Bush: "Trust me"

Parent Cafe
41

<p>And the President has asked Congress to change that, just as the law allows (since Congress passed it to begin with). What is the problem if Congress OKs it? The President hasn’t overruled the Constitution. He has asked Congress for a bill. You still don’t understand the technology issues. Narrow wire taps in the traditional sense can’t work here. </p>

<p>And as you noted, the Supreme Court doesn’t make law, or does it? The Supreme Court has allowed eminent domain to be used to enrich private enterprise while depriving citizens of their rights to their own property. Where did they find that in the Constitution?</p>

42

<p>“I have never personally met anyone who has had their rights violated for checking out a book, neither have I met anyone who has ever met anyone who has…”</p>

<p>You do realize it is a felony for them to tell you if they did…</p>

43

<p>Geez Bandit, don’t you even read the news? </p>

<p>The uproar isn’t about the president asking Congress to change the law, its about the fact that he has issued 30 consecutive secret orders directly violating the law, and only now admits to it after the NY Times has disclosed what he has been doing. There is and never has been a proposal before Congress to change the terms of FISA. The Bush administration has simply been disregarding the law.</p>

<p>Anyway, I won’t bother to debate with you any more. My dog is better informed. You either make it up as you go along, or Faux News is even worse than I thought it was in terms of explaining what is going on.</p>

44

<p>“So what is the one good reason that these folks have for bypassing the law and the warrant procedure?”</p>

<p>Will anyone answer Calmom’s question? </p>

<p>Was it for expediency? Secrecy? </p>

<p>(Seriously wanting to know.)</p>

45

<p>What applies to your librarian also applies to your doctor. The endorsement that you sign at your doctor’s and dentist’s, annually, describes that without your endorsement to share information with other parties, you will be denied service.</p>

46

<p>Momof2inca,</p>

<p>Power - short and simple - expanding the power of the presidency. They could have had expediency and secrecy under the law that calmom laid out in several posts.</p>

47

<p>source: <a href=“http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/consteng.htm[/url]”>http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/consteng.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Constitution, Article ll, section 1, para 8.

</p>

<p>Is GW thinking that inorder that he protect the Constitution; He must protect its citizens and country against all perceived and real threats and thereby, by inference the Constitution?</p>

48

<p>

Ever since the Korean War, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution – which refers to the president as the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States” – has been interpreted to mean that the president may act with an essentially free hand in foreign affairs. The President chose to monitor foreign nationals that happened to reside in the US. </p>

<p>Now maybe you think President Bush is the first to use Executive Orders to change the law of the land; hardly. Here are just a few examples of how President Clinton misused executive orders or proclamations to put in place policies that Congress didn’t authorize or, in some cases, specifically rejected: </p>

<p>The War in Kosovo – Among other things, President Clinton used executive orders to declare the area a war zone and to call up U.S. military reservists to be sent to the area. These orders were issued despite the fact that Congress - with my support - overwhelmingly rejected a resolution to declare war and also rejected a resolution to declare support for the air war President Clinton unleashed in Kosovo. </p>

<p>Preventing contractors doing business with the federal government from hiring permanent replacements for strikers – President Clinton issued this order in the face of a U.S. Supreme Court decision and despite the fact that Congress had rejected this idea FOUR DIFFERENT times. A federal appeals court voided this executive order. </p>

<p>Creating the 1.7 million acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah just a few weeks before the 1996 presidential election – The House Committee on Resources found: “The White House abused its discretion in nearly every stage of the process of designating the monument. It was a staff-driven effort, first to short- circuit a Congressional wilderness proposal and then to help the Clinton-Gore re-election campaign.” In their article, attorneys Olson and Woll described what happened as an effort “to both bypass and preempt Congress.” </p>

<p>The “Federalism” order governing relations between the federal government and the states - President Clinton initially used an executive order that basically “junked” an executive order by President Reagan. His order had provided that unless the law and Constitution clearly place a particular matter under federal jurisdiction, the presumption should be that the jurisdiction lies with state or local government. President Clinton’s original executive order eliminated that presumption. But under pressure from the nation’s governors, President Clinton dramatically altered his original order. </p>

