Ex-Justice lawyer says wiretap program illegal - U.S. Security - MSNBC.com


The government's much-criticized eavesdropping program is illegal ?

The legal rationale for the program is so secretive it initially was not even shared with top officials, including the general counsel of the National Security Agency, which conducted the surveillance ?

Goldsmith, who was in the room, confirmed Comey's earlier account that a physically weak Ashcroft rebuffed White House officials who were trying to get him to reauthorize the eavesdropping program. According to Goldsmith, Ashcroft said he believed the program was illegal.

~@~ PERJURY ?


This Whitehouse has gone off the reservation so far they have entered new territory !
I believe it's time we send a new Texas Ranger and a Posse' to round them up, find them guilty and hang em' high !
This Administration is no better than all the Tin-Pot Dictators they claim to be opposed to around the world combined.

__________________

So this is how liberty ends... with thunderous applause
In a Democracy, Silence is Permission

This is all I needed to see:

But he would not say exactly what law or constitutional principle the surveillance violated.

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Yeah well you should include the second portion of that comment to make sense of it in total.

Goldsmith said the White House has forbidden him from saying anything about the legal analysis underpinning the program.

Kinda puts things in perspective, NO?

Goldsmith probably doesn't want to be a victim of Rendition and Torture by this Administration.
He of all people knows the lengths these guys are willing to go to.

__________________

So this is how liberty ends... with thunderous applause
In a Democracy, Silence is Permission

Goldsmith probably doesn't want to be a victim of Rendition and Torture by this Administration.
He of all people knows the lengths these guys are willing to go to



so you know people tortured by the bush administration ?

Could you name even 1 for us ?

__________________
Hardcore Conservative !

I said Conservative not necessarly Republican or Democrat. Liberals are in both of those parties.

Maher Arar

~

Beginning in 2004, accounts of abuse, rape, homicide, and torture of prisoners held in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq (also known as Baghdad Correctional Facility) came to public attention. The acts were committed by some personnel of the 372nd Military Police Company of the United States, the CIA and possibly additional American governmental agencies.

__________________

So this is how liberty ends... with thunderous applause
In a Democracy, Silence is Permission

No, I really don't.

If disclosing the information is the right thing to do, it should be done regardless of the ramifications...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

So you are in favor of anyone/everyone with information to step forward even against Executive privilege claims ?

Communication to Congress on President's Assertion of Executive Privilege

ABC News: Bush Rejects Subpoena For Rove

Bush Invokes Executive Privilege - TIME

Bush uses privilege to deny ex-aides’ testimony - Politics - MSNBC.com

Bush Fires First Shot At Congress, Invokes Executive Privilege To Deny Congress Testimony From Aides In Prosecutor Firing Probe - CBS News

~@~

Do you believe each of these people should step forward, regardless of the consequences ?

__________________

So this is how liberty ends... with thunderous applause
In a Democracy, Silence is Permission

I'm in favor of doing the "right" thing. If what's "right" in this case requires him to ignore the White House, then he should do it and deal with the fallout. If he's not man enough to do that, he's hardly deserving of any credit...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Is there ever any reason to not come forward?
As in, the right thing to do is keep quite regarding Executive secrets that are contrary to the welfare of John Q Public ?

__________________

So this is how liberty ends... with thunderous applause
In a Democracy, Silence is Permission

Wiregate

__________________

Are you saying, the right thing to do is keep quite regarding Wiregate ?

__________________

So this is how liberty ends... with thunderous applause
In a Democracy, Silence is Permission

I can only speak for myself.

If a wrong has been committed, and I've been told to keep quiet about it or suffer consequences, well, I guess I'll be gearin' up to suffer consequences. Simple as that.

If someone else lacks the moral compass to do the same, that's on them. Their decision to do that, though, doesn't exactly win me over.

Saying something like "Well, the law was broken, but I can't say which law or how" means absolutely nothing to me. Man up and say what's on your mind, and deal with the fallout...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

No - "WIREGATE"

put that guy on the stand.

__________________

since the postion of attorney general is oging to ba brought up for a vote, I ran accross this today and thought it might jump start debate... Mukaseys outlook and choices, some past history etc...

The Surveillance Law That Matters
By ROBERT F. TURNER
October 24, 2007; Page A20

I have never met Judge Michael Mukasey, and I have no strong feelings on who should be our next attorney general. But after four decades studying and writing about national security aspects of our Constitution, I believe Congress and the American people must understand that some of the issues raised in Mr. Mukasey's confirmation hearings are far more complex than they may initially appear.

Take, for example, Sen. Pat Leahy's question to Mr. Mukasey about whether the president has the power to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). I know that statute well, having worked in the Senate when it was enacted in 1978, and later serving as the senior White House lawyer under President Reagan charged with overseeing the implementation of FISA and other intelligence laws.

The real issue here is not whether the president is "above the law," but rather which "law" he must see "faithfully executed" when there is a conflict between the Constitution and an inconsistent statute. His highest duty, I submit, is to the Constitution itself.

In 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall declared in Marbury v. Madison: "an act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void." From the earliest days of our history until FISA was enacted, it was understood by all three branches that the Constitution had left the president (to quote "Federalist 64") "able to manage the business of intelligence as prudence might suggest."

When Congress passed the first wiretap statute in 1968, it expressly declared that nothing in it would limit "the Constitutional power of the President" to collect foreign-intelligence information. Every administration from FDR to (and including) Jimmy Carter engaged in warrantless foreign-intelligence wiretapping in the belief that this was one of the "exceptions" to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. Others include border searches and searches of commercial airline passengers and their luggage (not to mention the requirement, imposed by Congress, that citizens entering a congressional office building to exercise their constitutional right to petition their government for redress of grievances must submit to a warrantless search absent the slightest probable cause).

In 1978, Carter administration Attorney General Griffin Bell told the Senate that FISA "does not take away the power of the President under the Constitution"; but he explained that the statute could nevertheless work because President Carter was "agreeing to follow the statutory procedure." That was Mr. Carter's prerogative as it is President Bush's -- but neither they nor Congress may take away the constitutional power of future presidents.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (composed of federal appeals court judges) noted, in a unanimous 2002 opinion,that every federal court to decide the issue held the president has constitutional power to authorize warrantless foreign-intelligence electronic surveillance. The opinion added: "FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

The Supreme Court has had at least six opportunities to limit presidential power in this area. In the 1967 Katz case that first required a warrant for wiretaps, the Court expressly exempted "national security" wiretaps from its holding. When it required a warrant for national security wiretaps of purely domestic targets in 1972, it exempted electronic surveillance of the "activities of foreign powers and their agents" in this country. On four other occasions it declined to hear cases on appeal where it had the opportunity to impose a warrant requirement on foreign-intelligence electronic surveillance.

Much contemporary debate over presidential claims of power to ignore "laws" fails to appreciate the modern congressional practice of enacting flagrantly unconstitutional statutes. This helps explain the increased use of presidential "signing statements" in recent decades. On June 11, 1976, Sen. Robert P. Griffin (R., Mich.) inserted a lengthy statement I'd drafted into the Congressional Record explaining why "legislative vetoes" of executive agency actions were unconstitutional. Seven years later, the Supreme Court echoed those arguments in reaching the same conclusion in the Chadha case. The congressional response? It has since enacted more than 500 new unconstitutional legislative vetoes.

Mr. Mukasey rightly promised to resign rather than violate his oath of office if the "president proposed to undertake a course of conduct that was in violation of the Constitution" and could not be dissuaded. For precisely the same reason, he was also right to refuse to be bound by unconstitutional acts of Congress like FISA that usurp presidential power. Any senator who elects to vote against him because of this issue has a duty to explain to the American people by what theory an unconstitutional statute has suddenly taken on a superior position to the Constitution itself.

Mr. Turner holds both professional and academic doctorates from the University of Virginia School of Law, where he cofounded the Center for National Security Law in 1981. He is a former three-term chairman of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Law and National Security

Free Article - WSJ.com

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

Smith vs. Maryland, baby.

The end.

__________________