« If the groundhog can do it, so can INewsvine invites »

Bush confessed to a felony on national TV

02/08/06 | by [mail] | Categories: culture/news

As you probably know, George W. Bush has admitted to authorizing the NSA to listen in on phone conversations of US citizens without a court order. The first authorization came in 2002 and he had reauthorized it 30 time. In 2004, one of the reauthorizations almost didn't happen when James Comey, then deputy attorney general, refused to sign on.

That prompted two of Bush's senior aides - Andrew Card Jr., his chief of staff, and Alberto Gonzales, then the White House counsel and now the attorney general - to make an emergency visit to John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, to try to persuade him to give his authorization, as required by White House procedures for the program.

Officials with knowledge of the events said that Ashcroft also appeared reluctant to sign on to the continued use of the program, and that the Justice Department's concerns appear to have led in part to the suspension of the program for several months. (International Herald Tribune)

You know you're really encroaching on civil liberties when even John Ashcroft won't go along with you. But what specific law does the warrantless wiretapping break? USC TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 19 ยง 371. The penalties for breaking that law:

An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

If none of this is enough to convince you that the wiretapping is wrong, then maybe Bush's own words will. This is what he said during the campaign in 2004 at Buffalo, NY, two years after he authorized the NSA wiretapping, and over one year before someone blew the whistle on him.

There are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order.

Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.

It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution (CNN).

If that's not a lie, then I've never heard one. He's right about the law and the constitution. This spying does require a court order. If there are people in the US, citizens or visitors, who are talking with al-Qaeda on the phone, then I'm all for the government listening in on what they say. Just get a court order! It's not that hard. That is a limit put on the government to protect our liberty. A court order requires that they have a good reason to suspect the person and that there is a record kept that they asked permission. So when Bush came out with his rhetoric in the State of the Union address about wanting to prevent another attack, he's giving us a red herring. We all want to prevent an attack. Let's do it within the law.

Bush has confessed on national television that he committed multiple felonies. And he lied about it in 2004. I don't want to use the I-word lightly, but need I remind you that our last president was impeached for lying about something far less serious than that?



Bravo, Danny. Well said.

[Member]  http://www.brendoman.com/kyle02/09/06 @ 11:42

I chuckle a bit too that the info you got from CNN is also at whitehouse.gov

Brendon [Visitor]http://www.techfreak.net02/09/06 @ 13:09

How can your last comment be serious? Everyone knows that W has much better values than Slick Willie ever did.

Heath [Visitor]http://heath.brendoman.com02/16/06 @ 19:53

I think Danny was suggesting that violating civil liberties against the established law of the country (and lying about it) may be a worse crime than having oral sex (and lying about it).

[Member]  http://www.brendoman.com/kyle02/16/06 @ 20:16
[Member]  http://www.brendoman.com/02/17/06 @ 09:07

Ah. I guess I missed that.

[Member]  http://www.brendoman.com/kyle02/17/06 @ 09:12

I’m just glad we have a Christian in there. Not like that other guy from Taxachussetts. What was he, a Catholic or something?

Heath [Visitor]http://heath.brendoman.com02/21/06 @ 16:53

Not to inject too much seriousness into this post, but the issue with our last president lying seemed to mostly revolve around the fact that when he lied he was doing so under oath. If you honestly think that there has been any president in, well a really long time, that has not lied to the american people then you must be living in quite a blissful, albeit unrealistic world. It seems to be the natural order of the present state of america that lying to its people is acceptable for national security; I think Bush has a much better case here than ’slick willy’ and any trouble his ‘willy’ may have gotten into in the oval office.
Moreover, quite a few presidents in recent memory have preformed warrant-less wiretaps including Kennedy and Carter. Google ‘Executive Order 12139′ to see Carter’s order to allow such surveillance, or read elsewhere how the courts upheld a conviction of two men who Carter’s administration had used similar wiretap and who wrote that the executive branch has “inherent authority” to wiretap enemies such as spies and terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when the surveillance is “conducted primarily for foreign intelligence reasons” quoted from above link. see this for more information on the topic If you have all this trouble with Bush’s actions, well it sounds like you have quite a bit of trouble with some democratic presidents as well; so let us not just come down on one side of it but either condemn both sides equally or not at all.

Anonymous Coward [Visitor]03/01/06 @ 00:59

I’m pretty sure Danny would gladly dish out criticism to both sides.

And simply lying on National TV is worse than lying under oath? I’m not so sure. I guess it may be if you’re only looking at it from a legal standpoint, as far as what is and is not punishable by law. But morally I don’t see much difference. “Let your yes be yes and your no be no,” and all that.

[Member]  http://www.brendoman.com/kyle03/01/06 @ 10:08
[Member]  http://www.brendoman.com/03/01/06 @ 10:08

Form is loading...