This is a good discussion. This kind of openness and honesty is what I sought when I posted this thread. I believe it is what we need if we are to keep our country as wonderful as it is.

Current stuff on the matter. It includes the resolution congress passed on Sept 14, 2001:

quote:

---

On Capitol Hill, the White House proposed a resolution that would give the president authority to "deter and prevent any related future acts of terrorism and aggression against the United States." Members from both parties objected that the language was too broad.

"It would have given him authority to do anything he wanted, anytime, anywhere," recalls Rep. Peter DeFazio (news, bio, voting record), D-Ore. The wording was revised.

The new version said: "The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons."

---

It almost sounds like we gave him the authority and power to get away with the illegal eavesdropping. However, Barbara Boxer clarifies it well with her statement:

quote:

---

"There's nothing in there that gave the president the authority to override the law," says Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. She has asked four legal scholars if they believe Bush has admitted an "impeachable offense."

---

You can find the details on the above in the following article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051221/ts_usatoday/skepticismtrailsbushsdefenseofdomesticspying


And this next one's got a pro and con attitude - a judge resigns because of it, and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican, pushes back (with what I think is an iffy argument (considering, on the whole, this is supposed to be super top secret.)

Report: Spy court judge quits in protest
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/21/spyjudge.resigns.ap/index.html

And here's a sidebar about the Patriot Act - it's good to see that the Senate is taking this thing seriously.

Bush condemns filibuster on Patriot Act renewal
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/21/patriot.act/index.html


And then we have the bipartison request for a probe into the Bush/Cheney assertion that it was all legal.
Bipartisan call for wiretapping probe
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/20/wiretaps/index.html

quote:

---

Cheney said such measures were necessary because the United States needed to "aggressively go after terrorists" and that they had "saved thousands of lives."

"It is, I'm convinced, one of the reasons we haven't been attacked in the past four years," Cheney said.

---

Of course, he was also convinced that Iraq had WMDs!

A particularly interesting statement:

quote:

---

"For the last few days, I have witnessed the president, the vice president, the secretary of state and the attorney general repeatedly misrepresent the facts," Rockefeller said in a written statement.

---

Addtional interesting comments:

quote:

---

Another lawmaker who knew about the program, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, asked National Intelligence Director John Negroponte Tuesday to declassify a letter she wrote to the administration years ago expressing her "strong concerns," as well as the White House response.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, discounted the administration's contention that the program was necessary to ensure a swifter response than the FISA court would allow.

"That's why our law allows a president to go right away and apply for those warrants retroactively within 72 hours," she told CNN.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean went so far as to compare the program to "the dark days of President Nixon."

---

We (the people) are Americans above all else. We come in all shapes, sizes and persuasions - religious, agnostic, atheist; women and men; Republicans, Democrats, Independents, what have you. Regardless of our persuasion - and how the world now views us - we are indeed a nation of rightness and goodness. The key truth to that rightness and goodness, however, is not in blindly supporting a President who is wrong and deceitful, but in standing together, as a nation of people, and supporting the country that the President is sworn to protect. The President is not our nation; we the people are that nation. The President is but one of us whom we have chosen(?) to represent all of us. We must never succumb to blind faith in anyone, for blind faith, either believing everything or doubting everything, are two equally convenient solutions, both of which dispense with the necessity for reflection - democracy is the free exercise of that reflection.

[ December 22, 2005, 03:59 AM: Message edited by: Vi ]

Thanks for the research, Vi. Your last paragraph says it all.

Vi, thanks for the great research. From what I read, I believe that the President has clearly broken the law. However, we must also follow due process. My Senator, Barbara Boxer, is well into the fray, but I think it's important that we touch base with all our Senators and Congresspeople to ask for a complete, bi-partison examination.
The caution I am trying to express, is that we keep it a civilized discussion and to the point. (Drifting off to rising interest rates doesn't help.) Consistently coming back to the point that the President broke a law is important. And so are having discussions with people who don't agree with us -- those who believe that the president should do everything he can (legal or illegal) to protect us. We need to heal this divide so we can get back to being the nation we truly are "with liberty and justice for ALL."

I am tired of all this Bush bashing. He is a good man with an agenda to protect us all.

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 President did not break any law. Indeed, previous administrations have used that same authority. Further, the Justice Department has acknowledged the right of to President to follow this action.

I was in New York on September 11, watching my building being destroyed.

I am proud that my President took a strong stand against the terrorists, and that his actions have had a crippling effect on their destructive efforts.

Greetings forenacct,

Welcome to Boomer Women Speak and to our current thread/discussion. Here, you will find many women who believe as you do about the president. For the most part, this is a site of conservative Christians and republicans. There are also a smattering of us whose beliefs differ from the views held by our conservative sisters. This country thrives on these differences. I respect your right to agree or disagree and welcome your input. As Casey so aptly put it: "Consistently coming back to the point that the President broke a law is important. And so are having discussions with people who don't agree with us -- those who believe that the president should do everything he can (legal or illegal) to protect us. We need to heal this divide so we can get back to being the nation we truly are "with liberty and justice for ALL." We may not always agree, but as Voltaire and Patrick Henry said, “I may not agree with what you said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

That is exactly what we are trying to protect, the right to voice our differences in a civil and productive manner and to address what we see as injustices and lies perpetrated by our government and specifically at this time the executive branch of the government.

We, therefore, welcome you to submit any substantiated views you have. Respectful discussion is vital to the healing that Casey is talking about and to the positive future of this country.

Returning now to the theme of this thread, I've come across another article of growing concern.

FCC net wiretapping rules irk even local governments
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/12/22/fcc_net_wiretapping_.html
Read it for yourself to see what you think.

Regarding posts made, in response to the comment:

quote:

---

"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."

---

Yesterday, Sen. John Murtha was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer and said that it has been "alleged" that previous administrations have resorted to Bush's tactics, but there's no documented evidence to indicate the allegations were true, and, additionally, he believes the allegations to be false. As for the court that oversees national security cases, I'm not sure what is meant. If the FISA court is meant, the statement is wrong - this is an item discussed in my last post:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/20/wiretaps/index.html

quote:

---

Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, discounted the administration's contention that the program was necessary to ensure a swifter response than the FISA court would allow.

"That's why our law allows a president to go right away and apply for those warrants retroactively within 72 hours," she told CNN.

---

Additionally Barbara Boxer stated:

quote:

---

"There's nothing in there that gave the president the authority to override the law," says Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. She has asked four legal scholars if they believe Bush has admitted an "impeachable offense."

---

Regarding the statement:

quote:

---

Further, the Justice Department has acknowledged the right of to President to follow this action.

---

It isn't really clear if this refers to the court system or the attorney general.

If the courts, I haven't heard any final ruling on the legality of all this - though the resignation of one of the FISA judges yesterday seems to point in a definite direction, as does the following article:

Spy court to get secret briefing -- about secrets
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/22/nsa.court/index.html


There are a few points in the article which refute the following statement:

quote:

---

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.

---

One, a logical deduction: if they were sure Bush's actions were legal, there would be no briefing, secret or otherwise.

Two - from the article:

quote:

---

The surveillance court, made up of 11 judges from across the nation, was created in 1978 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The legislation mandates that intelligence agencies seeking to monitor domestic conversations must ask the court for a warrant.

---

Three:

quote:

---

The Bush administration argues the NSA program is exempt from that requirement.

Several FISA court judges are raising concerns about the program, according to The Washington Post, which first reported the briefing.
Those concerns include questions about whether the Bush administration has overreached its authority, and whether information that might have been gathered illegally was used to obtain warrants from the court, the newspaper said in Thursday's editions.

---

And four:

quote:

---

Many Democrats and civil rights advocates say the program is not lawful because it was not explicitly authorized by legislation.

---

As you can see, according to the experts, it has yet to be determined.

If, on the other hand, the reference is to the Attorney General's Office, Gonzales' statements of legality have already been discounted by many as possibly meaningless. Which is also acknowledged by the above - the courts wanting to hold an inquiry. Regarding any comments Gonzales would make about the eavesdropping, of course he's going to side with his boss. Everyone associated with President Bush, especially his appointees, will side with him - if they want to keep their jobs. To say that Gonzales endorses Bush's eavesdropping, is in the same category as police departments having the police department as their oversight committee. If I'm not mistaken, the Attorney General's Office is part of the executive branch of government. But regardless of who the reference is to, it is still widely believed in the circles that would know, that Bush's actions are indeed illegal . . . that's why they all want a congressional inquiry held . . . that's why everyone's complaining about what President Bush is doing.

As for the September 11 reference, on any given work day, there are upwards of 10 million people in the NY City area, at least a million of whom were in close proximity to the Trade Center. And millions more (all over the country) who actually saw/watched the attacks and destruction as it was happening. (My husband who was raised in New York and worked in Manhattan for a number of years was getting ready to go fishing the morning of September 11th. The only part of the devastating attack that he didn't see himself "live" was when the first plane actually hit the north tower - though he did see it in rerun after a reporter submitted his taping of it to the media. He turned on the news about five minutes after the first hit and watched all the rest of it - well past the second tower's collapsing . . . as well as seeing and hearing the news cast of the Pentagon and Pennsylvania crashes. It hit him as hard as if he was standing right there.) Those that weren't glued to their sets, or actual participants, were later flooded with all the events over and over and over again - a true saturation bombing of the senses. Yes, we all feel for the loss, for those building belonged to all Americans, and all Americans were attacked that day.

As for the president taking a strong stand against the terrorists and his actions having a crippling effect on their destructive efforts, I would ask the question, when you consider all the attacks all over the world since then, did he really hinder anything? Or did he escalate a bad situation into a worse one? Is he a savior or was he just crying wolf to distract us from what conjecture seems to be pointing at - selling out the country for himself and his cohort's gain!

[ December 23, 2005, 02:02 AM: Message edited by: Vi ]

Vi,

I am SO respectfull of your knowledge, your research, and your fervor....I could never aspire to such a great place. I truly can barely get through my day at this time in my life. But My Mother used to say to me, "Now what have you heard about current events? Do you watch important news? Are you watching, hearing what's going on? This is important to you!" I would bow to her wisdom, and say, "well, I'm trying Mamma, but life just gets in my way..." To which she would reply " Life has already gotten in everyone's way - now, pay attention!" I am still guilty.

In my defense, ......well, there is no defense. Mother was right. Sick children or no. And Vi is right. And that sick child of mine would have died much sooner if it had not been for this country.....

I will say this, tho'. I believe no one. Not Clinton, not Bush. Not republican, not democrat. I know that I am not privvy to all the information necessary to make an informed decision. In all other aspects of my life, I require, no demand, all the information I need to make a decision as best I can. An in the instance of politics, I find it takes so much research, that I cannot spend all the time it takes to make a reasonable decision with the information I have. Especially when people are TRYING to keep this information from me. That's the point, you know. The President and all his minions, no matter which party he is affiliated with is TRYING to keep information from us = making us , spinning every piece of knowledge, spend so much time figuring out their latest "strategy" that it is completely daunting to most of us....Reading what I have just written, it scares me to death. I have never been one to be demonstrating on the White House Lawns, but lately, I'm thinking this has been a mistake of mine. This world is scaring me right now. Maybe it should have scared me before, but I was too buried in my child's illness. And it also makes me angry that our own government makes it their specialty to hide what's really going on.....How are we, as citizens, to know of their atrocities, if no one speaks of them? To this end, I applaude the news makers. I know they, too are suspect, and we must be judicious in watching and hearing what they say. But HOLY COW, this gets exhausting.....can't people just tell the da-nd truth? I suppose truth is just how each of us sees it............

So , I guess, I'm saying that this is all too overwhelming for me. And I don't think I am alone. We are all so burdened with just getting by a day..........

But now, reading this, I see I am failing. Exhausting or not, I guess we BETTER get with it...in fact, were not our foresisters exhausted? I am sure they were. So I better just shut up and get going..........

Christmas Greetings to all, and to all a good night - I'm going to bed.

Search

Searcher,I think you raise a crucial point. And that is something that interested people in this country have forgotten -- no one person or no one side has teh complete monopoly on the truth. Everyone needs to listen to each other. No one can say -- whether President or congressperson or newscaster, Democrat or Republican, Christian or Moslem or Jew or pagan -- that he or she has all the information. That's what being in a democracy is all about.

Free speech isn't just about talking. It's also about listening. And such listening needs to be accompanied by an open mind, a mind free of prejudices. Prejudices come in all shapes and sizes. Actually, Mohammad said to his followers to seek the truth, no matter where it comes from. Thus the true Moslem honored the Bible and the Torah. Early Christians (when Augustine was a bishop and started to have influence on new generations of Christians) adopted this practice, and started to accept the pagan writings of Plato, Aristotle and Cicero.

We all should do the same.

Yes! Discussion! Listening! Pausing! Reflecting!
I agree with you Searcher, that it all can be overwhelming and that there are times in our lives when we need to ignore it. I'm sorry about your child -- it's got to be the most difficult thing in the world.
That where we as women can most easily connect -- understanding another woman's feelings about her child, even if we don't have one of our own.
I feel that duplicity in the government has been growing over time through all our administrations, no matter which party. If the demand that we look into Mr. Clinton's behavior was right, then the demand that we look into Mr. Bush's behavior is also right. I don't think we know the answers, and won't until there is an investigation.
In the meantime, what are our own values regardless of what the law says right now? Do we believe that unauthorized spying of our neighbors and ourselves with the decision to spy made by a handful of people? How do we know that this handful of people doesn't stray beyond looking for terrorists into looking for those who disagree with their political views?
Just questions....:--))

Casey, you asked 'what are our own values regardless of what the law says'? May i ask,
what about laws that are very specific, but seems to be important only when it involves one's own people? When it is against the law in a nation to imprison someone without charge after a certain period of time, when it is illegal to use violence to get information from suspected individuals, why is it all right for the same nation to have certain government agencies do those things beyond their borders ? Why is it acceptable for those government agencies to take suspects, or assist in the taking of them and then transporting them to foreign soils where torture is used for whatever purpose, or where they will be held without any recourse to legal representation and fair trial?

Good topic Vi.. it is interesting to read the thoughtful and well expressed replies....

[ December 23, 2005, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: norma ]

Casey- you are a wise woman and it is so good to know that there are concerned. intelligent women here who are willing to talk and to listen