The Men From U.R.K.E.L.
In case you were wondering whether President Bush's practical and very specific spy activities validate his bizarre defense of them, look to Denver, where a release of local "spy files" seems to indicate a culture of misdirection, lying, and "federally approved" privacy invasions within the local police department. Utterly incompetent, of course, but that's to be expected:
The documents accuse a retired police captain of misleading the police chief and then- Mayor Wellington Webb about whether the department's surveillance practices complied with federal guidelines.
How many cities have similarly misleading police captains on their forces? And maybe we're facing a general culture of lawless enforcers kicking privacy doors down just because Bush says such very specific prying is necessary? In other words, the President's crime now looks broader than we suspect. Spying and surveillance have trickled down to the local level, and such activities are probably irrelevant to any putative national emergencies.
posted by Mark D. @ 7:57 PM |
| 
12 Comments:
I totally agree.
Clinton was not impeached for "abuse of power." He was impeached (along with perjury) for obstruction of justice.
Bush has not committed these crimes. Even if you don't like him and his politics, there aren't grounds to bring charges.
-Censored
Even if you don't like him and his politics, there aren't grounds to bring charges.
You know, a lot of people said that about Clinton, but that didn't stop the GOP from trying. They got burned for it too.
Bush has most certainly been a obstructionist (9/11 commission, bad intel commission, anything to do with science), but he hasn't obstructed justice. That's because the GOP controlled Congress has ensured that justice doesn't even get near him.
No matter how scared of the terrorists you are Censored, no matter how much you need someone to protect you from them, the laws still apply to your protector. It is unconstitutional to spy on US citizens without a warrant, which this administration did, which is most certainly grounds for impeachment.
Heh, I was planning to delete that last paragraph about impeachment (for irrelevance) but my dialup connection warn't letting me, and now that I finally deleted it, that's the paragraph everyone's commenting on... Sorry bout that, I'll try to reinclude it in a more relevant post.
In any case, here were the four articles of impeachment against Clinton:
* Article I: Perjury before grand jury on August 17, 1998
* Article II: Perjury in Paula Jones case on December 23, 1997 and January 17, 1998
* Article III: Obstruction of justice related to Paula Jones case
* Article IV: Abuse of high office
Article IV was what I was referring to.
The real question, Mark, is whether you have any evidence connecting the Denver PD's abuse (which is exactly that - an abuse of the police's powers) with the President's utterly legal actions?
Yes, but he was impeached only on two of the four charges. Not abuse of power.
-Censored
Tom,
You are just flat out wrong. First, you can get off the meme of "domestic spying." These are international calls and that makes it international spying. A horse of a different feather entirely.
-Censored
International calls involving US citizens inside the US.
Doing this without a FISA warrant is illegal.
Not that you're right at all, but just how is an international call "in the US?"
Regardless, there are war powers and FISA doesn't constrain them.
-Censored
The NSA is authorized to wiretap any and all international communications that do not have a US endpoint. US citizens are entitled to probable cause. It's in the Constitution -- check your copy.
What war powers? Congress specifically denied Bush's request that the 9/11 resolution gave him sweeping domestic powers.
The NSA is authorized to wiretap any and all international communications that do not have a US endpoint. US citizens are entitled to probable cause.
Being on Ramsi Binalshibh's Blackberry is probable cause.
It's in the Constitution -- check your copy.
Go and read Article II.
What war powers? Congress specifically denied Bush's request that the 9/11 resolution gave him sweeping domestic powers.
And monitoring calls from captured AQ figures to US numbers is not a domestic power...
...nor, for that matter, is it a legal matter; it is a war power, and an act of intelligence, not law enforcement.
Spying on terrorists? Let's do it! In fact, let's do a better job of it.
Nothing you've described in any way justifies breaking the law. The FISA law is totally able to accommodate tapping Al Qaeda's buddies' cell phones.
If "being on Ramsi Binalshibh's Blackberry" is probable cause -- and it is -- then the President can get a FISA warrant, 72 hours after the fact.
Post a Comment
<< Home