Bush's BS Argument For Spying On American Citizens

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Anyone who listened to his speech Monday heard him say he needed to bypass the court because of time constraints. That was and is a complete lie as is now being reported in the media outlets. More republican lawmakers (http://tinyurl.com/9jh6a) are now calling for hearings on Bush's spying.

____________________
The president defied a major Supreme Court ruling to authorize hundreds of wiretaps inside the U.S.
By David Cole

Dec. 20, 2005 | With the revelation of domestic spying by the National Security Agency, the message transmitted by the Bush White House is crystal clear: When the president decides existing law is insufficient to protect Americans, he'll move ahead on his own and do whatever he deems necessary in the war on terror.

Bush is defiantly battling critics, insisting that his decision to conduct warrantless wiretaps on hundreds of people inside the United States, including American citizens, was necessary and fully consistent with the Constitution and federal law. Neither claim stands up to scrutiny. The president acted unnecessarily and, more significantly, in direct violation of a criminal law.

The secret spying program was said to be necessary because getting court approval under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is too time-consuming. That position is difficult to accept: Warrants requested under FISA can be approved in a matter of hours, and the statute allows the government in emergency situations to put a wiretap in place immediately and then seek court approval later, within 72 hours. But the true reason behind the administration's position is less difficult to decode -- the desire to circumvent a key limitation of FISA. Despite the statute's breadth, it permits wiretaps only on agents of foreign powers, and would not have permitted them on persons not directly connected to al-Qaida. Apparently seeking to cast a much wider net after 9/11, the president simply ignored the law and unilaterally -- and secretly -- authorized warrantless wiretaps on Americans.

Was it legal to do so? Attorney General Alberto Gonzales argues that the president's authority rests on two foundations: Congress' authorization of the president to use military force against al-Qaida and the Constitution's vesting of power in the president as commander in chief, which necessarily includes gathering "signals intelligence" on the enemy. But that argument cannot be squared with Supreme Court precedent. In 1952, the Supreme Court considered a remarkably similar argument during the Korean War. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, widely considered the most important separation-of-powers case ever decided by the court, flatly rejected the president's assertion of unilateral domestic authority during wartime. President Truman had invoked the commander-in-chief clause to justify seizing most of the nation's steel mills. A nationwide strike threatened to undermine the war, Truman contended, because the mills were critical to manufacturing munitions.

The Supreme Court's rationale for rejecting Truman's claims applies with full force to Bush's policy. In what proved to be the most influential opinion in the case, Justice Robert Jackson identified three possible scenarios in which a president's actions may be challenged. Where the president acts with explicit or implicit authorization from Congress, his authority "is at its maximum," and will generally be upheld. Where Congress has been silent, the president acts in a "zone of twilight" in which legality "is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law." But where the president acts in defiance of "the expressed or implied will of Congress," Justice Jackson maintained, his power is "at its lowest ebb," and his actions can be sustained only if Congress has no authority to regulate the subject at all.

In the steel seizure case, Congress had considered and rejected giving the president the authority to seize businesses in the face of threatened strikes, thereby placing Truman's action in the third of Justice Jackson's categories. As to the war power, Justice Jackson noted, "the Constitution did not contemplate that the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy will constitute him also Commander in Chief of the country, its industries, and its inhabitants."

Like Truman, President Bush acted in the face of contrary congressional authority. In FISA, Congress expressly addressed the subject of warrantless wiretaps during wartime, and limited them to the first 15 days after war is declared. Congress then went further and made it a crime, punishable by up to five years in jail, to conduct a wiretap without statutory authorization.

Attorney General Gonzales contends that the authorization by Congress to use military force somehow implicitly gave the president power to wiretap Americans at home. But nothing in the authorization even mentions wiretaps. And that claim is directly contrary to the express language in FISA limiting any such authority. While intercepting the enemy's communications on the battlefield may well be an incident of the war power, wiretapping hundreds of people inside the United States who are not known to be members of al-Qaida in no way qualifies as an incidental wartime authority.

In light of Congress' explicit rejection of unchecked wiretap authority, Bush, like Truman before him, is clearly in Justice Jackson's third category. To uphold the president here would require finding that Congress has no authority at all to regulate domestic wiretaps of Americans -- a proposition that would require overturning decades of established federal law built on congressional regulation of electronic surveillance.

Had the president's legal advisors consulted Youngstown, the leading Supreme Court case on unilateral executive power in wartime, they would have realized that the appropriate course, if the president felt FISA was insufficient, was not to act secretly and unilaterally in defiance of the law, but to ask Congress to change the law. Bush had a convenient vehicle to do so; the administration delivered legislation within a week and a half of 9/11 that ultimately became the PATRIOT Act, and that granted numerous expansions of FISA authority -- including the infamous "libraries" provision and an expanded ability to conduct foreign intelligence wiretaps in criminal investigations.

Bush has argued that seeking approval for the wiretaps more openly might somehow have tipped off al-Qaida to the possibility it would be subject to surveillance. But many U.S. tactics in the war on terror, in addition to the provisions under FISA, already put terrorists on notice of precisely that possibility. Moreover, Bush's argument proves too much, because it could be applied to every counterterrorism statute. The price of democracy -- and indeed, its strength -- is that the broad outlines of government must be agreed upon in public, not imposed unilaterally behind closed doors.

It is possible, of course, that the president's advisors overlooked the Youngstown precedent, despite its status as the court's most important case on executive power during wartime. In the infamous Justice Department torture memorandum of August 2002, John Yoo -- who also reportedly wrote the memo justifying domestic wiretaps -- made a similar argument that the commander-in-chief authority included the power to order torture, in direct contravention of a statute criminalizing torture and a treaty prohibiting it under all circumstances. That memo did not even cite Youngstown. But ignorance is no excuse. The president acted in clear contravention of a criminal law enacted by Congress and a Supreme Court precedent, both directly on point.

Bush acted, in other words, as if there are no checks and balances in the American system of government. Some things changed drastically after 9/11, but we cannot allow that to be one of them.
http://tinyurl.com/8lh4b

[W*GS]

I dunno.

FDR imprisoned hundreds of thousands of Americans without any regard for their Constitutional rights. He should have been impeached. Or does a time of war mean that our rights can be suspended at State whim?

[Spider]

I dunno.

FDR imprisoned hundreds of thousands of Americans without any regard for their Constitutional rights. He should have been impeached. Or does a time of war mean that our rights can be suspended at State whim?putting japanesse americans into camps ,I see you still cling to the past to excuse what the present is doing .........you never did answer my question on the other thread ..............

[Spider]

I have to ask W*GS ........... The right went balstic , over sex in the oval office , here we have a bold stomping of the constitution , violating the very laws goverment sworn to up hold , and you are ok with this ...........
Dont take this the wrong way , but my question why do you hate what Americastands for ?
before we get carried away let explain what I mean .......
Torture ...... Bush is the first president of the US to embrace it in the open ...
By passing courts ........ Doing what ever he pleases , in the name of fighting terrorism
Invading another nation that had nothing to do with 9-11........
drowning out dissent , attacking everyone that disagrees with him ....
outing of a CIA agent ...........
Dictatorship...... same thing we removed Saddam for ....
How can we tell other countries to become democractic , when we our selfs dump our very laws first sign of trouble .........

[Spider]

By our actions we are saying democracy only works in peace time.........first sign of trouble we act just like a dictatorship and we use every excuse fir it.......

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I have to ask W*GS ........... The right went balstic , over sex in the oval office , here we have a bold stomping of the constitution , violating the very laws goverment sworn to up hold , and you are ok with this ...........
Dont take this the wrong way , but my question why do you hate what Americastands for ?
before we get carried away let explain what I mean .......
Torture ...... Bush is the first president of the US to embrace it in the open ...
By passing courts ........ Doing what ever he pleases , in the name of fighting terrorism
Invading another nation that had nothing to do with 9-11........
drowning out dissent , attacking everyone that disagrees with him ....
outing of a CIA agent ...........
Dictatorship...... same thing we removed Saddam for ....
How can we tell other countries to become democractic , when we our selfs dump our very laws first sign of trouble .........

Bingo.

During the great Clinton zipper hunt, all you ever heard from the repubs was "the rule of law, the rule of law."

These people are all about the double standard.

The majority of Americans are waking up to the fact, and W*GS is only making himself sound more clown-like with each passing attempt to provide cover for BushCo.

[W*GS]

putting japanesse americans into camps ,I see you still cling to the past to excuse what the present is doing .........

I don't excuse the present because of the past, I add historical context. No President since FDR has been quite so cavalier with the Constitution - Bush's actions are (at worst) a very distant second in comparison.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How many times will W*GS have to repeat the same old, stupid "Bush should be excused for his crimes because, once upon a time, 'so and so' did 'such and such'" schtick before he recognizes it as an invalid argument?

This guy just doesn't seem to learn or evolve.

:pity:

[W*GS]

I have to ask W*GS ........... The right went balstic , over sex in the oval office , here we have a bold stomping of the constitution , violating the very laws goverment sworn to up hold , and you are ok with this ...........

I'm not "ok with this" - I'm just pointing out that Bush's actions are just the latest in very long string of abuses of our rights by officials of the State.

Dont take this the wrong way , but my question why do you hate what Americastands for ?

(I won't take it the "wrong way", despite your comment being clearly designed to get a rise out of me, e.g., "why do you hate what America stands for"? Come now, can you be a little less obvious?)

This is so nonsensical that it clearly shows you don't understand my views at all.

Torture ...... Bush is the first president of the US to embrace it in the open ...

So he's open about it - is that worse than those Presidents in the past who have allowed (condoned?) its use, covertly? Is something reprehensible (as torture is) less so when it's done in secret?

By passing courts ........ Doing what ever he pleases , in the name of fighting terrorism

We've heard the same excuses during the Cold War and the ongoing War on Drugs. The State has operated as it is doing now for a lot longer than since Bush took office.

Invading another nation that had nothing to do with 9-11........

Another foreign misadventure, in some ways like Vietnam.

drowning out dissent , attacking everyone that disagrees with him ....

Dissent has been far from eliminated - LABF's sheer volume of posts here is proof of that. Besides, Presidents always attack those who disagree with them - remember the dark insinuations after the OKC bombing that somehow right-wing talk radio was responsible, and that gun owners and racist militias were ideological brethren? That set of smears against Clinton's political opponents was surely an attack, was it not?

outing of a CIA agent ...........

Well, it's not clear to me that Bush had a hand in that, and it's also not clear to me that Plame's status as a covert agent (in the oh-so-dangerous environs of Virginia) wasn't a reasonably well-known fact inside the Beltway. I've heard that Wilson blabbed to everyone who would listen about his wife.

Dictatorship...... same thing we removed Saddam for ....

We're a ways from a dictatorship, but Bush certainly isn't doing a good job of living up to his oath of office - no recent Presidents have, IMHO.

How can we tell other countries to become democractic , when we our selfs dump our very laws first sign of trouble .........

Indeed. We're not providing a good example.

I certainly don't "hate" what America stands for - if I did, I'd be a conservative or a liberal.

[W*GS]

Ironically, it was the Clinton administration that successfully created some of the legal groundwork for the Bush administration's stance on the legality of its actions.

See http://www.law.syr.edu/faculty/banks/terrorism/dummyfl/binladen_12_19_00.pdf

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Ironically, it was the Clinton administration that successfully created some of the legal groundwork for the Bush administration's stance on the legality of its actions.

See http://www.law.syr.edu/faculty/banks/terrorism/dummyfl/binladen_12_19_00.pdf


No it wasn't. Those lines were tapped in a foreign country.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No it wasn't. Those lines were tapped in a foreign country.

That's correct.

And Clinton never circumvented the FISA court.

Debunking W*GS' Clinton lies is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.

[Spider]

I'm not "ok with this" - I'm just pointing out that Bush's actions are just the latest in very long string of abuses of our rights by officials of the State.
Ok but what does those pther presidents have to do with Bush Right now ?



(I won't take it the "wrong way", despite your comment being clearly designed to get a rise out of me, e.g., "why do you hate what America stands for"? Come now, can you be a little less obvious?)
Wasnt trying to get a rise out of you , you should know by now ,if I wanted to push buttons I would have , I dont worry if you take it the wrong way or not ......

This is so nonsensical that it clearly shows you don't understand my views at all. you are right I dont understand your views , I dont understand what FDR did 50 years ago , has any bearing on what Bush is doing now , if your point is all polititicans are crooked , we all know that , but we are trying to deal with what Bush is doing now .........



So he's open about it - is that worse than those Presidents in the past who have allowed (condoned?) its use, covertly? Is something reprehensible (as torture is) less so when it's done in secret?
Presidents in the past condone torture , could you list them please ?



We've heard the same excuses during the Cold War and the ongoing War on Drugs. The State has operated as it is doing now for a lot longer than since Bush took office.
Can you tell me when other presidents by passed courts for wire taps ?



Another foreign misadventure, in some ways like Vietnam.
My Dad served in Nam , he will be the first one to tell you we didnt belong there , so since we did Nam ,Iraq is somehow ok ?



Dissent has been far from eliminated - LABF's sheer volume of posts here is proof of that. Besides, Presidents always attack those who disagree with them - remember the dark insinuations after the OKC bombing that somehow right-wing talk radio was responsible, and that gun owners and racist militias were ideological brethren? That set of smears against Clinton's political opponents was surely an attack, was it not?
LOL BB . I am talking about signing loyalty oaths for townhall meetings , going to Rallys etc .......



Well, it's not clear to me that Bush had a hand in that, and it's also not clear to me that Plame's status as a covert agent (in the oh-so-dangerous environs of Virginia) wasn't a reasonably well-known fact inside the Beltway. I've heard that Wilson blabbed to everyone who would listen about his wife.
LOL you throw out blanket statements , like all presidents condone torture , all presidents by pass the courts for wire taps , yet you come up with this line of Bullshít to defend the leak of a CIA agent ?



We're a ways from a dictatorship, Tell that to the ones that dont sign loyalty oaths ..... tel that to the ones having their phones tapped with no court order , etc ......

but Bush certainly isn't doing a good job of living up to his oath of office - no recent Presidents have, IMHO.
ok this is your opinion , you are entitled to it ......



Indeed. We're not providing a good example.

I certainly don't "hate" what America stands for - if I did, I'd be a conservative or a liberal.
Con or a Lib huh ....... Look lets get one thing clear , I dont think Bush is doing this to be Malicious , I dont think Bush hates america , I think Bush feels he is doing what he can to stop terrorist , but Bush should also understand he cant pick and choose what laws to follow , Bush also needs to understand that his actions are taking away our freedoms in the name of security .......That W*GS is not an option ....

[Bronco_Beerslug]

"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security
Remarks by the President in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act
Kleinshans Music Hall
Buffalo, New York April 20, 2004

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

[W*GS]

No it wasn't. Those lines were tapped in a foreign country.

Note that I said "some of the legal groundwork", not that what Clinton did was the same thing as what Bush has allowed. Sheesh.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Note that I said "some of the legal groundwork", not that what Clinton did was the same thing as what Bush has allowed. Sheesh.
Note that spying abroad has NEVER been an issue or point in any of the discussions about Bush spying on Americans at home. Sheeesh!
Ha!

[Rascal]

What FDR did was horrible and is truly one of the worst acts a president has ever done, but I still don't like a President authorizing NSA to spy on me.

[W*GS]

Ok but what does those pther presidents have to do with Bush Right now ?

A couple of things - Presidential actions don't occur in a vacuum, either in the here and now or in regards to past, and, somehow our system has managed to survive despite the predations on our rights. Personally, I believe the principles upon which this nation were built are strong, and that if we care about them deeply enough, even the far more gratuitous violations of our rights by past Presidents will not destroy us. However, that depends on us being vigilant - and the brouhaha over Bush allowing the NSA to eavesdrop on American citizens is a good sign. It's not clear to me that what Bush allowed is automatically illegal - arguments can be made for both sides, and certainly some of those crying for his head right now would be the first demanding his head if another terrorist attack that could have been prevented takes place.

Presidents in the past condone torture , could you list them please ?

It's not clear to me that the conditions in Abu Ghraib and other places qualify as obvious torture, but that aside, I don't have the slightest doubt that the US has genuinely tortured in the past, and has certainly looked the other way when our "allies" have done it.

