Bush / Nixon comparison...

[fredjacksonsan]

Came across this article:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=1420233


It seems that Mr. Bush has engaged in illegal wiretapping. There are laws that state that a wiretap can be initiated in the interest of national security, but that permission from the courts in this instance must be obtained within 72 hours. Apparently an executive order was issued to circumvent this law.

IMO Mr. Bush is as guilty as Nixon was at Watergate.


Commentary if you please.

[GTP Dad]

I guess maybe I will start this discussion by saying that yes what Bush did was illegal but he did it in a way that he thought may save lives of American citizens. Nixon on the other hand did his evesdropping for his own political gain not the good of the people.

If we compare what Nixon did to what Bush did we are comparing apples to oranges. Nixon was hell bent on destroying political opponents so that he could win an election. He issued orders to bug the Democratic national headquarters so that he could obtain the upper hand.

What Bush did was necessary in his attempt to protect the lives of the citizens of the US from possible terrorist attacks. Yes he authorized wire taps and evesdropping on Americans, nothing short of what has been done in other wars. Since we are in a war against terrorists and are fighting with other countries to defend ourselves, a temporary sacrifice of some liberties are necessary and a little evesdropping, if it saves American lives can be justified at least in my mind. I am sure others don't agree with my point of view but that is what freedom of speech is all about.

If Clinton can get away with having sex in the White House with Monica and lie about it then Bush can authorize a little evesdropping and wiretapping.
At least he admitted to doing it Clinton still denies everything!!!

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by GTP Dad

I guess maybe I will start this discussion by saying that yes what Bush did was illegal but he did it in a way that he thought may save lives of American citizens. Nixon on the other hand did his evesdropping for his own political gain not the good of the people.

If we compare what Nixon did to what Bush did we are comparing apples to oranges. Nixon was hell bent on destroying political opponents so that he could win an election. He issued orders to bug the Democratic national headquarters so that he could obtain the upper hand.

What Bush did was necessary in his attempt to protect the lives of the citizens of the US from possible terrorist attacks. Yes he authorized wire taps and evesdropping on Americans, nothing short of what has been done in other wars. Since we are in a war against terrorists and are fighting with other countries to defend ourselves, a temporary sacrifice of some liberties are necessary and a little evesdropping, if it saves American lives can be justified at least in my mind. I am sure others don't agree with my point of view but that is what freedom of speech is all about.

If Clinton can get away with having sex in the White House with Monica and lie about it then Bush can authorize a little evesdropping and wiretapping.
At least he admitted to doing it Clinton still denies everything!!!

Quote from Senator Charles Schumer - (D) New York: "The law is perfectly clear. There is plenty of latitude to wiretap American citizens."

[fredjacksonsan]

GTPdad, good points. Perhaps Nixon's wrongdoing isn't the same; however there is a violation of the law occurring. I'm all for wiretapping when national security is part of the equation; however it is a slippery slope, in that if it's allowed without court approval in some cases, it has the potential to become allowed without court approval in all cases.

Originally Posted by bnaylor3400

Quote from Senator Charles Schumer - (D) New York: "The law is perfectly clear. There is plenty of latitude to wiretap American citizens.

While true, the law does state that when said wiretap is initiated, that permission must be secured within 72 hours. Does Bush's ignoring that law make him in violation of it, regardless of the reason?


And before this turns into an anti/pro Bush discussion, I'd have made the same post regardless of the President's name or political affiliation.

[2strokebloke]

I don't think the comparison holds up very well, aside from the fact that both did so at odds with the law. Now if Bush would step down for this like Nixon did...

[Muscletang]

Here is one place where they're different.

Nixon stops Vietnam.
Bush starts it.

[YogsVR4]

I think the premise about the legality of the wire tapping is wrong. I am not versed in the law well enough to tell you which one makes it legal or illegal. I don't like it, but thats got nothing to do with it being illegal.

Lets hope there is a congressional investigation that doesn't turn into a partisan dog and pony show and get the issue resolved. One way or another, its going to set a precident.

