Guess who will be getting impeached???

water

Transparent, tasteless, odorless
OG Investor
Bush won't reauthorize eavesdropping


President Bush has decided not to renew a program of domestic spying on terrorism suspects, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Wednesday, ending an law-enforcement tactic criticized for infringing on civil liberties.

"The president has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires," Gonzales wrote in a letter to congressional leaders.

Bush has reauthorized the program every 45 days, and the current authorization is mid-cycle, a senior Justice Department official said. Gonzales said a recent secret-court approval allowed the government to act effectively without the program.

The program, adopted after the September 11 attacks, allowed the government to eavesdrop on the international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens without a warrant, if those wiretaps were made to track suspected al Qaeda operatives.

Critics have said the program violated the U.S. Constitution and a 1978 law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which made it illegal to spy on U.S. citizens in the United States without the approval of the special surveillance court.

"Any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," Gonzales said.

Gonzales said a judge on the secret FISA court recently approved a government proposal allowing it to target communications into and out of the United States when probable cause exists that one person is a member of al Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization.

He reiterated the administration's position that the surveillance program has been legal, but said the government will now have the ability to act with sufficient "speed and agility."

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the new rules approved by the court addressed administration concerns.

"The president will not reauthorize the present program because the new rules will serve as guideposts," Snow said.

Gonzales' letter came the day before he was scheduled to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where the Democrats now in power were expected to question him closely about the much-criticized program.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), a Vermont Democrat and the judiciary committee's chairman, said Bush's decision will provide efficient and meaningful court review.

"We must engage in all surveillance necessary to prevent acts of terrorism, but we can and should do so in ways that protect the basic rights of all Americans including the right to privacy," he said.

Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), a New York Democrat and a judiciary committee member, said, "Why it took five years to go to even this secret court is beyond comprehension."

Last year a federal judge in Detroit ordered the Bush administration to stop the surveillance because it violates Americans' civil rights.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said the program violated a constitutional check on the power of the presidency and said there "are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution."

The Bush administration has appealed the ruling to a federal appeals court, where the case is pending.

Gonzales said the administration began exploring options for seeking FISA court approval for the program in the spring of 2005, well before it was publicly disclosed at the end of that year, creating a firestorm of criticism.

He did not give details of the court's orders.


Can somebody spell I-M-P-E-A-C-H !!!!
 
Bush didnt do this on his own, trust me. Every Rep. was wispering in his ear, and then BOOM! there you go. They just didnt know that the people of the US was going to react like they did.
 
did yawl read this part:

"Gonzales said a judge on the secret FISA court recently approved a government proposal allowing it to target communications into and out of the United States when probable cause exists that one person is a member of al Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization."

they're still gonna be able to listen to cats w/o warrants
 
Damn Right said:
did yawl read this part:

"Gonzales said a judge on the secret FISA court recently approved a government proposal allowing it to target communications into and out of the United States when probable cause exists that one person is a member of al Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization."

they're still gonna be able to listen to cats w/o warrants
They could for a long time before 9-11 but not without a court review. They sidestepped that review and sidestepped the constitution and they did this to try to take the sting out of the hearings.

Remember the unqualified stupid bitch they had as white house counsel? They ditched her for a better attorney because they know they will be in court/hearings/investigations from now until they leave office.
 
Bush cant be impeached for official acts done while he is President, whether they are constitutional or unconstitutional. Presidents have immunity
 
"George, You know you done fucked up, right?"

annadiggstaylor2.jpg


(Judge Anna Diggs-Taylor)
 
gulc06 said:
Bush cant be impeached for official acts done while he is President, whether they are constitutional or unconstitutional. Presidents have immunity

Not very familiar with US politics, huh?

Ever heard of
Richard Nixon
Bill Clinton?
 
They are just grandstanding and trying to make the Republican look bad for 2008.

If they really cared about privacy, we would have laws protecting our internet activity, GPS trackers, phone records, and financial records from warrantless searches. Congress did nothing about our phone privacy for decades.
 
Ultramagnetic said:
They roasted Gonzales today on the hill. Shit was beautiful.
cspan pisses me off - 3 cspans and all they showed was congressional bullshit and no fuckin oversight hearings
 
gulc06 said:
Bush cant be impeached for official acts done while he is President, whether they are constitutional or unconstitutional. Presidents have immunity

If that were the case, he would be king. The Constitution makes it official. If it's Un-Constitutional, it is illegal. President Bush said, in his State Of The Union Address, "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of Uranium from Africa." The State Of The Union Address is an official act. Knowingly stating a falsehood to the American people during an official act is an impeachable offense. Invading a sovereign nation illegally is an impeachable offense. Clinton was impeached for far less.
 
