(update)
My field trip to Washington has come to an end and I'm going to be travelling for a good part of the day back home. As a result, it is unlikely that I'll be able to post further today, including the post I am working on regarding the possibilities for the future path of the NSA scandal (I will probably be able to post that only tomorrow).
Regular blogging will resume tomorrow.
UPDATE: As some of you likely know, I did not appear on NPR today to debate the Powerline adult who calls himself "The Rocket" due to a miscommunication (on the part of NPR's producers) over whether the appearance was confirmed (it was). My regret at not being able to appear on NPR generally today is vastly outweight by my regret at not being able to pose the questions I had ready for The Rocket who, among his other intellectually dishonest attributes, almost always refuses to engage criticism of the arguments he advances on his blog. He wouldn't have had that evasive prerogative on the NPR debate. I hope that whoever replaced me was sufficiently aware of how fundamentally false the Rocket's legal defense is of the President's warrantless eavesdropping, and how corrupt the Rocket undoubtedly was in advocating those defenses.
Thx, and great work Mr. Greenwald!!
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Thank you very much for your efforts, Glenn.
ReplyDeleteGreat job! Thanks for all you've done.
ReplyDeleteCompletely off topic, but I have a question.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, part of the administration's justification for ignoring FISA is that the authority to use force granted to the President by congress before the war gave him the authority to wiretap in the manner that is being carried out. Now what authority are we actually talking about? Is it the authority to use force in Iraq? If so how is that pertinent?
I know that the President likes to say that Iraq is just one front in the War on Terror, but was the authority so weakly worded that it did not mention Iraq specifically? if not then surely this justification would only hold in the conflict between the US and Iraq and therefore citizens of Iraq or their acknowledged allies. Now we know that there was no proven connection between Al Quaeda and Iraq, the President himself has said so, though it could be argued that the former have become our principle combatant enemy but only since the insurgency.
I think I am being completely naive here.
Shouldn't the attorney general be impeached for blatantly lying to Congress about a crucial aspect of the separation of powers when he was asked by Sen Feingold at his confirmation hearing whether the president had the power to authorize warrantless wiretaps? Gonzalez overtly lied in order to get confirmed and to protect the president's dubious endrun around law and the Constitution. Why hasn't there been any suggestion of impeaching him? As I understand it, all confirmed positions are subject to impeachment, correct?
ReplyDeletez
ReplyDeleteFeingold asked him if Bush would use warrantless searches in violation of the law.
The AG does not believe Bush is violating the law, so therefore trying to impeach him for honestly answering a question is not an option. Feingold should have asked him straight up if Bush would use warrantless searches under his inherent power or the AUMF. Instead, Feingold chose to emphasize a political point and has no reason to bitch about the answer he got.
>The AG does not believe Bush is violating the law.<
ReplyDeleteStupid or Lying?
I note an interesting Rove play and how I think it's beginning to slurp to the top of the burbling kettle of ingredients. First, Specter yesterday losing it on the Sen Floor against Harry Reid, calling Reid's speech slanderous; then I see McCain bursting his public persona bubble of the middle of the road, even handed guy when he sends explosive/emotional letter to Obama and then, curiously I see a note that Karl Rove has sent the message out to the Rep's on the Judiciary Com that if they don't support Bush's stance on the NSA issue, they'll find themselves without WH support/$ come Fall elections. Of course, it's also interesting that Karl's operations have been relatively well kept secrets, but not this time. We're going to find out what it's like to be in the cage with the snarling tigers this time, cause bloggers are in the cage too. Your work Glenn, is going to continue to stand out as an intelligent, moral, legal path. But it's going to take all of us.
ReplyDeleteOne argument the Administration seems to be advancing is that the President can unilaterally decide FISA is unconstitutional and just ignore it. But this is exactly the same argument that Mayor Gavin Newsome made to justify his decision to grant same-sex marriages in San Francisco. In rejecting Mayor Newsome's position, the California Supreme Court directly addressed the problem that arises when the executive branch decides whether to enforce a law based on its own interpretation of the Constitution:
ReplyDelete[I]n actuality the legal issue before us implicates the interest of all individuals in ensuring that public officials execute their official duties in a manner that respects the limits of the authority granted to them as officeholders. In short, the legal question at issue--the scope of the authority entrusted to our public officials--involves the determination of a fundamental question that lies at the heart of our political system: the role of the rule of law in a society that justly prides itself on being "a government of laws, and not of men" (or women).
Lockyer v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 33 Cal.4th 1055 (2004). Indeed, the Supreme Court appears to have long ago rejected the idea that the executive branch can decide whether to follow statutory mandates:
This is a doctrine that cannot receive the sanction of this court. It would be vesting in the President a dispensing power, which has no countenance for its support in any part of the constitution; and is asserting a principle, which, if carried out in its results, to all cases falling within it, would be clothing the President with a power entirely to control the legislation of congress, and paralyze the administration of justice.
To contend that the obligation imposed on the President to see the laws faithfully executed, implies a power to forbid their execution, is a novel construction of the constitution, and entirely inadmissible.
Kendall v. United States, 37 U.S. 524, 613 (1838).
z: "Feingold asked him if Bush would use warrantless searches in violation of the law. The AG does not believe Bush is violating the law, so therefore trying to impeach him for honestly answering a question is not an option."
ReplyDeleteWhether that's true or not, the following exchange also happened between the AG-nominee and Feingold that same day:
-----
FEINGOLD:
I recognized and I tried to make that distinction, Judge, between electing not to enforce as opposed to affirmatively telling people they can do certain things in contravention of the law.
GONZALES:
Senator, this president is not -- it's not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.
FEINGOLD:
Finally, will you commit to notify Congress if the president makes this type of decision and not wait two years until a memo is leaked about it?
GONZALES:
I will commit to advise the Congress as soon as I legally can, yes, sir.
-----
Gonzales lied to Feingold. Under oath (that time, at least). The President had, in fact, authorized actions that were in contravention of U.S. criminal statutes, and Gonzales knew it. Gonzales lied.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
The AUMF basically authorized the President to go after whoever he determined was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
ReplyDeleteThank you, that explains it, it was an earlier authority. I thought that I was just being naive.
I just wanted to write about something that caught my eye watching the hearings. Gonzales, in response to Feinstein's question regarding what specicially in FISA gave the adminisration the right to do warrantless eavesdropping (This is her two escape hatch argument, 72 hrs or 15 days if declaration of war) Gonzo answered with the catch-all phrase "except as authorized by statute." While GONZO said this meant or contemplated the AUMF...I think he is clearly wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe "except as othewise provdied by statute" is in reference to already existing wiretapping laws in regards to the federal criminal law. Remember, the criminal drug consiparacy statutes have in the past and continue to be used now and can be used in the future to catch international drug smugglers, etc...who have ties to members of their cartel here in the USA. Some of these cartles are also associated with terrorist groups, especially in places like Columbia.
I recently worked on a case involving a mexican drug cartel, with suppliers/sellers based in the US wherein hundreds of calls from outside the U.S. to the U.S. were recorded and subsequently used to convcit or compel guilty pleas. If FISA is the exclusive means to gather international intelligence...how could these international calls be recorded by the DEA? The answer was found in the criminal drug statutes. International drug dealers can be arrested in their home country and brought to the US to face trial when their drugs are directed into the US. We have jurisdiction over these crimes. Just ask Noriega. (i think it was him, his case went to the Sup Ct).
In essence, Gonzo is fishing for legal answers in the wrong pond. These criminal statutes were already in place before FISA was created in 1978 and this "except as otherwise authorized by statute" likely is in direct reference to said statutes. Not the AUMF passed 30 years later.
Thanks for your work, Glenn.
