Bush defends domestic eavesdropping.

[Ishmael]

Here ya go silly boy, SJ res 23:

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

Sponsored by Tommy Dashle no less. And NEVER rescinded.

Ishmael

 

[phrodeau]

My point is not Clinton specifically but the ECHELON program. There's no question, from the reports, that the NSA monitoring program was of much smaller scale and duration and had a far more restricted aim than the other program. Still, the much larger, much more intrusive, much more broadly-used program seemed to have fallen down the memory hole until this week. I'm curious as to why. I'm curious as to why this program is the one that's the threat to civil liberties and not the bigger one that snooped on all of us all the time.

Because this one broke the rules.

So it's a small program with only a few instances of unwarranted and unaccounted surveillance, and some are claiming the judicial admin is being bypassed because it's too slow?

I saw some info which suggested that the numbers were in the low thousands per year. What would that be, maybe eight per day? If that admin can't handle the load, boot them out and find one that can. Too bad if your cronies can't hold their jobs; better that than compromise the country's integrity.

 

[JazzManJim]

Well, there ya go again Zip.

The president didn't declare war on anyone. Congress did. Get your facts straight. :avery:

Ishmael

Actually, Congress didn't actually declare war either, thought they came as close as they could without doing so. Osama bin Laden, on the other hand, very clearly declared war on us. Thus, we're in a war regardless of what Congress has declared.

 

[bill-pix-trade]

Nobody is "throwing National Security out the window" at all. People want more oversight of the government, who they are monitoring and the extent of it. You assume they are monitoring terrorists but the truth is they are monitoring people suspected of being a terrorist.

Bush has lost credibility with the American people. I think requiring government oversight is always a good thing as checks and balances were built into our constitution for a reason, to prevent abuses. You may trust Bush but I and a lot of other Americans don't.

Again I'm not saying they shouldn't monitor people that deserve to be monitored, but I think there should be greater scrutiny of how surveillance is used. It shouldn't just be up to the discretion of the President.

I have not read the whole thread but I have some thoughts.

I think the government in a time of crisis needs some discretion to acquire intelligence to keep the country safe.

There has to be some middle ground here. On one hand we do not want the gov. to have unlimited power to spy on it's own people, but on the other hand we do not want to make the process so cumbersome that it is useless. We need some over site to prevent abuse of power, but with to much over site things get leaked.

 

[zipman]

LMAO. If you were communicating with terrorists, or those to be know to have terrorist connections, do you think you might become a "person of interest?"

You don't have a fucking clue, do you Zip?

Ishmael

So let me get this straight. You agree with Bush's rationale for what he is doing?

That he was justified in doing this because as commander in chief he has an obligation to protect the american people and because of the authorization to use force after 9/11?

 

[zipman]

Actually, Congress didn't actually declare war either, thought they came as close as they could without doing so. Osama bin Laden, on the other hand, very clearly declared war on us. Thus, we're in a war regardless of what Congress has declared.

Actually, doesn't Congress declaring war have a lot to do with the change in what the president is and isn't allowed to do in a time of war? Doesn't declaring war define that?

 

[Ishmael]

Actually, Congress didn't actually declare war either, thought they came as close as they could without doing so. Osama bin Laden, on the other hand, very clearly declared war on us. Thus, we're in a war regardless of what Congress has declared.

They acually did Jim. The president is authorized to use force against any nation, organization, or person considered to be a terrorist.

You can call it anything you want, but if that isn't an authorization for war powers, also stated explicitly, I don't know what is.

Ishmael

 

[JazzManJim]

Because this one broke the rules.

So it's a small program with only a few instances of unwarranted and unaccounted surveillance, and some are claiming the judicial admin is being bypassed because it's too slow?

I saw some info which suggested that the numbers were in the low thousands per year. What would that be, maybe eight per day? If that admin can't handle the load, boot them out and find one that can. Too bad if your cronies can't hold their jobs; better that than compromise the country's integrity.

Which rules, exactly did he break?

