Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hagel: Bush overstepped with NSA program

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 03:32 PM
Original message
Hagel: Bush overstepped with NSA program

http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20060820-125038-7580r.ht...

Hagel: Bush overstepped with NSA program

U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., says President Bush exceeded his authority by authorizing domestic National Security Agency wiretaps without court warrants.

...

The administration says the NSA surveillance program largely targets al-Qaida suspects and possible U.S. sympathizers.

Asked on "Fox News Sunday" whether he believes the president overstepped his authority with the program, Hagel said, "I do. And I think that we need to find a new law (authorizing domestic surveillance) ... The law that we are operating with now was crafted in 1978. Technology has taken all of these issues far beyond that law ... We need a law that is relevant to today's threats."

...

Hagel said he is one of the authors of legislation that would rewrite the law.
A federal judge declared the current law unconstitutional last week. Show host Chris Wallace pointed out the Republican National Committee issued a release the same day, "Liberal Judge Backs Dem Agenda to Weaken National Security."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. Keep talking Senator. Maybe your Repug friends will get some courage
also.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marrak Donating Member (332 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
2. Why does Bush
hate our constitution?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
screembloodymurder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
3. He's on the side of the terrorist.
Traitor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
4. So what are you going to do about it, Chuck?
Oh, that's right, we just saw what you're going to do about it - go on Sunday talk shows and bitch.

When you are prepared to lead the trial in the Senate, send out a press release. Otherwise, STFU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
5. "overstepped?" I'll remember that characterization if I ever get caught
...redhanded in a crime. "Oh that, detective-- no worries, I just overstepped the law a little...."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. I've overstepped the speed limit a few times
Edited on Sun Aug-20-06 04:28 PM by wtmusic
and gotten a ticket anyway. :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
6. no worries
Edited on Sun Aug-20-06 04:03 PM by AtomicKitten
The ever-compliant GOP Congress will be more than happy to retroactively declare Junior's felonies legal by whatever legislative efforts are required.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
7. A Chicago Trib article points out the big squealing political mess
The far more difficult question is the implication of Taylor's ruling. If this court is upheld or other courts follow suit, it will leave us with a most unpleasant issue that Democrats and Republicans alike have sought to avoid. Here it is: If this program is unlawful, federal law expressly makes the ordering of surveillance under the program a federal felony. That would mean that the president could be guilty of no fewer than 30 felonies in office. Moreover, it is not only illegal for a president to order such surveillance, it is illegal for other government officials to carry out such an order.

For people working in government, this opinion may lead to some collar tugging. If Taylor's decision is upheld or other courts reject the program, will the president promise to pardon those he ordered to carry out unlawful surveillance?

The question of the president's possible criminal acts has long been the pig in the parlor that polite people in Congress refused to acknowledge. For the last six years, the Republican-controlled Congress has refused to conduct any serious oversight of the administration and has specifically refused to investigate the NSA operation. Certainly, nobody wants to mention the "I" word, particularly not the Democrats who believe that the threat of impeachment could scare away independent voters in the November elections.

Court decisions, however, may make it increasingly difficult for members to ignore a squealing constitutional violation in their midst.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-06082003...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellenfl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
8. hagel is changing the law to make *'s program legal. nothing
to see here. move along.

ellen fl
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalArkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
9. The problem I see, it that they will create a new law saying that
all the executive branch needs to do is "Tap that suckers phone". No questions asked. All nice and legal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
11. Never. Trust. A. Republican.
I don't believe him, he's just pandering for the Presidency.

As soon as he got elected Prez, he would continue the fascist republican neocon agenda until the US was irrevocably locked down in complete fascist tyranny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
12. Hagel is just pandering for his failed White House bid.
Also, Hagel said that he would re-write the law. That would make Bush's criminal actions legal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
13. The RNC has it slightly wrong...
The United States Constitution Backs Dem Agenda to Weaken National Security

Rightwingnuts; stupidest MFing criminals ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. the Corp Media goes along with the ploy -- Hagel will be ignored
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
14. He overstepped and should be charge with a crime. Afterall,
bush is suppose to be the one upholding the laws of the land in the first place. Clearly he has broken his oath of office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
15. More dishonest reporting from the Moonie Times, intended to bolster ..
.. the wingnut agenda: "A federal judge declared the current law unconstitutional last week."

The actual ruling, of course, was not that the law was unconstitutional but that the Republican White House had broken the law.

This is no accidental misrepresentation from the Moonie Times: it's intended to help the wingnuts ram through a bill allowing the White House to continue to behave as it has, by providing the bullshit talking point "We have to fix this unconstitutional law."

Moonie Times? :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raging moderate Donating Member (52 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:55 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Crafted in 1978?
What deos Hagel mean by this? I thought that the current law was crafted under the Clinton/Gore Administration, and therefore allows the extraordinary application for a warrant AFTER the wiretapping is already done. It requires only that the Executive Branch check in with the Judicial Branch on their wiretapping activities, right? This seems to me to be a very moderate demand. They could do all the surveillance they want, as long as they operate within the Constitutional framework that safeguards us from tyranny, right? Or have I misunderstood something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 06:21 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. It was crafted under Jimmy Carter
And updated under Clinton. It also has been updated at least 4 times after 9/11. Of course, they fail to mention that part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Hagel's false canard: that somehow technology has
rendered FISA incapable of dealing with foreign intelligence wiretaps. On the contrary, the FISA law as currently construed, following its modifications, allows government to wiretap without a warrant for up to 72 hours before a warrant must be obtained.

Nobody, including Hagel, ever mentions specificaly how technology has rendered FISA less robust. The reason they don't is that technology HAS NOT rendered FISA less robust.

Instead, BFEE did not want to get warrants for spying on political opponents. It's the most obvious and most common-sense explanation for why, after FISA had only rejected 5 applications out of some 18,000, they refused to get warrants.

Now why the MSM and the Dems don't make this point OVER AND OVER AGAIN is beyond me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
18. Good call, Senator Hagel!
Now, will you sponsor the conviction resolution in the Senate should the House impeach Dubya?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
20. Well, Hagel, how the phuck are you going to enforce the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
22. There are still two or three sane republicans
And a bunch who just woke up with a vicious hangover and said, "I've been doing WHAT since 1999?"

There is no question that if Al Qaeda operatives want to have a chat about the American League pennant race and how to kill every attendee of the Super Bowl, I would prefer our people to be listening in and taking notes. However, there is no reason why a warrant can't be obtained UP TO 72 HOURS LATER so they know they have to answer to someone in each case. Some Repuke yesterday was saying it was "just too much work" to apply for warrants. It's a freaking 5-minute phone call.

A reporter from Time was on yesterday, telling the story about interviewing an Iraqi woman about abuse she took in U.S. custody. The woman was nervous that she or her family would be targeted if she blabbed about Abu Ghraib. The reporter assured her that she would never use her real name or her address or her phone number.

Now, of course, it is likely the U.S. govt has a tape of that entire phone call.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 01st 2014, 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC