*** I CAUGHT AG GONZALEZ IN A LIE - START EMAILING THIS !! ***

[rpgamerd00d]

1) He claims FISA says "Except by statute" meaning, they can wiretapp without a warrant AS LONG AS A STATUTE EXISTS TO ALLOW IT.
2) He claims that the AUF is THAT STATUTE.
3) We point out that the AUF HAS NO SUCH LANGUAGE TO OVERRIDE FISA.
4) HE QUOTES A COURT CASE (HAMDI) THAT HAPPENED YEARS AFTER 2001 IS PRECEDENT FOR LANGUAGE NOT PRESENT IN AUF

HOW CAN GONZALEZ AUTHORISE THE NSA PROGRAM IN 2001 BASED ON A HAMDI CASE THAT HASNT HAPPENED YET?

CRYSTAL BALL ?


TOAST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hissyspit]

1. He's using circular logic.

His Strategy: hrow some shit at the wall and maybe it will stick.

Pathetic man working for a pathetic man.

[Joe Chi Minh]

37. And he'll meet the same fate as the fabled oogly-oogly bird,

going round and round in ever-decreasing circles....

[LiberalAndProud]

42. I was reminded of a puppy and a tail.

round and round and round we go...

[BR_Parkway]

2. Good catch

[tgnyc]

3. He would say that even though the Hamdi case had not happened,

the ruling only confirmed that that the AUF allowed the spying.

[rpgamerd00d]

7. His case ONLY WORKS if Hamdi exists in 2001

Its 2001.
They are reviewing the LEGALITY THEN.

Only things that exist: FISA + AUF.

No language in AUF to bypass FISA exists.


TOAST.

[tgnyc]

17. But he's not saying they used Hamdi to decide it was legal, he's just

saying that Hamdi just confirmed what they already decided based on nothing but AUF (and the Constitution).

[Katherine Brengle]

24. is it legal for him to cite a case that happened after the *crime* was

committed?

Don't court cases set future precedent?

[Tigress DEM]

47. Can't call it a precedent, because it wasn't before.

It's a CYA case and they are counting on people's eyes glazing over about it, not people like us who scent it like Pitt Bulls and pounce.

Letters to News Sources anyone?

[LSparkle]

22. Gimme some jam for my ... TOAST!

I agree -- you're onto something here. Leahy up now and I'm hoping he may connect the dots ...

[stop the bleeding]

4. interesting logic K&R n/t

[helderheid]

5. ok. You rock. I get lost in details and depend on patriots like you!

:patriot:

[Ksec]

6. The ahole is spinning and dodging like the tasmanian devil

Good catch rp. He looks pathetic the way hes answering questions. Or spinning them. Anyone with half a brain can see how hes dodging the truth

[mikelewis]

8. Yep.... K&R

[BlueEyedSon]

9. I speak neocon legalese. Let me translate.

If this goes before a court, it will be found to be just a legit as Hamdi.

So will everything else we do.

[Katherine Brengle]

10. more details?

Okay, so bear with me here. Gonzales cited a case that had not happened yet when the wiretapping order was given as his way of justifying the wiretapping order?

What exactly do FISA and AUF say?

[rpgamerd00d]

12. The simple version is this:

FISA: I am exclusive law on wiretapping unless some other statute comes along to contradict me.
AUF: We can wage war vs Afhganistan. (NO LANGUAGE for wiretapping)

With ONLY THAT, they COULD NOT have come to the conclusion in 2001 that AUF could bypass FISA.

[Katherine Brengle]

15. How can he really think that makes any sense???

Okay, so AUF has nothing to do with wiretapping...

So he's basically talking out his ass because he thinks he is untouchable, or what?

[tgnyc]

19. He would say that the AUF says nothing about detaining people either,

yet the court said that's OK (in Hamdi).

[Catrina]

49. Yes, the COURT says, not the PRESIDENT! And that's how they broke

the law. They by-passed the court.

I don't know if I'm remembering this, but didn't they intend to hold Hamdi indefinitely, without trial or charges (he is a US citizen) and didn't it go to the SC who ruled they could not? I'm not sure, but if that's the case, he's lost his whole argument, even if he had one to begin with.