<p>Or how about these:</p>

<p>President Andrew Jackson used executive powers to force the law-abiding Cherokee Nation off their ancestral lands. The Cherokee fought the illegal action in the U.S. Supreme Court and won. But Jackson, using the power of the Presidency, continued to order the removal of the Cherokee Nation and defied the Court’s ruling. He stated, “Let the Court try to enforce their ruling.” The Cherokee lost their land and commenced a series of journeys that would be called The Trail of Tears. </p>

<p>President Abraham Lincoln suspended many fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He closed down newspapers opposed to his war-time policies and imprisoned what many historians now call political prisoners. He suspended the right of trial and the right to be confronted by accusers. Lincoln’s justification for such drastic actions was the preservation of the Union above all things. After the war and Lincoln’s death, Constitutional law was restored. </p>

<p>In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson could not persuade Congress to arm United States vessels plying hostile German waters before the United States entered World War One. When Congress balked, Wilson invoked the policy through a Presidential Executive Order. </p>

<p>Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066: The President Authorizes Japanese Relocation</p>

<p>EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports. </p>

<p>EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media. </p>

<p>EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.</p>

<p>EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms. </p>

<p>EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision. </p>

<p>EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions. </p>

<p>EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.</p>

<p>EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft. </p>

<p>EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.</p>

<p>EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.</p>

<p>EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis. </p>

<p>EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President. </p>

<p>EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period. </p>

<p>EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months. </p>

<p>EXECUTIVE ORDER 12148 created the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that is to interface with the Department of Defense for civil defense planning and funding. An “emergency czar” was appointed. FEMA has only spent about 6 percent of its budget on national emergencies, the bulk of their funding has been used for the construction of secret underground facilities to assure continuity of government in case of a major emergency, foreign or domestic. </p>

<p>EXECUTIVE ORDER 12656 appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of U.S. citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the United States and granted the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. The National Guard could be federalized to seal all borders and take control of U.S. air space and all ports of entry. Many of the figures in the Iran-Contra scandal were part of this emergency contingent, including Marine Colonel Oliver North. </p>

<p>As you can see, Executive Order is as much the law of the land as anything Congress passes, and has been throughout our history. All from a few minutes on Google:)</p>

49

<p>The executive order did more than permit the communications of foreign nationals to be monitored. Here’s the first sentence of the New York Times article: </p>

<p>“Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.”</p>

<p>Sure, other presidents have issued questionable executive orders. But that in no way obviates the brazen unconstitutionality of this executive order. Bush had seriously breached his oath of office, and made a mockery of his claims to be a “strict constructionist” of the Constitution. Anyone who cares more about the Constitution than personal loyalty to this man should join serious conservatives like George Will and Lindsay Graham in bringing Bush to task for this bafflingly unnecessary reckless behavior.</p>

50

<p>If Bush should be impeached, then I guess Bill Clinton deserves the death penalty! Warning. If you are liberal, you might not want to read this!</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/18/221452.shtml[/url]”>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/18/221452.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

51

<p>It’s unfortunate that any attempt at a serious discussion of the actions of GWB must always devolve into a discussion of Clinton and his misdeeds. I’m no fan of Clinton and even less of a fan of GWB. Even if Clinton did do some despicable things as President, does that absolve GWB of responsibility and accountability for his own presidency and actions? At this point, what difference does it make what Clinton did? What GWB is DOING as President is what should concern every citizen.</p>

<p>As an addendum, that newsmax.com website and it’s surrounding ads are more scary than the article itself! “Click here to help defend Delay!” I think not.</p>

52

<p>Alwaysamom,</p>

<p>It would be important if Clinton had authorized the surveillances illegally but your point is well taken.</p>

<p>Any website that would defend Rush Limbaugh has a credibility problem so I’m assuming the article is a mix of truth and misinformation.</p>

53

<p>Don’t know much about him, but I’m going to assume Limbaugh’s rights are not worth defending–to some–due to insufficient political agreement. Only a “true” civil-libertarian could distinguish the ephemeral angels on the head of that pin.</p>

54

<p>I went back and looked at the news stories covering the Echelon program back in the late '90s, and notice that it’s the Republicans decrying the federal invasion of privacy and the overstepping of NSA bounds. It seems quite clear that during the Clinton administration, the Echelon program was limited to spying on citizens of other countries. However, it is only under Bush that the program was extended to include US citizens. (See below.)</p>

<p>It seems quite clear to me that warrantless searches of citizens violate the 4th Amendment: “Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”</p>

<p>My concern is the “slippery slope” that Bush is following. If it’s all right to spy on Americans because of 9/11, will it be all right to spy on Americans for lesser reasons later? Where will it stop? When will the men in black show up at my door to arrest me for writing what I’m writing now?</p>

<p>Article from 2000: <a href=“http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/06/28/nsa_memos_suggest_echelon_exists/[/url]”>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/06/28/nsa_memos_suggest_echelon_exists/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Quotation from another web site: "NSA Refuses Order From Congress</p>

<p>Early in 2000, the NSA asserted attorney-client privilege to block the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from obtaining documents it requested. Congressman Bob Barr (GA-7) noted in an article in Insight Magazine, “While this argument carries absolutely no legal weight, the fact the NSA made it in the first place is a definite warning sign that something is wrong.”</p>

<p>“In response, Barr and Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) added an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Authorization bill (H.R. 1555), that required the Intelligence Community to report within 60 days on the precise legal standards it uses when communications involving American citizens are intercepted. The version of the bill that actually passed is a much watered down version of what Barr and Inhofe had written, so although H.R. 1555, was signed into law, the report presented by the NSA was next to useless.”</p>

55

<p>

Interestlingly, the same amendment that protects us (supposedly) from having our homes siezed for the benefit of other individuals. At least it was until the liberals on the Supreme Court saw fit to violate it.</p>

56

<p>I was just looking at the opinions on this: <a href=“http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf[/url]”>http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer agreed. OConnor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissented. </p>

<p>I don’t know that I would frame this as liberals vs. conservatives. </p>

<p>I would, however, agree that it was a shameful ruling that I hope will be overturned in the future.</p>

57

<p>

OK let’s look at this from a risk analysis perspective, where risk is a factor of probability of bad things happening times the negative impact of the “bad thing”. I say the probablitity of one of my calls being listened in to are probably significantly less than one in a million (or more likely one in a billion) and would assert that this probability applies to all of us. Now, assume that one of our calls is listened to, what is the “bad thing” that can result? I really can’t imagine a bad thing happening as a result of one of my calls being listened to. </p>

<p>On the flip side of the equation, the probablity of bad things happening to us as a result of terrorism is very high. The 911 commission has said it is not a matter of “if” but “when” another attack will be attempted. Consistent with that finding, a study by Senator Lugar conducted by polling experts in the areas of terrorism and WMD concluded:

<a href=“http://lugar.senate.gov/reports/NPSurvey.pdf[/url]”>http://lugar.senate.gov/reports/NPSurvey.pdf&lt;/a&gt;
These results are consistent with other studies and opinions that I have heard of. Next, multiply these probabilities time the negative consequences. I don’t think it is hard to argue that being vaporized by a nuclear bomb or slowly dieing from a biological or chemical attack are just a tad worse than having your conversation listened to.</p>

<p>Personnaly, I’ll take the “threat” of eavesdropping over the threat of terrorism.</p>

58

<p>FundingFather: Okay, my conversations are innocuous and boring to the listeners. So are yours. What about the conversations of the man (American citizen) down the street who calls his mother in Iran? Can he discuss politics without wondering if he’ll end up in Guantanamo? </p>

<p>When people make arguments like yours, I find myself remembering reading the accounts of “ordinary people” in Italy who were thrilled that Mussolini made the trains ran on time and didn’t really mind that a few Jews were deported.</p>

59

<p>When innocent people start to experience bad things then it is time to reassess. Until then these slippery slope arguments in the face of a very realistic threat are just silly.</p>

60

<p>

Unless you can site a specific case to the contrary, the answer is yes. However, if he uses that as cover to plan an attack on the US, we’ll know, won’t we. Anyone that is doing nothing illegal really has nothing to fear, do they?</p>