Bush Impeached, Cheney Resigns?

If Clinton can be impeached because of Monica, Bush can be impeached for wiretapping Americans. And there is a strong movement to make it happen right now.

With Libby saying Cheney and other superiors are responsible and senators now calling for Cheney to be investigated, I wouldn't be surprised if Cheney resigned.

Looks like the GOP is in big trouble. You have Karl Rove now threatening Republicans who go against the Bush Administration. This is getting ugly.

I have to say if it happens, it will make America look really bad. But it seems almost inevitable.

If you think Bush cares about the average American's boring phone calls. Then you are surely a Bush basher. You honestly think Bush cares when your wife calls you to pick up some milk?

If you are receiving phone calls from Al-Queda, and the government didn't monitor them, I would call for impeachment.

It is not an accident that we have not been attacked since 9/11, and wiretapping has something to do with that.

Well I agree Bush and whom ever is "listening" in on calls and emails will not give one hoots arse about a phone call between normal US citizens....

However.. If I had the power. I would listen to CEO's, politicians, Captains of Industry, etc etc.. Theres much more on the table here.. If you buy into the whole "we only listen to "terrorists", well I dunno.. I can't do much for ya.

Try looking beyond the fine black line.

Regardless of what Prez Bush or VP Cheney think about the issue... I, the person being tapped over the phone or internet, Care! It's a total invasion of my privacy. The government has no business messing around in my life.

And no... I don't support Al Qaeda.

Originally posted by Carseller4
If you think Bush cares about the average American's boring phone calls. Then you are surely a Bush basher. You honestly think Bush cares when your wife calls you to pick up some milk?

Beside the point. To tap a phone line, intercept mail, or snoop on Internet communication, without a court order on probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, is a violation of Constitutional rights spelled out in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. That is true regardless of whether the snooper "cares" about what he finds.

If you are receiving phone calls from Al-Queda, and the government didn't monitor them, I would call for impeachment.

It is also true whether or not the snoopee turns out to be guilty. If the cops violate due process and Constitutional rights to obtain evidence, the case is normally thrown out of court, no matter what the evidence actually shows. Probable cause has to be established BEFORE a search, not afterwards.

It is not an accident that we have not been attacked since 9/11, and wiretapping has something to do with that.

To quote Benjamin Franklin, a people who would surrender essential liberties for a temporary security will achieve neither.

That is how freedom dies: it shrivels in the wintry wind of fear.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Beside the point. To tap a phone line, intercept mail, or snoop on Internet communication, without a court order on probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, is a violation of Constitutional rights spelled out in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. That is true regardless of whether the snooper "cares" about what he finds.

What about if I overhear a conversation while I'm riding the train to work? What about if it's between 2 truckers talking on CB radios? Where do cell phones, that transmit conversations in the ether, come into play? It's pretty much the same as listening to the radio, if you have the right "receiver", no?

Originally posted by w1kdtr1p
Regardless of what Prez Bush or VP Cheney think about the issue... I, the person being tapped over the phone or internet, Care! It's a total invasion of my privacy. The government has no business messing around in my life.

Once again... Ok first off I understand we are on a conspiracy theory chat forum... And conspiracy theorists tend to be a bit, well, paranoid. But, read previous posts...

Do you honestly think Bush was listening to you personally? Why would he? Have you been making long distance phone calls to some cave in the middle east? Been receiving e-mails from there? If you answer no to these questions then you have nothing. Nothing to worry about.

The fact that we haven't been attacked again since 9/11 tells me the current administration is doing something right. Thats my opinion.

Originally posted by LostSailor
Do you honestly think Bush was listening to you personally? Why would he? Have you been making long distance phone calls to some cave in the middle east? Been receiving e-mails from there? If you answer no to these questions then you have nothing. Nothing to worry about.

That understanding of the right to privacy from government surveillance -- a key to civil liberties -- can be so dim, is almost scarier than what Bush is doing.

LostSailor, do you recall, or have you studied about, what Richard Nixon did using the powers of the presidency? How he spied on his personal and political enemies, and used government agencies to covertly lie about them to the public? THAT sort of thing is why we put restraints on government intrusion into people's private lives.

There are many reasons why a person holding political power might want to tap someone's phone conversations, other than al-Qaida connections. Bush might want to spy on prominent Democrats, or antiwar protest organizations, or environmental organizations, or non-Christian or liberal Christian religious groups. He might use the information for personal business advantage, too, not just political leverage. Given his past, we certainly should suspect him capable of that!

It has nothing to do with voyeurism or anything else petty like that. The greatest potential threat to liberty is our own government, always. We protect ourselves from that potential in three ways: public accountability, checks and balances, and specifically forbidden government actions. Allowing any of these to attenuate is very, very dangerous. Liberty requires vigilance, not against foreign threats, but against threats from above, here at home.

The fact that we haven't been attacked again since 9/11 tells me the current administration is doing something right. Thats my opinion.

The fact that the German economy rebounded from the Great Depression after Hitler assumed dictatorial powers showed that he was doing something right, too. The point here isn't that Bush is doing nothing right, but that he's doing -- and we are allowing him to do -- something dangerously wrong.

Originally posted by LostSailor
Do you honestly think Bush was listening to you personally? Why would he?

I don't care if Bush was picking his nose while he did it (although that's pretty gross, too ). Obviously you didn't read my post nor any of the previous comments by members: It-doesn't-matter-who-did-the-listening... the real point is that if it was carried out by intelligence working under direct order of the governing body and the said tapping is illegal, unconstitutional and dangerous to Joe Public.

9/11 happened, because warnings weren't heeded, so how can we believe anti-terrorism interventions are working, when the government won't even accept blame for what occured that infamous day.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Beside the point. To tap a phone line, intercept mail, or snoop on Internet communication, without a court order on probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, is a violation of Constitutional rights spelled out in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. That is true regardless of whether the snooper "cares" about what he finds.

What about if I overhear a conversation while I'm riding the train to work? What about if it's between 2 truckers talking on CB radios? Where do cell phones, that transmit conversations in the ether, come into play? It's pretty much the same as listening to the radio, if you have the right "receiver", no?

overhearing someones convo is way different then skipping the due process and wiretapping someone. the big deal is this....BIG BROTHER/BIG GOVERNMENT........ what freedoms we have now are protected through the constitution and the bill of rights. these are further protected by due process. when you take away due process whats next. the government needs lines drawn. the problem we as americans have is the "im doing nothing wrong so why do i care" attitude. but what happens when what your doing becomes wrong in there eyes. what happens when we start getting harrassed because we speak out against something we dont like.
then what ...it will be to late.
now im not completely against wire tapping (actually maybe i am, im not shure its a touchy subject) but there needs to be checks and balances.
the government cant go around doing what ever they feel like doing on any occasion.

Originally posted by plague
overhearing someones convo is way different then skipping the due process and wiretapping someone. the big deal is this....BIG BROTHER/BIG GOVERNMENT........ what freedoms we have now are protected through the constitution and the bill of rights. these are further protected by due process. when you take away due process whats next. the government needs lines drawn. the problem we as americans have is the "im doing nothing wrong so why do i care" attitude. but what happens when what your doing becomes wrong in there eyes. what happens when we start getting harrassed because we speak out against something we dont like.
then what ...it will be to late.

I know what you're trying to say, but you've got a lot of work to do to flesh out your point of view. Don't take that as a personal slam, btw.

What is the difference between you overhearing a train conversation and the gov't. listening into cell phone conversation? Just because the gov't is doing the listening?

Originally posted by plague
the government cant go around doing what ever they feel like doing on any occasion.

Actually, if it is deemed a matter of national security. The government can do pretty much whatever is wants. All in the effort of "protecting the people." Can I ask a question? Well, I am going to anyway. Do you believe there are people out there, right now, who want to kill you just because you happen to live in this country?

I wanted to respond to the issue of the authorized wiretapping. In my opinion, it is against the law. In order to explain, let's have a look at the fourth amendment as ratified by the required number of states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Source: The Fourth Amendment

As the fourth amendment states, a warrant is required for a search by the government. The NSA program authorized by the president required no warrants to wiretap. This is where the illegality lies, a direct violation of the Bill of Rights which should be held sacred by every American.

One of the things I have noticed whenever the question of the wiretapping comes up is that there are people saying that the government has no right to listen to their phone calls and then there is the opposition saying that as long as you aren't calling Al Qaeda you have nothing to worry about. Then it usually turns into an argument over the effectiveness of the program. Supporters of the wiretapping claim that it has prevented terrorist attacks, but there is no proof that it actually did. Without the attack/event actually happening it is impossible to prove that it would have happened. All the documents and resources that went into the planning for said attack may be found, but that still doesn't prove that the attack would have happened.

However, the effectiveness of the program is not only impossible to prove, but irrelevant. Regardless of whether or not the program is or was effective it is still illegal. You can spin it any way you want, but the underlying facts remain. Sure you can go out and claim that it's required to prevent future terrorist attacks, but that doesn't make it any more or less legal. In my opinion, the politicians are only bringing out the effectiveness of the program to sway the arguments (and thus the attention) away from the legality aspect.

What I'm disturbed more about than the actual wiretapping scheme is that the Congress apparently knew about it, but only chose to make an issue of it when the people found out. Rather than faithfully carrying out their duty and doing something about it before the people found out, they simply ignored it until people started getting upset. Now, it's being used just for campaigns so that the "representatives" can retain their jobs. Everyone with an elected government position that knew about the program is just as much to blame for it as the person who ordered it.

I just noticed that the wiretapping issue seems to have hijacked this thread pretty early in its existance, sorry for contributing to that...

