It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Turning a blind eye to an impeachable offense.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   
It seems pretty clear to me, the politicians are trying to turn a blind eye to the impeachment process against President Bush.

There is no "secret wartime powers", "secret executive powers", "secret laws" or anything else that I would have to have the government furnish to me in order to realize that the President broke the law.

All I need to know wether or not the President had broken the law is to read the law.

So that is what I did, I read the ENTIRE Federal US CODE. And THAT is no easy task.

So here is the conclusion.

PRESIDENT BUSH BROKE THE LAW.

I will quote any relevant federal law here:

"-CITE-
50 USC Sec. 1802 01/06/03

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
CHAPTER 36 - FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE
SUBCHAPTER I - ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE

-HEAD-
Sec. 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court
order; certification by Attorney General; reports to
Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and
compensation of communication common carrier; applications;
jurisdiction of court

-STATUTE-
(a)(1) 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 -
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at -
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications
transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between
or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2),
or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than
the spoken communications of individuals, from property or
premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign
power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this
title;

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance
will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United
States person is a party; and"

-and-

"-CITE-
50 USC Sec. 1844 01/06/03

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
CHAPTER 36 - FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE
SUBCHAPTER III - PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES FOR
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES

-HEAD-
Sec. 1844. Authorization during time of war

-STATUTE-
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President,
through the Attorney General, may authorize the use of a pen
register or trap and trace device without a court order under this
subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period
not to exceed 15 calendar days following a declaration of war by
Congress.

-SOURCE-
(Pub. L. 95-511, title IV, Sec. 404, as added Pub. L. 105-272,
title VI, Sec. 601(2), Oct. 20, 1998, 112 Stat. 2408.)

-End-"


These are the only two federal laws that would allow the President to authorize wiretaps without a court order. The first says that he may only authorize eavesdropping on communications that US citizens arent a party to. The second says that he can only authorize eavesdropping on US citizens without a warrant up until 15 days after a declaration of war.

Source: US FEDERAL CODE

Case closed.

Now why are the politicians thinking they can do the shuffle and procrastinate the impeachment process? The Constitution dictates that the President MUST be impeached. It is not something that is at the discretion of Congress. He admitted openly to having broken the law. There is no chance of innocence.



The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.


[edit on 10-1-2006 by ImplementOfWar]




posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   


Sept. 14, 2001, vote by Congress authorizing the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against those behind the Sept. 11 attacks.


In 2002, that FISA review court upheld the president's warrantless search powers, referencing a 1980 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. That court held that "the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information

visit source for full article


Before anyone starts screaming "Faux News" let me say I'm just trying to show that there are considerable legal arguments that support the President's side. Read the rest of the article I quoted from and you'll see that through several previous Supreme Court rulings, this is not going to be considered a crime. The President has always had the inherent authority to perform intelligence gathering and once you see the U.S. Constitution for what it is, a list of limits on the government, you'll see that the President is not limited from gathering foreign intelligence even if it involved United States citizens.

There's no clear-cut case for impeachment here. If there wasn't don't you think the Democrats would have already started the hearings? The New York Times has know about this monitoring for over a year. Why didn't they bring it up before the elections this last November if it was a crime? Surely it would have stopped the President's re-election bid. The simple answer is that this is a complex case that involves powers that have historically belonged to the President.

Anyways, this is never going to trial. There is too much top-secret information involved in this matter for it to be argued in court. The whole impeachment argument is dead before it even gets started.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   
First of all, congress allowed Bush to use FORCE to attack the 9/11 terrorists. Most legal definitions that means military. Not domestic wire-tapping. Also the NSA wire-tapping authorization was designed to circumvent the rubber stamp FISA court. SO instead of having Judical oversight, the President has basically said The executive branch needs no judical oversight and can do whatever it wants. The whole democratic process requires Checks and balances and does not give absoulute authority to any one branch of government.

also the Presidents stance is in direct contradition of his speech in April 19 2004 which he explains the wire-tapping process, and explains it needs a FISA warrent

www.whitehouse.gov...

President Bush -- April 19, 2004:

For years, law enforcement used so-called roving wire taps to investigate organized crime. You see, what that meant is if you got a wire tap by court order -- and, by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example.


