Oh Brother. Big Brother.
No way to slice this cake other than to say that the just-revealed military spying on domestic soil approved by the President is blatantly illegal and politically chilling.
There can simply be no justification whatsoever for Bush issuing an executive order in 2002 – as we now find out—allowing the National Security Agency to snoop on phone conversations and emails generated by American citizens, residents or anyone else.
Yes, you heard that right. Even if U.S. officials had proof-positive that armed Al Qaeda militants were gathering in Central Park, the administration’s behavior remains unconstitutional and extremely dangerous.
In 1978, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which established clear procedures for requesting judicial authorization for conducting the sort of eavesdropping unilaterally ordered by Bush. Those same FISA measures allow a window for “retroactive” authorization for so-called ticking-time-bomb cases. If an immediate threat is perceived, surveillance can begin without a warrant – so long as it is reported and retroactively authorized by the FISA court within 48 hours. And that court has virtually never turned down a surveillance request.
In other words, there is no legal or constitutional justification for the unaccountable spying unleashed by the White House. Under previously existing law there was no roadblock to carrying out the acts that Bush authorized without cover of law and bereft of any judicial oversight.
It boggles the mind that any American ccould excuse this abuse. Granting absolute power unrestrained by all checks or balances to the executive – and in this case the military—is simply un-American.
Mind boggling it is to fathom just exactly what was, and is, in the heads of the White House strategists who enabled this policy. The President tells us we are in a fight for freedom and democracy, that the lives of our young people and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars are well-spent in defense of constitutional rule in Iraq, while he simultaneously scoffs at our own constitutional civil liberties.
We all pay a price for this muddying of our values. And that includes the administration. For a year-and-a-half now there has been a gently rising pushback, a mounting backlash against the more lawless aspects of the Bush White House. From the Supreme Court’s granting of some rights to Guantanamo detainees, to Congress defying Bush on the torture ban, to Friday’s successful Senate resistance to rubber-stamping the more odious aspects of the Patriot Act, there is a clear message that the Bushies have gone too far. Now, if they would just please go altogether.
December 16th, 2005 at 11:30 pm
Marc,
Your report is dishonest. You do not mention that all of these instances involved information crossing the US border, which removes the “reasonable expectation of privacy” requiriment of the law.
Furthermore, the idea that eavesdropping on international communications is unconstitutional is dubious, to put it mildly.
Have you noticed the timing of these drips of leaked classified information (every one of which is more serious than the Plame affair, and every one of which should thus be investigated at least as diligently). The Patriot Act is up for renewal. The McCain terrorism amendment is in play.
So sure enough, people who swore oaths not to release classified information are release it just in time for their favorite agendas. Some of this stuff, like the existence of extra-territorial CIA confinement facilities, is really serious black stuff, and the leak of that information is going to cost llives.
Can the NSA listen in on US conversations that go overseas? I always thought so – and most people in the world assume that international calls are monitored.
But what the heck… just one more bullet in the arsenal of the civil liberties absolutists, and one more reduction in our ability to fight terrorism.
Yawn…. this stuff, serious and dangerous as it is… is getting old.
Get honest, Marc, and at least mention that ALL of these NSA cases involved international surveillance, would you? Your article reads like it was designed to make people think that the NSA was snooping inside the US, which is not at all what was reported.
Or maybe you have a reason to spread a misconception?
December 16th, 2005 at 11:40 pm
This post seems a bit hyperbolic than the usual. I agree that the NSA surveillance is troubling, and particularly in the way that it was authorized, but it’s hardly the “absolute power” you are warning of.
December 17th, 2005 at 12:08 am
Off topic, but Marc, I offer either congratulations or condolences – your choice – you are quoted at length in the Dec 19th issue of The Weekly Standard.
As to my previous comment… let me suggest that your article, by its failure to mention the circumstances of the surveillance, makes good propaganda (or a polemic).
December 17th, 2005 at 12:11 am
I think that the key issue here is not what type of communications the surveillance was focused on but whether it was legal and constitutional. If Marc is right that the law was violated, what say you then? That it is okay to break the law in the fight against terrorism? Yes or no?
December 17th, 2005 at 12:42 am
I loved the timing of the release of this “breaking news.”
Drudge Report
NYT ‘SPYING’ SPLASH TIED TO BOOK RELEASE
Fri Dec 16 200 11:27:16 ET
**Exclusive**
Newspaper fails to inform readers “news break” is tied to book publication
On the front page of today’s NEW YORK TIMES, national security reporter James Risen claims that “months after the September 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States… without the court approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.”
Risen claims the White House asked the paper not to publish the article, saying that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny.
Risen claims the TIMES delayed publication of the article for a year to conduct additional reporting.
But now comes word James Risen’s article is only one of many “explosive newsbreaking” stories that can be found — in his upcoming book — which he turned in 3 months ago!
The paper failed to reveal the urgent story was tied to a book release and sale.
“STATE OF WAR: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration” is to be published by FREE PRESS in the coming weeks, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
Carisa Hays, VP, Director of Publicity FREE PRESS, confirms the book is being published.
The book editor of Bush critic Richard Clarke [AGAINST ALL ENEMIES] signed Risen to FREE PRESS.
Developing…
(I checked to see if I could credit this to Pajama’s Media http://www.pajamasmedia.com/ , but they had not broken the story yet.)
December 17th, 2005 at 12:51 am
If Risen and/or the NYT delayed the story for any reasons other than sound journalistic ones then that would indeed be a very serious matter. But it does not change the fact that we need to have the story made public, contra the implication given by some here that it should have been kept secret from Americans along with the detention centers.
December 17th, 2005 at 1:02 am
Excuse me guys, but read the law before you criticize. Marc’s entirely dead on with this issue. The administration’s action is against the law. Period.
More than that, it shows a reckless disregard for the rule of law and the Constitutional rights of American citizens. It implies that this President believes he can flout the law if and when he thinks best, at his personal discretion. Screw checks and balances and even his own Republican-heavy Congress.
Monarchs and dictators get to do that. Democratically elected Presidents don’t.
If what this implies doesn’t alarm you…..I suggest you slap yourself awake until it does.
Even middle of the road, Patriot Act promoting, Di Fi (that would be Diane Feinstein has laid this out in clear, unambiguous terms.
I’ve excerpted the most relevant passages from her floor statement made today. There were plenty of stronger statements made on this issue, but I’m posting Di Fi’s specifically because she’s NOT prone to hyperbole, nor is she liberal. (Plus Diane would really secretly would like to be queen anyway, if she had her druthers).
Here’s the heart of what she said:
“Mr. President, I rise today as a 12-year member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a 5-year member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I do so indeed with a very heavy heart. I have had, until now, great confidence in America’s intelligence activities. I have assured people time and time again that what happens at home has always been conducted in accordance with the law.
“….Today’s allegations as written in the New York Times really question whether this is in fact true. ….
” Let me be clear. Domestic intelligence collection is governed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA. This law sets out a careful set of checks and balances that are designed to ensure that domestic intelligence collection is conducted in accordance with the Constitution, under the supervision of judges and with accountability to the Congress of the United States.
“Specifically, FISA allows the Government to wiretap phones or to open packages, but only with a showing to a special court — the FISA court — and after meeting a legal standard that requires that the effort is based on probable cause to believe the target is an agent of a foreign power.
“…Section 105 (f) of FISA allows for emergency applications where time is of the essence. But even in these cases, a judge makes the final decision as to whether someone inside the United States of America, a citizen or a non-citizen, is going to have their communications wiretapped or intercepted. The New York Times reports that in 2004, over 1,700 warrants for this kind of wiretapping activity were approved by the FISA Court. The fact of the matter is, FISA can grant emergency approval for wiretaps within hours and even minutes, if necessary….
“….The newspaper, the New York Times, states that the President unilaterally decided to ignore this law and ordered subordinates to monitor communications outside of this legal authority.
” In the absence of authority under FISA, Americans up till this point have been confident — and we have assured them — that such surveillance was prohibited.
“This is made explicit in chapter 119 of title 18 of the criminal code which makes it a crime for any person without authorization to intentionally intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication.
” As a member of the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, I have been repeatedly assured by this administration that their efforts to combat terrorism were being conducted within the law…
” We have changed aspects of that law at the request of the administration in the USA PATRIOT Act to allow for a more aggressive but still lawful defense against terror. So there have been amendments. But if this article is accurate, it calls into question the integrity and credibility of our Nation’s commitment to the rule of law.
‘…..I refreshed myself this morning on the fourth amendment to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States. Here is what it says:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
“Clearly an intercept, a wiretap, is a search. It is a common interpretation. A wiretap is a search. You are looking for something. It is a search. It falls under the fourth amendment.
“We are a government of law. The Congress was never asked to give the President the kind of unilateral authority that appears to have been exercised.
“How can I go out, how can any Member of this body go out, and say that under the PATRIOT Act we protect the rights of American citizens if, in fact, the President is not going to be bound by the law….?â€
EXACTLY.
December 17th, 2005 at 1:16 am
I’m now seeing on lefty blogs that the NY Times delay was a devious plan by Bush to get the paper to spike the story until after the last presidential election. For such a stupid guy, Bush sure does a lot of shrewd moves.
December 17th, 2005 at 1:25 am
Good post, rosedog, and let John Moore and Woody explain to us why Feinstein’s interpretation of the law is wrong–by quoting legal scholars and court rulings, if possible, not their own personal interpretations of what they want the law to say.
Which brings me to the deeper issue that really is at play here: the fascistic impulse that is really behind acceptance of anything the Bush administration wants to do with the war on terror as its excuse, whether spying on Americans or sending Americans off to die in Iraq. Hannah Arendt and others have written about this impulse which is found in all societies at all times: The Germans who thought persecuting the Jews was justifiable given the “national crisis” of the 30s, the Chileans who thought it was justifiable to overthrow an elected government given the “national crisis” of the 70s, the Rwandans who thought it was justifiable to slaughter 800,000 people given the “national crisis” of the 90s, and the Americans who think it is okay to torture people and suspend civil liberties given our “national crisis” of terrorism in the new millennium. The fascistic impulse is always there, it propbably exists in all of us, and for various reasons some of us resist it more easily than others. At any given moment it always represents at least a minority view but always threatens to become an ominous, majority view. But this is what we are really talking about and what we will always have to fight against.
December 17th, 2005 at 1:49 am
Really well said, Michael. And, you and Hannah A. are right; we all have the fascist urge. (I had to fight it occasionally as a parent.)
It’s the belief that: “I—and the people with whom I agree—ought to be able to make the rules, or at least ignore them when need be, especially when the going gets hairy, or at least when WE think it does, because we really “get it,” while everybody else is clearly dozing off….”
It’s an entirely human perspective. Hence the genius of checks and balances.
A trip down the ol’ fascist slope—no matter how skillfully or forcefully you pretty it up— never leads anywhere good.
Heart of Darkness.
December 17th, 2005 at 6:16 am
” Your report is dishonest”
Yeah visit other people’s blogs and call them liars. That’s the Conservative way! Oh and quote Drudge a real expert on mindless conspiracies and gossip. What a waste of time this is. The end.
December 17th, 2005 at 7:18 am
Woody, let me take the opportunity to pose a question that you can answer when you wake up: Can you be a little more precise about how much of my civil liberties you want me to give up in the war against terrorism? You have stated clearly that I should forfeit my right to make a telephone call from the US to another country without a warrantless wiretap on my phone. What else should I give up? And what if I don’t want to? Who decides when we disagree? Should it be the courts? Or should it be George Bush and Dick Cheney? What should I do if you try to force me to give up my civil liberties involuntarily? Should I torture you until you give in? Or should you torture me? And why can’t the NSA go to the courts like the law says it should (the law even provides for emergency situations, tap first and get order afterwards–with a strict time limit of course.)
What is the problem with obeying the law, Woody? And be smart, not boring, in your response please.
December 17th, 2005 at 7:24 am
Same question above to John Moore if he cares to answer.
December 17th, 2005 at 9:28 am
The defense of Bush’s action is that old refrain, What if we missed a terrorist by not giving him all this power? And people will nod their frightened heads. Ergo, Americans do not love liberty, but rather safety, above all else.
December 17th, 2005 at 10:09 am
I agree with you, Tim, but in this case the opposition being posed between liberty and safety is entirely phony. All that is at issue here is whether the NSA should get an order from the FISA court before it wiretaps someone or reads their email. So all the bullshit about how this is needed to stop terrorism, for example in Bush’s radio address today, is just that–bullshit. If they’ve got a bead on a terrorist, go to the FISA court. Those here who disagree that they should have to do this, please explain to us why not. Otherwise we might think that those who support Bush’s policies are just marching in lockstep without thinking it through.
December 17th, 2005 at 10:14 am
Of course, Michael, but the 8-second sound bites that will determine the course of this debate will leave no room for your cogent reasoning. That’s far too much subtlety for current ‘political’ discourse. Nonetheless, I appreciate it.
December 17th, 2005 at 10:26 am
It is cogent, but the supporters of anything the King wants are so “individualistic,” we’re told. I suppose the reason for not going to court is time. Is a week too long? Some probably think so; the stumbling slowness of the rule of law.
December 17th, 2005 at 10:32 am
Bill Keller, the Times’ executive editor, said in a statement that the newspaper postponed publication of the article for a year at the White House’s request as editors pondered the national security issues surrounding the release of the information.
Sorry to be such a bulldog on this one, but this issue is one of those that really separates the honest anti-terrorists from the fascists. There is nothing that prevents the NSA from going to the FISA court immediately if it has sound reasons for a wiretap, and that is why they are given such a short time to do it in the law. Now, the issue raised by Drudge report about why the NYT held the story for a year needs an answer–does anyone here have one? Here is the generic excuse reported on CNN’s Web site today.
“But after considering the legal and civil liberties aspects, and determining that the story could be written without jeopardizing intelligence operations, the paper ran the story, Keller said, emphasizing that information about many NSA eavesdropping operations is public record.”
To me as a journalist this is a very lame excuse given that the story was precisely that Bush had authorized wiretaps outside the legal framework of FISA. In fact the press has no business protecting this sort of intelligence activity, so why did the NYT take a year to figure that out?
December 17th, 2005 at 10:34 am
Sorry, I jumbled that last post, that is just how mad I am about this one.
December 17th, 2005 at 10:55 am
Excellent comments by Michael B & rosedog…
The only thing that surprises me about this one is that Bush took to the airwaves to confirm his responsibility. Combined with the torture arguments that get batted around here, rationalizations for ditching the rule of law “yawn…serious and dangerous as it is, getting old.” Of course not as old as the “he’s just trying to get attention for his book sales” angle, with the name “Richard Clarke” thrown in, presumably to remind us of how many times the fools have used this angle to obfuscate exposes of criminality or incompetence at BushCo HQ. Imagine…Matt Drudge claiming that someone associated with a media outlet is trying to sensationalize scandal as a career move. Why, that sort of thing is unthinkable. But apparently it happens routinely at….The New York Times.
December 17th, 2005 at 10:56 am
Michael Balter, despite the medicine and just spending hours at the mall with my wife, my head is clear enough to know that I’m not, and never have been, a fan of the Patriot Act and other actions that violate individual rights. This is either a case of you mixing me up with someone else or incorrectly assuming that my position might be the same as the White House. I despise government intrusion. Strangely, I think we’re on the same page with this.
On the delay by the NY Times, there are at least three possibilities:
(A) The Times was duped by the President to not publishing the information earlier so that he could be re-elected.
(B) The Times withheld the article because of their patriotism and dedication to fighting terrorism.
(C) The Times waited to release the information to coincide with the publishing of their reporter’s new book on the same issues.
I pick C.
December 17th, 2005 at 11:07 am
Woody,
I’m happy to be on the same page with you on this one. You may be right about C, but I have written the Times’ public editor, Byron Calame, asking for him to address this issue and to give us something better than Bill Keller did. I doubt that I will be the only one to do so, and I assume that those journalists who cover the press itself will be on this one. By the way, the fact that Free Press is also my publisher would not make me any less furious if C does turn out to be the case.
December 17th, 2005 at 11:07 am
It appears they held it due to WH influence. D
The C choice shows just how muddledheaded people can be.
December 17th, 2005 at 11:12 am
“so why did the NYT take a year to figure that out?”
I don’t know the answer and Matt Drudge may be right that some editorial wheels got greased when it was apparent this guys book was going to come out anyway. All I can say (not in defense of the Times but as a matter of perspective) is that I’m glad that their editorial reins actually exist and their front page isn’t put together with the scattershot mania and disregard for accuracy – to put it mildly – of The Drudge Report. But there’s clear evidence here, in tandem with the “Miss Run Amok” episode, that they were cowed for years by the administration’s rhetorical fussilades post-911 into cutting them far too much slack, if not deliberately sucking up. We’ve gotten too much stuff that came from dubious sources, undigested and without context (shades of Drudge) coupled with a reticence to take the administration on directly. What’s most hilarious and sort of pathetic about the run-of-the-mill Times detractors is that what they hate about the paper is that it doesn’t degrade it’s journalistic standards nearly enough to suit their tastes.
December 17th, 2005 at 11:20 am
Woody…kudos that you find that this – and stuff in the Patriot Act – crosses a dangerous line. I was a bit taken aback when you wrote that. I’m glad that we agree on this. (Of course, I realize that you arrived at your position because you are a rugged individulist who refuses blind allegiance to partisan politics, while I arrived at mine because my local Democratic precinct captain told me what to think.)
December 17th, 2005 at 11:35 am
Yeah visit other blogs because no one read yours and call them liars because that is the liberal York way.
December 17th, 2005 at 12:00 pm
This WaPo story appears to have the full, relevant information about the circumstances of the Times disclosure…
http://tinyurl.com/aww6d
The Times pretty clearly held on to this one until they knew it was coming out anyway…pretty disgraceful. (Of course, Drudge gets everything backward, because that’s the way he thinks. The Times didn’t do this to hype a book but to avoid being scooped by one of their own reporters in his book. Funny how the pro-administration stenography of Bob Woodward isn’t criticized for being tied to his book releases, but then he’s an editor who can actually manage the news and this guy is a lowly reporter who’s dependent on editors to publish his stories…unless he turns them into longform reporting and gets them published as a book.)
December 17th, 2005 at 12:04 pm
Note in the WaPo article that the only guy who could benefit from the book sales angle, Risen, wanted the Times to publish the story earlier – which shows how Drudge’s skewed angle misses what’s problematic in this episode and reflects mostly his own carnivorous approach to news as opposed to any serious analysis, which he’s obviously not capable of.
December 17th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
reg,
The WP article leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Everyone including terrorists knows about the NSA. How does the info that they were operating w/o warrants jeopardize ongoing investigations, the only angle of the story that is new? This does not add up and the Times owes us a better explanation. The WP piece is based on what the Times said and not much else.
December 17th, 2005 at 12:16 pm
Mark York: “Yeah visit other people’s blogs and call them liars. That’s the Conservative way!”
York, you are such a putz. I quote below one of your comments on MY blog.
“And one final thing you lying sack of fertilizer. You deleted nothing from me stronger than the word “Ass.” This inference you keep making that I cussed you out and violated your pious virgin ears is a bald faced lie. ”
ROFL laddie, why don’t you try honey for a change, vinegar doesn’t work well for you! Putz!
December 17th, 2005 at 12:44 pm
This story actually relates to the whole Coulter debate. The Left’s abuses are in Universities. This is what the Right does when they decide to abuse power.
It is shameful to read that people defend this kind of crap. Are you so loyal to the Bushies, The Republicans that you will actually defend this behavior? It is kind of cultish. Woody, if Bush asked you to jump off of a bridge would you does it?
Many of the defenders remind me of the Dennis Hopper character in Apocalypse Now. Spinning and spinning.
In the mind of Woody – “The fact that Bush authorized such shameful behavior is not shameful after all… look at his shrewd management of the NYT! We should not focus on the actually story, but the savvy maneuvers of Bush and book deals, that is the story. Dear leader is brilliant after all.”
This is awful. A bad day for America.
December 17th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
He (york) doesn’t play well at my blog either. I asked him but he persists. Sadly it takes away from the discourse.
December 17th, 2005 at 1:04 pm
A bad day for America
just testing to see if this blog does quote boxes.
December 17th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
While not a big fan of the Patriot Act (the vast majority of its provisions are carried under other laws) I’m also not an expert on what is or is not authorized under FISA… here is a link for the FAQ’s regarding FISA note especially this: FAQ’s Numbers 10 and 11.
The Times obviously held on as long as it did because of WH requests but published when it did so their reporters “book” wouldn’t scoop the story. Dispicable acts both.
Did Bush violate the law? I don’t know. Neither does DiFi or anyone else in this comment thread. BUT, it is obvious that partisanship plays a fairly big role in the majority of comments (except where I call York a Putz… That one is observation, not opinion
December 17th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
I believe it is a fact that he is a Putz not an opinion.
December 17th, 2005 at 1:21 pm
Or just read York’s Publish America’s books. He is a journalist you know? Right?
December 17th, 2005 at 1:24 pm
President Bush’s (or “King Bush,” as Russ Feingold might say) defense of these activities not only provides an inadequate defense of this executive branch program, but it actually provides some further damning evidence against his administration….AND the Congress.
According to Bush’s own words, his program was reviewed every 45 days by his own White House Counsel, his own Justice Department, and certain members of congress (whom he refused to name). (Wow, that is some oversight…in the tradition of wolves put in charge of the hen house).
My questions are: (1) who else in his administration specifically knew about Bush’s activites, and “reviewed” them? (2) who in the Congress – Republican or Democrat – knew about Bush’s activities, and “reviewed” them? (3) What information is contained in these “reviews” of Bush’s activities?
Democrats and Republicans alike should demand answers.
December 17th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
I do not know enough about this yet to either defend or condemn Bush on this one.
If you listen to talking heads on both sides it seems the legality of this is in question and it appears other presidents have done exactly the same thing in the past.
Also at least some members of the congressional intellignce committees on both sides of the aisle have been notifed of this several times.
So they claim by some that they are “shocked” is political grandstanding at best.
I do feel comfortable enough to answer one question asked by Mark York:
“Is a week too long?”
An unequivocal yes.
December 17th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
Orin Kerr writing in the Volokh Conspiracy and a significant quote:
I suggest reading it all as it adds to one’s understanding of
allMost of the issues.December 17th, 2005 at 2:06 pm
MB,
You can do block quotes. Just remember to use HTML tags, not YaBB tags.
Btw, “The Goddess and the Bull” is a Book Club holiday selection.
December 17th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
“The WP article leaves a lot of questions unanswered.”
In the bigger picture you’re right, of course. I guess I was counterposing a fairly balanced accountting of what is currently known (nothing investigative or new) to the scrapings that Drudge’s sources pass off to him from the desks of his journalistic betters or Beltway gossip and the shallow, sleazy, shameful way he is wont to package his crap.
December 17th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
Which Book Club? (sorry all)
December 17th, 2005 at 2:49 pm
There’s a generic “Holiday Catalog” that’s sent to all Book Club members. Every book club whose mailing address is Camp Hill, PA.
In my case it’s the Reader’s Subscription.
December 17th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
“really murky stuff”
Guess I’m trying to figure out what’s murky about FISA…
And the Orren/Volokh link that actually contains a consideration of these issue doesn’t make Bush’s actions seem murky at all by the standards raised in Judge Sand’s opinion, so far as my untrained eye can tell. There are some very explicit bars raised in Sand’s opinion and in no way can I see it as an interpretation that simply allows the President to leapfrog the requirements of FISA. Also, again to my untrained eye, it appears that FISA allows for any contingency where a threat was discerned and that issues of speed are fully accounted for and not a hiindrance to effective law enforcement or intelligence gathering. I fully understand the wingnut “Whatever we think we need to do is right because we don’t give a shit about civil liberties” crowd, but I don’t get any equivocation over whether this is “murky” from a legal or statutory perspective.
December 17th, 2005 at 3:10 pm
I’m not the one calling Cooper a liar, you folks are. I in fact agree with Cooper. For the record these posters are not Lee Goldberg, or Tom Desjardin. Shutt is a Publishamerica troll who left a slam review of my book. Without reading it of course. I mean when you have a conclusion in hand why look at evidence? Sound familiar? It should since that’s the way this country is run now.
December 17th, 2005 at 3:14 pm
Sorry, that should have been “Orin Kerr/Volokh”
December 17th, 2005 at 3:14 pm
Truth is a defense of libel. You are a liar Roper.
December 17th, 2005 at 3:15 pm
“but I don’t get any equivocation over whether this is “murky†from a legal or statutory perspective.”
Given the options that already exist within FISA, I would add “pragmatic” to “legal or statutory”…
December 17th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
First, ditch the wingnut verbage, it makes you seem like a radical unthinking putz like York and I know from other exchanges that you are not, though you masquarde as one sometimes.
Second, people can question whether the NSA snooping was done with or with out legal input, that is “OK” and a first amendment right. However, as the wapo notes: “Officials also assured senior editors of the Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions,” Keller continued.
and as Captain Ed noted:
December 17th, 2005 at 3:18 pm
Whoops, left out an “end blockquote” html code. Sorry about that… insert a virtual one at the end of “…was no.”
December 17th, 2005 at 3:31 pm
This is a good discussion. Let’s keep it going. The next person who tosses in some personal campaign about someone else’s blogfights is banned for life, no kidding.
December 17th, 2005 at 3:41 pm
So it’s all hyperbole? Leftist? Pfftt. According the law students posting at Volokh it breaks right along ideological lines just like here. I read the code. They needed a judge’s approval for the exception to the warrantless wiretapping. How the hell can we know if they got it or not? There are no records unclassified. And for the name-callers I’m in law school right now for what that’s worth.
December 17th, 2005 at 4:19 pm
“First, ditch the wingnut verbage, it makes you seem like a radical unthinking putz”
As if John Moore didn’t take the position I paraphrased…
December 17th, 2005 at 4:23 pm
And I don’t get how a “Captain Ed” surmise passes anything other than the wingnut “MSM”-hater’s “Let’s turn the New York Times into the story” smell test…I guess he knows more about FISA than Feinstein (who is NOT a hardcore liberal or Dem partisan on national security issues, not by a longshot)
December 17th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
Also, GM, you linked to a FAQs on FISA and referenced two points that, again to my not-a-law-school-grad-and-glad-of-it eye, talk about specific “findings” and exemptions of U.S. citizens which is – so far as I can understand this controversy – precisely what the Presidential directive attempted to circumvent as necessary to trigger such surveillance. Exactly what about Bush’s actions ISN’T a transparent attempt to evade statutory law governing these kinds of actions ?
December 17th, 2005 at 4:49 pm
Here’s the most relevant statute of the FISA that I have found…
http://tinyurl.com/aed3l
December 17th, 2005 at 4:57 pm
Sorry for the serial posts, but after trying to follow up on this story as factually and analytically as I can (and I hope to God my efforts are low on the totem of serious digging into the whole picture), my disposition drives me to wonder who the hell this serially incompetent little shit of a “Commander” thinks he is ?
December 17th, 2005 at 5:00 pm
I just read the NY Times article and it appears they’re relying on the same broadbrush they did with the later war resolution. John Yoo argued such warrantless policies were necessary in certain cases cited in the article. Isn’t this their take on all of these antiterror tactics? Concur on Capt. Ed. Why do these people think if you post an unqualifed blogger opinion on anything that constitutes a valid source and a vaid opinion? Appeal to an inappropriate authority fallacy in play.
December 17th, 2005 at 5:17 pm
Great comments from Michael Balter and rosedog. Woody, nice to have you on board for this one. And yes Cummings, the first thing I noted was the oversight by his own appointees. Really excellent reasoning.
I’m not too sure how the illegality of this directive can be quesitoned. FISA has clear guidelines for it’s application and His Majesty decided he needed to circumvent them. I guess Nixon had no relevant lessons here.
These sorts of things always raise for me the quesiton, when do you say that republicanism or divided government has ceased and only lip service is paid to it? I’m not suggesting that is happening now, but you authorize a little torture here, some wire-tapping there, a pinch of extraordinary rendition, a dollop of uncharged detentions, a few secret bases, budgets with no oversight…don’t you at some point say, well we have the form of a republican government, and we have a Congress that appears to be in operation, but the whole thing’s not really working. His Majesty is in charge. His Majesty makes the rules.
I don’t know what the answer to that question is, but there is a line somewhere between here (republican government) and there (authoritarian government). We certainly seem to be moving over there at an uncomfortable pace, what with our imperial president and supine Congress.
Here’s an idea. Instead of deporting all the illegal aliens, let’s just deport those who think that the Bill of Rights is a bad idea. If you think spying on citizens is ok, and detention without access to a lawyer is ok, and torture is a good policy, then maybe you’re not really down with the program here and ought to hit the bricks. I guess King George has to go first.
December 17th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
The issue here is simple: are international communications of American citizens protected to the same level as domestic communications?
If those communications do not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” they can be monitored. Otherwise, interception *may* be illegal.
I certainly don’t have an expectation of privacy on an international call – if nothing else, I’m not assured that authorities in the foreign country are not listening in. Do the critics here expect their calls to be private?
It seems that this is a matter of legitimate disagreement, and that there may be good explanations for this behavior other than a “fascistic impulse” (give me a break).
Motivation is another important issue, and should shed more light on the whole issue. Why was this not handled by the FISA courts? Was there a strong legal finding that this activity was legal and hence FISA didn’t apply? For good reasons, the intelligence community tries to keep its secrets to as small a circle as possible, so if they didn’t need to, they wouldn’t go to FISA.
The left here seems to *assume*, without evidence, that the actions are clearly illegal, that those involved knew that, and they chose to break the law rather than use the FISA courts. This is belied both by Bush’s assertion that he not only approved these actions, and will continue to do so. That congress was briefed is another indicator that the administration did not consider the actions to be illegal.
The left’s view brings up some very interesting questions. Why would the administration intentionally violate the law, and brief congress on this? Why would Bush “admit” to having done so and declare he would continue to do so? Why would they do this when they presumably had a simple alternative: the FISA courts?
I do not consider attacks on this program to be valid without answers (or at least reasonable speculations) for those questions. Likewise, attacks which ignore the international nature of these calls are irrelevant.
Bush’s anger in this case matches mine. He is clearly getting really tired of civil liberties fundamentalists exposing classified information, and he is tired of being attacked for what his legal advisors view as legitimate actions to protect the American people.
Like myself, I think he is disappointed at how many are willing to hand one counter-intelligence victory after another to the terrorists.
Perhaps he imagined that if he caved on “torture,” the attacks on national security actions would end.
December 17th, 2005 at 5:41 pm
Another issue this situation brings up, yet again, is whether these leaks of classified information should be treated at least as severely as the Valerie Plame leak. I don’t see the folks who wanted Rove’s head (and got Libby’s) even showing consciousness of the equivalence here. Someone (unknown still) illegally (perhaps – not established and arguable) leaked information about the identity of a CIA analyst. Someone else released very highly classified information about NSA operations. Yet another Terrorist Protector revealed the existence of the CIA’s oversease detainment facilities for terrorists.
So does the left have any consistency – who here will call for a special prosecutor to investigate these latest leaks – ones which were clearly illegal (unlike the Plame leak)?
December 17th, 2005 at 5:47 pm
Actually Marc — you could not be more wrong both factually and politically. Your comments are IMHO indicative of why Dems simply cannot be trusted with our Nation’s security.
GWB is the greatest protector of civil liberties seen in generations. He has taken reasonable, moderate, supervised steps to protect the greatest of civil liberties (life) and forestall the mob and vigilante action. The reason for no mob action after 9/11 was … GWB and his leadership in this issue. Despite his many failings everywhere else he got the one big thing right.
FISA never has required warrants for foreign to domestic conversations or communications (including IM, etc). GETTING to FISA court takes SIX MONTHS. This information was “hot” and required IMMEDIATE surveillance to be of any use. As the 9/11 Commission demanded (9/11 hijackers were in constant comm with people in Pakistan and elsewhere, often using Public Library computers known to free from surveillance).
What you are saying is that you’d rather have theoretically PERFECT civil liberties that save lives of ordinary working people (Libs really HATE working people, we’ve always known this). John Stewart once asked Bill Kristol why “redstate” (i.e. stupid) Americans supported the War on Terror when New Yorkers believed 9/11 was justified or understandable and opposed GWB. This is IMHO because the people murdered on 9/11 did not live in NYC, only worked there. The ordinary, working or middle class Americans who bussed the tables, cooked the food, did the “back office” stuff that made them “little Eichmans” OF COURSE LIBERALS were OK with their murders. They were the “bridge and tunnel” crowd that were neither rich enough or cool enough to live in NYC. As Will Smith said shortly after the attack, they had no sympathy for them whatsoever. I don’t see any concerns about doing what’s needed to save lives of ordinary Americans. More like Rose Kennedy’s wondering what was the point of being rich if ordinary people have nice things too (like personal security). No wonder Liberals would rather have perfect absolutism in civil liberties than save the lives of working people.
What Bush has done has been to act first to find out what is being plotted JUST AS THE 9/11 Commission demanded. This is under judicial review (FISA was notified every 45 days) and under Congressional Review (senior members including Dems were also notified every 45 days including JAY ROCKEFELLER). This has saved lives including the lives of THOUSANDS of NYC commuters by stopping a plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge (and led to an arrest by enabling for the first time the transfer of information from the intelligence side to Law Enforcement by the PATRIOT ACT).
The HIGHEST civil liberty is NOT TO BE MURDERED. Period. GWB has taken these limited steps which have prevented attacks by a determined, ruthless, and stateless enemy of limitless financial resources. Taking these limited steps away in favor of helpless impotence will result in the …
MOB. If you wanted to deliberately create vigilante actions including lynchings and mob violence against anyone who “looks Muslim” then simply remove the ability to stop terror attacks and make government impotent to do anything. You’ll get your Vigilance Committees and ugly and brutal mob actions when wave after wave of terrorist attacks ala Beslan or Madrid or London succeed.
GWB deserves in this limited field your respect and admiration; forestalling the mob and lynchings on the one hand and a police state on the other by limited actions under reviews and checks and balances including the other part. The Civil liberties concerns that led the FBI to prevent passing info on terrorists at flight schools, suppressing Able Danger (which identified Atta and two other 9/11 terrorists), and the “Gorelick Wall” between intelligence and the law enforcement community led to opportunity to opportunity to stop bin Laden FAILING because Lefties demanded absolutism in Civil Liberties.
[Note that the program was briefly suspended and modified because JAY ROCKEFELLER had concerns, which were mollified by changes. Gee what more could you ask for with input and supervision?]
What you’re saying Marc, is that you are OK with 3,000 Americans brutally murdered by terrorists as long as civil liberties are absolute (as they were with Bill Clinton). Not only will you lose this argument with the American People, if by some miracle you win in Congress the President will rightly blame the Media and Dems for putting absolutism ahead of saving American Lives; and you’ll get the ugly mob lynching anyone who “looks Muslim.” When wave after wave of attacks happen. Unless you’ll bet on bin Laden’s mercy and compassion.
[You're also frankly irresponsible here. Choicepoint or TRW will happily "spy" on you by selling your absolute most personal and secret information to anyone who wants including East European or Chinese criminal enterprises with ZERO oversight. Bush limited the "spying" to people communicating with known terrorist channels and layers of oversight. You're OK with spying as long as it doesn't save lives and is "private."]
People WILL be safe from terrorism one way or another. We are blessed to have Bush as President in this one matter; he has kept the mob away. You need look no farther than Sydney to see what could happen.
December 17th, 2005 at 6:03 pm
ROCKFORD: “The ordinary, working or middle class Americans who bussed the tables, cooked the food, did the “back office†stuff that made them “little Eichmans†OF COURSE LIBERALS were OK with their murders. They were the “bridge and tunnel†crowd that were neither rich enough or cool enough to live in NYC.”
[GAGGED AD HOMINEM]]]
December 17th, 2005 at 6:08 pm
What on god’s good earth would make you think that I’d take an argument seriously or even bother to investigate the assertions from somebody who makes those kind of crackpot, putrid statements. I’m as inclined to give a second thought to your ravings as I am to spend an evening curled up with a book by Ward Churchill or Dan Savage. Which is NOT AT ALL.
December 17th, 2005 at 6:29 pm
Marc — this statement is simply absurd:
“Yes, you heard that right. Even if U.S. officials had proof-positive that armed Al Qaeda militants were gathering in Central Park, the administration’s behavior remains unconstitutional and extremely dangerous. ”
The FIRST duty of ANY government is to protect the lives of it’s citizens. You rightly criticized GWB for failing to do EVERYTHING in his power after Katrina to save lives, even if it meant over-riding the authority of Kathleen Blanco and Ray Nagin and brushing aside Constitutional Questions. You now say that Bush CANNOT do ANYTHING to save lives without rigidly adhering to Dianne Feinstein’s or others definition of Constitutional issues. Even if it costs lives.
I would argue this is prima-facie evidence of Hypocrisy. It’s also incredibly dangerous.
In Sydney, in the beaches of Cronulla, Lebanese Muslim thugs have for more than a decade run unchecked, harassing women, girls (calling six year olds in bathing suits “whores” and spitting on them), threatening or carrying out rapes of “infidels,” and beatings of non-Muslims. While the Provincial and City Government did not act out of fear of PC-multi culti concerns and civil liberties absolutism. Which only encouraged the thuggery. Culminating on an incident a week ago where Lebanese Muslim thugs abused and threatened beachgoers including family groups so they could clear the area for soccer, and beat two lifeguards who intervened into serious hospitalization (one fractured skull and a coma, the other with broken ribs and other injuries). Lifesavers as they are called are icons of Aussie culture, and predictably as the calendar, “surfies” organized to “take back the beach” and beat the hell out of anyone who looked Muslim. Then matched also utterly predictably by Lebanese Muslim mobs in cars going to neighboring areas and destroying cars and shops, beating anyone who does NOT look “Muslim.” Which has spread in both ways (Surfies vs. Muslims mobs) to other Aussie cities. An impotent Provincial goverment’s response has been to tell Aussies to keep away from the beaches during the holidays (an Aussie Christmas tradition) and cancelling various Christian services in areas near the Muslim neighborhoods. Which only leads to MORE people joining the Surfie mobs determined to “take back their neighborhoods.” [www.timblair.net has a roundup of the various events]. Given the minority status of Muslims in Aussie, this is IMHO incredibly dangerous.
EVEN in a wealthy, civilized, democratic, and safe country like Australia, the mob is never far away. Governments that do NOT provide for security are NOT seen as legitimate. The end state is private militias and mobs and essentially most of the Third World. Mexico comes to mind which is why more than 40% want to live in the US. GWB has been Horatio at the Bridge against the Mob by actions that save lives. We are NOT Cronulla and Sydney precisely BECAUSE GWB learned only one thing but it was a big thing:
*ABOVE ALL, SAVE LIVES.
I’m sorry but the dreamworld we all lived in before 9/11 is gone. The Soviet Dragon is dead and now it’s teeth sprout menace after menace. We can’t go back to sleep and dreamland. We’ll get GWB or the Mob. I’ll take Bush thank you.
Reg — what else can you say about Howard Dean appearing with Code Pink when they’ve sent 600K to terrorists in Fallujah fighting our Marines, or the relentless attack by Libs on fundamental issues of public safety including Crime? That Norman Mailer as a matter of record called the wreckage “more beautiful than the towers” or Bill Maher celebrated the “courage” of the 9/11 hijackers? Tookie? Jessie Jackson could not name nor care about a single victim.
I’ve seen ZERO from Liberal figures on how to stop terrorist attacks, and lots about how they were justified or how we had to “understand their rage” and apologize. This speaks for itself.
Liberalism is all about a hereditary class. People in journalism, politics, academia, etc. Of course they have ill-despised contempt for ordinary people. Believe me we recognize and return it.
I make no judgement about your politics or membership in this class, nor do I care at all.
December 17th, 2005 at 6:41 pm
Conservative Bob Barr on CNN
…Well, the fact of the matter is that the Constitution is the Constitution, and I took an oath to abide by it. My good friend, my former colleague, Dana Rohrabacher, did and the president did. And I don’t really care very much whether or not it can be justified based on some hypothetical. The fact of the matter is that, if you have any government official who deliberately orders that federal law be violated despite the best of motives, that certainly ought to be of concern to us…
…Well, gee, I guess then the president should be able to ignore whatever provision in the Constitution as long as there’s something after the fact that justifies it…
…The fact of the matter is the law prohibits — specifically prohibits — what apparently was done in this case, and for a member of Congress to say, oh, that doesn’t matter, I’m proud that the president violated the law is absolutely astounding, Wolf…
December 17th, 2005 at 6:52 pm
Rockford, your rationalization is a prima facie as intellectually incompetent as your crazy invective. And is the injection of the single word “Tookie” into a list that ranges from totally false to wildly misleading or out of context supposed to mean something ? Bizare….
And the “we (ordinary people) recognize (ill despised -sic – contempt) and return it” is pretty presumptuous for someone who is a self-described “dot-commer”. Give me a fucking break from your pretentious “common man” bullshit. You’re about as “ordinary” as John Moore…which means not at all. A couple of crackpot geeks who embarrass themselves with serial vile and paranoid comments but are too clueless to shut up.
December 17th, 2005 at 6:56 pm
Presumably you also don’t comprehend the irony of bitching about “ill-despised contempt” on the part of “liberals” after you make such psycho-sinister allegations about most New Yorkers, among others. Some of your hijinx would be hilarious if they weren’t so putrid.
December 17th, 2005 at 6:59 pm
I’m glad this NSA program is going to be investigated to determine its legality. I’m willing to let the legal experts dissect it. I trust with this publicity that it will be stopped if it is illegal.
I would just note as a matter of perspective that if this program affected “hundreds or possibly thousands” — say 2,500 as a first approximation — out of 250 million Americans, we’re dealing with a rate in the range of 1 in 100,000. This is evidence that the program has not spiraled out of control nor poses a significant threat to civil liberties to date.
Thus, by all means let the legal debate and investigations go forward on this NSA affair, but let’s also keep the bulk of attention focused on issues like the Patriot Act that historically pose a much greater threat to civil liberties.
December 17th, 2005 at 7:00 pm
Every breath you take, and every move you make, every bond you break, every step you take, I’ll be watching you, every single day, and every word you say, every game you play, every night you stay, I’ll be watching you.
BREAKING NEWS—NSA has been spying on Americans since WWII. The only difference is that the technology is better. NSA was created for code-making and code-breaking. In 1952, President Truman issued a secret directive “Communications Intelligence Activities,†which established the NSA. . The Internet is inherently open and insecure, which makes it easy to monitor and intercept e-mail messages. Most people have heard about government agencies tapping phone lines or even steaming open paper mail, but it seems that most people are not aware of the government’s routine monitoring of Internet communication traffic, particularly e-mail traffic.
I bet you didn’t know you were sending your e-mails on postcards
December 17th, 2005 at 7:55 pm
Historically, there has never been a bond of explicit trust between the people and their government. The very rudimentary documents, the check and balances are in place for a reason – because those in power always abuse their power, period. However, for a hundred years or so government has had carte blanch to devise what ever means it could to circumvent those restrictions – the American people slumber, they should wake up before they enter the big sleep.
It does not matter what “secret” excuse you have, no one in power – especially executive power, is “supposed” to circumvent standing procedures of protection. I always get a big belly laugh out of this, because those in power cannot think of enough ways to bypass restrictions. As far as I am concerned, every single one of us, deserves tracking on every device of communication we use, and if it were possible tracking devices implanted in our persons – because we all deserve it!
As far as base argument, Bush’s blather means absolutly nothing – in the face of all the lying, all the misleading bullshit this adminsitration has pulled – why should anyone believe him at this point? Let’s say for argument sake, that the white house gang was pulling American citizens off the street and torturing them in the basement of the white house – all the yelling about the leak because it was a “secret” activity would be obscene. Spying on American’s is just as obscene – but once again, it has been taking place so long it loses it’s force, but that does not mean it is not another atrocity piled a mile high by this rouge adminsitration!
So, it’s not enough to have the Patriot Act, or the FBI, the CIA, quasi-governmental entities, private corporations employed in governmental activity – we need the NSA too?! I am glad that Eleanore brought that point out – about the long standing activity of the NSA. Because “National Security” does not mean what it sounds like, and “National Interest” is not a harmless phrase. Screw your stupid “the terrorists will get us” screed!
This is the agency (NSA) that over the years, has helped to form and shape what America does to countries – and let me be frank, it has not been pretty. It does not benefit you AT ALL – it primarily benefits the rich and wealthy elite, the global corporations. It has brought in it’s wake poverty, destruction and death to other countries – and now, you want to employ this agency against American’s in a secret manner? It’s track record will bring the same results home to us.
I am ambivalent in my position, you can probably see it pretty clearly in my words – I hate what is going on, and it makes me sick, but at the same time I think we deserve a collective tracking suppository shoved up our collective arses – maybe that will wake some people up, maybe not.
December 17th, 2005 at 7:58 pm
Two thousand years of beautiful fascism, from Caesar to Hirohito. You’re goddamned right we’re living in the fucking past.
Nothing changes. Nothing. Two thousand years after the birth of the American Taliban’s religious leader, WHO, I MIGHT ADD, was irreconcilably opposed to totalitarian rule in the name of a false god, and it’s still the same. Just a bunch of apes in trees waving their dicks around.
Thousands of wars later we still have the same proportion of royalist, divine rule sycophants in the population that we always had. Emperor, fuhrer, king, premier, pope, president. It’s all the same and so are the toadies. Nothing changes. Nothing.
December 17th, 2005 at 8:03 pm
The easiest technique for eradicating the Constitution is to say that you will stop at nothing to protect it.
Oops, I guess we had to destroy it to save it, huh? Couldn’t see that one coming a mile away, could ya? Real fucking suprise!
I agree with Walter, nothing changes.
December 17th, 2005 at 8:12 pm
Eleanore… do you have an expectation of privacy on the internet? I doubt it.
But if you want to send secure messages, there are cryptographic techniques that *probably* work (the NSA might know otherwise). These programs have been available for a number of years.
The NSA is not normally allowed to spy within the US except when the messages cross the national border. I don’t know of any exceptions, but there may be some. It is a turf situation – the FBI can spy on your in-country communications, the NSA on your foreign communications.
Jim Rockford is right about the danger to civil liberties (or civil life for that matter) that would ensue from a major successful terrorist attack. I have warned about this for some time – that civil libertarian fundamentalists are doing the work for the terrorists (unintentionally) and will be totally marginalized (and hopefully not persecuted) when the proverbial excrement hits the rotating device.
It is also fascinating to see the great respect for civil liberties that the left suddenly seems to have (except for people who go to college and are not favored minorities, or people who need to use firearms to defend their families, or people who earn money and would like to keep it, or people who would like to exercise their freedom of speech about religion in the public square….). It is also fascinating to watch the bastion of civil liberties, the ACLU, since it has been taken over by the left – and to see how incredibly hypocritical its choices are in the definition of civil liberties.
Conservatives are not known for putting great trust in government, and for good reason. But one thing that conservatives firmly understand (and too many on the left act as if they do not understand) is that the fundamental reason that we give government power, including the use of lethal force against our own citizens, is to protect our citizens against depradations by others – citizens or otherwise. That delegation of power from the individuals to the government is well understood, and fundamental to the country.
Ben Franklin, the author of “those who would give up liberty for safety will end up with neither” (or some such) himself helped form a government whereby citizens gave up some liberty for some safety.
It is very important in a debate such as this one, which ends up invoking that very over-used slippery slope and other such nasties, to understand the history of the United States.
Put in short form: civil liberties of the sort the left is most concerned with have improved throughout the history of the United States. They have been temporarily reduced during wartime (and we are at war) but contrary to the expectations of modern liberty fundies, they have been returned and extended after the end of the war. In other words, Americans are pretty sensible, and understand the need to turn over *some* civil liberties for some purposes, and know far better than civil liberties experts that those liberties will return.
Just to make it a bit more challenging, I assert (and have written in more detail on my blog) that privacy is both the least important civil liberty (and is not enshrined in the constitution) and the one that we are most likely to lose. Furthermore, it may be most necessary to reduce that liberty because of the new and possibly permanent danger of the combination of mass murdering terrorists and the deadliness of the weapons they may be able to obtain.
Pardon me when I just can’t get excited about the NSA snooping on a few foreign phone calls, under the circumstances of significant review by different offices of the administration and also by the relevant parts of Congress.
December 17th, 2005 at 8:18 pm
“(Libs really HATE working people, we’ve always known this)”-Jim Rockford
Anybody that makes these kind of blanket statements is not able to accurately comprehend the world in which they live. How do I know this? I consider myself a liberal (at least in comparison to the lunatic NeoCon cult, although I detest these labels generally), yet I “work” as a carpenter. Does this count as “work” to you Rockford? If not I invite you to join me on the job site for a few days. I am not alone in this position since most of my coworkers are generally on the same part of the political spectrum. We’ve read and discuss history, our constitution and the lurching menace of the current administration. Your generalizations are baseless, and insulting. It’s been said many times here, but you are out of touch.
December 17th, 2005 at 8:23 pm
Johnny you’re out of your element.
What part of
1. Separation of powers
2. Limits on Executive power
3. The Executive’s authority to execute the laws, not make them
4. The fact that the President deliberately violated the FISA and committed a crime
do you not understand?
It was all “rule of law, rule of law” for you when the Clenis was in office, but now, not so much, huh?
I guess we’ll just let the President and a few members of Congress in his party get together and decide which of the laws we’re going to enforce in the name of national security. Therefore, I hope that’s TCE in your drinking water, and I hope you call Jon Kyl to complain about it, and I hope he tells you to fuck off and die, because supporting safe drinking water is supporting terror.
December 17th, 2005 at 8:30 pm
As Samuel Johnson observed over 200 years ago, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.†If we live in a democratic country it is our RIGHT to feel free and to express our ideas–verbally, in print, or through e-mail. The thought of having an agency with judicial power that could invade every aspect of our life is a “creepy†prospect. It’s almost as if, someone in the current administration read Orwell’s novel “1984,†memorized each sentence, adapted it to a script and is now enacting the narrative in our own country. It’s an insidious reenactment—where our government creates the terror by their actions around the world and then questions why the U.S. is hated. It’s like the abusive spouse, who wonders why their marriage is a disaster. Does someone wake-up one morning, and decide that they despise a country. Not unless they were mad. Is it possible that the whole world is insane except for the United States? Why wouldn’t every country “love†to be exploited and occupied by our country? So now that our policies have created worldwide hostility, is it no wonder that there are groups and individuals who are willing to die for their freedom. And now, the repressive part of the Orwellian script begins–when our government needs to observe and control every aspect of society. And hence, the need for the Patriot Act, Part 1 scene [sic] now throughout the U.S. as anything put patriotic. Who would think that librarians would be forced by the FBI to spy on their patrons? But that is exactly what section 215 of the Patriot Act is all about. Federal agents can goose-step into a library, and demand a list of individuals who checked out specific materials. In addition to demanding this info, they have the right to conduct a search of your private records without notifying the individual who is being searched. That means you’re being watched but you don’t know it! They can check your: financial records; phone records; medical records and travel records. They can even go to Blockbuster, and see what you watched at home last Saturday night– all in the guise of your protection. But who protects us from these protectors? Before the enactment of the Patriot Act, the government needed a warrant or probable cause to access personal information. Under the FISA act of 1978, you could ONLY justify “warrantless†surveillance when gathering foreign intelligence. BUT NOW, the FBI only needs to substantiate to a FISA judge that the search is to fight TERRIORISM. And guess who appoints the FISA Judges—JOHN ROBERTS! Didn’t that work out well for our president? And that is one of the most significant reasons why the nomination of Chief Justice was so important. And that was also why the Presidential Elections of 2000 and 2004 were so important. All of these searches can be done SECRETLY and these orders CANNOT be contested. And the real special icing on the FBI cake is that the person who is forced to turn over the records is GAGGED and cannot disclose the search to anyone. Does this sound like a DEMOCRACY or a TERROCRACY? I think OPPRESSION under the guise of patriotism has become the last refuge for SCOUNDRELS!
December 17th, 2005 at 8:34 pm
In fact John, bend over and take it from Bob Barr (reposted from another commenter above):
…Well, the fact of the matter is that the Constitution is the Constitution, and I took an oath to abide by it…And I don’t really care very much whether or not it can be justified based on some hypothetical. The fact of the matter is that, if you have any government official who deliberately orders that federal law be violated despite the best of motives, that certainly ought to be of concern to us…
…Well, gee, I guess then the president should be able to ignore whatever provision in the Constitution as long as there’s something after the fact that justifies it…
…The fact of the matter is the law prohibits — specifically prohibits — what apparently was done in this case, and for a member of Congress to say, oh, that doesn’t matter, I’m proud that the president violated the law is absolutely astounding.
Now, gee, John, given that the President ADMITTED he violated FISA and intends to keep on doing so, I wouldn’t want to have to say that you were being inconsistent or hyprocritical by not supporting Barr, who after all, was one of the Clenis impeachment managers. Oh wait, you are.
“Rule of law! Rule of law! Rule of law! Rule of law!”
Except, of course, when the emperor-king is from our team and deems it necessary to change the rules as he sees fit. Riiiiiiight.
“Rule of law! Rule of law! Rule of law! Rule of law!”
December 17th, 2005 at 8:51 pm
Somebody give Bush a blow job so John Moore will agree to impeach him.
Nothing changes. Nothing.
December 17th, 2005 at 8:55 pm
I know the American Left’s in an un-Godly mess. I’ve read Sore Winners by John Powers, and I agree that Michael Moore’s a loudmouth and that Alexander Cockburn’s a wacko. And I know that liberals need to “get over” losing to George W. Bush.
Will you grant us permission to be just a trifle upset at the idea of Bush illegally spying on American citizens? Can we get pissed off about this without first accepting blame for Kerry’s campaign, Bill Clinton’s refusal to resign in 1998 and pro-Mumia types in Hollywood?
December 17th, 2005 at 9:01 pm
Eleanor, your imagery is graphic, but it is from imagination.
“Orweillian”
“goose-step”
How many tired tropes are you going to drag out.
BTW, have you ever read the Patriot Act? I didn’t think so. Have you ever looked at the history of surveillance in the US?
I’m not going to bother to debate you any more. You are just too looney for me. You go straight from your smug analysis of the situation to extreme extrapolations full of they typical anti-right tropes of Nazi and Orwellian imagery. Jeez. I wonder if you even know that Orwell was writing against communism.
Walter, we’ll see what Bob Barr has to say after he as investigated it. He is just as free to blovieate as Eleanor.
I read what the president say. He did NOT admit to violating FISA. He did not admit to any illegal act. He furthermore said he was going to continue. Now if he did order illegal acts, you know darned well he will be impeached for it, and he knows it too. So don’t you think that perhaps the president, who probably has a lot more, smarter legal advisors than you do, might just have some legal backing for what he is doing>
Btw… is it possible for you to debate without disgusting imagery?
Do you really think I am advocating rule above the law? If so, I wouldn’t be so angry at the idiotic anti-torture amendment that Bush, in a cowardly moment, gave in to. The reason is that I believe in rule of law, and so does the administration, and that law will damage our ability to act against terrorists. Believe it or not, the advocates of that amendment, when presented with the “ticking time bomb” scenario, stated that they knew that authorities would know the gravity of the situation and would VIOLATE THE LAW in order to prevent a horrible event. Who is it again who does not believe in rule of law?
You seem to think you KNOW exactly the legal situation in this case. I doubt it. You think that Bob Barr knows it, and yet he hasn’t had time to investigate. And when did the left quote Bob Barr as an authority on anything???
This looks to me like just one more way to:
1) damage our efforts against terrorism.
2) gain political advantage against George Bush.
December 17th, 2005 at 9:08 pm
Andrew, I have no problem with you getting upset about a new issue without dragging in unrelated issues.
Go for it.
My problem is the automatic assumption that Bush was acting illegally. My problem is the lack of anger at the leaking of highly classified information.
My problem is the failure to yet answer the questions I asked in this thread about WHY you think Bush would violate the law, repeatedly brief congress on it, then admit to in in a public speech, and assert that he will continue to do so. Do you imagine he is immune to prosecution? Do you imagine that somehow he has amassed so much power that he can just boldly claim to be violating the law and expectg to get away with it?
Folks who are so quick to *assume* illegal acts by someone ought to at least give some reason WHY those acts were committed.
Motive. Motive. Motive. Tell me the motive for public law breaking by the president, in a country where he would be tossed out on his ear if that were truly the case, and his knowledge and intent was that he was indeed breaking the law.
Sheesh. From the argument here, he is either an evil genius who cannot be defeated, or a complete idiot with idiotic advisors who talks only to complete idiots in congress.
Which is it?
December 17th, 2005 at 9:44 pm
My recommendation to some who post here is plain:
“If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of a foreign enemy” – James Madison
“Those who can make you believe absurdities will get you to commit atrocities” – Voltaire
It is your failure to grasp either of these cogent points that causes you to err – now make fun of the quotes and further reveal your stupidity.
December 17th, 2005 at 9:59 pm
John,
I think it is the latter. You are such an advocate for Bush; has he invited you to spend the holidays at the Crawford Ranch? While at the ranch, you can go over the legalities of his recent decisions. I think they may even have a bomb shelter there, just in case there is a terrorist attack—you will be well protected. Cheney will of course be, at an undisclosed location.
Is your paranoia about terrorism communicable like the Avian Flu? If it is, John, you better get your vaccination, because you don’t want to spend one more moment worrying if your “toches†is going to be blown off by a terrorist bomb.
December 17th, 2005 at 9:59 pm
Re: John Moore’s questions
“My problem is the failure to yet answer the questions I asked in this thread about WHY you think Bush would violate the law,”
Well John, I think that Richard Clarke put it best when he said, “because they can.” Cia agent leak, prisons that compete with what the nazis operated,….BUT THIS ADMINISTRATION STILL GETS AWAY WITH IT ALL! Why in the hell with a congress and supreme court in his back pocket SHOULDN’T he try to get away with it?
“WHY you think Bush would….repeatedly brief congress on it”
If the President knew that the New York Times knew what he was doing, naturally he is going to cover his ass by “briefing” congress on it (and we still don’t know, by the way, just how much information congress was allowed to have when it was being “briefed”.
“then admit to in in a public speech”
Ah, yes! He is so forthcoming that guy! Coming only on the heels of a New York Times story and a subsequent media frenzy over his shenanigans. YEAH, REAL CANDOR! Sheesh….
“and assert that he will continue to do so”
Yup, and I just pray that Democrats (and Republicans) finally develop a physical backbone to stop him. With the media and the two parties letting him do what he wanted for the last five years, it is hardly a surprise that he is, in your words, “bold.”
Hope this helps you, and that your questions were answered.
December 17th, 2005 at 10:25 pm
Most of you lefties are acting like raving lunatics. Get facts before jumping the shark will ya. Do you know for a fact that bush didn’t have legal clearance? Does anyone. Do you know for a fact that he broke the law or is that just a knee jerk reaction from the left?
Get a life.
I’m out of here… at least till you guys grow up. So, I may be out of here for a long time.
December 17th, 2005 at 10:56 pm
Heres a grown up response to a hyper right winger!
President bush sucks ass and if you disagree you are an ass!
http://www.bornagainstbush.com
http://www.myspace.com/bornagainstbush
December 17th, 2005 at 11:36 pm
Will all of you who have been debating all day tell me how you avoided being dragged to the malls by your wives? I need to learn your tricks.
———-
reg wrote: “Woody…you find that this…crosses a dangerous line.”
reg, once my family and I were invited to a reception at the White House rose garden. All I had to do was to give information about myself to the FBI so they would know that I was no threat to the President. I had nothing to hide and certainly had a cleaner record than Marc Cooper, but it didn’t sit well with me that the government would build a file on me. I said “no thanks” and took the family to the National Gallery of Art and nearby museums instead. I just don’t like government intrusion, and this is an example of how strong I feel about it.
———-
Josh Legere wrote: “Woody, if Bush asked you to jump off of a bridge would you does (sic) it? …In the mind of Woody….”
Josh, you keep trying and you keep missing. I’m not sure that you read or understood my complete comments, and I prefer for my statements to stand on their own rather than have you embellish or interpret them.
I oppose government intrusion, but I don’t have enough information to say that Bush’s orders were shameful or illegal. And, if this is a concern to you, I don’t think that Bush would ask me to jump off of a bridge, and I wouldn’t do it if he did.
If Ted Kennedy asked you to drive over a bridge with him, would you do it?
December 17th, 2005 at 11:55 pm
Just saw that journalist Jack Anderson, passed away today.
This is from Reuters, and shows how much things have changed over the past thirty-five years:
Anderson is considered one of the major figures in modern investigative journalism, fearless in pursuit of a story. He won his Pulitzer for reporting on secret American policy decision-making that implied the United States leaned toward Pakistan in its 1971 war with India.
Former FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover and Anderson feuded for years over Anderson’s columns that indicated organized crime was a greater threat than Hoover had recognized.
Anderson also made it onto the former Nixon administration’s “enemies list.” G. Gordon Liddy, the Watergate conspirator, once said that he and other White House operatives discussed at the time how to stop Anderson including through slipping him drugs though no action was taken.
I wasn’t fond of Anderson, but he was good at what he did. Can you believe that this country use to have secrets on foreign policies?
December 18th, 2005 at 1:00 am
What the fuck, boys and girls? Man, I can’t believe so many people are writing trying to defend the president on this one. You got to be crazy.
Lets sum it up.
The prez says its ok to eavesdrop on people because he gave the OK because we’re at war. And then he blames the NYTs for corrupting our security for reporting it?
There’s no black and white here. It’s just another example of Bush not thinking in the confines of the constitution, the way presidents should think about things.
I can’t bveleibve anyone would defend such a practice. It’s so very disgusting I just can’t take it.
And please, those who are defending it, I can’t believe still claim you’re more “American” than people who criticize the prez? What is wrong with you? Seriously? I simply don’t get it.
The president is one componenet in a large machine that makes sure the ideas of the forefathers of the country — the philosophies of freedom and self-preservance — stand. The president, no matter how much power he accumalates, no matter how much bullshit his advisors are pumping up his ass, is one person. He has no right to sic the NSA or anyone else onto anyone. It’s not American. It just isn’t American.
What’s so hard to understand.
All the Bush apologists, please. Just take the defeat. He’s a frickin’ irresponsible conceded asshole. Just think, we have two more years of this to deal with.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:00 am
If he overreached, they must impeach.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:30 am
Well, this is one of the best and most important debates I have seen on this blog in a long time, and Marc, thanks for threatening to ban those who try to distract us with their personal feuds and blogfights. That seems to have worked or did you actually have to ban someone?
I note that John Moore has still not answered the simple question that I and others have posed since the beginning of this thread: If it is constitutionally okay to monitor domestic to international communications, then why can’t the NSA get a warrant from the FISA court as the law says it must before it does this? All I keep hearing from John Moore is vague stuff about “expectations of privacy.” The statement that it takes six months to get before the FISA court is, to be charitable, a misstatement–please don’t make me come out and say it is a lie. The procedures for getting quick approval for emergency wiretaps are clearly spelled out in the law and have been applied many times.
December 18th, 2005 at 3:31 am
Just to be clear, the “six months” statement is from Rockford–but it is still a… misstatement.
December 18th, 2005 at 4:11 am
Walter,
Isn’t your last name spelled, Sobchak not Sobchek? Or did you change it to evade this internet surveillance we have been hearing about?
“How you gonna keep ‘em down on the farm once they have seen Karl Hungus?”
December 18th, 2005 at 6:43 am
Uli, any relation to Benjamin?
I don’t how anyone can be genuinely shocked or surprised at any of this. Here’s Doug Thomson of Capitol Hill Blue reporting on this administration’s special relationship with the Constitution:
* * * * * *
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml
Bush on the Constitution: ‘It’s just a goddamned piece of paper’
By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 9, 2005, 07:53
Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.
Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”
“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”
And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that “goddamned piece of paper” used to guarantee.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document.”
Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn’t matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn’t matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine – in the end – if something is legal or right.
Every federal official – including the President – who takes an oath of office swears to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a “living document.”
“Oh, how I hate the phrase we have — a ‘living document,’” Scalia says. “We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete’s sake.”
As a judge, Scalia says, “I don’t have to prove that the Constitution is perfect; I just have to prove that it’s better than anything else.”
President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the last five years, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a “union between a man and woman.” Members of Congress have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on abortion.
Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss of rights.
“We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones,” Scalia warns. “Don’t think that it’s a one-way street.”
And don’t buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States.
But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just “a goddamned piece of paper.”
© Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue
December 18th, 2005 at 6:54 am
For those who think that the Bush administration and the Republicans pioneered the art of shredding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the name of “fighting terror” and “keeping America secure” a timely and powerful argument to the contrary by Arthur Silber.
And Wolcott really hits the nail on the head with this post:
* * * * * *
The conservative blog reaction has been telling. As Digby indicates, they’re not upset that a president would cloak himself in such imperial prerogative, they now consider concern over civil liberties the provenance of sissies and worrywarts, they’re miffed at the NY Times for publishing the story and being a spoilsport (read Roger L. Simon in all his bent-dipstick inanity, and it occurs to me that the cofounder of that McHale’s Navy operation Pajamas Media ought to be a little careful about snarking about the “economic desperation” of print dinosaurs — I suspect the Times and W Post will be around long after Pajamas closes its flaps), or, worse, betraying the best interests of this country. I’m reminded of the chirpy bimbo I saw in the studio audience of Fox News yesterday who volunteered that she didn’t have a problem with the domestic spying because “If it keeps us safe, I have nothing hide.” Which was met by an assenting round of applause. In order to feel “safe,” Americans are willing to sacrifice and surrender almost anything to authority, blithely disposing of the principles this country was founded upon. As Gore Vidal said in a recent interview, asked if Americans would “stand for” a military dictatorship, “They’ll stand for anything. And they will stand for nothing.”
