House GOP Stages Walkout Over Democrats’ FISA Sabotage
February 14th, 2008 at 04:55pm Mark Noonan
While Democrats choose to play politics over the absurd US Attorneys issue, the GOP brings to mind the real business before the Congress:
House Republicans have walked out to protest the Democrats’ refusal to consider senate-passed FISA legislation that would enable America’s intelligence agencies to effectively monitor terrorists who are plotting to attack. While Democrats can’t find time for that, they did find time to debate the merits of specific individuals on the Administration staff. This is an outrage - our first duty is to protect America. Democrats refuse to take that seriously.
For Democrats, politics trumps all - this is the real “change” they want; a change for the worse.
HAT TIP: Captain’s Quarters
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Congress, Corruption, Democrats, Republicans, War on Terror
88 Comments
1. mda | February 14th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Tell the rest of the story, OK? The hissy fit errr walk-out staged by John “Teary Eyed” Bohner was in large part because the Democrats want to hold Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten in contempt of congress for refusing to testify in the U.S. Attourney scandel. I, like many others hope that those 2 are arrested. What is more important than the rule of law?
If the circumvention of the FISA law was not unlawful, then why would Bush push so hard to grant retroactive immunity to the telecom companies?
I can’t think of anything more un american than the government spying on it’s citizens. And yet some of the posters here claim to care so much about following the constitution and the rule of law. Except of course, when it comes to GWB.
2. mda | February 14th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330637,00.html
3. Mark Noonan | February 14th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
mda,
Got your talking points fast, huh?
Well, if you can’t see how grossly irresponsible and stupid it is to hold national security hostage to partisan political goals, then there’s no hope for you…
4. neocon | February 14th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
mda,
So investigating a non-scandal is more important, right? The person responsible for the communication blunder, Alberto Gonzalez, resigned. Other than that, Bush could fire 8 more USA’s today if he wanted to. He can dismiss them at any time for any reason. Apparently that’s hard for you to understand.
As evidenced by Richard Armitage walking free today, Democrats don’t really care about getting to the heart of issues, rahter than getting to the heart of the administration.
So transparent.
5. Tractatus | February 14th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Deleted - string of insults which don’t remotely add to the debate.
6. Anonymous Coward | February 14th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Mr. Bush is the only one responsible for the telecom’s actions because he mandated the tap. However, if the telecoms conducted espionage outside of the limits of their mandate they should be brought to court for that.
7. Mark Noonan | February 14th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Anonymous Coward,
Well, you did hit upon the real reason for the Democrats’ opposition - they don’t want anything to upset their trial lawyer buddies…who have donated more than $63 million to Democrats and Democrat causes for the 2008 cycle, and more than $480 million since 1998. Can you say “bought and paid for”, boys and girls?
8. plainjane | February 14th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Republicans walking out of Congress? Are Iraqis learning democracy from us or are we learning parliamentary procedures from Iraq? Mabe the Repugs were just going outside for a smoke and pick up their tobacco checks.
Finally Democrats are starting to show a backbone. Elections have consequences.
9. Joe | February 14th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Gee, wasn’t it the White House that were accusing the Dems of “Political Theatre”?
Didn’t the Repub Senators complaining when the Dems called a closed dorr session to protest something? I think you on Blogs for Bush blasted the Dems for doing so.
So what is this? The Dems fault because the Repubs didn’t want to follow the schedule of the majority?
10. mda | February 14th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Deleted - off topic
11. Tractatus | February 14th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
So what is this? The Dems fault because the Repubs didn’t want to follow the schedule of the majority?
Basically. Also, such tactics are only OK if you’re Republican. Otherwise, they are horrible.
By the way, good on the GOP for interrupting the memorial service for Tom Lantos in order to stage (and yes, “stage” is the best term for it) a meaningless protest vote. Stay classy and mature, Republicans!
12. Diana Powe | February 14th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Of course, the Republicans walked right back into Congress in time for the next vote on recognizing the achievements of African-American scientists, engineers and mathematicians. The entire stunt is a complete sham because the law in question, the Protect America Act says this (emphasis added):
and it also says this about the sunset provision
What is Section 2? Why it’s the section that the Protect America Act added that allows for acquisitions for up to a year after the act expires.
13. McLame '08!!! | February 14th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Senator Bond, and I paraphrase, said, “Perhaps if Al Qaeda were on steroids, then the House would…”
My sentiments exactly. I can envision the following scenario:
Mimi Piglosi: Mr. Waxman, the terrorists have taken down the Golden Gate Bridge.
Waxman: Can’t win ‘em all, Nance–at least we saved baseball!
14. Joe | February 14th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Can’t argue there. Talking steroids in baseball is the dumbest thing there is. And I am a huge baseball fan! But there are much more important things than this.
I was equally pissed off when the Repubs brought in the baseball players a couple of years ago to talk steroids!!!! There were more important things then too!
15. McLame '08!!! | February 14th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Was it a big show trial, Joe? Was it as partisan as this one? This was all b/s and show by Waxass and the rest of the donkaroaches on the committee. This problem has been around for years, and I bet the owners/managers knew all about it. Waxman has no business messing with a private entity, but I guess he’s getting in some practice for when the socialists take over.
I see Bossie and Elsie…I mean, jane and Diana, have weighed in. Got milk?
16. mda | February 14th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Deleted - complains about comment policy.
17. Kahn | February 14th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Baseball steroid hearings do not feed a single child.
18. Almiranta | February 14th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
There has been plenty of information on the international surveillance program posted on this blog, on the thread titled “Obama’s Message of Hope—for the Terrorists”.
Read posts # 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 38, 47, and 61. Yes, there was a LOT of information presented. Then you can go back and read post after post simply denying the facts, and/or showing ignorance about the difference between criminal prosecution and civil actions (lawsuits). It’s an amazing display of Intelligence vs Ideology, and the Lefties are so outgunned it is pathetic.
Not that being outgunned slowed them down. They just ignored the facts and kept regurgitating their tired old talking points, flying in the face of reason, shameless in their determination to simply flood the thread with lies as if that would change anything.
And I MEAN “shameless”. They have no shame. Hundreds of citations about the legality of international surveillance, and they just ignore it all and whine on and on about “wiretapping” and “eavesdropping on Americans” and such pap. No shame at all.
I will say this—Diana earns her pay. She never gives up no matter how many facts are piled up against her, no matter how many inventions she has to come up with.
19. Almiranta | February 14th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
I guess the only protest that gets any respect from our resident Lemmings is a pajama party………..Now, THAT’S class!
20. Obama2008 | February 14th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Deleted - off topic
21. js | February 14th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section1
The Constitution actually doesnt give Congress rule over the Executive Office or its designated Powers.
If they think Bush have violated laws that breach his Obligations, commited crimes and/or misdemeanors, then they need to hold hearings for a formal impeachment.
The Supreme Court will not give Congress unlimited reign over the Executive Office, nor with the President, so effectively, they need to put up or shut up.
Wiretapping under the Executive Powers is simply the collection of information which is granted to the President for the purpose of defending the USA. He can do it inside or outside this nation. Its his duty.
22. liberalT | February 14th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
mark - the point is that there is absolutely no reason why they just can’t get a damn warrant. It has worked against organized crime, it has worked against terrorists in the past, it has worked time and time again. Nobody is saying that we shouldn’t fight terrorism - just do it in a lawful way consistent with the damn constitution why is that so hard to understand?
Secondly - why is it so hard to understand that firing people because they won’t prosecute people for political reasons shouldn’t happen.
Sorry Mark - you are the one who is playing politics. You are the one who is threatening constitutional rights. You are always the problem - not the solution
23. neocon | February 14th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
>>I would like any republican to explain exactly how Josh Bolton and Harriet Myers is above the law - Obama<<
Read up on Executive priveledge.
libT,
If the USA’s ignore policies set by the administration, any administration, they are not doing their job and should be fired. Period. Also, their job description is that they work at the desire of the President. Now, I know you’re a slow on, but even you should be able to wrap your mind around that.
The Congressional Democrats know this legislation was coming to a vote, having been passed unanimously by Harry Reids Senate. But instead, they choose to grandstand, and will eventually pass the bill, having wasted everybodys time. Now that’s leadership. Nancy Pelosi is an embarrasment.
24. Plainjane | February 14th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Wasn’t it the Repugs just a few short years ago proud of the fact they would only bring legislation to the floor they were 100% certain they would win.
25. SEW | February 14th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
liberalT–”just do it in a lawful way consistent with the damn constitution why is that so hard to understand?”
Ladies, It is you having problems with the constitution and understanding. But so does Ginsburg. George W is Commander in Chief. And it is lawful, as the Constitution grants. The only “rights” threatened are your buddies, the terrorists. Got it?
26. liberalT | February 14th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
If the USA’s ignore policies set by the administration, any administration, they are not doing their job and should be fired. Period. Also, their job description is that they work at the desire of the President. Now, I know you’re a slow on, but even you should be able to wrap your mind around that.
