What's the deal? - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

charlie7 · #31 12-19-2005, 11:17 AM

Appearing with Specter on CNN's "Late Edition," Feingold said Bush is accountable for the program regardless of whether congressional leaders were notified.

"It doesn't matter if you tell everybody in the whole country if it's against the law," said Feingold, a member of the Judiciary Committee.

"The president has, I think, made up a law that we never passed," said Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis.

Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Penn., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he intends to hold hearings.

"They talk about constitutional authority," Specter said. "There are limits as to what the president can do."

Reid acknowledged he had been briefed on the four-year-old domestic spy program "a couple months ago" but insisted the administration bears full responsibility. Reid became Democratic leader in January.

"The president can't pass the buck on this one. This is his program," Reid said on "Fox News Sunday." "He's commander in chief. But commander in chief does not trump the Bill of Rights."

Several lawmakers weren't so sure. They pointed to a 1978 federal law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provides for domestic surveillance under extreme situations, but only with court approval.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., called that troubling. If Bush is allowed to decide unilaterally who the potential terrorists are, he in essense becomes the court, Graham said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

"We are at war, and I applaud the president for being aggressive," said Graham, who also called for a congressional review. "But we cannot set aside the rule of law in a time of war."

boneheaddoctor · #32 12-19-2005, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlie7

Appearing with Specter on CNN's "Late Edition," Feingold said Bush is accountable for the program regardless of whether congressional leaders were notified.

"It doesn't matter if you tell everybody in the whole country if it's against the law," said Feingold, a member of the Judiciary Committee.

"The president has, I think, made up a law that we never passed," said Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis.

Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Penn., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he intends to hold hearings.

"They talk about constitutional authority," Specter said. "There are limits as to what the president can do."

Reid acknowledged he had been briefed on the four-year-old domestic spy program "a couple months ago" but insisted the administration bears full responsibility. Reid became Democratic leader in January.

"The president can't pass the buck on this one. This is his program," Reid said on "Fox News Sunday." "He's commander in chief. But commander in chief does not trump the Bill of Rights."

Several lawmakers weren't so sure. They pointed to a 1978 federal law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provides for domestic surveillance under extreme situations, but only with court approval.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., called that troubling. If Bush is allowed to decide unilaterally who the potential terrorists are, he in essense becomes the court, Graham said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

"We are at war, and I applaud the president for being aggressive," said Graham, who also called for a congressional review. "But we cannot set aside the rule of law in a time of war."

So we all know you are trying to offer maximum support for the AlQueda cells that may be here....

How is your personal dirty bomb program going?

ANd you have ignored the total fact of why this is needed.....thanks to the wall between the FBI and the intelligence communities....established under Bill Clinton with the direction of Janet Reno.

And courts were aware of it..even if YOU personally may not have been notified every step of the game.

charlie7 · #33 12-19-2005, 11:28 AM

What Courts were notified? And what authority or law were they acting under?

boneheaddoctor · #34 12-19-2005, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlie7

What Courts were notified? And what authority or law were they acting under?

Patriot act....and war powers act ....

and the courts were federal courts.....Try reading the patriot act.....wiretaps still need a court authorization.

What problem do you have with the FBI and the CIA and NSA sharing intelligence about terrorists on our soil? Why are you defending terrorists rights to privacy? Becasue they are not spying on the average Joe.

charlie7 · #35 12-19-2005, 12:02 PM

MR. RUSSERT: The law is very clear that a person is guilty of an offense unless they get a court order before seeking to wiretap an American citizen. Why did the president not get a court order?

SEC'Y RICE: The FISA is indeed an important source of that authority, and in fact, the administration actively uses FISA. But FISA, in 1970...

MR. RUSSERT: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

SEC'Y RICE: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, exactly. FISA, which came out of 1978 at a time when the principal concern was, frankly, the activities of people on behalf of foreign governments, rather stable targets, very different from the kind of urgency of detection and thereby protection of a country that is needed today. And so the president has drawn on additional authorities that he has under the Constitution and under other statutes.

MR. RUSSERT: What are the other authorities?

SEC'Y RICE: Tim, again, I'm not a lawyer, but the president has constitutional authority and he has statutory authorities.

MR. RUSSERT: But no one's explained that. No one has said what is--in fact, in 1972...

SEC'Y RICE: Tim...

MR. RUSSERT: ...President Nixon tried to wiretap American citizens and the Supreme Court ruled he violated the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, the courts very, very seldom turn down a request. He could have gone to a court to make sure that constitutional rights were protected for all American citizens.

MR. RUSSERT: Arlen Specter, a Republican, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said this on Friday.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER, (R-PA): It's inexcusable to have spying on people in the United States without court surveillance in violation of our law beyond any question.

boneheaddoctor · #36 12-19-2005, 12:03 PM

Well we have AlQueda sympathisers working in the government..its offical now.

charlie7 · #37 12-19-2005, 12:07 PM

Come on, I mean really. Look I believe that not one request that went before this Court has EVER been turned down! Why does he believe that he doesn't have to follow the law? Is the POTUS above it?

boneheaddoctor · #38 12-19-2005, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlie7

Come on, I mean really. Look I believe that not one request that went before this Court has EVER been turned down! Why does he believe that he doesn't have to follow the law? Is the POTUS above it?

you fail to recognise the fact that before 9/11 the spooks knew about those clowns but the FBI did not becasue they were not allowed to share info.....thanks to Janet Reno , Bill Clinton and the ACLU under the pretext of civil rights...(or the rights for criminals to actually complete their act before anyone can stop them).

No laws were violated. So why does the left preffer to side with AlQueda in their plans to kill americans than with the american people right to search them out and stop them like they are now.

charlie7 · #39 12-19-2005, 12:17 PM

you fail to recognise the fact that before 9/11 the spooks knew about those clowns but the FBI did not becasue they were not allowed to share info.....thanks to Janet Reno , Bill Clinton and the ACLU under the pretext of civil rights...(or the rights for criminals to actually complete their act before anyone can stop them).

No laws were violated. So why does the left preffer to side with AlQueda in their plans to kill americans than with the american people right to search them out and stop them like they are now.

1.The FBI had knowledge of the hijackers but it was discounted WHEN W was POTUS.

2. If the POTUS did not get the Courts approval then yes they were violated.

boneheaddoctor · #40 12-19-2005, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlie7

you fail to recognise the fact that before 9/11 the spooks knew about those clowns but the FBI did not becasue they were not allowed to share info.....thanks to Janet Reno , Bill Clinton and the ACLU under the pretext of civil rights...(or the rights for criminals to actually complete their act before anyone can stop them).

No laws were violated. So why does the left preffer to side with AlQueda in their plans to kill americans than with the american people right to search them out and stop them like they are now.

1.The FBI had knowledge of the hijackers but it was discounted WHEN W was POTUS.

2. If the POTUS did not get the Courts approval then yes they were violated.

You beeter take your meds man becasue those plans were well in effect under Clinton...

And this was done under the law.....unlike what you and the left would like the law to be....If everything was done YOUR way and the way of the left we would have weekly terrorist attacks in the USA that you would not be doing anything to stop....as was proven time and time again under Bill Clintons watch...

charlie7 · #41 12-19-2005, 02:17 PM

No, what the current POTUS did, as it has been explained by the SOS, was with Court approval.
Of course the hijackers plans were well under way, had been for years. BUT, an FBI agent in Minnasota and Az notified thier superiors about flight schools.
The latter is of course irrelevant to what the NSA was involved in.

charlie7 · #42 12-19-2005, 02:17 PM

Should read was not done with the Courts approval.

boneheaddoctor · #43 12-19-2005, 02:59 PM

OK..you live in your fantasy world while we live in the real world....only the left wing democrats actually believe that story you are regurgitating.

charlie7 · #44 12-19-2005, 04:04 PM

Sen. Lindey Graham was not a happy camper over the revelations of these secret surveillance's that President Bush authorized

Graham: I don't know of any legal basis to go around that. There may be some, but I'm not aware of it. And here's the concern I have-we can’t become an outcome-based democracy. Even in a time of war, you have to follow the process, because that's what a democracy is all about-a process.

Graham: What executive order or constitutional provision would give the authority to the President to avoid the warrant requirement?

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER, (R-PA): It's inexcusable to have spying on people in the United States without court surveillance in violation of our law beyond any question.

How these two.

charlie7 · #45 12-19-2005, 04:46 PM

Vice President Cheney had this to say:

It's the kind of capability [that], if we'd had before 9/11, might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11.

We had two 9/11 terrorists in San Diego prior to the attack in contact with al Qaeda sources outside the U.S. We didn't know it. The 9/11 Commission talks about it. If we'd had this capability, then we might well have been able to stop it.

HERE IS THE TRUTH:

This is false and sensational. The secret surveillance program authorized by President Bush did not provide the National Security Agency any new "capability."

The NSA "already had the capacity to read your mail and your e-mail and listen to your telephone conversations. All it had to do was obtain a warrant from a special court created for this purpose. The burden of proof for obtaining a warrant was relaxed a bit after 9/11, but even before the attacks the court hardly ever rejected requests." Indeed, from 1979 to 2002, the FISA court issued 15,264 surveillance warrants. Not a single warrant application was rejected.