The Bush wiretap thing

[Squirrel]

So what does Blamo make of the whole NSA wiretap thing that's going on at the moment? (For people who don't know, Bush admitted recently to signing a secret order in 2002 to wiretap some overseas phonecalls made by American citizens without obtaining a warrant.) Some of his opponents are naturally raising concerns over whether or not this is a violation of the law, and therefore an impeachable offence. (http://boxer.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=249975)

So what do you think? Personally I think there is much more to this story than there appears. I mean I know there always is, but yeah. I read around a little bit and apparently the authority already exists to do this - the president can authorise, in cases of emergency, immediate wiretapping of domestic communications for up to 72 hours so long as notice is given at the end of those 72 hours. So this, coupled with the story that Bush actually summoned the editor and publisher of the New York Times to the White House to try to personally dissuade then from publishing the story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/), can only lead me to the conclusion that the law was circumvented because Bush didn't want a record kept of who they were monitoring.

Naturally, I expect this to blossom into a long and pointless debate within the media and the powers-that-be that will never be properly resolved, and the issue of who exactly was spied on will be neatly skirted around until it is forgotten about. Ho hum.

[Squirrel]

Also, it's worth noting that the New York Times has known about this for over a year and, for reasons known only to themselves, decided to sit on it. Why release this information now, when doing so a year ago could have had a profound effect on the election? Again, we'll probably never know.

[Squirrel]

Wow, that was a bit of a screed. Sorry about that.

[Noshus Klam]

I don't really think it's that big of a deal. I don't break any laws so I have nothing to worry about when I'm talking on the phone. It's not as if the Government will be tapping phones to hear about a recent conversation with your significant other, etc.

[ramblingrose]

But surely the point is they don't have a right to do that? Look at the way some American schools reacted post-Columbine, for example, doing random searches of students' lockers. Even if you had nothing to hide would you be happy about teachers going through your stuff? Having your phone tapped is an invasion of privacy and also implies that your supposed right to "free speech" can be used against you. I'm not disputing the usefulness of phone taps etc if they're connected to criminal investigations, but if permission to use them can't be obtained through existing legal channels then they shouldn't happen.

[ramblingrose]

I did read Squirrel's post properly and I realise that what I just wrote might look like I didn't, but if Bush had the right to do that why would he be so keen to keep it quiet? And I think the whole Guantanamo fiasco shows that he isn't all that bothered about going by the book when trying to get information.

[Jackal]

At first I didn't care, then I thought it was wrong, and then I didn't care, then I thought it was wrong.

[Hi There, Am Pam]

Originally posted by Squirrel
Naturally, I expect this to blossom into a long and pointless debate within the media and the powers-that-be that will never be properly resolved, and the issue of who exactly was spied on will be neatly skirted around until it is forgotten about. Ho hum.

Ya know, that's EXACTLY what I thought will happen to this issue. It seems like these very serious issues tend to get some hype, but nothing is ever actually done about it. See the whole Abu-Ghraib affiar.


But as far as this issue is concerned, it's rather difficult to tell, from a legal perspective, if this is an impeachable offense and whether it violated Consitutional rights. First, being the obvious difficulty of sorting out what authority he did have (is this 72 hour emergancy situation have details to it that it wouldn't apply to what Bush is doing, or is it essentially the same thing?). Next being knowing the details of how the wiretapping operated, which of course is going to be hush-hush, and what ever does get leaked to the public isn't going to be the whole picture.

I'm gonna try doing some reading from the links you provided, Mark. I think it's gonna take a lot of investigation to determine how legal this whole thing is.

But just in terms of the idea of the government spying on it's own citizens, well, one only has to look at history to see how that ends. The people in power tend to justify it in the same manner Bush is doing (which isn't an incrimination, but just a common theme).

The interesting thing about the history of nations using torture and spying, is what actually takes place is usually far worse than the surface image at the time. People's reactions to these things are along the lines of "We'll never be like that, it couldn't happen here", which is of course absurd and only allows things like that to happen. But that's just a generalization on torture and spying on civilians. We'll have to see more to understand what's actually going on here.

[Hi There, Am Pam]

And I do have to say that it's disgusting the way both Cheney & Bush are pushing the fear of "assiting America's terrorist enemies" (Bush) and "people have lost their sense of urgency" (Cheney). Any criticism on the Bush administration is excused by claiming it's "aiding terorism". To claim that "The fact that we’re discussing this program is helping the enemy” is just absurd. It's pretty obvious what he's going for.


Here's a recent interview with Dick Cheney, by ABC (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/IraqCoverage/story?id=1419206&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312), in which he defends the spying, and states "But I guess one of the things I'm concerned about is that as we get farther and farther away from 9/11, and there have been no further attacks against the U.S., there seems to be less and less concern about doing what's necessary in order to defend the country." He also flat out denys any information the reporter uses:

"Moran: Are you troubled at all that more than 100 people in U.S. custody have died — 26 of them now being investigated as criminal homicides — people beaten to death, suffocated to death, died of hypothermia in U.S. custody?

Cheney: No. I won't accept your numbers, Terry." (I've seen the corner reports, and it's pretty clear proof that it's taking place)

[Hi There, Am Pam]

The more I'm reading, the more I'm convinced what Bush did was illegal and could be an impeachable offense.


There are clearly stated stipulations in The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's requirements for an authorized wiretap. Bush violated those by taking it into his own hands.


