drmiler drmiler

Here's PROOF Bush broke no law!

Here's PROOF Bush broke no law!

This is for ALL the people who think President Bush broke the law by authorizing wire taps without a court order. And YES that includes you col! Maybe ALL of you should go read FISA which was signed into law by President Carter. Yes that's right you read correctly.....Jimmy "the peanut man" Carter. Let me help ya'll by posting the pertinent sections:

Section 1811
of the act pertaining to surveillance during wartime states:
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 a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

Or this section:

Section 1805
of the Act covers emergency situations where a court order cannot be obtained in advance. Such surveillance can only last 72 hours before an Order is applied for.

(f) Emergency orders
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, when the Attorney General reasonably determines that--
(1) an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained; and
(2) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists;
he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance. If the Attorney General authorizes such emergency employment of electronic surveillance, he shall require that the minimization procedures required by this subchapter for the issuance of a judicial order be followed. In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest.


Now argue with this. That is if you can.
28,016 views 78 replies
Reply #51 Top
sushik

There have been recent articles, sighting high level White House sources that say Bush gets nasty when anyone questions him even BEFORE he takes a public position. That is why Powell resigned. Rice is a Bush lap dog. I see more similarities between Nixon and Bush every day. Similar reports say the same things about Cheney and Rummy. We have a VERY dangerous Executive Branch in power today.
Reply #52 Top
I've been waiting to weigh in on this for some time. I absolutely, positively hate (and I mean HATE) to do this, but I have to agree with COL. Bush poked the pooch on this one guys. I'm a former electronic intel guy, so I have a bit of first hand experience with this topic (disclosure statement, so you know where I'm coming from).


There is always a first time for everything. The irony is that Col is so bent on making Bush look bad by his own hatred that he has completely ignored your post that actually backed him up. Still even with your info it seems that Col is still running off his Bush Hating fumes. He reminds me why I am happy that LP records are mostly gone, the constant jumping and repeating of a single piece of a song when the record was scratched.
Reply #53 Top
But you have to wonder how Bush has walked into this snafu.
Wasn't there anyone around him that told him this is a grey area where he is treading and potentially damaging? Or has Bush removed these people from around him?


Think about what you just said. Does it sound logical for someone, anyone, to put themselves in a position to get screwed, specially the President? I find it hard to believe that something of this nature, known by Congress, would have been done if the consiquences were very serious. Either this was pefectly legal and being twisted by the media or there is no doubt that Bush is the Dumbest person to walk the face of the Earth and we put him as our President and everyone who backs him in his Adminstration is just as dumb. I find that a bit hard to believe. Just because Bush is President doesn't mean he is almighty and everyone around him has the right to object to his ideas and this would have been known long ago anyways. Makes no sense for it to come out 1 year later or so.
Reply #54 Top
I saw the post. It did not require an answer. I know what I have said is correct and the people like drmiler blindly support Bush regardless of the facts. The same thing is true about his fiscal policies but here again the people on this Blog site refuse to look at what is taking place. I would be happy to give Bush credit for solving our nation’s problems but the fact show me that they are getting worse.

In one of my earlier Blogs, I pointed out the negative impact of the Iraq war if the type of government that results in Iraq is like the government in Iran. It will not be in how fast we train Iraqi police and military or the elections. The preliminary election results indicate what I pointed out is a real danger from the Bush adventure in Iraq-- a religious government similar to the one in Iran. It looks very much like that is the type of government that was chosen on Dec 15th. That will be a major problem for this country in the future. We may have exchanged a dictatorship for another Iran. BIG MISATKE!
Reply #55 Top
Bush did not "walk into it". It was never secreet from congress, and indeed appears to be totally legal. The NY Times is just sensationalizing for their own, and the book authors gains. Just follow the Benjamins to find out why this is even in the news. It is not hard.


Dr you are stating that this current issue is just spin by the libs? That U.S. District Judge James Robertson has stepped down for no reason?

Let's give this a few weeks and see where this goes but my money is on deeper trouble for BUsh. I bet Bush will wish he had gotten a hummer in the oval instead of getting into this mess.
Reply #56 Top
Either this was pefectly legal and being twisted by the media or there is no doubt that Bush is the Dumbest person to walk the face of the Earth


I support the second option here.
Reply #57 Top
It is true Bush is not the sharpest knife in the drawer but he is also arrogant and drunk with power.
Reply #58 Top
In one of my earlier Blogs, I pointed out the negative impact of the Iraq war if the type of government that results in Iraq is like the government in Iran. It will not be in how fast we train Iraqi police and military or the elections. The preliminary election results indicate what I pointed out is a real danger from the Bush adventure in Iraq-- a religious government similar to the one in Iran. It looks very much like that is the type of government that was chosen on Dec 15th. That will be a major problem for this country in the future. We may have exchanged a dictatorship for another Iran. BIG MISATKE!


