I had heard about but, not seen this....

[Rufus Rhastus J]

Why Sean Hannity And GOP Attorney Have No Problem With Bush Ordering Illegal Spy

Global News Matrix | December 20 2005

Friday night (12/16/05), on Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity and Republican former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Victoria Toensing made the ridiculous claim that it doesn't matter if President Bush broke the law and authorized spying on Americans because Osama bin Laden might be on the phone.

Attorney Toensing didn't bother to argue that President Bush's authorization to allow secret spying on Americans was legal. This former high-ranking official in the Justice Department evidently had no problem with the president breaking the law because, she said, current laws aren't good enough to protect against terrorism. "Picture this, what if Osama bin Laden is making a phone call to the United States? Do people really think that the government should then say 'Oh, my goodness, we're now monitoring a US citizen and we should hang up?' That's what this is all about."

Hannity pretended that the whole issue was just a matter of politics from the "anti-Bush New York Times," ignoring the fact that the Times sat on the story for a year at the White House's request. Hannity demanded of the other guest, Andrew Fois, a Democratic former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, "What law was broken?"

Unfortunately, Fois proved to be another in FOX's inexhaustible supply of nice, likeable but inept Democratic spokespeople. Astoundingly, he was unable to say what law was broken. He answered, "We're supposed to do everything we can consistent with the law. Well, there's no law authorizing this so what was broken was the Constitution that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures."

That left Alan Colmes to do the explaining for Fois. Colmes is not an attorney but, thank goodness, he was at the top of his game. "Actually, by law you need, as I understand it... a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court whenever you eavesdrop within the United States."

Attorney Toensing seemed to have no concern about whether or not any laws had been brokenl. She ignored Colmes' assertion and spoke as if she were trying out for the part of Nurse Ratched. "Alan? No, no, no, no... Now let's go back to my example... Osama bin Laden, now we're monitoring all his calls. Wouldn't THAT be wonderful? And he calls somebody in the United States. Do you want us to hang up?" Channelling Hannity, she asked, "Yes or no, Alan."

But Colmes, who watches Hannity pull that trick every day, didn't fall for it. Rather than answer her gotcha question, he replied that there is a lawful process to monitor calls and that the law may have been broken. "Why are you so cavalier about it?"

Toensing sputtered before she answered. Dripping with syrupy condescension, she told Colmes, "Because I understand how that works. It takes two to three months to get a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act wiretap... If you've just got a phone call right now, you're listening to Osama bin Laden and he's calling the United States... "

Colmes asked, "Is there any evidence that it happened? Osama bin Laden calling the United States? This is riding roughshod over the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment."

Toensing spoke to Colmes as if he were a child. "Alan, you want to ignore this." Baring her teeth in an imperious smile, she ducked the question by telling HIM, "You don't want to talk about it."

Turning to Fois, Colmes said, "This, by the way, the conservative point of view would be, get the government out of our lives. This is a privacy issue. This could be a violation of the Fourth Amendment."

Fois agreed. But rather than hammer on why it's a privacy issue, why the government doesn't need to do it, shouldn't do it and is forbidden from doing it, Fois said, "Exactly. And that's why Senator Specter called this 'unacceptable.' That's why Senator McCain said there must be an immediate investigation and what Victoria is forgetting is in order to know that Osama bin Laden is calling, you're going to have to have tapped the American citizen's phone in the United States to get that call."

Toensing said, "Stop. Time out." Still talking down to everyone she said that NSA can target an overseas telephone and pick up calls to the US that way. (Maybe they can, but she didn't say that's what they did.)

Comment: If the feds were able to tap Osama bin Laden's phone, wouldn't they be nabbing him rather than just waiting to see who he might call? It seemed a no-brainer to me but Fois played along with her absurd scenario. "What this article says is what they're doing now under this program is tapping Victoria Toensing's line in case Osama bin Laden calls her."

That gave Hannity the opening he was looking for. "Andrew, last question, yes or no. If Osama calls, do you think by law that we should have to hang up?"

Fois fell into the trap. "Not if it means trampling on the rights of Sean Hannity and Victoria Toensing."

Sarcastically, Hannity said, "Wow, so you say hang up on Osama bin Laden."

Colmes asked, "Is there any evidence that that happened?"


What do you think about this article?

[Stopper]

Bush apologists running amuck - anyone smell impeachment - sorry just dreaming again - but if you do the crime expect to do the time!!!!!

[troy2000]

At one of his set-up town hall meetings on April 20, 2004, Bush said:

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

A few points here. First, in that speech he flat said a wiretap needs a court order. That's in direct contradiction to what he said this weekend, about NOT needing them.

Second, when he made that speech he had already been authorizing wiretaps without a court order for a couple of years.

Third, he claimed this weekend that when he ignored the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, he did so because of the need to act with speed. But the law specifically allows exceptions when there isn't time to get a warrant. All the NSA had to do was go before a court afterward, justify their actions, and get a retroactive warrant.

I'm left with the uncomfortable suspicion that they didn't go to the secret courts set up by FISA because they were spying on people for reasons that had jack to do with national security, and that had everything to do with politics and power.

Remember, most of the important people around Bush learned their trade in the Nixon Administration. And it's no secret that Cheney and others want to go back to the future, and "restore" an imperial presidency that in fact has never existed.

[Rufus Rhastus J]

At firswt I was sad that there had been 48 views and only two responses. I just figured that this was too deep for most to understand....and they may be true yet! Haaaaa! Just teaseing. But, to find that there are two people who get it! Yeah, two people who actually understand why I am so disappointed in bush.....well, I just don't know what to do! Finally, others are seeing what I have seen for the last three years! Oh, it does a body good to know that I am not the only thinking person aboard space ship Earth! Thank you gentleman! I feel like a new man!

[troylaplante]

Originally Posted by Rufus Rhastus J

At firswt I was sad that there had been 48 views and only two responses. I just figured that this was too deep for most to understand....

Nah, just some of us are no longer surprised by what we read, hear, and see and are disgusted with it already. I don't buy a lot of the rhetoric that I have heard from the administration defending this, but I also know it has gone on for years; there is nothing new under the sun.

[Rufus Rhastus J]

you're right, this has gone on for many moons. It's the idea he smerks at you while telling you lies that just twisted my shorts into a bunch! I was screaming at the TV sunday morning while he was there lieing! Grrrrrrrrrr!!!!!! Yes, i am disgusted and ashamed I'm a repub.

[Rave]

Yeah,and we have two more years of it to look forward to.:insane:

[Big Dog]

Do you really think things would've been different under the War Hero's administration? Bush's only problem is he got caught at it. Like Nixon, he's doing nothing the other presidents haven't done - he just didn't cover it as well. All politicians are crooks. An Honest Man cannot rise to that level in Government. Crap floats . . .
I too am disappointed in many aspects of the current administration - but I wouldn't wish to have the alternative in power.

[Rufus Rhastus J]

can't argue that with you Big Dog

[Rave]

Would things be different under the war hero's administration,don't know,I voted for Bush,couldn't in good faith vote for anyone else,hope we have a better choice this next time.

[Rufus Rhastus J]

I agree Rave! We gotta wait and see! Where's that crystal ball when you need it?

[Big Dog]

Some folks are chomping at the bit, wanting young Jeb to run for Prez. I don't. First, I don't really cotton to the idea of a 'family dynasty', whether GOP or DemLib. Second, as a Florida State worker, I've been at the sharp end of too many of Jebs bright ideas. None of which has worked well. He too readily embraces glitzy unproven technology at the expense of loyal workers.
Third, I wonder if he'd be carrying on some of George's more odious ideas.
Patriot Act Three, anyone?

I don't know what the right answer is, but we do need to go back to what works. Smaller Gubmint, more personal responsibilty, including making those in power answer for their mistakes.
Tighten security where it needs to be, the borders. Back out of people's personal lives. We have to remember, they work FOR US! We have the ability to change things - at the polls.
It shames all America when the Iraqi and Afgani people make a far better showing at the polls than we do.

[Rufus Rhastus J]

That's very good thinking! Your last point, about voting, is something to consider, yes?

[BattleRifleG3]

I too am completely against Jeb going for the presidency. If the Repub party can't see that he'd be destined to lose then they're morons. If die hard conservatives like us don't want it, think of how fast the swing voters would go the other way for any but the worst Dumocrats.

[Rave]

Some good points made here,some very good ones.Speaking of voting,it seems the sunnis are crying foul because they can't get a grip on the fact that they are a minority,lots more sheites,so of course they sheites are winning in a big way.
I believe that the US is supporting the sunnis over the religious sheites and the media has been saying that the sunnies are turning out to vote in record numbers,now there is talk of having another election.

[Rufus Rhastus J]

Originally Posted by BattleRifleG3

I too am completely against Jeb going for the presidency. If the Repub party can't see that he'd be destined to lose then they're morons. If die hard conservatives like us don't want it, think of how fast the swing voters would go the other way for any but the worst Dumocrats.

I continue to recall how close both the last two elections have been. We cannot afford any mistakes this time or all will be lost. By "all", I mean the control of both houses and the presidentcy! This is a scarry thought to me. Just imagine if Hillery gets in! God, what a nightmare for us!:nod: