As was revealed a couple of days ago, Sen. DeWine had proposed legislation to liberalize the requirements of FISA in order to enable broader eavesdropping power. That fact, by itself, shows that Sen. DeWine at least assumed that the Administration was bound by FISA in its eavesdropping activities (why else would he bother to liberalize FISA unless he thought that it actually governed what the Administration could and could not do?).
But Sen. DeWine wasn’t the only Senator attempting to amend FISA in 2002. In addition to his legislation, there was also a proposed amendment (S 2586) co-sponsored by Sens. Charles Schumer and John Kyl in 2002 which was intended to eliminate the requirement in FISA that a surveillance target be "an agent of a foreign power" and instead allow eavesdropping on any non-U.S. person "engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore.''
Obviously, the assumption of Sens. DeWine, Schumer, and Kyl was that it actually mattered what FISA said because FISA was the law that governed the scope of the Administration’s eavesdropping powers. Of course, we now know that while the Senate was debating all sorts of proposed changes to FISA in order to expand the Administration’s eavesdropping powers, it actually did not matter at all what FISA said, because the Administration had decided that it could do whatever eavesdropping it wanted regardless of whether FISA allowed or prohibited that eavesdropping.
Indeed, throughout 2002 and into 2003 – while the Administration was secretly eavesdropping without bothering to comply with FISA at all – Senators from both parties were drafting legislation to liberalize FISA, holding hearings before the Senate Intelligence Committee on proposed FISA changes, making all sorts of grand statements about how these changes to FISA were needed in order to allow the Administration to do the eavesdropping on terrorists which our national security required.
But all of this was worthless, a total sham. Nothing could have mattered less than what the Senate decided to do with FISA because the Administration -- obviously unbeknownst to the Senate -- had already decided that it could eavesdrop however it wanted no matter what the Senate said and no matter what FISA allowed. Despite this, the Administration allowed the Senate to go through the embarrassing spectacle of acting as though it had authority with regard to the Administration’s eavesdropping and, worse, even encouraged that illusion by participating in the Senate hearings and pretending that it mattered what the Senate did with FISA.
An institutional humiliation greater than this is difficult to imagine. The transcripts of the hearings held by the Senate Intelligence Committee in July, 2002 (h/t Marc Schulman) -- hearings devoted to examining and debating both Sen. DeWine’s FISA amendments as well as those co-sponsored by Sens. Schumer and Kyl -- make conclusively clear that the Senate had no idea that the Administration was eavesdropping outside of FISA. Not only did they have no idea, they clearly were of the belief that the Administration was eavesdropping only within the legislative parameters set by Congress.
Here is what Sen. Bob Graham, Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said when opening the hearings on these proposed FISA amendments:
The two bills that we are here to discuss today will provide additional changes to FISA for the purpose of reducing both the nature and scope of the showing the government must make to obtain a surveillance order against suspected terrorists inside the United States who are neither citizens nor legal resident aliens. As we did with the changes made in FISA last year, the Congress must examine revisions of this nature to assure that they strike the proper balance between enhancing our ability to fight terrorism while protecting our privacy and liberties. That is the purpose of the hearin gtoday.
Contrary to Sen. Graham’s quaint belief that FISA defined "both the nature and scope of the showing the government must make to obtain a surveillance order against suspected terrorists inside the United States," the Administration had unilaterally decided that it itself would decide the nature and scope of its surveillance, not Congress and not FISA. And his belief that it was Congress which had the obligation to "assure that they [FISA amendments] strike the proper balance between enhancing our ability to fight terrorism while protecting our privacy and liberties" must have provoked great laughter at the White House, which had long before decided that it would eavesdrop however it wanted regardless of what Congress had to say.
Similarly, here is what Sen. Schumer said in explaining why he thought his FISA amendments were so important:
Now, Senator Kyl's and my goal, quite simply, is to make it easier for law enforcement to get warrants against non-U.S. citizens who are preparing to commit acts of terrorism. Right now the government is required to show three things before it can get a warrant for national security surveillance. . . .
I believe the Vice President, the FBI Director, and the Secretary of Defense when they say other attacks are planned. Right now there may well be terrorists plotting on American soil. We may have all kinds of reasons to believe that specific individuals in our communities are preparing to commit acts of terrorism, but we can't do the surveillance we need to do because we can't tie them to a foreign power. . . .
It's important to note that if our bill becomes law it will immeasurably aid law enforcement without exposing American citizens and permanent legal resident aliens to the slightest additional surveillance. This law will only affect non-citizens and non-green card holders. And the language we're proposing is the same language the Administration sent up here during the debate over the Intelligence Authorization Bill. Attorney General Ashcroft has given his stamp of approval. And I look forward to working with Senator Kyl and perhaps Senator DeWine, if we end up collaborating a little further--Senator Kyl mentioned to me in the subway yesterday that we might be--to help this bill become law.
So Attorney General Ashcroft told Sen. Schumer that he supported the FISA amendments offered by Sens. Schumer and Kyl – apparently without bothering to mention that the Administration actually did not need any FISA amendments because it was doing just fine engaging in whatever eavesdropping they wanted regardless of what FISA said. And Sen. Schumer went on and on about how it was so important to enact his amendments liberalizing FISA because it would expand the Administration’s eavesdropping capabilities -- when, in reality, the Administration was already doing exactly that eavesdropping based on its view that Congress had no power to define or restrict its eavesdropping powers under FISA.
Sen. Kyl also was under the (false) impression -- deceitfully re-inforced by the Justice Department -- that it actually mattered what changes he thought should be made to FISA:
And we have assurances from the Department of Justice, which we'll get later, to this effect, and which would . . . be a very helpful way to amend the statute so that we could deal with this problem of the individual who we have reason to believe, have probable cause to believe, is engaged in some kind of international terrorist activity or planning, but who we can't at this moment connect up to a specific country or terrorist group.
We could work with our friends in the Judiciary Committee, of which both Senator Schumer and I are members, and we could get it in--and Senator DeWine, I might add--and that we can move quickly to get the support of our colleagues and put this important tool into the hands of law enforcement and intelligence agencies here in this country so that we can add one more element to the protection of the American people.