From (http://alternet.org/story/29826/)
"Bush's excuses for the illegal eavesdropping are indeed risible. The Times didn't mention it, but of 19,000 requests for eavesdropping the Federal Intelligence Security Court has received from the Executive Branch since 1979, only five have ever been refused. Bush claimed again on Monday that this flagrant flouting of the FISA law was necessary because fighting "terrorists" needed to be done "quickly." Yet, as the Times reported, the secret court can grant approval for wiretaps "within hours.""

I just don't see the justifications the adminstration is claiming, but it's hard to research them because they're being rather vague about it.

[Squirrel]

On the subject of who was being spied on.... this is just a personal hunch, but since we're going back to 2002 for this I think they were bugging the U.N. while they were to-ing and fro-ing about that second resolution over the war. And even though the U.N. can't really do anything to America (the U.S. contributes about 25% of the U.N's income, and so can always fall back on Reagan's trick of withholding funds until it gets it's way) the international scandal could be pretty nasty.

[Noshus Klam]

Originally posted by ramblingrose
But surely the point is they don't have a right to do that? Look at the way some American schools reacted post-Columbine, for example, doing random searches of students' lockers. Even if you had nothing to hide would you be happy about teachers going through your stuff? Having your phone tapped is an invasion of privacy and also implies that your supposed right to "free speech" can be used against you. I'm not disputing the usefulness of phone taps etc if they're connected to criminal investigations, but if permission to use them can't be obtained through existing legal channels then they shouldn't happen.

Yeah, but I just don't care.

[vordabois]

Originally posted by Kris K
Yeah, but I just don't care.

“Government is not reason and it is not eloquence. It is force! Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action!” - George Washington (1732-1799)




"No country can be well governed unless its citizens as a body keep religiously before their minds that they are the guardians of the law, and that the law officers are only the machinery for its execution, nothing more."
- Mark Twain, The Gilded Age

“The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.” - John Adams (1735-1826)

[revgoozen]

Originally posted by Hi There, Am Pam
The more I'm reading, the more I'm convinced what Bush did was illegal and could be an impeachable offense.


There are clearly stated stipulations in The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's requirements for an authorized wiretap. Bush violated those by taking it into his own hands.


From (http://alternet.org/story/29826/)
"Bush's excuses for the illegal eavesdropping are indeed risible. The Times didn't mention it, but of 19,000 requests for eavesdropping the Federal Intelligence Security Court has received from the Executive Branch since 1979, only five have ever been refused. Bush claimed again on Monday that this flagrant flouting of the FISA law was necessary because fighting "terrorists" needed to be done "quickly." Yet, as the Times reported, the secret court can grant approval for wiretaps "within hours.""

I just don't see the justifications the adminstration is claiming, but it's hard to research them because they're being rather vague about it.

i think that justice will be dealt for this disgrace as well as others before it. i just happen to think it will happen a little further down the line, when an impeachment will have a more favorable effect for the dems in the presidential election. there is enough speculation at this point about wrong doing coming out of the presidential and vice presidential offices for me to believe that both bush and cheney could be brought up on criminal charges of some kind. my guess is that there are people out there sitting on crucial evidence, biding their time.

[revgoozen]

Originally posted by Kris K
Yeah, but I just don't care.

btw, your last signature was far more amusing.

[Hi There, Am Pam]

Apparently, violating the FISA act is a felony, and carries a 5 year prison sentance. This is what kind of makes this different than the other scandals which occurred. Most news articles are suggesting that the President does not have any legal justification or backing in this.


But, considering how much they've already gotten away with, it would really not surprise me if they got off the hook somehow. Still, there is enough evidence, and considering that they've admitted it, there's no telling what could happen to Dick Cheney, Bush, and whomever else is legally involved. Makes me wonder who would take his place, depending on how far down this goes.

[revgoozen]

Originally posted by Hi There, Am Pam
Apparently, violating the FISA act is a felony, and carries a 5 year prison sentance. This is what kind of makes this different than the other scandals which occurred. Most news articles are suggesting that the President does not have any legal justification or backing in this.


But, considering how much they've already gotten away with, it would really not surprise me if they got off the hook somehow. Still, there is enough evidence, and considering that they've admitted it, there's no telling what could happen to Dick Cheney, Bush, and whomever else is legally involved. Makes me wonder who would take his place, depending on how far down this goes.

see, i don't really think anyone has gotten away with anything at this point. i gaurentee you that if any democrat worth his salt has any damning evidence on any of these recent scandals involving the white house, he/she is witholding that evidence until the elections are a little closer.

[Hi There, Am Pam]

From a criminal perspective, none of the scandals were impeachable. Well, I guess it depends on what you think of the whole Karl Rove/Plume thing, which I still don't know what to make of.

But most of the scandals have been things like Abu-Ghraib where it is clearly wrong, but lack direct proof of wrong doing on the presidents part (there is some evidence that Rumsfeld ordered such abuse, but it got kinda buried, so I don't know if it was invalid, or inconclusive, or what). Problem has been that there wasn't any real accountablity for these things. It just kind of hits the news, and then disappears, or is blamed on "a few bad apples", or "is the reason why we haven't had any attacks for the past 4 years". Somehow these bullshit excuses lets people off the hook.

[revgoozen]

don't kill my buzz man! i would like to believe somehow that there is a clandestine plot to stick it to the prez.

[Static Split Screen]

I bet the people hired to spy on others just use their newfangled, expensive equipment bought with tax money to listen in on phone sex.