While spouting that bravado, the Administration's actions reveal that they fear this scandal and want more than anything for it to disappear. At every turn, they have tried to prevent a meaningful investigation into the legality of their actions. If the NSA scandal is really the political weapon which the GOP can use to bash Democrats as being weak on national security, wouldn't the White House be doing the opposite - that is, encouraging every hearing and investigation possible?
The supplemental claim we hear most from the Administration is that this scandal is dying. It will all fade away with some nice legislation designed to render legal the President's four years of deliberate law-breaking. But the NSA scandal continues to dominate the news. Every day brings more conflicts, more disputes, more internecine fighting among Republicans. Indeed, Republicans are all fighting with each other on virtually every aspect of this scandal - when have we ever seen that?
Just review media reports on this scandal over the last 24 hours alone. Does this sound like an Administration that welcomes this scandal as something that is politically beneficial? Does this sound like a scandal that is dying:
From The Washington Post, today, reporting on the White House's frenzied, desperate efforts to quash Congressional investigations into its conduct:
At two key moments in recent days, White House officials contacted congressional leaders just ahead of intelligence committee meetings that could have stirred demands for a deeper review of the administration's warrantless-surveillance program, according to House and Senate sources.
In both cases, the administration was spared the outcome it most feared, and it won praise in some circles for showing more openness to congressional oversight.
But the actions have angered some lawmakers who think the administration's purported concessions mean little. Some Republicans said that the White House came closer to suffering a big setback than is widely known, and that President Bush must be more forthcoming about the eavesdropping program to retain Congress's good will.
And The New York Times, this morning, reports that the White House was groping around, offering any concessions that were demanded, in order to avoid the very investigation which Karl Rove and some inane, frightened Democrats insist would be so good for Republicans:
But two days before Mr. Bush spoke, the White House opened the door to talks in the hope of avoiding a full-scale Congressional investigation. According to lawmakers involved in the discussions, a number of senior officials, including Harriet E. Miers, the White House counsel, and Andrew H. Card Jr., the chief of staff, began contacting members of the Senate to determine what it would take to derail the investigation.
And, as the Post article details, the Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee who were depicted as having fallen passively into line apparently don't appreciate those reports and are eager to demonstrate otherwise:
Snowe earlier had expressed concerns about the program's legality and civil liberties safeguards, but Card was adamant about restricting congressional oversight and control, said the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing office policies. Snowe seemed taken aback by Card's intransigence, and the call amounted to "a net step backward" for the White House, said a source outside Snowe's office.
Snowe contacted fellow committee Republican Chuck Hagel (Neb.), who also had voiced concerns about the program. They arranged a three-way phone conversation with Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.).
Until then, Roberts apparently thought he had the votes to defeat Rockefeller's motion in the committee, which Republicans control nine to seven, the sources said. But Snowe and Hagel told the chairman that if he called up the motion, they would support it, assuring its passage, the sources said. . . . .
Hagel and Snowe declined interview requests after the meeting, but sources close to them say they bridle at suggestions that they buckled under administration heat. The White House must engage "in good-faith negotiations" with Congress, Snowe said in a statement.
Over the weekend, both Specter and even Pat Roberts made clear that they would not accept the only solution which the White House will even consider -- namely, the absurdly deferential DeWine proposal to exempt the NSA program from the requirements of FISA. Now, Linsdey Graham, too, has made unequivocally clear that he will insist upon judicial oversight for any future eavesdropping, something the White House cannot and will not ever agree to:
The latest Republican to join the growing chorus of those seeking oversight is Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
In an interview on "Fox News Sunday," Mr. Graham, a former military prosecutor whose opinion on national security commands respect in the Senate, said he believed there was now a "bipartisan consensus" to have broader Congressional and judicial review of the program.
"I do believe we can provide oversight in a meaningful way without compromising the program," he said, "and I am adamant that the courts have some role when it comes to warrants. If you're going to follow an American citizen around for an extended period of time believing they're collaborating with the enemy, at some point in time, you need to get some judicial review, because mistakes can be made."
Discussions like this are, of course, somewhat surreal, since we already have a law requiring judicial review for eavesdropping on Americans. That happens to be the law which the Administration broke continuously and deliberately. Why Graham or anyone else thinks it would be productive to pass another law requiring judicial approval when we already have that law in place is a bit of a mystery. But if the likes of Specter, Roberts and Graham are insisting on judicial oversight for eavesdropping -- and the White House is refusing -- there is clearly a serious problem even among Republicans. From the Times:
Four other leading Senate Republicans, including the heads of three committees — Judiciary, Homeland Security and Intelligence — have said they would prefer some degree of judicial oversight. Their positions, if they hold, could make the negotiations more difficult.
As I noted last week, Roberts blocked a vote on whether to have hearings in the Senate Intelligence Committee for only one reason - because the motion by Sen. Rockefeller to hold such hearings would have passed, with means it had at least some Republican support. As I also noted, and as the Times reports today, Roberts, by preventing an up-or-down vote, succeeded in blocking the hearings only temporarily:
The Senate Intelligence Committee has given the administration two weeks to negotiate. If the White House does not demonstrate a good-faith effort, members say, the Democratic proposal for a full-scale inquiry will be back on the table at the panel's next meeting on March 7.
Meanwhile, Specter's interesting legislative proposal -- to require a ruling by the FISA court on the legality of the Administration's actions -- continues to be pushed by him. Again, from the Times:
Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, has drafted legislation that would require the FISA court to review the constitutionality of the eavesdropping program. Mr. Specter says he is sympathetic to the administration's concern that briefing lawmakers could lead to leaks, which is why he wants to turn the matter over to the courts.
But he insists that the eavesdropping must be subjected to a rigorous constitutional review and has said that anything short of that would be "window dressing."
I continue to believe that the most potent fuel for this fire is for the Congress to continue to be shown the great contempt with which they have been treated by the Administration over the last four years on these issues. Congress thought it had a law in place regulating eavesdropping on Americans only for the Administration to have decided that the silly little Congress has no role to play in national security and surely can't restrict anything the President decides to do. Worse, they repeatedly misled the Congress into thinking that their cute little laws mattered, and didn't even bother to tell them that the Administration had decided that it had the power to do whatever the President decided, even if that meant engaging in actions which Congress had criminalized.
And now, they are treating the Congress like irrelevant, impotent symbols, instructing them that they are entitled to no information about the eavesdropping program, that they have no power to regulate eavesdropping in the future, and that they are not to investigate any of these matters.
At some point, even the most obsequious members of Congress are going to be moved by their own personal dignity into taking a real stand. Speaking of which, the Pat Roberts-loving Wichita Eagle editorialized yesterday as follows:
Many Kansans, including members of The Eagle editorial board, have long admired Sen. Pat Roberts for his plainspokenness and reputation for fair brokering of issues.
So it's troubling that Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is fast gaining the reputation in Washington, D.C., as a reliable partisan apologist for the Bush administration on intelligence and security controversies.
We hope that's not true. But Roberts' credibility is on the line. . . .
This week, Roberts sidetracked a Senate Intelligence Committee inquiry into the possibly illegal National Security Agency wiretap program, saying the White House had agreed to brief lawmakers more regularly and to work with him on a behind-the-scenes "fix" of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
That prompted a scathing New York Times editorial Friday headlined "Doing the President's Dirty Work," which opined: "Is there any aspect of President Bush's miserable record on intelligence that Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is not willing to excuse and help to cover up?" . . .
But whether the law needs a "fix" is far from certain. Roberts' deal could thwart Congress' duty to learn more about and evaluate this program, while securing from the White House only a vague pledge to talk about fixing the law down the road. . . .
What's bothering many, though, is that Roberts seems prepared to write the Bush team a series of blank checks to conduct the war on terror, even to the point of ignoring policy mistakes and possible violations of law.
That's not oversight -- it's looking the other way.
There sure is a lot of public infighting in the previously dissent-free Republican family over this scandal, and that infighting only seems to be getting worse. And Pat Roberts can't appreciate reading in his hometown paper that he is an integrity-free, blind servant for the Administration, there to do its dirty work and help Congress abdicate its oversight responsibility. Clearly, Olympia Snowe and Chuck Hagel don't seem to appreciate being depicted as manipulated, controlled White House stooges either. It's human nature to want to demonstrate one's independence.
There is no way for the White House to prevent a full-scale airing of these issues. The more they try, the more they alienate their own allies and the worse it becomes.
What is missing from this whole equation is any real effort on the part of Democrats to push all of this forward. Imagine where things would be -- how bad things would be for the White House -- if Democrats hadn't decided early on that this is an issue they should run away and hide from, rather than pursue with relentless aggression. Anyone who speaks with even the most liberal advocacy groups, supposedly left-wing pundits, Democratics consultants, etc. will tell you that they all still think this is a scandal which Democrats should just let go. That, of course, is the type of fear-driven, principle-less advice that has led Democrats to three straight defeats.
Clearly, the Administration knows better, and Congressional Republicans do not seem nearly as inclined to give the White House a free pass on breaking the law. Hopefully, Democrats will start to recognize the highly destructive, potentially fatal weapon which has fallen into their lap.
I find all these shenanigans somewhat perplexing. If the domestic warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional, which it arguably is, then no law Congress can pass can make it constitutional. That seems to be a key point that is being ignored.
ReplyDeleteIf the domestic warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional, which it arguably is, then no law Congress can pass can make it constitutional. That seems to be a key point that is being ignored.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court (in the 1972 Keith case) ruled that warrantless eavesdropping on Americans for the purpose of gathering intelligence on domestic terrorist groups is unconstitutional. But the Court made expressly clear that it was not opining on the constitutionality of warrantless eavesdropping to investigate international terrorist groups.
I have yet to hear any substantive way to distinguish the protections of the Fourth Amendment when the government is eavesdropping on Americans as part of an investigation into international terrorism (rather than domestic terrorism), but this Fourth Amendment issue has not been decided.
By contrast, few things could be clearer than the fact that the Administration broke the law. FISA makes it a criminal offense to eavesdrop on Americans without judicial oversight and the Administration did exactly that. That's why the focus is on the illegality, rather than the constitutionality, of their conduct, but it is certainly true that the program is of questionable constitutionality (in addition to being unquestionably illegality).
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteThis is not encouraging. Is the only remedy against illegal behaviour by the government to go through the committees? Is there no suit that can be filed? And by whom?
You make a persuasive case that the Republican infighting is getting worse, and that both Graham and Specter will insist upon some sort of oversight when the panel’s next meeting is held on March 7.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, you insist that “At some point, even the most obsequious members of Congress are going to be moved by their own personal dignity into taking a stand.”
This would seem to me will lead to some sort of compromise, with the Administration conceding to some sort of oversight, although they will portray it as a “victory” for the presidents program. (And, if the oversight is so extremely limited, it may well be a victory for them.)
Yet, at the same time, you say that when Graham insists upon judicial oversight, that this would be “something the White House cannot and will not ever agree to.”
I’m not sure I understand that point, why couldn’t the White House, at some point, agree to some sort of oversight? It would seem to me, from everything else your saying (infighting etc.) that some sort of agreement and compromise is in the works.
What the Democrats don't get in all their polling is that when you take an unpopular but correct position - events will lead the public catch up with you (now on the winning side).
ReplyDeleteThe Bush WH is perfectly set up for this if the Dems get a just bit courageous, and if the Repubs don't beat them to it.
"unquestionably illegal" =
ReplyDeleteTime to impeach.
Say it with me Glenn!
We've been waiting for action and our recourse is impeachment.
Maybe some of those grumbling republicons I keep hearing about can buy some integrity if there's any available in Wash. The Dems will have to wake up 'cause it's possible for them to feel shame. It's taking way too long, though.
Remember, the majority of Americans support impeachment. We've been waiting and now it's time to start demanding.
Check out candidate Carl Sheeler's impeachment billboard and feel the hope. It's grand!
I've no more time today to read any more Bushist BS. I must go muck my stalls and will be dealing with the literal version.
Impeach! A nice rallying cry, don't you think?
Thanks for your blog:)
Take care, Jan
I’m not sure I understand that point, why couldn’t the White House, at some point, agree to some sort of oversight? It would seem to me, from everything else your saying (infighting etc.) that some sort of agreement and compromise is in the works.
ReplyDeleteFor whatever reasons, it is extremley important to the WH to eavesdrop without judicial oversight. Whether it's because they want to eavesdrop on people which the court won't allow them to eavesdrop on, or they don't want judges knowing on whom they're eavesdropping, or that they want to bolster the principle that nobody can interfere with what they want to do re: terrorism, they have expended extraordinary efforts ensuring that they are able to eavesdrop with no oversight.
I can't imagine they will now accept oversight. For one thing, it will reveal that they could have eavesdropped all along with judicial oversight. Moreover, they have staked out the position that eavesdropping outside of FISA is critical to our national security - how can they now revert to eavesdropping only within the parameters of FISA oversight? If FISA is first revised and they say they can now eavesdrop in accordance with it, it shows that they could have just amended FISA all along.
And, independently of all of that, they do not give in on their principles - Cheney et al. believe in their soul that neither Congress nor the courts has any right to regulate or limit what the President does in the war on terror - that is almost the central religious-like belief for them. There is no way they will cave on that principle - and there is no politically viable way to do so in light of all the claims they made about why they had to eavesdrop outside of FISA for the last 4 years.
Glenn Greenwald writes:
ReplyDeleteEver since the NSA scandal began...
There is no "scandal." There is a political controversy. Your attempt to elevate this into a -gate phenomenon isn't being parroted by a single official in Washington nor by any national publication. The only place one finds "NSA" and "scandal" put together are on websites (like this one) that are gathering places for the Bush-hating left.
While spouting that bravado, the Administration's actions reveal that they fear this scandal and want more than anything for it to disappear.
If they administration "fears" this "scandal" why does the NSA program continue unabated? Why are no public officials calling for its demise? Why are the Democrats doing all they can to assist the administration in continuting the program?
From The Washington Post, today, reporting on the White House's frenzied, desperate efforts...
LOL. "Contact[ing] congressional leaders" constitutes a "frenzied, desperate effort"?? Geez, I'd hate to see how Glenn describes someone trying to revive a person chocking on a piece of meat. Your bombast and hyperbole marginalize you, Glenn.
There sure is a lot of public infighting in the previously dissent-free Republican family over this scandal, and that infighting only seems to be getting worse.
There has never been a "dissent-free Republican family." You seem to forget Republican dissatisfaction with the selection of Harriet Miers, the Bush Medicare drug plan, the administration's immigration policies, and its overall lack of effort to control federal spending, to name just a few.
Once again, bombast and hyperbole destroy your credibility.
Hopefully, Democrats will start to recognize the highly destructive, potentially fatal weapon which has fallen into their lap.
No one except the hate-Bush left seems to have realized this "potentially fatal weapon."
I wonder why?
Gedaliya's trite, stupid comment reminds me of what Glenn wrote yesterday:
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, there are individuals who come here (and everywhere else) with no intent other than to disrupt or to vent their own frustrations and emotions and who, therefore, aren't interested in (or capable of) meaningful debate. They just engage in conclusory assertions or cliched name-calling (we're "leftist Bush-haters with Bush Derangement Syndrome," etc.) and have minds that are as closed as they are boring and uncreative.
As always, Gedaliya comes along and demonstrates how perfectly he fits that description:
gathering places for the Bush-hating left.
hate-Bush left
And I love how he keeps telling Glenn that his crediblity is being destroyed and he is being marginalized even as Glenn's readership and voice grows every week. This is now the 50th most read blog on the Internet after 4 months. Glenn broke a story last month that made it into every major media outlet and the mouths of every Senator on the Judicary Committee. Yeah, real credibility-destruction and marginalization.
Can we ignore this moron? He contributes nothing except empty talking points and has never said anything substantive or interesting since he got here.
Boy, is gedaliya getting dull. No more arguments left but ad hominem and vitriol.
ReplyDeleteDid you ever look into the Nixon thing, gedaliya, or is that another fact you'd just rather avoid acknowledging?
I am very much afraid that [the Nixon law] is how the conflict betwen the Republican Congress and the White House will be resolved.
Yes, me too.
Indeed, Republicans are all fighting with each other on virtually every aspect of this scandal - when have we ever seen that?"
ReplyDelete(Leaving aside the contention whether "all" Republicans are fighting on every aspect..)
Sure. During Watergate. There was much party infighting and backbiting.
It was only after the live, televised hearings that brought home to the American people the enormity of what had taken place that Republicans heard from their constituents and realized the jig was up.
As long as a scandal is forced to stay in the closet and be argued, massaged, cajoled and otherwise shaped by the offending party the American people, by and large, will be confused and left in the dark - their opinion unheard. The power of that opinion cannot be underestimated.
clearly, the administration knows better
ReplyDeleteSeems like an odd claim -- we are talking about an administatin that stole 2 elections. Their response to the 2000 fiasco was to advocate (and pass) sham legislation that made the theft of 2004 easier.
Doen't sound like someone that "knows better" to me...
After a person starts commiting high crimes and treason, the endless tails of lies and illegal activities to maintain control and a semblance of "legitimacy" continues to grow.
Guess I only wish that people would talk more about the people BEHIND this administration -- yes, there ARE MORE POWERFUL PEOPLE THAN CHENEY AND ROVE!
They know that to be effective, they need to maintain influence outside of the public arena.
Chimpy is probably stupid enough to think he is the most powerful man on earth and cheney might be too. Rove is just doing what needs to be done to promote an agenda that comes from outside of the WH.
I apologize if I have become boring on the subject of the Nixon Law, but I am very much afraid that this is how the conflict betwen the Republican Congress and the White House will be resolved.
ReplyDeleteI don't think they will ever get a majority in Senate to agree to just give the Administration an exemption to the law which it has already taken unilaterally and secretly on its own.
Look at what Lindsey Graham said about this solution:
I am adamant that the courts have some role when it comes to warrants. If you're going to follow an American citizen around for an extended period of time believing they're collaborating with the enemy, at some point in time, you need to get some judicial review, because mistakes can be made."
As much as I dislike Graham, he has a backbone and he wouldn't say something like this publicly - "I am adamant" that eavesdropping on Americans needs judicial review - if there were any chance he would go back on his word. And he does have credibility and influence with other Senators. Specter said the same thing - that he is adamantly opposed to the DeWine solution. There is no way they will get 50 Senators to simply hand them a pass from adhering to the law.
And, at the end of the day, as I keep saying, what will ultimately determine the outcome of this scandal is whether the public gets more engaged in this. That is the number one priority. I am working on a number of different fronts in that regard. I hope to be able to announce something very soon that I think is extremely exciting and can be quite significant (people got a little skittish with things last week thinking the scandal will die, which is one of the reasons I wanted to work hard to kill that extremely misguided perception last week). I am also working with some of the biggest bloggers to develop a targeted campaign that everyone is on board with to use the numbers we have in the blogosphere to move this scandal the right way. For it to be effective, we need all of the large blogs and their readers working in concert.
Channeling public opinion is, by far, the most important goal. If we just leave the Congress to do what it wants and leave the scandal to take its course, it will fizzle out through inertia like all the others have. But there is the potential here if the public begins to realize just what is at stake. I genuinely believe they can be made to realize it. We just need to figure out the right strategy to make that happen.
For whatever reasons, it is extremley important to the WH to eavesdrop without judicial oversight.
ReplyDeleteGee, glen, respectfully have to ask if part of that "motivation" is that it took crooked elections to win their "accountability moments" in the first place.
I don't expect discussion boards to constantly remind us of this, in fact, it might even be counterproductive in some circles.
