|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) |
Vyan (990 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Dec-16-06 12:03 PM Original message |
The Case for the Impeachment of George W. Bush - Count 2: Domestic Espionage |
(Crossposted from Truth 2 Power Project) As we look forward into the 110th Congress and beyond, it becomes more and more critical that we envision the country as would all, Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative and Independent would like it to be. Beyond this issue of party affiliation is the issue of our national character. What is America? Is it the land of the free, or the home of the scared? This will be the subject of Count 2 from my multipart series on Why George W. Bush must be Impeached. The Impeachment Case Against George W. Bush - Count 2 : Domestic Espionage. President George W. Bush did, with malice aforethought, deceive the World and American people in to secretly conduct Espionage Against Millions of Americans, repeatedly violating their 1st and 4th Amendment Rights on as well as multiple Federal Laws. This is a case which has been well discussed in the year since it was originally revealed that the Bush Administration had ordered the NSA to record tens of thousands of phone calls made by "known al-Qaeda affiliates" abroad to the U.S. all without a single warrant. Before that became known one year ago the President when discussion the Patriot Act stated in April of 2004 that:
To be fair, there is a difference between what has been authorized by the Congress via the Patriot act - and the authority the President Bush has claimed is inherently his in order to conduct this espionage. The Patriot Act brought down the wall between law enforment and intelligence gathering. The importance of that wall and the distinction between how Law Enforment Agencies such as the FBI handle their cases and how the CIA and Spies handle counter-espionage and counter-terrorism is vital. Law enforcement is one thing, Espionage is another. Rarely is Espionage or counter-espionage entirely lawful. Most Americans would agree that the President has the authority and a duty to perform both counter-terrorism and counter-espionage, and that while doing so our own spies are likely to violate the laws of what ever country that may be in at the time - however when it comes to such actions within the U.S. itself the requirement has been that the President must also abide by the Laws of the U.S.. In this instance the law is very clear. Under FISA and 18 USC 2551, just as the President claimed in 2004, no wiretaps of U.S. citizens or residents may be performed without a court order. It's too bad that even though the Patriot Act modified FISA to allow for the warrant to be issued three days after surveillance has already begun - Bush still hasn't abided by the law. Unfortunately that isn't all. Not only has the President secretly authorized the illegal tapping of domestic phone calls, he has has also authorized the tracking of purely domestic calls and emails as part of an additional program to Datamine the personal contact information of tens of millions of Americans. This violates 18 USC 3121 which prohibits use of a "Pen and trap" devices without a warrant and 18 USC 2702 which prohibits companies such as AT&T from voluanteering customer information to the government without a warrant. His authorization of Warrantless Electronic Surveillance has in due course has led to Warrantless Physical Searches, and based on the hints provided by NSA Whistle-blower Russel Tice - that is only the "Tip of the Iceberg".
So far the details of Tice's meeting with Congress - which incidentally took place on the same day a Gen Micheal Hayden's confirmation to become CIA Director - have not been revealed due to National Security Restrictions. Still Sen Russ Feingold along with Congressman John Conyers have both called for Bush to be Censured for the NSA Program. Senator Jay Rockefeller, the incoming head of the powerful Intelligence Commitee wrote a letter to the Vice President about the program in 2003.
Although selected members of Congress (The "Gang of Eight") were indeed briefed on this program, they were also required by Federal Law not to disclose or discuss it with anyone without the proper security clearances - including their own staff, other members of congress or lawyers who may have been able to give them a better understanding of the legal issues. And they certainly couldn't vote or to authorize or amend the program in an open hearing. Since the writing of that letter a Federal Judge has ordered that the NSA program be shutdown immediately and ruled that it is both illegal and unconstitutional - a decision which is currently pending appeal.
In response Attorney General and Former White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales has argued that Judge Taylor's view of "Freedom" and "Upholding the Constitution" - "is one utterly divorced from civic responsibility - is superficial and is itself a grave threat to the liberty and security of the American people." An investigation by the DOJ's Office of Personal responsibility was terminated earlier this year simply because the President refused to grant the neccesary security clearances, yet at the same time he did grant the clearances needed to defend against the ACLU's (so far successful) lawsuit. I think most people would consider that action to be Obstruction of Justice! Just as Gonzales words - which are quite a departure from their normal refusal to comment on "ongoing investigations" - would appear to be an attempt to influence and intimidate a Federal Judge. Not exactly the acts of innocent men. Never-the-less a second investigation by the DOJ has recently been spawned, but not into the legallity of the program itself - the purpose of this one is to determine how the information mined by the NSA has been used. From what we've already seen based on information divulged by the FBI to the New York Times, the answer to that question is "not very well"...
Putting aside questions of the effectiveness and efficiency of this program - it is quite clear that it is illegal, yet Bush and his supporters continue to clamor that it should be retained argueing that Presidential authority in Wartime apparently trumps not just the Law, but also Congress and the Courts. However, they rarely hesitate to cite Congress and Courts when it suits their purposes.
