George W. Bush’s Disposable Constitution

[Texas]

This is interesting thinking as well. Defending this stuff kind of stuff is really unfortunate.

In this memoranda, for example, from Yoo on 9/25/01 (warning large pdf file) it states warrantless searches can be Constitutional "when special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable cause requirement impracticable." Yoo goes on to make the case, when the President does it, it isn't illegal. It's absolutely foolish to think these guys weren't just setting up cover for planned mass surveillance that they then carried out.

FISA warrants were easy to come by. Bush wanted to record literally every phone call both within and without the US, that was supposedly the impractical to get a warrant circumstance. Well, d'uh. Just what probable cause was there for wiretapping everyone?

Did Congress agree? No.

Russ Feingold, 2006


Ed Kennedy, 2005


2005, Boston Globe: Bush bypassed compliant court on wiretapping - Warrants rarely denied


CNN 2005


2005 - Conservative Scholars Argue Bush’s Wiretapping Is An Impeachable Offense


2006 - Bush's Wiretaps Ruled Unconstitutional


John Dean, 2005

You really need to stop making things up:

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=76306

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of review has ruled that the government's right to intercept emails and wire-tap international phone calls without a warrant is legal and constitutional.

This a huge victory for the Bush Administration who faced extreme criticism while wire tapping international phone calls without warrants saying they had the right to do so for national security reasons.

Dean Boyd, the Jusice department spokesman says "The Department of Justice is pleased with this important ruling." The Court said that the Protect America Act of 2007 was reasonable under the fourth Amendment, The court rarely releases their rulings.

 

[Skeptic]

Dicator... 1. a ruler who has complete power

Bush had "complete power"?

Really?

So why did he leave office?

Or have to stand for election and re-election?

Or have the media tell him he sucks all the time... without being able to shut them up?

Do you know any other "ruler with complete power" who had to put up with any of that?

Now I see what the problem is. Some people in this discussion don't recognize that the nuance of the word, dictator, in this context is about ignoring the separation of powers.

Ah, I see. When you use the word "dictator", it means precisely what you wants it to mean.

(Not that Bush "ignored seperation of power" in the first place, but hey, facts schmacts, you just know the truth, so never mind that.)

Why stop with "dictator", then? He is a Nazi, too. In the context where "Nazi" means "I disagree with him", of course.

Either Harper's writers don't understand basic English words, or else -- more likely -- they deliberately use the wrong words just for the pleasure of bashing Bush.

 

[Skeptic]

(Shrug)

Harper's says the USA was a dictatorship. When people point out that this obviously not true, they are told they just don't undestand what the word "dictatorship" means in this context, and besides, the important thing is how evil Bush is.

The Bible says the world was created in six days. When people point out that this is obviously not true, they are told they just don't understnad what the word "day" means in this context, and besides, the important thing is how wonderful God is.

Clearly, in both cases the facts don't matter, and the obvious goal of the believer is simply to defend their dogma -- God's existence or Bush's evil. This defense is obviously immune to facts and logic: requiring "dictator" to not mean "dictator" and "day" to not mean "day" -- and that's just for starters.

It is a matter of faith, not facts. And, as Ambrose Beirce put it, "faith" is "to believe passionately in the palpably untrue; the chief preoccupation of mankind".

 

[gumboot]

wiretapping of every single phone call in the US

You're kidding right? You realise this isn't possible, yes?

 

[BPSCG]

Now I see what the problem is. Some people in this discussion don't recognize that the nuance of the word, dictator, in this context is about ignoring the separation of powers. It has nothing to do with Hitler or any other historical dictators. This is not about calling Bush a tyrant, it is about ignoring the Constitution.

Here, let me help move this discussion along.

Definition of DictatorNotice there are TWO definitions for the word, dictator. Perhaps some people were not aware.

Ah, I see. When you use the word "dictator", it means precisely what you wants it to mean.

(Not that Bush "ignored seperation of power" in the first place, but hey, facts schmacts, you just know the truth, so never mind that.)

Why stop with "dictator", then? He is a Nazi, too. In the context where "Nazi" means "I disagree with him", of course.

Either Harper's writers don't understand basic English words, or else -- more likely -- they deliberately use the wrong words just for the pleasure of bashing Bush.

(Shrug)

Harper's says the USA was a dictatorship. When people point out that this obviously not true, they are told they just don't undestand what the word "dictatorship" means in this context, and besides, the important thing is how evil Bush is.

The Bible says the world was created in six days. When people point out that this is obviously not true, they are told they just don't understnad what the word "day" means in this context, and besides, the important thing is how wonderful God is.

Clearly, in both cases the facts don't matter, and the obvious goal of the believer is simply to defend their dogma -- God's existence or Bush's evil. This defense is obviously immune to facts and logic: requiring "dictator" to not mean "dictator" and "day" to not mean "day" -- and that's just for starters.

It is a matter of faith, not facts. And, as Ambrose Beirce put it, "faith" is "to believe passionately in the palpably untrue; the chief preoccupation of mankind".

There's glory for you!'

`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

From Through the Looking-Glass, Chapter VI

 

[Alt+F4]

Bush had "complete power"?

Really?

So why did he leave office?

Bush was the worst evil genius...ever! Here he was, destroying the Constitution, listening in on telephone conversations between me and my mother about her cataract surgery while probably poking a kitten in the eye with a stick at the same time.

And what happens? He let's the 22nd Amendment, from a document he himself suspended, boot him out of office. If FDR were alive, he'd first show Bush how to hold a real secret military trial then he'd kick his two-term .

 

[Skeptic]

And what happens? He let's the 22nd Amendment, from a document he himself suspended, boot him out of office.

Ah, that's because he was a secret dictator.

Like the Scotsman who keeps making large donations to charity so that people won't realize what a miser he is, Bush left office on the very day the 22nd amendment said he should just so people won't realize he could have stayed in power forever if he only wanted to.

 

[Brainster]

I suggest we amend the constitution so Bush can run again but not Clinton, and then if he wins we could impeach him. Unless of course he really does that dictator thingy, in which case we could wave miniature American flags.

 

[Pardalis]

Oh it's real hard to read a couple samples of the memoranda to see what the facts are.

On the face of it the memos seem pretty damning, I agree, but why just read samples?

 

[Pardalis]

Oh ya, I read them. And I also read the opinions written about them by a number of different experts on Constitutional law. But how hard is it to figure out wiretapping of every single phone call in the US without warrants is illegal,

Are you sure it says that? Every phone call of every 300 million Americans?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Wrong to seek legal opinions? Or wrong to not implement them?

I don't understand your question. None of the three historical examples were about seeking legal opinions, were they? The outrage over these memos is not outrage about merely seeking legal opinions.

As one example of what's wrong: in the famous torture memo it was wrong to redefine torture (in contradiction to international law that was signed and ratified by the U.S. and supported with U.S. law) as limited to pain that is "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death" and to add that is must be "protracted" pain.

 

[WildCat]

Are you sure it says that? Every phone call of every 300 million Americans?

Yep, they even hired 300 million Chinese to do the job.

 

[linusrichard]

I just noticed something. The Constitution says habeas corpus is a privilege, rather than a right. I wonder what that's about...?

I would argue that a so-called privilege that the Constitution says "shall not be suspended, unless..." is a right. (Maybe it's both.)

 

[jj]

Look, I know you guys need to defend our would-be dictator 'W', but you'll have to accept that he had two problems. The first is that the population, most likely including you guys, wouldn't accept his actions if they were public, so they had to remain covert and below the radar. The second, frankly, is that 'W' was incompetent in a way that Chavez, raging nutter, commie-crank and testosterone-poisoned bully that he is, wasn't.

All in all, perhaps not the worst possible outcome for us.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Bush had "complete power"? [snip]

If you read the article, it was described as temporary.

We may not have realized it at the time, but in the period from late 2001-January 19, 2009, this country was a dictatorship. The constitutional rights we learned about in high school civics were suspended. That was thanks to secret memos crafted deep inside the Justice Department that effectively trashed the Constitution. What we know now is likely the least of it.

Is there a point in discussing the semantics instead of discussing the implications of the memoranda? I take it that's easier for you than addressing the actual issue?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You're kidding right? You realise this isn't possible, yes?

The laugh's on you, gumboot. Apparently you underestimate the capability of computer data mining programs.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/01/nsa-whistleblow.html

Just one day after George W. Bush left office, an NSA whistleblower has revealed that the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program targeted U.S. journalists, and vacuumed in all domestic communications of Americans, including, faxes, phone calls and network traffic.

Russell Tice, a former NSA analyst, spoke on Wednesday to MSNBC host Keith Olbermann. Tice has acknowledged in the past being one of the anonymous sources that spoke with The New York Times for its 2005 story on the government's warrantless wiretapping program.

After that story was published, President Bush said in a statement that only people in the United States who were talking with terrorists overseas would have been targeted for surveillance.

But Tice says, in truth, the spying involved a dragnet of all communications, confirming what critics have long assumed.

(emphasis mine)

I have been following this matter for a couple years. There is information about the program from this NSA whistleblower, from communications workers who witnessed the installation of the equipment, from the court cases against the communications companies, from affidavits, from Congressional hearings, and from the memoranda discussed here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

On the face of it the memos seem pretty damning, I agree, but why just read samples?

I posted a link to the memoranda. So I'm not sure what you mean here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Are you sure it says that? Every phone call of every 300 million Americans?

Yes. That is what the testimony and evidence shows. See post #76 above. Bush was using a data mining computer program to search through all communications. That is why they could not go to the FISA court for warrants. Mass searching of all communications was clearly illegal.

I thought the right wingers were against this kind of tracking of citizens but apparently that's only when it isn't their guy doing it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yep, they even hired 300 million Chinese to do the job.

Oh ye of too much faith in, "it can't happen here".

See post #76 above.

 

[Brainster]

The laugh's on you, gumboot. Apparently you underestimate the capability of computer data mining programs.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/01/nsa-whistleblow.html(emphasis mine)

I have been following this matter for a couple years. There is information about the program from this NSA whistleblower, from communications workers who witnessed the installation of the equipment, from the court cases against the communications companies, from affidavits, from Congressional hearings, and from the memoranda discussed here.

Some people just cast all their skepticism to the winds when it comes to the Bush Administration's evil deeds.

Russell Tice? The Russell Tice who acknowledges he was diagnosed with psychotic paranoia?

This is where it gets weird – or weirder, anyway: The NSA ordered Tice to undergo an unscheduled psychological evaluation. There, a "Defense Department psychologist concluded that Tice suffered from psychotic paranoia."

The Russell Tice who's a member of Sibel Edmonds' group of "whistleblowers"?