RE: [TSCM-L] NYT: Bush Is Not Above the Law - "There are no hereditary kings in America"

---

From:  "James M. Atkinson" <j..._at_tscm.com>
Reply-To:  TSCM-..._at_googlegroups.com
To: &nbs= p;TSCM-L <TSC..._at_googlegroups.com>
Subject:  [= TSCM-L] NYT: Bush Is Not Above the Law - "There are no hereditary kings in = America"
Date:  Sat, 03 Feb 2007 19:03:56 -0500
= >
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/opinion/31bamford.htm= l?_r=1&oref=slogin
>
>January 31, 2007
>Op-Ed Con= tributor
>Bush Is Not Above the Law
>By JAMES BAMFORD
>Wa= shington
>
>LAST August, a federal judge found that the preside= nt of the United
>States broke the law, committed a serious felony a= nd violated the
>Constitution. Had the president been an ordinary ci= tizen — someone
>charged with bank robbery or income tax evasion= — the wheels of
>justice would have immediately begun to turn. The= F.B.I. would have
>conducted an investigation, a United States atto= rney’s office would
>have impaneled a grand jury and charges would= have been brought.
>
>But under the Bush Justice Department, n= o F.B.I. agents were ever
>dispatched to padlock White House files o= r knock on doors and no
>federal prosecutors ever opened a case.
= >
>The ruling was the result of a suit, in which I am one of the <= BR>>plaintiffs, brought against the National Security Agency by the
= >American Civil Liberties Union. It was a response to revelations by >this newspaper in December 2005 that the agency had been monitoring >the phone calls and e-mail messages of Americans for more than four <= BR>>years without first obtaining warrants from the Foreign Intelligence=
>Surveillance Court, as required by the Foreign Intelligence
>= ;Surveillance Act.
>
>In the past, even presidents were not abo= ve the law. When the F.B.I.
>turned up evidence during Watergate tha= t Richard Nixon had
>obstructed justice by trying to cover up his in= volvement, a special
>prosecutor was named and a House committee rec= ommended that the
>president be impeached.
>
>And when a= n independent counsel found evidence that President Bill
>Clinton ha= d committed perjury in the Monica Lewinsky case, the
>impeachment ma= chinery again cranked into gear, with the spectacle of
>a Senate tri= al (which ended in acquittal).
>
>Laws are broken, the federal = government investigates, and the
>individuals involved — even if t= hey’re presidents — are tried and,
>if found guilty, punished. T= hat is the way it is supposed to work
>under our system of government. But = not this time.
>
>Last Aug. 17, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the = United States District
>Court in Detroit issued her ruling in the A.= C.L.U. case. The
>president, she wrote, had “undisputedly violated= ” not only the First
>and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, b= ut also statutory law,
>the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. E= nacted by a bipartisan
>Congress in 1978, the FISA statute was a res= ponse to revelations
>that the National Security Agency had conducte= d warrantless
>eavesdropping on Americans. To deter future administr= ations from
>similar actions, the law made a violation a felony puni= shable by a
>$10,000 fine and five years in prison.
>
>Y= et despite this ruling, the Bush Justice Department never opened an
>F.B.I. investigation, no special prosecutor was named, and there wa= s
>no talk of impeachment in the Republican-controlled Congress.
= >
>Justice Department lawyers argued last June that warrants were = not
>required for what they called the administration’s “terrori= st
>surveillance program” because of the president’s “inherent= powers”
>to order eavesdropping and because of the Congressional =
>authorization to use military force against those responsible for <= BR>>9/11. But Judge Taylor rejected both arguments, ruling that even >presidents must obey statutory law and the Constitution.
>
&g= t;On Jan. 17, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales unexpectedly declared
&= gt;that President Bush had ended the program, deciding to again seek
&g= t;warrants in all cases. Exactly what kind of warrants — individual,
= >as is required by the law, or broad-based, which would probably
>still be = illegal — is as yet unknown.
>
>The action may have been desi= gned to forestall a potentially adverse
>ruling by the federal appea= ls court in Cincinnati, which had
>scheduled oral arguments on the c= ase for today. At that hearing, the
>administration is now expected = to argue that the case is moot and
>should be thrown out — while r= eserving the right to restart the
>program at any time.
>
&= gt;But that’s a bit like a bank robber coming into court and arguing
= >that, although he has been sticking up banks for the past
>half-= decade, he has agreed to a temporary halt and therefore he
>shouldn= ’t be prosecuted. Independent of the A.C.L.U. case, a
>criminal in= vestigation by the F.B.I. and a special prosecutor should
>begin imm= ediately. The question that must finally be answered is
>whether the president= is guilty of committing a felony by
>continuously reauthorizing the= warrantless eavesdropping program for
>the past five years. And if = so, what action must be taken?
>
>The issue is not original. Am= ong the charges approved by the House
>Judiciary Committee when it r= ecommended its articles of impeachment
>against President Nixon was = “illegal wiretaps.” President Nixon, the
>bill charged, “cause= d wiretaps to be placed on the telephones of 17
>persons without hav= ing obtained a court order authorizing the tap,
>as required by fede= ral law; in violation of Sections 241, 371 and
>2510-11 of the Crimi= nal Code.”
>
>Under his program, President Bush could probabl= y be charged with
>wiretapping not 17 but thousands of people withou= t having obtained a
>court order authorizing the taps as required by federal = law, in
>violation of FISA.
>
>It is not only the federa= l court but also many in Congress who
>believe that a violation of l= aw has taken place. In a hearing on
>Jan. 18, the chairman of the Se= nate Judiciary Committee, Patrick
>Leahy of Vermont, said, “For ye= ars, this administration has engaged
>in warrantless wiretapping of = Americans contrary to the law.”
>
>His view was shared by the= Senate Intelligence Committee chairman,
>Jay Rockefeller of West Vi= rginia, who said of Mr. Bush, “For five
>years he has been operati= ng an illegal program.”
>
>And Senator Arlen Specter, the Pen= nsylvania Republican who is the
>ranking member on the Judiciary Com= mittee, noted that much of the
>public was opposed to the program an= d that it both hurt the country
>at home and damaged its image abroad. “T= he heavy criticism which the
>president took on the program,” he s= aid, “I think was very harmful
>in the political process and for t= he reputation of the country.”
>
>To allow a president to bre= ak the law and commit a felony for more
>than five years without eve= n a formal independent investigation
>would be the ultimate subversi= on of the Constitution and the rule of
>law. As Judge Taylor warned = in her decision, “There are no
>hereditary kings in America.”>
>James Bamford is the author of two books on the National Secur= ity
>Agency, “The Puzzle Palace” and “Body of Secrets.”
&= gt;
>
>--------------------------------------------------------= --------------------------------------------
>   World Clas= s, Professional, Ethical, and Competent Bug Sweeps, and
>Wiretap Detection using Sophi= sticated Laboratory Grade Test
>Equipment.
>------------------= ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= -------
>  James M. Atkinson     &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            P= hone:  (978)
>546-3803
>  Granite Island G= roup            = ;            &n= bsp; Fax:      (978)
>546-9467>  127 Eastern Avenue #291      = ;           Web:    
>http://www.tscm.com/
>  = ;Gloucester, MA 01931-8008        &= nbsp;     E-mail:  
>mailto:jm..._at_= tscm.com
>-----------------------------------------------------------= -----------------------------------------
>  We perform bug= sweeps like it's a contact sport; we don't play
>fair, we
>&n= bsp; take no prisoners, and we give no quarter. Our goal is to stop th= e
>spy.
>-----------------------------------------------------= -----------------------------------------------
>
>
>
=