Turley at Conyer's NSA Hearing: What the President ordered in this case was a crime

[DemPower]

listen to audio
http://www.archive.org/download/illegal_spying/nsa_hearing1-turley.mp3

Professor Turley (rough transcript):

President Bush has for many years asserted authority that is both absolute and in my view, quite dangerous.

In August 2002, there was the infamous torture memo, put out by the justice department, that stated that the President could indeed order gov’t officials to violate federal law. In fact, that memo said that imposing a limitation on his ability to conduct exercises that constitute torture would be a constitutional infringement on his authority.

The President also claimed authority to unilaterally declare a citizen an enemy combatant, to strip him entirely of his constitutional rights, including the right of access to counsel.

On Dec 30th 2005, the President signed the torture bill and he used a “signing statement”- reserving the right to violate that law. Now we know that there is an NSA operation based on the same extreme theory of Presidential power.

The problem with these claims is that they are devoid of any limiting principles. They place this country on a slippery slope that inevitably leads to a maximum leader.

I read the document put out by the Dept of Justice and I’ve changed my testimony to address that document. Frankly what is most remarkable is not the sweeping claims of authority, but the conspicuous lack of authority to support those claims.


The Supreme Court has rejected the very claims being made by the President with regard to the NSA operation, it is in direct contradiction of FISA.

Now I want to be absolutely clear, what the President ordered in this case was a crime. Now we can debate whether he had a good or bad motivation, but it was a crime.

The federal law makes it clear- you cannot engage in this type of domestic surveillance without comitting a crime.

We can debate the wisdom of that, we can debate why the President may have done it, but in my view, the President committed a crime, and we have to deal with that as citizens. And unfortunately, you have to deal with that as members of Congress.

It strikes an alarming circumstance when the President can go into a press conference and announce that he has violated a federal statute 30 times, and promises to continue to do so until someone stops him. That is the most remarkable admission that I have ever heard from a President of the United States…

[riderinthestorm]

1. K & R!!!

Impeach!

[Frustratedlady]

2. Help me out, here. We aren't going to impeach, but can't we

charge those responsible (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al.) of specific crime(s)? Also, if Cheney resigns or is let go, doesn't Pelosi move up? My brain is fogging over.

[mom cat]

12. Who says we are not going to impeach? Pelosi has called for

investigations knowing full well where they will probably lead. We need to keep the groundswell going. We can do it and we must do it to keep the Bush/Cheney chickenhawk duo from getting us into WW III.

[Joe Chi Minh]

14. Will you feel some of the shame rub off on you, if they are

impeached? Is that why you made that extraordinarily gratuitous assumption and posted it here?

I'm trying to help you out here. "Know theyself", you know....

[Frustratedlady]

15. I don't understand what you are saying. No one can possibly

want them impeached more than me, but they said it wasn't on the table. I just don't want to see them go scott free. I don't have any shame to rub off on me or anyone else.

[Virginian]

19. If Cheney resigns

Bush selects a replacement for him and has to get that person approved through congress.

Cheney can not be "let go". He does not serve at the pleasure of the President, he was elected.

[indepat]

3. The faithful don't give a flying-f*ck how many times W has violated federal statutes,

or how much of the Constitution he has shredded for avarice and absolute power are far more important than piddly pieces of paper. :mad: :crazy:

[AzDar]

4. Kick! n/t

[EVDebs]

5. Sen Warner said it best, the AUMF (for Iraq) needs to be revisited...soon

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

The operative offensive (read 'unconstitutional') verbage within Section 3 reads: "...as he (Bush) determines..."

Congress cannot delegate ITS authority in this warmaking under the embedded War Powers Resolution of 1973; besides, the WPA requires "clear" "circumstances" and "situations". Phony WMDs and false claims of Al Quaida in Iraq prewar need to be reexamined. Now is the time to start doing this Speaker Pelosi.

[DemPower]

6. Why does everyone keep saying we need years of investigations

Bush comitted a crime and admitted it.

He will continue if we do not stop him.

He must be impeached immediately!

[grahamhgreen]

9. We can't impeach without 2/3's majority

- but can we indict?

[DemPower]

11. the process of impeachment will expose the corruption in congress

that way we out them all and throw their asses out when we get the chance

[Laelth]

21. An impeachment is like an indictment.

The Democratic House can do that shortly after they're sworn in in January. Only the Senate can convict, and it requires 2/3 of the Senate to convict. We may or may not be able to get that, but who cares?

We need to show the American people that we Democrats will stand up for the rule of law and defend the Constitution.

imho ...

:dem:

-Laelth

[Blackhatjack]

7. This is what shared power in constitutional democracy looks like..

... there is the right and obligation to "speak truth to power."

It is what separates us from the rest of the world's 'quasi-democracies.'

If Bush is held accountable, and impeachment occurs, it won't be because someone decided to pursue impeachment for political purposes without substance to back it up.

Investigations lead where they lead, and there should be no limits on pursuing corruption and wrongdoing. And where such is found, there are consequences. Nixon proved that this democracy could remove its President for engaging in "high crimes and misdemeanors." Nixon resigned rather than watch it play out.

If evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is unearthed, Bush will find himself facing the same outcome. Nixon chose wisely, we do not know how Bush would choose --but we do know that impeachment and removal will be based on evidence, not political motives.

Therefore, impeachment remains a tool that is granted by the Constitution, ready to be used when needed, and its use cannot ever be ruled out in advance of investigation and disclosure of wrongdoing. It is part of the check and balance on executive power that the founders gave us, and sometimes the mere fact it exists brings us a better government.

[H2O Man]

8. Yes!

People should not fear the truth. This country needs to put the cards on the table.

[DemPower]

10. Turley was a NSA lawyer- he KNOWS what he is talking about

"Now I want to be absolutely clear, what the President ordered in this case was a crime."

[DemPower]

13. Conyers wasn't paying attention during his hearing?

Conyers says impeachment is off the table? eh?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2665122


It appears that Democratic party also needs to understand they work for the people!!!!

Who the hell are they answering to?

[fooj]

23. Conyers won't let this country down. I trust him. Completely.

He knows what he's doing. Waxman knows what he's doing. They are locked and loaded. Have faith.

[tavalon]

24. Besmirch John Conyers at your own peril

That man has singlehandedly kept our democracy afloat in the last six years. He knows who he works for and few to none have worked as hard as he has.

Why is it that no one can see that Conyers said it's off the table for now. For now. When the investigations expose high crimes and misdemeanors, that option will be right back on the table.

[DemPower]

16. more from Turley

Under FISA there are three exceptions that allow in one case, to engage in surveillance and proceed later to get approval.

The suggestion that, “time is of the essence”, is a ludicrous one.

I’ll just remind this instutition of it’s duty. Despite any affiliation to the President, it’s Congress duty to protect it’s authority.

What’s at stake is not a president that has committed a crime- it’s much more serious than that. What’s at stake is a president who is committing a crime under the pretense of legality, he says he has the authority to do that.

Very few members have faced this type of test of faith, but you’re facing it now. And as citizens and as members, it’s now up to us, we’re called to account. For the many benefits that we have gotten from this system, we’re called to account to do something.

[nicknameless]

17. Here's a link to the transcript:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/150306_b_Turley.htm

[OnyxCollie]

18. Yes, the NSA spying was a serious crime. An impeachable offense, no doubt.

But until you get the public to understand that, really understand how serious an offense this is, you're on thin ice. An unpredictable public may be easily swayed against your argument. Remember: the public (a substantial amount anyway) believes this spying is being done to track Al Qaeda. "Heh. If Al Qaeda calls, we want to know about it." It's incredibly simplistic, highly disingenuous, and unfortunately, fairly effective. Until investigations are begun, some will feel this attack on the President will jeopardize his efforts to "protect" them from the "bad men" who want to kill them.

And after all, they have nothing to hide (they're losers), so why should they be concerned? I saw a poll a few weeks ago (It might have been Gallup), that said just 34% percent believe civil liberties have been damaged be the War on Terra. (Sorry, no link.) I was shocked and saddened by this, but it was a good slap upside the head to see where the rest of the public is.

It's kinda like a prosecutor examining a witness. He already knows the answer to question he's about to ask.

[upi402]

22. If the rule of law is restored then no public support is needed

Just good lawyers and honest jurists who care about justice here.

Maybe they aren't going to impeach because the BushCo is going to the crowbar hotel???

(after some minimum wage increasing etc)

[OnyxCollie]

27. Again, this is a framing issue.

Think about where an impeachment now will leave the Dems in '08. If it means not addressing concerns of the electorate for two years, how will this set us up for the Presidential run in '08? Think of it as a billiards game: You might take the easy "duck" shot, but if it leaves you in a position without another shot, you've screwed yourself. Think long term.

[upi402]

28. I agree

Impeachment could mean a replacement that could possibly have a Republican in the executive for 10 years -no?
So, Pelosi's playing it smart. Keep a castrated "president" in there and take that branch in '08.

If BushCo obstructs the Dem Rx for recovery, threaten criminal charges. I have another thread about their 'take the money and run' nest-feathering that seem to be going on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2684928&mesg_id=2684928

[Laelth]

20. Agreed.

For the sake of our system of government as it is enshrined in the Constitution, Bush MUST be impeached.

:dem:

-Laelth

[westerebus]

25. not the time for it

The deal has been made. Bush won't attack Iran and the Dems
won't impeach. What did you think the Baker Hamilton
commission was for?

[Laelth]

26. Welcome to DU?

The Repukes don't tell us what their secret meetings are for. They're not big fans of open government, you know. I think your theory is very interesting.

:patriot:

-Laelth