A Discredit to the GOP

[chomerics]

OUCH!!!!

2003 Draft Legislation Covered Eavesdropping

Justice Dept. Officials Call Measure Unrelated; Critics Say Bush Claims Are Undermined

By Dan Eggen

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, January 28, 2006; A02

Legislation drafted by Justice Department lawyers in 2003 to strengthen the USA Patriot Act would have provided legal backing for several aspects of the administration's warrantless eavesdropping program. But officials said yesterday that was not the intent.

Most lawmakers and the public were not aware at the time that President Bush had already issued a secret order allowing the National Security Agency to intercept international calls involving U.S. citizens and legal residents.

Some critics of the NSA program said the draft legislation raises questions about recent administration claims that Bush had clear legal authority to order warrantless domestic spying in late 2001 and had no need to go to Congress for explicit approval.

"It's rather damning to their current view that they didn't need legislation," said Timothy H. Edgar, a national security lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union. "Clearly the lawyers at the Justice Department, or some of them, felt that legislation was needed to allow the government to do what it was doing."

But the Justice Department said that the measures were not drafted to help the NSA effort.

"These proposals were drafted by junior staffers and never formally presented to the attorney general or the White House," said department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos. "They were not drafted with the NSA program in mind."

The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 -- dubbed "Patriot II" by critics -- was leaked to the media in February 2003 and soon abandoned by Justice officials, who characterized it at the time as an "early draft" written by staff lawyers. The proposal included several provisions that, in retrospect, would have affected the NSA's program of monitoring telephone calls and e-mails, which was disclosed last month in press reports.

One provision would have made it clear that the president could order wiretapping without court supervision for 15 days after Congress approved the use of military force, as it did against al Qaeda. Current law allows such spying for 15 days without a judge's approval only when Congress issues a declaration of war.

Justice officials have argued more recently that the two types of declarations are legally equivalent.

Another section of the 2003 proposal would have made it easier for the NSA to obtain lists of telephone calls placed or received by U.S. citizens and residents.

A third provision would have created a "statutory defense" for agents who conducted surveillance under "lawful authorization" from the president or attorney general, meaning they could not be prosecuted for violating federal law, according to the draft. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which governs domestic spying, provides such a defense only if the surveillance was approved by a secret intelligence court established by that law.

Some legal experts who question the president's authority to order warrantless eavesdropping said the latter proposal could be used to justify the legality of the entire NSA program, because it refers to surveillance activity ordered by the president or attorney general and not overseen by either the FISA or criminal courts.

"It would have done it through the back door and in such a way that it would have been unlikely that Congress would have picked up on what was meant," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, a civil liberties advocacy group in Washington.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said last month that the administration had considered seeking legislation authorizing the NSA program but had determined it would be impossible and could expose the highly classified program to the public. Scolinos said Gonzales was not referring to the 2003 draft proposals, which she characterized as a compendium of ideas compiled by staff lawyers.

"It is common when drafting any new policy to debate various ideas and proposals," she said.

Officials have said the NSA program was known only to a relatively small group of senior officials at Justice, including then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft and his deputies.

In Senate testimony in March 2003, Ashcroft said some proposals for legislation strengthening the Patriot Act were under consideration but nothing formal had been drafted.

Many legal scholars and lawmakers have said Bush's NSA order may violate either FISA or the Constitution. An analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service also concluded that the warrantless surveillance effort directly conflicts with Congress's intentions in passing the FISA law in 1978 and said other legal justifications were "not as well grounded" as the administration asserts.

The Justice Department and Gonzales have responded with a variety of statements and documents aimed at bolstering the administration's legal arguments in the weeks leading up to Feb. 6, when the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing on the program. Committee Democrats sent a letter to Gonzales yesterday requesting documents related to electronic surveillance policies and the congressional authorization of force against al Qaeda.

Also yesterday, the Justice Department released a list of defenses of the "NSA terrorist surveillance program" under the heading "myth vs. reality," reiterating arguments that the effort is legal, is "narrowly focused" and follows in a tradition of warrantless eavesdropping during wartime.

