On the very day the New York Times first disclosed the existence of the warrantless eavesdropping program, The Electronic Privacy Information Center ("EPIC") filed a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request with the Justice Department seeking the disclosure of four categories of documents relating to the NSA program, including documents reflecting the method used to determine which American citizens were eavesdropped on, as well as documents pertaining to the legal "justifications" for the Administration's eavesdropping program.
Despite purporting to approve EPIC's request for expedited processing of the FOIA application, the Justice Department dragged its feet, never produced anything (or responded in any way to the request), and continued to conceal those documents. As a result, EPIC commenced a FOIA action against the DoJ in federal court in the District of Columbia, seeking a preliminary injunction compelling the DoJ to comply with the FOIA request and produce the demanded documents. The ACLU filed a similar suit which was consolidated with the suit filed by EPIC.
Today, Federal Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr. granted EPIC's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (h/t Hypatia) and ordered the Justice Department, no later than March 8, to respond to the FOIA request and produce the demanded documents or, alternatively, specifically identify the documents and specify the ostensible reasons for withholding them. The Court's order (in .pdf) is here.
Many of these documents are among those sought by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, which the DoJ is refusing to produce. But the FOIA requests here go beyond those which Specter is trying to obtain, since Specter is seeking only documents pertaining to the legal justification for the program but these FOIA requests also include operational aspects of the illegal eavesdropping.
I do not know all of the implications of the Court's order, which will undoubtedly be appealed and perhaps stayed during the appeal. The DoJ is not yet being required to produce all of the requested documents but instead merely to "respond" to the FOIA requests, which leaves open the option of objecting to producing some or all of them on the grounds of various privileges and national security claims. But the Order does require the DoJ to "produce or identify all responsive records" by March 8, which means that they will have to identify the documents they want to withhold and provide reasons why they are withholding them (which the court will then review for validity).
As significant as the ruling itself is the rationale for it. The court explained:
President Bush has invited meaningful debate about the warrantless surveillance program. . . . That can only occur if DOJ processes [EPIC's] FOIA requests in a timely fashion and releases the information sought . . . .
[A] meaningful and truly democratic debate on the legality and propriety of the warrantless surveillance program cannot be based solely upon information that the Administration voluntarily chooses to disseminate.
As I have been indicating, this scandal has many tentacles. And each of them is growing inexorably. The White House is running around with a broom desperately trying to sweep each branch under the rug (odd behavior for a White House which claims to welcome this scandal because it politically benefits from it), but once the mechanisms of the Washington scandal machine are activated with full-force, it is very difficult to simply shut them off or the prevent the disclosure of information which someone is trying to conceal. Clearly, this scandal isn't going to fade away with a little arm-twisting of some weak-willed Senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
I hope so. The news coming from the Senate this week has been very depressing.
ReplyDeleteGlenn: Wow, great find! I was surfing by to let you know that there's also a new news story on Senate developments; my post is at VichyDems (permalink to the specific post here. We should know soon whether the Senate Intel Committee will hold hearings or whether they're caving. I hope they don't take Hagel's approach and have hearings limited to amending FISA and nothing else -- that would be a frustrating debacle and not at all in our interests.
ReplyDeleteWhat fun.
"This scandal isn't going to end with a little arm-twisting of some weak-willed Senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee."
ReplyDeleteThis is surely true, although one looks at the results of other attempts to obtain damaging information from this administration in any usable way, and feels some despair.
The information comes out, but in such a way that doubts remain about the absolute truth of what one is hearing. Partially, this is inherent in the blantant heartlessness of the administration's behavior. So many people don't want to believe the level of duplicity these behaviors reveal, even when they don't support the President.
The muddied way that the information finally appears, after all the resistance to transparency, doesn't help so many to accept what they are seeing.
I think you're right joe t.
ReplyDeleteI don't think they will want to even identify the documents in question if they can get away with it.
And I guess that's the 64 million $ question: can they get away with it...
I'm curious: how can the courts ensure compliance?
ReplyDeleteThe Bush administration is already playing fast and loose with the law everywhere else. What's to stop them from simply A) refusing to release any documents b/c of 'nat'l security concerns' and B) refusing to even identify those documents, or the reasoning behind keeping them secret, because of the again-simple justification of 'nat'l security.'
ReplyDeleteAlthough Congress has been staggeringly impotent in taking a stand for its institutional role in our democracy, there is going to be a judge or a court somewhere which asserts the right of the judiciary to have an ongoing role in our system of government -- specifically, to apply the law and to hold all citizens, including the Administration, for complying with it.
As rampant as the corruption of this Administration is, and as much success as they've had in assaulting on our basic constitutional principles, I happen to believe that the system of government created by the founders is much stronger than the hubristic lawbreakers who currently control the Executive branch and much of Congres, and that system has embedded within it the tools to prevent permanent damage and to preserve its basic principles.
Clearly, I'm not saying this lawsuit is the silver bullet. I said the opposite. But the more pressure points that are exerted on the Administration, the more fronts they have to fight on to keep this all concealed, the better. I don't want to have to rely exclusively on the Republican-controlled Congress. I want there to be as many opportunities as possible for the judiciary to assert itself as well.
That we now have a judge hailing the importance of open, informed debate on these grave matters, and ordering the DoJ to comply with their legal duties under FOIA, can only be a good thing. And one never can predict where things like this, once launched, can end up.
This is simply amazing. I admit it's only a small step but it could lead to much greater ones further down the road. Great find!
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteMany of these documents are among those sought by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, which the DoJ is refusing to produce.
Sorry to be paranoid and not to discount any wrongdoing he may have been involved in, but it seems Specter has been conveniently neutralized due to recent revelations about contracts, etc.
Hmmm ...
*
there is going to be a judge or a court somewhere which asserts the right of the judiciary to have an ongoing role in our system of government
No doubt -- but what police force or army is going to enforce the judge's order?
what police force or army is going to enforce the judge's order?
ReplyDeleteThe electorate. Or, if we're lucky, the Republicans' fear of the electorate, which works faster and is more reliable.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteThought I'd point this out to you, in case you weren't already aware of it...it looks like Sen. Pat Roberts is trying to broker a deal with the White House to "fix" FISA:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060216/ap_on_go_co/eavesdropping_4
Ugh.
Sam and glenn:
ReplyDeleteSorry, I didn't realize I had a broken link in the top post at VichyDems. that's essentially the same story I was trying to point Glenn to earlier.
Oops. Fixed.
Hot off the Presses:
ReplyDelete"WASHINGTON - Senate Intelligence Chairman Pat Roberts said he has worked out an agreement with the White House to change U.S. law regarding the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program and provide more information about it to Congress."
End of scandal. Buh-bye. Thanks for stopping by. Oh, those NYTimes reporters that leaked the NSA story - yes, we will continue going after them. What's needed now is a a revolt en masse from the House and Senate floor by the Democrats in protest. I think I hear crickets instead.
We're witnessing one of the low points in American Democracy. Enjoy!
Anonymous: That's just the deal the Senate Republican leadership and White House have worked out; it isn't a done deal. Or at least it wasn't when the Senate Intel Committee went into a closed meeting a couple of hours ago to discuss, and vote, on Jay Rockefeller's call for full hearings. Now they're out of that meeting, but no news yet on what took place.
ReplyDeleteKeep your fingers crossed!
Semanticlio: Not yet. Nothing on Google News, and my calls to the Senate Judiciary C'ee and to Rockefeller's office haven't been returned yet. I'm dying to know what happened in the meeting they just got out of.
ReplyDeleteNO HEARINGS. ROCKEFELLER BLOCKED.
ReplyDeleteVichyDems
George Will just turned into a raving liberal--which is to say he took dubya to the woodshed for expanded executive authority. Lookout George, they're fixin' to throw you under the bus!!
ReplyDeleteSteve: FWIW, the Constitution expressly allows the President to suspend habeas corpus in time of general insurrection. It's the only exemption. So the R claim that even Lincoln did what they're doing is incorrect!
ReplyDelete"Clearly, this scandal isn't going to fade away with a little arm-twisting of some weak-willed Senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee."
ReplyDeleteI wish I could believe this were true, but because of foot-dragging and other means of delay the court case you reference will still be pending when Bush leaves office. In addition, the Republicans in the House and Senate will sweep everything under the rug. The only way this will get out in the open is if the Dems take control of one of the houses of Congress and hit the adminstration with subpeona after subpeona. God-willing that will happen.
If the President is authorized to disregard FISA, why would that authority not also extend to disregarding the FOIA? It would seem that given the auguments the administration has set forth to date, that by simply linking the suppression of this information to the execution of his war powers, one could argue that the FOIA does not apply to the President and his administration.
ReplyDelete"and that system has embedded within it the tools to prevent permanent damage and to preserve its basic principles."
ReplyDeleteGG, Richard Dreyfuss was just on C-Span and gave a great talk to the Press Corp, which I urge everyone to find and read.
In a highly emotional, highly patriotic speech, he addressed many issues, including the "political hypnotism" that is presently rampant, and the reluctance of the press or Congress or the Senate to speak "truth to power."
To preserve the country that we all know and love, the country whose roots are the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and the Constitution, he apparently sees only one hope now: impeachment.
I have come to agree with him.
Also, I think the Cheney hunting story is a big one, because it is allowing the press and others to launch an attack on Cheney the man and politician that they have been reluctant to do thus far. With that door open, an examination of his role in establishing and maintaining the imperial presidency is sure to follow.
Dreyfus made the point that nobody ever relinquishes power, nobody ! Once the powers of the executive branch are unconsitutionally expanded as is now happening, whoever becomes President in the future, whether it be "Hillary Clinton, Mark Warner, Condi Rice or Joe Putz", as he said, will hold on to those same powers. They are not going to relinquish them. He sees the present as the moment in time when this "grand experiment" in democracy is being threatened with a possibly fatal blow.
My hunch is that it won't be long now before GG climbs on the nascent impeachment movement. It's a simple message, and one behind which everyone can unite. If it's the only route by which the Republic can be saved, it must be attempted. Putting a Democrat in the White House or gaining control of the branches is not going to change the POLICY, and it's the POLICY which is so frightening.
While this was going on, the Senate Intelligence Committee has "decided today not to investigate President Bush's domestic surveillance program, at least for the time being."I believe that such an investigation is currently unwarranted and would be detrimental to this highly classified program," Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas and chairman of the panel, said this afternoon following a closed session." (New York Times) and the full Senate voted 97 to 3 to renew the Patriot Act. Bless Sens. Feingold, Byrd and Jeffords.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, you should perhaps dedicate some reading time to the United Nations GITMO Report. I'm not so sure Fox viewers will get much access to it. I'd like to hear your legal analysis in response, or support, to that of the UN panel.
Oh, one last thing. In your morning "I don't have time for details' extra long piece this morning you burst in the following comment: "...is particularly important here, as this well of masculine power is extremely potent for people like Gedalyia, who perceive that they lack those attributes themselves and thus worship others who project it. " Well, man, I'm disappointed. You should not allow yourself to drop to these levels. I know nothing about the attributes of Gedalyia, but sure enough you don't need to mention them to sustain your case. Sorry, but I'm not with you on this one.
Other than that, keep up with your good work.
It's either impeachment or starting right now to raise money for a Feingold for President push.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it obvious after the actions of Pat Roberts, that there is NO REPUBLICAN in Washington strong enough to stand up to the extortionary acts of the Party?
the Senate Intelligence Committee has "decided today not to investigate President Bush's domestic surveillance program, at least for the time being.
ReplyDeleteThe damnable thing is, the committee didn't decide that -- Roberts did. He pulled a procedural stunt to keep the Committee from voting on Rockefeller's motion to hold hearings.
Not even a VOTE, for God's sake.
Look now to Judiciary.
thersites2 hopes and dreams:
ReplyDeleteLook now to Judiciary.
Ah, the final liberal redoubt. Unfortunately, the chances the federal courts will sustain this ruling are nil.
Perhaps liberals should realize there is only one way to advance their agenda - win elections.
An amazing concept, isn't it?
Thersites2 said...
ReplyDeleteSteve: FWIW, the Constitution expressly allows the President to suspend habeas corpus in time of general insurrection. It's the only exemption. So the R claim that even Lincoln did what they're doing is incorrect!
No it doesn't -- did you bother to read it before making that claim? It allows Congress to do so, not the President.
Congress is down for the count and the demos are hiding under any convenient rock.
ReplyDeleteLet's hope that the admin and their traitorous allies in the congress go after media folk. Perhaps when reporters face serious jail time (not the stint done by judy), the msm will wake up and do their jobs.
Or not.
I said: Look now to Judiciary. In response to which, Gedaliya said: Ah, the final liberal redoubt. Unfortunately, the chances the federal courts will sustain this ruling are nil.
ReplyDeleteBut I was talking about the Senate Judiciary Committee, which already has had one hearing on the NSA issue and plans to hold at least two others. Even if the gentleman from New York isn't keeping up with current events -- always hard for those who are rooted in ideology instead of facts -- he might have noticed that I said "Judiciary", not "the judiciary."
************
Elsewhere, I wrote: FWIW, the Constitution expressly allows the President to suspend habeas corpus in time of general insurrection. It's the only exemption. So the R claim that even Lincoln did what they're doing is incorrect!
To which Anonymous wrote: No it doesn't -- did you bother to read it before making that claim? It allows Congress to do so, not the President.
Which is technically a good point, but misses mine. Const. Art. I sec. 9 reads as follows: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. It does not say that only Congress may suspend the writ, but its location in Article I, and the Constitution's nature as a document of enumerated rather than general powers, indeed suggests that this clause (both the warning against trampling on citizens' fundamental rights in that way, and the narrow exception) is directed at Congress -- an interpretation most recently upheld in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004).
That doesn't mean that the President has free rein to suspend habeas; it means that he has NO power to do so, and that Congress may do so only in limited circumstances. Yet President Bush has effectively suspended habeas for numerous individuals, including American citizens arrested on U.S. soil. He justifies doing so by claiming he has that authority under the Constitution -- which he does not, as the clause I quote above is the Constitution's only statement on the issue, and its conditions are not present here -- and under various statutes, most notably the resolution authorizing military action in Afghanistan after 9-11. The latter argument fails, of course, not only because the Use of Force resolution says nothing about suspending habeas, but because even if it did, it would be unconstitutional for the exact reason Anonymous cites: that Congress may make no law suspending habeas except in cases of "Invasion or Rebellion."
