Big deal. I was there. I'm still here. I lost friends and I also count firemen and policemen "as my ancestors." And, I say Olberman IS soft. Talk about empty, how about an empty suit. He gins up this phony indignity and then goes out to dinner and feels great about himself. What a dick. Nice tie.
day you must be stoked i just read the state of cali is suing gm/ford/chrysler for billions in damages to the enviornment nice but a day late and a dolla short
9/11 was more Clinton's fault then Bush; Katrina was more Nagen and Blanco's fault; Iraq was authorized by Congress so there is plenty of blame to go around; Wiretaps/Public Surveillance/Patriot Act - Legal; Corporate collusion is nothing new, in fact most of it that is shaking out now occured in the 90's; Torture - prove it, U.S. specifically rejected Articles of Geneva Conventions pertaining to "personal dignity"; Iran - deserves it if anybody does and Bush has given Turtle Bay every oportunity to live up to its resolutions; The economy is booming.
day you must be stoked i just read the state of cali is suing gm/ford/chrysler for billions in damages to the enviornment nice but a day late and a dolla short
They should also fine everyone/anyone who's ever driven a car......about $1,000 per driver would cover the billions their looking for.
The real fun will begin when there are class action lawsuits against the State of California for allowing it's air to get to the point where it harmed the citizens inhaling it.
9/11 was more Clinton's fault then Bush; Katrina was more Nagen and Blanco's fault; Iraq was authorized by Congress so there is plenty of blame to go around; Wiretaps/Public Surveillance/Patriot Act - Legal; Corporate collusion is nothing new, in fact most of it that is shaking out now occured in the 90's; Torture - prove it, U.S. specifically rejected Articles of Geneva Conventions pertaining to "personal dignity"; Iran - deserves it if anybody does and Bush has given Turtle Bay every oportunity to live up to its resolutions; The economy is booming.
i thought you were busy getting gang raped at bohemian grove this week or was that the shareholders meeting at KROLL? You my friend are neglecting history again
IRAN is a glaring example of failed us foreign policy. In cahoots with british petrol the CIA installed the puppet SHAH,and then trained the SAVAK in all means of interogation and nationhood/police/military training as well as standard state of the art arms package to go with it.
SAVAK as you well know [since you are 40 ,a dedicated student of history,and are in law school etc] was [in]famous for brutal torture.The mullahs and the Ayatollah's as well as their follwers were supressed and kept in check by such tender sentiments such as being slowly burned alive for 12-24 hours in specially designed ovens/grating systems that looked like a BBQ for people. The SAVAK horrors have been well documented and the inverse reaction to the privitization of wealth/oil and this supression of religous freedom has partially aborted into a short term syphlytic pus encrusted abortion,ie the revolution of 79,culminating with the embassy takeover and the hostage crisis.
Furthermore You neglect the pathetic and eroneous eppisode of IRAN/Contra and Mr North's presentation of said mullahs with a cake and a copy of the king james bible.Bowing to those so called terrorists and giving them missiles Rasclot
Lastly the Bush administration sometime in 3/03 was presented with a sweetheart deal from the iranians prior to mamoun's "election".This deal was presented by the more moderate outgoing iranian PM and offerd oil deals to ALL of the American oil companies and promised to end all collusion with Hezbollah and pals. Rumsfeld and Cheney balked,Jr fell in line Pussywood
9/11 was more Clinton's fault then Bush; Katrina was more Nagen and Blanco's fault; Iraq was authorized by Congress so there is plenty of blame to go around; Wiretaps/Public Surveillance/Patriot Act - Legal; Corporate collusion is nothing new, in fact most of it that is shaking out now occured in the 90's; Torture - prove it, U.S. specifically rejected Articles of Geneva Conventions pertaining to "personal dignity"; Iran - deserves it if anybody does and Bush has given Turtle Bay every oportunity to live up to its resolutions; The economy is booming.
So typical. Why people like you blindly ride for this guy in the face of all the information that's out there I will never understand.
9/11 was more Clinton's fault then Bush[/b] I agree Clinton was to blame to some degree, however... on Aug. 6, 2001, the CIA briefed Bush at his Texas ranch on the possibility that al Qaeda might try to hijack airplanes in the United States. On May 16, 2002, Condoleezza Rice said, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."
um... Seeing as how he had prior knowledge to a possible event of that magnitude and took no action, I would say since it happened on his watch he is to blame.
"Katrina was more Nagen and Blanco's fault"[/b]
That's right, they didn't drop food or water to thousands and thousands of people for a week while the world watched them suffer and die in the street. They should have just, you know, done something. Maybe like follow every chain of command asking for assistance before during and after? Or maybe build the levees correctly? Maybe they didn't "anticipate the breach of the levees" even after their video conference on what was heading to the Gulf Coast. Yep, it was all their fault.
Iraq was authorized by Congress so there is plenty of blame to go around[/b]
Right. Under all kinds of extenuating circumstances, false information and lies. Who presented the case to invade Iraq and "liberate" them under false pretenses?
Bullshit. National Security Agency tapping into telephone calls of Americans without a warrant, is in violation of federal statutes and the Constitution. In August 2006, in a lawsuit brought by the ACLU, a federal judge in Detroit found the program both unconstitutional and illegal.
Corporate collusion is nothing new, in fact most of it that is shaking out now occured in the 90's[/b]
One word:
Some of the biggest (no bid) contracts concievable have gone to them to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, rebuild Iraq, restore Iraq Oil etc.
That's all for now - I'll be back with the rest in a bit.
IRAN is a glaring example of failed us foreign policy. In cahoots with british petrol the CIA installed the puppet SHAH,and then trained the SAVAK in all means of interogation and nationhood/police/military training as well as standard state of the art arms package to go with it.
SAVAK as you well know [since you are 40 ,a dedicated student of history,and are in law school etc] was [in]famous for brutal torture.The mullahs and the Ayatollah's as well as their follwers were supressed and kept in check by such tender sentiments such as being slowly burned alive for 12-24 hours in specially designed ovens/grating systems that looked like a BBQ for people. The SAVAK horrors have been well documented and the inverse reaction to the privitization of wealth/oil and this supression of religous freedom has partially aborted into a short term syphlytic pus encrusted abortion,ie the revolution of 79,culminating with the embassy takeover and the hostage crisis.
Furthermore You neglect the pathetic and eroneous eppisode of IRAN/Contra and Mr North's presentation of said mullahs with a cake and a copy of the king james bible.Bowing to those so called terrorists and giving them missiles Rasclot
And this is all G.W.'s fault. Wasn't Esienhower president in 1957? Wasnt Saint Carter president in 1979? I guess I really have to brush up on my history. Maybe if I email Olberman he will email me back some good info in between rants about his coworkers and coming on to me?
Bullshit. National Security Agency tapping into telephone calls of Americans without a warrant, is in violation of federal statutes and the Constitution. In August 2006, in a lawsuit brought by the ACLU, a federal judge in Detroit found the program both unconstitutional and illegal.
replace "federal judge" with "generous ACLU contributor."
Not trying to defend Bush here. But if you take an econ class, one of the first things you learn is all about the debt-to-GDP ratio. But yeah. 8 trillioration~! Won't be long til it's at 10...
Bullshit. National Security Agency tapping into telephone calls of Americans without a warrant, is in violation of federal statutes and the Constitution. In August 2006, in a lawsuit brought by the ACLU, a federal judge in Detroit found the program both unconstitutional and illegal.
replace "federal judge" with "generous ACLU contributor."
you don't get it
since the dawn of time
whitey been mobbin shit hard the world over that is the only MO we have Rape and rob,pillage for natural resources or contriol of then leave with no thought to the aftermath -see Afghanastan and the CIA's history with bin laden during the cold war there was no follow up we just left "mission accomplished"
Guatemala-dole pineapple/Chicquita Bananas Chile-ITT/copper interests-The allende coup Grenada-LOL Nigeria-Royal Dutch Shell The congo- ITT again /Gold/Diamonds/Lumumba's Threat of feeding the poor CUBA-Money Laundering Haven,Mafia Playground,Drugs/Arms smuggling stopover/prostitution capital of the carribean
Jamaica-the CIA tampering with elections and anti labor thuggerey
Columbia-Where to begin
Vietnam-2 MILLION NORTH VIETNIMISE KILLED 5MILLION WOUNDED
CAMBODIA-7 MILLION DEAD this is the spin off episode of vietnam which macnamara adimitted in his book was "A mistake" INDONESIA UNDER KISSENGER's foreign policy -2 MILLION DEAD PANAMA-3,000 Civilians dead IRAN-British Pertolium/Chevron Iraq-Huge ARMS CUSTOMER of the US when they were at war with IRAQ so forth and so on ...not excluding Bosina
i'm a grown ass man and i say anyone trying to defend B*sh can below me. i can't even be bothered to waste my time on a literate post. coz any logic i convey will be denied by the lemmings and pea brains who can't see that their wonderful prez is: "robbin', rapin', kidnappin' and killin'", as Peter Tosh once said. since B*sh stole the job in the first place, perhaps he should be referred to in history books as the "un-president".
Pres. Bush told the 9/11 Commission that ???If his advisers had told him there was a [terrorist] cell in the United States, they would have moved to take care of it.??? He also claimed that he knew Al Qaeda was a threat and that his administration had been dealing with it before 9/11. Both of those statements were false and were at the heart of a series of obfuscations by the administration to gloss over their failure to deal with Al Qaeda and terrorism before 9/11.
Even before the November 2000 elections, the in-coming Bush team was given briefings on the threat of Al Qaeda. Those began in September and lasted until November 2000. After his election, the Bush transition team was given another series of briefings on the threat. At one of those briefings, Clinton???s National Security Adviser Sandy Berger told in-coming National Security Adviser Rice that, ???I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on Al Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.???
Those were followed by a National Security Council memo of December 29, 2000, National Security Council briefings on March 19, 2001 and May 17, 2001, a briefing by Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke to Rice in early January 2001 followed by e-mails to her on March 23, June 28, and June 30, 2001, and a slew of CIA briefings with titles such as ???Bin Laden Planning High Profile Attacks??? on June 30, 2001. There was also a congressional appointed U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century report chaired by Gary Hart and Warren Rudman given to the White House on Feb. 2001 that gave ???stark warnings about possible domestic terrorist attacks.??? Bush personally received briefings by CIA deputy director John McLaughlin, CIA deputy chief of Counterterrorism Center Ben Bonk about Al Qaeda, and a discussion with outgoing President Clinton. In total, the 9/11 Commission said that the Bush administration received more than 40 briefings naming Al Qaeda as a danger to America.
The 9/11 Commission summed up Bush???s reaction to the Al Qaeda threat as the following, ???The President told us the August 6 report [a Presidential daily intelligence briefing entitled ???Bin Ladin Determined to Strike on US???] was historical in nature. President Bush said the article told him that al Qaeda was dangerous, which he said he had known since he had become President. ??? He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way. ??? He said that if his advisers had told him there was a cell in the United States, they would have moved to take care of it.??? Almost all of those claims are false.
Despite the President???s claims, the August 6, 2001 briefing was about the present and future threat of Al Qaeda, not a history of the group. Among other things, the report mentioned talk of ???Bring[ing] the fighting to America,??? ???planning ??? to mount a terrorist strike,??? ???Bin Ladin ??? prepares operations years in advance,??? and ???Al-Qa-ida ??? maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.??? Most importantly, the daily brief said that Al Qaeda had a cell within the U.S. directly contradicting what Bush said to the Commission. In fact, this was not the first time Bush was told that there was an Al Qaeda cell operating within the U.S. He had been told repeatedly of this since the first pre-election briefing he received in September 2000. At that September briefing CIA officers John McClaughlin and Ben Bonk told Bush that Americans would die in terrorist attacks conducted by Bin Laden in the next four years. They told Bush and his team, ???Al Qaeda had ???sleeper cells??? in more than 40 countries, including the United States.??? A follow up report in January 2001 focused on ???Al Qaeda???s presence in the United States.??? In a two-hour national security meeting with Clinton and his team, Clinton told Bush, ???I think you will find that by far your biggest threat is Bin Ladin and al Qaeda.??? Bush told the 9/11 Commission he, ???Felt sure President Clinton had mentioned terrorism, but did not remember much being said about al Qaeda.???
Personally, Bush did little about the warnings about Al Qaeda. Bush told Bob Woodward and repeated in his book Bush at War, ???There was a significant difference in my attitude after September 11. I was not on point, but I knew he [bin Laden] was a menace. ??? But I didn???t feel that sense of urgency.??? He sent 2 letters to Musharaf in Pakistan that were written by the State Department and mentioned fighting terrorism along with many other matters. He told Rice in April 2001 that he wanted to take the fight to terrorists, and mentioned in May 2001 that Cheney would head a task force to look into national preparedness including the threat of terrorism. No task force was ever started before 9/11. That was it from the Commander in Chief.
Bush???s staff was no better in taking the threat of Al Qaeda seriously. His then Attorney General John Ashcroft said that the warnings about Al Qaeda were tiresome and needless. When Clarke gave his first briefing to the deputy Cabinet secretaries about terrorism and the threat of Al Qaeda on April 2001, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz objected to talking about bin Laden. According to Wolfowitz, Iraq was the major threat to the U.S. in the Middle East and the main state supporter of terrorism in the region. Clarke told Wolfowitz, ???I???m unaware of any Iraq-sponsored terrorism directed against the United States, Paul, since 1993.??? Wolfowitz responded, ???You give bin Laden too much credit. ??? He could not do all these things ??? not without a state sponsor.??? That same month the State Department issued its annual report on terrorism for 2001 stating that Iraq had not been involved in any anti-Western terrorism since the 1993 attempt to assassinate former Pres. Bush. To many in Bush???s foreign policy establishment, Iraq was a much bigger and important issue in the Middle East than Al Qaeda.
In a meeting on January 25, 2001 with the new Bush administration Clarke outlined an extensive plan to go on the offensive against Al Qaeda that included breaking up Al Qaeda cells, arresting their personnel, attacking their financial support, and an increase in covert action in Afghanistan to ???eliminate [al Qaeda???s] sanctuary.??? The Bush administration initially claimed that Clarke never gave a detailed plan to take on Al Qaeda. His plan wasn???t considered until April 2001, and not okayed until a week before 9/11. Bush administration officials say they took their time with the plan because they didn???t just want to attack Al Qaeda, but eliminate it. However, the plan okayed in September 2001 was almost exactly the same as Clarke???s.
Overall, your attempt to compare Clinton???s response to Bin Laden and Bush???s falls far, far short. The Clinton administration came to realize the threat posed by Al Qaeda. They launched half-hearted attacks and hesitated more than once, but were aware of the threat Bin Laden posed and actually tried to do something. The Bush administration on the other hand didn???t seem to care, and did nothing until after 9/11.
Iraq was authorized by Congress so there is plenty of blame to go around;
Did Congress decice to attack Iraq? Did Congress leak stories to the press about Iraq's ties with Al Qaeda and WMD, hook up Iraqi National Congress defectors for interviews with major newspapers, convince the majority of the American pbulic that Iraq was behind 9/11, devise the invasion plan, not send enough troops, not prepare for the aftermath, claim that Iraqis would be celebrating in the streets, a democracy would suddenly be formed within 6 months, the U.S. would be sending its troops home then, the Palestinians would then have to give in to the Isarelis, democracy would spread throughout the Middle East and Islam
ic terrorism would be defeated? Last time I checked Congress doesn't determine and create foreign policy other than provide the cash and oversight, the Exectuive Branch and the President does.
Wiretaps/Public Surveillance/Patriot Act - Legal
One of the reasons why the Bush administraiton didn't go to the special court to handle these kinds of operations was because they thought it would be illegal. According to you, I guess they didn't know what they were thinking.
Torture - prove it
Repeatedly waterboarding a detainee, denying him medicine after major surgey, beating him, but humanely not aimed at areas where he was wounded. Sodomoizing an innocent Iraqi with a batton. Handcuffing an Iraqi detainee to the wall so that his arms were pulled out of their sockets and then putting a hood over his head suffocating him, and then subsequently covering up his death. Providing baseball bats to frustrated U.S. soldiers so that they could beat on Iraqis held in a detention center. And of course, there's the rendition policy where we send suspects to other countries where other people "actually" torture them and CIA officers watch.
The economy is booming.
Is that why the U.S. Census Bureau notes that personal income for both men and women are down. That the reason why the seemingly contradictory trend of family income going up at the same time is the result of people working more hours and more than one job but at lower wages? They also note that povery is up in America since Bush's election in 2000.
lightweights thrust around on the winds of fashionable sentiment.
Since when did truth ,PEACE,Honesty,Integrity and sadly but in last place Love and Hope become fashionable sentiment?
Was it when PJ o'Rourke chided a 20 year old for finding "His Politics from a Che Guevera shirt'? Or was it the last "Book" from Ann Coulter that all of your friends from the young republicans club are reading?
Maybe it was when the knee jerk Dennis Miller went from over informed ex-hippy coke head to a post 9/11 Bush supporting Sac Rider.
Braindead fools who can't structure a proper sentance or a thought plauge this thread and the board with non truths and non facts.
Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to just copy and paste the whole article. Just because you change around a few words it doesnt mean its not plagarism. I always knew you were a fraud.
Motown 67[/b] ??? He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way. ??? He said that if his advisers had told him there was a cell in the United States, they would have moved to take care of it.??? Almost all of those claims are false.???
Whitewash as Public Service How The 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation Originally from Harper's Magazine, October 2004. By Benjamin DeMott.[/b] ???He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way. As best he could recollect, Rice had mentioned that the Yemenis' surveillance of a federal building in New York had been looked into in May and June, but there was no actionable intelligence. He did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so. He said that if his advisers had told him there was a cell in the United States, they would have moved to take care of it. That never happened.???
Motown67[/b] ???Those were followed by a National Security Council memo of December 29, 2000, National Security Council briefings on March 19, 2001 and May 17, 2001, a briefing by Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke to Rice in early January 2001 followed by e-mails to her on March 23, June 28, and June 30, 2001, and a slew of CIA briefings with titles such as ???Bin Laden Planning High Profile Attacks??? on June 30, 2001. There was also a congressional appointed U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century report chaired by Gary Hart and Warren Rudman given to the White House on Feb. 2001 that gave ???stark warnings about possible domestic terrorist attacks.??? Bush personally received briefings by CIA deputy director John McLaughlin, CIA deputy chief of Counterterrorism Center Ben Bonk about Al Qaeda, and a discussion with outgoing President Clinton. In total, the 9/11 Commission said that the Bush administration received more than 40 briefings naming Al Qaeda as a danger to America.???
