Published on December 20, 2005 By drmiler In Politics
This is for ALL the people who think President Bush broke the law by authorizing wire taps without a court order. And YES that includes you col! Maybe ALL of you should go read FISA which was signed into law by President Carter. Yes that's right you read correctly.....Jimmy "the peanut man" Carter. Let me help ya'll by posting the pertinent sections:

Section 1811
of the act pertaining to surveillance during wartime states:
Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

Or this section:

Section 1805
of the Act covers emergency situations where a court order cannot be obtained in advance. Such surveillance can only last 72 hours before an Order is applied for.

(f) Emergency orders
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, when the Attorney General reasonably determines that--
(1) an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained; and
(2) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists;
he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance. If the Attorney General authorizes such emergency employment of electronic surveillance, he shall require that the minimization procedures required by this subchapter for the issuance of a judicial order be followed. In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest.


Now argue with this. That is if you can.

Comments (Page 5)
6 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 
on Dec 21, 2005
GAH! As much as I hate to agree with COL Gene on this, many of his talking points DO have merit. This merits investigation, in my not so humble opinion.
on Dec 21, 2005
What Law school did you graduate from? You do not know what you are talking about as usual. As a FOOL you hold the top position. I have said we need to have the ONLY authority that can rule on the legality of the President's action decide-- the United States Supreme Court! That will END ALL THE SPECULATION!


Just an fyi.....both you and parated2k are partially right. The supreme court can not decide by itself that what Bush did was illegal. You are right in the fact that someone has to bring it to the courts attention by pressing a suite against GW. Then the court would decide whether or not there was sufficent evidence for a trail. Not enough evidence? NO trial!

So get busy so we can have a good laugh when they throw it out for insufficent evidence. I will make a prediction here. This will NEVER go to trial. It will be deemed as legal and that will be the last we hear of it.
on Dec 21, 2005
GAH! As much as I hate to agree with COL Gene on this, many of his talking points DO have merit. This merits investigation, in my not so humble opinion.


Gideon, far be it from me to disagree with you but.......I really think you should go read FISA from 1978. Here's a link.Link
on Dec 21, 2005
Bush did not get the Court approval within the 72 hours as the law provides. HE NEVER obtained court approval. He violated both what HE SAID and the LAW! The article is pure BS and ignores the facts. Look at the link you dip sticks and what Bush said!


YOU personally do NOT know whether he did or not go before the court, do you?
on Dec 21, 2005

Dr you are stating that this current issue is just spin by the libs? That U.S. District Judge James Robertson has stepped down for no reason?

Did you read my whole response?  Or just the first line.  I think I was explicit in my response.  And as far as his stepping down, I did not mention that, nor would I care to speculate on his reasoning.  That is his decision, not mine.

on Dec 21, 2005
Gideon, far be it from me to disagree with you but.......I really think you should go read FISA from 1978. Here's a link.Link


I DID read it. And you're not the first one to make your arguments. I don't know whether Bush broke the law or not, but I believe there's enough here that it should be investigated. For crying out loud, drmiler, we have a system where private citizens can have their lives torn apart for FAR LESS, and you're implying that the president is above scrutiny? Sorry, but your partisanship is showing here...I am CERTAIN that if this had come out under Clinton, you would be DEMANDING an investigation (and you would be right in doing so).
on Dec 21, 2005
Colon Bin Gangrene, go back to school, and actually pay attention this time

The SCOTUS Never tries People! The SCOTUS Never decides the legality of anything. The Supreme Court's purpose is to hold hearings and decide on the Constitutionality of cases.. .Period.

End of Civics 101 for Terrorist Loving Idiots!!
on Dec 21, 2005
I DID read it. And you're not the first one to make your arguments. I don't know whether Bush broke the law or not, but I believe there's enough here that it should be investigated. For crying out loud, drmiler, we have a system where private citizens can have their lives torn apart for FAR LESS, and you're implying that the president is above scrutiny? Sorry, but your partisanship is showing here...I am CERTAIN that if this had come out under Clinton, you would be DEMANDING an investigation (and you would be right in doing so).


You want an investigation? Fine, have one. But do "not" be surprised if nothing comes of it but wasting taxpayers money. I just get sick of everyone jumping on the bash Bush bandwagon. And no, I'm no referring to you in particular.
on Dec 21, 2005
You want an investigation? Fine, have one. But do "not" be surprised if nothing comes of it but wasting taxpayers money.


