• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Former GOP Congressman Barr

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
One of the leaders in the impeachment of Bill Clinton says Bush is wrong. Interesting take here. This is the entire article; link below.

"Two of the most powerful moments of political déjà vu I have ever experienced took place recently in the context of the Bush administration's defense of presidentially ordered electronic spying on American citizens.

First, in the best tradition of former President Bill Clinton's classic, "it-all-depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-is-is" defense, President Bush responded to a question at a White House news conference about what now appears to be a clear violation of federal electronic monitoring laws by trying to argue that he had not ordered the National Security Agency to "monitor" phone and e-mail communications of American citizens without court order; he had merely ordered them to "detect" improper communications.

This example of presidential phrase parsing was followed quickly by the president's press secretary, Scott McLellan, dead-panning to reporters that when Bush said a couple of years ago that he would never allow the NSA to monitor Americans without a court order, what he really meant was something different than what he actually said. If McLellan's last name had been McCurry, and the topic an illicit relationship with a White House intern rather than illegal spying on American citizens, I could have easily been listening to a White House news conference at the height of the Clinton impeachment scandal
.

On foreign policy, domestic issues, relationships with Congress, and even their selection of White House Christmas cards and china patterns, presidents are as different as night and day. But when caught with a hand in the cookie jar and their survival called into question, administrations circle the wagons, fall back on time-worn but often effective defense mechanisms, and seamlessly morph into one another.

First, we get a president bobbing and weaving like Muhammad Ali. He knows he can't really tell the truth and he knows he can't rely only on lies. The resulting dilemma leads him to veer from unintelligible muttering to attempts to distract, and then to chest-beating bravado and attacks on his accusers.

Soon, he begins taking trips abroad and appearing at the White House podium with foreign leaders with minimal command of English, allowing him to duck for cover whenever scandal questions arise.

Of course, the president can't carry the entire stonewalling burden alone. The next actors to enter the stage typically are the president's press secretary and the White House counsel's office. Serious scandals tend to spawn congressional investigations and independent counsels. As Clinton quickly learned, and Richard Nixon before him, the best way to short-circuit such endeavors is to force the investigators and lawyers to fight like dogs for every inch of ground they get.

By using the White House counsel's office to bury investigators in a sea of motions, pleadings and memoranda, an administration can drag out an investigation to the point of exhaustion. By the time the investigation actually slogs through this legal maze to bring real charges or issue a report, the courts, public and media are so sick and tired of hearing about it that the final charges fall stillborn from the press.

A critical component of White House Scandal Defense 101 is rallying the partisan base. This keeps approval ratings in territory where the wheels don't start falling off. The way to achieve this goal is you go negative and you don't let up. If you're always attacking your accusers, the debate becomes one of Democrat vs. Republican, rather than right vs. wrong. Anyone who questions the legality of the decision to wiretap thousands of Americans unlawfully is attacked, as either an enabler of terrorists or a bitter partisan trying to distract a president at war.

Yet another tactic is to shore up your congressional base in order to avoid or at least control pesky oversight investigations. A president's job here is made far easier if his party maintains a majority in one or both houses. Even if your party doesn't enjoy control of either the House or the Senate, you can still achieve your desired goal, as did Clinton — America's master scandal handler. You've just got to work harder at it.

The signs are everywhere that the Bush White House is busily implementing all parts of this defense strategy. It would be refreshing if it decided to clear the air and actually be honest about its post-Sept. 11 surveillance. However, that's unlikely. The problem this president faces, as did his predecessors, is that full disclosure would lead to the remedy stage. No president wants to fight that end-game.


— Former U.S. attorney and congressman Bob Barr practices law in Atlanta. His Web site: www.bobbarr.org

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1205/28edbarr.html
 

Cal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,598
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern SD
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm

'Warrantless' searches not unprecedented
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 22, 2005


Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence.
"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps.
More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Cal said:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm

'Warrantless' searches not unprecedented
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 22, 2005


Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence.
"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps.
More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."

You're so dishonest, Cal. Previous presidents signed laws allowing warrantles physical searches under certain circumstances. Gorelick can claim that same authority for wiretaps, but the law is not so clear.

The FISC statement doesn't say it's OK to wiretap domestic calls, which is what Bush has been doing.

When the President of the US is sworn in, he swears to uphold the laws of the US. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution gives us protection against unwarranted search and seizure. Bush had a court waiting for his warrants. He could wiretap for 72 hours and then ask for a warrant. He refused to use it. Yet, he went around the country assuring Americans that they need not fear being wiretapped without a warrant. He lied. That you people who thought Clinton lying about an affair was impeachable and now defend this man is laughable.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Disagreeable said:
Cal said:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm

'Warrantless' searches not unprecedented
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 22, 2005


Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence.
"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps.
More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."

There are too many people, including in my long-held opinion, entrenched
It seems to me to be a part of what we witnessed in many of the people involved with, and within, the Clinton administration (including Bill and Hilary) who exhibited an attitude of entitlement due them because of their sometimes self-proclaimed intelligence and their intensely liberal educations.

