Posted on 12/20/2005 3:12:26 AM PST by 7thson
Did anyone catch Bill O'Reilly last night? He put on two legal "experts" to discuss the warrentless wiretaps ordered by President Bush. One of the experts was Turley. Turley stated President Bush committed an illegal act that could be an impeachable offense. I am not worried about that. I do want to comment though about his statement and 50 USC Section 1802. How come nobody in the media has brought this up yet? I remember Turley always being hard on Clinton during the Impeachment and now he seems to always down on President Bush. What is his problem? Have this Constitutional experts not know the US Code? Someone help me out here.
More will come out, but it appears at this time that it wasn't foreign powers being tapped, but any persons corresponding with or talking to terrorists, real or suspected. I am basing this only on what I heard on O'Reilly and my general impression of Turley. If it were otherwise, I don't believe Turley would have said that Bush's actions were clearly illegal. If they were illegal, then someone needs to be disbarred (Bush's lawyers) or impeached (Bush).
Turley is a self-confessed rabid liberal. I remember when he was criticizing Clinton, he always caveated his statements with the fact that he was left of Clinton.
Yet when people spoke out against him during the Civil War he had them jailed.
Quoting Lincoln as a Saint always needs to be qualified.
I liked him when he was assuring us how important and real a crime perjury is. Frankly, I liked that because President Clinton was being called a big liar, which he is. But early on after 9/11, I realized Turley is an absolutist about civil liberties stuff, arguing that no terrorism case should be removed from the civilian courts. That's a ridiculously absolutist position. This issue is less extreme than that, so I knew in advance where he would come down.
Even when I kind of liked Turley, that hair made me very nervous.
Turley needs a stay at a Holiday Inn Express.
If it was so clear cut the ACLU would have been in Federal Court for an injunction already. That they haven't means they worry about losing and establishing a precedent.
I have the feeling that there is more law behind this than my short research into 50USC1801-1805. 1802 has Jimmah's executive order appended to it. The USC online is the 2000 version. Is there a further executive order? I haven't been to the Federal Register to research that.
This whole thing smacks of the usual Democrat "destroy the nation to get us back in power" approach. If the law is on the side of the President/AG, then I hope someone runs down the leak to the NYT and starts shining the light on the traitors among us.
I saw the show Turley thought W had broken the law.
But but do people blame the messenger around here.
Turley was a hero on FR a few years ago.
If dims win congress in '06, Bush will be impeached. This or some other reason, but dims are EXPERTS in the art of payback and this is one of their HIGHEST priorities! Write it down.cb.
And I'm not show you watch but Bill O spends most of his time defending W and attacking the MSM.
I posted this on another thread as well, but perhaps you all heard this same Fox guest this morning and can answer:
An explanation I heard this morning on Fox was that the FISA was bypassed because FISA criteria may have been difficult to meet in instances where it could not be established that, for instance, all of the people on a captured terrorist's cell phone, were in fact, connected directly to a terrorist organization or terrorist plot. In other words, FISA would not approve wire tapping the terrorist contact, 'John Smith', if it could not be proven he was something more than just the terrorist's barber. Side stepping FISA and it's requirements allows the NSA to tap into any and all of the terrorist's 'contacts' on a confiscated cell phone.
Also, the explanation was given that the Presidential authority to do so without a warrent, is based, in part, by the gravity of the threat. After 9/11, the argument should be that the gravity of the threat gives Bush the authority and also, we are to notice that 'gravity of the threat' is not being used by the Dems in their 'argument' against.
Did anyone else hear these explanations. It was the first time, over the last few days, that I heard such concise explanation. But is it fact?
This story will be over as soon as someone publishes a real poll showing 65% of Americans are okay with Bush wiretapping terrorists.
It will, of course, become part of the ever expanding lore of Liberal myths that will continue to be raised every time you argue with a Liberal.
When he attacks the MSM, it is usually for it attacking him.
Lincoln is also quoted as saying that "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" meaning that he would not let the country come to ruin because of civil war simply because the Constitution prevented him from doing the things necessary to prevent it.
I'm not sure if this is impeachable. However, when he knowingly signed CFR believing it was unconstitutional, then that would have been an impeachable offense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.