[clawhammer]

It was only done on Al-quida members, and probably not anybody on this board (AFAIK we don't have Al-quida members). I'm not concerned if they listen in on a conversation, because I wouldn't even know that they did, and I'm not doing anything that's wrong.

Bush did it only to protect the American People. That was if something happens again, he can at least say that he did something to prevent it. If we would have found out about this on September 12, 2001, everybody would be like so what, what can we do to help?

[Rally Sport]

I honestly dont care, although that now that everybody knows about this, terrorist groups will more likely start meetings instead of discussing stuff over the phone. Like stated above, we dont really have anything to hide and really he's only doing this to try and stop terrorism.

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by GTP Dad

I guess maybe I will start this discussion by saying that yes what Bush did was illegal but he did it in a way that he thought may save lives of American citizens. Nixon on the other hand did his evesdropping for his own political gain not the good of the people.

If we compare what Nixon did to what Bush did we are comparing apples to oranges. Nixon was hell bent on destroying political opponents so that he could win an election. He issued orders to bug the Democratic national headquarters so that he could obtain the upper hand.

What Bush did was necessary in his attempt to protect the lives of the citizens of the US from possible terrorist attacks. Yes he authorized wire taps and evesdropping on Americans, nothing short of what has been done in other wars. Since we are in a war against terrorists and are fighting with other countries to defend ourselves, a temporary sacrifice of some liberties are necessary and a little evesdropping, if it saves American lives can be justified at least in my mind. I am sure others don't agree with my point of view but that is what freedom of speech is all about.

If Clinton can get away with having sex in the White House with Monica and lie about it then Bush can authorize a little evesdropping and wiretapping.
At least he admitted to doing it Clinton still denies everything!!!

(EDIT: I have read similar arguments elsewhere, so please, GTP Dad, do not take this personally. I am criticising this viewpoint, which is quite widely held among many people, but I am not criticising you personally)

With respect, I seriously cannot believe you are in favour of sacrificing your rights as an American just because the Bush propeganda machine says its good for you.

This is the slippery slope to a police state.

You are going for this simply because Bush says he knows best so Americans should trust him. The American people gave Bush a lot of latitude about WMD in Iraq. Now, after billions of dollars of the public's money has been spent, and the US is firmly in a quagmire in Iraq, there are still no WMD's found. Bush has obviously spent the trust the people placed in him foolishly.

Why should the Americans trust him again?

Finally, what is wrong with obtaining judicial permission to eavesdrop? The law does not ban eavesdropping; it just places some very reasonable and necessary conditions by which it can be performed.
The laws that Bush broke exist to protect the civil rights of everyone, including you.
It should be very disturbing to EVERYONE that such a judicial review was not obtained. I am sure judges can fully understand the issues at hand and the requirements for such taps if the need truly exists. IMO this is a very troubling statement by Bush.

As for Bush confessing to this action, he was forced to do so because the news media found out about this and went public, about several years after it happened. He withheld this information from the American people for two years or more. This affects his credibility and his ability to govern, which, in turn, impairs the government to function properly.

(BTW I would be interested in a judicial review, to see if such taps were actually warrented. )

The comparision between Bush's flagrent disregard for the Constitution and due process under that law and Clinton's knob-polishing is a little unbalanced. One cannot reasonably compare a serious civil rights and legal violation with a sexual dalliance.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

The comparision between Bush's flagrent disregard for the Constitution and due process under that law and Clinton's knob-polishing is a little unbalanced. One cannot reasonably compare a serious civil rights and legal violation with a sexual dalliance.

Not to take the thread off topic much, but you have a misconception. Clinton's knob-polishing wasn't the issue and to say other wise is disingenuous. It was always about lying under oath. Partisanship is a two way street. If what Bush authorized is illegal, then he should be censured or impeached. No president should knowingly break the law (or unknowingly), especiall with the number of bright people they have working for them. Sure, we call them names and don't like the policies of some groups, but the reality is they're a lot smarter then most people give them credit for.

I'd still like someone to give me a link to the law that was broken. Seriously. I don't like the idea of the government going through calls and email even though someone may have "nothing to hide". But, that doesn't make what happened illegal.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

I'd still like someone to give me a link to the law that was broken. Seriously. I don't like the idea of the government going through calls and email even though someone may have "nothing to hide". But, that doesn't make what happened illegal.