An analysis of the 2004 exit polls, which were only wrong in districts where chimpy won with "vote-flippin" software essentially proves we do not have an actual democracy.
The rest of the world accepts that chimpy did not win in 2000. In fact, it took a SCOTUS decision that proclaimed you could not tell who won an election by counting the votes to "install" the chimperor.
Do ya think that there is some policial spying going on that has nothing to do with national security?
LOL
High crimes and treason demand rigorous and equally illegal action to maintain power. Our problem is not chimpy and the people we see in public -- its those that put this crew up to this in the first place.
Largely, they stay "hidden," but they would not be hard to find -- there is a HUGE money trail.
I can't imagine they will now accept oversight.
ReplyDeleteSerious understantment, Glenn, after all -- THEY WILL NOT ACCEPT FREE, OPEN, VERIFIABLE ELECTIONS EITHER!
An analysis of the 2004 exit polls, which were only wrong in districts where chimpy won with "vote-flippin" software essentially proves we do not have an actual democracy.
ReplyDeleteYou probably know this, but the central vote tabulating machines are also built by Diebold and ES&S, and are just as insecure - by design, ostensibly because of cost! - as the touchscreen machines, but have received even less security analysis and public oversight than the more infamous touchscreen machines.
If one were planning on rigging an election, it would be far more cost-effective to attack the central tabulators than the machines at the end-points of the network.
Security expert Bruce Schneier has a lucid cost/benefit analysis of election fraud here.
I can't imagine they will now accept oversight. For one thing, it will reveal that they could have eavesdropped all along with judicial oversight. Moreover, they have staked out the position that eavesdropping outside of FISA is critical to our national security - how can they now revert to eavesdropping only within the parameters of FISA oversight? If FISA is first revised and they say they can now eavesdrop in accordance with it, it shows that they could have just amended FISA all along.
ReplyDeleteThey've really painted themselves into a corner. We can't let Congress not take advantage of this.
I am also working with some of the biggest bloggers to develop a targeted campaign that everyone is on board with to use the numbers we have in the blogosphere to move this scandal the right way.
Again, thanks!
This 'go for broke' attitude the administration has on preventing any congressional meddling or oversight does cause an eyebrow to go up. Even if our 'elected by mandate' leader was a kind and thoughtful benevolent person, which is not a current accusation, one would question the fanatical zeal with which this policy is adhered to. A common tactic used by apologists is that you should not fear eavesdropping if you are doing nothing wrong. Ditto. A little light over here please on this NSA thing spying on god knows who.
ReplyDeleteThe proper tactic for casting sunshine on this abuse is as Glenn points out utilizing the real power: the American public. I've always thought that lobbyists short circuit the democratic process by peddling influence instead of information. For this abuse to be drug kicking and screaming into the sunshine, an informed electorate should demand action. Kudos to Senator footdrags hometown paper in Kansas for raising an eyebrow as well. That is an important development.
-"That, of course, is the type of fear-driven, principle-less advice that has led Democrats to three straight defeats."
ReplyDeleteExactly. And I don't think Rahm Emmanuel or Hillary Clinton are listening to you at all because if they were then that would mean they should embrace that indepently thinking Paul Hackett and find a place for him in the party. But no, for them it's stay the course and pander to that small percentage of the republican base - a base of barely 37% I might add which amount begs the question of Why bother? when you can go after the other 63% - but what does the great unwashed know?
As has been written here and elsewhere this administration is neither republican nor conservative and surely not libertarian but what they are about is power - absolute control, it's how Rove et al cut their teeth as young republicans and how all of his campaigns have operated. So their trying to end run the hearings leads me to speculate that not only would we find that they've been spying on everyday law abiding americans and most likely the political opposition but also spying on members of their own party and if Hagel and Snowe and other patriotic senators of the right discover this then they - all of them, Rove, Cheney, Bush, Libby - would and should be charged with the crimes that they've been getting away committing these last 5 years.
The LA Times has an article about the White House Liberties Board which exists, so far, just on paper.
ReplyDeleteMaybe something like this will be a fig leaf that the Republicans use to look like they’ve taken a stand, when it reality such a board would be powerless, letting Bush/Cheney do what they want. It reports to Bush, not Congress, not FISA and has no subpoena power.
Maybe they’ll get this board (or some facsimile of it) in place to resolve the stand-off between Republicans and the White House. That way it will give the appearance of oversight, but Bush will determine what they’ll see and what they won’t.
If the administration won’t compromise, they at least must give some “cover” so that Roberts and company look like they are protecting civil liberties.
While Republicans (and Rove) may pretend that this is a winning issue for them, I think most want to get this controversy out of the way before the election nears. The longer it goes on, the more the public will be concerned – they’ll start asking why Graham, Spector (and others) are making a big deal out of this.
Kudos to Senator footdrags hometown paper in Kansas for raising an eyebrow as well. That is an important development.
ReplyDeleteAnd it reflects a broad-based reality. I live in an equally red area, voted for Bush in '04, and have friends, co-workers and family who did as well.
Many, many such people have become very soured on George Bush and the current crop of GOP. The overwhelming perception is one of incompetence.
Anyone who is employed in the are of social work, human services, health care (including pharamcists), or who is elderly or disabled, is going insane with the Medicare D program. It just isn't possible to put into words how Byzantine and unworkable that program is. People are extemely frustrated and scared about their drug coverage, and service providers are going bonkers trying to navigate this debacle.
Add in Katrina, Abu Ghraib, the problems in Iraq...lots of folks are very down on Bush, including a whole lot who voted for him.
John Brownlow said...
ReplyDeleteI find all these shenanigans somewhat perplexing. If the domestic warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional, which it arguably is, then no law Congress can pass can make it constitutional. That seems to be a key point that is being ignored.
----------------------
Glenn can dance around this point all day long, but the fact is if it wasn't for inherent powers, Bush would already be impeached.
There is no way Bush's program is unconstitutional and that is why he is operating from a position of power.
That's why we are now in what is the politics mode. Each side wants to appear to win. Glenn makes it sound like Bush and Rove are scared. That's a laugh. Bush and Rove aren't perceived as weak on terror, democrats are. So each side will strut around and claim victory. FISA will be revised to make Bush's program legal with some stipulations for warrants for longer term surveillance as Graham suggests. Glenn likes to pump the story as a scandal that won't go away and Bush and Rove have fear in their hearts that this controversy will destroy them, but in reality this is simply the political haggling that happens every day and at the end of the day Bush will maintain the warrantless surveillances.
Greenwald, I hope you're reading this. I've been noticing the backlash that's been coming down on you throughout the blogosphere. Right-wing blogs have now noticed that yous is one of the most persuasive, well-thought out and well-written blogs on the Internet so they're attacking you for some of the most spurious reasons imaginable. Some "Dennis" horse's ass even tries to paint you as some racist hate-monger. Forget about it. It's all because you're connecting with readers and you're influencing opinion. If you can somehow separate the personal attacks, you should see it all as a sign that you are succeeding. Your writing has moved me to a level of activism I never would have considered, and I'm constantly telling people that they have to read you.
ReplyDeleteHere's a bit of unsolicited advice: Ignore the baiting by bitches like Glen Reynolds. The wingosphere will try to send punks like him after you to see if they can get you into some pissing contest that will inevitably marginalize and trivialize your message. Screw 'em.
You are doing one terrific job. Hammer at it every day and know that there are people like me out here, hundreds of thousands I'm sure, who read you with great enjoyment and are persuaded by your arguments. Keep it up, brother.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteGlenn,
This is not encouraging. Is the only remedy against illegal behaviour by the government to go through the committees? Is there no suit that can be filed? And by whom?
There are several cases pending and this *important ruling* for documents to be turned over by the DOJ for a suit proceeding on this NSA program.
It is time to have a bit of Judicial input on both the illegalities and the Constitutionality of this issue. And these cases are proceeding on that path.
If read Glenn's comment about 9 or 10 comments down from the top, you'll see something that's crucial to the entire discussion: That the administration will never allow any judicial oversight of their domestic wiretapping program. Glenn lists a few of the possible reasons, but it all comes down to the fact that Bush doesn't want anybody to know what he's doing. The oversight wouldn't hurt the intelligence gathering one little bit, but if some judge were to see who exactly is getting snooped it might upset the whole applecart. If not right now then in 5 months when the electronic version of breaking into a psychiatrist's office jumps off.
ReplyDeleteGreenwald, you're hitting a nerve. Don't stop now.
Or they are putting national security ahead of politics. Something Glenn just can't seem to get his head around.
ReplyDeleteThat would be so much more pleasant to believe, wouldn't it?
I can't believe national security is a priority for this administration anymore. They just use the rhetoric of national security to excuse their abuses of power.
It's all just playing with words to them, but some of actually care about the ideals those words describe.
ugly american and anonymous I give you your argument so let's have the Bush Administration through the AG turn over all the relavent docs to congressional committees with the clearance to review "national security" info that the vice has the power to declassify and then let's take it to the judicial branch and have the judges look at it - if Comey and Ashcroft had a problem and the judges of the FISA court had a problem and Sentelle had a problem then let the administration follow the constitution and use "checks and balances" to guide the program and if the legislative and judicial overrule the executive then I guess the hysterical blogs had a point.
ReplyDeleteI agree that moving public opinion is important in the long run, but this is an election year, and the White House's strategy on this scandal will be to try to politicize it, and to push Republican Senators to think that they will hurt their party's electoral prospects if they side with Democrats. For that reason, Democrats create political space for Specter, Snowe, Graham, and other relative moderates on the GOP side if they keep relative quiet. If the issue becomes polarized, and seen as a partisan one, then it will be that much harder for Republicans to break with the White House -- not that I like it at all, but the voters have put the country in that situation.
ReplyDeleteThe Dem's lack the killer instint. They do not want to be seen as the bad guys. They think that it is better to let the Rep. cook in their own juices. The Problem is that the Reps are great at marshalling their support and pulling themselves out of the pot. The Reps however, do have the killer instinct, and that is why I predict they will win the White House in the next race. KF
ReplyDeleteThe (non) strategy of the Dems in Congress is hard to fathom. They seem to be willing to hand credit for whatever cleaning up of the eavesdropping scandal over to the Repubs, thus losing the high ground they might have gained come the elections in November. Their silence in failing to support the few lonely Democratic voices, such as Rep. Conyers, is disgraceful. People are going to start thinking, thank God for the Republicans, who are the ones trying to bring things back into balance. Time is running out for the Dems to pull together on a strategy and making noises about stopping this scandal. If they want to continue to be party to the self-castration of Congress, then what claim to they have for our support?
ReplyDeleteAnd another thing. Where is the full court press on the WH blunders from the press, and or Dems. Where is Al Franken, Gore, Dean, et al on the misteps of the WH. We see problem, hear explanation, and get spin from Fox, Rush, Hannady, ect. Why don't we look at this like a touch football game and the DNC assign a pundent to a blunder. Why havent the DNC called for presure on the following:
ReplyDeleteDelay
VP Shooting
NSA Gate
CIA Leak
Iraq War Lies
New Orleans
Commitment to Palestine State
Drilling in Artic
Social Security Accounts
Health Plan Disaster
No Money for Homeland Defense
No Presence at NAACP
No Desire for 9-11 Commission
KF
Dissing Glenn Reynolds is stupid. He isn't a Bush-lover or a conservative, and insists he is a libertarian, which is certainly how I have always read him:
ReplyDeleteAs a libertarian myself, I'd love to see the nation run under small-government principles (which is part of what people are talking about here), but I also recognize that there's no very substantial base of electoral support for that.
That link from which that quote is taken, takes you to his discussion of Bruce Bartlett's attack on Bush from the right, as well as Reynolds' ongoing preoccupation with big-spending Republicans.
As for Dennis the Peasant, he is an embittered man who is angry at Reynolds and the Pajamas Media gang for what he believes was their defrauding and betrayal of him. I've briefly read him on the other Glenn -- Greenwald -- and he just doesn't know what he is talking about. He's not important. But Glenn Reynolds is, and is reasonable.
"Anyone who speaks with even the most liberal advocacy groups, supposedly left-wing pundits, Democratics consultants, etc. will tell you that they all still think this is a scandal which Democrats should just let go."
ReplyDeleteI keep reading statements like that, but I can't remember ever seeing a Democrat or consultant actually quoted. I know Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman and Mary Matalin say this is awful for the democrats, but who on our side says it?
Is this just one of those memes that everyone knows is true? If its true, I think we'd like to know who's making such idiotic noises so we can slap them down.
I'm curious as to whether Glenn Greenwald has heard of the (soon to be well-known) In re: Sealed Case, which was the focus of a recent article by Byron York in the 2/27/06 issue of the National Review.
ReplyDeleteIn re: Sealed Case was the result of an action undertaken by the administration in 2002 to clarify the president's authority in regard to warrantless surveillance. The case was ultimately heard in front of the FISA Court of Review, which was designed to arbitrate disputes between the FISA and the administration.
In November 2002 the Court of Review issued its ruling, which was a "slam dunk" for the administration. The ruling was eventually appealed to the SCOTUS, which declined to hear the appeal.
In York's words:
...the Court of Review did one more thing, something that has repercussions in today’s surveillance controversy. Not only could the FISA Court not tell the president how do to his work, the Court of Review said, but the president also had the “inherent authority” under the Constitution to conduct needed surveillance without obtaining any warrant — from the FISA Court or anyone else. Referring to an earlier case, known as Truong, which dealt with surveillance before FISA was passed, the Court of Review wrote: “The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”
It was a clear and sweeping statement of executive authority. And what was most likely not known to the Court of Review at the time was that the administration had, in 2002, started a program in which it did exactly what the Court of Review said it had the power to do: order the surveillance of some international communications without a warrant.
York concludes:
Today, the opinion stands as a bedrock statement of presidential power. And ironically, it came from a case that was not about whether the president had overstepped his bounds, but about whether the courts had overstepped their bounds. The Court of Review ruled strongly in favor of the president, and the Supreme Court declined to reconsider that decision. Reading the opinion, it’s no wonder that George W. Bush has so strongly defended the surveillance program. If the FISA Court of Review is right, he has the Constitution on his side.
It is clear the the NSA program controversy is far more complex (and to use a word much favored by the left), and nuanced than Glenn Greenwald has so far deigned to admit.
Once again to emphasize the point: this dispute is not, by any definition of the word, a "scandal." And more importantly, it is a certainty that in the end the president's authority to continue to undertake the NSA program in its present form (warrantless) will be confirmed absolutely.
At that point Glenn and his minions will have to move on to some other non-issue in their futile attempt to discredit and ultimately destroy the Bush administration and its war on terror.
It's very simple. Bush is spying on whoever he wants to spy on.
ReplyDeletePeriod.
What also ticks me off is that while the Dems had a lovely opportunity to step up and take this bull by the horns, they then seemingly back down just in time for Repubs to step in with concerns.....AGAIN. Jaysus Dems, WTF are you guys thinking????
a lot of Democrats are pushing - they can get only so far with minority status...
ReplyDeletethe talk of the scandals fading seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy for the Bush team, or at least that’s what they’d like it to be…
the notion that illegal activities will be good for Republicants is classic Rovian reverse logic… they’d better hope their minions are still asleep enough so as to not see that for the BS it is…
if Bushies think his actions are legal, why not allow investigations and oversight to calm objections from both sides?
To people like Snowe and Hagel I say don’t take calls… don’t be malleable on your convictions… don’t give anyone the chance to talk you down…
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteYou are like Gandalf to Al From's Wormtongue.
Orin Kerr on In Re Sealed Case, my emphasis:
ReplyDeleteAs for the 9 words of dicta from In re Sealed Case — "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power" — I find it hard to know what to make of it. In that case, the government was arguing that the statutory warrant requirement of FISA made monitoring pursuant to that requirement constitutionally reasonable. Was the court claiming that Congress could not impose a warrant requirement where a warrant would not required under the Fourth Amendment? That would reverse the usual role of the Fourth Amendment: it would transform the Fourth Amendment from a floor on privacy protections into a ceiling. Or is the Court merely saying that if FISA were repealed, the President's constitutional power from pre-FISA days would still exist? I'm not entirely sure, and unfortunately the opinion doesn't carefully explain it. If this phrase stands for the view that Article II powers trump FISA's restrictions, then I would certainly want more authority than that; Congress thought it was binding the executive when it passed FISA, and it would be news justifying more than 9 words of dicta if this weren't the case.
Why Graham or anyone else thinks it would be productive to pass another law requiring judicial approval when we already have that law in place is a bit of a mystery.
ReplyDeleteI commented on this point on an earlier thread, but I think the answer is simple: This administration insists what it is doing is leag, based upon the AG's bizzare interpretation of the law. The findings of the senate committee, whatever they may be, will not make one iota of difference to this administration, who will simply "agree to disagree" and will continue the spying program regardless. Until they are forced to stop by law.
A lawsuit would involve very sensitive classified information, is likely to drag on for years, and presumably any judgement would be based on the exisiting law. In which case, the congress would continue to be ultimately responsible for oversight of the FISA court. (And still subject to behind the scenes arm-twisting and political chicanery by the WH)
The value of a new law is surely that it would be very difficult for the WH to mis-interpret. Even the AG could hardly dispute the intent of the new law, given that the authors of the legislation could explain to the AG and the public exactly how their law is meant to work and precisely what activities their law regulates.
ReplyDeleteYou must feel incredibly stupid for voting for this pathetic clown in '04 because his incompetence was already abundantly in evidence then for anyone paying the slightest attention.
Angry, is more like it -- and also with the Democrats. I and many would not vote for John Kerry; having him as the only other realistic option made it a hell of a "choice" for some of us.
In any event, it would not well serve the interests of partisan Democrats to characterize those who voted for Bush and who now are disgusted with him as "stupid." (Among other things, for a lot of us, the turning point was the Schiavo craziness, which was a post-election debacle.) Calling people stupid is no way to engender their support.
Gedaliya:
ReplyDeleteI'm highly skeptical of any information that primarily comes from a blatantly biased magazine. (Yes, that includes right- and left-leaning mags as well) This is doubly true when I can't read the article in question online. Do you have another source to back this up?
gedaliya, if your new legal argument is valid, if it's as simple as all that, why has the administration not advanced that argument, rather than their "inherent powers" mumbo-jumbo?
ReplyDeletehypatia:
ReplyDeletei've been a daily reader og this blog since january and i always make time for the comments. they are some of the best on the web. i include yours in that; they are thoughtful and it is really enlightening to see comments from someone whose political leanings are so clearly different from mine. makes Glenn's assertions that the offenses and issues involved in this scandal transcend political ideology ring true, eh?
regrading a statement you made:
"I and many would not vote for John Kerry; having him as the only other realistic option made it a hell of a "choice" for some of us."
out of curiosity, why is that? what is so damn terrible about john kerry?
-amutepiggy (no blogger identity)
gedaliya, if your new legal argument is valid, if it's as simple as all that, why has the administration not advanced that argument, rather than their "inherent powers" mumbo-jumbo?
ReplyDeleteI don't speak for the administration, so I don't know why this argument hasn't been previously advanced, but I do know that Byron York has excellent sources inside the White House, so my guess is that the administration felt the timing is right to publicize the In re: Sealed Case at this time.
BTW, I would love to provide a link to the York article, but as of now it is only available to subscribers. I'll try and get permission to provide a link and if so, I'll post it here (and elsewhere).
Lindsey Graham putting citizen, warrant, and adamant in the same paragraph is a good start.
ReplyDeleteIs it possible there will be discussion beyond the terror and fear inducing soundbite?
Are we now supposed to just trust our leaders? Let us not forget the words of that noted leftist loon Ronald Wilson Reagan: Trust, but verify.
Clearly the Bush Administration is terrified of an investigation into warrentless wiretapping because like every scandal they ar involved in, the truth is far worse than what we first learn or even imagine. My guess is that they did illegal wiretaps on political opponents, and if revealed will include everyone from Harry Reid to George Clooney. Since the keystone for this Admin is Nixon, with Cheney as Tricky Dick and Bush as a front man who doesn't actually know all the details, it is highly likely that the illegal wiretaps parallel those of the Nixon White House, home of the Enemies List.
ReplyDeleteI don't speak for the administration, so I don't know why this argument hasn't been previously advanced, but I do know that Byron York has excellent sources inside the White House, so my guess is that the administration felt the timing is right to publicize the In re: Sealed Case at this time.
ReplyDeleteHow stupid is Gedaylia? This case has been around for 2 months. It's called "dicta" - can someone please explain what that is to Gedaylia. LOL - shows how much he knows about any of this. He finds a 2-month old discarded argument and runs here like a kid who found a new lollipop and then starts idiotically speculating about how the White House is "rolling this" out now.
What an F-ing moron. The commenters here, even the pro-Bush ones, are usually smarter than this.
And the right-wing Orin Kerr just explained in the excerpt above why this is a meaningless, irrelevant passage.
The fact that the Administration has to rely on a 9-word line of dicta from a lower court shows you the "merit" of their legal defense for breaking the law.
This is also linked to at The Left Coaster's handy list of talking points: The 2002 Appeals Court Myth (Think Progress)
ReplyDeleteA column in this morning’s Chicago Tribune by John Schmidt argues that Bush’s secret domestic surveillance program was legal. (Byron York posted a portion of the piece on the National Review website under the title “READ THIS IMPORTANT ARTICLE“) It features this selectively edited excerpt from a 2002 decision by the FISA appeals court:
“All the … courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence…We take for granted that the president does have that authority.”
Actually, the quote doesn’t begin with the word “all”; it begins “The Truong court, as did all the other courts…” The Truong case was decided in 1978 — the same year FISA was passed — and did not deal with the FISA law. As the court noted right before the excerpt, “Truong dealt with a pre-FISA surveillance… it had no occasion to consider the application of the statute…” The Truong case dealt with the President’s power in the absence of a congressional statute.
This is critically important because FISA specifically prohibits the warrantless domestic searches that the President authorized. As Chief Justice Roberts explained in his recent confirmation hearings, referrencing the landmark Supreme Court case Youngstown Sheet, “where the president is acting contrary to congressional authority…the president’s authority is at its lowest ebb.”
The article also conveniently omits the two sentences after the excerpt:
It was incumbent upon the [Truong] court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power. The question before us is the reverse…
All the court is saying here is that whether FISA imposes limits on the President’s authority is not an issue in this case. It was an issue in the Troung case but, as the court explains, “[T]he question before us is the reverse.”
We are losing, and will continue to lose, the electoral fraud issue because it is being framed in the wrong terms.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with respect to electronic voting is not that there are plausible reasons to orchestrate large-scale electoral fraud, as well as plausible reasons to believe that it might in fact be going on.
The problem with respect to electronic voting is that NOBODY CAN PROVE THAT IT IS HONEST.
As long as voting machine vendors insist on running proprietary software and refuse to make it available for public inspection, we have no reason NOT to believe they are cheating.
This is a problem that screams for an open-source solution.
Byron York does have very nice hair.
ReplyDeleteNever mind, I found the case here.
ReplyDeleteI'm about the furthest thing from a lawyer that there is, but the case doesn't seem to be about whether the president has the authority to override FISA at all. Instead, it deals with whether FISA, as amended by the Patriot Act, is constitutional or not, and finds that it is constitutional.
Ironically, this finding seems to imply the opposite of gedaliya's argument -- since FISA is affirmed to be constitutional, the president has no excuse to ignore it. The whole argument that FISA should be ignored because it is "outdated" law or somehow invalid goes out the window. However, that's just an inferrence and not the actual court finding. The court restricts itself to simply ruling on the constitutionality of FISA.
The key graf for York seems to be this one:
"We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”
The context of this is the Truong case, which the opinion mentions earlier (emphasis mine):
The origin of what the government refers to as the false dichotomy between foreign
intelligence information that is evidence of foreign intelligence crimes and that which is not
appears to have been a Fourth Circuit case decided in 1980. United States v. Truong Dinh
15
Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980). That case, however, involved an electronic surveillance
carried out prior to the passage of FISA and predicated on the President’s executive power.
In approving the district court’s exclusion of evidence obtained through a warrantless
surveillance subsequent to the point in time when the government’s investigation became
“primarily” driven by law enforcement objectives, the court held that the Executive Branch
should be excused from securing a warrant only when “the object of the search or the
surveillance is a foreign power, its agents or collaborators,” and “the surveillance is conducted
‘primarily’ for foreign intelligence reasons.” Id. at 915. Targets must “receive the protection
of the warrant requirement if the government is primarily attempting to put together a criminal
prosecution.” Id. at 916. Although the Truong court acknowledged that “almost all foreign
intelligence investigations are in part criminal” ones, it rejected the government’s assertion
that “if surveillance is to any degree directed at gathering foreign intelligence, the executive
may ignore the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 915.
So it seems to send mixed signals: on the one hand, it mentions that, if the object of the search is a foreign agent, the government is excused from getting a FISA warrant. On the other hand, it said the government is *not* excused from ignoring Fourth Amendment protections.
In light of this conflict, the Sealed Case opinion doesn't go into these waters. Instead, it merely assumes the corollary argument that the POTUS has "inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." (note there is no mention of domestic or foreign surveillance, a crucial distinction) is correct for the sake of deciding the larger argument of FISA's constitutionality.
Glenn, I would appreciate your reading of this, and any other lawyers out there may rip me to shreds, but this Secret Case seems to be completely irrelevant to our discussion.
Marty Lederman on In Re Sealed Case (my emphasis, as I think it is impt to understand that we are discussing a few words of dicta with no precedential value):
ReplyDeleteThe Administration's defenders are citing a 2002 dictum by the FISA Court of Review: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority [to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information] and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power." In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (FIS Ct. Rev. 2002) (emphasis added). That throwaway line -- not germane to the holding in that case -- was almost certainly written by Judge Laurence Silberman, who (I am told) testified in his personal capacity to the same effect in the mid-1970's, when FISA was being considered. The dictum is, in my view, dead wrong, not because the President doesn't have the authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information -- in the absence of statutory restriciton, he probably does -- but because even if he does, FISA can and does "encroach" on (i.e., modestly regulate) that authority. More to the point, however, Congress and the President rejected Silberman's unorthodox constitutional view when they enacted FISA, and the FISA system has worked for almost three decades on the assumption -- shared, as far as I am aware, by all three branches, without any dissent until Silberman's stray dictum -- that its modest constraints are not unconstitutional usurpations of presidential authority.
It seems obvious to me that the reason that Bush won't or can't allow judicial oversite is because his warrantless spying won't pass muster under judicial review. And I believe that he is also afraid to reveal the full details to the inteligence oversite committees in the House and Senate because it won't pass muster there either.
ReplyDeleteWe all know this administration lies as in 2004 when to paraphrase Bush: Nothing has changed, when you hear that we are going after terrorists there is a warrant involved. When in fact he knew full well that warrantless wiretapping was going on.
Just the other day Condolences Rice was testifying in Congress and stated that more Iraqis were now getting water and electricity services. But when pinned down, she finally admitted that although capacity had increased that in fact it was to fewer people.
These are people who in my opinion would lie even when it would be easier to tell the truth.
The latest is of course to paraphrase Bush again: This is a very limited program. And: If Al Qaida is calling you we want to know why.
I sincerely suspect that the warrantless spying progam is a much more extensive program than what is being revealed by Bush and crew.
Most likely involving computers that have voice recognition software that will pick up keywords and phrases such as bomb, explosive, attack, blow up, blew up, etc. in multiple languages. When those are recognized by computer then the numbers are flagged and tagged for listening into by an analyst.
So when Maria (a mom) calls her mother in Spain and tells her that she had a real blow up with Margarita (her daughter) over something that happened the numbers get flagged and tagged for further listening and evaluation by an analyst.
My guess is that a whole lot of innocent calls are being listened to because of massive indiscriminate computer screening with a lot of triggers, rather than being a limited program that has a limited number of known Al Qaida numbers that are being listened for. Remember the Air Force general talking about softer triggers?
And I suspect that Bush justifies this to himself by rationalizing the invasion of privacy and violations of the fourth amendment are necessary to prevent another attack by Al Qaida or any other terrorist or would be terrorist.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteMarty Lederman on In Re Sealed Case (my emphasis, as I think it is impt to understand that we are discussing a few words of dicta with no precedential value):
ReplyDeleteWell, there is one other fact that none of the above critics consider, quoting York:
After the decision was handed down, the American Civil Liberties Union, which had submitted a brief in support of the FISA Court’s actions restricting the administration, asked the Supreme Court to review In re: Sealed Case. The justices declined to take any action. That is not the same as the Court’s upholding the ruling, but it does mean that the justices looked at the decision and chose not to intervene.
If the dictum was legally incorrect, why didn't the SCOTUS (after 2002) shoot it down?
While the warrantless wiretapping engaged in by the White House is unconstitutional and illegal, I am not optimistic that the Democrats will launch an investigation. Dem Senators read the polls that show most members of the public: 1) aren't paying close attention to the issue; 2) for those who do know about it, they aren't particularly upset by it. Yes, these opinions can vary depending on the way the polling questions are written, but there is not a goundswell of public opposition to the warrantless wiretapping.
ReplyDeleteIt is a painful truth that most members of the public willingly and gladly yield privacy for protection and will accept abuses of their right to privacy in the name of protecting national security. The Red Scare of the 1920's, the Black Lists of the fifties, and the domestic spying scandals of the sixties were not met with broad public backlash.
Fear mongering, such as that engaged in by Rove et al, works. Fear of another terrorist attack has been stoked since September 12, 2001. It allowed the Republicans to win the 2002 midterms (the Max Cleland tv ads being the most vicious example of Republican fear mongering) and the 2004 Presidential elections. And don't forget the recently released details of the "plot" against L.A. sky scrapers. The Bush response to any organized Congressional inquiry into the warrantless wiretapping will be more leaks of terrorist plots, more attacks against Dems as being soft on terrorism, and more Democratic Senators scared to death they will be perceived as being weak.
While I think it is great news that bloggers are working together to push this story, I am not optimistic that Democratic Senators will get behind it in an election year. All it takes is the shameful memory of the spineless Democratic support of the war resolution (Clinton and Kerry both shaking in their boots at being seen as soft of terrorism) to deflate any hope that a rigorous and sustained inquiry into the wiretapping will be initiated.
Please, someone prove me wrong, but any knowledge of twentieth century American history suggests the wiretapping violations will not result in the scandal we all might hope.
The dicta is important because it does recognize the executive branch's inherent powers for warrantless surveillance. It looks at FISA compared to the 4th amendment and said that even with secret courts it is still constitutional. So we are back to square one. Bush has inherent powers and FISA says he doesn't.
ReplyDeleteI wish people would quit writing it is a debunked argument just because Truong was pre-FISA. The ruling was in 2002, way past FISA and still brushed some of the current issues.
And the right-wing Orin Kerr just explained in the excerpt above why this is a meaningless, irrelevant passage.
ReplyDeleteActually, that quote from Kerr is a few months old -- as you note, this "argument" has been around for a while and has been thoroughly debunked. (It is not the best form not to embed a link when I quote people; I'm having computer issues that make it hard for me to do too much at one time, so I apologize.)
To those wondering why I didn't vote for Kerry, suggesting I'm a Republican and etc. I've engaged such questions a very few times here before, and it is prime thread derailment and flame-invitation material. There are a lot of different ideologies represented at this site, but no dearth of partisan Democrats. I really don't want to get into issues that would anger them.
I'm an independent libertarian. I voted for Bush, but feel no strong sense of loyalty to him at all, and have always held some enormous objections to his policies, as well as those of the modern GOP in general. So, when he screws up, and certainly when he violates the law, I am unimpeded by partisan or emotional tugs that prevent me from opposing him.
If the dictum was legally incorrect, why didn't the SCOTUS (after 2002) shoot it down?
ReplyDeleteBecause, again, it wasn't germane to the case. The SCOTUS didn't want to review the finding of the case, which had to do with the constitutionality of FISA post-Patriot Act, not whether the president had authority to ignore FISA.
In the excerpts you provided, York seems to conflate the two arguments, which is common practice in publications of that sort.
The justices declined to take any action. That is not the same as the Court’s upholding the ruling, but it does mean that the justices looked at the decision and chose not to intervene.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court accepts a minute fraction of less than 1% of the cases which they are asked to reivew. For that reason, they repeatedly emphasize that their refusal to hear a case has NO MEANING WHATSOEVER and must not be used to suggest that they approve of anything in the opinions they don't review.
The LAST THING they would ever do is to accept a case to correct dicta! The whole point of dicta is that it is IRRELEVANT - it has no precedental value. You think the Court is going to accept a case to correct a throw-away hypothetical line in a lower court case? LOL!!!!!
And nobody would have asked the Court to accept the case to correct "dicta" because the court in that case held that FISA was constitutional -in order words, that the law Bush violated was constitutional. Nobody cares about dicta because it has no meaning.
Are you really this ignorant or are you just trying to be annoying? Or is that you are so desperate to defend your Leader that you are spending the day madly googling looking for legal arguments advanced by others that you don't understand, but can come here and cut and paste?
My money is on all of the above.
How do you rule out the possibility that Snowe, Graham, and the rest are not "showing backbone," they're just staking out a negotiating position?
ReplyDeleteI would ordinarily agree with the 'negotiating position' theory, except that increasingly there is no middle to find, no difference to split.
Either Congress is a nullity, or it is not.
And it's probably the case that after Congress Republican and Democrat together, wins this round, that Bush will simply spool up an even-blacker program to continue to do whatever it is he's doing that cannot stand the light of day.
Unless the illegal activity is stopped and the perps are removed from office, there is no real resolution.
Actually, that quote from Kerr is a few months old -- as you note, this "argument" has been around for a while and has been thoroughly debunked.
ReplyDeleteIf the argument had been "thoroughly debunked" it wouldn't be appearing in the latest Naitonal Review. I suspect we'll be hearing a lot more about In re: Sealed Case in the coming weeks.
This administration is amazingly adept at catching its opponents flat-footed. In reality, it is almost child's play, given that the president's enemies are so frequently over-confident, smug, and arrogent. Time and time again he has watched his opponents punch themselves out, and waited until the exact right moment to knock them off their feet in the political arena.
There is a name for this strategy, one that came into the lexicon in 1974, when Ali beat Foreman in Zaire. It's called "rope-a-dope," and the president's been playing it like a master for his entire political career.
Anon: “It never ceases to amaze ... how anyone with an open mind would not be convinced.”
ReplyDeleteWell, Anon, let me share my problem with you. What I am looking for is a reason to vote for Democrats. WOW! That knee-jerk of yours just about got me! No, I am not setting up a diatribe against Democrats. I am sincere. I really like and admire Lieberman, but I know that I will never get a chance to vote for him. And Obama was looking good until McCain took him out. Anyway, take, for example, Glenn’s post here on foreign policy.
I get so tired of reading what I think of as “The Whine”. Ever get stuck out somewhere when it is cold and you have nothing in the car to eat or drink? With small children? Then you know. Those kids don’t want to hear about tow trucks or people walking a long way for help. You cannot reason with them. They just whine. So here is Glenn:
With his “Foreign policy incoherence”.
May I summarize? “Victory is impossible. Having dictators was better.” [simulated quote] He sets up the strawman about hearts and minds as a rhetorical device to lead him into reciting the tired litany of the bad things that have occurred in the past few years. OK. I read on, looking for something like: “The Democrats would never have gotten us here. Their strategic plan for _____ would have _____ and would lead to ______ and that would result in _____.” [simulated quote] Glenn said it all about the current Democratic plans when he said: “They are ... not thought-out strategic plans, and they shift like the wind whenever political expediency demands it.” Now that is fine for firing up the base and raising money, but it has absolutely nothing to attract my vote – and I want to be attracted! Not a tough audience at all.
The children (Democrats) are saying: “We’re cold, tired and hungry and we’re sick of waiting for our neighbor (who went for help) whose last cellphone call admitted he wasn’t absolutely sure that he was on the right road. We want to tell him and the towman to forget it and go home. We want our Mommie to take over. We love her and feel better when she is in charge.” What will she do? That is not clear. In fact she is in tears and just complains and complains – The Whine. Maybe she will magically think of something when she is our only hope.
Could be I just don’t understand. Do the Democrats want to bring the troops home to put them in all the ports to look for bombs? And the NSA “scandal”? Anyone anywhere in the world can read all my emails and always could. Anyone who wants to listen in on my cellphone can do that too – it isn’t even illegal. So someone listening to my land lines doesn’t get me all hot, you know? In fact, it’s kind of retro, if you know what I mean. THAT is the biggest issue out there? Most of the independents out here are much tougher than I.
I wish people would quit writing it is a debunked argument just because Truong was pre-FISA. The ruling was in 2002, way past FISA and still brushed some of the current issues.
ReplyDeleteThe ruling had nothing to do with whether Bush has the inherent authority to violate a criminal statute such as FISA. The nine words of dicta are literally meaningless, legally. (And intellectually, as noted by Kerr who explains how essentially inscrutable they are.)
Lederman, Kerr, almost any quote you can find about that dicta is old -- months old, because this has all been hashed through before.
The SCOTUS practices fierce triage. It rejects the vast majority of cert petitions in which it is asked to rule on an actual holding. The notion that it would accept a cert petition in order to repudiate or uphold nine words of dicta is beyond silly -- but York, and other lawyer shills for Bush at NR and elsewhere, rely on the ignorance of laypeople when they draft such nonsense.
The SCOTUS practices fierce triage. It rejects the vast majority of cert petitions in which it is asked to rule on an actual holding. The notion that it would accept a cert petition in order to repudiate or uphold nine words of dicta is beyond silly -- but York, and other lawyer shills for Bush at NR and elsewhere, rely on the ignorance of laypeople when they draft such nonsense.
ReplyDeleteWell, so you say. We'll soon see who will prevail in this political dispute. I am betting on the president, and I am also betting the In Re: Sealed Case will be one of the arrows in his quiver.
If the argument had been "thoroughly debunked" it wouldn't be appearing in the latest Naitonal Review. I suspect we'll be hearing a lot more about In re: Sealed Case in the coming weeks.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, you may be right. This sounds like just the sort of thing that Hannity, Limbaugh, and the other carnival barkers will repeat ad nauseam until FOX News makes it a "known fact" that the courts said it was OK for Bush to break the law.
I'll leave your political strategy analysis, such that it is, for others to dissect, but frankly, it doesn't sound to me like you've come here with an open mind to discuss these issues, or even the case you cited.
Though I still have hope in my heart that the NSA illegal spying debacle will, in fact, be investigated and the criminals that initiated and conducted it go to jail, I am still not certain it will be investigated.
ReplyDeleteThe other maddening thing about this, almost contrarywise to the Abramoff scandal, is that the cowering batch of Dems that want the whole thing to go away and the complementary NON-coherence of the Dem party as a whole on this is allowing the GOP to make it bipartisan...even to the point of any investigation being seen to be driven NOT from the Dems but from the GOP itself.
