NY Times and intelligence leaks

innerSpaceman · 06-29-2006, 07:38 PM

I'd just like to point out that while bank records have indeed been SupremeCourtly decreed not private, what the Times and the Journal and others revealed IS illegal activity on the part of the Bush administration.

It is still a legal requirement that a warrant be issued, that a court of some kind say it's ok to snoop at bank records. The reason this is a newsworthy story is the pattern of abuse this program continues from the thread of the NSA phone surveillance method. Court approval and warrants could easily be obtained, and yet the Bush administration thumbs its nose at bothering. It's not so much what they do (since a court might allow it anyway), it's that they flaunt the American system of checks & balances, and instead insist on behaving like a dictatorship ... simply because they want to and want to establish unfettered powers for the presidency as an institution.

Same thing with the signing statements that Bush has issued, claiming his administration does not have to obey laws passed by Congress. He has issued more of these than all other presidents combined, and it's noteworthy that Republican senator Arlen Spector has declared an intention to sue the White House over this nefarious practice.

Bush is clearly demonstrating a doctrine of being unchecked by the courts and unchecked by Congress. If this is not trying to set up the presidency as a dictatorate, then I don't know what is.

Alex · 06-29-2006, 08:16 PM

That's simply not true that a warrant is necessary in this situation.

U.S. v. Miller removed from financial records the protection of the 4th Amendment.

See v. City of Seattle gave SC endorsement of administrative subpeonas.

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act gives the president authority to use administrative subpoenas to compel production of financial documents in a time of emergency.

In 2002 and every year since then the President has notified Congress that he was using the powers granted to him un the IEEPA to pursue terrorists globally (an expansion of the annual "terrorism" state of emergency that has been in effect for the Middle East since 1995).

The IEEPA requires that the White House report to congress on such issues. The White House, Treasury Department, and Congressional intelligence committees all say that this reporting has been happening.

You can debate the value of such a program and whether it should happen, but so far I have seen nobody raise any kind of compelling case that it was illegal. The closest the New York Times came was saying that "some legal scholars express concern about the program." The ACLU (an organization I generally support) has come right out and said it is illegal but have not said what laws were broken.

Alex · 06-29-2006, 08:39 PM

I should temper what I've said. I don't know that it simply isn't true. I do know that so far I haven't seen anybody make a compelling case that it is true (so far it has simply been "truth by declaration" hoping to make it so) or a compelling refutation of the case that it is legal.

06-29-2006, 07:38 PM	#1
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	I'd just like to point out that while bank records have indeed been SupremeCourtly decreed not private, what the Times and the Journal and others revealed IS illegal activity on the part of the Bush administration. It is still a legal requirement that a warrant be issued, that a court of some kind say it's ok to snoop at bank records. The reason this is a newsworthy story is the pattern of abuse this program continues from the thread of the NSA phone surveillance method. Court approval and warrants could easily be obtained, and yet the Bush administration thumbs its nose at bothering. It's not so much what they do (since a court might allow it anyway), it's that they flaunt the American system of checks & balances, and instead insist on behaving like a dictatorship ... simply because they want to and want to establish unfettered powers for the presidency as an institution. Same thing with the signing statements that Bush has issued, claiming his administration does not have to obey laws passed by Congress. He has issued more of these than all other presidents combined, and it's noteworthy that Republican senator Arlen Spector has declared an intention to sue the White House over this nefarious practice. Bush is clearly demonstrating a doctrine of being unchecked by the courts and unchecked by Congress. If this is not trying to set up the presidency as a dictatorate, then I don't know what is.
	Submit to Quotes

06-29-2006, 08:16 PM	#2
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	That's simply not true that a warrant is necessary in this situation. U.S. v. Miller removed from financial records the protection of the 4th Amendment. See v. City of Seattle gave SC endorsement of administrative subpeonas. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act gives the president authority to use administrative subpoenas to compel production of financial documents in a time of emergency. In 2002 and every year since then the President has notified Congress that he was using the powers granted to him un the IEEPA to pursue terrorists globally (an expansion of the annual "terrorism" state of emergency that has been in effect for the Middle East since 1995). The IEEPA requires that the White House report to congress on such issues. The White House, Treasury Department, and Congressional intelligence committees all say that this reporting has been happening. You can debate the value of such a program and whether it should happen, but so far I have seen nobody raise any kind of compelling case that it was illegal. The closest the New York Times came was saying that "some legal scholars express concern about the program." The ACLU (an organization I generally support) has come right out and said it is illegal but have not said what laws were broken.
	Submit to Quotes

06-29-2006, 08:39 PM	#3
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I should temper what I've said. I don't know that it simply isn't true. I do know that so far I haven't seen anybody make a compelling case that it is true (so far it has simply been "truth by declaration" hoping to make it so) or a compelling refutation of the case that it is legal.
	Submit to Quotes