I'm sick of these crooks twisting the law to the point that we may as well not have any laws anymore. I hope they nail this little torture creep tomorrow. The Consitution is under attack by these people and someone needs to stand up for it.

[RandomKoolzip]

11. Uh, links?

[rpgamerd00d]

14. C-SPAN1 Live Hearings on NSA Wiretapping

[LSK]

13. where is this section 109 he keeps refering too?

Can I get a link?

[Sydnie]

18. DiFi will revist that section on her round 2

told him that it didn't appear to be the right section and he should check it before she was up again.

[LSK]

21. here is the link I found, but theres no section 109

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html

[rpgamerd00d]

28. Here it is

§ 1809. Criminal sanctions
Release date: 2005-03-17

(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or
(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.

[Tigress DEM]

46. Interesting Sidebar... 15 calendar days after declaration of war

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1811

§ 1811. Authorization during time of war


Release date: 2005-03-17

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.



I think the pRes is past his expiration date. Let's dump him.


Impeach! TO THE HAGUE!

[myrna minx]

16. Kick--I think you're onto something.!

[jsamuel]

20. Leahy TALKING ABOUT THIS NOW!

[rpgamerd00d]

23. Cool. Hi there, Leahy Staffer who reads DU ! *wave*

[myrna minx]

26. Yay!!

:bounce: :bounce:

[Wheezy]

25. Leahy got it!! Hamdi 2004.

[Katherine Brengle]

27. BAH I don't have cable and my computer can't handle the CSPAN

streams!

What is going on?

[Wheezy]

29. Basically exactly what the OP says.

Leahy just said, with dripping sarcasm:

"Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot you can't answer any questions that might be relevant to this."

[Katherine Brengle]

30. LOL I just hate having to wait for the news in print--even though it is

generally more reliable.

CSPAN is one of the few things I would watch if I watched tv lol.

[Wheezy]

31. The official CSpan threads are really helpful too.

:wave:

[mikelewis]

36. C-span.org has live coverage...

[renate]

32. Rock on, Pat!

:rofl:
:patriot:
:yourock:

[renate]

33. Very nice work!!!

Do you ever wonder how freepers must feel about themselves when they come over here and see this kind of evidence of intelligence, logical thinking, and intellectual discernment?

Maybe they just comfort themselves with the soothing mantra "that's un-American."

[Wilms]

34. K&R n/t

[samhsarah]

35. Nice one! KICK!

[Swamp Rat]

38. kick and recommended n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

39. That's not really how he's using Hamdi

He's saying that they made a determination in 2001 that the AUMF could be interpreted in the way it was (i.e., to authorize domestic wiretaps in contravention of FISA, though they will say it doesn't contravene FISA because FISA has a provision that allows subsequent statutes to void it!). That determination was made on the basis of internal discussions. The Hamdi case, which was obviously subsequent to the beginning of the NSA spying program, is being used to bolster the determination made in internal discussions. he's not saying that they made the determination based on Hamdi, but that Hamdi proves that the determination they made was a legal interpretation of the UAMF. That's two different things. You didn't think catching a professional liar in the act would be that easy, did you?

[berni_mccoy]

40. GREAT CATCH!

This can not be discussed ENOUGH!

K&R!! :kick:

[annabanana]

41. .... pity he's not under OATH!!

(shaking my head in weary despair)

[pberq]

43. Don't forget his other argument

Article 2 of the Constitution supposedly giving the President the power as commander in chief to do what he wants "in time of war" (I'm paraphrasing here) - Gonzo kept coming back to this.

[karlrschneider]

44. He's got a Magic 8-Ball. I got one too.

It's usually wrong...
:eyes:

[Tigress DEM]

45. No wonder he wouldn't go under oath,

Lies lies everywhere the lies.
Blocking up the scenery breaking my mind,
did this didn't do that - can you believe the lies?

[Tigress DEM]

48. Section B in the altered code still says, "NO" to spying on Americans

THIS LAW is tighter than FISA. So NO, *ush, your surveilance of Quakers was not justified as their little tete a tete was an exercise in free speech, protected by the first ammendment.


TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1802

§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court

.....

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and

(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and

1801 (h)

(h) “Minimization procedures”, with respect to electronic surveillance, means—

(1) specific procedures, which shall be adopted by the Attorney General, that are reasonably designed in light of the purpose and technique of the particular surveillance, to minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of nonpublicly available information concerning unconsenting United States persons consistent with the need of the United States to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence information;

(2) procedures that require that nonpublicly available information, which is not foreign intelligence information, as defined in subsection (e)(1) of this section, shall not be disseminated in a manner that identifies any United States person, without such person’s consent, unless such person’s identity is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance;

(3) notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), procedures that allow for the retention and dissemination of information that is evidence of a crime which has been, is being, or is about to be committed and that is to be retained or disseminated for law enforcement purposes; and

(4) notwithstanding paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), with respect to any electronic surveillance approved pursuant to section 1802 (a) of this title, procedures that require that no contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court order under section 1805 of this title is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.



1805. Issuance of order


Release date: 2005-03-17

(a) Necessary findings
Upon an application made pursuant to section 1804 of this title, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested or as modified approving the electronic surveillance if he finds that—

(1) the President has authorized the Attorney General to approve applications for electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence information;

(2) the application has been made by a Federal officer and approved by the Attorney General;

(3) on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant there is probable cause to believe that—

(A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power: Provided, That no United States person may be considered a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

(B) each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;

[EVDebs]

50. Both AUMF's embed the War Powers Act of 1973

Both Authorizations of Use of Military Force as they are called contain the WPA of '73 by reference. The WPAof'73 requires clear justifications for use of the war powers granted by Congress according to the Constitution.

'War against a tactic', terrorism, is not a clear specification of who the enemy(s) are. Like flailing in the dark, or abusing a system to attack political enemies lumped into the bunch, either result is counter to the clear intent of the War Powers Act of '73.

Please read the War Powers Act of 1973, and the two AUMFs (from Sept 14, 2001 and Oct 2, 2002) and see the 'self evident truths' for yourself, at bottom of page at this posting:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=220311#225805

In 2001 we see

""That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.... Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.""

In 2002 we see

""The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.""

In both cases the language is 'as he determines', meaning that Congress has violated the embedded War Powers Act of 1973:

""SEC. 8. (d)
Nothing in this joint resolution--
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or
(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.""

No doctrine of 'unlimited Presidential warmaking authority', as Alberto Gonzalez and the Bush administration propose, is forthcoming from these documents of record. In every respect, the joint collective judgement of the President AND Congress will apply, not solely that of Presidential determination...

""It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations""

Congress cannot violate the War Powers Act of 1973 (the War Powers Resolution) and then turn around and say they are following it !

Congress created this monster, Congress must put it back in its cage.

""SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that THE CONGRESS shall have the power to make ALL laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or OFFICER thereof.""

We can go into the clarity of the situations and circumstances the WPA of '73 requires later, since WMDs and all other lies as pretexts for war become exhausted. Those issues will ensue upon the election of a Democratic controlled Congress in order to reign in an imperial presidency.

[Seabiscuit]

51. Please... what is AUF???

[rpgamerd00d]

52. Authorization to Use (Military) Force vs Afghanistan

[EVDebs]

53. As pretexts for war, with Congress not declaring it

Authorizations for Use of Military Force (or farce, as pretexts for war become, as in the Gulf of Tonkin 'incident' that started the Vietnam War), the War Powers Act of 1973, the War Powers Resolution by reference, requires clear situations and circumstances. Also, Congress cannot legally delegate to another officer ITS war making powers, which is what Bush is implying.

We are in a self evident Constitutional Crisis. BTW, with Rex84 during the Reagan yrs, guess who would have passed upon the executive orders allowing for a suspension of the constitution ? You got it, both Roberts and Alito.

[Seabiscuit]

54. Thanks. But now... what's "Rex84"?