Congratulations! Bob Barr is getting my vote now.

"ending all pending lawsuits and started to uncover the extent that Bush and the telecoms violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition of surveillance without warrants"

But there will be an Inspector General investigation, so we will know all of the ways that the administration broke the law. It also re-establishes the authority of the FISA Court to over see the monitoring, and you can't tap with out going through that court.

I don't really understand the need to sue the telecom companies. Is that our biggest priority?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

In California, police are allowed to search if "officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony, whether or not a felony, in fact, has been committed." This seems to be just a continuation of the state of California.

^^^^^

Since the 70s, FISA has allowed wires to be tapped with out a warrant, with the provision that a warrant be obtained with in the following 72 hours. When the unwarranted wiretapping was discovered, I was under the impression that they had to go back to following these rules that Bush tried to skirt. So if you think the 4th amendment has been violated...it has been that way for nearly 30 years even without Bush's years of undetected mischief.

There was also a provision attached to this legislation that denied immunity to the telecoms. Obama voted for it, but it did not pass. I think that shows that any other alternative would not have succeeded. With a democratic majority resting on Liebermann, I dont see what was expected. The current laws expire in August (less than a month away), so we were working against a clock, Liebermann, and veto threats.

I just don't see what people want that can realistically be done.

I understand people are so upset about this, and I am really interested in learning what is the biggest issue. Is it that you don't want the undetected monitoring to continue, because the bill addresses that. Is it that you want to know what went wrong, because the bill addresses that.

It wasn't about suing telecoms, it was about protecting the rights of the American people against a government that would abuse its power and those who would cooperate in that abuse.

Let give em something to talk about..Im gonna be extra naughty now that I know someone will always be listening.

From NPR:

"The measure would provide immunity for telecom firms. But that immunity would be granted only after they showed district court documents proving they were instructed by the government to take part in a program that went around the congressionally mandated FISA court."

"it was about protecting the rights of the American people against a government that would abuse its power and those who would cooperate in that abuse."

The bill prevents any President from side stepping the law in the future...with out the passage of this bill, we wouldn't get that. (As my understanding).

There was a great interview on NPR last night that was very insightful, but I am only finding an article on the site, not the interview.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92398782

These surveillance powers usually come with a condition of renewal. Is there one? If there is a condition of renewal included in the legislation say every three years or so than I'm all for it. However, if they are creating a whole new power of the Executive branch rather than loaning out an extension of power under reasons of threat to domestic security than this is a bad idea.

I like the quote: "Bush unsucessfuly tried to pass a similar bill under a Republican congress, but finally got what he wanted from the Democrats."

"The bill prevents any President from side stepping the law in the future...with out the passage of this bill, we wouldn't get that"
The Administration sidestepped the law to cause this fight and no one was punished, so why would any future president hesitate to sidestep again?

Once again, the telecoms have the opportunity to get immunity, but that is contigent on if they show district court documents showing they were instructed by the government to take part in the program.

Not to mention, that the Inspector General will conduct an investigation, and based on those results they can hold the adminstration responsible. This bill did not protect the President and his administration in anyway.

Hypno, it is my understanding that this bill limited executive powers.

Well if that's the case you should give Hillary a call Jillness and tell girl to take a chill pill, lol.

I could be wrong, but that is what I understood from NPR's interview yesterday.

Also...if the telecoms provide the documentation to district court showing that they committed these acts based on the Administrations instruction... isn't that the smoking gun for impeachment?

I am not 100% in my opinion...I feel like there is still so little I know about the actual bill, because I have only found interpretations of it. I had no idea about the potential for non-immunity, until I read the NPR article. I wish there were more specifics.

I couldn't find anything today, but was looking while working. There isn't a smoking gun big enough for impeachment in this country for this president.
If only he had had sex.

Yes, sex is the worst offense in this country!

I just printed out the 114 page bill...and I think my eyes are begining to bleed.

I don't have time right now to fully read it, but I have book marked sections I want to review. Some parts look to be of very little help, because they refer back to the original document and say "by striking "sabotage or international terrorism" and inserting, "sabotage, international terrorism, or the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction", etc.

Does granting immunity to the telecom companies necessarily end lawsuits filed to UNCOVER the extent that Bush and the telecoms violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition of surveillance without warrants.

Couldn't we have granted the companies immunity, while still asking them to let us in on the dirty work they did. I'm thinking along the lines of Law & Order, where we strike a deal with someone to get the dirt out of them...

Ya, what Jillness said.

I am under the impression that the Inspector General investigation will do just that, MSucre...but I could be wrong. I am desperate for specifics!

Wait, am I wrong? Was Clinton impeached on sexual charges or lying under oath? I mean, I was only 13 at the time, did I hear these charges wrong Stephley?

I was listening to the Radio, and they were talking about this warrantless wiretapping issue. The phones they were listening to were from someone who dialed overseas (not in America), and was talking to someone else who was overseas (not in America). Neither party was American, so how does the 4th amendment apply to them?

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. He denied on multiple occasions and in many different ways about the extint of his relationship with an intern.

Undave #1 wiretaps--slippery slope.
#2 Clinton lying under oath on the topic of sex. What a waste of time and money.

Gotta give you the point on lying under oath, Hunter and Undave. Keeping us on our toes!

From what I heard on NPR, if they want to tap citizens of the US they need court approval. If they want to tap "groups" of international calls (both parties), they need court approval.

I give Hillary credit for her vote. She's a standup gal.

Jill, I thought your arguments on this thread were fabulous I enjoyed reading them.

"The 1978 law allowed the ultra-secretive National Security Agency to wiretap for 72 hours while waiting for the FISA court to approve the action.

The new law, however, gives the agency a week, and it also allows them to use any information they got EVEN if the FISA court eventually rules that the wiretap is unlawful."

So that is pretty WEAK if you ask me.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jTItrk9fF3qRz1E4ucRxfRTljNsQ

My point is that no matter what you think of Bush, there will never be the proof that he lied or obstructed justice in regards to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Whether you like him or not, three world leaders (Putin, Chirac and Blair) agreed with Bush that there were weapons there and Bush was authorized by Congress. That being said, Clinton was impeached when evidence was presented that he lied under oath. Whether or not you liked Clinton, there was evidence to impeach, however not convict.

You cannot simply pronounce that there never will be any proof that Bush lied - that's not how things work. Bush had a lot to say about the war to a lot of people, and as Congress so conveniently proved with Clinton, even if a mountain of evidence only produces two viable charges, you still get to impeach. In addition to the Articles that Kucinich has, John Conyers has been sitting on a move to impeach Bush and/or Cheney for at least a year. He's not a casual guy, and wouldn't have bothered to talk about the issue in real terms if he didn't think there was something to the charges. Whether he'll actually buck Pelosi ever and bring the Articles is another matter.

And I'll focus on the sex aspect because the point is people were so willing to focus, and investigate for years because it was a salacious story - if it only concerned presidential honesty, people would be more curious about whether Bush actually lied, regardless of who went along with him.

You can focus on the sex act if that pleases you, but that is not why Clinton was impeached. Of course people are going to focus on sex, it sells. However, at the end of the day if you lied about sex to the American people you can be forgiven (Rob Lowe), however if you lie under oath about sex there will be some reaction as even the president is held to the same laws as the American public.

So tell me exactly what evidence Bush can be impeached on. The phone call from Putin that said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction? The memo from the British that showed Saddam had weapons? The confirmation by Chirac? America's own intelligence that said the same thing? The fact that Congress authorized the conflict? Why don't you ask your good friend Bill Clinton what he believed about Saddam and weapons of mass destruction. Even Al Gore himself said it in the 1990's. How things work now, we'll never see those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq because they are long gone from that country. We can now only hope we never see them again.

Here I put this in another thread, but now you won't have to go looking:

Here you go: studies by journalism groups, a Senate panel and reports from several allied leaders. There's no investigation by a Ken Starr like figure of course, because people seem afraid of that.

Study: False statements preceded war
Hundreds of false statements on WMDs, al-Qaida used to justify Iraq war
The Associated Press
updated 11:30 p.m. PT, Tues., Jan. 22, 2008
WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.

WMD, al-Qaida links debunked
The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

Media 'validation'
The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.

Senate panel: Bush administration misled America on Iraq By Jonathan S. Landay, McClatchy Newspapers
Thu Jun 5, 8:16 PM ET
WASHINGTON — President Bush , Vice President Dick Cheney and other top officials promoted the invasion of Iraq with public statements that weren't supported by intelligence or that concealed differences among intelligence agencies, the Senate Intelligence Committee said on Thursday in a report that was delayed by bitter partisan infighting.

A second report found that a special office set up under then-secretary of defense Donald H. Rumsfeld conducted "sensitive intelligence activities" that were inappropriate "without the knowledge of the Intelligence Community or the State Department ." That report revealed that Pentagon counterintelligence officials suspected that Iran might have tried to use the group to influence administration policymakers.

Committee chairman John D. Rockefeller , D-W. Va., said the administration's actions went far beyond simply being misled by bad intelligence.

"There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence," Rockefeller said in a statement. "But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."

