President Bush Blocks NSA Wireless Tapping Probe 1063
scubamage writes "By denying security clearance to federal attorneys from the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) seeking to gather evidence in the NSA illegal surveillance scandal, President Bush has effectively blocked the Justice Department's investigation into the matter of who exactly authorized the illegal actions to take place. The president is apparently able to strictly control who does and does not have security clearance to examine documents regarding the program, citing that giving more people access would endanger national security. His denial is the first of its kind in American history. To quote the article, 'Since its creation some 31 years ago, OPR has conducted many highly sensitive investigations involving Executive Branch programs and has obtained access to information classified at the highest levels,' chief lawyer H. Marshall Jarrett wrote in a memorandum released Tuesday. 'In all those years, OPR has never been prevented from initiating or pursuing an investigation.'"
Re:There's your answer: (Score:5, Informative)
How can you vote out a re-elected president limited to two terms? Congress has to impeach & convict him, which has nothing to do with the voters, judging by the last impeachment.
Re:There's your answer: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:There's your answer: (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Biased much? (Score:2, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Illegal Actions? (Score:3, Informative)
This wasn't about going public. It was about a criminal investigation by a branch specifically designed to be able to investigate even top secret affairs.
Re:There's your answer: (Score:3, Informative)
It's called voter fraud. (Score:2, Informative)
One of my friend's mothers is involved in the group investigating iowa in 2004. I'm a sceptic and she has me convinced.
The point is the election was stolen.. TWICE.
The truth is in all those stores from the immediate post 9/11 period claiming "in recounts bush won" were misleading.. if you actually read the articles you will pull enough info to realize gore won.. they state it explicitly, buried deep in page 17. Why? when confronted with this they claimed they didnt want to undermine presidential authority in a time of war..
So no.. america did not vote in this madman. he and his ultra-right machine stole the election, and their propaganda minister mr rove with his loyal fox news crews backing him up covered the whole thing up, blasting anyone who asked questions and "unamerican" or "terrorist sympathizers"..
as a foreigner you should be praying for our safety, we stand on the brink of the death of everything the majority of us still believe in.
Re:There's your answer: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:war? (Score:3, Informative)
That's an archaic analysis - no one actually bothers to declare war anymore. We haven't had a declared war in 60 years, yet we've participated in a number of activities that an observer would probably describe as wars. Congress passed multiple bills to finance the war, and also passed bills giving the president the power to execute the war, so I'd say that counts.
Broad Powers Only As A Temporary Expedient (Score:2, Informative)
Until Bush, all presidents had recognized this. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus in areas where it was no longer effective - but he immediately turned around and asked Congress to codify his action, which they did. FDR did the same when he (unfortunately) interred Japanese-Americans during WWII.
Only Bush interpreted Article 2 to mean that he could utterly reject all checks and balances - that he could do anything, to anybody, forever, and that Congress and the Courts had no way to stop him,
Re:war? (Score:4, Informative)
Wars cannot be run effectively by committee or consensus. Wars end when when somebody is defeated. The framers of the U.S constitution were very wise in giving these powers to the Executive (President). As Commander and Chief prosecuting a war, they are total and absolute. And yes, it is totalatarian -- but only during a time of war. And we are at war.
Read history. You'll be shocked, totaly totaly shocked at what Presidents have done during war. This is chump change compared to things President Lincoln did. Or like what a past president said when the Supreme court differed from his opinion during a war .... "The Supreme court has made it's decision -- lets see them uphold it".
Re:war? (Score:4, Informative)
I refer you to JOINT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST TERRORISTS
There's you declaration of war.
Re:war? (Score:3, Informative)
Here's the relevant portion of section 8 of the Constitution:
They don't need to make a law to declare war its one of the powers defined on their character sheet.
Wikipedia to the rescue link [wikipedia.org]
Here's a quote
Re:war? (Score:3, Informative)
Those conditions were never met, thus the cease fire was canceled and active engagement occurred again.
Re:war? (Score:3, Informative)
I'll alert the Congress, you go give Saddam back his country!!!1!
The authorization for Operation Iraqi Liberation was granted by a Congressional Resolution in October 2002.
Re:Biased much? (Score:4, Informative)
Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that
Thats USC 50.36 (sec) 1802 [cornell.edu].
So, "United States Person" means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.. an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power.
Thats USC 50.36 (sec) 1801 [cornell.edu].
Second, provide the facts From wiki: [wikipedia.org]
President George Walker Bush: "What I'm talking about is the intercept of certain communications emanating between somebody inside the United States and outside the United States; and one of the numbers would be reasonably suspected to be an al Qaeda link or affiliate."
The only way it becomes legal is if you accept the ridiculous legal arguments made by the administration, or if the program only ever covered tourists and illegal aliens. Although school/work visas are not explicitly mentioned, they would almost always be covered by the association and corporation clauses of the United States Person definition.
Re:There's your answer: (Score:4, Informative)
And the vast majority of those tried for war crimes were still convicted - because "I was just following orders" is never a defense against following unethical, inhuman, or illegal orders. Sometimes a court will choose to not convict the soldier, because they'd rather go after the ones in charge, but make no mistake: that kind of defense, isn't one.
And the American military has standing rules that state explicitly that "just following orders" is no defense against following illegal orders.