Should Bush be impeached for warrantless wiretapping?

Question

Bush admits he authorized wiretapping without a warrant; even without going to the secret court setup to approve such wiretaps. He clearly violated the law. (If you need more proof or argument of these facts, please see http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051230.html) Is this not an impeachable offense? I don't understand why Bush has not been brought up on charges for this.

Please explain WHY you think your answer is correct (really, is this necessary to say)?

Also, for the first time, I feel I need to respond to and clarify something to some of you who have answered:
- Those of you who hope I'm not a U.S. citizen living in this country, I am.
- Those of you who hope I die from a terrorist attack,... how mean and hateful of you.
- Those of you who have the 'love it or leave it' attitude about living in the USA, please see the 1st Amendment to the Constitution and the idea of Democracy and democratic debate (we are not a Democracy, BTW).
- Those of you so scared witless of terrorists... I flew 1 day before 9/11, and I fly over 75,000 miles every year; that could have been me on that plane. While I don't want to die, and I don't want terrorists to kill anyone (ever), I also don't want to my country to be ruled by fear.
- Finally, those of you who answered my question, and provided sources for your argument,... THANK YOU. Even if the answer is no.

Answer 1

Yes. It's black letter law, enacted decades ago. In fact, Cheny and Rumsfeld testified at the Congressional hearings on FISA, and Congress expressly rejected their arguments for just the exception that Bush is now trying to claim.

Read 50 U.S.C. §1801 et al. Warrantless wiretapping is illegal if anyone US citizen or resident alien is a party to the conversation.

§1802: "...The President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order.... for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that ... [in addition to other requirements] (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party".
§1801(i): "United States person means a citizen of the United States, [or] an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, [or] an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence".

§1801: "... The President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance ... for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar day following a declaration of war by the Congress." There has been no formal declaration of war by Congress, and under Article I Section 8 only Congress may declare war.

§1809: "A person is guilty of an offense [under this section] if he intentionally (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; It is a defense to a prosecution [if] electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction."

18 U.S.C.A. § 2511: [Compliance with FISA] ... shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance... may be conducted"

Unless authorized by court order, or within one of the narrow exceptions, warrantless wiretapping is a felony offense, punishable by up to five years per violation. Anyone who orders a criminal action is vicariously liable for that criminal action.

The President has publicly acknowledged committing hundreds if not thousands of counts of a felony offense.

Article II Section 4. "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Answer 2

Um, thinking the certainty that Obama and the Democrats have saved the custom alive with the warrantless wiretaps and that's Obama and the Democrats in cost of TSA at the instant, it is their theory for those measures. What i hit upon humorous is how the court docket that became set up available out emergency warrants for wiretaps went from a ninety% sign-off to under 50% under Bush so some how the device broke down whilst it became needed the main.

Answer 3

I can't say for sure. The question alone, I would say no Bush shouldn't be impeached. Yes, he violated the law but it could have been neccessary and citizens' lives seem to outweigh their want for privacy. Isn't that how it is? Increased security means decreased privacy. I think the question should be concentrated on whats the line that can't be crossed regarding how much power the executive branch holds. Is it right that NYT revealed secrets that could have jepordized their plans? Where is that line? It's so hard to answer without bias! Drives me crazy. But how insane is it that they can hold prisioners at Guantanamo without trial. If I'm not understanding something then let me know. better to be aware than following blindly.

Answer 4

Lets not make this impeachment issue all about wiretapping and its pros and cons. John Dean says there are about eleven separate things that he could be impeached for. Why just get stuck on the wiretapping issue? The question should have simply been, "Should Bush be Impeached"?

Answer 5

Yes. And no matter how many people say this question sucks it is true.

What is more is that he stood up in front of congress and said that he "knew" that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq- a charge he now admits was false. That is an impeachable offense of perjury.

Mind you most of those who disagree are also the same people that said Bill Clinton was rightfully impeached for lying about a blow job.

Answer 6

Your question is so dreary. Don't you understand that only the House of Representative can bring charges of impeachment against the President and since the Republicans have a majority in the House an impeachment will never happen?

Answer 7

There is a specific section of law that allows warrentless wiretaps in the case of "extingent circumstances" or "national security" issues...

Unfortunately the thing about laws is that what laws always come down to is a bunch of words that can be manipulated in any way.

Bush argues that the warrentless wiretaps is used solely for extingent circumstances...

I guess thats for a judge, or jury to decide....

I dont agree with the law... but the law is there. Unfortunately, bush hasnt broke the law (which doesnt mean i dont agree with bush not getting warrents)

That said I really dont like Bush...mostly for his lack of belief of personal rights.

If he got impeached I wouldnt be crying over it...

Answer 8

NO, Hell NO.... he is just trying to keep your head connected to your body.....

The people who are the subject of wire tapping need to be listened to when they are on the phone.

Islamo-facist Muslims do not have your best interests at heart, they don't give a damn how liberal you are or what kind of dialogue you want to have. If you don't believe me, take a good look at the Quran/Koran..... you won't mind having them wiretapped and profiled.

Two thirds of Muslims in the Arab world admit they support terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Hang on to your HEAD, the next few years may be a rough ride. Don't waste your time, your breath, or your life, trying to reason with these idiotic Islamic fanatics, or feeling sorry for the basturds, or trying to appease the murderers, they take that as a sign of weakness and will try all the harder to KILL you.

Why waste your breath on impeachment talk, Congress is too corrupt to impeach for any offense.... they wouldn't even look at the evidence gathered on Clinton, and what makes you think they would bother where Bush is concerned? They wouldn't, they are too lazy.

Illegal aliens invading the USA is the #1 concern in the USA, Islamo-facist-Nazis are #2.

Congress and Bush, just like Congress and Clinton, REFUSE to take action.... corrupt and lazy, treasonous, and anti-America.

Answer 9

Of course no. Let the impeachment be reserved for democrats president taking blow-jobs.
Thats more important than lying to entire world and breaking laws (yahoo might run out of disc space if we start writing about it)

Answer 10

He hasn't been brought up for two reasons: 1) He argues (incorrectly IMHO) that that rule does not apply to him because another rule explicitly allows him permission to break the rules in the interest of national security. In other words, a more important rule governs.

2) Because it's a Republican controlled congress--even if he walked up to a nun and beat her to death, he might not be impeached, if they could just spin it right (TERRORIST NUNS, ARGH!)