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

Talking about the Constitution

A

Anonymous

Guest
Memos justifying Bush-era warrantless wiretapping released

By Laura Barron-Lopez - 09/06/14 09:12 AM EDT

Two memos released late Friday night by the Department of Justice (DOJ) offer some of the clearest insight into the Bush administration's legal reasoning for the warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens's phone calls, and emails to date.

The memos on the secret program, dubbed Stellar Wind by the National Security Agency, that launched after the Sept. 11, terrorist attacks, were obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Washington Post reports.


While the program was exposed in 2005 by a New York Times story, and brought under court oversight in 2007, the documents released Friday give a deeper look at President George W. Bush's head of legal counsel and assistant attorney general, Jack Goldsmith's justification.

“We conclude only that when the nation has been thrust into an armed conflict by a foreign attack on the United States and the president determines in his role as commander in chief . . . that it is essential for defense against a further foreign attack to use the [wiretapping] capabilities of the [National Security Agency] within the United States, he has inherent constitutional authority” to order warrantless wiretapping — “an authority that Congress cannot curtail,” Goldsmith wrote in a redacted 108-page memo dated May 6, 2004, according to the Post.

The ACLU obtained the memos from the Justice Department through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

A staff attorney with the ACLU, Patrick Toomey, told the Post that the reasoning in the memos was "deeply disturbing" and suggested that the president's power to monitor the communications of people in the U.S. is "virtually unlimited…when it comes to foreign intelligence."

In the May memo, Goldsmith came to the conclusion that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force by Congress, which passed shortly after the terrorist attacks, gave the "express authority for a warrantless program because it gives a thumbs up to "all necessary and appropriate force."


Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/technology/216851-memos-justifying-bush-era-warrantless-wiretapping-released#ixzz3CXmvctrU
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Since our poster friend who deserted his country to live an apparent better life in a communist country is all hot and bothered about the Constitution this morning-- what do all you "Constitutional Scholars :roll: " think of this...

Historically during times of war we have done many similar unconstitutional acts (throwing out habeas corpus- locking up American citizens just because of their race or ethnic background- etc.) -- but do you believe its Constitutional?

I think a President/Defense Dept needs to have the power for emergency wiretap searchs on a very limited basis-- but that they, like normal search warrants and wiretap authorizations, need to have judicial oversight...
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Since our poster friend who deserted his country to live an apparent better life in a communist country is all hot and bothered about the Constitution this morning-- what do all you "Constitutional Scholars :roll: " think of this...

:lol: Another miserable fail on your part old man.

I'm not hot and bothered about the constitution or anything else for that matter. I merely enjoy pointing out how hypocritical you are when it comes to your principles.....Mr. Precious Constitution.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
First, let me respond to the "constitutional scholars" jeer. I hear this sarcastic insult from many on the left, directed at constitutional conservatives. Basically insinuating I'm incompetent to understand the constitution without an Ivy League education ( liberal indoctrination). One of the most outstanding reasons Ruth Ginsberg was wrong when she said the South African constitution was a better model than the US constitution is the direct meanings throughout the US constitution. Our constitution is meant to be read and understood by us grunts with dirty hands, so we can use the document to keep government in line. I emphatically reject the notion that we need one part of government to tell us what the other part of government can and can't do. Who can't understand " all powers not specifically given to the federal government are ceeded to the states?" Evidently the answer to that question is everyone who thinks the department of education, or social security is constitutional.

So to answer the query posed by OT, ( and I'd suggest it's a worthwhile investigation), W's actions were clearly illegal. I think they may have been a well intentioned over reaction to shocking vulnerability, but Jefferson warned us that we face greater peril from a tyrannical domestic government than foreign governments.

Btw, Bush's poll numbers reflect the loss of a great deal of his base over generally this security vs liberty issue.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Brad S said:
First, let me respond to the "constitutional scholars" jeer. I hear this sarcastic insult from many on the left, directed at constitutional conservatives. Basically insinuating I'm incompetent to understand the constitution without an Ivy League education ( liberal indoctrination). One of the most outstanding reasons Ruth Ginsberg was wrong when she said the South African constitution was a better model than the US constitution is the direct meanings throughout the US constitution. Our constitution is meant to be read and understood by us grunts with dirty hands, so we can use the document to keep government in line. I emphatically reject the notion that we need one part of government to tell us what the other part of government can and can't do. Who can't understand " all powers not specifically given to the federal government are ceeded to the states?" Evidently the answer to that question is everyone who thinks the department of education, or social security is constitutional.

So to answer the query posed by OT, ( and I'd suggest it's a worthwhile investigation), W's actions were clearly illegal. I think they may have been a well intentioned over reaction to shocking vulnerability, but Jefferson warned us that we face greater peril from a tyrannical domestic government than foreign governments.

Btw, Bush's poll numbers reflect the loss of a great deal of his base over generally this security vs liberty issue.

The "jeer" as you put it was the hypocrisy that so many of the radical right think the constitution should only count when it is for something they favor-- but should not be brought into play when it is something they oppose...
 

Brad S

Well-known member
You should save "radical right" for constitutionalists like me. As for guys that support big government when it seems to favor perceived right wing issues (hypocritically), establishment GOP is usually an apt description. Us crazies, extreme, racist, evil doers see the self enrichment deals between establishment GOP and DNC , to the detriment of working Americans, as the problem in government. Fortunately, strict adherence to the constitution renders most of this corruption illegal.
 

Steve

Well-known member
The warrent-less tapping of US citizens is WRONG..

Bush was wrong on that one... congress who voted for it were wrong..

the knee jerk response by congress to the Sept 11th attacks have not made US safer... just less FREE
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
The "jeer" as you put it was the hypocrisy that so many of the radical right think the constitution should only count when it is for something they favor-- but should not be brought into play when it is something they oppose...

Once again OT describes himself. :roll:
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Hey OT, remember this? Of course not. Well the constitution controls even when it cuts against you. Where does this document allow the president to go around congress and change laws?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Brad S said:
Hey OT, remember this? Of course not. Well the constitution controls even when it cuts against you. Where does this document allow the president to go around congress and change laws?

On law enforcement issues regarding prosecutions- they have broad discretionary powers the same as prosecuting attorneys do... The same with pardon powers...
But I don't think they have those same powers for evidence collection as we still have the exclusionary law and privacy laws...

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=663293#663293

In my opinion Bush would have done nothing wrong if he had used judicial oversight making sure they had a just reason for their actions and watching against any abuses of the power...
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Yikes OT, you're killing me. I brought this thread of yours back to remind you that your alter ego cares about the constitution. The good guy OT would never stand for obamas anti constitutional efforts. Dude, we gotta go through your meds and eliminate the ones causing you to apologize for anybody's bad acts. You're a sheriff, you can't give fiction any quarter. ( you know sheriff is about the only elected official us wingernut crazies respect)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Brad S said:
Yikes OT, you're killing me. I brought this thread of yours back to remind you that your alter ego cares about the constitution. The good guy OT would never stand for obamas anti constitutional efforts. Dude, we gotta go through your meds and eliminate the ones causing you to apologize for anybody's bad acts. You're a sheriff, you can't give fiction any quarter. ( you know sheriff is about the only elected official us wingernut crazies respect)

But just like the Sheriff has broad discretion- so do I believe the President has broad discretion.....


And like I said-- I think a President/Defense Dept needs to have the power for emergency warrantless wiretap searchs on a very limited basis-- but that they, like normal search warrants and wiretap authorizations, need to have judicial oversight to guarantee they have reasonable suspicion and that they are not abusing the ability or the material they are obtaining...

In law enforcement those are called Administrative search warrants and while hardly used anymore used to be quite prevalent in arson cases to allow access to see if you needed a search warrant to gather evidence...

For years they were used quite extensively in Canada... In working drugs up there- they would get an administrative search warrant to check out a place to see if they needed a judicial search warrant to gather evidence... Handy tool....

Evidence uncovered afterward revealed that if they had that tool available to them at the time- FBI Agents (I believe in Minneapolis) may have been able to have obtained the info needed to head off the 9/11 incident before it happened...
 

Mike

Well-known member
Hey OT. Just quit trying to justify your half-wit notions. Nobody cares what you think. You're an idiot that thinks you know a lot more than you really do.

Do you ever get tired of embarrassing yourself? :roll:
 
Top