Makkonnen said:
cspan pisses me off - 3 cspans and all they showed was congressional bullshit and no fuckin oversight hearings

Gotta say... Good to see brothers pissed off 'cause C-Span didn't have their show on.

But the country don't want another impeachment, not unless George continues to put himself in the way of the safety of Americans, and putting his ego ahead of our best interests.
 
dzlkdd said:
Gotta say... Good to see brothers pissed off 'cause C-Span didn't have their show on.

But the country don't want another impeachment, not unless George continues to put himself in the way of the safety of Americans, and putting his ego ahead of our best interests.

What's up with everyone saying, "The American people want or don't want......?" That's just propaganda on TV. Everybody wants it.
 
Hagel: Some See Impeachment As Option


By HOPE YEN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON

With his go-it-alone approach on Iraq, President Bush is flouting Congress and the public, so angering lawmakers that some consider impeachment an option over his war policy, a senator from Bush's own party said Sunday.

Meanwhile, the Senate's No. 2 Republican leader harshly criticized House Democrats for setting an "artificial date" for withdrawing troops from Iraq and said he believes Republicans have enough votes to prevent passage of a similar bill in the Senate.

"We need to put that kind of decision in the hands of our commanders who are there on the ground with the men and women," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss. "For Congress to impose an artificial date of any kind is totally irresponsible."

GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent critic of the war, stopped short of calling for Bush's impeachment. But he made clear that some lawmakers viewed that as an option should Bush choose to push ahead despite public sentiment against the war.

"Any president who says, I don't care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed _ if a president really believes that, then there are _ what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that," said Hagel, who is considering a 2008 presidential run.

The Senate planned to begin debate Monday on a war spending bill that would set a nonbinding goal of March 31, 2008, for the removal of combat troops.

That comes after the House narrowly passed a bill Friday that would pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year but would require that combat troops come home from Iraq before September 2008 _ or earlier if the Iraqi government did not meet certain requirements.

On Sunday, Hagel said he was bothered by Bush's apparent disregard of congressional sentiment on Iraq, such as his decision to send additional troops. He said lawmakers now stood ready to stand up to the president when necessary.

In the April edition of Esquire magazine, Hagel described Bush as someone who doesn't believe he's accountable to anyone. "He's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends on how this goes," Hagel told the magazine.

In his weekly address Saturday, Bush accused Democrats of partisanship in the House vote and said it would cut the number of troops below a level that U.S. military commanders say they need. Vice President Dick Cheney also accused Democrats of undermining U.S. troops in Iraq and of sending a message to terrorists that America will retreat in the face danger.

"We have clearly a situation where the president has lost the confidence of the American people in his war effort," Hagel said. "It is now time, going into the fifth year of that effort, for the Congress to step forward and be part of setting some boundaries and some conditions as to our involvement."

"This is not a monarchy," he added, referring to the possibility that some lawmakers may seek impeachment. "There are ways to deal with it. And I would hope the president understands that."

Lott said setting withdrawal dates is a futile and potentially dangerous exercise because Bush has made clear he will veto any such legislation.

"There are members in the Senate in both parties that are not comfortable with how things have gone in Iraq," Lott said. "But they understand that artificial timetables, even as goals, are a problem. ...We will try to take out the arbitrary dates."

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said the Senate bill seeks to heed the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group by setting a goal of withdrawing some troops while leaving others behind to train the Iraqi army for border patrol and other missions.

"That, combined with a very aggressive, diplomatic effort in the region is what we're going to need to have," he said.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she believed that setting a timetable was appropriate but declined to predict whether it would garner enough Senate votes to pass.

"People of this country have spoken overwhelmingly. It's been constant now," Feinstein said. "They want us out. It is time for the Senate to weigh in. I hope we will have the votes."

Hagel spoke on ABC's "This Week," Feinstein and Lott appeared on "Fox News Sunday," and Nelson was on CNN's "Late Edition."




http://fredericksburg.com/News/apmethods/apstory?urlfeed=D8O3BJV80.xml&page=1
 
Back
Top