THis is about unchecked power of president bush, this is about the president LYING to the people of the United states when he allready was wire-tapping people without FISA warrents

If CLinton gets impeached for lying about getting BJ by a secretary, I think it is very likely that Bush could be impeached for lying about his ILLEGAL wire taps

[edit on 1/10/2006 by Jehosephat]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
The Constitution limits the power of the United States President. Only Congress through amending the Cosntitution can grant the President any new power. The President is granted his powers under the Constitution. All powers not granted to the government in the Constitution are reserved to the States or to the people. Saying the President had "the power to use all necessary force" is invalid. Congress cant give the President that power. I think your forgetting that the President is not a one man dictator over the country, he has limited powers. He is responsible for commanding the Military, appointing officers in the government, and for making treaties with other countries. Thats all he can do. I think your delusioned into thinking he is a "king" or "ruler". That is far from the truth.

The New York times did not bring up the article until a year later because the government had censored the article citing "national security".

[edit on 10-1-2006 by ImplementOfWar]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   


unreasonable searches and seizures


Now here's where the line blurs. What exactly is unreasonable? I'd say that knocking on your door and walking right in is unreasonable, but is listening in on international phone conversations unreasonable? You're goning to have to dig up some previous litigation that involves wiretapping international calls to suspected terrorist to prove that this was a criminal act.

Now we've come back around to the starting point. Is it actually illegal? Let's argue the case. Whoops! the needed information is classified so we can't drag it into court.


Originally posted by Jehosephat
SO instead of having Judical oversight, the President has basically said The executive branch needs no judical oversight and can do whatever it wants.


Correct! The judicial branch of government does not have oversight or much say-so in what the Executive branch does. That's the responsibility of the Legislative branch (via impeachment) and the people (through elections). Since the Legislative branch was being briefed on these procedures, we have to assume that they believed it to be okay, or at least their silence says so. That leaves it up to the people to correct this next election. I may be incorrect but I don't remember the text in the Constitution that states the Judicial branch can even tell the President what time of day it is.

EDIT: The Chief Justice acts as the head of the Senate during Impeachment hearings. (The extent of Judicial power over Executive Branch)

[edit on 10-1-2006 by dbates]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

Now here's where the line blurs. What exactly is unreasonable? I'd say that knocking on your door and walking right in is unreasonable, but is listening in on international phone conversations unreasonable? You're goning to have to dig up some previous litigation that involves wiretapping international calls to suspected terrorist to prove that this was a criminal act.


You do know that it wasnt only international calls that they monitored right? They monitored domestic communications between US citizens too.



Now we've come back around to the starting point. Is it actually illegal? Let's argue the case. Whoops! the needed information is classified so we can't drag it into court.


There are no "secret executive powers" nor "secret laws".




Originally posted by Jehosephat
SO instead of having Judical oversight, the President has basically said The executive branch needs no judical oversight and can do whatever it wants.


Correct! The judicial branch of government does not have oversight or much say-so in what the Executive branch does. That's the responsibility of the Legislative branch (via impeachment) and the people (through elections). Since the Legislative branch was being briefed on these procedures, we have to assume that they believed it to be okay, or at least their silence says so. That leaves it up to the people to correct this next election. I may be incorrect but I don't remember the text in the Constitution that states the Judicial branch can even tell the President what time of day it is.

EDIT: The Chief Justice acts as the head of the Senate during Impeachment hearings. (The extent of Judicial power over Executive Branch)

[edit on 10-1-2006 by dbates]


I thought you just got finished saying in your previous post that the FISA court had made the decision that the President could authorize foreign intelligence without warrant. But now your saying the judicial branch has no power over the executive branch. Way to punch a whole through your argument. You remind me of the President and the Attorney General, spouting nonsense if you think it will win the argument.

The judicial branch does not interpret the law, they enforce it. Having a judge dictate to you what the law means is dangerous. People beleive that the Supreme Court can decide for you what your law means, this power is not granted to them in the Constitution and it is not their responsibility.

Im sorry you think there is classified information involved, that is just not true.

[edit on 10-1-2006 by ImplementOfWar]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
I thought you just got finished saying in your previous post that the FISA court had made the decision that the President could authorize foreign intelligence without warrant. But now your saying the judicial branch has no power over the executive branch. Way to punch a whole through your argument (not like you had an argument in the firse place).


