The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[Jan]

There's only a handful of possible reasons. Either they had reason to think the court wouldn't allow their requests, or they had reason to not want any oversight or records of their requests. Presuming that these were all terror related warrants, I have a hard time believing either possibility.

I agree with Radhil as to the possible reasons. I understand that there's precedent. I understand that, while gray, it's probably legal. I still want a clear, simple answer to *why* the procedure set in place to make it as easy as possible to get approval, even retroactively, was ignored. Call me cynical but I don't imagine the answer will be anything as simple or innocuous as the question.

Jan

[AaronB]

I agree with Radhil as to the possible reasons. I understand that there's precedent. I understand that, while gray, it's probably legal. I still want a clear, simple answer to *why* the procedure set in place to make it as easy as possible to get approval, even retroactively, was ignored. Call me cynical but I don't imagine the answer will be anything as simple or innocuous as the question.

Jan

I have found that the answers are never as simple as the questions and especially when it's dealing with issues as difficult as these.

[Karachi Vyce]

[SIZE=3
... I hope like hell McCain runs in 2008. McCain vs Hillary. Should be quite a show.[/SIZE]

Oh god, I'd put a bullet in my head. We'd all be losers with that lineup.

[Der Mike]

So here's the question, in equally easy and simple terms:

WHY didn't they follow the already established procedure and go through the court established under FISA?

Jan

Simply put --- because the court has no basis for any power in this situation.

If the gov't was TRYING the terrorists, the courts would have SOME power, provided that the prisoners weren't tried under military tribunals.

For this, the President alone has this power as the commander-in-chief.

Except that from what I've read, if it's an emergency, they can go ahead and do it and they have 72 hours to notify the court. First time I've ever heard of a retroactive warrant, but I'll grant that it's a valid workaround given what's at stake.

For that matter, is there anybody who really believes that the president is more accessible than any one of eleven justices? I sure don't.

A few things to answer your question:
1) No President has EVER said that the courts have this power in wartime. ALL have said the power resides in the executive and the Constitution is very much on their side. To go to the courts means that the President believes the courts have power that they, Constitutionally, do not.

2) The problem isn't how long the judges take to decide a case. It's how long it takes to complete the paperwork to get there (weeks to months, usually).
-=Mike

[Radhil]

Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

OK, so assuming there's legal precedent to do this, the question still remains as to why it was done. Previous presidents may have kept their legal options open by little press releases like this, but still they followed the warrant path. So that sets legal precedent on Bush's side but ethical precedent against him. Why am I so not suprised by that.

A few things to answer your question:
1) No President has EVER said that the courts have this power in wartime. ALL have said the power resides in the executive and the Constitution is very much on their side. To go to the courts means that the President believes the courts have power that they, Constitutionally, do not.

2) The problem isn't how long the judges take to decide a case. It's how long it takes to complete the paperwork to get there (weeks to months, usually).

1) We're not at war against ourselves, last I checked.
2) It's already been established that the warrant can be retroactive, and that there's little to no red tape surrounding this particular court, so claiming paperwork delays is BS of the highest order.

[Der Mike]

OK, so assuming there's legal precedent to do this, the question still remains as to why it was done. Previous presidents may have kept their legal options open by little press releases like this, but still they followed the warrant path. So that sets legal precedent on Bush's side but ethical precedent against him. Why am I so not suprised by that.

Bush is in a situation the former Presidents were not, namely a situation of actual war.

1) We're not at war against ourselves, last I checked.

We are at war with terrorism (there is no legal boilerplate for a declaration of war, so the 2002 resolution authorizing Bush to use force IS a declaration of war) and those are the people that are being monitored.

Do you honestly think the gov't cares what you and your family talks about over the phone? They lack the time or resources to actually keep track of it.

2) It's already been established that the warrant can be retroactive, and that there's little to no red tape surrounding this particular court, so claiming paperwork delays is BS of the highest order.

They can be made retroactive WITHIN a certain timeframe.

The taps could not be authorized in time.

