Attorney General Ashcroft May Not Have Signed Off on Bush's Spying Program

Oh, the Democrats have a powerful issue there. They can say that it would be better to have another Nine Eleven or another Pearl Harbor than it would to have a President who acts to protect security in spite of the fact that before Viet Nam and Frank Church all Presidents acted to protect Americans. Yes, the Democrats are going to ride to victory on this one. And in Hillary they have a candidate who will end the war and drop the sureillance upon domestic sleeper cells. Or maybe we should vote for the man from Brokebackside Mountain Barney Frank who will love the Arabs to death via aids.

 

Topic: Attorney General Ashcroft May Not Have Signed Off on Bush's Spying Program

Key word: "MAY"

Could just as easily read:

Topic: Attorney General Ashcroft May Have Signed Off on Bush's Spying Program

 

I seriously hope that the Democrats' effort here to cripple our war against the terrorists is done in closed session. Schumer or the ranking Dem should be held accountable for any committee leaks.

 

Ashcroft did not need to sign off on the NSA program. I have posted the following numerous times but people apparently do not want to know the truth.

The New York Times, which first disclosed the existence of the NSA program last week, also cited unnamed sources who said the administration used two other opinions to justify its actions. One was embedded in a public Justice Department brief from 2002 and another was in a 2002 opinion issued by the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review that oversees the secretive court that usually deals with terror-related wiretap requests.

In 2002, that FISA review court upheld the president's warrantless search powers, referencing a 1980 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. That court held that "the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the president’s constitutional power," wrote the court.

"The Foreign Intelligence Court of Review, which is the highest court that's looked at these questions, has said that the president has the inherent constitutional authority to use electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence and Congress cannot take away that constitutional authority. That's a pretty good argument," Bryan Cunningham, former National Security Council legal adviser, told FOX News.

More at:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179323,00.html

 

When have the sorry democrats politicians been held accountable for anything?

 

OR,

I have posted the following numerous times but people apparently do not want to know the truth.

Thanks for posting it again. Perhaps they'll read it sometime.

 

Someone said: "hope springs eternal in the human breast".

 

Much ado about nothing.

 

So the possibility exists to have a rogue president, eh? </font>[/QUOTE]Ken

You, for some unknown reason, have got your bowels in an uproar over President Bush. I am going to post just for your benefit the ruling of the FISA court as reported by the New York Times:

The New York Times, which first disclosed the existence of the NSA program last week, also cited unnamed sources who said the administration used two other opinions to justify its actions. One was embedded in a public Justice Department brief from 2002 and another was in a 2002 opinion issued by the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review that oversees the secretive court that usually deals with terror-related wiretap requests.

In 2002, that FISA review court upheld the president's warrantless search powers, referencing a 1980 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. That court held that "the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the president’s constitutional power," wrote the court.

"The Foreign Intelligence Court of Review, which is the highest court that's looked at these questions, has said that the president has the inherent constitutional authority to use electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence and Congress cannot take away that constitutional authority. That's a pretty good argument," Bryan Cunningham, former National Security Council legal adviser, told FOX News.

 

President Bush has come out and said the secret wire taps were for people making calls overseas or overseas calls coming into this country only. I'm glad they are doing this. There is absolutly nothing wrong with it whether a President Hillary or a President Bush or President whomever is doing it. I have yet to even hear if any "citizens" are involved in being wiretapped. For all we know, they could be illegal aliens who are being watched and tapped. I personally wish they did more surveillance on the Internet and the hosting companies who host jihad sites.

Much ado over nothing.

 

I think this goes for most anything political! It doesn't really matter what the "story" is, who it's against, or which party they are part of, most of the time, you will find that it's as you stated....


Much ado over nothing.


Jamie

 

The government, in particular the president, having the power to do something(and I am not agreeing that he did in this case) does not mean it is the right thing to do. After all, the U.S. Supreme Court had the power to make abortion for any reason legal but its doing so doesn't make it the right thing to do. </font>[/QUOTE]Listening to conversations with foreign terrorists is the right thing to do.

 

I agree. I don't know of anyone who disagrees. </font>[/QUOTE]Even this Democrat agrees. The question is,
"Do you trust the Executive branch of government, acting alone, to decide who might be a potential terrorists or not?" I'm not sure I trust any President that much.

 

I agree. I don't know of anyone who disagrees. </font>[/QUOTE]So, then what's your problem?