—
ah - great response. So what you are saying is that - even if the president asks them to do something which is illegal - if they don’t do it they should be fired because the President told them to.
Wasn’t that the nazi excuse - I was just following orders?
27. Some Assembly Required | February 14th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
“If the USA’s ignore policies set by the administration, any administration, they are not doing their job and should be fired. Period. Also, their job description is that they work at the desire of the President. Now, I know you’re a slow on, but even you should be able to wrap your mind around that.”
Maybe I am slow Con, but what your emplying here is that the president is essencially above the law. If that is the case, isn’t he then a dictator?!?! If so can you please explain to an idiot such as myself how that is american?!?!?!
28. neocon | February 14th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Jane,
Please provide a quote, or something that proves your assertion in post# 24.
29. neocon | February 14th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
SAR,
Your ignorance never lets me down. Emplying should be implying, and essencially should be essentially,just FYI, could have been typos.
Anyway, let’s say that you run a company, and some of your employees have decided to disregard some of the company policies. Do you believe you would have the right to fire them?
Also, the fact that this non-scandal is even resurfacing is further evidence of the Democratic agenda to destroy the authority of an elected administration. Real class. And Nancy Pelosi has destroyed the perception of women in power and is possibly responsible for Hillarys poor results. Thanks Nancy.
30. Diana Powe | February 14th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Almiranta,
So what part of the Protect America Act of 2007 did I misquote in Comment # 12 or are you wishing to just deny the fact that the plain language of the statute says what it says? As I said, the GOP walkout today and all the pressure from the White House over the expiration of the PAA is a complete and total sham. Foreign intelligence intercepts will go on even if the statute sunsets. There is no reason for this political theater except an attempt to buffalo the Democrats into agreeing to provide retroactive immunity to the telecommunication companies.
31. neocon | February 14th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
libT,
Prove that they were asked to do something illegal? Otherwise, I’ll chalk that statement up to agenda driven, paranoid lunacy.
Isn’t that what the Nazi’s were all about?
32. neocon | February 14th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Diana,
Why do you suppose Harry Reids Senate passed the bill unanimously?
And not granting telecommunications immunity is tantamount to a full employment act for trial lawyers. How much money did you contribute to John Edwards?
33. Some Assembly Required | February 14th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Con,
Companies have something called a code of ethics. If an employee deems company policy to be unethical they should not participate in it and inform the proper people whether that be the CEO, or the proper authorities and not face reprocussions, I believe that is their right as workers. Same as refusing to do work which can be hazardous. And you call me ignorant.
Sorry for the spelling, spell check isn’t working now for some reason.
34. neocon | February 14th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
SAR,
Again, proving your ignorance. A companies code of ehthics are always vetted and pre-approved by company attorneys and HR departments, assuring that they will stand up in court against opposition.
So, I will ask you again, if that said employee violates company policies, can they be fired?
35. Diana Powe | February 14th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
neocon,
Yes, I have a really clear mental image of the legal departments of ATT, Verizon, et al cowering in fear before the attorneys of the Electronic Freedom Foundation. Get real.
36. neocon | February 14th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
OT,
But I think the GOP should hire Hillary as a consultant when they run against Obama in the GE.
I like the following quote:
“My opponent gives speeches, I offer solutions.”
And this one especially hits home:
“My opponent says that he’ll take on the special interests,” she said in her prepared remarks. “Well, he told people he stood up to the nuclear industry and passed a bill against them. But he actually let the nuclear industry water down his bill — the bill never actually passed.”
37. neocon | February 14th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Diana,
I am convinced you have a real clear mental image. Mental, being the operative word.
38. Almiranta | February 14th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
re: #30
DP, did I say you misquoted? What’s your point? It seems to me that you are trying to convey the illusion, totally false I might add, that there is something fishy about “retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies”.
See, I did not claim you said that. I am candid—I just said that that is the impression I got from your post.
Surely you are not still claiming that this immunity from civil actions represents any effort to ‘cover up’ any wrongdoing, or in any way imputes even the illusion of illegality. That has been so thoroughly debunked even you should hesitate to try to drag it out for one more spin around the track.
And you are too smart to play dumb and pretend that you don’t understand the difference between civil actions and criminal prosecution, or to pretend that you don’t understand that this is ONLY to prevent people from trying to extort money from these companies by filing frivolous lawsuits. You cleverly let the already-identified Lefty dimbulbs carry that water for you.
So—what’s your point? More to the point, to try to establish a world record for the use of the word ‘point’ in one paragraph, what’s THEIR point?
I’ll tell you my opinion. My opinion is that the House, fully understanding the need for this legislation, fully understanding the reason the Senate passed it unanimously, fully understanding all the ramifications of the bill, has chosen to grandstand in a bogus protest against it in an effort to curry favor with the radical Left. We’ve seen this clumsy gamesmanship before, and it has always made the Dems look like idiots, but that seems to go over the head of Pelosi, who is nearly criminally inept at the stategies necessary to effectively hold her position.
Fine. Let the House posture, let them try to walk that fine line between appeasing their masters with the money way way over on the Left, and those oh so generous trial lawyer lobbyists, while holding to the party line (which you seem to have ready access to…) that they are not really endangering national security after all, so they can play both sides of the position.
Are you claiming that there was no need for this legislation in the first place? Why did those clever Dems let that get past them? If that is the case, and this new legislation does NOT strengthen the bill, then why did they vote on it at all in the Senate?
39. Some Assembly Required | February 14th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Con,
If company policy is unethical no they should not be fired. Companies are not the only provider of ethics. What part of that in my last post did you not understand? Or will your next post say I believe america should be a theocracy again…
Also, Professional Associations can and do have their own set to ethics. Doctor’s and Engineers for Instance, and so these eithcs take prescedence over any companies.
If an employee violates company policy for no apparent reason with no extenuating (sp?) circumstances obviously.
But your position of defending a company or in this case president because he directed policy in which laywers who worked for him refused to carry out because they deemed it unethical is ludacris.
40. neocon | February 14th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
SAR,
Is Bush your brothers keeper? Do you cry when Obama speaks of his kingdom? LOL.
And there was never any claims from the fired US Attorneys (that I saw) claming that they felt the duties assigned were unethical. So that’s just another red herring.
Next.
41. Diana Powe | February 14th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Almiranta,
Yes, I AM claiming that there was no need for the Protect America Act to start with. We have a law that covers the issue. It’s called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and it doesn’t have any sunset provision at all.
Regardless, the point is that even if the PAA were necessary, it’s sunsetting does not harm our ability to conduct surveillance. It’s plain language allows for surveillance for a full year after it sunsets and that is on top of the FISA statute which doesn’t. I’m sorry if you can’t read and understand the text.
The reason for the civil actions is that the Executive Branch instigated the commission of felonies in violation of FISA beginning in late 2001 or early 2002. As such, they are not especially inclined to prosecute themselves criminally. So, the alternative is civil actions.
I understand you’ve personally had bad experiences with civil litigation but don’t try to tell me about how the legal departments of ATT and Verizon are shaking in their shoes at the prospect of the vast resources of the Electronic Freedom Foundation. I live in reality.
42. Some Assembly Required | February 14th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Con, you are hilarious. my brothers keeper, where do you come up with it to…
I don’t know about cry when Obama speaks but there will be tears of joy when bush is out of office. Similar to there being laughter when Clinton was booted out because he received oral sex and lied about it so his wife wouldn’t find out.
Next I’m sure you’ll be calling me a usefull idiot or some fascist lefty.
No, he just thought trying to obstruct an election was a bad idea… not that it was unethical.
43. Some Assembly Required | February 14th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Diana,
I don’t understand how you have the patience to read though Almiranta’s posts. I used to have friends that would rant like that, sure it would be funny at times but I never did have the patience to sift through the shreds of fact for a rebuttal. My hat is off to you.
44. neocon | February 14th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
In other words SAR, you don’t have the time to fully consider the facts and another viewpoint?
Good to know. Cheers.
45. Some Assembly Required | February 14th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Haha, Nice spin Con, well played sir. Though I thought “sift through the shreds of fact” was pretty self explanatory.
Bottoms up.
46. Christian Wright | February 14th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Many people have suggested that President Bush and Bin Laden are working together to promote their individual agendas. While the Republicans need the fear tactics to stay in the White House, Bin Laden needs the presence of America in the Middle East to promote his Al-Qaeda ideology. The bottom line is that it will be oil profits for both of them instead of the Iraqi people.
Why did Bin Laden come out from hiding to speak some months just before the last Presidential election? Was it to show Americans that the terror threat was still very real and that President Bush was the tougher man? I will be forced to believe that Bush, the Republicans, and Al Qaeda are deceiving the world, if a terror strike takes place or Bin laden speaks again just before this coming election in November. I say this because a man on the run will like to remove his enemy from power, but Bin Laden’s speech before the election will keep his “supposed enemy” in power.
