NBC's Kelly O'Donnell: "Congress has not passed a specific law" on Bush wiretap program
In reporting on President Bush's "argu[ment]" that "he had legal authority" to order warrantless domestic wiretapping, NBC News White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell in a December 20 online article uncritically repeated the Bush administration's false claim that "Congress had not passed a specific law" on the subject.
In fact, as has been widely reported and as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, Congress has passed such a law: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), which requires the government to obtain a warrant to wiretap U.S. citizens and legal residents inside the United States. The Bush administration's apparent violation of FISA has given rise to bipartisan condemnation.
The administration has argued it has the authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps despite FISA's prohibitions.
From O'Donnell's December 20 online article titled "Bush ready to move past 2006 'thumping' ":
Government secrets revealed
One of the president's secret programs made big news when it was leaked to the New York Times. The National Security Agency had been conducting wiretaps inside the U.S. without court approval. The president argued he had legal authority even though Congress had not passed a specific law.
The administration gave the operation the name "terrorist surveillance program" in an effort to increase public support and reduce fears that the government was spying on ordinary citizens. Critics expressed concern about the civil liberties and questioned whether the president went beyond the powers of the executive branch.
"which requires the government to obtain a warrant to wiretap U.S. citizens and legal residents inside the United States."
Right. But that's only if the call is between TWO citizens within the United States. The law doesn't apply when one citizen is talking to someone from another country. So in fact, Media Matters is wrong once again. Congress hasn't passed a law dealing with Bush's wiretapping program. The FISA law only applied to domestic calls and not international calls.
That is exactly what the controversy is about, TD. The government wiretapped people in the US calling people in the US without a warrant. Such wiretapping is, under the provisions of FISA, illegal.
Now, Bush may claim that he has the right as Commander-in-Chief in a time of war to abrogate that law. But that is not the same thing as saying there is no law.
"The government wiretapped people in the US calling people in the US without a warrant."
Sorry, but you're dead wrong on that. The government wiretapped people in the US calling people OVERSEAS without a warrant. You should really learn the basic facts before you post.
>>"The government wiretapped people in the US calling people OVERSEAS without a warrant. "<<
How would YOU know? 'Cuz Bush said so??
You cannot know who was wiretapped. The point of oversight like warrants is to assure the rules are followed, no oversight no assurance
There are plenty of warrants.
I never said that there were NO FISA warrants. I said and no one anywhere disputes that there ARE warrantless wiretaps happening. I have no problem with the times the administration is following the law, I have a problem with the times they ARENT. When I said no warrants I was speaking about the times warrants arent being used. Are you perhaps claiming that this isnt happening?
"Since there are no warrants".
YOU said there were no warrants, right up front.
You remain, factually challenged.
Illegal search (unwarranted wiretapping) on ANY US citizen, home or abroad, is a violation of the 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment and 6th Amendments of the Bill of Rights.
But then what's the Bill of Rights to the fascist dream?
The US Constitution is not sovreign outside the territorial limits of the United States. Therefore .... the 4th and 5th Amendments are meaningless beyond our borders.
To argue otherwise is to deny the sovreignty of foreign governments over their own soil, which is an act of war directed against the government so denied. If the eavesdropping you object to is permitted by a foreign state within its borders, beyond declaring war, the Congress has no authority. The President, however, is empowered by the Constitution to make foreign policy and to negotiate with foreign governments.
He is NOT empowered to spy upon American citizens...anywhere...without a warrant.
Why are you so keen to kill off the Bill of Rights? Plotting a fascist dictatorship?
- the intrusion into privacy is also limited: only international calls and only those we have a reasonable basis to believe involve al Qaeda or one of its affiliates. The purpose of all this is not to collect reams of intelligence, but to detect and prevent attacks.
Their work is actively overseen by the most intense oversight regime in the history of the National Security Agency. The agency's conduct of this program is thoroughly reviewed by the NSA's general counsel and inspector general. The program has also been reviewed by the Department of Justice for compliance.
It is not a driftnet over Dearborn or Lackawanna or Freemont grabbing conversations that we then sort out...This is targeted and focused. This is not about intercepting conversations between people in the United States.