You have to understand Col, this is all based on what you believe in. Not facts. You think these things will happen cause that's your point of view, that doesn't make it real. You say we may have exchanged one dictatorship for another, that doesn't mea it's what has happened. For crying out loud we are helping chage decades of horror to something better, did you or anyone really think this would be a piece of cake? Even if the President himself said it would be easy, only naive people would have believed it. Those in political positions always say what people want to hear, but sometimes they are not near being close to hitting the mark.
Reply #59 Top
I saw the post. It did not require an answer. I know what I have said is correct and the people like drmiler blindly support Bush regardless of the facts.


Me disregarding facts? Look who's talking. You have been presented with PROOF (facts) that you are as usual incorrect about Bush and what do you do? You ignore them or trash them as per usual! No bigger fool than you!
Reply #60 Top
I told you col, keep it on topic. I will not warn you again. Your last reply was deleted for not staying on topic.
Reply #61 Top
GAH! As much as I hate to agree with COL Gene on this, many of his talking points DO have merit. This merits investigation, in my not so humble opinion.
Reply #62 Top
What Law school did you graduate from? You do not know what you are talking about as usual. As a FOOL you hold the top position. I have said we need to have the ONLY authority that can rule on the legality of the President's action decide-- the United States Supreme Court! That will END ALL THE SPECULATION!


Just an fyi.....both you and parated2k are partially right. The supreme court can not decide by itself that what Bush did was illegal. You are right in the fact that someone has to bring it to the courts attention by pressing a suite against GW. Then the court would decide whether or not there was sufficent evidence for a trail. Not enough evidence? NO trial!

So get busy so we can have a good laugh when they throw it out for insufficent evidence. I will make a prediction here. This will NEVER go to trial. It will be deemed as legal and that will be the last we hear of it.
Reply #63 Top
GAH! As much as I hate to agree with COL Gene on this, many of his talking points DO have merit. This merits investigation, in my not so humble opinion.


Gideon, far be it from me to disagree with you but.......I really think you should go read FISA from 1978. Here's a link.Link
Reply #64 Top
Bush did not get the Court approval within the 72 hours as the law provides. HE NEVER obtained court approval. He violated both what HE SAID and the LAW! The article is pure BS and ignores the facts. Look at the link you dip sticks and what Bush said!


YOU personally do NOT know whether he did or not go before the court, do you?
Reply #65 Top

Dr you are stating that this current issue is just spin by the libs? That U.S. District Judge James Robertson has stepped down for no reason?

Did you read my whole response?  Or just the first line.  I think I was explicit in my response.  And as far as his stepping down, I did not mention that, nor would I care to speculate on his reasoning.  That is his decision, not mine.

Reply #66 Top
Gideon, far be it from me to disagree with you but.......I really think you should go read FISA from 1978. Here's a link.Link


I DID read it. And you're not the first one to make your arguments. I don't know whether Bush broke the law or not, but I believe there's enough here that it should be investigated. For crying out loud, drmiler, we have a system where private citizens can have their lives torn apart for FAR LESS, and you're implying that the president is above scrutiny? Sorry, but your partisanship is showing here...I am CERTAIN that if this had come out under Clinton, you would be DEMANDING an investigation (and you would be right in doing so).
Reply #67 Top
Colon Bin Gangrene, go back to school, and actually pay attention this time

The SCOTUS Never tries People! The SCOTUS Never decides the legality of anything. The Supreme Court's purpose is to hold hearings and decide on the Constitutionality of cases.. .Period.

End of Civics 101 for Terrorist Loving Idiots!!
Reply #68 Top
I DID read it. And you're not the first one to make your arguments. I don't know whether Bush broke the law or not, but I believe there's enough here that it should be investigated. For crying out loud, drmiler, we have a system where private citizens can have their lives torn apart for FAR LESS, and you're implying that the president is above scrutiny? Sorry, but your partisanship is showing here...I am CERTAIN that if this had come out under Clinton, you would be DEMANDING an investigation (and you would be right in doing so).