Even Lindsey Graham has found that one hard to swallow. "I don't know any legal basis" for Bush's secret spying program. So has Newt Gingrich - Bush's program "Can't be defended by Reasonable people". Of course, whoever said that Gonzales and DOJ under Bush were "reasonable"? Their claim that "Congress by statute has confirmed and supplemented the President's recognized authority" comes from the passage of the 2001 Use of Force Resolution against al-Qaeda and Afghanistan. Law Professor Jordon Praust on that interpretation of the AUMF.
The DOJ claims that the Hamdi decision supports their view - however what was actually said in Hamdi over the issue of weather the AUMF authorized the President to indefinitely detain U.S. Citizens without Judicial review was...
A neutral decision maker - like the FISA Court perhaps? Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe concurs.
The truth is that the NSA and President didn't abide by FISA because they knew they'd lose. Via Glenn Greenwald.
Let me reinterate - not going to the FISA court and then doing the surveillance or other information gathering anyway - is a Crime. The President has admitted to committing this crime - Millions of Times. The endgame arguement for Bush's supporters is essentially the view that the Law does not apply during War. They note that historically this has been true, that Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War (although this suspension was subsequently overturned). President Franklin Roosevelt order all overseas communications tapped during WWII (he also requested that U.S. Citizen be exempted from this surveillance). President Truman authorized the Wiretaps of people who "held radical views" during the Red Scare of the 50's. None of these actions were ever challenged in court as they were kept from the public behind the veil of "National Security". But eventually they began to peak out in progrsm such as COINTELPRO.
This action led to the warrentless wiretaps or Dr. Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X for their anti-war views, which eventually was followed by the 1967 Katz case where it was determined that "government taps did indeed constitute an unconstitutional search and seizure. But it didn't stop there as increasing violence in the midst of the Civil Rights movement fostered the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968 which attempted to undermine Katz, which in turn led back to the Supreme Court and the "Keith case of 1972", where the Supreme Court ruled thusly.
Later President Nixon's paranoia and lust for power fomented the break-in at Democratic National Headquaters at the Watergate Hotel and the illegal taping of the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, a State Dept Official who had been the prime suspect for the leaking of the Pentagon Papers. This led to the Church Commission which in turn led to the creation of FISA Court to provide a judical check on the use of executive power regarding domestic surveillance. In the wake of Watergate, Nixon resigned in disgrace to avoid Impeachment - by contrast President Bush with his Domestic Espionage Progarm has attempted to turn 40-years of Legal Jurisprudence on it's head, and has succeeded in leaving Nixon's Crimes in his dust. What may be far worse than the pure criminal and unconstitutional actions of this President, may be the increased risk from actual foreign agents he has created with these programs.
So not only does this program hinder our ability to catch real terrorists, we may not even be able to legally prosecute those we do catch. Nice. History under the collective weight of Katz, Keith, FISA and Hamdi does not support the arguements put forth by President Bush and his supports, nor do the facts, or the Constitution. Nixon was rightly run out of office on a rail for his attempts to attempt to destroy our freedom by unilaterally invading the privacy of anyone he wanted without just cause. This is Watergate Time 10,000. Just as the actions of President Roosevelt were escalated by Senate Joe McCarthy during President Truman's term, and again under Johnson, and again under Nixon - the unlawful and unconstitutional actions of this President will do nothing except escalate under the next President - and the next, and the next. For that reason it must be stopped - now. President Bush must be held to account for his actions or else the very freedom that our society is ment to bring into reality will likely crumble and vanish. It not really a matter of whether Bush has grossly misused his authority, which in all likelyhood he has, the issue remains - how could such unlimited power be abused in the future? President Bush may or may not have decided to use the resources of the NSA to perform social network analysis to indentify highly influential persons who oppose his policies, have the FBI investigate them and then shared the information with state and local agencies as well as selected "private concerns" where it could be used to target political activitists, journalist and members of congress for harrisment or political operations in the same way that he has used the Faith Based Initiatives to political manipulate our Churches - but we shouldn't even have to ask the question, should we? As Justice Powell concluded in Keith.
This isn't just a matter of what is or isn't technically legal as cases such as Keith did not specifically address this issue of the Presidents power's of Foreign Surveillance only surveillance of Americans - certainly that final question might not be resolved until Judge Taylor's decision eventually reaches the Supreme Court - however Impeachment is not a legal issue, it is a Consitutional one that asks and answers the question, "Has the person betrayed his oath of office and brought the fabric of our Democracy into peril?" In the case of President George W. Bush - the answer is clearly "Yes, he has". Vyan |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Morgana LaFey (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-19-06 10:54 PM Response to Original message |
1. K&R |
don't know what the problem is here
|
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BeFree (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-20-06 12:44 AM Response to Reply #1 |
2. Pretty much |
...an open and shut case for impeachment. Another one. Too bad we can only impeach the idiot son just once.
|
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Thu May 09th 2024, 05:00 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC