The right to disagree isn't bashing. The need to hold our leader to the standards of law of the land isn't asking too much
Chatty had a good point- we vote for the one who we think will do the least harm.I think in order to get to the highest office in this land a candidate has to sell too much of his soul- to big business, to party leaders.But they still need ultimately to be responsible to our constitution- otherwise we fall in the same catagories as the dictators we all too often stick our military might in to topple
What is a liberal- or a conservative- I think at this point it's just the nasty names we call the other side
Vi, thank you for this information- and thank all the rest of you that this has not degenerated into talking about politicians hair or sex lives

Smilinize, I looked at the site which you posted. The first paragraph concurs with what we are saying, that President Bush decided to bypass the panel.

"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 U.S.-based terror suspects without the court’s approval."

The reason given was that he was unable to get the wiretaps that he wished.

"To win a court-approved wiretap, the government must show “probable cause” that the target of the surveillance is a member of a foreign terrorist organization or foreign power and is engaged in activities that “may” involve a violation of criminal law.

Faced with that standard, Bamford said, the Bush administration had difficulty obtaining FISA court-approved wiretaps on dozens of people within the United States who were communicating with targeted al-Qaida suspects inside the United States."

So, I believe we can all agree that Mr. Bush circumvented the FISA courts, yes?

Now come the other questions.
- Is it illegal to circumvent these courts?
- If it is, would it have been better for Mr. Bush to work to amend the law, rather than breaking it?
- If it is legal, where is the authority giving the president the right to do this?
- Even if it is illegal, is there a majority of American citizens willing to accept the reasons which Mr Bush is giving for bypassing the court?

Hmmm, interesting conversation you ladies have going on.

First to address the link Smile provide - it is a blog quote of the same article in the link she provided in support of Bush's actions. You can see my comments on that article in one of my previous posts.

Pattyann and Casey, as usual your comments show outstanding insights.

My search of today's news provided nothing new on the subject. Though, in defense of Mr. Bush I did come across one article that indicates a possible good judgement on his part, specifically, read the following:


Chief Justice Roberts wins early praise
Lighter tone, camaraderie at U.S. Supreme Court
By Bill Mears

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/28/scotus.roberts/index.html

Of course, it's still too early to know for sure, and this is a side bar to our discussion, but it appears that he may have picked a good chief justice. (It would be ironic if this Bush problem goes to the Supreme Court and Chief Justice Roberts was one of the justices to find him guilty.)

And lastly, I am a writer by profession. As such, much of my time is spent developing my craft and peddling the results. Lately, I have spent so much time on this thread that it has interferred with this work. Yesterday, for example, finding stories, weeding through them, making comments and responding to comments took from 10 am to 9:50 pm. It left no time for the other things that are important to me. (Thank goodness my husband is an excellent cook.)

All of us have to eat - so for now, I have to take temporary leave of this thread and start doing some major peddling. January is one of the best times to do this.

So, enjoy the discussion, and if there is something that you absolutely need me to comment on, send a private message and I will do my best to oblige. I'll be back as soon as I'm done.

[ December 28, 2005, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: Vi ]

Thanks to you Vi, as an Ohioan, I am now aware of the bill currently on Bob Taft, our governor's desk.

The Ohio Patriot Act will allow police to arrest anyone in a public place if they refuse to give their name and address even if they are not doing anything wrong!

Sounds to me like Hitler's Europe where you had to "show papers." For us who live in Ohio, we hope our governor does not sign this bill. At least from my own perspective, I hope he does not sign this bill.

That is a terrible thing, when the police can do that. A couple of years ago in NY, my 16 year old was walking down the street with his friends on the night before Halloween (before curfew). He had a backpack on and the cops told him he had to open it and show them what was inside! Of course, he did have several dozen eggs but the point was, the cop knew my son didn't know his rights. He had the right to refuse opening his backpack which was on his body. I was very upset about this violation.

Regarding President Bush's wiretap case: Is there any evidence that the imperative to protect Americans trumped other interests as much as it did civil liberties?
Has the president called for a rollback of tax cuts for the rich to provide funds for port security and first responders?
Has he declared the securing of chemical plants and hazardous rail cargo more important than the protection of corporate profits and prerogatives?
Has he decried congressional pork that displaced risk-based homeland security funding? The answer is no.

Just look at the failing grade the 9/11 commission members give the president on protecting Americans. Where is the evidence of the all-consuming urgency of the president, impelled by those terifying daily national security briefings, to defend the homeland at whatever burden, even for the wealthy and powerful?