This is hot pursuit of communications entering or leaving America involving someone we believe is associated with al Qaeda...and we discovered that there had been an inadvertent intercept of a domestic—to—domestic call, that intercept would be destroyed and not reported.
One end of any call targeted under this program is always outside the United States. - Gen. Hayden
Under these stated guidelines...I have no fear of losing my constitutional rights. I do have a fear of the left's attempts to hamstring my government in performing its duty to protect America.
>>" I do have a fear of the left's attempts to hamstring my government in performing its duty to protect America."<<
Since you approve of wiretaps without a required (FISA) warrant, you'll be a-ok with the government coming into your home without a required search warrant and seizing all of your personal files. After all, it's in the name of "protecting America" and we wouldn't want to "hamstring" anyone.
- Since you approve of wiretaps without a required (FISA) warrant -
Just those clearly stated by Hayden...not even a good try...no sale here bub.
- coming into your home without a required search warrant and seizing all of your personal files. -
Wrong again...current NSA surveillance program has nothing to do with your juvenile logic.
- it's in the name of "protecting America" -
Yep...the NSA program suits me just fine...regardless of the attempt by some to make ridiculous assumptions about civil liberties...you're wrong on all counts. Better luck next time.
There's a FISA law. Bush thinks he's above the law and is breaking it. His administration admits. You're ok with your rights being taken away. We get it.
No warrants. No oversight. No clue who's being wiretapped. Terror-stricken right wingers salivate over it.
Congrats, terrorists. You win.
- There's a FISA law -
How 'bout that...you got one right.
- Bush thinks he's above the law -
Not hardly. Many legal scholars...like the panel of FISA judges thinks he is on solid legal ground. Other scholars disagree. In either case, your statement is patently false.
- You're ok with your rights being taken away. -
Another falsehood. I plainly stated that the NSA program does not abridge any of my rights...any information obtained...not relating to terrorist activities...is destroyed and would not be admissable in a domestic trial.
- No warrants. No oversight. No clue who's being wiretapped. -
The program is thoroughly reviewed by the NSA's general counsel and inspector general. The program has also been reviewed by the Department of Justice for compliance.
- Terror-stricken right wingers salivate over it. -
Nope...just using common sense...it's a nice trait that should be used more often by some.
Oh yes, oversight by the same people who brought you illegal wars of aggression and the use of torture and the intentional killing of women and children by the military....they'll look after us and protect our rights.
$th Amendment was put in place to protect us from evil sob's liek Bush and Gonzales...and now you say it's fine for them to stomp all over the Bill of Rights. Your words are treason.
- oversight by the same people who brought you illegal wars of aggression -
First of all...the current war on terror is not illegal. It was overwhelmingly approved by congress...and don't waste your breath or my time with the lame excuse that they were misled...that horse has been flogged to death.
- intentional killing of women and children by the military -
Delusional...in a word.
- it's fine for them to stomp all over the Bill of Rights. -
That's not an opinion held by the left's "sacred" FISA judges.
- Your words are treason. -
You are way over the top bub....roflol...oh jeezus...where's Nathan Hale when you need him.
So sayeth the Nuremburg Charter. So sayeth the Geneva Conventions. So sayeth the UN Charter. All treatied signed by the USA. Violating them makes ALL of Congress war criminals.
Marines were ordered to kill women and children in Falluja. They did kill women and children in Falluja. Intentional. Commanded to commit war crimes.
The Nuremburg Charter does not outlaw any part of the war against Al Qaeda, Fundamentalist Islam or Iraq, even if we were to agree that it were in force today, which it is clearly not.
[link to www.yale.edu]
The reasons should be obvious. (1) Al Qaeda started their part by declaring war on the United States. (2) Saddam started his part by invading Kuwait, a war which was never officially terminated. (3) The Taliban committed an act of war by hosting Al Qaeda when they instead should have interned Al Qaeda to protect their neutrality. Therefore, the WOT is not a war of aggression.
The Geneva Conventions do not outlaw war. this Convention would make no sense if they did:
[link to www.unhchr.ch]
It defines who is considered to be a prisoner of war and governs the treatment such persons. This would be redundant if Geneva outlawed war.
These are the official charges applied to the Nazis at Nuremburg:
a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
Iraq is a war of aggression, plotted in advance, in violation of international treaties signed by the USA.
b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
The destruction of Falluja and the murder of civilian inhabitants. The abuses of prisoners at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and elsewhere. The deliberate attacks on the Iraqi water system, the electrical grid, the sewage treatment plants. The forced privatization of Iraqi resources and infrastructure.
c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war,14 or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
You yourself called this a war on Islam. These crimes are being committed on the Iraqi people in the name of religious persecution. Marine generals said "Satan lives in Falluja" as they fired white phosphorus into homes and their troops shot unarmed men, women, and children. That's tantamount to religious genocide.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq is a war crime. The US government are war criminals. You support their war crimes. So sayeth the Nuremburg Charter.
>>"Many legal scholars...."<<
A bunch of hand-picked-because-the-agree legal scholars don't count, the law does. Bush is breaking the law, no matter how he and you try to squirm around that fact.
>>"does not abridge any of my rights."
That's even worse, to not even be aware your rights are being abridged. Sad, really.
>>The program is thoroughly reviewed"
Bush's program, again, breaks the law. The law is clear and simple. There's no good reason to break it. 'Cuz Bush said so ain't good enough. This isn't a dictatorship or monarchy.
Right-wingers are soiling themselves over Terrorists and they are ok with Bush's law-breaking. His Word is good enough for them. Screw oversight, screw the law, screw Congress. Terrorists win.
- A bunch of hand-picked-because-the-agree legal scholars don't count -
Wrong again...the beat goes on...FISA judges have agreed.
- to not even be aware your rights are being abridged -
That's because they are not. I have no fear of the NSA program...that no one can prove is destroying my freedoms. It has judicial and congressional oversight that I'm comfortable with...even the new democrat party majority.
- Bush's program, again, breaks the law. -
That's your non-legal opinion that we disagree about. There is legitimate debate from both sides on this matter...from those that are calm and rational and willing to be objective rather than spew talking points.
- Right-wingers are soiling themselves over Terrorists -
Nope. Just looking at the situation and recognizing it for what it is...sorry you'll have to see Sue for any reply about wearing dirty diapers.
- Screw oversight, screw the law, screw Congress. -
(braille tag)The program is thoroughly reviewed by the NSA's general counsel and inspector general. The program has also been reviewed by the Department of Justice for compliance, along with congress.(close braille tag)
Accept Bush's argument about 'inherent' powers. I find the argument specious, and as you say so do many constitutional scholars. I dont see how it is logical for them to claim that Bush has inherent, mystical, invisible powers, INHERENT, that is UNWRITTEN, in the Constitution, (because I guarantee you they arent written in article two) that allows him to violte what is WRITTEN EXPLICITLY in the constitution. As of now there has been ONE court descision on the issue and as you well know it was found to be illegal. As to you constantly talking about the several Executive Branch entities you CLAIM are providing oversight to the program they dont get it. The JUDICIAL branch needs to give this oversight NOT an entity beholden to Bush.
I have seen that you support Government assistance progrms to the indigent. Which of the Enumerated powers of Congress mentioned in Article I section 8 represents this activity?
Hypocrite.
So how is it that the President does not hve the authority to eavesdrop upon the telephones of our declared enemies on foreign soil without a search warrant issued by the US Courts? According to this logic, US intelligence would not have had the right to intercept Axis radio trnsmissions in WWII if the other terminal were located within the United States. reductio ad absurdum. Your argumrnt is absurd.
YOU are an idiot. How in the world is Congresses discretion to spend money in ANY way limited to what YOU think they should spend it on? Also the preamble to the Constitution says the government should promote the general welfare. I certainly think helping the poor is consistant with that mandate.
Tha absurd argument is YOUR first of all you dont know WHO is being listened to but what is CERTAIN and not in dispute is that the wiretapping IS taking place ON Americans IN America, period. IF it was taking place on foriegn soil NO ONE would be complaining. Next time you post it might help if you had some dim idea what you were talking about.
For lessons on sophistry and weak logic. Oversight OF the Executive Branch BY the executive branch is the fox guarding the henhouse. We get that you are willing to trust that. Excuse me if I expect REAL oversight. Bush can get warrants its what the fourth amendment and FISA demand, he can follow the law.