As to the frequent Republican claim that Bush is doing nothing different than Lincoln did: Lincoln's suspension of habeas was, at least initially, limited to the vicinity of the "military line" and thus implicated his military powers much more directly than Bush's efforts to seize American citizens in peaceful settings and send them to military brigs. Nevertheless, even Lincoln's action was ruled unconstitutional (albeit by a tobacco-growing, slave-owning justice from a Southern state that was a key target of the suspension), at least until Congress finally acted on the powers granted to it and passed the Habeas Corpus Act in 1863.
My point -- that Lincoln's situation serves as no precedent and gives no comfort to Bush and his defenders -- remains unchanged. Bush has even less cause to suspend habeas than Lincoln did -- at least Lincoln could honestly claim there was a rebellion underway and make the argument that Art. I sec. 9 implicitly applied to him as well as Congress -- but he still was rebuked, not just because the Congress had that sole authority but also because suspending habeas is generally such a fundamentally unsafe and unAmerican idea. As Taney said:
[I]f the authority which the constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found.
In other words: Bush still sucks.
An amazing concept, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteWhat's truly amazing is the concept that anything an elected official does is ok merely by virtue of having been elected.
Washington D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold released the following statement this afternoon following the Intelligence Committee Meeting.
ReplyDelete“The Intelligence Committee’s failure today to begin an investigation of the administration’s illegal domestic surveillance program is inexcusable. The Senate Committee charged with conducting oversight of intelligence matters has a responsibility to look more deeply into the President’s illegal secret wiretapping of Americans. The President has broken the law and Congress needs to hold him accountable.”
thersites2: I read every word you write with great interest. May I ask how you think this whole thing will play out? Is there any chance for a happy ending?
ReplyDeletethersites writes:
ReplyDeleteBush has even less cause to suspend habeas than Lincoln did...
Strawmen are convenient things in online discussions - they serve the dual purpose of diversion and evasion - but they are of limited value in supporting one's point-of-view.
Bush, of course, hasn't suspended habeas corpus, has no intention of doing so, and unless extraordinary circumstances occur - a nuclear attack on Chicago say - it isn't going to happen.
The point was (and here is where the strawman was introduced by thersites), that various presidents, at various times, have used their executive authority (viz. their coequal-branch powers) to undertake extraordinary actions under the rubric of national security, and that these events are neither rare nor unusual in the relatively brief history of our nation.
Bush's decision to monitor, ex parte judicial review, telecommunications between al Qaeda foreign agents (suspected) and their correspondents physically located on American soil, is not only legal and advisable, but vital to the security of the nation. His actions constitute are even obligatory given his oath of office, and despite the hand-wringing and doomsaying of his many critics, I am willing to wager his actions will be sustained not only by the federal courts, but by the Congress as well.
Bush's decision to monitor, ex parte judicial review, telecommunications between al Qaeda foreign agents (suspected) and their correspondents physically located on American soil, is not only legal and advisable, but vital to the security of the nation.
ReplyDeleteYou're two months behind with your rhetoric. FISA allows the eavesdropping you claim is vital. It just requires judicial oversight as it's done to prevent abuse. Do you really not know that?
And you shouldn't use latin terms you don't understand. You seem to think "ex parte" means "to the exclusion of" or "without." It doesn't. It means "for one party" and refers to conversations between one party to a case and the judge without the other side being present.
So you not only made a point that everyone realized two months ago is false. You also tried to sound smart by using a Latin term that you don't understand and you used it in a way that made no sense.
A pretty embarrassing effort all the way around. Go back to watching pictures of frightening Arabs on TV and then tell us all again how scared you are so we can laugh at your cowardice. Just avoid Latin.
The definition of ex parte I used for the purpose of my posting:
ReplyDeleteon behalf of or involving only one party to a legal matter and in the absence of and usually without notice to the other party
If that definition is insufficiently broad enough to include my usage ("Bush acting ex parte judicial review") I'll admit to a gaffe. However, I'll let others weigh in, if they're so motivated, as to whether my usage was appropriate or not.
I suspect your venality may color your objectivity on the issue.
But in any case, quod scripsi, scripsi, and I stand behind my point.
I suspect your venality may color your objectivity on the issue.
ReplyDeleteI suspect your ignorance, lack of intellectual integrity, lack of intellectual capacity, and cowardice may color your objectivity on all issues.
Which is technically a good point
ReplyDeleteIf by that you mean "is right".
but misses mine
The issue is your clearly mistaken claim, not some other point you may have made or intended to make.
Const. Art. I sec. 9 reads as follows: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. It does not say that only Congress may suspend the writ, but its location in Article I, and the Constitution's nature as a document of enumerated rather than general powers, indeed suggests that this clause (both the warning against trampling on citizens' fundamental rights in that way, and the narrow exception) is directed at Congress -- an interpretation most recently upheld in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004).
In other words, you were clearly wrong.
That doesn't mean that the President has free rein to suspend habeas; it means that he has NO power to do so
And yet you claimed "the Constitution expressly allows the President to suspend habeas corpus in time of general insurrection." That claim was FALSE, as I pointed out. Get over it.
Oh, one other thing...
ReplyDeleteex parte literally means "From one side only; in the interest of one side only" (The Dictionary of Foreign Terms in the English Language, by David Carroll, Hawthorn Books, 1973), so my usage was , technically, completely appropriate.
I suspect your ignorance, lack of intellectual integrity, lack of intellectual capacity, and cowardice may color your objectivity on all issues.
And as to my point regarding your venality, quod erat demonstrandum.
Gedaliya:
ReplyDeleteDo you have evidence that sickofitall is benefiting financially from his/her political beliefs, or holds them chiefly due to financial motives? Do you have any objective reason(s) for making this assertion? (Your own prejudice, suspicions, and paranoia do not qualify.)
Or are you once again mis-using a word you really don't understand?
No shame in it; we all learn through mistakes. However, chronic puffery of this type suggests insecurity as well as sloppy thinking. Please, sir -- step away from the thesaurus. It's a useful tool but you're not quite up to using it skillfully.
Given that fact, I'm hesitant to accept your interpretation of constitutional law, or much of anything else.
I like the term "Nixon Law". Ain't that the truth.
ReplyDeleteDems, here is your campaing slogan:
Bush==Nixon, and the GOP supports that.
David Shaughnessy writes:
ReplyDeleteMost importantly, the civil rights of all Americans will be in greater peril than at any time in this nation's history.
Absurd and silly. Once again, the temptation for overwrought, hand-wringing, chicken-little hyperbole overcomes reasoned analysis and commentary.
Do you really believe that granting the president authority to monitor, warrantless, conversations between our mortal enemies and their American agents is more injurious to our civil liberties than the actions those mortal enemies are conspiring to undertake? (think mass murder here).
If you do, I am at least gratified to know that nearly our entire political leadership, on both sides of the political divide, disagrees with you, and will most certainly grant this authority to the president.
Chicken-little doomsaying, especially regarding abstractions like "civil liberties," won't help your cause (what exactly is your cause, anyway?). Are you so afraid of this program (NSA warrantless wiretapping) that your concerns will be instantly ameliorated by having some obscure judge write on a piece of paper that it's all right a few days after-the-fact? Don't you realize how absurd that sounds?
Try and keep focused on the fact that there are Islamic fascist mass murderers working every day to destroy you and your family, your nation, and your way of life. We must take extraordinary actions to stop them, and if that means allowing our commander-in-chief to monitor conversations between death cult members overseas and death cult members in the U.S., well then by God, so be it.
Steve: FWIW, the Constitution expressly allows the President to suspend habeas corpus in time of general insurrection.
ReplyDelete"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when
in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it"
Quoting from section 1 article 9 outlining the powers of CONGRESS!!!!
From: Publius
ReplyDeleteTo: Cato
Re: Don't you realize how absurd this sounds!?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You want to insist on warrants when law enforcement has so many better things to do than swearing oaths and affirmations about probable cause and stuff before some obscure judge? Get a grip, men; clearly King George has made you paranoid. There are bad guys out there. Give the nice policemen free rein to do their jobs.
”Try and keep focused on the fact that there are Islamic fascist mass murderers working every day to destroy you and your family, your nation, and your way of life.” Gedalyia
ReplyDeleteThat’s true! We should try to remember that, because we keep getting distracted by having to protect our nation and way of life from home-grown fascists like yourself.
”We must take extraordinary actions to stop them, and if that means allowing our commander-in-chief to monitor conversations between death cult members overseas and death cult members in the U.S., well then by God, so be it.” Gedalyia
Nobody is arguing that the commander-in-chief should not grant authority to intercept communications of “death cult members.” It is your sycophantic willingness to “trust” this Administration to not overstep and abuse its powers with no oversight that gives us the greatest pause. We believe in security, but not at the expense of liberty. The straw man you keep posing; that it is impossible to strike a constitutional balance of checks while maintaining security, only displays your cowardice and subservience to an Administration that is hell bent to ignore equal powers. Unfortunately, we have a congress that shares your willingness to cede the very powers granted to them, hence, like your desires, subverting the very liberties most Americans hold dear.
Why do you hate America, Gedalyia?
”Do you really believe that granting the president authority to monitor, warrantless, conversations between our mortal enemies and their American agents is more injurious to our civil liberties than the actions those mortal enemies are conspiring to undertake?” Gedalyia
Keep trying to prop up your straw man. As soon as you can show definitive proof that the Gov’t is not usurping innocent American's liberties with this program, I’m sure you may garner support. But as yet, the Administration and the lockstep mindless congress seem willing to overlook oversight. Without the constitutional protections of checks and balances, we can’t be sure violations are not occurring. Unlike you, we are unwilling to just “trust” this president.
Do you really believe that granting the president authority to monitor, warrantless, conversations between our mortal enemies and their American agents is more injurious to our civil liberties than the actions those mortal enemies are conspiring to undertake? (think mass murder here).
ReplyDeleteYEAH!! After all, this isn't a false dichotomy at all. Remember that the President PROMISED US that the NSA program is only eavesdropping on EVIL ENEMIES, not on US CITIZENS.
Why won't you just trust power and stop asking questions? The government is to be trusted. Checks and Balances are quaint.
(see how easy it is to be a "new conservative"?)
Apropos:
ReplyDelete"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."
--Goering at the Nuremberg Trials
But then again, history is bogus. THIS TIME IT IS DIFFERENT.
More apropos:
ReplyDeleteGuess the authors:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
"What good fortune for those in power that the people do not think."
"Through clever and constant application of propaganda people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise."
"It also gives us a very special, secret pleasure to see how unaware the people around us are of what is really happening to them. "
"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day."
"Fascism should rightly be called corporatism as it is a merger of state and corporate power"
"Once a government resorts to terror against its own population to get what it wants, it must keep using terror against its own population to get what it wants. A government that terrorizes its own people can never stop. If such a government ever lets the fear subside and rational thought return to the populace, that government is finished."
"The brave man inattentive to his duty, is worth little more to his country, than the coward who deserts her in the hour of danger."
"Few of us can surrender our belief that society must somehow make sense. The thought that The State has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be internally denied."
"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts."
Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country."
The great liberal John Stuart Mill was correct when he said not all stupid people are conservatives, but most conservatives are stupid people. I would add that many who call themselves conservatives are reactionary and ruled by their hate and fears.
And on, and on.....
If you want the authors...
http://www.letstalksense.com/quotes.html
David Shaughnessy writes:
ReplyDeleteSo why would the Bush Administration and its Congressional toadies object so vociferously to an investigation if what it was doing was legal?
To protect the details of the program from becoming public, and thereby rendering it useless. What good is a surveillance program if the intended targets know exactly what you're doing?
Please recall that every congressional leader on a "need-to-know" basis has been consistently briefed regarding the details of the program. It makes no sense whatsoever to destroy the program (and significantly weaken our national security in doing so), in the face of pressure from the admnistration's most ardent opponents.
Civil liberties are not "abstractions." Civil liberties are what make this country great.
"Civil liberties" are part of wat "makes this country great." There is now, always was, and always will be a tension between the rights of the individual and that of the community, and the tug of war over that boundary is constantly at play in our political culture. The boundary shifts. At the edges it becomes very fuzzy, and in that respect it is indeed an abstraction, despite the attempt to consign it to some holy writ by absolutists such as yourself.
Yes, the Islamofascists must be fought, and they will be. And hopefully in a realistic, sensible, and effective fashion once this Administration is gone.
Talk is cheap. This administration is taking action, and not one national figure in the Democratic Party has offered an alternative course. So forgive me if I do not take your assurances with confidence.
We will win unless we ourselves destroy that which we are ostensibly fighting to protect. That is the only way the Islamofascists can win...
This is fatuous nonsense. A tired line from an opposition bereft of alternative ideas. Have the "terrorists won" because we are subjected to warrantless searches in airports?
The look on President Bush's face was one of utter panic, of a man way over his head.
Well, I didn't see it that way and neither did the tens of millions who voted to re-elect him. Your credibility suffers measureably when you descend into puerile insults.
The Bush Administration took the sympathy that the world had for us after 9/11 and turned it into disdain and disgust.
No, the Bush Administration did what Roosevelt and Chamberlain should have done in 1935...it destroyed the Iraqi Baath fascists at the cost of thousands of lives instead of the cost of millions of lives. The action has been unpopular in some quarters of the west, especially among those living under governments who were on Saddam's payroll. But even so, the action was morally imperative, and even if we are hated by the world for doing it, it was the correct, moral and courageous thing to do.
Demand that Congress do its job. Oppose the Nixon Law.
I and those who agree with me will be urging our elected officials to do the very opposite of what you propose.
George Bush was extremely vulnerable in '04, and won only because the Democrats insanely chose a candidate who, in a time when national security is the issue, made his Vietnam vet status his central campaign theme, notwithstanding that his biggest claim to fame in that regard was to launch himself into an anti-war movement and accuse himself, his follow soldiers and sailors, and virtually the entire chain of military command, of being war criminals. Swift Boat has become a verb in our political lexicon, but anyone who thinks that what that group represented was entirely some Rovian plot, exhibits the same stupidity that led to the Kerry nomination in the first place. Many vets and their families detest the man.
