Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (56862)	3/29/2006 10:59:32 AM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

FISA judges say Bush within law By Brian DeBose March 29, 2006 A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA). The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order. "If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute." The judges, however, said Mr. Bush's choice to ignore established law regarding foreign intelligence gathering was made "at his own peril," because ultimately he will have to answer to Congress and the Supreme Court if the surveillance was found not to be in the best interests of national security. Judge Kornblum said before the 1978 FISA law, foreign surveillance was done by executive order and the law itself was altered by the orders of Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan. It has been three months since President Bush said publicly that the NSA was listening to phone conversations between suspected terrorists abroad and domestically. The actions raised concerns from Congress and civil liberties groups about domestic spying, but the judges said that given new threats from terrorists and new communications technologies, the FISA law should be changed to give the president more latitude. Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican and committee chairman, called the hearing to get advice on his bill that would expand FISA to codify less stringent rules on wiretapping of domestic phone conversations with suspected foreign terrorists and include new technologies like the Internet and satellite communications. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, said the Congress should pass new legislation to ease existing restrictions under FISA. "However, we should not rush to give the administration new powers it has not deigned to request, based on concerns it has not articulated," Mr. Leahy said. The panel of judges unanimously agreed that the law should have been changed before now to deal with new threats from terrorists and new communications technologies, a point made by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat. "It is confusing that if you take something off of a satellite it is legal, but if you take it off of a wiretap it's not," she said. "We need to include new technology."

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (56862)	3/29/2006 12:39:43 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Constitutional crisis: Bush power grab must be stopped by U.S. citizenry By Joyce Appleby and Gary Hart George W. Bush and his most trusted advisers, Richard B. Cheney and Donald H. Rumsfeld, entered office determined to restore the authority of the presidency. Five years and many decisions later, they've pushed the expansion of presidential power so far that we now confront a constitutional crisis. Relying on legal opinions from Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Professor John Yoo, then working in the White House, Bush has insisted that there can be no limits to the power of the commander in chief in time of war. More recently the president has claimed that laws relating to domestic spying and the torture of detainees do not apply to him. His interpretation has produced a devilish conundrum. President Bush has given Commander in Chief Bush unlimited wartime authority. But the ``war on terror'' is more a metaphor than a fact. Terrorism is a method, not an ideology; terrorists are criminals, not warriors. No peace treaty can possibly bring an end to the fight against far-flung terrorists. The emergency powers of the president during this ``war'' can now extend indefinitely, at the pleasure of the president and at great threat to the liberties and rights guaranteed us under the Constitution. When President Nixon covertly subverted checks and balances 30 years ago during the Vietnam War, Congress passed laws making clear that presidents were not to engage in unconstitutional behavior in the interest of ``national security.'' Then Congress was reacting to violation of Fourth Amendment protections against searches and seizures without judicial warrants establishing ``probable cause,'' attempts to assassinate foreign leaders and surveillance of American citizens. Now the Iraq war is being used to justify similar abuses. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, providing constitutional means to carry out surveillance, and the Intelligence Identification Protection Act, protecting the identity of undercover intelligence agents, have both been violated by an administration seeking to restore ``the legitimate authority of the presidency,'' as Cheney puts it. The presidency possesses no power not granted to it under the Constitution. The powers the current administration seeks in its ``war on terror'' are not granted under the Constitution. Indeed, they are explicitly prohibited by acts of Congress. The Founding Fathers, who always come to mind when the Constitution is in danger, anticipated just such a possibility. Writing in the Federalist Papers, James Madison defined tyranny as the concentration of powers in one branch of the government. ``The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department,'' Madison wrote in Federalist 51, ``consists in giving to those who administer each department, the necessary constitutional means, and personal motives, to resist encroachments of the others.'' Warming to his subject, Madison continued, ``Ambition must be made to counteract ambition;'' the interest of the office holders must ``be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.'' Recognizing that he was making an appeal to interest over ideals, he concluded that it ``may be a reflection of human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government.'' ``But what,'' Madison asked, ``is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.'' Madison's solution to the concentration of powers that lead to tyranny relied upon either Congress or the Supreme Court to check the overreaching of a president. In our present crisis, Congress has been supine in the face of the president's grab for unconstitutional, unlimited power, and no case is working its way toward a Supreme Court judgment. If Madison's reliance on the ambition of other office holders has failed us, we need to look elsewhere. Can what Thomas Jefferson called the ``common sense and good judgment of the American people'' help us now? In the past, they have been a critical last resort when our leaders endangered the constitutional checks and balances that have made us the world's oldest democracy. But first the public must wake up to this constitutional crisis. mercurynews.com