Well there is that little matter of judicial review, but that's another discussion that's open to never-ending debate. I'm not saying that the President is okie-dokie in his decisions, I'm just arguing that he won't be impeached for the crimes you are stating because it's too hard to nail down his actions as an actual crime.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I quoted the law. There is nothing else to nail down. He broke the law.

He has no power to authorize wiretaps on US citizens.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
-HEAD-
Sec. 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court
order; certification by Attorney General; reports to
Congressional committees
; transmittal under seal; duties and
compensation of communication common carrier; applications;
jurisdiction of court


The wire taps were reported to Congress. Case closed.

-- Boat



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Bush and company have danced around the law so much in the past few years, it's difficult to even know where to begin... Election fraud, falsified intelligence, pursuing a war now shown to be illegal, overstepping the bounds of office, midnight sessions of Congress without notifying everyone, anything even remotely related to the Schiavo case (and this includes Jeb's attempt to use DCF to abduct Terri against the court orders), and of course, illegal wiretaps....

The lawmakers never even dreamed someone would even attempt some of the abuses that have been perpetrated under this reign (and that is what it is), so it doesn't surprise me that much of this will be hard to stick. Hell, I'd even be willing to bet he'll find a way to squeeze out of the two-term limit for Presidency!

If only being a moron was an impeachable offense....then we'd be set.


[edit on 10-1-2006 by Gazrok]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   
ImplementOfWar, apparently you read only one selective law?
By chance, did you get the time to read this particular law/code before you passed judgement that Bush broke the law? I highly doubt it, probably would have made no difference at any rate.



§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court

(a) (1) 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—

(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; [e.g., defined as terrorists /angkor]

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person [e.g. citizen or perm. resident /angkor] is a party; and

(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

(2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General’s certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title.
US Code: Title 50, 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order...


From here:
Bush Allowed NSA to Spy on U.S. International Calls





seekerof

[edit on 10-1-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
ImplementOfWar, apparently you read only one selective law?
By chance, did you get the time to read this particular law/code before you passed judgement that Bush broke the law? I highly doubt it, probably would have made no difference at any rate.



§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court

(a) (1) 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—

(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; [e.g., defined as terrorists /angkor]

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person [e.g. citizen or perm. resident /angkor] is a party; and

(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

(2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General’s certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title.
US Code: Title 50, 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order...


From here:
Bush Allowed NSA to Spy on U.S. International Calls





seekerof

[edit on 10-1-2006 by Seekerof]


Seeker did you read the original post? I had already quoted that same exact law.

It states that the President can only authorize wiretaps on foreign communications that (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person [e.g. citizen or perm. resident /angkor] is a party;

He has admitted to intercepting communications that US citizens were a party to. And the NY times was told by the NSA wistleblower that it was not just foreign communications, but communications between two US citizens as well.

Can I get an apology?

[edit on 10-1-2006 by ImplementOfWar]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
If only being a moron was an impeachable offense....then we'd be set.



That would clean up both sides of the isle in Washington!!
D.C. would be a ghost town ... all the politicians would be sent packing!
You just might be onto something wonderful Gazrok!!

Seriously ... the dems have been working on this for a very long
time and they have better minds then ours desperately trying to
get something to pin on G.W. They haven't got anything and so
... neither do you.

As boatphone said - 'reported to congress' - case closed.



[edit on 1/10/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
-HEAD-
Sec. 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court
order; certification by Attorney General; reports to
Congressional committees
; transmittal under seal; duties and
compensation of communication common carrier; applications;
jurisdiction of court


The wire taps were reported to Congress. Case closed.

-- Boat


Wrong. The wiretaps were against US citizens which are prohibited under the statute. Only legitimate communications between foreign powers have any legality in being reported to Congress.

[edit on 10-1-2006 by ImplementOfWar]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Here is something else you need to bear in mind:
"If Al Qaeda is calling you, we want to know why."---George Bush.

Likewise:

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
He has admitted to intercepting communications that US citizens were a party to.

Did you read the second link I provided?
It explains the phrase "US citizens or persons".
The FISA Act And The Definition Of 'US Persons'




seekerof



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
The wiretaps were against US citizens ... Only legitimate communications between foreign powers have any legality in being reported to Congress.