No, really, I'm serious about this because everyone I've heard has said that he might have broken the rules but that it would be a very close call based on what we know now. No legal expert with any real standing whatsoever has taken a dogmatic position on this that I've read simply because we don't have all the information we'd need to make such a determination and because the law is very murky on the edges.

And the judicial admin, the FISA judges, do handle thousands of cases a year. Their jobs aren't cronyism jobs, though. Those judges have been there though more than one administration. Also, he cases they consider have incredible amount of information that must be given - more in many cases than the average criminal case.

 

[zipman]

I have not read the whole thread but I have some thoughts.

I think the government in a time of crisis needs some discretion to acquire intelligence to keep the country safe.

There has to be some middle ground here. On one hand we do not want the gov. to have unlimited power to spy on it's own people, but on the other hand we do not want to make the process so cumbersome that it is useless. We need some over site to prevent abuse of power, but with to much over site things get leaked.

If you had read the thread you would see that my only concern is that there is an appropriate level of oversight, which a bipartisan group of conressman don't feel there is.

Fix the process so it is easier and there is oversight. I think that is pretty damn reasonable.

 

[zipman]

They acually did Jim. The president is authorized to use force against any nation, organization, or person considered to be a terrorist.

You can call it anything you want, but if that isn't an authorization for war powers, also stated explicitly, I don't know what is.

Ishmael

Is the NSA a part of the Armed Forces?

 

[JazzManJim]

Actually, doesn't Congress declaring war have a lot to do with the change in what the president is and isn't allowed to do in a time of war? Doesn't declaring war define that?

Sometimes yes and sometimes no. This is the very question that was being considered back in the Clinton adminstration when Jamie Gorelick brought up the "policy-making" quote I mentioned earlier. Her contention was that warrantless information-gathering was well within the President's powers (and we weren't at war at the time). In fact, she made much the same argument during peacetime (regarding speed, especially) that Bush is making now in a time of war. I'm not saying I necessarily buy the argument but I'd suggest that there's just the teensiest bit of hypocrisy in getting horribly outraged now and not then.

 

[JazzManJim]

If you had read the thread you would see that my only concern is that there is an appropriate level of oversight, which a bipartisan group of conressman don't feel there is.

Fix the process so it is easier and there is oversight. I think that is pretty damn reasonable.

So do I, zip. But there's already oversight and many of the Congressmen who are complaining about the program now were part of that oversight process. Why are they bitching now? Where was their outrage then? If this was so egregious, why were there no hearings?

 

[Gringao]

Is the NSA a part of the Armed Forces?

Who said it had to be the armed forces that acted against them?

 

[Ishmael]

So let me get this straight. You agree with Bush's rationale for what he is doing?

That he was justified in doing this because as commander in chief he has an obligation to protect the american people and because of the authorization to use force after 9/11?

Here's the problem Zip. I believe there has to be more oversight. Do I agree with his motives? Yes. Do I agree with his implementation? I don't know. It appears that congress had no problem until the NYT spewed it. It appears that the FISA court wasn't twisted out of shape by it.

That still doesn't mean that more oversight might not be a bad idea. That's the debate. Not impeachment, or censure, or the other moronic, knee jerk, reactions of the left.

Ishmael

 

[zipman]

So let me get this straight. You agree with Bush's rationale for what he is doing?

That he was justified in doing this because as commander in chief he has an obligation to protect the american people and because of the authorization to use force after 9/11?

Well Ish? Do you agree that these reasons justify what he did?

It's a pretty simple question for a know-it-all like you.

 

[bill-pix-trade]

So do I, zip. But there's already oversight and many of the Congressmen who are complaining about the program now were part of that oversight process. Why are they bitching now? Where was their outrage then? If this was so egregious, why were there no hearings?

Slow news week, good news from Iraq.

 

[zipman]

Here's the problem Zip. I believe there has to be more oversight. Do I agree with his motives? Yes. Do I agree with his implementation? I don't know. It appears that congress had no problem until the NYT spewed it. It appears that the FISA court wasn't twisted out of shape by it.

That still doesn't mean that more oversight might not be a bad idea. That's the debate. Not impeachment, or censure, or the other moronic, knee jerk, reactions of the left.

