 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 04 Jan 06 - 10:57 PM Jonah went to bed in a wale, didn't he? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: number 6 Date: 04 Jan 06 - 10:59 PM It's a myth peace. A fable. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 04 Jan 06 - 11:01 PM You sure? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Sancho Date: 04 Jan 06 - 11:23 PM Falling GDP / Deficit ratio |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Azizi Date: 04 Jan 06 - 11:27 PM The The Wailing Souls made some great music. And as to the question "Should Bush be Impeached", you darn tootin. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Azizi Date: 04 Jan 06 - 11:29 PM Too many "thes", so little time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,G Date: 05 Jan 06 - 07:56 AM Peace, I am positive my suspicions (now confirmend) have no effect on bobert. Apparently his only concern is self-gratification. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 05 Jan 06 - 08:03 AM HUH??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,G Date: 05 Jan 06 - 08:20 AM Ref; 04 9:27 AM & 04 10:58 Not surprised if you don't understand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 05 Jan 06 - 08:41 AM Don't knock lexdexia, if ya ain't tried it, G-zer... LOL... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 05 Jan 06 - 08:45 AM Old MacDonald had a farm, O-I-E-I-E.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,G Date: 05 Jan 06 - 08:49 AM HUH??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 05 Jan 06 - 10:32 AM Y'all know what DNA stands for? National Dyslexics Association. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: George Papavgeris Date: 05 Jan 06 - 11:23 AM Two weeks into the thread, and still no impeachment. Glad to see we're making an impact... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 07 Jan 06 - 07:59 PM Vrey bad news day for the Bushites!!! This morning's Washington Post reports that a bi-partisan Congressional "researcfh arm", the Congressional Research Service is of the opinion that Bush broke the law with his spying... "Report Rubuts Bush on Spying, Domestic Action's Legally Challenged" (Wsahington Post, Jan. 7, 2006. Page A-1. So to those of you who have been dismissive of many here who have felt that Busf broke the law and therefore, like Clinton, should be impeached... read the article and weep.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Boo Hoo Date: 08 Jan 06 - 11:25 AM "Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States" "IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 08 Jan 06 - 11:57 AM If the Congress had any spine it would stand up and issue a clear delineation of those powers, absent the new flush of terror. They would also stand up and take back some of their long-eroded powers. I seriously doubt, Mister Anonymous Chicken Boohoo, that any Congressman would include wide-spread espionage against American citizens as coming under theheading of "appropriate" measures. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST Date: 08 Jan 06 - 01:21 PM Perhaps the "absent the new flush of terror" can be attributed to GWB having had these "powers" for the past 4 years. Food for thought? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 08 Jan 06 - 01:41 PM Amos, Congress doesn't have to grow a new spine here for this battle qwas allrerady fought and won by Congress a long, long time ago... It's called FISA and it was foungt and wond precisely because of the the kind of spying on American citizens that was conducted during the the J. Edgar Hoover years... Now mind you, this report wasn't something that was cooked up by Edwards Kennedy but one that comes from an unbiased organization, the Congressional Research Service, which acts as a resorce for Congress... In the CRS is the following quote: "It appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has espressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations here"... Hmmmmmmm??? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Boo Hoo Chicken Date: 08 Jan 06 - 02:30 PM "Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States" This was an act of Congress. How can it be illegal? Congrees must do another act to change it. You try to discredit me by calling me chicken because you have no other way to prove it wrong. So who is chicken? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 08 Jan 06 - 02:36 PM Wrong, Boohoo; I called you chicken because you snipe from anonymous invisibility, and do so with snide commentary. There is no war power granted the President under the Constitution to spy on American citizens, suspend habeas corpus or abrogate civil rights in a condition of undeclared war. Saying that such authority exists in the Constitution does not make it so, I suppose. Congress does not have the authority to amend the COnstitution by fiat, you know. It requires ratification by the States. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 08 Jan 06 - 06:06 PM Yeah, wrong, boohoo... The president still must obey the law and in this case FISA is the law that deals with what Bush has done... War isn't a blank check to trample the Bill of Rights... You need a better lawyer if that gonna be your argument... I have yet to hear any convincing argument that would permit Bush to side step FISA... Afetrall, that is exactly the intent of FISA... Tp provide the "legal" framework.... And FISA allows "wiretap now, get the okay later in some cases so the argument "time-is-of-the-essence" argument also goes out the window.... Bush has broken the law and now it's time, as difficult as it is politically, for Congress to grow the spine necessary to impeach... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Boo Hoo Chicken Date: 08 Jan 06 - 06:09 PM Amos: Do you hold the franchise on snide comentary? A dozen adjectives like stupid, drunk and crosseyed strung together to define the person that you hold a grudge against is acceptable but when someone tells you you are wrong on terms you did not approve and suddenly you are righteous. If you can't take what life deals you, you are not mature and have no business telling others what to think. If you don't like what congress did, take them to task instead of bitching about the Presidents efforts to keep you safe. I don't care who lstend to my conversations with my next door neighbor. We are no plotting anything. Are you getting calls from the middle east? if not what are you worried about? The only thing I am worried about is people like you interfering with the government doing it's job. Can you do better? If so run for office and with your superior intelligence you could become president and fix everything. Lead, follow or get out of the way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 08 Jan 06 - 07:30 PM Problem is, boohoo-zer, is that we don't know if Bush was listening in to folks of Arab descent talking overseas with terrorists or listening to so Quaker group planing an anti-war rally... Back in the 60's and early 70's the FBI kept dosiers on millions of folks who just happened to be against the Vietnem War... Heck, I know for a fact they had one one me... Might of fact, I even know the two FBI agents who did all the snooping and somewhere have a picture of them... Back then we just figured that's the way things are... But now, given a little age and wisdom on my part I'm thinking, "Nah, that ain't what the Founding Fathers had in mind" and so when FISA came into existence there were a lot of us who rully understood that casual snooping on American citizens isn't what thwe Foundign Fathers had in mind at all... Since FISA I think America has been closer to the ideals of Tom Jefferson in safe-guarding the elements necessary for a democratic expierement to continue... Democracy, as s system of governemnt, is fragile and if we wish to showcase it to the rest iof the world it is very important that we don't let ***any*** executive centralize power... This is waht the War for Independence was about... Bush has stepped further toward cenralization of power than any president I can think of in American history... Yeah, the US has had powerful presidents and great leaders in it 230 plus years but none who is so power hungry as Bush... If anyone can think of any president that was more power hungry, please feel free to bring that individual up... I mean, even LBJ undeestood that he was going to have to work his magic on the Congress and did so very well... But LBJ, other than possibly being involved in the ZKennedy assasination, didn't go breaking the laws that Bush has broken here... Time to impeach and let Congress sort out the details... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Jan 06 - 07:44 PM The definitive answer: You want it? You got it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 08 Jan 06 - 07:49 PM PDQ: "Lead, follow or get out of the way" is not the spirit or the literal postulate of our national COnstitution. "Be free to speak, free to assemble peacefully, free to pursue happiness, and free to enjoy civil liberties" is closer to it. Your slogan is the mindset of a True Believer, not a thinking and self-determined free person. I have often been sarcastic, but less often snide, and I have never come to this forum skulking under an anonymous identity, except for the Christmas Secret Santa gift exchange where it is mandatory. I am not intimidated by communicating. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,G Date: 09 Jan 06 - 09:08 AM Amos, why, pray tell, should the Secret Santa be a-nonny-moose? Oh, because of the word secret probably. Good to see you using the word "Christmas" although it wasn't a requirement in this case. "Snide?", maybe a time or too. Consistent? Always! And I still am unaware of how the identifer 'G' means less than an "Amos", Peace, Donuel, BBruce or Little Hawk. Was going to ask "am I thickheaded" but that would be a grave error here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Boo Hoo Chicken Date: 09 Jan 06 - 10:12 AM Amos is the product of Dianetics. Unfortunately he has a thin skin and goes apeshit when confronted with the truth. Sponge Bobert Square Head is not so thin skinned as Amos. He has enough West Virginia shit in his blood to handle the truth but he promply ignores it if it don't match his version of the truth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 09 Jan 06 - 10:18 AM Old Guy, go stuff yourself. As for the difference between a "G" and an "Amos", when you log in as "Guest, G" there's no reasonto assume you are the same person who logged in under that Guest moniker last time. But if you are using the same handle consistently, I appreciate that. Be aware that anyone can post under that handle, though. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 09 Jan 06 - 10:28 AM Problem is, Boohoo-ster, is that there's only one truth and according to the Wes Ginny Slide Rule you and your guys are on the wrong side ot the truth equation... No brag, just fact... Bobert & the WGSR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Boo Hoo Chicken Date: 09 Jan 06 - 11:25 AM My dear Spongebobsterooskins: Are you stereotyping? prejudging? Enlightened indivuduals do not do such things. First they listen, analyse what was said and compare it with data known to be true and then make a decision. Now if you are the type that considers data that comes from forged documents as the truth, you need to reassess your criterion. Amos the crosseyed, lame brained, sawed off, screwball, humorless, bullet headed, Scientology burn out, retarded, droopy drawered, senile, self aggrandizing, blind to the truth, lyme diseased, snaggle toothed, halitosis ridden, lousy hung, homework loosing, self educated, ungroomed, lazy, thick skulled, thin skinned, mentally masturbating, Dyanetically challenged, pseudo philosopher can blow it out his barf hole and insert it in his Anus (rymes with Amos) sideways with the doors open and the motor running with the lights on. Now don't that give me credibility? Can you top that Amos? Go play some music and leave politics to the professionals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,RE:Kindaloupehackenweez Date: 09 Jan 06 - 01:00 PM Hello All: Yes he should, if not for his latest antices. For refusing funding and the allowing furture STEM CELL RESEARCH. KINDALOUPEHACKENWEEZ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 09 Jan 06 - 02:42 PM Old Guy/BooHoo: "Dianetics" is spelt with an "i", not a "y". Aside from that your characterization is completely impeccable. A few minor hairs could be split, but why bother? You're on a roll, and that's all that counts. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,G Date: 09 Jan 06 - 02:58 PM Good correction, Amos, but you could have corrected the post about Stem Cell Reasearch also. Funding for this research is at an all time high. It was asked that no new strains of stem cells be created until the existing supply is depleted. Currently, there is more existing supply that demand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Boo Hoo Chicken Date: 09 Jan 06 - 07:24 PM The Bush refuses to fund stme cell research is maxo stinky horeshit. It is funded ($550m) on a limited basis. Some leftwing proprgandists try to claim that Bush has banned stem cell research. How much money does other governments give to stem cell research? http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00086741-2DB7-12BC-ADB783414B7F014C EU * Production of new hESC lines: Permitted from unused IVF embryos where legal in member nations * Therapeutic cloning: Prohibited * Funding: $170m on stem cells over the past three years (only $650,000 for hESC research) * Status in some member nations: France: Creation of hESC lines from IVF embryos legal as of October 2004; public funding is $4m Germany: Only work on hESC lines predating 2002 is legal; public funding is $4m Finland: Permits research with IVF embryos; public funding is $5m Italy: June 12 referendum will consider permitting IVF embryo research; public funding is $6m EU will not increase funding for hESC projects despite a doubling of the total research budget. SWEDEN * Number of published hESC lines: 8 * Production of new lines: Legal * Therapeutic cloning:Legal as of April * Number of researchers: 400 * Government funding: $10m-$15m * Private funding: Cellartis and NeuroNova, the two largest stem cell research companies in Sweden, contribute the bulk of the $35m spent annually there Cellartis, the single largest source of defined hESC lines in the world, maintains more than 30--two of which are approved by the US National Institutes of Health. UK * Number of published hESC lines: 3 * Production of new lines: Legal * Therapeutic cloning: Legal * Government funding: About $80m * Private funding: $15m-$20m The Wellcome Trust alone has spent $12m annually since 2002. First licence for human ES cell research was granted in 1996. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 1990 allows the UK to fund hESC research flexibly. UK's first licence for human cloning research granted in 2004. Its recipients in May announced the country's first cloned human embryo. US * Number of published hESC lines: 46 * Production of new lines: Legal, but prohibited with federal funds * Therapeutic cloning: Legality varies from state to state * Federal government funding: About $550m for all stem cell research ($24m for hESC) * Private funding: About $200m * Public funding at state level: California: $3bn over 10 years New Jersey: $11.5m (another $380m proposed) Wisconsin: $375m proposed Illinois: $1bn proposed Connecticut: $20m proposed Federal government allows its funds to be used only on the 22 available hESC lines created before August 2001. Pending legislation would relax some of these federal restrictions. BRAZIL * Production of new hESC lines: As of March, legal from IVF embryos at least 3 years old * Therapeutic cloning: Banned * Government funding: $4.5m annually planned, allocated by the Health Ministry and the Science and Technology Ministry SOUTH KOREA * Number of published hESC lines: 29 * Production of new lines: Permitted with case approval from Ministry of Health * Therapeutic cloning: Permitted with case approval from Ministry of Health * Number of researchers: 300-400 * Government funding: About $10m * Private funding: About $50m First to create a hESC line from a cloned embryo. In May the same researchers announced that they had created 11 new hESC lines cloned from patients with spinal cord injuries, juvenile diabetes and a blood disorder. ADVERTISEMENT (article continues below) SINGAPORE * Number of published hESC lines: 1 * Production of new lines: Legal, if embryos are destroyed within 14 days * Therapeutic cloning: Legal, as above * Number of researchers: About 150, in industrial and academic settings * Academic spending: About $10m, from public and private sources * Industrial spending: About $10 million A pending government proposal would spend $60m over the next four years. ISRAEL * Number of published hESC lines: 1 * Production of new lines: Legal * Therapeutic cloning: Legal * Government spending: About $5m * Private spending: $15m-$30m Israeli scientists led one of the research teams that first isolated hES cells. They were also the first to show that hES cells could be changed into heart cells, and to show that hES cells can integrate with tissues. CHINA * Production of new hESC lines: Legal * Therapeutic cloning: Legal * Number of researchers: 300-400 * Public and private funding: About $40m The journal Nature reports that "China has probably the most liberal environment for embryo research in the world", with little public opposition to such studies. No laws govern stem cell research, but the recommendations of the Ministry of Health endorse it. AUSTRALIA * Number of published hESC lines: 1 * Production of new lines: Conditionally legal * Therapeutic cloning: Banned * Number of researchers: 200-250 * Government funding: The Australian Stem Cell Centre has $90m to spend through 2011. "An investigative panel at Seoul National University found Dec. 29 that Hwang Woo Suk failed to produce any of the 11 patient-specific stem cell lines he had claimed to develop in a paper published in the journal Science last May." http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=22377 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 09 Jan 06 - 09:44 PM Well, Amos, these Bushites are certainly well funded... Ya ever notice that whatever the issue where Bush is wrong there's some long cut'n paste just waiting to make him purer than Jesus... Not... He has broken the law and now he should be impeached... Right??? Ain't that what the Consitution calls for when the president disobays laws??? This ain't no cut'n paste question thought I'm sure therer a millions of dollars going into some blogster to write long winded crap saying that Congress said it was okay for Bush to break the law??? But, lets get real... Executive powers have over the course of American history been carved out more by precedence than actual blue-prints laid out by the Founding Fatheres... George Washington was givena degree of altitude and he left his satmp on what "executive powers" were and ebvery president since has kinda fine tuned them but outright breaking of a law that was written to prevent a president from doing what Bush has done, is stepping way over the line... Yeah, some might argue that Bush has as much right to interpret the powers of the executive branch as George Washington did and if that is the arguemnt then fine... I can at least argue against that... But to just say that Congress said it was okay ir Bush wnated to break existing laws is a real stretch... Impeach and let the Senate sort it out... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST Date: 09 Jan 06 - 10:29 PM Still waiting to hear that law that GWB broke. One that is factual, not of fantasy. ..and could someone interpret the preceeding post? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,deeper throat Date: 09 Jan 06 - 10:33 PM Should he be impeached, yes. But not until the person in succesion is not a neocon, not that they are totally incorrect, but rather to avoid the deployment of strategic tactical nuclear weapons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 17 Jan 06 - 06:48 PM Zogby poll: Majority supports impeaching Bush for wiretapping WASHINGTON, D.C. — By a margin of 52 to 43 percent, citizens want Congress to impeach President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of Pres. Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003. The poll was conducted by Zogby International. The poll found that 52 percent of respondents agreed with the statement: "If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment." Of those contacted, 43 percent disagreed, and 6 percent said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a margin of error of 2.9 percent. "The American people are not buying Bush's outrageous claim that he has the power to wiretap American citizens without a warrant. Americans believe terrorism can be fought without turning our own government into Big Brother," said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik in a statement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,G Date: 18 Jan 06 - 02:23 PM Where have all the politicians requesting the impeachment of GWB been the past week? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: curmudgeon Date: 18 Jan 06 - 02:53 PM Here's what one Republican Senator is thinking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 18 Jan 06 - 06:52 PM Reread FISA, GUEST... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Bruce, Guest Date: 19 Jan 06 - 06:48 PM After Bush and Cheney would be Dennis Hastert, unless a VP gets nominated and confirmed first. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Bruce, Guest Date: 19 Jan 06 - 06:53 PM "Does seem you'd go right down the list of successors before finding anyone who hasn't broken the law... Bill Frist?" Senate majority leader is not in the line of succesion. After Speaker of the House comes President Pro Tempore of the Senate (Stevens (?) from Alaska), then the cabinet in the order that the posts were created historically (State, then Defense, then Interior, etc. - or maybe it's Interior, then Defense). I'm not certain about the President Pro Tempore, but I think he's still in the mix. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Old Guy Date: 19 Jan 06 - 10:30 PM http://www.cdt.org/security/20051222justiceletter.pdf "U. S. Department of' Justice Office of Legislative Affairs December 22,2005 The Honorable Pat Roberts The Honorable John D. Rockefeller, IV Chairman Vice Chairman Senate Select Committcc on Intelligence Senate Select Committee on Intelligence United States Senatc United States Senate Washington, D.C. 205 10 Washington, D.C. 20510. . . . . . Under Article 11 of the Constitution, including in his capacity as Commander in Chief, the President has the responsibility to protect the Nation from further attacks, and the Constitution gives him all necessary authority to fulfill that duty. See, e.g., Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635, 668 (1 863) (stressing that if the Nation is invaded, "the President is not only authorized but hound to resist by force . . . . without waiting for any special legislative authority"); Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19,27 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (Silberman, J., concurring) ("[Tlhe Prize Cases . . . stand for the proposition that the President has independent authority to repel aggressive acts by third parties even without specific congressional authorization, and courts may not review the level of force selected."); id. at 40 (Tatel, J., concurring). The Congress recognized this constitutional authority in the preamble to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force ("AUMF") of September 18, 2001, 115 Stat. 224 (2001) ("[Tlhe President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States."), and in the War Powers Resolution, see 50 U.S.C. 8 1541(c) ("The constitutional powers of the President as Commander in Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities[] . . . [extend to] a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."). This constitutional authority includes the authority to order warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance within the United States, as all federal appellate courts, including at least four circuits, to have addressed the issue have concluded. See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 7 17, 742 (FISA Ct. of Review 2002) ("[AIII the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority. . . ."). The Supreme Court has said that warrants are generally required in the context of purely donrestic threats. hut it expressly distinguished,foreign threats. See United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297,308 (1972). As Justice Byron White recognized almost 40 years ago, Presidents have long exercised the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for national security purposes, and a warrant is unnecessary "if the President of the United States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has considered the requirements of national security and authorized electronic surveillance as reasonable." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 363-64 (1967) (White, J., concurring). The President's constitutional authority to direct the NSA to conduct the activities he described is supplemented by statutory authority under the AUMF. The AUMF authorizes the President "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, . . . in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States." 5 2(a), The AUMF clearly contemplates action within the United States, (the attacks of September 11 "render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad"). The AUMF cannot be read as limited to authorizing the use of force against Afghanistan, as some have argued. Indeed, those who directly "committed" the attacks of September 11 resided in the United States for months before those attacks. The reality of the September I 1 plot demonstrates that the authorization of force covers activities both on foreign soil and in America. In Handi v. R~inzsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), the Supreme Court addressed the scope of the AUMF. At least five Justices concluded that the AUMF authorized the President to detain a U.S. citizen in the United States because "detention to prevent a combatant's return to the battlefield is a fundamental incident of waging war" and is therefore included in the "necessary and appropriate force" authorized by the Congress. Id. at 5 18-19 (plurality opini on of O'Connor, J.); see id. at 587 (Thomas, J., dissenting). These five Justices concluded that the AUMF "clearly and unmistakably authorize[s]" the "fundaniental incident[s] of waging war." Id. at 5 18-19 (plurality opinion); see id. at 587 (Thomas, J., dissenting). Comunications intelligence targeted at the enemy is a fundamental incident of the use of military force. Indeed, throughout history, signals intelligence has formed a critical part of waging war. In the Civil War, each side tapped the telegraph lines of the other. In the World Wars, the United States intercepted telegrams into and out of the country. The AUMF cannot be read to exclude this long-recognized and essential authority to conduct communications intelligence targeted at the enemy. We cannot fight a war blind. Because communications intelligence activities constitute, to use the language of Hamdi, a fundamental incident of waging war, the AUMF clearlv und unnzistakuhlj authorizes such activities directed against the communications of our enemy. Accordingly, the President's "authority is at its maximum." Youngsrown Sheet & Tub? Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579,635 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring); see Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 668 (1981); cf: Y O U I I S O W I I , 343 U.S. at 585 (noting the absence of a statute "from which [the asserted authority] c[ould] be fairly implied"). The President's authorization of targeted electronic surveillance by the NSA is also consistent with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA"). Section 25 11(2)(f) oftitle 18 provdes, as relevant here, that the procedures of FISA and two chapters of title 18 "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance.. . may be conducted." Section 109 ofFISA, in turn, makes it unlawful to conduct electronic surveillance, "except as authorized by statute." 50 U.S.C. 5 1809(a)(l). Importantly, section 109's exception for electronic surveillance "authorized by statute" is broad, especially considered in the context of surrounding provisions. Sec 18 U.S.C. 5 251 l(1) ("Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who+a) intentionally intercepts . . . any wire, oral, or electronic communication[] . . . shall be punished . . . .") (emphasis added); id. 4 25 11(2)(e) (providing a defense to liability to individuals "conduct[ing] electronic surveillance, . . . as authorized by thatAct[FISA]") (emphasis added). By expressly and broadly excepting from its prohibition electronic surveillance undertaken "as authorized by statute," section 109 of FISA permits an exception to the "procedures" of FISA referred to in 18 U.S.C. a 251 1(2)(f) where authorized by another statute, even if the other authorizing statute does not specifically amend section 25 11(2)(f). The AUMF satisfies section 109's requirement for statutory authorization of electronic surveillance, just as a majority of the Court in Hanzdi concluded that it satisfies the requirement in 18 U.S.C. 9 4001(a) that no U.S. citizen be detained by the United States "except pursuant to an Act of Congress." See Hundi, 542" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Teribus Date: 19 Jan 06 - 10:43 PM Absolutely Not!!! He provided Leadership when it was required, based, not on lies, but upon the evidence that everyone believed credible at the time. History will prove the man to have taken the correct line of action. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 19 Jan 06 - 11:26 PM Well, yeah, sure...except that spying on folks is not a use of force. And I am not sure you can set aside the Bill of Rights by Senatorial decree. As I recall, it takes a consensus of the various States to set aside a principe embedded int he Constitution -- or don't you believe in that pieceof paper, either? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Arne Date: 20 Jan 06 - 05:29 PM Teribus: He provided Leadership when it was required, based, not on lies, but upon the evidence that everyone believed credible at the time. Speak for yourself, you clueless berk. I certainly did not. And I was by no means alone. Millions of people thought the case for war was bad (including 8 of 13 members of the U.N. Security Council, despite the arm-twisting and bribery of the Dubya maladministration), and many people commented publicly on the bad "evidence" (the UNMOVIC inspectors, on the ground in Iraq and in a pretty good position to know, and having checked the stuff the U.S. gave them, referred to the U.S. "evidence" as "garbage, garbage, and more garbage"). So, if I were you, I'd hardly go off touting my own credulity and ignorance. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: kindaloupehackenweez Date: 20 Jan 06 - 06:34 PM Of course, he souldnt be president in the first place. Justice dont have to wait till the here after to be served. Unfortanly the chance of that will result with the same as that of the chance of Ronald Rayguns being re-elected. who'd believe he'd be and bet he wont be\ PEACE |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 20 Jan 06 - 08:49 PM Like, the Department of Justice, says Bush can do what ever the heck he wants to??? Like, is this news??? Hey, 42 pages of legal-sleeze don't give nobody, Bush the Chickenhawk Warrior or Donald Duck, permissiopn to break the law... Like what the hack di you expect outta Gonzalez, Old Guy??? I mean, lets get real here for one inute... Gonzalez's boss is George the Chickenhawk Warrior!!! Like maybe, in your own words, you'd like to explain why breaking the law is lawfull??? Yeah, I'll be waitng for your response with baited breath... And maybe you'd like to expound on other governements over the last 100 or so years where such powers have been consolidated within the executive branch... Maybe you could even give some examples where it worked out just fine.... But no cut 'n pastes... Right now the corporation are throwing millions into them like throwing a "bum a dime" to keep their puppet from getting impeached.... So, yeah, there's plenty of pro-Bush blogs out there recylcing the same old crap... BTW, do you realize that the "paid for" supposed news stories that appear in overseas newspapers come back as credible sources in some of these corporationist blogs... Man, talk about gettin' more bang fir your buck!!! Bobert |