ReplyDeleteThis may be some food for thought on what is possible in the wake of the NSA hearing: local level proclamation effort, and how this will compel the Congress to choose: Between the President's defiance of the law, and the Constitution -- well before the election -- giving voters information on who is for or against the rule of law.
I caught the sign-off to the "To The Point" segment on the hearings and was D*I*G*U*S*T*E*D to find that Mr. Greenwald seemed to have been replaced by someone from Washington TIMES!!!!! There was a woman named Susan something who finished the trio with The Rocket. (I hate that I used to be a contributor of money and lots and lots of volunteer time to help make that station a success.)
ReplyDeleteSorry you didn't make it on, Glenn.
ReplyDeleteThe audio is available here. (It begins at about 7:50 - after the Coretta Scott King story.)
The guests were:
MICHAEL ISIKOFF
Investigative Correspondent for Newsweek magazine
GARY LANGER
Polling Director for ABC News
BRUCE FEIN
Constitutional scholar, he worked in the Justice Department under President Reagan; Columnist for the Washington Times
JOHN HINDERAKER
Lawyer, Fellow at the Claremont Institute and one of the authors of the Powerline web blog, he also writes for the National Review and the Weekly Standard
SUZANNE SPAULDING
Former Counsel to both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees under Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman and Republican Senator Arlen Specter; former Assistant General Counsel to the CIA
I just finished listening to "To the Point" online and was disappointed to realize that you weren't there to give your perspective on this issue. I was "wow"-ed by your appearance on C-SPAN the day before and was looking forward all day to the Hinderraker "smackdown". (I wish I knew where I could direct my dismay, but I've been all over the NPR website and can't find a link to contact the producers of the show.)
ReplyDeleteEven though I knew that Hinderraker was going to be spouting complete nonsense, I was rather taken aback with how utterly persuasive he was. I avoid reading "Powerline" but I'm beginning to appreciate how it is he manages to command his following -- he is incredibly deft at spinning lies.
Interesting points were made by all the participants, but to this listener -- who was preparing herself for a filet mignon listening experience -- it was tough settling for a Big Mac.
Hope you'll keep us informed about any more upcoming appearances. Could this Greenwald fan dare hope that podcasting is in your (our) future?
After Glenn's work on CSPAN yesterday, someone obviously told NPR to cancel his appearance today. NPR doesn't "forget" they confirmed a speaker.
ReplyDeleteAssRocket makes childish and transparently bad arguments and then insults anyone who disagrees with him. This may work on a blog with no comments, but it would have been a huge embarrassment on NPR. Civility and logic are still honored there, at least in form. Glenn would have made 'Rocket and his arguments look silly. Someone interested in protecting the President's spying operation had Glenn canceled.
The Alito filibuster and the Washington Post Howell flap show that when enough of the peasants object, the elites listen. Everyone write or call NPR and insist that Glenn be given the opportunity to present the voice of reason. Ask them to bring the ‘Rocket back too. I’d contribute to NPR for that.
anonymous #3 said:
ReplyDelete"These criminal statutes were already in place before FISA was created in 1978 and this 'except as otherwise authorized by statute' likely is in direct reference to said statutes. Not the AUMF passed 30 years later."
Excellent point. That makes total sense, and obviously way more sense than the tortured "out" which Gonzales is trying to make that escape clause turn into for his 'ends justify the means' masters.
[It's probably also another reason why we should be prosecuting terrorists under the existing criminal statutes instead of trying to re-invent the 'foreign/domestic spying' wheel for terrorists alone.]
It's ironic: it sounds like the FISA law is one of the most clearly-written, well-crafted, straightforward, and hard to misinterpret laws dealing with a national security matter of this import, that ever comes down the pike. So Gonzales is left to twist the only "vague" thing in it: the standard usage "except as otherwise provided by [existing] statute" language. That's the language that always makes you go searching for other applicable statutes outside of the one at hand which, for space reasons, or for other reasons of legal convention, aren't enumerated there.