Are calls going to suspected terrorists why would they have a problem getting a warrant. Its always easy to portray ANY limit to governmental power as hamstringing but I dont see what they huge problem is with getting a warrant which can be gotten up to 72hrs AFTER the wiretap. As for the oversight it is non existant every agency you cited is an EXECUTIVE BRANCH entity that means there is NO real oversight the point of oversight is to give it to a different branch of government everyone in the executive branch serves at the discretion of the President.
Your assertion that FISA requires a warrant "only if the call is between TWO citizens within the United States" and "[t]he law doesn't apply when one citizen is talking to someone from another country" is simply incorrect.
FISA claims that it (and several other specified statutes) are the "exclusive means" for conducting "electronic surveillance" (18 USC 2511(f)(2)), as FISA defines it at 50 USC 50 USC 1801(f). So FISA's requirements would kick in only if the government wishes to conduct "electronic surveillance." (Yes there are other wiretapping statutes, as specified by FISA: but the main one, Title III, has requirements that are more strict that those of FISA, and warrant requests under that framework go to a regular federal district judge, rather than the special FISA court.)
A couple of FISA's four definitions of "electronic surveillance" do not require, as you claimed, that both parties to the conversation be in the United States. In particular, definition #1: Electronic Surveillance - "the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes." Therefore, it does not appear to matter if the communication is intercepted outside the country, or if one of the parties is outside the country, or if only one person on the call is a U.S. citizen. What matters, for this definition, is whether a U.S. person (citizen or legal permanent resident) who is located inside the U.S. is "targeted" for the wiretap that records the call. That means the government is specifically monitoring that person's phone calls.
The other definitions of "electronic surveillance":
#2 communications involve "a person in the United States" if the acquisition itself occurs in the U.S. and no one on the call consents to the government listening in.
#3: everybody on the call is in the U.S.
#4: the recording device is the U.S., but the transmission isn't "wire" or "radio."
Keep in mind, the fact that FISA covers not just wholly-domestic calls but also a U.S. person's phone calls into and out of the country flows naturally from the history of FISA. One of the government surveillance programs exposed by the Church Committee in the mid-1970s was the NSA's watchlist program (eventually known as Minaret"). This, one of the committee's staff reports states, involved monitoring communications with "at least one terminal in a foreign country" and reporting the contents of those conversations that mentioned or involved anyone who was on a "watch list" that included a substantial number of U.S. citizens who "ranged from members of radical political groups, to celebrities, to ordinary citizens involved in protests against their Government."
FISA judges say Bush within law By Brian DeBose THE WASHINGTON TIMES March 29, 2006
A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA). The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order. "If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute."
Dear Members of Congress:
We are scholars of constitutional law and former government officials. We write in our individual capacities as citizens concerned by the Bush administration's National Security Agency domestic spying program, as reported in The New York Times, and in particular to respond to the Justice Department's December 22, 2005, letter to the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees setting forth the administration's defense of the program.[1] Although the program's secrecy prevents us from being privy to all of its details, the Justice Department's defense of what it concedes was secret and warrantless electronic surveillance of persons within the United States fails to identify any plausible legal authority for such surveillance. Accordingly the program appears on its face to violate existing law.
The basic legal question here is not new. In 1978, after an extensive investigation of the privacy violations associated with foreign intelligence surveillance programs, Congress and the President enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Pub. L. 95-511, 92 Stat. 1783. FISA comprehensively regulates electronic surveillance within the United States, striking a careful balance between protecting civil liberties and preserving the "vitally important government purpose" of obtaining valuable intelligence in order to safeguard national security. S. Rep. No. 95-604, pt. 1, at 9 (1977).
With minor exceptions, FISA authorizes electronic surveillance only upon certain specified showings, and only if approved by a court. The statute specifically allows for warrantless wartime domestic electronic surveillance—but only for the first fifteen days of a war. 50 U.S.C. § 1811. It makes criminal any electronic surveillance not authorized by statute, id. § 1809; and it expressly establishes FISA and specified provisions of the federal criminal code (which govern wiretaps for criminal investigation) as the "exclusive means by which electronic surveillance...may be conducted," 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f) (emphasis added).[2]
[link to www.google.com]
I find their argument specious. I dont see how they can claim with a straight face that the president has inherent, that is unwritten authority in the constitution to do what is specifically prohibitted in what is written plainly in the Constitution. I read article two in the Constitution and I didnt see a because I said so clause in it. What I DID see was the exhortation that the President would take care that the laws were faithfully executed, I didnt see that was followed by unless he just doesnt feel like it.