The law in question is called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...0_36_20_I.html


Cited as 50 U.S.C. § 1801

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

I'd still like someone to give me a link to the law that was broken. Seriously. I don't like the idea of the government going through calls and email even though someone may have "nothing to hide". But, that doesn't make what happened illegal.

http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terror.../fisa_faq.html

Keep in mind, these are United States citizens he had tapped.

If the target is a "U.S. person," which includes permanent resident aliens and associations and corporations substantially composed of U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens, 50 U.S.C.A. § 1801(i), there must be probable cause to believe that the U.S. person's activities "may" or "are about to" involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States. § 1801(b)(2)(A),(B); see also § 1801(b)(2)(C) (knowingly engages in activities in preparation for sabotage or "international terrorism" on behalf of a foreign power); § 1801(b)(2)(D) (knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power).

A "United States person" may not be determined to be an agent of a foreign power "solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States." 50 U.S.C. § 1805(a)(3)(A).

As far as clawhammer's assumption that:

It was only done on Al-quida members, and probably not anybody on this board (AFAIK we don't have Al-quida members). I'm not concerned if they listen in on a conversation, because I wouldn't even know that they did, and I'm not doing anything that's wrong.

The law is clear that the tap can be initiated without prior knowledge of the court, but can be made legal by giving notice to the court within 72 hours of the tap.

Now, if indeed the taps were reasonable, and were conducted on persons that we needed protection from, why not approach the court to make the tap legal? Why would the court turn it down?

It's not like it's the same agents who are busy conducting the surveillance will be 'wasting' their time going to court. Just some clerk with clearance enough to take the report to the judge will suffice.

It's the same slippery-slope started by the detainment of that one citizen with no cause, or due-process.

You same sheep that would quickly be up in arms about your guns being taken away from you (2nd Amendment), are not so quick about responding to another freedom afforded to you by the Constitution (4th Amendment). Why? Did The Monkey frame your family or something?

BTW, what I marked red above, did anybody read about that those peace-activists in California that found out that they had an anti-terrorism officer that was a part of their group at one time?

Some of you people need to wake the fuck up. At least that reprehensible swine Clinton, when he lied, only hurt himself and his family.

[carrrnuttt]

Here are the more specific laws that were broken:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...1----000-.html

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

FYI, no declaration of war was ever made.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...5----000-.html

(f) Emergency orders Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, when the Attorney General reasonably determines that--

(1) an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained; and

(2) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists;

he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance. If the Attorney General authorizes such emergency employment of electronic surveillance, he shall require that the minimization procedures required by this subchapter for the issuance of a judicial order be followed. In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest.

Prohibited activities:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...9----000-.html

(a) Prohibited activities A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—

(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or

(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.

[BNaylor]

As far as I'm concerned, it is a failure of our entire system. We have not formally declared a war since declaring it on Romania during WWII (June 5, 1942). That is over a span of 60 years. No wonder all the Presidents not just G.W. since Nixon and Johnson have circumvented the laws. The War Powers Act was enacted as a result of the Vietnam War and came about in 1973. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act "FISA" is another archaic law passed back in 1978. Neither are consistent with the changing times and do not take into account 9/11 and the War on Terrorism. The US Constitution and Federal statutes must be changed or amended.

The Constitution is a living document that must change with the times. The Founding Fathers of our country could have never imagined the threat of WMD wielding terrorists destroying the World Trade Center to include Pentagon and murdering over 3,000 people in the process.

I believe the Bush administration acted in good faith and in the interests of national security based on the circumstances before the country as a direct and proximate result of 9/11. Until such time it is proven otherwise, he is entitled to sovereign, absolute and qualified immunity. What Bush and his administration did was not "an act of high treason."

Where I do find fault with Bush, his high paid Attorney General and other US Attorneys is not taking the time to ask Congress for new legislation to effectively combat the War on Terror which could preclude executive branch abuse. Likewise I blame Congress for their gross acquiescence in not declaring war or waiting until now (years later) to do something about it. It is politics as usual.