Slashdot Mirror
George W Bush Made Retroactive NSA 'Fix' After Hospital Room Showdown
circletimessquare writes: New details have emerged about the 2004 conflict between George W. Bush and his Attorney General, John Ashcroft, who was hospitalized when he forcefully disagreed with the president's authorization of the NSA's sweeping new collection powers after 9/11. The New York Times has discovered that the conflict was about a retroactive alteration of the President's wording on the legal theory by which the NSA is allowed to siphon up metadata on all Americans, not just certain targets or classes of targets, such as suspected terrorists. 'Mr. Bush, for the first time, explicitly said that his authorizations were "displacing" specific federal statutes, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and criminal wiretapping laws... the president had "made an interpretation of law concerning his authorities" and that the Justice Department could not act in contradiction of Mr. Bush's determinations.' The president faced a severe backlash from the Justice Department, including a threat of mass resignation.
/em Watches Slashdot rage about Bush retroactively and unilaterally revising law passed by Congress re: the Patriot Act /em Watches Slashdot not rage about Obama retroactively and unilaterally revising law passed by Congress re: Obamacare
...that the Libs are cool with Obama doing the same stuff now because...Boooosh!
Really, anyone about to post condemnations of Bush should consider the fact that Your Hero as he same policies and have argued in court to keep them.
Another interesting fact is that " The president faced a severe backlash from the Justice Department, including a threat of mass resignation."
Can you imagine anyone Justice now giving a Flying Fuck what Obama does?
A discussion of constitutional limits of power ten years ago? How quaint. In 2015 we pretty much expect the president to do whatever he/she wants without regard to law of any kind.
The summary suggest to me that he was hospitalized BECAUSE he disagreed with Bush, I had to google it to make sure.
Bush was bad, but not that overtly bad.
So, Bush actually went full Gestapo, and the Justice Department and Ashcroft Backed it Down a bit?
That's fucking amazing, really. I'm sure this is Bullshit, but I'm not sure which parts, or how much.
Since Cheney isn't implicated as the originator of the Full Gestapo move, I'd be more willing to bet He's the one now trying to throw Bush under a bus for some reason.
I dunno, but, like Obama found out: You can't vote out the Gestapo.
Once they're here, it takes lives to go back.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
What are you talking about? There is no end of Slashdotters complaining about all aspects of Obamacare and everything Obama has done with regards to it. You're hardly the first one to whine about it.
The first coup of the century was in the USA all along.
TFS implies that the NSA policy dispute took so much out of Ashcroft that he ended up in the hospital as a result.
Is that fact, or the submitters/editor's conjecture?
Instead he kept his hand in the cookie jar and became so mad with power he thought he was a dictator above congress. Shame on Democrats for running this country into the ground the past 7 years.
You are all cows. Cows say moo. MOOOOO! MOOOOO! Moo cows MOOOOO! Moo say the cows. YOU NSA COWS!!
So...More proof that Bush was just as slimy as Obama.. I used to be an (R) but once I learned that both parties are spawn of the devil, I changed my party affiliation... I'M A FUCKIN' AMERICAN......
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
Will PBS re-make "Spying On The Home Front" in the light of subsequent revelations? The Ashcroft hospital incident is documented.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...
It's still worth watching.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
He'll dig us back out of the hole!
Well, probably not, he'll run the country for a year then try to declare bankruptcy to wipe out his mistakes and start over, except that only works for corporations not for Presidents.
No it really shouldn't be about the ACA. But as far as your argument is concerned I believe you may have made the "bandwagon" logical fallacy with your last sentence.
It's funny.
Reading this just made me realize that Ashcroft took a stronger stand against spying than Obama has, if I judge only actions and not words.
John Ashcroft, who was hospitalized when he forcefully disagreed with the president's authorization of the NSA's sweeping new collection powers after 9/11.
The English language is a funny thing...
I read that as meaning that John Ashcroft was hospitalized as a result of forcefully disagreeing with the authorization.
I suppose the word "when" was not intended to imply that -- but after re-reading it many times, I still think that's the most natural way to interpret it.
From TFS:
'Mr. Bush, for the first time, explicitly said that his authorizations were "displacing" specific federal statutes, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and criminal wiretapping laws... the president had "made an interpretation of law concerning his authorities"...
That's the heart of the issue right there. President Bush wrongly believed the threat of terrorism gave him authority to break constitutional law. It actually doesn't, but no one has thus far found a way to correct this mistake. It's absolutely stunning to me after 14 years. The Orwellian-named Patriot Act was supposed to be a temporary measure and yet it's still in place.
Funny how Americans still think of King George III as a tyrant, when in fact his powers were far more constrained by law and parliament than those of Bush II or any other recent president.
While a hostile congress makes it harder for the President to pass new laws, they are getting better and better at finding ways around the law.
To execute Bush and the rest of his cronies for treason?
President Eisenhower said immediately before leaving office. In his valedictory, Ike famously warned against "unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." The government overreach is repugnantly massive and sadly, now the genie is out of the bottle, is nigh on impossible to put back. Technology will only enable further erosion of liberties and freedoms.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8045657&cid=50571155
Stop supporting the lessor of two evils .... Cthulhu all the way!
I'm the lessor of two evils!
Sadly, both the Democrats and the Republicans have 99 year leases, with an option to renew.
Is Obama's increase more than Bush's increase over Clinton?
My health insurer keeps begging for my SSN. I consider them having that to comply with the ACA reporting requirements for the IRS being a substantial invasion of my privacy.