In other words, while the Dems keep weakly and incoherently struggling to keep the GOP from painting the Abramoff scandal from being seen as bipartisan, they are signally failing to be coherent and strong AGAINST the NSA illegal spying so that the GOP gets to fill the void and strengthen their own re-election prospects.
While I don't simply see this as an election issue (it is criminal and a Constitutional crisis), it could have been framed and handled so as to benefit the Dems far more than the GOP. As it is, the GOP is stepping forward enough to take an issue that the Dems could EASILY have owned for their benefit (and ours) and neutralizing it, even to the point of weakening a number of Dems who cower at the idea of an investigation.
The sheer level of Democratic disarray and incompetence on so many fronts that should be gifts from gods is astounding.
@Hypatia
ReplyDeleteWhy assume anyone calling you out for voting for the C+ Augustus in '04 is a "partisan Dem"?
I wrote the orignal post pointing out how his incompetence was already abundantly apparent to any objective observer paying the slightest bit of attention in 04, and I'm an antiwar libertarian if I had to be slotted as anything. I voted Nader in '04 (not that it mattered: I live in Alabama) because he was the only one calling the Iraq war what it was and is: a moronic, murderous, ruinous fiasco that the guy you voted for lied us into.
Whatever. Glad you've finally seen the light. Some never do, apparently.
Where the hell are the Democrats? Sure, there’s always a paltry handful of Dems who will stick their neck out for the good fight, but on the whole the Democratic party seems to run from a fight like roaches from a light.
ReplyDeleteThis argument has credible legal breaches to be exploited. It is sad when this Republican congress, which has marched lockstep with this administration on nearly every proposition, that they (Republican Congress) would be the one’s advancing the issue.
The Democrat's fear of looking weak on security only exacerbates their image of being weak, in general. I understand their fears, I truly do. I could just see it now…Dems form a strong stance against warrantless wiretapping- and bang…a terrorist attack. Bush has claimed this program is necessary so if it is reigned in- he will claim the Dems are responsible for the attack. The media has already formulated their opinion, as they parrot the republican talking points “if your against the program, you’re for less security.” The press will largely ignore any Republican opposition. Hell, Bush is already putting forth the ridiculous claim that exposing any information on this Program (which, as yet, is very scant) helps the enemy. You know his argument, should an attack occur, will be that the traitorous NYT and leakers are responsible for the attack.
All the spin and bad press play aside, it is better to fight on the right side of the law than to defend the breaking of the law. History has not been kind to those who cower in the face of tyrannies. The tyrants will be abhorred and the bystanders will be complicit by their idleness.
This is a good fight. Democrats need to take a stand. As Glenn has argued, the will of the people seems to have their back. It is time for congress to finally do its job and have our back, for a change.
Glenn, you wrote," There is no way they will cave on that principle - and there is no politically viable way to do so in light of all the claims they made about why they had to eavesdrop outside of FISA for the last 4 years." I think you may underestimate the Admin's willingness to chuck "principle" when polls or political expediency dictate. You also may be underestimating their ability to claim victory standing amid the rubble of defeat and, unfortunately, convince 40% of the country they won, strictly on their say-so. (I once had a friend like that, he'd lie to my face and silently dare me to call him on it, it just never seemed worth the trouble.) If summer polls indicate the issue may damage GOP mid-term candidates, the Admin will declare victory and go home.
ReplyDeletegedaliya - In answer to your question about SCOTUS review of In re Sealed Case - higher courts do not review dicta, only the issues that were properly before the lower court.
ReplyDeleteSam writes:
ReplyDelete...it doesn't sound to me like you've come here with an open mind to discuss these issues, or even the case you cited.
Hmmm. My guess is that the same can be accurately said of yourself, Sam.
Are you going to claim that your have no particular views either way regarding the president's NSA program and that a good argument either way will garner your support?
Such legal wrangling over minutae on warrantless domestic spying. ahem
ReplyDeleteThe claim is what troubles me. War powers claimed on Americans in America. Jail indefinitely with no charges, perhaps even torture and murder, if you believe Bush's signing statement on McCains anti torture bill. He is a man who does what he says and says what he does.
I too, wish elected dems would yell long and loud about this. It doesn't seem to be the America I grew up in. The president is claiming the right to do whatever he wants to Americans and the court or congress are powerless to stop him?
How hard is it to oppose such crap? And who could possibly be in favor of it? To keep my position at work, I have to do my job. Dems seem to feel they can keep their position only by not doing theirs.
As offensive and illegal as the NSA program seems to be, it occurs to me that the administration may have a technical point that would be difficult to resolve under FISA. It seems like the NSA doing some kind of wholesale driftnet-like interception and filtering of US persons' communications, and it is the scale of this interception that makes it "impractical" to submit to the FISA court, and undesireable to expose politically and technically. So here are the questions: (a) can/will the congress create legislation that legalizes this scale on interception, say at the machine-processed level, leaving a second tier of targets/comminication to be reviewed individually by a court and (b) would this level of (now legal, and presumably marginally useful) ubiquitous, background surveillance on everyone's communication be any less offensive to us or the Constitution?
ReplyDeleteIf anyone is interested, you can find what looks like the entire text of the York article at free republic. Google: "byron york" "listening to the enemy"
ReplyDeletegedaliya - In answer to your question about SCOTUS review of In re Sealed Case - higher courts do not review dicta, only the issues that were properly before the lower court.
ReplyDeleteThe ACLU did not appeal a dictum. It appealed a lower court's ruling (the FISA Court of Review). It was the ACLU's appeal of the court's entire ruling that the SCOTUS declined to hear.
I hope that ra is wrong but fear that he/she may be right.
ReplyDelete"Fear mongering, such as that engaged in by Rove et al, works."
I ran across this about propaganda the other day that I thought might be relevant to what ra was saying:
"Propaganda on a massive, organized scale dates to World War I, and the lessons learned in the often-crude application of WWI propaganda are ingrained in the spin doctors of the electronic world.
At its root, propaganda plays on emotions, often defying reason and facts in order to reach into the psyche of the audience. Propaganda is a mind game — the skillful propagandist plays with your deepest emotions, exploiting your greatest fears and prejudices."
Excerpted from an article by Floyd J. McKay
prunes--
ReplyDeletejust to clarify, using In re: Sealed Case is the same thing as using "inherent powers". In re: Sealed Case refers to Truong's citation of the executive's inherent powers.
gedaliya--
"I suspect we'll be hearing a lot more about In re: Sealed Case in the coming weeks."
Oh, brother, I hope not! Surely nothing new will be said that hasn't been said on one blog or another over the last two months!
Glen, you nailed it:
ReplyDelete"relentless aggression"
It is this that is sorely missing in the Dems, and it is this that gave the GOP its power and this that lets them keep their power.
And it will be those who lack this that will lose in November.
Hypatia, sorry to drag you over ground you may have covered before, but I'm still very curious as to why voting for Kerry was a line you couldn't cross, but voting for Bush -- after 9-11 happening on his watch, after conniving us into a war of choice in Iraq, etc. -- was hunky dory.
ReplyDeleteAnd Kerry would've been worse how, exactly?
I just find it baffling how someone who describes themselves as a Libertarian couldn't see the red flags here, given the propensity for secrecy, cronyism and power grabs a la the Patriot Act that were common knowledge well before the 04 elections.
I'd like to have it explained to me -- by an apparently impartial observer such as yourself -- why John Kerry was less fit for the Presidency than George W. Bush.
- Mercury
Hmmm. My guess is that the same can be accurately said of yourself, Sam.
ReplyDeleteAre you going to claim that your have no particular views either way regarding the president's NSA program and that a good argument either way will garner your support?
Well, it's hard to say since you haven't advanced an argument. You've merely given us an article from a partisan magazine and expected us all to meekly surrender our viewpoints to Byron York with no further analysis whatsoever.
Do you have an opinion of your own to counter with? Do you have a rebuttal for our analysis of Secret Case, or at least any further thoughts on the matter outside of "Boy, our president sure can rope-a-dope?" If so, let's hear it. If not, you're wasting everyone's time here, including your own.
...power grabs a la the Patriot Act ...
ReplyDeleteYou are aware, I hope, that the first Patriot Act passed the Senate 99-1 and its renewal (after fiddling with it a little) passed the Senate 96-3?
ReplyDeletegedaliya - In answer to your question about SCOTUS review of In re Sealed Case - higher courts do not review dicta, only the issues that were properly before the lower court.
The ACLU did not appeal a dictum. It appealed a lower court's ruling (the FISA Court of Review). It was the ACLU's appeal of the court's entire ruling that the SCOTUS declined to hear.
Correct. If the phrase you are basing your argument on had any legal weight, the Supreme Court would have heard the case.
It is, however, obviously a hypothetical.
What you are trying to assert is that the Court declined to hear the case because the President has always had this warrantless wiretapping ability that no one ever heard about before now.
If the matter were settled like you want to pretend it is, Congress would not be so pissed, now would they?
And the ABA would surely be aware of this, wouldn't they?
And Kerry would've been worse how, exactly?
Man, let it go. Every brain cell devoted to Kerry is a brain cell diverted from the slow coup going on in this country.
just to clarify, using In re: Sealed Case is the same thing as using "inherent powers". In re: Sealed Case refers to Truong's citation of the executive's inherent powers.
Thank you. So there really is no new legal argument.
Thank you. So there really is no new legal argument.
ReplyDeleteTroung "held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information..."
The FISA Court of Review then said:
"We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”
If you are right, and the legal issues are settled, then the president has now and has always had the legal authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps of telecommunications that originate overseas regardless of whether the convesations involve American citizens or any other person who is present on American soil during the communication.
So, should the government be allowed to spy on its citizens for whatever reasons it sees fit? As long as they promise it has a link to their war on terra? But don't expect them to prove their claims with any sort of evidence because you have no right to see it.
ReplyDeleteFurther, does the government have the power to jail its citizens based solely on their whims? Again such jailings would be couched in the aforementioned dastardly persons and associates clique. Again, no proof needed as this is a constitutional right our government is claiming.
It may be necessary to extract information by using force limited to prevention of organ failure...if possible, of these spied on, jailed and tortured Americans without any sort of proof to anyone of anything that these dastardly individuals have done anything wrong.
Welcome to Bushworld...America 2.0
Mercury: If you peruse Glenn's blog roll, you will see links to John Cole's Balloon Juice and QandO. Cole and the three libertarians who host QandO all voted for Bush. All had issues with Kerry. All now have severe issues with Bush and the GOP (they actually always did, but prefered Bush to Kerry.)
ReplyDeleteTo a great extent, the objections to Kerry set forth at those blogs are my objections. Also to an overwhelming extent, the objections to Bush that (especially for John Cole) really went into high gear with Schiavo, are my objections.
Libertarians of our sort exist. Cole, the QandO guys, and I, have all recently been saying it is time to vote for some Democrats to at least have them take the House or Senate, or the Executive, and get some gridlock going. There are certain sorts of Democrats, however, that cause us enormous difficulty; the politically astute know what kind those are, and if they decide the votes of my libertarian cohort are important enough, they will calculate accordingly. If we are not that important, they should not consider our preferences.
"We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”
ReplyDeleteIf you are right, and the legal issues are settled, then the president has now and has always had the legal authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps of telecommunications that originate overseas regardless of whether the convesations involve American citizens or any other person who is present on American soil during the communication.
Reading is FUNdamental, gedaliya.
"We take for granted" and "assuming that is so" clearly indicate the passage is a hypothetical for the purposes of determining the legality of another matter entirely.
And since the passage was not in the final ruling, but a dicta which carries no legal weight, the uselessness of this passage for justifying warrantless domestic spying is doubly apparent to anyone who took the time to look "dicta" up.
Or were you still too busy looking for those Nixon/Bush staffers, whom you found so difficult to Google?
You're not even a shill. You're just too lazy to bother investigating anything for yourself.
If someone tells you what you want to hear, you just swallow it, apparently.
The York article is quite interesting, since it is the first time I have read that the FISA Court was ignoring the Patriot Act and turning down warrants based on the Jamie Gorelick "wall." Also, they were inflicting structural procedures beyond reason. So the Bushies said enough is enough, invoked inherent powers, and went around the court. The FISA Court of Review comes in and orders the FISA Courts to accept the Patriot Act. And despite the b.s. on this blog about dicta being worthless, the Court of Review recognized Bush's inherent powers and the possiblity that FISA may not even be allowed to infringe on them. This wasn't Judge Judy. This was the FISA Court of Review and the dicta followed a long trail of legal cases where they reached their conclusion, they didn't shake a magic 8 ball.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous -
ReplyDeleteDicta is *not* meant to be a binding part of a ruling.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d047.htm
To say that it is, is as you call it, "bullshit." Anyone who has spent any time around the law has heard that.
Why do you pretend otherwise?
All: I propose that when newcomers recycle arguments that Glenn in his posts -- and many other bright lawyers and well-educated laypeople in comments -- have already analyzed and held forth about many times over, that said newcomers simply be directed to Glenn's new sidebar, The Compendium of NSA Arguments.
ReplyDeleteWhether it is "inherent authority," Truong, Youngstown ... it has all been discussed here at an exceptionally sophisticated level, usually more than once.
It seems to me the conversation would better advance if newcomers should first be expected to read what has gone on (at enormous length) before, and the rest of us should not deviate from the topics of current posts by engaging old, discredited arguments. Not unless newcomers, after reading the Compendium, actually offer something new.
Mark Arthur said...
ReplyDelete"As offensive and illegal as the NSA program seems to be, it occurs to me that the administration may have a technical point that would be difficult to resolve under FISA. It seems like the NSA doing some kind of wholesale driftnet-like interception and filtering of US persons' communications, and it is the scale of this interception that makes it "impractical" to submit to the FISA court, and undesireable to expose politically and technically. So here are the questions:
(a) can/will the congress create legislation that legalizes this scale on interception, say at the machine-processed level, leaving a second tier of targets/comminication to be reviewed individually by a court
The problem here of course is the second tier is triggered by something that is much less than probable cause and doesn't even rise to the level of reasonable suspicion because as my earlier example points out: When Maria calls her mother in Spain to talk about a "blow up" with her daughter the two words "blow up" are the trigger. Otherwise the conversation is completely innocent. I think it is highly improbable that the Congress can create legislation that can get around the fourth amendment and the invasion of privacy issue.
(b) would this level of (now legal, and presumably marginally useful) ubiquitous, background surveillance on everyone's communication be any less offensive to us or the Constitution?"
I think you have to ask that of yourself rather than others.
The biggest problem here is the big can of worms that it opens. Will the people who outed Valerie Plame for revenge or that have decided that they only have to obey the laws that they want misuse something that they run across in the driftnet that is politically valuble? My opinion is yes, but even if yours or someone elses is no, what about future administrations once the can has been opened?
Men much wiser than any of us here wrote the Constitution with a purpose. And it seems to me that the further we drift away from the principles that body of work holds the worse off we become.
Let me leave you with this paraphrase of a quote by Benjaman Franklin: Those who would sacrifice their liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither.
All: I propose that when newcomers recycle arguments that Glenn in his posts -- and many other bright lawyers and well-educated laypeople in comments -- have already analyzed and held forth about many times over, that said newcomers simply be directed to Glenn's new sidebar, The Compendium of NSA Arguments.
ReplyDeleteAgreed! gedaliya was making my head hurt, anyway. :)
I never noticed that link before myself. That could've saved me lots of time earlier upthread.
The "unlimited Presidential authority" claim is absurd on its very face.
ReplyDeleteIt depends on so many penumbras:
1. That Article II applies to any kind of military action, whether a declared war or not
2. That an AUMF which was never fully debated is equal to a Congressional declaration of war
3. That a few phrases in the AUMF can expand the authorization from Iraq to a general "WoT"
4. That the "WoT" even is a "war" in the plain meaning of the word, since "Terror" is a tactic, not an enemy
5. That the "WoT' even is a "war" in the Constitutional sense of the word, since it names no specific enemy, no specific theater, and no specific endpoint that is achievable. ("When every terrorist is dead" is not achievable - particularly when the word "terrorist" is subject to ad hoc redefinitions of convenience, to include insurgents fighting an invader of their country, and even soldiers of the regime the invaders are fighting.)
Any link in that chain is a weak one, since none of them stand up to honest analysis.
That the same people pushing for all-encompassing penumbras to justify an all-powerful President are the same ones who on insist on "strict constructionism" in defining civil liberties and restrictions on police powers is just more of the rancid, self-serving hypocrisy that characterizes today's Right.
Just before the Senate acted on this compromise resolution, the White House sought one last change. Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words "in the United States and" after "appropriate force" in the agreed-upon text. This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused.
ReplyDelete- Tom Daschle
If the President had any inherent authority for warrantless domestic spying, the administration would not have needed to make such a request.
The administration specifically requested these kinds of powers in the AUMF. This implies they never have had any such powers, as any American who had civics in 8th grade knows.
Glenn, your latest post just confirms that you are the single most important person to emerge in this "scandal". Actually, I think "scandal" will prove to be too feint a word to describe what has happened to this country, culminating in the actions of the present Administration. A "scandal" suggests a single situation, with all of its expansive tentacles, not something as momentous as a blatant and widespread attempt to do away with the Constitution, the Rule of Law, the Geneva Convention, private property, privacy, etc.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a "scandal." This is a war. It is The War Between The State and The Individual. Nothing less.
All wars need a Commander in Chief, Generals, and foot soldiers. Your post today is terrifically exciting, as you reveal that having made the intellectual and moral case for "war", you will now be laying out the stragegy by which we can wage and win that war.
It's 100% clear that your plan, to take this to the American people by co-ordinating the efforts of all the disparate groups who each have their own agenda, but whose commonality is that they feel passionately about this one issue, is the only one which will work.
Many of your readers were despondent and defeated by recent events which appeared to suggest that fighting would be futile. You took the time to bring them back into the fold, and you won't have to do that again, as your action in that regard was so effective.
But the question loomed: what can we all do? Are only readers of this blog going to "see the light"?
Why haven't The Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Balkinization, etc. directed more attention to this blog, and focused their readers on a game plan, instead of treating this most crucial of all issues as just another "scandal du jour", to join all the other "scandals" which are focused on more as weapons in a political war rather than policies which shock the conscience.
I, for one, do not see it as a solution to merely change the party in power. The solution is to change both parties from within, to focus on the principles which are being violated, and to insist that in the future, only those politicians are elected who will fight with integrity to uphold those principles.
No one blog can energize and activate enough people to take on "the powers that be" in both parties. A concerted effort to reach the largest number of people and to direct the actions of those people to the most effective tactics is what is needed, and it appears that is exactly what you plan.
So, congratulations. In the tradition of Patrick Henry, Nathan Hale, the Framers, and all the patriotic Americans who fought to establish this country, you are at the helm of the brigade who will now try to save it.
I hope this will not be a partisan battle. If the ship is going down, many of us are not going to waste our time re-arranging the chairs on the deck.
But to save the ship, we'll fight.
All rights, in the end, stem from the government staying out of the domain of the individual, and limiting itself to the strict guidelines that were set out in the Constitution, to be executed in a manner which never loses sight of the most important concept: a profound respect for the dignity and liberty of every individual citizen.
Let us know if you need money when you get going with your plan.
hypatia, I didn't start out a fan of yours, but I certainly am warming to you as time goes by :)
ReplyDeleteGlenn, if I didn't know for certain that I don't crib off you, I'd swear I crib off you!
ReplyDeleteI continue to believe the grassroots pressure is working, and am still calling for folks to stay in the saddle when it comes to making phone calls, sending emails and faxes, etc. while Congress is on break this week.
