Posted on 02/21/2006 5:46:08 AM PST by Quilla
While White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was asserting Monday that the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program was a vital tool in the war against terrorism, a panel assembled by the American Civil Liberties Union was arguing that President Bush should be impeached over the spying program.
"If the political alignment in the country were otherwise, impeachment would be a no-brainer," said Laurence H. Tribe, professor of constitutional law at Harvard University.
In December, the New York Times disclosed that President Bush had authorized the NSA to tap international telephone calls that included one party suspected of terrorist activity.
Since that time the program's legality has been debated, especially over whether the president violated the law when he authorized the interception of electronic communications without first obtaining permission from the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court.
Tribe added that wiretapping is not an inherent power of the presidency. "That free flowing inherent power is the very thing we fought a revolution against."
"It violates the basic rules of the road of how you operate," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU. "No judge, at any level has signed a warrant for this."
John Dean, a former White House counsel during the Nixon administration, compared the Bush administration's wiretapping to the Watergate scandal. "[Bush] has made such a radical reading of his powers, not unlike Nixon. And those who have operated under his behalf have pursued that policy, so it could well end up where we were at the Nixon White House.
"There is no question in my mind that this president has already committed one or more impeachable offenses. This is pretty serious stuff. It's worse than Watergate."
But the Bush administration has aggressively defended the surveillance program.
"The terrorist surveillance program helps us to connect the dots and save lives and prevent attacks," said McClellan.
"I think most leaders understand that this is not only a necessary tool, but a vital tool in our efforts to disrupt plots and prevent attacks here at home. We will continue to listen to ideas from members of Congress and we will continue to work with them on legislation that would protect this vital program and address some of the issues that have been raised."
Ah, nothing like the smell of fringe nuttiness in the early AM...
Stop funding these loons
If the loony Democrats take the House this will be the number one order of business.
I don't think the Dems are that strong, but we need to get out the vote in November nonetheless.
The only "no brainers" were sitting on that stage of ACLU stooges. Tribe is the exception; he only has a left brain.
Amen. I wish more folks understood that when the ACLU sues a governing entity, they collect attorney fees from the taxpayers of these local governments. Sheesh.
Isn't Conyers attempting to impeach Bush?
Impeachment was on the agenda even before the 2004 election and this NSA issue wasn't even on the horizon. I remember Rush saying that if Bush won the election he would be impeached. The left was/is looking for any excuse.
Three things:
1. This "political climate" is a state of war.
2. The "no-brainer" response did not occur when the Clintons lifted the over 900 private citizen's FBI files for the White House's political review.
3. This idiot cannot distinguish between those events and the present but the American people surely can.
If an American is communicating with a foreign agent being watched by the United States for national security purposes, the foreign agent has no presumption of U.S. constitutional "rights" against "domestic spying" and that communication with an American does not extend the American's "rights" to that comunication either.
The AmCriminalLibUnion and many others miss the point that foreigners do not gain our rights simply because they are communicating with us, and our rights do not extend to protecting a foreign agent by shielding him under our rights.
There would be no impeachment because there has been no impeachable offense. FISA, in and of itself, is not the only or the definitive word on this matter.
If an American is communicating with a foreign agent being watched by the United States for national security purposes, the foreign agent has no presumption of U.S. constitutional "rights" against "domestic spying" and that communication with an American does not extend the American's "rights" to that comunication either.
The AmCriminalLibUnion and many others miss the point that foreigners do not gain our rights simply because they are communicating with us, and our rights do not extend to protecting a foreign agent by shielding him under our rights.
There would be no impeachment because there has been no impeachable offense. FISA, in and of itself, is not the only or the definitive word on this matter.
Lawrence "Lost" Tribe is a racist coward. When there was a school on Brattle Street in Cambridge MA for little Black children. Tribe climbed into a tree to take pictures of the children as evidence for the neighborhood swells to get it closed down.
NOW can we stop funding the ACLU????? please!!!!!!!!!
No surprise. Virtually everything the liberals do shows they have no brains.... and no balls.... and no patriotism.
"If the political alignment in the country were otherwise, impeachment would be a no-brainer," said Laurence H. Tribe, professor of constitutional law at Harvard University.
So he's saying that if, say, Algore or sKerry were in charge, the Pubbies would be calling to impeach them?
And he bases this on...what, exactly? If either of those two tools were in office, I'd be wearing a burka already. *Rolleyes*
The libtards won't introduce legislation updating FISA and/or AUMF, but they WILL blow about impeachment of a president who's doing what decades of (mostly Democrat) presidents have done since FDR at least. Oohhhhkay ...
"Tribe added that wiretapping is not an inherent power of the presidency. "That free flowing inherent power is the very thing we fought a revolution against."
Imagine that: a Harvard dingbat professor disagrees with the President.
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.