Monitoring telephone calls into the US by suspected terrorists

[Jim]

I spent about 5 minutes on Lexis.com and skimmed a single lawreview article. This is not an issue I've researched. It may be that the legal research that predates the 2002 Order argued that the 1978 law was not applicable to this new war. Therefore, they might argue, we are in the second category described here where existing law is silent and Bush did run this buy Congress who remained inert, a few possible letters notwithstanding.

 

Alternatively, the article seems to say that there are very narrow areas of Presidential power where the president can act contrary to existing law.

 

To answer this issue you need to be a Constitutional scholar and spend about a week researching. I only hope to show that it is silly to go off half-cocked, as the mainstream media has done:

 

A. O'Donnell, COMMENT: ILLUMINATION OR ELIMINATION OF THE "ZONE OF TWILIGHT"? CONGRESSIONAL ACQUIESCENCE AND PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 51 U. Cin. L. Rev. 95 (1982).

 

 

II. HISTORY OF THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS POWER

 

A. The Constitution

 

The Constitution provides sparse guidance as to allocation of the foreign affairs power between the President and Congress. The executive power is vested in the President: he is the Commander-in-Chief of the nation's military forces; he may make treaties and appoint ambassadors subject to the advice and consent of the Senate; and he receives ambassadors from other nations. 5 Congress, on the other hand, is [*96] given a general grant of power to "make all laws . . . necessary and proper for carrying into Execution . . . all . . . Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." 6 Congress is specifically granted the power to regulate foreign commerce, to establish rules concerning naturalization, to declare war, to raise, support, and regulate military forces, and to define and punish piracy and offenses against international law. 7 Clearly, both the President and Congress are granted authority touching on foreign affairs, but it is far less clear whose authority prevails in specific matters. From the earliest days of the Republic, presidents have inferred authority that goes well beyond explicit constitutional grants of power. 8

 

The Supreme Court has been reluctant to examine the President's implied powers vis-a-vis Congress, often characterizing the issues raised as "political questions" not suitable for judicial review. 9 Two cases, however, United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp. 10 and Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 11 have framed the Court's approach to this problem. 12

 

B. Curtiss-Wright: The President as "Sole Organ"

 

In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp. the Supreme Court intimated that the President's power in foreign affairs is broad and primary while Congress' is secondary. 13 The legal issue presented in the case was merely whether Congress could delegate to the President by statute its constitutional power to regulate foreign commerce. The Court held that the delegation was permissible, but went beyond this to describe at length a primacy of presidential power in foreign affairs. The Court asserted that participation by Congress in the exercise of the foreign affairs power is significantly limited. 14 The practical [*97] exigencies of international relations and diplomacy require that Congress accord the President much greater discretion and freedom from legislative restriction than would be tolerable in domestic affairs. 15 The President is the "sole organ of the nation" and thus possessed of "very delicate, plenary, and exclusive power" in the field of international relations. 16

 

The Curtiss-Wright Court suggested that the President has broad inherent powers in the foreign affairs area based not only on the Constitution but also on extra-constitutional powers arising from the international legal concept of state sovereignty. 17 Although the Court's commentary on presidential power was mostly dictum, 18 commentators have used the Curtiss-Wright opinion to support arguments in favor of vast assertions of presidential power in foreign affairs. 19

 

C. Youngstown: Congress as Lawmaker

 

Sixteen years after Curtiss-Wright the Supreme Court emphasized the legislative authority granted to Congress by the Constitution in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. 20 President Truman had seized the nation's steel mills to avert a strike threatening the war effort in Korea. Unlike the situation in Curtiss-Wright, no statute authorized the President's action; he instead relied upon authority implied by the aggregate of constitutionally enumerated grants of presidential power. 21 The Court, invalidating Truman's action, suggested that the scope of the President's implied powers is narrow. 22 The "necessary and proper" clause gives Congress "exclusive" legislative power, while the President's duty faithfully to execute the laws [*98] bars him from lawmaking. 23 The Court argued that seizing the steel mills required a legislative enactment; without such law, the President was impermissibly exercising lawmaking power. 24 In sum, the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive authority to make laws, and the President cannot rely upon authority implied by the aggregate of his specific powers granted by the Constitution to poach upon lawmaking power. 25

 

Although the Youngstown majority opinion appeared to reject the concept of broad implied presidential power suggested in the Curtiss-Wright opinion, there were five concurrences in the six-man majority. Four of these indicated that the concept of implied presidential authority still has viability, although not in the Youngstown situation. 26

 

Justice Jackson's concurring opinion outlined an analytical scheme for assessing the validity of presidential actions in the face of congressional power. 27 Jackson discerned three possible categories. In the first, the President acts pursuant to an express or implied congressional grant of authority, and his authority is therefore at a maximum -- his action is "supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation." 28 In the third category, the President's action is incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, and thus his power is at a minimum. The President's action in the latter instance must rest on his exclusive power; the Court can uphold its validity only by determining that the Constitution disables Congress from acting upon the subject. 29

 

Jackson's second category includes those situations in which Congress has neither granted nor denied authority to the President. Within this "zone of twilight" Congress and the President have concurrent authority, or the distribution of authority is uncertain. 30 Congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence might enable, if not invite, presidential action based on independent presidential authority. 31 [*99] Jackson warned that any test of power in this category would be more likely to depend upon the imperatives of events than on abstract legal theories.

 

****

[Pangloss]

Do you have a link that you can add to the article above for us?

 

I haven't fully made up my mind on this yet, and I suspect that there are some valid questions being raised here. I tend to agree with you that they're being overshadowed by the media circus that is rapidly developing. The far left has yet another straw man to toss around and fail to get any mileage over, and meanwhile important questions won't get answered because we're too busy firing blanks at one another. (sigh)

 

One thing that I think people should understand is exactly what this 2002 order did (and apparently still does). It means that if a phone call is made to or from a terrorist-watch country, the government has the ability to listen to both halves of the conversation. Previously, if Osama asked "Are the bombs ready?", the NSA couldn't listen to the response. Which of course was idiotic, at least at surface value.

 

Of real import, however, are a number of questions:

 

1) How easy it was under the 1978 law for investigators to get the necessary court order to listen to the other half of the conversation. Did this red tape stand in the way of investigation?

 

2) Did the need for a court order prevent more of a mass-scale data analysis of incoming information, such as computer analysis for keywords and other high-tech approaches?

 

3) Why did the executive branch pursue this without seeking a legal change from congress to the 1978 FISA law? There seems little question that such a change would have been approved in the current post-9/11 climate. Were there legitimate reasons not to pursue such an avenue?

 

I think critics of the administration have some basis for raising concerns here. But I'm very concerned that this will be lost in the hubbub of ire and wrath from the far left, which will no doubt be loudly countered by the ire and wrath of the far right, causing the real issues to become drowned out and ignored.

 

Points to consider:

- The 2002 change does not allow the NSA to listen to your annual call to mom from New York to Topeka for Mother's Day.

- Many procedures and processes exist; this is not open, unconsidered legal ground. These issues have been debated for decades, and debating them on a serious basis requires a thorough understanding of the issues.

- President Bush is not a Sith Lord.

 

For further background reading, I highly recommend James Bamford's two books on the NSA ("The Puzzle Palace" is the first one).

[bascule]

Hmmm... to quote the Thompson Twins... LIES LIES LIES YEAH... here's a few funny Bush quotes dealing with judicial oversight of wiretapping:

 

http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=33849&keyword=wiretap&phrase=&contain=

 

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

 

http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=50711&keyword=wiretap&phrase=&contain=

 

Let me -- that's a great question. A couple of things that are very important for you to understand about the Patriot Act. First of all, any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order. In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order.

 

Said long after he ordered wiretaps without judicial oversight...

 

Anyway, liberal drivel ho! But hey, for all you New York Times haters out there AlterNet rips into them too. Woo!

 

http://www.alternet.org/story/29826/

 

President Bush may find himself in deep trouble after ordering and defending illegal wiretaps of U.S. citizens -- a crime for which Richard Nixon was nearly impeached.

 

When the U.S. Senate last Friday refused to renew the liberticidal Patriot Act -- with its provisions for spying on Americans' use of libraries and the Internet, among other Constitution-shredding provisions of that iniquitous law -- it was in part because that morning's New York Times had revealed how Bush and his White House had committed a major crime.

 

By ordering the National Security Agency -- the N.S.A, so secretive that in Washington its initials are said to stand for "No Such Agency" -- to wiretap and eavesdrop on thousands of American citizens without a court order, Bush committed actions specifically forbidden by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Passed in 1978 after the Senate's Church Committee documented in detail the Nixon administration's widespread use of U.S. intelligence agencies to spy on the anti-Vietnam war movement and other political dissidents, FISA "expressly made it a crime for government officials 'acting under color of law' to engage in electronic eavesdropping 'other than pursuant to statute.'", as the director of the Center for National Security Studies, Kate Martin, told the Washington Post this past weekend.

 

And the FISA statute required authorization of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to make such domestic spying legal. Bush and his NSA sought no such authorization before invading American citizens' right to privacy -- a blatant flouting of the law that made both wavering Democrats and libertarian Republicans mad enough to vote against extending the hideous Patriot Act, which thankfully will now expire at the end of the year.

 

Bush not only acknowledged, and defended, this illegal eavesdropping in a Saturday radio address, he went further in a Monday morning press conference, saying he'd "suggested" it. But as Wisconsin Democratic Senator Russ Feingold -- who, together with conservative Idaho Republican Larry Craig, led the filibuster that defeated the Patriot Act's renewal -- said this weekend, "This is not how our democratic system of government works--the president does not get to pick and choose which laws he wants to follow."

 

But Bush had plenty of bipartisan help from Democratic co-conspirators in keeping knowledge of this illegal spying from reaching the American public. It began in November 2001, in the wake of 9/11, and -- from the very first briefing for Congressional leaders by Dick Cheney until today -- Democrats on the Senate and House Intelligence Committees were told about it. Those witting and complicit in hiding the crime included Democratic Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, former chairman and later ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, former ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee. They knew it was a crime -- Rockefeller, for example, warned the administration against it -- and yet did not make it public. They were frightened by polls showing security hysteria at its height.

 

Worse, the New York Times itself was part of the coverup. When it broke its scoop last Friday, the Times in its article admitted that, "After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted."

 

In other words, the Times sat on its story until after the 2004 presidential elections, when American voters might have been able to stop this criminal conduct by voting out the criminal. Not content with employing Judith Miller as the megaphone for relaying the Bush administration's lies about Saddam's having weapons of mass destruction, the Times again proved its servility to power by not telling its readers it knew of criminal spying on them for an entire year, until the election cycle was long past. Yet this aspect of the Times' story has gone unremarked in the mass media.

 

Bush's excuses for the illegal eavesdropping are indeed risible. The Times didn't mention it, but of 19,000 requests for eavesdropping the Federal Intelligence Security Court has received from the Executive Branch since 1979, only five have ever been refused. Bush claimed again on Monday that this flagrant flouting of the FISA law was necessary because fighting "terrorists" needed to be done "quickly." Yet, as the Times reported, the secret court can grant approval for wiretaps "within hours."

 

And the excuse Bush offered Monday morning that this illegal subversion of FISA was necessary to prevent 9/11-style terrorism is equally laughable. As the ACLU pointed out in a study of FISA two years ago, "Although the Patriot Act was rushed into law just weeks after 9/11, Congress's later investigation into the attacks did not find that the former limits on FISA powers had contributed to the government's failure to prevent the attacks."

 

A Zogby poll released Nov. 4 showed that, when asked if they agreed that, "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment," Americans answered yes by 53 percent to 42 percent. It is therefore not simply extremist raving to suggest that impeachment of George Bush should be put on the table.

 

Remember that, in the impeachment of Richard Nixon, Article 2 of the three Articles of Impeachment dealt with illegal wiretapping of Americans. It said that Nixon committed a crime "by directing or authorizing [intelligence] agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office."

 

There was no national security justification for Bush's illegal NSA wiretaps -- which could easily have been instituted by following the FISA law's provisions -- and, instead of being related to "enforcement of laws," Bush's eavesdropping was indisputably in contravention of the law of the land.

 

And when a president commits a crime in violation of his oath of office swearing to uphold the law, it is time to impeach.

[sarge]

According to the Washington Post, the President is enjoying something of a come-back in the polls. If I were going to impeach him, I would try to get that done and the trial completed before the first of the year......

 

 

"A clear majority, 56 percent, said they approve of the way Bush is handling the fight against terrorism -- "

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121900924.html

[Jim]

Do you have a link that you can add to the article above for us?

 

Sorry, but I got the article from a subscription service. I completely agree that so much energy is needlessly expended in this kind of debate.

 

I also think that those who think of Bush as some kind of Sith Lord have more in common with Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly than they do you and I.

[bascule]

According to the Washington Post, the President is enjoying something of a come-back in the polls.

 

Yes, and according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, his approval rating is unchanged at 41% with 56% disapproving. The Washington Post poll had a margin of error of 4.5% and the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll had a margin of error of 3%.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20051220-07294500-bc-us-bushpoll.xml

 

Which one to believe? Well, I'd have to see how the questions were worded...

[Sisyphus]

The day after Clinton was impeached his approval rating was at 73%.

[bascule]

Mmmmm...

 

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/122005/patriot.html

 

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX): "None of your civil liberties matter much after you're dead."

 

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WA): "Give me liberty or give me death."

[sarge]

Yes' date=' and according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, his approval rating is unchanged at 41% with 56% disapproving. The Washington Post poll had a margin of error of 4.5% and the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll had a margin of error of 3%.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20051220-07294500-bc-us-bushpoll.xml

 

Which one to believe? Well, I'd have to see how the questions were worded...[/quote']

 

Whaddya mean unchanged?

 

A couple of weeks ago, it was 36% The president is on his way back in the polls because he is finally responding to the lies that the Democrats have been telling about the war and the pre-war intelligence.

 

He will be back over 50% by Feb.1.

[entwined]

Yes' date=' and according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, his approval rating is unchanged at 41% with 56% disapproving. The Washington Post poll had a margin of error of 4.5% and the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll had a margin of error of 3%.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20051220-07294500-bc-us-bushpoll.xml

 

Which one to believe? Well, I'd have to see how the questions were worded...[/quote']

 

But that particular poll is already 6 days old, a lifetime in politics. Here is something a little more up to date.

 

 

It looks like the President is making something of a comeback. 36% to 42% in just a few weeks, why he will be at 75% approval by St. Patrics day....

[Jim]

Originally Posted by President Bush' date=' 4/20/04

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.[/quote']

 

"While I am talking to you mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."

 

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15887&st=While+I+am+talking+to+you+mothers+and+fathers%2C+I+give+you+one+more+assurance&st1=

 

What a liar. During his administration, General Patton "gave public talks as commander of the fictional First U.S. Army Group (FUSAG), which was supposedly intending to invade France by way of Calais."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Patton

 

Lies, lies and now more lies: The commander in chief is publicly making statements which might make terrorists think that we are not agile in detecting their communicatinos into the United States. He didn't tell them about the 72 hour grace period to go to FISA. He didn't tell them that in limited cases, we still don't know how many, he didn't get a court order at all.

 

It's almost as if President Bush were trying to mislead the enemy about what we are doing to monitor their telephone communications into the United States.

[entwined]

Lies' date=' lies and now more lies: The commander in chief is publicly making statements which might make terrorists think that we are not agile in detecting their communicatinos into the United States. He didn't tell them about the 72 hour grace period to go to FISA. He didn't tell them that in limited cases, we still don't know how many, he didn't get a court order at all.

 

It's almost as if President Bush were trying to mislead the enemy about what we are doing to monitor their telephone communications into the United States.[/quote']

 

And if he keeps this up, the terrorists will have to conclude that we are not any better then they are.

 

Bit of a bummer isn't it?

[Jim]

And if he keeps this up' date=' the terrorists will have to conclude that we are not any better then they are.

 

Bit of a bummer isn't it?[/quote']

 

You think we run the risk of being as bad as terrorists because Bushed didn't reveal the NSA program? Wowzers.

 

Were FDR and Patton were as bad as Hitler for being deceptive in leading us to war and in misleading the public and enemy regarding Patton's fictional command?

[bascule]

And if he keeps this up, the terrorists will have to conclude that we are not any better then they are.

 

By that logic, we will likewise have to conclude that we are no better than terrorists...

[Helix]

You think we run the risk of being as bad as terrorists because Bushed didn't reveal the NSA program? Wowzers.

 

Were FDR and Patton were as bad as Hitler for being deceptive in leading us to war and in misleading the public and enemy regarding Patton's fictional command?

 

 

Uhh Jim' date=' Patton wasn't general of the [i']Nazis[/i] so it doesn't matter if he lied to them. Bush lied to us, the American people. He's our president, sadly, and therefore he has a duty to be honest.

 

Your comparison is illogical; the analogy of Patton --> Nazis and Bush --> Americans doesn't work. That's sort of strawmanning the situation.

 

Bottom line is Pres. Bush has lied, to his people and the world, many times in his term(s). The NSA debacle is the latest in the Three Stooges do Washington. If Clinton was impeached for sexual favors, then Bush should, legally, be impeached and convicted for all the lying and abusing he has donw while in power. He's disgraced America and turned patriotism into a guise for his right-wing war machine.

[entwined]

You think we run the risk of being as bad as terrorists because Bushed didn't reveal the NSA program? Wowzers.