After that, Sen. DeWine explained why his amendments were needed, and revealed that he, too, thought that the Administration’s eavesdropping powers were defined by the laws enacted by Congress rather than by the Administration acting unilaterally and in secret:
My FISA reform bill would offer us a chance to improve our intelligence gathering and a chance to improve our ability to prevent future attacks. It would make it more likely that we could use FISA surveillance more often to gather the data that we need to fight terrorism.
Sen. DeWine seemed to believe that his FISA amendments were necessary to broarden "our intelligence gathering" because he was obviously unaware that the Administration had unilaterally arrogated that power unto itself and had no need for Sen. DeWine's cute little FISA amendments.
After the Senators on the Intelligence Committee spoke about why their FISA amendments were so important and why it was so necessary to amend FISA in order to expand the Administration’s eavesdropping capabilities, various Administration officials from the Justice Department, the FBI and the CIA all testified about their views concerning these amendments. Each of them acted as though it mattered what Congress did with regard to amending FISA – they all gave the impression that it was Congress through FISA that determined the scope of the Administration’s eavesdropping powers – and never once stated, suggested, implied or even hinted that the Administration, months before, had decided that it could eavesdrop far beyond the mandates of that law.
Indeed, the Justice Department’s James A. Baker affirmatively (mis)led the Committee into believing that FISA continued to be the law which governed what eavesdropping the Administration could or could not engage in:
As Mr. Bowman suggested, if we expect that there are cases out there that would fit within this new category, then you would invariably have surveillances of additional targets. So you would be, you know, connecting electronic surveillance and potentially physical search of those targets and that raises all the same kinds of civil liberties questions that FISA does to begin with. But nevertheless, you would have had--before you get to that point, you would have had a finding by a neutral and detached magistrate, and indeed in this case a sitting federal judge, district court judge, that all of the requirements of the statute are met and that there's probable cause to believe that this individual is engaged in international terrorism activities, or activities in preparation therefor.
You also have certifications by the Director of the FBI that this is legitimate for an intelligence purpose and approval by the Attorney General that the application meets the requirements of the Act. So you would have more surveillances perhaps but they would be done in accordance with all the other provisions of FISA. And FISA, as you know, when it was enacted was designed to carefully balance national security versus individual liberties.
Someone needs to ask the Administration why Mr. Baker told the Senate Intelligence Committee that their proposed amendments would increase the scope of surveillance targets when, in reality, the Administration had already increased the scope of those targets regardless of what FISA said. And someone also needs to find out why Mr. Baker falsely assured the Committee that before anyone’s conversations could be eavesdropped on, "you would have had a finding by a neutral and detached magistrate, and indeed in this case a sitting federal judge, district court judge, that all of the requirements of the statute are met." Of course, the Administration was eavesdropping without any such judicial oversight at all.
This whole FISA-"bypass" program was a complete hoax perpetrated on Congress. The Senate sat there in 2002 holding hearings on whether FISA should be amended to increase the surveillance powers of the Administration even while the Administration had decided that FISA was totally irrelevant.
But they let these Senators waste their time and resources holding hearings, calling witnesses, debating these issues, without notifying them that the Administration had freely been eavesdropping for months in violation of FISA and continued to do so. In fact, the Administration clearly misled the Senate into believing that FISA did govern the Administration’s eavesdropping powers by having the Attorney General and various Administration representatives either endorse or otherwise give their input on these proposed amendments, as though they mattered at all.
Unless these Senators have relinquished every last iota of their dignity, how can they not be furious at this complete contempt shown by the Administration towards both the Congress and our nation’s democratic, law-making processes? The Administration allowed, and even encouraged, the Senate to operate on the assumption that the Administration was abiding by FISA and that it therefore mattered what the Congress did with that law. This deceit led the Congress to engage in a ridiculous sham where it solemnly debated changes to a law which the Administration had secretly decided it did not need to abide by and thus was violating.
Additionally, the Administration should not be able to get away with claiming with a straight face that Congress was not only aware of its FISA-violating eavesdropping activities, but also that Congress had actually somehow "authorized" it. Here is the Senate Intelligence Committee clearly operating on the exact opposition assumption – namely, that FISA is still the governing framework for eavesdropping on suspected terrorists, and that the only way to increase the Administration’s eavesdropping powers is by amending FISA.
It should be very difficult for Senators – or for anyone who actually still believes in representative democracy and the basic governing principles of our country – to read the transcript of these Senate hearings without cringing with embarrassment for these Senators who were so plainly misled by the Administration. The Administration led the Senators to act as though their decisions on FISA were of grave importance to the country when, in reality, the Administration had already decided that there was actually nothing less important or consequential than what the Senate decided because the Senate had no power whatsoever to regulate the Administration’s eavesdropping activities.
At any point, the Administration could have easily said that they did not need amendments to FISA because the AUMF already gave them all the authorization they needed to eavesdrop in violation of FISA. Why didn't they say that if they really thought that Congress had given them that authority? That would have made all of these FISA amendments which the Senate was pitifully debating totally unnecesssary.
It is impossible to review the events in the Senate with regard to these proposed FISA amendments and continue to claim that the Senate was aware of and had authorized the President to eavesdrop outside of FISA. To the contrary, the Administration deliberately misled the Senate into believing that FISA still governed eavesdropping in this country, and the Senate labored under that false assumption until a month ago, when The New York Times revealed that the Administration had been eavesdropping since late, 2001 in deliberate violation of FISA.
Wow. Well we'll just have to see whether this provokes any outrage in the Senate or not. Frankly it looks to me like the Republican Senators have decided that they don't need any oversight of the executive as long as they get their perks and hold on power. In other words they have been emasculated. And for the Democratic Senators the answer is probably worse. They don't have any power and no way to call for subpeonas or meaningfull hearings unless a certain amount of Republicans go along. And the executive is counting on nothing happeneing and not enough outrage on Main Street as long as "terrorists" are being denied the ability to "strike" the "Homeland".
ReplyDeleteI feel like puking.
Excellent and important work here, Glen. I think you could edit this a little, since you make the same point about three times. And there are few typos. I say this not to nitpick, but because I hope and believe this will be widely quoted.
ReplyDeleteA Fan.
Our elected senators and representatives have literally been bought and paid for, so I don't expect they care much anymore about their traditional roles and responsibilities. It appears the SCOTUS is headed in the same direction.
ReplyDeleteAnd we wonder where the missing $8 billion in iraq went......
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteYou ask --
"At any point, the Administration could have easily said that they did not need amendments to FISA becasue the AUMF already gave them all the authorization they needed to eavesdrop in violation of FISA. Why didn't they say that if they really though that Congress had given them that authority?"
Because if the Administration said that publicly, then the terrorists would know what we're doing.
That seems to be the line from the White House these days.
Of course, like most emanations from the Administration, it's nonsensical.
After all, the AUMF was public as well. Probably even MORE public than testimony saying "we don't need FISA Amendments, thenk you anyway".
So, according to the internal logic of the Bush defense, terrorists were ALREADY AWARE that their calls might be tapped by virture of the AUMF. At that point, there's simply no reason NOT to inform Congress that a FISA Amendment is superfluous.
So, according to the internal logic of the Bush defense, terrorists were ALREADY AWARE that their calls might be tapped by virture of the AUMF.
ReplyDeleteAnd, of course, the Patriot Act specifically provided for roving wiretaps. And here was the Senate holding hearings on the standards to use under FISA for eavesdropping. It is beyond absurd to claim that national security would have been damaged had the Administration told the Senate - even secretly - that there was no reason to amend FISA because it already had unlimited eavesdropping authority under the AUMF.
Obviously, they did not tell this to the Senate because they knew that the (even this overly compliant) Senate would have objected, strongly, to the idea that the Administration now had unlimited eavesdropping powers - including the power to violate FISA - by virtue of the AUMF.
It's all because you can never know how many terrorists will be in attendance at a closed session of Congress.
ReplyDeleteGlen,
ReplyDeleteYour article is pure "dynomite"!
How on earth can we get the main stream media's attention with this?
The information that you've given the last couple of days is nothing short of mind boggling.
Excellent. Issue. Framing.
ReplyDeleteAnd, of course, the Patriot Act specifically provided for roving wiretaps. And here was the Senate holding hearings on the standards to use under FISA for eavesdropping.
ReplyDeleteOf course, we're giving too much credit to the notion that terrorists read the text of statutes and congressional testimony, and then alter their behavior accordingly. That itself is comical. Terrorists operate in an overabundance of caution anyway, so I doubt that the AUMF, an amended FISA or anything else would "tip our hand" as to what we are capable of doing.
But I digress. Excellent post. It should be required reading for every member of Congress, especially Republicans.
Unfortunately, I think WHIG is onto something -- as much as I dislike it. The congressional AUMF means that we are currently under MARTIAL LAW!!!
ReplyDeletesee Ex oarte Milligan 71 US 2 (1866)
1. A military commission derives its powers and authority wholly from martial law; and by that law and by military authority only are its proceedings to be judged or reviewed. 10 [71 U.S. 2, 14] 2. Martial law is the will of the commanding officer of an armed force, or of a geographical military department, expressed in time of war within the limits of his military jurisdiction, as necessity demands and prudence dictates, restrained or enlarged by the orders of his military chief, or supreme executive ruler. 11
3. Military law is the rules and regulations made by the legislative power of the State for the government of its land and naval forces. 12
4. The laws of war (when this expression is not used as a generic term) are the laws which govern the conduct of belligerents towards each other and other nations, flagranti bello.
These several kinds of laws should not be confounded, as their adjudications are referable to distinct and different tribunals.
Infractions of the laws of war can only to punished or remedied by retaliation, negotiation, or an appeal to the opinion of nations.
Offences against military laws are determined by tribunals established in the acts of the legislature which create these laws-such as courts martial and courts of inquiry.
The officer executing martial law is at the same time supreme legislator, supreme judge, and supreme executive. As necessity makes his will the law, he only can define and declare it; and whether or not it is infringed, and of the extent of the infraction, he alone can judge; and his sole order punishes or acquits the alleged offender.
But the necessities and effects of warlike operations which create the law also give power incidental to its execution. It would be impossible for the commanding general of an army to investigate each fact which might be supposed to interfere with his movements, endanger his safety, aid his enemy, or bring disorder and crime into the community under his charge. He, therefore, must commit to his officers, [71 U.S. 2, 15] and in practice, to a board of officers, as a tribunal, by whatever name it may be called, the charge of examining the circumstances and reporting the facts in each particular case, and of advising him as to its disposition-the whole matter to be then determined and executed by his order. 13
Hence arise military commissions, to investigate and determine, not offences against military law by soldiers and sailors, not breaches of the common laws of war belligerents, but the quality of the acts which are the proper subject of restraint by martial law.
Martial law and its tribunals have thus come to be recognized in the military operations of all civilized warfare. Washington, in the Revolutionary war, had repeated recourse to military commissions. General Scott resorted to them as instruments with which to govern the people of Mexico within his lines. They are familiary recognized in express terms by the acts of Congress of July 17th, 1862, chap. 201, sec. 5; March 18th, 1863, chap. 75, sec. 36; Resolution No. 18, March 11th, 1862; and their jurisdiction over certain offences is also recognized by these acts.
But, as has been seen, military commissions do not thus derive their authority. Neither is their jurisdiction confined to the classes of offences therein enumerated.
Assuming the jurisdiction where military operations are being in fact carried on, over classes of military offences, Congress, by this legislation, from considerations of public safety, has endeavored to extend the sphere of that jurisdiction over certain offenders who were beyond what might be supposed to be the limit of actual military occupation.
As the war progressed, being a civil war, not unlikely, as the facts in this record abundantly show, to break out in any portion of the Union, in any form of insurrection, the President, as commander-in-chief, by this proclamation of September 24th, 1862, ordered:
'That during the existing insurrection, and as a necessary [71 U.S. 2, 16] means for suppressing the same, all rebels and insurgents, their aiders and abettors, within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to rebels, against the authority of the United States, shall be subject to martial law, and liable to trial and punishment by courts martial or military commission.
'Second. That the writ of habeas corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who now, or hereafter during the Rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or other place of confinement, by any military authority, or by the sentence of any court martial or military commission.'
This was an exercise of his sovereignty in carrying on war, which is vested by the Constitution in the President. 14
This proclamation, which by its terms was to continue during the then existing insurrection, was in full force during the pendency of the proceedings complained of, at the time of the filing of this petition, and is still unrevoked.
While we do not admit that any legislation of Congress was needed to sustain this proclamation of the President, it being clearly within his power, as commander-in-chief, to issue it; yet, if it is asserted that legislative action is necessary to give validity to it, Congress has seen fit to expressly ratify the proclamation by the act of March 3d, 1863, by declaring that the President, whenever in his judgment the public safety may require it, is authorized to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in any case throughout the United States, and in any part thereof.
The offences for which the petitioner for the purpose of this hearing is confessed to be guilty, are the offences enumerated in this proclamation. The prison in which he is confined is a 'military prison' therein mentioned. As to him, his acts and imprisonment, the writ of habeas corpus is expressly suspended.
Apparently admitting by his petition that a military commission [71 U.S. 2, 17] might have jurisdiction in certain cases, the petitioner seeks to except himself by alleging that he is a citizen of Indiana, and has never been in the naval or military service of the United States, or since the commencement of the Rebellion a resident of a rebel State, and that, therefore, it had been out of his power to have acquired belligerent rights and to have placed himself in such a relation to the government as to enable him to violate the laws of war.
But neither residence nor propinquity to the field of actual hostilities is the test to determine who is or who is not subject to martial law, even in a time of foreign war, and certainly not in a time of civil insurrection. The commander-in-chief has full power to make an effectual use of his forces. He must, therefore, have power to arrest and punish one who arms men to join the enemy in the field against him; one who holds correspondence with that enemy; one who is an officer of an arrmed force organized to oppose him; one who is preparing to seize arsenals and release prisoners of war taken in battle and confined within his military lines.
These crimes of the petitioner were committed within the State of Indiana, where his arrest, trial, and imprisonment took place; within a military district of a geographical military department, duly established by the commander-in-chief; within the military lines of the army, and upon the theatre of military operations; in a State which had been and was then threatened with invasion, having arsenals which the petitioner plotted to seize, and prisoners of war whom he plotted to liberate; where citizens were liable to be made soldiers, and were actually ordered into the ranks; and to prevent whose becoming soldiers the petitioner conspired with and armed others.
Thus far the discussion has proceeded without reference to the effect of the Constitution upon war-making powers, duties, and rights, save to that provision which makes the President commander-in-chief of the armies and navies.
Does the Constitution provide restraint upon the exercise of this power?- [71 U.S. 2, 18] The people of every sovereign State posses all the rights and powers of government. The people of these States in forming a 'more perfect Union, to insure domestic tranquillity, and to provide for the common defence,' have vested the power of making and carrying on war in the general government, reserving to the States, respectively, only the right to repel invasion and suppress insurrection 'of such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.' This right and power thus granted to the general government is in its nature entirely executive, and in the absence of constitutional limitations would be wholly lodged in the President, as chief executive officer and commander-in-chief of the armies and navies.
Lest this grant of power should be so broad as to tempt its exercise in initiating war, in order to reap the fruits of victory, and, therefore, be unsafe to be vested in a single branch of a republican government, the Constitution has delegated to Congress the power of originating war by declaration, when such declaration is necessary to the commencement of hostilities, and of provoking it by issuing letters of marque and reprisal; consequently, also, the power of raising and supporting armes, maintaining a navy, employing the militia, and of making rules for the government of all armed forces while in the service of the United States.
To keep out of the hands of the Executive the fruits of victory, Congress is also invested with the power to 'make rules for the disposition of captures by land or water.'
After war is originated, whether by declaration, invasion, or insurrection, the whole power of conducting it, as to manner, and as to all the means and appliances by which war is carried on by civilized nations, is given to the President. He is the sole judge of the exigencies, necessities, and duties of the occasion, their extent and duration. 15
During the war his powers must be without limit, because, if defending, the means of offence may be nearly illimitable; [71 U.S. 2, 19] or, if acting offensively, his resources must be proportionate to the end in view,-'to conquer a peace.' New difficulties are constantly arising, and new combinations are at once to be thwarted, which the slow movement of legislative action cannot meet. 16
These propositions are axiomatic in the absence of all restraining legislation by Congress.
Much of the argument on the side of the petitioner will rest, perhaps, upon certain provisions-not in the Constitution itself, and as originally made, but now seen in the Amendments made in 1789: the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments. They may as well be here set out:
4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
6. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, . . . and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
In addition to these, there are two preceding amendments [71 U.S. 2, 20] which we may also mention, to wit: the second and third. They are thus:
2. A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
3. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribe by law.
It will be argued that the fourth, fifth, and sixth articles, as above given, are restraints upon the war-making power; but we deny this. All these amendments are in pari materi a, and if either is a restraint upon the President in carrying on war, in favor of the citizen, it is difficult to see why all of them are not. Yet will it be argued that the fifth article would be violated in 'depriving if life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,' armed rebels marching to attack the capital? Or that the fourth would be violated by searching and seizing the papers and houses of persons in open insurrection and war against the government? It cannot properly be so argued, any more than it could be that it was intended by the second article (declaring that 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed') to hinder the President from disarming insurrectionists, rebels, and traitors in arms while he was carrying on war against them.
These, in truth, are all peace provisions of the Constitution and, like all other conventional and legislative laws and enactments, are silent amidst arms, and when the safety of the people becomes the supreme law.
This from Hugh Hewitt totally cracks me up:
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, new media provides a steady stream of pointers to key stories ….--like Powerline's many fine posts on the NSA program. (Search Powerline using the term "NSA" and you will be amazed at the depth and breadth of the detailed and precisely sourced writings on the subject, a listing that should shame every MSM outlet that editorializes against the program after a ham sandwich and a Coke roundtable discussion among the assembled writers, none of whom have even bothered to wade through the case law.)
He is simply ignoring this site and everything Glenn has amply demonstrated about the absurdity of the Administration’s legal arguments, as well as its contempt for the other two branches of govt, and instead Hugh is praising the risible, vacuous, faux legal analysis (aka, whoring for Bush with my JD) at Powerline.
Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.
Url for Hewitt: http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2006/01/22-week/index.php#a001171
What became of the Schumer/Kyl amendment?
ReplyDeleteWhat became of the Schumer/Kyl amendment?