I suspect that’s true, as long as they’re — we’re — able to shop unmolested.
December 18th, 2005 at 7:10 am
Well folks seem to work all night here at the “well-lighted place.”
“You’re about as “ordinary†as John Moore…which means not at all. A couple of crackpot geeks who embarrass themselves with serial vile and paranoid comments but are too clueless to shut up.”
All I can see is, yup. As with Volokh’s legions if you love the King this broadstroke of Imperial presidential power works for you. I mean we’re fighting hordes of evil moslems riding over the dunes with scimtars raised so tapping accounts in Dearborn is a good thing for you. For those of us who understand the Constitution, call us strict constructionists in this instance, it isn’t.
Are they monitoring intra-US communications or just outgoing international ones?
Hail Caesar!
December 18th, 2005 at 7:26 am
“I need to learn your tricks”
Don’t get married and have kids. Or listen to the BS of any Republican president. Andersen uncovered illegal operations of the US government. Get it? Illegal.
December 18th, 2005 at 11:21 am
I don’t belive Bush is in thrall to a sort of fascistic impulse as some have intimated here. Seems more like his trademark mental laziness. It keeps him from appreciating the tensions built into our system, makes it easy for him to whistle past the checks and balances. Others around him may be acting on darker impulses — that certainly sounds possible.
December 18th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
Well stated, Abbas, and thanks for the links. One thing that I have always conceded is that the Republican Party and Bush do not have a monopoly on these kinds of questionable activities.
And evets, you have a good point there. I don’t really feel like Bush himself has been in the drivers seat these past five years. His culpability is probably mitigated somewhat by the fact that he is in the dark most of the time.
December 18th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
“Most of you lefties are acting like raving lunatics. Get facts before jumping the shark will ya. Do you know for a fact that bush didn’t have legal clearance? Does anyone. Do you know for a fact that he broke the law or is that just a knee jerk reaction from the left?
Get a life.
I’m out of here… at least till you guys grow up. So, I may be out of here for a long time.”
This is sad…clearly given everything that can be shown on the basis of known statutes, Bush broke the law. Maybe there are some secret laws…in which case we’ve got even more to worry about. I asked GM for some evidence that this WASN’T a clear violation of FISA’s established legal requirements and what we get is some petulant bullshit about how we’ve” jumped the shark” and “need to grow up” and “I’m out of here..” This is called “projection” and an understandable cover for retreat from when gasbags have run out of gas…But I’m sorry to see GM taking that route. And nothing about Crazy Rockford jumping any sharks… I know that’s a “dog bites man” story, but it makes no sense to reserve all of one’s acrimony for the “left” side of this argument (which it, of course, isn’t when you’ve got Arlen Spector, Lindsey Graham and Bob Barr asking the same questions and just as skeptical).
This is one of those watershed issues and admissions by the Administration that seperates people with conservative principles from angry, bitter partisans who are blinded by politics. I’ll admit to being a fairly hard partisan, but I don’t givew a goddam who does this kind of stuff…it’s a violation of constitutional principles and statutory law.
I would also like to note that “Captain Ed” who GM linked to made much of the fact that certain Democrats who had lead roles on relevant committees were notified (in Dick Cheney’s office, if anyone needs a clue as to how perverse and illegal this plan was) BUT that was a Catch 22 because if Jay Rockefeller had gone public with his objections to it, he would have been violating the terms of his own security clearances as joint leader of the Intelligence Committee. It’s crap analysis and hot air like that which shows just how little certain “Quarters” care about either the truth or the country. If you have any doubt, check out the “Captain’s” latest entry (12/17 -9:37pm) on this which quotes FISA extensively without anything in the quotes which actually offers evidence of his point. In fact, if you actually read it, it’s clear that what he’s saying is counterfactual, and that he and his adoring gaggle are engaged in an Alice In Wonderland reading of what appear to be clear statutory procedures. This is standard MO among these folk. There’s something profoundly contemptuous of our nation’s best principles in so many of these torture and illegal spying arguments. My last words, until someone from the other side can make an argument from the law rather than emotion and the fear that the hype that’s they’ve carefully constructed around this cheap imitation of a Commander in Chief has gone the way of Humpty Dumpty. Finally…
December 18th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
Woody – I loath all things Ted Kennedy. I am not a registered Democrat and do not spend anytime defending them. The opposite.
Oppose Bush or not, you still have found time to find infinite wisdom in dear leader for his mangement of the NY Times. Of course it is lost on you that the Times just might be closer to the admnistration than you think. Either way, this is not a time to pat old Bushie on the back. Especially if you do not support intrusion.
If you do not support intrusion, you should be critical of Bush instead of compementary. You are loyal to the man to the point of self parody.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
When people inject Chappaquidik into an argument out the blue it’s a sure sign someone has gone over the side. Go get help.
December 18th, 2005 at 3:52 pm
Michael,
Regarding your question…
The NSA notified the FISC. Now don’t you think that if they needed a warrant, the FISC would have done something about this? The administration repeatedly notified congress, including Democrats. Again, if this is so evil and illegal, why didn’t the congress do something about it.
David Cummings, you apparently believe that Bush has dictatorial powers, if he can do all of the things I mentioned, knowing that they are against the law, tell Congress repeatedly about them, tell FISC about them, and publicly vow to continue doing so. Why do you think he has such vast power?
Some external sources:
http://www.law.syr.edu/faculty/banks/terrorism/dummyfl/binladen_12_19_00.pdf
is close but not exactly on target for this particular case. Note the reliance on good faith, which in fact does apply here given.
One of the legal used in legal opinions sought by the administration is based on:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:2:./temp/~c107wltTMh::
Note that part of using force inolves gathering intelligence.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:13 pm
Option E: I now have learned that the NYT timed the release of the article to sabotage the vote on the Patriot Act.
(Josh and Mark, get a sense of humor.)
December 18th, 2005 at 7:13 pm
Off topic, but it is looking like Evo Morales is going to win big in Bolivia
December 18th, 2005 at 8:12 pm
Will all of you who have been debating all day tell me how you avoided being dragged to the malls by your wives? I need to learn your tricks.
Tell her you love to shop.
December 18th, 2005 at 10:23 pm
John Moore,
Do I think that Bush has dictatorial powers? Well, I was watching FOX news channel yesterday (because I had to…I was in restaurant) and this commentator (I believe it was Fred Barnes) said something interesting, with a rather smug look on his face. I will paraphrase: “Nothing will come of this [scandal], because he has a Republican congress.” In other words, you have a right wing commentator happy about there possibly being no checks and balances of this president. This is disturbing, and it should disturb anyone regardless of one’s party affiliation.
December 18th, 2005 at 10:44 pm
I will depart seconding GM’s comment.
David Cummings, that is possibly the silliest thing anyone said in this whole thread (except for Mark York, who has a medical excuse).
December 19th, 2005 at 6:14 am
“The issue here is simple: are international communications of American citizens protected to the same level as domestic communications?”
What is this, Soviet Russia?
December 19th, 2005 at 6:24 am
Woody your humor only goes one way. You think mocking things like Scientific consensus with wingnut logic is funny. It’s only sad. Mine is directed at how foolish Repubican reasoning is. You prove that point every time. Moore must PTSD from his torture game. It’s fried his mind.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:37 am
FROM A KNIGHT RIDDER NEWS AGENCY REPORT ON THE IRAQI INTERIOR MINISTRY: (begin clip) A document obtained by Knight Ridder appears to reveal the existence of an Interior Ministry death squad.
A memo written by an Iraqi general in the ministry operations room and addressed to the minister’s office says on its subject line: “Names of detainees.” It lists 14 men who were taken from Iskan, a Sunni neighborhood in western Baghdad, during the early morning hours of Aug. 18. It also marks the time of their detention: 5:15 a.m.
The bodies of the same 14 men were found in the town of Badrah near the Iranian border in early October. Hussein Sayhoud, a doctor at Baghdad’s main morgue who examined the bodies and signed one of the death certificates, said that most of the men had been killed by single gunshots to their heads.
“I remember when they brought in the whole group,” Sayhoud said. “They were so badly decomposed we couldn’t identify any marks of torture.”
The general who signed the Interior Ministry memo, Brig. Gen. Abdul Kareem Khalaf, confirmed its authenticity. But despite a heading that reads “Names of the detainees in the Iskan District,” Khalaf maintained that insurgents, not Interior Ministry police, had abducted the men.
It’s unclear, however, why an Interior Ministry general would refer to men who’d been kidnapped by Sunni insurgents as “detainees” in an official government document, or how the general knew the exact time of the abduction.
Pressed for more details, Khalaf said: “The minister is very upset. He wants to know how such a document slipped out of the ministry.”
(end clip)
Yes, the official is very upset. HE WANTS TO KNOW HOW SUCH A DOCUMENT SLIPPED OUT OF THE MINISTRY. Sound familiar ???
December 19th, 2005 at 10:48 am
Damn the leakers. It’s always their fault.
December 19th, 2005 at 12:36 pm
Good links, Abbas. (The reminder of Waco was particularly unsettling.)
With regard to Bush, the more one reads the law, the more clearly illegal—and perplexing, frankly—Bush’s actions appear to be.
Go again to the Cornell Law site that has posted FISA. (The require you to do an annoying one-click through their cover-page, which asks for a donation money, but it’s no big deal)…Then. scroll down to “Emergency Orders.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001805—-000-.html
Looks like all this nonsense about “the court couldn’t act fast enough,” is not only untrue, but entirely irrelevant. Turns out, according to the law, in any situation where time was of the essence, with the approval of the Attorney General, the President could have ordered wire tapping for 72 hours without the approval of the FISA court, giving him time to make the warrant request but still allowing the NSA to act within minutes, in the meantime, should a situation demand it.
But the president never bothered to make such warrant requests at all.
Furthermore, despite the opinions of lawmakers and lawyers on both sides of the aisle that the President acted illegally, I have yet to hear anyone in the Bush administration able to cite a specific statute that suggests what he did was within the law—-other than vague, unsupported pronouncements that the President may do what he pleases during wartime—AKA the World According To John Yoo.
And, GM, I’m a bit surprised to hear you paint this issue in quite so partisan a light. Some of the strongest and most articulate critics of the President’s actions have been Republicans.
December 19th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
Rosedog, I didn’t place this in a “partisan” light or by party, I said the lefties in here. I meant that and only that.
As to strong critics of Bush, try this one on for size:
In February 2000, for instance, CBS “60 Minutes” correspondent Steve Kroft introduced a report on the Clinton-era spy program by noting: “If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there’s a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country’s largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it’s run by the National Security Agency.”
NSA computers, said Kroft, “capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world.”
Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told “60 Minutes” that the agency was monitoring “everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs.”
Mr. Frost detailed activities at one unidentified NSA installation, telling “60 Minutes” that agency operators “can listen in to just about anything” – while Echelon computers screen phone calls for key words that might indicate a terrorist threat.
The “60 Minutes” report also spotlighted Echelon critic, then-Rep. Bob Barr, who complained that the project as it was being implemented under Clinton “engages in the interception of literally millions of communications involving United States citizens.”
December 19th, 2005 at 1:02 pm
Roper,
Read the “Arthur Silber” link, above.
December 19th, 2005 at 1:29 pm
No democrat had more BS than Clinton. And to the expected “no one died when he lied” I say baloney. He had a chance to get Osama but his mind was elsewhere.
December 19th, 2005 at 1:36 pm
To call Echelon “Clinton-era” is disingenuous at best – the program has roots that go back to US-UK joint international surveillance agreements just after WW2 and the current incarnation goes back at least, so far as I can tell, to the 1980s. Clinton actually was the first to authorize some oversight investigation into abuse, and he was also responsible for using Echelon data increasingly for espionage on foreign companies to gain U.S. competitive advantage in commercial deals. Shady character he, but not the arch-villian you attempt to paint him. If there’s an arch-villian in this story it is, regrettably, George Bush who hired a convicted felon by the name of John Poindexter to work on security issues and they came up with the Total Information Awareness program – a domestic version of the “international” Echelon program. It was scotched when everybody from Bob Barr to the ACLU went ballistic. There’s no reason to be complacent about Echelon, however, despite it’s “pro-forma” status as an “international” intel data-mining effort, because even if the NSA is discreet in avoiding direct use of the network for domestic spying, it’s a virtual certainty that the NSA looks at British domestic data mined from Echelon and their Brit partners look at U.S. domestic data similiarly mined and they share anything that they determine might be significant. So yeah, there’s a problem. But don’t try to simplify this into a “Clinton did it” right feint because it sheds more light on your partisan hackery than on any real concern for civil liberties issues. The petulance you display over Bush’s implication in this is more than a bit bizarre. Frankly, I welcome any and all discussion of stuff like Echelon, including Clinton’s being a party to it and actually perfecting certain aspects. But to bring this up as somehow exonerating Bush and with ZERO mention of the domestic-Echelon-mirror Total Information Awareness program proposed by the crackpot felon Bush bureaucrat tasked with promoting “big ideas” to fight terrorism and only quashed because of the bi-partisan furor it raised is precisely the kind of dishonest crap you accuse your apparent tormentors on the left here of purveying. Frankly, most of the hysterical, dishonest crap commentary here has come from the right, so far as I can discern.
December 19th, 2005 at 1:41 pm
My reference to perfecting should have been “perfecting” in reference to Clinton “commercializing” Echelon data, because this whole thing sucks IMHO…
December 19th, 2005 at 1:45 pm
I think history will show Clinton was the worst President.
December 19th, 2005 at 1:53 pm
I think history will show Mike was pulling random opinions out of his butt and posting them on the internet.
December 19th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
No Reg, I truly believe this. His inaction on so many foreign and domestic fronts hurt us. But no one will address this because it is more in vogue to bash the guy in office now. Please dont give him any credit for the economy during his terms any economist will tell you it was a result of Bush 1. Also how can you defend his foreign policy. Great accomplishment in the middle East. Osama ran wild. Not to mention the slippage in the FBI, CIA and NSB.
December 19th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
I’m not defending Clinton – I’m not a big fan, but if you really want to compare his record on Osama against Bush’s, you might check out one of the few people who really knows the score because he saw them both up close pre-9/11 when it really mattered and wasn’t a no-brainer…Richard Clarke. Two more words on Bush & Osama – Tora Bora (where we had a couple of dozen special forces troops, apparently outnumbered by journalists, to finish off Public Enemy #1. So don’t make me laugh. Bush went into office with a bigger priority on space-based missle defense systems than on al Qaeda. You guys are pathetic with your worship of the Commander. It’s pretty damned obvious your ilk care more about your tax cuts and unhinged rhetoric than anything resembling real leadership on national security…because we haven’t had it.)
As I said, rectally-source opining from the peanut gallery…
December 19th, 2005 at 4:51 pm
“No Reg, I truly believe this”
I don’t doubt it but it’s still total BS. Slippage? How about warning the Bushies that Osama was on the move? They ignored it saying if Clinton says it it can’t be true. Well that wasn’t trrue was it? Game set match yet again.
December 19th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
A couple of recent blogposts on Antiwar.com dealing with life in our emerging Brave New World.
Christopher Deliso – “And This is America?”
Eric Garris – “My Scary Return to the US“
December 19th, 2005 at 5:37 pm
GM… to echo reg, I’m no big Clinton fan. The Wen Ho Lee case alone was enough to make clear that when he said “I feel your pain,” he meant it mightly selectively.
(Bob Sheer, BTW was better—and earlier—than anyone in nailing Clinton on the handling of Wen Ho Lee, an appalling trampling of a man’s rights and life for which I blame Bill personally.)
But none of that lets Bush off the hook one teensy weensy bit. (Not to be repetitive, but Abbas’ link to Arthur Silber’s piece really does cover this whole uber issue very well)
And while we’re on the subject, in listening to Bush’s press conference today I was embarrassed at his utter inability (or more likely unwillingness) to offer even the most marginal logical justification for his actions other than, “It’s a dangerous world out there, but don’t worry your pretty little heads, I’m protecting you, an’ how I do it is the bidness of gubment, not yours. 9/11. 9/11…..9/11″
Or words to that effect.
December 19th, 2005 at 6:34 pm
Clinton will go down history as the second worst president of this era, by the way.
Pointing to abuses of authority by Clinton in no way mititgates the dictatorial powers ascribed to himseld by Bush. And over-riding judicial oversight in order to condcut surveillance on Americans is a indeed a dictatoral power.
The FISA law was passed 25 years ago specifically to outlaw this type of executive hubris.
The same law clearly and unreservedly provides a 72 hour retroactibe window– a provision that devastates the President’s pathetic excuses for lawbreaking.
My good friend, right-winger Bob Barr has got this one perfect.
I’m still having trouble believeing that small government conservatives, of all people, are justfying this clear abuse by Bush.
Please…someone tell me this: What danger would we have run if the President and NSA had obeyed instead of ignored the law.
Saw Bush on TV today saying that even discussing is aiding the enemy. Shame on him. Undermining our constitutional guarantees helps all enemies of America — foreign and domestic.
December 19th, 2005 at 6:38 pm
Atrios and Kos have a couple of posts up that show AG Gonzales to be tripping over himself in rationalizing this thing…”Congress gave us this power under the post-911 war resolution” vs. “We didn’t go to Congress to get this authorized because they wouldn’t have done it.”
December 19th, 2005 at 6:59 pm
“Clinton will go down history as the second worst president of this era, by the way.” That’s a clever way of telling us who the worst one is…I’d say it depends on what the meaning of “era” is, but you can go pretty damn far back without shaking Bush loose from his lock on #1. Arguably we’re in an “era” – post-Cold war, rise of Islamic terror – that only encompasses Clinton and Bush 2. I’d say that if one uses a relative measure of talent and potential weighed against actual accomplishment, Clinton is clearly the biggest disappointment in my memory (cutting JFK some slack for having been assassinated in his first term.). LBJ and Nixon are both problematic, because they each in their own way are two of the worst ever in terms of despicable behavior as President, while each one also chalked up some genuine accomplishments that had positive, historic impact and wouldn’t have been predicted as the legacy of such generally sordid figures. Incidentally, this kind of speculation only aids the enemy.
December 19th, 2005 at 7:19 pm
There is TERROR everywhere, there are no borders to contain it, there is no time when we can predicts its end; it’s just a continuous amorphous enemy that we must be vigilant against. If this anxiety was professed by any individual, you would probably conclude he was paranoid. Unfortunately, this individual is our President. And how long does he say, we will be in this state of war against terror: ‘for as long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens.” Well if that’s the case, we better prepare ourselves for one hell-uv-a-ride! BECAUSE THE WAR WILL NEVER EVER END! And because of this so-called war against TERROR, our government can pass with ease oppressive legislation in the guise of YOUR PROTECTION! Do you want someone who is incapable of discerning legitimate intelligence to spy on you ?
Only last week, Bush stated that the information gathered on Iraq was false : ‘It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong.”
If ANYONE CAN BE SPIED ON AT ANY TIME; there is a good possibility that errors of mistaken identity will be made!
WHO WILL ULTIMATELY DECIDE WHAT TERROR IS?
Is terror a political activist?
Is terror a natural disaster?
Is terror a pandemic?
How will all these laws designed to protect Americans ultimately be used against Americans?
December 19th, 2005 at 9:59 pm
After Marc said that Clinton will be considered the second worst president of our era, why do people have difficulty figuring out who is the worst? Clearly, in a run-away, it’s Jimmy Carter–who, by the way, is proving to be our worst ex-president, too, through his criticism of our nation in foreign lands.
At least Nixon was respected enough by succeeding presidents to value and seek his advice. The people who value Carter’s advice are leftist European weenies, who hate the U.S.
December 20th, 2005 at 6:20 am
“Clinton will go down history as the second worst president of this era”
I doubt this as well. At any rate consensus of historians will determine. Journalists can just say anything. Especially opinion journalists. Some though like Richard Reeves rank Bush the lowest after Buchanan. Harding was pretty bad too. Notice how we’re not coming up with many democrats?
Never mind Woody’d personal vendetta on Jimmy Carter. He should strive to such a man.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:59 am
What can you say about a man who consults his young daughter on nu-cu-lar proliferation.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:44 am
I say anyone who infers that is a fool. By the way Carter is a nuclear engineer. I’ll take his opinion over an accountant with a personal misunderstanding and disdain for science.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:46 pm
It’s not just those nasty Republican’s folks.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp
December 20th, 2005 at 5:04 pm
I reitterate: Clinton didn’t actually do it anyway for three years. Olympia Snowe, a Republican from my home state is not happy with this so you ain’t gonna duck and run out of this.
July 21st, 2006 at 12:15 am
Eddie800 pokernnj
July 24th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Betting Bettingbaseball handicapping baseball handicappingbaseball picks baseball picks
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:56 pm
sports picks sports picks
sports picks free sports picks free
October 21st, 2010 at 7:42 am
The producers. They make a lot of money off of the sheep who watch this tripe, and it’s very cheap to make. All you do is put several morons together in a house and roll the cameras.
November 5th, 2010 at 9:10 am
Antigone is right…give them a real treat with Tuna or even a bit of Salmon..but don’t overdo.
December 2nd, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Worthless for the large critique, but I’m really caressing the new Zune, and comedian this, as fountainhead as the fantabulous reviews some otherwise people jazz shorthand, module work you determine if it’s the tract option for you.
December 2nd, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Unhappy for the , but I’m dotty the new Zune, and prospect this, as fortunate as the reviews some different group jazz printed, improve you determine if it’s the tract select for you.
December 2nd, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Unhappy for the vast survey, but I’m really doting the new Zune, and outlook this, as source as the superior reviews fill hump graphical, give you end if it’s the good pick for you.
July 23rd, 2011 at 8:37 pm
Do you want them?
[img]http://jian9.com/images/beauty/1.jpg[/img]
[img]http://jian9.com/images/beauty/2.jpg[/img]
[img]http://jian9.com/images/beauty/3.jpg[/img]
[img]http://jian9.com/images/beauty/4.jpg[/img]