You want an investigation? Fine, have one. But do "not" be surprised if nothing comes of it but wasting taxpayers money. I just get sick of everyone jumping on the bash Bush bandwagon. And no, I'm no referring to you in particular.
Reply #69 Top
You want an investigation? Fine, have one. But do "not" be surprised if nothing comes of it but wasting taxpayers money.


If that is all that comes of it, I will be satisfied. I won't consider it a waste, either, as the knowledge of the possibility of these sorts of investigations in the future will help keep future administrations in check (this will be especially important if, God forbid, Hillary wins in '08).
Reply #70 Top
God forbid, Hillary wins in '08).


She stands about a snowball's chance in hell of making it.

No you would not consider it a waste. But what would you be willing to bet some on JU "will" consider it a waste and use it to bash GW some more.
Reply #71 Top
"YOU personally do NOT know whether he did or not go before the court, do you?"-Dr. Miler.

As far as I have read he did skip those courts.

"Critics object circumventing FISA courts to conduct surveillance against terrorists without a warrant is unnecessary"-FrontPage Magazine

"Q: Why did you skip the basic safeguards of asking courts for permission for the intercepts?
A: First of all, I—right after September the 11th, I knew we were fighting a different kind of war. And so I asked people in my administration to analyze how best for me and our government to do the job people expect us to do, which is to detect and prevent a possible attack. That's what the American people want. We looked at the possible scenarios. And the people responsible for helping us protect and defend came forth with the current program, because it enables us to move faster and quicker. And that's important. We've got to be fast on our feet, quick to detect and prevent. "---President Bush, at a press conference Dec. 19, 2005, after the New York Times reported that Bush had directed the National Security Agency to wiretap.

"# He says Bush's decision to sidestep the courts and allow surveillance was an organized effort to regain presidential powers lost in the 1970s."-L.A.Times

"It was bad enough when the New York Times revealed that since early 2002, under an executive order from President Bush, the National Security Agency has been conducting surveillance inside the United States, almost certainly on U.S. citizens, without any sort of warrant approved by any sort of court."-The Daily News

""We write to express our profound concern about recent revelations that the US government may have engaged in domestic electronic surveillance without appropriate legal authority," Dianne Feinstein wrote in the letter, also signed by Carl Levin and Ron Wyden, two Senate Democrats."-FT.Com


Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link


So far from that information I have gathered that he did skip those FISA Courts. And as Sturgee said they would have to get a warrant in that time from the FIS court. 72 hours actually sounds like alot for a court that I have heard has processed warrants within minutes.

"That court has turned down only a handful of requests over the years; in 2002 it approved all 1,228 of them."

Beleive me I want Bush to get the information. However he skipped the warrants? Which also begs the question why? Maybe he was too lazy about it? They could spy on me. I have nothing to hide. However what I would want to know is why he doesn't have any warrant and why didn't he attempt to get one at all. Personally that's the only thing that irks me. He could be spying on 2 domestic Americans having a convo for all I care.. as long as he attained a warrant. If you could provide any info that says he did pursue warrants I wouldn't mind seeing it.
Reply #72 Top
I'M NOT A CRIMINAL! I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO HIDE!"


Yes, show cause; still, identity theft is already rampant--do you really want some bureaucrat checking in on your love life and trackdown your SS#?
but your partisanship is showing here...I am CERTAIN that if this had come out under Clinton, you would be DEMANDING an investigation (and you would be right in doing so).
I second this.


Reply #73 Top
Your last reply was deleted for not staying on topic.
Do you have a court order to do this? Or are you against invasion of your private[?] domain while curtailing his freedom of speech?; Perhaps you should have copied his comment in lieu of deletion and forwarded to the evesdropping agent assigned JU.

Reply #74 Top
If that is all that comes of it, I will be satisfied. I won't consider it a waste,


I agree, but also, the leaker needs to be held accountable also. Whether or not Prs. Bush commited a crime, the leaker definitely did. There needs to be two seperate investigations here.
Reply #75 Top
There have been recent articles, sighting high level White House sources that say Bush gets nasty when anyone questions him even BEFORE he takes a public position. That is why Powell resigned. Rice is a Bush lap dog. I see more similarities between Nixon and Bush every day. Similar reports say the same things about Cheney and Rummy. We have a VERY dangerous Executive Branch in power today.




well, which is it, Col? He is either a monkey-puppet, who cannot even string 2 words together, having his strings pulled by Cheney, Rumsfeld, or whoever else you leftys wanna target....or he is a very dangrously bold man, stepping out onto his own, the World Be Damned, kinda guy?

which one is he?