ReplyDeleteI haven't been able to find anything on its disposition, which leads me to believe that there was never a vote and it just stagnated and died, like the DeWine legislation did. If anyone knows differently, please let me know.
Gore Vidal, quoting a message from Tiberius to the craven Roman Senate, summed it up yesterday at The Huffington Post:
ReplyDelete"How eager you all are to become slaves."
This post by Glenn just confirms a niggling suspicion that I have had since Bush became the first President to admit to an impeachable offence: since the administration resisted all attempts to liberalize FISA, one can only conclude that this is the police state showing it's power. They are deliberately letting the people know they ARE NOW THE LAW, and WHATCHA GONNA DO ABOUT IT?
ReplyDeleteSenator Graham, like his colleagues, does not appear to have realized that FISA was being circumvented by the administration. What's interesting about that is that he was one of the few Senators who was secretly briefed about the program when it first started. On Nightline, he indicated that he came away from that briefing with no idea that the law was being bypassed.
ReplyDeleteAssuming he's not lying (which I don't think he is), that means that even in the secret briefings, the administration was not fully candid about what the NSA was doing or the program's potential legal ramifications. My guess is that they gave a brief and highly technical presentation that in no way mentioned FISA. It would not surprise me if the members of Congress who attended those briefings had no clue that FISA was being circumvented.
Now we all know WHY these Scalia's and Alito's *disdain* the "Legislative History" and Alito wants the Presidential Signing Statements to have equal weight with the views of Congressional Intent. To undermine exactly these kinds of revelations.
ReplyDelete("Embarrassing" is a bit of an **understatement** here.)
Well, it WAS Bob Graham who first called for an impeachment in his book "Intelligence Matters" - But do you think DeWine would Ever support such a disloyal GOP party positions for Their GUY? HaHa! I don't think so - But I can still have HOPE.
I can imagine a slightly different possibility.
ReplyDeleteIt could be that certain Senators, having been briefed on the eavesdropping activities of the NSA (as has been publicly reported), were justifiably concerned that any resulting criminal charges against the "terrorists" would be thrown out of court due to the illegality of the initial surveillance. Maybe the proposals you cite were an attempt to make sure that didn't happen.
If this were the case, it is not surprising that the administration would rebuff such attempts knowing that any suspects would be handled via their rendition program (of which the Senate was unaware). The administration knew that there would never be any criminal charges or public trials that might fail, hence there would be no need for concern regarding the legal technicalities of the surveillance.
Just a thought...
"...Senators ... were so plainly misled by the Administration."
ReplyDeleteI'm shocked; shocked to read this. Next Mr. Greenwald will be charging that Congress is not always straight up with the President. How our government can function if Congress and the President don't work hand-in-glove I cannot imagine. [sarcasm/humor alert]
Typo, second to last paragraph, make "though" into "thought"
ReplyDeleteWhat I found interesting about the interview Pres. Bush gave yesterday, was that eventhough he won't admit directly that he completely ignored FISA and Congress, he is saying he did just that. However, I think it is important to see how the justification is mutating or morphing. Last night on Keith Obeirman, Dana Milbank, made a comment, which I think is telling. That is that what Pres. Bush has inartfully led the way for without meaning to, is the argument that his "program" is constitutional and that the FISA law is unconstitutionally restraining the executive's power to authorize such programs, and that in 1978 the question was never tested in that context. No Constutional argument was made for striking FISA down.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally I think he is trying to say this is a new animal that is not part of FISA which is still an "important tool" but because we are at war and because there is no law, he believes that directly regards the specifics of this program it is legal. Again "if the president does it it is legal." The other argument he is floating is that we can't tell Congress or the Judiciary about the specifics because it is too secret and the "terrorists" will find out about it. Basically he is saying that he(the Pres.)/we(the citizens) cannot trust the Congress or the FISA judges because eventhough the program is secret there must be terrorist spies spying on the spy program, who I suppose are more able to find out about the spy program thatn the Congress or FISA Court or the press.
Senate Intelligence Committee is now joins Army intelligence in oxymoron valahlla.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, I applaud your tenacity. With this and all the other absurdities now available in the political world, I read, bookmark, and then find myself mute with thought of what to add beyond what I read. Certainly I will have something more thoughtful to add later, but for now I would point you and fellow reader to the following excerpts from the WaPo
OVERT DUPLICITY on what the NSA was doing and when it was doing it:
Before the program's existence was revealed, several administration officials also emphasized in testimony and public statements that the NSA was prohibited from engaging in domestic surveillance -- even as the agency was clearly doing so under the authority of Bush's secret order that established the program.
INFORMING "CONGRESS"
Bush and his top aides have repeatedly stressed that "Congress" had been briefed on the program over the past four years, but have often neglected to mention that the briefings were limited to the "Gang of Eight": the speaker and minority leader of the House; the majority and minority leaders of the Senate; and the chairmen and ranking Democrats on the two intelligence committees. And they were barred from taking notes or discussing what they heard with other lawmakers or their staffs.
ENTER THE SPIN CYCLE
Yet Dan Bartlett, counselor to Bush and White House communications director, said Monday that the lawmakers who had been briefed "believed we are doing the right thing" and that Democratic leaders "briefed on these programs would be screaming from the mountaintops" if they thought the program was illegally eavesdropping on Americans.
So even though the Democrats could not legally say anything about their concerns in public, the White House claims their silence is Democrat approval for the program.
As I have noted before, there is a mythic Greek quality to the administration's responses to its critics on executive power. Every time some one thinks a snapping poisonous snakehead is killed, the White House emerges with two more poisonous snakeheads where the first one was.
I love the "barred from taking notes" part. When Bush-Cheney was questioned by the 9/11 Commission, note-taking was also forbidden, if I recall correctly.
ReplyDeleteIs there any other precedent for forbidding people to take notes? Well, juries...
Seems nutty, however, that a formal commission investigating a major, to say the least, disaster, was not allowed to take notes or make a tape for the historical record...I couldn't figure out why they agreed to that, or why for that matter they agreed to allow the two of 'em to testify together.
I wonder if perhaps the Administration didn't support the DeWine/Kyl legislation because of the off chance that their secret program might get revealed in hearings on it. So by withholding support and allowing the amendments to die, they bought themselves 5 years.
ReplyDeleteWelcome relief from Martial Law Argument @
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nybooks.com/articles/18650
Thanks Glen, but when is your reporting going Mainstream?
Mr. Greenwald:
ReplyDeleteAt the risk of being off-topic, I offer this personal comment. Over the last several years, I have become increasingly angry and depressed about the direction of this government and its actions. Two people have provided me with some hope that it can be changed. You are one of them (the other is Joshua Marshall). Your recent work on the unlawful NSA surveillance activities and the Bush administration's clumsy rationalizations were far more eloquent and precise than I could have imagined. Thank you for all your work on this and other issues.
I dunno, Glenn. The Senate is pretty good at institutional humiliation.
ReplyDeleteThink about it. The Bush Administration lied to Mary Landrieu about Katrina, lied about her and the other representatives of the state, and now are systematically looting the funds necessary to rebuild Landrieu's home town.
So what is she doing? Voting for Alito.
Or take Tim Johnson. The Administration sent political operatives, including an unprecedented visit by Doctor Frist, VMD, to knock off his friend and mentor Senator Daschle. They have withheld LIHeAP funds so that the Indians of South Dakota-- his constituents-- could freeze and starve.
So what's he doing? Voting for Samuel Alito.
Robert Byrd? A dozen of his constituents died senselessly due to corruption between Bushco and the mining industry. Another vote for Alito.
Maybe if Bush appointed a horse to be a Senator, that could draw some aggressive tsk-tsking.
two words: military coup
ReplyDeleteI am in agreement with Glenn; I do not think that most people are opposed to the President's eavesdropping (on al-Qaeda), but rather, as Glenn is trying to make the point -- that the President purposely broke the law, for secret “operational purposes,” and subsequently eavesdropped on Americans without judicial oversight -- which both the Constitution and the FISA law requires (in order to help insure protection of U.S. citizens 4th amendment rights).
ReplyDeleteYet, why what does it mean that more Americans aren’t more outraged by this?
The Ugly American asks: 2. Do you have any evidence of any particular person who's civil rights were violated, or any evidence of an abuse of this program? not theories, or possibilities but real living people who were harmed by it.
ReplyDeleteAllow me to reply to that. It is beyond any dispute that people's civil rights were violated, because the Bush Admin admits it has been intercepting and monitoring the communications of persons in the United States without warrants, in contravention of FISA.
While we do not know the identities of these individuals, it is known that some John and Jane Does have been harmed; your privacy interests are violated if the police tap your telephone without a warrant and in the absence of any (rare) circumstances that exempt the 4th Am warrant requirement for telephone surveillance. That is true even if you are engaged in a criminal enterprise.
In sum: Violating one's privacy right to be free from unreasonable governmental searches is an intrinsic harm.
Actually I was victimized by the secret spying or wiretapping or surveillance, but I can't talk about it, nor can I testify about it, nor have any experts testify about the damage it may or may not have done.
ReplyDeleteWhy?
Because any talk, any testimony would be damaging, because it would tip off the enemy.
In fact I shouldn't even be writing this, because just writing this here . . . .
Glenn
ReplyDeleteI think you have done a great job bringing this out into the light but have you considered that after the Alito confirmation all this will be moot.
Alito is the neocon's final piece to the jigsaw. Once in place they will be able to bypass the senate and have the backing of the court.
Say what you're gonna say, say it and tell 'em what you just said. This is the hat trick in reporting. Swell job there Glenn. Seems sorta like a bitch slap to the duped congress telling 'em to come too. Maybe they should ask for a reacharound. Still, the greater harm could be very well alleged terrists determined by rock, paper, scissors and NSA algarythms
ReplyDeleteRather than ask our host to read something from the NRO, I read your article. The argument is circular. We are at "war" so the President can do as he wishes, without interference from Congress. But it is the president who decided that we are at war, relying on the Authorization for use of military force. Now that we are at war, questioning his decisions is subject to his will, whether it is the existing law, or some new law to be passed by Congress. It is the president who will decide when we are not at war.
ReplyDeleteDo you think Congress could pass a law saying we are not at war, so the president would be bound by the rule of law again? Or, could the commander-in-chief just ignore that one too, just to protect us?
Ahoy, Ugly American. It is refreshing to see a clear-headed commenter here. Until I read this article I had not understood that many liberals have not taken in any new information since 1968. It hardly seems fair to complain that they have not yet processed 9/11. I am at a loss to understand how someone like Hypatia can mistake the GWOT for a faculty tea party. She does make an excellent point about proper napkin-folding, however.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, they have not read your linked article. It is not in a reliable liberal source (like the NYT) and therefore introduces ideas that will just make one uncomfortable (if one can understand them at all).
notherbob2: What an odd comment, at least as it pertains to me. As it happens, I read the TCS article earlier today, and completely agree with it. Very few people with even a minimal exposure to my views will fail to grassp that I disdain most that passes for leftism, and have no truck with those who are hopelessly stuck in a 60s time warp. Further, I read McCarthy's piece some time ago; I disagree with him and find that article vacuous. Abything he writes on this issue must be understood to be coming from a prosecutor -- that animal has never met a crimp on searches they won't anathematize.
ReplyDeleteBut what has any of that to do with the fact that George Bush is engaging in electronic surveillance of people, in this nation, without warrants or any judicial oversight, and in blatant contravention of a duly enacted law of Congress?
It's time for Frist and Reid to make a joint announcement that they are having one of those rare closed sessions for a full day and all together figure out what the hell they're going to do about this usurpation. Some kind of a hold on Alito would be a good first move. A demonstration of outrage and resolve during the SOTU is warranted as well. Shouted questions or comments from Congressmen would be appropriate.
ReplyDeleteOf course the Republican leadership will be too cowardly to go along with this. They, like Bush, have no love for the Congress or the Constitution.
From notherbob's link, here's the heart of the rant against liberals:
ReplyDelete"One bias is what Caplan terms in his book "pessimistic bias." People (not just liberals) tend to underestimate recent economic progress and future prospects. Pessimistic bias can be seen in doomsday environmental scenarios, claims that middle-class incomes are stagnating, and other liberal tropes.
Another bias is what Caplan calls anti-market bias. Liberals are excessively distrustful of markets and overly confident about the use of government power. The assumption is that government power will always be administered with wisdom and benevolence. I would be the first to admit that markets are not perfect. And government programs are not always failures. But liberals exaggerate market failures and overstate government successes. Anti-market bias leads people to concede government too much power, with liberals actively cheering government expansion.
Another bias is the view that other people cannot be trusted to make their own decisions. Liberals who send their own children to private school believe that poor families should not be allowed to make the same choice. Liberals make their own choices regarding health care, but they believe that others should have their health care decisions made for them by government."
Can you say strawman?
Does you know anyone to whom these descriptions apply?
Or, alternatively, do you know anyone to whom the opposite dimensions apply? Of course not. These polarities are useful only in propaganda, not in critical discourse.
Trust is hard to be found when looking for any remnant of it in govt. You said that, to you, it was "clear that the Senate had no idea that the Administration was eavesdropping outside of FISA" (as portrayed by hearings conducted w/ Schumer & Kyle,etal). I think it more likely that they did. That it was initiated out of complicity,& by using a "show-hearing" it allowed them to form a bubble of plausible deniability around them- selves! Everybody had to build their own little firewalls afterall. I get no pleasure in sussing these wankers out. Of course, I could be wrong, but what are the odds?
ReplyDeleteGlenn,
ReplyDeleteAny clue why GWB reauthorizes the NSA program every 45 days? If you're making up the authorization for a program out of thin air, why not perpetual, or until January 20, 2009? That 45=day limit was borrowed from somewhere, but where and why?
Ugly American...
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, those notified in Congress were forbidden to reveal that information, so using that as evidence of Congressional approval is fallacious (only a handful of those in Congress were informed, and several did in fact write complaints). By the same reasoning, the expectation that anyone informed should have demanded names of those spied upon seems odd, because how could they expect to be told, and as they were held to secrecy what would they do with the information anyway?
As for the Administration's explanation of the program, which many seem willing to believe, let me repost something I said earlier today on another site;
"...the more they explain about the program the stranger it seems. Hadley tells us it's targeted and focused, so that is consistent with what FISA's always dealt with - specific warrants for listening to specific people. It's only Al Queda we're listening to - if true, this would make the odds of getting warrants approximately 100%. The secrecy of the program is vital - so you go around the secret court, inviting whistleblowers, and then when the story is public you continue the program. The program is vital to our security - so why risk the validity of any evidence you might gather by skipping the warrant?...I don't know who they were listening to. But if the administration is telling the truth, then the program doesn't make a bit of sense at all. Their description only indicates that they are lying. That's not a Dem v. Repub thing. It's not paranoia. It's just common sense. When the explanation doesn't wash at all, the person is almost certainly lying."
That's the bottom line;because of the lack of oversight, and the unexplainable nature of the entire situation, it is simply not sensible to believe that this program was for listening to Al Queda at all.
Glen man,
ReplyDeleteHow does it feel to hold George Bush and Dick Cheney's balls in your hand?
All the Senate has to do is stand up and acknowledge they were being totally mislead. Which they have been for more than 5 years on multiple matters.
It's past time for Impeachment hearings.
As your analysis propagates across the national mind it won't just be the 76% who want the Abramoff details. It will be 90%+ who want policy accountings directly from the president and vice president.
The Walrus that is the republican machine can try to grind the organ handle as much as they want to try to spin this, but the monkeys have left the building.
As a side note:
I will enjoy watching the video juxtaposition of Santorum denying Norquist and Santorum at the podium taking Norquist on Meet the Press.
If this is not Russert's lead story he needs to lose his job. Ariana hasn't just exposed him. She scooped him. NBC execs will have to ask themselves why they are bothering to pay Timmy? Bill Gates isn't really keen on keeping people who don't perform around too long.
Excellent analysis, Glen. I've just waited for (and encourage) the meme of "impotent Republican Congress" getting out there.
ReplyDeleteSen. Dianne Feinstein wrote a letter (pdf) to the Senate Intelligence Committee this week asking the Committee to follow up on the DeWine amendment and the Baker testimony.
ReplyDeleteThe Ugly American:
ReplyDeleteI'd like to pose a question to you, and I'm not being snarky at all; I'd really like to know what you believe is the purpose of the 4th Am, which reads as follows:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Steve writes: Certainly, our Founding Fathers had no ability to envision such a contingency.
ReplyDeleteLast nite I was tired and in the mood for brain candy, meaning, television. TNT was showing the 2000 Mel Gibson Revolutionary War epic, The Patriot. For me, that is a four-hour love fest -- even tho I recognized some of the historical license taken -- because it is an homage to the liberty-loving Founders whose sheer political genius and consummate courage gave us the United States of America. Patriotism is something I have always proudly claimed, and I have even been confrontational with left-leaning friends who find the idea somewhat embarrassing. (And I must admit I'm a tad suspicious to see some left-wing sites suddenly waxing all excited about the Founders and quoting Patrick Henry & etc in the context of this NSA issue...not exactly in keeping with the left's usual embrace of Howard Zinn and the like.)
But truly, I am very disturbed, even alarmed, to see "conservatives" just rolling over and adopting rhetoric like "napkin-folding" about Bush's brazen insistence that he doesn't need those stinkin' warrants. I voted for George Bush in '04, and I think those of us who did have an especial responsibility to hold him accountable to the Constitution and the rule of law. It is not crazy to be deeply concerned about further terrorist attacks, and I want the Bush Administration doing everything it can -- within the law -- to prevent that. But there is a point past which we cannot go to achieve security and still be the country the Founders shed blood to leave us. Singapore is nearly crime free, but I wouldn't want to live there, and that is not what the Revolutionary War was fought to bequeath us.
Liberty comes at a price. Included in that price is not having a state strong enough to prevent virtually all crime or terrorism. The WOT will go on for decades; are we to institutionalize an unchecked Executive for that duration? Liberty survives under the rule of law and the system of checks and balances -- including judicial review -- that the American visionaries of the 18th century devised. It is hard for me to understand a "conservatism" that doesn't accept all that; what are they trying to conserve?
Great work Glenn,
ReplyDeleteOne comment. Haven't we heard revelations since this surfaced, (one year after Bush's "re-election" good work NYT!) that the eavesdropping actually began before 9-11?
