Librarians turned snitch?

[wendybeth]

Oh, I don't know, Scrooge- it's entirely possible that Bush asked for their blessings prior to authorizing these actions.


This is what happens when you have a President who thinks he's on a mission from God. He is above the law of the land, and he's only doing this for our own good. Forget the Constitutional scholars and legal experts- he knows what is best for us. So many people are willing to give up their freedom because of fear, and the sad thing is nothing is really being done to protect us.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Oh, I don't know, Scrooge- it's entirely possible that Bush asked for their blessings prior to authorizing these actions.

They'd have no reason to lie, would they? I'm sure I'm about as likely to take Reid, Pelosi, and Daschle at their word as you are to take the word of Bush.

Just for fun....found this little executive order......

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

What! This type of thing happening before Bush?!?! And from someone who so highly values our civil rights?!?!

I would believe his legal team probably told him the same thing.....that it was legal.

[wendybeth]

Whether or not it was legal remains to be seen. Ignorance is not a defense, even for George. Minutes of the meetings can prove or disprove what the others say, and should this go to court then we will find out. Most of all, just because others have done it does not make it legal or right. You're constantly bringing that up makes me cranky in a way that my kid does when she says "Well, Katie's mom let's her do it!"

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Most of all, just because others have done it does not make it legal or right. You're constantly bringing that up makes me cranky in a way that my kid does when she says "Well, Katie's mom let's her do it!"

If you'll reread the thread, I have clearly said I think it's wrong. What I find amazing, though, and have also said, is that this is being portrayed as "new". It isn't new. That's why I don't get the whole attitude of shock, particularly by members of congress. Well, actually I do get it - it isn't that they are shocked, and they know it's been happening forever, they are simply trying to play shocked for the political value of it.

I could make you really mad and link an executive order from Carter authorizing the same thing. Again, wrong. Again, not new.

[wendybeth]

Show me ONE post that says that a precedent has been set by this action- it could very well be that I missed that, and if so I apologise. In the absence of such a post, your finger-pointing is a trifle....irritating. I know this kind of crap has happened in the past, and will continue to happen, but it's the sort of thing that has brought down politicians throughout our history- I don't know if he'll slide by on this one. Bush was elected on a backlash against perceived corruption- something he and his handlers used to their advantage. He painted himself as a moral, incorruptable man and he is simply not so. Saying that's just the way of the world and we should accept it (not saying you are- just the pundits on his side) does not make it right.

[scaeagles]

I believe that in the media there is a manufactured "shock" that this has taken place, even when it wasn't hard to find executive orders by both Clinton and Carter doing, well, the same thing. I believe the same "shock" is evident throughout posts here. It is most certainly possible that I am misreading it.

I don't know if Bush was elected because he was perceived as incorruptable. I think Gore and Kerry sucked as candidates. A situation that I am not convinced was illegal is not going to point to corruptability in my mind, though.

I like history, and I like historical perspective, and I think it is usually relevant. I am oft amazed at the short memory of the media and the public in general. We could talk about what politicians have run on throughout history and could find that most of it was crap.

Just to be clear - I don't justify any illegal action or campaign lies or being misled by candidates - if in fact this situation points to such things. I just honestly don't understand the "shock" factor. It is not new. And that's what is completely political on the part of Reid and Pelosi and Boxer et al.

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by Wendybeth

your finger-pointing is a trifle....irritating.

You're being way too kind, IMO. Yes, it's irritating, but also sloppy and misleading. But come on, Wendy... you gotta love it when the wingers start pointing to Clinton, their sworn enemy, to try to justify Bush's messes.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

What! This type of thing happening before Bush?!?! And from someone who so highly values our civil rights?!?!

And this is the problem. You are trying to compare an executive order from Clinton with what's been happening under Bush. Yes, it's a great little "gotcha" you can throw out there to try and confuse someone into thinking there's equivalence, when there is none.

Let's take a link at that Clinton executive order, the link to which you were so kind as to provide.

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

So what does 302(a)(1) provide?

Let's see:

the "physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers."

In other words, NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS

and...

there is "no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person."

Again, NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS

To continue, notice that Clinton's executive order is confined to physical searches. That's important, as well. Physical searches exclude electronic surveillance.

So, NO... Clinton did not do the the same type of thing. There is no equivalence, no matter how much Michelle Malkin shrieks otherwise.

[wendybeth]

Federal judge resigns

A judge on the Federal Surveillance Court has resigned due to concerns regarding the legality of Bush's actions.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Saw a brilliant bit of questioning yesterday. At a press conference with some White House spokesman, someone read this definition of Congressional oversight.

Congress regards oversight as "the authority to conduct inquiries or investigations of the executive, to have access to records or materials held by the executive, or to issue subpoenas for documents or testimony from the executive. "

Source

She then asked, which of those three powers was Congress given in this case? His response? "Congress is an independant branch of the government. The President informed them of the program. That's oversight." She shot right back, "Yes, but were they allowed inqueries, access to records, or the power to issue subpoenas?" Then, like a freaking robot, "Congress is an independant branch of the government. The President informed them of the program." In otherwords, he had no answer because saying, "Hey, I'm doing this" and then not allowing Congress to investigate it is NOT oversight.

[SacTown Chronic]

We did it because it is legal (Just, please, don't break the story, NYT.)

We did it because FISA is too slow (And never mind that 72 hour retroactive thang.)

We only did it with international calls (Except, oops, when we accidentally wiretapped domestic calls. I wonder if warrants would have helped prevent these "accidents"?).

Congress gave us the power to do it when they authorized Bush to use force after 9/11 (but we didn't ask congress for this specific power because we were told they wouldn't give it to us.)

Clinton did it too! (AND he likes BJs!!!!!!!!)

9/11! (9/11!)