Nixon Morphs Into Bush

[gr8fuldaniel]

I am aware MoveOn.org is a biased organization.
They raise a good, unbiased question though.

G.W. Bush seems to think he is a King.
Do You?
With the mere wave of his scepter, laws disappear.

Of course the only laws that disappear seem to be those which check authoritarian powers.
The laws that oppress, persecute and erase civil liberties seem to multiply like rabbits.

The ad features former President Nixon saying, "When the President does it, that means it's not illegal," and morphing into George W. Bush.

Watch the ad Did President Bush Break The Law? Here are the facts. * FISA Was Passed in 1978 to Prescribe Procedures for Physical and Electronic Surveillance. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ( FISA) of 1978 prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between or among "foreign powers." (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht..._50_10_36.html) The highly classified FISA court was set up in the 1970s to authorize secret surveillance of espionage and terrorism suspects within the United States. Under the law setting up the court, the Justice Department must show probable cause that its targets are foreign governments or their agents. The FISA law does include emergency provisions that allow warrant-less eavesdropping for up to 72 hours if the attorney general certifies there is no other way to get the information. (“Judges on Surveillance Court To Be Briefed on Spy Program,” Washington Post, 12/22/05) * According to the New York Times, Bush Authorized a Secret Spying Program Outside the FISA Systems. ”Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others without the court-approved warrants required for domestic spying, according to government officials. . . Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years.” (“Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts,” New York Times, 12/16/05)

These are 2 of 9 Bullett points. (excluding several "sub-bullets")

Are we cursed with an unimpeachable Nixon?

EDIT to add LINK

[xyzer]

gr8...This is a lie!

”Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others without the court-approved warrants required for domestic spying, according to government officials. . .

and you know it! Bush authorized electronic surveillance of known terrorists calls to the USA..not the calls of Americans as you and the NYT state. By the way he has the wartime powers as Commander and Chief to order such surveillance..He was given war powers by Act of congress and by the Constitution!

I think you ought to get your facts straight before you launch off on any demagoguery..

How can people of your political persuasion call Bush a liar when you use false information to buttress your accusations..Isn't that termed hypocracy?

By the way do you think Bush should have advised Al Qaida, you and the New York Times before he ordered surveillance of terrorist phone calls? Would that make sense to you?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: xyzer gr8...This is a lie! and you know it! Bush authorized electronic surveillance of known terrorists calls to the USA..not the calls of Americans as you and the NYT state.

And who did these "known terrorists" CALL when they called the U.S.? And if they WERE known, were they arrested? You must know something to issue such a forceful rebuttal.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Scribbler1, what makes you thinkt he numbers in the USA were trackable to a person. Ya know those disposable cell phones? Kinda hard to arresst anyone if you don't know who they are.

Besides that intel can reap much bigger fish. I would try to track those I could down, and watch them, discreetly until the time was right to move. That's just smart.

Oh and Gr8, DU isn't a biased site, it's one the most venomous pits of hate on the web. Can even you survive on thier forums without an IP ban? I sure as shoot couldn't, and I tried to be like you. The website of the fanatic base of the so called "tolerant" party bans anyone whose ideas are not lock step in with the others...

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Scribbler1, what makes you thinkt he numbers in the USA were trackable to a person. Ya know those disposable cell phones? Kinda hard to arresst anyone if you don't know who they are.

Disposable or not, a wireless phone must go through a cellular carrier and they will at least know who registered the phone before they could use it. I think you're confusing disposable with prepaid cell phones. A carrier's system won't let you use it if it doesn't know who you are.

Besides that intel can reap much bigger fish. I would try to track those I could down, and watch them, discreetly until the time was right to move. That's just smart.

My question still stands though. It's been a long time since 9/11 and I'm quite sure they would have made arrests by now. If for no other reason than to show the people Bush's strategies and plans are actually working. You have to admit he could use a good shot in the arm, PR wise. So far, it seems they only got the one guy and even then they had to drop most of the charges and release him to a civil court.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: xyz By the way he has the wartime powers as Commander and Chief to order such surveillance. He was given war powers by Act of congress and by the Constitution!

Prove It!
FISA was an act of Congress that says he doesnt have the powers you claim. Show me something (besides hot air) that proves otherwise.

Quote by: xyz ....you use false information to buttress your accusations

Such as?

