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

UPI ^ | Dec. 27, 2005 | UPI

[oceanview]

soon he will also tell you he has a "right" to open a bank account or get a post office box without providing identification.

[lmr]

This has the potential to backlash against the Dems and the MSM. It needs to be repeated LOUD AND OFTEN who Bush was wiretapping. TERRORISTS of course. It will be impossible to show where any law-abiding Americans rights were violated, because that is not what happened. Most people and sheeple can see this.

[airborne]

It doesn't matter to me who appointed the judges.

It matters that the judges are endangering our safety.

Why are judges above the law?

Why can't we investigate them to be sure they haven't been compromised?

[oceanview]

I am so tired of hearing this word "oversight". courts have become the final arbiters in this system - they make law, one day you wake up and your right to protect your property from seizure for private purposes is gone because 5 judges on the SCOTUS say it is. any decisions made by men are arbitrary, and the federal courts have become highly politicized.

you want the FISA court to be the ultimate decision maker on what foreign intercepts can be done? are they accountable to anyone if they deny a warrant on a person who turns out to be a dirty bomber? I find it amazing that alot of people here want to give the ultimate power to the branch of government that is the most arbitrary, and the most unaccountable to the people.

[oceanview]

good point, it what I was trying to say in #504. alot of people here believe the judiciary are like gods. they are not gods, they are men, making arbitrary decisions, which are highly politicized.

[airborne]

Looks like the Court of Review will have the final say.

Besides the American people, that is.

[ndt]

"it does not apply to foreign intercepts."

Correct, if you are talking about non U.S. Persons, pretty much anything goes. That does not appear to be the case here though, U.S. Persons were involved and so it does apply.

"and as we saw in the property searches of aldrich ames, it does not apply to persons who are agents of foreign powers."

The Ames case is interesting in that it raises as many questions as it answers. In the Ames case the eavesdropping was done with a FISA warrant which would indicate that the feds at least thought it was prudent even if not necessary. The search and seizure part that was done without a warrant. At the time of the Ames search, FISA did not cover physical searches and so was not applicable.

Since both are now covered by FISA and FISA specifically bars anyone from bypassing it, one could argue that FISA, while providing the protection of "reasonableness" to the President against claims of 4th amendment violation, in other ways it ties his hand because it is an act of congress that specifically limits his discretion.

[ndt]

"soon he will also tell you he has a "right" to open a bank account or get a post office box without providing identification."

I have about 40 posts on this thread and still you choose to make stuff up rather that argue against what I have actually said.

[oceanview]

there are plenty of impeachment threads over at DU for you to join. that seems to be where you want to go with this, so have at it.

[ndt]

"I am so tired of hearing this word "oversight". courts have become the final arbiters in this system"

Are you being sarcastic? That is what they do as laid out by the Constitution. It has always been that way.

"you want the FISA court to be the ultimate decision maker on what foreign intercepts can be done?"

You do not need a warrant for purely foreign intercepts, only those that involve U.S. Persons.

[oceanview]

the bank account and post office box issues were the general theme of the "I lost my rights" crowd on the Patriot Act threads from last week. if the shoe fits....

[ndt]

"there are plenty of impeachment threads over at DU for you to join. that seems to be where you want to go with this, so have at it."

So are you admitting that you are incapable of arguing facts and law and need to resort to sticking your head in the sand?

[ndt]

"the bank account and post office box issues were the general theme..."

Show me where I said anything regarding post offices or bank accounts on this or any other thread that. Lies are where you run when you have no argument.

[oceanview]

as I said, it was the "general theme" of the "I lost my rights" crowd.

[ndt]

Why are judges above the law?

They are not.

Why can't we investigate them to be sure they haven't been compromised?

They can be investigated if they have broken the law and can be impeached by congress. Judges don't exactly work in secret, their opinions are published (even if classified, they still provide detailed opinions) and they have to explain exactly why they decided the way they did. If their opinions are questionable, you appeal.

[ndt]

"as I said, it was the "general theme" of the "I lost my rights" crowd."

Understood. Just to set the record straight, I have never argued about either bank account nor post offices nor have I ever called for the impeachment of the president.

Now, if you see something I actually did say that you disagree with I will be happy to discuss it with you

[oceanview]

sure, let us know when the Kelo SCOTUS justices are impeached. or any of the ones on the 9th circuit who routinely invent new rights and ignore others, under the guise of "interpretation".

[oceanview]

if you believe Bush broke the law, then you are de-facto arguing for impeachment. if you believe that "US persons" dialing/receiving calls from certain foreign phone numbers linked to AQ merit warrants that were not obtained - then its no different then learning that Bush used wiretaps on purely domestic communications without warrants. the crime of failing to obtain warrants would be the same in both cases (different statutes aside). so if we found out tomorrow (hypthetically) that Bush had ordered FBI wiretaps without warrants on Ronnie Earle's calls to the DNC, would that be an impeachable offense?

[ndt]

"sure, let us know when the Kelo..."

If the opinions are wrong or not in your favor, then in lower court rulings you appeal, in this case it is decided, I hate it, but it is a done deal. It is now up to Congress to change the law. If Congress does not change the law to forbid this it is their fault, not the courts.

Impeachment is for gross violation not differing opinion. I strongly disagree with the decision (more than you can imagine) but the arguments they made were strong (yes I read it) and based on existing case law.

[airborne]

If their opinions are questionable, you appeal.

And if their integrity is compromised?