Contact info etc. for keeping the pressure on these guys here at VichyDems.
gedaliya--
ReplyDeleteYou're also overapplying the decision.
"If you are right, and the legal issues are settled, then the president has now and has always had the legal authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps of telecommunications that originate overseas regardless of whether the convesations involve American citizens or any other person who is present on American soil during the communication."
That's not what In re: Sealed Case said. They applied Truong to a specific situation, one that did not test FISA's requirement for a warrant for surveillance of communications between a U.S. person and a terrorist organization. I don't think we can know what the court would rule in that particular situation. Though there's nothing to stop us from guessing, I suppose.
Hypatia, you must have been really badly flamed in the past if you're this reticent to just come out and say what you mean.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't a huge Kerry fan myself -- too much of a 'politician' for me -- but I came to think that maybe a politician was what was needed against this group of supremely political adversaries, and researching his past made me respect him quite a bit more, given his work on things like Iran Contra and BCCI, in addition to his stance on Vietnam.
He came damn close to beating Bush, and from my reading on Ohio and Florida polling irregularities, probably did.
I'm simply interested in knowing from someone who considers herself "politically astute" -- and please assume, as I'm sure you already have, that I am not in that elect group, just one of the great unwashed here -- what was so wrong with Kerry that Bush was the better choice.
I'm just curious, that's all -- but if you still don't want to discuss it, I'll let it drop.
- mercury
To Anonymous, re:
ReplyDeleteThis is not a "scandal." This is a war. It is The War Between The State and The Individual. Nothing less.
Thanks for this. I was thinking something along the same lines. "Scandal" suggests sexual or financial impropriety, an offense to prevailing sensibility, but not lasting damage. The NSA issue (and, it might be said, the companion issues of the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, etc.) isn't a scandal, it's an outrage - against freedom, the Constitution, etc. As is the weak response to it by both the Congress and the electorate. But this we know....
Re: your comments about my earlier post, thanks. Of course, I *would* find such ubiquitous surveillance offensive and subject to abuse, but my larger point is that if any legislative or judicial compromise is to take place, it might very well take a form similar to what I suggest - and it might even sound "reasonable" in that context.
NSA views? What was in place in 2000 was working, this argument we are having now in my opinion is more about whose rights this president decides, unilaterally, he can violate. Sibel Edmonds will tell you how well it worked, and my own lying eyes confirm it. Why did Ashcroft start flying private in July 2001? Why did the president decide he needed to get out of town for long periods of time shortly after. Michael Moore likes to show Bush sitting dumbfounded in an elementary school classroom, but I like to think he's letting it all unfold just as they knew it would. Read the report of the 9/11 commission, go to http://www.antiwar.com/
ReplyDeleteread Raimondo, Paul, Buchanan, Whitehurst, McGovern, Paul Craig Roberts – a nest of hysterical democrats if there ever was one, spend 2 weeks there, awe forget that, spend a week, argue with them, then come back here and fill up the page with your “enlightened” opinion. Better still stop off at http://www.counterpunch.org/ and read from Cockburn and St. Claire’s pages – another beehive of annoying lefty whining. The psychologists out there reading these entire goings on are filling pages and pages of notebooks with disassociated thoughts and fears that can be found in the comment sections. In 2 years we'll have an influx of PHD psychologists and psychiatrists whose thesis was National PTSD a whole cottage industry of group therapy will grow out of the toxic sludge that is spewed out of DC and ultimately the minds of "patriots" defending our "leaders".
You're also overapplying the decision.
ReplyDeleteI'm not over-applying anything. I am simply reporting what is likely to be one of the legal arguments the president's team will use to ensure his hands remain unfettered as he conducts the War on Terror.
The CIC does not need some meddling, obscure judge second-guessing his battlefield decisions in this war. No court has that authority, and the Congress can stop him only by cutting off his funding or by impeaching and removing him from office.
What is going to happen, in fact, is that this so-called "scandal" is going to backfire in the faces of Bush's political opponents, i.e., Bush is not only going to receive complete Congressional approval to keep the NSA program alive and well, but he may even obtain even more authority than he already has to monitor suspected terrorists and their domestic sympathizers and supporters.
Glenn, I am from Wichits and I wrote a letter to Senator Roberts letting him know my mom (who still lives there) will be working very hard for his opposition if he doesn't investigate the legality of the NSA wiretapping. Maybe we are having an impact.
ReplyDeleteCole, the QandO guys, and I, have all recently been saying it is time to vote for some Democrats to at least have them take the House or Senate, or the Executive, and get some gridlock going.
ReplyDeleteExactly why was gridlock not the preferred libertarian alternative in '04? I've already mentioned in a comment on the previous post that I agree with everything you've written here, but it is incomprehensible to me that an educated and perceptive libertarian would actively support ongoing secrecy and mendacious constitutional erosion, not to mention dramatic expansion of the police state, over the nearly inevitable gridlock of a divided government. You can see from the previous comments on this thread that I'm not alone.
The whole point of these repeated queries is, I think, that we'd like to know what the tipping point is. Schiavo was entirely predictable. Just another skirmish in the culture wars. I can't see why Schiavo would bother a libertarian any more than would the state-enforced, mandatory carry-pregnancy-to-term, irregardless of impact on the individual, laws long planned and now inevitable.
It looks entirely irrational.
For my part I'll leave it at that, though I regret to say that the experience here of filtering your precise legal commentary through a lense that is aware that you were previously so dreadfully wrong has left me worrying that "The Law" is so malleable that it can be deployed with equal facility by any sort of ideologue. And then Yoo "wins". Glenn G. OTOH appears to believe it is based on solid principles and seems to derive a great strength from that belief that is evident in the length of his extraordinary posts. I sure hope he's right!
Just to clarify, this is not an issue of warrantless wiretapping. President Bush issued a warrant in 2001 authorizing his subordinates at NSA to search Americans on American soil. He did this without probable cause supported by a statement under oath specifying the person or place to be searched. A warrant doesn't have to be issued by a court, and the 4th Amendment applies to all warrants (it doesn't mention courts). the president can call it an executive order but it is a warrant. Please consult a dictionary or wikipedia or other source to confirm this.
ReplyDeletesorry - Wichita
ReplyDeleteeven more authority than he already has to monitor suspected terrorists and their domestic sympathizers and supporters.
ReplyDeletehoo...boy!
A preznit polling at under 40% might feel lots and lots of folks are sympathetic to the enemy, since after all, he is the protector-in-chief of the handwringing bedwetters. I'll sleep so much better at night knowing our shores and borders are being protected by the man who sold our port security to the financiers of the 9/11 terrorists.
Please ignore the trolls, folks. These threads are otherwise excellent. Don't let morons disrupt them.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
For my part I'll leave it at that, though I regret to say that the experience here of filtering your precise legal commentary through a lense that is aware that you were previously so dreadfully wrong
ReplyDeleteA lot of people here seem unusually interested in my exact political views, and what I'm telling you is that if I were to get into them with sufficient specificity, this thread would go off into wildly tangential and flame-laden territory. Given the importance of this NSA issue, what possible purpose would such a diversion serve?
But as is well known by regular readers here, I supported the Alito nomination -- far more than I did that of Roberts. The entire third branch of govt has long been of enormous concern to me, and I prefer justices who have some actual interest in, for example, applying the Commerce Clause to mean something other than a blank check written to Congress. Thomas's dissenting Opinion in Raich is music to this libertarian's ears.
There are other issues, but again, there would be no good purpose served in getting into them. I've refered you to two blogs where the political posture has been similar to my own. But I see no value in turning this comments section into a detailed discussion of how and why.
gedaliya, you misrepresent the findings of the case from the National Review article.
ReplyDeleteHere go read it for yourself.
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fisc051702.html
It is not a clear and sweeping statement of presidential authority. In fact it is just the opposite for it says....
""The FBI, the Criminal Division, and OIPR may consult with each other to coordinate their efforts to investigate or protect against foreign attack or other grave hostile acts, sabotage, international terrorism, or clandestine intelligence activities by foreign powers or their agents. Such consultations and coordination may address, among other things, exchanging in information already acquired; identifying categories of information needed and being sought; preventing either investigation or interest from obstructing or hindering tho other; compromise of either investigation: and long term objectives and overall strategy of both investigations in order to ensure that the overlapping intelligence and criminal interests of the United States are both achieved. Such consultations and coordination may be conducted directly between the components; however, OIPR shall be invited to all such consultations, and if they are unable to attend, OIPR shall be apprized of the substance or the meetings fbrthwith in writing so that the Court may be notified at the earliest opportunity."
"Notwithstanding the foregoing, law enforcement officials shall not make recommendations to intelligence officials concerning the initiation, operation, continuation or expansion of FISA searches or surveillances. Additionally, the FBI and the Criminal Divisiion shall ensure that law enforcement officials do not direct or control the use of the FISA procedures to enhance criminal prosecution, and that advice intended to preserve the option of a criminal prosecution does not inadvertently result in the Criminal Division's directing or controlling the investigation using FISA searches and surveillances toward law enforcement objectives."
C. Use of the aforementioned minimization procedures as modified, in a1l future electronic surveillance and physical searches shall be subject to the approval of the Court in each electronic surveillance and physical search where their use is proposed by the Government pursuant to 50 U.S.C. §1804(a)(5)) and §1823(a)(5). "
In fact it says that ALL FUTURE ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE SHAL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE COURT.
Don't pee on our leg and tell us its raining!
Gedaliya is clearly relying on York's confused interpretation of this ruling. Gedaliya has not read the ruling--the entire ruling-- of in re: Sealed, clearly, because the descriptions about it being a "slam dunk" ruling in favor of presidential spying on Americans is ludicrous. The ruling is not any such thing. The Court of Review, of course, did not grant warrantless spying, which is what the NSA Domestic Spying Scandal is all about. Why don't you read it, Gedaliya, instead of just being a sheep with a ring in the nose so you can be led around by Byron York.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html
der said...
ReplyDeleteNSA views? What was in place in 2000 was working, this argument we are having now in my opinion is more about whose rights this president decides, unilaterally, he can violate.
-------------------
Go back and read re: sealed case, obviously what was in place in 2000 was not working one iota. If everything worked well, the government wouldn't be fighting the FISA Court in front of the Court of Review.
The irony is the government fought that FISA was constitutional. The ACLU submitted FISA was unconstitutional and lost. FISA was thought to be a tool to "amplify" the president's powers to make the secret court warrants even in domestic spying more likely to pass constitutional muster.
Just appreciation for the careful legal and provocative (in the best sense) political analysis. And profound and amazed appreciation for catching and posting the editorial from the Wichita Eagle. How did you do that?
ReplyDeleteIt is not a clear and sweeping statement of presidential authority. In fact it is just the opposite for it says..
ReplyDeleteUm, you've embarrassed yourself. The case you referenced is not the case referred to in the article.
While I appreciate the thoughtful analysis by Glenn and most of the commenters, I do have to roll my eyes.
ReplyDeleteCertainly they did not steal the 2000 election to represent the "will of the people" or promote democracy. They had a specific agenda and an plan to accomplish it -- at any cost.
No, each thread should not be a discussion on our dysfunctional elections and how this is manipulated by the power-elite that controls the military-industrial complex. They are able to use it to get their candidated in.
We cannot possibly change the forces BEHIND the scandals and shenanigans if we look at everything as a "new" unrelated problem.
FACT: It took an unprecedented decision by the SCOTUS to place the chimperor in power. Essentially, they said we could not tell who wins an election by counting the votes.
This did not happen by happenstance nor at the direct of rove, cheney or chimpy(LOL that chimpy -- most would agree he is too much of a moron to have engineered this)
The problems are much deeper -- good discussion here. I am sure it is important to keep some discussions "focused."
We cannot possibly be part of positive change until we are willing to discuss the root causes of the problem.
The "scandal of the week" approach prevents many from "connecting the dots."
Expecting an administration that was appointed by the SCOTUS to honor the consititution, much less uphold it, IS INSANITY!
The Court of Review, of course, did not grant warrantless spying, which is what the NSA Domestic Spying Scandal is all about.
ReplyDeleteThat's not the administration's point-of-view, as summarized by York and others, including the ACLU, which failed in its attempt to get the SCOTUS to overturn the Court of Review ruling.
This is now a political question, not a legal one, and in that arena the administration holds all the cards.
The boundless scandals and acts of incompetence of this Administration have become so commonplace that they are somehow viewed as acceptable by a sizeable portion of Americans. It seems that, at least once a week, something worse than Watergate happens and, in the end, nothing comes of it. The only way that the NSA spying scandal would be different is if we are somehow able to find out who he was really spying on. We can be damn sure it wasn't Al Qaeda.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, here is my nightmare scenario:
ReplyDeleteYou are, first of all, correct. This administration does not back down, ever, under any circumstances. It's the ultimate game of "chicken", and they haven't lost yet, if only by virtue of their rabid ferret-like tenacity in staying on point.
This is Karl Rove's perrennial ace in the hole: he's more determined to destroy you and survive you, than you are to survive. To always outlast your basic human survival instincts is simply other-worldly, which he is. And he never loses.
You need only look at any of the scandals or atrocities attached to this crew (Cheney's shooting spree; breaking the FISA laws, etc.), and see that in the face of being caught in the spotlight, pants-down, hand in cookie jar (your cliche here), they never say die. They simply wait for the screaming to stop, or for another distraction to come along. But they are never "guilty", if only because they never acknowledge guilt. Ever. Eventually, you will back down.
Now with all this in mind, let's get back to the nightmare scenario.
Even if they do not manage to break enough Capitol Hill kneecaps to stifle an official inquiry (unlikely, BTW)... if we apply their past m.o. to this situation, and such an inquiry indeed finds them in criminal violation of the law... then what?
Go back to Nixon (ALWAYS go back to Nixon; these guys are determined to re-play the game and win, this time!). The phrase most often invoked in the final days was "Constitutional Crisis". It was generally accepted that when faced with an impending Constitutional crisis, the Nixon people just couldn't overthrow the damned country, in the end.
The Bush people are burdened not by such considerations.
So Congress finds them guilty of breaking the law. What happens next? Marshalls enter the White House and perp walk the president? It would literally have to come to that... AND IT WILL NOT.
Now... they know this. Are they willing to dig in until it has to? Yes, in a nutshell, they are. All prior evidence to this effect is overwhelming.
And the marshalls won't come. They know this as well.
They win. The rule of law in the US dies officially in 2006.
"The Senate Intelligence Committee has given the administration two weeks to negotiate."
ReplyDeleteYou mean two weeks to lean on Snowe and Hagel. This administration doesn't negotiate in good faith. Period.
"I suspect we'll be hearing a lot more about In re: Sealed Case in the coming weeks."
ReplyDeleteFriends, if Gedaliya says we will, then you can bet we will.
Gedaliya is a female who works for the Republican Party's division of propaganda. Her marching orders are what Rumsfeld addressed in his speech about propaganda.
As she works in an environment where she is surrounded by a group of fairly unintelligent party hacks, she originally plopped onto this site thinking it was another Democratic Undeground, where her words would encourage the familiar "Fascist Pigs, let's throw the bums out" vs. "Remember Chappaquidick" type of mindless pie fighting which serves no purpose other than to use up the idle time of angry mediocrities.
GedaliyaCo loves those types of wasted efforts. It's similar to hoping the soldiers of the enemy will go AWOL and sneak off to Hooters, rather than engage in combat.
She's now regrouped, having assessed that such a tactic won't work here, and she thus becomes a valuable voice to which we should all listen. She is telling us in advance what Bushco's arguments are going to be, and if we take her at her word, which I do, I consider that very important information.
"FOREWARNED IS FOREARMED" are some of the few most important words in the field of strategic planning ever uttered.
Knowing what Bushco and its apologists are going to be dragging out as arguments before those arguments hit the MSM gives us time to develop short, accurate, powerful, and effective arguments with which to refute those inaccurate arguments when they become Bushco's talking points in coming days.
The propaganda program with which Gedaliya (who happens to be a female)is affiliated has come to a realization.
Whereas Bushco has relied in recent years on traitorous blights against humanity like Yoo, Viet Dinh, and Gonazles (none of whom has American genes in them, and none of whom has the least inkling of what we mean when we say "the America we were raised to believe in", as their immediate ancestors were all raised in totalitarian regimes), Bushco now realizes that the views of these distasteful individuals are not tolerable to the American public at large. He used them because they were the only lawyers morally bankrupt enough to legalize torture, domestic spying, etc.
Since those were the type of lawyers who enabled Bush to mount his unconstitutional programs, and the American public knows little about law, Bushco is having a problem now coming up with top, independent legal advisers who can supply it with the "reasonable" arguments it needs to make its case. That, of course, is because there are none.
The fact that Bushco now intends to now trot out a discredited argument that is months old is indicative of how weak their position truly is, which they know.
But they will count, as usual, on the general inability of Americans to follow legal arguments, and the powerful assist they will get from the Yorks, Limbaughs, Hannity's, etc.
By "testing" this Sealed Case argument on this and other sites, GedaliyaCo is hoping to see in advance what really top lawyers who oppose Bushco's views on these legal matters have to say about them. That in turn enables them to redraft the weaker "talking points" aspects of their argument.
What is needed is for Glenn to familiarize himself with the best of the arguments (Marty Lederman is always a terrific place to start), put the salient points together, and create another sidebar incorporating both the Administration's argument and the legal refutation of that argument.
That's step one. Then someone simply has to recognize that the masses who have to be engaged in this battle do not understand sophisticated legal points (I plead guilty as one of those masses) and need for someone to reduce to a few powerful sentences the argument against the Administration's position, so we can call local media, post on other blogs, write elected officials, and do all that is necessary to squash in its infancy these attempts to hoodwinking the public yet again by putting forth erroneous legal justifications for their illegal activities.
gedaliya--
ReplyDeleteIt sounded as though you were claiming that the legal issues were settled. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
"I am simply reporting what is likely to be one of the legal arguments the president's team will use to ensure his hands remain unfettered as he conducts the War on Terror.'
I'm not sure you can "report" something that hasn't happened yet! But I'm sure you're right that that will be one of their arguments--in fact, really it is already.
"The CIC does not need some meddling, obscure judge second-guessing his battlefield decisions in this war."
Unless surveillance of a U.S. person communicating with a terrorist group is not an act of war. I'm not sure that it is. It might be. The thing is, I can't tell if there is any consensus as to whether it is or not.
"No court has that authority, and the Congress can stop him only by cutting off his funding or by impeaching and removing him from office."
Again, unless they do have the authority to protect U.S. persons from unreasonable searches under very specific circumstances (that is, circumstances that aren't addressed in In re: Sealed Case).
"What is going to happen, in fact, is that this so-called 'scandal' is going to backfire in the faces of Bush's political opponents, i.e., Bush is not only going to receive complete Congressional approval to keep the NSA program alive and well, but he may even obtain even more authority than he already has to monitor suspected terrorists and their domestic sympathizers and supporters."
Maybe, but I don't know if you can guarantee us that "in fact" this will happen! For that matter, how do you think he will obtain even more authority?
"...the three libertarians who host QandO all voted for Bush,,,"
ReplyDeleteUgh, Hypatia, I hate to embarrass you after your implication that you are tight with the hosts of QandO Magazine, but I have $10 that says you are wrong at least two out of three. Take the bet?
Glenn argued:
ReplyDeleteEver since the NSA scandal began, Bush followers, led by Karl Rove, and even some frightened Democrats, have loudly insisted that this scandal is actually beneficial for Republicans, because they can use it to depict Democrats as weak on national security...
