The Truth will prevail, but only if we demand it from Congress!
9-11 Inside Job and Neocons Hacked 2004
Bush's illegal Wiretaps-A Strong Case for Impeachment to
Add to All of the Others
There is not a single bit of authority in any of this for the absurd and dangerous proposition
that the President has the right to violate a criminal law passed by Congress. Period. The
Administration is trotting out lawyers to make legalistic arguments designed to cloud this
extremely clear issue, but none of that can change the fact that Bush defenders are arguing
that he has the right to enage in conduct which Congress made it a crime to engage in, and
there is nothing in the law which gives a President that right. To the contrary, as one would
expect, it has been repeatedly made clear that under our system of Government, the President
does not possess the authoritarian right to engage in behavior which Congress expressly prohibits
under the law.
Posted on Tuesday, August 22 @ 09:42:50 EDT
over here at Empire Burlesque, and in the Moscow Times, and CounterPunch and anywhere
else they'd let us come in with the hammer: George W. Bush and his minions are committing
crimes -- actual crimes, clear-cut violations of American and international law, genuine offenses
in the most literal sense, not just metaphorical transgressions against some moral law or political
ideal. They are criminals by their own admission, have even boasted about their offenses: the
unprovoked invasion of Iraq and all the putrid horror that has followed in its wake; the kidnapping
of captives off streets all over the world and their "rendition" to secret prisons and foreign torture
chambers; the "extrajudicial killing" -- i.e., murder -- of uncharged, untried individuals, including
at least one American citizen; "taking the gloves off" on torture techniques that were carefully
considered, in detail, in formal legal documents seen and signed by the highest government officials;
and on and on.
By Robert Parry
Despite a dip in his opinion polls, George W. Bush’s transformation of the United States
into an authoritarian society continues apace, with new “compromises” with Congress
actually consolidating his claims to virtually unlimited executive power.
Bush’s latest success came as part of a supposed “concession” to Congress that
would grant two new Republican-controlled seven-member subcommittees narrow
oversight of Bush’s warrantless wiretapping of Americans.
While “moderate” Republican senators – Mike DeWine of Ohio, Olympia Snowe of
Maine, and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska – hailed the plan as a retreat by the White House,
the deal actually blesses Bush’s authority to bypass the courts in spying on Americans
and imposes on him only a toothless congressional review process.
Indeed, the congressional plan may make matters worse, broadening the permissible
scope of Bush’s wiretaps to include Americans deemed to be “working in support of a
terrorist group or organization.”
White House Working to Avoid Wiretap Probe
By Charles Babington
At two key moments in recent days, White House officials contacted congressional leaders
just ahead of intelligence committee meetings that could have stirred demands for a deeper
review of the administration's warrantless-surveillance program, according to House and
Spying Necessary, Democrats Say
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE COMPLICITY OF THE DEMOCRATS
By Walter Pincus
Two key Democrats yesterday called the NSA domestic surveillance program necessary
for fighting terrorism but questioned whether President Bush had the legal authority to order
it done without getting congressional approval.
Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence, and former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) said Republicans
are trying to create a political issue over Democrats' concern on the constitutional questions
raised by the spying program.
At the same time, the Republican chairmen of the Senate and House intelligence committees --
Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan.) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Mich.), who attended secret National Security
Agency briefings -- said they supported Bush's right to undertake the program without new
congressional authorization. They added that Democrats briefed on the program, who included
Harman and Daschle, could have taken steps if they believed the program was illegal. All four
appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press."
of the right to spy?'
Whatever else he may or may not be, Bush is strategic: what better vehicle for delivering
himself sweeping, unchecked "inherent" presidential power than through an appeal to national
security in an area -- electronic surveillance -- where public-opinion polls indicate that Americans
are most willing to sacrifice civil liberties in exchange for perceived security? The dirty little details
of surveillance law are sufficiently esoteric and legalistic that the average citizen remains largely in
the dark, distracted by siren calls of security. After all, who isn't in favor of protecting America
when all that is at stake is privacy? Why worry about a little wiretapping when you know that
you are doing nothing wrong?
By KATHLEEN HENNESSEY
Former President Jimmy Carter criticized the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping
program Monday and said he believes the president has broken the law.
"Under the Bush administration, there's been a disgraceful and illegal decision _ we're not going
to the let the judges or the Congress or anyone else know that we're spying on the American
people," Carter told reporters. "And no one knows how many innocent Americans have had
their privacy violated under this secret act."
By PETE YOST, Associated Press WriterFri Feb 3, 8:13 PM ET
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts said Friday the Bush administration's
domestic spying is within the president's inherent power under the Constitution, and he rejected
criticism that Congress was kept in the dark about it.
The program is "legal, necessary and reasonable," the Kansas Republican wrote in a 19-page
letter, taking a particularly expansive view of the president's authority for the warrantless surveillance.
"Congress, by statute, cannot extinguish a core constitutional authority of the president," Roberts wrote.
'What the President ordered in this case was a crime'
that he is not one of their number, a dwindling cadre of public servants still take seriously
the dictates of the Constitution and the intents of it authors. And there is no more serious
dictate of the document -- and no more solidly established intent -- than the one that requires
the Congress to serve as a check and a balance against the excesses of the executive branch.
Most particularly in a time of war, the founders intended for the Congress to question,
challenge and constrain the president and his aides so that never again would Americans
be subjected to the illegitimate, unwarranted and illegal dictates of a King George.
places a particularly high demand on the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. It is
in the House, the Constitution tells us, that the work of holding an out-of-control president
to account, must begin -- and it is on the Judiciary Committee that the process is initiated.
understand this charge better than most. After all, he was at the center of the effort in 1998
and 1999 to impeach former President Bill Clinton.
debate that if the misdeeds of the former president required both examination and action by
the Judiciary Committee -- as Sensenbrenner so obvioualy believed-- then the misdeeds of
the current president must surely merit a similar response.
'Does the President Really Know Best?'
raise your hand. Anyone? Anyone?
are aware, only recently has the world received notice that President Bush's "I can do
anything I want" approach to governance has a name: the Unitary Executive Theory
of the Presidency. Not having heard of this concept, and thinking perhaps that I had
missed something in Constitutional Law, I decided to survey a random sampling of
attorneys about it. The group included civil practitioners, prosecutors, a federal judge,
a former federal prosecutor who has a PhD as well as a J.D., defense attorneys, and
a U.S. magistrate. The precise question was, "When did you first hear about the
Unitary Executive Theory of the Presidency?" Most said, "The past few weeks,"
but my favorite was, "A few seconds ago, when you asked about it." All agreed that
the term does not appear in the U.S. Constitution and that, the last time they checked,
we still had three branches of government.
01/18/2006 @ 3:04 pm
Filed by RAW STORY
House Democrats, led by liberal Michigan Congressmen John Conyers, will hold
unofficial hearings on the legality of President Bush's warantless wiretap programs
Friday, and CSPAN and Pacifica radio will carry the hearings live, RAW STORY
Conyers office said in a release that CNN and ABC radio are also expected to be
present at the event. Radio Pacifica affiliates will broadcast the forum beginning at
11:00am EST, and it will be streamed live on the internet at www.kpfa.org.
In a detailed 42-page legal memorandum set for release this evening the Bush Justice
Department will defend the President's warrantless wiretap program as legal. A copy of the
document was leaked to RAW STORY.
Bush Authorized Domestic Spying Before 9/11
Friday 13 January 2006
The National Security Agency advised President Bush in early 2001 that it had been
eavesdropping on Americans during the course of its work monitoring suspected terrorists
and foreigners believed to have ties to terrorist groups, according to a declassified document.
The NSA's vast data-mining activities began shortly after Bush was sworn in as president
and the document contradicts his assertion that the 9/11 attacks prompted him to take the
unprecedented step of signing a secret executive order authorizing the NSA to monitor a select
number of American citizens thought to have ties to terrorist groups.
Report Rebuts Bush on Spying
By Carol D. Leonnig
A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's
justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts
with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments.
The Congressional Research Service's report rebuts the central assertions made recently
by Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales about the president's authority to
order secret intercepts of telephone and e-mail exchanges between people inside the
United States and their contacts abroad.
'Land of the Surveilled, Home of the Complacent'
Ken Sanders, Dissident Voice
campaign to transform the United States from a nominal democracy to a despotic monarchy.
To the dismay of some, but to the surprise of no one, The New York Times revealed that in
the wake of 9/11, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to engage in the
warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens.
the Bush administration has been secretly spying on the telephone conversations and e-mails
of U.S. citizens suspected by Bush of having terrorist connections. The White House does
not deny that this is true. To the contrary, the Bush administration is proud of its clandestine
subversion of what remains of American democracy. Indeed, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and
Rice have repeatedly defended the White House's unfettered right to spy on whomever, whenever.
Constitution and the Fourth Amendment was wrong. Living up to its reputation as "the paper
of record," as well as the leader of the rumored "liberal media," The New York Times complied
with the White House's request (threat?) and sat on its story for more than a year. Once the
Times got around to publishing its story, the White House immediately directed the Justice
Department to find out who leaked Bush's dirty little secret and destroy them.