ReplyDeleteFurther, Kerry is an incoherent and tedious speaker. Just sucks on the campaign trail.
Bush should have lost in '04, and a strong Democrat without Kerry-esque baggage would have beat him.
Bush is extremely unpopular now. Many of us who voted for him are anxious to vote Democrat. Consider mcq over at QandO, who is asking:
Is it any wonder why, at a minimum, those of us who want to see some fiscal sanity restored are coming to be less and less opposed to either one part of the Congress or the executive branch being in Democratic hands?
I think a Giuliani could win in '08. But I also think that so could an Evan Bayh. At this pointy, to establish some gridlock, I'd vote for the latter.
Swift Boat has become a verb in our political lexicon, but anyone who thinks that what that group represented was entirely some Rovian plot, exhibits the same stupidity that led to the Kerry nomination in the first place. Many vets and their families detest the man.
ReplyDeleteWhat is stupid here is your typical intellectually dishonest conflation of separate issues. The Swift Boaters made numerous false claims about Kerry's war record that had nothing to do with his Senate testimony or involvement in the peace movement, other than the fact that the enmity toward Kerry for the latter motivated people to make these false charges. Rove bankrolled and manipulated that effort. Honest people who thought Kerry was a poor choice of candidate understand that it isn't "stupid" to claim that Rove was behind the Swift Boaters. Your "entirely" is strawman hyperbolic swill that you employ solely so that you can call people stupid. You, like almost all libertarians, are a fundamentally dishonest person.
Anon writes: Your "entirely" is strawman hyperbolic swill that you employ solely so that you can call people stupid. You, like almost all libertarians, are a fundamentally dishonest person.
ReplyDeleteYou really do not understand that when Kerry's biography -- timed to come out in conjunction with his campaign -- came out, many who served with him read it and realized it contained huge doses of self-aggrandizing fantasy. One naval officer who had contributed to Kerry's Senate campaigns came out and forthrightly said so -- Phil Carter. (He wasn't in the Swift Boat crew, and had served w/ Kerry on a carrier.)
They may not have gotten every detail correct, but there was plenty that did turn out to be crap, like Xmas in Cambodia. These guys read that stuff and many genuinely were disgusted. I write that as one who initially was totally horrified by their claims, and who did assume it was a GOP campaign plot, and thought it was the worst possible tactic -- designed to backfire well and perfectly.
But I doubt anything I would argue could convince you, since you have cast me as a fundamentally dishonest by virtue of my political persuasion. If you want to elect Democrats, however, you really had better hope they become smarter than they were in going with Mr. Kerry. That's just a fact, independent of your low opinion of libertarians.
Bush should have lost in '04, and a strong Democrat without Kerry-esque baggage would have beat him.
ReplyDeleteLike who?
But I doubt anything I would argue could convince you, since you have cast me as a fundamentally dishonest by virtue of my political persuasion.
ReplyDeleteMore dishonesty -- I said that your fundamental dishonesty, evident in what you write, is typical of your political persuasion. Your dishonesty is again evidenced by your evasion of my points, and your nonsense ad hominem about my not understanding. It's a FACT that Rove backed the Swift Boaters, and it's a FACT that it's not "stupid" to do so, regardless of whether people who served with him found his bio to be self-aggrandizing. It is also a FACT that your characterization of the response is dishonest cherry picked mispresentation straight out of the Swift Boat talking points.
. If you want to elect Democrats, however, you really had better hope they become smarter than they were in going with Mr. Kerry. That's just a fact, independent of your low opinion of libertarians.
That's a strawman, as I already referred to those of us whop think Kerry was a poor candidate. You're dishonest and stupid scum (like most liberatians).
It's a FACT that Rove backed the Swift Boaters, and it's a FACT that it's not "stupid" to do so
ReplyDeleteI meant "say so" -- of course, it also wasn't stupid of Karl Rove to do so -- a rather relevant fact that scumballs like Hypatia would like to sweep under the rug. Kerry had numerous flaws, but Kerry is hardly the only one that Rove has gone after in the same way. Hypatia, or whoever she thinks would make a good candidate, would have suffered the same fate.
Here's an interesting comment from Hypatia-cited Phil Carter:
ReplyDeletehttp://philcarter.blogspot.com/2004_01_01_philcarter_archive.html
I believe that Wes Clark essentially went down in flames when he belittled Kerry on CNN's Larry King Live. In his conversation with Sen. Bob Dole on that program, Clark denigrated Kerry's service as a junior officer, saying that he was a general and that this ought to count for more. Fair enough, there is a distinction between lieutenants and generals. But that's not a favorable distinction for most veterans, who looked upwards with disdain at their generals, while they often got to know their lieutenants and captains on much more favorable terms. Clark painted himself as an elitist with this comment to the veteran community whose support he needed so badly. It doesn't surprise me that large chunks of that group went over to the Kerry campaign.
