Bush thinks he's a king, huh?

[DrMaddVibe]

Resigned FISA Judge a Committed Clintonista

The press is breathlessly reporting that U.S. District Judge James Robertson has resigned from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court - "apparently" in a fit of conscience over news that President Bush was using the National Security Agency to monitor the telephone conversations of terrorists.

If the reports are correct, Judge Robertson's conscience has evolved considerably since the days when he was dismissing one criminal case after another against cronies of Bill Clinton - the man who appointed him to the bench in 1994.

Old Arkansas media hand Paul Greenberg has long had Robertson's number. In a 1999 column for Jewish World Review, Greenberg described the honorable judge as "one of the more prejudiced Clintonoids on the bench."

As Accuracy in Media noted in 2000, Judge Roberston's conscience wasn't particularly troubled by the crimes committed by one-time Clinton Deputy Attorney General Webb Hubbell.

In two cases involving Hubbell, AIM reported, "Judge James Robertson threw out a tax charge and another for lying to federal investigators. Appellate courts overruled in both cases, and Hubbell then plead guilty to felonies in each case."

Judge Robertson's conscience also seemed to go AWOL when it came to the case of Archie Schaffer, an executive with Tyson Chicken - the company that had showered Mr. Clinton with campaign contributions and helped steer Mrs. Clinton to her commodities market killing.

Critics said Judge Robertson was merely returning the favor on behalf of the man who appointed him, when - as CNN reported in 1998, he "threw out the jury conviction of Tyson Foods executive Archie Schaffer for providing gifts to former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy."

Robertson had "granted a motion by Schaffer to overturn the verdict which found him guilty of giving Espy tickets to President Bill Clinton's first inaugural dinner and gifts at a birthday party for the firm's chief executive, Don Tyson."

In the context of his past performance on the bench, Judge Robertson's media fans will surely understand why some of us aren't buying their claims that he stormed off the FISA court in a fit of outrage over perceived law breaking.

[DR CHIP]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
CHIP, I think you're missing Nick's point. Nick doesn't dispute that the law allows the president to conduct warrantless searches under certain conditions. He is saying that one of those conditions is that the administration is supposed to get a warrant after the fact. The article you posted doesn't address that point.

No, I do get it. My point is this: he doesn't need one period and THAT is what the Courts have upheld.

This whole story is nothing more than political spin at a time when Iraqi elections, the Patriot Act needs renewing, and a book about the whole subject are colliding at the same time.

Bush will walk away from this period. It is the needless spin and money that will be spent on this that irritates me. There is a lot more to do in Washington than debate this.....

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by DR CHIP
No, I do get it. My point is this: he doesn't need one period and THAT is what the Courts have upheld.

You may be right about that, I don't know... but the article you posted doesn't answer the question one way or the other.

[FORD]

As I suspected, closet boy Drudge got his facts fucked up again.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/

[DR CHIP]

Ford, I cry bullshit on this....

This is just a liberal, leftist spin of exactly my point....searches can be done without warrants....read it for yourself....

Bush's attorney General stands behind him all the way...everything he has done is legal...may or may not should be, but it is....

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by DR CHIP
Seriously....everything you just stated is either a really bad argument that you can't see or another emotionally charged response with no basis in fact or you missed the point of my post entirely and knee jerked a response....

1. I never said Bush could do no wrong....where have I ever said this?

Where did I say that is what you said? I never said you said that.

Originally posted by DR CHIP


2. The reason for the post was to discredit this myth out there that Bush somehow thinks he is a king...he is NOT the only President who has acted with broad ability

So he is not the only President who has acted in that manner. Does that somehow mean he does not think like that?

Originally posted by DR CHIP
3. There is absolutley no proof in your assertion that Bush is a maniac - show me PROOF, not opinion

Just look at the past 4 years he has been in office.

Go to a cemetery where a soldier is buried who died in Iraq since 2003.

Go to a hospital and meet soldiers whose bodies are mangled and ripped up as a result of being sent to Iraq based on Chimpy's lies.

That is proof enough.

Anyone who supports Bush and his Criminal Empire are supporting TERRORISTS.

The real terrorists are in the White House, and are members of the CFR.

Originally posted by DR CHIP


4. Listen to your post....it is bad rhetoric, with even worse argument and had I ben the one to post a response like you did, you would be all over me for no facts!

No because there are facts.

Originally posted by DR CHIP

5. Bush has done numerous things in ways I do not agree with, as has EVERY President I can remember, but the attacks on him that are falicious need to be responded to.

So far in this thread I have not made any "fallacious" attacks. My statements are based on facts.

Originally posted by DR CHIP
6. The above post you referenced was written to prove one point: Bush isn' the only President to feel he has the power to tap into certain privacy laws (which was a blatant rebuttal to the Bush thinks he's a king thread)...

This item is the exact same thing as No. 2.

This item is the exact same thing as No. 2.

This item is the exact same thing as No. 2.

Stop repeating yourself.

Stop repeating yourself.

Stop repeating yourself.

:D

Originally posted by DR CHIP
Hard Rock, I appreciate dialogue and appreciate diversity of opinion, but please do not succomb to the notion that everyone except the left has a point to make....

Peace

EVERYONE has a point to make. Left or right.




The truth of the matter is, if you are elected President, chances are you have no respect for law, and are going to be (if you are not already) a criminal of the highest order.


Chimpy's Dad merely gave him a new sandbox to play in called the White House.

Poppy's cronies in the CFR will ensure that they run the country as they wish, while Little Chimpy plays happily at this neat-o game called "being President".

[DR CHIP]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
Where did I say that is what you said? I never said you said that.

Yes you did, read above you said that I was bolstering an argument that Bush could do no wrong (seriously read your post above)

So he is not the only President who has acted in that manner. Does that somehow mean he does not think like that?



Just look at the past 4 years he has been in office.

Go to a cemetery where a soldier is buried who died in Iraq since 2003.

Go to a hospital and meet soldiers whose bodies are mangled and ripped up as a result of being sent to Iraq based on Chimpy's lies.

I disagree with you here. I see a reason, as many do to have invaded Iraq. It does not mean he is a genocidal maniac.

That is proof enough.

Anyone who supports Bush and his Criminal Empire are supporting TERRORISTS.

The real terrorists are in the White House, and are members of the CFR.

I simply disagree.

No because there are facts.



So far in this thread I have not made any "fallacious" attacks. My statements are based on facts.



This item is the exact same thing as No. 2.

This item is the exact same thing as No. 2.

This item is the exact same thing as No. 2.

Stop repeating yourself.

Stop repeating yourself.

Stop repeating yourself.

:D




EVERYONE has a point to make. Left or right.




The truth of the matter is, if you are elected President, chances are you have no respect for law, and are going to be (if you are not already) a criminal of the highest order.

I disagree completely.

Chimpy's Dad merely gave him a new sandbox to play in called the White House.

Poppy's cronies in the CFR will ensure that they run the country as they wish, while Little Chimpy plays happily at this neat-o game called "being President".

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DR CHIP
No because the Courts have upheld it...didn't you read the article?

What exactly was upheld? That they could authorize wiretaps without a warrant in cases where FIS was involved...

How do we know the targets are actually "foreign intelligence" or just anti-War demonstrators that have been painted with a "terrorist" or "foreign intelligence" brush. Oh wait, we won't, since there is no check on the blanket secrecy power...

And it's an OP-ED, not a news article.

Upheld it in narrow circumstances that do not apply here...

BTW, the FISA Court was created under CARTER, did the "article" mention that?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DR CHIP
Nick for your reading pleasure:

Uh huh? Here's some "Liberal bullshit" facts you no doubt don't want to hear...

Feel free to stick your fingers in your ears and scream out "LA LA LA LA LA..."


Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans

The top of the Drudge Report claims “CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER…” It’s not true. Here’s the breakdown –

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”

What Carter’s executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/

Remember, when it doubt, just lie, tell half the story, quote out of context and spin spin spin...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DR CHIP
Not true Nick....the Pres can do it WITHOUT the FISA approval....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...commentary-hed

She did huh?

http://thinkprogress.org/?tag=Intelligence

"Neither Gorelick or the Clinton administration ever argued that president’s inherent “authority” allowed him to ignore FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act].

This morning, The National Review’s Byron York responded:

The Center’s position appears contradicted not only by Gorelick’s testimony but by a statement she made to Legal Times in November 1994, several months after her testimony, in which she said, “Our seeking legislation in no way should suggest that we do not believe we have inherent authority.”

Actually, our argument is perfectly consistent with Gorelick’s statements. Both her testimony and in the Legal Times quote, were about physical searches. In 1994, the FISA did not cover physical searches. She was explaining what the President’s authority was in the absence of any congressional statute. She wasn’t arguing that the President had the authority to ignore FISA."

In 1995, with President Clinton’s signature, FISA was amended to include physical searches. That law prohibited warrantless domestic physical searches. No one in the Clinton administration, including Gorelick, ever argued that the administration could ignore the law, before or after it was amended.