Criminal in Chief

With senate Judiciary hearings starting on the "wire tapping" incident, I feel that it is appropriate to define exactly where (I think) Bush has quite-in-fact broke the law. There has been much ambiguity spread by the major news networks, and, indeed, ambiguity spread by Senators and congressmen, too, as to what criminal acts have been committed.

This is just like Nixon / Liberals always pull the "Nixon" card

But is this like Nixon? Does The Commander-in-chief have the authority to wire-tap its own citizens to preserve National security? The answer is unequivocally, yes; however, not unconditionally so. So what does that mean? In simple language: The President, based on the powers vested to him by the Constitution, and defined by the provisions of FISA, may eavesdrop on its own citizens providing certain criteria, or conditions, if you will, have been met. *

So no law was broken then, right?

The supreme court has ruled, concerning gathering intelligence using wire tapping methods, that: if "neither a warrant nor a statute authorizing eavesdropping can be drawn so as to meet the Fourth Amendment's requirements . . . then the Fruits' of eavesdropping devices are barred under the Amendment." So we are given herein two conditions under-which the Executive branch must act.

1. It must meet 4th Amendment requirements, and
2. The Executive branch *must obtain a warrant*

It is on this second point that the legality of the NSA's wiretapping has been contested. As outlined by FISA, the Executive branch (President Bush; Attorney General Alberto Gonzales both fall under the Executive branch) has 72hrs. to obtain a warrant after begging the wiretapping.

So, then isn't getting a warrant just a ritualized gesture?

To some degree it is. However, the purpose for this "ritual" is to keep the Executive in check. With-out a warrant, we are saying "I blindly trust your discretion". Has President Bush given us reason to trust him unconditionally? Has he been honest in all of his affairs? These questions, only you can answer for yourself.

But wait! President Bush said that if we had been keeping track of terrorist activity prior to 9/11, we could have prevented the attacks on the WTC. Shouldn't we then be applauding him for his efforts?

And I'm so glad you asked. To make the claim that criminal wiretapping is what was needed to prevent the 9/11 attacks is GROSSLY MISLEADING. I cannot emphasize this enough. In 1999 a special operations Command military intelligence program was created. The program was named "Able Danger". Hearings before the Senate Judiciary committee has asserted that "Able Danger had identified the September 11, 2001 attack leader Mohamed Atta, and three of the 9/11 plot's 19 hijackers, as possible members of an Al Qaeda cell linked to the '93 World Trade Center Attacks." This contradicts the original finding of the 9/11 Commission that intelligence agencies had not identified the attackers prior to 9/11.

:-\

This means that:

WE HAD THE INTELEGENCE!! However, because of laws passed concerning agencies ability to communicate with one another, we were never able to put the pieces of the puzzle together. What was needed to prevent the 9/11 attacks was not illegal wiretapping; rather, a repaired intelligence agency is what was needed. The President broke the law, very clearly, by issuing an order allowing the NSA to conduct electronic surveillance without ANY warrant. We must demand that accountability is restored to our government.

* Under FISA (and this is where more ambiguity arises) it is legal to use electronic surveillance to spy on a foreign entity without a warrant.

Cody Hobbs