You're so dishonest, Cal. Previous presidents signed laws allowing warrantles physical searches under certain circumstances. Gorelick can claim that same authority for wiretaps, but the law is not so clear.

The FISC statement doesn't say it's OK to wiretap domestic calls, which is what Bush has been doing.

When the President of the US is sworn in, he swears to uphold the laws of the US. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution gives us protection against unwarranted search and seizure. Bush had a court waiting for his warrants. He could wiretap for 72 hours and then ask for a warrant. He refused to use it. Yet, he went around the country assuring Americans that they need not fear being wiretapped without a warrant. He lied. That you people who thought Clinton lying about an affair was impeachable and now defend this man is laughable.



Disagreeable, maybe your hatred of President GWBush interferes with your concentration so you miss the point that modern "surveillance" is NOT common phone taps.

Dan Green, editor of the Record Stockman, Denver, CO, comments that the Buckley Air National Guard base in Denver is the spot where the surveillance is centered. They use satellites and computers to intercept international phone and e-mail traffic looking for key words that trigger possible terrorist connections. It is NOT the old fashioned busybody lurking on a private phone line listening to gossip! Suspect words trigger use of closer checking for dangerous messages. Mr. Green hears people saying this is successful. He also notes that a few years ago when Democrat activists taped Newt Gingrichs' phone ILLEGALLY, no one in the media seemed concerned.

In my long held opinion, there are way too many people, especially entrenched bureaucrats educated in liberal Universities, now working in government who seem to believe they, and not the elected President, should control our surveillance and security systems, and foreign policy. Among these, I believe, are the State Department, CIA, and more, possibly even the FBI. I definitely do not agree with them!

This seems to me like a part of what we witnessed in many of the people with, and within, the Clinton administration (including Bill and Hilary themselves) who exhibited an attitude of entitlement due them because of their sometimes self-proclaimed intelligence, and their liberal educations. They seem to believe only they and people like themselves are qualified to tell the rest of us how to live, think, believe, and be governed. Guess I've never been properly impressed by such elitism.

I believe if and when the full truth comes out about this presidency and all the accusations, leaks, and garbage in the media, this administration will be absolutely vindicated and some who are all too willing to aid and encourage our enemies attempting to gain political power or favor should be jailed!

MRJ
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
MRJ said:
Disagreeable, maybe your hatred of President GWBush interferes with your concentration so you miss the point that modern "surveillance" is NOT common phone taps.

Wo said it was "common phone taps"? and what difference does it make?

Dan Green, editor of the Record Stockman, Denver, CO, comments that the Buckley Air National Guard base in Denver is the spot where the surveillance is centered. They use satellites and computers to intercept international phone and e-mail traffic looking for key words that trigger possible terrorist connections. It is NOT the old fashioned busybody lurking on a private phone line listening to gossip! Suspect words trigger use of closer checking for dangerous messages. Mr. Green hears people saying this is successful. He also notes that a few years ago when Democrat activists taped Newt Gingrichs' phone ILLEGALLY, no one in the media seemed concerned.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

President Bush swore to uphold the Constitution when he took office. He violated my Fourth Amendment rights by eavesdropping on my phone conversation, whether it's a key word or the entire conversation doesn't matter at all. As for the claim about Newt, I don't believe it's true. Let's see some facts, not hot air.

In my long held opinion, there are way too many people, especially entrenched bureaucrats educated in liberal Universities, now working in government who seem to believe they, and not the elected President, should control our surveillance and security systems, and foreign policy. Among these, I believe, are the State Department, CIA, and more, possibly even the FBI. I definitely do not agree with them!

No one else will answer this question, so I'll ask you: Will you feel so secure about the power of the president if Hillary Clinton is the next president of the US?

This seems to me like a part of what we witnessed in many of the people with, and within, the Clinton administration (including Bill and Hilary themselves) who exhibited an attitude of entitlement due them because of their sometimes self-proclaimed intelligence, and their liberal educations. They seem to believe only they and people like themselves are qualified to tell the rest of us how to live, think, believe, and be governed. Guess I've never been properly impressed by such elitism.

ROTFLMAO! "an attitude of entitlement". What a laugh. This paragraph is soooo about MRJ. :lol:

I believe if and when the full truth comes out about this presidency and all the accusations, leaks, and garbage in the media, this administration will be absolutely vindicated and some who are all too willing to aid and encourage our enemies attempting to gain political power or favor should be jailed!

MRJ

That's exactly why we need hearings. Will the president and the White House cooperate with the Senate on hearings? Other presidents have set aside the Constitution in emergencies, after consultation with Congress and the American people. Bush has chosen to do neither, nor use the special court set up to respond quickly for wiretap approvals! There's no excuse for this.

We have a multitude of top Republicans being investigated for breaking various laws: Rove, DeLay, Frist, Libby, to name a few. As for "political favors," I see that Bush is returning the thousands of dollars he took from the lobbyist Abramoff.
 

Latest posts

Top