Whitewash as Public Service How The 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation Originally from Harper's Magazine, October 2004. By Benjamin DeMott.[/b] ???The papers directed to Bush, including discussion of possible terrorist use of hijacked planes, ranged from National Security Council briefings (e.g., those of March 19, 2001, and May 17, 2001) and National Security Council memos (e.g., that of December 29, 2000) to email direct from Counterterrorism Security Group Chief Richard Clarke to Condoleezza Rice (on March 23, June 28, and June 30, 2001), as well as a blizzard of CIA Senior Executive Intelligence Briefs (SEIBs) bearing such titles as "Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks" (June 30, 2001). The congressionally appointed U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, cochaired by Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, presented its report to the White House in February 2001. The document contained "stark warnings about possible domestic terrorist attacks." Bush did not meet with either of the cochairs. The officials who did manage to brief Bush in person on these matters included John McLaughlin, the CIA acting deputy director, Ben Bonk, the deputy chief of its Counterterrorist Center, and the outgoing president of the United States.???
Motown67[/b] ???The 9/11 Commission summed up Bush???s reaction to the Al Qaeda threat as the following, ???The President told us the August 6 report [a Presidential daily intelligence briefing entitled ???Bin Ladin Determined to Strike on US???] was historical in nature. President Bush said the article told him that al Qaeda was dangerous, which he said he had known since he had become President. ??? He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way. ??? He said that if his advisers had told him there was a cell in the United States, they would have moved to take care of it.??? Almost all of those claims are false.???
Whitewash as Public Service How The 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation Originally from Harper's Magazine, October 2004. By Benjamin DeMott.[/b] ???The President told us the August 6 report was historical in nature. President Bush said the article told him that al Qaeda was dangerous, which he said he had known since he had become President. The President said Bin Ladin had long been talking about his desire to attack America. He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way. As best he could recollect, Rice had mentioned that the Yemenis' surveillance of a federal building in New York had been looked into in May and June, but there was no actionable intelligence.???
Big deal. I was there. I'm still here. I lost friends and I also count firemen and policemen "as my ancestors." And, I say Olberman IS soft. Talk about empty, how about an empty suit. He gins up this phony indignity and then goes out to dinner and feels great about himself. What a dick. Nice tie.
And who would know from empty suits and phony indignity better than Sabadabadadba?
Bullshit. National Security Agency tapping into telephone calls of Americans without a warrant, is in violation of federal statutes and the Constitution. In August 2006, in a lawsuit brought by the ACLU, a federal judge in Detroit found the program both unconstitutional and illegal.
replace "federal judge" with "generous ACLU contributor."
your a lawyer or a law student, right? in your own words, please explain why you think the wiretapping was legal.
Bullshit. National Security Agency tapping into telephone calls of Americans without a warrant, is in violation of federal statutes and the Constitution. In August 2006, in a lawsuit brought by the ACLU, a federal judge in Detroit found the program both unconstitutional and illegal.
replace "federal judge" with "generous ACLU contributor."
your a lawyer or a law student, right? in your own words, please explain why you think the wiretapping was legal.
Constitutionaly: Executive authority as commander in chief under Article II. By Statute: The AUMF And wiretapping does not run afoul of the fourth amendment because it is not "unreasonable," nor is the information used to seek a criminal indictment. Its used to gather information.
Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to just copy and paste the whole article. Just because you change around a few words it doesnt mean its not plagarism. I always knew you were a fraud.
Motown 67[/b] ??? He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way. ??? He said that if his advisers had told him there was a cell in the United States, they would have moved to take care of it.??? Almost all of those claims are false.???
Whitewash as Public Service How The 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation Originally from Harper's Magazine, October 2004. By Benjamin DeMott.[/b] ???He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way. As best he could recollect, Rice had mentioned that the Yemenis' surveillance of a federal building in New York had been looked into in May and June, but there was no actionable intelligence. He did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so. He said that if his advisers had told him there was a cell in the United States, they would have moved to take care of it. That never happened.???
Motown67[/b] ???Those were followed by a National Security Council memo of December 29, 2000, National Security Council briefings on March 19, 2001 and May 17, 2001, a briefing by Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke to Rice in early January 2001 followed by e-mails to her on March 23, June 28, and June 30, 2001, and a slew of CIA briefings with titles such as ???Bin Laden Planning High Profile Attacks??? on June 30, 2001. There was also a congressional appointed U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century report chaired by Gary Hart and Warren Rudman given to the White House on Feb. 2001 that gave ???stark warnings about possible domestic terrorist attacks.??? Bush personally received briefings by CIA deputy director John McLaughlin, CIA deputy chief of Counterterrorism Center Ben Bonk about Al Qaeda, and a discussion with outgoing President Clinton. In total, the 9/11 Commission said that the Bush administration received more than 40 briefings naming Al Qaeda as a danger to America.???
Whitewash as Public Service How The 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation Originally from Harper's Magazine, October 2004. By Benjamin DeMott.[/b] ???The papers directed to Bush, including discussion of possible terrorist use of hijacked planes, ranged from National Security Council briefings (e.g., those of March 19, 2001, and May 17, 2001) and National Security Council memos (e.g., that of December 29, 2000) to email direct from Counterterrorism Security Group Chief Richard Clarke to Condoleezza Rice (on March 23, June 28, and June 30, 2001), as well as a blizzard of CIA Senior Executive Intelligence Briefs (SEIBs) bearing such titles as "Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks" (June 30, 2001). The congressionally appointed U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, cochaired by Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, presented its report to the White House in February 2001. The document contained "stark warnings about possible domestic terrorist attacks." Bush did not meet with either of the cochairs. The officials who did manage to brief Bush in person on these matters included John McLaughlin, the CIA acting deputy director, Ben Bonk, the deputy chief of its Counterterrorist Center, and the outgoing president of the United States.???
Motown67[/b] ???The 9/11 Commission summed up Bush???s reaction to the Al Qaeda threat as the following, ???The President told us the August 6 report [a Presidential daily intelligence briefing entitled ???Bin Ladin Determined to Strike on US???] was historical in nature. President Bush said the article told him that al Qaeda was dangerous, which he said he had known since he had become President. ??? He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way. ??? He said that if his advisers had told him there was a cell in the United States, they would have moved to take care of it.??? Almost all of those claims are false.???
Whitewash as Public Service How The 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation Originally from Harper's Magazine, October 2004. By Benjamin DeMott.[/b] ???The President told us the August 6 report was historical in nature. President Bush said the article told him that al Qaeda was dangerous, which he said he had known since he had become President. The President said Bin Ladin had long been talking about his desire to attack America. He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way. As best he could recollect, Rice had mentioned that the Yemenis' surveillance of a federal building in New York had been looked into in May and June, but there was no actionable intelligence.???
your a lawyer or a law student, right? in your own words, please explain why you think the wiretapping was legal.
Constitutionaly: Executive authority as commander in chief under Article II.
FISA was started precisely because Article II does not give a president such power. Nixon had the same response when asked why he did not need approval for wiretapping. Furthermore, regardless of whether article II gave him such power (which it didn't), do you not believe in a system of checks and balances?
By Statute: The AUMF
This statute gave him the right to use military force, and in the legal world, you will find very little support for the argument that it thereby granted him the right to continually wiretap without a judge's authorization. This statute was from 2002; how long does Bush get a free pass to use any means he feels necessary to pursue "the war on terror."
And wiretapping does not run afoul of the fourth amendment because it is not "unreasonable," nor is the information used to seek a criminal indictment. Its used to gather information.
which law books are you using at school? the supreme court has found that warrantless wiretaps are in fact unreasonable under the 4th amendment. according to what you just wrote, the government can keep an open and unapproved wiretap on my phone for as long as they want, so long as their goal is to "gather information". that argument is ridiculous and unsupported; please give me the cite to where the Supreme Court has made such a determination.
your a lawyer or a law student, right? in your own words, please explain why you think the wiretapping was legal.
Constitutionaly: Executive authority as commander in chief under Article II.
FISA was started precisely because Article II does not give a president such power. Nixon had the same response when asked why he did not need approval for wiretapping. Furthermore, regardless of whether article II gave him such power (which it didn't), do you not believe in a system of checks and balances?
By Statute: The AUMF
This statute gave him the right to use military force, and in the legal world, you will find very little support for the argument that it thereby granted him the right to continually wiretap without a judge's authorization. This statute was from 2002; how long does Bush get a free pass to use any means he feels necessary to pursue "the war on terror."
And wiretapping does not run afoul of the fourth amendment because it is not "unreasonable," nor is the information used to seek a criminal indictment. Its used to gather information.
which law books are you using at school? the supreme court has found that warrantless wiretaps are in fact unreasonable under the 4th amendment. according to what you just wrote, the government can keep an open and unapproved wiretap on my phone for as long as they want, so long as their goal is to "gather information". that argument is ridiculous and unsupported; please give me the cite to where the Supreme Court has made such a determination.
Article II says what it says, and the Court is decidedly different than it was 30 years ago as are the facts. As for the "wiretapping" my fourth amendment argument concerns "datamining" not wiretapping - my mistake, but again, the circumstances and the change in technology as well as the Court leaves this open as well. Also, section 2 of the AUMF is very open ended in its grant of authority. So, the answer to that question is basically "yes" he gets a free pass to pursue the war on terror.
You should know that all these issues are far from "settled law".
So many things I want to say, but basically, Bush doesn't give a shit about the people of this country and has proven so time and again. Why or how you can defend him is a mystery to me.
Someone please tell me something good about Bush. Knowledge me.
I had a life-long republican tell me yesterday that bush will go down as one of the worst presidents in history. this, mind you, coming from a woman who despises all things clinton. she cited the iraq war as the main reason.
Article II says what it says, and the Court is decidedly different than it was 30 years ago as are the facts. As for the "wiretapping" my fourth amendment argument concerns "datamining" not wiretapping - my mistake, but again, the circumstances and the change in technology as well as the Court leaves this open as well. Also, section 2 of the AUMF is very open ended in its grant of authority. So, the answer to that question is basically "yes" he gets a free pass to pursue the war on terror.
You should know that all these issues are far from "settled law".
as it stands, bush violated the law. FISA required him to get approval, and despite the fact that the FISA court is currently made up of republicans, he chose not to get their approval, seemingly, just so he could flex his muscles. the aumf is open-ended, because it was signed days after 9-11. however, as i said before, the statute only gave him the right to use military force. if you are arguing that warrentless wiretapping falls under that authority, well...i think you are dead wrong.
the problem with your argument is that wiretapping is not a vague area. if congress intended him to have such power, it would have been explicit. without FISA, i still would argue that the 4th amendment specifically prohibited bush from using warrantless wiretaps. with FISA, its really not even an issue for debate....unless, as you argue, we should just give Bush a "free pass". george w bush? a free pass???
jaymack
5,199 Posts
Comments
KATRINA
IRAQ
WIRETAPS/PUBLIC SURVEILLANCE/PATRIOT ACT
8 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT
CORPORATE COLLUSION
TORTURE
IRAN NEXT?[/b]
Worst president ever.
werd is bond
billions in damages to the enviornment
nice
but a day late and a dolla short
worst response ever. Try making a sentence.
9/11 was more Clinton's fault then Bush; Katrina was more Nagen and Blanco's fault; Iraq was authorized by Congress so there is plenty of blame to go around; Wiretaps/Public Surveillance/Patriot Act - Legal; Corporate collusion is nothing new, in fact most of it that is shaking out now occured in the 90's; Torture - prove it, U.S. specifically rejected Articles of Geneva Conventions pertaining to "personal dignity"; Iran - deserves it if anybody does and Bush has given Turtle Bay every oportunity to live up to its resolutions; The economy is booming.
They should also fine everyone/anyone who's ever driven a car......about $1,000 per driver would cover the billions their looking for.
The real fun will begin when there are class action lawsuits against the State of California for allowing it's air to get to the point where it harmed the citizens inhaling it.
i thought you were busy getting gang raped at bohemian grove this week
or was that the shareholders meeting at KROLL?
You my friend are neglecting history again
IRAN is a glaring example of failed us foreign policy.
In cahoots with british petrol the CIA installed the puppet SHAH,and then trained the SAVAK in all means of interogation and nationhood/police/military training as well as standard state of the art arms package to go with it.