Can you tell me when other presidents by passed courts for wire taps ?

The actions against organized crime and the War on Drugs have provided almost all the legal rationalization for warrantless searches, including roving wiretaps and the like. Both of those were in place long before Bush took office.

Do you truly believe that every previous President has steadfastly upheld their oath of office?

My Dad served in Nam , he will be the first one to tell you we didnt belong there , so since we did Nam ,Iraq is somehow ok ?

Certainly not.

LOL BB . I am talking about signing loyalty oaths for townhall meetings , going to Rallys etc .......

How do those things eliminate dissent? Do you know of anyone who has been genuinely censored for being opposed to Bush? Besides, if you think political rallies aren't carefully managed events to preclude the opposition from heckling the politician, you're naive.

LOL you throw out blanket statements , like all presidents condone torture , all presidents by pass the courts for wire taps , yet you come up with this line of Bullshít to defend the leak of a CIA agent ?

It's not BS. Plame's status as a covert agent was hardly top secret, as I understand it, mainly due to Wilson's own disclosures.

Tell that to the ones that dont sign loyalty oaths ..... tel that to the ones having their phones tapped with no court order , etc ......

Compared to the requirement back in the 50s for loyalty oaths, what you're complaining about Bush is small potatoes. As for warrantless wiretapping, the Drug War has made that not uncommon.

ok this is your opinion , you are entitled to it ......

Gee, thanks. Can you name a recent President who you believe best fulfilled his oath of office?

Con or a Lib huh ....... Look lets get one thing clear , I dont think Bush is doing this to be Malicious , I dont think Bush hates america , I think Bush feels he is doing what he can to stop terrorist , but Bush should also understand he cant pick and choose what laws to follow , Bush also needs to understand that his actions are taking away our freedoms in the name of security .......That W*GS is not an option ....

There's always been a tension between security and freedom. If you think that's new, well, that's part of the reason I bring up the past, to illustrate that's it's not new.

Do you still think I hate America?

[Spider]

A couple of things - Presidential actions don't occur in a vacuum, either in the here and now or in regards to past, and, somehow our system has managed to survive despite the predations on our rights. Personally, I believe the principles upon which this nation were built are strong, and that if we care about them deeply enough, even the far more gratuitous violations of our rights by past Presidents will not destroy us. However, that depends on us being vigilant - and the brouhaha over Bush allowing the NSA to eavesdrop on American citizens is a good sign. It's not clear to me that what Bush allowed is automatically illegal - arguments can be made for both sides, and certainly some of those crying for his head right now would be the first demanding his head if another terrorist attack that could have been prevented takes place.
Thats the thing , they would be crying for his head no question , but they wouldnt allow wire tapping , they would be saying close the freaking boarders already you twit .......



It's not clear to me that the conditions in Abu Ghraib and other places qualify as obvious torture, but that aside, oh yeah it was torture , even the seceret bases in poland .......

I don't have the slightest doubt that the US has genuinely tortured in the past, and has certainly looked the other way when our "allies" have done it. I sure would love to see the list .......



The actions against organized crime and the War on Drugs have provided almost all the legal rationalization for warrantless searches, including roving wiretaps and the like. Both of those were in place long before Bush took office. they still had to have warrents , Not in columbia , but here in the states ......

Do you truly believe that every previous President has steadfastly upheld their oath of office? This isnt about me and what I believe ...



Certainly not.
we agree ;D



How do those things eliminate dissent? Do you know of anyone who has been genuinely censored for being opposed to Bush? Hell just take local case ,Denver media called it the Denver 3 .....

Besides, if you think political rallies aren't carefully managed events to preclude the opposition from heckling the politician, you're naive.
People in the audience at Kerrys rally were busting his balls .......



It's not BS. Plame's status as a covert agent was hardly top secret, as I understand it, mainly due to Wilson's own disclosures. ....LOL hardly , the CIA called for this investigation , Plames Nieghbor didnt have aclue she was CIA ............



Compared to the requirement back in the 50s for loyalty oaths, what you're complaining about Bush is small potatoes. there you go back in time again , this is about Bush , you havent seen me bring up Nixon once , and Bush and Nixon have alot more in commen over this .........

As for warrantless wiretapping, the Drug War has made that not uncommon. On American citizens .Dont think so



Gee, thanks. Can you name a recent President who you believe best fulfilled his oath of office? Again this isnt about me , I have bashed both sides when I feel they are in the wrong ,you sir go on a nostalgia trip .... Well so and so did this back then ..........



There's always been a tension between security and freedom. If you think that's new, well, that's part of the reason I bring up the past, to illustrate that's it's not new. When did I suggest there wasnt tension between security and Freedom ? I did say I dont want my freedom taken away in the name of security .....Living free comes with a price ......

Do you still think I hate America?
Jury is still out

[bendog]

Soooo, the admin has requested over 1000 warrants on terrorism, and has gotten every single one of them, and bushii was 'fibbing' on the time constraint issue. hmmm, anybody think they were tapping citizens for whom they didn't even have a reasonable suspicion?

[Rigs11]

Soooo, the admin has requested over 1000 warrants on terrorism, and has gotten every single one of them, and bushii was 'fibbing' on the time constraint issue. hmmm, anybody think they were tapping citizens for whom they didn't even have a reasonable suspicion?
Hell the FBI was investigating PETA and vegan organizations.

[Spider]

Soooo, the admin has requested over 1000 warrants on terrorism, and has gotten every single one of them, and bushii was 'fibbing' on the time constraint issue. hmmm, anybody think they were tapping citizens for whom they didn't even have a reasonable suspicion?
No but I believe there could be a list of people to watch ...... Majority terrorist , but a few political enemies also

[alkemical]

I'd rather be blown up than be a prisoner.

[NaptownChief]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm


FLASHBACK: CLINTON, CARTER SEARCH 'N SURVEILLANCE WITHOUT COURT ORDER

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

WASH POST, July 15, 1994, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches": Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

Government officials decided in the Ames case that no warrant was required because the searches were conducted for "foreign intelligence purposes."

Government lawyers have used this principle to justify other secret searches by U.S. authorities.

"The number of such secret searches conducted each year is classified..."

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

[Spider]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm


FLASHBACK: CLINTON, CARTER SEARCH 'N SURVEILLANCE WITHOUT COURT ORDER

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

WASH POST, July 15, 1994, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches": Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

Government officials decided in the Ames case that no warrant was required because the searches were conducted for "foreign intelligence purposes."

Government lawyers have used this principle to justify other secret searches by U.S. authorities.

"The number of such secret searches conducted each year is classified..."

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

LOL Drudge ? .................... Oh it has to be true .........

[NaptownChief]

LOL Drudge ? .................... Oh it has to be true .........



I must have missed the part that he was writing for the Washington Post in 1994....

So are you denying that being fact or just trying to deflect like most Dems do when those pesky facts get in the way?

[Spider]

I must have missed the part that he was writing for the Washington Post in 1994....

So are you denying that being fact or just trying to deflect like most Dems do when those pesky facts get in the way?
LOL .. no , We dont deflect , I would just simply say , the Reps missed an oppertunity if Clinton and Carter did these things , to nail em ...... But this is about Bush , I will ask you the same question I asked W*GS . Since Dalmer , Gacey , Bundy committed murder would it be ok for me ? After all they did it also

[Spider]

Hell my Nephew stole a car once , I wonder if I go into the court and say ........1, 000's of cars are stolen every day , the court should go easy on my Nephew .After all my Nephew isnt the only one to steal a car "others have done it also "

[NaptownChief]

But this is about Bush , I will ask you the same question I asked W*GS . Since Dalmer , Gacey , Bundy committed murder would it be ok for me ? After all they did it also


My response would be simple, if it didn't bother me that Dalmer, Gacey and Bundy did it then it should bother me if you did...

But if I acted like I didn't care when they did it and then turned around and acted like it was a huge issue when you did then it would just make me a worthless hypocrite who's opinion means little.

[Spider]

Hay Nappy .let me ask you supposing this stuff about Carter and Clinton are true , does that make what Bush did ok ? if not then why bring it up ?

[Spider]

My response would be simple, if it didn't bother me that Dalmer, Gacey and Bundy did it then it should bother me if you did...
If it doesnt bother you then why Bring up Clinton and Carter ?
why didnt you bring up Nixon ? ........

[NaptownChief]

Hay Nappy .let me ask you supposing this stuff about Carter and Clinton are true , does that make what Bush did ok ? if not then why bring it up ?



To be honest I don't have real issue for any of them having done what they did. If they believe it is truly in the best interest of the country then do what you need to do. We elected them to lead and make the decisions they believe to be the best for us all.

I bring up Clinton and Carter to remind you Dems to get off your high horse and stop being hypocrites.

[Spider]

To be honest I don't have real issue for any of them having done what they did. If they believe it is truly in the best interest of the country then do what you need to do. We elected them to lead and make the decisions they believe to be the best for us all.
So you dont mind giving up freedom to be safe ....... I see

I bring up Clinton and Carter to remind you Dems to get off your high horse and stop being hypocrites.
Now if Clinton realy did that , do you realy think we would have heard about a BJ ? So basicaly you want us to leave this alone , Let Bush get by with this scott free ........ all because Drudge claimed clinton may have done this ? .....
I guess this is your idea of Justice ......
See most of us learn at an early age , just cause someone else does it doesnt make it ok . Like myDad said , if Robert jumped off a cliff would you join him ?
too bad most republicans never learned the so and so did it also defense doesnt work ........

[Spider]

I wonder Nappy if you and some of the others around here would accept this as a defense to abortion ........
Sally had an abortion , so did Kiria , so it is ok for me Sally to have an abortion....I wonder if you guys would defend Sally for using the Baby vaccum as you are doing Bush for breaking the law ......After all Abortion isnt against the law .......

[NaptownChief]

So you dont mind giving up freedom to be safe ....... I see


Now if Clinton realy did that , do you realy think we would have heard about a BJ ? So basicaly you want us to leave this alone , Let Bush get by with this scott free ........ all because Drudge claimed clinton may have done this ? .....




First off Drudge didn't claim squat...Merely linking previous stories of LABF's hero's previous activities.

As for giving up freedom to be safe, we do it all the time. We have surrendered the freedom to drive drunk for us all to be safer....We have surrendered the freedom to snort cocaine to be safer etc.etc. So it certainly isn't a new concept.

As for what your thoughts and opinion on this issue maybe is of no concern of mine. If you think it is a huge issue, a non-issue or somewhere in between is completely up to you. Just stand on your principles and beliefs rather than just inject them when it is convenient for your partisan politics. Had you known about the Clinton and Carter stuff at the time you might have taken the same stance and if so I commend you. LABF on the other hand we know without question he wouldn't...He is just a partisan wind bag with the structural integrity of a house of cards.

[Play2win]

Don't you love it, people defending people who are BREAKING THE LAW, then attack people for doing things that AREN'T against the law...

[alkemical]

To be honest I don't have real issue for any of them having done what they did. If they believe it is truly in the best interest of the country then do what you need to do. We elected them to lead and make the decisions they believe to be the best for us all.

I bring up Clinton and Carter to remind you Dems to get off your high horse and stop being hypocrites.


Bob Packwood?

[alkemical]

Don't you love it, people defending people who are BREAKING THE LAW, then attack people for doing things that AREN'T against the law...


Just wait, the flap on civil disobedience is going to get HUGE. When i went to see narnia - there was a preview for a movie called 'hoot' or something about kids wrecking some logging firm or whatnot to protect owls.

Mind you i'm for civil disobedience, but it has to be done in a constructive way. Like the lady who got in trouble for refusing to show her ID on a bus to some policemen. Things like that are good.

But the unenlightened view anarchy as a rule for no rules, when the burden of anarchy is very heavy because it is a heavy cross to bear to have the vast majority of people to be responsible and productive.

[NaptownChief]

Bob Packwood?



Excellent example to bring up:


"It is my duty to resign. It is the honorable thing to do for the country, the Senate" ...Sen. Bob Packwood Sept. 7


Very similar words should have come from the mouth of William The Impeached but unfortunately he chose to drag the country threw the muck rather than do the honorable thing and step down.

[alkemical]

However that being said - he (packwood) basically raped women - while clinton had a consensual act with a woman.

[NaptownChief]

However that being said - he (packwood) basically raped women - while clinton had a consensual act with a woman.


Juanita Broderick anyone?

[Spider]

First off Drudge didn't claim squat...Merely linking previous stories of LABF's hero's previous activities. fair enough but you can understand ,my reaction to anything Drudge says , much like Moore ......

As for giving up freedom to be safe, we do it all the time. We have surrendered the freedom to drive drunk for us all to be safer....We have surrendered the freedom to snort cocaine to be safer etc.etc. So it certainly isn't a new concept.
Coke and DUI are against the laws for obvious reasons , getting shít faced and driving was never a freedom , Niether was drugs , though if Kids didnt get it , you would have a strong argument about coke ......

As for what your thoughts and opinion on this issue maybe is of no concern of mine. If you think it is a huge issue, a non-issue or somewhere in between is completely up to you. Just stand on your principles and beliefs rather than just inject them when it is convenient for your partisan politics. Had you known about the Clinton and Carter stuff at the time you might have taken the same stance and if so I commend you. LABF on the other hand we know without question he wouldn't...He is just a partisan wind bag with the structural integrity of a house of cards.
I blasted the hell out of Clinton for alot of things , I dont defend a damn thing Clinton did ..... Hell I am still pissed over giving China MFN status , that is still costing us alot of monies ........
Point is I dont bring up Nixon to help convict Bush , nor did I bring up JFK to defend Clinton ........ Each man commited their Deeds each man can live by them ......

[Spider]

See Nappy I have always said either side will screw you , you have to decide what side you want ot be screwed by ........I have always been a centrist lean left , but I have voted Republican in the past ..... There is somthing about the Clintons and Bush that push people to one side or the other .. I cant stand Bush , there is somthing about that twit I dont trust ...... I didnt trust Clinton either whether they have an R or a D next to their name a turd is a turd ......

[RaiderH8r]

See Nappy I have always said either side will screw you , you have to decide what side you want ot be screwed by ........I have always been a centrist lean left , but I have voted Republican in the past ..... There is somthing about the Clintons and Bush that push people to one side or the other .. I cant stand Bush , there is somthing about that twit I dont trust ...... I didnt trust Clinton either whether they have an R or a D next to their name a turd is a turd ......
Sounds like you're ready to run for office.

[Spider]

Sounds like you're ready to run for office.
I did have a anti Al Davis platform worked out .......

[alkemical]

Juanita Broderick anyone?

It didn't go to court, so i can't judge that one. But i see how you think now. Good day.

[RaiderH8r]

I did have a anti Al Davis platform worked out .......
Run. This is my exact advice to any one who wants to complain. Run. You can do better? Put your actions where your mouth is.

Invariably they come up with an excuse.

And yes, I remember working up that campaign platform with you. No sh!t, you may not make it to Congress with it but you could probably get something on the city council. Maybe even mayor of Denver. Political outsider with a snappy and fresh campaign platform. ;D

[Spider]

Run. This is my exact advice to any one who wants to complain. Run. You can do better? Put your actions where your mouth is.

Invariably they come up with an excuse. Why run when you can vote .Why in the hell should I give up Driving a Truck , to enter into the mudslinging that is Politics ?
Why would I want to put my family through that ?

And yes, I remember working up that campaign platform with you. No sh!t, you may not make it to Congress with it but you could probably get something on the city council. Maybe even mayor of Denver. Political outsider with a snappy and fresh campaign platform. ;D
LOL ...... that was good platform ;D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I would just simply say , the Reps missed an oppertunity if Clinton and Carter did these things , to nail em

Um, this is because neither Carter nor Clinton did the things Rush, Drudge, et al, are claiming they did.

Rush, Drudge, et al, are lying again.

(What a shocker.)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/nixon-brain.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Had you known about the Clinton and Carter stuff at the time you might have taken the same stance and if so I commend you.

If you had the integrity to admit that your pResident has, in fact, committed a crime (instead of simply deflecting with disinformation, distortions, and lies about Carter, Clinton, et al) then you might just make it to the 'c' in 'credible.'

LABF on the other hand we know without question he wouldn't...He is just a partisan wind bag with the structural integrity of a house of cards.

You're just another right-wing rube who believes all he has to do is repeat the "attack the messenger and pretend you've discredited the messenger" fallacy often enough and it will somehow turn into a valid point or argument.

http://www.bartcop.com/nixon-ghost.gif

[errand]

putting japanesse americans into camps ,I see you still cling to the past to excuse what the present is doing .........you never did answer my question on the other thread ..............

Would the past 20 years be recent enough for you Spider?

The last 5 presidents have done this.....

Clinton in fact did it immediately after the bombing of the Federal Bldg in Oklahoma City.....but of course it was Ok because he had a D after his name, huh?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans

The top of the Drudge Report claims “CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER…”

It’s not true. Here’s the breakdown:

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”

What Carter’s executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check

[Spider]

Would the past 20 years be recent enough for you Spider?

The last 5 presidents have done this.....

Clinton in fact did it immediately after the bombing of the Federal Bldg in Oklahoma City.....but of course it was Ok because he had a D after his name, huh?
got proof ? and even if he did , what does this have to do with Bush ?
Vickie had an abortion , so did Kiria , so it is ok for me Sally to have an abortion....I wonder if you would defend Sally for using the Baby vaccum as you are doing Bush for breaking the law ........
is it 2 wrongs make a right ?
and I wonder why theReps and starr went after Clinton for a BJ instead of ilegal wiretapping ..... Doesnt make much sence .......

[Spider]

Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans


We know this or they never wouldhave went wit hthe BJ to impeach clinton , but Errand still clings to the jane fonda story about passing notes .......So chances are wewont be able to change his mind about the wire taps

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

got proof ?

He's just parroting the usual right-wing lies and talking points.

Here's proof that he is lying about Carter and Clinton:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

We know this or they never wouldhave went wit hthe BJ to impeach clinton , but Errand still clings to the jane fonda story about passing notes .......So chances are wewont be able to change his mind about the wire taps

During the great Clinton zipper hunt, all you heard from right-wing handjobs like this guy was "the rule of law, the rule of law..."

Talk about double standards.

[errand]

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."


Gee, you mean Bush didn't break the law?

[errand]

I must have missed the part that he was writing for the Washington Post in 1994....

So are you denying that being fact or just trying to deflect like most Dems do when those pesky facts get in the way?


...or how as LABF puts it? Is Spider denying that 2 X 2 = 4 because it came from a conservative?

[Spider]

During the great Clinton zipper hunt, all you heard from right-wing handjobs like this guy was "the rule of law, the rule of law..."

Talk about double standards.
shhhhhh you will disrupt their little pally anna world ....... Remember the thread I started about Republican pedophiles ...... We democrats shouldnt present bad things about the Grand ole Pedophiles AKA GOP ...... Reps dont handle this news well

[Spider]

Hilarious! I figured Drudge was full of Shít ......... good link LABF .....

Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans

The top of the Drudge Report claims “CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER…” It’s not true. Here’s the breakdown –

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”

What Carter’s executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
................
I didnt think it happened ...... or zippergate would have never happened ....

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Here is the lie:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

Here is the truth:



What Carter’s executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check

[errand]

LOL .. no , We dont deflect , I would just simply say , the Reps missed an oppertunity if Clinton and Carter did these things , to nail em ...... But this is about Bush , I will ask you the same question I asked W*GS . Since Dalmer , Gacey , Bundy committed murder would it be ok for me ? After all they did it also

No it wouldn't be OK for you to commit murder if those other people did...because what they did was illegal.

Bush ordering electronic surveillance of foriegn calls coming into the US isn't illegal....despite what you're trying to sell. He's connecting the dots like you said he should have prior to 9/11. Or do you think it's an accident that we've not been hit since?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Hilarious! I figured Drudge was full of Shít ......... good link LABF .....

Drudge's statement has been discredited, but I suppose that won't stop the Kool-Aid slurpers from citing it as fact. ;)

(See swift boat goons for bush.)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush ordering electronic surveillance of foriegn calls coming into the US isn't illegal....despite what you're trying to sell. He's connecting the dots like you said he should have prior to 9/11. Or do you think it's an accident that we've not been hit since?

Spying on Americans inside the US (which is what the pinhead has been doing) without a warrant is illegal.

Get your facts straight before you embarrass yourself any further.

[Spider]

No it wouldn't be OK for you to commit murder if those other people did...because what they did was illegal.
So are you saying that it is ok to follow what laws you want and discard the ones you dont like ?

Bush ordering electronic surveillance of foriegn calls coming into the US isn't illegal....despite what you're trying to sell. He's connecting the dots like you said he should have prior to 9/11. Or do you think it's an accident that we've not been hit since?
you really need to read up on it , I kept quite , untill I found out it included domestic groups like environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief, Whether you agree with these groups or not spying on them is wrong ........ now if a US citizen is in Canada or anywhere else , then he is afford alot less rights as he gets @ home , a non us citizen isnt afforded anything , For example , we have an American riding with a terrorist in a car , the American makes aphone call , the goverment hears it , and taked the 2 out , then it is Job well done ...... I hope you can see the difference ........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Is this guy talking about errant and Craptown McChief, or what?

Bizarre excuses keep emerging from the right-wing spin machine for Bush's failure to use the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to obtain warrants. That court provides speedy, secure judicial review for our intelligence agencies. It has rejected a total of five requests for warrants over the last thirty years -- and granted more than 19,000 requests. Our intelligence agencies can even request warrants retroactively days after they begin surveillance, ensuring maximum flexibility.

Tom McMahon


Now check this out:

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

- George Bush, April 20, 2004

That was false, and he knew it at the time. A few days ago Bush personally admitted to overseeing wiretaps without any court orders.

[errand]

got proof ? and even if he did , what does this have to do with Bush ?
Vickie had an abortion , so did Kiria , so it is ok for me Sally to have an abortion....I wonder if you would defend Sally for using the Baby vaccum as you are doing Bush for breaking the law ........
is it 2 wrongs make a right ?
and I wonder why theReps and starr went after Clinton for a BJ instead of ilegal wiretapping ..... Doesnt make much sence .......

Because when Clinton did it, it wasn't illegal clown.....he was within his legal right and obligation to do it as C-in-C.

See, doing what the law says he can do isn't illegal, lying to the grand jury is. Hence you now kjnow why they pursued his criminal action of lying to a grand jury, and not his wire tapping to gather foreign intelligence.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Because when Clinton did it, it wasn't illegal clown.....he was within his legal right and obligation to do it as C-in-C.

But moron:

What Clinton did and what Bush did are two different things.

Dont they have newspapers where you live?

[Spider]

Because when Clinton did it, it wasn't illegal clown.....he was within his legal right and obligation to do it as C-in-C.
LOL you simple minded Twit , Clinton never did wireless phone taps with out a court order ........

See, doing what the law says he can do isn't illegal, lying to the grand jury is. Hence you now kjnow why they pursued his criminal action of lying to a grand jury, and not his wire tapping to gather foreign intelligence.
Again you twit Clinton didnt do the same thin as bush ,pull your head out of your ass already son

[Spider]

But moron:

What Clinton did and what Bush did are two different things.

Dont they have newspapers where you live?
LOL , I am begining to wonder , just for the record , I let errand start the name calling first .......

[Spider]

But moron:

What Clinton did and what Bush did are two different things.

Dont they have newspapers where you live?
LOL .. you would think the reps would pick up on that by now ...... I knew Drudge was full of shít ............thats why I dimissed this story as soon as Nappy said it was from Drudge .......

[errand]

So are you saying that it is ok to follow what laws you want and discard the ones you dont like ?


you really need to read up on it , I kept quite , untill I found out it included domestic groups like environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief, Whether you agree with these groups or not spying on them is wrong ........ now if a US citizen is in Canada or anywhere else , then he is afford alot less rights as he gets @ home , a non us citizen isnt afforded anything , For example , we have an American riding with a terrorist in a car , the American makes aphone call , the goverment hears it , and taked the 2 out , then it is Job well done ...... I hope you can see the difference ........

No, I'm saying Bush is within his legal rights to order the electronic surveillance of foreign calls...just as Carter, Reagan, and Clinton were when they to did the same exact thing.