More on topic...Will Bush be impeached? Personally, I don't think he will. That's not to say I don't think he should be, I just don't think anyone will take the action to do so. Look at the previous impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Both were made for mostly personal reasons, whereas here we're dealing with an actual issue. Looking at precedent set previously it doesn't look like any impeachment will come of this. When Johnson was impeached it was basically because Congress just didn't like him because in their opinion they thought he wasn't punishing the South enough after the Civil War, so they set a trap for him. He did break the Tenure of Office Act, but it was created specifically to trap him into getting impeached. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, but about a personal matter that had nothing to do with his leadership as president. Looking at these facts, I don't think Bush will be impeached since when dealing with an actual issue, the risk is greater for a member of Congress to vote in such a way that angers the people that elected them and therefore losing their job.

Edit: Spelling

[edit on 13-2-2006 by UnknownOrigins]

Originally posted by UnknownOrigins
As the fourth amendment states, a warrant is required for a search by the government. The NSA program authorized by the president required no warrants to wiretap. This is where the illegality lies, a direct violation of the Bill of Rights which should be held sacred by every American.

In it's simplest form, you're right, but Title 3, FISA, and a couple of Executive Orders have muddied the waters.

Supporters of the wiretapping claim that it has prevented terrorist attacks, but there is no proof that it actually did. Without the attack/event actually happening it is impossible to prove that it would have happened. All the documents and resources that went into the planning for said attack may be found, but that still doesn't prove that the attack would have happened.

It's impossible to prove, of course. But that doesn't mean it didn't prevent other attacks on our soil.

What I'm disturbed more about than the actual wiretapping scheme is that the Congress apparently knew about it, but only chose to make an issue of it when the people found out.

Do you mean the eight Congressmen who receive special briefings from the Intelligence bureaus? Well, if it were illegal, why didn't they say something earlier, esp. the Democratic members?

Btw, I just noticed - we share something in common, our registration date. It's coming up on two years in just a couple of days.

Originally posted by jsobecky
What is the difference between you overhearing a train conversation and the gov't. listening into cell phone conversation? Just because the gov't is doing the listening?

No, it's more the difference between public and private conversation. Cell phones are somewhat public; that's a technological drawback to them, as with all wireless technology. It's like the difference between someone hearing what you say when you shout in the streets, and listening at your keyhole to a private conversation.

Originally posted by LostSailor
Can I ask a question? Well, I am going to anyway. Do you believe there are people out there, right now, who want to kill you just because you happen to live in this country?

Yes.

Now, let me ask you one. Are you willing to live in a police state, and for your children and all your descendants to live in a police state, for the foreseeable future, and give up civil liberties and democracy and basically everything America supposedly stands for, forever, in order to reduce their chances of killing you?

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Now, let me ask you one. Are you willing to live in a police state, and for your children and all your descendants to live in a police state, for the foreseeable future, and give up civil liberties and democracy and basically everything America supposedly stands for, forever, in order to reduce their chances of killing you?

Nope, but I'm not naive or paranoid enough to spin what happened into living in a police state... Forever. Good Lord.

Originally posted by jsobecky

What I'm disturbed more about than the actual wiretapping scheme is that the Congress apparently knew about it, but only chose to make an issue of it when the people found out.

Do you mean the eight Congressmen who receive special briefings from the Intelligence bureaus?

Yes, I was talking about those eight. Sorry if I made it sound like the whole Congress knew when I'm pretty sure that they didn't.

Well, if it were illegal, why didn't they say something earlier, esp. the Democratic members?

That's what I'm wondering too. In my opinion any elected Congressman that knew about it, but did nothing until the public reacted, despite knowing that it's illegal, is just as guilty as the person who broke the law.

Btw, I just noticed - we share something in common, our registration date. It's coming up on two years in just a couple of days.

Yep
I can still remember entering in my username/password for the first time and how the board used to look then....

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward

Originally posted by jsobecky
What is the difference between you overhearing a train conversation and the gov't. listening into cell phone conversation? Just because the gov't is doing the listening?

No, it's more the difference between public and private conversation. Cell phones are somewhat public; that's a technological drawback to them, as with all wireless technology. It's like the difference between someone hearing what you say when you shout in the streets, and listening at your keyhole to a private conversation.

You hit the nail on the head. It's the fact that one is public vs private. Or, a conversation that you reasonably expect to be private. But sending it through the ether makes it public, like listening to the radio.

Originally posted by UnknownOrigins

Well, if it were illegal, why didn't they say something earlier, esp. the Democratic members?

That's what I'm wondering too. In my opinion any elected Congressman that knew about it, but did nothing until the public reacted, despite knowing that it's illegal, is just as guilty as the person who broke the law.

When asked about this, the Lt. General Hayden, who was Director, National Security Agency/Chief, Central Security Service (NSA/CSS), at the time, said that he never walked out of a meeting feeling that they (NSA) had to do anything different. Which implies that they felt it was perfectly legal, or that they didn't care if it was illegal.

Btw, I just noticed - we share something in common, our registration date. It's coming up on two years in just a couple of days.

Yep

I can still remember entering in my username/password for the first time and how the board used to look then....

You're from PA? Pennsylvania is Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, with Arkansas in between. I forget who said that. I'm from the near-Pittsburgh end.

Here's to two more years.

[edit on 13-2-2006 by jsobecky]