Largest Lawyer Group Denouces Bush Surveillance

[sabra]

http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/local_story_044153250.html

Largest Lawyer Group Denouces Bush Surveillance
American Bar Association Calls For Bush To Abide By Constitutional Limits On Presidential Power

(AP) CHICAGO The nation's largest lawyers group on Monday denounced President Bush's controversial warrantless domestic surveillance program, calling on him to abide by the Constitution's limitations on presidential power.

Bush's secret eavesdropping program has prompted a heated debate about presidential powers in the war on terror since it was disclosed in December.

The American Bar Association adopted a policy opposing any future government use of electronic surveillance in the United States for foreign intelligence purposes without first obtaining warrants from a special court set up under a the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Instead, the 400,000-member ABA said if the president believes the current FISA is inadequate to protect Americans, he should to ask Congress to amend the act.

[gademocrat7]

1. Good

[neweurope]

2. K& R n/t

----------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[MADem]

3. About time they spoke up, they probably are afraid of being shot

by the VP!!!

[sabra]

4. doh! hey, it's their fault for walking into the bullets! :-)

[LynnTheDem]

5. *APPLAUD*

:toast:

:patriot:

[Charlie Brown]

6. They should have made this statement prior to Alito's hearings

He would not have been able to waltz around the issue if the ABA had condemned the program.

[EVDebs]

12. Roberts AND Alito passed on the Executive Orders that allowed for

REX 84 and subsequent 'suspend the Constitution' plans. You'd think these smart fellers would have looked into the Reagan era jobs these jokers had.

[mvd]

7. Recommended

Certainly debunks conservatives' spin that only left-wing groups are against this. The pResident has the burden of proof since he's withholding documents.

[sundancekid]

8. K&R - let's get this to GREATEST page, NOW -- puhleeze

[Uncle Joe]

9. Kicked and recommended.

:kick:

[kcass1954]

10. Would this be the same ABA that said Scalito was "qualified"? n/t

[Maven]

18. They had to.

Their letter to the Judiciary Committee expresses an opinion only on the professional credentials of the nominee. It has nothing to do with his politics or even the content of his rulings, unless they were totally off-base and without any precedent whatsoever (I know, I know, but precedent can be twisted a number of ways). In fact, if you read the letter, they go to great pains to make clear that they do not "endorse" him in any way.

[kcass1954]

22. Agreed. But in the lead-up to and during the hearings, the pukes kept

quoting this letter. My point is that now they're going to turn against the ABA and call them a "special-interest group".

[Marie26]

11. Good

Makes me proud to be a lawyer (that doesn't happen often). Attorneys know how illegal & unconstitutional this program is; & it's great that the ABA is speaking out.

[Iowa]

13. Here's what galls me about the ABA's statement:

"We do not say surveillance should be stopped, only that it comply with the law," said Neal Sonnett, a Miami lawyer who headed the task force formed to look at the issue not long after the spying program came to light in December."

and this:

"Nobody wants to hamstring the President..."

and this:

"If Bush believes that law is inadequate, then he should ask Congress to change it or enact new legislation..."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060213/pl_nm/security_eavesdropping_poll_dc

Just tweak the laws and make it legit, and then continue down the same fricking path. That's bullshit. I'm glad they took a stand, but it would have been much better without the weasel words.

[worldgonekrazy]

14. In defense of the ABA

They had to come up with a statement that a great majority of their 400,000 members could agree with. Thus, anything too bold or without qualification would not have passed muster.

Also, I think this line of attack presupposes that the Bush Administration a) would not have the gall to seek a change to the actual laws and/or b) Congress would never agree to such changes in the law. Can you imagine the outcry if the Administration had to actually let the American people know what, exactly, it was that they wanted to do with this surveillance program? Right now they can claim that its no big deal, but if they had to spell it out in writing new law, I am fairly certain there is no way that would fly.

[dubya_dubya_III]

15. Hamstringing the President?

The criminal, unconstitutional (USC 50 413(b)) MI6-CIA Mafia tyranny that controls this Noble Son-of-America's-Andropov twinkie is merely a secret, illicit, christian fascist mafia tyranny that was reluctantly, illegally and unconstitutionally created only to wage the undeclarable Cold War on an equal criminal footing with the KGB/NKVD mafia..

Only the DIA is a constitutional intelligence agency, and even the Congressional oversight of that is unconstitutional as it applies to the slavish gag of secrecy which defies our constitution.

Letters of Marque that would be required to authorize illegal criminal activity by anyone on behalf of the United States can only be issued with a full vote of both houses of Congress. NO EXCEPTIONS

The CIA Mafia were the principle designers, groomers, creators, funders and trainers of their Al Quaida operatives in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The CIA Mafia administration claims it is only tapping calls "to or from Al Quaida", which, if this were true, would mean that they know exactly who and where these criminal MI6-CIA Mafia operatives are. (maybe truer than we think)

More likely, they are just tapping everything hoping to pick up anything, so why restrict themselves to illegally tapping Americans international calls only? (especially when the unconstitutional criminal NSA mafia division is already wired to do so anyhow?)

Before the facts leaked out the administration was assuring Americans it wasn't tapping anything outside of the FISA and domestic law. (lie)

If they are tapping suspected Americans international calls who are suspected of being in league with their MI6-CIA created Al Quaida operatives, why not tell a court who and why? (to be able to spy on all Americans as well as all communications on the planet with impunity is the answer)

If they know "Al Quaida is on the other end" why not trace the call and apprehend the operatives?

If they need a blanket court order to deal with untraceable cell phones then just get one.

This is all total fascist Orwellian horse crap, al quaida was trained by them they aren't this stupid anyways, so the only conclusion is that they are wiretapping for other reasons most likely political.

[Iowa]

16. An outcry?

"Can you imagine the outcry if the Administration had to actually let the American people know what, exactly, it was that they wanted to do with this surveillance program?"

Like they'd actually admit that they're collecting intel on their political enemies. They'd just lie. And no - not only do I believe there would be no outcry - I don't even think that our Dem reps would be able to sustain a filibuster if the repukes tried to make it legal.

"They had to come up with a statement that a great majority of their 400,000 members could agree with."

Yes - which is why anything created by a committee is usually lukewarm drivel. American citizens are now subject to a totalitarian government. 1984 has arrived. The KGB is now a reality in the good old USA. But the ABA seems to be saying they would have no problem with that - as long as the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted - before it's initiated.

When it's all said and done, I think that framing the issue the way they did may have caused more harm than good.

[Inland]

17. Lawyers are process people, not content people.

The process is what we are all about, as it is what the law is all about. It's the difference between legal and illegal. If you want something more than that, then don't look to the ABA.

[Iowa]

19. Some lawyers... fortunately not all lawyers. n/t

[Inland]

20. The ABA is going to be lowest common denominator of lawerliness.

That's all. If they have a substantial position, there going to make it in a political party, and not as a large lawyer's organization.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. Ask Whittington how ChimpCo feels about lawyers.

[LisaLynne]

23. I was just thinking the same thing ...

I wonder if this Cheney thing was a "warning shot". Hmm.