Thursday, January 26, 2006


President Bush is sounding more and more like former President Nixon. He keeps saying that he has the rights, as Presidents before him had. Well Mr President what right is that?

He stated that the so called program is legal, that it's designed to protect liberties, and it's necessary. Democrats and some Republicans of his own party have accused Bush of breaking the law in allowing eavedropping on overseas communication to and from United States residents.

Now lets examine the illegal aspects of this case as to weather its illegal and grounds for impeachement.

Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the former NSA chief who is now deputy director of national intelligence, told reporters in Washington that the warrantless eavesdropping on calls and e-mails between the United States and overseas was "targeted and focused" and did not constitute a "driftnet" over U.S. cities.

Hayden echoed a claim earlier this month by Vice President Cheney that, if the NSA program had been in place prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, "it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the 9/11 al Qaeda operatives in the United States."

Cheney and Hayden "did not mention that the NSA, CIA and FBI had significant information about two of the leading hijackers as early as January 2000 but failed to keep track of them or capitalize on the information, according to the Sept. 11 commission and others." The article went on to note that Hayden "also did not mention NSA intercepts warning of the attacks the day before, but not translated until Sept. 12, 2001."

Justice Department's James A. Baker stated "We have been aggressive in seeking FISA warrants, and thanks to Congress' passage of the [Patriot Act] we have been able to use our expanded FISA tools more effectively to combat terrorist activities," he said. "It may not be the case that the probable cause standard has caused any difficulties in our ability to seek FISA warrants we require." This is the same Baker you testified at the Senate committee and opposed lowering the legal stardard for intercepting the phone calls of foreigners who were in the United States even while they were secretly adopted a lower standard on its own.

Timothy Edgar, a lawyer on national security policy for the American Civil Liberties Union, also accused the administration of "remarkable duplicity" for having testified in public against the legal change while carrying it out in private. "It seems they were being incredibly deceptive," he said.

Bush administration argue: When Congress approved a resolution in September 2001 authorizing the use of military force, lawmakers permitted the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided" the Sept. 11 attacks to prevent future attacks.

Critics argue: Congress specifically rebuffed a request by the administration to include domestic surveillance in the war resolution, which is proof that lawmakers were not providing the president a blank check to initiate new programs. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concluded it "appears unlikely" a court would side with the administration's interpretation of explicit or implied approval by Congress.

Bush administration argue: The eight top House and Senate Republicans and Democrats in leadership and on intelligence committees were briefed on the program more than a dozen times. "If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?" Mr. Bush asked.

Critics argue: The administration violated the 1947 National Security Act by not briefing all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, a view endorsed by the Congressional Research Service.

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Ken.) want even be briefed on what the program entails when he meets with the Bush Administration in Febuary and Attorney General Gonzalos will answer questions to what have already been sent to him. Why dont Gonzales get a special prosecutor to determine if this President has broke the law instead of trying to defend him.

What we need from the Democrats are strong and demanding questions to this administration not the scared to speak, scraed to question Democrats that we've seen for the last five (5) years.

Just remember and I'll end by saying this. Current law allows such spying for 15 days without a judge's approval only when Congress issues a declaration of war, and as for as I can see or hear. Congress has not declared a declaration of War.

What this President has done is considered illegal just as what Nixon did was illegal and he was impeached. So lets get this impeachment started after the so called hearings by the Republican Senate.

No comments: