Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Jack:

“No Administration then or since has accepted that the Act trumped a President’s power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it and the issue has been settled by neither the courts nor politics.”

On the face of it, this reasoning appears circular. By definition, passage and concomitant signing of FISA constitutes “settled.”

Second, can you point to any specific evidence of a president other than Bush 43, claiming that he could make exceptions to FISA?

Thanks.

Jack,

This is not politics as usual. It’s the abuse of power that is so prevalent in politics. Create a list of the abuses of power that have been done in the name of “National Security” and it’s staggering.
You cannot justify this. We must change it.

Jack,

As always, a cogent and thoughtful post. My question is this. Why not go before the FISA court? I dissmiss the notion that “it would take too long”. I believe that reasonable people on this court knowing the sense of urgency on the matter would invest every effort in accomodating the administration’s requests. I honestly believe that this administration has over-stepped itself on this occasion and simply needs to come to terms with it. The president, should say “Indeed, I have been over-zealous in my protection of the country. I will in the future abide by the law with respect to obtaining authority for this type action”, then this would go a way in a week. However, the belligerence and arrogance that the administration continues to show will require they stay the course and call people who question violation of law “shameful”.

I dissmiss the notion that ‘it would take too long’. I believe that reasonable people on this court knowing the sense of urgency on the matter would invest every effort in accomodating the administration’s requests

I read in the paper this morning that, under FISA, the government has the power to FIRST wiretap and THEN get the warrant. So this whole argument about not having time to wait is Bull.

I totally support GW’s need to protect the American people. I believe that if he had gone before FISA, practically every single one of his security actions would have been approved. If he didn’t get FISA approval, he broke the law. I believe in checks and balances in government, and the executive branch seems to have seriously overstepped its powers in this case. BTW, we wouldn’t be any less safe if he had consulted FISA.

You know, it was kinda funny last night on The News Hour with Jem Lehrer. Russ Feingold and John Cornin were on debating the legality of the President’s authorization of wiretaps. Feingold went into some measure of detail as to the ridiculousness of the President’s actions in light of what was already available. Cornin sat there and simply said that the President’s actions were legal, without any supporting evidence. Kind of reminds me of a parent when they say “because I said so”. Except the difference is that parents aren’t elected, whereas Presidents are and must be held accountable to the law even more so than the People.

We still have much to learn about this, but from here it looks like a bad political mistake that has led to a serious legal issue.

I’m partly drawing this conclusion from George Will’s recent column: “On the assumption that Congress or a court would have been cooperative in September 2001, and that the cooperation could have kept necessary actions clearly lawful without conferring any benefit on the nation’s enemies, the president’s decision to authorize the NSA’s surveillance without the complicity of a court or Congress was a mistake.” I imagine that even a lot of Republicans in Congress are biting their tongues and quietly brooding in anger about this one.

It will all come back to politics, of course, as the GOP holds its breath to find out if average Americans give a damn about constitutional rights.

Jack,
“Criminalize political behavior.” What a nice phrase. Unfortunately, crime is crime, and political behavior is political behavior. Like all US citizens of all walks of life, political behavior is subject to laws. Breaking a law is a crime. Furthermore, the laws are established. It is not a matter of a politician behaving in a certain matter, and that behavior being retroactively turned into a crime.

FISA allows warrants to be filed up to 72 hours after the event, and the court’s proceedings are secret.

There is not way to justify this current issue by claiming FISA isn’t fast enough. That is simply a lie. There is no way to justify this current issue by suggesting it’s a matter of security, since FISA acts in secret, and as a practical matter, approves almost all of the thousands of requests it receives.

There needs to be an investigation. There’s no need to be hysterical about it. But regardless of political affiliation, nearly everyone can agree: a president no longer feels constrained by the constitution represents a serious problem.

Does the constitution merely “criminalize political behavior”?

No Administration then or since has accepted that the Act trumped a President’s power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it and the issue has been settled by neither the courts nor politics.

Jack,

Please demonstrate how the exceptions to FISA were “required” by national security. You can’t. The administration can’t.

We now know that under current law wiretaps can begin immediately as long as warrants are applied for within 72 hours. So how does Bush’s actions make us safer?

This fact alone is what makes this so interesting. Because Bush’s actions were inherently unnecessary under the terms of national security, we are only left to wonder why in the world the administration felt the need to stick their necks out on this.

Best case scenario for Bush is that the reason is it just made the executive branch feel more powerful and under control - hubris. Worst case scenario is that the administration went about this as they did because they really were spying on people that any reasonable judge, and the American public, would find completely unacceptable.

phx8,

Bravo. I was about to post much the same thing and you beat me to the punch.

We first heard this line (“criminalizing politics”), I believe, during the initial stages of the DeLay scandal…or was it the Rove/Plame situation? So many scandals, hard to keep them straight at this point.

You’re absolutely right. The state can criminalize any activity that doesn’t infringe upon the constitutionally protected ones. Last I checked, wiretapping without a warrant wasn’t constitutionally protected.

What you said.

One of the problems with FISA for national security is everytime a suspect changes a phone number or ISP, you have to get a new court order.
It is a game of cat and mouse in a time of war that the extra time could be deadly. That is, deadly to someone other than a terrorist.

So many scandals, hard to keep them straight at this point.

I seem to remember Clinton’s 8 years in office. There were so many scandals that I needed a scorecard to keep it straight. From Travelgate to bj-gate, the Dems had more than their share.

Loren:
“I totally support GW’s need to protect the American people. I believe that if he had gone before FISA, practically every single one of his security actions would have been approved.”

I get the impression he isn’t trying to protect the American people in this instance. I maybe think he is trying to protect his own interests. Otherwise he could have very quickly and easily followed the law with FISA, right? As for whether every single one of these security actions would have been approved, perhaps that is exactly why he decided to break the law — because they possibly wouldn’t have been approved? Many questions still unanswered here.

Jack — what phx8 said.

Jim,

Well, considering most of the underlying actions for these scandals happened in Bush’s first term, and only stretched into a second term because the White House and the NYT sat on information until after Bush got re-elected, he technically managed to fit all these scandals into one term. The fallout just happens to be coming in the second term. Good work, BushCo!

Moreover, I find it funny the persistence of comparisons to Clinton, despite the fact that many of us wouldn’t defend him, not to mention that the moral equivalence between “travelgate” and the scandals of this administration seems a bit off-kilter.

I forget who posted the right wing argumentative tactics in past. Was it that Elliot guy? At any rate, you just employed one of them: bring up Clinton, no matter how irrelevant. You get a pat on the head, Jimmy my boy.

One of the problems with FISA for national security is everytime a suspect changes a phone number or ISP, you have to get a new court order. It is a game of cat and mouse in a time of war that the extra time could be deadly. That is, deadly to someone other than a terrorist.

It is patently false that following the law under current FISA rules takes any more time than the Bush administration’s current plan that falls outside the law. There is no time benefit. None.

Please try and keep up.

Yeah, heaven forbid we use the same standards for both.
Excuse lawlessness when its your guy and cry about it when its not.

Nice post Jack and unless predetermined partisan thinking (the norm here) clouds the issue, your post should give people something to think about.

Jack, I wonder if you feel that when poor people are sent to jail for criminal actions done as a result of the dire circumstances in which they find themselves, are we criminalizing poverty? Somehow, it rankles with me a bit that you wring your hands over the plight of fat cat politicians and the tough decisions you believe they have to make, while those who are bowing and scraping for mere survival and make bad decisions probably receive no kind of sympathy from you.

However, that’s an assumption of mine with regard to your attitude, and I apologize in advance if it is in error. But I feel that such a supposition is probably not inaccurate with regard to otheres of your political stripe.

I feel far worse for those whose poverty forces them into the nether regions of moral ambiguity and crime than for politicians.