Why would Bush spy on his ally? He is spying on us.
47. SEW | February 14th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Christian, quit hogging the pipe man. Pass it around. Peace, and vote for change.
48. js | February 14th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
You lib’s are like jackals baying at the moon.
To date, no charges have been presented. The best they have is to harrass the Presidents men.
Its all hot air and conspiracy theories.
And fool moons.
49. js | February 14th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
41. Diana Powe | February 14th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Almiranta,
Yes, I AM claiming that there was no need for the Protect America Act to start with. We have a law that covers the issue. It’s called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and it doesn’t have any sunset provision at all
—//\\—
You need to wake up DP.
Even the FISA courts defer to Presidential Authority.
Your holding a bucket with a hole in it.
50. js | February 14th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
For nearly 200 years it was understood by all three branches that intelligence collection–especially in wartime–was an exclusive presidential prerogative vested in the president by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, John Marshall and many others recognized that the grant of “executive power” to the president included control over intelligence gathering. It was not by chance that there was no provision for congressional oversight of intelligence matters in the National Security Act of 1947.
Space does not permit a discussion here of the congressional lawbreaking that took place in the wake of the Vietnam War. It is enough to observe that the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and when Congress attempts to usurp powers granted to the president, its members betray their oath of office. In certain cases, such as the War Powers Resolution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, it might well have crossed that line.
Keep in mind that while the Carter administration asked Congress to enact the FISA statute in 1978, Attorney General Griffin Bell emphasized that the law “does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution.” And in 1994, when the Clinton administration invited Congress to expand FISA to cover physical as well as electronic searches, the associate attorney general testified: “Our seeking legislation in no way should suggest that we do not believe we have inherent authority” under the Constitution. “We do,” she concluded.
51. Diana Powe | February 14th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
js,
The president does have “inherent authority” but that is not equivalent to unlimited authority. The president’s inherent authority to gather intelligence was limited, as allowed by the Constitution, by the co-equal legislative branch after the litany of abuses by the CIA and the FBI were uncovered by the Church Committee. That’s why we have FISA.
52. js | February 14th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
You need to either quit paying lip service to a false god or present evidence that this authority is not constitutional.
This is the third time this year Ive seen you post on this, and the last two times you failed to present such factual evidence. Obviously, with a rabid hatred of Bush which was fanned to gain power (and nothing more), the leaders of the Democrat Party has yet to charge any crimes for illegal wiretap.
Its like a good fart, makes a lot of stink, and thats about all the Democrats can do. In the end, real Americans are smart enough to see that the power the Democrats are grasping for are the same one that would destroy this Nation as a Republic. As it is, we must struggle through the grasp that the Democratic Capitalists have on this Nation, through the Democratic National Party. We are NOT a Democratic Capitalist nation, we are a Republic of the People. Evern member of Congress needs to acknowledge that and end thier affiliation with Corporate Lobbiest.
If they dont, this nation will fall to its knee’s, and we will be destroyed by our own elected, corrupt leaders.
53. js | February 14th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
51. Diana Powe | February 14th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
js,
The president does have “inherent authority” but ……..
—-//\\—-
There is not “buts”.
Its period.
54. js | February 14th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
The president’s inherent authority to gather intelligence was limited, as allowed by the Constitution, by the co-equal legislative branch after the litany of abuses by the CIA and the FBI were uncovered by the Church Committee. That’s why we have FISA.
—-///\\\—-
LOL
You been drinking to much.
THE ONLY THING THAT CAN CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION IS AN AMENDMENT RATIFIED BY 2/3 OF THE STATES.
there you go, barking at the fools moon again!!
55. Xango Annie | February 14th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
SAR..Diana reads thru everything, ’cause that’s her JOB!!!!! Paid or unpaid….doesn’t matter.
56. js | February 14th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
DP is actually a chinese guy sitting in some sweathouse room full of computers getting paid two dollars a day to spread propoganda in America to undermine our society.
Two bucks a day over there is pretty good money. Dont laught!@!
57. Diana Powe | February 14th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
js,
Let me acquaint you with a colloquial expression - The fox guarding the chicken coop. FISA was enacted by Congress (the LEGISLATIVE branch) in 1978 to make it a felony to conduct electronic surveillance in regards to foreign intelligence gathering against “US persons” without a warrant issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). Violations are felonies punishable by up to five years in prison.
The responsibility for enforcing all federal law lies with the Justice Department. The Justice Department is part of the EXECUTIVE branch. It is the Executive Branch that initiated the activities that are in violation of FISA.
Oddly, they’re not anxious to pursue a prosecution against their own boss. Does that seem surprising to you?
58. bongoman | February 14th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
js, as Diana suggests, your view that the President has unlimited power in this area, is wrong at totally at odds with virtually every founding principle of the USA. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing that supports this view, save for the legal arguments of the Bush Administration.
As I posted yesterday, Article II of the Constitution imposes the opposite obligation: “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Lawbreaking is still illegal even if George Bush says it should be done.
It’s simple: the Bush Administration broke the law.
Section 1809 of FISA states:
The Administration admits that it conducted surveillance in a way that is prohibited by FISA.
The Article II argument used by you and the Administration is a desperate atempt to justify presidential law-breaking.
Nothing in Article II mentions or even references the power to eavesdrop, the power to engage in surveillance, or the right to violate Congressional statutes.
In fact, the only clause in Article II which seems to relate to this issue is one that strongly undercuts the claim that the President has the right to violate Congressional law. That’s the part requiring that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . . ”
Why you want to allow the President to have the power to break the law, I don’t understand. Although I suspect if it was a President Obama breaking the law, your interpretation of the Constitution would be slightly different.
Your argument that Article II allows for the President to break the law is a crock.
59. js | February 14th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Sorry DP.
That same excuse is all you have presented, all 3 times you hack on it. Its still wrong.
The President ordered Wiretaps under Presidential Authority. Years ago.
NO CHARGES are pending.
If this is all you have, you would have been better off not responding at all.
You can ignore what Ive already pointed out, just like you did before, but that doesnt change the truth.
The FACTS, not your wishy washy baying at the fools moon, is all that matters. Either find some new material, or quit posting the same lies over and over.
In the real world, that means put up or shut up. The DNC has had control of BOTH HOUSES for OVER A YEAR NOW.
There are “NO CHARGES”. ARE YOU THAT STUPID?
60. bongoman | February 14th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
js:
Is that the best you can do? Attack Diana instead of dealing with the issues she raises in an adult, rational manner? Just ’cause you don’t care about the rule of law isn’t a reason to attack those who take it seriously.
61. js | February 14th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
58. bongoman | February 14th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
js, as Diana suggests, your view that the President has unlimited power in this area
—///\\\—
Thats Bull. Diana play with the same broken wind up toy you are playing with obviously…..
Real facts, not gossip, are what matters. THERE ARE NO CHARGES AGAINST BUSH.
Are you just as stupid as DP?
We already know the FISA Courts arent. The specifically identified Executive Powers, which they have ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY OVER.
WTFU and stop baying at the fools moon.
62. js | February 14th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
60. bongoman | February 14th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
js:
Is that the best you can do?
—///\\\—-
Its all I need.
Because its true. Are you there, sitting next her? Because you are using the same lame political propoganda he does.
Small minds must think alike, eh?
63. Diana Powe | February 14th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
js,
Pray tell us how the Congress orders the Justice Department to prosecute the President for violating federal law? Let’s see…Congress is the Legislature. DOJ is in the Executive. Nope. Doesn’t happen. Try again.
64. bongoman | February 14th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
js, the absence of charges does not mean the law was not broken. It is a logical fallacy to equte the two.
Maybe you should be asking *why* no charges were brought? But that would involve dealing with Diana’s point above about the DoJ. But it’s much easier to stick your fingers in your ears and rabbit on irrelevantly about the lack of charges.
65. js | February 14th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Prey tell, DP, Congress “ASKS” the Senate. oh ya, pelosi and reid, the two DNC stooges
I guess its pretty simple, except for some stumping chinese dood in a sweatbox in CHINA eh?
You dont have a clue what impeachment is.
Try again little chinese propoganda communist.
66. js | February 14th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
64. bongoman
Actually bongo, charges are preferred when laws have been broken.
there are NO CHARGES
or do you thing PELOSI AND REID are morons and dont have the resources to figure out whats right and whats wrong?
you two peas in a pod or SO LAME
your liberal puke needs to be flushed
67. Diana Powe | February 14th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
js,
Careful, your hatred is showing and that’s supposedly something that only “leftys” do. You’re correct, the Constitution does allow for impeachment of officials in the Executive Branch. However, the mere fact that the authority exists for the Congress to take action to impeach does not equate to a will to impeach, especially when actually removing someone from office would require a number of Republican senators to vote in favor. Now, how likely do you think that is?
I’ll help you out. The answer is zero.