Quote by: xyz By the way do you think Bush should have advised Al Qaida, you and the New York Times before he ordered surveillance of terrorist phone calls?

If he knew they were terrorists, why would a FISA judge deny a warrant? If you dont appreciate our Bill of Rights, you hate one of the best things about America. We have protections against fascism, one of those protections gives us the security of knowing the cops wont come busting down our door in the middle of the night. If I have broken the law, then I have good reason to fear the cops breaking down my door. They can go through the proper channels to get a warrant. It isnt really that big of a deal. FISA has a permanent judge on staff just down the hall in the same building with the justice dept.

They dont only listen in on only terrorists either. We now know they have listened to millions of phone calls. Have they made millions of arrests? No? How many have they made? None?
Would you mind if they listened in on all of you and your wifes phone conversations? How about a microphone in your bedroom? Do you have any intimate conversations. Does it matter?

Bush, in his pea-brain, thinks he can just overrule existing laws. He's an idiot. And he lied to us all about getting warrants for all wire taps, just weeks before NYT finally reported the truth about this fascist. We have the RIGHT to privacy.

V,
I never said anything about DU. So dont get your panties in a Frist.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Not only has bush abused the power vested in him by spying on innocent Americans who were not suspected of anything, he used those powers to spy on his political opponents like Quakers (anti war) and Vegans (wtf?).

Get a rope.

[Zeebadee]

IMHO, bush jr. will go down as one of the most manipulated and ineffective presidents in the history of the U.S. What, besides a minor tax cut, has he accomplished in more than five years in office? Not a damned thing.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Want to hear from some Republicans?

https://political.moveon.org/archive...elaw_sub1.html “Breaking the Law” Claiming national security, Richard Nixon illegally wiretapped innocent Americans. NIXON: In 1969, during my Administration, warrant less wiretapping, even by the government, was unlawful, but if undertaken because of a presidential determination that it was in the interest of national security was lawful. Senate Select Committee on Government Operations to Study Intelligence Operations, Feb 2, 1976 FROST: These meetings produced a plan, the Huston Plan, which advocated the systematic use of wiretappings, burglaries, or so-called black bag jobs, mail openings and infiltration against antiwar groups and others. Some of these activities, as Huston emphasized to Nixon, were clearly illegal. Nevertheless, the president approved the plan. FROST: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal. NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal. FROST: By definition. NIXON: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position. The Third Nixon-Frost Interview, May 20, 1977 When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. NIXON : Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal. The Third Nixon-Frost Interview, May 20, 1997 We put a law in place to protect innocent Americans, allowing the president to wiretap for national security – but requiring a court approval within days. The highly classified FISA court was set up in the 1970s to authorize secret surveillance of espionage and terrorism suspects within the United States. Under the law setting up the court, the Justice Department must show probable cause that its targets are foreign governments or their agents. The FISA law does include emergency provisions that allow warrantless eavesdropping for up to 72 hours if the attorney general certifies there is no other way to get the information. Washington Post, Dec 22, 2005 Government officials are able to get an emergency warrant from the secret court within hours, sometimes minutes, if they can show an imminent threat. New York Times, Dec 19, 2005 Congress made clear back in 1978 that there are two, and only two, statutes that authorize wiretaps within the United States. One is “Title III,” which gives the rules for wiretaps for law enforcement. The other is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which gives the rules for wiretaps for foreign intelligence purposes. Since 1978, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(f) has said that Title III and FISA “shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance ... and the interception of domestic wire and oral communications may be conducted.” 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(f) George Bush is breaking that law. LINDSEY GRAHAM: If he has the authority to go around the FISA court, which is a court to accommodate the law of the war of terror, the FISA Act was–created a court set up by the chief justice of the United States to allow a rapid response to requests for surveillance activity in the war on terror. I don’t know of any legal basis to go around that. There may be some, but I’m not aware of it. “Face the Nation,” CBS, Dec 18, 2005 ARLEN SPECTOR “There is no doubt that this is inappropriate,” said Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who favored the Patriot Act renewal but said the NSA issue provided valuable ammunition for its opponents. Washington Post, Dec 17, 2005 GROVER NORQUIST Referring to what some see as a conflict between fighting vicious terrorists and upholding all civil liberties, Norquist said: “It’s not either/or. If the president thinks he needs different tools, pass a law to get them. Don’t break the existing laws.” San Francisco Chronicle, Jan 26, 2006 JOHN MCCAIN WALLACE: But you do not believe that currently he has the legal authority to engage in these warrant-less wiretaps. MCCAIN: You know, I don’t think so, but why not come to Congress?