But I suppose since we are currently in the greatest economy in the history of man, nobody has any excuse to be poor. They must just be members of a criminal underclass by choice.

Jack

This is beneath you. Trying to rationalize this subversion of the constitution has you twisted in knots. To accept your argument in fact gives the President absolute powers, especially coupled with his right to torture and to ignore habeas corpus. You are free to make such assertions, but you lose the right to call yourself anything but a monarchist.

So many Clinton jokes, so little time…..But here goes…..

Hillary in ‘08……………….

First Man Willie Clinton………

Jim

Those are the two I remember, too.

The author of the article in the NYT would then have to write 30 books to sell after each exercise of 1st ammendment “freedoms”, so far?
I mean the way they leak National Security materials now we could look for a weekly menu in the NYT? “Osama don’t call on tuesdays and fridays between 5 and 11 P.M. we’ll be listening then.”

Ok, can we once and for all say that George Bush, is in fact, a liar?

George Bush, April 20, 2004:

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. 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.

1.) I would like to see an investigation to determine of Bush has committed a crime or not.

2.) I would like to see an extensive investigation into who leaked this information. Leaking confidential, secret or top secret information is a crime also.

3.) I would like to see Teddy Kennedy face a jury of his peers on charges of at least Manslaughter. This has been an abortion of justice since it happened and must be resolved.

Jim T

Leaking secret information is only a crime if it was legally made secret. I don’t think the classification of illegal activity is legally classified. I’d be interested to hear a legal opinion on this matter (other than from our esteemed Attorney General, who seems to think that Bush has royal authority).

“Second, can you point to any specific evidence of a president other than Bush 43, claiming that he could make exceptions to FISA?”

Yes, as a matter of fact,

1. Clinton did it in 1994 and his deputy AG,(Gorelick), testified before the senate intel committee that the president has the ‘inherent right’ to search without warrants when national security is the issue.

2. Reagan signed an executive order (12333) I think that stated the president has such authority…{2.5 Attorney General Approval.

The Attorney General hereby is delegated the power to approve the use for intelligence purposes, within the United States or against a United States person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes, provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken unless the Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Electronic surveillance, as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be conducted in accordance with that Act, as well as this Order.}

And BTW, a WSJ article contained this: “In Re: Sealed Case,” the FISA appeals court decision cited a previous FISA case [U.S. v. Truong], where a federal court “held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.”

So, as usual, you liberals are all wrong on this issue. If this were president Kerry, you would all be defending the weasel. Get a life and a grip. You may want to research a specious demorat “outrage” charge before blindly following in lock step. OOPS, I forgot; you libs always follow the bad kool-aid crowd, don’t you?

Mental,

And what crimes has the US committed that are stashed in the Top Secret files of our government?

If I were a conspiracy theory nut, I’d ask “What about the murder of Kennedy?” “Why are the files sealed until 2038 (or something)?”

Was there a crime committed? Why is it secret? Why not unseal those documents?

Are all the crimes that the US government has committed over all the years suddenly “Not Secret?”

Let’s see what Eisenhour, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon did during the Cold War that we don’t know about. If there was a crime committed (with the KGB and CIA going at it, there HAD to be a crime committed) then let’s see the secrets! Trot ‘em out! Leak ‘em to the press!

For the people out there that were so upset with the Valerie Flame (ha! ha!) CIA leak gate, where are you with the NY Times leaking what the Prez and NSA did in a time of war?

Where’s the outrage over this leak? Hmmmm!!! Anybody?!!!

rahdigly:

Plames identity was protected by law.

No law protects *illegal* actions by our government from being made public knowledge, whether they’ve been marked “top secret” or not. In fact, the law demands that they be made public knowledge.

But hey, you want outrage over the leak, I’ve got plenty: the NY Times should *never* have sat on it while the governments illegal actions were allowed to continue.

Yossarian et al

Beak talks about the legal precedent. No matter what we think, it is not a clear cut legal case. It is more about politics.

Re criminalizing politics

The first time I recall hearing the phase was (pardon me) during the Clinton Administration. Clinton’s defenders accused his detractors of doing that - and they were.

I am not trying to carve out a criminal exception for politics. The point of my original post is that politics plays precisely where laws or traditions don’t obviously apply. Each time I come to a red light, I don’t take an opinion poll to determine whether or not red means stop, but IF a large percentage of the population actually believed it did not, it would become a political issue. We would have to come to a political agreement about it.

Look at the evolution of the gay marriage debate. As little as a generation ago it was not a political issue. The whole behavior was condemned by tradition and sometimes by law. As long as the vast majority of people accepted this, it was subject to law, not politics. When society’s ideas changed, it became political and is that today. Politics is for when people disagree.

The opposite happened to smoking. It used to be a right. Then it became a politcal (small p) issue. Then it became a law (or very strong practice) against it.

The attempt to criminalize politics has made it more acrimonious and less effective. Take the case at hand. Look what happened to George Bush. He did something he thought was right or if you want to be unkind expedient. There is no reason to suspect that his motives were nefarious. Now (as you already have) assume the worst. If we kept his transgression in the realm of political disagreement, he could easily back away from it. You would achieve your goal (presuming your goal is privacy protection) But now his bridge is burned behind him and he has to fight. BTW - I expect he will win on the technicalities.

A good ploy in negotiation is NEVER trap your opponent. ALWAYS give him an honorable way to give in to your demands. Politics can do that. Law takes the option away.

Jarandhel

Law protects secret documents no matter what. I am sure this was classified higher than Ms. Plame’s more or less open identity.

You can’t let each person decide if the secret is legal or not. Imagine a secret document comes into your (legal) possession. You probalby don’t even know enough of the background to decide if it is “valid” and even if you did, it is not your choice.

rahdigly, there is a difference, a grand canyon of a difference between a whistle blower who leaks information of a potential crime being committed and a leaker who leaks classified information for political and personal gain.

Sorry, you could not tell the difference, so, now it is spelled out for you. If our government is violating the Constitution in an attempt to subvert American citizen’s protected rights and an insider leaks that top secret information, give the person a raise and a medal for being the public servant of the Century.

Jarandhel,
“No law protects *illegal* actions by our government from being made public knowledge, whether they’ve been marked “top secret” or not.”

What Bush did was legal. We had too many “walls” (for intelligence gathering) prior to 9/11 and the Patriot Act and the President’s constitutional authority to keep us safe knocked down those walls. And, it certainly did keep us safe. If the Senate doesn’t renew the Patriot Act, that wall will go back up.

Reagan, FDR, Lincoln, Clinton did it and so did our current President. It’s called keeping us safe.

So, once again, where’s the outrage over this leak?!!

Beak,
Can you provide links? I’m a liberal, and although I am not a lawyer, I cannot help but note you might want to clarify your assertions.

The following is from Findlaw:

Warrantless ”National Security” Electronic Surveillance .—In Katz v. United States, 151 Justice White sought to preserve for a future case the possibility that in ”national security cases” electronic surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney General could be permissible without prior judicial approval. The Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to ”bug” in two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority on a theory of ”inherent” presidential power and then in the Supreme Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a ”reasonable” search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required. 152 Whether or not a search was reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause; except in a few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, only those searches conducted pursuant to warrants were reasonable. The Government’s duty to preserve the national security did not override the gurarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy. 153 This protection was even more needed in ”national security cases” than in cases of ”ordinary” crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the Fourth. 154 Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is required. 155

The question of the scope of the President’s constitutional powers, if any, remains judicially unsettled. 156 Congress has acted, however, providing for a special court to hear requests for warrants for electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence situations, and permitting the President to authorize warrantless surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information provided that the communications to be monitored are exclusively between or among foreign powers and there is no substantial likelihood any ”United States person” will be overheard. 157”

It is one thing for a president to assert the ability to conduct warrantless searches or to assert having the power to ignore probable cause. It is quite another thing for the courts or congress to agree. And it is an extraordinary thing for a president to make the assertion, conduct warrantless searches, ignore probable cause, and then classify the program in order to prevent any meaninful controls through congress, or oversight from the courts. Furthermore, upon the program being revealed, the president states his determination to continue warrantless searches without probable cause as an expression of the executive’s inherent power.

That’s where we are today. You’re good with this?

Rah,
When you were in the military, were you compelled to obey an unlawful order? If you were ordered to commit a war crime, what was your obligation?

rahdiggly,

Typical oversimplification. If FISA was inadequate to protect us, its revision is a legislative concern. Bush has no recognized Constitutional power to do what he did. But we do have recognized Constitutional rights that were ignored. End of story.

phx8,

I don’t know if that was a rhetorical question, but given an order to perform something prohibited by int’l law, a soldier must first refuse, then he can act if his superior threatens him. If I remember correctly.

Clinton did it in 1994 and his deputy AG,(Gorelick), testified before the senate intel committee that the president has the ‘inherent right’ to search without warrants when national security is the issue.

This was while lobbying for an increase of powers of the FISA court, which eventually got put into law through Executive order.

The difference here is that when Clinton wanted to do something not covered by the current law, he went through the proper channels and changed the law. Bush has simply gone around - and broken - the law.

Jack,

Well thought out response. However, I don’t completely accept everything you say.

For instance, the Constituion is supposed to exist outside the realm of political wrangling, and ot provide context within which said wrangling can occur. When a constitutional right is at issue, that is for the courts to decide, not the executive branch.

Now, I know that even the constitution can be altered via political process, but the evidence that this was meant to be in extraordinary circumstances is that such alteration is difficult to accomplish.

Bush has yet to cite any legal or constitutional underpinnings for his action. I’m sure his counsel is working their asses off right now to come up with some kind of plausible explanation that won’t be laughed out of court, which is why we haven’t been hearing too much in the way of a justification.

The most recent diversionary tactic is the usual Right wing square dance: Clinton! Look at Clinton! This is all Clinton’s fault!

Tiresome.

FISA court regulations state that you can do things w/out a warrant, by the way. I don’t suppose anyone of the proud, patriotic Americans that are soooo upset w/ Bush even bothered to look into that.

Phx8,
“Rah, When you were in the military, were you compelled to obey an unlawful order? If you were ordered to commit a war crime, what was your obligation?”

Yes. I was certainly compelled to obey an order. As for an unlawful order, you had the right to dispute it; however, your life would be pretty miserable. Unlawful orders didn’t happen too often b/c your chain of command (all the way up) would take the bulk of the blame.

So, I see we’ve been watching “A Few Good Men”, isn’t that right, “Cappy”?!

Yossarian,
“If FISA was inadequate to protect us, its revision is a legislative concern. Bush has no recognized Constitutional power to do what he did. But we do have recognized Constitutional rights that were ignored. End of story.”

Read the 9/11 commission report, they graded all these laws, including FISA, and they all received a low grade at protecting us from another attack. Remember, this is not “Domestic” Spying! It’s spying on Al Qaeda. Now, who wants to defend Al Qaeda’s civil liberties? Well, that is, besides Ramsey Clark. Ha!

Rah,

Yes, but you need to read past the first sentence of that section. You can’t do it without a court order unless you show there ISN’T a substantial likelihood you will end up spying on an American.

The non-double negative way of saying that is, if you want to spy on americans, you need a court order.

I wonder how many times we’ll have to say this?

“Read the 9/11 commission report, they graded all these laws, including FISA, and they all received a low grade at protecting us from another attack.”

That does nothing to combat my assertion that revising FISA is a legislative concern. I said, if you recall, which you should since you just finished quoting me, that even if FISA is inadequate, Congress changes it, not President.
As Sicilian Eagle has said in the past, “simple civics”.

Come up with a new point or drop it.

Law protects secret documents no matter what. I am sure this was classified higher than Ms. Plame’s more or less open identity.

More or less open identity? How do you sleep at night, Jack?

No response to proof that your President lied about the spying issue?

Hi Jack,

As always, an interesting post. I agree that politics is very clearly a matter of competing ideas, goals, whatever. No matter how messy the alternative is either tyranny or war.

That is why I always kinda have to shake my head at people that say they have washed their hands of the whole mess and everyone is corrupt so why bother.

I often wonder if they are saying that because they feel that way or if they don’t understand what is going on, how the system works and don’t really know the difference.

Amazingly to me, the only ignorance that I have ever heard people be proud of is their ignorance of politics. Can you imagine someone proudly saying they cannot read? They cannot add?

A few years ago, at the height of the Clinton Kenneth Star investigation I was wondering why we don’t immediatley sign in a special prosecture from now on as the President is being sworn in?

Actually, there was a case, close enough to the FISA law that it might be considered precedent by the Supreme Court. This was Truman’s attempt to take over the steel (possibly iron) industry during the Korean war. The companies were not working with the workers to settle a strike and Truman attempted to take over the companies as a military necessity within his powers as Commander-in-Chief. The Supreme Court ruled that the President does not have the power to over ride laws within his role as Commander.

As with law, the Constitutionally of a law or administrative action can only be determined through the legal system and appealed to the Supreme Court. Before a law is established or an administrative action is taken the Court cannot weigh in. Someone has to bring legal action before they form an opinion.

What I am having trouble with… and this specifically applies to FISA is that the law provides for a warrant to be retroactively applied for up to 71 hours after the tap.

This law was specifically designed to give the President the power to deal with specifically these types of issues. All he had to do was take the evidence to a court judge tasked with this duty and they would have the warrant. Therefore, it cannot be the time restraints.

What it is would be unrestrained (by an independent branch of government) tapping which is a violation of the 4th Amendment.

As a nation, we depend on the rule of law. Not which party has the majority of representatives in Congress during a certain election cycle.

This will clearly be illustrated if Iraq is able to create a government of the 3 factions there… will the Sunni’s be listened to and their rights be respected if the Shiite’s are the majority? This requires that they all eat the sausage (without pork please). This will require a great, almost insurmountable dedication to abstract ideas and trust in law.

I do agree that investigations should be empowered only to deal directly with the charges or any blatant violations that they might find as a result. Not a witch hunt.

A President’s opinions on health care, social security, taxes or whatever policy should be dealt with on each issue… if you don’t like a specific policy then argue the policy, don’t try to find dirt to lower his prestige.

I do not know if the FISA argument is the best to illustrate the use of criminal investigation to counter a President’s actions. This, I believe, because it is a 4th Amendment issue will need to go the course.

Jack,

I am sorry, I saw this late but had to comment. Bush has been totally incapable of believing that he has ever done anything wrong or ever made a mistake. Sorry.

It has taken him almost 3 years to finally admit that his reasons for going to war were flawed.

Based upon his track record, he would NEVER EVER admit or back down.

Unless there was an instance where he has admitted to an error that I am not aware of. Errr, that would be an error admitted to prior to this previous month or so when he gradually changed from…

1) No problem. I was absolutely right.
2) No problem. My evidence was based on what Clinton had.
3) No problem. My intelligence was wrong as far as the rationalization, but the Democrats agreed with me at the time.
4) Okay… maybe a problem but to talk about it shows weakness and gives aide and comfort to the enemy.

“He did something he thought was right or if you want to be unkind expedient. There is no reason to suspect that his motives were nefarious. Now (as you already have) assume the worst. If we kept his transgression in the realm of political disagreement, he could easily back away from it.”

phx8, I presented data that were found at NewsMax.com and NRO, as well as reading EO 12333. Your points are well taken and yes, I am OK with where we are. Jack has mentioned the real issue here: the democrats are trying to criminalize politics. There will be much debate on what the powers of the executive branch are for many years to come. Most of the arguments should be settled by the (disgusting) politicians, not the (more disgusting) lawyers and judges.

Burt:

An executive order is NOT law, it is an executive order that carries the weight of law WITHIN the executive branch of government. And you can rationalize all you want about what Clinton and Gorelick were arguing for. Their bottom line was that the president had the inherent power to conduct warrantless searches against foreign governments and/or agents of foreign governments or entities.

For all, if you go back as far as the great president, Jimmah Catah, you will find even he endorsed warrantless searches to support national security. Do your own research and you may be surprised what you find that does not support your arguments that Bush did something illegal here.

Another addition to the “Bush lied” file, from April 2004:

“…there are such things as roving wiretaps. 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.”

Beak,

You are correct that an Executive Order is not law. My point was that Clinton made his actions public, through that executive order - it was not done in secret as so much of this administration’s activities are. And there is no evidence that the Clinton administration ever went around what is legally allowed under the FISA court acts.

Do your own research and you may be surprised what you find that does not support your arguments that Bush did something illegal here.

I’m not sure how Clinton or Carter “arguments” would grant Bush’s actions more legality.

ph8 - I’m way ahead of ya.

Yossarian,
“Yes, but you need to read past the first sentence of that section. You can’t do it without a court order unless you show there ISN’T a substantial likelihood you will end up spying on an American.”

People, you can’t continue to ignore the fact that it’s NOT “Domestic” spying; it’s “International” phone calls from Al Qaeda and other “Known” terrorists. The Prez approved of spying on terrorists that we already have intelligence that warrants (no pun intended) surveillance b/c they’re people we have reason to believe would do us harm.

Now, if you guys can’t grasp that fact, then maybe you’re the ones that need to drop it.

As Sicilian Eagle has said in the past, “simple civics”.”

First of all, “The Eagle was right, damn it” Ha! Ha!

Ok, now, if it’s “simple civics” you want, let’s look at the US constitution. Article 1, section 8
http://www.njlawman.com/Feature%20Pieces/United%20States%20Constitution.htm

“Congress has the right to declare war”.

Now do you remember what congress did on September 14, 2001? They passed a joint resolution:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blsjres23.htm

“Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

Bam!! There you have it. That’s as simple civics as you’re going to get. Chew on that for a while…

If this were president Kerry, you would all be defending the weasel.

Indeed not. I have a very clear memory of Bill Clinton on the Lehrer News Hour swearing he did not have sexual relations with that woman. I told my family then he struck me as being meally mouthed, despite my respect for his talents and leadership. When it was proven he lied under oath, impeachment proceedings struck me as justified, even though the actual illegal act (falsely swearing under oath in minor case) seem relatively trivial.

The bottomline is that presidents simply can’t be allow to stand above the law. If they are, then the terrorist don’t need to destroy America. We’ve done it ourselves.

If I had thought that Clinton had been massively violating constitutional rights for years on end, then I would have been among the first to speak up against him. What really chills me here is that so many so-called Americans are busy making excuses for possible illegal actions even before all the facts are in. This is one of those moments in history when we’ll get to judge true conservatives from simple power-worshipping partisans who will distort their positions no matter what. I’ve already gotten a real feel for this at WatchBlog.

None of this suggests that we should see this in strictly binary terms. Seeing the world in terms of black and white is something I think is most commonly done by extremists and children. Mr. Bush may well have been told (indeed, it may be true) that we needed a more flexible and powerful way to sift data than the FISA arrangements allowed. Fine. Then change the law in due course. But don’t carry on this way indefinitely.

Do those in the intelligence community really think the terrorists aren’t already aware the NSA is listening in? Is the formulation of new laws and standards really going to threaten their ability to gather intelligence? Probably not much, but I’ve had enough experience with tech geeks to know that they may well have lost sight of the bigger picture. They get all wrapped up in the circuitry of the electronics and schemes and the secrets and they utterly lose track of the fact that all this secrecy will ultimately do more damage than it was worth. This is exactly why we need to preserve our democratic system as well as our principals: for our own self preservation.

Bear with me here:

Isn’t that what courts are for, to see if laws have or have not been broken?

I understand a number of Republicans are also calling for an investigation/hearing to determine what actually is happening and whether it should go to a court?

If the laws are this ambiguous such that all the supposed legal minds can’t agree, that is what the courts are for, to make that determination on a case by case basis.

And I don’t believe it is “criminalizing politics” to determine whether a law is broken, or whether the law is constitutional or not.

The time to politically decide how the law should exist, whether it should exist, is not after it is broken so as to retroactively find the law breaker innocent. If a law is broken, as determined by a court, it is not politics.

Just an additional thought:

Even if the police see a murder committed, the case still has to go to court. There is a reason that the police cannot issue the punishment.

Burt,
OK I get your point that you don’t believe anything the Bush administration does is good. Clinton’s EO was not secret. Bush’s EO was not secret. Carter’s EO was not secret. There is no real argument. All modern presidents have done surveillance without warrants. Why now the uproar on Bush? No laws have been broken by any of the chief executives on this matter.

Woman Marine,
“The time to politically decide how the law should exist, whether it should exist, is not after it is broken so as to retroactively find the law breaker innocent. If a law is broken, as determined by a court, it is not politics.”

It was already decided September 14, 2001 by Congress:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blsjres23.htm

“SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. “

Rahdigly:

My point is:

It is not up to me, nor anyone on watchblog to determine if a law is broken or not. In this case, my understanding is that congressional oversight (hearings) will determine whether or not the issue should go to court or a special prosecutor.

My understanding also is that there are a number of the congress from both sides of the aisle requesting that hearings be held.

Please don’t keep posting stuff that you think is so important, when there can be so much more to be interpreted as to what applies to this particular situation.

Just wondering what your credentials are that you can be so sure? I know this is over my head, what about yours? Such absolute certainty concerns me when it goes against what any number of people in Congress and elsewhere are trying to determine.

Dear rahdigly,
I did not note in your pasted wording of the Congressional authorization that the President was authorized to violate the Constitution.

Sir, neither the Congress, nor the Executive branch is allowed to do that. Period. Very simple civics lesson.

No authority in America is allowed to violate the law. Why is it so difficult for people to understand?

The only way a constitutional gaurantee can be contradicted is through a constitutional amendment and that is quite a process.

Again, whether it is liked or not, we are a nation that has determined that we shall respect the law and no individual is above the law.

Back to the original point where a Presidents policy is fought through the legal system instead of through debate… I have given that some thought…

LBJ: Turns out now there wasn’t a second attack on the ship in the Gulf of Tonkin which was used as the justification for increasing our involvement in Vietnam.

Nixon: Illegal wiretaps, breaking and entering, use of the IRS against political enemines, requesting the FBI to investigate American citizens exercising their 1st Amendment right to speech.

Carter I am not sure about, they had a field day with his brother but you cannot chose your family. Surprisingly he is still the scapegoat of the Right… note the Catah implication above.

Reagan and Iran Contra was the deliberate attempt to bypass the ban put in place by Congress to aid the Sandinistas. It also involved weapons for hostages.

PLEASE DO NOT tell me that making the deals saved the hostages. It has been well estabilished that we would NEVER make a deal with terrorists or hostage takers. To do so, in the short term, save the people in immediate danger, but in the long run makes us much more at risk. So do not make this seem like it was the “right” thing to do. Won’t wash. How many other people were kidnapped and killed because they believed they might get a “behind the scenes”, “off the radar” deal.

GWB I do not remember any special prosecutors.

Clinton: Should have told them, “It really isn’t any of your business.” and moved on. What started out as some sort of really weak accusations about some financial dealings concocted to punish and make Clinton ineffectual because of health care, gays in the military or whatever else raised the skirts of the Conservative-Christian Right turned out to be about oral sex and his “playing loose with the truth” and stains of some dress.

So, to take this argument back to its origin… the only one I really see as a politicized persecution was the one against Clinton. The others were clear violations of law.

For the record… I hated what they did to Clinton but when they would talk about, “The law is the law.” I could not aruge.

What I did know was that the next Republican President would violate the law and all of the sudden the Conservative-Christian Right would discover “RELATIVE MORALITY.”

It really is sad, and terribly confusing when I try to follow the twisted logic that people will use to justify the inappropriate actions of their politicans. Instead of demanding that they uphold the highest level of what they, as a party, believe in… they toss their beliefs, morality, honor and respect out the window to keep from admiting a mistake on the part of their party/President.

That, Ladys and Gentlemen is relative morality. It all depends on what party you are affiliated with. If each of us held our own party to 1/2 the level of integrety that we demand of the opposition, then maybe we could move forward.

I listened to a Serbian citizen swear that the video he was watching of the Serbian paramilitary killing Muslims was actually mercenaries hired by the CIA to make Serbians look bad. He knew this because he had a friend that was there and knew what was happening.

Isn’t it amazing the level of self-deception we go through to avoid holding our own to task? Or to prove the other side is WRONG.

Again, rahdigly, there is nothing in the wording or in the intent or in Constitutional law that can authorize a President to break the law. Read it the way you wish, it won’t change that fact.

Darren7160,
“Again, rahdigly, there is nothing in the wording or in the intent or in Constitutional law that can authorize a President to break the law. Read it the way you wish, it won’t change that fact.”

He didn’t break the law. What he did was legal. That’s all I’m saying. I posted the “Authorization for use of Force” passed by Congress to the president.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-18-nsa-70s_x.htm

“The White House says the president has legal authority granted by a congressional joint resolution passed Sept. 14, 2001, that allows the president to use whatever force he deems necessary to stop acts of terrorism. A 2002 Justice Department legal brief argued the president can authorize wiretaps without a warrant in cases of national security.”

He has the authority just like past presidents did and what they did was legal as well. Most recently, Clinton; by the way, I like how you mentioned only the “Impeachment” scandal and not actually when he “spied” and “wiretapped” for the security of this country. One thing Clinton did was to use satelites to spy on white supremacists after the Oklahoma bombings. Now, I certainly applaud Clinton (and I really can’t stand him; I thought he was a decent Prez and a horrible Commander in Chief) for putting National Security first by using his Presidental powers to go after the civil liberties of known suspects that tried to cause us harm.

So, I applaud those leaders, even though some of them I didn’t even vote for. It’s about National Security. I really wish that the Democratic Senators, who applauded when Sen. Reid said they “killed the Patriot Act”, would stop defending the civil liberties of the terrorists over the civil liberties of our own citizens. It’s completely and utterly ridiculous.

No authority in America is allowed to violate the law. Why is it so difficult for people to understand?

Darren,

I agree with most of what you say, but I do think that there are unusual and rare cases of national emergencies when it makes sense for the executive to exceed the limits of day-to-day law. This is a practical matter. When situations change, it may take a while for the law to catch up to new realities. That’s probably the only really good reason to have an executive at all.

That said, my problem with what we seem to be seeing here (and, again, the facts just aren’t in yet, if they ever will be the likes of average citizens such as ourselves) is that there seems to have been plenty of opportunities to amend the laws or write new ones. But they didn’t do it, probably for various reasons: A) they didn’t want Congress or the courts to prohibit or dilute their actions by calling them unconstitutional B) they didn’t want the terrorists to be given a heads up C) they were caught up in their self-isolating bubbles and cabals and D) spooks just adore their secrets, being in that business to begin with.

I will say I dislike the Bush Administration. They strike me as arrogant, amoral, obtuse and too often inept. They’re bad listeners and they’re far too divisive to be any good at leadership. BUT, whether through luck or skill or a combination of both, they have been able to so far (knock on virtual wood) to prevent another massive terrorist attack on U.S. soil. This wiretapping program MAY have contributed to that, though we’ll probably never know for sure.

Is that good enough? Are we really such a country of cowards that we’ll sell our national souls for a little safety? Several days ago I would have said no. Today, I’m more cynical.

But my point is that I think an executive can potentially break the law in the short term, even while trying to get the laws changed, but he can’t do that over the long term. It’s the long term part of this that keep gnawing at me.

We’ll have to wait and see. There need to be hearings (and I think these are certain) and there should probably be a formal investigation. The worst part is that it’s all proabably so unnecessary. Bush could have gotten almost anything he wanted in the months after 9/11. Now, for other reasons, he strikes the majority of Americans as simply being untrustworthy. At the end of it all, it’ll be interesting to read the case study. In the shorter term, the Bushies had better get over the anger and denial steps and start moving quickly into acceptance that they’re going to have to fully explain their actions.

Darren, the Constitution actually grants a wide range of powers to the President which, if used by anyone but him, WOULD be illegal. It’s an enormously powerful office. That’s one reason why the President is the one figure elected by the entire country and why such a big deal is made every four years about who is going to occupy that role.

That doesn’t mean that the president is above the law. Far from it. But it’s also far from obvious that the administration has violated any laws in this matter, especially considering Congress’s having granted him the authority after 9-11 to use ALL necessary measures—including lethal measures—against terrorists and their associates.

Does this mean that Bush can use these powers to wage a campaign against his domestic political opponents, as some are suggesting? Of course not, but neither is there any indication that Bush has used those powers for that purpose.

If he hasn’t, he’s acting within not only the authority delegated to him by the Constitution but within the powers given to him by Congress. If he has, I’d like to hear about it—but so far, I’ve heard nothing of the kind.

What the administration’s detractors are doing here is exactly like saying that because the police are allowed to shoot criminals under certain circumstances, it means that they’re also allowed to shoot honest citizens on a whim without any justification whatsoever. In other words, it just doesn’t make sense.

In any case, the Bush administration has got to be loving this debate. At a time when Bush’s poll numbers are rising again, it confirms all of the stereotypes about the left not wanting to take even common sense security measures and being weak on defence. The very reason why Democrats lost the last two elections.

The latest CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll says that a whopping 62% approve of the Patriot Act or think it doesn’t go far enough. Only slightly more than half of that, 34%, think that it goes too far.

To satisfy their extreme-left base, the Democrats have fillibustered what is actually an enormously popular (and so far 100% successful) measure to keep us secure and do so without infringing on anyone’s civil rights.

The Republicans now stand to pick up seats in both the Senate and House in 06.

Just for future discussion:

rahdigly correctly cites the “Use of Force” Resolution as one of the primary legal rationales the Bush Admistration gives for its actions. It looks to me that the most applicable parts are here:

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States:

and here:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Jack,

In 90% of your posts, I can follow your basic reasoning. On this one you have completely lost me. I can see how in the case of something like campaign finance or redistricting (what has gotten Delay on the docket) one could make a coherent, if dubious, argument that a certain dispute purely involves politics rather than law.

In this case, I honestly don’t see how politics is involved at all. That statement probably strikes some people as silly, because there is obviously a possibility that the fallout from this could have electoral consequences . By that standard, however, EVERYTHING that happens in Washington is politics. Therefore, none of it is illegal.

It also seems that your definition of politics has something do with ambiguity. In this case, you are looking for ambiguity that just isn’t there. Congress set up a whole court system to deal with this situation, and Bush simply ignored it. It is as if someone was caught speeding and claimed that there was no statute specifically regulating how fast they should be driving (never mind that sign they just sped by).

The latest CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll says that a whopping 62% approve of the Patriot Act or think it doesn’t go far enough.

Sanger, You’re right. Most Americans have never really appreciated or understood their own Constitutional rights. And this marks a real danger for the Democrats, who lack a bully pulput from which to explain the sitation. This is why I don’t think this stuff is politically motivated. But my feeling is that they’ve got to hold firm to their beliefs on this one, whatever the cost to the party. It’s better to play the role of the loyal opposition for the good of the nation, even it means more years in the wilderness. This is the time for the Democrats to stand up and demand a full accounting from King George. They may get the crap kicked out of them, but history and the nation will someday respect them for actually having stood for the fundamental beliefs of the United States of America. Let it be their redemption for the cowardice and avarice that was their downfall in the 1990s.

The cowardice and downfall is continuing. Clinton and Carter did the same thing Bush is doing now, only then it wasn’t a wartime footing. The double standard exhibited by the left is done out of fear and cowardice. Cut and run is all they know. I guess the similarities they make to Vietnam is right in one respect, the terrorist murderers have the same weapon the North Vietnamese had, the American left.

Reed, I sympathize with your concerns about the public’s appreciation of their Constitutional rights, more than you probably know considering the passion of these debates and the feeling of being at each other’s throats (even at times, perhaps, when we’re really on common ground).

Contrary to what you may think, I’m no blind follower or defender of anyone just because they have an R after their name, and I’m often a very harsh critic of President Bush himself.

Unfortunately, however, I completely reject your premise that Democrats simply and unselfishly defend these Constitutional rights while Republicans simply and selfishly attack them.

On a whole range of issues,from Second Amendment issues, to property rights, to “speech codes” in school and at work, to racially based preferential policies to “hate crimes” legislation which seeks to police people’s thoughts in addition to their actions—not to mention abridgments of the freedom of religion and the freedom of association, I just don’t see the Democrats as having anything to brag about when it comes to defending our civil rights.

In additon to all of these things, when I see Democrats attacking a Republican administration in hysterical terms for doing the same think Democratic administrations did without any protest whatsoever, I just don’t buy the idea of a loyal, principled opposition that is putting a genuine concern for our rights ahead of efforts to seek partisan advantage. Sorry.

When it comes to matters currently under debate, I see the Bush admistration skirting up against what is allowable in a sincere effort to target terrorists, not domestic opponents. And if they err, they should be called on it—and I’ll join the chorus when these errors are exposed. But so far they haven’t been, in my judgement.

The president’s opponents exhibit a reflexive hostility to ANYTHING the president does, which tends to discredit them as they take ever more extreme and radical positions. If he blows his nose, they think he should be impeached for it. If he targets Al Qaida operatives who may be operating within our borders, they pretend that THEY are being targeted, that little old ladies, schoolchildren and honest upright citizens are under attack. Like the American public who has reflected their opinions in polls regarding the Patriot Act, I just don’t buy it.

Clinton and Carter did the same thing Bush is doing now

No, they did not, but believe it if it’ll make you feel better.

And as far as Vietnam goes, it was a Republican administration responsible for the pull out. But it also happened to be the right thing to do. A useless, bloody war if ever there were one, as history has proven.

Thank you Sanger, you put the way I’ve been leaning, It makes alot of sense. I’ve been critical of Bush in some areas, however, he is doing the best he can with what hes got to work with. its too bad that he can’t make move without the bad feelings the left have for him. I don’t buy the Lefts con either.

Reed, check out Carters executive order dated May 23, 1979 and Clintons dated Feb. 9, 1995. They did do the same thing. its on the Drudge report.

Vietnam was a failure of policy by the Johnson Administration but as with Carter and Clinton , the Johnson Adm. left a mess to clean up.

On a whole range of issues,from Second Amendment issues, to property rights, to “speech codes†in school and at work, to racially based preferential policies to “hate crimes†legislation which seeks to police people’s thoughts in addition to their actions—not to mention abridgments of the freedom of religion and the freedom of association, I just don’t see the Democrats as having anything to brag about when it comes to defending our civil rights.

Sanger, This is way too many issues to discuss here, but for me the “liber” in liberal is of great importance. That’s why I have a lot of respect for the Libertarians, who still have principles, and very little respect for the GOP, which stands for almost nothing these days. I consider it more morally bankrupt than the Dems were 10 years ago. But the GOP does have much power and won’t give it up easily. It’ll be a long while before America can return to fiscal sanity or stand up for the working class again. In the meantime, the Dems need to stand for things that really matter. The Constitution is a good place to start.

check out Carters executive order dated May 23, 1979 and Clintons dated Feb. 9, 1995.

George, I did look at Drudge (not my most trusted news source, by the way) but didn’t find this. Perhaps you could provide a link or a URL?

More and more I’m starting to think that the Right has problems with reading comprehension.

Clinton did the same thing? Clinton authorized secret wiretaps that violated FISA and the executive order linked to on the drudge report proves it? Let’s look, shall we?

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (“Act”) (50 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.

Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney
General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain
orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign
intelligence information.

Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or
defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section
303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical
searches:

(a) Secretary of State;

(b) Secretary of Defense;

(c) Director of Central Intelligence;

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;

(e) Deputy Secretary of State;

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications,
unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON
“>http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

Each SECTION of Clinton’s executive order cites the parts of the FISA act from which he took the authority to make that order. And, by the way, Carter’s (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm) is in exactly the same format.

Bush on the other hand has gone BEYOND the authority granted by FISA and removed the need for warrants entirely, not just in the initial 72 hours with attorney general approval provided for by FISA.

Jarandhel,
“Each SECTION of Clinton’s executive order cites the parts of the FISA act from which he took the authority to make that order. And, by the way, Carter’s is in exactly the same format. Bush on the other hand has gone BEYOND the authority granted by FISA and removed the need for warrants entirely, not just in the initial 72 hours with attorney general approval provided for by FISA.”

FISA didn’t help prevent 9/11. There was a “wall” that was in place prior to 9/11 and, since 9/11, the wall has been knocked down in regards to intelligence gathering, which allows us to “connect the dots” in this information gathering. It’s a good thing that Bush went above and “BEYOND” the regular laws that were in place when 3000 of our countrymen were brutally (and visciously) murdered; b/c FISA certainly didn’t do enough prior to that day.

Perhaps someone (regardless of political persuasion) can help answer a question:

Some are saying that FISA would provide the exact same kind of information and in the same time frame as what Bush got from wiretaps. If this is so, then why would Bush have gone around FISA?

My logic involves some basic assumptions:

**Politicians don’t do something the hard way if there is an easier way available.
**Politicians cover their asses, and won’t do something if there is no benefit in it for them.
**If you can accomplish something withIN the law, then there is no reason to go outside the law.
**Politicians don’t give the opposition the chance to hit them, even if its only perceptions, unless there is a reason.
**There is ALWAYS a rationale for what politicians do

Now, what is Bush’s rationale? If he could get the same info through FISA why not use FISA to get it, which would have negated any ammunition on the ‘illegal wiretap’ front?

Help….

Sanger,

You are right to mention the other Amendments. I would love for all Amendments to be just as resoutley defended.

You might have missed my previous post considering the Supreme Courts ruling on whether to not a President is allowed to violate the law in times of war within his role as the Commander-in-Chief.

This was Truman during the Korean Conflict. He attempted to take over the steel industry because they could not settle a strike. He attempted to take them over because their production was needed in war. The Surpreme Court ruled that he could not violate the law even in war and even as the Commander-in-Chief.

Commander-in-Chief. That is an interesting job title. It clearly illustrates that the American military is responsible to the civilian government.

I have reread the authorization and yes, it does say any and all… in a nation of laws, in a nation where the Constitution is supreme law, could the Congress say, “Any and all means, legal or illegal…” No.

The legality of President Bush’s actions will have to be determined. That we, as a nation, are even able to make this determination is exactly what America is about.

Now, here is a clip from the Washington Post, and regardless of feelings about MSM or any particular leanings of the media, it is not opinion but facts about the FISA:

Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the NSA in urgent situations can already eavesdrop on international telephone calls for 72 hours without a warrant, as long as it goes to a secret intelligence court by the end of that period for retroactive permission. Since the law was passed in 1978 after intelligence scandals, the court has rejected just five of 18,748 requests for wiretaps and search warrants, according to the government.

Note the allowance of 72 hours to retroactively get the warrant. Not the number of times this was rejected.

Beak,

Nastiness aside… exactly what part of lock stepping are you talking about? Our wanting to make sure that our rights are protected and that America is ran by the rules of law? That the counter-checks of our democratic principles are upheld?

Sir, if anyone is lock stepping it would appear to be you. Blindly following the President’s assertions. Surrendering your right to question and to think about the abstract ideas of Liberty, Freedom, Law.

Ignoring what is being said by Republicans and Democrats.

Instead, you cower in fear (which the terrorists were very successful as far as you were concerned) and willingly let the Administration do “whatever it takes” without having any idea of the implications.

No, you would rather fearfully submit and surrender our way of life while wrapping yourself in American values and patriotic fervor.

I guess you are one of those that freely get the benefits of the rights that have been fought for.

Anytime a “Patriot” denigrates discussion of whether or not what our country is doing is right then I would have to submit that the one “lock stepping” would be him.

Drinking grape cool-aid was the act of a person willing to subject himself to an authority and surrender his will and his life for the convenience of not have to make life’s decisions.

If you do not believe that the actions of our President are open to discussion and the courts of law, then you are the one lock stepping.

Now, what is Bush’s rationale? If he could get the same info through FISA why not use FISA to get it, which would have negated any ammunition on the ‘illegal wiretap’ front?

Help….

Posted by joebagodonuts at December 21, 2005 08:03 AM

————-
JBOD,

Good post, one theory is that in order to obtain a warrant from FISA, you have to present the reasons for it to be granted. Questions may ensue as to how the evidence supporting the request for the warrant was obtained. If the evidence was obtained for the warrant in a manner that isn’t through normal procedures (i.e. extraordinary rendition, aggressive interrogation+, etc. etc.)

So, there may be a good reason for the administration not to go to the FISA court for the warrant.

Not saying it’s so, but…

www.sauduction.com

Jack-
The Emperor is naked. He has no justification under the law for what he’s done. They may have cooked up a justification, and hoped that folks would buy it, but it’s simple a violation of the Fourth Amendment and you know it.

Politics, as I’ve observed it, has no necessary connection to reality other than that we demand of it. If we’re not careful with our politics, we could be on the next trip to neverland with the credibility of the vision we apply to policy. This is what Democracy is created to prevent. One man, ruling arbitrarily, can go in whatever direction he likes. An elected official encounters greater and greater friction, the more things depart from reality.

Hold Bush accountable, or hold yourself to shame.

Darren,
“Instead, you cower in fear (which the terrorists were very successful as far as you were concerned) and willingly let the Administration do “whatever it takes” without having any idea of the implications. No, you would rather fearfully submit and surrender our way of life while wrapping yourself in American values and patriotic fervor.”

No, it is today’s “give me liberty or give me death” crowd that will use our constitution and way of life to defend those who want to destroy our constitution and way of life! And, this same crowd wants to throw around quotes from the Revolutionary war, without actually understanding what was meant by that phrase. The phrase was used as a war cry, for goodness sakes! How many of the “give me liberty or death” crowd are for the war and for this President conducting the war? Would they have been for the Revolutionary war? Or, would they have tried to “reason” with and/or “understand” the British and what the US did wrong to upset them?! Think about…

Rahdigly,

Do you agree that the term “war” is thrown around just a bit to loosely these days?
WAR on crime
WAR on drugs
WAR on violence
WAR on illegal immigrants
WAR on terror

Now, what is Bush’s rationale? If he could get the same info through FISA why not use FISA to get it, which would have negated any ammunition on the ‘illegal wiretap’ front?

I’m not going to put down all my suspicions on this because, as unlikely as it I’m right, those suspicions involve an overview of possible technological strategies. In short, I think the FISA law may not be able to keep up with what the technology allows.

That said, I suspect new laws could be crafted to allow technology and law to become more compatible. So, I’m going to restate my theory about why the new laws weren’t developed (and this is all speculation):

A) they didn’t want Congress or the courts to prohibit or dilute their monitoring actions by calling them unconstitutional (though, of course, it would have taken the courts years to do this, assuming Congress played ball, which it would have at the time).
B) they didn’t want the terrorists to be given a heads up via the legislative process
C) they were caught up in their self-isolating bubbles (the “cabal” mentality some former Bushies have cited)
D) intelligence experts just hate to give up their secrets

None of these are good excuses over the long term, and they should have considered the potential backlash as well as the ethical implications. I’m hoping that you can’t keep these kinds secrets indefinitely in a democracy. Sooner or later, somebody is going to say, “Hey, this a massive infringement on constitutional rights and somebody’s got to clue the people in.”

Stephen:

The Emperor is naked. He has no justification under the law for what he’s done.

I’m not looking to discuss all the issues about what Bush has done. That can be reserved for another time. You’ve claimed there is no justification for it, yet there are many from both sides who are saying its entirely justified. It is not the cut and dried issue that you are presenting it as.

“I think the authorization of use of military force is probably adequate as an authorization for surveillance,” said Cass Sunstein, a University of Chicago law professor.

“President Bush’s post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.”
John Schmidt, associate attorney general of the United States.under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997.

“the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes.” Clinton Deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick

The Gorelick quote shows a precedent for Presidents wanting this kind of authority. I’m only assuming they created some kind of justification for their desires as well.

Stephen, I’ll say again that I’m a bit undecided on this issue. But its certainly not right to play this off as a one sided issue, when there are plenty of varying opinions on it.

One last thing. There’s obviously going to be a massive hunt for the leak in this case. Because we don’t have enough info, it’s impossible to know how to feel about that leak, but I can understand both sides on this. One extreme group will be seeing the leaker(s) as traitors and the other will be seeing the leaker(s) as patriots. If we think the Valarie Plame thing was a big deal with the press and the need to protect sources, just think what the next chapter may entail. I hate to even ponder about it.

Rahdigly-
Many of the Revolutionary war crowd did indeed try to reason with the British. It was the British failure to reason back and reach a compromise that lead to many of them deciding that a split with England was necessary.

We have tried to reason with Bush. We tried to be the loyal opposition to our war president. What it got us was abused in every sense of the word.

This is intolerable. I will not be lied to, to have my generation sucked into a war on less than the best evidence. I will not see what makes my country free and just sacrificed by the shortsighted and power-hungry in the name of liberty and justice. I will not let one man effectivly rule by diktat, cutting out congress and the courts, the two co-equal branches of government meant to govern with the Executive.

This is the measure of conservative weakness in it’s defense of this country: that it would dissolve the very structure it is sworn to defend as it defends it. The truly strong party, the truly righteous one, has no need to undermine the very foundation of this nation’s founding, in order to deliver it from its enemies. I would rather die from a terrorist attack a free man, than die an old man in bed, a prisoner of my own government in my own country.

I wish to see our enemies destroyed, the monsters that threaten this nation slain. I just feel more than you that the integrity of this country means more than the absolute security no government can honestly guarantee.

Has anyone checked this out yet?

www.sauduction.com

Opinions, please?

Apparently those who run this site are not in favor of the truth outside of main stream influence. I apologize that the link I have listed cannot be accessed from this site. Type it into your search engine and brace yourself.

Since the liberals like to, so fondly, refer to our President as the “chimp, mental midget etc.” how does he manage to pull the wool over the eyes of Democratic leadership so completely and so often? Since they also allege it is not illegal to break National Security secrets, if in their estimation, the secret was illegal, where were these Dem “patriots” before now? We have a staged political stunt to overshadow the elections in Iraq and to sell a few million extra copies of a book for the NYT reporter involved. End of story.

Pige,

Come on, what are you afraid of? The truth? Type www.sauduction.com into your web bar and see what comes of it.

