy—unlawful search and seizure in this case.

All is not permissible in a constitutional republic, not even in wartime. Bush could have easily gotten warrants for his wire tapping, up to seventy-two hours after the fact. Not doing so is an egregious flaunting of the law.