SAVAK as you well know [since you are 40 ,a dedicated student of history,and are in law school etc] was [in]famous for brutal torture.The mullahs and the Ayatollah's as well as their follwers were supressed and kept in check by such tender sentiments such as being slowly burned alive for 12-24 hours in specially designed ovens/grating systems that looked like a BBQ for people.
The SAVAK horrors have been well documented and the inverse reaction to the privitization of wealth/oil and this supression of religous freedom has partially aborted into a short term syphlytic pus encrusted abortion,ie the revolution of 79,culminating with the embassy takeover and the hostage crisis.
Furthermore You neglect the pathetic and eroneous eppisode of IRAN/Contra
and Mr North's presentation of said mullahs with a cake and a copy of the king james bible.Bowing to those so called terrorists and giving them missiles
Rasclot
Lastly the Bush administration sometime in 3/03 was presented with a sweetheart deal from the iranians prior to mamoun's "election".This deal was presented by the more moderate outgoing iranian PM and offerd oil deals to ALL of the American oil companies and promised to end all collusion with Hezbollah and pals.
Rumsfeld and Cheney balked,Jr fell in line
Pussywood
So typical. Why people like you blindly ride for this guy in the face of all the information that's out there I will never understand.
9/11 was more Clinton's fault then Bush[/b]
I agree Clinton was to blame to some degree, however... on Aug. 6, 2001, the CIA briefed Bush at his Texas ranch on the possibility that al Qaeda might try to hijack airplanes in the United States.
On May 16, 2002, Condoleezza Rice said, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."
um... Seeing as how he had prior knowledge to a possible event of that magnitude and took no action, I would say since it happened on his watch he is to blame.
"Katrina was more Nagen and Blanco's fault"[/b]
That's right, they didn't drop food or water to thousands and thousands of people for a week while the world watched them suffer and die in the street. They should have just, you know, done something. Maybe like follow every chain of command asking for assistance before during and after? Or maybe build the levees correctly? Maybe they didn't "anticipate the breach of the levees" even after their video conference on what was heading to the Gulf Coast. Yep, it was all their fault.
Iraq was authorized by Congress so there is plenty of blame to go around[/b]
Right. Under all kinds of extenuating circumstances, false information and lies. Who presented the case to invade Iraq and "liberate" them under false pretenses?
Wiretaps/Public Surveillance/Patriot Act - Legal[/b]
Bullshit.
National Security Agency tapping into telephone calls of Americans without a warrant, is in violation of federal statutes and the Constitution.
In August 2006, in a lawsuit brought by the ACLU, a federal judge in Detroit found the program both unconstitutional and illegal.
Corporate collusion is nothing new, in fact most of it that is shaking out now occured in the 90's[/b]
One word:
Some of the biggest (no bid) contracts concievable have gone to them to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, rebuild Iraq, restore Iraq Oil etc.
That's all for now - I'll be back with the rest in a bit.
And this is all G.W.'s fault. Wasn't Esienhower president in 1957? Wasnt Saint Carter president in 1979? I guess I really have to brush up on my history. Maybe if I email Olberman he will email me back some good info in between rants about his coworkers and coming on to me?
replace "federal judge" with "generous ACLU contributor."
Not trying to defend Bush here. But if you take an econ class, one of the first things you learn is all about the debt-to-GDP ratio. But yeah. 8 trillioration~! Won't be long til it's at 10...
you don't get it
since the dawn of time
whitey been mobbin shit hard the world over
that is the only MO we have
Rape and rob,pillage for natural resources or contriol of then leave with no thought to the aftermath
-see Afghanastan and the CIA's history with bin laden during the cold war
there was no follow up we just left "mission accomplished"
Guatemala-dole pineapple/Chicquita Bananas
Chile-ITT/copper interests-The allende coup
Grenada-LOL
Nigeria-Royal Dutch Shell
The congo- ITT again /Gold/Diamonds/Lumumba's Threat of feeding the poor
CUBA-Money Laundering Haven,Mafia Playground,Drugs/Arms smuggling stopover/prostitution capital of the carribean
Jamaica-the CIA tampering with elections and anti labor thuggerey
Columbia-Where to begin
Vietnam-2 MILLION NORTH VIETNIMISE KILLED
5MILLION WOUNDED
CAMBODIA-7 MILLION DEAD
this is the spin off episode of vietnam which macnamara adimitted in his book was "A mistake"
INDONESIA UNDER KISSENGER's foreign policy -2 MILLION DEAD
PANAMA-3,000 Civilians dead
IRAN-British Pertolium/Chevron
Iraq-Huge ARMS CUSTOMER of the US when they were at war with IRAQ
so forth and so on ...not excluding Bosina
i'm a grown ass man and i say anyone trying to defend B*sh can below me. i can't even be bothered to waste my time on a literate post. coz any logic i convey will be denied by the lemmings and pea brains who can't see that their wonderful prez is: "robbin', rapin', kidnappin' and killin'", as Peter Tosh once said. since B*sh stole the job in the first place, perhaps he should be referred to in history books as the "un-president".
Pres. Bush told the 9/11 Commission that ???If his advisers had told him there was a [terrorist] cell in the United States, they would have moved to take care of it.??? He also claimed that he knew Al Qaeda was a threat and that his administration had been dealing with it before 9/11. Both of those statements were false and were at the heart of a series of obfuscations by the administration to gloss over their failure to deal with Al Qaeda and terrorism before 9/11.
Even before the November 2000 elections, the in-coming Bush team was given briefings on the threat of Al Qaeda. Those began in September and lasted until November 2000. After his election, the Bush transition team was given another series of briefings on the threat. At one of those briefings, Clinton???s National Security Adviser Sandy Berger told in-coming National Security Adviser Rice that, ???I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on Al Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.???
Those were followed by a National Security Council memo of December 29, 2000, National Security Council briefings on March 19, 2001 and May 17, 2001, a briefing by Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke to Rice in early January 2001 followed by e-mails to her on March 23, June 28, and June 30, 2001, and a slew of CIA briefings with titles such as ???Bin Laden Planning High Profile Attacks??? on June 30, 2001. There was also a congressional appointed U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century report chaired by Gary Hart and Warren Rudman given to the White House on Feb. 2001 that gave ???stark warnings about possible domestic terrorist attacks.??? Bush personally received briefings by CIA deputy director John McLaughlin, CIA deputy chief of Counterterrorism Center Ben Bonk about Al Qaeda, and a discussion with outgoing President Clinton. In total, the 9/11 Commission said that the Bush administration received more than 40 briefings naming Al Qaeda as a danger to America.
The 9/11 Commission summed up Bush???s reaction to the Al Qaeda threat as the following, ???The President told us the August 6 report [a Presidential daily intelligence briefing entitled ???Bin Ladin Determined to Strike on US???] was historical in nature. President Bush said the article told him that al Qaeda was dangerous, which he said he had known since he had become President. ??? He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way. ??? He said that if his advisers had told him there was a cell in the United States, they would have moved to take care of it.??? Almost all of those claims are false.
Despite the President???s claims, the August 6, 2001 briefing was about the present and future threat of Al Qaeda, not a history of the group. Among other things, the report mentioned talk of ???Bring[ing] the fighting to America,??? ???planning ??? to mount a terrorist strike,??? ???Bin Ladin ??? prepares operations years in advance,??? and ???Al-Qa-ida ??? maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.??? Most importantly, the daily brief said that Al Qaeda had a cell within the U.S. directly contradicting what Bush said to the Commission. In fact, this was not the first time Bush was told that there was an Al Qaeda cell operating within the U.S. He had been told repeatedly of this since the first pre-election briefing he received in September 2000. At that September briefing CIA officers John McClaughlin and Ben Bonk told Bush that Americans would die in terrorist attacks conducted by Bin Laden in the next four years. They told Bush and his team, ???Al Qaeda had ???sleeper cells??? in more than 40 countries, including the United States.??? A follow up report in January 2001 focused on ???Al Qaeda???s presence in the United States.??? In a two-hour national security meeting with Clinton and his team, Clinton told Bush, ???I think you will find that by far your biggest threat is Bin Ladin and al Qaeda.??? Bush told the 9/11 Commission he, ???Felt sure President Clinton had mentioned terrorism, but did not remember much being said about al Qaeda.???
Personally, Bush did little about the warnings about Al Qaeda. Bush told Bob Woodward and repeated in his book Bush at War, ???There was a significant difference in my attitude after September 11. I was not on point, but I knew he [bin Laden] was a menace. ??? But I didn???t feel that sense of urgency.??? He sent 2 letters to Musharaf in Pakistan that were written by the State Department and mentioned fighting terrorism along with many other matters. He told Rice in April 2001 that he wanted to take the fight to terrorists, and mentioned in May 2001 that Cheney would head a task force to look into national preparedness including the threat of terrorism. No task force was ever started before 9/11. That was it from the Commander in Chief.
Bush???s staff was no better in taking the threat of Al Qaeda seriously. His then Attorney General John Ashcroft said that the warnings about Al Qaeda were tiresome and needless. When Clarke gave his first briefing to the deputy Cabinet secretaries about terrorism and the threat of Al Qaeda on April 2001, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz objected to talking about bin Laden. According to Wolfowitz, Iraq was the major threat to the U.S. in the Middle East and the main state supporter of terrorism in the region. Clarke told Wolfowitz, ???I???m unaware of any Iraq-sponsored terrorism directed against the United States, Paul, since 1993.??? Wolfowitz responded, ???You give bin Laden too much credit. ??? He could not do all these things ??? not without a state sponsor.??? That same month the State Department issued its annual report on terrorism for 2001 stating that Iraq had not been involved in any anti-Western terrorism since the 1993 attempt to assassinate former Pres. Bush. To many in Bush???s foreign policy establishment, Iraq was a much bigger and important issue in the Middle East than Al Qaeda.
In a meeting on January 25, 2001 with the new Bush administration Clarke outlined an extensive plan to go on the offensive against Al Qaeda that included breaking up Al Qaeda cells, arresting their personnel, attacking their financial support, and an increase in covert action in Afghanistan to ???eliminate [al Qaeda???s] sanctuary.??? The Bush administration initially claimed that Clarke never gave a detailed plan to take on Al Qaeda. His plan wasn???t considered until April 2001, and not okayed until a week before 9/11. Bush administration officials say they took their time with the plan because they didn???t just want to attack Al Qaeda, but eliminate it. However, the plan okayed in September 2001 was almost exactly the same as Clarke???s.
Overall, your attempt to compare Clinton???s response to Bin Laden and Bush???s falls far, far short. The Clinton administration came to realize the threat posed by Al Qaeda. They launched half-hearted attacks and hesitated more than once, but were aware of the threat Bin Laden posed and actually tried to do something. The Bush administration on the other hand didn???t seem to care, and did nothing until after 9/11.
Did Congress decice to attack Iraq? Did Congress leak stories to the press about Iraq's ties with Al Qaeda and WMD, hook up Iraqi National Congress defectors for interviews with major newspapers, convince the majority of the American pbulic that Iraq was behind 9/11, devise the invasion plan, not send enough troops, not prepare for the aftermath, claim that Iraqis would be celebrating in the streets, a democracy would suddenly be formed within 6 months, the U.S. would be sending its troops home then, the Palestinians would then have to give in to the Isarelis, democracy would spread throughout the Middle East and Islam ic terrorism would be defeated? Last time I checked Congress doesn't determine and create foreign policy other than provide the cash and oversight, the Exectuive Branch and the President does.
One of the reasons why the Bush administraiton didn't go to the special court to handle these kinds of operations was because they thought it would be illegal. According to you, I guess they didn't know what they were thinking.
Repeatedly waterboarding a detainee, denying him medicine after major surgey, beating him, but humanely not aimed at areas where he was wounded. Sodomoizing an innocent Iraqi with a batton. Handcuffing an Iraqi detainee to the wall so that his arms were pulled out of their sockets and then putting a hood over his head suffocating him, and then subsequently covering up his death. Providing baseball bats to frustrated U.S. soldiers so that they could beat on Iraqis held in a detention center. And of course, there's the rendition policy where we send suspects to other countries where other people "actually" torture them and CIA officers watch.
Is that why the U.S. Census Bureau notes that personal income for both men and women are down. That the reason why the seemingly contradictory trend of family income going up at the same time is the result of people working more hours and more than one job but at lower wages? They also note that povery is up in America since Bush's election in 2000.