If that is all that comes of it, I will be satisfied. I won't consider it a waste, either, as the knowledge of the possibility of these sorts of investigations in the future will help keep future administrations in check (this will be especially important if, God forbid, Hillary wins in '08).
on Dec 21, 2005
God forbid, Hillary wins in '08).


She stands about a snowball's chance in hell of making it.

No you would not consider it a waste. But what would you be willing to bet some on JU "will" consider it a waste and use it to bash GW some more.
on Dec 21, 2005
"YOU personally do NOT know whether he did or not go before the court, do you?"-Dr. Miler.

As far as I have read he did skip those courts.

"Critics object circumventing FISA courts to conduct surveillance against terrorists without a warrant is unnecessary"-FrontPage Magazine

"Q: Why did you skip the basic safeguards of asking courts for permission for the intercepts?
A: First of all, I—right after September the 11th, I knew we were fighting a different kind of war. And so I asked people in my administration to analyze how best for me and our government to do the job people expect us to do, which is to detect and prevent a possible attack. That's what the American people want. We looked at the possible scenarios. And the people responsible for helping us protect and defend came forth with the current program, because it enables us to move faster and quicker. And that's important. We've got to be fast on our feet, quick to detect and prevent. "---President Bush, at a press conference Dec. 19, 2005, after the New York Times reported that Bush had directed the National Security Agency to wiretap.

"# He says Bush's decision to sidestep the courts and allow surveillance was an organized effort to regain presidential powers lost in the 1970s."-L.A.Times

"It was bad enough when the New York Times revealed that since early 2002, under an executive order from President Bush, the National Security Agency has been conducting surveillance inside the United States, almost certainly on U.S. citizens, without any sort of warrant approved by any sort of court."-The Daily News

""We write to express our profound concern about recent revelations that the US government may have engaged in domestic electronic surveillance without appropriate legal authority," Dianne Feinstein wrote in the letter, also signed by Carl Levin and Ron Wyden, two Senate Democrats."-FT.Com


Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link


So far from that information I have gathered that he did skip those FISA Courts. And as Sturgee said they would have to get a warrant in that time from the FIS court. 72 hours actually sounds like alot for a court that I have heard has processed warrants within minutes.

"That court has turned down only a handful of requests over the years; in 2002 it approved all 1,228 of them."

Beleive me I want Bush to get the information. However he skipped the warrants? Which also begs the question why? Maybe he was too lazy about it? They could spy on me. I have nothing to hide. However what I would want to know is why he doesn't have any warrant and why didn't he attempt to get one at all. Personally that's the only thing that irks me. He could be spying on 2 domestic Americans having a convo for all I care.. as long as he attained a warrant. If you could provide any info that says he did pursue warrants I wouldn't mind seeing it.
on Dec 22, 2005
I'M NOT A CRIMINAL! I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO HIDE!"


Yes, show cause; still, identity theft is already rampant--do you really want some bureaucrat checking in on your love life and trackdown your SS#?
but your partisanship is showing here...I am CERTAIN that if this had come out under Clinton, you would be DEMANDING an investigation (and you would be right in doing so).
I second this.


on Dec 22, 2005
Your last reply was deleted for not staying on topic.
Do you have a court order to do this? Or are you against invasion of your private[?] domain while curtailing his freedom of speech?; Perhaps you should have copied his comment in lieu of deletion and forwarded to the evesdropping agent assigned JU.

on Dec 22, 2005
If that is all that comes of it, I will be satisfied. I won't consider it a waste,


I agree, but also, the leaker needs to be held accountable also. Whether or not Prs. Bush commited a crime, the leaker definitely did. There needs to be two seperate investigations here.
on Dec 22, 2005
There have been recent articles, sighting high level White House sources that say Bush gets nasty when anyone questions him even BEFORE he takes a public position. That is why Powell resigned. Rice is a Bush lap dog. I see more similarities between Nixon and Bush every day. Similar reports say the same things about Cheney and Rummy. We have a VERY dangerous Executive Branch in power today.




well, which is it, Col? He is either a monkey-puppet, who cannot even string 2 words together, having his strings pulled by Cheney, Rumsfeld, or whoever else you leftys wanna target....or he is a very dangrously bold man, stepping out onto his own, the World Be Damned, kinda guy?

which one is he?
6 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6