Ishmael

First off, I never called for censure or impeachment. I think until it is clear that a crime was committed those kinds of things shouldn't even be mentioned. In my opinion it is inflammatory and counter-productive.

So you agree with me that there should be more oversight? Good. I think any reasonable person should want government oversight to prevent potential abuses. I'm not about to give Carte Blanche to anyone, regardless of party.

I'm surprised that you agree with his motives as you have stated on more than one occasion that the government has no obligation to protect Americans.

All I am arguing for is more oversight. That's it. Period end of story. If the FISA process is to burdensome then fix it and make it right so that surveillance can be done on those suspected of terrorism with appropriate oversight.

 

[Guest]

 

[zipman]

Sometimes yes and sometimes no. This is the very question that was being considered back in the Clinton adminstration when Jamie Gorelick brought up the "policy-making" quote I mentioned earlier. Her contention was that warrantless information-gathering was well within the President's powers (and we weren't at war at the time). In fact, she made much the same argument during peacetime (regarding speed, especially) that Bush is making now in a time of war. I'm not saying I necessarily buy the argument but I'd suggest that there's just the teensiest bit of hypocrisy in getting horribly outraged now and not then.

I'm just looking at this from the perspective of not only Bush, but any future president and what powers and oversight I think we need.

I pretty much disagree with the majority of Gorelick has said.

 

[zipman]

Who said it had to be the armed forces that acted against them?

That's what the SJ res 23 that Ish posted says.

 

[JazzManJim]

How the fuck do you know who they are monitoring????

Again, your bullshit expertise in everything imaginable comes shining through.

Because they're reported that information to folks involved in oversight. I believe that NYT mentioned there have been 500 people total (though I could be wrong about that).

 

[Ishmael]

First off, I never called for censure or impeachment. I think until it is clear that a crime was committed those kinds of things shouldn't even be mentioned. In my opinion it is inflammatory and counter-productive.

So you agree with me that there should be more oversight? Good. I think any reasonable person should want government oversight to prevent potential abuses. I'm not about to give Carte Blanche to anyone, regardless of party.

I'm surprised that you agree with his motives as you have stated on more than one occasion that the government has no obligation to protect Americans.

All I am arguing for is more oversight. That's it. Period end of story. If the FISA process is to burdensome then fix it and make it right so that surveillance can be done on those suspected of terrorism with appropriate oversight.

Wrong Zip, I have stated, and the Supreme court has upheld on several occasions, that the government, nor it's employees, owe any particular protections to the individual. You can't find it in the constitution, I can't find it in the constitution, and even the Supreme court can't find it in the constitution. Not even under a penumbra.

Ishmael

 

[Guest]

 

[JazzManJim]

I'm just looking at this from the perspective of not only Bush, but any future president and what powers and oversight I think we need.

I pretty much disagree with the majority of Gorelick has said.

Zip, I'm with you there.

I don't quite know that you get my point. We've had a much larger program operating pretty much continuously in this country for a decade and you haven't seen a single dip in your civil liberties. I don't like it at all that this has been happening, but it has and it's happened with nary a peep from the media or the members of Congress who are about to have strokes over the news this week. What President Bush has been doing has obviously been working pretty well and has left a miniscule footprint in comparison to what other wartime Presidents have done, yet the reaction has been insane.

You want oversight and that's cool. I wouldn't mind responsible oversight either but I'm not convinced that the program hasn't had that oversight. Okay, I'm convinced that the members of Congress who were regularly briefed on this were horrible choices because they can't apparently muster a backbone to speak out against it in a meaningful way unless there's a TV camera around. So what sort of oversight would you suggest if the President asked you?

 

[JazzManJim]

And you believe that to be a complete list? Who are these 500 people? Do we have names? Does anyone outside of the Executive Branch have the names?

This is a sad thread. It is unbelievable to me that so many here are eager to turn over their constitutional rights to the Executive. ...very sad.


Anywho... I shall leave you all to resolve this issue among yourselves. I am off to flirt.

Please do because you're not making much sense here.