This came next -

or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; [e.g., defined as terrorists /angkor]

The wire taps were of phone conversations between America
and countries on the terrorist watch list - such as Syria.

If you called across town to grandma and asked her to bake
you some cookies .. that wouldn't be listened in on. If you
called and spoke to people on a terrorist watch list in Syria
you very well could be listened in on and it would have been
legal.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Here is something else you need to bear in mind:
"If Al Qaeda is calling you, we want to know why. Even though I myself have no legal authority to intercept those communications."---George Bush.

Likewise:

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
He has admitted to intercepting communications that US citizens were a party to.

Did you read the second link I provided?
It explains the phrase "US citizens or persons".
The FISA Act And The Definition Of 'US Persons'


seekerof


I fixed your quote for you.

As far as the definition of a United States person. (i) "United States person" means a citizen of the United
States
, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as
defined in section 1101(a)(20) of title 8), 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, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2),
or (3) of this section.



or a corporation which is incorporated in the United
States, but does not include a corporation or an association
which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1),


Is irrelevant. It only says that business's or associations operating in the United States with foreign persons.

First there is no evidence that the communications were intercepted on people with VISA's. They were legitimate permanent US citizens. Second, most of the communications intercepted were between two US citizens and not necessarily containing any foreign party at all. Third there is no proof that the communications were actually Al Quada related at all.

And the President has exhibited whining childness in calling the whistleblowing "shameful". He called a Patriot shameful because that person had brought to light the governments illegal activity. The NY Times or Newsweek (cant remember) first reported that it was "only foreign communications". Then it was "foreign communications that a US citizen was a party to". THen the New York Times says "It was deeper and contained domestic communication eavesdropping on US citizens as well".

The President admitted that he had done it under the pretense they 'thought' it was granted to them under the wartime powers that Congressa had given them (which there are no wartime powers other then what I have quoted here that relate to him having power to eavesdrop on US Citizens).

The case is clear. The President broke the law. He has called an American Patriot 'shameful' and he is ignorant to the fact that he is not the ruler of this country, he is just the President. We are not a monarchy. We are a democratic constitional republic and his powers are limited by the Constitution.

He has got to go. That is if you beleive the government has to have any integrity.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
The wiretaps were against US citizens ... Only legitimate communications between foreign powers have any legality in being reported to Congress.


This came next -

or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; [e.g., defined as terrorists /angkor]

The wire taps were of phone conversations between America
and countries on the terrorist watch list - such as Syria.

If you called across town to grandma and asked her to bake
you some cookies .. that wouldn't be listened in on. If you
called and spoke to people on a terrorist watch list in Syria
you very well could be listened in on and it would have been
legal.


"(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance
will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United
States person is a party;


Negates your argument.

Also

"or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; [e.g., defined as terrorists /angkor]"

I bolded the part that states "Other then spoken communications". So no, the President didnt have the power to authorize eavsdropping on my spoken communications to the Syrian terrorists.

We are talking Presidential powers. The Attorney General could have my call to Syrian terrorists monitored if he goes to through a FISA court judge through the normal eavesdropping laws. But as far as the President, no he does not have the power to have my telephone call to Syria listened in on with his Presidential power.


[edit on 10-1-2006 by ImplementOfWar]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
the President has exhibited whining childness in calling the whistleblowing "shameful".

The case is clear. The President broke the law. He has got to go.
That is if you beleive the government has to have any integrity.


Did you say these same things when Clinton broke the law and
lied under oath in a sexual harrassment law suit? When he
committed purgery and when he was intangled in an adulterous
situation that could have been cause for him to be blackmailed
if found out by foreign powers. Clinton whined about being
investigated. Did you say the same things about Clinton, who
clearly broke the law, or are you saving it all for the current
republican president who could be operating in a shady area?

Just wondering.

Is this a partisan thing, or are you concerned about the law?




[edit on 1/10/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
no he does not have the power to have my telephone call to
Syria listened in on.


If you are calling Syria, I certainly hope the monitors are working
well and picking up on any 'key words' that may be discussed.

I understand how you could read this as being illegal. However,
the president has an obligation to protect this country and our
citizens. If listening in to overseas conversations to suspicious
places is part of that ... I don't mind. I WOULD mind if the
government didn't listen in.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join