What group was that Carter is talking about, large chuks of which went over to the Kerry campaign? Veterans.
Here's another Carter piece:
http://www.intel-dump.com/archives/archive_2004_10_21.shtml
Phillip Carter, Military and Legal Affairs Writer: Kerry
I'm casting my vote as a referendum on the Bush national security policies since January 2001. When you pour billions into homeland security without achieving a significant net gain in security, I think there's a problem. When you mislead the country about our reasons for war in Iraq, and then fail to plan effectively for military and strategic victory, you simply don't get to keep your job. When you employ lawyers to eviscerate the rule of law and make America into the world's brigand instead of the world's leader, I don't think you should be allowed to keep your office. When you allow al-Qaida to mutate and evolve into a more lethal and survivable global terror network on your watch, you haven't done your job. Sen. Kerry hasn't fully shown that he will improve on all these fronts, but I do believe he will do better than President Bush.
This from the man who wrote that "the material on Kerry’s time on GRIDLEY appeared in many instances to be exaggerations and in some cases figments of an overactive imagination" -- a much milder charge than that made by the Swift Boaters, who said Kerry wasn't fit for office and themselves propagated numerous lies about Kerry. But such distinctions don't matter much to intellectually dishonest scum.
Here are more comments from Phil Carter (actually, I'm starting to think that this Phil Carter is not the same as military and legal affairs writer Phillip Carter previously quoted):
ReplyDeleteEnsign Kerry was a fine young officer. He came aboard as a boot Ensign on June 8, 1967 and quickly impressed the senior officers in his chain of command. His fitness reports were outstanding. His privileged upbringing with experience in yachting and flying a private plane gave him a leg up on the other Ensigns.
When I read “Tour of Duty”, I became concerned because the material on Kerry’s time on GRIDLEY appeared in many instances to be exaggerations and in some cases figments of an overactive imagination.
Here are my observations on the sections that bothered me: [list of criticisms of the book snipped]
That is not to say that Kerry was not a good officer. He was and to my recollection was well liked.
Anon: Yes, I believe they are two different Phil Carters. Your quote from the Carter who served on the Gridley is the one I read, wherein he sets forth some pretty significant criticism of how Kerry in his campaign bio parses his time on that ship.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote this: You're dishonest and stupid scum (like most liberatians).
That's really poor form, and seldom seen at this site. But I knew raising the Swift Boat issue was likely to draw this kind of flaming, and that is why I remained totally silent here when a few weeks ago Glenn posted something from The Corner discussing the Swift Boat Vets -- tho I told him by email what my views are.
The emotions on the issue are so intense, and the anger over the election still runs so high, it is not possible to discuss the Swift Boat and POW vets who joined them (a good number of whom are Democrats), in anything like a calm manner. In perhaps 10-15 years historians, sociologists and political scientists will dispassionately look at what happened, and people might then be ready for a reasoned analysis and evaluation of the Swift Boat and POW vets phenomenon in Campaign '04.
But that time is not yet, and the issue simply is not amenable to reasoned discourse. My opinion on the stupidity of nominating Kerry -- given his having angered a lot of vets over 30 years ago -- however, is exactly as I have said, was honestly reached, and is not the result of gullibly swallowing anyone's talking points.
You guys need to pay better attention to whats been going on.
ReplyDeleteJimmy Carter did the same thing in the 70's, and I didn't hear you liberals whining then. So, shut up!
You are free because of people like me! If I'm talking to a terrorist, I deserve to go to prison. If you aren't doing anything illegal, they won't be listening to your phone calls anyway. I believe that liberalism is a mental disorder, and judging by some of the things that I hear liberals say; you should all get to spend a little time in a mental institution! Life isn't fair...blah, blah, blah....
Have a wonderful day!
That's really poor form, and seldom seen at this site.
ReplyDeleteI think you need to get laid.
when faced with a tyranical govt. what did the founding Fathers do.
ReplyDeletethat may the the only recourse if
refusal to obey the law of the land and the continuation of surpression of the populace is continued
America needs a clean up crew to come in and sweep it all under the rug from civil govt. to federal govt. and the dod it has all been left unchecked far too long and has been left uncontrolled so long that today
it is corrupted and not American anymore.
is is no longer for the people it is for big business only
the people are faced with laws like eminent domain and have lost their basic freedoms
presidents have been impeached for telling a lie
Bush is the teflon President nothing sticks and noone wants anything to do with opposing him especialy the democrats they scurry like rats when ever the topic of opposing the GOP agenda comes up
except the few brave officials that endeavor to fight for America
Rockerfeller
paul ron to name a few
the vast majority are numb
it leads me to believe they are being blackmailed or are too busy counting the money they made of the lobbyists