CHRISTOPHER PYLE: Not terribly surprised, but the one piece of it that amazes me is that the President admitted that he personally ordered the National Security Agency to violate a federal statute. Now, he has no Constitutional authority to do that. The Constitution says he must take care that all laws be faithfully executed, not just the ones he likes. The statute says it’s, as you said at the beginning of the program, that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is the exclusive law governing these international intercepts, and he violated it anyway. And the law also says that any person who violates that law is guilty of a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison. By the plain meaning of the law, the President is a criminal.

AMY GOODMAN: Martin Garbus, you say this is an impeachable offense.

MARTIN GARBUS: Yes, I agree that it is a crime, that it is an impeachable offense. The question is: What will happen? The mere fact that it’s impeachable doesn’t necessarily mean that the Supreme Court will find that, and it doesn’t mean that he will necessarily be impeached. He should be impeached, but he is claiming, for the first time, that he has the authority to do this, even though FISA is there, because he has relied on counsel. He has relied on John Yoo. He has relied previously on Ashcroft, and he’s now relying on Gonzales. And all of these people are telling him that it’s legal. All these people are telling him that the President’s powers can be expanded, even though FISA is there. And the President has come up with an excuse, which I don’t see how anybody can buy. In FISA, you can get a warrant in five minutes. You just go before the FISA court and you get your warrant, and that’s all there is to it. There’s no argument—"


I think this is pretty clear and provable in a court. (cause Bush admitted it).. I included the response from Attorney Garbus, because, of his legal opinion that impeachment should happen, but won't.. which I happen to agree with.. as well as most of you here.

I appreciate the focus on specific crimes and then more on what is proveable, Kucinch's articles are long and.. get a bit.. crazy.. to weed out what crimes Bush actually committed and can be directly held accountable for vs what the team of 'yes' people's crimes are and what they are responsible for.. it just too ridiculous to pursue. (legally)
What I, personally, think is an interesting part of this wiretapping issue is the rulings against Nixon's actions which fueled the creation of the FISA Act. With the Supreme Court as it is now.. I could see how they would support Bush and reverse the decisions that created the FISA Act in the first place... and.. that's just speculation...but interesting...

Spryte, please credit the program from which the quotes were used. We can't publish large sections of material created elsewhere without acknowledging the source.

Thanks.

I'm so sorry.. that was a transcript excerpt (made freely available)from Amy Goodman's radio show Democracy Now!

WS, here is the thing...bear with me on this...

Just because the FISA spells something out does not necessarily bind the President to it. I am not suggesting the President is above the law because he is not. However, the issue is rarely that simple. For instance, we have posted speed limits. Consider for a moment the Louisiana law governing speed:


Note that nothing in the speed laws provides an exemption for emergency vehicles and yet we know that emergency vehicles regularly exceed these posted speeds. Do we seek to remove those emergency personal on the basis of having "violated" the speed laws? Or, do we understand that other bodies of legislation or legal traditions allow them to do so when the circumstances are appropriate?

Now, in the case of the FISA law we have a President who allegedly ordered it violated. The question then becomes NOT do we impeach on that basis but rather did he have the authority to give such an order under other legislation or bodies of legal tradition. The President, and his attorneies, maintain that in his capacity as Commander in Chief he has the authority to order the national security establishment of the United States to take such actions as is deemed necessary to maintain the national security of the United States. Similarly, they argue the use of force authorization Congress passed grants the President the authority to take any such action as he deems necessary in pursuit of the purpose for which the authorization was passed. Intercepting enemy communications is certainly a traditional military-national security activity and such traditional activities are covered under the use of force authorization. Indeed, in other matters recently considered by the SCOTUS that finding was explicitly made.

So, despite the opinions of the guests on Ms Goodman's radio show, the issue is not nearly as cut and dried as some would make them out to be. Not only it debatable as to whether or not the alleged violations of the FISA are impeachable offenses it is debatable whether or not they are even violations.

Yes.. but.. there is legal precedent Lawmage.. in 1972 the US Supreme Court said no to Nixon.. said no, that power (illegal wiretapping of American citizens) is not Constitutional, and that is not a power afforded by the Constitution to the President.

The FISA Act was created for this very thing.. repeat: this .. very.. thing. Nixon's attorneys argued the same fear-based dire situation...that at that time in American history civil unrest was threatening the security of this nation. The Supreme Court said.. no.