And, again, the courts have zero power here whatsoever to begin with.

Congress and the Court cannot force the President to give up power vested in him in the Constitution.

[Dr Maturin]

I've mentioned several times here over the years that there is no legal issue when the info gained through surveillance is used to stop terrorists rather than prosecute them.

As for why they didn't and haven't released info to the press...security is an issue here. They release information when it becomes no longer a threat to do so. All of these "leaks" are becoming an epidemic. These leakers aren't heroes...

[AaronB]

OK, so assuming there's legal precedent to do this, the question still remains as to why it was done. Previous presidents may have kept their legal options open by little press releases like this, but still they followed the warrant path. So that sets legal precedent on Bush's side but ethical precedent against him. Why am I so not suprised by that.

Rahill, that is where you are mistaken. They didn't just keep their opinions to themselves. In 1995 President Clintion issued an executive order that searches can happen with out warrents and in 1979 President Carter issued an executive order that wire tapping with out a warrent was ok. In a post from yesterday I provided links to both EOs. This tells me that not only legal precident is on the president's side but ethical as well. Unless you want to say that you think Presidents Clinton and Carter were unethical to boot (and let's leave President Clinton's personal ethics aside).

[AaronB]

Just to further my point, there is an article in today's Washington Times that says (and I quote):

In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever.

Now I ask this august group, which is more unethical? Wire tapping calls that are going to suspected terrorist from people in this country (foregin intelligence value) or giving federal agencies the ability to bust into any home with out a warrant and strictly for domestic reasons (no foregin intelligence value)?

Surely the simple questions that Rahill and Jan want to ask can be asked about the warrantless searches, and I am sure that the answers would not be as clear as the questions either.

[Der Mike]

I've mentioned several times here over the years that there is no legal issue when the info gained through surveillance is used to stop terrorists rather than prosecute them.

As for why they didn't and haven't released info to the press...security is an issue here. They release information when it becomes no longer a threat to do so. All of these "leaks" are becoming an epidemic. These leakers aren't heroes...

What needs to be done is for the oversight committees to launch a massive investigation of the CIA. Give immunity to ALL CIA agents called to testify. Call all reporters to testify.

The immunity will force the CIA guys to testify. And if they refuse, they will be held in contempt, thrown in jail, and terminated. If they admit to leaking, they'll be fired post haste for violating their terms of employment.

[Ranger1]

FOX rule!

http://www.dumpalink.com/media/1118569606/Micheal_Crook_Gets_Laid_In_To_Live_On_Fox_News

[Dr Maturin]

And an investigation is launched with the proper goal: finding out who leaked the phone tap info to the media.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180190,00.html (actual Fox News story)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/...eak/index.html (actual CNN story)

[AaronB]

Robertson Again

Once again Pat Robertson has decided to weigh in on current events. He now says that the reason for Sharon's stroke is punishment from God for wanting peace. The only good thing that you can say about Robertson is that he is consistant. Consistantly nutty, but consistant none the less.

[Jan]

Robertson said God's message is, "This land belongs to me. You'd better leave it alone."

What's that old saying about possesion being 9/10 of the law?

Jan

[Towelmaster]

I personally think that this 'Abramoff'-case is much more interesting than who had enough moral values to leak law-breaking to the press...

If I'm not mistaking, this guy could/will cause one Hell of a lot of trouble for(mainly) a lot of Republicans. And thus cause major problems for all of the republicans. Look at what the Clinton-bashing over WhiteWater did to other democrats...

I have to hand it to those Washington-vultures : when they play dirty the ReAlLy play dirty. Even if it takes 10 years to get back at someone...

BTW : If people want to know where I stand - politically and philosophically speaking) : I am not exactly like but very much inclined to agree with these kind of people :

https://www.fredoneverything.net

https://www.lewrockwell.com

Which might surprise forum-colleageas like Zhd. I mean : Fred is NoT really the left-end of the political spectrum, is it? I wouldn't mind having a nice talk with that man over a good drink. There are many many days when I find myself feeling similarly grumpy about the world.