Illegal Use of Warrant-less Wire Taps.
by JONATHAN SCHELL
[from the January 9, 2006 issue]
When the New York Times revealed that George W. Bush had ordered the National Security
Agency to wiretap the foreign calls of American citizens without seeking court permission, as
is indisputably required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), passed by Congress
in 1978, he faced a decision. Would he deny the practice, or would he admit it? He admitted it.
But instead of expressing regret, he took full ownership of the deed, stating that his order had
been entirely justified, that he had in fact renewed it thirty times, that he would continue to renew
it and--going even more boldly on the offensive--that those who had made his law-breaking known
had committed a "shameful act." As justification, he offered two arguments, one derisory, the other
deeply alarming. The derisory one was that Congress, by authorizing him to use force after
September 11, had authorized him to suspend FISA, although that law is unmentioned in the
resolution. Thus has Bush informed the members of a supposedly co-equal branch of government
of what, unbeknownst to themselves, they were thinking when they cast their vote. The alarming
argument is that as Commander in Chief he possesses "inherent" authority to suspend laws in wartime.
But if he can suspend FISA at his whim and in secret, then what law can he not suspend? What need
is there, for example, to pass or not pass the Patriot Act if any or all of its provisions can be secretly
exceeded by the President?
by Eric Margolis
Americans should not be shocked to learn that Big Brother has been eavesdropping on their
telecommunications. It’s been an open secret for years that the hush- hush National Security
Agency’s big electronic ears on the East and West coasts of the USA have been hoovering up
all international phone, fax, and email communications.
When you call your aunt in Palermo, or your friend in Egypt, or your girlfriend in Paris, NSA’s
super computers pick up and process the transmission. State of the art programs search the
messages for key words, locations, repetitions and patterns of interest. This process has been
going on long before 9/11.
UPI - U.S. President George Bush decided to skip seeking warrants
for international wiretaps because the court was challenging him at
an unprecedented rate.
Journalists Should Expose Secrets, Not Keep Them
to Protect National Security
On Friday, December 16, the New York Times published a major scoop by James Risen
and Eric Lichtblau: They reported that Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA)
to spy on Americans without warrants, ignoring the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA).
It reported that sometime in 2002, Bush issued an executive order authorizing NSA to track
and intercept international telephone and/or email exchanges coming into, or out of, the U.S. -
when one party was believed to have direct or indirect ties with al Qaeda.
From the Impeach Bush Coalition:
Tom Delay (R-TX):
Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous
application of the principle that no man is above the law. Now, the other road is the path
of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll
numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the
mood fits us, when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth.
No man is above the law, and no man is below the law. That’s the principle that we all
hold very dear in this country."
Katrina vanden HeuvelTue Dec 27,10:12 AM ET
The Nation -- In 1998, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, currently under indictment
on corruption charges, proclaimed: "This nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points
to the higher road of the rule of law...The other road is the path of least resistance" in which
"we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us...[and] close our eyes to the
potential lawbreaking...and tear an unfixable hole in our legal system." That arbiter of moral
politics was incensed about the possibility of Bill Clinton escaping unpunished for his "crimes."
Fast forward to December 2005. Not one official in the entire Bush Administration has been
fired or indicted, not to mention impeached, for the shedding of American blood in Iraq or for
the shredding of our Constitution at home. As Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter put it--hours
after the New York Times reported that Bush had authorized NSA wiretapping of US citizens
without judicial warrants--this President has committed a real transgression that "goes beyond
sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable
bounds of presidential power."
In the last months, several organizations, including AfterDowningStreet, Impeach Central and
ImpeachPAC.org, have formed to urge Bush's impeachment. But until very recently, their views
were virtually absent in the so-called "liberal" MSM, and could only be found on the Internet and
in street protests.
Spying on Americans
Yes, the president committed a federal crime by wiretapping Americans, say
constitutional scholars, former intelligence officers and politicians. What's missing
is the political will to impeach him.
By Barton Gellman
The Bush administration requested, and Congress rejected, war-making authority "in the
United States" in negotiations over the joint resolution passed days after the terrorist attacks
of Sept. 11, 2001, according to an opinion article by former Senate majority leader Thomas
A. Daschle (D-S.D.) in today's Washington Post.
Daschle's disclosure challenges a central legal argument offered by the White House in defense
of the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.
It suggests that Congress refused explicitly to grant authority that the Bush administration now
asserts is implicit in the resolution.
The self-evident strategy of the Bush defenders is to cloud the extremely clear fact
of Bush’s illegal conduct with so many legalistic justifications that people will throw
up their hands and decided that this is nothing more than an esoteric lawyer game, not
a serious threat to the founding principles of the nation and to the rule of law. But the
principle that the President does not have the right to engage in conduct which the Congress
prohibits under our criminal laws is one that is as clear as it is critical to our system of
government, and it is urgent that this clarity be maintained and the rule of law enforced.