I understand your use of allegedly (innocent before guilty and all, very noble...).. but in a public address, he admitted it.

And we both know.. that within the crazy ridiculous (err, my opinion of course) thing called the Patriot Act Bush probably could have very easily side-stepped the FISA Act requirements all together had he done so appropriately and transparently and would have been completely within some sort of Bush/Cheney legal umbrella of love.

So I agree and disagree.
I disagree in that this particular issue is indeed clear cut. Bush, supported by stupendously bad counsel, violated the FISA Act. I agree that everything else is not clear cut.

The problem is that the current FISA argument isn't centered exclusively around "wiretapping American Citizens" despite efforts by the anti-Bush crowd to make it so. It's about intercepting suspected enemy communications originating in other countries. This is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Indeed...My understanding of the FISA is that it generally addresses communications that both originate and terminate inside the United States. On the otherhand, Bush allowed the wire tapping (without resort to the FISA court) of communications that involved an extra-territorial component. Personally, I believe that to be entirely permissible in his role as Commander-in-Chief. Do we REALLY want to try and fight a war while requiring our national security establishment to get warrants in order to listen to enemy communications? Imagine if we had had to get a warrant during World War II every time we wanted to listen in on Enigma or Magic transmissions...We would liekly be speaking German or Japanese in the former United States had we done such a foolish thing.

Of course, I might also point out that the FISA restrictions were intended to address a law enforcement rather than a military issue. The targets of FISA warrants were facing criminal proceedings in a court of law rather than being involved in military activity targeting the United States. It is right and proper that we afford the protections of the FISA system when addressing law enforcement and court proceedings. it is rather stupid to impose those restrictions in an active military campaign. Admittedly, the War on Terror has served to blur the distinction between military proceedings and criminal court proceedings. I think perhaps we need to devise a system whereby we more clear mark the boundary between the two.

Perhaps we need to have a system where we can designate people and organizations as hostile combatants and move them clearly from the legal arena and into the military arena...No warrants would be needed to surveil them and their death rather than their capture would be our goal.

DAX: Hello?
ED: Hey Dax, it's your cousin Ed. Guess where I'm calling from?
DAX: Your new I-Phone?
ED: No man, the Emirates. I'm in the United Arab Emirates.
DAX: Wow, what are you doing there?
ED: The Mrs. and I decided to take a surprise vacation, we threw a dart at a map and this is where it landed. So salaam aleikum, bro.
DAX: That's really cool.
ED: Yeah, I'm pretty WIRED. They showed this movie on he plane called The 300? What a BOMB.
DAX: What's the weather like over there?
ED: Really hot. If I put a can of beer on the ground for ten minutes, it might EXPLODE. Not that I can get a can of beer here.
DAX: I'm glad you're enjoying yourself.
ED: I wouldn't TRADE it for the WORLD. Well, I'm off to the town CENTER, I hear it's DYNAMITE.
DAX: Okay, thanks for calling, take care.


Now I'm delayed for three hours every time I go to the airport.

Even if I just go for a cup of their awful coffee.

My point, I suppose, other than to amuse you, is to suggest that Americans should not be wiretapped in their homes or places of business without a proper warrant. There's a difference between intercepting german messages to other germans in germany and between Joe in the USA and Muhamed in Palestine.

In emergencies the admin has 72 hours anyway before applying for a warrant, and if it's really an emergency and trouble can be averted, then no warrant would be needed because the deed would be self-evident.

So I don't feel better protected knowing the gov't can listen to my conversations and read my email at will, I feel less protected.

That indeed maybe your take on what the problem is.. however, the problem (as stated from my earlier post) is...."that the President admitted that he personally ordered the National Security Agency to violate a federal statute."

No one who has knowledge of this denies that FISA oversees international as well as domestic surveillence. And no one has any dispute with wiretapping foreigners.. that's why it's not germane to the discussion of this... it is indeed a different 'kettle of fish' that's why it's not talked about... because everyone is ok with that kettle.. it's the stinking rotting other kettle that has drawn notice...

"First, when Bush admitted to this wiretapping, they were saying it was wiretaps for surveillance between domestics and people overseas. Now, they’ve admitted it’s the wiretapping and investigation of people within the United States, domestic calls to domestic calls. " ~ Attorney Garbus

Apparently the administration can do whatever it wants in time of emergency, even if there is no emergency.