[extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am I offered?

[Herb Martin]

> Spike:
> >> There is divided opinion on whether the wiretapping
> >> was against US law, depending on how the war powers act
> >> is interpreted.  I am waiting for the courts to decide
> >> that, but my guess is the wiretapping orders will be
> >> found legal.
> 
> Brett:
> > You wanna bet ?
> 
> I don't see wiggle room for Bush if you read the laws.
> He must ask the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court  before 
> ordering the NSA to conduct surveillance against
> US citizens. He did not. Bush broke the law.
> 
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_
> 10_36_20_I.html 

There is all sorts of wiggle room -- if needed,
but this may not be (almost certaily isn't the
only applicable law.)

First, you have to know the specific act to see
if this law were even applicable and there are
reports (perhaps untrue but just as likely to be
true as any presumed specific acts) that all
such surveillance was performed OUTSIDE the US
and some readings of this law make this explicitly
exempt.

By other readings, those surveiled may be classed
as agents of foreign powers (includin international
terrorism) and so such communications and locations
may be under the exclusive control of foreign powers.

By another line of reasoning, if there are in fact
"United States persons" involved they may have no
reasonable right of privacy while planning acts of
war or terrorism against the citizens and government
of the United States.

There's more but you would first need a specific 
act in detail, and I am not nearly as qualified to
argue that it is legal as the many government lawyers
who have reviewed the specifics and found them to 
be legal (in formal opinions); even if other lawyers
might come to a different conclusion there are clearly
plenty of wiggle room since the experts found enough
to offer such opinions.  (The President doesn't 
personally analyze the law but has teams of people who
do that and who have the training.)

And there are many other ways it might be legal, 
including war powers, and other laws.

Also, if it is against the law (and there is not
sufficient evidence to state that with any real
conviction) then rather than belly-ache, Congress
should FIX the law....

Your RIGHTS are far more egregiously violated 
everytime you board an airplane and face a
warrantless search for doing nothing more than
wishing to TRAVEL.  Those monitored under any
of the press reports we have heard were conversing
with none Al Qaeda (and perhaps other terrorist)
correspondents, i.e., phone numbers and email.


--
Herb Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of 
> amara.graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it
> Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 7:48 AM
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Cc: amara at amara.com
> Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What 
> odds am I offered?
> 
> Spike:
> >> There is divided opinion on whether the wiretapping
> >> was against US law, depending on how the war powers act
> >> is interpreted.  I am waiting for the courts to decide
> >> that, but my guess is the wiretapping orders will be
> >> found legal.
> 
> Brett:
> > You wanna bet ?
> 
> I don't see wiggle room for Bush if you read the laws.
> He must ask the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court  before 
> ordering the NSA to conduct surveillance against
> US citizens. He did not. Bush broke the law.
> 
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_
> 10_36_20_I.html 
> Amara
> SoCalif
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>