WT? Is this what we pay these democrats for! (idiots)

[Stephanie]

Democrats ready for unofficial wiretap hearings Friday
RAW STORY
Published: January 18, 2006

House Democrats, led by liberal Michigan Congressmen John Conyers, will hold unofficial hearings on the legality of President Bush's warantless wiretap programs Friday, and have added additional witnesses and congressmembers to their retinue, RAW STORY can report.

Democrats are holding the hearings, they say, because a request for hearings from the Republican-led Judiciary Committee have fallen on deaf ears. In the Senate, Republican Judiciary chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) has said he will hold formal hearings to examine the ramifications of the taps.

A spokesman for the Republican-led Judiciary Committee declined to comment; he said that because the House was in recess nothing was currently planned.yea, under his breath he say's let them make a fool out of themselves.

At least seven Democratic members are scheduled to attend the hearings: Reps. John Conyers, Jr., Bobby Scott, Chris Van Hollen, Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters, Jerrold Nadler and Maurice Hinchey.

Among the more prominent witnesses include Bruce Fein, an Associate Deputy Attorney General under President Ronald Reagan, and James Bamford, an intelligence expert who has revealed details about the NSA spying project.

Also attending: George Washington Law School Professor Jonathan Turley, the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington Legislative Director Caroline Frederickson, Director of the Center for National Security Studies Kate Martin, and the Truth Project's Richard Hersh.

"Last month all 17 House Judiciary Democrats called on Chairman Sensenbrenner to convene hearings to investigate the President's use of the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance involving U.S. citizens on U.S. soil," Conyers said in a statement. "As our request has since been ignored, it is our job, as Members of Congress, to review the program and consider whether our criminal laws have been violated and our citizen's constitutional rights trampled upon.

He added: "We simply cannot tolerate a situation where the Administration is operating as prosecutor, judge and jury and excluding Congress and the courts from providing any meaningful check or balance to the process."

The hearings are open to the public and will be held Friday, Jan. 20 at 11:00am in room B339 at the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington.
There taking their lead from the DUunderground. Oh goody.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Democrats_ready_for_unofficial_wiretap_hearings_0118.html

 

[Avatar4321]

He added: "We simply cannot tolerate a situation where the Administration is operating as prosecutor, judge and jury and excluding Congress and the courts from providing any meaningful check or balance to the process."
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Democrats_ready_for_unofficial_wiretap_hearings_0118.html

Yeah, Heaven forbid the Executive Branch have control over it's executive power.

 

[Mr. P]

Democrats ready for unofficial wiretap hearings Friday
. . . .

They’ve been reduced to playing “Lets Pretend”.
Coming soon, “Lets Pretend” we’re holding impeachment hearings.

 

[Gunny]

Bet money the Dems and other lefty's act as if these are official hearings and treat them as gospel. Matter of fact, with their "Bush is guilty first never mind the facts mentality," the only point i can see to this the poltical circus they can create.

 

[jAZ]

Yes, it's exactly what we pay these people to do. It's the congress' job to perform executive branch oversight. That the GOP has all but abandoned this responsibility when a party member is in the WH is a bad thing. A very bad thing. ESPECIALLY in a time of war.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yes, it's exactly what we pay these people to do. It's the congress' job to perform executive branch oversight. That the GOP has all but abandoned this responsibility when a party member is in the WH is a bad thing. A very bad thing. ESPECIALLY in a time of war.

Could you possibly point out where in the Constitution Congress has oversight of the Executive Branch? You see whenever I read it I get the idea that the legislative and executive areas of government are separate and equal branches of government. How does an equal have oversight?

 

[jAZ]

Could you possibly point out where in the Constitution Congress has oversight of the Executive Branch? You see whenever I read it I get the idea that the legislative and executive areas of government are separate and equal branches of government. How does an equal have oversight?

You are joking, of course.

Right?

Seperate and equal by it's very structure forces oversight. The division of power is the underpinning of democracy. I can't believe you would sincerely question the existance of an oversight role of any of the branches of government over the other.

If you really aren't joking, start here for a general overview...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States#Legislative_branch

The Congress has the responsibility to monitor and influence aspects of the executive branch. Congressional oversight prevents waste and fraud, protects civil liberties and individual rights, ensures executive compliance with the law, gathers information for making laws and educating the public, and evaluates executive performance. It applies to cabinet departments, executive agencies, regulatory commissions, and the presidency. Congress's oversight function takes many forms:

Committee inquiries and hearings;

• Formal consultations with and reports from the President;
• Senate advice and consent for presidential nominations and for treaties;
• House impeachment proceedings and subsequent Senate trials;
• House and Senate proceedings under the 25th Amendment in the event that the President becomes disabled, or the office of the Vice President falls vacant;
• Informal meetings between legislators and executive officials;
• Congressional membership on governmental commissions;
• Studies by congressional committees and support agencies such as the
• Congressional Budget Office, and the Government Accountability Office, both of which are arms of Congress.

Also read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary-and-proper_clause

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.​

And:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.​

 

[MissileMan]

And:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.​

The operative word being unreasonable. It is not unreasonable to seek out information of possible intelligence value to thwart the plans of those who would do harm to American citizens.

 

[Gunny]

Could you possibly point out where in the Constitution Congress has oversight of the Executive Branch? You see whenever I read it I get the idea that the legislative and executive areas of government are separate and equal branches of government. How does an equal have oversight?

Because he's Bush and a Republican. Now if it was Clinton and the evil Republican Congress, they were meddling in his affairs (literally ) and usurping his authority as Chief Executive.

 

[jAZ]

The operative word being unreasonable. It is not unreasonable to seek out information of possible intelligence value to thwart the plans of those who would do harm to American citizens.

Nice! Just ignore whatever language gets in the way of successfully scoring (or deflecting in this case) a political point?

"no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched"

 

[jAZ]

Because he's Bush and a Republican. Now if it was Clinton and the evil Republican Congress, they were meddling in his affairs (literally ) and usurping his authority as Chief Executive.

Not a chance in the world. If Clinton was circumventing the FISA courts and refusing to seek to change the laws when the need for change occured... I'd call for his impeachment for abuse of power as well. Hell, if lying under oath about his wee-wee is impeachable there's no doubt that this is as well.

 

[Gunny]

Not a chance in the world. If Clinton was circumventing the FISA courts and refusing to seek to change the laws when the need for change occured... I'd call for his impeachment for abuse of power as well. Hell, if lying under oath about his wee-wee is impeachable there's no doubt that this is as well.

*** cough ***Please excuse me if I am skeptical.

 

[jAZ]

*** cough ***Please excuse me if I am skeptical.

Absolutely. I would be skeptical as well if I were in your shoes. But it's true.

This is some pretty serious stuff we are dealing with. The Bush administration's view of this issue is that Congress' wording in providing him with "authority" to fight the WoT gives him the right to do this as well. They are ascribing nearly unlimited power to themselves in the process. It's a HORRIBLE precedent to establish. There is absolutely NO WAY that this kind of precedent can be allowed to stand.

It becomes a Gynormous gaping whole through which facisim can come trucking through. The threat of such facisim isn't from the Bush administration themselves so much (though they give no reason to trust them). They will be under the microscope.

But as precedent, this authority (in the context of an unending war against an tactical action and not a singular body) would mean that over time, a different administration under a dimmer spotlight would have similar open ended "authority". That administation (Democrat or Republican) is not to be trusted with facism.

 

[Annie]

Absolutely. I would be skeptical as well if I were in your shoes. But it's true.

This is some pretty serious stuff we are dealing with. The Bush administration's view of this issue is that Congress' wording in providing him with "authority" to fight the WoT gives him the right to do this as well. They are ascribing nearly unlimited power to themselves in the process. It's a HORRIBLE precedent to establish. There is absolutely NO WAY that this kind of precedent can be allowed to stand.

It becomes a Gynormous gaping whole through which facisim can come trucking through. The threat of such facisim isn't from the Bush administration themselves so much (though they give no reason to trust them). They will be under the microscope.

But as precedent, this authority (in the context of an unending war against an tactical action and not a singular body) would mean that over time, a different administration under a dimmer spotlight would have similar open ended "authority". That administation (Democrat or Republican) is not to be trusted with facism.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm

Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence.
"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps.
More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."
Such warrantless searches have been at the center of a political fight in Washington after the New York Times reported Friday that the Bush administration had a program to intercept communications between al Qaeda suspects and persons in this country, a story whose publication coincided with the congressional debate over reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act.
In a 2002 opinion about the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the USA Patriot Act, the court wrote: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
Indeed, previous administrations have used that same authority.
One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants.
In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.
Previous administrations also asserted the authority of the president to conduct searches in the interest of national security.
In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government... [/quote]

 

[MissileMan]

Nice! Just ignore whatever language gets in the way of successfully scoring (or deflecting in this case) a political point?

"no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched"

Reasonable searches based on probable cause, without a warrant, occur every day. The monitoring of calls between potential terrorists and collaborators is reasonable IMO, and based on probable cause required no warrant.

 

[jAZ]

Reasonable searches based on probable cause, without a warrant, occur every day. The monitoring of calls between potential terrorists and collaborators is reasonable IMO, and based on probable cause required no warrant.

That's not what the constitution says. Your opinion on the subject (nor mine for that matter) is irrelevant.

 

[Annie]

That's not what the constitution says. Your opinion on the subject (nor mine for that matter) is irrelevant.

Guess you missed this the first time?

Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence.
"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps.
More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."
Such warrantless searches have been at the center of a political fight in Washington after the New York Times reported Friday that the Bush administration had a program to intercept communications between al Qaeda suspects and persons in this country, a story whose publication coincided with the congressional debate over reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act.
In a 2002 opinion about the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the USA Patriot Act, the court wrote: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
Indeed, previous administrations have used that same authority.
One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants.
In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.
Previous administrations also asserted the authority of the president to conduct searches in the interest of national security.
In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government...

 

[jAZ]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm

Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence.
"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps.
More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."
Such warrantless searches have been at the center of a political fight in Washington after the New York Times reported Friday that the Bush administration had a program to intercept communications between al Qaeda suspects and persons in this country, a story whose publication coincided with the congressional debate over reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act.
In a 2002 opinion about the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the USA Patriot Act, the court wrote: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
Indeed, previous administrations have used that same authority.
One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants.
In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.
Previous administrations also asserted the authority of the president to conduct searches in the interest of national security.
In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government...

[/QUOTE]
I believe the distinction in this case is that the President is wiretapping US citizens on American soil, unlike in Clinton's case.

 

[Annie]

I believe the distinction in this case is that the President is wiretapping US citizens on American soil, unlike in Clinton's case.

What part am I misreading? Or are you arguing that wiretapping is more intrusive than entering one's home?

One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants.
In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.

 

[MissileMan]

I believe the distinction in this case is that the President is wiretapping US citizens on American soil, unlike in Clinton's case.[/QUOTE]

Actually, they're wiretapping foreign nationals who happen to be talking to U.S. citizens.