They want a presidency that has unlimited dictatorial powers. The Constitution means nothing to them...and that makes them "domestic enemies" of the USA.
And congrats, terrorists, for you have succeeded. You've struck so much terror into the minds of Americans that we've given up our rights and granted dictatorial powers to our president/king.
Ah, yes, the Washington Tines - that bastion of journalistic credibility, owned by the famed patriot the Rev. Sun Mynung Moon. TD is so stupid he apparently doesn't realize he gets his talking points from a newspaper whose owner actively supports the North Korean government. What as ass -
First of all, these judges said in their letter that they CANNOT speak specifically toe the NSA wiretap program without being briefed. Secondly, they state that if a court REFUSES a FISA application and there is no time for a court review then the president may act unilaterally under executive order. This IS NOT what the president is doing. He is simply BYPASSING the FISA requirements altogether. There have been thousands of FISA warrant requests since the act's passage, and there have been literally only a handful of refusals.
"But that's only if the call is between TWO citizens within the United States."
Where does it say that?
Do you EVER know what you are talking about? Cough up the evidence that FISA ONLY applies if BOTH parties are in the US. The fourth amendment applies to the right of persons to be secure in THEIR homes. THAT is where the wiretap limitations come from. Now Nixon used National Security to say he could just wiretap anyone he wanted kind of like Bush, it became one of his articles of impeachment and FISA was written to make CLEAR that this argument could NOT be used.
"Now Nixon used National Security to say he could just wiretap anyone he wanted kind of like Bush"
That's ridiculous to compare Nixon and Bush. Nixon wiretapped his political enemies. Bush wiretapps suspected terrorists. Quite a difference. The FISA law was written during a time when we weren't at war with Islamo-fascists. It was meant to ensure that the President couldn't listen in to domestic calls to punish his political enemies. We are now in a war on terror, and Congress specifically gave the President the authority to "use all force necessary." Read the article I posted earlier about the former FISA judges who admitted that Bush's program is legal.
Many here could care less about who they are going after. Everyone here just feels violated. Awwwwwwwweeeeee
By claiming it will only be used against bad people. That is specious argument either we ALL have rights or no one has them.
Who is against summary executions I mean they will only be done to murderers RIGHT?
Away with Lethal Injection. Bring back the firring squad.
>>"Bush wiretapps suspected terrorists."<<
If it's all "suspected terrorists", then there is no problem getting the required, lawful warrants.
Bush places himself above the law, like a King.
Bush wiretapped a pacifist Quaker anti-war group....terrorists, my arse. If Bush was actually wiretapping terrorists, WHY did he not seek warrants? Because he knew the taps were illegal and NOT going to be ok'd by FISA.
You'll say anything to destroy the Constitution, won't you? How much does Rove pay you to come in here and spew this anti-4th Amendment propaganda?
You have no possible way of KNOWING who Bush is wiretapping. Since there is no oversight he could be tapping ANYONE. If it turns out he WAS wiretapping his political enemies will you agree he should be impeached? Also IF he was only wiretapping those calling suspected terrorist, and he can get a FISA warrant 72hrs AFTER the tap begins exactly what is the problemwith GETTING A WARRANT? Second. You claim is ludicrous on the face of it.
[link to www.petitiononline.com]
The second legal argument in defense of Bush's warrantless wiretaps rests on an erroneous statutory interpretation. According to this argument, Congress authorized the Administration to place wiretaps without court approval when it adopted the 2001 resolution authorizing military force against the Taliban and Al Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks. In the first place, the force resolution doesn't mention wiretaps. And given that Congress has traditionally placed so many restrictions on wiretapping because of its extremely intrusive qualities, there would undoubtedly have been vigorous debate if anyone thought the force resolution would roll back FISA. In fact, the legislative history of the force resolution shows that Congress had no intention of broadening the scope of presidential warmaking powers to cover activity in the United States.
According to Senator Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader who negotiated the resolution with the White House, the Administration wanted to include language explicitly enlarging the President's warmaking powers to include domestic activity. That language was rejected. Obviously, if the Administration felt it already had the power, it would not have tried to insert the language into the resolution.
"That's ridiculous to compare Nixon and Bush. Nixon wiretapped his political enemies. Bush wiretaps suspected terrorists."
-----
And his "suspected terrorists" are nothing more than ordinary innocent Americans who happen to disagree with his political opinions, which is their right.
And, without any warrants to substantiate your baseless assertion, you have no way of knowing whether what you posted was true.
Your assertion is what is known as a PIDOOMA - "Pulled It Directly Out Of... um, Mid-Air."
"And his "suspected terrorists" are nothing more than ordinary innocent Americans who happen to disagree with his political opinions, which is their right."
Do you have any proof to back up your baseless claim?
I'm sure they will supply proof once you've provided any credible proof to all of your baseless claims.
I don't have any baseless claims. I back all my claims up with logic and facts. That's something that very rarely happens on this website.
Even YOU cannot possibly believe that. I mean you are King of Delusionville but seriously you cannot believe that statement. Baseless assertions are the majority of your posts. Without them most of your posts wouldnt surpass ten words.
"Without a court order The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information [5]; targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a)(1),(2),(3) [6] or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.[7]
The Attorney General is required to make a certification of these conditions under seal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court[8], and report on their compliance to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. [9]
Since 50 U.S.C § 1802 (a)(1)(A) of this act specifically limits warrantless surveillance to foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (1),(2), (3) and omits the definitions contained in 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (4),(5),(6) the act does not authorize the use of warrantless surveillance on: groups engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore; foreign-based political organizations, not substantially composed of United States persons; or entities that are directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments. [10] Under the FISA act, anyone who engages in electronic surveillance except as authorized by statute is subject to both criminal penalties [11] and civil liabilities. [12]"
Then there's this amendment :
" On July 18, 2006, U.S. Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM) introduced the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act (H.R. 5825). Wilson's bill would give the President the authority to authorize electronic surveillance of international phone calls and e-mail linked specifically to identified terrorist groups immediately following or in anticipation of an armed or terrorist attack on the United States. Surveillance beyond the initial authorized period would require a FISA warrant or a presidential certification to Congress. On September 28, 2006 the House of Representatives passed Wilson's bill and it was referred to the Senate. [30]"
Listening in on Al Qaeda phone calls and viewing their emails? yes that's covered. Having phone companies and internet provider trun over reams of call records and email logs? Clearly illegal without a warrant under the 4th Amendment.
The phrase is certainly defective insofar as it is ambiguous, but it remains to be seen if it was a deliberate misstatement.
That is, "The president argued he had legal authority even though Congress had not passed a specific law." may just be a clumsy way of saying "The president argued that he had legal authority even though Congress had not passed a specific law explicitly conferring legal authority upon the president."
In a backhanded way, this is consistent with the President's (absurd) assertion that the AUMF implicitly granted such authority to the president. Again, I find the wording flawed because it is unclear, and can be read as an implication that the President was within his legal rights to authorize the wiretaps. I just don't see that it's necessarily an intentional misrepresentation.
It is ambiguous. I agree with you that AUMF did not give the President the right to abrogate this law any more than it gave him the right to ignore the Law of Gravity.
How come we got through the Cold War, with KGB spies and moles and double agents,without having to give up the 4th Amendment. Buncha guys on camels threaten us, though, and out the window with our civil liberties.
Don't the terrorists win if they scare us into giving up on our values as a society?
The folk "over there" just want US troops out of the Middle Eat and for us to stop funding Israeli war crimes against the Palestinians and Lebanese.
It's the "conservatives" who win if they get to scare the people into handing their Party Leader total dictatorial powers and usher in a fascist theocratic autocratic regime. They're the real enemy. They hate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and every freedom it stands for.
Even by your interpretation the statement is still plainly incorrect, as Congress has passed a specific law which explicitly prohibits the President's actions.
Whether the error is deliberate is unprovable and irrelevant.
...passed an amendment to FISA to allow Bush's wiretaps.
It would have been better if she phrased that as "even though the FISA law prohibits these wiretaps."
I find the possibility of an Al Qaeda attack less frightening than the thought that the Attorney General of the United States is unfamiliar with the laws he's suppose to enforce?
Oh yes, I remember. Black prisons, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, The Military Commisions Act ....
While others have posted it, the wording of FISA in regards to warrantless wiretaps is this:
The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information [5]; targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a)(1),(2),(3) [6] or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.[7] (emphasis mine)
FISA clearly prohibits warrant less wiretaps with any probability of catching the communications of a US citizen. Clearly you simply don't know what you are talking about
He's just one of those far-right tyrant-lovers who wants to put the Bill of Rights into the nearest paper shredder and allow his beloved Party Leader to turn the US into a totalitarian dictatorship.
In its entirety:
I. Congress shall make no law.
The president argued he had legal authority even though Congress had not passed a specific law.
My comment is not on the legal and consititutional arguments, but on what she is quoted as writing above. It is sloppily expressed, but I read it as saying:
<...Congress had not passed a specific law authorizing this type of spying (bold text mine).
The statement really makes no sense otherwise. FISA limits power which presidents previously felt they had to spy, so of course he would not appeal to FISA to justify his actions. It seems to me she is saying that the president believes he has the right to do this even though Congress has passed no law that explicitly allows him to do so.
In short, this reference is not about FISA - which he thinks is irrelevant in this situation - but about his assertion that he has inherent power to do this type of spying even though Congress has not given him explicit power to do so.
Not defending her (or the president, obviously), but just reading what she has written. Just sayin'.....
I clicked through to the whole article, and the NSA wiretaps are only a small part of it: MMFA reproduces the entire it in its summary.
There is no conservative misinformation.
After 9/11/2001, Congressmen and women did a lot of talking about supporting the President in his pursuit of terrorists, including approving legislation supporting miliary funding.
However regarding wiretaps, Congress did not pass any specific law that changed or rescinded FISA. So in effect they said, "Mr. President, we support what you are doing to capture the terrorists" but did not back that up with specific legislation regarding wiretaps.
As the reporter wrote, some are pointing out this as an infringement on civil liberties.
I find nothing wrong with the reporter's short bit on NSA as part of her larger article.
Congress did not pass a law repealing the fourth amendment, nor did they pass a law declaring Bush Pharoah. Neither of them would be constitutional anyway. Maybe, just maybe they expected him to do his job in conformity with the law, you know like most other presidents have.
However, I believe you are mistaken on a key point. You state:
It seems to me she is saying that the president believes he has the right to do this even though Congress has passed no law that explicitly allows him to do so.
Actually, the adminstration's position has been:
A) FISA is a violation of the President's constitutional authority with respect to the NSA program OR
B) Even if FISA is constitutional, then Congress overrode FISA with subsequent legislation, i.e., the AUMF joint resolution authorizing military force against 9/11 perpetrators.
So, by the administration's own arguments, laws directly relevant to the NSA spying have been passed. Though most of us would view FISA as restrictive, in a legal/constitutional context, FISA is an "authorizing" law in that provides a framework for the subject surveillance. #B is clearly a claim of an explicit authorization. Either way, O'Donnell statment contradicts the administration.
One side note: MMFA probably doesn't mention the AUMF since Hamdan v. Rumsfeld appears to make an opposite court ruling more probable, i.e., that Congress did not intend to override FISA.
Long before Bush was president pass a law specifically DENYING the power Bush is claiming. It is called FISA.
...the above fact blows away any supposed notion that Bush was following by the rules.
M.ention this fact to your congressperson
the judge cannot be held to Executive Privilege. I love the smell of committees in the morning...
There is a certain goofy logic to their way of thinking. The republican liars believe that they have total control of the United States. They do for another week. Their way of thinking goes like this. If it is illegal we will simply change the law and make it legal.
They didn't get the law changed and it is illegal. But, congress may not be able to inforce the law. The supreme court is now filled with activist judges. All laws may now prove unenforceable against a republican. I doubt that there are enough votes to clean out the supreme court.
We have never needed a national referendum amendment to the constitution more than we need it now. We need the confirmation of supreme court justices done in the voting booth. You can tell how much we are feared by the level of dishonesty in their rhetoric.