Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by tw

He lies about how much the drug bill will cost so that excessively high drug prices can be protected AND so that government will price support those profits.

Speaking of lying, I just saw GWB giving a speech saying that if tax cuts are not made permanent, families making $50,000 a year will pay 50 percent more in taxes.

I'm trying to understand what kind of math he was using, or if he was playing games with words and that he wasn't actually saying that their total federal income tax of all or most families would rise by %50, but that some combination of circumstances and deductions made it theoretically possible to raise the taxes of one or more families by %50.

For example, a family living entirely on dividends from a stock in Yugoslavian eel farming.

I haven't found any analysis yet on factcheck.org. I'd be real curious about it.

From here.

By letting people keep more of what they earn, this economy is strong. Unfortunately, just as we're seeing the evidence of how the tax cuts have created jobs and opportunity, some in Washington are saying we need to raise your taxes. See, that's either by saying we're not going to make the tax cuts permanent -- in other words, they're going to expire -- or why don't we repeal the tax cuts right now. When you hear somebody say, let's don't make the tax cuts permanent what they're telling the American worker and the American family is, we're going to raise taxes on you. If that were to happen, a Chicago family of four making $50,000 would see federal income taxes go up by nearly 50 percent.

[tw]

Report Rebuts Bush on Spying
A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments.

The Congressional Research Service's report rebuts the central assertions made recently by Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales about the president's authority to order secret intercepts of telephone and e-mail exchanges between people inside the United States and their contacts abroad. ...

The report includes 1970s-era quotations from congressional committees that were then uncovering years of domestic spying abuses by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI against those suspected of communist sympathies, American Indians, Black Panthers and other activists. Lawmakers were very disturbed at how routinely FBI agents had listened in on U.S. citizens' phone calls without following any formal procedures.

According to the George Jr admininstration, then J Edgar Hoover also did right to wiretap whomever he wanted. After all, Hoover's only interest was national security - right? Hoover also had no ulterior motives. Neither did Nixon. Clearly each was only violating law for righteous reasons.

[Undertoad]

Again, Clinton's XO says nothing about whether someone is in the executive branch or not.

Tw, even distilling facts down to a single sentence has no effect on you. You're impervious to points that don't agree with your POV. Fix this.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Again, Clinton's XO says nothing about whether someone is in the executive branch or not.

Tw, even distilling facts down to a single sentence has no effect on you. You're impervious to points that don't agree with your POV. Fix this.

UT - why does the XO have to say anything other than authorize the wiretapping of Ames? It does not. An XO order that wiretaps Ames is legal because Ames permits it as part of his employment.

Meanwhile, when George Jr authorizes wiretapping of all in the Cellar only using an XO; that is illegal? Do you say George Jr can wiretap all in the Cellar because Clinton wiretapped an administration employee? Clearly there is no logical thought in that rationalization.

An XO need make no mention anything other than to authorize the wiretap. Clinton's and George Jr's XO could be worded same - a single sentence. And yet Clinton's would be legal because of who it wiretapped. George Jr's would be illegal because he wanted to wiretap the Democratic headquarters in the Watergate, the Cellar, or a completely innocent lawyer in Oregon who just happened to be Muslim - whose child's Spanish homework was cited as part of a conspiracy to bomb trains in Madrid. Look at how absurdly psychotic this 'we must bug everyone' administration has become. Somehow they have the right to bug anyone - and somehow you agree?

UT, repeating the obvious fallacy in your ridiculous arguments - that question how your heavy breathing is affecting your intelligence - has no effect on you. You see. I too can post useless insults. Stop with the insults and explain why a Clinton XO that only says 'wiretap Ames' is not legal? An XO can authorize wiretapping of Ames, not say why, and be perfectly legal. So what is your point? That the XO must go into specific detail on why it is legal - else it is not legal? What is your point of even mentioning Clinton - a totally irrelevant topic?

Hypothetically: Clinton writes an XO that says one sentence: "Wiretap Ames". Nothing more. That is legal. George Jr writes an XO that says "Wiretap Mr. Joe Citizen". That too is a complete XO text. George Jr's XO would be illegal. Why do you have a problem with this obvious fact?

But then why is Clinton's legal wiretap even mentioned by UT? Clinton is not a president who seeks dictatorship much like Nixon did. The question is George Jr who clearly has no respect for laws - probably because god tells him what is right - or righteous. George Jr has but again violated the law. He authorizes wiretaps without judicial approval when judicial approval is required - by law. Why, UT, do you have a problem with patriots who again expose the president as a crook? He wiretaps because he is president and therefore has the right to wiretap anyone. That is criminal.

[Undertoad]

I'm getting person because it's the only thing that works.

Clinton's XO does not mention Ames. It doesn't mention federal employees. It doesn't mention anyone. Of the examples you have given, in the post two up ^^, Clinton's XO would be of the illegal variety.

AGAIN, here is Clinton's XO, in its entirety. Read it. Show me where it is limited.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949

- - - - - - -
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801,
et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for
the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.

Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney
General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain
orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign
intelligence information.

Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or
defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section
303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical
searches:

(a) Secretary of State;

(b) Secretary of Defense;

(c) Director of Central Intelligence;

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;

(e) Deputy Secretary of State;

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications,
unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.


WILLIAM J. CLINTON


THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 9, 1995.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I'm getting person because it's the only thing that works.

Clinton's XO does not mention Ames. It doesn't mention federal employees. It doesn't mention anyone. Of the examples you have given, in the post two up ^^, Clinton's XO would be of the illegal variety.

AGAIN, here is Clinton's XO, in its entirety. Read it. Show me where it is limited.

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.

Section 302(a)1 of the Act which is mentioned is limited to communications

(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at— (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;

Of course, this is a newer version of the law and I cannot state for sure that this was the exact text in Clinton's time. At no point does Clinton mention including US citizens. In fact the phrase Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) means that he is limiting himself to the boundaries of the Act.

Once he ordered the surveillance of US citizens, GWB stepped outside the bounds of the Act. Whether the post-9/11 declaration gave him the right to do so is all that is left to argue here.

[Undertoad]

if "pursuant to" means "limited to", why would the XO say that physical searches are permitted pursuant to an act limited to communciations?

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

if "pursuant to" means "limited to", why would the XO say that physical searches are permitted pursuant to an act limited to communciations?

The second part states:

(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;

The point is that Clinton referred to the act in his order and limited the scope of the order to that allowed by the act, which meant not US citizens. That is a big difference from what was done by GWB. All he had to do was submit a request to the FISA court within 3 days after the intercepts.

[Undertoad]

But the XO says...

Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches,

...and you have pointed to section 302(a)(2).

[Happy Monkey]

Where? I only see references to 302(a)(1)(A)(i) and 302(a)(1)(A)(ii). 302(a)(1)(B) and 302(a)(1)(C) are also applicable.

[Undertoad]

oh yer right.

[Happy Monkey]

My drawing paper as a kid was tax law...

[xoxoxoBruce]

What about 303(a)(7)?

[Griff]

Here is a lefty link parsing this xo. This one appears to exclude citizens from warrantless searches.

Clinton's general abuse of xo's was, however, a huge problem as some loc folks are finally noticing, since Bush is now playing the game.

[Undertoad]

The lefty site is right.