So when it's really important, legislators: SPELL IT OUT! Who knows how many other word-twisting, meaning-twisting Alberto Gonzales types are in the pipeline somewhere waiting to emerge...
In general, though, the FISA authors have a lot to be proud of, from the sound of it.
And I want to publicly THANK DAN EGGEN of the Washington Post, for an outstanding summary and recap article about yesterday's hearings. I know about it because his article was on the front page of my local newspaper today. He not only got it accurate, got it balanced, and got the key quotes, he also got the whole point into the first paragraph. WHAT a pleasant change to see real journalism coming out of Washington, D.C. It's a downright relief to see the facts on the record for the information of the public, that are the same facts I learned by watching the hearings myself.
Dan even took the extra step of "investigating" all those references by Gonzales to "this program" and "the program that the President has confirmed" (meaning publicly confirmed, I take it): He CONTACTED the Justice Department after the hearing about that. Here's the closing sentence to his article in my paper:
"A Justice Department official said after the testimony that Gonzales was not implying that any other program existed."
BRAVO, Dan. Very well done.
kenneth fair:
ReplyDeleteOne argument the Administration seems to be advancing is that the President can unilaterally decide FISA is unconstitutional and just ignore it. But this is exactly the same argument that Mayor Gavin Newsome made to justify his decision to grant same-sex marriages in San Francisco. In rejecting Mayor Newsome's position, the California Supreme Court directly addressed the problem that arises when the executive branch decides whether to enforce a law based on its own interpretation of the Constitution:
And while I admire Newsom's stand (note: Newsom, not Newsome) on the issue, I think that Lockyer v SF was probably correctly decided.
You know what the big difference is? Newsom believed that the statute was unconstitutional and that he was upholding the state constitution by flouting the law.
Any plain reading of the US constitution and of Youngstown v Sawyer ("When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb") indicates that FISA is probably constitutional. You have to pull an omnipotent executive out of your ass to reach any other conclusion.
I'd give up, temporarily, same sex marriage in San Francisco to get Bush out of office. Maybe that makes me a bad progressive.
Put that coin of frustration back in your pocket, you'll find the moment down the road to give him change for his phony two dollar bill. And, of course, count yourself lucky you don't have to live inside his brain, eh? Your good work stands on its own.
ReplyDeleteThanks Phat for the link to the Feingold speech. That combined with Leahy's remarks at the hearing (on Crooks & Liars for those who haven't seen it) have somewhat renewed my faith in the Senate Democrats. And thanks to Glenn for keeping his composure so well during his debate with Prof. Turner after the absolutely disgusting remarks made by the woman who called in. I would have had a hard time controlling myself hearing such dangerous idiocies, but then I'm not a lawyer...
ReplyDeleteEven Warren Olney's been co-opted?
ReplyDeleteJust who can we trust anymore?
Complaints about the "To the Point" "miscommunication" with Greenwald should probably be directed to the show itself, tothepoint@kcrw.org, or to the producers of "To the Point," Public Radio International and KCRW Radio. The show is not an NPR program.
ReplyDeleteRocket boy insisted it was you or him Glen. No way in hades he was going to unzip himself in the presence of mannered reason. Like Novak looking at that "100 People in Washington" on the desk in front of Ed Henry... shock ,alarm and then cry "bullshit " and walk off ...Rocketboy knew you'd chew him up for this subject. And do it with civility. " it's Glen or Me!" he cried . And I mean Cried.
ReplyDeleteWell done Sir. we are still listening.You are doing a job for us .
Rocket boy insisted it was you or him Glen. No way in hades he was going to unzip himself in the presence of mannered reason. Like Novak looking at that "100 People in Washington" on the desk in front of Ed Henry... shock ,alarm and then cry "bullshit " and walk off ...Rocketboy knew you'd chew him up for this subject. And do it with civility. " it's Glen or Me!" he cried . And I mean Cried.
ReplyDeleteWell done Sir. we are still listening.You are doing a job for us .
sorry for the double posting . It was the glowing man, not me .
ReplyDeleteI was very disappointed not to hear Glenn, even though Hindrocket seemed to be the lone Bush gunslinger. I'm not a lawyer or a paralegal or anything even close and Rocket's aguments sounded vague and unimpressive even to me. They were full of the usual "I sound so sure of myself how could I possible be wrong" bravado that makes logic superfluous. There are three coequal branches of government so the president has absolute authority etc. At one point he even said he really wanted them to be listening to all domestic calls. Ok then.
ReplyDeleteWhat really struck me wasn't Rocket's dim wit though, it was the way the journalists seemed to focus on this entirely as a campaign issue. It was like they couldn't comprehend (or admit) there might be a real legal or constutional question or even a partisan or congress vs. executive power struggle. Nope, purely soundbite material for the election.
Actually, he doesn't call himself "The Rocket."
ReplyDeleteHe calls himself "Hindrocket," which is a derivation of his last name, and, in my opinion, technically worse.
Anonymous said: Feingold asked him if Bush would use warrantless searches in violation of the law.
ReplyDeleteThe AG does not believe Bush is violating the law, so therefore trying to impeach him for honestly answering a question is not an option. Feingold should have asked him straight up if Bush would use warrantless searches under his inherent power or the AUMF. Instead, Feingold chose to emphasize a political point and has no reason to bitch about the answer he got.
That depends on what the meaning of the word is is.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteDon't let them side rail you with Media promises. Keep blogging and hire and agent to do you placements. Pay on comission. These events are too important not to have your mind focused on it.
Given the Seachange signaled by these two stories converging at C&L, you are for certain at the center of a major historical event.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/07.html#a7064
Record it for us faithfully, you will have plenty of time to do the TV radio circuit after the fact.
Let the media cite your work for their feeds, rather than you doing their work for them.
Would provide the link as clickable but your comments are not set for this.
Wow, that Feingold speech is amazing.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, I wanted to add my voice to those in support of your work on this issue. Your segment on tv the other day was fantastic. Please, keep it up for all of us.
I know that you are frustrated by not being able to debate Hindrocket today. It isn't really fair to let him pick his hill to die on, but Powerline today tontained the following:
ReplyDelete“Like many liberals, Matt apparently doesn't understand that obtaining a FISA order is a very complicated matter. A large amount of information must be assembled, and legal opinions must be obtained. If you doubt that assembling the necessary package to place before a judge would take days, if not weeks, read 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1804.
Matt has no doubt heard on the mainstream media and left-wing web sites that FISA's onerous procedures are really no problem, since the statute contains a 72-hour "emergency" provision that would allow surveillance to begin immediately, as long as a judge signs an order within 72 hours thereafter. This, however, is wrong. As Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has patiently and repeatedly explained, surveillance cannot begin until the Attorney General makes a finding that 1) an "emergency situation exists," and 2) "the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists." That means that even in an emergency, the same onerous factual showing that is normally made to a judge must be made to the Attorney General--legal opinions, "minimization procedures," and all. In the meantime, as the days tick off the calendar, the al Qaeda henchman overseas can continue calling his American contacts "with impunity," as I put it in my original post.
Matt, of course, knows nothing of this. “
Your statements have pretty much minimized the difficulty of meeting the 72 hour requirements, perhaps misleading Matt. Care to comment?
Slightly off topic rant.
ReplyDeleteI am at present (in Australia, SBS) watching the interview of Dick Cheney by Jim Lehrer and as much as I believe Jim to be as impartial as can be (well, more than most anyway) he just lets Cheney off why so much so often.
Jesus, surely these guy's are briefed and have researched the subject but Jim is letting Cheney get away with his lies ...again.
Sorry...I just had to vent because it is just so dam frustrating watching this happen when you know it is all just a farce.