The document also repeats recent claims by Gonzales and others that the FISA law is too cumbersome for use in rapidly intercepting overseas telephone calls, although it says the process is fine for purely domestic communications.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012701476_pf.html

So they wanted this in the Patriot II, never got it and decided to do it anyway. Laws do not apply to King George

[twa]

"BTW, I am not sure why Kilmr thinks this is legal, I have not read a valid defense yet as to how the seperation of powers need not apply in this instance, especially when there is written law stating specifically what a president HAS to do in order to wiretap, but Bush ignored the laws."

The best defense I have read reguards the inherant powers of the president to conduct war and defend the US,which presumably are increased once congress authorized force.

The seperation of powers brings up some interesting arguments as to whether congress can limit the presidential powers,or if a former president can give up powers granted by the constitution. Or if FISA can only be interpreted to allow for presidential war powers to avoid conflict(as Sustein claims)

Personaly I think Kilmer is correct and if anything was done wrong ,it would be more a procedural matter rather than ilegal.

Of course, I don't hate freedom :laugh:

It is interesting reading the differing legal opinions though and how they reach them.

[Thiebear]

But Thiebear, independent of the legal merits of the taps, do you think that it is appropriate for Rove to claim, in essence, that the Democrats don't care about Al Queda calls and would just hang up the phone? That is the point of this whole thread.

Did you just say independent of legal merits..

There is nothing independent of legal merits in this case.

IF its illegal in what he did: Impeachment.

IF its not illegal in what he did: Hunt the leaker down and put them under the jail.

I've read from several justices and lawyers and the ex head of the CIA/FBI that there was nothing wrong done. I've also read from several justices and College professors that it was wrong...

AND if the President had to reauthorize this 30 times every 45 days or so and they have a record of who and where to include saying something to the effect of 700 times last year.. there is a place to start.

I give the 1st year after 9/11 the benefit of the doubt as long as it was not OUTRAGEOUS... And each year after that had better pinpoint it down each year to be more specific...

**NOTE** If your saying the Republicrats leaders are saying bad things about the Democan leadership and that is wrong... Election years should be banned. Freedom of speech is a killer thing to uphold when its against you.

And Easy when you agree... It's only when it makes your eye twitch and cause you to scream at the top of your lungs do we find out if you really believe in it.

To say Belafonte/Hillary/Soros/Sheehan/Kerry/Kennedy/Dowd/Ofrankin etc have a right but Rove/Rush/Caulter/Hannity/sighRobertsonsigh/Savage/Frist do not seems rather odd.

AND to believe there is a difference between [insert your party here] is different than [insert the other party here] has not been paying attention from 1990-2005.

[nelms]

Let's just nuke them all.

[Mad Mike]

Got anything to say on the merits?

I do.

"Let me be as clear as I can be -- President Bush believes if al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why," Mr. Rove said at the Republican National Committee winter meeting last week. "Some important Democrats clearly disagree." Mr. Mehlman named names. "Do Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean really think that when the NSA is listening in on terrorists planning attacks on America, they need to hang up when those terrorists dial their sleeper cells inside the United States?" he asked.

The truth hurts.

[twa]

I do.

The truth hurts.

:laugh: Great short answer

[chomerics]

:laugh: Great short answer

Too bat it was already discussed, and Kilmer stated that Rove's speech was crap concerning the BS about Pilosi.

Only a fool would believe that crap, but then again, it's kinf of par for the course now huh?

Qusestion for you, how can you look for honest debate when you stand by statements which are outright lies, and try to polarize this coutnry?

[twa]

Chom , where in politics is there HONEST debate? :laugh:

Philosophy or law maybe,but hoping for honesty in politics from either side is a pipe dream....Just the nature of the beast

[autographcollector]

Chom , where in politics is there HONEST debate? :laugh:

Philosophy or law maybe,but hoping for honesty in politics from either side is a pipe dream....Just the nature of the beast

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

[chomerics]

The best defense I have read reguards the inherant powers of the president to conduct war and defend the US,which presumably are increased once congress authorized force.

Hmmm, so when war is declared, the president doesn't have to obide by our laws? Why would this be ALLOWED, and a valid defense, when they were trying to get just a 15 day exemption in patriot II (see my post above)??? You see, if it WAS in the powers granted to the president, why were they going to ask for it? Also, what powers does he NOT have at the time of war? Genocide, torture, mass murder are also allowed when using this defense.