I'm sure most people have just naively called the toll free number and handed it over, so they are pretty screwed, if an industry well known for their lack of information security gets hacked. Again. After the new information is in their system.
That's a pretty steep escalation right there.
Serious question here - I understand that people love to hate Obamacare/ACA. But I don't understand why. What's bad about federally mandated healthcare that says the health insurance companies must offer all people coverage, cannot drop us after they pay out a certain amount (no lifetime maximums), and in general sets a specific lower rung for basic minimum coverage to maintain quality of life?
You've answered the question yourself, and you don't even know it.
The answer is "insurance companies".
What the hell do they have to do with healthcare? In the ACA situation, this is what:
* They charge people for health insurance ...and then, when they have a claim, they do their damnedest to deny it, so it becomes an out of pocket expense for the insured.
* They charge doctors for malpractice insurance
* They charge nurses for malpractice insurance
* They charge hospitals for malpractice insurance
* They charge doctors with practices or clinics for liability insurance on the premises
* They charge medical equipment manufacturers for liability insurance on their products
* They charge hospitals for liability insurance
Even better: when they have to pay a claim: most of the money doesn't go to the provider of the insured, it goes to the providers insurance company. Which may or may not be the same company that is paying the claim.
Meanwhile, most of the tort reform that would help limit the damages in any of these cases is held up by the legislators, who get major campaign contributions and endorsements... from the insurance industry.
And the funny part of the last one is that, most of the legislators (including the current president) are lawyers.
And when any of the claims (especially liability or malpractice) get litigated, the people doing it are ...the lawyers. Who would make less money if there were tort reform reducing the maximum damages on liability or malpractice claims.
The funniest part of all? Lawyers *also* have to carry malpractice insurance (and liability insurance, if they have a physical premises)... payable to the insurance industry.
They own us, lock, stock, and barrel.
that as a principled conservative he was actively blocking some of this spying on Constitutional grounds. Instead of honestly reporting this stuff at the time, and explaining to the public that there was a split between the "establishment" and "neocon" Republicans, and the actual conservatives, the journalists in DC were amusing themselves and each other trying to embarrass and provoke Ashcroft. They actually made a game of always trying to position the news photographers so that whatever picture they took of him at justice would have in the background one of those topless female statues, presuming that this would embarrass him with conservatives in middle-America. When the man got annoyed with this "game" and all the distractions it was causing and ordered those statures draped, the press then ran around laughing that he was a prude and writing that he was such a prude he had covered up all the breasts on the statues - very dishonest since he only took the action to try to stop their adolescent game.
Never a peep of honest journalism about Ashcroft and his defense of the privacy rights of the American public, only hostility and attacks by "neutral" journalists who absolutely refused to report on anything good the man did that might even get the support of people on the left. The man was still opposing the spying while very seriously ill in the hospital, when a less-principled man might have used that situation as an excuse to do the politically (an personally) easy thing: give-in.
Too bad Mr Obama never nominated an equally principled Atty Gen and instead insisted on a DNC boot-licker named Holder who has never crossed anybody in his party.
My understanding of the package of laws designed to 'defend' against ter ror ism is they have essentially nullified due process in America and a good portion, if not all of the Bill of rights under the constitution have been wound back by the passage of these bills. So who's defending the Constitution against the domestic enemies that seeks to take America over from the inside?
W.Bush passed the laws however Obama hasn't restored due process, so one can only conclude that the American government is no longer controlled by the American people. This is not a political issue any more, it a democratic one of why aren't the people in control anymore? It should be at the top of the list and front page news but it isn't even being talked about. I *wish* our country had the same rights as American citizens however it seems to be that the apathy over what should be the *most* important issue has been glazed over by ignorance and nationalism described as patriotism.
People died for what you have, but no one seems to care. The really cool thing about America was that it was a mercantile nation open for business, not that she is the worlds police.
There is little hope of pleading the first with a media so controlled. 1st: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. How many times do you see protesters being told to move along when they do?
I only have to look at youtube to see blatant and regular violations of the 4 and 5th
4th: 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
5th: nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
6th amendment was obilt 8th amendment violations occur even before a trial
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Continuing on after I accidentally posted:
The 6th amendment was obliterated by the anti democrac^h^h^h^htewworism laws: 6th: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
And 8th amendment violations occur even before a trial 8th: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
So with all the vows of defending against domestic enemies, who actually *is* defending the American Constitution against *its* enemies? Furthermore, if the laws passed to suppress democracy to "defend against terrorism" are against the constitution, how can they be legal or even enforceable?
I hope the reminder is welcome because as far as I can see tewworists don't pass laws and something very precious is being lost to ignorance.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Joe Biden is a square shooter. Joe Biden 2016!
A real nazi dictator. To bad they did not walk out.
Might have prevented the bank collapse and the depression that followed.
Does this mean 'while he happened to be in hospital for something or other, Ashcroft forcefully disagreed with the President's authorization...'
Or does it mean how it reads? "Due to disagreeing forcefully with the President, Ashcroft was hospitalized....
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
It's only "wiretapping" if you search through it after having collected and stored everything.
Impressive. But probably so stupid you or maybe even me doesn't even know what it did...
Yeah reading the title made me think Bush and Ashcroft argued, Bush stood over him like the knights saying knee to the old woman, forcing her all the way to the hospital. Argue with me and I'll use my Skull and Bones powers to wreck your elderly pancreas.
Correcting bad or imprecise grammar is not Nazi fascist behavior. If one forces your grammar onto a train, and steals all your stuff, then it would be more Nazi like. Correcting grammar is more like Allied gents rescuing the grammar from starvation and enslavement.