Glenn...your doing a great job mate!...Thank you for your efforts.
quote by Z
"Shouldn't the attorney general be impeached for blatantly lying to Congress about a crucial aspect of the separation of powers when he was asked by Sen Feingold at his confirmation hearing whether the president had the power to authorize warrantless wiretaps?
YES!!!
It's OK, Glenn. The Rocket is passé. Here's what's important:
ReplyDeleteTwo Republican-owned corporations (ES&S and Diebold) control the electronic counting of 80% of all votes in America!
So, why aren't Democrats making
YOUR VOTE their top priority?
According to U.S.A. Today, 60% of corporate contributions go to Republicans and 40% to Democrats, keeping both parties on the hook.
Glenn, why not talk about Lynn Landes' Voting Rights suit coming up before the Supreme Court?
Oh, well, guess the right to vote isn't that important to Glenn. Or Digby. Or Crooks & Liars. Or Jane Hamsher. Or Arianna Huffington.
Huh!
But you can read about the Lawsuit here:
http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingSecurity.htm
As a first time Blogger I am a little nervous, buy Glenn I want to say you did a good job on C-Span the other day. Yours is the only Blogg that matters because you are a clear thinker and a level head. I am glad to see such an advocate for the left because lord knows we need one. Keep up the good work and if you ever run for office let me know where because I will move there just to vote for you. That is as long as it is not in a cold climate, too far south, and on the east coast. ;-) kmflowe@hotmail.com
ReplyDeleteI was a little concerned when I read you were going to be on "To the Point." It's among the most egregious examples of the "cover the controversy" format shows. They always put up opposing sides for a round of let's-you-and-him-fight no matter how little legitimacy one side might have, and John Hindraker is far from the biggest loon they've given airtime to. The worst part is that idiot Warren Olney always nattering on about how hard, how very confusing it all is, and we'll just never figure it all out so we'll have to keep fighting about it forever. He is such a tool. Even if you had gone on and demolished Hindraker so bad that he was crying and calling for his mama, Olney would have declared it all too complicated to deal with, called a draw, and promised to have you both on again another day for another round. It's all he ever does.
ReplyDeleteSomeone ought to ask every single defender of this program whether they are briefed into the program.
ReplyDeleteIt is ridiculous to have people who are not even briefed in defending it.
I just watched some acting assistant attorney general defending the program on C-span. I bet a dime to a dollar he isn't briefed in.
Am I the only one or does it sound like a broken tape recorder in here?
ReplyDeleteProf Turner spanked that ass of yours on CSPAN, good thing you backed off the NPR show! You can tell the truth Glenn, you can do it!
LOL!!
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteSaw the CSPAN appearance last night, you were phenominal. Kept a straight face, stuck to your points, and made excellent ones at that.
It's funny how all of the loon callers think that we are arguing that there shouldn't be eavesdropping. No matter how many times we make that point, they still don't get it.
I agree with the comments above that suggest *ssrocket was scared to have you on. After your CSPAN appearance, they and the host and producers sandbagged you. They surely could have gotten rid of that useless segment with Isakoff to make more time. Instead we get a doctrinaire conservative debating a Bushbotian conservative. Wow, lots of balance there.
Keep up the excellent work. You have hit the blogosphere like a meteor.
You may be interested in my email exchange with Warren Olney, who I respect. As with most email exchanges, the most recent is on top.
ReplyDeleteMr. Olney:
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I note only that Glenn Greenwald's website: glenngreenwald.blogspot.com, had stated that he would be appearing on the program the day before it aired. As to the pollster, if poll questions are presented as "either/or," a majority of americans will always pick the option of having "greater security." In other words, if we are asked: Do you agree to having domestic surveillance without judicial oversight or would you rather risk missing the interception of a communication from a terriorist, a majority will choose the former. It is a false choice that the Bush administration has promoted and the pollsters have adopted.
Thank you for listening.