While I am busy with my authoring activities, my husband, who believes equally in this thread, has volunteered to take time out from his writing and website building activities to help keep us informed on relevant happenings. (Hopefully, the temporary assistance of a "Boomer Male" will not offend anyone.) The following is his summary:

Item 1:

CNN Headline news reported on TV that if you have visited the NSA site recently, you probably had a tracking cookie downloaded to your computer. The use of these cookies was previously legally banned. The NSA said they weren't aware of the tracking cookie being used - it was part of an upgrade to their website. If you visited the NSA site, you can check to see if you have these cookies by going to your browser's tools/Internet option menu.

To delete a cookie

1. In Internet Explorer, on the Tools menu, click Internet Options.
2. On the General tab, click Settings, and then click View files.
3. Select the cookie you want to delete, and then, on the File menu, click Delete.

Yahoo news also carried a brief article on the NSA cookies:

NSA stops using web cookies on NSA.gov after privacy protests
Snip from AP story:

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/12/29/nsa_stops_using_web_.html

quote:

---

". . . it does show a general lack of understanding about privacy rules when they (NSA) are not even following the government's very basic rules for Web privacy."

---

The NYTimes also carried the story:
Spy Agency Removes Illegal Tracking Files
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/29/national/29cookies.html


Item 2:

Last night, the TV news also reported that the intrepid would-be terrorist (discovered through NSA wiretaps) who was going to attempt to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge by cutting it apart with a blow torch is filing a lawsuit against the US. This could be interesting - if it is found that his rights of privacy were infringed, it would be the first instance indicating that the NSA unwarranted wiretaps are actually illegal.


Item 3:

This correlates with item 2 - An interesting political cartoon by Pat Oliphant. See:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/uclickcomics/20051228/cx_po_uc/po20051228


Item 4:

Some comments had been made on the thread in defense of a strong and robust economy. The following is from CNN's website, business section:

Risky business in 2006? Could be
http://money.cnn.com/2005/12/29/news/economy/slowdown_2006/index.htm?cnn=yes

quote:

---

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - The bond market's signal of slower economic growth ahead sent shivers through financial markets this week and raised questions about the strength of the current expansion.

---

Personal comment: This article may also be a reflection of how well the "corporate citizen", as compared to the average "private citizen", has been treated by the administration.


Item 5:

This article is not specific to the eavesdropping issue. It does, however, address Vi's recent statement about "power corrupts". The article is 7 pages long, nevertheless, it's a very interesting side-bar:

Abramoff probe spells trouble for Congress

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10621077/

quote:

---

"This could be the Enron of lobbying," Ring told the colleague.

---

Item 6:

This article addresses Bush Administration restrictions placed on the 40 year old "Freedom of Information Act". You may have to be a registered member (registration is free) of the NYTimes to actually get access to this story:

The Mounting Powers of Secrecy
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/29/opinion/29thu4.html?th&emc=th&oref=login

quote:

---

At the heart of this thickening veil are direct presidential orders and former Attorney General John Ashcroft's blanket assurance of legal defense to any agency erring on the side of secrecy in sealing off documents. This reversed the Clinton administration's "presumption of disclosure" when it came to public requests. The 9/11 commission has already pointed out that this general retreat from the intent of the law hardly discourages terrorists; in fact, it was the government's internal failure to share information that contributed to that tragedy.

---

That's all he came across today. He hopes you enjoy the read and wishes all of the Ladies a pleasant day.

Ladybug and Bluebird, you both made good points. Thank you for continuing the thread. My tasks are going well and progressing quickly. I'll be back in full force as soon as I can.

[ December 29, 2005, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: Vi ]

Thanks, surrogate!
The Brooklyn Bridge suspect does raise some interesting points about the legality of the whole process. However, due to the nature of terrorism -- random acts of violence -- what are the other alternatives to wire taps -- legal or illegal?

I believe one of the things that has allowed all of this to happen is our isolation from one another, followed swiftly by the growing desire of people to judge others and find them lacking.

I just read this in the Washington Post. It really does cut to the heart of the matter.

"The Bush administration did not seek a broad debate on whether commander-in-chief powers can trump international conventions and domestic statutes in our struggle against terrorism," said Radsan, the former CIA lawyer, who is a professor at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, Minn. "They could have separated the big question from classified details to operations and had an open debate. Instead, an inner circle of lawyers and advisers worked around the dissenters in the administration and one-upped each other with extreme arguments."

So I would ask the group: Do you believe that the commander-in-chief powers can trump international law and domestic statutes in our struggle against terrorism? Why or why not?

Today in the paper I was totally amazed to see that the white house is launching an investigation into who leaked the fact that the president is bypassing the courts over wiretaps- seems a little like the schoolyard bully wanting to know who snitched- another special investigator our tax dollars are wasted on