While spouting that bravado, the Administration's actions reveal that they fear this scandal and want more than anything for it to disappear. At every turn, they have tried to prevent a meaningful investigation into the legality of their actions. If the NSA scandal is really the political weapon which the GOP can use to bash Democrats as being weak on national security, wouldn't the White House be doing the opposite - that is, encouraging every hearing and investigation possible?
You are whistling past the graveyard on this one...
Mr. Bush and his administration are openly campaigning on this issue nearly every day. Rove has already announced that national security is going to be the primary theme of the GOP 2006 campaign. The two nails they will be hitting incessantly to advance this theme will be Dem attacks on the NSA prorgam and the pronouncements by various Dem leaders that the war is lost and we should retreat.
The Dems know this and are terrified for good reason.
The GOP gained when they should have lost seats in the last off year election cycle based on Rove maneuvering the Dems into a knee jerk opposition to the Homeland Security Department by removing union rules from the new department.
This off year election cycle, the GOP doesn't have to rely on the thin soup of opposition to some bureaucratic agency. The Dems have walked into a tiger trap by attacking things directly related to the war effort. The Dems are talking about impeaching Mr. Bush for listening in on al Qaeda and want to cut and run from Iraq.
With the election staring them in the face, the Donkeys are just beginning to realize the trap into which they have walked and changed the subject completely to this culture of corruption nonsense.
The issue isn't why Mr. Bush opposes the Dems rooting through the White House's internal consultations. Every president in history would have opposed that.
The issue is why the Dems have gone as quiet at the grave on the NSA program and now almost universally support it. The Dems realize that there was no law breaking to form the basis of a scandal with legs and they are getting the snot pounded out of them politically because their internal polling probably reflects the 2-1 support for the program shown by Rasmussen.
Let me clue you folks in how this is going to come down so you won't be to crushed when it doesn't go your way...
In the two months before the election, the GOP leadership will submit a bill which will ratify generic interception of international communications for intelligence gathering purposes (in a way that will not identify the program) and will create some sort of additional official level of oversight over the program by Congress, the FISA court or some board made up of intel people and judges.
The WH will support the bill and portray it as what it will be - Congress' ratification of their executive authority.
The bill will pass with enormous Dem support along the lines of the recent renewal of the Patriot Act.
No Dem with viable GOP opposition will campaign against the NSA program this fall. Indeed, any Dem with viable GOP opposition who has run off his mouth about losing in Iraq or impeaching the President for listening in on al Qaeda will be in serious trouble by October once the commercials with their videotaped statements have started running in their districts.
Think hard about 2002 and tell me I am wrong.
"A lot of people here seem unusually interested in my exact political views, and what I'm telling you is that if I were to get into them with sufficient specificity, this thread would go off into wildly tangential and flame-laden territory. Given the importance of this NSA issue, what possible purpose would such a diversion serve?'
ReplyDeleteYou're the one who keeps hinting darkly at how/why you couldn't POSSIBLY support Kerry -- to the point where you voted for the guy who's now got us into this constitutional crisis, not to mention an illegal war. I'm just curious as to why -- since Bush buyer's remorse is such an odd, yet widespread phenomenon.
But I'm not wasting my or anyone else's time with it anymore -- because frankly, anyone who supported Alito yet complains about the NSA mess is just going to baffle me for the rest of my days.
- mercury
If the Democrats have been crippled by their fear of appearing to be weak on security, and that is the reason they have not opposed this Administration's lunatic policies, they have that excuse no more. The following article gives them all the ammunition they need to stop hiding in the bushes like cowards, and mount the argument that the Administration cares nothing about security, in fact, and is using that pretext to rewrite the Constituion and turn this into a police state.
ReplyDelete"'President's gone insane' – 9/11 dad
BY JIMMY VIELKIND
DAILY NEWS WRITER
Peter Gadiel (l.), whose son died in 9/11 attacks, joins Sen. Chuck Schumer at yesterday's press conference.
Peter Gadiel just doesn't get it.
How, asks Gadiel, whose son James died in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, can a company owned by a terror-linked country get control of our nation's ports?
"I'm a lifelong Republican and I think the President's gone insane," said Gadiel, 58, who heads 9/11 Families for a Secure America.
Two of the 19 9/11 hijackers were citizens of Dubai, the Arab emirate whose bid to run ports in New York, New Jersey and four other cities was okayed by the White House even though investigators have found signs that money used to finance terrorism flowed through Dubai banks.
"How the hell could this happen?" fumed Bill Doyle, 58, a retired Staten Island stockbroker whose son Joseph also died when the Trade Center fell.
"We're not securing our country in any way by selling our ports to foreigners," he said.
Gadiel and Doyle stood with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) yesterday at the harbor to express their outrage.
Bruse DeCell, 55, whose son-in-law died in the attacks, said that homeland security should be the highest concern when approving the activities of foreign business interests.
"This administration is putting the selling of our country on a fast track," he said. "There are a lot of loose ends that caused 9/11 to happen. I'm trying to close them."
Only 5% of the cargo containers entering U.S. ports are inspected, said Schumer, who has called for upgrades in port security for years."
FIVE PERCENT OF CARGO CONTAINERS ARE ALL THAT'S INSPECTED, AND THE GOVERNMENT IS MONITORING VEGAN DAY GATHERINGS AND SPYING ON AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY TERRORIST GROUP?????
Is this the definition of insanity, or what?
From the beginning, the administration's amen corner has aggressive claimed that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the wartime Commander-in-Chief powers give President Bush the statutory and constitutional basis for sidestepping the FISA process for domestic electronic surveillance. But most in the GOP are downright sheepish when it comes to the third argument that logically flows from their first two: FISA itself is unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteFor the full story, see:
"The Republicans' Constitutional Crisis."
notherbob2: I did not say or imply I am tight with QandO -- I have been reading it on and off ever since Henke promoted it over at Reason. So tell me, how did those three vote?
ReplyDeleteIf I'm wrong I'll certain admit it. I really thought all three had voted for Bush. Two voted for Kerry? Or did they vote LP?
Mercury claims: :You're the one who keeps hinting darkly at how/why you couldn't POSSIBLY support Kerry
ReplyDeleteThat's really not fair. Initially, all I did was post a report about the red area in which I live, and how manifest is the tide that has turned against Bush among many of those who voted for him. After that, people wanted to know why I had voted for Bush, and I said I couldn't vote for Kerry.
That I decline to get into specifics as to why, should hardly be some horrible indictment, and does not constitue my "hinting darkly" about the issue; it is a genuine reluctance not to want to continue down the path of that discussion.
As for supporting Alito yet being very concerned about the NSA matter, well, Bruce Fein has written that Bush should pack the Court with Scalias and Thomases. Fein has also said wrt the NSA illegalities that Bush is properly subject to impeachment.
Ugh, Hypatia, I hate to embarrass you after your implication that you are tight with the hosts of QandO Magazine, but I have $10 that says you are wrong at least two out of three. Take the bet?
ReplyDeleteWhat's it matter? It's not like the folks at QandO are the most astute bunch, and Hypatia's moral and intellectual crime of voting for Bush isn't bolstered by someone else committing the same crime. And, as you'll note, despite her unqualified assertion that they voted for Bush, she merely "thought" they did; here claim was based on nothing more than taking her own beliefs as evidence.
But I'm not wasting my or anyone else's time with it anymore -- because frankly, anyone who supported Alito yet complains about the NSA mess is just going to baffle me for the rest of my days.
It's not all that baffling: it's the mark of an ideologue who, rather than weighing pros and cons, focuses on one issue to which they are wedded, to the exclusion of all others. The Bush support and the Alito support come from the same sort of non-analysis. Sadly, Hypatia is too thick and slow to have learned the lesson. It may take 5 or 10 or 20 years, but eventually one act of Alito's will get through her thick skull the way Schiavo did, but she will have a much longer time to regret her support.
Bart, if you can't see how much the political landscape has changed since 2002, it is you that is in for the surprise.
ReplyDeleteGedaliya,
ReplyDeleteYou sure do spend a lot of time explaining just what a waste of time this issue is
People don't seem to understand what is going on here.
ReplyDeleteThe administration lawyers, i.e. John Yoo and David Addington are pushing this to create a constitutional crisis that will take the "inherent powers of the commander in chief" (or Unitary Executive theory) up to the newly ratified 5-4 Federalist society fascist rubber stamp department erstwhile known as the Supreme Court.
This is a deliberate confrontation by the Cheney crowd to obtain their long awaited presidential dictatorship.
As much as I dislike Graham, he has a backbone and he wouldn't say something like this publicly - "I am adamant" that eavesdropping on Americans needs judicial review - if there were any chance he would go back on his word.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I remember his sputtering outrage over Abu Ghraib and the evidence that torture had been institutionalized by this administration. Boy, he really went after that issue like a bulldog, didn't he? By shutting up and being a good little soldier for the administration yet again, that is. Don't pin any hopes on Huckleberry Graham.
But I agree with Mr. Fein and Hypatia; if only we could have more Alitos on the Supreme Court. Then we could have more assertions from the bench that adult married women should be treated as minors by reproductive regulations. It's the libertarian point of view, don't you know.
--mds
Glenn Greenwald Said:
ReplyDeleteIf the NSA scandal is really the political weapon which the GOP can use to bash Democrats as being weak on national security, wouldn't the White House be doing the opposite - that is, encouraging every hearing and investigation possible?
The Whitehouse would be doing this if they were as cynical and unconcerned with the country's national security as are you and the hard core left in this country. If republicans were so eager to sell out the security of this country for their own pecuniary gain and political power, then yes the whitehouse would be doing as you suggest.
Your mistake is in assuming that the whitehouse and republicans will behave towards national security in the same selfish and purely partisan manner as would Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Everyone At Daily KOS, etc.
The REAL reason the whitehouse opposes a public investigation and release of documents is the President's duty to protect presidential powers and separation of powers for his and future Presidencies and MORE IMPORTANTLY the President's desire to sacrifice that which would be good for himself and his party in exchange for the prevention of further damage to the country's war efforts and battlefield foreign intelligence methods and procedures.
Glenn, if you want to understand Whitehouse and Republican motivations, then you must first stop viewing them through a prism that merely projects onto Republicans the Democrat's standard duplicitous, cynical, deceitful, purely partisan, and oblivious to national security mindset.
Says the "Dog"
You sure do spend a lot of time explaining just what a waste of time this issue is...
ReplyDeleteI don't spend very much time at all. Despite some suggestions to the contrary, this isn't my full time job.
I do find it especially interesting, however, how passionately some here actually believe that the NSA program controversy will result in the crackup of the Bush administration.
Believe me folks, Armageddon is not yet at hand.
Yo dog
ReplyDeleteWould selling our port security to the financers of terrorists for pecuniary gain reflect positively on your arguement?
"...as you'll note, despite her unqualified assertion that they voted for Bush, she merely "thought" they did; here (sic) claim was based on nothing more than taking her own beliefs as evidence."
ReplyDeleteWell...I couldn't have made the point better myself. Nobody cares how they voted.
AT&T " your world delivered" to NSA
ReplyDeleteThe Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T Tuesday, accusing the telecom giant of violating the law and the privacy of its customers by collaborating with the National Security Agency (NSA) in its massive and illegal program to wiretap and data-mine Americans' communications.
I can't understand why this isn't being pushed more in the media, as I think it would get ATT customers riled up, with possilbe loss of revenues which should result in some kind of action.
"Now I'm feeling much better about our predicament"
dclaw1 said...
ReplyDeleteBart, if you can't see how much the political landscape has changed since 2002, it is you that is in for the surprise.
Has it really?
Is this the voice of confidence in the upcoming elections?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702496.html
Notice the issues this pundit is predicting will hammer the Dems if they lose in 2006...
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeletePeople don't seem to understand what is going on here.
The administration lawyers, i.e. John Yoo and David Addington are pushing this to create a constitutional crisis that will take the "inherent powers of the commander in chief" (or Unitary Executive theory) up to the newly ratified 5-4 Federalist society fascist rubber stamp department erstwhile known as the Supreme Court.
This is a deliberate confrontation by the Cheney crowd to obtain their long awaited presidential dictatorship.
A bit paranoid and hyperbolic, but the poster does correctly identify why the WH has no fear of this issue going to the Supreme Court. O'Connor is gone and both Reynolds and Alito are sure votes for the President on this issue...
notherbob2 must be right about the guys over at QandO. I just searched over at the Hit 'n Run archives, and on April 1, 2005, Jon Henke (whom I frequently agree with quite strongly) wrote:
ReplyDeleteGOP buttboy? Well, inter alia, I didn't vote for Bush.
michaelgalien
ReplyDeleteCould someone explain to me why Bush supporters call it 'foreign intelligence gathering'?
Because that's what the high priced focus groups tell them to call it. Sort of like changing the Inheritance Tax to the Death Tax. Everybody dies so more people would support a ban on a distasteful death tax. And healthy forest initiative and clear skies act and clean water act...I mean no one in their right mind would support what these bills actually do, so they come up with swell names for support. Like lipstick on a pig.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteChanging subjects from the very valid points I previously made regarding Glenn's false assumptions about Republican mindset, to anonymous' question about the UAE Company/Port Deal:
I and most republicans and most democrats have serious reservations about this UAE port deal, and I believe that this issue hasn't gotten the President's proper attention yet, but all the complaining being done by republicans and democrats will hopefully stop this folly. I believe substantially more disclosure and investigation by congress and the executive branch both need to be publicly done before this UAE deal is allowed to go through.
This and Harriet Miers are but two examples of where loyal conservatives speak up loudly and clearly to correct what appear to be mistakes about to be made by the President. Hardly confirming all the bullshit name calling of people blindly following anything the Bush administration wants.
As for your ad hominem attack that opened your message to me, such personal attakcs are the last refuge of a person who is out of their depth intellectually or out of facts or both.
Says the "Dog"
The White House started briefing House and Senate Democrats in fall of 2001 on this program according to Pelosi's press release on it. Democrats controlled the Senate from June 2001 until the new Congress was sworn in January 2003 following the 2002 election. If they were so concerned about this program, why didn't they exercise their oversight authority and hold hearings. They could have held closed hearings as is was a classified subject.
ReplyDeleteThey had a year with full power to do something about it and did nothing. Their protests seem strange now in light of that.
No paranoia here. This is fact.
ReplyDeleteJohn Yoo and David Addington (both Federalist Society) are the legal enablers of this gang of fascists.
I read Cheney and co like an open book.
They are rapidly losing the plot and are going for dictatorship before they get impeached and tried for high crimes and misdemeanours.
USC 794 cites that it is treason to engage in domestic espionage (outing intelligence agents) in a time of war.
The (non) strategy of the Dems in Congress is hard to fathom. They seem to be willing to hand credit for whatever cleaning up of the eavesdropping scandal over to the Repubs, thus losing the high ground they might have gained come the elections in November. Their silence in failing to support the few lonely Democratic voices, such as Rep. Conyers, is disgraceful. People are going to start thinking, thank God for the Republicans, who are the ones trying to bring things back into balance. Time is running out for the Dems to pull together on a strategy and making noises about stopping this scandal. If they want to continue to be party to the self-castration of Congress, then what claim to they have for our support?
ReplyDeleteTrite, by now, but you can blame the media for a lot of it. The Dems are speaking and legislating more than most people would ever know. For the talking (and editorializing) heads, with the on-going Republican grip on power, it understandably seems a Republican-centered universe. To make matters worse, they’ve subsumed the “(politically) ineffectual Democrat” brand into their own beliefs (why not, everyone else has).
Here’s the entire mention of Democrats from Jeffrey Birnbaum’s 936 word piece about lobbying reform in Sunday’s WaPo:
”Democrats have offered a variety of proposals that would impose stiff restrictions on privately paid meals and travel and, like McCain, would add grass-roots disclosures to the existing regimen.”
Granted, it was generally about Republican backsliding on ethics reform measures so I like Jeffrey just fine. But, nevertheless, it shows what an uphill slog it is for Democrats to get their respective lights out from under the traditional media’s bushel basket. They really have almost no way get to people who only catch the news by mistake (a surprisingly large slice of the electorate), except by saying something unrestrained enough to risk the “shrill” or “crazy” label (brilliant at politics these movement Republicans are).
My main complaint with Democrats is that they don’t say what they really think of Republicans (fighting with one hand tied behind their backs). Now that would make the six o’clock news.
I think one helpful thing bloggers can do, in the run-up to the elections, is loudly trumpet the Democrats’ proposed legislation – on ethics, on anti-terror and homeland security, on healthcare, on retirement, etc. – as loudly as possible and shame Republicans by contrast.
Wondering what you can do?
ReplyDeleteLitigators are involved in discovery. This means they are gathering evidence.
There is evidence the President and Gonzalez have lied about the FISA program and what DoJ is or is not doing, as required.
For contacts on this litigation, and to find out more of what is emerging for litigation, visit: [Click ]
Note: This is for information only, and it is not an official advertisement nor is it sanctioned/endorsed/approved/coordinated by any firm associated with the litigation.
Notherbob2Well...I couldn't have made the point better myself. Nobody cares how they voted.
ReplyDeleteOver the weekend, I spent quite a bit of time trying to get you to specify exactly what it is you believe is in Justice Jackson's Youngstown Opinion that renders Bush's warrantless spying legal. I and others pressed you, and last I checked, you had not answered, except for vague huffing and puffing that I was misleading people, and that if I quoted some magic (but unspecified by you) language you are sure is in that Opinion, all would see that Bush is righteous in his spying.
I admit it when I am wrong. I just posted Henke's statement found over at Reason that he did not vote for Bush.
Will you admit that you are wrong about Jackson's Opinion in Youngstown, and that pursuant to it Bush's program is illegal?
Dog
ReplyDeleteI am not changing the subject but drawing your attention to the obvious paradox in what your president says and what he actually does.
It is like a parallel universe of Orwellian doublespeak.
Black is white.
Freedom is slavery.
Security is insecurity.
etc
I have a much longer list, but I am too tired now...
Honestly though, do you seriously believe that Karl Rove nonsense about Democrats being against national security. How ludicrous is that?
Michaelgalien said...
ReplyDeleteIm going to ask a question, you all will probably laugh at, but I feel the need to ask it anyway:
Why does the US government and Bush supporters say this is about 'spying on foreigners'? As I understand it, they're taping phone-calls between a foreigner on the one side of the line and an American on the other side....
Could someone explain to me why Bush supporters call it 'foreign intelligence gathering'?
No question is stupid and, given the major media outlet's utter distortion of this issue, this question is better than most...
According to the leakers and the WH, the NSA is surveilling international calls between the US and other countries where one end is a telephone number captured from al Qaeda.
That al Qaeda number could be in the US or overseas.
There is no evidence whatsoever that I have seen that the US end of these telephone calls involve American citizens rather than legal and illegal aliens.
Given that the al Qaeda members we have captured or have learned about in the United States, there have only been about three Americans that I recall. The remainder have been foreign born.
In any case, it is legally irrelevant if the target in the United States is a native or foreign born.
The case law holds that the President has the constitutional power to conduct intelligence gathering against foreign groups and their agents in the United States. The case law doesn't make any distinction between enemy agents based on citizenship. Indeed, the targets in these cases were often US citizens. When Mr. Clinton exercised this power, it was to conduct warrantless physical searches of the home of US citizen, Aldrich Ames, who was an agent of a foreign power.
David Shaughnessy said:
ReplyDelete"One of the great attraction's of this blog (for me, at least) is its relatively non-partisan nature. We should welcome thoughtful people of all political stripes to the discussion. I have found Hypatia's comments to be written at a high level of insight and intelligence, and without rancor. This is exactly the kind of person who should be posting here and bashing him/her for past votes is wrong."
I completely agree with this sentiment.
The reason this program will never be constitutional is because it is a dragnet.
ReplyDeleteThere is no "specific target".
FISA courts cannot be asked to provide a warrant for hundreds of thousands of simulataneous wiretaps all searching for keywords in realtime.
They could however be invoked after the dragnet method picked up a potential terrorist lead.
So that begs the question, why go around the courts, when the courts never refused a warrant before the Bush admin came in?
Obvious enough, isn't it?
The targets were not Al-Qaeda - but domestic political enemies.
Honestly though, do you seriously believe that Karl Rove nonsense about Democrats being against national security. How ludicrous is that?
ReplyDeleteHave you been reading this thread?
Most of the participants here honestly believe that George Bush is a greater threat to their safety and security than the mad Islamic killers that are trying to bring down our nation and culture. There is no ambiguity about this. "Civil liberties," to them, is more sacred than their lives and the lives of their families (except at airports, it seems).
So, merely pointing this out during the election campaign brings millions of votes over to the Republican side. This isn't rocket science, just common sense. The hate-Bush left is so spooked by Karl Rove that they don't realize that it is their own words that defeat them. Rove is fond of saying that Kerry's statement "I voted for the $83 Billion before I voted against it" is the "give that kept on giving."
The Democrats are masters at this, and I see no change coming on the horizon.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteAre democrats against national security as a theoretical construct? No I don't think they aren't against national security in theory. They just keep supporting things and doing things that are definitely against our real world non-theoretical world national security interests. So the pratical effect of their actions is that Democrats ARE AGAINST national security, effective national security.
Democrats are more worried by the President looking at some Terrorist's library card, than they are about gatheiring intelligence to protect all the other patrons of that library.
Finally, I do believe that many national democrat party leaders would do something that hurt national security if they thought it would help them gain political power. Their behavior confirms this belief of mine, virtually every day.
Says the "Dog"
Dog
ReplyDeleteI am a European. We learned the hard way to distrust our government at all times. Power corrupts.
The best of us created your government as a Republic with a separation of powers, a strong but limited executive branch, an independent judiciary - the finest constitution the world has ever seen.
Why are you so intent on throwing it away in your blind support of the Bush regime?
I implore you to think critically. To challenge your axioms and beliefs about this presidency while you still have time.
dog
ReplyDeletetaking anon to the woodshed for his ad hominem personal attack is akin to being called ugly by a frog:
"duplicitous, cynical, deceitful, purely partisan, and oblivious to national security mindset."
This administration has serious credibility issues (shake-n-bake prewar intel, Plame, Abramoff, Cronyism, Katrina, etc) so their motives are not questioned. They are presumptavely dark. No true patriot denies the need to spy on terrorists, in fact, we have a device for that in FISA. To question the patriotism of one who questions the right for a president to unilaterally declare the right to spy on Americans in America with no warrant or oversight is the last bastion of a scoudrel. No true patriot could recognize the country this administration claims that it has now become.
Namely, the unilateral and without judicial or congressional oversight right to spy on, jail and perhaps even torture and kill Americans in America.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThe reason this program will never be constitutional is because it is a dragnet.
There is no "specific target".
FISA courts cannot be asked to provide a warrant for hundreds of thousands of simulataneous wiretaps all searching for keywords in realtime.
They could however be invoked after the dragnet method picked up a potential terrorist lead.
So that begs the question, why go around the courts, when the courts never refused a warrant before the Bush admin came in?
Obvious enough, isn't it?
The targets were not Al-Qaeda - but domestic political enemies.
You need probable cause to believe that the target will be a the agent of a foreign terror group to get that FISA warrant. A captured telephone number without any other evidence does not rise to probable cause. You have to listen in to determine if the captured number is innocent or an actual number for an al Qeada agent or supporter. That presents the NSA with a cart before the horse situation.
The 72 hour retroactive warrant provisions is also likely to be nearly useless. Based on reporting by the WP, the NSA is getting less than 1% hits after months of surveillance. It is highly unlikely that they will get a hit in the first 48 hour and then spend the next 24 hours drafting up an affidavit and getting a judge's OK.
the Dog: "Finally, I do believe that many national democrat party leaders would do something that hurt national security if they thought it would help them gain political power. Their behavior confirms this belief of mine, virtually every day."
ReplyDeleteI already know of a politician who has done this exact thing, i.e., hurt national security in an attempt to gain political power. His name: George W. Bush and he sits in the Oval Office.
I can't understand why this isn't being pushed more in the media, as I think it would get ATT customers riled up, with possilbe loss of revenues which should result in some kind of action.
ReplyDelete-------------------------------
I would imagine this will get some media play tonight. Do you really think that customers are going to care? And if the NSA used all the major carriers, who are you going to switch to? I see media play but most people recognize to protect ourselves you need some surveillance even if the left considers this "cowardly."
I was disgusted by the performance of a certain Democratic Congressman on MTP a couple of weeks ago.
ReplyDeleteShe was from California, although I do not remember her name and do not wish to look it up. She isn't worth the effort.
She kept saying how horrible it would be if the NSA Domestic spying program was discontinued. Coward. This program is useless and is most likely being used for political purposes. That's why it's being leaked by senior FBI and NSA officials.
Someone needs to take these fools out of office. That's the point of primaries, is it not?
Why should I risk my life defending the Constitution when the politicians here at home are to chicken to enforce it.
Sometimes I want to throw up.
Oh yeah, gedaliya, just thought I'd let you know... you're an idiot. Have a nice day.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI can't understand why this isn't being pushed more in the media, as I think it would get ATT customers riled up, with possilbe loss of revenues which should result in some kind of action.
Something like this was addressed at the hearing and Gonzales was asked if the phone companies had a permission slip from the govt with a hold harmless clause and a get out of jail free card. Gonzales would not confirm or deny but the impression was left that they are sealed off from prosecution.
Every Republican Senator and Representative should be asked this question: "You impeached a president for lying about oral sex during a deposition in a private civil lawsuit, yet you are refusing to investigate a program that may have violated the constitutional rights of thousands of citizens? How do you justify such behavior?"
ReplyDeleteHypatia, you just insist on being beaten up. Pretty soon I will have to say to people "No, I don't still beat up Hypatia." Check the thread that you got after me on and you will see that I replied. I don't remember what I said; should I have to look it up?
ReplyDeleteJeez. Do you ever check stuff before you speak?
Since Nixon is the benchmark I put forth the currently unsupported proposition that Bush fears public or private review of the NSA and other, less remarked on programs specifically because they are in violation of the constitution and FISA court beyond even the Chinese wall that allows our allies to surveill on our behalf at NSA joint sites in England and Australia, among other places. For a long time, our signals intelligence has gone into these joint facilities for review by our allies: if they see something juicy, they report it back to us second hand. The terrorists have known about our surveillance and have no doubt integrated code books and radio/internet protocols into their cell training.
ReplyDeleteBush has likely spied on the political opposition as well as his fellow Republicans much as Nixon's enemies list was monitored. That is the only reason he is not steamrolling this through the Congress right now, notwithstanding those in his coalition who under his father referred to the ATF as "Jackbooted Thugs" to his father's chagrin. If none stand to oppose, it will become common practice going forward, justified by the apologia of the keening cries of "Lincoln did it first!" and "Truman did it too!"
Of course, no one has yet responded with the parental "If all presidents jumped off cliffs without parachutes would you do it too?"
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteGlenn Greenwald >"...At some point, even the most obsequious members of Congress are going to be moved by their own personal dignity into taking a real stand..."
ReplyDeleteBefore this happens there will, most likely, be another terrorist attack of some frightening scale
Watch & see
"Eventually, the truth will emerge. And when it does, this house of cards, built of deceit, will fall." - Robert C. Byrd
notherbob2Check the thread that you got after me on and you will see that I replied. I don't remember what I said; should I have to look it up?
ReplyDeleteJeez. Do you ever check stuff before you speak?
And? Are you now on board with those of us who understand that Jackson's Youngstown Opinion means that Bush's warrantless NSA spying is illegal?
Or, are you still refusing to admit that you were wrong about the primary issue under discussion here?
Bart:
ReplyDelete"Mr. Bush and his administration are openly campaigning on this issue nearly every day. Rove has already announced that national security is going to be the primary theme of the GOP 2006 campaign."
-Yup. They have to. That's to energize the base which is on Prozac and to make the robots think this is a winning issue so they'll keep on stuffing envelopes. The fact is, they HAVE no other issue on which to run. That doesn't make THIS issue a winner.
"The two nails they will be hitting incessantly to advance this theme will be Dem attacks on the NSA prorgam"
--heh heh. lemmings going over the cliff....This issue is going to come back and bite them. They just don't see that yet. It's the "asp" which will deliver the fatal sting to the Administration Puppet and the neocons who pull the strings.
"and the pronouncements by various Dem leaders that the war is lost and we should retreat."
--Pssst. Bart, the war is lost and we should retreat. When Murtha first spoke out, I thought he was a traitor. As quickly as I have come to see the light, that's how quickly the realization that this war is lost is going to snowball, especially now that the guy who was just elected leader of Iraq is a foe of this administration who is supported by Iran. When the public gets whiff of the fact that the Administration never had any intention of going in, setting up a government, and leaving, they are going to be less than thrilled. When they find out that there are numerous PERMANENT military bases being set up there right now, built on a foundation of the body parts of their children and their neighbors' children, don't expect them to continue to support the war.
PS. Bart. The Administration is not going to be fighting the Democrats going into elections. They will be fighting me! And others like me! That's a much tougher battle. They're used to impotent opponents. They're in for a surprise.
gedaliya said...
ReplyDelete"Most of the participants here honestly believe that George Bush is a greater threat to their safety and security than the mad Islamic killers that are trying to bring down our nation and culture. There is no ambiguity about this. "Civil liberties," to them, is more sacred than their lives and the lives of their families (except at airports, it seems)."
I would point out gedaliya that civil libertys were also more important to the people who founded this country than were their lives or the lives of their families. Without their commitment there would have been no revolution and no USA.
As for Bush's and the Republican's commitment to protect the citizens of this country, that to me is about as credible as his response at the school on 9/11 or his response to Katrina et al.
While he seems to have no problem tapping phones without court approval or Congressional oversite he leaves the southern border practically wide open for anyone to cross, estimated to be about 3 million illegals a year. Not all of which are citizens of Mexico looking for work. The last count I saw was 85,000 from countries OTM. Including some from the middle east and China. Will one of them have a suitcase with an A bomb or biological weapons? Who knows? Because we know for sure that not all of them are apprehended at the sieve we call a border.
Only five percent of the containers coming into this country are inspected and Bush wants to outsource that to a middle east country that apparently has had ties to terrorism in the past.
And last but not least when he had the chance to nail the guy that actually was responsible for killing three thousand Americans he muffed it and outsourced the work to Afghan warlords so that he could go "liberate" Iraq.
So tell me why George isn't as big a threat to me as Al Qaida. In my opinion he has misallocated resources, created resentment and hatred of all American's across the world and muffed the few chances he has had to do some things right.
And his answer to all this is to destroy my civil liberties to protect me?
Mitchell: Do you have any information about reporters being swept up in this net?
ReplyDeleteRisen: No, I don't. It's not clear to me. That's one of the questions we'll have to look into the future. Were there abuses of this program or not? I don't know the answer to that
Mitchell: You don't have any information, for instance, that a very prominent journalist, Christiane Amanpour, might have been eavesdropped upon?
Risen: No, no I hadn't heard that.
Re: three points.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who didn't see the first day it was announced that The Patriot Act was an abomination is not someone who can think clearly. Only one Senator saw that. Feingold. He's the only Senator thus worthy of support, as the Patriot Act is symptomatic of all that has gone wrong with America.
Also, Kerry = Bush without the tax cuts. Who would vote for that? We are going to need principled candidates from both parties who run on a program we support. But there's time for that, when the time comes.
Finally, the poster who wrote that this will just be pushed up to a 5-4 SC that is stacked in favor of an Imperial Presidency is the poster who is in for the biggest surprise.
Take if from one who knows: Roberts will not be one of those 5 you are counting on. It's also possible Thomas won't either.
Lurking deep within Thomas is a frustrated libertarian screaming to be let out. Expect the emergence of that libertarian in the near future.
Oilfieldguy said...
ReplyDeleteSomething like this was addressed at the hearing and Gonzales was asked if the phone companies had a permission slip from the govt with a hold harmless clause and a get out of jail free card. Gonzales would not confirm or deny but the impression was left that they are sealed off from prosecution.
Still if this were to be made widely public it would make the people affected aware which could cause an avalanche of questions which in turn would cause pressure. In doing a search for this information on current news it did not come up and only accessed it through regular web search, meaning the media is not bringing it to the forefront.
To the Europeans so worried about the USA democracy:
ReplyDeletethe "dark night of fascism was forever descending upon America, but it touched ground only in Europe."
December 15, 2005
The PATRIOT Act, like many other Bush Administration initiatives, is notorious in Europe. Yesterday, Europe strove for a little notoriety of its own:
The European Parliament on Wednesday passed an anti-terror law requiring Internet service providers and telephone companies in the 25-nation European Union to keep phone and Web site records on their customers for as long as two years.
By a vote of 378 to 197, with 30 abstentions, European lawmakers meeting in Strasbourg passed what one privacy advocate opposed to the plan called "one of the most restrictive surveillance laws in the world," exceeding the level of communications monitoring allowed in United States.
"The EU plans to fingerprint all of its citizens, monitor all communications transactions and surveil all movement and travel," said Gus Hosein, a senior fellow at Privacy International, a London-based watchdog, and a visiting lecturer at the London School of Economics. "All these policies have been rejected by the U.S., but are now law in Europe."
Says the "Dog"
I don’t see where you are coming from on this. I laid out my reasoning on the prior post and I doubt Mr. Greenwald will allow me to post a summary for quick reference. Let’s try a summary here. You commented at great length (dicta and all) on the Youngstown case. You posited that it made it an open and shut case that Bush has broken the law. You keep trying to strawman me and others into saying we believe that it makes him not guilty when you know damned well that it doesn’t, anymore than it does. Any reasoning person not blinded by partisan hopes for an impeachment would read the case and say to themselves: “Well, I guess it depends on whether the court thinks that the GWOT is an “exceptional case”. If it is, then the President can act to protect America despite any Congressional law to the contrary. If it’s an ordinary case, then Congressional legislation must be obeyed, unless Congress overstepped its authority when it passed the law. I have no clue how the SCOTUS would find in the NSA case. You and Mr. Greenwald feel strongly on the issue. Others disagree. To quote a friend of mine, that is why they play the game. My own meager effort was to point out that your bombastic 9-0 crowing and black and white characterization that Bush clearly had broken the law did not do anyone a service, whichever side of the issue they were on if they care about reality. Impeach if you will, but know that it is not a slam dunk on the legal issues.
ReplyDeleteOr stand for inherent Presidential power, if that is your bag. It could go either way and smart people don’t bet the ranch. The bandwidth is not yet dry on Mr. Greenwald’s rules for comment: “...exposing the fallacies and inconsistencies of Bush followers can be beneficial in lots of ways...”. In this case the benefit was intended to be “Don’t be too cocky, it is not an open and shut case as you are being [mis] led to believe.”
Lurking deep within Thomas is a frustrated libertarian screaming to be let out. Expect the emergence of that libertarian in the near future.
ReplyDeleteThat inner-libertarian is already out. His dissent in the Raich med marijuana case was spot on. His pseudo-dissent in the Oregon assisted suicide case was as well -- any justice who had only 7 months before voted against CA in Raich, only to vote for Oregon, is purely a result-driven hypocrite.
Scalia is certainly a hypocrite (and violated any principled jurisprudence that passes as fidelity to the Constitution as written, in both cases), and as is increasingly clear, Clarence Thomas is not and never was his toady.
notherbob2 writes: In this case the benefit was intended to be “Don’t be too cocky, it is not an open and shut case as you are being [mis] led to believe.”
ReplyDeleteActually, it really is open and shut. Do see Glenn's Compendium of NSA Arguments at his sidebar. Please especially read the several Youngstown discussions, and you should then develop an appreciation for why Hinderaker at Powerline dismisses Jackson's Opinion as "sloppy" and "silly," and why other lawyer shills for Bush simply declare that the courts cannot bind him on this issue.
Jackson and Youngstown are fatal to Bush's legal arguments, and these Bush partisans know it. So should you, if you do the reading.
Ever since the NSA scandal began, Bush followers, led by Karl Rove, and even some frightened Democrats, have loudly insisted that this scandal is actually beneficial for Republicans, because they can use it to depict Democrats as weak on national security.
ReplyDelete...While spouting that bravado, the Administration's actions reveal that they fear this scandal and want more than anything for it to disappear. At every turn, they have tried to prevent a meaningful investigation into the legality of their actions. If the NSA scandal is really the political weapon which the GOP can use to bash Democrats as being weak on national security, wouldn't the White House be doing the opposite - that is, encouraging every hearing and investigation possible?
Where does a New Yorker buy straw by the bale?
From day one, the president has also said that talking about this program undermines our national security and alerts the terrorists.
I fully appreciate that not everyone believes that, but the White House actions are certainly consistent with a desire to move this off the front pages while divulging as little as possible, for the security reason cited.
Fine, maybe Bush, Hayden et al are lying about the security implications. But you ought to incorporate that aspect of their lying in your "analysis".
Tom Maguire
POINT 1:
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
"This is not encouraging. Is the only remedy against illegal behaviour by the government to go through the committees? Is there no suit that can be filed? And by whom?"...11:00 AM
This belongs in the criminal courts. Anonymous seems ot be advocating civil action - but that is not enough. If these are illegal actions, according to FISA, they must be prosecuted in the Federal criminal courts, don't they?
POINT 2:
EX POST FACTO: Doesn't the Constitutional ban on Ex Post Facto laws prevent the Congress from making PAST NSA eavesdropping legal after the fact? If that is the case, don't the Federal prosecutors in the DOJ have a responsibility to call a Grand Jury?
POINT 3:
Glenn Greenwald said...
For whatever reasons, it is extremely important to the WH to eavesdrop without judicial oversight. Whether it's because they want to eavesdrop on people which the court won't allow them to eavesdrop on, or they don't want judges knowing on whom they're eavesdropping, or that they want to bolster the principle that nobody can interfere with what they want to do re: terrorism, they have expended extraordinary efforts ensuring that they are able to eavesdrop with no oversight"...11:32 AM
Isn' it clear that if the NSA eavesdropping is found to be outside the law (which means CRIMINAL), that Bush, Cheney, Haynes and others would be subject to criminal prosecution, based on the dictates of the FISA statute? Isn't that a sufficient reason for BushCo to be fighting so hard?
. . . . TD
Specter said the same thing - that he is adamantly opposed to the DeWine solution. There is no way they will get 50 Senators to simply hand them a pass from adhering to the law.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Specter is opposed to the DeWine "Nixon Amendment", what he is proposing is more like a "Nixon Pardon." He wants FISA to rule on the constitutionality of the NSA spying and then they will fix the program "non-punitively," which means that the Administration won't be held accountable for breaking the law.
Senator Roberts in the NYT article you linked to also said that he wants the FISA Court to look at the program. So, I'd guess that what Specter is proposing is going to get a lot of backing.
