** Summary of Bush's Wiretapping Defense, And How To Beat It **

[rpgamerd00d]

Bush Admin
1) We can do warrantless tapping because:
...a) FISA says it is exclusive Except as authorized by other statutes; and
...b) The Authorization to Use Military Force (vs. Afghanistan) is exactly that statutorial exception (this is BS by the way)

2) The reason they didn't just use FISA was because its not fast enough. FISA applications take days, weeks and even months and are "an inch thick" and all have to be individually signed by Gonzalez. (this is also complete BS)

How to defeat it
For the Dems to score a guarenteed, 100% Impeachment of Bush, they need to only do two simple things:

1) Prove the AUMF is not an exception to FISA (This is 95% of it, right here)
2) Prove that FISA could have been used, EITHER by proving it is not slow (not preferable) OR proving that it could have been modified as needed if they had just asked (PREFERABLE). (worth some extra points, could be ignored so long as they accomplish #1)

[mdmc]

1. we can do both, but ... will we?

great post. :kick: / r

[bullimiami]

2. i think the 100% impeachment guarantee is proving it was not terrorists

he was spying on.

proving that they used this info for political gain, blackmail or corporate leverage will be the dam breaker. even pubs will have to sign on.

[rpgamerd00d]

3. I'd rather focus on the actual case that will make it to a court

not our DU-Dream case.

:D

[joefree1]

4. No declaration of war

Good stuff here at Media Matters.

FISA also allows the president and the attorney general to conduct surveillance without a court order for the purpose of gathering "foreign intelligence information" for no more than 15 days "following a declaration of war by the Congress." This provision does not permit Bush's conduct either, as he acknowledged reauthorizing the program more than 30 times since 2001.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512210011

What do I win?

[rpgamerd00d]

6. That is a weak arguement. Not unwinable, but weak.

The AUMF is "a declaration of war" in essence. We don't want that arguement. Its silly.

[joefree1]

7. Uh, "for no more than 15 days"

So he sorta had a declaraton of war but where did he get to wait 3 years not 15 days.

OK, so what do I win?

[rpgamerd00d]

8. Oh, I see your point. Yes, that goes into point #1. :) You win...

... a widget!

:yourock:

[joefree1]

15. Actually their argument is quite weak.

Circumventing a law because it is weak doesn't work for me when I get pulled over by a cop. Bush as the prez is supposed to protect this nation of laws. My guess is that there is more to this end run around FISA yet to come out.

And hey, Delay needs a roommate.


on edit: Oh, oh, I forgot, if Bush thought the law was so bad why didn't he change it? His party is in control of both houses yes? Someting is not right here (commander Klink voice)!

[KittyWampus]

11. How about a wet kiss?

[stop the bleeding]

5. Sorry - see Alito judiciary vote to see how this will end - I just don't

have any faith that the Repukes who sit on the committee will do what is right - but I hope that I am wrong.

K&R for awareness

[KittyWampus]

13. If Alito didn't recuse himself, then he'd be subject to impeachment

[stop the bleeding]

17. I referred to Alito - because the Jud. Committee voted along party

lines to confirm him so he could goto the full Senate, and that is how these NSA Wiretap hearings will end - in a party line vote

[magellan]

9. Great job condensing this into concise terms

One thing: isn't it also a point of fact that the warrantless wiretapping began before 9/11? I've been repeating this for a few days now after seeing it here over the weekend -- can't recall the source -- but it raised quite a response from those of us who noticed it.

If it's true that BushCo were carrying out warrantless taps prior to 9/11, it completely undermines the admin's claim that Congress's authorization to use military force in Afghanistan gave them the statutorial exception for warrantless taps.

[savemefromdumbya]

12. I saw the articles - I'll try to dig them up

[savemefromdumbya]

16. Here's something

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306Z.shtml

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB24/nsa25.pdf for Dec 20 2000 for 2001

[magellan]

22. Save Me, you're a STAR!

Thank you, thank you! I looked and couldn't find it. Here are a few salient bits:

"The National Security Agency advised President Bush in early 2001 that it had been eavesdropping on Americans during the course of its work monitoring suspected terrorists and foreigners believed to have ties to terrorist groups, according to a declassified document.

"The NSA's vast data-mining activities began shortly after Bush was sworn in as president and the document contradicts his assertion that the 9/11 attacks prompted him to take the unprecedented step of signing a secret executive order authorizing the NSA to monitor a select number of American citizens thought to have ties to terrorist groups."

snip

"But according to people who worked at the NSA as encryption specialists during this time, that's not what happened. On orders from Defense Department officials and President Bush, the agency kept a running list of the names of Americans in its system and made it readily available to a number of senior officials in the Bush administration, these sources said, which in essence meant the NSA was conducting a covert domestic surveillance operation in violation of the law."

snip

"According to the online magazine Slate, an unnamed official in the telecom industry said NSA's efforts to obtain call details go back to early 2001, predating the 9/11 attacks and the president's now celebrated secret executive order. The source reports that the NSA approached U.S. carriers and asked for their cooperation in a 'data-mining' operation, which might eventually cull 'millions' of individual calls and e-mails."

We need that official to testify.

[savemefromdumbya]

23. Magellan, how about starting anothe rthread on this specific thing?

keep it kicked?
ALso maybe call your Senators and Durbin to ask for that person to be subpoenaed?

[magellan]

24. I was just considering that

...and was coming back to suggest the same thing. Owe you a beer. Off to do a little posting....

[KittyWampus]

10. FISA accepts proof RETROACTIVELY doesn't it?

How can something be slow when you can do it 72 hours AFTER the event occurs?

[rpgamerd00d]

14. He claims that it can take "weeks or months" for 1 application.

Where I work, we learned something called "Six Sigma". This is Quality Control.

If a process needs to be done in 72 hours, and it takes months, you need to redesign the process.
Not arbitrarily ignore that process and do whatever you damn feel like.

[Katherine Brengle]

18. does it need to be finished, or just initiaited, within 72 hrs? n/t

[rpgamerd00d]

20. I believe it has to be filed with the FISA Court w/in 72 hrs.

[Katherine Brengle]

27. Well, hell, if I can read an 800+page novel in one day, surely they can

fill out an inch thick application in 3 days... I mean, come on. Staff it out, lol.

[rpgamerd00d]

28. exactly :)

[populistdriven]

19. call up the FISA judge that resigned and ask him :-)

[EFerrari]

21. Rule of law is easier for people to understand.

And restating endlessly, the way they do.

No one is above the law. And, repeat.

The Thuggery will look stupid because they had all the power to change the law to accomodate Monkey Boy and still the law was ignored.

[rpgamerd00d]

25. Yes, we need to repeat a simple rebuttal over and over

[EFerrari]

26. It puts the Thuggery on the defensive.

Anything they say will be too many syllables.

[Pryderi]

29. Breaking the law defiles the office of the president. Use the rhetoric

the repugs used on Clinton.