FISA didn’t help prevent 9/11. There was a “wall†that was in place prior to 9/11 and, since 9/11, the wall has been knocked down in regards to intelligence gathering, which allows us to “connect the dots†in this information gathering. It’s a good thing that Bush went above and “BEYOND†the regular laws that were in place when 3000 of our countrymen were brutally (and visciously) murdered; b/c FISA certainly didn’t do enough prior to that day.

This is what I mean about reading comprehension. Rahdigly, *everything* that Bush did *illegally* could have been done under FISA just by applying for warrants within 72 hours of the start of surveillance. He didn’t give the government any new ability to catch criminals or remove any blocks between organizations sharing information by ignoring it. The *only* thing ignoring FISA did was to remove the need to obtain those warrants. And that doesn’t even give the government the benefit of increased speed in emergency situations, since warrants could be obtained up to 72 hours AFTER tapping began. Plus we’re talking about a court that has only denied five out of almost twenty thousand warrant requests in its entire history. So it’s a pretty sure bet that any warrant request the administration would have made within FISA would have been approved. Best guesses on why Bush would stick his neck out on this, since he could have done it all legally, are that a) he has absolutely no reason to be wiretapping the individuals he is wiretapping, which would indicate that they are being tapped for political rather than security purposes, or b) the way they gained the evidence justifying the wiretaps is itself in violation of our laws and the courts would be forced to throw it out and deny any warrants stemming from it. Neither of those possibilities are a good thing, and neither do anything to enhance our nation’s security or remove any blocks on agencies sharing information.

Darren,

aside from YOUR nastiness and sarcasm and trite euphemisms straight from the democrat Cut and Run playbook, your attempt to say something lucid fails again. You liberals, or whatever you are, can wrap yourselves in the flag, call yourselves patriots and demean the president in a time of critical national security issues. Again I ask you and your liberal brethren: where was your moral outrage when Carter and Clinton performed warrantless surveillance and searches? Better find your leader Howard (KoolAid) Dean and get some better talking points. Facts, posted here by many, don’t seem to impress you.

It seems that the Liberal faction of the Democrat party have short memories, Carter and Clinton were the two weakest leaks in our National security. Terrorism grew out of inaction from both of these guys. All they did was leave a big mess for the next guys to clean up. Now they cry and complain about what Bush is doing. The fact is Bush is doing something, Carter and Clinton are experts at one thing..inaction. I wouldn’t trust either man to protect anyone.

Karen-
It’s a coding error on your part. The “a href” tag has two parts. The first contains the link URL itself. “http://domain.com/link” is only supposed to be an example of a URL. Then, after the initial href tag, you put the text that is meant to be the link. This can be anything. You mistakenly put your address in this part, rather than the first.

Pige-
Standard argument: everything is done to embarrass the president. The problem with that argument? Something doesn’t have to be false to be embarrassing. If indeed his behavior is real, whether or not it was our intention to embarrass the president is irrelevant to the need to deal with what he’s done.

So far, your people aren’t denying the president eavesdropped on the communications of thousands of Americans without having a warrant for that. Their legal excuse for this is paper thin: the constitution trumps any act of congress or the executive, even in wartime.

The president deserves the blackening of his name that this brings.

Stephen,
“Many of the Revolutionary war crowd did indeed try to reason with the British. It was the British failure to reason back and reach a compromise that lead to many of them deciding that a split with England was necessary. We have tried to reason with Bush. We tried to be the loyal opposition to our war president. What it got us was abused in every sense of the word.”

Ahhh haaa! Exactly!! Thank you Stephen, you just proved what a good number of us have been saying about the anti-Bush crowd. You referenced the Revolutionary War and how the US tried to reason with the British (who were the enemy in that war) and how (present day) you tried to reason with Bush. Now, do you at least see what we’re talking about here?! In your comment, you’re equating Bush as the enemy! You could of (easily) said, “we tried to reason with the terrorists (who are the real enemy), but they failed to reason back and reach a compromise”. Instead, it’s trying to reason with Bush. Oh my goodness, WOW!!!!

So, Stephen, I don’t have a problem with your analogy, though I completely disagree with it; it just struck me that how one would equate Bush to the British, rather than the terrorists to the British.

Question to all of you on the right defending these actions:

How can the people, or their security-cleared proxies in the courts and the legislature, ensure the quality of homeland security efforts if they are not consulted or asked for the authority by our executive branch?

I would think the point here is not to have a government operating in such a way that it can keep everybody in dark about how well and how appropriately this work is being done. Even if we never learn the entirety of this, we should at least have the privilege of having elected officials or judges appointed with congress’s advice and consent being involved in such a way that executive prerogative is not the sole authority required.

George, Beak, rahdigly, etc.

Despite the claims from Drudge, the Clinton and Carter orders did not pertain to U.S. citizens. That is why this is a big controversy, because Bush is doing this for the first time against U.S. citizens.

There is a very good post in the center column about this if you care to read the details.

Thank you Stephen! HTML does have a tendancy to elude me at times, but no the fact that the President should be excused because politics are politics. That’s just wrong. I know you agree, but those who don’t just down-right spook me.

I find it amazing that all of you think that you still have the luxury of debating legalities when the barbarians are at the gates. Obviously none of you are readers of history. When a nation or peoples are unwilling to meet the enemy on his own level they will be defeated. Just ask the Romans. You cannot play by civilized rules when the enemy has no such notion. Maybe it will be comforting to you that you have followed the rules even in defeat. I find no such comfort. I do not want to debate while Rome burns.

Barbara,

How do you explain our breaking free of British rule?

Barbara,
What happened to you? You’ve been terrified. Why are you so afraid, my dear? Where is your courage? You’re willing to give up your rights, you’re willing to forgo debate. Take a deep breath. Now, look under the bed. Do you see any terrorists? Check the window. All clear.

Feel better. Getting over your fear? Who instilled so much fear in you? It’s a terrible thing. Let’s think about it. Four years ago terrorists did in fact kill people in New York City. Since 2003 terrorists activities have been negligible… an Indonesian group, JI, attacked in Bali. But don’t worry. They have been in Indonesia a long time, and never attacked the US… there was a group in London… an attack in Egypt… one in Spain. All those attacks were carried out by people living in those countries.

In the US, there have been no significant arrests in a while. As for Al Qaida, the #3 man in the organization was recently captured in a mud hut in Pakistan, a remote area near the Afghan border. No one has ever heard of him outside Pakistan.

Feel better? Feel like you have enough courage to assert you’re rights? Good. Glad I could help.

Burt,

*That is why this is a big controversy, because Bush is doing this for the first time against U.S. citizens.*

Uh, maybe you don’t remember someone named John Deutch, DCI during the Clinton administration? Seems as though the Clinton people searched his house without a warrant to retrieve computers and computer hardware in the interest of national security. Oops.

http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/ig_deutch.html

All this back and forth demonstrates that this clearly is a political not a legal process. There are good arguments on both sides. Therefore it is not established law or custom. Therefore it is political, not legal.

In the legal process, you have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the law must be sufficiently clear that everyone know when it has been broken. There is certainly sufficient uncertainly about whether or not the President acted within his authority as commander and chief. As President, he has the responsibility to protect the U.S. and the implied powers to carry out that responsibility. There are things that the President should do (as president) that would be illegal if anyone else did them. The President was acting to protect us. We may decide politically that he went too far. (Altough if you tap an American talking to Osama or Atta, I don’t think you can go too far) But let’s not try to criminalize of moralize a political decision.

None of the “crimes” of Reagan, Bush, Clinton or GW Bush have met the reasonable doubt standard. The proof is that none of them are in jail or was forced out of office. That indicates that the accusations were politics. Politics can be a contact sport. But it is important for Bush opponents (as Clinton opponents before them) to understand that their disagreement with the President is a political disagreement. Law is being used in an attempt to further a political agenda, not the other way around.