Specter has the Administration pinned down. He is the Chairman of the 10-Rep and 8-Dem Judiciary Committee so he can easily force a full investigation into the NSA. Politics are a lot of smoke and mirrors, so when it comes down the the shove of the matter, the Aministration is going to take the best deal it can get on having the NSA program looked at.
It seems you put a lot of hope into the ideal that Administration won't let the program be looked at in any way, but if they are forced to it, and all things seem to point that they are going to have to give in to it, I wouldn't be surprised if AG Gonzales says that they will let the FISA Court look at it when he comes before the Judicial Committee again.
Which means the constitutional invesitgation into it will be secret and there will be no punitive action taken if it is found unconstitutional. For me, at least, this isn't acceptable because you still haven't made the Prez accountable for his actions
Americans respect fences, even where there is no trespass.
ReplyDeleteHypatia, yes you are right about Thomas, but there are a few bad opinions of his that my instinct tells me he may now regret. I am betting those types of decisions are not ones he will feel bound to make in the future, considering the turn of recent events.
ReplyDeleteScalia gets a lot of decisions right because he is more of a believer in the real intent of the Constitution than the active liberty crowd, but Dick Cheney's hunting partner is no libertarian, and the real problem is that he is not a good person either. Hard hearted bastards do not make for good Justices.
Thomas is that rarest of creatures: a man of integrity.
I seem to remember that you favored Alito's confirmation, hypatia. I can't see how anyone who resists overly broad government powers at the expense of the individual could have possibly supported Alito.
He respresents the same mindset as Cheney, Yoo, Addington, Viet Dinh, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, etc. I guess if you feel their views are good for the country, you'd like Alito, but if you don't, that's a real contradiction in logic.
Most of the participants here honestly believe that George Bush is a greater threat to their safety and security than the mad Islamic killers that are trying to bring down our nation and culture. There is no ambiguity about this. "Civil liberties," to them, is more sacred than their lives and the lives of their families (except at airports, it seems).
ReplyDeleteI'd point out the multiple false dichotomies here, but Gedaliya is far to stupid to grasp the concept.
"Which means that all of their blindly loyal followers, who keep voting for the Satanic ones, must have the Mark of the Beast on them somewhere."
ReplyDeleteSo is the "mark of the beast" on the Democrats in Congress without whose sanction these practices could not exist?
I don't mean to sound partisan, but the problems we face are not limited to the actions of one party. In this case, the fish stinks from the body up.
Glenn, take note!!!!! Good things happen to good people! A gigantic gift has just been dumped into your lap that should turn your uphill battle overnight into a slam dunk!
ReplyDeleteI just watched tonight's Lou Dobbs show on CNN. I have never seen Lou Dobbs so excited. He was really in a state of almost hysteria. Lou Dobbs was exhibiting more passionate outrage about this topic than I can possibly describe. He almost couldn't speak he was so digusted and disdainful.
He was discussing, with Bill Schneider and Ed Rollins, a Republican stragetgist, the topic of the government's proposed sale of the Port company to an Arab entity.
Before I list some of the things that were said, I just want to say that this seems to me to be such an unexpected bonanza that it should singlehandedly change the whole landscape overnight.
To restate what we all know:
Bushco moves toward a police state by instituting illegal and unconstitutional policies in the name of security using his "inherent powers" in wartime. Convinces a majority of Americans that this is necessary to protect the safety of Americans. Those objecting to these policies are accused of being unpatriotic, and soft on terrorism. The Democrats become mice, afraid to utter a peep for fear of being called soft on terrorists. Etc. We all know the drill.
All of a sudden, along comes this unexpected issue, out of nowhere, which COMPLETELY UNDERMINES THE ADMINISTRATION'S MAIN ARGUMENT, and exposes them as the liars they are.
Here are some of the comments: Ed Rollins says it "goes against common sense", "is clearly an issue of national security" which is a "gift to Democrats."
Lou Dobbs says this administration has conducted series of blunders, entering war, conduct of war, homeland security, etc. He says the one thing this administration has in the polling has been its tough postition on security and now we see that the borders are porous, they want to give up control of the ports, etc.
They discuss that this position on the port issue is "beyond comprehension." Lou Dobbs says "This has nothing to do with robust trade, it has to do with security."
He discusses how Bush senior made a fatal error in breaking his pledge not to raise taxes, He says Bush is going to try to get Republicans to support him on this issue, which is as big a blunder as Bush senior going back on his tax pledge. They all agree that this is a "Gift to Democrats, a free shot for Democrats, that the Republicans are "giving up the one thing the party has going for it."
Dobbs points out that Bush and Cheney come out of the oil interests, so when they are seen to be backing this, it raises a lot of suspicions.
They say this is a
"stark, clear choice on national security." "How can any government whose responsiblity it is to secure the saftey and security of the American people conduct itself in this way?"
And on and on and on, in that same vein. They just about label the Administration's position on this as insane, literally insane.
Glenn, you have been nominated as a Leader. This is the break we have all been waiting for. Not only Democrats are going to be outraged by this. Just as many Republicans are going to be beside themselves. Those Republicans who speak up in support of Bushco on this point are going to quickly find their constituents turning against them with a vengeance. This issue has more emotive power than the border issue, as it is less complex, a clear cut insane idea that jeopardizes the safety of every American. Only 4% of the containers are inspected, Dobbs said. A nuclear bomb could get through, and nobody would know about it.
This isn't an issue that has to be "sold" to people. This isn't something that only the blogosphere will focus on. There are probably few people in this country outside of the insiders who are obviously going to profit monetarily by this deal who would support it.
If the Democrats and outraged Republicans cannot use this issue to annihilate the last shred of plausibility in Bushco's argument that these illegal programs are really being done to protect our citizens, then they are brain dead and nothing is ever going to do it.
I really think this issue is one where the actual non blogosphere PEOPLE of this country are going to take the lead and cry havoc.
Those of us whose mission it is to re-establish the role of the Constitution and the Rule of Law by fighting against the NSA illegal spying and all of the other programs which have so horrified us have to use this one issue, right now, as our weapon.
Forget the hunting incident, the Abramoff scandal, lobbying reform, etc. Those issue do not, and will not, ignite the public at large.
This does.
Please run with this Glenn.
Here are the comments of some of the people who sent in comments to the Dobbs show, which he read at the end of the segment:
"Is this administration out of their minds? How can anyone still believe that Bush really cares about security?"
"When a person sells out his government it's called treason. When the United States does it, it's called Free Trade."
"Why give the contrtact to a middle man? Why not give it directly to Al Qaeda?"
Glenn, you should drop everything and get that transcript, or call Lou Dobbs and ask to be interviewed on the show. Tell him your positions, and I feel confident he would have you on. He is really beside himself with outrage.
This issue is going to alienate every American who is not blinded by party loyalty, and even those who are will be secretly outraged.
HOW CAN BUSH BE THIS STUPID?
And what did we do to deserve such luck? Clean living, I guess :)
Top Huge Headline now on Drudge Report.
ReplyDelete"Politicians On Both Sides Assail Bush Admin. For Port Turnover..."
Alas, the controversy has become so fierce so quickly that Bush will probably back down immediately and we will lose most of this issue.
But not all. The fact that he even considered it, and would have gone through with it if it hadn't ignited such a firestorm of criticism, still stands as an issue and is an opening through which to demolish his "The Republicans are the ones who want to protect your safety" rhetoric.
Of course if he DOESN'T back down, and tries to defend it, he's a goner.
Name one single law that actually applies to either Dick Cheney or President Bush.
ReplyDeleteThey are above the law.
Impeach.
"Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina said on Fox News Sunday that the administration approval was "unbelievably tone deaf politically." GOP Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia said on ABC's "This Week," "It's a tough one to explain, but we're in a global economy. ... I think we need to take a very close look at it." (Davis sounds like a total coward---could he be any less forceful?)
ReplyDelete"Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey said Monday that he and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., will introduce legislation prohibiting the sale of port operations to foreign governments."
She shouldn't, but she is just interested in brownie points for herself. If she were really interested in the country, she'd let Bush self destruct on this before getting involved.
"Critics have noted that some of the 9/11 hijackers used the UAE as an operational and financial base. In addition, they contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist."
"The Bush administration got support Monday from former President Carter, a Democrat and frequent critic of the administration.
"My presumption is, and my belief is, that the president and his secretary of state and the Defense Department and others have adequately cleared the Dubai government organization to manage these ports," Carter told CNN. "I don't think there's any particular threat to our security."
(Yikes! Carter is obviously completely out of his mind. No wonder interest rates were 18% when he was President. He seems like a nice enough man, but he is clearly bonkers.)
"Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff made the rounds on the talk shows Sunday, asserting that the administration made certain the company agreed to certain conditions to ensure national security. Hs said details of those agreements were secret."
Tick tock. Tick tock. I'd say Michael Chertoff's days are numbered. How much gross incompetence can one person stuff under his belt before he explodes?
"During a stop Monday in Birmingham, Ala., Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the administration had a "very extensive process" for reviewing such transactions that "takes into account matters of national security, takes into account concerns about port security."
Okay. We already knew HE was crazy. Is there no limit to the degree to which he will prostitute his reasoning capacity in service to the Chimperor?
By the way, one of the guests on the Dobbs show said, I think, that the President himself knew nothing about this and didn't make this decision.
Makes you wonder what they consider important enough to tell him. Certainly not shooting one's friend in the face if you are VP, and I guess not delivering the security of the ports into the hands of potential terrorists.
Not to mention that the governor of one of the states with an affected port said that he wasn't even consulted or informed before this deal was cut. Wow.
Ho ho ho. This is a biggie. Couldn't happen to a more genuinely sincere group of people.
Not.
___
"Name one single law that actually applies to either Dick Cheney or President Bush."
ReplyDeleteOkay, anon, how about the law of gravity, as in, they are going d-o-w-n?
You'll concede that one, right?
I would point out gedaliya that civil libertys were also more important to the people who founded this country than were their lives or the lives of their families. Without their commitment there would have been no revolution and no USA.
ReplyDeleteYes, the founding fathers and their compatriots solemnly pledged, in Jefferson's immortal words, their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honors" for the cause of independence from Great Britain. Yes, they did go to war (where, btw, was the "imminent threat"?) to back up their words.
What they did not do, and what most on this blog can't seem to fathom, is commit suicide for their cause.
Our founding fathers would gasp in stupefaction and anstonishment to witness so many citizens willing to allow their mortal enemies to use the Constitution as a shield to carry out their designs to destroy the United States...and its Constitution. Robert Jackson's statement that the "Constitution is not a suicide pact" is precisely apropos here.
The fact is, most Americans and their elected representatives are unwilling to allow Islamic fascism to take advantage of our largesse of freedom to murder us in mass numbers.
But, this issue (the NSA program controversy) is now out of the news, replaced by the Arab Emirates port kerfluffle. This new "scandal" will give plenty of cover to the Democrats to run as fast as they can away from the NSA controversy. Everyone knows this issue (the NSA program) is a "gift that keeps on giving" for the Republicans, and so the Emirates' contretemps couldn't have come at a better time for Democrats with even a smidgeon of political self-preservation.
Oh God. I have to stop reading the Drudge Report. I'm about to have a heart attack. I hadn't heard about this yet:
ReplyDelete"Plan for ID Cards Drawing Criticism
The new technology, required by law, hikes costs and raises risks of identity theft, some say.
By Evan Halper, Times Staff Writer
SACRAMENTO — When Congress rushed passage of the Real ID Act last spring, the idea was to foil terrorists.
(Editorial comment, by me: HA!)
"States would be required to replace their current drivers' licenses with forgery-proof identification cards embedded with private information that government agents anywhere in the country could quickly scan to verify a person's identity."
You have to go read this article. It's an outrage. The government wants to treat us all like cattle, without any pretense of privacy or dignity. They want to track our us 24 hours a day! There are microchips imbedded in these cards with all sorts of personal information. They can easily be stolen and hacked, to put this information in the hands of thieves and scoundrals. This is the last straw. I am never going to get a driver's license again. And I'm never going to travel by plane, or even leave this stupid country. Walter Williams, the columnist, hasn't flown since the day this country became a Police State.
Glenn, do we really have to put up with all this?
Not to mention, the program is estimated at 13 billion dollars, which you know means 130 billion in the hands of these incompetent fascists.
Steve Magruder asks:
ReplyDeleteI can only assume you wish see our Constitutionally ordained liberties obliterated. Nice.
And so I ask, why do _you_ want that?
You're confused. It isn't George Bush who wants our liberties obliterated...he is trying to preserve them. Our liberties are under attack from a group of very serious men and women - Islamic fascists and their supports here and abroad - who will use any means to achieve their goals.
Our mortal enemies are answering Lenin's fundamental question in his 1903 book What is to be Done?: Who, Whom?
Who, Whom? indeed, Steve...what is your answer to that most salient of twentieth century questions...the question that was responsible for countless millions of deaths.
Who, Whom?
Had you all read this?
ReplyDelete"The split came as both men left the administration -- Powell as secretary of state, Wilkerson as his chief of staff -- after working side by side for 16 years. Wilkerson, a once-loyal Republican with 31 years of Army service, has emerged in recent months as a merciless critic of President Bush and his top people, accusing them of carrying out a reckless foreign policy and imperiling the future of the U.S. military.
"My wife would probably shoot me if I headed to the ballot box with a Republican vote again," he says. "This is not a Republican administration, not in my view. This is a radical administration."
Wilkerson calls Bush an unsophisticated leader who has been easily swayed by "messianic" neoconservatives and power-hungry, secretive schemers in the administration. In a landmark speech in October, Wilkerson said: "What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made."
He is particularly appalled by U.S. treatment of enemy detainees, counting at least 100 deaths in custody during the course of the war on terrorism -- 27 of them ruled homicides. "Murder is torture," he says. "It's not torture lite."
As for the invasion of Iraq? A blunder of historic proportions, he believes.
"This is really a very inept administration," says Wilkerson, who has credentials not only as an insider in the Bush I, Clinton and Bush II presidencies but also as a former professor at two of the nation's war colleges. "As a teacher who's studied every administration since 1945, I think this is probably the worst ineptitude in governance, decision-making and leadership I've seen in 50-plus years. You've got to go back and think about that. That includes the Bay of Pigs, that includes -- oh my God, Vietnam. That includes Iran-contra, Watergate."
Editorial in today's NY Post, one of the most conservative papers in the country:
ReplyDelete"The UAE capital, Dubia, is a breeding ground for Mideast terrorism--and was where the 9/11 hijackers planned most of the World Trade Center attacks. For that reason alone. (this)....is insane.....The Bush Adminstration's tone-deafness on this issue is inexplicable...Its only defender seems to be ....Michael Chertoff, who claims that a background inquiry "cleared" the deal......The White House would be wise to check which way the wind is blowing, and to cut its losses."
Boy, I'd love to know what the money trail on this preposterous deal looks like. Guess we'll never find out, however....
I can't see how anyone who resists overly broad government powers at the expense of the individual could have possibly supported Alito.
ReplyDeleteHe respresents the same mindset as Cheney, Yoo, Addington, Viet Dinh, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, etc. I guess if you feel their views are good for the country, you'd like Alito, but if you don't, that's a real contradiction in logic.
I see no evidence that Sam Alito would rule as if he were channeling Yoo. There are three co-equal branches of the federal govt, several states, and some 300 million individuals in the nation. My understanding of Alito is that he well understands where the proper boundaries are in determining the relationship of the individuals to each sector of govt, and the proper power relationships among the various state and federal levels of govt.
"Constitution is not a suicide pact"
ReplyDeleteTell that to Patrick Henry.
But in any case, you might find this article on the "suicide pact" trope interesting.
David Shaughnessy said...
ReplyDeleteHi Bart!
Should this ever reach the Supreme Court I'd love to make a friendly wager with you about the outcome. I see 8-1 against POTUS. Thomas is hopeless, but no one else is a reliable vote for the WH. Alito? Perhaps, but I doubt it. Roberts? No way. You won't even have Scalia on your side!
Backachya David:
I don't see this getting past a motion to dismiss the two private suits currently before the federal courts.
The parties lack standing as individuals and as a class to bring the suit based only on the fact that they are muslims or telephone users.
Once Congress passes legislation ratifying this exercise of executive authority this fall before the elections, the Courts are going to look at this as a resolved political dispute and bail.
There will be an enormous mootness problem even if this case gets to the Supremes. Congress is going to ratify this program, rendering any suit for injunction moot. Private citizens cannot seek criminal sanctions. Indeed, the courts have already held that a president is not subject to criminal sanctions for his official actions because impeachment is the only sanction set forth in the constitution for such malfeasance. How is Congress going to justify an impeachment for an act which they have previously ratified.
However, if this somehow gets to the Supremes in 2 years, I see a solid four vote block for the executive in Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas.
Scalia and I track pretty closely in our opinions. While we both agreed that US citizens should be tried for treason and not held as enemy combatants, Scalia is not going to give Congress carte blanche authority to overrule the executive on a foreign policy issue. Scalia already thinks that Congress' authority is overextended.
Kennedy is probably a safe vote on this issue, but he has gone squirrelly recently.
Ginsberg, Breyer and Souter are definite votes for getting warrants.
I am not sure about Stevens. He could be a vote for dismissal on the ground of mootness.
In other words, you have a wager...
Bart claims: I see a solid four vote block for the executive in Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas.
ReplyDeleteYou are deluded.
The Canadian government has its own version of the NSA, called the CSE, or Communications Security Establishment. A representative of the CSE is posted to NSA headquarters, and NSA personnel are also posted to the CSE.
ReplyDeleteThese facts can be independently verified on the CSE's website - http://www.cse-cst.gc.ca/index-e.html.
I hasten to profess no specific knowledge of intelligence-sharing agreements between the two countries - but I have always understood that the prohibition against domestic spying was worked around by having the US spy on Canadian internal communications, while the CSE spied on America.
It is perfectly legal for the NSA to monitor Canadian communications, and likewise for the CSE to eavesdrop on Americans.
Was the Bush decision to suspend the requirement for FISA warrants in any way related to the disdain the current administration feels towards Canadian-American relations? Was it yet another symbol of the crumbling relationship between these old allies?
We are in very, very serious danger in this country. It increasingly appears the government has been taken over by absolute, delusional madmen. Dr. Strangelove is riding on the bomb.
ReplyDeleteRumsfeld said in his press conference just now they are sticking with the Port sale deal.
Unbelievable!
BTW, if anyone ever doubted Rumsfeld was a sadist, watch the tape of this Press conference. If you are astute, you will see that even the way he sadistically "plays with" the female reporter who wanted to ask two questions is a window into his perverted psyche.
Then Gonzales gets on and trots out this new terrorist indictment baloney.
We were all waiting for it. We knew it was coming any day now, because of the White House's recent troubles. The President once again drags out his only weapon: fear.
I don't believe it. I don't buy it. There are no depths to which these cyncial, manipulative bastards will not sink.
I think anyone who has not become really afraid lately is not paying attention.
I admit. I am in pure, stark fear now. And it's not because of terrorists.
I'm a proud liberal who doesn't take the word "leftist" as an insult, but all I have to choose from in these elections are Democrats who once again with this Domestic Spying scandal are only aiding and abetting this criminal Administration by running and hiding from yet another one of the most impeachable crimes I've watched a President commit in my lifetime. Democrats are trying so hard to win over the Republican's base, which they'll never do that they have alienated liberals like myself who have no other party to really become a base for. Its getting hard for me to hold my nose and vote for you Democrats when you so profoundly deserve the defeats you set yourselves up for. That's the delema for us Progressives, but keep up the fight so we can drag these polititions by the ears if we have to and make this world back into the will of the people.
ReplyDelete