[Thorpe Q Ferobe]

Yes........ With one exception...... Nixon was a smart man, something Bush has never been accused of............ Unless the democrats can get both houses back this year, then yes we are stuck.

[Thorpe Q Ferobe]

Quote by: xyzer gr8...This is a lie! and you know it! Bush authorized electronic surveillance of known terrorists calls to the USA..not the calls of Americans as you and the NYT state. By the way he has the wartime powers as Commander and Chief to order such surveillance..He was given war powers by Act of congress and by the Constitution! I think you ought to get your facts straight before you launch off on any demagoguery.. How can people of your political persuasion call Bush a liar when you use false information to buttress your accusations..Isn't that termed hypocracy? By the way do you think Bush should have advised Al Qaida, you and the New York Times before he ordered surveillance of terrorist phone calls? Would that make sense to you?

How can you believe anything Bush says as being the truth? After-all his track record would indicate just the opposite. With no real over-sight how do we really know who they're spying on? There are a lot of us who don't trust Bush. Look at the smear campaigns Rove and Company ran against McCain and Kerry. How do you know they won't abuse this power just as Nixon did with his enemies list.

Adjust the FISA law to fit todays threats if need be. But we need REAL over-sight to make sure King George can't abuse his power. I'm sorry, but putting my trust with Bush is something I'm not willing to do...................

[tilefish]

Quote by: Thorpe Q Ferobe How can you believe anything Bush says as being the truth? After-all his track record would indicate just the opposite. With no real over-sight how do we really know who they're spying on? There are a lot of us who don't trust Bush. Look at the smear campaigns Rove and Company ran against McCain and Kerry. How do you know they won't abuse this power just as Nixon did with his enemies list. Adjust the FISA law to fit todays threats if need be. But we need REAL over-sight to make sure King George can't abuse his power. I'm sorry, but putting my trust with Bush is something I'm not willing to do...................

I am with you Thorpe. I for one refuse to give a single bracnh of government unauthorized freedom to eavesdrop on any American source. Get this straight I support the eaves dropping on truly suspicious sources provided that all these wire taps are reported to an overseeing branch. This would insure that these priveledges were not being abused. Your right I don't trust Dick Cheney or his puppet George W. Bush.

[xyzer]

And who did these "known terrorists" CALL when they called the U.S.? And if they WERE known, were they arrested? You must know something to issue such a forceful rebuttal.

Another specious accusation.. Scribbler....Have you read or seen of any US citizen who has been charged as a result of this surveillance? No! is the only answer you can give..Dig up some and then come back and talk! Right now you along with others are repeating political demagoguery without any foundation except your belief in those that spout it! My rebuttal has challenged you to prove your accusations or be called a liar just as some have called Bush a liar because no WMD were found in Iraq? Can you prove your assertion? Give me the names of US citizens so involved?
This is an intelligence gathering exercise and not a vendetta! NASA is trying to collect intelligence which may allow us to prevent further attacks...not rying to criminalize US citizens behavior. We are at war...or hadn't you heard?

[xyzer]

gr8..gives us another one?

FISA was an act of Congress that says he doesnt have the powers you claim. Show me something (besides hot air) that proves otherwise.

Which do you think takes precedence gr8? Statutes or Constitutional Law? Does not every government action follow on the constitution? Yes FISA(passed during peacetime) is a statute but it is trumped by article 2 of the Constitution which makes the President Commander and Chief of the military and he was given statutory power by that same Congress in the War Powers resolution...and he has been given a buget to conduct the war by congress since and before the invasion of Iraq.

You need to familiarize yourself with the facts and quit regurgitating the nonsense you see on moveon org and other inflammatory sites on the web. Maybe you have been reading the 'Guardian' that bastion of fact and truth.

Another thing gr8 do you think the 72 hour or more time frame that exists under FISA is realistic in wartime? Come now..we need to know right on the spot about AlQaida phone calls..immediatel before the guy can talk. We cant go see a judge and get permission, etc..We need it immediately..THIS IS WARTIME!

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: xyzer Another specious accusation.. Scribbler....Have you read or seen of any US citizen who has been charged as a result of this surveillance? No! is the only answer you can give..Dig up some and then come back and talk!