68. js | February 14th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
DP Commie
Thats not hatred. Its the truth.
The ONLY FACT that matters. None of your double talk changed that. Its the DUTY of the SENATE to determine judicially the guilt or innocence of the President if he breaks the law. NOT Congress. If the Senate Convicts the President, they can vote to impeach him. After that, Congress can remove him from office.
Your lies are old. You have not put forward a single credible argument. You are just plain stupid when it comes to this issue. All you have in your head is propoganda. NO FACTS. NO SOLID ARGUEMENTS. NOTHING but gossip and rumors.
is your shift over yet? Im done wasting my time on you.
69. Diana Powe | February 14th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
js,
You need to read over the Constitution of the United States. Here’s what it says about the duty of the President - “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. That would include the law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Here’s what the Constitution says about impeachment - “The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” and “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.” Now, the House could send articles of impeachment for the President to the Senate, but they obviously have chosen not to engage in a futile exercise because there are zero Republican senators who would vote to remove George W. Bush from office.
70. SEW | February 15th, 2008 at 12:45 am
DP, #69 is very lame, again. Color it with verbosity all you want. It is lame and assinine. Empty.
71. Diana Powe | February 15th, 2008 at 12:51 am
Gee, SEW, not too fond of the Constitution? Most of that comment comes directly from that document. However, thanks for the “substantive” critique.
72. Jeremiah | February 15th, 2008 at 1:53 am
there are zero Republican senators who would vote to remove George W. Bush from office.
Because there is zero reason to remove him. Period. Dot. End of Story.
Plays into the hands of “Her Majestic Highness” .. no more!!
–Jeremiah–
73. McLame2008!!! | February 15th, 2008 at 5:44 am
It has worked against organized crime, it has worked against terrorists in the past, it has worked time and time again.
More uncited b/s–when has it worked against terrorists in the past, jerk?
Secondly - why is it so hard to understand that firing people because they won’t prosecute people for political reasons shouldn’t happen.
The USA’s serve at the pleasure of the President, just as do members of his cabinet. He can let them go for NO reason whatsoever. And so what if those reasons are political? He should’ve gotten rid of all Clinton holdovers when he took office, in all departments, but he had to attempt a “new tone.” It bit him in the arse real hard, and damaged his presidency.
Post #46, by CW, is classic. Could we get some of that crack you’re somking, CW?
You kooks should follow Diana’s, aka Bossie, lead. At least her b/s sounds intelligent. The rest of you are laughable, a bunch of t/p-repeating parrots.
Piglosi: Henry, some of the terrorists we transferred to Ft. Leavenworth, after we closed Git’mo, have escaped. What should we do?
Waxman: Have them move to MD–they can get drivers licenses there, and become registered Democrats. Hey, did I mention we saved MLB?
74. js | February 15th, 2008 at 6:47 am
69. Diana Powe
Poor Diana Powerless.
You have backtracked and double talked this issue enough. Im done with your spinning topics out of context. Any moron can do that, you are no different, and one of the worst.
The one thing that doesnt support you is the truth. Bill Gates might have given you his fortune, but he didnt. Scientists might have figure out how to draw electricity straight out of air last year, but they didnt. We could land on Mars tomorrow morning, and establish a colony, but we wont.
And Congress has not asked the Senate to try Bush for any crime whatsoever.
Your fantasies are just that, fantasies. You score no points for spreading lies, rumors and gossip…..its only result is that its proven that you are full of poop.
75. plainjane | February 15th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Please provide a quote, or something that proves your assertion in post# 24.neocon | February 14th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Sorry for the cut and paste, it is something I do not like to do. But since you get most of your news apparently from wingnut radio I can understand why you are a little out of touch compared to the average American. Here is a Washingtonpost article with the answer to your question. If you say it is a lie take it up with Mr. Babington. It must be sad to watch your party tilt toward Facism.
Hastert Launches a Partisan Policy
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 27, 2004; Page A01
In scuttling major intelligence legislation that he, the president and most lawmakers supported, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert last week enunciated a policy in which Congress will pass bills only if most House Republicans back them, regardless of how many Democrats favor them.
Hastert’s position, which is drawing fire from Democrats and some outside groups, is the latest step in a decade-long process of limiting Democrats’ influence and running the House virtually as a one-party institution. Republicans earlier barred House Democrats from helping to draft major bills such as the 2003 Medicare revision and this year’s intelligence package. Hastert (R-Ill.) now says such bills will reach the House floor, after negotiations with the Senate, only if “the majority of the majority” supports them.
76. westmich | February 15th, 2008 at 8:49 am
The hypocrisy knows no bounds on this thread – on both sides!
ATTORNEY FIRINGS
Did Bush have the right/authority to fire the attorneys? Absolutely. How many attorney did Clinton fire and for what reasons? As far as I know, none of the attorneys Bush fired said they were asked to do anything illegal or against their code of ethics.
CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS
Does Congress have the right to subpoena witnesses to something it is investigating? Absolutely. This has happened on both sides but not any more extreme then when Republicans subpoenaed Secret Service members to testify about Clinton’s affair. Talk about trashing Executive Privilege. But that wasn’t about sex, it was about the rule of law. Interesting.
77. js | February 15th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Actually, thats not completely true.
Supreme Court has held in the past that the Executive Office affords the President a level of confidentiality. It is a reasonable conclusion to assume that the Executive office was not meant to conceal the acts of the President having sexual relations with an intern. That has nothing to do with national security or policy making (which should be considered covered under executive privilige., however, internal dialogue in and with the White House Chief of staff, and White House Council, about the administration of the Presidents appointed duties are covered (are should be considered covered by executive privilige).
78. js | February 15th, 2008 at 9:27 am
The whole thing lies on this, if executive privilige applies to the Presidents staff and its communication with the President.
I would say absolutely, this is not even a fishing trip, so much as a viable means of harrassment and a public relations ploy to make the Executive Office look like it did something illegal, when it didnt.
Fudge, thats about all it is.
79. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 15th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Original FISA allows for warrantless wiretaps, for specific reasons and they are temporary, short term (48 hours I believe, it has been awhile since I went through it last) to allow info gathering while getting a warrant.
It was used against organized crime. Read it. It is in there.
Early on, Bush requested that the same law enforcement techniques, evidence gathering that were being used against suspects in organized crime be extended to suspects in terrorism. LAWS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE!
Libs have been using “illegal wiretaps” from day one as a weapon to attack Bush and surprisingly NOT TERRORISM.
Clinton used the provisions in FISA to head off foreign mergers and set up trade deals. Look it up.
You libs spout off the usual talking points without regard to what is already written.
80. SEW | February 15th, 2008 at 9:36 am
dian #71
So where in your contortions does it state the POTUS is not the Commander in Chief? Sworn to protect America? Which part do you not comprehend?
81. Diana Powe | February 15th, 2008 at 11:16 am
SEW,
The President of the United States is the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States”, that’s true. However, the oath is, in its entirety:
So, he’s sworn to protect the Constitution. What do his enumerated duties say about protecting America? Hmm, reading Article II of said Constitution…nope, not a word about a responsibility to “protect America”. Just states that his oath is to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” which is the same Constitution that says he has the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. One of those laws is FISA. It’s not that hard to understand, really.
82. SEW | February 15th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Then read it again. You are obviously having much difficulty! BDS interference?
83. Diana Powe | February 15th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Sorry, SEW. I can’t make up things in my head that aren’t in the text. Feel free to actually quote the document, if you’d like. That’s what I did.
84. Joe | February 15th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
TiredofLib post #79.
“Original FISA allows for warrantless wiretaps, for specific reasons and they are temporary, short term (48 hours I believe, it has been awhile since I went through it last) to allow info gathering while getting a warrant.
It was used against organized crime. Read it. It is in there.”
That is the point! He could have gotten a warrant AFTER THE FACT.
The question is why couldn’t he do that and why is that a problem for him.
85. Diana Powe | February 15th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
The point of the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) was never about really doing anything about terrorism. That’s been reinforced by the President’s vow to veto a renewal of the Protect America Act of 2007 which he says is needed to prevent attacks if the version he gets has all the language about protecting America but doesn’t provide retroactive immunity for the telephone companies. The point is to expand presidential power at the expense of Congress. Everything else, including what the President claims is necessary protection for Americans, is secondary to that expansion.
86. Joe | February 15th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Deleted - off topic
87. SteaM | February 15th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Diana,
I agree. There’s a distinction there that I feel was intentional wording by the founding fathers.
To protect the laws and the constitution. Not to “protect America” by ignoring laws and doing whatever one wishes even if it’s unconstitutional or against the laws of our land just to protect the country and/or its “interests”.
88. American Street » B&hellip | February 15th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
[...] the zeitgeist demanded just a few months ago. Noting John Boehner’s stunt was indeed “staged,” but all in the name of principle, that any disrespect to the dead was the fault of those damn [...]