Congressional Report Questions Legal Justification for Wiretaps

[sabra]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a_D_1dytzk6Y&refer=us

Congressional Report Questions Legal Justification for Wiretaps
Jan. 6 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush's assertion that he didn't need congressional approval to authorize wiretapping without warrants isn't ``well grounded'' in law, according to a non-partisan congressional report.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that created a special court to evaluate administration wiretapping requests, doesn't exempt a National Security Agency program Bush authorized, according to a Congressional Research Service report.

``It appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic- surveillance operations here under discussion,'' the 44-page report said.

[stop the bleeding]

1. I hear a drum beat!

[sabra]

2. Sorry BushCo, but your shit doesn't fly...

[mom cat]

3. Except when it hits the fan!

SPLAT!

[rodeodance]

6. the STENCH is speading

[mom cat]

15. I'm beginning to like that smell!

[HuffleClaw]

4. oh good

non-partisan. wonder what the freeeeepers will make of this one.

[goforit]

14. Yah,lol ...."non-partisan".....All cut from the same cloth.

[rodeodance]

5. they want Alito to disclose his position on wiretapping

..... The nomination of Samuel Alito, Bush's pick to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, has become entangled in the controversy as senators of both parties said the nominee should disclose his position on the wiretapping.

On Dec. 19 shortly after the secret program was revealed in a New York Times article, Bush said he decided to forego the court process to track terrorist suspects and accomplices.

`Act Fast'

``To save American lives we must be able to act fast,'' Bush said in a news conference. The surveillance ``has been effective in disrupting the enemy.''

A White House spokeswoman referred questions to the NSA. An NSA spokesman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

[rodeodance]

7. nominate to stop the trampling on our freedoms!

[rodeodance]

8. this is a serious problem If Alito is a SC judge he will most likely side

with Jr as he has done before regarding the expansion of presidential powers. scary stuff to contemplate.

[hootinholler]

9. Do they know what the program actually was?

I thought this info was being obscured.

-Hoot

[warbly]

10. Kean

"" Thomas H. Kean, the former chairman of the Sept. 11 commission, said he too doubts the legality of the program. Weighing in for the first time on the controversy, he said in an interview that the commission was never told of the operation and that he has strong doubts about whether it is authorized under the law.

Federal law under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, created in 1978, “gives very broad powers to the president and, except in very rare circumstances, in my view ought to be used,” said Mr. Kean, a Republican and former governor of New Jersey. “We live by a system of checks and balances, and I think we ought to continue to live by a system of checks and balances.” "" - NY Times



It is good to hear there are forces working to shed some light on this. Kean is a weighty fellow and a Republican.
The frustrating thing right now is that the debate is still about limited wiretapping of US citizens, not about the Data Mining and blanket eavesdropping that this program actually is designed to do.
That is why open hearings are so important. Until the public becomes aware of the scope of the program, the debate is unlikely to change. If the bushies get away with having the hearings secretly in Pat Robert’s Intelligence committe, rather than openly in Specter’s judiciary committe, it will be a blow to those of us who want to see this program closed for good.
If Bush can not get authorization from a congress controlled by his own party and a 72 hour retroactive warrant court that has been a rubber stamp for 20 years, he doesn’t need to be doing it.

[sabra]

13. thanks for the post, and welcome to DU!

[buddysmellgood]

11. Not well grounded in law? What a joke. I can't believe how they have to

dance up to this. He's a criminal.

[Miss Chybil]

12. And...

What does the king care? I'll get excited when somebody actually does something about it.

[OKNancy]

16. kick

[RagingInMiami]

17. Report Rebuts Bush on Spying (Washington Post)

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.

The findings, the first nonpartisan assessment of the program's legality to date, prompted Democratic lawmakers and civil liberties advocates to repeat calls yesterday for Congress to conduct hearings on the monitoring program and attempt to halt it.

The 44-page report said that Bush probably cannot claim the broad presidential powers he has relied upon as authority to order the secret monitoring of calls made by U.S. citizens since the fall of 2001. Congress expressly intended for the government to seek warrants from a special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before engaging in such surveillance when it passed legislation creating the court in 1978, the CRS report said.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content//article/2006/01/06/AR2006010601772.html

[stillcool]

18. Jeez...what is it with the I words?...

Conflicts with existing law...Is it that difficult to say Illegal?

[aquart]

19. That would require them to use the other "I" word.

And they are loyal to party, not the United States constitution.

I WANT A BUTTON THAT SAYS "LOYAL TO THE CONSTITUTION."

[sirjohn]

20. That's why we've got to smear Alito as best we can

Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP). He joined and paid dues to a racist organization, that's enough to get the ball rolling.

This spying attempts will end up in the Supreme Court. I don't care if he's a racist or not...our freedom is at stake...we can't let him get confirmed.

[countmyvote4real]

24. Excuse me. He smeared himself.

Our side does not have to taint him any further. We just have call attention to it. That's not smearing. That's telling the truth.

[sirjohn]

25. I hope what you're saying is true, but those details

haven't been revealed yet.

[PSPS]

21. It must be FRIDAY! News dump!

[feelthebreeze]

22. I don't need special advisors to tell me what the Constitution promises..

They dishonored my country's promise and need to be impeached NOW.

[Samantha]

23. It's sometimes ironic the first thing you think about when a story

like this erupts. When I first heard of Bush*s illegal wiretapping between a domestic citizen and a person abroad, the first thing I thought about was the recent appeal for citizens to buy telephone calling cards for the soldiers in Iraq so they could phone home.

I might have done that. You might have done that. Whether we support that war or do not, and I certainly do not, one hopes that these Americans deployed to Iraq to fight this war certainly would have the means to call their friends and families in the United States.

These calls could easily have been included in this wiretapping sweep. The soldiers serve to do their duty. Citizens support them because they are the husbands, sons, daughters and friends of ours and our friends. And what does Bush* do -- he secretly authorizing the eavesdropping on calls such as this.

Doesn't he* make you feel proud to be an American....

[sirjohn]

26. I'm proud to be an American, regardless of what Bush

does. He's a thug.

I heard Bozo Boy saying on the radio that during WW II all the soldiers' mail was read by censors. Totally different situation. Then we were defending ourselves, not attacking a defenseless country.

[0007]

28. What world are these fools living in to expect folks to believe

this shit;

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the president and the administration believe the program is on firm legal footing. "The national security activities described by the president were conducted in accord with the law and provide a critical tool in the war on terror that saves lives and protects civil liberties at the same time," he said.

[dutchdemocrat]

27. Re

http://www.chris-floyd.com/bush/crs/

The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has released its report on the legality of domestic spying. It's conclusion: "the Administration's legal justification, as presented in the summary analysis from the Office of Legislative Affairs, does not seem to be as well-grounded as the tenor of that letter suggests."

The report, spanning 44 pages, carefully deconstructs each Bush argument. (Download the pdf here). Naturally, because no one has all the details about the program, the CRS reserved absolute conclusions about the legality of the program . While it stretched--and I mean stretched--to find a logical and legal basis in Bush's arguments, but time and time again, the law is not on Bush's side. Watch as each of Bush's rationales are knocked down:

On Bush's argument that FISA doesn't apply when the President exercises his inherent authority:



http://www.chris-floyd.com/bush/crs/

[mvd]

29. Wonderful that this story has legs

We must keep up the pressure for hearings! I would say that Bush's paranoia makes Nixon's look tame.