Tell me if a president had prevented a 9/11 type of attack by doing the same thing Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush have done, what would you say?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No, I'm saying Bush is within his legal rights to order the electronic surveillance of foreign calls...

But that's not what Bush did.

Bush spied on Americans in the U.S. without the required warrant from the FISA court.

...just as Carter, Reagan, and Clinton were when they to did the same exact thing.

No, they didn't do "the exact same thing." (See above.)

Tell me if a president had prevented a 9/11 type of attack by doing the same thing Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush have done, what would you say?

If Bush needed to order surveillance of suspected terrorists then it would have been just as easy for him to do it legally.

That's the point that seems to sail right over your pointed head.

[Spider]

No, I'm saying Bush is within his legal rights to order the electronic surveillance of foreign calls...just as Carter, Reagan, and Clinton were when they to did the same exact thing.
Huh but they didnt do the exact same as Bush ....... I dont know where you got this .....

Tell me if a president had prevented a 9/11 type of attack by doing the same thing Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush have done, what would you say?
I dont see how spying on environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief, groups would have prevented 9-11 ....... Maybe you can make a case on how these groups helped Terrorist on 9-11 ..... I would be curious to see this

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Huh but they didnt do the exact same as Bush ....... I dont know where you got this .....

Exactly.

Bush violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Carter, Reagan, and Clinton did not.

If errant were up to speed on the matter, we wouldn't have to explain this.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LOL you simple minded Twit , Clinton never did wireless phone taps with out a court order ........

http://www.ohanaed.com/images/4533.gif

[Spider]

Exactly.

Bush violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Carter, Reagan, and Clinton did not.

If errant were up to speed on the matter, we wouldn't have to explain this.
The only thing I hold against Reagan is 1983 Beruit ......Hell Iran Contra was wrong , but Reagan Motives were pure .......

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The only thing I hold against Reagan is 1983 Beruit ......Hell Iran Contra was wrong , but Reagan Motives were pure .......

You could make a long, long list of all the things Red Ink did to hose the country, but, as far as we know, he never engaged in illegal spying on U.S. citizens.

[W*GS]

Spying on Americans inside the US (which is what the pinhead has been doing) without a warrant is illegal.

Depending on how one defines "spying", that isn't technically true. The SCOTUS has allowed warrantless searches.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/libery-vs-security.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/bubble-ass.gif

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"Yes, the president committed a federal crime by wiretapping Americans, say constitutional scholars, former intelligence officers and politicians. What's missing is the political will to impeach him."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/12/22/impeach/

[W*GS]

http://www.bartcop.com/libery-vs-security.jpg

Thanks for the irony, LABF. I doubt you understand anything about Franklin's quote.

[Rigs11]

Thanks for the irony, LABF. I doubt you understand anything about Franklin's quote.

Why don't you explain it to us oh wise one. At least he's quoting Franklin as opposed to Monty Python.Hilarious!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Why don't you explain it to us oh wise one.

His posting history make it crystal clear that he has no clue.

At least he's quoting Franklin as opposed to Monty Python.Hilarious!

rofl

At least he's taking a break from Fox News, The Economist, and Cato Institute propaganda, I guess.

[ClevelandBronco2]

Days after and it turns out it wasn't a story at all.

Business as usual for the guys who are hoping after hope that Bush can be impeached...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Days after and it turns out it wasn't a story at all.


???

What planet are you living on?

[Spider]

Days after and it turns out it wasn't a story at all.

Business as usual for the guys who are hoping after hope that Bush can be impeached...
and look there goes Santa clause roof top to roof top ........ all is well in your world ....go back to sleep , this was just an evil nightmare .........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

and look there goes Santa clause roof top to roof top ........ all is well in your world ....go back to sleep , this was just an evil nightmare .........

:laugh:

ClevelandBronco2's comments reflect the inherent sociopathy of bush supporters.

Such trifles as right and wrong, the rule of law, the Constitution, etc., don't mean squat (unless oral sex is involved, that is.)

All that matters is that the guy they voted for gets away with his incompetence and criminality and retains his hold on power.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

VIDEO: Hardball/Mitchell SMACKDOWN of Repub Clinton/Carter Spy BS

http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/mitchellclintoncartersmackdowndec2105.wmv

The Drudge lie debunked.

[W*GS]

Why don't you explain it to us oh wise one. At least he's quoting Franklin as opposed to Monty Python.

LABF's far-left views always promise security - at the cost of liberty, which the Loony Left claims is a bogus concept.

I'll let you figure it out, if you're up to it.

Besides, Monty Python had some very witty things to say - true satire, as opposed to LABF's tripe.

[W*GS]

His posting history make it crystal clear that he has no clue.

I'm far more consistent in my support of liberty than you are. Your posting history "make [sic] it crystal clear" that liberty is far, far down on your list of moral principles. Just like conservatives.

At least he's taking a break from Fox News, The Economist, and Cato Institute propaganda, I guess.

I've never used Fox or Cato as sources, I don't believe, and what I post from "The Economist" is hardly propaganda. You, on the other hand, have supplied straight-up unadulterated genuine propaganda, without shame, even when it's been pointed out to you.

LABF, you are the king of unintentional irony.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

:laugh:

Ha ha ha!

As always, W*GS speaks with a forked tongue.

When he says "liberty" read: "socioeconomic Darwinism and freedom for corporations (who are free from any form of government regulation) to wage class warfare against ordinary citizens."

[W*GS]

When he says "liberty" read: "socioeconomic Darwinism and freedom for corporations (who are free from any form of government regulation) to wage class warfare against ordinary citizens."

Your strawman body count must be in the thousands by now.

What's your concept of liberty?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Spin...

Days after and it turns out it wasn't a story at all.


Vs. reality...

Austin American Statesman:
"Americans can't settle for Bush's 'Trust me' defense of spy program."

The Asheville Citizen-Times (North Carolina):
"Bush's domestic spying a flagrant abuse of power."

The Arizona Republic:
"Warrantless eavesdropping a chilling specter."

The Herald (Rock Hill, S.C.):

Freedom threatened by unbridled arrogance of our leaders. [F]reedom is best served when no arm of government is above review by a disinterested authority, such as a judge?The president acts as if his
authority cannot be challenged as long as he invokes the war on terrorism mantra. Fortunately, more and more Americans
are coming to understand how freedom also can threatened by the unbridled arrogance of their leaders.

Contra Costa Times:

Bush's defiance and outrage. President Bush remains defiant in defense of his secret domestic wiretaps, eavesdropping on suspected terrorists. His outrage about the public disclosure of his surveillance program is itself an outrage. So is his claim that his constitutional power as Commander-in-Chief and the congressional resolution that authorized the use of military force against terrorists give him the authority to order surveillance
without court approval.

USA Today:

Bush puts himself above the law. Not since the days when Richard Nixon was fighting the Cold War, the Vietnam War and a rising tide of domestic unrest has an administration felt so emboldened by circumstances to
put itself above the law and expand its powers unilaterally.

San Francisco Chronicle:

Spy Program reckless and arrogant. The White House is paying the price for its reckless and arrogant intelligence gathering?No one denies intelligence agencies need updated powers to track and arrest terrorists?
But this is an administration that repeatedly evades constitutional safeguards and norms of fair treatment.

Philadelphia Daily News:

President Bush cannot be trusted to protect our civil liberties. It's clear now that this administration cannot be trusted to protect our civil liberties?This is not an administration that would allow a few laws - or even the Bill of Rights - to get in the way of waging the war on terror its way.

Miami Herald:

Dismantle domestic spying program. The program should be dismantled. Terrorists can be caught and punished without sacrificing the privacy rights of ordinary citizens.

Deseret Morning News:

Government should not spy on its citizens without impunity. The United States must never degenerate into a nation where a powerful central government can spy on its citizens with impunity. Power must be checked. In this case, investigators must prove to a court that they need information before they obtain it.

St. Petersburg Times:

Government cannot be above the law. There has never been nor could there ever be any greater danger to the United States than a government that considers itself above the law. President Bush was combative and
even arrogant during his news conference Monday? In so saying, he raised a question with nightmare ramifications: Is there any law that he feels bound to respect?

Philadelphia Inquirer:

Bush decision to sidestep the Constitution is morally repugnant. President sidestepped the Constitution in late 2002 by ordering the National Security Agency (NSA) to secretly eavesdrop on hundreds, perhaps thousands, of U.S. residents without first obtaining court approval?[T]hat's simply unacceptable. No president unilaterally should be able to declare that a part of the Bill of Rights is null and void. Bush appears to have done it for no good reason - other than that his rule-bending legal advisors concocted a rationale to enable a shockingly expansive view of presidential power?The President's thesis, that as commander-in-chief he could sidestep the Fourth Amendment protections, is as unfathomable as it is morally repugnant.

Lexington Herald-Leader:

Hard to believe Bush arguments on FISA courts. Bush defends years of spying on citizens without court supervision as necessary to protect Americans in a time of war. But federal agencies already had the right to spy on a citizen suspected of having terrorism ties for 72 hours. A warrant from a secretive, special court was needed to continue spying. It's hard to believe that a warrant would be denied for a legitimate case?Americans of all political
stripes value the little bit of privacy we have left in this high-tech world.

Chicago Tribune:

Bush overreached badly with spy program. [B]y launching a secret program that involves spying on Americans, [the Bush Administration] has overreached badly, and unnecessarily. President Bush not only defends what he's done but vows to keep doing it, never mind the evidence that he is acting in violation of the law. If he persists in pressing beyond the bounds of presidential war-making authority, it will be up to Congress to press back and restore
a sensible balance of powers.

Boston Globe:

President should not sacrifice civil liberties. President Bush is wrong to sacrifice Americans' civil liberties needlessly by resorting to a secret presidential order to authorize warrantless surveillance of phone calls and e-mails within the United States?No president should be allowed to create a law-free zone in which government agencies spy on people in this country without legal authorization from Congress and warrants from a court

Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Extraordinary grab at power is wrong. After September 11, We did not, for example, change from a democracy to a dictatorship, from a nation of laws to a nation in which one man endows himself with the authority to act above the law, immune to its dictates and limitations. We are not that country. We must never become that country. However, to hear President Bush, we are that country already. He proclaimed it so in secret shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and he proclaims it so in public now that news of his extraordinary grab at power has leaked to the citizens.

New York Times:

Administration uses terror as an excuse to spy on Americans. Chillingly, this is not the only time we've heard of this administration using terrorism as an excuse to spy on Americans. NBC News recently discovered a Pentagon database of 1,500 suspicious incidents that included a Quaker meeting to plan an antiwar rally. And Eric Lichtblau writes in today's Times that F.B.I. counterterrorism squads have conducted numerous surveillance operations since Sept. 11, 2001, on groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Greenpeace and the Catholic Workers group.

[W*GS]

http://www.reason.com/links/links122605.shtml

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Hmmm...do you suppose someone forgot to give Whigs the memo?

Conservatives are in power but out of sorts. Fifty years after the founding of the modern right, conservatives hold just about every important government job, yet the conservative agenda has stalled. Federal spending has surged. Social Security reform is dead. And when voters are asked which party they trust on key issues, they decisively reject conservative ideas.

On the economy, Democrats are trusted more, 56 to 34.

On education, it's Democrats 55 to 32.

On taxes, Democrats 48 to 38.

On health care, Democrats 54 to 29.

For members of a movement that is supposed to be winning the battle of ideas, conservatives are in a mess.

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=44623

[Traveler]

FISA Court Modified and Denied Wiretap Requests

Washington - Government records show that the administration was encountering unprecedented second-guessing by the secret federal surveillance court when President Bush decided to bypass the panel and order surveillance of US-based terror suspects without the court's approval.

A review of Justice Department reports to Congress shows that the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four previous presidential administrations combined.

(continued)...


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/253334_nsaspying24.html

maybe this is why he bypassed FISA

[BKK]

When Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:


Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?


A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.

--------------------

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?


A: The Democratic Party.


--------------------
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?


A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.

-------------------

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

-------------------


Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!



And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!

These are true crimes against the American people and since they changed the rules the crimes continue everyday

[Traveler]

When Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:


Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?


A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.

--------------------

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?


A: The Democratic Party.


--------------------
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?


A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.

-------------------

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

-------------------


Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!



And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!

These are true crimes against the American people and since they changed the rules the crimes continue everyday


HUH?hmmm...

[W*GS]

Hmmm...do you suppose someone forgot to give Whigs the memo?

There's a difference between rejecting the GOP and rejecting conservative ideas, but that's too subtle for your coarse thinking.

Besides, it's clear you've missed the near-elimination of your ideology from politics - there's virtually no interest at all (outside of college campuses) in your hard-left dogma.

If you ran as a candidate for office (yeah, right!) and presented your views unadulterated, your rhetoric intact, you'd lose - horribly so. For someone who makes continual populist appeals, you sure are out of touch with the mainstream.

[Spider]

When Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:


Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?


A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.

--------------------

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?


A: The Democratic Party.


--------------------
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?


A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.

-------------------

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

-------------------


Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!



And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!

These are true crimes against the American people and since they changed the rules the crimes continue everyday
hmmm...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

hmmm...

:laugh:

Notice how they never provide a source or a link when they come off the wall with this kind of stuff?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The beginning of the end of the Bush administration

DUMMERSTON, Vt. - Last year at this time, the Republicans felt triumphant. They were now firmly in control of everything. They thought they had a mandate.

However, they forgot their natural inclination to overreach. They soon discovered how few people actually supported the most extreme parts of their agenda. When the truth started to seep out, everything imploded.

Despite the narrowest win for an incumbent president since Woodrow Wilson's victory in 1916, President Bush spoke of all the "political capital" he had earned and his intention to spend it. We heard grand talk about the creation of an "ownership society" and how the cornerstone of it would be the privatization of Social Security.

But the GOP underestimated the widespread support for Social Security, arguably the best run and most successful government program in history. The scaremongering by the Bush administration that Social Security was approaching bankruptcy was seen as being as trustworthy as the myriad of lies used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Bush and the GOP overreached in the Terri Schiavo case, piously inserting themselves in a family tragedy for political gain. Except there was no political gain, only millions who were disgusted by the GOPs phony concern.

The threats by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to employ "the nuclear option" and end filibusters on judicial nominees failed to bring Congress to a standstill, for enough members of the Senate realized that doing this would destroy the Senate and forced Frist to back down.

Hurricane Katrina and the woeful federal response to the storm stripped away the thin veneer of confidence from the Bush administration. No amount of spin could erase the images of New Orleans after the storm.

We learned that the era of cheap energy is over. Global demand is so high and the production and distribution system is so maxed out that the slight disruption can cause huge price spikes. Prices have come down slightly from the post-Katrina highs, but the warning has been presented to all Americans. We must either rethink the lavish American lifestyle and start planning for a post-oil future, or watch our economy collapse.

Finally, the revelations of recent weeks of widespread covert domestic surveillance by the Pentagon, the FBI and the National Security Agency confirmed the suspicions of many that the Bush administration was more interested in intimidation of its political enemies than in fighting terrorism.

Sure, odious legislation did get passed. The bankruptcy bill that condemns millions of Americans to debt slavery. Cuts in Medicaid and student loans to pay for tax cuts for the rich. An energy bill that gives subsidies to the oil companies and does little for energy conservation. A highway bill loaded with pork barrel spending.

But Social Security was saved. The Patriot Act may not survive in its current form. And the mendacity of the Bush administration was exposed for all to see.

Overshadowing everything was Iraq, and the steady drip of revelations that confirmed what many knew was true, that the Bush administration lied to the nation to justify this nation's invasion of Iraq.

The Downing Street Memos showed the Bush administration was determined to attack Iraq even though there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, no evidence of links to foreign terrorists and no evidence that Iraq posed a direct or indirect threat to the United States. That no investigation took place shows the impossibility of integrity in a one-party Congress.

The news that the United States operated secret prisons and employed torture on detained "suspects," most of whom were never charged with any crime, was a deep embarrassment. Almost as embarrassing was the clumsy attempts to smear one of the most hawkish member of Congress, Pennsylvania Democrat John Murtha, for suggesting a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The spectacle of Republicans who never served in the military attacking a decorated combat veteran was a sorry one to see.

The president still clings to the hope that freedom and democracy is on the march in Iraq. The reality on the ground suggests otherwise.

President Bush's approval rating is among the all-time lowest for a second-term president. Impeachment suddenly is not a far fetched idea. Future historians will see 2005 as the year that the Bush presidency and the conservative movement both started to unravel.

We have many to thank for this.

In the press, we have Seymour Hersh's dogged reporting in The New Yorker. We have the underrated work of the Knight Ridder newspapers' Washington bureau. We have The Washington Post and The New York Times finally finding their spines and printing stories over the objections of the White House. And we have the many blogs and news sites on the Web that have been the antidote to an all too drowsy corporate media.

In Congress, we had brave people such as Murtha, Bernie Sanders, John Conyers, Russ Feingold, Pat Leahy and Barbara Boxer stand up and challenge the Bush agenda.

And above all, we had Cindy Sheehan. The Gold Star Mother's actions this year were in keeping with the great American traditions of dissidence, civil disobedience and plain old hellraising.

I have much more hope going into 2006 than I did last year at this time. The events of 2005 showed that the impossible can still happen, but that it can happen a lot faster with people power behind it.

George W. Bush and company didn't just pop up overnight, and they won't go away overnight. But the end may indeed be near for the Bush Crime Family.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=24205&mode=nested&order=0

[bendog]

Personally, I'd have preferred using the "surplus" to fund the transition costs, and with that plus savings from cutting back soc sec to a true "safety net" program rather than speding it on a taxcut, a war, and pork spending .... but water under the bridge. As for the current admin, I simply do not know what bushii's intentions are in anything. I don't think he has any core views, and is simply adrift trying to hold onto power with no clue as to what advice or strategy is best. No doubt though that the goal from day one was to defund programs like Medicaid, sec 8, after school care, etc. Defunding Medicare, which they're doing a pretty decent job of, doesnt' seem to make sense politically or in terms of graft for Frist.

But as to the topic of bugs and warrants, the thing about bushii that bugs me is simply that this is a power play. It's not about security at all. I read that prior to bushii, there'd been only a handful of refusals to grant warrants. Bushii's admin was turned down often. I forgot exactly but it was like 1000 or some amazing number, and the court even sent a copy of guidelines for getting a warrant back with one rejection.

Bushii's admin's response was simply to tap w/o a warrant, and there's simply no legal precident to do that. Not tapping a US citizen's communications. The excuse: 9-11 changed everything. That's just not enough. It is for these guys, of course, because their purpose is to expand potus power when the potus is a goper, and impeach him when he's a dem. But, if it was natl security, they could work with congress to show how warrant requirements need to be changed, and if changes really are necessary to protect us, the supreme court will go along if the changes are narrowly tailored to infringe upon liberty as little as can be done to still ensure the govt can get what taps it reasonably needs. The const has worked just fine until this new breed of gopers came along.

[W*GS]

But the GOP underestimated the widespread support for Social Security, arguably the best run and most successful government program in history.

Thanks for reinforcing the view that you and reality are merely passing acquaintances.

[bendog]

he's actually quite possibly correct on that wags.

[Rascal]

read this regarding BKK's post. http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html

CORRECTING THE MYTHS AND MISSTATEMENTS

Myth 1: President Roosevelt promised that participation in the program would be completely voluntary

Persons working in employment covered by Social Security are subject to the FICA payroll tax. Like all taxes, this has never been voluntary. From the first days of the program to the present, anyone working on a job covered by Social Security has been obligated to pay their payroll taxes.

In the early years of the program, however, only about half the jobs in the economy were covered by Social Security. Thus one could work in non-covered employment and not have to pay FICA taxes (and of course, one would not be eligible to collect a future Social Security benefit). In that indirect sense, participation in Social Security was voluntary. However, if a job was covered, or became covered by subsequent law, then if a person worked at that job, participation in Social Security was mandatory.

There have only been a handful of exceptions to this rule, generally involving persons working for state/local governments. Under certain conditions, employees of state/local governments have been able to voluntarily choose to have their employment covered or not covered.


Myth 2: President Roosevelt promised that the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program

The tax rate in the original 1935 law was 1% each on the employer and the employee, on the first $3,000 of earnings. This rate was increased on a regular schedule in four steps so that by 1949 the rate would be 3% each on the first $3,000. The figure was never $,1400, and the rate was never fixed for all time at 1%.

(The text of the 1935 law and the tax rate schedule can be found elsewhere on our website.)


Myth 3: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year

There was never any provision of law making the Social Security taxes paid by employees deductible for income tax purposes. In fact, the 1935 law expressly forbid this idea, in Section 803 of Title VIII.

(The text of Title VIII. can be found elsewhere on our website.)


Myth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program

The idea here is basically correct. However, this statement is usually joined to a second statement to the effect that this principle was violated by subsequent Administrations. However, there has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government.

The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this myth comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no affect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.


Myth 5: President Roosevelt promised that the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income

Originally, Social Security benefits were not taxable income. This was not, however, a provision of the law, nor anything that President Roosevelt did or could have "promised." It was the result of a series of administrative rulings issued by the Treasury Department in the early years of the program. (The Treasury rulings can be found elsewhere on our website.)

In 1983 Congress changed the law by specifically authorizing the taxation of Social Security benefits. This was part of the 1983 Amendments, and this law overrode the earlier administrative rulings from the Treasury Department. (A detailed explanation of the 1983 Amendments can be found elsewhere on our website.)

[W*GS]

he's actually quite possibly correct on that wags.

Considering the low standards for government programs, the comment is (at best) very faint praise.

SS is nothing more than a wealth transfer scheme from the younger working poorer to the older retired richer, and demographic trends will make it impossible to sustain without some big group of Americans getting totally screwed.

If someone wants to define "success" as screwing over their fellow citizens, that's their prerogative, but I think most people would disagree.

[Rascal]

he's actually quite possibly correct on that wags.

link?

[bendog]

well, first of all, admin costs in managing soc sec "funds" is much less than those we pay for 401K plans and even less than that anticipated in privatized accounts. I suspect that was LABF's pt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/06/AR2005070602004.html

http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp15.pdf#search='social%20security%20administrati ve%20cost'

But that wasn't really my pt, except to say "he literally may be right." IMO more importantly, neither of those links address tht fact that the social security administration handles not just the retirement part, but also the disability and survivor benefits parts. AND, social security admin disability and survivor determinations are what private disability plans, workers, workers comp, medicaid, special education, and prolly other stuff all depend upon to determine eligibility.

When various groups say 'privatization is better' they conveniently ignore how much it would cost us to buy disability and survior benefits too, AND more importantly for admistrative cost, who would make the administrative determinations if the social security admin wasn't around.

Like I said earlier, I'd have preferred a partial privitzation and scaling back benefits to the lowest level, but bushii done busted the budget. And, last summer, the congress reestablished long term solvency by cutting benefits. Medicare, esp with the drug benefit now, is not financially sustainable without more taxes. And, the ability to continue the programs is sort of iffy because of all the debt bushii has piled up. Just because soc sec does theortiecally have the fiscal balance with the "trust fund" still requires us to tax current workers. We can only tax so much. The level is debateable.

edit. the bushii critics say the interest we have to pay on bushii's new debt will make us have to dismantle soc sec medicare as well as stuff for the poor. That's LABF's pt. He may be right. Bushii's admin says gnp growth will dwarf the interest payments on this old debt, so they'll be plenty of gnp to tax to pay us old geezers soc sec and medicare. I'm not sure who's right.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What's Best for the Country?

There is no room left to duck the issues or finesse the facts. Either the United States will accept a future governed by an authoritarian Executive, with few safeguards of a citizen's constitutional rights and no real checks and balances from other branches of government, or the American people will challenge the White House in defense of a traditional Republic, where no man is above the law.

George W. Bush has left almost no wiggle room. He has asserted as clearly as any Executive could that he is the law; that he can define his own powers; that the Constitution is whatever he says it is; that Congress can't constrain him; and that the Courts must not try to usurp his authority.

Bush might brush aside the Supreme Court as just one more usurper.

http://consortiumnews.com/2005/122905.html

http://www.bartcop.com/tweety-brokeback.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/pigboy-phone_sex.jpg