Bush was denied wiretaps, bypassed them (FISA Court denied them in unprecedented numbers)

UPI ^ | Dec. 27, 2005 | UPI

[Political Junkie Too]

My take, from following all the debates on TV and radio, is whether the "tapping" is for legal prosecution or battlefield intelligence.

The Left will have you think that your legal rights are being violated, while the Right will tell you that it's about preventing a dirty bomb from going off. I suspect that the person caught in a dirty bomb won't be so concerned about their rights after the blast, while the Right's problem is that successful prevention leads to complacence and second-guessing about whether the threat was real or not.

Also, I've noticed recently that the Left is deflecting the "Bill Clinton did it" argument by asking if that makes it okay for Bush to do it, too. It strikes me that there was a time when the Left would have called that a "precedent." Now, it's an excuse.

-PJ

[inquest]

When constitutional questions arise about authorities, which has happened hundreds if not thousands of time through our history, then we resort back to case law

"We"? You can if you want. My methodology is to look at the Constitution itself, aided by evidence from the time of its passage as to how the language of its provisions was understood then.

[inquest]

The FBI obtained the information under the Clinton Administration and was not for circulation.

Not for circulation, meaning, that it wasn't intended for the First Lady to come in and look it over? If that's the case, then that would mean that the information was obtained legally, but that what was done with it afterwards was not legal. Am I misunderstanding you?

[jwalsh07]

You're saying that he didn't break the law, yet at the same time justifying his actions by inisting that the law was inadequate to our needs.

I hate to break in when you're enjoying yourself but the two are not mutually exclusive since the CIC does have inherent powers but one of those powers is not making laws.

[amutr22]

"My take, from following all the debates on TV and radio, is whether the "tapping" is for legal prosecution or battlefield intelligence."

Thanks PJ---just trying to sort through all this.

Where would this issue of what the purpose of the tapping is be defined?

And why is the issue of US citizen vs Foreign Citizen continually brought up? These things will bother me as I want to be sure my defense of this action is correct.

[ndt]

"You are right, I have asked at least 4 times on this thread for someone to provide case law for the argument that the President,"broke the law""

Sorry about that, I had so many threads going a the same time I finally just said hell with it and went to dinner :)

As for case law, the 4th amendment is the basis of all following case law regarding the subject. Therefore the question is what case law allows the president to violate the 4th?

I'll give you a hint, I've gone through the cases cited by the AG and his case is weak. I'll be happy to address any part of his apology, but be specific, I'm not going to write a 20 page rebuttal.

[ndt]

"So basically...after reading through all 300 plus posts here, am I correct in asserting the main question as to TRUE legality is if the person being "tapped" is a US citizen or a foreign citizen?"

That is my understanding yes (actually U.S. Person not just citizen but you are essentially correct).

[amutr22]

So, if you are correct, why is it not being presented by anyone that this clearly was illegal?

[Political Junkie Too]

Specifically, the issue is that the President authorized tapping of conversations where one end of the call was in a foreign country and the other end was in the United States. Furthermore, they say that the call has to come from a suspected number, gathered from other intelligence. It's not a random snooping of phone calls.

Also, the term "American" and "American citizen" is being loosely tossed around. No one said for sure that the person on the USA side of the call was, in fact, a citizen. It could just as easily be an illegal alien on the line.

Finally, they say that the purpose of the tapping is not for prosecution, but to stop a terrorist attack. Nothing they gather would be usable in court.

-PJ

[Wasanother]

I'm not asking for your rebuttal, just case law rebuttal to any part of the AG's case law claims.

[inquest]

If they're not mutually exclusive, then they come pretty darn close. If you're defending someone for taking a certain action, what's the point of saying that the law was inadequate to the situation he was facing, if you're not tacitly acknowledging that he went outside the law?

[ndt]

"So, if you are correct, why is it not being presented by anyone that this clearly was illegal?"

Actually some legal scholars have said it was illegal and others say it was not. Most politicians, even the ones with a vested interest in seeing Bush out are mostly bitting their lips and asking for reviews. In reality, there is no way of knowing if it was or was not without the knowing specifics of the tapping instances.

Given the argument put forward by the DOJ it would appear that they are defending the warrantless tapping of U.S. Persons, so I would assume that is what they did/do.

[ndt]

"I'm not asking for your rebuttal, just case law rebuttal to any part of the AG's case law claims."

Name one citation he made and I'll be happy to. If you don't like that one we can do another.

[carton253]

No he doesn't... and those who insist that he does... makes me fear for the maturity level. Getting involved in mud-slinging profits nothing.

[amutr22]

"Given the argument put forward by the DOJ it would appear that they are defending the warrantless tapping of U.S. Persons, so I would assume that is what they did/do."

Sorry, this part confused me, you assume they "did/do" what?

[Wasanother]

If there is no way to know whether it was legal or illegal without knowing specifics aren't we to assume it was legal first? Wouldn't the other way be the presumption of guilt before innocents?

[DocRock]

BTTT

[ndt]

"Sorry, this part confused me, you assume they "did/do" what?"

The DOJ, in their defense of the spying, is putting forth arguments that would defend the spying on of U.S.Persons. I would assume that is an admission that they do in fact spy on U.S. Persons, if they did not, there would be no reason to defend it.

[amutr22]

If there is no way to know whether it was legal or illegal without knowing specifics aren't we to assume it was legal first? Wouldn't the other way be the presumption of guilt before innocents?

---

And THAT would be a violation of our civil rights, but that does not seem to matter.

[Wasanother]

I don't play tit-for-tat. All I asked for is a case law that shows the AG's office wrong and that the President "broke the law".