The seperation of powers brings up some interesting arguments as to whether congress can limit the presidential powers,or if a former president can give up powers granted by the constitution. Or if FISA can only be interpreted to allow for presidential war powers to avoid conflict(as Sustein claims)

The FISA laws are pretty cut and dry regarding the president. The sole reason for seeking the judiciary for a warrent is BECAUSE of seperation of powers stated in the constitution. What Bush wants is tyranny, and it is completely against our laws that have guided us for the past 200+ years. There is no difference between a president allowed to spy on whoever he wants whenever he wants and a tyrant or a dictator, it is why our founding fathers placed limitations of powers on all branches of governments. Bush disagrees with them, because he has stated before "being a dictator would be easy", and "being president is hard work". Two little wuotes which lead into the insight of his mind, and why he thinks laws do not apply to him.

Personaly I think Kilmer is correct and if anything was done wrong ,it would be more a procedural matter rather than ilegal.

So if Clinton declared war on Al Qaeda, you would have no problem with him wiretaping who he wants when he wants with no oversight?

Of course, I don't hate freedom :laugh:

You may think you don't, but Benjamin Franklin would argue that you don't deserve freedom.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[chomerics]

Chom , where in politics is there HONEST debate? :laugh:

Philosophy or law maybe,but hoping for honesty in politics from either side is a pipe dream....Just the nature of the beast

I don't disagree, but I try to be as honest as I can in debating, it is how it should be. It is why our country is in such bad shape, because everyone has alterior motives.

Maybe if people got into politics because they loved our country, instead of the power aspect we would be a whole lot better off. It is the same thing as the cop who becomes one because he likes the authoritarian power granted to him, he will be a bad cop who will mort likely over step his bounds. Compare that to a person who becomes a cop because he wants to serve his community, it's like night and day.

[autographcollector]

I don't disagree, but I try to be as honest as I can in debating, it is how it should be. It is why our country is in such bad shape, because everyone has alterior motives.

Maybe if people got into politics because they loved our country, instead of the power aspect we would be a whole lot better off. It is the same thing as the cop who becomes one because he likes the authoritarian power granted to him, he will be a bad cop who will mort likely over step his bounds. Compare that to a person who becomes a cop because he wants to serve his community, it's like night and day.

You can't be too honest when your sources are media outlets, internet sites, etc. All this stuff you read is slanted to start with....then when you run with it....well how is that honest? I would call it your honest opinion with flawed basis.

[nelms]

I don't disagree, but I try to be as honest as I can in debating, it is how it should be.

It is quite amazing how full of crap you really are.

[twa]

"You may think you don't, but Benjamin Franklin would argue that you don't deserve freedom.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

............................

A lot of this comes down to the ( yours or mine) definition of "essential" in your quote and "reasonable" in the Fourth...I am sure we will differ on definitions along with Franklin,who was a inteligence agent in his day btw.

Anyway back to the topic, condeming the dems is the natural response from the reps....simply a battle for the hearts and minds of voters,just as the charges against the president are politicaly motivated to gain advantage.

Is it a "Discredit" to politicians to behave as such?

If you believe so ,you have a higher reguard for them than I.

[chomerics]

You can't be too honest when your sources are media outlets, internet sites, etc. All this stuff you read is slanted to start with

Yea, that Washington Post is sooo liberal :doh: Man, just because in your warped perception of reality anything left of Bush is a tree hugging hippy doesn't make it so. In fact, if you would look at my sources

....then when you run with it....well how is that honest? I would call it your honest opinion with flawed basis.

No, you do not see the otherside, and where the truth is. I stick to the side of the truth, if it was the dems acting like imbicles, I would side with the republicans (see my opinions on Roberst). You, OTOH, seem to think that anyone with an opinion contrary to your own is for some reason biased, while never seeing your own fallicies. It is a character flaw inherent in both extremes, you just fall into that catagory when I do not.

[nelms]

No, you do not see the otherside, and where the truth is. I stick to the side of the truth, if it was the dems acting like imbicles, I would side with the republicans (see my opinions on Roberst). You, OTOH, seem to think that anyone with an opinion contrary to your own is for some reason biased, while never seeing your own fallicies. It is a character flaw inherent in both extremes, you just fall into that catagory when I do not.

You see, this is why you hate me so much, because I tell you things about yourself and I make you face things you don't like to see. I show you, in sometimes glaringly obvious terms, what you hate to admit.

If for once in your life you could actually open up your eyes, I think you would die a happy man, but unfortunately you see the world in terms of hate and spite. I on the other hand, understand what life is about, and I can see the forest through the trees. Maybe one day you should try it, but I don't think you are ready. You still have to take that first step and admit you are wrong.

[chomerics]

You see, this is why you hate me so much, because I tell you things about yourself and I make you face things you don't like to see. I show you, in sometimes glaringly obvious terms, what you hate to admit.

If for once in your life you could actually open up your eyes, I think you would die a happy man, but unfortunately you see the world in terms of hate and spite. I on the other hand, understand what life is about, and I can see the forest through the trees. Maybe one day you should try it, but I don't think you are ready. You still have to take that first step and admit you are wrong.

:troll:

Do you ever have an opinion on anything other the your man crush on me? . . . but then again, you have that Goldwater quote which is complyely ridiculous considering your positions on this government.

[autographcollector]

Yea, that Washington Post is sooo liberal :doh: Man, just because in your warped perception of reality anything left of Bush is a tree hugging hippy doesn't make it so. In fact, if you would look at my sources

No, you do not see the otherside, and where the truth is. I stick to the side of the truth, if it was the dems acting like imbicles, I would side with the republicans (see my opinions on Roberst). You, OTOH, seem to think that anyone with an opinion contrary to your own is for some reason biased, while never seeing your own fallicies. It is a character flaw inherent in both extremes, you just fall into that catagory when I do not.

LOL no unfortunately you get caught up in politically charged media articles. You fail to understand there is bias in what you read...and you accept what you read as truth. You are as politically biased as any of us on this board but somehow you think you are saint like and unflawed in your opinion. :doh:

[nelms]

:troll:

Do you ever have an opinion on anything other the your man crush on me? . . . but then again, you have that Goldwater quote which is complyely ridiculous considering your positions on this government.

A Patriots fan on a Redskins message board with over 8,000 posts telling me this. :doh: And most of your posts have a disturbing obsession with our president. You need help dude.

By the way, you have no idea who Goldwater is, what he stood for, and what the meaning of that quote is. Maybe one day when you get past your blinding hatred towards real Americans you'll understand. I doubt it though.

[LApunkrocker72]

Ever since the incompetent Bush administration took office in 2000, they have pretty much been running this country on fear. Hopefully, more and more people can see through their scare tactics.

Whenever the Bush administration is facing heat, they always go with the 9/11 card. 9/11 happened almost five years ago, and OBL is still out there! And instead of gunning for him, they invade Iraq just to increase their oil supply!

The Bush administration wants us to live in fear so they carry out their brand of fascism.

[Larry]

I do.

The truth hurts.

So, when are you going to mention any?

The quote you ingluded consists simply of Republican spinmeisters claiming that Democrats believe something they don't, and then saying that Republicans disagree (with something that was never said).

Their response would be comparable to me saying "Well, the Democrats are opposed to mandatory executions for anyone who fails to 'donate' money to the GOP."

Neither Nancy Pilosi, not the FISA law, say that when monitoring a terrorist, you have to hang up the phone when he calls the US.

Nancy Pilosi, and the FISA law, (and that pesky Constitution) say you can't tap an american phone, without a warrant, just in case he phones a terrorist.

But keep whacking away (not that there's anything wrong with that) at that straw man.

[Larry]

Chom , where in politics is there HONEST debate? :laugh:

Philosophy or law maybe,but hoping for honesty in politics from either side is a pipe dream....Just the nature of the beast

Yes, politicians lie.

That doesn't mean that repeating the lies, even when they obviously are lies, should just be allowed to stand, because, well, "everybody does it".

Rove and Mehlman's statements are nothing more than ficticous attempts at damage controll.

And tomorrow, when they get trotted out, again, by somebody who's still trying to use a myth to justify a fact, they'll still be nothing more than

ficticous attempts at damage controll, that have already been shown to be ficticous.

[Larry]

You see, this is why you hate me so much,

I suspect it might have something to do with polite, informative, well-supported posts like

It is quite amazing how full of crap you really are.

But that's just an opinion. (See, I can tell the difference.)

[nelms]

But that's just an opinion. (See, I can tell the difference.)

Your opinion means nothing to me.

[Larry]

Your opinion means nothing to me.

Whereas, your opinion obviously means a lot.

(To you.)