Polish president says he was 'misled' on Iraq arms

Originally published 11:21 p.m., March 18, 2004, updated 12:00 a.m., March 19, 2004 WASHINGTON TIMES

Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, a key backer of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, said yesterday his country was "misled" by Bush administration claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but insisted the world was still better off with the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Kwasniewski was the second leader of a close European ally in less than a week to question prewar estimates of Saddam's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. Spanish Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero on Monday accused President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair of waging the war on the basis of "lies" about Iraq's weapons programs...

The Polish president told a group of French journalists yesterday, "I personally think that today, Iraq without Saddam Hussein is a truly better Iraq than Iraq with Saddam Hussein."

"But," he added, "naturally I also feel uncomfortable due to the fact that we were misled with the information on weapons of mass destruction," according to a transcript supplied by the president's office. "WE WERE TAKEN FOR A RIDE."

Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman offered a little more guidance recently -
"The next step is to start asking, what did the president actually know and when did he know it? Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill has stated that President Bush seemed determined to overthrow Saddam Hussein at the beginning of his administration, well before 9/11. There was also the British “Downing Street” memo written in the summer of 2002 stating that President Bush was going to “fix” the intelligence to fit the policy of overthrow."

Stephley - Since you posted that on another thread, does this count as a double post?

(I kid, I kid)

Gee, thanks. You are so kind.

Stephley, did the study show any intentionally false statements? Is there a way to prove those statements were not simply the result of faulty intelligence?

Study can't determine someone's intent, they lay out the facts that are known. The study by the journalists and the Senate both speak to the 'faulty' intelligence, the Polish gentleman seems to feel that it was not faulty but deliberately untrue. That is why Congress should take up the issues.

Why, why does congress keep backing up this adminstration's stupid, arrogant decisions? I just don't understand. Can someone explain it to me? The raping of our U.S. Constitution can't be a good thing. I'm starting to fear our reaction to potential terrorism more than any actual, physical terroristic act. Leave my freedoms be!!! Osama Bin Laden and other radicals want our freedoms stripped. That is their goal . . . now our leaders are falling into the trap.

I have to disagree; the study can determine if the statements were intentionally false. If the study could show that Bush knew the statements were false, it would show that he intentionally lied. If it "laid out the facts" that showed he knew the intelligence was faulty, it would show intent. However, the study does not show that he knew the statements were false. I've never said that Congress shouldn't investigate; I just don't believe the investigations will turn up any proof. In a regular criminal court, if one or two people say one thing and 100 say another, the one or two people would not be enough to convict, or even bring charges. Why would a different set of criteria apply here?

The studies say the statements are false and that there is evidence that the Administration knew the statements were false when they were making the statements - that people at the Pentagon actually were tasked with finding support for the claims the Administration wanted to make. I guess when you say someone misled or lied, you are stating their intent to lie or mislead:

"In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

If there is evidence of a crime, charges are brought whether the crowd says the defendant is innocent or not - if one or two witnesses are more credible than 100 witnesses who are not, the defendant can be convicted.

Actually, if you have 100 witnesses who saw the crime one waya nd one or two who saw it another, it is highly, highly unlikely that a grand jury would agree to bring about charges. And I still don't see proof in the study, but I'll admit it warrants further investigation.

oops, "one way and"

Anyway, we've had this same argument many times and obviously neither one of us is going to change her mind, so I am going to get going. I have work to do anyone. On a Friday, too! What a bummer!

I think this debate fall along party lines, which makes me sad because laws are not republican or democratic. If Bush has broken the American law, he needs to be impeached if it can be proven. This argument as to whether it's right or wrong is irrelevant. The law is the law.

That's the problem Raci, the interpretation of the "proof" is falling along party lines as well. The law is being lost in the battle to get Bush.

The law is just fine when it's enforced. Like I said, Feinstein doesn't question that Bush has done anything wrong, only says that bringing up impeachment would further divide the country.

How can you guys keep talking about 'faulty intelligence' and still support the war? It's like starting to beat up a guy because someone told you he was messing with your wife, and continuing to beat him up once you find out the story was a lie... as if you can beat him long enough to make everything okay again.

Ah! Every time I try to go, I get pulled back in.

I just have to say, Stephley, that I completely disagree with your analogy. Your analogy involves two people. The war involves a lot more. I don't see how anyone can honestly say that we should just pull out now and leave the country in shambles.

You're like Al Pacino in Godfather Part III, lilkimbo.

I really am, Liberty! It's bad. I always chuckle to myself when I'm on PopSugar and the bar says "Insanely Addictive," because that's what Citizen needs to say for me!

Let's keep beating up on them until Iraq gets better. Let's keep killing people until there are no more bad people for us to kill - based on faulty intelligence. How do you know the intelligence is right now? My faith would be shaken to my toes if I had believed Bush.