Did Bush's Secrecy Endangered America? YES! Hiding Truth, Spying, FISA, and Trust Gonzo.

[L. Coyote]

A. Many months ago, a FISA court secretly ruled that it was illegal for the NSA to intercept communications routed through the USA.

B. Bush did nothing, except, of course, not reveal the secret ruling about the secret spying, because he had secretly violated the law himself.

C. Many months later, the secret FISA court ruling is revealed.

D. Bush blames Dems for not getting the fix on his desk overnight, want warrantless spying as a solution, and wants Gonzo to be the decider.

Geeee-eez, who needs math? Bush should have had this fixed overnight, many months ago, instead of guarding the secret!

NOW, in a masterful magic show of distraction, Bush and the Rs changed the issue by proposing that Gonzo be the decider on authorizing warrantless surveillance of Americans. Clever as all hell as distractions go, and everyone is falling for their sleight-of-hand magic show. But, didn't the Administration know about this when the FISA court handed down the ruling? ABSOLUTELY. But, they hid their dirty secret for political gain, and, epitomizing cynicism, now, when revealed, use it as a political tool.

CONCLUSION: Bush endangered America, knowing fully well the NSA could not legally intercept Al Queda communications routed through the USA, rather than let his dirty secrets get out! Damn simple. Who needs math? (Or maybe, he was violating the law and doing the spying anyway, so no worries mates.)

Tell me if I got any of this wrong, please.

And, which of the following is the likelier Bush scenario

A. illegally spying anyway, or
B. not fixing the problem to hide past crimes?

READ MORE:

SO, how many secret domestic spy programs are there anyway, and are they legal?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1481897&mesg_id=1481897

[MissWaverly]

1. how could he not legally intercept Al Queda communications

he has the FISA court, that is what it is for. Can you imagine him asking to wiretap Osama and them saying No, he probably said
he wanted to wiretap Obama and they said no.

[L. Coyote]

2. The FISA court secretly ruled that intercepting communications routed thru

the USA was not legal for the NSA. Bush kept this secret ruling secret, rather than ask for legislation to have the situation revisited with a legislative remedy. But, when the secret gets leaked, "the Dems" are moving too slowly. What utter nonsense, given they have been hiding this one for many months!

Of course the FISA court gives them favorable rulings for reasonable surveillance requests. But, that is not the power they are seeking!

[MissWaverly]

3. Of course, I knew that but the rationale was:

Terra, Osama, Terra, Terra, big attack, lots of chatter, if you don't vote for this right now, mushroom cloud coming to a state
near you. Sign now, don't read the fine print. As if terrorists would use the internet.

[MissWaverly]

8. I don't think it's reasonable to listen to foreign calls

not w/o a warrant, my friend has a business bank account in Northern Virginia, he/she was told by the manager that every month
the feds check every transaction in every business account in the bank. Every business account and this has nothing to do
with Osama, Dem, Republican, it's just what they do under "homeland security." And if there is a transaction there that
is not routine, the bank staff are grilled. Do you remember this being debated, it has not discussed in Congress to my
knowledge.

[L. Coyote]

9. Our message to the world. We have no respect for your rights. Only WE have rights!

[MissWaverly]

10. I was thinking about the word "reasonable"

how could that apply to somebody's location, I could think of only 1 way: A Joseph Heller: Catch 22 way.
We cannot distinguish between routed calls, so let's just listen in, Oh, this was Obama so we have
reason to believe it's made inside the U.S., smirk, smirk, let's listen to another one,
maybe that's Osama, smirk, smirk.

[L. Coyote]

11. Indeed. This is "get out og prosecution free" language.

Any time a decision to prosecute rests upon the state of mind of the would-be target of prosecution, there likely is no way to prove the case. The defendant can claim "reasonable belief."

[MissWaverly]

13. Do you find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

Yes, exactly, it's hairsplitting, if they do not where the call originated from, or who originated it, (ie terrorist/innocent civilian) then it should not be opened.

[L. Coyote]

4. Edited for clarity too. Thanks.

[MissWaverly]

15. well, at least you have provided insight on this murky issue

[ProSense]

5. Here is a full explanation:

Secret Court Strikes Down Bush NSA Program, Leading to Latest Fuss About FISA

In reality, the only reason FISA needs fixing is to accommodate Bush. Here is Marty Lederman on the Democratic version of the bill:

Quite a way to run the greatest democracy in the world, eh? Keep in mind that FISA was crafted after three years of intensive and comprehensive -- and public -- hearings, debates, and negotiations. This bill? Not so much. And it shows in the finished product. What's that old adage about legislation and sausage? We need some meat inspectors here . .

Crazy thing is that even though they were trying to push through a Dem version (which some Constitutional experts don't believe is needed) the Senate passed Bush's version.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Myths and Facts (7/31/2007)

[L. Coyote]

7. X-post that article, and near 100 more here

SO, how many secret domestic spy programs are there anyway, and are they legal?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1481897&mesg_id=1481897

[RC]

6. No body would need any NSA spying if cheney had not outed Plame and destroyed

the best covert spy network we had in the Middle East. It is all interlinked folks.

[L. Coyote]

12. FISA court ruled portion of NSA spying was illegal. So who was the CRIMINAL?

Missing from all the discussion are the questions:

"Who was responsible for the illegal conduct?"

"Is illegal conduct still criminal in America?"
or "Will anyone be held to account by the Attorney General?"
or "Was the criminal the Attorney General?"

"Will anything at all happen because of the illegality?"

MEANWHILE, the full frontal assault of DEMS may be a purposeful distraction to evade responsibility for the criminality.

[MissWaverly]

14. full frontal assault is a distraction/cover up of criminality

they are the only ones who instead of responding to criticism by corrective action, attack and destroy any and all who would
criticise them, see Joseph Wilson/Plame.

[L. Coyote]

16. Missing from the Plame discussion are the questions:

Missing from the Plame discussion are the questions:

"Who was ultimately responsible for that illegal conduct?"

"Is that illegal conduct still criminal in America?"

"Will anyone be held to account?"

"Was the criminal the President of the Vice-President?"

"Will anything further happen because of that illegality?"

I'll say it again, the full frontal assault of DEMS may be a purposeful distraction to evade responsibility for criminality.

[MissWaverly]

17. tale of 2 realities, time for a Gonzo reality shift

Version of Reality 1

Cheney Aide Gets 10 Years

U.S. District Judge William H. Walls said he believed that Aragoncillo, a naturalized U.S. citizen
born in the Philippines, did not mean to hurt the United States. But he said, "There's no doubt
you did betray a position of trust that very few people are privileged to occupy."

Judge Walls also fined Aragoncillo $40,000. There is no parole in the federal system,
and Aragoncillo can be expected to serve nearly the entire sentence except for
potential good-inmate credits.

“Those charged with protecting the nation have a special responsibility to
maintain their oath of loyalty to the United States,” said Assistant
Attorney General Wainstein. “As a former U.S. Marine and FBI analyst,
Aragoncillo betrayed that oath, violated our espionage laws, and now
must suffer the consequences of his actions.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/18/national/main3070806.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_3070806

Version of Reality 2

The president announced his decision in a written statement that laid out the factors he had weighed.
Bush said he decided to "respect" the jury's verdict that Libby was guilty of four felonies for
lying about his role in the leak of a covert CIA officer's identity. But the president said Libby's
"exceptional public service" and prior lack of a criminal record led him to conclude that the
30-month sentence handed down by a judge last month was "excessive."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/02/AR2007070200825.html

[L. Coyote]

18. Irony and Hypocrisy. They reveal secrets when politics dictates, to hide lies!

[MissWaverly]

19. well, I agree with the 10 year sentence while I disagree

with the political, wink, wink, smirk, smirk of the second. It was just as damaging, he too, abused his office.