This is a critical element to be clarified and not for a second overlooked.
This ties in with Alito in the sense that Democrats should indeed be so outraged that a filibuster of Alito would be more than appropriate-on numerous levels, all legit. Alito is not, not, not a done deal. This weekend and Monday are not to be wasted. Call, call, call.
In the preznit's opening statement at his news conference this week he made mention of shaping history (I shudder). The crimes come so fast that it's almost impossible to keep up. They have stated that they will act (create history) and leave us to respond.
Remember, 9-11 has become a rhetorical tool for enablement, yet remains an unsolved mass murder. This is Hitler on crack not Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. And the underpinning of all this is a pile of corpses mountaining up as we speak. "Somethin' smells around here, and it ain't fried chicken"
To me that means law enforcement can not without probable cause and a warrent search my home, listen to my phone calls, or seize my personal effects for any crime. Be it robbing a liquor store, burglarizing someones home, defrauding my company of millions of dollars etc.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the word "crime" in the 4th Am? The govt is required to obtain warrants if it wants to search your person, papers or effects, as well as your telephone calls. It doesn't matter whether it wants to monitor you for criminal activity, or just because. In most insances, it must have a warrant.
FISA is the duly enacted law of this nation, passed precisely to control when agents of foreign powers are involved. Repeatedly, the Bush Admin led Congress to believe both that it was abiding by FISA, and that after Patriot Act I, no further amendments to FISA were necessary. But in reality, it was all along totally flouting FISA. Does it not bother you that we have been lied to?
Why not seek amendments, and abide by the law? Is it really your position that the only way to protect the country from another terrorist attack is to permit the Executive branch to secretly, and with no judicial oversight, listen to any conversations it wants to, pursuant to whatever unscrutinized internal guidelines it assures us it abides by? How would you feel about President Hillary insisting she has that power?
The House and Senate are now just pieces of White House furniture. My party, right or wrong!
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeletethe same as I feel about it now. Why wont you answer any of the questions I have asked?
I thought I had, altho everything you have asked has already been addressed here in both Glenn's posts, and my comments and those of others. But what, specifically, do you feel I have not adequately responded to?
Isn't lying to Congress a federal crime? That puts a lot of former and current administration officials on the hook. Will we see a group frog march?
ReplyDeleteThis "where are the victims?" argument leaves me bewildered. Suppose a man sneaks into my house, steals the contents of a drawer and leaves. I don't discover the contents are missing until weeks later, when I open that drawer. Was there no crime until I report it to the police? If the thief confesses that he has been sneaking into houses and emptying drawers, do we not hold him and investigate? Or do we wait until someone shows up with an empty drawer?
ReplyDeleteTo say nothing of the fact that, because I have no idea who the government believes is linked with Al Qaeda or perhaps some other terrorist organization like the Quakers or vegans, I cannot trust that my own communications are secure, so that I am a victim of this policy, as are we all. One purpose of having a warrant is to assure me that I, as an innocent man, do not need to fear the government snoops.
I take issue with the use of the word "eavesdropping."
ReplyDelete" Eavesdropping," has a benign connotation, we all "eavesdrop," once in a while, ;). This is surveillance we're talking about and is a much more serious matter. Using the diminuitive grants them a point they don't haveany rith to!
For the trolls: Okay- for sake of argument lets say that the AUMF did give the executive power to conduct warrantless phonetapping of suspected al-quaeda affiliates inside the US when one side of that call is international. What do you do when both sides of the call were within the US? Does that change the analysis? It shouldn't, if you think that the classification of "enemy collaborationist" somehow removes the people targeted from any normal semblance of liberty...so that the 4th amendment need not apply.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it must be remembered the NSA was formed with the express purpose and authorization to do international communication intelligence (so called signals intelligence). When one or both sides of the communique are domestic, the NSA loses some jurisdiction in favor of domestic intelligence gathering agencies (FBI, ATF, etc...).
So what are the limits of the FBI in this respect? Are they too enshrined with the power the AUMF, according to you, gave to the NSA to turn its listening ear inward? Are they all (every federal law enforcement entity) exempt from FISA, if by chance the person targeted for investigation was targeted for some association, however slight, of involvement with 'global war on terra'?
What say you on the domestic surviellance and possible infiltration we know is going on with the quakers, anti-war groups, vegan's, environmental groups and others?? What say you about data mining programs we know are being conducted DOMESTICALLY. Or have we forgotten so soon the lessons of Elohim City and Okalahoma City...that so called "lone-wolf" scenario?? Isnt it entirely possible that each and every one of us is capable of fomenting anti-government sympathies and acting on them..like McVeigh and Nichols allegedly did ALL BY THEMSELVES. And since it is a time of war, perpetual war at that, one that may, in the words of the president, take years and even decades to fight...isnt it possible then that this perpetual state of war authorizes, nay, demands the ingelligence operations you think right for foreign sympathizers, be conducted by the FBI and others ON EVERY AMERICAN? Where do you draw the line? Where does the intelligence gathering of suspected or possible enemies go from legal to illegal?
In point of fact, there is no distinction to be made. An enemy is an enemy, regardless of where in the world he or she may be. Its the 21st century afterall right?
Well fuck that, and fuck you. The slippery slope has already been traveled and the ball has been picked up by the FBI. Do you think the gov.t would spend millions on echelon and carnivore and other nefarious devices and then let them collect dust? Get a f-ing clue man. The brownshirts have not won, yet. And people like you only prolong their eventual disappearance from reasoned and properly AMERICAN discourse.
Good try Ugly, but you should consider the statistics of the FISA Court decisions. (I'm too lazy to post them) but they show something like only 5 refusals in 15 years and 17,000 warrants before King George arrived.
ReplyDeleteHowever HIS statistics with about 5 refusals and 121 amendeded warrants strongly suggest that the court believes that his use of eavesdropping is improper - which suggest to me that he is bugging the ACLU, politicians, the Democratic party heavywieghts and so on.
To put it another way, the reason he is bypassing FISA is not because it is too slow or inconvenient, but because the FISA court would prohibit the bugging because it was not related to legitimate activity.
Don't feed the troll!
ReplyDeleteAll of these republican talking pooints have been dealt with in detail elsewhere in the blogosphere.