ZOMBIE FORUMS

Who are these enemies you keep mentioning? You seem to take it for granted that we have some and are fighting them...

A nation of our size and stature that doesn't profile, tap, torture, interrogate, kidnap, kill, or God knows what won't last.

It's the barbarians, and they're, you know, at the gates so we have to crush them or civilise them before they force us into a new dark age and this is, if you hadn't noticed, because a dark age would be bad. So to do this we must all make personal sacrifices to maintain the glory of our civilisation for another millennia. Therefore we must accept that the government will build giant dossiers about our sexual perversions that they'll use as blackmail the moment you decide that you'd be a better politician than the existing corporate minions. Secondly, we must accept the inevitability of the government limiting the right to vote to only those people with a personal fortune of over $20 million and connections with the existing government, because, as we all know, the people don't know what's best for them, so it would be better to only have those who know what they're doing making a pig's breakfast of things.

Quit stirring up the moonbats.

Anyways, the NSA has got a pretty advanced system for who to monitor, based off of where the calls coming from, where it's going, who it's going to, keywords, that kind of thing. They aren't listening to you having phone sex, unless your having phone sex to somebody in Saudi Arabia and keep yelling "al-Qaeda".

Time for my little bit;

The President having the NSA monitor phone calls is in no way unconstitutional. Why? Because it is neither a SEARCH or a SEIZURE. When one makes a phone call, especially on a cell phone, the signal of that call goes through the air or wire, and goes through public, and therefor government, domain. Once you get down to it, phone transmissions are nothing more than invisible, complicated smoke signals, or yelling in code most people can't hear. If you yell or signal something to somebody across the way, you're giving up your right to privacy. Same with phone signals.
Anyways, the NSA has got a pretty advanced system for who to monitor, based off of where the calls coming from, where it's going, who it's going to, keywords, that kind of thing. They aren't listening to you having phone sex, unless your having phone sex to somebody in Saudi Arabia and keep yelling "al-Qaeda".

The President having the NSA monitor phone calls is in no way unconstitutional. Why? Because it is neither a SEARCH or a SEIZURE.

Anyways, the NSA has got a pretty advanced system for who to monitor, based off of where the calls coming from, where it's going, who it's going to, keywords, that kind of thing. They aren't listening to you having phone sex, unless your having phone sex to somebody in Saudi Arabia and keep yelling "al-Qaeda".

Michael Moore == TRAITOR

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales argues that the president's authority rests on two foundations: Congress's authorization to use military force against al-Qaida, and the Constitution's vesting of power in the president as commander-in-chief, which necessarily includes gathering “signals intelligence” on the enemy. But that argument cannot be squared with Supreme Court precedent. In 1952, the Supreme Court considered a remarkably similar argument during the Korean War. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, widely considered the most important separation-of-powers case ever decided by the court, flatly rejected the president's assertion of unilateral domestic authority during wartime. President Truman had invoked the commander-in-chief clause to justify seizing most of the nation's steel mills. A nationwide strike threatened to undermine the war, Truman contended, because the mills were critical to manufacturing munitions.

The Supreme Court's rationale for rejecting Truman's claims applies with full force to Bush's policy. In what proved to be the most influential opinion in the case, Justice Robert Jackson identified three possible scenarios in which a president's actions may be challenged. Where the president acts with explicit or implicit authorization from Congress, his authority "is at its maximum," and will generally be upheld. Where Congress has been silent, the president acts in a "zone of twilight" in which legality "is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law." But where the president acts in defiance of "the expressed or implied will of Congress," Justice Jackson maintained, his power is "at its lowest ebb," and his actions can be sustained only if Congress has no authority to regulate the subject at all.

In the steel seizure case, Congress had considered and rejected giving the president the authority to seize businesses in the face of threatened strikes, thereby placing President Truman's action in the third of Justice Jackson's categories. As to the war power, Justice Jackson noted, "The Constitution did not contemplate that the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy will constitute him also Commander in Chief of the country, its industries, and its inhabitants."

Like Truman, President Bush acted in the face of contrary congressional authority. In FISA, Congress expressly addressed the subject of warrantless wiretaps during wartime, and limited them to the first 15 days after war is declared. Congress then went further and made it a crime, punishable by up to five years in jail, to conduct a wiretap without statutory authorization.

The government has the ability, legally, to tap phone lines with a warrant, just like they can search a house or a car with a warrant, but if I get the gist of this topic right, the President is signing laws that will allow them to either come up with warrants after the fact, or not bother with warrants at all? Is this unconstitutional? No. Is it illegal? Not really. The government is simply rolling back laws it issued previously, which is something it has the power to do. Unethical? Possibly, but that depends on what sort of code of ethics you subscribe to, which means it can't be used as a legal argument. Should Bush be impeached over this? Not in the slightest.

So far, the most plausable suggestion anyone has evolved for WHY the NSA would need to circumvent the FISC courts is that the system involved an automated ECHELON-type system that was vacuuming up calls like mad. In any case, it is a documented fact that some Intra-American calls were tapped by mistake, because the NSA could not reliably determine the call origin.

No, he wasn't rolling back the laws. He was simply ignoring them. He could have asked for permission from Congress or from the Judicial branch but he choose not to (and admitted to choosing not to (or rather, Attorney General Gonzales did) after finding out that Congress was unlikely to give him that power), violating the applicable laws. So yes, it is an impeachable offense.

And Nick, what the fuck does Michael Moore have to do with anything?

Micheal Moore is a traitor. It's a black and white case; he is clearly giving aid to the enemy in a time of war. Therefore, he should be tried.

A counterpoint.

§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order;
certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court
Release date: 2005-03-17

(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—

(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and

(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

(2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General’s certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title.

(3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the court established under section 1803 (a) of this title a copy of his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless—

(A) an application for a court order with respect to the surveillance is made under sections 1801 (h)(4) and 1804 of this title; or

(B) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the surveillance under section 1806 (f) of this title.

(4) With respect to electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection, the Attorney General may direct a specified communication common carrier to—

(A) furnish all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish the electronic surveillance in such a manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier is providing its customers; and

(B) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence any records concerning the surveillance or the aid furnished which such carrier wishes to retain.
The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, such carrier for furnishing such aid.
(b) Applications for a court order under this subchapter are authorized if the President has, by written authorization, empowered the Attorney General to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title, and a judge to whom an application is made may, notwithstanding any other law, grant an order, in conformity with section 1805 of this title, approving electronic surveillance of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information, except that the court shall not have jurisdiction to grant any order approving electronic surveillance directed solely as described in paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section unless such surveillance may involve the acquisition of communications of any United States person.

Now with that said, even the Attorney General himself has said what Bush did was legal. He's also saying Congress authorized it, although as you can see, Congress doesn't even need to. Looks like the law everybody is saying Bush ignored legally granted him power to do what he did.

This explanation is dependent upon actions Alberto Gonzales did not do.

I'd like proof please.

Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides -- requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on Saturday, unless there is somehow -- there is -- unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires. Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence.