Report Questions Legal Basis for Bush's Spying Program

By ERIC LICHTBLAU
and SCOTT SHANE
Published: January 6, 2006

WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 - President Bush's rationale for authorizing eavesdropping on American citizens without warrants rests on questionable legal ground and "may represent an exercise of presidential power at its lowest ebb," according to a formal Congressional analysis released today.

The analysis, conducted by the Congressional Research Service, an independent research arm of Congress, is the first formal assessment of a question that has gripped Washington for the last three weeks: Did President Bush act within the law when he ordered the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans?

While the Congressional report reached no bottom-line conclusions on whether the program is legal or not, it concluded that the legal rationale appears somewhat dubious. The legal rationale "does not seem to be as well-grounded" as the Bush administration's lawyers have suggested, and Congress did not appear to have intended to authorize warrantless wiretaps when it gave President Bush the authority to wage war against Al Qaeda in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks, the report concluded. - New York Times
--------
The Congressional Research Service, which advises lawmakers on a wide range of matters, said a final determination about the issue is impossible without a deeper understanding of the program and Bush's authorization, "which are for the most part classified."

Yet two attorneys in the organization's legislative law division, Elizabeth Bazan and Jennifer Elsea, say the justification that the Justice Department laid out in a Dec. 22 analysis for the House and Senate intelligence committees "does not seem to be as well-grounded as the tenor of that letter suggests."

The National Security Agency's activity "may present an exercise of presidential power at its lowest ebb," Bazan and Elsea write in the 44-page memo." - NewsDay.com
--------
This issue is not going away. As the article points out, "many Democrats and some Republicans said they found the doubts raised by Congressional report persuasive, pointing to it as another indication that President Bush may have overextended his authority in fighting terrorism."
According to NewsDay, the memo states "It appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has ... authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations here under discussion."

The CRS is regarded as non-partisan.
"...the analyses of the Congressional Research Service, part of the Library of Congress, are generally seen as objective and without partisan taint, said Eleanor Hill, who served as a Congressional staffer for 17 years and was staff director of the joint Congressional inquiry into the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks."

----
The Congressional Research Service is the public policy resear ch arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis. - Loc.gov

I think that it has been established that it is legal. The American people polled also agree with the spying on these people.

Scotty, the poll that you are referring to asked if the president was justified in spying on suspected terrorists. If you ask it that way than 100% of the people should have thought it was justified. The question should have been "if the president was justified in spying on suspected terrorists without a warrant." I guarantee you that the results of the poll would have been much different.

It hasn't been established that what he did was legal. Do we have to keep going back to the bill of rights?


Amendment IV
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.

The following outlines ALL of the presidents powers, in no place does it say that he is allowed to order spying on civilians.

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.


Finally, Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That’s it! The president has no other responsibilities or authority than what is outlined in the constitution. So yes, he broke the law!

If he were authorizing spying on US soldiers than he would be within the law because he is their commander and chief. But he has no authority over civilians other than to suggest laws that they have to abide by and sign bills into law.

Maybe the loophole is in the oath it’s self. “and will to the best of my Ability”. The man doesn’t really have any abilities…

quote:

Originally posted by Scotty:

quote:

December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely.

Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure

REF.

Like I said, the question leaves out the word "Warrant". The question is misleading. And even if the majority of Americans did support Illegal Search and Seizure, it's not allowed by the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. If you want to change the constitution that's fine. But 64% isn't even enough to make that change.

So I'm sorry, you have no legal backing for your argument.