Michael Wells
On Feb 7, 2006, at 9:02 PM, Warren Olney wrote:
Dear Michael,
As I understand it, we did not hear from Glen Greenwald to confirm his appearance until it was so late that we had no choice but to schedule another panelist. Apparently there was some communications problem. By the time we did hear from Mr. Greenwald his slot had been taken. We're very interested in what he has to say, and we hope to find another opportunity to invite him to be on our program.
As to challenging the pollster on his wording, his results agree with all the national polls at this point. I don't think they're all using the same wording.
Best regards,
Warren Olney
Host, Executive Producer
"To the Point"
To the Producers:
I was very disappointed in your program today. For some reason, you chose not to have Glenn Greenwald on the program to provide a very different perspective on the Bush administration's heretofore secret and unreviewed spying operation. Instead you had Bruce Fein, a self-described conservative constitutional scholar and a self-confessed supporter of the Bush administration on almost every other issue and John Hinderaker, a blogger who is far to the right of Mr. Fein. In the last few minutes of the program, you attempted to "balance" it by having Ms. Spaulding, a former CIA assistant general counsel.
By the way, you completely failed to challenge the pollster from ABC about the wording of his polls.
I expect better from Warren Olney and "To The Point."
Michael Wells
Glenn: did you catch Jon Stewart last night? He made the point in an interview with Torie Clarke that it seems this administration is simultaneously asking for more and more transparency from its citizens while offering less and less transparency itself. Good point and I mention it because what is missing from our argument is a connection to the everyday citizen who doesn't understand this administration is dedicated to redirecting their rights toward whatever the admin feels like supplying. They have a strong Stockholm syndrome going on, but without their support Fox is still in business.
ReplyDeleteImportant note - don't take out your frustrations on NPR - To the Point, the show that dropped GG, is NOT an NPR program, it is PRI, Public Radio Internatonal.
ReplyDeleteThis may seem a minor point, but given the negative feelings generated by this show's action, it isn't. In fact, not to criticize, but might the "miscommunication" have come from Glenn's understanding that his agreement was with NPR, not PRI? Maybe Glenn does need an agent.
I too was disappointed not to hear Glen on TTP. But, far from being a weak counterpoint to Hinderocket (or whatever his name is), Bruce Fein (former Reagan justice official, 2 time 'W' voter, and Wash Times contributor) pretty thoroughly eviscerated his (so-called) arguments.
ReplyDeleteHinderocket's relies on one of the common Red Herrings that Bush apologists are throwing up here, which is a series of cases purporting to show the Executive's inherent authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping that involve actions that occurred prior to FISA's existence. Ergo, they are completely irrelevant.
After that argument was blown out of the water, Hinderocket went to the so-called "massive burden" of the FISA process, which Fein readily countered as well, in part by throwing the Administration's own words back at them.
The FISA segment is well worth a read and/or a listen, even though Glen didn't make it on.
Outstanding entry. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteMidnight ride - in regards to whether the catch-all "except as otherwise provided by statute" language which is very common in many federal criminal statutes is a direct reference to then existing criminal wiretapping laws for normal criminal purposes (international included) or was put in there in case of future unforseen actions such as the AUMF in afghanistan one would likely have to look at the legislative history. Normally one would do that to get discern congressional intent. I have not done so with FISA and dont think it needs to be done. The reason is simple. The FISA statute itself ALREADY contemplates AUMF's in its declaration of war provision, which then allows the G 15 days to get before the judge. Gonzo arguing that the catch-all langauge in FISA contemplated the AUMF is simply ludicrous. FISA already handles such situations specifically. I am almost 100% convinced that the "except as otherwise authorized by statute" language is a direct reference to laws that were already on the books when FISA was enacted allowing wiretapping of international drug dealers, money launderes, etc... There simply is no plausible legal theory that would support the attorney general's position. Its all bullshit and we know it. Whats sad is while if me or you did such a legally deficient job defending our clients we get sued for malpractice. Talking about irony...this fuck-tard will likely get a presidential medal.
ReplyDelete