There is a reason for that. They CAN'T FIND these suspicious people, only ordinary citizens.
And why don't you go back and look at the quote in your own post. It was a question. Can you understand the difference between an accusation and a question?

Right now you along with others are repeating political demagoguery without any foundation except your belief in those that spout it! My rebuttal has challenged you to prove your accusations or be called a liar just as some have called Bush a liar because no WMD were found in Iraq? Can you prove your assertion? Give me the names of US citizens so involved?

I asserted nothing, but I can easily show that YOU are a liar.

Quote by: xyzer Bush authorized electronic surveillance of known terrorists calls to the USA..not the calls of Americans as you and the NYT state.

Now here is what the Washington Post says:

Intelligence officers who eavesdropped on thousands of Americans in overseas calls under authority from President Bush have dismissed nearly all of them as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat, according to accounts from current and former government officials and private-sector sources with knowledge of the technologies in use. (edit) Fewer than 10 U.S. citizens or residents a year, according to an authoritative account, have aroused enough suspicion during warrantless eavesdropping to justify interception of their domestic calls, as well.

And here's ANOTHER liar. Just your kind of guy I imagine:

Quote by: same source Vice President Cheney has made the administration's strongest claim about the program's intelligence value, telling CNN in December that eavesdropping without warrants "has saved thousands of lives."

The Full Story

This is an intelligence gathering exercise and not a vendetta! NASA is trying to collect intelligence which may allow us to prevent further attacks...not rying to criminalize US citizens behavior. We are at war...or hadn't you heard?

This is a fishing expedition by an administration who just can't seem to get ANYTHING right.
And I assume you mean the NSA and not NASA, although you referring to an agency concerned with outer space seems somehow ironic.

Now, about me being a liar...

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: X Does not every government action follow on the constitution?

Not the current government.

Your whole schpeel could have been reduced to Nixons words:

Quote by: Tricky Dick (not cheney) "Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal."

Is that Right? That you think there are no limits to his power?

Quote by: X Another thing gr8 do you think the 72 hour or more time frame that exists under FISA is realistic in wartime?

Yes. Why, dont you think those warrants would be granted? Is it because the retard in chief would be denied warrants for terrorists like VEGANS and Quakers? How about the DNC convention? Should your president be allowed to wire tap John Kerry and break into his offices and steal the computers before the election? That could be construed (with a fascist frame of mind) as protecting the country.

Quote by: X THIS IS WARTIME!

But only because bush fixed intel around his war plan. Congress was duped into (illegally) relinquishing sole authority to declare war. The War Powers Act clearly states:

Sec. 4. (b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad.

So if that intel that Congress requests turns out to be pure fabrications........
Bush should be arrested for treason and shot. After a fair trial, of course.
But you think he should be granted even more power?
....After we know how many have died from his LIES?

U.S. law & declarations of war President of the United States--although he is the commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces, the president has no clear constitutional authority to declare war. Congress of the United States--the sole branch of government with the constitutional authority to formally declare war. War Powers Resolution*--text of the 1973 congressional resolution that attempted to restrict the president's ability to order military deployments by calling for the president to consult with Congress before sending troops into hostilities, to make periodic reports on the status of hostilities, and to end unauthorized hostilities after 60 days.

Congress never formally declared war (on Iraq). And does not have Constitutional authority to WAIVE that power. The war power granted to go after Bin Laden was abused. There was no intel (real or fixed) to show that OBL was in Iraq. But your presidents rhetoric never failed to mention 911 and Iraq in the same sentence. Repetitiously.

When the (un-)Patriot Act was in congress, they tried and failed to slip in a bill that would authorize such evil, unAmerican powers:

PBS SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: I want to make it very clear that the illegal spying on Americans is not authorized by the Congress or by any law whatsoever. This is why I question they're trying to keep us safe from terrorists. We all want to be safe from terrorists. I don't know a Democrat or a Republican who feels otherwise. We want to be safe. But we also want the laws to be followed in this country. Just like when I was a prosecutor, I wanted to catch armed robbers. I wanted to catch drug dealers. But I knew I had to follow the law to do it. JIM LEHRER: Now, you say illegal surveillance. In what way is this illegal? SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: Nobody has been able to point to anything where it's authorized in the law. In fact we have a very specific law that says how the president can conduct surveillance. JIM LEHRER: The FISA law. <SNIP> - - - - - - - The war powers resolution JIM LEHRER: The attorney general just said this surveillance was authorized by the resolution passed by the Congress to use military force after 9/11, that the war powers that you and the members of Congress gave the president all includes this sort of thing. SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: Well, of course, it does not. I was there when that happened. I remember just briefly before we passed the resolution to go after Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. Them coming up and saying, by the way, could we expand this to give us other powers beyond the law? We said no. The White House never came back after that to ask for any further powers. <snip> JIM LEHRER: But here again what the attorney general says, that there's precedent for this, that when presidents in the past have been authorized to use military force, that means use any kind of tactics that are needed when we are at war, and that includes surveillance or anything else, no? SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: We acted under the War Powers Act. We gave authority to go into Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden. I wish the president used that authority. I wish he had caught Osama bin Laden. We'd be a much safer country today had he done that. We did not give him the authority for illegal spying on Americans, period.

Quote by: X Another thing gr8 do you think the 72 hour or more time frame that exists under FISA is realistic in wartime? Come now..we need to know right on the spot about AlQaida phone calls..immediate

You misunderstand that. They arent say they have to wait 72 hours to get the warrants. That 72 hours is a grace period. They can sneak and peak (on probable cause, of course) first, and then within 3 days they can get a warrant AFTER the fact. The only reason they wouldnt ask for a warrant is because they were being perverts and acquiring insider trading info and spying on opposing candidates. You know, stuff that YOU moral highgrounders would NEVER do (Swear to GAWD, on a stack of bibles) so you would not be denied the warrant.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Rive Yeah...unbiased...thats the word...

The question is unbiased. Only a dictatorship would not allow the question. Is your leader a King? Or a democratic Representative?
This president acts like a king who is above the law.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Tomorrow we get to watch Alberto "Torture is Good" Gonzalez flop around in front of the Senate Judiciary. He could declare bush is actually High Chancellor of the Universe at this time. As a distraction.

JIM LEHRER: That's on Feb. 6, Senate Judiciary hearing. SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: And Attorney General Gonzales will have to come and testify. But the law is very, very clear on this. If there are other laws that they need, then come to the Congress and act on it, not this unilateral action. They even said-- and I heard on his interview with you, he said, well, we had all kinds of lawyers or the president said earlier from Kansas we had all kinds of lawyers look at it. Yeah, he had all kinds of lawyers. I'd like to know what kind of lawyers? Are they the same ones who wrote the memo for him saying that we don't have to follow the laws against torture? Now, that was what the administration's position was until the public found out about it. When the press reported what's happening here, now suddenly they're scrambling around trying to find a justification for it. Why weren't they honest to begin with and say, look, we need some other tools? But what happens in this case, now we have Karl Rove out and wants to make it a political thing. We're in this together.

[xyzer]

gr8...You misunderstand ....we are not talking about the War Powers Act of 1973! We are talking about the Congressional Resolution permitting the invasion of Iraq. As Commander in Chief Bush has the power to conduct the war...he was given the authority for the Iraq invasion by Congress and as Commander in Chief he is conducting the WAR..,,,which includes using every means for protecting the nation from the enemy and preventing an attack on this country....In a logical follow up to that assignment(which liberal antiwar activists and hysterics seem to forget)he can legally authorize surveillance of the KNOWN ENEMY and use any intelligence so gained to protect us...Not to get the goods on some US citizen but to gather intelligence. We moved on from criminal surveillance to wartime surveillance..moveon org is still thinking criminal indictment!

The bozos on moveon? don't seem to get it. Their hate for Bush seems to overwhelm their sensibilities.. I suggest you quit reading their nonsense and read mine

[xyzer]

Tomorrow we get to watch Alberto "Torture is Good" Gonzalez flop around in front of the Senate Judiciary. He could declare bush is actually High Chancellor of the Universe at this time. As a distraction.

I think you are going to see the words in my above post repeated. Gonzales will tell you that the President has the authority to surveill an enemy, during war, to gather intelligence information.

You are going to hear some Democrat Congressmen rant about executive power and checks and balances but they don't really have a case. Precedent shows otherwise.Roosevelt authorized tapping Japans code messages during WW2..and also German and Japanese intelligence in general..we were at war! We are at WAR