Since when did truth ,PEACE,Honesty,Integrity and sadly but in last place Love and Hope become fashionable sentiment?
Was it when PJ o'Rourke chided a 20 year old for finding "His Politics from a Che Guevera shirt'?
Or was it the last "Book" from Ann Coulter that all of your friends from the young republicans club are reading?
Maybe it was when the knee jerk Dennis Miller went from over informed ex-hippy coke head to a post 9/11 Bush supporting Sac Rider.
Braindead fools who can't structure a proper sentance or a thought plauge this thread and the board with non truths and non facts.
Motown 67[/b]
??? He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way. ??? He said that if his advisers had told him there was a cell in the United States, they would have moved to take care of it.??? Almost all of those claims are false.???
Whitewash as Public Service
How The 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation
Originally from Harper's Magazine, October 2004. By Benjamin DeMott.[/b]
???He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way. As best he could recollect, Rice had mentioned that the Yemenis' surveillance of a federal building in New York had been looked into in May and June, but there was no actionable intelligence.
He did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so. He said that if his advisers had told him there was a cell in the United States, they would have moved to take care of it. That never happened.???
Motown67[/b]
???Those were followed by a National Security Council memo of December 29, 2000, National Security Council briefings on March 19, 2001 and May 17, 2001, a briefing by Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke to Rice in early January 2001 followed by e-mails to her on March 23, June 28, and June 30, 2001, and a slew of CIA briefings with titles such as ???Bin Laden Planning High Profile Attacks??? on June 30, 2001. There was also a congressional appointed U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century report chaired by Gary Hart and Warren Rudman given to the White House on Feb. 2001 that gave ???stark warnings about possible domestic terrorist attacks.??? Bush personally received briefings by CIA deputy director John McLaughlin, CIA deputy chief of Counterterrorism Center Ben Bonk about Al Qaeda, and a discussion with outgoing President Clinton. In total, the 9/11 Commission said that the Bush administration received more than 40 briefings naming Al Qaeda as a danger to America.???
Whitewash as Public Service
How The 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation
Originally from Harper's Magazine, October 2004. By Benjamin DeMott.[/b]
???The papers directed to Bush, including discussion of possible terrorist use of hijacked planes, ranged from National Security Council briefings (e.g., those of March 19, 2001, and May 17, 2001) and National Security Council memos (e.g., that of December 29, 2000) to email direct from Counterterrorism Security Group Chief Richard Clarke to Condoleezza Rice (on March 23, June 28, and June 30, 2001), as well as a blizzard of CIA Senior Executive Intelligence Briefs (SEIBs) bearing such titles as "Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks" (June 30, 2001). The congressionally appointed U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, cochaired by Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, presented its report to the White House in February 2001. The document contained "stark warnings about possible domestic terrorist attacks." Bush did not meet with either of the cochairs. The officials who did manage to brief Bush in person on these matters included John McLaughlin, the CIA acting deputy director, Ben Bonk, the deputy chief of its Counterterrorist Center, and the outgoing president of the United States.???
Motown67[/b]
???The 9/11 Commission summed up Bush???s reaction to the Al Qaeda threat as the following, ???The President told us the August 6 report [a Presidential daily intelligence briefing entitled ???Bin Ladin Determined to Strike on US???] was historical in nature. President Bush said the article told him that al Qaeda was dangerous, which he said he had known since he had become President. ??? He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way. ??? He said that if his advisers had told him there was a cell in the United States, they would have moved to take care of it.??? Almost all of those claims are false.???
Whitewash as Public Service
How The 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation
Originally from Harper's Magazine, October 2004. By Benjamin DeMott.[/b]
???The President told us the August 6 report was historical in nature. President Bush said the article told him that al Qaeda was dangerous, which he said he had known since he had become President. The President said Bin Ladin had long been talking about his desire to attack America. He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way. As best he could recollect, Rice had mentioned that the Yemenis' surveillance of a federal building in New York had been looked into in May and June, but there was no actionable intelligence.???
And who would know from empty suits and phony indignity better than Sabadabadadba?
"What a dick."
your a lawyer or a law student, right? in your own words, please explain why you think the wiretapping was legal.
Constitutionaly: Executive authority as commander in chief under Article II.
By Statute: The AUMF
And wiretapping does not run afoul of the fourth amendment because it is not "unreasonable," nor is the information used to seek a criminal indictment. Its used to gather information.
Wow!
FISA was started precisely because Article II does not give a president such power. Nixon had the same response when asked why he did not need approval for wiretapping. Furthermore, regardless of whether article II gave him such power (which it didn't), do you not believe in a system of checks and balances?
This statute gave him the right to use military force, and in the legal world, you will find very little support for the argument that it thereby granted him the right to continually wiretap without a judge's authorization. This statute was from 2002; how long does Bush get a free pass to use any means he feels necessary to pursue "the war on terror."
which law books are you using at school? the supreme court has found that warrantless wiretaps are in fact unreasonable under the 4th amendment. according to what you just wrote, the government can keep an open and unapproved wiretap on my phone for as long as they want, so long as their goal is to "gather information". that argument is ridiculous and unsupported; please give me the cite to where the Supreme Court has made such a determination.
Article II says what it says, and the Court is decidedly different than it was 30 years ago as are the facts. As for the "wiretapping" my fourth amendment argument concerns "datamining" not wiretapping - my mistake, but again, the circumstances and the change in technology as well as the Court leaves this open as well. Also, section 2 of the AUMF is very open ended in its grant of authority. So, the answer to that question is basically "yes" he gets a free pass to pursue the war on terror.
You should know that all these issues are far from "settled law".
Someone please tell me something good about Bush. Knowledge me.
as it stands, bush violated the law. FISA required him to get approval, and despite the fact that the FISA court is currently made up of republicans, he chose not to get their approval, seemingly, just so he could flex his muscles. the aumf is open-ended, because it was signed days after 9-11. however, as i said before, the statute only gave him the right to use military force. if you are arguing that warrentless wiretapping falls under that authority, well...i think you are dead wrong.
the problem with your argument is that wiretapping is not a vague area. if congress intended him to have such power, it would have been explicit. without FISA, i still would argue that the 4th amendment specifically prohibited bush from using warrantless wiretaps. with FISA, its really not even an issue for debate....unless, as you argue, we should just give Bush a "free pass". george w bush? a free pass???