Bush broke the law? Nope don't think so.

bump

The 1978 Law REQUIRES a WARRENT from the Special Court which Bush ignored. There is also a provision in that law that allows wire taps before they go to court if time is an issue but REQUIRES after the fact approval which Bush also violated.

You and Bush have the same problem-- You do not know what REQUIRE means. We saw that when he failed to take a REQUIRED flight PHYSICAL and attend drills and a training exercise that he was REQUIRED to attend and ignored. It is time for Bush to be held accountable for his actions.

I see privateparts gene is still beating the same one note drum. bah!

If Bush broke the law then the rest of congress should be indicted for conspiracy too.

If bush did not take extraordinary precautions to protect us citizens and something else happened the clueless one would be screaming "bush did not protect us"

First, only a few members of Congress were informed about the President’s actions.

If any members of Congress committed conspiracy I agree with you.

About 10 minutes ago on MSNBC TV, the author James Bamford said that the 1978 law requiring a warrant from the special court that was established for NSA to wire tap was for the express purpose of preventing the President from doing just what he did by authorizing wire taps without court approval. If that is true, Bush needs to be held accountable for violating the law. That law calls for 5 years in prison for EACH violation. That sounds like a VERY serious potential problem for George.

The story I hear is that one of the writers has a book coming out in a week.  Always follow the benjamins.  They will lead you to the real story.

Excellent article DrMiler!

First, only a few members of Congress were informed about the President’s actions. If any members of Congress committed conspiracy I agree with you.

Hey clueless....maybe you should re-read this.

After the special program started, Congressional leaders from both political parties were brought to Vice President Dick Cheney's office in the White House. The leaders, who included the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, learned of the N.S.A. operation from Mr. Cheney, Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden of the Air Force, who was then the agency's director and is now a full general and the principal deputy director of national intelligence, and George J. Tenet, then the director of the C.I.A., officials said.

And like I told you before....BEFORE you run off at the mouth, GO READ THE PATRIOT ACT! Here let me help. I taken the trouble to highlight some pertinent sections for you.

Sec. 206: Expands the use of "multipoint" or "roving" wiretaps in foreign intelligence investigations. Sec. 207: Expands the duration of foreign intelligence surveillance of non-U.S. citizens. Sec. 209: Clarifies that law enforcement only needs a simple search warrant to seize a voice mail message, not a wiretap order. The Justice Department argued for this provision as a way to update earlier law, which demanded a wiretap order before investigators could get access to voice mail messages stored on message services.

Excellent article DrMiler!

Thanks dude! I appreciate that. This has been bugging me since they ran the story. And to be honest, I was getting tired of everybody who was jumping on the bash Bush bandwagon.

And like I told you before....BEFORE you run off at the mouth, GO READ THE PATRIOT ACT! Here let me help. I taken the trouble to highlight some pertinent sections for you. Sec. 206: Expands the use of "multipoint" or "roving" wiretaps in foreign intelligence investigations. Sec. 207: Expands the duration of foreign intelligence surveillance of non-U.S. citizens. Sec. 209: Clarifies that law enforcement only needs a simple search warrant to seize a voice mail message, not a wiretap order. The Justice Department argued for this provision as a way to update earlier law, which demanded a wiretap order before investigators could get access to voice mail messages stored on message services.

Do notice I said "some" sections, not "all". One of the closest is section 209. And col....in regards to your reference of the 1978 law? You should "really" try to stay up to date. The patriot act changed the law you are quoting!

That is not correct. The Supreme Court in 93 ruled that a warrant is a requirement.

The actions of Bush MUST by reviewed by the Supreme Court and will settle ALL the speculation. If Bush broke the law, he should be REMOVED from office.

I don't know whether he broke the law or not. Because we're talking about international phone communications, I would think it to be a "gray area". The fed can tap your phone to ensure you aren't using those connections for gambling purposes or to make drug deals; in many areas, this is little different.

What disturbs me the most, though, is the "lag time" in this story. IF Bush broke the law, then not only HE, but the senators who knew, AND the reporters who knew should be indicted for conspiracy. If heads are going to roll, they need to roll from other places BESIDES 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

That is not correct. The Supreme Court in 93 ruled that a warrant is a requirement.

You just don't seem to get it do you? After 9/11 EVERYTHING changed "INCLUDING" your vaunted 93 ruling!

On top of all that Gideon's correct! If you are going to hammer on Bush, then you NEED to hammer on everyone involved. Including the NYT that sat on the story for a year.

What disturbs me the most, though, is the "lag time" in this story. IF Bush broke the law, then not only HE, but the senators who knew, AND the reporters who knew should be indicted for conspiracy. If heads are going to roll, they need to roll from other places BESIDES 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Gideon

Heads may need to roll STARTING at 1600 PA Ave and then on to the State Dept, U S Attorney and the members of Congress that knew about this action. 9/11 did not change the Supreme Court ruling. We need a new ruling from the Supreme Court ASAP.

You just don't seem to get it do you? After 9/11 EVERYTHING changed "INCLUDING" your vaunted 93 ruling!

Terrorist attacks change legal precedents? Really?

I'm sure the terrorists will be delighted to hear that.

Let’s see what the Supreme Court has to say about George W. Bush allowing the NSA to wire tap without obtaining the required court order.

Apparently some fools think that if an enemy happens to be an American he or she is less a threat that if the enemy is an Arab. These bigoted fools would have us reading miranda rights to people as they set off bombs, and/or get warrants as the enemy Emails targeting data to their compatriots abroad.

To fools like Colon Gangrene, Murtha, Reid and the NYT, the Constitution is the best weapon our enemies have at their disposal.

These fools would gladly watch another 9/11 occur, firm in the knowledge that they could blame Bush for it.

What do these pro terrorist scumbags think the words "Protect the Constitution of the United States against All Enemies, Foreign or Domestic" meant when they lied on their various oaths of office anyway?

The actions of Bush MUST by reviewed by the Supreme Court and will settle ALL the speculation. If Bush broke the law, he should be REMOVED from office.

No, the SCOTUS is not the dictators of the land.  It is not a MUST Col Klink.  The only sure things in life are death, taxes, and you Being wrong

Heads may need to roll STARTING at 1600 PA Ave and then on to the State Dept, U S Attorney and the members of Congress that knew about this action. 9/11 did not change the Supreme Court ruling. We need a new ruling from the Supreme Court ASAP.

How about starting with yours?

Heads can't roll STARTING at 1600 Pennsylvania, becuase it will take months at least to figure out if Bush actually broke any laws.

On the other hand, what we do know, right now, is that this was a secret operation and that its cover was blown by the New York Times. It seems to me that we could easily get started on the head-rolling down there, while we work on figuring out if anybody else besides the NYT reporters broke any laws.

Reporters have apparently broke the law, members of Congress have apparently broken the law, terrorists have broken the law... but fools don't care... as long as they can keep their seat on the pathetic "Bash Bush Bus", they're happy.

The next terrorist attack will be thanks to Colon Gangrene, Harry Reid, Murtha and the New York Times.

Happy bombing Gene.

Why did the NY Times withold their story for a year because of national security only to release it now.

Well they had to wait for the Iraqi elections. They couldn't let good news like that take front page.

You just don't seem to get it do you? After 9/11 EVERYTHING changed "INCLUDING" your vaunted 93 ruling! Terrorist attacks change legal precedents? Really? I'm sure the terrorists will be delighted to hear that.

If you doubt this Gene just go look at the patriot act.