 

Were FDR and Patton were as bad as Hitler for being deceptive in leading us to war and in misleading the public and enemy regarding Patton's fictional command?

 

Sorry about the confusion - I was making an effort to be sarcastic' date=' as I [i']thought[/i] you were.

[entwined]

By that logic, we will likewise have to conclude that we are no better than terrorists...

 

If American citizens are spared a death by terrorism, I think it (lying to terrorists) can be justified without ceding any moral equivelency.

[bascule]

If American citizens are spared a death by terrorism, I think it (lying to terrorists) can be justified without ceding any moral equivelency.

 

One American death is equivalent to the suffering of all the innocent people falsely imprisoned in Gitmo et al.?

 

And bottom line, if they're violating our civil rights to obtain this information, then **** it... I'd rather my civil rights were honored.

 

I think it's funny how all the Americans in imminent danger of a terrorist attack vote Democrat

[entwined]

One American death is equivalent to the suffering of all the innocent people falsely imprisoned in Gitmo et al.?

 

And bottom line' date=' if they're violating our civil rights to obtain this information, then **** it... I'd rather my civil rights were honored.

 

I think it's funny how all the Americans in imminent danger of a terrorist attack vote Democrat [/quote']

 

I am not going to get into an argument with anyone who uses the "gitmo is a gulag" strawman as support for an argument that we should capitulate to terrorists.

 

However I will say this much.....

 

If "our civil rights" have been violated because the government listened in on telephone calls from suspected terrorists overseas who called numbers within the US, then I am willing to accept that infringment. There seems to be some disagreement as to whether or not the President had the authority to order these taps, and if congress want's to investigate it fine. But if congress finds that the President did not have that authority, they should pass laws that grant it to him.

 

After all, as the liberals like to say, "the constitution is a living document that evolves over time to suit our changing needs.......":-)

[john5746]

 

If "our civil rights" have been violated because the government listened in on telephone calls from suspected terrorists overseas who called numbers within the US' date=' then I am willing to accept that infringment. There seems to be some disagreement as to whether or not the President had the authority to order these taps, and if congress want's to investigate it fine. But if congress finds that the President did not have that authority, they should pass laws that grant it to him.

 

After all, as the liberals like to say, "the constitution is a living document that evolves over time to suit our changing needs.......":-)[/quote']

 

And as the conservatives like to say "Did the Founding Fathers intend for the Government to use wire taps?"

 

I agree that this was something that was needed and required secrecy to be effective. He didn't need to specifically mention wire-tapping but on the face of it, it appears to have been very selective. Also, there needs to be oversight to insure the President or someone else doesn't abuse that power. Maybe Bush actually knew what foreign leaders Kerry was talking to all along?

[Jim]

Uhh Jim' date=' Patton wasn't general of the [i']Nazis[/i] so it doesn't matter if he lied to them. Bush lied to us, the American people. He's our president, sadly, and therefore he has a duty to be honest.

 

Your comparison is illogical; the analogy of Patton --> Nazis and Bush --> Americans doesn't work. That's sort of strawmanning the situation.

 

Bottom line is Pres. Bush has lied, to his people and the world, many times in his term(s). The NSA debacle is the latest in the Three Stooges do Washington. If Clinton was impeached for sexual favors, then Bush should, legally, be impeached and convicted for all the lying and abusing he has donw while in power. He's disgraced America and turned patriotism into a guise for his right-wing war machine.

 

Uhh.... Patton didn't go over to Germany and lie directly to Germans. He used the press in making dishonest public statements during a time of war. FDR was helped by Pearl Harbor but he rightly wanted us to get into WWII despite his campaign promise to the contrary. Given that the first casualty of war is the truth, this off the cuff statement by Bush about court orders is petty in the extreme.

 

I wouldn't have impeached Clinton primarily to have saved the Country the trauma. However, Bush has acted in what he perceives to be the best interests of the country, not to avoid personal liability in a sexual harassment lawsuit.

[Helix]

Uhh.... Patton didn't go over to Germany and lie directly to Germans. He used the press in making dishonest public statements during a time of war. FDR was helped by Pearl Harbor but he rightly wanted us to get into WWII despite his campaign promise to the contrary. Given that the first casualty of war is the truth' date=' this off the cuff statement by Bush about court orders is petty in the extreme.

[/quote']

 

What dishonest statements are you talking about, to be clear? If you mean the fake invasion of Calais (sp?), then I agree that was a lie and I also agree it was a valid tactic.

 

What I am saying, and I am sorry if I didn't make this clear enough, is that Patton lied and as a result the Nazis were duped. Right? When President Bush lied about the Exec. Order, the terrorists didn't lose anything. The American people found out their government was breaking federal laws regarding domestic spying, not lying, and that the Bush admin. has been covering its tracks for the better part of the post-9/11 timescape.

 

The difference is Patton's objective by lying was fooling the Nazis, in which he succeeded. Bush, on the other hand, lied to the public in a venture that did not harm the terrorists. The phone taps were designed to catch terrorists but federal law states that domestic spying is illegal. And they failed in any case; I haven't heard of any suspects being apprehened by these questionable acts. Lying isn't the issue. Patton didn't break the law by lying and neither did Bush. Bush's illegal act was allowing, by signing the Order, domestic spying. Patton, as a general, was allowed and obligated to fight the Nazis and therefore was encouraged to use ruses to destabilize them.

[Jim]

What dishonest statements are you talking about' date=' to be clear? If you mean the fake invasion of Calais (sp?), then I agree that was a lie and I also agree it was a valid tactic.

 

What I am saying, and I am sorry if I didn't make this clear enough, is that Patton lied and as a result the Nazis were duped. Right? When President Bush lied about the Exec. Order, the terrorists didn't lose anything. The American people found out their government was breaking federal laws regarding domestic spying, [b']not[/b] lying, and that the Bush admin. has been covering its tracks for the better part of the post-9/11 timescape.

 

The difference is Patton's objective by lying was fooling the Nazis, in which he succeeded. Bush, on the other hand, lied to the public in a venture that did not harm the terrorists. The phone taps were designed to catch terrorists but federal law states that domestic spying is illegal. And they failed in any case; I haven't heard of any suspects being apprehened by these questionable acts. Lying isn't the issue. Patton didn't break the law by lying and neither did Bush. Bush's illegal act was allowing, by signing the Order, domestic spying. Patton, as a general, was allowed and obligated to fight the Nazis and therefore was encouraged to use ruses to destabilize them.

 

My initial post suggested that Bush didn't want the terrorists to know that we had closed this seam in intelligence. He wanted them to think we are less agile than we actually were. This is why he gave closed briefings to congress and why he is now saying that the leak did great damage.

 

Let me ask you this hypotethetical:

 

Assume that (i) a law is passed in 1935 making it a crime for the president to order surveilance of US citizens without a warrent, (ii) the law does not provide a 72 hour grace period or any equivalent of the FISA court, (iii) after Pearl Harbor, Congress passes a declaration of war and (iv) in 1944, the middle of the war, FDR learns that the Germans are worried that their communications are being deciphered and has launched a program to try to infiltrate the US to discover if this is true.

 

We have developed a list of suspected German operatives, so FDR orders that all federal agencies who can monitor anyone in the US contacted by these suspected German agents. The order states that warrants are not required only where the suspected German agents are making contact with particular US citizens.

 

Should FDR go to jail?

[Helix]

Well that hypothetical is invalid because there is, in actuality, a secret court a president can go to to obtain a warrent. The FBI is fully entitled to spy domestically; they should have fufilled the warrent. But the NSA should not, it is an intelligence agency and shouldn't be used against the American people. It's akin to the police vs. national guard. Both are law enforcement but the National Guard is not allowed to be deployed against the populace while it is the police's duty to do so. So, I have no problem with the secret court and the FBI spying, it serves everyone, as long as the relevant documents are declassified after the conflict/crisis os over. It's the NSA I have a problem with.

 

 

Note: Is it National Guard or Army who can't be deployed against the people? If I mixed it up just switch them in your heads, you get my point.

[Jim]

Well that hypothetical is invalid because there is' date=' in actuality, a secret court a president can go to to obtain a warrent. The FBI is fully entitled to spy domestically; they should have fufilled the warrent. But the NSA should not, it is an intelligence agency and shouldn't be used against the American people. It's akin to the police vs. national guard. Both are law enforcement but the National Guard is not allowed to be deployed against the populace while it is the police's duty to do so. So, I have no problem with the secret court and the FBI spying, it serves everyone, as long as the relevant documents are declassified after the conflict/crisis os over. It's the NSA I have a problem with.

 

 

Note: Is it National Guard or Army who can't be deployed against the people? If I mixed it up just switch them in your heads, you get my point.[/quote']

 

The purpose of a hypothetical is to test the logic of a position by removing certain assumptions.

 

Your position is easy to defend if you assume there was no national security interest served by the 2002 order. If you remove that assumption, would it change your opinion?